The latest bit of BBC half-cock, insincere, CSR box-ticking self-flagellation: The ethics of Christmas presents
So far, at time of writing, 5 responses. And I doubt they have kids.
Do they really think they are going to effect any change in public/consumer culture like this?
Totally agree with the theory. But then there's the real world.
With twin 11-year olds and, at time of writing, still not enjoying 12 hr working days, I'm afraid making much that would be worthwhile or that would be appreciated has gone out of the window, so thank heavens for the internet. Opening two envelopes before the first 6am cartoon has finished its opening credits really is also not an option. Sorry, that's a hair-shirt cultural shift that seems to appeal only to a limited, already converted audience. So 'we' stick with centuries of tradition and expectation and social pressure, often propagated by the media, and give tantalising, wrapped presents. Like dolls (so Elsa is not exactly going to be present-free, then, as compromises do get made).
Your colleagues certainly are not quite on message, as I watch the sofa set on Breakfast discuss strategies for 'standby presents' with an 'etiquette specialist' and a 'relationship expert'.
Still, at least I know what goes into the cherries in the Boxing Day fruit salad, thanks to another colleague who flew to Chile to stand under a tree and tell us how awful it was that they were being shipped here.
All valid messages. All less than credible considering the choice, and choices of messengers. But I'm sure ALL six(ish) on this thread are fully on board.
So big up on the latest token BBC 'have yourself a guilty Xmas' slot, though the personal examples set are noted with admiration. Except the fireworks thing. Not sure that improves what goes up into the atmosphere, in smoke, much.
Hope the kids have a blast. I'm looking forward to playing with mine, the missus and gran... at home. I wonder how many from luvvie London are hitting Heathrow for a quick flit to Lapland to see a polar bear before stock... ice blocks run out? You can always call it a climate change study/awareness initiative I guess.
Season's Greetings:)
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The first climate change refugees
We mentioned Tuvalu and the Torres Straits islands quite a while back as they appeared to be potentially the first islands to be evacuated because of rising sea levels and tidal surges. It looks as if they will now be second or third after one of the Carteret Islands, which are a low level island group making up part of Papua New Guinea.
This report from the Daily Mail highlights the problems that the Carteret Islands have suffered over recent years from tidal surges, and on how the first refugees from one of the islands are having to relocate because of the rising sea levels.
"The fruit trees that carried mango, banana, breadfruit and paw-paw are all dead from the sea water that has killed their roots and the children survive on a diet of just coconuts and fish. The roots of their black hair turn yellow, signifying malnutrition."
This report from the Daily Mail highlights the problems that the Carteret Islands have suffered over recent years from tidal surges, and on how the first refugees from one of the islands are having to relocate because of the rising sea levels.
"The fruit trees that carried mango, banana, breadfruit and paw-paw are all dead from the sea water that has killed their roots and the children survive on a diet of just coconuts and fish. The roots of their black hair turn yellow, signifying malnutrition."
"Grass-roofed huts have been washed away by the tidal surges and families have been forced to move further inland to higher ground, away from the beaches where, in decades past, fishing nets were hung out to dry from waterside homes."
I rather suspect that the small group having to relocate will prove to be the first of an ever increasing number over the coming decades.You can't write com... tragedy this go... er...
Just watched the BBC lunchtime news,
Seems there is a week long series on green food.
Second up was a piece on growing tomatoes locally, using a £40m greenhouse heated by the waste heat from a nearby factory. No real details, but hard to fault.
But first, the cherry on the cake (hold that thought).
It was about Chilean cherries. You can see where this is going, well, coming from, I'm sure.
Actually quite balanced in many ways, including frequent reference to the fact that this trade means jobs in Chile (hold that job thought, too).
Had a guy from the Soil Association explaining the consequences of it all, but he did also concede that 'we' need to cut back, and perhaps only have the odd cherry as a luxury. Now, how a business can exist and be sustained on that I don't know. Which has troubled me as a matter of economic fact when we do fancy such as a 4x4 or bottled water. You need a constant, reliable market to ensure supply, surely?
Anyway, to the nub.
To put all this in full context, the BBC reporter flew to Chile. Now, one could argue that this was just his job (held those thoughts?), was just this once or whatever, but for the added value of him saying what he said from under a cherry tree... how does this play?
No, really.
Seems there is a week long series on green food.
Second up was a piece on growing tomatoes locally, using a £40m greenhouse heated by the waste heat from a nearby factory. No real details, but hard to fault.
But first, the cherry on the cake (hold that thought).
It was about Chilean cherries. You can see where this is going, well, coming from, I'm sure.
Actually quite balanced in many ways, including frequent reference to the fact that this trade means jobs in Chile (hold that job thought, too).
Had a guy from the Soil Association explaining the consequences of it all, but he did also concede that 'we' need to cut back, and perhaps only have the odd cherry as a luxury. Now, how a business can exist and be sustained on that I don't know. Which has troubled me as a matter of economic fact when we do fancy such as a 4x4 or bottled water. You need a constant, reliable market to ensure supply, surely?
Anyway, to the nub.
To put all this in full context, the BBC reporter flew to Chile. Now, one could argue that this was just his job (held those thoughts?), was just this once or whatever, but for the added value of him saying what he said from under a cherry tree... how does this play?
No, really.
SITE - HOME PRINTED XMAS CARDS
This started as a link for a simple Xmas-related site: dltk-cards.com
Of course nothing in matters green can ever be that simple.
Because having initially though 'neato, a way to do stuff at hoe last minute', I began to ponder consequences. As you do.
I ended up still in favour, having borne a few things in mind.
This family wraps prezzies in newspaper. It last a nanosecond once the opening bell is rung, and no one gives a monkeys for it under the tree or once discarded. It is useful to help light the fire (we unplug the fireplace and switch off the central heating).
Trouble is, it's hard to see who gets what. A label is useful..
Labels cost money, need to be made and printed and then got to the house from a shop.
Hence, and so long as they are printed on the back of other paper, and the most is made of the page coverage, I am prepared to live with the PC and ink commitment.
Hope that adds up.
Of course nothing in matters green can ever be that simple.
Because having initially though 'neato, a way to do stuff at hoe last minute', I began to ponder consequences. As you do.
I ended up still in favour, having borne a few things in mind.
This family wraps prezzies in newspaper. It last a nanosecond once the opening bell is rung, and no one gives a monkeys for it under the tree or once discarded. It is useful to help light the fire (we unplug the fireplace and switch off the central heating).
Trouble is, it's hard to see who gets what. A label is useful..
Labels cost money, need to be made and printed and then got to the house from a shop.
Hence, and so long as they are printed on the back of other paper, and the most is made of the page coverage, I am prepared to live with the PC and ink commitment.
Hope that adds up.
Dividing Fools
Now it has been established that everything dark (as in side) green is the fault of the US, I'll be keen to see how things closer to home now get laid elsewhere: Europe divided over targets for cutting car CO2 emissions
I do of course note my favourite word in there: targets.
In the morasses (is that the plural?)that were/are Kyoto and/or Bali, I was starting to sense that aspects of the US environmental position (as distinct from their economic one, which is a very different kettle of tariffs. Though even here it seemed 'optimistic' to expect a dominant economy to hobble itself in comparison to not only business competitors, but military ones as well. You can't build tanks on the cheap unless you are cranking up a weekly coal-fired power station and steel mill) were worth pondering.
For instance, I would have loved more in-depth and agenda-free analysis of their claims that in real terms they had actually achieved cuts whilst the EU had trumpeted setting a bunch of targets that they then had promptly failed to meet (see above, and the UK's awesome record to date).
I know which I prefer on my enviROi basis.
ADDENDUM- The Curse of the Common Moniker
Wading through this I was a bit surprised to see a quote attributed to me that I had not written in yesterday's HYS. Only it wasn't me. Just another with my name. Thank heavens that, in amongst a ton of off-topic, personal-flaming that now scars such forums, this guy was relatively rational. Though what he wrote was not what I did.
Letters - I include this merely because it does offer and interesting spread of views. One that I did appreciate was the point that to make their point on emissions of carbon the Indy chose an image of cooling towers, which only release steam. Which is, of course, a green house 'gas', though one would have preferred them to have made the distinction.
I do of course note my favourite word in there: targets.
In the morasses (is that the plural?)that were/are Kyoto and/or Bali, I was starting to sense that aspects of the US environmental position (as distinct from their economic one, which is a very different kettle of tariffs. Though even here it seemed 'optimistic' to expect a dominant economy to hobble itself in comparison to not only business competitors, but military ones as well. You can't build tanks on the cheap unless you are cranking up a weekly coal-fired power station and steel mill) were worth pondering.
For instance, I would have loved more in-depth and agenda-free analysis of their claims that in real terms they had actually achieved cuts whilst the EU had trumpeted setting a bunch of targets that they then had promptly failed to meet (see above, and the UK's awesome record to date).
I know which I prefer on my enviROi basis.
ADDENDUM- The Curse of the Common Moniker
Wading through this I was a bit surprised to see a quote attributed to me that I had not written in yesterday's HYS. Only it wasn't me. Just another with my name. Thank heavens that, in amongst a ton of off-topic, personal-flaming that now scars such forums, this guy was relatively rational. Though what he wrote was not what I did.
Letters - I include this merely because it does offer and interesting spread of views. One that I did appreciate was the point that to make their point on emissions of carbon the Indy chose an image of cooling towers, which only release steam. Which is, of course, a green house 'gas', though one would have preferred them to have made the distinction.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Bali Hype?
Further to the kick-off last week, I thought I'd start here: Key climate summit opens in Bali
I'm sure there'll be more (posts, that is. And, thinking on it, summits, too).
I hadn't appreciated this thing went on for almost 2 weeks!
Update 1:
Reuters - "Naughty" nations in a coal lot of trouble in Bali - Hard to imagine this is the first I have come across. And I am not sure this tactic will work too well.
Reuters - Indonesia plants trees to offset Bali emissions - Better than nothing, I guess, but how about not cutting down millions of acres of mature ones? Just a thought. Party on, doods.
Update 2:
Indy - Diplomats warned that climate change is security issue, not a green dilemma - Waking up to...?????! Guess that's why they get the big bucks.
Guardian - High hopes for Bali - Altogether now: 'Everyone's got high hopes, they got...' I wonder how he's finding it there? Still, he has had but three replies to date, and one was a duplicate. So maybe they are in the minority.
Update 3:
The Economist - Getting serious in Bali - '..expectations for Bali are low, and were being managed downwards before the meeting..' At least a few tens of thousands of folk had a nice break, though. Seriously.
Update 4:
Times - Americans 'must change their lifestyle' for the sake of planet - Just the Yanks? Phew! For a minute I thought we might all need to pull together. This will really get them onside.
Times - Atheists, agnostics and religious leaders are as one in their belief in the need to save the world from Man, they say in a joint statement. Which was nice.
Indy - Demonstrations across the globe mark Bali summit - at least they got a nice day for it. No, really. But stuff like this... "We're doing this in solidarity with the women around the world who are already suffering the effects of climate chaos" do make me sigh. I have zero in common with this mindset.
Latest Update 5:
Guardian - US balks at Bali carbon targets - One has to wonder what would be 'helpful' in this day and age. That said, there is a slight sense that the US is getting dumped with the role of saying no on behalf of a few less honest brokers, too.
Guardian - Q&A: Bali climate change conference
Guardian - Bali diary - Not exactly a great bit of journalsitic input, really.
'For all I have got out of this circus so far by way of information and/or insights and/or inspiration, and suspect I will get out of it as the consequence of a collection of 'all the talents' in global statespersonship lobbing up for the last few days of several, I ain't holding my breath.
But, as you say, it has to be held somewhere. So it may as well be lush. Hope it was worth the trip.'
Latest Update 6:
Gaurdian - UN calls for (my italics) 40 per cent cut in emissions by rich countries - equal billing to a 'it's for the penguins' plea. Let's see which one works.
BBC - Editors Blog - Environmental briefing
BBC - Key climate summit opens in Bali
Latest Update 7:
BBC - Tackling climate change - Bali summit - This link came from, it's fair to say, a less than climate supportive blog. Thing is, I have to say that certain aspects were a real gift to them:
'Matthew Price went to Boston'
'Nick Higham met them'
'Roger Harrabin went to the United Arab Emirates to meet...'
'Sanjoy Majumder visited Pawan and Sangeeta Kamra at their home in south Delhi.'
'Quentin Sommerville went to meet them.'
You can imagine what the obvious question was. On top of this, I simply wonder if this investment in time, money and energy got beyond being tucked away in the back of the BBC website to have any real value at all. Beyond the quality of the reports, that is.
I do despair. Hope Rog enjoyed the UAE en route to/from Bali. But, of course, he has to do this as it's his job.
Gaurdian - UN chief: World 'must act now' on climate change
Guardian - Progress at Bali
Indy - Bali conference close to deal on saving forests
Times - Act now on climate change or face oblivion, warns UN chief - say it often enough, and...
Times - Carbon stand-off puts climate talks at risk
Latest Update 8:
Reuters - EU-U.S. climate impasse in Bali easing - Encouraging headline, at least!
Guardian - US proposal threatens climate change deal - then again...
Sometime later, a last minute flurry resulted in... something.
BBC - Climate deal sealed by US U-turn - I'm never quite sure in the new media speak, but in a negotiation I'd have thought conceding a point to get closer to agreement was heading towards a compromise; not a U-turn. In fact one can see how these days, when faced by such an 'interpretation' by the media, some may feel the need to dig in to avoid such an accusation.
Latest Update 9:
Well it's all over, bar the shouting. And there has been a lot. At least in the papers I have read. Depressingly, there seem to have been some very partisan positions immediately taken almost immediately. In many ways I see the process to have driven some further apart, though there is a glimmer that the result may have moved a smidge to something 'better'.
I am not sure I can be bothered to add the links to the various newspapers, as the takes they have, and the views on their blogs, pretty much fall into predictable areas. Maybe I'll wait 'til tomorrow and let the Sunday's do a summary and then drop it.
What I will say is I just watched Richard North on the BBC, now called 'environmental commentator' (whatever that actually means), in an exchange with Richard Simmons I think in the studio. And the views were to my now weary, cynical mind pretty balanced. My favourite was that the 'green lobby' isn't helping much and needs to be sidelined. That'll go down well in the corporate boardrooms of a few eco-activist charity/not-for-profits I'll be bound!
I would welcome more such pragmatic reporting and/or commentary in future. In fact, if I see it I may share it in favour of some from such as the Indy, Guardian or Daily Mail which now seem to have frankly little to do with the issues and more with the prejudices of the editorial staff and the readerships, all circling their wagons and just feeling cosy with their mates either lobbing out whatever they fancy that serves, or going for a group hug when one from the other side lands in their midst. The quality of debate has sure dropped to near zero, along with much chance of objective information sharing.
Postscript:
Yes, they're just from one paper (I'm not sure I saw much, if anything, from any others. Moving on), and one with a fairly entrenched standpoint, but I think these make fitting, if depressing postscripts to it all. I really doubt I will be moved to look for or share much else.
Guardian - US pours cold water on Bali optimism
Guardian - We've been suckered again by the US. So far the Bali deal is worse than Kyoto
Ah well, if nothing else, at least the rest of 'us' can blame the US. No fault anywhere else, from UK pols who say one thing and do another, to enviro-gurus whose job requires them to do what the rest of us must, in their terms, avoid.
Were it that easy.
Guardian - Road to nowhere? - So it was all worthwhile, then? Hmmn.
I'm sure there'll be more (posts, that is. And, thinking on it, summits, too).
I hadn't appreciated this thing went on for almost 2 weeks!
Update 1:
Reuters - "Naughty" nations in a coal lot of trouble in Bali - Hard to imagine this is the first I have come across. And I am not sure this tactic will work too well.
Reuters - Indonesia plants trees to offset Bali emissions - Better than nothing, I guess, but how about not cutting down millions of acres of mature ones? Just a thought. Party on, doods.
Update 2:
Indy - Diplomats warned that climate change is security issue, not a green dilemma - Waking up to...?????! Guess that's why they get the big bucks.
Guardian - High hopes for Bali - Altogether now: 'Everyone's got high hopes, they got...' I wonder how he's finding it there? Still, he has had but three replies to date, and one was a duplicate. So maybe they are in the minority.
Update 3:
The Economist - Getting serious in Bali - '..expectations for Bali are low, and were being managed downwards before the meeting..' At least a few tens of thousands of folk had a nice break, though. Seriously.
Update 4:
Times - Americans 'must change their lifestyle' for the sake of planet - Just the Yanks? Phew! For a minute I thought we might all need to pull together. This will really get them onside.
Times - Atheists, agnostics and religious leaders are as one in their belief in the need to save the world from Man, they say in a joint statement. Which was nice.
Indy - Demonstrations across the globe mark Bali summit - at least they got a nice day for it. No, really. But stuff like this... "We're doing this in solidarity with the women around the world who are already suffering the effects of climate chaos" do make me sigh. I have zero in common with this mindset.
Latest Update 5:
Guardian - US balks at Bali carbon targets - One has to wonder what would be 'helpful' in this day and age. That said, there is a slight sense that the US is getting dumped with the role of saying no on behalf of a few less honest brokers, too.
Guardian - Q&A: Bali climate change conference
Guardian - Bali diary - Not exactly a great bit of journalsitic input, really.
'For all I have got out of this circus so far by way of information and/or insights and/or inspiration, and suspect I will get out of it as the consequence of a collection of 'all the talents' in global statespersonship lobbing up for the last few days of several, I ain't holding my breath.
But, as you say, it has to be held somewhere. So it may as well be lush. Hope it was worth the trip.'
Latest Update 6:
Gaurdian - UN calls for (my italics) 40 per cent cut in emissions by rich countries - equal billing to a 'it's for the penguins' plea. Let's see which one works.
BBC - Editors Blog - Environmental briefing
BBC - Key climate summit opens in Bali
Latest Update 7:
BBC - Tackling climate change - Bali summit - This link came from, it's fair to say, a less than climate supportive blog. Thing is, I have to say that certain aspects were a real gift to them:
'Matthew Price went to Boston'
'Nick Higham met them'
'Roger Harrabin went to the United Arab Emirates to meet...'
'Sanjoy Majumder visited Pawan and Sangeeta Kamra at their home in south Delhi.'
'Quentin Sommerville went to meet them.'
You can imagine what the obvious question was. On top of this, I simply wonder if this investment in time, money and energy got beyond being tucked away in the back of the BBC website to have any real value at all. Beyond the quality of the reports, that is.
I do despair. Hope Rog enjoyed the UAE en route to/from Bali. But, of course, he has to do this as it's his job.
Gaurdian - UN chief: World 'must act now' on climate change
Guardian - Progress at Bali
Indy - Bali conference close to deal on saving forests
Times - Act now on climate change or face oblivion, warns UN chief - say it often enough, and...
Times - Carbon stand-off puts climate talks at risk
Latest Update 8:
Reuters - EU-U.S. climate impasse in Bali easing - Encouraging headline, at least!
Guardian - US proposal threatens climate change deal - then again...
Sometime later, a last minute flurry resulted in... something.
BBC - Climate deal sealed by US U-turn - I'm never quite sure in the new media speak, but in a negotiation I'd have thought conceding a point to get closer to agreement was heading towards a compromise; not a U-turn. In fact one can see how these days, when faced by such an 'interpretation' by the media, some may feel the need to dig in to avoid such an accusation.
Latest Update 9:
Well it's all over, bar the shouting. And there has been a lot. At least in the papers I have read. Depressingly, there seem to have been some very partisan positions immediately taken almost immediately. In many ways I see the process to have driven some further apart, though there is a glimmer that the result may have moved a smidge to something 'better'.
I am not sure I can be bothered to add the links to the various newspapers, as the takes they have, and the views on their blogs, pretty much fall into predictable areas. Maybe I'll wait 'til tomorrow and let the Sunday's do a summary and then drop it.
What I will say is I just watched Richard North on the BBC, now called 'environmental commentator' (whatever that actually means), in an exchange with Richard Simmons I think in the studio. And the views were to my now weary, cynical mind pretty balanced. My favourite was that the 'green lobby' isn't helping much and needs to be sidelined. That'll go down well in the corporate boardrooms of a few eco-activist charity/not-for-profits I'll be bound!
I would welcome more such pragmatic reporting and/or commentary in future. In fact, if I see it I may share it in favour of some from such as the Indy, Guardian or Daily Mail which now seem to have frankly little to do with the issues and more with the prejudices of the editorial staff and the readerships, all circling their wagons and just feeling cosy with their mates either lobbing out whatever they fancy that serves, or going for a group hug when one from the other side lands in their midst. The quality of debate has sure dropped to near zero, along with much chance of objective information sharing.
Postscript:
Yes, they're just from one paper (I'm not sure I saw much, if anything, from any others. Moving on), and one with a fairly entrenched standpoint, but I think these make fitting, if depressing postscripts to it all. I really doubt I will be moved to look for or share much else.
Guardian - US pours cold water on Bali optimism
Guardian - We've been suckered again by the US. So far the Bali deal is worse than Kyoto
Ah well, if nothing else, at least the rest of 'us' can blame the US. No fault anywhere else, from UK pols who say one thing and do another, to enviro-gurus whose job requires them to do what the rest of us must, in their terms, avoid.
Were it that easy.
Guardian - Road to nowhere? - So it was all worthwhile, then? Hmmn.
A tale of two entitities
Our media (well, one* of 'em): Britain's carbon strategy 'up in smoke'
Our government: (DEFRA) Success at Bali talks
What is a boy to think?
The best I can come up with is that talk is now so cheap, at least from almost any representative body we have acting , at least in theory, for the public interest, it is all less than worthless. It simply gets in the way.
* Addendum - as there was the opportunity, I was moved to reply.
I'm afraid to say the only 'strategy' I can discern from Mr. Brown is to say, or preferably have said by remote, whatever the next entity in line wants to hear, even if it is totally contradictory to the previous or subsequent statement. And simply assume that something 'out there' will stick, if repeated enough. When it comes to actually doing, or not, the hope then seems to be that by not being able to be pinned to anything the whole silly issue will go away. Not sure that's working too well here, or pretty much across any issue of high government.
As to 'relying' on 'more' renewable energy sources.... of course! But only if the enviROI works out. The minute I sense that this is all just a box-ticking, fine-avoiding, lobbyist-rewarding, interest-group-conceding exercise in making life easier on a political level now at the expense of my kids' futures, then the whole sorry lot will get the full force of my vote.
But I need credible, trustworthy numbers to make an assessment upon. Not a load of hype, spin, smoke and mirrors from the usual suspects of government, other pols, commerce and activists who inevitably pop up and are given voice by a less than challenging media, who are these days more interested in knee-jerk 'campaigns' and short-term, contention-driven ratings than balanced argument and/or objective reporting for the long term.
Our government: (DEFRA) Success at Bali talks
What is a boy to think?
The best I can come up with is that talk is now so cheap, at least from almost any representative body we have acting , at least in theory, for the public interest, it is all less than worthless. It simply gets in the way.
* Addendum - as there was the opportunity, I was moved to reply.
I'm afraid to say the only 'strategy' I can discern from Mr. Brown is to say, or preferably have said by remote, whatever the next entity in line wants to hear, even if it is totally contradictory to the previous or subsequent statement. And simply assume that something 'out there' will stick, if repeated enough. When it comes to actually doing, or not, the hope then seems to be that by not being able to be pinned to anything the whole silly issue will go away. Not sure that's working too well here, or pretty much across any issue of high government.
As to 'relying' on 'more' renewable energy sources.... of course! But only if the enviROI works out. The minute I sense that this is all just a box-ticking, fine-avoiding, lobbyist-rewarding, interest-group-conceding exercise in making life easier on a political level now at the expense of my kids' futures, then the whole sorry lot will get the full force of my vote.
But I need credible, trustworthy numbers to make an assessment upon. Not a load of hype, spin, smoke and mirrors from the usual suspects of government, other pols, commerce and activists who inevitably pop up and are given voice by a less than challenging media, who are these days more interested in knee-jerk 'campaigns' and short-term, contention-driven ratings than balanced argument and/or objective reporting for the long term.
Rebuilding the stable door?
There was a piece on floods just now.
In it a pub was featured that had suffered £250k in damage, that had only just been put to rights.
Thing is, there was no mention of what preventative measures might have been put in place to help prevent a simple repetition of this process.
We have not yet been flooded here, and with luck will not be. But I am seriously looking at ways to allow for this possibility. Readers may recall an attempt I made at the time of the last floods to ask the authorities for guidance on how to avoid being a victim and claimant by simply protecting against it with suitable defences.
I still await any replies. Maybe compensation is deemed easier than cure?
In it a pub was featured that had suffered £250k in damage, that had only just been put to rights.
Thing is, there was no mention of what preventative measures might have been put in place to help prevent a simple repetition of this process.
We have not yet been flooded here, and with luck will not be. But I am seriously looking at ways to allow for this possibility. Readers may recall an attempt I made at the time of the last floods to ask the authorities for guidance on how to avoid being a victim and claimant by simply protecting against it with suitable defences.
I still await any replies. Maybe compensation is deemed easier than cure?
The royal 'we'.
And 'we' are not amused.
I just watched a BBC Breakfast News piece about food, supermarkets and 'us'.
What a surprise; to debate this issue we were presented by representatives of two rather entrenched viewpoints - the FoE and the British Retailers Something - who proceeded to tell us what we were asking for and/or feeling.
The retail lady was indeed pretty much 'not us, guv', and they were only giving 'us' what 'we' demanded, which rather validated the point of the FoE lady that 'they' need to be forced to change... by government.
However, what really grated on me was this self-appointed guardian of 'me' constantly saying 'we must'. It really came across much too much as them being a slightly more equal we than others, and a group who see their agenda to be the only one and the rest of us must get in line, if for our own good, with them.
The net result of all this was, as always, a sense that I was caught between two extremes, neither of whom represented me at all, but who were invoking my mandate as if it were god-given, and given free rein by a media who only want a quick slot before moving on. A rather neat example of which was a subsequent piece where we were treated to the joys of having your own personal shopping assistant to help you buy such essentials as snow made from stuff you add water to. Nice.
ps: But it's OK, they have flown out to Africa to show us the great work Land Rover is doing to offset emissions. It really is washing all over me as just so much conflicting 'noise'.
I just watched a BBC Breakfast News piece about food, supermarkets and 'us'.
What a surprise; to debate this issue we were presented by representatives of two rather entrenched viewpoints - the FoE and the British Retailers Something - who proceeded to tell us what we were asking for and/or feeling.
The retail lady was indeed pretty much 'not us, guv', and they were only giving 'us' what 'we' demanded, which rather validated the point of the FoE lady that 'they' need to be forced to change... by government.
However, what really grated on me was this self-appointed guardian of 'me' constantly saying 'we must'. It really came across much too much as them being a slightly more equal we than others, and a group who see their agenda to be the only one and the rest of us must get in line, if for our own good, with them.
The net result of all this was, as always, a sense that I was caught between two extremes, neither of whom represented me at all, but who were invoking my mandate as if it were god-given, and given free rein by a media who only want a quick slot before moving on. A rather neat example of which was a subsequent piece where we were treated to the joys of having your own personal shopping assistant to help you buy such essentials as snow made from stuff you add water to. Nice.
ps: But it's OK, they have flown out to Africa to show us the great work Land Rover is doing to offset emissions. It really is washing all over me as just so much conflicting 'noise'.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Well served
The other day I suffered a little bit of collateral damage on a blog thread I was taking part in.
Me and my homies from the eco-hood were debating some matter of great e-mport, when in zapped a rather stinging rebuke from, I'd have to say, a slight climate optimist. Basically 'we' were are labelled a bunch of hyporcrites worrying about all this and what we can do when we are all doing so online via PCs. His premise was that these were much worse than anything else.
I have to say it gave me some pause, especially as an exponent of the cause of enviROI.
It also coincided with the latest press release from some 'green' IT company, promising me servers made of oak and offsetting my 'leccy by planting an Ethiopian.
So I tackled my ISP on this. And I think I'm good. Well... 'er'. He pointed out to me that the server they run, and which for Junkk.com is shared with 500 others, is rated at 75W. I won't do the maths here, but in the great scheme of things that doesn't seem too much.
But then there is of course the fact that the PC and monitor and peripherals (also ignoring the cost of making and getting 'em to me. At least reuse /recycling seems pretty well addressed) are humming away. And I am not, yet, on any green tariff, simply because I'm still sussing it all out and don't trust most yet.
Then, in final mitigation, there is the matter of practicality. To do what I do (assuming it's worthwhile... and frankly on a personal level it is actually not paying the rent yet) without my Mac and connection I'd need to be out and about pounding the motorways visiting folk. Or posting thousands of letters a day. And in nay case, my kids are pretty much expected to have a PC to do their work.
So, I hope, it's still enviROI+
Me and my homies from the eco-hood were debating some matter of great e-mport, when in zapped a rather stinging rebuke from, I'd have to say, a slight climate optimist. Basically 'we' were are labelled a bunch of hyporcrites worrying about all this and what we can do when we are all doing so online via PCs. His premise was that these were much worse than anything else.
I have to say it gave me some pause, especially as an exponent of the cause of enviROI.
It also coincided with the latest press release from some 'green' IT company, promising me servers made of oak and offsetting my 'leccy by planting an Ethiopian.
So I tackled my ISP on this. And I think I'm good. Well... 'er'. He pointed out to me that the server they run, and which for Junkk.com is shared with 500 others, is rated at 75W. I won't do the maths here, but in the great scheme of things that doesn't seem too much.
But then there is of course the fact that the PC and monitor and peripherals (also ignoring the cost of making and getting 'em to me. At least reuse /recycling seems pretty well addressed) are humming away. And I am not, yet, on any green tariff, simply because I'm still sussing it all out and don't trust most yet.
Then, in final mitigation, there is the matter of practicality. To do what I do (assuming it's worthwhile... and frankly on a personal level it is actually not paying the rent yet) without my Mac and connection I'd need to be out and about pounding the motorways visiting folk. Or posting thousands of letters a day. And in nay case, my kids are pretty much expected to have a PC to do their work.
So, I hope, it's still enviROI+
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Xmas WRAP party
As one who often looks to the human cost of various 'Planet Ban-it' campaigns, I take no pleasure from seeing folk lose jobs. Especially at this time of year. WRAP job losses expected in 25% funding cut as Defra budget pressures bite
As some will know, having not been very supported by WRAP to date, despite having an entity that would seem well in keeping with their remit, I have been on occasion a tad critical of how much has been spent and where... or on whom.
Sadly, I am less than reassured that the proposed budget cuts will improve matters, as it is now my experience that, especially within government and quango entities, the cuts are seldom where they should be (the causes of waste, losses or inefficiency) and more often than not in the few areas where some good does get done.
One rather wonders who got employed and on what contract now, that they will need to be unemployed and on what terms soon. Hardly seems very joined up or the best use of public funds.
Also, for a 'not for profit' company, it will be interesting to see how many of the rather extensive bonus-blessed board of all the talents bear the brunt of these cuts.
But I do note that this still means that WRAP’s budget will be about £55-60m.
Perhaps a few less campaigns to raise 'awareness' that is directly connected to bonus targets, and a bit more to actual doing stuff, and paying folk just to do a good job, may be in order?
As some will know, having not been very supported by WRAP to date, despite having an entity that would seem well in keeping with their remit, I have been on occasion a tad critical of how much has been spent and where... or on whom.
Sadly, I am less than reassured that the proposed budget cuts will improve matters, as it is now my experience that, especially within government and quango entities, the cuts are seldom where they should be (the causes of waste, losses or inefficiency) and more often than not in the few areas where some good does get done.
One rather wonders who got employed and on what contract now, that they will need to be unemployed and on what terms soon. Hardly seems very joined up or the best use of public funds.
Also, for a 'not for profit' company, it will be interesting to see how many of the rather extensive bonus-blessed board of all the talents bear the brunt of these cuts.
But I do note that this still means that WRAP’s budget will be about £55-60m.
Perhaps a few less campaigns to raise 'awareness' that is directly connected to bonus targets, and a bit more to actual doing stuff, and paying folk just to do a good job, may be in order?
Call for funding for Hydrogen research
This report from Engineering Talk details how a leading transport expert is calling for significant government investment into research to make Hydrogen a realistic fuel of the future.
"Prof Smith ......... believes hydrogen is one of the best fuel alternatives for the future, but said a significant Government investment is needed now to overcome technical and cost difficulties in sourcing, storing and transporting hydrogen."
Interesting little comment on the Northern Rock support too - "If the Government spent GBP 10 billion - only a third of what they spent on Northern Rock - we could build a high speed railway from London to Birmingham, reducing the need for domestic flights and long-distance car travel."
Now we will have to wait and see whether our gov's plan to surround the UK with offshore wind farms is going to eat all available funds to the exclusion of everything else. However, perhaps we may already have an indication of where the extra revenue to fund such projects may come from?
"Prof Smith ......... believes hydrogen is one of the best fuel alternatives for the future, but said a significant Government investment is needed now to overcome technical and cost difficulties in sourcing, storing and transporting hydrogen."
Interesting little comment on the Northern Rock support too - "If the Government spent GBP 10 billion - only a third of what they spent on Northern Rock - we could build a high speed railway from London to Birmingham, reducing the need for domestic flights and long-distance car travel."
Now we will have to wait and see whether our gov's plan to surround the UK with offshore wind farms is going to eat all available funds to the exclusion of everything else. However, perhaps we may already have an indication of where the extra revenue to fund such projects may come from?
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Quick Question
Dutch plant idea of Tulip Island
I have a picture that I may upload, but the concept is pretty clear.
Thing is, while I can see how it can relieve pressure on overcrowded cities, how does and island protect the coastline from rising sea levels? Some storm surge effects maybe, but 'levels' will just find a way round, surely.
Also, other than a pretty satellite picture, what possible benefit does this design confer?
I have a picture that I may upload, but the concept is pretty clear.
Thing is, while I can see how it can relieve pressure on overcrowded cities, how does and island protect the coastline from rising sea levels? Some storm surge effects maybe, but 'levels' will just find a way round, surely.
Also, other than a pretty satellite picture, what possible benefit does this design confer?
'Arctic is screaming'
From Fox News.
"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming...........Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."
All very depressing, but a major signal to those on their jolly in Bali. Let's hope they take some notice.
"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming...........Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."
All very depressing, but a major signal to those on their jolly in Bali. Let's hope they take some notice.
I'll save us even if I have to cripple you you to do it
Darling fights back with promise to be a champion of the environment
Interesting headline. However, if the methodology is simply '...by announcing higher green taxes in his first Budget next spring', forgive my eyebrow arch.
Especially as all else I garner from this piece is that Mr Darling will say: "We must live within our new carbon budgets for the health of the wider world; and play our role in avoiding the threat of catastrophic climate change."
It's Xmas, hence one the other one has been pulled, it will at least ring.
Interesting headline. However, if the methodology is simply '...by announcing higher green taxes in his first Budget next spring', forgive my eyebrow arch.
Especially as all else I garner from this piece is that Mr Darling will say: "We must live within our new carbon budgets for the health of the wider world; and play our role in avoiding the threat of catastrophic climate change."
It's Xmas, hence one the other one has been pulled, it will at least ring.
Saints preserve us
Geldof: 'help the planet ... go nuclear'
Plus some other fun stuff. You gotta love him... sometimes.
Times - British cities shun London’s wasteful car tax
Bless. A scheme designed more to pour money into civil service pockets and pensions than any actual benefit to person or planet. Whodathunk?
I rather enjoyed St. Bob Geldof's views on it all recently. Un-PC to the last, this multi-millionaire only bought a hybrid to drive all day and dodge the charge.
Nice one Ken, and all those well paid munchkins in the TFL.
Plus some other fun stuff. You gotta love him... sometimes.
Times - British cities shun London’s wasteful car tax
Bless. A scheme designed more to pour money into civil service pockets and pensions than any actual benefit to person or planet. Whodathunk?
I rather enjoyed St. Bob Geldof's views on it all recently. Un-PC to the last, this multi-millionaire only bought a hybrid to drive all day and dodge the charge.
Nice one Ken, and all those well paid munchkins in the TFL.
Agreement or Oblivion. And there is no Agreement.
Newsnight - Climate Change
Well, at least I now find out where the films from around the world also cropped up.
Funny old world, eh?
In two sentences we go from the stark choices of agreement versus oblivion to the need for fairness. Which seems to mean, if the ongoing 'debates' are anything to go on, not much agreement. Which leaves...?
I came to this second slot 'Meanwhile, in other news: the end of the world' topic via Mark Urban's excellent and courageous report from Iraq. For what it's worth, enough to reshape some of my views on this mess, and also the BBC's ability to report on things with objectivity. Well done.
But it also highlights the pointlessness of dealing with entrenched positions. Some will not be happy, or change their views, no matter what they are told. Though perhaps what they are told these days and by whom are factors. Trust is a crushed butterfly now.
I am simply struck by how large numbers see fit to ignore basic facts, critique without solution, or fail to accept that some solutions are no longer that simple.
Hence there are US troops in Iraq, Israel exists, and there are 6 billion and counting humans who have or all one day will want a car and a/c. Deal with it. Composting toilets in Islington won't address the bi-monthly trips to Gstaad, my loves.
Or, though sweet, I rather doubt the poppet in the US switching off her lights is going to do much to offset the whole house being cooled 24/7, 365/365, if they live in a Southern state.
Which is what sprang to mind as I saw Roger 'Mr. Benn, I presume?' Harrabin emerging from the jungle in full suit, as was our Minister of hot air. If you wear 3 layers and a neck vice in 30 degrees and 90% humidity, you probably need a bit of carbon-guzzling energy to keep you cool (it would be fascinating to see if all switch off when they leave their rooms, or maybe after a hard day it is nice to come back to more than a silly fan can provide). Along with all the other 5* trappings, such as tinkling fountains and a fresh flower on the pillow each day, all interesting messages that don't quite equate with what the self-appointed messengers seem to be saying.
Not that they are saying very much, or if they do, much that means anything.
'The current draft has a reference to set a target..' I think I heard. Spiffy. That'll do it for the old agreement vs. oblivion balance, quicksmart. We're saved!
Mr. Benn talks reductions/mitigations, but his government and country don't seem to be able to actually do 'em. All I have heard of late is missed or rearranged targets that serve only as topics to justify global jollies to discuss, and the ringfencing of this island by offshore windfarms.
Thing is, I can't seem to get any sense out of anyone as to how these things might work to actually reduce emissions. If they are as green as they look then fine, but if not (deliverables such as actual outputs and reliability - the lasting through design life variety) it's another con to add another nail in the credibility of those who claim to be concerned about our future and acting sensibly to addressing its preservation.
I care, and I do. But heaven help us that, as an environmentalist and climate pessimist and proactivist, I am so sick of the current crop of pols and media camp followers who don't do as they say, I almost feel ready to say the hell with it all and book my own 'study' of 'climate change' in Antarctic for Christmas and join them all round the polar bar for a swift toast to the end of our world.
The end of the world. That's what oblivion means, right? And yet this is the second post on this topic. Maybe the rules of engagement need looking at a bit? And I don't mean in Iraq.
BBC - 'Crunch time' for climate change
Well, at least I now find out where the films from around the world also cropped up.
Funny old world, eh?
In two sentences we go from the stark choices of agreement versus oblivion to the need for fairness. Which seems to mean, if the ongoing 'debates' are anything to go on, not much agreement. Which leaves...?
I came to this second slot 'Meanwhile, in other news: the end of the world' topic via Mark Urban's excellent and courageous report from Iraq. For what it's worth, enough to reshape some of my views on this mess, and also the BBC's ability to report on things with objectivity. Well done.
But it also highlights the pointlessness of dealing with entrenched positions. Some will not be happy, or change their views, no matter what they are told. Though perhaps what they are told these days and by whom are factors. Trust is a crushed butterfly now.
I am simply struck by how large numbers see fit to ignore basic facts, critique without solution, or fail to accept that some solutions are no longer that simple.
Hence there are US troops in Iraq, Israel exists, and there are 6 billion and counting humans who have or all one day will want a car and a/c. Deal with it. Composting toilets in Islington won't address the bi-monthly trips to Gstaad, my loves.
Or, though sweet, I rather doubt the poppet in the US switching off her lights is going to do much to offset the whole house being cooled 24/7, 365/365, if they live in a Southern state.
Which is what sprang to mind as I saw Roger 'Mr. Benn, I presume?' Harrabin emerging from the jungle in full suit, as was our Minister of hot air. If you wear 3 layers and a neck vice in 30 degrees and 90% humidity, you probably need a bit of carbon-guzzling energy to keep you cool (it would be fascinating to see if all switch off when they leave their rooms, or maybe after a hard day it is nice to come back to more than a silly fan can provide). Along with all the other 5* trappings, such as tinkling fountains and a fresh flower on the pillow each day, all interesting messages that don't quite equate with what the self-appointed messengers seem to be saying.
Not that they are saying very much, or if they do, much that means anything.
'The current draft has a reference to set a target..' I think I heard. Spiffy. That'll do it for the old agreement vs. oblivion balance, quicksmart. We're saved!
Mr. Benn talks reductions/mitigations, but his government and country don't seem to be able to actually do 'em. All I have heard of late is missed or rearranged targets that serve only as topics to justify global jollies to discuss, and the ringfencing of this island by offshore windfarms.
Thing is, I can't seem to get any sense out of anyone as to how these things might work to actually reduce emissions. If they are as green as they look then fine, but if not (deliverables such as actual outputs and reliability - the lasting through design life variety) it's another con to add another nail in the credibility of those who claim to be concerned about our future and acting sensibly to addressing its preservation.
I care, and I do. But heaven help us that, as an environmentalist and climate pessimist and proactivist, I am so sick of the current crop of pols and media camp followers who don't do as they say, I almost feel ready to say the hell with it all and book my own 'study' of 'climate change' in Antarctic for Christmas and join them all round the polar bar for a swift toast to the end of our world.
The end of the world. That's what oblivion means, right? And yet this is the second post on this topic. Maybe the rules of engagement need looking at a bit? And I don't mean in Iraq.
BBC - 'Crunch time' for climate change
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
He who pays the piper...
Caption: not the best photoshoot of my career, to be sure. That flared page on top is an ad from the travel direct insert that fell out of this edition, along with the Climate Change one. A 'once in a lifetime' 'expedition' to Antarctica, whilst stocks last, no doubt. You follow in the footsteps of Polar explorers, with international flights available at great deals. Hmn.Wind power is very much in the news at the moment. So it was awesomely useful that a few weeks ago the Sunday Times (also in the news, at least the news on this blog of late- oddly enough regarding selling green opportunities for promotion, only to those that can afford the fee) had an insert on the topic of climate change and sustainability.
Thing is, and if you look at the bottom right you'll see their logo, it was billed as 'in association with' Siemens.
Nothing wrong with a bit of sponsorship, to be sure. I hope for such largesse to swing my way with Junkk.com wherever possible.
Thing is, I rather hope I can do so without the editorial being quite so, how to put it, 'encouraging' to the sponsor, almost to the exclusion of all else. Such as discussing the topic in depth, pro and con (hold that last word in mind).
It's a pity, as many of the articles were indeed fairly valuable in terms of information. However, I have to say that, come the third, my eyebrow was cocked so far I could have been a Jack Nicholson Tribute.
IFC - Ad - Siemens - no prob. It's an ad.
p3 - Facing up to the meltdown - 'German engineering giant Siemens is building...'
p4 - The power brokers - 'Siemens, the German engineering group, is building...'
p5 - Going the extra mile - 'It all requires careful control, and Siemens, the German engineering firm that supplied the system...'
pp6-7 - Always on tap: natures greatest forces - 'The blades of the 25 turbines, built by Siemens, the German engineering conglomerate..'
pp8-9 - Sky-high cost of wasted energy - 'Siemens Building Technologies is one of the market leaders...'
p10 - In search of a brighter future - Osram, one of Europe's leading lighting manufacturers..' Go on.. guess who owns 'em.
p11 - Fast Track to green travel - 'According to Siemens Transpiration Systems...'
Back Cover - Ad - Siemens - No prob.
Now I'm all for a fair exchange of information, but this whole things just came across a tad too much as a leading paper selling itself, and its readers, more than a little short when it came to objective reporting (more like reprinting press releases) of the issues, and giving paid-for free rein to the players who are set to make bazillions out of ensuring they get the work, through shaping how it all gets reported.
Not best impressed, sorry.
Tick, tick, tick ...
That's the countdown started. This from the Guardian CIF by John Sauven reckons we have about 100 months for humanity to sort out CO2 emissions.
He makes some very valid points.......
But many will undoubtedly disagree, and I guess that by about 3 o'clock this afternoon, this CIF post will have turned into the usual set of extremely opposed views and multiple 'knocking the spots off each other' posts.
Seems to be that with anything to do with climate change on CIF t'was ever thus.
___________________
Interesting point from one of the posters.
"Growth at any cost is the basic tenet of all economists - interestingly that's also the basic tenet of cancer"
He makes some very valid points.......
"Sadly, 'progress' is not just slow, we are moving in the wrong direction. Global energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions are increasing rapidly rather than plummeting. In the desperate scramble to secure energy supplies, the world is becoming ever more dependent on oil supplies from areas of conflict and energy supplies that are environmentally devastating - such as tar sands in Canada and palm oil for biofuels from peatland clearance in Indonesia.
This cannot continue."
Quite.But many will undoubtedly disagree, and I guess that by about 3 o'clock this afternoon, this CIF post will have turned into the usual set of extremely opposed views and multiple 'knocking the spots off each other' posts.
Seems to be that with anything to do with climate change on CIF t'was ever thus.
___________________
Interesting point from one of the posters.
"Growth at any cost is the basic tenet of all economists - interestingly that's also the basic tenet of cancer"
AWARDS - Sunday Times 'Best Green Companies' - Feb 29
I always have the selfish urge not to share these, as one more entry could be the one that kicks ours into touch.
Not a problem here. I was excited. I was inspired. And then when I saw it was £500 just to enter. So I was moved to ponder... again... that green is a great opportunity to make money. But often for the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
WHEN: February 28, 2008
WHAT: Sunday Times 'Best Green Companies'
WHAT... MORE?: From site - Imagine the benefits a listing could bring you. It would generate credit among the general public for your success and tell all your business partners, suppliers and customers that you are helping to tackle one the of the biggest problems facing all industrialised nations.
The winning companies will be profiled in a dedicated Sunday Times supplement, which will be distributed with 1.3m copies of the paper in the spring next year, and their achievement will also be marked at an awards event. Winners will also be given our special logo for branding on publicity, advertising and letterheads.
HOW MUCH: £500 to kick off!
URL: here
COMMENTS: Good luck Sunday Times, and good luck all who can afford to enter. You (well most of you. I am sure some worthy entrants will scrape the necessary together to enter and might even win despite not having massive ad budgets to dangle or lobbyists to whisper. If you do win, have the courage to say this on the podium for the rest of us to cheer) deserve each other. I'm just not sure the planet, or our kids, do. Sadly, I will be viewing the 'best' result, and any PR that ensues, as shaped by this highly excluding financial requirement.
Anyone can nominate an organisation – from the cleaner to the CEO. I can't be paying my cleaner (er, that's me) enough.
Not a problem here. I was excited. I was inspired. And then when I saw it was £500 just to enter. So I was moved to ponder... again... that green is a great opportunity to make money. But often for the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
WHEN: February 28, 2008
WHAT: Sunday Times 'Best Green Companies'
WHAT... MORE?: From site - Imagine the benefits a listing could bring you. It would generate credit among the general public for your success and tell all your business partners, suppliers and customers that you are helping to tackle one the of the biggest problems facing all industrialised nations.
The winning companies will be profiled in a dedicated Sunday Times supplement, which will be distributed with 1.3m copies of the paper in the spring next year, and their achievement will also be marked at an awards event. Winners will also be given our special logo for branding on publicity, advertising and letterheads.
HOW MUCH: £500 to kick off!
URL: here
COMMENTS: Good luck Sunday Times, and good luck all who can afford to enter. You (well most of you. I am sure some worthy entrants will scrape the necessary together to enter and might even win despite not having massive ad budgets to dangle or lobbyists to whisper. If you do win, have the courage to say this on the podium for the rest of us to cheer) deserve each other. I'm just not sure the planet, or our kids, do. Sadly, I will be viewing the 'best' result, and any PR that ensues, as shaped by this highly excluding financial requirement.
Anyone can nominate an organisation – from the cleaner to the CEO. I can't be paying my cleaner (er, that's me) enough.
Just wanted to share
Having had had my fill today of pols and media filling the airwaves and acres of print with mountains of meaningless vapour, I offer this bon mot for the day:
'Where there's a 'will' there's a way.
Where there's a 'could' there's always a way out.'
'Where there's a 'will' there's a way.
Where there's a 'could' there's always a way out.'
'Oh Aunty, what big fingers you have!'
'All the better to flip you one whilst plugging my ears... tra-la-la-la...' One in three Brits back BBC accuracy.
And, for those enjoying the ten golden years that is our nu-education system, that makes 2 in 3... don't. I was moved to write:
Oh, heavens, do get with the (new) programme.
As Ed Balls has clearly explained regarding the country's relative positions in educational standards in a similar global survey: it's not that we're doing worse; it's just the others that are doing oodles better.
I am sure the BBC, who will cheerfully read out any press release they are given from such worthy sources, will be able to apply the same reasoning or cherry pick to suit.
"We are also seen as the most trusted news provider, especially in times of crisis and for big breaking news stories. This clearly shows the value audiences place in us."
There we go.
And, for those enjoying the ten golden years that is our nu-education system, that makes 2 in 3... don't. I was moved to write:
Oh, heavens, do get with the (new) programme.
As Ed Balls has clearly explained regarding the country's relative positions in educational standards in a similar global survey: it's not that we're doing worse; it's just the others that are doing oodles better.
I am sure the BBC, who will cheerfully read out any press release they are given from such worthy sources, will be able to apply the same reasoning or cherry pick to suit.
"We are also seen as the most trusted news provider, especially in times of crisis and for big breaking news stories. This clearly shows the value audiences place in us."
There we go.
CATEGORY - Don't do as I do; do as I say
I wonder how long until I have a top 100 chart?
Schwarzenegger's lavish foreign trips in spotlight - of course, a guy in his postion needs to tarvel and needs an entourage. It's all a question of scale.
Schwarzenegger's lavish foreign trips in spotlight - of course, a guy in his postion needs to tarvel and needs an entourage. It's all a question of scale.
Monday, December 10, 2007
The wind and the willowy
Dave has beaten me to it, but as he looks at things from the ruthlessly scientific, I often come at it all, I hope in complement, more for the ad-man's view of consumer perceptions.
And words were important this morning, especially with BBC Breakfast New...er... 'press release read out'.
Of course I perked up when I heard this country was going to be independent of nasty foreigners and free of emissions in terms of energy, and all all within an awesome timeframe.
Where I did find my eyebrow cranking was in the manner of deliverables.
I can't quite recall, but I think it was broken into three. Which, for reasons of narrative, I will repeat in reverse order.
The last was something social, I think, like shredded seagulls. I'm afraid I can't really get into that. If all creatures are going to be toast anyway, I think some sacrifices need to be made and I can live with this aspect. I also have to say that the whole view thing is getting a bit silly... at least as the main objection.
The next was more significant. Lots more. Oodles more. But was breezed over rather blithely. Money. What this was going to cost.... us. It's one thing to say 'of course this will impact..', but quite another when this get divorced too much from enviROI.
Speaking of which, this brings me to the last. And it was headed 'Reliability'.
'Ah-ha!', I thought. A nettle being grasped.
Alas, no. This was reliability of supply. Significant to be sure, and I'm not clear I got any answers as to how 'could' supply translated into 'will' supply, once inconvenient facts on durations and useful levels of actual wind speed are factored in.
But, and here's the thing, no mention of what I was thinking of under reliability. Namely how these things are at doing what they do, parked into the ocean, being battered daily by wind and salt water. And this has to be important, as they might not be the best option if we are having to rebuild them a lot more often than claimed.
Which brings me to the word 'Quality'. Because this was the next piece of the morning 'sofa, so trivial' news. Seems 'we' are going back to 'quality', at least in fashion, and to encourage us to spend as much as we can on such essentials as thigh-length patent leather boots we had some 'expert' whose only contribution was a gallon of peroxide down the sink and an outfit that looked like she was on her way back from leaning on a Kings X lamp post all night.
Seems the collective wisdom of the group was that 'quality' equated to buy one massively expensive bit of tat because of the label, as opposed to a series of cheaper bits of tat with less ad-supported ones. And it was acknowledged all round that these things were only good for a few outings until the next fad comes around... but who cares.
My definition of 'quality' is slightly different, and more to do with the one I have for 'reliability'. Things that last.
Shame our national broadcaster can't seem to get on board with that, too, especially as it pumps out what it thinks are the necessary box-tickers on enviro issues at the same time as a bloated squanderfest.
Such as Declan's ongoing woeful romp with the 'low carbon' family. Today we got a few tips on green Christmas. And a sorry collection they were too. The only time I thought it did get potentially interesting was when he pointed out to the guy selling Xmas tat that encouraging the purchase of eco stuff that you didn't need to replace year on year wasn't a great economic model. The answer was less than convincing, I felt.
Nor were the comments to all this as sign-offs from our overpaid guardians of the Christmas eco-message. Declan referred to the closing of the carbon family's efforts over the year as an 'end to the punishment' . The bouffant scored e-cards as 'not as nice as the real thing'. And the blonde thought LED Xmas lights were not as 'nice and twinkly'.
And that was the message I left with. 'Yes, talk about it for sure. But we're not changing even if we have been told to tell you you should'. Nice.
Update
Gaurdian - Wind energy to power UK by 2020, (sez who?) government says
Guardian - Blow by Blow
Thank you!!!!
But then, why the heck if you - as a journalist, and one with what one might imagine a more than average desire to see such things through the greenest of hued glasses (no offence) - can see through this, am I getting fed the rosiest of 'couldfests' by the national broadcaster and others?
On their take 'we' 'could' be firing up the jacuzzi on windy alt-eng supply from a coastal array in the next few decades.
Where are the facts? I desperately want this all to be true, but other than some vague tilts to a few 'issues', I am none the wiser on actual deliverables.
Stuff such as 'costs' are alluded to, but they 'may' be vast and 'may' be ridiculously excessive. And all dumped on the consumer, too late to argue, when the Minister and the MEP are doing a post-pension fact-checking tour of the engineering contractors' lobby firm's beach villas.
And then there was 'reliability'. Not the one I am more concerned about, namely how these things stand up to the wind and salt water for the claimed lifespan, but the almost as pertinent one of how what they say they will do actually gets done by way of turning wind into usable 'leccy 24/7.
Until this piece I thought my kid's'futures were really going to be decided, by our major media at least, on the basis of a government press release. Shame so few others may see there are BIG questions that need asking before rushing to print or the screen.
And words were important this morning, especially with BBC Breakfast New...er... 'press release read out'.
Of course I perked up when I heard this country was going to be independent of nasty foreigners and free of emissions in terms of energy, and all all within an awesome timeframe.
Where I did find my eyebrow cranking was in the manner of deliverables.
I can't quite recall, but I think it was broken into three. Which, for reasons of narrative, I will repeat in reverse order.
The last was something social, I think, like shredded seagulls. I'm afraid I can't really get into that. If all creatures are going to be toast anyway, I think some sacrifices need to be made and I can live with this aspect. I also have to say that the whole view thing is getting a bit silly... at least as the main objection.
The next was more significant. Lots more. Oodles more. But was breezed over rather blithely. Money. What this was going to cost.... us. It's one thing to say 'of course this will impact..', but quite another when this get divorced too much from enviROI.
Speaking of which, this brings me to the last. And it was headed 'Reliability'.
'Ah-ha!', I thought. A nettle being grasped.
Alas, no. This was reliability of supply. Significant to be sure, and I'm not clear I got any answers as to how 'could' supply translated into 'will' supply, once inconvenient facts on durations and useful levels of actual wind speed are factored in.
But, and here's the thing, no mention of what I was thinking of under reliability. Namely how these things are at doing what they do, parked into the ocean, being battered daily by wind and salt water. And this has to be important, as they might not be the best option if we are having to rebuild them a lot more often than claimed.
Which brings me to the word 'Quality'. Because this was the next piece of the morning 'sofa, so trivial' news. Seems 'we' are going back to 'quality', at least in fashion, and to encourage us to spend as much as we can on such essentials as thigh-length patent leather boots we had some 'expert' whose only contribution was a gallon of peroxide down the sink and an outfit that looked like she was on her way back from leaning on a Kings X lamp post all night.
Seems the collective wisdom of the group was that 'quality' equated to buy one massively expensive bit of tat because of the label, as opposed to a series of cheaper bits of tat with less ad-supported ones. And it was acknowledged all round that these things were only good for a few outings until the next fad comes around... but who cares.
My definition of 'quality' is slightly different, and more to do with the one I have for 'reliability'. Things that last.
Shame our national broadcaster can't seem to get on board with that, too, especially as it pumps out what it thinks are the necessary box-tickers on enviro issues at the same time as a bloated squanderfest.
Such as Declan's ongoing woeful romp with the 'low carbon' family. Today we got a few tips on green Christmas. And a sorry collection they were too. The only time I thought it did get potentially interesting was when he pointed out to the guy selling Xmas tat that encouraging the purchase of eco stuff that you didn't need to replace year on year wasn't a great economic model. The answer was less than convincing, I felt.
Nor were the comments to all this as sign-offs from our overpaid guardians of the Christmas eco-message. Declan referred to the closing of the carbon family's efforts over the year as an 'end to the punishment' . The bouffant scored e-cards as 'not as nice as the real thing'. And the blonde thought LED Xmas lights were not as 'nice and twinkly'.
And that was the message I left with. 'Yes, talk about it for sure. But we're not changing even if we have been told to tell you you should'. Nice.
Update
Gaurdian - Wind energy to power UK by 2020, (sez who?) government says
Guardian - Blow by Blow
Thank you!!!!
But then, why the heck if you - as a journalist, and one with what one might imagine a more than average desire to see such things through the greenest of hued glasses (no offence) - can see through this, am I getting fed the rosiest of 'couldfests' by the national broadcaster and others?
On their take 'we' 'could' be firing up the jacuzzi on windy alt-eng supply from a coastal array in the next few decades.
Where are the facts? I desperately want this all to be true, but other than some vague tilts to a few 'issues', I am none the wiser on actual deliverables.
Stuff such as 'costs' are alluded to, but they 'may' be vast and 'may' be ridiculously excessive. And all dumped on the consumer, too late to argue, when the Minister and the MEP are doing a post-pension fact-checking tour of the engineering contractors' lobby firm's beach villas.
And then there was 'reliability'. Not the one I am more concerned about, namely how these things stand up to the wind and salt water for the claimed lifespan, but the almost as pertinent one of how what they say they will do actually gets done by way of turning wind into usable 'leccy 24/7.
Until this piece I thought my kid's'futures were really going to be decided, by our major media at least, on the basis of a government press release. Shame so few others may see there are BIG questions that need asking before rushing to print or the screen.
Look, but don't touch? Say, but don't do?
BBC - Climate change goal 'unreachable' - Their headline. And we know how good we are scoring goals, anyway.
Despite this, I don't feel like giving up.... yet.
Update
Guardain - UK's official CO2 figures an illusion - study - Oopsie. Now, where have I heard this a few score times today: 'UK claims to lead the world on action against global warming'
Despite this, I don't feel like giving up.... yet.
Update
Guardain - UK's official CO2 figures an illusion - study - Oopsie. Now, where have I heard this a few score times today: 'UK claims to lead the world on action against global warming'
Why I love today's media. Not.
Zero to do with the environment; everything to do with who we should view those who claim to report it on our behalves:
Revealed: scientist who sparked racism row has black genes
Whether one feels like getting into James Watson's belief systems or not in this PC-obsessed age, I sure hope the Indy is proud of every aspect of their involvement in this 'story', including that headline.
Sad, sad, sad.
Revealed: scientist who sparked racism row has black genes
Whether one feels like getting into James Watson's belief systems or not in this PC-obsessed age, I sure hope the Indy is proud of every aspect of their involvement in this 'story', including that headline.
Sad, sad, sad.
Forests, trees... and weeds
Good news: Giant rainforest in Sierra Leone wins protection
Meanwhile, in other, less good news: 'The UN talks in Bali, which end on Friday, ran into problems yesterday when delegates failed to agree on a plan to promote trade in "green goods", such as wind turbines and solar panels, between rich and poor countries.'
There's a surprise.
Meanwhile, in other, less good news: 'The UN talks in Bali, which end on Friday, ran into problems yesterday when delegates failed to agree on a plan to promote trade in "green goods", such as wind turbines and solar panels, between rich and poor countries.'
There's a surprise.
One eroding island, two opposing views
Sometimes you come across something by chance, as in the case with this article I spotted from the American Daily. As I read it my eyebrows raised ever higher; it's a vindictive and scurrilous attack on an original article from the LA Times, and on any who might dare to believe that climate change is anything to do with mankind.
At the bottom of this virulent diatribe is a reference to the original article from the LA Times.
Read both, and I'll bet your reaction is exactly like mine.
The thing is, neither the original nor the attack article reinforce the absolutely key point - the island is rapidly eroding because the autumn ice that used to protect Kivalina a couple of decades ago is no longer present, because of global warming. The Autumn storms now directly wash away the sand the coast of Kivalina is made from at will. It probably HAS been eroding for perhaps a 100 years+, but over the last 15 to 20 years it's been eroding at an ever increasing pace until it now threatens the Eskimo inhabitants with relocation.
But I guess my scientific viewpoint must be becoming obscured, because underneath, at least according to the American Daily, I'm just a simple 'globaloney scaremongerer'.
ADDENDUM - Junkk Male - Have Your Say: Environmental 'crime' - Kinda fits here
Climate change - it's all our fault. Discuss.
t'is... t'isn't T'IS! T'ISN'T! T'IS!!!!!! T'ISN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, you all ready are.
Me? I'm going with probably man-worsened climate change, just to err on the safe side for my kids' sakes.
But I'm sure another conference couldn't hurt, too. Indy can organise. And BP could sponsor it. And all the shouty types from either extreme could go there and do in person what they do here.
Leaving some free to set about DOING stuff.
That said, it's tricky without first asking a few questions, especially those to which the answers remaining tantalisingly vague.
Like why the BBC and many media are running headlines about how we 'could' be running on wind-powered renewable energy if enough money is thrown around. Why 'could'? Can't we see what the actual numbers are? They must exist. Wind speeds. Durations. Conversions. Lifespan of gearboxes in exposed salt-air conditions. The ROI? The enviROI?
Having bought into the caution, I don't mind getting on board with mitigations or even reductions, but I have to be convinced first.
Yet the big argument seems still to be whether they are even necessary. So to those of the more pessimistic persuasion, I'd suggest leaving those who would stall progress by arguing %ages in glorious isolation (and for sure don't leave open goals by trying the 'there's a funded cabal of big oilers spoiling the thread' argument at the expense of coming up with a decent one to make a decent point), and focus more on making what may well need to be done a lot more convincing and/or palatable to the vast majority ducking under such absolutist 'debate' and trying to get on with their lives.
Fat chance.
Carry on smokin'.
Indy - This project is a licence to wreak environmental havoc - I append this for a few reasons. Firstly, I note that this is a leader penned by just one party to the argument. I always find this discomfiting, partly because of what it means to the quality of informed, balanced debate (can't quiet see a BP rep. having much chance with an upside, mind), but also how it erodes one's faith in the medium. Preaching to the converted my be more comfortable, but I am unsure as to its value.
That all said, it also highlights why I have such mixed feelings on Greepeace. This kind of thing they seem good at. However, the wind power flag-waver I saw on TV today was less than inspiring in his 'green at any cost' advocacy.
At the bottom of this virulent diatribe is a reference to the original article from the LA Times.
Read both, and I'll bet your reaction is exactly like mine.
The thing is, neither the original nor the attack article reinforce the absolutely key point - the island is rapidly eroding because the autumn ice that used to protect Kivalina a couple of decades ago is no longer present, because of global warming. The Autumn storms now directly wash away the sand the coast of Kivalina is made from at will. It probably HAS been eroding for perhaps a 100 years+, but over the last 15 to 20 years it's been eroding at an ever increasing pace until it now threatens the Eskimo inhabitants with relocation.
But I guess my scientific viewpoint must be becoming obscured, because underneath, at least according to the American Daily, I'm just a simple 'globaloney scaremongerer'.
ADDENDUM - Junkk Male - Have Your Say: Environmental 'crime' - Kinda fits here
Climate change - it's all our fault. Discuss.
t'is... t'isn't T'IS! T'ISN'T! T'IS!!!!!! T'ISN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, you all ready are.
Me? I'm going with probably man-worsened climate change, just to err on the safe side for my kids' sakes.
But I'm sure another conference couldn't hurt, too. Indy can organise. And BP could sponsor it. And all the shouty types from either extreme could go there and do in person what they do here.
Leaving some free to set about DOING stuff.
That said, it's tricky without first asking a few questions, especially those to which the answers remaining tantalisingly vague.
Like why the BBC and many media are running headlines about how we 'could' be running on wind-powered renewable energy if enough money is thrown around. Why 'could'? Can't we see what the actual numbers are? They must exist. Wind speeds. Durations. Conversions. Lifespan of gearboxes in exposed salt-air conditions. The ROI? The enviROI?
Having bought into the caution, I don't mind getting on board with mitigations or even reductions, but I have to be convinced first.
Yet the big argument seems still to be whether they are even necessary. So to those of the more pessimistic persuasion, I'd suggest leaving those who would stall progress by arguing %ages in glorious isolation (and for sure don't leave open goals by trying the 'there's a funded cabal of big oilers spoiling the thread' argument at the expense of coming up with a decent one to make a decent point), and focus more on making what may well need to be done a lot more convincing and/or palatable to the vast majority ducking under such absolutist 'debate' and trying to get on with their lives.
Fat chance.
Carry on smokin'.
Indy - This project is a licence to wreak environmental havoc - I append this for a few reasons. Firstly, I note that this is a leader penned by just one party to the argument. I always find this discomfiting, partly because of what it means to the quality of informed, balanced debate (can't quiet see a BP rep. having much chance with an upside, mind), but also how it erodes one's faith in the medium. Preaching to the converted my be more comfortable, but I am unsure as to its value.
That all said, it also highlights why I have such mixed feelings on Greepeace. This kind of thing they seem good at. However, the wind power flag-waver I saw on TV today was less than inspiring in his 'green at any cost' advocacy.
See what you get when a committee is involved
We had our first peek at the Olympic logo today. First impressions don't seem to feel it was worth all the money, and effort, expended.
LONDON 2012 REBRAND. OH DEAR.
No, don't hold back... say what you think.
Nice to see the money diverted from the arts to cover all sorts of derrieres is still be used wisely.
I wonder how many times they had to send it back and forth to get it 5 x over budget.
New:
Sorry, I am addicted to this...
To be fair....
Having been part of the process more than once, I feel a tad (but £400k buys a lot of pain relief) sorry for the actual designers who will get fingered by the tabloids.
There will have been a brief, and there will have been a presentation. And I am prepared to bet there will have been mid-level numpties in the client marketing side who dicked about trying to put their stamp on it and justify their 30k non-jobs.
But, WO-is-you, you can always walk away.
What's the name of the mythical director on movies no one wants to own up to?
Guardian - London's new brand of bother
Cif - Go Logo
Logo design - .007p (actually, that's what they owe each of us)
The most up its own derriere marketing-speek explanation/justification from the creators - £400,000
The saddest piece of quango self-immolation in history by every sad sod involved, but especially the senior guys in the committee and government - Priceless!
Houston, we have a camel.
Let the blame games begin!
Telegraph - A new Olympic record?
This typifies the state of government today.
They farm out everything (my daily exasperation is the environment, with billions being p*ssed away hourly to zero effect) to equally inept, but vastly overpaid third parties who it seems, can be blamed but not held accountable.
Meanwhile nothing actually gets done that's worth a damn, but there's a lot of money sunk into looking like it's getting done, which is all that matters in our target, hype and spin-obsessed political and business cultures. With the a*se-cover the main point of any initiative.
The tragic part is... even what they try and look like they are doing is so woeful. But at least the derriere protection systems always seem golden.
Will one single person, or committee (I presume this numpty effort was briefed and approved by some worthy set of individuals on fat salaries) responsible for this farce pay any price? Our reputation as... well... good at anything really, from organising a p*ss-up to designing world-class creative ideas, is already well and truly shot.
Pathetic.
Telegraph - 'Green' Olympics are a joke
And now they have produced a logo to match the rest of it.
Over priced. Over hyped. Over budget. Over here.
And nothing like what they are trying to bully us into accepting they say it is.
I'd laugh with you, but my face is still in a rictus of horror.
Over and out.
BBC - What it could have been. Sigh.
Creative Match
Indy - No-go logos: The story of unpopular branding
Times - Olympic logo firm chosen ‘blind'
UPDATED - BBC - 2012 Olympics budget 'on track' - Just in a different ballpark?
LONDON 2012 REBRAND. OH DEAR.
No, don't hold back... say what you think.
Nice to see the money diverted from the arts to cover all sorts of derrieres is still be used wisely.
I wonder how many times they had to send it back and forth to get it 5 x over budget.
New:
Sorry, I am addicted to this...
To be fair....
Having been part of the process more than once, I feel a tad (but £400k buys a lot of pain relief) sorry for the actual designers who will get fingered by the tabloids.
There will have been a brief, and there will have been a presentation. And I am prepared to bet there will have been mid-level numpties in the client marketing side who dicked about trying to put their stamp on it and justify their 30k non-jobs.
But, WO-is-you, you can always walk away.
What's the name of the mythical director on movies no one wants to own up to?
Guardian - London's new brand of bother
Cif - Go Logo
Logo design - .007p (actually, that's what they owe each of us)
The most up its own derriere marketing-speek explanation/justification from the creators - £400,000
The saddest piece of quango self-immolation in history by every sad sod involved, but especially the senior guys in the committee and government - Priceless!
Houston, we have a camel.
Let the blame games begin!
Telegraph - A new Olympic record?
This typifies the state of government today.
They farm out everything (my daily exasperation is the environment, with billions being p*ssed away hourly to zero effect) to equally inept, but vastly overpaid third parties who it seems, can be blamed but not held accountable.
Meanwhile nothing actually gets done that's worth a damn, but there's a lot of money sunk into looking like it's getting done, which is all that matters in our target, hype and spin-obsessed political and business cultures. With the a*se-cover the main point of any initiative.
The tragic part is... even what they try and look like they are doing is so woeful. But at least the derriere protection systems always seem golden.
Will one single person, or committee (I presume this numpty effort was briefed and approved by some worthy set of individuals on fat salaries) responsible for this farce pay any price? Our reputation as... well... good at anything really, from organising a p*ss-up to designing world-class creative ideas, is already well and truly shot.
Pathetic.
Telegraph - 'Green' Olympics are a joke
And now they have produced a logo to match the rest of it.
Over priced. Over hyped. Over budget. Over here.
And nothing like what they are trying to bully us into accepting they say it is.
I'd laugh with you, but my face is still in a rictus of horror.
Over and out.
BBC - What it could have been. Sigh.
Creative Match
Indy - No-go logos: The story of unpopular branding
Times - Olympic logo firm chosen ‘blind'
UPDATED - BBC - 2012 Olympics budget 'on track' - Just in a different ballpark?
More warnings
See, it's not just me, everyone's churning out warnings about the implications of climate change. Yet another report pointing out the tensions that climate change will likely induce has been published as reported by The Straits Times - "climate change could heighten tensions and trigger conflicts worldwide"
Here's ReliefWeb's commentary on the same report. "The report suggests four 'climate-induced conflict constellations'. These are degradation of freshwaters; decline in food production; increase in storm and flood disasters and environmentally-induced migration."
Not only that, but the International Herald Tribune reports that the World Health Organisation is warning "The world must prepare now for the serious impact climate change will have on health, from a jump in waterborne diseases to heart attacks and heat-wave deaths"
Here's ReliefWeb's commentary on the same report. "The report suggests four 'climate-induced conflict constellations'. These are degradation of freshwaters; decline in food production; increase in storm and flood disasters and environmentally-induced migration."
Not only that, but the International Herald Tribune reports that the World Health Organisation is warning "The world must prepare now for the serious impact climate change will have on health, from a jump in waterborne diseases to heart attacks and heat-wave deaths"
All wind and bluster?
Or, perhaps, a real positive step forward?
Despite the fact that some question the ROI of wind turbines and that there is already a worldwide shortage of turbine technology due to the massive increase in demand, the government seem intent on a major offshore wind turbine program. Some 7,000 new wind turbines with a capacity of up to 25GW are planned.
"Every home in the country could be supplied by wind power alone in 2020 by making full use of the wind-swept seas around the country"
Big claim. Let's see if it's followed up with actual action. Oh, damn, I just spotted that it contains that magic word 'could' again!
BBC - Wind power plan for every home.
FT - Government pursues offshore wind power plan.
Despite the fact that some question the ROI of wind turbines and that there is already a worldwide shortage of turbine technology due to the massive increase in demand, the government seem intent on a major offshore wind turbine program. Some 7,000 new wind turbines with a capacity of up to 25GW are planned.
"Every home in the country could be supplied by wind power alone in 2020 by making full use of the wind-swept seas around the country"
Big claim. Let's see if it's followed up with actual action. Oh, damn, I just spotted that it contains that magic word 'could' again!
BBC - Wind power plan for every home.
FT - Government pursues offshore wind power plan.
Friday, December 07, 2007
A warning from Gaia?
The Bali conference was somewhat rudely interrupted today by a 5.4 richter scale earthquake. (From CNN.Com - Asia).
Perhaps our planet was just giving them a little warning that they need to act pdq?
Perhaps our planet was just giving them a little warning that they need to act pdq?
Climate change in the UK
It looks as if climate change is already having an impact on the UK according to a DEFRA report as reviewed by Guardian Unlimited today.
Central England temperatures are reported to have risen by 1C since the 1970's, while 2006 was the warmest recorded year since the first known records in 1659. Also, "sea surface temperatures around the UK coast have risen by about 0.7C over the past three decades."
And they reckon that a 'significant' portion of that warming is down to human activity; but just what does that mean? I just wish that formal reports would give us the real facts and figures, rather than a qualification. What exactly does significant mean? Does it mean 20% of it, or 80% of it?
Addendum/link (Junkk Male)
BBC - All nations 'need emission goals'
Gaurdian - Front-page thrillers
Guardian - Boris, Israel, 9/11 and me - an interesting insight into the possible motivations of the press. You only get paid if you get the numbers. And to get the numbers, you need to stir things up...
Central England temperatures are reported to have risen by 1C since the 1970's, while 2006 was the warmest recorded year since the first known records in 1659. Also, "sea surface temperatures around the UK coast have risen by about 0.7C over the past three decades."
And they reckon that a 'significant' portion of that warming is down to human activity; but just what does that mean? I just wish that formal reports would give us the real facts and figures, rather than a qualification. What exactly does significant mean? Does it mean 20% of it, or 80% of it?
Addendum/link (Junkk Male)
BBC - All nations 'need emission goals'
Gaurdian - Front-page thrillers
Guardian - Boris, Israel, 9/11 and me - an interesting insight into the possible motivations of the press. You only get paid if you get the numbers. And to get the numbers, you need to stir things up...
Thursday, December 06, 2007
EVENT - LONDON AWARE '08
As provided by organisers*
MONTH - May 2008
FIELD: Environmental
WHEN: 10th & 11th May, 10am - 6pm
WHAT: LONDON AWARE '08
WHAT... MORE?:
Greener Living Expo
Pioneering Greener Living Expo, LONDON AWARE '08, will take place on Saturday 10th and Sunday 11th of May 2008 in Exhibition Hall 1 of the Barbican. It will be a 'one stop shop' for regular people and businesses who want to live and work in a more sustainable way.
LONDON AWARE '08 will inspire the public, the business world and charities, bringing them together to share ideas.
Exhibitors
Our exhibitors will be showcasing a huge variety of products, services and advice to help you reduce your carbon footprint. These will include:
advice & information services
carbon offsetting
charities & NGOs
eco-build
eco-tourism
ethical investment
green consumer products
hybrid / alternative vehicles
organic food
recycling & eco-packaging
renewable & alternative energy
Authors
An inspiring selection of topical authors will be present at LONDON AWARE '08. They will be available for book signing and general discussion. The full list will be released shortly.
WHERE: EC1Y 8JL
WHO:
Speakers
To add depth and integrity to LONDON AWARE '08 there will be two lecture theatres with our selected expert guest speakers talking on climate change related topics. The speakers include environmental scientists, CEO’s, CSR managers, politicians, futurists and an Arctic explorer, all of whom share a common interest - to make LONDON AWARE '08 the success it needs to be. Because UK AWARE are keen to make LONDON AWARE '08 a thought provoking experience, all talks are free.
Non Profit Sector / Charity / Non Government Action Groups
1 Cat Dorey* Greenpeace
2 Martyn Williams* Friends of the Earth
3 James Lloyd* People and Planet
4 David Hall International Campaign Director for The Climate Group, Together
5 Bremely Lyngdoh Founder of 5 NGO’s, London School of Economics
Politics
6 Darren Johnson* Green Party and London Assembly
7 Chit Chong Green Party
8 Tom Pye* Ministry of Defence
9 Chris Huhne Liberal Democrats
Environmental Science
10 Lai Waqanisau Environmental Scientist
11 Jenny Bird Researcher for Climate Change Institute of Public Policy
12 Fred Pearce* Consultant to the "New Scientist" periodical
CSR
13 Charlie Browne* IKEA
14 Solitare Townsend* Futerra
Environmental Consultants
15 Francisco Ascui Founder of Climate Managers
16 Veronica Broomes Environmental Consultant and lecturer on climate change
17 Trevor Floyd* Chartered engineer, Environment Consultancy Group
18 Brian Whitington* Director of Carbonline
19 Martin Baxter Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
20 Simon Graham Environmental Strategy Advisor for The Commercial Group
Misc
21 Nathan Allen Arctic explorer
22 Chris Church Community Environment Associates, London 21
23 Polly Higgins Concentrating Solar Power, TREC-UK
Sustainable Innovation
24 Trevor Baylis OBE Inventor of the Wind Up Radio
25 Mike Grenville Founder of Forest Road Transition Village
26 Suzy Edwards Sustainability Consultant
27 Robert Rabinowitz Pure, The Clean Planet Trust
28 Martin Charter Centre for Sustainable Design
29 Peter Littlewood Young Peoples Trust for the Environment
30 Mathew Rhodes Encraft
31 Sally Uren* Forum For The Future
32 Rob Holdway Giraffe Innovation, Channel 4 ‘Dumped’
HOW: £5.00 (children & students free)
As a social enterprise, we are keen to support suitable charities which we admire. Ticket sales from LONDON AWARE '08 will be donated to Cool Earth, People & Planet and Stop Climate Chaos.
URL: www.ukaware.com
COMMENTS: * I met one of the team recently and it was great to chat. My kinda peeps. Also... and please note, by using the templates provided to help me help them help you, they got up on blog (and will soon on site and in newsletter PDQ. Make my life easy, and rewards will flow...:)
... with the possibility of?
When you are mulling the massive, and massively complex issue of climate change, sometimes it's worth popping round the local science society.
And there hear about it from the horse's mouth.. or, at least, an actual climate scientist.
Last night ours, Ross Science Society, hosted a talk billed as 'Global Warming' by Professor Bob Spicer.
Armed with no more than a laptop, projector and a ready, engaging wit (plus a bucketload of knowledge), the good Professor held a packed room in informed and entertained thrall for a good few hours. No mean feat as the majority of visuals were pretty much (initially) indecipherable graphs and charts. But there were a few laughs as well, which was all the more surprising as the subject matter, and his conclusions based on them, were none too cheery. As this is a chap who only the day before was having a chat with the DG of the BBC about their coverage of things planetary, he's a guy obviously worth listening to.
Let me nail my colours to the mast. I personally think there is an unusual level of climate change taking place, and am prepared to acknowledge that our race might not be helping it in the right direction. I also feel there is a lot of dodgy stuff flying about in the name of green.
So I was very happy to be in the presence of a scientist who was very keen to stick to the facts, what 'we' know and, more importantly, what 'we' don't. And how that can matter... a lot, especially when it comes to what the public gets told, and why, by all sorts of folk with all sorts of agendas.
For start, he made the valid point that the term 'Global Warming' is misleading. Because the climate can change, with no warming at all, in many places. So ‘climate change’ is the best way to hang a descriptor upon what is happening. And I was also pleased to find that is where he left it. Too often discussions on this topic have the prefix 'mad-made', which immediately carries a lot of baggage. I personally prefer, and subscribe to the probability of ‘man-worsened’, and I think the Prof. appreciated this description when I chatted with him afterwards.
Because to one who spends too much time reading on this topic, it was refreshing to see shared that, although there is compelling evidence that 'personkind' - and our activities - sure are not helping, nature has a history of throwing a series of highly (and lowly) volatile spanners into the mix, too. Ignoring this does not serve the intelligence of those trying to get a handle of this issues very well. Or help steer their intentions.
Why is all this important? Well for a start there's a lot of planning that needs to take place for the future, and you can only plan for something if you have a pretty good idea of what exactly (key word) you are planning for. In bald terms, if one does see climate change proceeding in the manner most scientists such as Prof. Spicer and his colleagues suggest (and, crucially, freely admitting that most if not all climate models being used are pretty 'loose' at best - Prof. Spicer had some rather colourful views on those produced, at vast expense, by our very own Met Office, which is a bit of a worry) , then governments are either looking at preparing for consequences, and/or mitigating against them.
And that, depending on where you live, means either looking at a lot more water around, and/or in places a lot higher temperatures. Neither of which is that helpful, reducing an already finite land area, and rendering what's left less able to sustain those upon it (the issue of population was touched upon but briefly, being both an elephant in the room and a can of worms, if you can handle that notion. Maybe a can of elephants?).
Having listened to the good Professor I had my personal knowledge base enhanced, and beliefs on the whole confirmed. I'm sure those of a ‘climate pessimistic’ bent would have had much to nod along with (though I do wonder whether those more zealously inclined might have paused to question some extreme or dogmatic orthodoxy that does get fired about too strenuously), and those more ‘optimistic’ (I find tags like 'deniers' unhelpfully pejorative) must surely been given good cause to think more deeply on whether much of what 'we' do is really sustainable, and should proceed unchecked.
What I was left with was even less doubt that this is a massive issue, and whilst individuals can make a difference with some well guided personal efforts, it is for those at the top who have the power to make the most significant differences in the timeframes necessary. Sadly, I did not get the feeling that those in charge were really yet on top of this.
So what can 'we' do, if so moved and persuaded to act? Well, I'd suggest the best is keep on trying to get to the bottom of issues, don't accept all you're told until you’re fully convinced on the enviROI (environmental benefits), and try and act in any and all ways that seem to offer the best mitigating outcomes: Reduction, Reuse and, where appropriate, sensible Recycling. All can, in a small way, help. As to sweating the big stuff, remember that we as individuals may not make a huge difference, but those who can still depend on one powerful thing we can still wield: our vote. Please use it wisely.
And there hear about it from the horse's mouth.. or, at least, an actual climate scientist.
Last night ours, Ross Science Society, hosted a talk billed as 'Global Warming' by Professor Bob Spicer.
Armed with no more than a laptop, projector and a ready, engaging wit (plus a bucketload of knowledge), the good Professor held a packed room in informed and entertained thrall for a good few hours. No mean feat as the majority of visuals were pretty much (initially) indecipherable graphs and charts. But there were a few laughs as well, which was all the more surprising as the subject matter, and his conclusions based on them, were none too cheery. As this is a chap who only the day before was having a chat with the DG of the BBC about their coverage of things planetary, he's a guy obviously worth listening to.
Let me nail my colours to the mast. I personally think there is an unusual level of climate change taking place, and am prepared to acknowledge that our race might not be helping it in the right direction. I also feel there is a lot of dodgy stuff flying about in the name of green.
So I was very happy to be in the presence of a scientist who was very keen to stick to the facts, what 'we' know and, more importantly, what 'we' don't. And how that can matter... a lot, especially when it comes to what the public gets told, and why, by all sorts of folk with all sorts of agendas.
For start, he made the valid point that the term 'Global Warming' is misleading. Because the climate can change, with no warming at all, in many places. So ‘climate change’ is the best way to hang a descriptor upon what is happening. And I was also pleased to find that is where he left it. Too often discussions on this topic have the prefix 'mad-made', which immediately carries a lot of baggage. I personally prefer, and subscribe to the probability of ‘man-worsened’, and I think the Prof. appreciated this description when I chatted with him afterwards.
Because to one who spends too much time reading on this topic, it was refreshing to see shared that, although there is compelling evidence that 'personkind' - and our activities - sure are not helping, nature has a history of throwing a series of highly (and lowly) volatile spanners into the mix, too. Ignoring this does not serve the intelligence of those trying to get a handle of this issues very well. Or help steer their intentions.
Why is all this important? Well for a start there's a lot of planning that needs to take place for the future, and you can only plan for something if you have a pretty good idea of what exactly (key word) you are planning for. In bald terms, if one does see climate change proceeding in the manner most scientists such as Prof. Spicer and his colleagues suggest (and, crucially, freely admitting that most if not all climate models being used are pretty 'loose' at best - Prof. Spicer had some rather colourful views on those produced, at vast expense, by our very own Met Office, which is a bit of a worry) , then governments are either looking at preparing for consequences, and/or mitigating against them.
And that, depending on where you live, means either looking at a lot more water around, and/or in places a lot higher temperatures. Neither of which is that helpful, reducing an already finite land area, and rendering what's left less able to sustain those upon it (the issue of population was touched upon but briefly, being both an elephant in the room and a can of worms, if you can handle that notion. Maybe a can of elephants?).
Having listened to the good Professor I had my personal knowledge base enhanced, and beliefs on the whole confirmed. I'm sure those of a ‘climate pessimistic’ bent would have had much to nod along with (though I do wonder whether those more zealously inclined might have paused to question some extreme or dogmatic orthodoxy that does get fired about too strenuously), and those more ‘optimistic’ (I find tags like 'deniers' unhelpfully pejorative) must surely been given good cause to think more deeply on whether much of what 'we' do is really sustainable, and should proceed unchecked.
What I was left with was even less doubt that this is a massive issue, and whilst individuals can make a difference with some well guided personal efforts, it is for those at the top who have the power to make the most significant differences in the timeframes necessary. Sadly, I did not get the feeling that those in charge were really yet on top of this.
So what can 'we' do, if so moved and persuaded to act? Well, I'd suggest the best is keep on trying to get to the bottom of issues, don't accept all you're told until you’re fully convinced on the enviROI (environmental benefits), and try and act in any and all ways that seem to offer the best mitigating outcomes: Reduction, Reuse and, where appropriate, sensible Recycling. All can, in a small way, help. As to sweating the big stuff, remember that we as individuals may not make a huge difference, but those who can still depend on one powerful thing we can still wield: our vote. Please use it wisely.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
'Generation C'
Well, at least the majority of teenagers seem to be growing up aware of the problems that they are going to inherit from their forefathers. As reported by Greenpeace.
"Two thirds of those polled believe climate change will have a negative effect on their lives."
Let's hope we act in time to minimise the effects on them, their children and their grandchildren.
____________________
There is just a chance that the sun itself will help to mitigate the temperature rises likely due to man, as it appears to have entered a period of very low activity. According to this from the Belfast Telegraph, we really ought to be heading into a mini ice age.
"Two thirds of those polled believe climate change will have a negative effect on their lives."
Let's hope we act in time to minimise the effects on them, their children and their grandchildren.
____________________
There is just a chance that the sun itself will help to mitigate the temperature rises likely due to man, as it appears to have entered a period of very low activity. According to this from the Belfast Telegraph, we really ought to be heading into a mini ice age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)