It comes with my Sunday paper, but the 'Style' section is one I could well do without.
It usually has me reaching for the bucket, but now the luvvies have 'discovered' green it's more like the AK.
I was going to pass this one by, but as a poster pointed out, 'Socially Conscious Upwardly Mobile' does have a certain ring: Scuppie power
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
NEWS/GO3 PR - All in a good cause
Some will know I am tad weary, and leery, of many 'awareness' efforts, and have of late been a often dubious of various advocates going off hither and thither in the name of climate.
However, I will share this, simply because its footprint is low (at least they are not all flying to the Antarctic to see what flying to the Antarctic does) and the return to a necessary group (our young) is high.
PR as provided, E&EO.
CLIMATE ADVOCATES CALLED UP TO CUT OUR CARBON CRAVING
As part of its Low Carbon Futures programme, The British Council is launching a nationwide search for 30 motivated young people to take urgent action to cut carbon use by joining Challenge Europe, an ambitious pan-European programme designed to change the way we use carbon.
Developed by the UK’s international body for cultural relations, the British Council, Challenge Europe is recruiting 30 Climate Advocates aged between 18 – 35 years old in Wales, England and Scotland to work together to develop innovative solutions that will reduce our addiction to fossil fuels in the public, private or commercial sectors. UK Climate Advocates will work in partnership with local scientists, entrepreneurs, academics, politicians and community leaders to ensure that the boldest and the best of these ideas are turned into reality.
Challenge Europe aims to show that individuals currently outside the climate change arena can bypass debate and make a profound impact on a pan-European scale. The British Council aims to engage over 200 genuinely motivated Climate Advocates to work together to develop over 40 innovative solutions that will change fundamentally the way we use carbon.
The British Council is actively partnering with a number of organisations across Europe, who will support the Climate Advocates throughout Challenge Europe by sharing expertise, best-practice and offering guidance.
Successful applicants will be selected by independent panel, and will come from a wide range of sectors and backgrounds, offering skills from the scientific and technical, to the creative and voluntary sectors. All will be adventurous, driven, knowledgeable in their field and highly committed. They do not necessarily need to show evidence of previous work in the climate change field, but will be ready to commit a minimum of 150 hours of their time to the programme.
To apply, visit www.britishcouncil.org/lcf-challenge-europe by 26th May 2008.
However, I will share this, simply because its footprint is low (at least they are not all flying to the Antarctic to see what flying to the Antarctic does) and the return to a necessary group (our young) is high.
PR as provided, E&EO.
CLIMATE ADVOCATES CALLED UP TO CUT OUR CARBON CRAVING
As part of its Low Carbon Futures programme, The British Council is launching a nationwide search for 30 motivated young people to take urgent action to cut carbon use by joining Challenge Europe, an ambitious pan-European programme designed to change the way we use carbon.
Developed by the UK’s international body for cultural relations, the British Council, Challenge Europe is recruiting 30 Climate Advocates aged between 18 – 35 years old in Wales, England and Scotland to work together to develop innovative solutions that will reduce our addiction to fossil fuels in the public, private or commercial sectors. UK Climate Advocates will work in partnership with local scientists, entrepreneurs, academics, politicians and community leaders to ensure that the boldest and the best of these ideas are turned into reality.
Challenge Europe aims to show that individuals currently outside the climate change arena can bypass debate and make a profound impact on a pan-European scale. The British Council aims to engage over 200 genuinely motivated Climate Advocates to work together to develop over 40 innovative solutions that will change fundamentally the way we use carbon.
The British Council is actively partnering with a number of organisations across Europe, who will support the Climate Advocates throughout Challenge Europe by sharing expertise, best-practice and offering guidance.
Successful applicants will be selected by independent panel, and will come from a wide range of sectors and backgrounds, offering skills from the scientific and technical, to the creative and voluntary sectors. All will be adventurous, driven, knowledgeable in their field and highly committed. They do not necessarily need to show evidence of previous work in the climate change field, but will be ready to commit a minimum of 150 hours of their time to the programme.
To apply, visit www.britishcouncil.org/lcf-challenge-europe by 26th May 2008.
'Why won't 'they' do anything?'.. we ask, without irony.
The war to end all wars
It's a shame that such threads usually deteriorate into 'tis/t'isn't happening AGW advocacies.
I used to believe that such certainties were unlikely to be achieved, and hence rather beside the point. Being proved right as a climate pessimist is a Phyrric victory at best. But as my greater interest is in what motivates the masses (or, in the case of most that is 'green' from all self-appointed bodies (activist, government (when it suits), business (ditto) & media (double ditto)... so far, not much) I tend to ponder more the messages as well as the messengers to try and understand why most still are not engaging.
As an example, BBC's Newsnight trailed a major piece with Mr. Miliband on this 'major' issue and invited pre-feedback for during the show, with the promise of answers afterwards.
A 100+ questions were posed. A few (very... few) were asked live. And a selected half dozen dispatched later (much... later).
Before even watching this, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.
As stated by many world leaders, repeated here, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.
Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.
I was fascinated by an accompanying piece, where it was stated it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other.
So why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
Look, if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won during the show - AGW soon got dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda 'you' (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
Government, and even 'climate-sympathetic' media organs have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all.
I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by however many here, or there, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on.
Front page news? It barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even on the site. Now, what's gracing the key pages of the Guardian today, and not some niche blog tucked away to keep a small audience entertained?
That... is the legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.
And so, sadly, I have my answer.
It's a shame that such threads usually deteriorate into 'tis/t'isn't happening AGW advocacies.
I used to believe that such certainties were unlikely to be achieved, and hence rather beside the point. Being proved right as a climate pessimist is a Phyrric victory at best. But as my greater interest is in what motivates the masses (or, in the case of most that is 'green' from all self-appointed bodies (activist, government (when it suits), business (ditto) & media (double ditto)... so far, not much) I tend to ponder more the messages as well as the messengers to try and understand why most still are not engaging.
As an example, BBC's Newsnight trailed a major piece with Mr. Miliband on this 'major' issue and invited pre-feedback for during the show, with the promise of answers afterwards.
A 100+ questions were posed. A few (very... few) were asked live. And a selected half dozen dispatched later (much... later).
Before even watching this, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.
As stated by many world leaders, repeated here, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.
Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.
I was fascinated by an accompanying piece, where it was stated it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other.
So why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
Look, if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won during the show - AGW soon got dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda 'you' (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
Government, and even 'climate-sympathetic' media organs have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all.
I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by however many here, or there, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on.
Front page news? It barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even on the site. Now, what's gracing the key pages of the Guardian today, and not some niche blog tucked away to keep a small audience entertained?
That... is the legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.
And so, sadly, I have my answer.
You can't build on Greenbelt ......
..... well, errrrr ...... except when you get the Gov's approval to redraw the boundaries so it is no longer classified as Greenbelt! Full disgraceful story from the Telegraph the other day.
"The move will see the land redesignated so it can be sold to developers to try to meet ministers' house-building targets. Official documents warn that the process "will result in significant change" for local communities."
Oh, so its being done so that yet another set of ministerial targets (probably erroneous) can be met. Sorry, but don't these chumps realise that once land has been built on you can never change it back (OK, 'redesignate' it) to Greenbelt!?
And I just love that term they use - 'redesignated' - I seem to recollect that there was a similar term for this back in the old days when parliamentary constituencies regularly had their boundaries changed - wasn't it called gerrymandering?
"The move will see the land redesignated so it can be sold to developers to try to meet ministers' house-building targets. Official documents warn that the process "will result in significant change" for local communities."
Oh, so its being done so that yet another set of ministerial targets (probably erroneous) can be met. Sorry, but don't these chumps realise that once land has been built on you can never change it back (OK, 'redesignate' it) to Greenbelt!?
And I just love that term they use - 'redesignated' - I seem to recollect that there was a similar term for this back in the old days when parliamentary constituencies regularly had their boundaries changed - wasn't it called gerrymandering?
Inspired?
One more for my new ad-related blog, Bordello Ivory Tales (link RHS), but it still applies here, if not more so.
In case the image is not clear, 90% is of a plane. You can see the headline.
Now, honestly, has that got you running to book a train?
I'm sorry, but waaaay too many green-related ads are a total waste of money. This was 2/3 page colour in the Sunday Times.
Monday, May 19, 2008
NEWS/GO3 PR - Limits of prediction
I welcome and celebrate information when it moves along understanding, so long as that is what it does.
Posted as received, E&EO with no comment on any agenda:
(DEFRA - if you want the guff from the talking heads in full) New vision of climate change through Google Earth
Millions of Google Earth users around the world will be able to see how climate change could [my favourite word - ed] affect the planet and its people over the next century, along with viewing the loss of Antarctic ice shelves over the last 50 years, thanks to a new project launched today.
The project, Climate Change in Our World, is the product of a collaboration between Google, the UK Government, the Met Office Hadley Centre and the British Antarctic Survey to provide two new 'layers', or animations, available to all users of Google Earth.
One animation uses world leading climate science from the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre to show world temperatures throughout the next hundred years under medium projections of greenhouse gas emissions, along with stories of how people in the UK and in some of the world's poorest countries are already being affected by changing weather patterns.
Users can also access information on action that can be taken by individuals, communities, businesses and governments to tackle climate change, and highlights good work already underway.
Another animation, developed by the British Antarctic Survey, show the retreat of Antarctic ice caps since the 1950s, and features facts about climate change science and impacts in the Antarctic.
The project is currently a snapshot of some of the recent scientific information about climate change and its impacts. The partners in the project will be looking to develop these ideas further in the future, preferably with additional partners.
Feedback on the content of the project, or any ideas for future animations or impact stories can be emailed to OURWORLD@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Posted as received, E&EO with no comment on any agenda:
(DEFRA - if you want the guff from the talking heads in full) New vision of climate change through Google Earth
Millions of Google Earth users around the world will be able to see how climate change could [my favourite word - ed] affect the planet and its people over the next century, along with viewing the loss of Antarctic ice shelves over the last 50 years, thanks to a new project launched today.
The project, Climate Change in Our World, is the product of a collaboration between Google, the UK Government, the Met Office Hadley Centre and the British Antarctic Survey to provide two new 'layers', or animations, available to all users of Google Earth.
One animation uses world leading climate science from the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre to show world temperatures throughout the next hundred years under medium projections of greenhouse gas emissions, along with stories of how people in the UK and in some of the world's poorest countries are already being affected by changing weather patterns.
Users can also access information on action that can be taken by individuals, communities, businesses and governments to tackle climate change, and highlights good work already underway.
Another animation, developed by the British Antarctic Survey, show the retreat of Antarctic ice caps since the 1950s, and features facts about climate change science and impacts in the Antarctic.
The project is currently a snapshot of some of the recent scientific information about climate change and its impacts. The partners in the project will be looking to develop these ideas further in the future, preferably with additional partners.
Feedback on the content of the project, or any ideas for future animations or impact stories can be emailed to OURWORLD@defra.gsi.gov.uk
What 'e sed
MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL, WHO’S THE GREENEST OF THEM ALL?
Amen, and well said (inc..... especially the bit about the bags. Just got my latest, much fairer P&P, sets from the Dailys Mail and Telegraph - from when they were having a quick green movement/week/day. I was going to say you can never have enough... but my collection is now getting to surplus (which begs other overall 'eco' questions).
I was going to blog on this, but you really have covered most, so I'll piggy back.
I was at first keen on entering this contest, but having read what it was all about, plus the fee, soon lost interest: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/12/awards-sunday-times-best-green.html
These 'eco/green' specials, especially those with an award or ranking, are really getting quite out of control.
It's almost as if the media dept. is calling up editorial and saying 'hey, here's a way to make money. And oh, by the way, we can call it 'green', for extra kudos on us too!'
I have not read the articles in this latest issue (frankly one look and it became a duty rather than a joy to even spare it for subsequent professional review as opposed to personal interest), but I truly hope the editorial standards have not been shaped by who the sponsors are, as much as they have been in the past: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/12/he-who-pays-piper.html
On a purely subjective, creative note, I was also struck by how unutterably dull it all was. What was there to excite... motivate? I know it was a business insert, but the general public do read the ST too. This extra wadge of newsprint must have ended up straight to bi... er..recycling. Oh, the irony.
The shame of it is that it was... is a nice idea (once the rather disingenuous distinctions of the measures of merit used are resolved), and could have been great. Also that there are, doubtless, a few genuine folk in there who scraped together the necessary to compete and deserve a big up. But sadly, they are not finding themselves always in the 'best' company or, forgive me... 'environment'.
I have to say that I am starting to look at many 'green' awards, and many 'conferences/summits', as more methods to create income (often from those who can ill-afford the budgets) and/or drive spurious PR for those able to afford to enter or lobby the organisers and/or 'expert' judges they hire, which serves the worthy guys out there poorly indeed.
Amen, and well said (inc..... especially the bit about the bags. Just got my latest, much fairer P&P, sets from the Dailys Mail and Telegraph - from when they were having a quick green movement/week/day. I was going to say you can never have enough... but my collection is now getting to surplus (which begs other overall 'eco' questions).
I was going to blog on this, but you really have covered most, so I'll piggy back.
I was at first keen on entering this contest, but having read what it was all about, plus the fee, soon lost interest: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/12/awards-sunday-times-best-green.html
These 'eco/green' specials, especially those with an award or ranking, are really getting quite out of control.
It's almost as if the media dept. is calling up editorial and saying 'hey, here's a way to make money. And oh, by the way, we can call it 'green', for extra kudos on us too!'
I have not read the articles in this latest issue (frankly one look and it became a duty rather than a joy to even spare it for subsequent professional review as opposed to personal interest), but I truly hope the editorial standards have not been shaped by who the sponsors are, as much as they have been in the past: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/12/he-who-pays-piper.html
On a purely subjective, creative note, I was also struck by how unutterably dull it all was. What was there to excite... motivate? I know it was a business insert, but the general public do read the ST too. This extra wadge of newsprint must have ended up straight to bi... er..recycling. Oh, the irony.
The shame of it is that it was... is a nice idea (once the rather disingenuous distinctions of the measures of merit used are resolved), and could have been great. Also that there are, doubtless, a few genuine folk in there who scraped together the necessary to compete and deserve a big up. But sadly, they are not finding themselves always in the 'best' company or, forgive me... 'environment'.
I have to say that I am starting to look at many 'green' awards, and many 'conferences/summits', as more methods to create income (often from those who can ill-afford the budgets) and/or drive spurious PR for those able to afford to enter or lobby the organisers and/or 'expert' judges they hire, which serves the worthy guys out there poorly indeed.
Uh-oh
Let me get this clear. I think the climate is behaving funny, and 'we' might not be helping.
So I advocate sensible precautions. And that includes funding research to make sure we're doing the right things in the right way, with the right amount of money, in the right timeframe.
That does not mean half the world being paid be the other half to come up with eco stuff.
Sadly, it seems that way. Which makes this a bit of a worry: 'Fewer hurricanes' as world warms
Last I heard , AGW/PMWNCC post-Katrina-wise, we were going to see more hurricanes (though this does suggest 'worse', with luck based on severity rather than death tolls, as the latter is spurious in a growing population scenario, especially coastally)). I know this might be tied into the 10+ year cooling, but it doesn't really help considering the previous narratives.
I await, with dread, how this will get reported/blogged.
Few editors lead with 'it's not that simple'
Reuters - Atlantic cyclones may decrease as globe warms: study
So I advocate sensible precautions. And that includes funding research to make sure we're doing the right things in the right way, with the right amount of money, in the right timeframe.
That does not mean half the world being paid be the other half to come up with eco stuff.
Sadly, it seems that way. Which makes this a bit of a worry: 'Fewer hurricanes' as world warms
Last I heard , AGW/PMWNCC post-Katrina-wise, we were going to see more hurricanes (though this does suggest 'worse', with luck based on severity rather than death tolls, as the latter is spurious in a growing population scenario, especially coastally)). I know this might be tied into the 10+ year cooling, but it doesn't really help considering the previous narratives.
I await, with dread, how this will get reported/blogged.
Few editors lead with 'it's not that simple'
Reuters - Atlantic cyclones may decrease as globe warms: study
Flower Power
Just watched the BBC coverage of the Chelsea Flower Show, which is, apparently, taking note of climate change.
The eco theme this year (subsequent ones will be interesting as fashion is all about not being 'so last year') is laudable, but having watched aluminium rolls (so that's what my recycling old cans goes to make), plastic sheet wrapping plants that get rejected as not being perfect, and having just heard the reference to using hairdryers (to make plants blossom more quickly), I am having trouble getting my head around the notion. I bet the skips when it closes are also a treat.
This currently seems about as eco as our disastrous attendance at the Ideal Home Show a few years ago, when about 1% of the stands were actually anything to do with tangibly making a difference to the planet.
Everything has an eco-cost of course, and weighing the investment (with 'awareness' the vague cloud, that can be dark or light, hanging over all such efforts) is a horrible task, but much of what I saw looked more to do with winning by looking green rather than saving by being it.
Indy - Green fingers - I guess you had to be there
Indy - Environmental damage of Flower show -
The eco theme this year (subsequent ones will be interesting as fashion is all about not being 'so last year') is laudable, but having watched aluminium rolls (so that's what my recycling old cans goes to make), plastic sheet wrapping plants that get rejected as not being perfect, and having just heard the reference to using hairdryers (to make plants blossom more quickly), I am having trouble getting my head around the notion. I bet the skips when it closes are also a treat.
This currently seems about as eco as our disastrous attendance at the Ideal Home Show a few years ago, when about 1% of the stands were actually anything to do with tangibly making a difference to the planet.
Everything has an eco-cost of course, and weighing the investment (with 'awareness' the vague cloud, that can be dark or light, hanging over all such efforts) is a horrible task, but much of what I saw looked more to do with winning by looking green rather than saving by being it.
Indy - Green fingers - I guess you had to be there
Indy - Environmental damage of Flower show -
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Money. Drain. Down?
Deserves its own post.
Some might find this of interest: Waste mounts as £100 billion web of quangos duplicates work
Which leads to this report
Amazing the mutual chums who emerge in there. Not just the overlapping entities but those who exist to support the money they get and disperse.
Some might find this of interest: Waste mounts as £100 billion web of quangos duplicates work
Which leads to this report
Amazing the mutual chums who emerge in there. Not just the overlapping entities but those who exist to support the money they get and disperse.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Build 'em up; shoot 'em down
I'm watching the BBC Breakfast News, where 'Supermarkets are accused of playing up the whole plastic bag issue'.
Hmn. I wonder who else was pretty high on the ban-wagon not so long ago?
I seem to recall endless features with various retail Sirs that seemed pretty supportive.
Now, as it seems some (ta-da!) have suggested that this was both trivial and a real distraction if not plain incorrect, the opportunity has been grabbed to now shout and scream in a totally different direction.
What I still do not see, or hear, is any sensible analyses of the actual best enviROI situations that should be embraced by the authority/manufacture/retailer cabal to work together so willing consumers can easily and sensibly cooperate.
Addendum 1:
Found the BBC URL : Plastic bag policy 'a diversion'
Also just watched a spokseman from Morrisons, Angus MacIver, pretty much take apart the bouffant's 'interview' questions. Oddly, it was cut short quick smart.
Addendum 2:
Just watched yet more on this. First up, the Minister in question, Joan Ruddock, is blithely saying the only reason for all this is that it is 'popular'. No worries bout it being right. And I really dislike being told that I, as a part of the 'public', support this. How the heck does she know?
There was also a twofer. One was a spokesman from the Carrier Bag Consortium, and the other a Green rep. from the London Assembly.
What astounds me is how, after all this time, the two could state and/or exchange facts (such as the success, or otherwise, of the Irish experience - which the assemblyman seems to have included in a world fact-finding tour. No irony there) with, still, no definitive evidence one way or the other.
This, to a bewildered consumer, is PATHETIC, on the part of those in authority, in government, quango and media.
Hmn. I wonder who else was pretty high on the ban-wagon not so long ago?
I seem to recall endless features with various retail Sirs that seemed pretty supportive.
Now, as it seems some (ta-da!) have suggested that this was both trivial and a real distraction if not plain incorrect, the opportunity has been grabbed to now shout and scream in a totally different direction.
What I still do not see, or hear, is any sensible analyses of the actual best enviROI situations that should be embraced by the authority/manufacture/retailer cabal to work together so willing consumers can easily and sensibly cooperate.
Addendum 1:
Found the BBC URL : Plastic bag policy 'a diversion'
Also just watched a spokseman from Morrisons, Angus MacIver, pretty much take apart the bouffant's 'interview' questions. Oddly, it was cut short quick smart.
Addendum 2:
Just watched yet more on this. First up, the Minister in question, Joan Ruddock, is blithely saying the only reason for all this is that it is 'popular'. No worries bout it being right. And I really dislike being told that I, as a part of the 'public', support this. How the heck does she know?
There was also a twofer. One was a spokesman from the Carrier Bag Consortium, and the other a Green rep. from the London Assembly.
What astounds me is how, after all this time, the two could state and/or exchange facts (such as the success, or otherwise, of the Irish experience - which the assemblyman seems to have included in a world fact-finding tour. No irony there) with, still, no definitive evidence one way or the other.
This, to a bewildered consumer, is PATHETIC, on the part of those in authority, in government, quango and media.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Share and share alike
It's Friday. My back hurts, my RSI is like sherbet in my veins and I'm clocking off.
So as one kind reader has shared, so do I, and my making a comment-free link we maintain cleanliness on our hands, other than to say it's often not the message that matters so much as the messenger...
OH YOU HIPPY-CRITES: HOW GREEN ARE THE LEGIONS OF HOLIER- THAN-THOU STARS?
I at least have a new word to add to the lexicon.
So as one kind reader has shared, so do I, and my making a comment-free link we maintain cleanliness on our hands, other than to say it's often not the message that matters so much as the messenger...
OH YOU HIPPY-CRITES: HOW GREEN ARE THE LEGIONS OF HOLIER- THAN-THOU STARS?
I at least have a new word to add to the lexicon.
More on Hydrogen.....
....from Guardian CIF. The piece argues that Hydrogen fueled planes are a possibility, but it is perhaps all the more interesting for the comments that it has generated.
Make some noise!
Or... don't.
DEFRA have produced an online map of the country's noise pollution.
On balance, an... 'interesting' idea.
I just don't see it being very practical, hence useful, hence being used. I wonder how much it cost... and will cost to maintain. Versus a bloke with a mic. going out on demand.
BBC - Maps chart noise in urban areas
PRESS RELEASE -
(DEFRA) Detailed noise maps available at the click of a mouse -
A new Defra website provides maps showing the level of environmental noise from major industries, road and rail networks in 23 urban areas in England.
The information, covering 80,000 km of roads within urban areas, 28,000 km of major road networks and almost 5,000 km of railways, will be used to draw up action plans to reduce unreasonable levels of noise, where practical. In urban areas these will also include measures to protect designated quiet areas.
Users are able to search by postcode to access maps that show noise levels over an average 24 hour period, as well as during night time hours only. The site also includes information on the number of people exposed to these levels of noise. All member states have to produce maps under the EU Environmental Noise Directive.
Note: An agglomeration is defined by the regulations which implement the directive as a continuous urban area of more than 20 hectares with a population of more than 250,000 and a population density of more than 500 persons per square kilometre. The boundaries of the agglomeration do not necessarily match those of the local authority with the same name. In some cases the area mapped goes wider than the local authority area, in others areas have not been mapped because the population density was below the threshold level.
The following gives a guide to typical noise levels:
Level Noise Description
dB(A)
120 Threshold of pain
95 Pneumatic drill (un-silenced at 7m distance)
94 Fast Train (180 km/h, behind yellow line on station platform)
83 Heavy diesel lorry (40 km/h at 7m distance)
81 Modern twin-engine jet (at take-off at 152m distance)
70 Passenger car (60 km/h at 7m distance)
60 Office environment
50 Ordinary conversation
40 Library
35 Quiet bedroom
0 Threshold of hearing
DEFRA have produced an online map of the country's noise pollution.
On balance, an... 'interesting' idea.
I just don't see it being very practical, hence useful, hence being used. I wonder how much it cost... and will cost to maintain. Versus a bloke with a mic. going out on demand.
BBC - Maps chart noise in urban areas
PRESS RELEASE -
(DEFRA) Detailed noise maps available at the click of a mouse -
A new Defra website provides maps showing the level of environmental noise from major industries, road and rail networks in 23 urban areas in England.
The information, covering 80,000 km of roads within urban areas, 28,000 km of major road networks and almost 5,000 km of railways, will be used to draw up action plans to reduce unreasonable levels of noise, where practical. In urban areas these will also include measures to protect designated quiet areas.
Users are able to search by postcode to access maps that show noise levels over an average 24 hour period, as well as during night time hours only. The site also includes information on the number of people exposed to these levels of noise. All member states have to produce maps under the EU Environmental Noise Directive.
Note: An agglomeration is defined by the regulations which implement the directive as a continuous urban area of more than 20 hectares with a population of more than 250,000 and a population density of more than 500 persons per square kilometre. The boundaries of the agglomeration do not necessarily match those of the local authority with the same name. In some cases the area mapped goes wider than the local authority area, in others areas have not been mapped because the population density was below the threshold level.
The following gives a guide to typical noise levels:
Level Noise Description
dB(A)
120 Threshold of pain
95 Pneumatic drill (un-silenced at 7m distance)
94 Fast Train (180 km/h, behind yellow line on station platform)
83 Heavy diesel lorry (40 km/h at 7m distance)
81 Modern twin-engine jet (at take-off at 152m distance)
70 Passenger car (60 km/h at 7m distance)
60 Office environment
50 Ordinary conversation
40 Library
35 Quiet bedroom
0 Threshold of hearing
The alternatives are out there...
The other night I watched a very inspiring programme on the SKY documentary channel about alternative energy innovations.
And I must say I was impressed, not just by the number, but also the quality of ideas on display.
One that caught may attention was a unique wind turbine design that really seemed had a lot going for it, but a US designer called Bill Becker.
I attach here the Google page I called up as there's a lot to wade through, and there may even be pros and cons, but I just wanted to get it logged now while fresh in my mind.
And I must say I was impressed, not just by the number, but also the quality of ideas on display.
One that caught may attention was a unique wind turbine design that really seemed had a lot going for it, but a US designer called Bill Becker.
I attach here the Google page I called up as there's a lot to wade through, and there may even be pros and cons, but I just wanted to get it logged now while fresh in my mind.
Medium shows; don't trust media (or quangos)
Found an interesting site recently, attracted by a debate on some rather spectacular waste stats:
BBC More or Less - Going to waste?
Let's just say that, in their 'enthusiasm' to make a problem look a lot worse some, such as The Independent and WRAP, are seen by the BBC to have been less than rigorous in confirming, or fully explaining their facts.
So says the BBC (it's a few minute slot at the end of 20 -odd). And in this case, I'll say I see merit in their investigations. We're talking numbers that go from 1/3 to 1/5 in the blink of a rational challenge, and factors of 100 wrong.
Me, I don't have £3.5B (or even £50M) to play with, so I don't know, so I simply share what I read... and crank the necessary eyebrow where and when appropriate.
BBC More or Less - Going to waste?
Let's just say that, in their 'enthusiasm' to make a problem look a lot worse some, such as The Independent and WRAP, are seen by the BBC to have been less than rigorous in confirming, or fully explaining their facts.
So says the BBC (it's a few minute slot at the end of 20 -odd). And in this case, I'll say I see merit in their investigations. We're talking numbers that go from 1/3 to 1/5 in the blink of a rational challenge, and factors of 100 wrong.
Me, I don't have £3.5B (or even £50M) to play with, so I don't know, so I simply share what I read... and crank the necessary eyebrow where and when appropriate.
Eco-woe word of the day is....
....... 'Barbarisation'. Its a new term on me, but I did kind of understand what he meant once I'd read through the article in the Guardian.
Loads more doom and gloom!
Loads more doom and gloom!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
And the award for the most useless solar invention
......... goes to this madcap idea reported by ITN News.
Jeez. What a complete and utter waste of time!
Jeez. What a complete and utter waste of time!
Barking, and I don't just mean the councils
Just watched BBC Breakfast, and while I often accuse them of being lightweight, the male presenter referred to a 'police state'.
They had on a very nervous and poorly-prepared 'spokesperson' on, and not from an LA but one the endless quangos there are that exist to act as a bridge between the public and those who impose these daft initiatives. The big conclusion was less than inspiring:
Sorry, 'good communications' is not going to help very much when there is an official culture of 'fine first' backed by aggressive, ill-conceived legislation.
I am afraid the poor chap from Wastewatch was hardly convincing or reassuring that these 'isolated incidents' will abate.
And speaking of waste, is the suggested mitigation money well spent in defence of the environment, or just meeting yet targets? What next, personal rubbish sorters to add to compost advisors in the legions of snoops and assessors in the name, if not practice of green?
This is just going to set the public against any sensible initiatives. The beancounters and box-tickers have gone barking mad.
Addendum - I just heard the slot repeated, and apparently the council official in question justified their stance on the basis that 'they have to save the planet'. Do what? I applaud a lot that leads to sensible recycling, but this is utter tosh.
Daily Express - NEW BIN TAX BOMBSHELL -
They had on a very nervous and poorly-prepared 'spokesperson' on, and not from an LA but one the endless quangos there are that exist to act as a bridge between the public and those who impose these daft initiatives. The big conclusion was less than inspiring:
Sorry, 'good communications' is not going to help very much when there is an official culture of 'fine first' backed by aggressive, ill-conceived legislation.
I am afraid the poor chap from Wastewatch was hardly convincing or reassuring that these 'isolated incidents' will abate.
And speaking of waste, is the suggested mitigation money well spent in defence of the environment, or just meeting yet targets? What next, personal rubbish sorters to add to compost advisors in the legions of snoops and assessors in the name, if not practice of green?
This is just going to set the public against any sensible initiatives. The beancounters and box-tickers have gone barking mad.
Addendum - I just heard the slot repeated, and apparently the council official in question justified their stance on the basis that 'they have to save the planet'. Do what? I applaud a lot that leads to sensible recycling, but this is utter tosh.
Daily Express - NEW BIN TAX BOMBSHELL -
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
More from Bjorn Lomborg.....
.... in an interview with the US based National Review.
Lomborg, as ever, is advocating getting priorities in the right order. Worth a quick perusal.
Lomborg, as ever, is advocating getting priorities in the right order. Worth a quick perusal.
ET, offset your trip home
Green aliens and UFOs said to visit UK
Sadly, not the latest salvo in the advocacies we are getting from all quarters to be more environmental, as even those who flatten crops (how does that help, again?) do... they just are that colour.
To infinity... and the hell with the emissions!
Sadly, not the latest salvo in the advocacies we are getting from all quarters to be more environmental, as even those who flatten crops (how does that help, again?) do... they just are that colour.
To infinity... and the hell with the emissions!
Time to join the 350 club?
This article from Axis Of Logic is a very sobering comment on the state of our biosphere's atmosphere, specifically with regard to the increasing levels of CO2, and the consequences seen already on rainfall patterns. The article repeatedly uses the phrase 'without historical precedent' to make some very key points, and suggests that mankind is approaching dusk on planet earth in terms of human history.
Well worth a read, and maybe, if you feel strongly enough, time to join the 350 club?
Well worth a read, and maybe, if you feel strongly enough, time to join the 350 club?
Wildcatting in West Sussex?
The cost of crude oil seems to be bringing about a new rush to seek out additional oil reserves. We've seen Dubbya urging the big oil boys to restart exploration in Alaska, and I read an article the other day which stated that many of the US southern states were seeing the return of the 'wild-catters', commencing a new rush into exploratory drilling on a small scale. Well, now it would appear that it is happening on our side of the big pond too!
As a Geologist by original academic training, I could never understand why the UK had never really exploited what had been known for decades to be small oil bearing structures dotted around our once green and pleasant land. Maybe it was just that such small reserves were simply never commercially viable, but perhaps this is the start of a new exploration era?
Full story from the Telegraph. Let's hope the potential environmental consequences are carefully monitored, managed and controlled? But, errrrrm, just when did that ever happen regarding black gold..........
Indy - NEW - Permit for oil well in South Downs is 'act of vandalism' Ya think? (Junkk Male)
As a Geologist by original academic training, I could never understand why the UK had never really exploited what had been known for decades to be small oil bearing structures dotted around our once green and pleasant land. Maybe it was just that such small reserves were simply never commercially viable, but perhaps this is the start of a new exploration era?
Full story from the Telegraph. Let's hope the potential environmental consequences are carefully monitored, managed and controlled? But, errrrrm, just when did that ever happen regarding black gold..........
Indy - NEW - Permit for oil well in South Downs is 'act of vandalism' Ya think? (Junkk Male)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Air kisses all round
Ethical fashion. So far I have resisted giving it a category, as I can't bring myself to validate it, or those who toy with the notions on a whim.
The green dream
If you are really serious, make do. And pass the balance on to those who can do the most with it to help those who really need it. Not some ditsy designer whose brain is so 'this week' and happens to think green is in for now.
Newsnight - Another angle, and I have revised a previous piece to respond to what I saw.
If cheap supermarket clothing is 'unethical', why is it legally available for sale in this country? Hence JP and Mistress76Uk's prosecution notion would have teeth.
If 'ethics' are simply a matter of labour conditions (which I don't think they are, as the actual definition seems a tad loose), would this not fall under the ethical foreign policies this government espouses?
If so, there should be rules, so those of us without the time (or the single track mindset to pursue pet issues and decide it is the only one there is - or a production company with yet another reality snapshot concept in the name of green flying (air miles is so last week) a bunch of whinging teens (selected how?) out to have their notions changed over a short period before getting back to 'normality' (and TV 'fame') as the media machine turns to the next 'issue'. Will every £2 T-shirt now come with a return flight to Mumbai?) can be confident that our consumer choices in this country are all they could and should be.
If that carries an extra cost to us here, that we are happy to sustain, so be it. Fair wages for all, and a Tata in every driveway.
And it can be a matter for our elected representatives to control, with oversight by media and activist groups to highlight, with the people's mandate.
Anything in excess of what the country decides upon can of course be voted upon with wallets and personal choice... 'every time one goes into a shop' (how often do the two teen fashionista typical 'shoppers' do this still?) to buy clothes.
I just hope the decision-making process is better informed than some on such as biofuels or food miles, which have worked so well on the liberal guilt ethics of Middle England, but perhaps not so well on the ground elsewhere.
As with food labelling, I am intrigued as to what form this consumer information suggested will take to be of any use: 'Made in a sweat shop by 5 year olds' seems unlikely, so what form is proposed?
ps: Caroline Flint - Gaffe... my a**e.
Government's secret fears over housing market exposed by minister gaffe
Too much to hope it was deliberate.
Or are we really being run by people this thick? Buy the silly b...abe a folder.
Next time it could be a matter of national security.
The green dream
If you are really serious, make do. And pass the balance on to those who can do the most with it to help those who really need it. Not some ditsy designer whose brain is so 'this week' and happens to think green is in for now.
Newsnight - Another angle, and I have revised a previous piece to respond to what I saw.
If cheap supermarket clothing is 'unethical', why is it legally available for sale in this country? Hence JP and Mistress76Uk's prosecution notion would have teeth.
If 'ethics' are simply a matter of labour conditions (which I don't think they are, as the actual definition seems a tad loose), would this not fall under the ethical foreign policies this government espouses?
If so, there should be rules, so those of us without the time (or the single track mindset to pursue pet issues and decide it is the only one there is - or a production company with yet another reality snapshot concept in the name of green flying (air miles is so last week) a bunch of whinging teens (selected how?) out to have their notions changed over a short period before getting back to 'normality' (and TV 'fame') as the media machine turns to the next 'issue'. Will every £2 T-shirt now come with a return flight to Mumbai?) can be confident that our consumer choices in this country are all they could and should be.
If that carries an extra cost to us here, that we are happy to sustain, so be it. Fair wages for all, and a Tata in every driveway.
And it can be a matter for our elected representatives to control, with oversight by media and activist groups to highlight, with the people's mandate.
Anything in excess of what the country decides upon can of course be voted upon with wallets and personal choice... 'every time one goes into a shop' (how often do the two teen fashionista typical 'shoppers' do this still?) to buy clothes.
I just hope the decision-making process is better informed than some on such as biofuels or food miles, which have worked so well on the liberal guilt ethics of Middle England, but perhaps not so well on the ground elsewhere.
As with food labelling, I am intrigued as to what form this consumer information suggested will take to be of any use: 'Made in a sweat shop by 5 year olds' seems unlikely, so what form is proposed?
ps: Caroline Flint - Gaffe... my a**e.
Government's secret fears over housing market exposed by minister gaffe
Too much to hope it was deliberate.
Or are we really being run by people this thick? Buy the silly b...abe a folder.
Next time it could be a matter of national security.
Here's a thought
Stumbled across this: Time to Waste: Tackling the landfill challenge
From an outfit called the New Local Government Network
I tend to avoid 'think-tanks' like the plague, but will monitor these guys.
From an outfit called the New Local Government Network
I tend to avoid 'think-tanks' like the plague, but will monitor these guys.
See no evil, hear no evil, s... ay whatever works
Green speak
Green (as a prefix to anything): a reason to be very dubious that there's any actual benefit to our kids' futures unless you can fully trust the coiner to not be motivated by political advantage, the lust for income, the desire to secure a nice little number, or drive up a rating.
Green (as a prefix to anything): a reason to be very dubious that there's any actual benefit to our kids' futures unless you can fully trust the coiner to not be motivated by political advantage, the lust for income, the desire to secure a nice little number, or drive up a rating.
Grid and bear it?
National Grid powers up for new energy
Is there something I don't know about the future that I get offered deals in the UK in $?
At the rate of exchange I am not sure I am keen.
Is there something I don't know about the future that I get offered deals in the UK in $?
At the rate of exchange I am not sure I am keen.
Sometimes it's too easy
You know how I have this thing for those who spout messages not always being the best messengers?
'Eco-warrior' Prince Philip attacks big families
He's essentially correct. Just... totally the wrong person to say, or be given airtime to say it, like most green advocates/converts who are immune from the consequences of their pronouncements.
And to all the veg. advocates: on a finite planet such a diet just buys the expanding population time.
'Eco-warrior' Prince Philip attacks big families
He's essentially correct. Just... totally the wrong person to say, or be given airtime to say it, like most green advocates/converts who are immune from the consequences of their pronouncements.
And to all the veg. advocates: on a finite planet such a diet just buys the expanding population time.
Join the clubs
I think I joined a while ago, but have done again, thanks to this reminder (I wonder if that gets counted twice, too).
Together we’ll succeed, but only if we tell the truth
I have no real problem with such efforts, so long as I don't have to pay for them, but (actually I do have a problem) not if they divert good money into yet more bl**dy awareness and luvvie-fests instead of tangibles:
Congrats all round. In fact, hardly a day goes by without me getting an email from one or other of the league of countless climate campaigns (of which this is, I am sure, 'a' noble member, if not perhaps the only only one). Getting a bit like food labelling schemes; tick a lot of boxes, lovely PR, oodles of meetings... but pretty much sailing past the consumer and sod all use or difference to making the planet future friendly (whoops, that's another campaign, isn't it? Same sponsors overlapping or competing I wonder?).
I'm just wondering if the pledges on this site get counted twice on all the other sites I pledge on? Is there a discount for quantity? Or maybe a multiplier to get the targets really up there so the bonuses kick in. I think I need one of those online jobbies you get to manage all the social networking sites you join and then ignore.
Speaking of figures and claims (elevated for 'emerging truths' or not), is there any indication as to how much money is going on a board, staff, admin. and PR (got to get your logos in there somehow to make those pledges worthwhile) and jollies and stuff, and how much goes on actual, 'making the planet better in any way... tangibly'?
I guess anyone lucky enough to be in London and gets invited to the big bash might ask when they are there. Or not. Shame to spoil a party. I'm guessing the whole thing will be offset and the canapes locally-sourced and such... which will then be PR'd for all the mere mortals to see how the other half in the VIP's-only Green rooms really 'do' the environment.
There is useful info, to be sure. But it seems an awful of of folk are now overlapping, and spending an awful lot of money to tell us about installing energy-saving lightbulbs and running the washing machine at 30 degrees. I mean, what about the cutting edge stuff... don't take baths, walk or cycle... and turn down the thermo and wear a woolly. There should be a 'drive your car more effectively' advisor (£35k plus pension) in every county, on top of all the driving instructors and testers and stuff, natch.
Anyway, I just had a PR* that says WRAP has signed up, so that's a sign that it must be in the super-quango league now, which must be nice.
Along, as suggested, with... well, if not truth... at least a bit of a gander in the mirror once in the while.
*WRAP joins 'Together' climate coalition
Together we’ll succeed, but only if we tell the truth
I have no real problem with such efforts, so long as I don't have to pay for them, but (actually I do have a problem) not if they divert good money into yet more bl**dy awareness and luvvie-fests instead of tangibles:
Congrats all round. In fact, hardly a day goes by without me getting an email from one or other of the league of countless climate campaigns (of which this is, I am sure, 'a' noble member, if not perhaps the only only one). Getting a bit like food labelling schemes; tick a lot of boxes, lovely PR, oodles of meetings... but pretty much sailing past the consumer and sod all use or difference to making the planet future friendly (whoops, that's another campaign, isn't it? Same sponsors overlapping or competing I wonder?).
I'm just wondering if the pledges on this site get counted twice on all the other sites I pledge on? Is there a discount for quantity? Or maybe a multiplier to get the targets really up there so the bonuses kick in. I think I need one of those online jobbies you get to manage all the social networking sites you join and then ignore.
Speaking of figures and claims (elevated for 'emerging truths' or not), is there any indication as to how much money is going on a board, staff, admin. and PR (got to get your logos in there somehow to make those pledges worthwhile) and jollies and stuff, and how much goes on actual, 'making the planet better in any way... tangibly'?
I guess anyone lucky enough to be in London and gets invited to the big bash might ask when they are there. Or not. Shame to spoil a party. I'm guessing the whole thing will be offset and the canapes locally-sourced and such... which will then be PR'd for all the mere mortals to see how the other half in the VIP's-only Green rooms really 'do' the environment.
There is useful info, to be sure. But it seems an awful of of folk are now overlapping, and spending an awful lot of money to tell us about installing energy-saving lightbulbs and running the washing machine at 30 degrees. I mean, what about the cutting edge stuff... don't take baths, walk or cycle... and turn down the thermo and wear a woolly. There should be a 'drive your car more effectively' advisor (£35k plus pension) in every county, on top of all the driving instructors and testers and stuff, natch.
Anyway, I just had a PR* that says WRAP has signed up, so that's a sign that it must be in the super-quango league now, which must be nice.
Along, as suggested, with... well, if not truth... at least a bit of a gander in the mirror once in the while.
*WRAP joins 'Together' climate coalition
Pocket battles
Really, who is not in someone else's pockets these days? I think I need to add a twitching nostril to my cranking eyebrow.
A bit too co-operative, Gordon
It seems to be getting worse and is only exceeded by the number of proponents who don't seem to think it matters at all.
Nice to know we have escaped the levels of sleaze of the previous administration, though. This is of an entirely new (Nu?) order.
Remind me... those TV commercial running at the mo'... about ethical investing. Who are they for again?
A bit too co-operative, Gordon
It seems to be getting worse and is only exceeded by the number of proponents who don't seem to think it matters at all.
Nice to know we have escaped the levels of sleaze of the previous administration, though. This is of an entirely new (Nu?) order.
Remind me... those TV commercial running at the mo'... about ethical investing. Who are they for again?
Pah ethics!
Good to have em, so long as you know all the issues and/orconsequences.
Is cheap supermarket clothing as ethical as it should be?
If cheap supermarket clothing is 'unethical', would it be legally available for sale in this country?
If 'ethics' are simply a matter of labour conditions (which I don't think they are), would this not fall under the ethical foreign policies this government espouses?
If so, there should be rules, so those of us without the time (or the single track mindset to pursue pet issues and decide it is the only one there is) can be confident that our consumer choices in this country are all they could and should be.
If that carries an extra cost to us here, that we are happy to sustain, so be it.
And it can be a matter for our elected representatives to control, with oversight by media and activist groups to highlight, with the people's mandate.
Anything in excess of what the country decides upon can of course be voted upon with wallets and personal choice.
I just hope the decision-making process is better informed than some on such as biofuels or food miles, which have worked so well on the liberal guilt ethics of Middle England, but perhaps not so well on the ground elsewhere.
Is cheap supermarket clothing as ethical as it should be?
If cheap supermarket clothing is 'unethical', would it be legally available for sale in this country?
If 'ethics' are simply a matter of labour conditions (which I don't think they are), would this not fall under the ethical foreign policies this government espouses?
If so, there should be rules, so those of us without the time (or the single track mindset to pursue pet issues and decide it is the only one there is) can be confident that our consumer choices in this country are all they could and should be.
If that carries an extra cost to us here, that we are happy to sustain, so be it.
And it can be a matter for our elected representatives to control, with oversight by media and activist groups to highlight, with the people's mandate.
Anything in excess of what the country decides upon can of course be voted upon with wallets and personal choice.
I just hope the decision-making process is better informed than some on such as biofuels or food miles, which have worked so well on the liberal guilt ethics of Middle England, but perhaps not so well on the ground elsewhere.
This is going to really hurt!
And that's ALL of us, according to this from the Daily Express reporting on a forecast released by USwitch that energy prices may rise by up to 46% (yep, that DOES say 46%) this year!
OK, the 46% is the worst case scenario, but coming on top of fuel, food, mortgage repayment and across the board tax increases, I reckon that many of us, myself included, are going to be struggling financially before long!
And here's the Telegraph's take on the same forecast report.
OK, the 46% is the worst case scenario, but coming on top of fuel, food, mortgage repayment and across the board tax increases, I reckon that many of us, myself included, are going to be struggling financially before long!
And here's the Telegraph's take on the same forecast report.
A letter worth sharing
Today's Indy has a letter that, with few caveats, I can only agree with: Green campaigners need to find a cheerful message
The one about weather and taxes was interesting, too
The one about weather and taxes was interesting, too
Too much of a good thing?
UK aims for a million green collar workers
I just hope the jobs being aimed at are mostly productive and not parasitic.
I just hope the jobs being aimed at are mostly productive and not parasitic.
Monday, May 12, 2008
CO2 levels reach new record high
As reported by the Guardian today, using data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which takes readings from Mauna Lao in Hawaii.
Atmospheric CO2 nows stands at 387 ppm (parts per million), a figure that is now some 40% higher than the level pre industrial revolution, and the mean growth rate for 2007 was some 2.14 ppm.
"From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm."
Now no-one really knows exactly what the increasing CO2 levels will actually do to our planet's biosphere and climate, but the models used by the IPCC are projecting some pretty scary trends, and anything mankind can do to mitigate the rate of CO2 increase seems, at least to me, to be getting rather important, to say the least. Yet, we seem to still be doing loads of talking (and arguing), setting targets [see post below], and actually achieving, well, sod all! Meanwhile, the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is climbing, inexorably, increasing almost year on year, and at a rate not seen for millions of years.
I'm beginning to fell like I'm sitting inside a global scientific experiment; we don't know what might happen, or when it will, but something sure as hell is going to, sometime in the future. Let's hope mankind finally doesn't realise it has to act at a point that is too late?
Atmospheric CO2 nows stands at 387 ppm (parts per million), a figure that is now some 40% higher than the level pre industrial revolution, and the mean growth rate for 2007 was some 2.14 ppm.
"From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm."
Now no-one really knows exactly what the increasing CO2 levels will actually do to our planet's biosphere and climate, but the models used by the IPCC are projecting some pretty scary trends, and anything mankind can do to mitigate the rate of CO2 increase seems, at least to me, to be getting rather important, to say the least. Yet, we seem to still be doing loads of talking (and arguing), setting targets [see post below], and actually achieving, well, sod all! Meanwhile, the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is climbing, inexorably, increasing almost year on year, and at a rate not seen for millions of years.
I'm beginning to fell like I'm sitting inside a global scientific experiment; we don't know what might happen, or when it will, but something sure as hell is going to, sometime in the future. Let's hope mankind finally doesn't realise it has to act at a point that is too late?
Targets, Targets & More Targets.....
.... and the majority of them will NOT be met.
I didn't have time to post this from the Telegraph last week but it really does need exposing. It is highlighting a report from the Policy Exchange think tank.
"Two thirds of the key climate change targets made under Labour were now unlikely to be met."
"They found that rather than being an honest motivator of achievement, where failures were acknowleged and lessons learnt, a pattern of "creative accounting" had emerged where targets looked in danger of being missed."
"The report concluded that the sheer number and complexity of targets made them easy to forget or miss and therefore they lost their motivating force."
Not a bulls eye in view - no real surprises there then!
I didn't have time to post this from the Telegraph last week but it really does need exposing. It is highlighting a report from the Policy Exchange think tank.
"Two thirds of the key climate change targets made under Labour were now unlikely to be met."
"They found that rather than being an honest motivator of achievement, where failures were acknowleged and lessons learnt, a pattern of "creative accounting" had emerged where targets looked in danger of being missed."
"The report concluded that the sheer number and complexity of targets made them easy to forget or miss and therefore they lost their motivating force."
Not a bulls eye in view - no real surprises there then!
Sunday, May 11, 2008
In a hole. Up in smoke. Round again.
Stumbled across this today. Worth a look: How we dispose of our waste
Now, if we can just squeeze a sliver of 'reuse' in there.
Now, if we can just squeeze a sliver of 'reuse' in there.
Friday, May 09, 2008
From a source with 'Statistics' in it: a survey
How green are we? New figures show Britons back recycling
And I'm backing Britain. With my Volvo, my Apple Mac....
Look, all positive trends are welcome, and a big up for 'better' is OK, but what has been the cost of getting these 'figures'?
And there is still all the other stuff on the negative end of enviROI that might affect the total.
I think I will treat this with the same level of regard I do most other stats... and polls.
And I'm backing Britain. With my Volvo, my Apple Mac....
Look, all positive trends are welcome, and a big up for 'better' is OK, but what has been the cost of getting these 'figures'?
And there is still all the other stuff on the negative end of enviROI that might affect the total.
I think I will treat this with the same level of regard I do most other stats... and polls.
Gordon is a....?
I exaggerate for effect, but what at the moment is it about those with high-profile jobs who have the name Gordon?
I have just watched celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay undo, for the slim 3o pieces of silver of a a few days of PR (designed to rumble on by being 'controversial'), yet more good will that normal, sensible, patient environmental campaigners may have managed to create with the general public.
He is on screen, claiming that restaurateurs should be fined for serving anything but local, in-season fare. And, just for good measure, he 'expects' his namesake to get it into the statute books pronto.
Thing is, if it takes off as well as some as his fellow media luvvies' Planet Ban-it efforts, Dear Leader may just be coaxed out of his bunker to get behind it... at least enough for a Daily Mail spread.
What... a load... of... tosh. Green tosh at that. And shaem on any media that gives him airtime, at least without slamming him in every which way for the rank hypocrisy on top of the sheer impracticality. At least the BBC had one slot with one guest who said so.
In theory there is the germ of an idea, but compulsion. Legions of funded government food tasters to check where your faggots came from, on threat of fine or the pokey?
Puh-lese. Even for the ratings desperate crews we have out there in celeb, PR and media land this is below the the basement foundations of where the barrel has been left.
The guy has never mentioned a dicky bird about 'green' issues 'til now. And flies the planet making money on anything but. So I guess he's a shoe-in as host on the next luvvie-fest in aid of awareness.
And the almost daily discussions of what 'we' should be doing are getting as insulting as they are daft. Not all of the audience have the time, money or inclination to spend £40 a meal per head and 5 hrs a night preparing it all. Nor, I suspect, can my local pub do much more than get what they can, when they can from where they can. But when they go local, I try to support it... by voluntary choice.
This whole circus in the name of green is becoming a sorry charade, with the lunatics now ell in charge of the agenda, whilst those supposedly in charge hide away 'til it's safe or they can claim a target has been hit.
Guardian - Seasonal disorder - a few in agreement
Guardian - Season's eatings from Gordon
Guardian - Has Gordon Ramsay bitten off more than he can chew? - What a load of brow-furrowing rubbish that simply feeds his ego... and PR aims.
The Observer - Ramsay's bad case of pots and kettles
Indy - Eat only local produce? I don't like the smell of that - There's a thing. Now it's race-related. Let's see if we can work homophobia in and it's a full set! I was moved to write (and in so doing noticed another poster, called 'junk-male', which is... not nice):
Sweet. Those mostly intolerant of other's views being intolerant of she who is intolerant of he who is intolerant (for purely PR reasons) of others' freedom of choice.
Still, it sells papers, so not a complete loss. What a great country, eh?
I have just watched celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay undo, for the slim 3o pieces of silver of a a few days of PR (designed to rumble on by being 'controversial'), yet more good will that normal, sensible, patient environmental campaigners may have managed to create with the general public.
He is on screen, claiming that restaurateurs should be fined for serving anything but local, in-season fare. And, just for good measure, he 'expects' his namesake to get it into the statute books pronto.
Thing is, if it takes off as well as some as his fellow media luvvies' Planet Ban-it efforts, Dear Leader may just be coaxed out of his bunker to get behind it... at least enough for a Daily Mail spread.
What... a load... of... tosh. Green tosh at that. And shaem on any media that gives him airtime, at least without slamming him in every which way for the rank hypocrisy on top of the sheer impracticality. At least the BBC had one slot with one guest who said so.
In theory there is the germ of an idea, but compulsion. Legions of funded government food tasters to check where your faggots came from, on threat of fine or the pokey?
Puh-lese. Even for the ratings desperate crews we have out there in celeb, PR and media land this is below the the basement foundations of where the barrel has been left.
The guy has never mentioned a dicky bird about 'green' issues 'til now. And flies the planet making money on anything but. So I guess he's a shoe-in as host on the next luvvie-fest in aid of awareness.
And the almost daily discussions of what 'we' should be doing are getting as insulting as they are daft. Not all of the audience have the time, money or inclination to spend £40 a meal per head and 5 hrs a night preparing it all. Nor, I suspect, can my local pub do much more than get what they can, when they can from where they can. But when they go local, I try to support it... by voluntary choice.
This whole circus in the name of green is becoming a sorry charade, with the lunatics now ell in charge of the agenda, whilst those supposedly in charge hide away 'til it's safe or they can claim a target has been hit.
Guardian - Seasonal disorder - a few in agreement
Guardian - Season's eatings from Gordon
Guardian - Has Gordon Ramsay bitten off more than he can chew? - What a load of brow-furrowing rubbish that simply feeds his ego... and PR aims.
The Observer - Ramsay's bad case of pots and kettles
Indy - Eat only local produce? I don't like the smell of that - There's a thing. Now it's race-related. Let's see if we can work homophobia in and it's a full set! I was moved to write (and in so doing noticed another poster, called 'junk-male', which is... not nice):
Sweet. Those mostly intolerant of other's views being intolerant of she who is intolerant of he who is intolerant (for purely PR reasons) of others' freedom of choice.
Still, it sells papers, so not a complete loss. What a great country, eh?
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Well, they have asked...
The questions at least go up. Let's see what gets asked... and answered:
David Miliband on Newsnight
Qu 1: Will it ever be possible to see the choices (especially many, much vaunted 'alternative' options) broken out as peer-reviewed, agenda-free, non-lobbyist-influenced, 'clearly identified subsidy-support requiring' and based in fact? Also in spin-free, clear, objective, accurate, pro and con terms so that 'we', the voting, tax-paying public, can assess, decide upon and/or support, confident that we are not being managed by government, compliant media and interest groups to achieve box-ticking targets that have little to do with our kids' futures by being little more than just 'looking' like 'carbon' is being reduced?
Qu 2. If so, please do. A few starters for 10 (off the top of my head - sorry, no legions of research wonks at my disposal, as have most govt. ministers and programme makers)...
Wind farms.
Nuclear.
Latest Road Tax logic.
Coal fired power stations with no scrubbing systems planned.
Vast quangos with even greater comms budgets that DO what, exactly?
Focusing on trivia such as plastic bags when there is a LOT more, more critically, going on.
Cutting support in key areas allowing an individual option to help, such as solar, etc
Plus a few others I am sure others have/will provide...
Addendum:
BBC - Climate modelling uncertainty
New questions added to the above:
I have just watched the BBC Environmental 'analyst' Roger 'is that ok with you, it's now been HarraBINNED' objective piece from last night, which I am sure reflects the 'emerging truth' view of the government and its compliant media establishment.
I also note that, as stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, that AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours. Hence, if this IS the case...
Qu: Why are government still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits?
Qu: Why are most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits?
Qu: If, as claimed in the piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why don't you just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
If there was a leadership contest announced I bet you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
Qu: Why, as it is as sure as night follows day that this will become a back-burner (warming) issue again with the next sound-bite or ratings story, should anyone believe the next Chicken Little initiative you and your colleagues trot out now, or when next resurrected in the future?
Qu: If it is as serious as you claim it to be, why do you not make it as serious on every and any agenda you can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
If war broke out... again... I'm sure the wheels of government and media would still turn. We'd just all be a bit more... focused. Not a bad thing?
Qu: Why do you think the government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven so totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all?
Actually, the answers to the preceding questions might explain that. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
Qu: Do you think that anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what you, the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
If this is not front page news tomorrow, throughout the UK at least, I will have my answer.
Yet I will plod on, whilst raising and supporting my family, trying to use and waste as little as I can, but trusting and feeling inclined to do what I am told 'is good for me' even less.
That... is the legacy of those who have brought us to this point.
Not great for a national lead...er... followership, really. And while the bunker may buy you more time than most, it is not really a solution.
Addendum 2 - Talk about Newsnight
Kismet. What I wrote above was not posted. Not sure why. Maybe there was a glitch (Like that can't happen! If so there was no indication on the site, but I did notice the word 'error' in the URL string. Not really expecting Auntie to acknowledge or address this anytime soon - though it's now 'down' at time of writing), maybe I wrote to much... or maybe you cannot post twice.
Anyway, it has given me an opportunity to digest and reply to the piece in a more considered way, and with a better chance of being seen, and making my point. Look how many replies refer to 'the single greatest issue to humanity', and how many, er, don't.
100+ questions posed. A few asked live. It will be interesting to see what we get, as promised, subsequently today.
Before even watching the Miliband piece, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.
As stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.
Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.
If, as claimed in Mr Harrabin's accompanying piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
And if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won - how soon did AGW get dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda you (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
Government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
Front page news? It has barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even here!
That... is the sad legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.
And I have my answer.
The speech - “GREEN PEACE: ENERGY, EUROPE AND THE GLOBAL ORDER”
- is it just me, or is anything with the words 'global order' ('new world' is just as snappy) a tad sinister?
Indy - NEW - Ministers cannot win case for green taxes if they won't apply them to green causes - The thick plotten, methinks
Guardian - NEW - A fair trade - A quaint 'open letter'
David Miliband on Newsnight
Qu 1: Will it ever be possible to see the choices (especially many, much vaunted 'alternative' options) broken out as peer-reviewed, agenda-free, non-lobbyist-influenced, 'clearly identified subsidy-support requiring' and based in fact? Also in spin-free, clear, objective, accurate, pro and con terms so that 'we', the voting, tax-paying public, can assess, decide upon and/or support, confident that we are not being managed by government, compliant media and interest groups to achieve box-ticking targets that have little to do with our kids' futures by being little more than just 'looking' like 'carbon' is being reduced?
Qu 2. If so, please do. A few starters for 10 (off the top of my head - sorry, no legions of research wonks at my disposal, as have most govt. ministers and programme makers)...
Wind farms.
Nuclear.
Latest Road Tax logic.
Coal fired power stations with no scrubbing systems planned.
Vast quangos with even greater comms budgets that DO what, exactly?
Focusing on trivia such as plastic bags when there is a LOT more, more critically, going on.
Cutting support in key areas allowing an individual option to help, such as solar, etc
Plus a few others I am sure others have/will provide...
Addendum:
BBC - Climate modelling uncertainty
New questions added to the above:
I have just watched the BBC Environmental 'analyst' Roger 'is that ok with you, it's now been HarraBINNED' objective piece from last night, which I am sure reflects the 'emerging truth' view of the government and its compliant media establishment.
I also note that, as stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, that AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours. Hence, if this IS the case...
Qu: Why are government still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits?
Qu: Why are most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits?
Qu: If, as claimed in the piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why don't you just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
If there was a leadership contest announced I bet you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
Qu: Why, as it is as sure as night follows day that this will become a back-burner (warming) issue again with the next sound-bite or ratings story, should anyone believe the next Chicken Little initiative you and your colleagues trot out now, or when next resurrected in the future?
Qu: If it is as serious as you claim it to be, why do you not make it as serious on every and any agenda you can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
If war broke out... again... I'm sure the wheels of government and media would still turn. We'd just all be a bit more... focused. Not a bad thing?
Qu: Why do you think the government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven so totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all?
Actually, the answers to the preceding questions might explain that. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
Qu: Do you think that anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what you, the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
If this is not front page news tomorrow, throughout the UK at least, I will have my answer.
Yet I will plod on, whilst raising and supporting my family, trying to use and waste as little as I can, but trusting and feeling inclined to do what I am told 'is good for me' even less.
That... is the legacy of those who have brought us to this point.
Not great for a national lead...er... followership, really. And while the bunker may buy you more time than most, it is not really a solution.
Addendum 2 - Talk about Newsnight
Kismet. What I wrote above was not posted. Not sure why. Maybe there was a glitch (Like that can't happen! If so there was no indication on the site, but I did notice the word 'error' in the URL string. Not really expecting Auntie to acknowledge or address this anytime soon - though it's now 'down' at time of writing), maybe I wrote to much... or maybe you cannot post twice.
Anyway, it has given me an opportunity to digest and reply to the piece in a more considered way, and with a better chance of being seen, and making my point. Look how many replies refer to 'the single greatest issue to humanity', and how many, er, don't.
100+ questions posed. A few asked live. It will be interesting to see what we get, as promised, subsequently today.
Before even watching the Miliband piece, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.
As stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.
Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.
If, as claimed in Mr Harrabin's accompanying piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
And if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won - how soon did AGW get dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda you (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
Government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
Front page news? It has barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even here!
That... is the sad legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.
And I have my answer.
The speech - “GREEN PEACE: ENERGY, EUROPE AND THE GLOBAL ORDER”
- is it just me, or is anything with the words 'global order' ('new world' is just as snappy) a tad sinister?
Indy - NEW - Ministers cannot win case for green taxes if they won't apply them to green causes - The thick plotten, methinks
Guardian - NEW - A fair trade - A quaint 'open letter'
Culture of calamity
Bad news sells. Sad, but true.
But it's really getting too much in the media's desperation to fill 24/7 content hungry spaces, and boost ratings. And context seems to go out of the window. Along with any attempt at seeking a satisfactory resolution. The event is all, and the worse, the better. Now... moving on....
So I look at two back-to-back pieces on BBC News.
First up, we have the 'fact' that few parents allow their kids to walk to school. O.....k. So, er, what? Nope, that was it. A few vox pops with a couple of the legions of 'BBC average families' to say they wouldn't do it, and that's about it. What... was... is the point? If they wanted to depress us, they sure succeeded.
Next, waste. WRAP has cranked out another survey, and 'we' waste scag loads. But other than a few minor (if sensible) suggestions such as not over-buying, and a few daft ones (much as I like and respect Janey Lee Grace, she is now a media elite for whom having her fresh produce delivered is not perhaps a real financial hardship... and frankly the manner of its delivery does not seem to suggest much difference in our propensity to reject that which we over-buy), it was simply a case of 'isn't it all just awful'.
Actually, I would be interested in how these food waste figures play out across all sorts of comparisons. The BBC of course famously weighed in on the packaging debate, and without much of that which they took to task, food waste would be a lot worse. They really love it all ways.
There's even the totality of the figures. The numbers seem horrendous, but are they really that bad? Some waste is inevitable, and any reduction and hence savings in money and emissions is to be striven after. But this unremitting negative 'you're all sooooo bad and the country is sooo awful' is just getting a pain.
BBC - Food waste on 'staggering' scale - 3.6m tonnes
Guardian - Britons wasting £10bn worth of food a year, research says - guess we all got the same PR, then.
Indy - What a waste: Britain throws away £10bn of food every year - or, to put it another way...
This last post (Martin O'Brien) is more than interesting. As was the one tucked away earlier noting that the media-frenzy Planet Ban-it of the month is not, if temporarily, packaging. Good job too, as if used correctly, it actually goes a long way to preventing food waste.
But for all the shock and awe expressed, especially by the ladies who launch campaigns at the drop of a budget, as a consumer I remain a little uncertain what all this froth and both makes suggest one DOES.
I rather suspect all here (myself included) throw out zippy. So what do we have for those less incentivised so far to save (money, waste...etc)?:
'Wrap suggested households seeking to balance their finances could save money by following basic tips to prevent food waste, such as planning shopping trips better and keeping a closer check on use-by dates. It also pointed out that many people do not know the difference between a "best before date", which has no implications for food safety, and use-by data, which must be followed.'
Good advice. Not exactly startling in its own right, and nor have I seen it expressed very loud, clear or often. In fact I have seen one, I am sure award-winning, 'Love Food: Hate Waste' ad (at how much media spend???) in a Sunday Supp. It had a crying tomato. Showed it to my wife, kids and Mum. Not a clue what it was on about. You know, I think the money on that, and those who spun it up, could have been better spent elsewhere.
Like most 'awareness' in the name of green that is being served up so far. We need actions and incentives, not platitudes and winger-waving.
Dizzy Thinks - food-for-thought - a mostly fair, and funny complement
But it's really getting too much in the media's desperation to fill 24/7 content hungry spaces, and boost ratings. And context seems to go out of the window. Along with any attempt at seeking a satisfactory resolution. The event is all, and the worse, the better. Now... moving on....
So I look at two back-to-back pieces on BBC News.
First up, we have the 'fact' that few parents allow their kids to walk to school. O.....k. So, er, what? Nope, that was it. A few vox pops with a couple of the legions of 'BBC average families' to say they wouldn't do it, and that's about it. What... was... is the point? If they wanted to depress us, they sure succeeded.
Next, waste. WRAP has cranked out another survey, and 'we' waste scag loads. But other than a few minor (if sensible) suggestions such as not over-buying, and a few daft ones (much as I like and respect Janey Lee Grace, she is now a media elite for whom having her fresh produce delivered is not perhaps a real financial hardship... and frankly the manner of its delivery does not seem to suggest much difference in our propensity to reject that which we over-buy), it was simply a case of 'isn't it all just awful'.
Actually, I would be interested in how these food waste figures play out across all sorts of comparisons. The BBC of course famously weighed in on the packaging debate, and without much of that which they took to task, food waste would be a lot worse. They really love it all ways.
There's even the totality of the figures. The numbers seem horrendous, but are they really that bad? Some waste is inevitable, and any reduction and hence savings in money and emissions is to be striven after. But this unremitting negative 'you're all sooooo bad and the country is sooo awful' is just getting a pain.
BBC - Food waste on 'staggering' scale - 3.6m tonnes
Guardian - Britons wasting £10bn worth of food a year, research says - guess we all got the same PR, then.
Indy - What a waste: Britain throws away £10bn of food every year - or, to put it another way...
This last post (Martin O'Brien) is more than interesting. As was the one tucked away earlier noting that the media-frenzy Planet Ban-it of the month is not, if temporarily, packaging. Good job too, as if used correctly, it actually goes a long way to preventing food waste.
But for all the shock and awe expressed, especially by the ladies who launch campaigns at the drop of a budget, as a consumer I remain a little uncertain what all this froth and both makes suggest one DOES.
I rather suspect all here (myself included) throw out zippy. So what do we have for those less incentivised so far to save (money, waste...etc)?:
'Wrap suggested households seeking to balance their finances could save money by following basic tips to prevent food waste, such as planning shopping trips better and keeping a closer check on use-by dates. It also pointed out that many people do not know the difference between a "best before date", which has no implications for food safety, and use-by data, which must be followed.'
Good advice. Not exactly startling in its own right, and nor have I seen it expressed very loud, clear or often. In fact I have seen one, I am sure award-winning, 'Love Food: Hate Waste' ad (at how much media spend???) in a Sunday Supp. It had a crying tomato. Showed it to my wife, kids and Mum. Not a clue what it was on about. You know, I think the money on that, and those who spun it up, could have been better spent elsewhere.
Like most 'awareness' in the name of green that is being served up so far. We need actions and incentives, not platitudes and winger-waving.
Dizzy Thinks - food-for-thought - a mostly fair, and funny complement
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
INTERVIEW - Joanne Sonenshine, manager of environmental policy at CEA
As it was kindly offered, I recently took the opportunity of having a transatlantic chat with Joanne Sonenshine, manager of environmental policy at CEA.
This is the US Consumer Electronics Association. They are keen to share knowledge and best practice (they have a consumer website - myGreenElectronics* - with a load of very useful info, laid out nice and simply and clearly. There may be a few conversion issues on currency, power ratings and places to take stuff to recycle, but essentially it's international) with other organisations and countries, and here in the UK it is working closely with UK-based Intellect.
They are hoping to offer some thoughts on what will happen to the old TVs in the UK when people switch to digital.
However, given the opportunity, we did cover a few other issues. But first digital.
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
I don't propose to go into much background here.
Suffice to say that the world is going digital for all sorts of reasons, mostly good ones. But there is a consequence, and that is what happens to all those old analogue bits of kit left around, and the poor sods who paid for them... and are about to be staring at a blank screen.
Well, you are going to have to 'get with the programme' guys, which means doing some stuff. And/or paying for more.
One rather mind-blowing fact is that the entire continental USA will be one day (Feb 17, 2009) analogue, and the next day digital. Click of a switch. And that prospect did not seem to phase the lady who is in a position to know, even though my jaw is only just now creeping back off the floor. I was staggered. A bit like my home nation's handover is... will be.
Here in the UK there is a site, I know (must dig it out) and it has all started...somewhere. A fishing village in Cumbria maybe? And then it will roooooolll out sloooowly around the country, in a well-oiled, machine-like delivery that only those who brought you Heathrow T5 can manage. I guess the one shot approach is a bit of best practice that has not made it across the pond for starters.
Back in the States, the numbers are pretty awe-inspiring, especially for the potential eco-consequences.
What was interesting was mention of a coupon scheme funded by government to enable householders to go a pretty fair way to funding converter boxes to enable their old sets to still be used. I've lost my notes on that, but of the order of 2 x$40 was mentioned. I have no knowledge of such a similar level of support here. Quelle surprise.
WEEE...haaaay!
This recently in from Dave at Solarventi is a worthy sidebar to add in context. WEEE is the effort that links the consumer, manufacturer, retailer and authorities when it comes to disposal of redundant kit.
As it came post chat I couldn't discuss the situation in detail with Joanne, but of course the States don't have an EU, and hence don't have a WEEE Directive. But what they do have is similar efforts, to varying degrees, state by state. Sound familiar?
*myGreenElectronics.org
I wanted to end with this (again), as I like information that's useful, and I like sites that share stuff clearly and easily... and freely.
I'd really recommend the odd roam.
I found one section that initially seemed to be missing actually is covered within. And that's repair. Not really a surprise, as this is simply not in the modern lexicon any more. Fair reasons, if not happy excuses, falling down to time and money... and complexity.
But there is a link to another site - Greenerchoices.org - where there was some nifty stuff that at the very least gives you a fighting chance on re-kickstarting some bit of electronic kit, from PCs to Mobiles to TVs. I've certainly bookmarked it.
The main site also has useful stats to focus the mind a bit more on our profligate ways and how things are improving at least:
* The average energy consumption by televisions in standby mode has already been reduced from 30W in 1995 to 1.8W today, and it is continuing to decrease. Similarly the power consumption of televisions when in use has come down from 400W to 30W since the 1970s.
* A TV on standby for one hour uses less electricity than a 100W light bulb does in two minutes, and the TV would have to be on continual standby for nearly a month to use the same electricity needed to boil a kettle.
* Sony BRAVIA TVs can consume as little as 0.3 Watts in standby (off is still better, guys, but it does rather put some recent 'excitements' in context)
And to close, a little toot of my 'practice what you preach' trumpet. It actually stemmed from a conversation about the Energy Star rating used in the States (and, from what I recall, in Asia at least a decade ago. I certainly remember the logo on IT kit there. Here we have that colour bar thing now, right?). Because...
* Apple’s Mini Mac (that yours truly is typing with now) uses only 25W when on, less than half the power of a conventional light bulb, and less than the 30W that many older computers consume even in standby or idle mode.
I'd like to say I planned it that way, but it just kinda worked out. For once:)
I just hope I will be doing as well when digital hits my town.
Addendum - Having just watched BBC News announce its launch, I had hoped Freesat may add to our knowledge. Sadly, at time of writing, it's down. STOP PRESS - It's now up!
Daily Mail - BBC and ITV launch 'free' 80-channel satellite system which costs up to £200 to install - The DM as my only source of info!
Guardian - BBC and ITV launch belated digital satellite service - Now others arrive...phew!
The Register - NEW - Freesat launches in UK
IPD - 23/04/08
This is the US Consumer Electronics Association. They are keen to share knowledge and best practice (they have a consumer website - myGreenElectronics* - with a load of very useful info, laid out nice and simply and clearly. There may be a few conversion issues on currency, power ratings and places to take stuff to recycle, but essentially it's international) with other organisations and countries, and here in the UK it is working closely with UK-based Intellect.
They are hoping to offer some thoughts on what will happen to the old TVs in the UK when people switch to digital.
However, given the opportunity, we did cover a few other issues. But first digital.
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
I don't propose to go into much background here.
Suffice to say that the world is going digital for all sorts of reasons, mostly good ones. But there is a consequence, and that is what happens to all those old analogue bits of kit left around, and the poor sods who paid for them... and are about to be staring at a blank screen.
Well, you are going to have to 'get with the programme' guys, which means doing some stuff. And/or paying for more.
One rather mind-blowing fact is that the entire continental USA will be one day (Feb 17, 2009) analogue, and the next day digital. Click of a switch. And that prospect did not seem to phase the lady who is in a position to know, even though my jaw is only just now creeping back off the floor. I was staggered. A bit like my home nation's handover is... will be.
Here in the UK there is a site, I know (must dig it out) and it has all started...somewhere. A fishing village in Cumbria maybe? And then it will roooooolll out sloooowly around the country, in a well-oiled, machine-like delivery that only those who brought you Heathrow T5 can manage. I guess the one shot approach is a bit of best practice that has not made it across the pond for starters.
Back in the States, the numbers are pretty awe-inspiring, especially for the potential eco-consequences.
What was interesting was mention of a coupon scheme funded by government to enable householders to go a pretty fair way to funding converter boxes to enable their old sets to still be used. I've lost my notes on that, but of the order of 2 x$40 was mentioned. I have no knowledge of such a similar level of support here. Quelle surprise.
WEEE...haaaay!
This recently in from Dave at Solarventi is a worthy sidebar to add in context. WEEE is the effort that links the consumer, manufacturer, retailer and authorities when it comes to disposal of redundant kit.
As it came post chat I couldn't discuss the situation in detail with Joanne, but of course the States don't have an EU, and hence don't have a WEEE Directive. But what they do have is similar efforts, to varying degrees, state by state. Sound familiar?
*myGreenElectronics.org
I wanted to end with this (again), as I like information that's useful, and I like sites that share stuff clearly and easily... and freely.
I'd really recommend the odd roam.
I found one section that initially seemed to be missing actually is covered within. And that's repair. Not really a surprise, as this is simply not in the modern lexicon any more. Fair reasons, if not happy excuses, falling down to time and money... and complexity.
But there is a link to another site - Greenerchoices.org - where there was some nifty stuff that at the very least gives you a fighting chance on re-kickstarting some bit of electronic kit, from PCs to Mobiles to TVs. I've certainly bookmarked it.
The main site also has useful stats to focus the mind a bit more on our profligate ways and how things are improving at least:
* The average energy consumption by televisions in standby mode has already been reduced from 30W in 1995 to 1.8W today, and it is continuing to decrease. Similarly the power consumption of televisions when in use has come down from 400W to 30W since the 1970s.
* A TV on standby for one hour uses less electricity than a 100W light bulb does in two minutes, and the TV would have to be on continual standby for nearly a month to use the same electricity needed to boil a kettle.
* Sony BRAVIA TVs can consume as little as 0.3 Watts in standby (off is still better, guys, but it does rather put some recent 'excitements' in context)
And to close, a little toot of my 'practice what you preach' trumpet. It actually stemmed from a conversation about the Energy Star rating used in the States (and, from what I recall, in Asia at least a decade ago. I certainly remember the logo on IT kit there. Here we have that colour bar thing now, right?). Because...
* Apple’s Mini Mac (that yours truly is typing with now) uses only 25W when on, less than half the power of a conventional light bulb, and less than the 30W that many older computers consume even in standby or idle mode.
I'd like to say I planned it that way, but it just kinda worked out. For once:)
I just hope I will be doing as well when digital hits my town.
Addendum - Having just watched BBC News announce its launch, I had hoped Freesat may add to our knowledge. Sadly, at time of writing, it's down. STOP PRESS - It's now up!
Daily Mail - BBC and ITV launch 'free' 80-channel satellite system which costs up to £200 to install - The DM as my only source of info!
Guardian - BBC and ITV launch belated digital satellite service - Now others arrive...phew!
The Register - NEW - Freesat launches in UK
IPD - 23/04/08
Half the equation
Calculating your home's carbon footprint
I share this because I mainly agree with, and applaud it, but also because it serves as a good example of how over-enthusiastic enviro-converts either miss, or gloss over realities. And basic science. And human nature.
Measuring stuff is great... and necessary. And can be useful. But to be meaningful and truly useful you need controls, and.or comparisons. Plus a whole wadge of information to help you in a direction once you have the data.
I remain totally bemused by the fact that a pack of crisps contains 75g of carbon. So..er.. what? Buy another pack? Don't buy it at all? What?
It's better with energy consumption, but in isolation hard to see what I can do with it save buying a bunch of kit (I have) and spending a ton of time (I do) to get depressed (don't ask).
Using the methodology shared here I can and will do the necessary calculations to measure my home's carbon footprint annually, but remain unsure as to how this, in isolation, is a great way of reducing the contribution it makes to climate change.
OK, if I drive the number down (especially as the £ per unit of energy goes up rises) I will feel better, but it seems a little vague to me on real impacts.
I share this because I mainly agree with, and applaud it, but also because it serves as a good example of how over-enthusiastic enviro-converts either miss, or gloss over realities. And basic science. And human nature.
Measuring stuff is great... and necessary. And can be useful. But to be meaningful and truly useful you need controls, and.or comparisons. Plus a whole wadge of information to help you in a direction once you have the data.
I remain totally bemused by the fact that a pack of crisps contains 75g of carbon. So..er.. what? Buy another pack? Don't buy it at all? What?
It's better with energy consumption, but in isolation hard to see what I can do with it save buying a bunch of kit (I have) and spending a ton of time (I do) to get depressed (don't ask).
Using the methodology shared here I can and will do the necessary calculations to measure my home's carbon footprint annually, but remain unsure as to how this, in isolation, is a great way of reducing the contribution it makes to climate change.
OK, if I drive the number down (especially as the £ per unit of energy goes up rises) I will feel better, but it seems a little vague to me on real impacts.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
You gotta larf, eh?
Ch 4 - FactCheck: has rubbish tax been binned?
So now we know... what we don't know. Or do we?
'See no weevils, hear no weevils, speak not of...' anything that might pin one down, apparently.
Yet for all that, at each turn it all comes back like a boomerang, and a barge full of night soil hits the wind farm.
No way to run a country. Or anything, for that matter.
So now we know... what we don't know. Or do we?
'See no weevils, hear no weevils, speak not of...' anything that might pin one down, apparently.
Yet for all that, at each turn it all comes back like a boomerang, and a barge full of night soil hits the wind farm.
No way to run a country. Or anything, for that matter.
Lead Balloon
With all due credit to the author: If there is a God, he's not green. Otherwise airships would take off
I like the idea. It's just the disconnect with the realities of the numbers of people there now are, the time they have and the money they can spend. Another topic in many ways, but this just comes across as silly.
I think it's triff.
Sign me up! All I'll need is no day job and limitless funds... or write on enviro issues for eco-aware (if not actually practicing) publications.
I can see it now: 'My blog of a slow food sojourn around the World in the footsteps of Phiny Fogg'
Chapter 2 - Oh, the inhumanity!
'To the clink of organically sourced New Zealand Chablis in recycled (plastic, while lighter, may contain BPA) glasses, we glanced down to see millions of RyanAir eco-unawares/don't cares gobbling up their two week annual holidays crammed on non-eco-tourist (ie: keep the proles out) beaches. I am moved to head to my cabin and Blackberry a post forthwith. It is to be hoped the sights will improve over the next few months when we get to more remote places... Richard has invited us to his island to learn about the next initiative whilst watching some rocket display.'
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, in a normal family home near you...
I like the idea. It's just the disconnect with the realities of the numbers of people there now are, the time they have and the money they can spend. Another topic in many ways, but this just comes across as silly.
I think it's triff.
Sign me up! All I'll need is no day job and limitless funds... or write on enviro issues for eco-aware (if not actually practicing) publications.
I can see it now: 'My blog of a slow food sojourn around the World in the footsteps of Phiny Fogg'
Chapter 2 - Oh, the inhumanity!
'To the clink of organically sourced New Zealand Chablis in recycled (plastic, while lighter, may contain BPA) glasses, we glanced down to see millions of RyanAir eco-unawares/don't cares gobbling up their two week annual holidays crammed on non-eco-tourist (ie: keep the proles out) beaches. I am moved to head to my cabin and Blackberry a post forthwith. It is to be hoped the sights will improve over the next few months when we get to more remote places... Richard has invited us to his island to learn about the next initiative whilst watching some rocket display.'
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, in a normal family home near you...
Oh, 07 - Licence to...?
We have mentioned bisphenol-A containing plastics here before.
I think that, no matter what, any food or beverage container with it in will soon no longer be on the shelves.
Not so much because of the potential hazards (which remain woefully varied... and disputed), but because of the way the issue has been handled by the government/media cabal of trust that exists these days.
At least in this case it is a 'better safe than sorry' default, so perhaps it could be worse. Unless, of course, you make the things. On the strength of what I saw today, if I had an Avent bottle crammed in junior's gob right now I would be one worried mummy and react accordingly. Who the heck would risk anything, especially with weasel disclaimers like 'so long as you boil water separately first/don't scratch the surface, it should be fine'.
Speaking of which, for recycling purposes (to what, I wonder?), it has an '07' inside the 3-arrow triangle. And, to know if it doesn't have BPA, you are helpfully advised that if it is flexible it won't. Which is about as loose as it gets, to the point of being useless.
Anyway, in the same slot there was the coincidental news that 'breast is best', so no agenda there. It's a shame that my trust factor is so low that beyond the news handling I also often have my doubts on the motivations of our sources of advice and information.
Addendum -
Just watched Dr. Rosemary on the BBC Brekky show, and she impresses more at each outing. To the rote-reading blonde and bouffant's scaremongering she was a breath of 'for heaven's sake' fresh air. Not that this slot will undo all the others that surrounds it. It suspect we are seeing the end of an industry here. I just wish it was for better reasons than this.
Addendum 2 -
Guardian - Science Weekly for May 5: "Ice, mud and blood" - If only for an insight into how the media 'do science... and a funny first comment in reply.
I think that, no matter what, any food or beverage container with it in will soon no longer be on the shelves.
Not so much because of the potential hazards (which remain woefully varied... and disputed), but because of the way the issue has been handled by the government/media cabal of trust that exists these days.
At least in this case it is a 'better safe than sorry' default, so perhaps it could be worse. Unless, of course, you make the things. On the strength of what I saw today, if I had an Avent bottle crammed in junior's gob right now I would be one worried mummy and react accordingly. Who the heck would risk anything, especially with weasel disclaimers like 'so long as you boil water separately first/don't scratch the surface, it should be fine'.
Speaking of which, for recycling purposes (to what, I wonder?), it has an '07' inside the 3-arrow triangle. And, to know if it doesn't have BPA, you are helpfully advised that if it is flexible it won't. Which is about as loose as it gets, to the point of being useless.
Anyway, in the same slot there was the coincidental news that 'breast is best', so no agenda there. It's a shame that my trust factor is so low that beyond the news handling I also often have my doubts on the motivations of our sources of advice and information.
Addendum -
Just watched Dr. Rosemary on the BBC Brekky show, and she impresses more at each outing. To the rote-reading blonde and bouffant's scaremongering she was a breath of 'for heaven's sake' fresh air. Not that this slot will undo all the others that surrounds it. It suspect we are seeing the end of an industry here. I just wish it was for better reasons than this.
Addendum 2 -
Guardian - Science Weekly for May 5: "Ice, mud and blood" - If only for an insight into how the media 'do science... and a funny first comment in reply.
Monday, May 05, 2008
What we need is a report on wasteful reports
A letter in the Indy:
Unsustainable bulk of official advice
Sir: The Communities and Local Government's Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide, April 2008 has just appeared on the web as part of the Government's drive to prevent global warming. I dare not print it off, as it runs to 302 pages. It costs £40 for a hard copy. There are an average of 300 words per page, but some pages have fewer than 50 words on them, surrounded by blank space .
Some of the text is in 8-point, so it has not been produced with the sight-impaired in mind. With proper copywriting and layout, it could be reduced to 80-90 pages and still be more accessible to the reader. That's 25 per cent of the paper and ink, and more readable. How about a code for sustainable government publications?
Nice critique, sir. Love the irony of the last line.
Unsustainable bulk of official advice
Sir: The Communities and Local Government's Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide, April 2008 has just appeared on the web as part of the Government's drive to prevent global warming. I dare not print it off, as it runs to 302 pages. It costs £40 for a hard copy. There are an average of 300 words per page, but some pages have fewer than 50 words on them, surrounded by blank space .
Some of the text is in 8-point, so it has not been produced with the sight-impaired in mind. With proper copywriting and layout, it could be reduced to 80-90 pages and still be more accessible to the reader. That's 25 per cent of the paper and ink, and more readable. How about a code for sustainable government publications?
Nice critique, sir. Love the irony of the last line.
Rack rate
A telling piece about the 'cost' of our online addictions.
Green data center threat level: Not green
Note the cost debate swirling below.
Green data center threat level: Not green
Note the cost debate swirling below.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)