Reporting news, or influencing... making policy?

It's a fine line. I have long considered Newsnight to be one of the few credible broadcast news shows left, but of late there's a lot that really makes me think another media plot is being lost.

First up is a rather odd notion of balance when it comes to their reporting of various members of various political parties not, as such, following various rules. A quick look at the show blog will see how this is going down. I, for one, was not ' glued to my seat ' on the rather minor distraction of the opposition party's possible admin/reporting failures, but a tad more interested in the role of a government Minister in setting up a shell company to conceal massive loans to come almost last in a key, if internal, election.

But as I was pondering the ever more defiant and desperate bunker-bulletins coming out of Auntie to try and prop up their editorial and journalistic standards, I happened across this, by way of a bit of news: Newsnight report leads to cotton ban

It struck a chord, because a wee while ago I cut out an ad about cotton, which bearing in mind the client was unsurprisingly upbeat.

Now, I don't know much about it, but I have this notion that it's not that great a crop eco-wise. For one, I believe (subject to confirmation) that it is water intensives. Hence a mission is embarked upon.

And this piece will form part.

Thing is, while I can appreciate the information, the whole ethical thing comes across just a tad to smugly as another luvvie ban-fest. Which in my book cannot be good unless the complexities are are all ironed out, as to assuage Western guilt in one small area can often have major negative influences in all sorts of others.

Ethanol from household waste and old tyres?

Seems like a good day for interesting developments so far. This one from motortorque.com reports how general motors and Coskata have signed an agreement to utilise Coskata's technology to "derive cellulosic ethanol from household waste, wood, plastic bottles and old tyres using bacteria."

They "believe the process is cleaner than using crops - with one study claiming that study cellulosic ethanol up to 90% less greenhouse gas than petrol and 30% cheaper to produce." "The company says it can turn four tyres into seven gallons of ethanol and two bales of hay into five gallons for under $1 per gallon."

Sounds a lot better than turning corn into ethanol to me. There are an awful lot of used tyres lying around our planet and anything that can turn household waste into a potentially useful fuel has surely got to be better than dumping it into landfill?

Another new technology ......

.... that just might be a major breakthrough. Introducing the LETG (Light Electric & Thermal Generator), which appears to be a combined hybrid PV (Photovoltaic cell) and thermal energy capture (much like Solar Water Heating arrays) device. See Global Warming Solutions.

"The LETG captures and stores sunlight using a hybrid module design that differs from previous combination module devices, making possible the year-round production of thermal and electric energy. Its spectral-selective thermal liquid circulates on the reception surface of a photoelectric circuit, which makes it possible to increase the quantity and to change the quality of incident solar radiation spectral distribution as well as carry out the thermal energy recovery with minimum loss. To put its potential power in perspective, the LETG can increase electric power 250% and thermal output by 170%."

Their press release (via Fox Business News) claims - "Global Warming Solutions, Inc. ....... today announced successful testing of novel, hybrid (heat and electricity generation) solar modules created for the LETG (Light Electric Thermal Generator) project. The combined energy efficiency of the modules reached values of 85%, even exceeding energy harvesting efficiency of green plants."

Considering that most current photovoltaics are considered to be outstanding when achieving anything approaching 20% efficiency, that's one hell of a set of claims. I will await with interest to see what commercialisation of this technology brings.

UK facing stringent renewables targets

This from the Financial Times (you need to register [free] to read the entire article) suggests that the EU targets that the UK will receive next week are going to be pretty tough to meet.

"officials in Brussels and Whitehall have told the Financial Times that Britain will have to increase its use of renewables as a share of all energy use from about 2 per cent to 13-14 per cent by the end of the next decade."

"Britain has the lowest renewables share of any major EU country: only Malta and Luxembourg have less."

Given that Tony Blair was warned that his agreement to the overall 20% target by 2020 was unachievable, this could get very interesting. "Mr Blair was warned by the former Department of Trade and Industry that the scheme was unachievable and costly, but he overruled ministers."

I wonder what the level of fines the UK is going to have to pay for failing to meet the targets will be?

Seen, but heard enough? And by the right people?

Further to my last post, it's telling that I almost skimmed over this: Founder of bottled water company honoured for work in Third World

I wouldn't call it 'tucked away', but considering what it was/is it will be interesting to see how much coverage this gets elsewhere.

I know a bit about it because I entered myself. Junkk.com and RE:tie. I think we qualified: Its model and eco-friendly bottle technology are highly replicable – one of the key criteria for the judging panel.

Obviously not even close and no cigar here (I am still looking for 'wealthy benefactors'... who may also help with the business side I am so woeful at, plus perhaps knowing a few more of the 'right' folk), but the winner is deserving. Not so sure about some of the other, usual suspects. No probelm with something good that does the job getting lauded, and often, but often it seesm that nominees and winners are more on the basis of familiarity than seeking new possibilities.... who may need and deserve the profile and/or money to get going more.

I am also intrigued as to who constitutes 'the community of 120 social entrepreneurship winners, who will meet before the World Economic forum at Davos next week', and how they were deemed to be so.

ps: On another topic, note this: '...or commercially composted back to soil in just eight weeks.' Which means popping it in your back garden ain't going to do it. Who the heck knows this, and hence does whatever is necessary with whoever can help to actually make it work properly? Surely the disposal system should be addressed to a satisfactory degree before getting too excited by the thing that may be disposed. Or not. Otherwise it's useless.

Stretch to fit

I am all for positives, but some do stretch things a tad: Defra hails 'positive green' readers

The up side is that one in five of the population are 'positive greens', though the definition requires an eyebrow cock between self-perception, research definition and actual enviROI+ behaviour.

Where I am a little intrigued is the the leap from the Indy's readership that I believe numbers a few hundred thousand.

Sounds an interesting report and I'd like to see it. Odd that I have never heard of it 'til now, and it is not linked to.

Actually, many of the subsequent insights were/are very telling, and frankly deserve greater consideration.

I leave you with this: 'Some people in the greenest categories have higher carbon footprints than others because of their high incomes'. Mainly Indy readers and BBC employees and supporters, I'd hazard all now planning their next skiing trips along with the next ban-it campaign for some minor enviro-nuisance.

It all rather smacks of being happier with looking good rather than doing it to me.

Biofuels not a silver bullet

"Biofuels risk failing to deliver significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from transport and could even be environmentally damaging unless the Government puts the right policies in place"

That's from a report issued by the Royal Society which warns that "without the right support, including of the research and development community, there is a risk that we will miss out on developing the biofuels that could bring greater benefits and that we could become locked in to using inefficient biofuels."

Let's hope that our government, for once, listens, takes note, and acts accordingly. The crazy subsidies that the US government put in place for the production of ethanol from corn has already started to cause a disaster. I hope our lot can learn from that. It's not too much to ask, is it?

Both poles now suffering

We have commented many times on the staggering effect that the warming of our little planet has had on the Arctic ice. At no time had anyone reported or suggested that anything similar was happening in the Antarctic, indeed, some scientific studies reported that the temperature in the heart of Antarctica was actually decreasing and going against the trend of the rest of the planet.

However, that seems to be changing, according to a study published in Nature Geoscience, and as reported by the Houston Chronicle. The study reports that "researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years — as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world." The areas worst hit are the enormous western ice shelf, which covers an area something like the size of Texas, and the peninsula that points up towards S. America.

Given that Antarctica holds something approaching 90% of the planet's ice that starts to become quite worrying; the loss of the western ice shelf alone could theoretically account for a sea level rise of several metres.

If ever there was one for DDAIDDAIS*

Assuming it's factually true (my faith even in news media's accuracy levels has been tested a tad too often): BIN TAX WILL HIT EVERYONE...UNLESS YOU ARE AN MP

Another wedge between those who are imposing eco 'initiatives' and the odds of those upon whom they get imposed being positively inspired by them.

*Don't do as I do, do as I say

Now who's a lucky monkey?

No, not M&S's version.

Some might recall that a while ago I latched onto a pretty positive fortune cookie that rather specifically indicated a lot of hefty nice stuff in the work arena by year's end.

Well, hard to say that came to pass.

Anyhoo, here's hoping that as the exact reverse happened with this (as Dave cautioned/predicted) then the same will apply here, being that I am a Monkey in the Chinese Lunar Calendar:)

The Monkey will not have an easy year compared to last year. But while the financial loss star will affect your luck this year, you also have some measure of protection with the Golden Deities star. Helpful people will rescue you out of any predicament. There is a tendency for the Monkey to lose his cool this year and this could lead to problems with relationships. So watch your temper. Carry the Four Heavenly King Protection Amulet and wear the Dragon Eye Dzi for protection. Activate Golden Deities luck by inviting a Golden Kuan Yin into your home and display her in the Northeast corner of your living room. Protect your house against burglary by displaying the Black Precious Elephant in the Southwest. For personal luck, wear the "Om Ah Hum" Pendant in gold . To enhance for better income, display a Dzambhala Water Feature in the Southwest of your living room. To enhance for relationship luck and good networking, place glitter lamps in the Southwest 3, Southeast 1 and North 2 corners of your home as this completes the 'Tien Ti Ren' formation which is very auspicious.

Anyone know if Tesco carry a Four Heavenly King Protection Amulet or associated artifacts?

Something for nothing ..... for once, yes!!

I've re-read this twice looking for the inevitable get-out clause, but am unable to find one - it really does look like a genuine something for nothing offer ........ providing you are over 70 years of age (or on certain benefits).

As reported in the The Guardian (article is dated Saturday 12th although it is not yet 17:00 on the 11th Jan?), British Gas are offering free loft and cavity wall insulation [worth an average £600 per house] to anyone over the age of 70, and you don't even have to be a customer of British Gas! It appears to be a subset of the government's CERT {Carbon Emissions Reduction Target} scheme which "obliges energy suppliers to promote reductions in carbon emissions for households. The companies are required to spend £1.5bn over the next three years to install energy efficiency measures in the homes of people on low incomes and the elderly."

For once I'm almost lost for words .... a genuine case of something for nothing!
______________________
Addendum:
Actually there IS a teeny-weeny little catch in there - the rest of us will pay for it! I quote - "Ofgem, the energy regulator .............. said this week that around £38 is being added to each household's gas and electricity's (I assume they meant to include 'bills' here) to pay for the Cert scheme."

At least it's a start, and given that £1 in every £3 spent on heating homes is lost because of inadequate insulation, it will have quite an impact on household CO2 emissions, at least for the over 70's.

Snow in Baghdad!

Yet another example of our climate going crazy, just like the cold snap that killed 20 people in India at the new year.

This from Reuters reports that despite all the strange climatic things happening (we mentioned the problems that they were having at the ice carving festival in Harbin only the other day), the planet is still inexorably warming.

If all you fight are corners, the rest of the room gets ignored

Newsnight - Galloway v Frum - not an eco aspect in sight, but goes to the set up for debate we are subjected to these days.

What a spectacular show... and follow up... if all you are gunning for is to win is a ratings war with the WWF.

A typical Newsnight twofer sandwich, with unpalatable, rock hard, entrenched extremes pitched either side of a soft,squishy bland centre.

All I got was a series of dogmatic vitriol that informed me little as I trusted no one's 'facts', or that they might be called to account on them, and hence all that was spewed around were just so many rabble-rousing words. As with so many issues, the choice of messenger can too often colour the message, as 'colourful' seems to be the dominating characteristic being sought by the 'expert' guest booker.

Par for the course.

Is it not possible to get a few more, or at least more rounded (even if it means possibly less 'entertaining") folk on to debate such important topics - such that one feels a slim hope that the issues are being discussed rationally and hard questions are being posed with cool heads, all moderated by someone who actually might attempt to get to to some decent answers and insights?

Thought not. Ho hum. Ding. Round #287.

Interesting comments on Peak Oil

I stumbled across this pretty much by chance. From GoldSeek - The Casey Files.

It's the transcript of an interview between Doug Casey (of Casey Research) and Matt Simmons, one of the world leading authorities on investing in energy businesses, and founder and chair of the world's largest energy investment banking company.

Simmons reckons that Peak Oil was reached in May 2005, and that overall production can at best stay at current levels, rather than increase at all.

On sour, heavy oil (such as from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada - "With the heavy oil out of Canada, you have to expend energy to make it ooze out of the ground, and once it’s oozed out of the ground, you still have totally unusable oil."

On Liquefied Natural Gas - "the problem with LNG is that if we try to develop a spot market out of LNG, the odds of it ending in bankruptcy are about 90%."

On natural gas as a means of generating electricity - "using natural gas for electricity turned out to be an unbelievably stupid decision. Using electricity for heat was equally stupid. Natural gas should be refined to one use and one use only, and that’s creating instantaneous and high-efficiency heat."

On corn based ethanol - "Corn-based ethanol was just a terrible, tragic mistake..........Even worse, it’s a very low-quality source of energy. Low BTU, highly corrosive, you can’t mix it with anything, it was just a terrible idea."

And he introduces the concept of liquid ammonia as a fuel, something novel to me.

Informative, concise, factually packed and thought provoking; thoroughly recommended and well worth the read.
__________________
Oh, and potentially quite useful if you have (unlike Peter and myself) a substantial wallet-full to invest.

Study hard and get a white collar job

That's what my father told me when I was about 10 years old. Coming from a poor family he had himself fought his way up into the academic world from beginnings as a joiner; and he insisted that he did not want his kids getting blue collar jobs.

Well, it now seems there is a third option (OK, Fourth if you include dog collars as worn by many members of the various religious fraternities). We have reached the age of the green collar worker. Full story from Yahoo News.

However, it's a real shame that most of the 'green collar' jobs here in the UK seem to be as members of various quangos, generally doing little more than bean counting, that have little or no direct envROI impact. (As already pointed out by Peter back in August).

And little fleas have littler fleas...

Is it time to replace a five year old PC?

It can be frustrating, and while one can understand and appreciate (but not in a good way) the commercial imperatives, in this more eco-age you really have to question why it all gets driven to upgrade and dispose on such a short window.

For example, my little Mac Mini has hummed away happily for the last few years.

The other day I was told of a useful new software called Bento from FileMaker that would be a nifty assist to what I do.

Unfortunately, it only works with Leopard. So at the very least I have to make that upgrade from my current Tiger system.

Thing is, Leopard pretty much pushes the hardware I have to the edge of its capabilities so to move on I have to get a whole new box.

So much to do, so little time

I just had a small epiphany on media consumption behaviour, at least on a personal basis.

At a time when it seems reading print is going down (see here , though I might ask where the Guardian's readership is and going before getting too excited about The Sun), online and/or a/v seems the way, but then I happened across the Guardian's Environment Weekly.

And you know what? Much as there was much worthy stuff in there, I could not be bothered to click.

Odd, as I'm sure the time commitment would be the same or less. For some reason I like it in print.

Job's worth?

Last night I watched a show on the jobs and salaries in the UK: What Britain Earns (the only link I could find. Amazingly, or typically, the BBC site search didn't show any results, yet Google managed this... on their site)

An engaging, if not very thorough romp by Dad/son team Jon and Dan Snow.

I think I was surprised just how many folk (like our family) were struggling along on not very much). Equally, the number in the super-bracket seemed pretty low, though the amounts were obscene.

Speaking of which, I was simply appalled that in a very healthy upper mid-level was some lady who makes a very tidy living keeping rich plonker's cupboards in order. Tellingly, one of these clients is an MP, which must suggest something is awry.

It was also brought home to me by a couple of other coincidental things. First up I was trying to score a bit of additional income online with a job as a rep for a US music agency. In a charming rejection (getting any feedback at all being a near zero chance in the UK) they also advised that in Portland a salary of £10k was perfectly good to enjoy a life in a flat with car and enough for 'fun'. Meanwhile I just caught a programme on emigration to to Australasia where the salaries are near half here, yet the quality of life (houses, etc) pretty much the other direction.

Plus I just can't get out of my head how things seem to be misrepresented, or skewed, especially by the media, here.

On BBC Breakfast the bouffant and blonde were chatting about ageism with the usual vastly representative cross-section of the UK population, namely a reporter and a paper columnist, and all around the sofa seemed to think popping £5k away for a quick nip and tuck and Botox was the norm.

What planet are these folk on?

Good for some ....... but real bad for others

That's just about the simplest way to sum up the vagaries of our little planet's current weather.

If you are into skiing, then Europe currently has the best snow that its had for some 11 years. Indeed, it wasn't that long back that some were predicting the demise of the majority of the European ski resorts within the next 20 years or so, so December's heavy falls have been the cause of much rejoicing.

But, if you are an ice carver, all roads lead to Harbin, China, at this time of year, where the annual festival of ice is in full swing. The problem is, the ice is errrr ....... melting as fast as they can carve it and the locals have naturally put it down to global warming.

Just goes to show that nothing, climatically speaking, can ever be judged in a uniform manner.

A lot of things being said at once...

...Here: Clarkson stung after bank prank: Jeremy Clarkson found himself unexpectedly donating to charity

Where do I start?

a) Thanks heavens for folk with wit and a sense of humour
b) That they did it for charity
c) JC can be a plonker but at does at least own up and has the front to say when he's wrong
d) ID theft is real
e) All officialdom (from guv'ment to bans) are lying, cheating, derriere-covering numpties who will spin, hype and hide behind anything to avoid solving a problem first rather than dealing with it.
f) I can't believe he didn't limit his exposure with a dummy account and/or he and the bank stood guard post-publication in case.
g) The excuse given is PATHETIC!!!!!

ADDENDUM:

BEAM ME UP SCOTTIE...CELEBS NEED TO GET THEMSELVES OUT OF HERE!

I missed it too. I found out from the fall out, and have to say that his mea culpa or 'caveat didn't emptor enough' impressed. Probably did more for awareness than a £10M COI campaign.

Now there's a thought. Blow public dosh , or get a better result for free? Hmmn.

Having pondered a while I can't help but thing that those who did see it, and especially the man himself and his bank, seemed very chilled about a few minor advance precautions, such as limiting exposure with a new, not very full account, and a few flags... just in case.

I am Legend?

I refer, of course to the movie, where Will Smith is a sole survivor searching for fellow souls. So this struck a chord: US man saves all his rubbish -- for a year

For what it's worth, I have done roughly (no 'nasties' like scraping kept they go in the compost. And quite a lot of paper and bottles (not all) and cans (not all) in the kerbside collection bins) the same... now for four years. Lucky to have a bigg(ish) country home with a basement and attic and outbuildings. And a tolerant wife. But you'd be amazed how, when you have like-for like stacks, how well things slot into each other to save space. I have a Pot Noodle column that reaches two stories high!

Like Mr. Derfel, this was partly to see what exactly a family does throw out, but mostly to look at reuses for my site.

What is surprising is when one item sparks no notions, a collection of 50 can start the ideas a-buzzing.

Fit to print?

For a while that title had 'REPLY!!!' added to it. It didn't just refer to this: Are carbon diet books worth the paper they're printed on?

It's a new plan to try and address my rather woeful backlog archive system.

You see, over Xmas I did read a ton of stuff and saved the links meaning to get around to either replying and/or posting them up. But then my computer crashed and all those good intentions and worthy topics got lost as they were lurking in some task bar and not really saved as such.

Hence this is a way, in theory, to tackle something that does seem worthy of comment, not just here but there, too. And when I do, that REPLY!!! do-dad will get deleted and all... will be as it should. Hopefully.

Watch this space, I will be back.

Meantime, feel free to pitch in on either!

And, now, I have:

Good question. And some thoughtful answers already

I run a free website, http://www.junkk.com, predominantly promoting second use, so I am rather sensitive to a) trying one's best to offer solutions whilst not becoming part of the problem, and b) not trying to make too quick a buck out of anything 'green'.

So the points you make are well taken and hard to refute.

Partly through personal purchase and partly through being on some kind of (very welcome) PR list I do get sent quite a few of such tomes, and hence have had the chance to contrast, compare and, when there's time, re:view.

Being simplistic, looking at the stack on my table that I have assembled to try and offer some sensible thoughts on your question, a few basic categories are suggested:

1) Books that tell you stuff
2) Books that show you stuff
3) Books that show and tell you stuff
4) All the above, written from the point of view of what the person has done, other people have done or that 'you', the reader can do.
5) All the above... etc, only more telling you what you should do. I prefer the previous one.
6) Books that make you think. These often have elements from the preceding choices in the mix.

I'm sure there's a bunch more, but at the end of the day really it all boils down to information and/or entertainment.

In the spirit of positivity I don't propose to name any I think bad (it's pretty subjective), but there are some that stand out, at least to me, for their contributions to understanding, changing perceptions, altering behaviours or just being a plain nifty read.

Now, I'm not one to deny anyone the chance at making a buck, and they can often be quite useful, but books of lists don't really do it for me. I have tried popping them in the loo for a 5 minute bit of daily research, but really they are mostly quite boring. And almost inevitably outdated as soon as they are printed. Plus in the internet era I really cannot imagine what I couldn't find just as easily, and for free, online. Like here! A recent exception is Paul Waddington's 'Shades of Green' by virtue of accepting that there are such shades, and it's best to engage on the basis that a volunteer is worth 10 pressed wo/men.

For thought-provoking worthiness, I can look at two and say that they were 'good reads' to get your head around what ‘we’re’ facing, if being pretty darn depressing.

One is Richard Girling's 'Rubbish', and the other (without sucking up too much) is Leo Hickman's 'The Final Call'. The latter exposes the dilemma of anyone who cares about the environment and choosing to work for its betterment, still somehow having to deal with saying (or reporting, and in a cautionary way) one thing and patently doing pretty much what the reader is being told they shouldn’t.

All I know is that, for my forthcoming review (I have promised the publisher for months), there are about 50 bits of paper poking out at points that interested me, told me stuff I didn't know or got my dander up.

As to who else might feel the same, other than committed converts I don't know. It’s a stretch to think many climate 'optimists' would opt to buy it to be persuaded... unless a subsequent review can convince a few it's worth the effort... and cost. Hence the value of what you have invited here.

One thing I do look for is solutions, and preferably ones that as an average person one can engage with. And do so because they are fun, cheap, practical... and work. So why not?

There are more than a few 'how to's' I don't really like because they come across a tad too hair shirt and/or nanny state or finger-wagging. Or are less than useful in pushing certain agendas on a one-sided basis. Two I felt did achieve a nice balance, and were all the more powerful by being via personal experiences, were Penney Pozyer’s companion to her TV series and Janey Lee Grace’s ‘Imperfectly Natural Woman’. Library point noted, though I think having ‘em to hand can’t hurt and they are certainly more worthy on the shelf than many others I have!

And there are others in this vein, but often as you turn one massive (if made from recycled material) page after the next, with three words and one picture, you do get to wondering how much is for show and how much is to really make a genuine difference ‘doing’.

Thank you for the opportunity to ponder these things. Because I have been asked if I might be interested in producing a book of my own in my little area of planetary saving, and the dilemmas above have to date given me pause.

But there's no doubting that, done in the right way for the right reasons, what is in a book can find its way to many useful places and do good when it gets there. And there's the not insignificant factor of the more than useful revenue it can send the way of the authors to help them in their next, hopefully equally knowledge base-enhancing quest. Research does take time and consume funds, so in the spirit of sharing the odd reward can be appreciated. And what better than in the form of driving one up the best-seller lists?

From my limited investigations, in the great scheme of things so long as one is using the appropriate materials and the most effective logistics, such things can surely at least be cut some slack by being better than most and often better than nothing when it comes to finding and setting new readers on what one can only hope to be more inspirational paths.

Hard to measure the enviROI on it all, but if done for the right reasons and written well, they can surely only be forces for the planet’s future good. And often folk don’t have the time or inclination to trawl around, so can be great summaries for those keen to get going.

And, if one thinks about it, the stack of rainforest that is one’s copy of the Sunday paper, or the scores of ‘green’ magazines, pretty much add up to a nice chunk in the doorstep recycling bin eventually. At least by being nicely packaged these books can lurk and maybe promote the odd guest to have a quick peruse and act on what they’ve been inspired by.

A very costly decision

Back in 1999, our then chancellor, Ol' Golden Brown, no less, took the unprecedented decision to unload a large proportion of the UK's gold reserves at a time when the price of gold was at the bottom of the market. Dealers still term that price as the "Brown Bottom". (Full story in The Times).

At the time, there was much concern, and many forecasts that it would cost the UK dear. "The 17 auctions achieved prices for the gold of between $256 and $296 an ounce, with an average of $275." The total loss, back in April this year was estimated at some £2 Billion. (It would have been considerably more had not the Euros purchased with much of the proceeds not appreciated in value.)

Well, the price of gold now stands at a record $872.10 per ounce. That means that our PM is directly responsible for a loss to the UK of some £3 Billion+.

Now if I (or anyone else for that matter) had taken such an appalling decision and lost such an immense amount in business I'd have been sacked on the spot. It just goes to prove that there is no such thing as accountability in politics nowadays.

ADDENDUM - Brown's big hitter - When in the mire, don't whatever happens try and sort it out. Hire a better person to explain why it isn't.

ADDENDUM 2 - Unhappy new year to you all!

Money well, expended

Fit for purpose?

Are you mad?????

Spending perfectly good money on actual tangibles that get delivered directly to where they can do the most good to the most folk... and, worse, with the notion of reward-based incentives attached taboot!

This is heresy.

What we need is more departments, and initiatives, and announcements and quangos and massive communications budgets with oodles of pre and post research to get the BBC to read out as gospel.

However, fair point on weather, etc. But as a matter of principle a heck of a better way to be thinking than the current 'ban, guilt, accuse and refuse' notions and their jaw-dropping black hole budgets.

This notion applies across every area of our lives too, of course.

The agricultural albedo effect

We've had the mirrors in space idea, and we have people experimenting with dumping iron filings into the oceans to encourage algal blooms, amongst many other strange geo-engineering ideas.

Now scientists have come up with the shiny plant idea. Let's grow lots of crops with shiny leaves and the albedo effect "could reduce maximum daytime temperatures in agricultural regions by as much as 1.9C".

There's that great word again: 'could'.

ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - Great minds...?

Start as you mean to carry on?

Isn't life grand? Asks Newsnight.

Well, not if this is how they see the future of quality news in the year ahead. I rather expect my national broadcaster to devote its pages to weightier issues than having a snipe about someone else being nasty about them, unless it is to correct a factual inaccuracy.

I thought it was just middle age when I moved from Radio 1 to Radio 2, but mainly it was when the 'new yoof' celeb DJs like Chris Moyles decided the listeners needed less music and more on them and their dissin' spats with equally uninteresting nobodies of but minor relevance through 'working' for other iconic media brands.

I could care less what you lot and anyone else from any ratings obsessed, agenda-driven media extreme think of each other, but as a licence fee payer (I can at least opt not to pay for the Daily Mail) I do care a lot about what you are paid to provide: relevant, objective, intelligent, accurate news.

Hard to see any hint of that here. As no link was provided to the piece in question I have no clue as to what was or was not in it, so the only purpose seems to expose a degree of unhealthy self-obsession and importance at the expense of relevant journalism.

ADDENDUM - Oddly, after three attempts over a few days my post has not made it up. I can only presume it did not fit the BBC or its Editor's standards of... whatever they have standards left of. Even more oddly, on the page counter there are 6 replies listed as being posted. Only three are visible. Omission in many ways is the most pernicious form of censoring of all. What I wrote was critical to be sure, but I'd also say justified. On an open blog to exclude the comment seems... telling. I'll try again in a few more days in case it's one those 'tech errors' that often serve to let the passage of time smooth the view in the rear mirror.

ADDENDUM 2 - Nope. Still nothing. One can only wonder why. Go via here via 4 Jan to see how 6 become 3. Not Newsnight's, the BBC's or the cause of honest and balanced journalism's finest hour.

ADDENDUM 3 - Well, there's a thing. It is now (14:29. Tue 8) up now. And I am sure, with some embarrassment, my whinge that it isn't will follow. Good job I did a page capture a few days ago. Rather oddly (still), my comment is now inserted before that of a chap whose comment was up a few days ago (but probably after mine). What an odd system it is.

Answering the call

Gordon Brown calls for single food labelling scheme

What, in the great smoke and mirrors scheme of things, does 'calls for' actually mean, or translate as?

I rather suspect this is yet one more in an exponentially expanding series of politician double speak up there to join 'this is not acceptable (but sod all will be done)', 'we're going to look at this (at arm's length, and then wait until it goes away)' and, my personal favourite 'lessons need to learned (then filed and forgotten)'.

I hate to break it to our Dear Leader, but this horse has already long bolted and this consumer is well beyond contusion. He's already at 'if they don't know or care to sort it out sensibly, why should I bother?'. So, as I am on a mixed metaphorical roll, it will be fun to see how this genie gets popped back in it's bottle.

Especially as, at least from my reading of this article, the additional fun of the already several competing and contradictory carbon/food miles efforts already out and/or proposed to add to the screed on packs seems not to be in this mix. Or at least not mentioned.

I'm betting that after a ton of 'working with', which should keep a load of public servants in pensions and consultants in fees until well after the cows have finished burping methane, the most I predict will be several vastly expensive 'campaigns' instead of any tangibles from several left/right hand quangos, so at least the ad and media world may still benefit.

Just not so sure about the consumer or planet's health, though.

Guardian - Energy firms feel heat from government over surge in prices - I'm sorry, but how 'expressing concern' translates into anyone on the other end 'feeling heat' is a stretch.

Pros and Cons

Climate change. Can't live with it. Can't turn on the box without it.

I have long given up with the arguments about the various shades of CC, but remain very interested in how it gets played out, especially when it gets to the man in the Clapham omnibus.

Ca,me across a link to this from a loooong time ago.

The Battle for Influence

Might be worth a listen to. Never know.

Bear e-cessities?

Artic Tale

Last thing I read was a pretty credibel notion tha polar bears were not doing too bad, climatically, but the main threat was oil exploartion and/or man's incursion into their territories. Please do not let this be another open goal for the optimists.

I know they are cute and cuddly (well, except the tearing limb from limb thing), but I question if these guys are really the best icon for action.

Just asking as not sure, but might a pretty big threat to Seela surviving be Nanu's mum?

I know what the intention behind this is, but just hope that the actuality doesn't play second fiddle to promoting the message.

Last time I saw a polar bear used was a Curry's ad for an LCD TV.

Brown lighting

It's what I think you get when you mix red and green. it's the colour of fudge. Nuclear plan puts Brown's green image in spotlight

And again I find myself with some small sympathy for the dilemma he faces. Well, as far as being between a rock and a hard place, but that's why he is in the job he coveted. Frankly I'd have more respect if he just turned round and said 'Look, you can't have it all, I'm going this way' rather than trying to be all things to all people but ending up a nothing to no one.

And yes, I heard him 'Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right."' And nowt there says anything of substance.

I leave the conclusion to one of his own MPs: "The tragedy of Gordon Brown is the only big decisions he appears capable of taking are the wrong ones."

'No nuclear power station has ever been built without substantial subsidies'

What would I give for a simp.. well at least clear chart outlining the ROI and enviROI of the various energy options we are being presented with.

Be it ring-fencing us with windmills, sticking a nuke in the back-garden or firing up a coal-fired without a CO2 scrubber I'd just like to see where the money is coming from, who it is going to, for what and for how long to deliver what to my socket.

And then I'd like to see what the consequences to my kids' futures are of these from the minute a spade goes into the ground (or, more like, more gets blown on pre-consultancy than the project) to the moment they are decommissioned, including all maintenance consequences.

It surely should not be that hard?

Guardian - Which would you rather subsidise? - in the world of some media I rather have a sense of wishing something to be, rather than reporting on what is.

And another - Don't make us nuke - some media are now rather devalued by being a tad exclusive in their discussions, I fear. I'd say they were preaching to a converted flock, but having read some thread replies maybe not.

What is obvious is that the Guardian quoting BBC links and vice versa is not making for a great debate, or very credible these days as any kind of objective justification.

To serve and protect?

One comment that has cause to make me pause is that by being all online and all, I am promoting lots of emissions on the energy consequences of all the IT involved.

Being a website and a blog it would be tricky not to run most of what I have, but here's a possible mitigation to share: http://www.googlenrg.com/info.php

NOW HERE'S A MAJOR CAUTION!

The source that sent this to me is usually very good, but there is something about the use of English in the intro that has me cautious, above and beyond any invitation to cut and paste stuff in and around computers.

So I have done nothing yet, and written to Google direct to check.

I'd suggest that you wait with me until I get a reply and update this post.

I want this to be true, and it looks good, but sadly this is a nasty old world and people will use green for just about any odd notion of self-advancement there is.

A river runs through it

I like to find positives, and I am a fan of hydro, so this is a good share: Hydro tunnel makes breakthrough

Also nice to see a 'will' when it comes to power claims. Sadly some other alt. eng. projects seem to have a few coulds 'n caveats attached

Speaking of rubbish

I noticed this headline: Soldiers bulldoze Naples rubbish

And hence the story. So far, so P-EU.

What intrigued me more, in terms of the nature of news gathering, was this at the end:

Are you in Naples? Have you been affected by the rubbish collection crisis? Use the form below to send us your stories, some of which may be published.

You can send pictures and video to: yourpics@bbc.co.uk or to send via mobile please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100.

I'm all for citizen journalism, but just wondered what checks and balances existed on this, or indeed any other comments or footage that comes in and ends up on a major news site. Do they verify?

Seems like an invitation to create something if one is so minded to sway a story.

Over my head

Great. To the pointless, time-consuming (ok, that's the point) barrages on climate change, as a consumer in no man's land I can add government and corporates on energy: NPower blames Government targets for price hike

I'm not so sure I am that concerned on 'blame', but surely we can easily be told just where the actual numbers are derived from and come to our own conclusions?

Lead by donkeys, informed by sheep

I just watched the Andrew Marr show, with his guest the PM.

About as sorry an example of the state of governance and the media as I could imagine. A load of waffle that told me nothing. But what did surprise was another clear (after the Newsnight/Milliband exchange) example where two sets of major persons claimed totally different things... and I remain clueless as to the truth.

Here's something that this viewer DOES want to know and the country maybe want to understand (I don't pretend to speak for it, as I wish many others equally unable to know would not).

Please advise when all the 'facts' that Andrew and the Prime Minister have shared today with the viewing public have been clarified. They cannot both be right, so one or other must be very, very wrong and/or misinformed.

And, if so, how and why.

Otherwise there ceases to be any point to such interviews.

ADDENDUM :

Mine did not for some reason find favour. Here are a few which did.

To err is human, to fudge... define, naturally

I found this... disconcerting: 'Natural' will remain undefined, says FDA

One might indeed wonder why such 'a lack of a uniform approach to the term has resulted in inconsistent product claims, consumer confusion, and even lawsuits against food companies accused of misleading consumers'.

Or, if of a cynical bent, maybe not.

Guardian - Board stiffs - Meanwhile, this side of the pond.

Tilting windmills

Home wind turbines dealt a blow

I take no pleasure in this. But it does at least maybe encourage greater commitment to assessing enviROIs before endorsing any 'Green is good no matter what ' nonsense, especially from subsidising bodies and the media. I'll leave commerce out of it as most are, and have always been in it for one thing, and caveat emptor.

The problem comes with perceptions. I'd say the notion that at least they remind folk of the need to save is a stretch, especially as less charitable, climate positive media and commenters will pounce on this and use it to further undermine sincere attempts by labelling those who do care and get taken in as rather naive and misguided. Which, frankly, many seem to have been.

Why was this research not available much sooner, and better known? And has there been no objective official guide for the start?

On the other hand, Jeremy Clarkson might not like it

The £1,290 car delights Indians but horrifies the green lobby

Beyond the poor taste humour of the headline, there is a rather serious back story to this.

Frankly it was/is inevitable. Just economic growth and market forces at work. Can't be denied.

And while I'm sure the green lobby can be relied upon to be horrified, I'm a might more interested in how the global political leadership sees such things developing.

Top of the world?

My views on what makes one, and hence validates one being called a hero are well documented. Along with the media that perpetuate the trend: 50 people who could save the planet

It's a list. And like any list as good as the people who draw it up, their subjective views and their agendas.

To critique is to lay one open to all manner of criticism in return. Anything that encourages those who try to do better by the planet and reward them with praise has to be worthwhile.

But having looked through I can only say how very few I would call either heroes or indeed those who 'could save the planet'.

The sheer preponderance of those who already greet each other in the green VIP room year on year is breathtaking. But in there are a few who are for sure inspirational (my preferred term) and may even be influential in driving a genuine enviROI+ forward by DOING (my preferred result). And I'm glad at least to have been introduced to a few more in this regard who I was not aware of.

As to the rest? Well, the 'debate' 'raging' in the blog between all 12 who have so far posted in one of the country's more significant daily papers (albeit enjoying a tenth the circulation of some others) is telling. If a little sad.

CATEGORY - BAN-ZAI!

Had to be started:

Guardian - The quad squad - My fav so far:

Worldwide, every single year, a number of people greater than zero are killed or seriously injured in newspaper-related accidents.

The solution is clear.

Ban newspapers.

Why am I not surprised?

Government set for another missed target.

Now that's something that doesn't happen very often, isn't it?

ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Depends what you mean by 'often', I guess. This took a few hours: Suffolk puts "aspirational" 60% recycling target on ice

You can see where this might lead

And hence I do no more than share... Scientists find hot spot on Saturn's chilly pole

But, is it art?

This in Treehugger: Stockholm's Feeling...Pale Green

This from me:

I may be missing something here, but in the great environmental awareness scheme of things, how does 'emblazoning with massive mood lighting' work, exactly, enviROI-wise?

How is this different to chiding anyone with a massive outdoor Xmas display (which, if one is serious, and Grinch-accusation immune, a fair point)?

Maybe we shoudl get 747's to do coloured contrails and call it art?

Not the message intended?

I too, have followed the one laptop per child cause quite carefully (from my laptop), so when I came across this it was of interest: Intel says bye to One Laptop

Sadly, or maybe I should say fortunately, where once the BBC weighing into a clear example of corporate abuse would have had me onside, I now find myself wondering about the full... accurate... story (a few avenues raised already in the thread replies). Nice one, guys.

Anyway, another thing popped into my head as I read:

'Yes, it is truly awful when a corporation says one thing but does another.

Just wondering why, with climate change and all, the BBC felt the need for two technology correspondents (you can never have enough of those to promote endless new consumer must-have juice gobblers) to go to the same far flung outpost?

Speaking of which, I hope Las Vegas is nice this time of year, too.'

I can see it now: 'Ah... but this is different. This is our job.' And no irony plugging the latest i-Tat in the same segment as the blonde and bouffant scold us on our wasteful ways.

Reuters - Intel drops out of One Laptop Per Child program

Accolades on toast

At least between a snake and a ladder you can eat the snake (tastes like chicken:). Sadly, I remain unsure of the relative nutritional values of a swing and/or a roundabout.

Anyhoo, while it does not (yet) put food on the table), the mail has brought another accolade, this time from FMCG Magazine's 'Best of 2007'.

What is also worthy of note is that the headline feature in this annual round up of all that is great and good in the world of what we consume is by the Director of Sustainability and Competitiveness of the Food and Drinks Federation.

His first line on the vision of the industry for 2008: 'Making a real difference for the environment'.

Ready when they are.

Who, or what, pays?

The last few blogs have cited examples from the morning Indy trawl on matters environmental.

But I have decided to write about one which I had honestly ignored as peripheral, but now realise is a worthy metaphor for the whole environment vs. economic growth debate.

And that's factory farming.

In the effective front page visual style for which the paper is often justly lauded, one is confronted by the space a chicken gets to exist within until converted into ingredients.

And it ain't pretty.

Yet, as the floor high stack of trays in my basement testifies (yes, I do keep 'em all, and in four years they mount up - one day I'll find a use for them), despite being told this before has not made a whopping difference, in this household at least.

Why? Well as meat eaters we do like variety (and I doubt most other choices exist through much better lives), but mainly it's down to money. As stated, I can feed a family of five for £2.50. Ethics kinda go out the window.

What would stop us? I can only think of a few reasons. There's health, and these dasy it seems there's always a bit of research that the guv'mint can whip out for the BBC to print any time we need to be steered away from something. But it's always short term. And memories are short.

Next up is money. The more expensive it gets, the less we'll consume. Market forces forcing the market to shrink? Possible, but not so hot for supermarket profit or political popularity. Skiing in Verbier or Goujons for Sunday lunch? Hmnn.

Or you could just ban it.

Like I say, not a bad metaphor. I guess we'll just live with the odd front page in the Indy then. And the guilt.

A tale of two 'e's

Here's something you won't read too often on these pages: I feel sorry for the PM.

And not just him, but any politician these days.

The reason is that screen grab from my daily Indy.

Because those two sequential headlines epitomise the rock and hard place that anyone in power faces, especially and ironically when it comes to... power: economy vs. environment.

Ignoring any enviROi considerations/arguments for the moment, just look at those in terms of stark political choices.

No one said/says it's going to be easy, but one things for sure... I don't feel too keen on trying to warm my home on endless supplies of the Brown stuff: fudge.

ADDENDUM - thank heavens I put in that caveat about the envROI! As I was posting this Dave is posting the same thing with a much more focused view on the detail.

Unlike many arguments, and I see Dave and I maybe diverging, at least on a pragmatic basis, when it comes to the realities vs. ideals for such as nuclear in the future, the lack of carbon capture in the design seems plain bonkers.

Indy - A test of the Government's environmental credentials

Save money. Polar bears, possibly not.

Time we had a picture.

I cut this out before Xmas.

Bearing (geddit) in mind that the new generations of TV screen are quite thirsty I thought the imagery was... cute.

Indy - Plans to drill for Alaskan oil threaten polar bear numbers - OK, it's still about oil, but I think also makes my point that it's more likely that man will directly finish these poor guys off way before the consequences of climate change will.

When it comes to fighting for territory, there will only be one winner. And once we've stuck a condo on all the territory we can find, then I guess Darwin kicks in, closely followed by Malthus.

Guardian - Bearfaced lies - there may be some facts in all this, but I'm not sure

'Sheer negligence'

From today's Indy, commenting on the proposal to build a new coal fired power station in Kent. (Hell, the project doesn't even include for any CO2 capture! Though the 'new technology' is 20% more efficient than older coal fired power stations.)

"The Government is also neglecting the energy conservation and micro-generation front. Mr Brown has promised new environmental regulations for new housing. But much more is needed to encourage conservation in the existing housing stock. Why have government grants for the installation of domestic renewable energy systems been cut? Why is there no right for households to sell domestically-generated power back to the grid, as exists in numerous other countries? This is not the excusable behaviour of a government caught on the horns of a difficult energy dilemma; it is sheer negligence."

Quite!

Addendum:
From UKWatch.Net, taken from CIF, and clearly stating just why coal simply cannot be the way forward.

Peak oil / peak water.

An interesting article from Online Journal on how peak oil might affect America. One or two quite interesting observations and comments, not least of which is the suggestion that "Peak Oil and the steps we must take to solve its effects upon our society will naturally contribute to also slowing down the escalation of Global Warming." I also find it interesting that peak oil might just indicate the potential demise of the huge global supermarket entities.

Now peak water usage in the UK apparently occurs in the South East of England, where average use is greater than anywhere else in Europe, according to Times Online. Well, that didn't really surprise me overtly, but I was surprised to note that "the South East of England has less (water) available per person than Sudan or Syria".

Between the lines

I was brought to this by a climatically optimistic post that inspired the inevitable pointless fisking exchanges thereafter. However, my attention was focused more on what happened after the headline: 2007 to be 'warmest on record'

That would be the line of copy you get to, having first read a rather different message via some rather odd new journalistic 'weren't me guv' technique of sticking something in apostrophes by way of shirking any responsibility for journalistic accuracy or editorial objectivity.

So we then get...'The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, the UK's Met Office says.'

I really would wish our national broadcaster would stop shooting itself in the foot like this and handing such distractions to those who would have us debate the detail endlessly at the expense of the bigger picture.

Personally I could care less if 2007 is or isn't the warmest year (OK, it does matter statistically as part of a trend), but I sure don't see it helping the cause of encouraging restraint and mitigation of our race's possible impact on climate, to try and crank out scare stories that may end up looking plain daft by being not, as such, true.

Just give us the facts as they are known, guys. At this rate I half expect to soon see that 'No 10 is expected to say that the PM is considering supporting this claim' by way of a front page that says nothing by tries to convey much.

ADDENDUM:

2007 'second warmest year' in UK - see above

The weather's going crazy

Yesterday afternoon I stood outside the office in a temperature of 11C. At the same time today it was -2.5C, and with a biting easterly wind making it feel more like -10C.

And if that simply demonstrates the daily extremes that our little planet seems to be suffering, how about this from WFTV, reporting on snow flurries in Florida of all places!

Strangely, a couple of weeks ago I was convinced that I saw some swallows winging around the estate. I kept my mouth shut, fearing ridicule from my peers, and dismissed the evidence of my eyes. I decided that I was perhaps way overdue for my annual sight test at the opticians. Then today, I found out I wasn't going mad, when I chanced upon this from the Telegraph - therein it states that swallows were spotted in Cheshire in December!

One swallow doesn't make a summer, they say. Perhaps in a few years time we'll have to change it to 'one swallow doesn't make a winter'?

Awareness is as awareness does(n't?)

It's not strictly enviro, but as a parent I am at least involved in the latest of what now seems a daily 'awareness' 'campaign' that seems to get pumped out willy-nilly by some government department via the sofa-crew at the Beeb.

I comment, because it might just as easily have been green-related, and I simply question the thinking behind this endless stream of stuff in theory designed to shape our behaviours, especially when it comes to the costs and number and people involved vs. the result: the prROI?

So this outing, in theory to help me and my kids eat more healthily, we are presented with a lady called Patsy Palmer who, we are gushingly informed, is a glammy mummy.

If they say so. Anyhoo, I was intrigued by her opening inspirational lines to the effect that she, the role model du jour, didn't actually eat veg at all as a kid as it tasted yucky, but now the guv'mint has approached her she's here to tell you she does now. Even makes her own smooothies now, natch.

But much more importantly, we then zoomed asap on to her book/play/new TV series or whatever the real reason was for this daft charade.

Why, oh why to we get fed such half-a*sed, ill-considered dross in the name of 'awareness'? I dread to think of the amount of public money blown by a collection of folk - from PRs to commissioning editors to heads of public something in some Whitehall black hole to d-list (usually, female & blonde) celebs with an eye to a career boost - on endless, tokenistic box-ticking efforts that can surely achieve b-all?

Especially when the default-setting for the brain-strains involved is to wheel on folk to front these things based on little more than the fact that people might be 'aware' of them as opposed to having any tangible connection with what they are supposed to espouse.

What next? George Michael on the dangers of drugs & booze? Russell Brand to campaign against moral laxness? The Spice Girls (I want Lobster!) against gratuitous excess?

About the only up side is that they rarely do much damage beyond consuming further precious funds from where they could actually do some good.

At least I hope so. Can anyone remember what the last campaign was and who fronted it? I think it was yesterday.

ADDENDUM

As if to prove my point (or not, if you have heard of this person, and if you have see them as a keen recycler because it says so on the press release), this just in: Anna Ryder Richardson Launches Annual Christmas Card Recycling Campaign

For what it's worth, this is of course a good thing to do, and as we have a perfectly adequate weekly doorstep collection system I'll just be tipping 'em (all six - I think we're all pretty electronic in my set now) in the box under my desk, as always.

Or should I be redirecting them away from this established waste stream to another to help meet another body achieve a different target?

Navel gazing

If I have one main wish for the future, and the future of my family, it is that we see the current crop of messengers swept away so we can really set about addressing some critical issues: This time it's personal

Why? Well not because 'there is a disconnect between awareness of climate change and the lifestyle changes necessary to combat it', but because many proponents of that view seem unable to accept that they don’t understand what's going on in most average folks' minds well enough to even dream of setting about effecting any change of behaviour that may stand some chance of succeeding. And unless you are prepared to dig up some statesperson of dubious provenance from earlier ages, and shut down pretty much every democratic institution (especially a free press), you are in for a bumpy ride.

And I have to ruefully glance at one (of many) groups who truly stand out for their astounding ability to see no irony in preaching from pedestals about the evils of pedestals. And that is our now very self-serving free press. If there’s a rating in the offing, editorial will publish whatever gets the eyeballs, and sod the consequences.

At the end of a year that started with Stern and ended with Bali, with our race standing at a precipice, what do I see in the New Year round-ups? A few ecoshrews figuring that getting their air-flown tofu in paper instead of plastic bags has just about sorted it all, and deification of some guy who has so far avoided being accorded the title Typhoid Trevor by advocating all share in his vision of composting bogs in Streatham. 6 billion and counting means some eco-ideals are no longer, well, that ideal.

Britain may or may not be en route to some nifty targets, but I have near zero faith that these will mean anything much save as ways for ever more box-tickers to score a bonus or a lobbyist to rack up an even better commission. The system seems totally corrupted by having little to do with any tangible enviROI, and a lot more to do with profit or career enhancements.

And this situation is all at the door of a mainly self-created green elite who are great at saying but self-evidently so far pretty darn woeful at much in the way of doing by example. In fact, the most effort seems so far to be in areas of why, well, y'know, it's not really practical for 'them' to cut back, as such.

Lead, and if the story makes sense and the leader sharing the vision credible, then we will follow. If the story stinks and those spouting it seen to be playing a less than straight game, and you're on a non-starter.

By heavens it's not going to be easy. The whole thing is so vast, and complex and interconnected it's hard to know where to start, but it isn’t with some numptie MEP claiming their use of EurosStar and giving festive goats rather than X-box games qualifies them to join a fact-finding committee to study the impact of climate change in Lapland at Christmas (with the family) in mid-shuttle between Brussels and Strasbourg. It is just so much laughable hot air.

As is bottled water campaigns by Yummier-than-thou-mummies who write a column for a bleeding heart eco-quality, with both having really tricky ethical issues on the big stuff, such as what’s the best eco-lodge for the Easter break. Not perhaps notions top of mind or even shared at all by the majority of readers of, say, the News of the World. That would be a publication with some several times more readers, too. Go figure.

So where are these lifestyle choices to be made to have any impact, and who is going to make them... and persuaded by whom?

If you are going to be interventionist you better be whiter than white, otherwise there is a wall ready and waiting when the revolution comes.

I for one would advocate giving persuasion a much better chance. But first that needs the current crop of woeful 'leadership', in authority, activism and especially the media, being given the order of the Royal boot. Then get in some folk who genuinely care, understand the audience and can shine as those who can and will lead by example. Sadly, with the current system now embedded as firmly as leech’s teeth can be, that is a sadly dim possibility, and fading with each conference season and target setting consultation.

Yet we are both in agreement on the value of the carrot. And I can also see that there also needs to be some stick. Only not the kind wielded so far, and certainly not in the hands of those who to date think they are qualified or entitled to wield them.

I contend that most people are not that lazy. And even if they are then that's just a fact you work around to achieve your goal. Breaking my own rule (I find it arrogance in the extreme when a medium or politician claims to speak for me when they clearly do not), but for writing simplicity may I claim that 'we' are simply not ... so far... very well informed about the threats posed by probable man -worsened climate change (see, I have a different notion of what we face to offer up to you 'global warming' orthodoxy). And for sure none of the discussions, much less solutions I’ve had presented so far seem to me very well argued to date. In fact most seem to have been totally hijacked by extremes, with careers and fees and profits all very much front of mind well before any actual doing what's right for our kids.

I'd suggest some priorities need to be established. Pronto. Especially the putting houses in order variety. I for one can't take many politicians seriously when Bali in Winter managed to swell in delegateship tenfold, yet still with no obvious result at all. Or any finger-wave in these pages for instance, so long as there are ads for skiing trips or luxury cars in the sidebar.

Which might explain that low rate of behaviour change. Ya think?

I shudder that the conclusion seems to have arrived at the ‘solutions’ of ‘Consciousness-raising and green taxes’, especially with the laughable caveat of 'even if carefully thought out and organised'. Checked the competence card lately?

Too right they 'may have only marginal effects'. Just think what could have been done with the hundreds of millions already p*ssed away on scores of overlapping quangos and their bloated, self-serving (how you can get a bonus based on awareness results created by spending public money on ad campaigns seems truly astounding, if not a downright conflict of interest) comms budgets. So this voter at least will be... 'resisting' if they figure this is a nifty way to get more on the public sector payroll to then fund their pay and pensions with 'green taxes’.

Yes, many changes are needed. and urgently. But I’d suggest a bit more doing, and in a very different direction, than any more sodding thinking. None I have read or seen so far has seemed to offer one whit of an actual difference. We need something new.

And a Carbcon New Year

I have a backlog of several score links that I suspect will now be outdated, so best to simply get back in the groove: Power firms to pocket £6bn from carbon 'handouts' in new emissions regime

Not, perhaps, the greatest support for the principle for trading in carbon, I'd venture.

Again, while I see the principle as being perhaps the only viable way to achieve practical mitigations in the short term and balance things out, but like with so much else it really seems to fall apart when the current crop of those in 'control' are on the case.