You know those A5 sales flyers for gizmos you can get?
Most headlines propose an absolute claim but sort of get out of a challenge by making it a question: 'Could this be the best electric toenail buffer in the world?'.
I was minded of this when I read an ASA ruling on a topic I am interested in, namely regrading solar and the claims made by manufacturers.
As one still considering solar, though dubious about the efficiency and hence payback period in our climate, I am not sure I am too encouraged by what the consumer is left with here.
FWIW, I have looked at my exploding collection of packaging junkk and have in mind a S/SW wall structure made out of them by way of a solar experiment. Watch this space.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The message, the medium, the media, the mess
I know I usually stay out of the (PMWN) CC 'debate' for various reasons.
But I do want to share this as it relates to a major interest of mine, namely how information is communicated to the public and/or how they then engage with what they are served.
Real Climate - Journalistic whiplash
Now, Real Climate are definitely in the 'climate pessimistic' camp, but they are much more sincere than many, and the rational tone adopted, along with factual references, certainly makes them worth listening to. Plus of course there are often those who post counters (and do get rebutted by the majority quite forcefully, which can often seem like group bullying, but if they are asking for a challenge and it's done well, why not engage in robust debate).
There is certainly still a tone of 'well it's true, so why don't people accept the obvious?', but at least there is also some acceptance that however the issues are being portrayed, the public, via the media, are not quite getting the message, at least in the way this group would like it to be received.
Of course, I could just as easily post links to other sites with the word climate in their titles which pretty much mirror all this from the other side.
Which is kind of the problem. And the default of 'not sure'/'don't understand', as the Irish EU referendum demonstrated, is, quite reasonably, often to err on the current status quo.
Hence I applaud the fact that this group is trying to understand this issue better, hopefully with a view to better communications. Certainly hectoring by most does not seem to have worked to well to date.
But I do want to share this as it relates to a major interest of mine, namely how information is communicated to the public and/or how they then engage with what they are served.
Real Climate - Journalistic whiplash
Now, Real Climate are definitely in the 'climate pessimistic' camp, but they are much more sincere than many, and the rational tone adopted, along with factual references, certainly makes them worth listening to. Plus of course there are often those who post counters (and do get rebutted by the majority quite forcefully, which can often seem like group bullying, but if they are asking for a challenge and it's done well, why not engage in robust debate).
There is certainly still a tone of 'well it's true, so why don't people accept the obvious?', but at least there is also some acceptance that however the issues are being portrayed, the public, via the media, are not quite getting the message, at least in the way this group would like it to be received.
Of course, I could just as easily post links to other sites with the word climate in their titles which pretty much mirror all this from the other side.
Which is kind of the problem. And the default of 'not sure'/'don't understand', as the Irish EU referendum demonstrated, is, quite reasonably, often to err on the current status quo.
Hence I applaud the fact that this group is trying to understand this issue better, hopefully with a view to better communications. Certainly hectoring by most does not seem to have worked to well to date.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Pols? Or Engineers?
Decide for yourself.
This interesting article from New Consumer argues that Engineers hold the keys to sustainable transport solutions, not Politicians.
What do I think? Well, our pols don't really have a great track record on sustainable transport, other than one of caning those of us stuck in rural areas without any options, whilst heavily subsidising urban transport systems. And engineering IS what originally made our once proud nation 'Great'.
"if low-carbon technology is to be successful, engineers must continue working towards providing viable solutions that are not only low-emission, but low in price."
Yes, yes and yes again. But what's the chance that our pols will follow through with anything like this when it is far easier to make billions out of schemes such as auctioning off the rights to CO2 emissions options? (see Peter's post below)
A simple answer ....... zilch!
This interesting article from New Consumer argues that Engineers hold the keys to sustainable transport solutions, not Politicians.
What do I think? Well, our pols don't really have a great track record on sustainable transport, other than one of caning those of us stuck in rural areas without any options, whilst heavily subsidising urban transport systems. And engineering IS what originally made our once proud nation 'Great'.
"if low-carbon technology is to be successful, engineers must continue working towards providing viable solutions that are not only low-emission, but low in price."
Yes, yes and yes again. But what's the chance that our pols will follow through with anything like this when it is far easier to make billions out of schemes such as auctioning off the rights to CO2 emissions options? (see Peter's post below)
A simple answer ....... zilch!
You gotta laugh...
...especially at others' misfortunes.We all use automated doo-dads on our sites; I just wonder if the 'Most Popular' icon had/has been fully appreciated up to this rather unfortunate manifestation. Especially on an enviro site where, one presumes, this is not quite what they had in mind.
What goes up...
... is different to what comes out, on occasion, apparently.
Bearing in mind the BBC's commitment to the cause of promoting 'environmentally sound behaviours' (and decrying those that are less so in their eyes), I am a tad intrigued at a piece just on the Breakfast News about Space Tourism.
In a gushing commercial, er, report for one Sir. Richard Branson's latest money-making venture, a reporter has flown out to give us such gems as how very rich folk can 'enjoy stunning views'... whilst asking few questions as to the consequences of the column of greenhouse gasses they will be atop when having a gawp at the planet they have just hastened to oblivion. I am pretty sure there will be a correspondent in the first flight to accompany Sir R and get his views on biofuel Jumbos and towing planes to save fuel... eventually.
As the BBC seems fairly adept at ignoring news that does not suit its narrative, surely they could have given this jolly a pass, or at least look at the total picture.
Or is missing out on a fun trip by actually getting objective not part of a funded news organisation?
Guardian - Branson unveils mothership in latest step towards putting tourists into space - 'Among the first to fly will be the physicist Stephen Hawking, the environmentalist James Lovelock and former Dallas actress Victoria Principal.'
I guess the paper will be selling tickets. Business is business. Maybe not on the eco page when they rail against 4x4s or plastic bottles, though.
BBC - Branson unveils space tourism jet - ... to uncritical acclaim:) Ahh... now I get why: '... It has enormous weight capability, so if there were a [humanitarian] crisis in Africa it could carry enormous loads [for aid]'
Treehugger - (beat 'em by a mile!) - Virgin Galactic Unveils the World’s Largest All Carbon Composite Aircraft, WhiteKnightTwo - I am however, obviously missing something here as this effort is getting a heck of a pass compared to some others of 'confused' e-value. I think it's an awesome technological leap, but having it under the green banner seems hard to wash as green.
The Register - NEW - Branson unveils Virgin Galactic mothership
Bearing in mind the BBC's commitment to the cause of promoting 'environmentally sound behaviours' (and decrying those that are less so in their eyes), I am a tad intrigued at a piece just on the Breakfast News about Space Tourism.
In a gushing commercial, er, report for one Sir. Richard Branson's latest money-making venture, a reporter has flown out to give us such gems as how very rich folk can 'enjoy stunning views'... whilst asking few questions as to the consequences of the column of greenhouse gasses they will be atop when having a gawp at the planet they have just hastened to oblivion. I am pretty sure there will be a correspondent in the first flight to accompany Sir R and get his views on biofuel Jumbos and towing planes to save fuel... eventually.
As the BBC seems fairly adept at ignoring news that does not suit its narrative, surely they could have given this jolly a pass, or at least look at the total picture.
Or is missing out on a fun trip by actually getting objective not part of a funded news organisation?
Guardian - Branson unveils mothership in latest step towards putting tourists into space - 'Among the first to fly will be the physicist Stephen Hawking, the environmentalist James Lovelock and former Dallas actress Victoria Principal.'
I guess the paper will be selling tickets. Business is business. Maybe not on the eco page when they rail against 4x4s or plastic bottles, though.
BBC - Branson unveils space tourism jet - ... to uncritical acclaim:) Ahh... now I get why: '... It has enormous weight capability, so if there were a [humanitarian] crisis in Africa it could carry enormous loads [for aid]'
Treehugger - (beat 'em by a mile!) - Virgin Galactic Unveils the World’s Largest All Carbon Composite Aircraft, WhiteKnightTwo - I am however, obviously missing something here as this effort is getting a heck of a pass compared to some others of 'confused' e-value. I think it's an awesome technological leap, but having it under the green banner seems hard to wash as green.
The Register - NEW - Branson unveils Virgin Galactic mothership
EVENT -
WHEN: 15 & 16 October 2008
WHAT: European Biofuels Expo & Conference
WHERE: NEWARK, Nottingham
WHAT... MORE?: From the PR:
With the cost of fuel rising on an almost daily basis everyone is
looking for alternatives. One of those alternatives is Wood Energy
& the good news is that it is sustainable too.
There are already many success stories in the UK of schools and local
authorities converting to pellet or wood burning boilers to provide
their power requirements.
The experience in Europe is that wood pellets offer a low cost, clean
burning, efficient and sustainable way of providing biomass energy,
mostly utilising waste wood that would have gone to landfill. Millions o
f households, companies and community buildings across Europe have made
wood energy their primary source of heat. The UK is set to adopt more
widespread use of wood pellets and by looking at the European experience
the UK can benefit from years of growth in this market.
Working in conjunction with the National Energy Foundation (NEF) the Wood
Energy Conference, on Thursday 16 October includes speakers sharing their
experiences of this market in Europe, mobile pellet production and the
implementation of biomass heating solutions both large and small scale.
Companies or individuals wishing to start small to medium scale production
facilities are well catered for at the show with many exhibitors showing
the latest production processes.
In addition to Wood Energy, the event will be showcasing biodiesel, biogas
and bio-home heating oil. With over 100 exhibitors and three conference
streams, anyone interested in the bioenergy market, producing, using,
implementing an alternative fuel will be able to access the information,
products and services they need.
As the home heating oil market looks to adopt biofuels, and CO2 target
legislation becomes a reality, they are working with OFTEC to
ensure that the Conference includes coverage of the key issues in the home
heating industry. UK Home Heating Oil consumption is 3 billion litres/year
and represents a biofuel growth market. OFTEC will be discussing the
transition of Home Heating Oil to a bio-based fuel and report on field trials
that are currently in progress.
HOW MUCH: £25 it seems, but they snag your details before you get to that. Not so user-friendly IMHO.
URL: www.biofuels-expo.com
COMMENTS: It's an area worth knowing more about, but bear in mind the costs and the potential objectivity of what you'll find
WHAT: European Biofuels Expo & Conference
WHERE: NEWARK, Nottingham
WHAT... MORE?: From the PR:
With the cost of fuel rising on an almost daily basis everyone is
looking for alternatives. One of those alternatives is Wood Energy
& the good news is that it is sustainable too.
There are already many success stories in the UK of schools and local
authorities converting to pellet or wood burning boilers to provide
their power requirements.
The experience in Europe is that wood pellets offer a low cost, clean
burning, efficient and sustainable way of providing biomass energy,
mostly utilising waste wood that would have gone to landfill. Millions o
f households, companies and community buildings across Europe have made
wood energy their primary source of heat. The UK is set to adopt more
widespread use of wood pellets and by looking at the European experience
the UK can benefit from years of growth in this market.
Working in conjunction with the National Energy Foundation (NEF) the Wood
Energy Conference, on Thursday 16 October includes speakers sharing their
experiences of this market in Europe, mobile pellet production and the
implementation of biomass heating solutions both large and small scale.
Companies or individuals wishing to start small to medium scale production
facilities are well catered for at the show with many exhibitors showing
the latest production processes.
In addition to Wood Energy, the event will be showcasing biodiesel, biogas
and bio-home heating oil. With over 100 exhibitors and three conference
streams, anyone interested in the bioenergy market, producing, using,
implementing an alternative fuel will be able to access the information,
products and services they need.
As the home heating oil market looks to adopt biofuels, and CO2 target
legislation becomes a reality, they are working with OFTEC to
ensure that the Conference includes coverage of the key issues in the home
heating industry. UK Home Heating Oil consumption is 3 billion litres/year
and represents a biofuel growth market. OFTEC will be discussing the
transition of Home Heating Oil to a bio-based fuel and report on field trials
that are currently in progress.
HOW MUCH: £25 it seems, but they snag your details before you get to that. Not so user-friendly IMHO.
URL: www.biofuels-expo.com
COMMENTS: It's an area worth knowing more about, but bear in mind the costs and the potential objectivity of what you'll find
NEWS/Commercial PR - Good things in little packages
Shameless plug time.I was recently asked if I would like a free sample of an eco-product to test. Does Al Gore not need frequent flyer miles?
And lo, they have arrived. Even more lo, or actually hi, because someone cares what we think at Junkk.com about their efforts to do better by the future, they do indeed get a mention.
Better yet, they also get to see their pack uploaded to the re:use ideas section, to show that whatever washing might be going on, there's a lot of mitigation possible too.
There may even be a RE:view to follow, as these goodies will not be wasted (Jute bag already put to good use as a fabbo 6 x bottle carrier last night) and will soon be fighting stains in our eco-wash.
Meanwhile, here's the PR, E&OE:
Washday greens
Sainsbury's is launching a new range of Sainsbury's Super Concentrated Liquid Gels, which are kinder to the environment whilst still caring for clothes, and that deliver great results time after time.
· The products are super concentrated so only half the amount of a standard liquid is used
· This lightens the load on the environment using 40% less packaging, 50% fewer lorries on the road and 50% less water
The range comprises:
- Super Concentrated Liquid Non Bio 735ml
- Super Concentrated Liquid Bio 735ml
- Super Concentrated Liquid Colour 735ml
- Concentrated Liquid Lavender and Jasmine 735ml
The products are now available at all stores at £2.48, which at 21 washes per 735 ml bottle works out at just under 12p per wash. Prices have been kept in line with their other liquid detergents and do not carry a price premium.
There's still hope
Lego: a toy of gentle genius
I was once approached by a young designer who loved what Junkk.com stood for. He subsequently emailed me to say he was off to work with LEGO and would try and find ways to promote reuse there.
Here's hoping.
I was once approached by a young designer who loved what Junkk.com stood for. He subsequently emailed me to say he was off to work with LEGO and would try and find ways to promote reuse there.
Here's hoping.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Windows powered by Windows?
Excuse me while I just plug my PC into the window ....... so I can, errrrm ........, charge it up.
Sounds completely crazy? Well it isn't going to be, as this from GizMag reports. Nihon Telecommunications have developed a method of embedding lower efficiency photovoltaic cells into window panes, which on a good sunny day can "generate up to 70 watts of electricity per square meter of glass."
Shame that it will only work via a USB power port.
Sounds completely crazy? Well it isn't going to be, as this from GizMag reports. Nihon Telecommunications have developed a method of embedding lower efficiency photovoltaic cells into window panes, which on a good sunny day can "generate up to 70 watts of electricity per square meter of glass."
Shame that it will only work via a USB power port.
Celeb-beration
Comes to something when Treehugger has a go at those having a dabble:
7 Celebrity Environmentalists in Need of Green 101
I must revisit my definition of 'Environmentalist', mind:
Environmentalist (n): Any schmuck who thinks they might have sorted out the planet and/or their part in trashing it by getting their people to call other people's people about something they have been told/advised to do in one aspect of their lives that might, just, mitigate a tad.
Celebrity-environmentalist (n): As above, with the added extra of setting back the cause of actual grass-roots environmentalism in the eyes of the general public by dabbling for a day as an environmentalist (under new definition) and then going back asap to blowing obscene amounts of cash on stuff and going places, as really, what else can they do to pass the time?
See: Helicopter Enviromentalist (n):
7 Celebrity Environmentalists in Need of Green 101
I must revisit my definition of 'Environmentalist', mind:
Environmentalist (n): Any schmuck who thinks they might have sorted out the planet and/or their part in trashing it by getting their people to call other people's people about something they have been told/advised to do in one aspect of their lives that might, just, mitigate a tad.
Celebrity-environmentalist (n): As above, with the added extra of setting back the cause of actual grass-roots environmentalism in the eyes of the general public by dabbling for a day as an environmentalist (under new definition) and then going back asap to blowing obscene amounts of cash on stuff and going places, as really, what else can they do to pass the time?
See: Helicopter Enviromentalist (n):
Break out the bubb... er.. choc... er... !
Retailers and brands hit target to end packaging growth in the UK
Wonder what all will do with their bonuses if there is precious little they should be buying or travelling with it all on... if they are serious.
Wonder what all will do with their bonuses if there is precious little they should be buying or travelling with it all on... if they are serious.
Pass the ladle, Al
Here I sit, blogging away with BBC Morning news on (first posted 20/07).
And I have just seen an 'ad' for some new, forthcoming drama called 'Burn Up'.
Now, I am all for art reflecting life, but if the trailer is anything like the show, I really hope this doesn't end up as a massive turn off, other than perhaps making viewers switch off (as over) their TVs in disgust.
I simply could not believe the size of trowel that I was being hit over the head with, and the sheer clunkiness of the message.
There was even a (I presume evil) American businessman (why is it the UK broadcast industry only seems to have about 4 actors on their books?) crying out 'God bless Global Warming' (I presume not in a 'good' way).
On the evidence I have seen so far, this is a gift to any wishing to highlight the level of propaganda being unleashed by those we should be trusting for balance and objectivity on what is a very complex issue.
I fear it may not achieve the aim intended if this is the best that can be done. Guess I will have to watch the silly thing now.
Addendum - Guardian Review
I was moved to comment to another review that cited this:
This is what the writer had to say
Maybe he's not the only one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_(computer_game)
And my kids have had this one for ages:
http://www.frontlines.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontlines:_Fuel_of_War
I wonder which will have the greater impact eventually?
I guess I'll have to watch the thing soon (saw the trailer and it look as if the agenda had been written in using a trowel rather than a pen, and couldn't face dealing with all the 'you eco lot...' comments I'd get if I mentioned it), but will be wondering if there might be mention of any shareholder, government and/or media (inc. state) contributions to the dilemmas faced between economy and environment. Or are those to complex for the normal viewer to be exposed to?
Indy - Will BBC2's new thriller charm us into taking notice of climate change? - I must say I found this line... unfortunate, if telling (Ethical man, et al... post 'doing the green thing'): "I've done saving the world – now I'm ready to flirt with girls in mini-skirts!"
Guardian - Back to basics on climate change
Times - The finger-wagging of Burn Up - A mate has it on tape...can't wait. Even so, has the message in the watching been worth all those in the follow-up? Hmn. Again I have cause to be concerned on the qualifications of our current crop of self-appointed, and anointed 'guides to green' if the quality of their messages yet again backfire so badly.
digitalspy - Ratings 'Burn Up' for BBC Two - The people cannot be trusted to understand the issues. First in elections, and then in what they pay to have served them by way of entertainment/shaping views. Ergo... we obviously need new people. That's how it works in gv'mint and media these days, isn't it?
Gaurdian - NEW - Making a climate crisis into a drama
Still have to watch it, mind. Oh, the antcipation.
And I have just seen an 'ad' for some new, forthcoming drama called 'Burn Up'.
Now, I am all for art reflecting life, but if the trailer is anything like the show, I really hope this doesn't end up as a massive turn off, other than perhaps making viewers switch off (as over) their TVs in disgust.
I simply could not believe the size of trowel that I was being hit over the head with, and the sheer clunkiness of the message.
There was even a (I presume evil) American businessman (why is it the UK broadcast industry only seems to have about 4 actors on their books?) crying out 'God bless Global Warming' (I presume not in a 'good' way).
On the evidence I have seen so far, this is a gift to any wishing to highlight the level of propaganda being unleashed by those we should be trusting for balance and objectivity on what is a very complex issue.
I fear it may not achieve the aim intended if this is the best that can be done. Guess I will have to watch the silly thing now.
Addendum - Guardian Review
I was moved to comment to another review that cited this:
This is what the writer had to say
Maybe he's not the only one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_(computer_game)
And my kids have had this one for ages:
http://www.frontlines.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontlines:_Fuel_of_War
I wonder which will have the greater impact eventually?
I guess I'll have to watch the thing soon (saw the trailer and it look as if the agenda had been written in using a trowel rather than a pen, and couldn't face dealing with all the 'you eco lot...' comments I'd get if I mentioned it), but will be wondering if there might be mention of any shareholder, government and/or media (inc. state) contributions to the dilemmas faced between economy and environment. Or are those to complex for the normal viewer to be exposed to?
Indy - Will BBC2's new thriller charm us into taking notice of climate change? - I must say I found this line... unfortunate, if telling (Ethical man, et al... post 'doing the green thing'): "I've done saving the world – now I'm ready to flirt with girls in mini-skirts!"
Guardian - Back to basics on climate change
Times - The finger-wagging of Burn Up - A mate has it on tape...can't wait. Even so, has the message in the watching been worth all those in the follow-up? Hmn. Again I have cause to be concerned on the qualifications of our current crop of self-appointed, and anointed 'guides to green' if the quality of their messages yet again backfire so badly.
digitalspy - Ratings 'Burn Up' for BBC Two - The people cannot be trusted to understand the issues. First in elections, and then in what they pay to have served them by way of entertainment/shaping views. Ergo... we obviously need new people. That's how it works in gv'mint and media these days, isn't it?
Gaurdian - NEW - Making a climate crisis into a drama
Still have to watch it, mind. Oh, the antcipation.
The bigger picture
Another, new(ish) poster has suggested this link (just email info@junkk.com with anything and I'll get it eventually).
Views of Jupiter
Having had a gander such things are most certainly worth sharing, not just for the visual joy they bring, but to also help us position ourselves more humbly in the great scheme of things.
I noticed some bloggers replying that they wished they could live there. Can you imagine? How long before our race had to move on again, having...
Addendum:
As we are of a naturally poetic bent today, and I am feeling naughty but NASA:
Trendwatcher: northern-lights-explained-nasa
Newsnight - worth it for all sorts of related reasons... unanswered questions on helping posters add functions, despite promises, and unanswered questions on pay deals because, well, what goes up stays up. Some live on different planets, I guess.
Views of Jupiter
Having had a gander such things are most certainly worth sharing, not just for the visual joy they bring, but to also help us position ourselves more humbly in the great scheme of things.
I noticed some bloggers replying that they wished they could live there. Can you imagine? How long before our race had to move on again, having...
Addendum:
As we are of a naturally poetic bent today, and I am feeling naughty but NASA:
Trendwatcher: northern-lights-explained-nasa
Newsnight - worth it for all sorts of related reasons... unanswered questions on helping posters add functions, despite promises, and unanswered questions on pay deals because, well, what goes up stays up. Some live on different planets, I guess.
Well, it does sort of make sense ......
.... doesn't it?
This from Science Daily comments on a report by the British Medical Journal that suggests that population control is one of the better methods of combating climate change.
"The biggest contribution UK couples can make to combating climate change would be to have only two children or at least have one less than they first intended"
"each new UK birth will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions … than a new birth in Ethiopia."
Sooooo, the policy that dare not speak it's name gets substantive support from the medicos. I guess that we are going to see a major furore develop here before long.
Addendum - THE Register - Doctors: Third babies are the same as patio heaters - Oh, this will help. Why do I suspect a canal barge of green nappies is headed for a converted windmill as we gaze on.
Addendum 2: - (14:10) Now the Telegraph has also picked up on the story - and put it in the 'Your View' section. Should be quite an interesting set of comments developing once it gets spotted.
This from Science Daily comments on a report by the British Medical Journal that suggests that population control is one of the better methods of combating climate change.
"The biggest contribution UK couples can make to combating climate change would be to have only two children or at least have one less than they first intended"
"each new UK birth will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions … than a new birth in Ethiopia."
Sooooo, the policy that dare not speak it's name gets substantive support from the medicos. I guess that we are going to see a major furore develop here before long.
Addendum - THE Register - Doctors: Third babies are the same as patio heaters - Oh, this will help. Why do I suspect a canal barge of green nappies is headed for a converted windmill as we gaze on.
Addendum 2: - (14:10) Now the Telegraph has also picked up on the story - and put it in the 'Your View' section. Should be quite an interesting set of comments developing once it gets spotted.
Alas, the middle ground is seldom fertile for ratings
Green is the new black, but fashions change
I see there's a book being promoted at the end.
As I tend to when I read articles by many of those whose thoughts (and, rarely, advice) on the matter can often inspire the mixed emotions described by the author. Which always cranks an eyebrow, I do confess, as to what the actual point of these efforts are. From Monbiot to Clarkson it strikes me that there is an industry at work, and it is based on extremes who need each other to survive... and profit from numpties like me who still click on headlines that mention 'green' in hope of balance and information of value. It is possible that there are some who try and do their best by the environment because there is much that can't hurt, can be fun... and save money. Who could give a (non-offset) flying fig for fashion. And I suspect don't read papers, or columns, like this.
I see there's a book being promoted at the end.
As I tend to when I read articles by many of those whose thoughts (and, rarely, advice) on the matter can often inspire the mixed emotions described by the author. Which always cranks an eyebrow, I do confess, as to what the actual point of these efforts are. From Monbiot to Clarkson it strikes me that there is an industry at work, and it is based on extremes who need each other to survive... and profit from numpties like me who still click on headlines that mention 'green' in hope of balance and information of value. It is possible that there are some who try and do their best by the environment because there is much that can't hurt, can be fun... and save money. Who could give a (non-offset) flying fig for fashion. And I suspect don't read papers, or columns, like this.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
You are here
I like maps
The Pollution Map of Beijing
I think we need one of these for everywhere.
You know where you are... and who has put you in the position you are in... there.
The Pollution Map of Beijing
I think we need one of these for everywhere.
You know where you are... and who has put you in the position you are in... there.
Air cons
When I lived in Singapore I actually found the temperature/humidity bearable enough without aircon, simply by using fans at home.
It was actually then more on the quality of air than environment or economy that drove me.
But I fully accepted that it was a pretty nifty, and necessary thing to have.
But having come from Hong Kong before, looking around even then I joked it might be better all round to simply stick a big bubble over the whole country and just stick one big AC unit on top.
Something I was reminded of looking at this: Photography competition: Summer in Singapore - bear in mind that every day is 'Summer in Singapore' - 25 to 32 degrees, with the possibility of showers in the afternoon (or two months of epic storms which, oddly, the drains seem to handle easily - Enviro Agency please note).
It was actually then more on the quality of air than environment or economy that drove me.
But I fully accepted that it was a pretty nifty, and necessary thing to have.
But having come from Hong Kong before, looking around even then I joked it might be better all round to simply stick a big bubble over the whole country and just stick one big AC unit on top.
Something I was reminded of looking at this: Photography competition: Summer in Singapore - bear in mind that every day is 'Summer in Singapore' - 25 to 32 degrees, with the possibility of showers in the afternoon (or two months of epic storms which, oddly, the drains seem to handle easily - Enviro Agency please note).
Stress fractures showing...
I'll stick this under Junkk Male RE:view as it does have a bearing on environment.
I am watching a story about the lucky escape with the Qantas long haul flight. Amazing footage, especially the calm demeanour of crew and passengers.
The point has been made that the airline has never lost a passenger. Such stats matter, I know, as I was once the Account Director for Singapore Airlines. There were big fights over 'world's youngest fleet' and other measures. It's all a tricky balance on safety. In fact number of ups and downs are pretty stressful on the airframe too, so shorthaul can work out more of a problem even with 'younger' stock. But corrosion factors through age are significant.
As in this case. I am frankly gobsmacked how mildly so far the news has been noted that this plane had been flagged by engineers as a concern, and some plastic surgery deemed worthy of merely keeping fingers crossed.
If an airline such as Qantas can be so cavalier with such a valuable asset in their brand reputation, is this a worrying indication of the wafer-thin margins the industry is operating under to stay in business?
Are we to see an airborne repeat of Mr. Nader's expose of the car industry beancounters' calculations on the value of inanimate costs vs. lives.
Addendum:
Indy - Qantas chief denies holed jumbo was a 'rust bucket' - Does aluminium rust?
I am watching a story about the lucky escape with the Qantas long haul flight. Amazing footage, especially the calm demeanour of crew and passengers.
The point has been made that the airline has never lost a passenger. Such stats matter, I know, as I was once the Account Director for Singapore Airlines. There were big fights over 'world's youngest fleet' and other measures. It's all a tricky balance on safety. In fact number of ups and downs are pretty stressful on the airframe too, so shorthaul can work out more of a problem even with 'younger' stock. But corrosion factors through age are significant.
As in this case. I am frankly gobsmacked how mildly so far the news has been noted that this plane had been flagged by engineers as a concern, and some plastic surgery deemed worthy of merely keeping fingers crossed.
If an airline such as Qantas can be so cavalier with such a valuable asset in their brand reputation, is this a worrying indication of the wafer-thin margins the industry is operating under to stay in business?
Are we to see an airborne repeat of Mr. Nader's expose of the car industry beancounters' calculations on the value of inanimate costs vs. lives.
Addendum:
Indy - Qantas chief denies holed jumbo was a 'rust bucket' - Does aluminium rust?
The value of protest
Worth a read for the justification... and the replies (in the Guardian).
The sticky issue of climate change
An interesting insight into the causes, and effects.
Actually, having read his (rather long) manifesto, I have some sympathy.
I am also intrigued that in this day and age that such an assault (actually battery) on a major public figure is possible. I seem to recall in an early '24' the President character was attacked via hand borne nasties.
The sticky issue of climate change
An interesting insight into the causes, and effects.
Actually, having read his (rather long) manifesto, I have some sympathy.
I am also intrigued that in this day and age that such an assault (actually battery) on a major public figure is possible. I seem to recall in an early '24' the President character was attacked via hand borne nasties.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
NEWS/Commercial PR - Renewable energy from the back end of a pig?
I just had to post this, not because of the porcine (omnivore) twist on a usually bovine (me)theme, but any PR with that as a headline gets my vote.
Plus the promise is nifty, too.
As received, E&OE:
Energy company redefines what waste is [ed - ok, that bit is boring]
green energy uk’s innovative electricity generators are creating renewable energy from a variety of waste materials, including vegetable matter, unwanted wood, landfill gas and even pig waste. These materials traditionally would sit in landfill, or as with pig waste, manure on fields, decomposing and giving off greenhouse gasses, but they are now being given extended life and purpose.
green energy uk’s generators, based from Cornwall up to Caithness in Scotland, treat the waste to remove and use the harmful greenhouse gasses to produce green electricity. At a pig farm in Aberdeenshire, pig waste is treated through an anaerobic digester where microorganisms inside break down the biodegradable material to create a green biogas. The biogas is burnt to power a turbine that makes green electricity.
Since 2003, Hereford-based electricity generator Longma [ed - hey... neighbours!] has provided a free waste vegetable oil collection service to schools, colleges, universities, pubs and restaurants in the region. Longma recycles the oil into environmentally friendly biofuels for generating electricity in Combined Heat and Power units (CHP). The electricity made is consumed locally, and the heat generated by the CHP units is used to heat the Longma factory and neighbouring industrial buildings. For every 100 litres of waste oil Longma collects, 90 less litres of fossil fuels is burnt.
green energy uk’s electricity generators using CHP units are utilising the heat they create by directing it locally to warm buildings and keep greenhouses at temperatures that allow for foods traditionally grown and imported from overseas to be grown in the UK. Old-fashioned power stations that use fossil fuel to make electricity also create heat, but this heat is not harnessed as it is with CHP units and is lost into the atmosphere as steam up cooling towers, making them terribly inefficient.
According to Greenpeace reports, “On average, our large, centralised power stations throw away two thirds of the energy they generate…. CHP is the most efficient way possible to burn both fossil fuels (usually natural gas) and renewable fuels (including biomass and biogas). Pretty much any organic matter can be used to produce biogas; we could be reaping energy from farm waste, and from all of the organic waste - like uneaten food - that makes up about half of our landfill.”
green energy uk does not use fossil fuels to make its electricity. The energy company is instead making the most out of what we throw away. Co-founder and chief executive for green energy uk, Doug Stewart, explains "By recycling organic waste into energy, utilising biomass and clean CHP methods, alongside our solar, hydro and wind power projects, we are trying to establish what we think is a stable, sensible, long-lasting energy solution that will maintain the modern quality of life and benefit future generations... In theory the UK has resources to run itself entirely from renewable energy.”
green energy uk has two tariffs. Dark Green is made from 100% renewable sources and has zero carbon emissions. Pale Green is a mixture of renewable electricity, Biomass from waste and green electricity from Ofgem-accredited clean Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generators whose carbon emissions are 65% less than the national average for producing electricity. green energy uk facilitates investment in a wide range of technologies to produce renewable and green electricity. By the end of 2008, 95% of the electricity green energy uk supplies will come from generators only commissioned since green energy uk began in 2001.
green energy uk is the first and only energy company in the UK to offer customers the choice of 100% renewable or 100% green electricity.
green energy uk does not buy or sell any brown energy or energy created by Biomass from food crops.
green energy uk buys from 30 commercial generation sites, broken down as eight green CHP, nine hydro, four wind and nine biomass from waste.
Plus the promise is nifty, too.
As received, E&OE:
Energy company redefines what waste is [ed - ok, that bit is boring]
green energy uk’s innovative electricity generators are creating renewable energy from a variety of waste materials, including vegetable matter, unwanted wood, landfill gas and even pig waste. These materials traditionally would sit in landfill, or as with pig waste, manure on fields, decomposing and giving off greenhouse gasses, but they are now being given extended life and purpose.
green energy uk’s generators, based from Cornwall up to Caithness in Scotland, treat the waste to remove and use the harmful greenhouse gasses to produce green electricity. At a pig farm in Aberdeenshire, pig waste is treated through an anaerobic digester where microorganisms inside break down the biodegradable material to create a green biogas. The biogas is burnt to power a turbine that makes green electricity.
Since 2003, Hereford-based electricity generator Longma [ed - hey... neighbours!] has provided a free waste vegetable oil collection service to schools, colleges, universities, pubs and restaurants in the region. Longma recycles the oil into environmentally friendly biofuels for generating electricity in Combined Heat and Power units (CHP). The electricity made is consumed locally, and the heat generated by the CHP units is used to heat the Longma factory and neighbouring industrial buildings. For every 100 litres of waste oil Longma collects, 90 less litres of fossil fuels is burnt.
green energy uk’s electricity generators using CHP units are utilising the heat they create by directing it locally to warm buildings and keep greenhouses at temperatures that allow for foods traditionally grown and imported from overseas to be grown in the UK. Old-fashioned power stations that use fossil fuel to make electricity also create heat, but this heat is not harnessed as it is with CHP units and is lost into the atmosphere as steam up cooling towers, making them terribly inefficient.
According to Greenpeace reports, “On average, our large, centralised power stations throw away two thirds of the energy they generate…. CHP is the most efficient way possible to burn both fossil fuels (usually natural gas) and renewable fuels (including biomass and biogas). Pretty much any organic matter can be used to produce biogas; we could be reaping energy from farm waste, and from all of the organic waste - like uneaten food - that makes up about half of our landfill.”
green energy uk does not use fossil fuels to make its electricity. The energy company is instead making the most out of what we throw away. Co-founder and chief executive for green energy uk, Doug Stewart, explains "By recycling organic waste into energy, utilising biomass and clean CHP methods, alongside our solar, hydro and wind power projects, we are trying to establish what we think is a stable, sensible, long-lasting energy solution that will maintain the modern quality of life and benefit future generations... In theory the UK has resources to run itself entirely from renewable energy.”
green energy uk has two tariffs. Dark Green is made from 100% renewable sources and has zero carbon emissions. Pale Green is a mixture of renewable electricity, Biomass from waste and green electricity from Ofgem-accredited clean Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generators whose carbon emissions are 65% less than the national average for producing electricity. green energy uk facilitates investment in a wide range of technologies to produce renewable and green electricity. By the end of 2008, 95% of the electricity green energy uk supplies will come from generators only commissioned since green energy uk began in 2001.
green energy uk is the first and only energy company in the UK to offer customers the choice of 100% renewable or 100% green electricity.
green energy uk does not buy or sell any brown energy or energy created by Biomass from food crops.
green energy uk buys from 30 commercial generation sites, broken down as eight green CHP, nine hydro, four wind and nine biomass from waste.
Fancy being a Knol-all?
Google unveils Wikipedia rival Knol to the public
I am tempted, as a font of useless, re:useful knol-edge:)
Google gets "Knol!"
I am tempted, as a font of useless, re:useful knol-edge:)
Google gets "Knol!"
O, solar mi... o mi
I'll be posting this also under the main Solar category (label link below) as it's an interesting set of insights.
One of the blog/forums I frequent is a very worthwhile source of links, thoughts and, until recently, debate. In a less than thrilling example of how some 'purists' can shape the group think I have found myself much less likely to contribute by off-forum... approaches. Makes me all the more determined to police a fair but firm moderating line here to keep the bullies in check and the debate productive.
Recently there was a posting citing a Guardian piece, which I duly noted. Frankly I didn't do much else as it was about a bit of a punt and I tend to avoid these 'til they get serious.
Guardian - £37bn plan to power EU with the Saharan sun
However, a follow-up posting on this forum did catch my eye, and as it was in the ongoing spirit of challenge and making one think a bit more before leaping headlong into the 'green is good no arguments allowed' mode that I am so critical of (and seems all too practiced by so called 'professional journalists' in certain quarters, at best for a quick story, at worst ratings or some subjective agenda. Plus, if you read on, such as Dear Leader and Cher Napoleon, so it has already got serious), I thought what was written was worth sharing at least, and have been given permission by Frank Holland, the author:
I have been examining DESERTEC
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp/in_brief.htm for some time. It all sounds
so simple that even politicians can understand it. You build solar
energy generating systems where there is a lot of sun, the Sahara
desert. Then you send the electricity across North Africa, across the
Med, into Europe and split it into a fabulous grid system, see
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/elec_eng/grid.htm .
Well look at the distribution map at http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/ look at
all the places terrorists could cause damage...blow up a few lines and
cripple Europe. There are 8 lines feeding Europe, with long stretches
which could not be secured all the time.
Plus a little problem called desert winds, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Desert_(ecoregion)
Sand driven by wind will soon take the shine off all those mirrors used
to concentrate the sun light.
As always with these mega projects there are always downsides, but the
enthusiasts down play those.
Local micro generation will be much more stable with millions of
connections to the grid, a few failures will be unimportant to the whole
system.
I cannot speak for his background but these points were well made, and supported by links to more information, as with this one on my agreeing with his point on wind etching/erosion, having not thought of it until he pointed it out:
Not just erosion, but the risk of burial....sand and wind build sands
dunes, see http://www.saharamet.com/desert/photos/Sahara.html
These are considerations that those standing ready to blow bazillions on projects of still uncertain enviROI will, I hope, at least have answers to. And will be brought to the fore by responsible journalists in major media before charging off on the next set of vast capital projects in the name of green.
There was another poster with some other interesting points on transmission drop outs, etc, based on the proximity principle, but have not his permission yet to quote verbatim and credit.
Addendum -
EU Referendum - Gullible or not?
One of the blog/forums I frequent is a very worthwhile source of links, thoughts and, until recently, debate. In a less than thrilling example of how some 'purists' can shape the group think I have found myself much less likely to contribute by off-forum... approaches. Makes me all the more determined to police a fair but firm moderating line here to keep the bullies in check and the debate productive.
Recently there was a posting citing a Guardian piece, which I duly noted. Frankly I didn't do much else as it was about a bit of a punt and I tend to avoid these 'til they get serious.
Guardian - £37bn plan to power EU with the Saharan sun
However, a follow-up posting on this forum did catch my eye, and as it was in the ongoing spirit of challenge and making one think a bit more before leaping headlong into the 'green is good no arguments allowed' mode that I am so critical of (and seems all too practiced by so called 'professional journalists' in certain quarters, at best for a quick story, at worst ratings or some subjective agenda. Plus, if you read on, such as Dear Leader and Cher Napoleon, so it has already got serious), I thought what was written was worth sharing at least, and have been given permission by Frank Holland, the author:
I have been examining DESERTEC
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp/in_brief.htm for some time. It all sounds
so simple that even politicians can understand it. You build solar
energy generating systems where there is a lot of sun, the Sahara
desert. Then you send the electricity across North Africa, across the
Med, into Europe and split it into a fabulous grid system, see
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/elec_eng/grid.htm .
Well look at the distribution map at http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/ look at
all the places terrorists could cause damage...blow up a few lines and
cripple Europe. There are 8 lines feeding Europe, with long stretches
which could not be secured all the time.
Plus a little problem called desert winds, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Desert_(ecoregion)
Sand driven by wind will soon take the shine off all those mirrors used
to concentrate the sun light.
As always with these mega projects there are always downsides, but the
enthusiasts down play those.
Local micro generation will be much more stable with millions of
connections to the grid, a few failures will be unimportant to the whole
system.
I cannot speak for his background but these points were well made, and supported by links to more information, as with this one on my agreeing with his point on wind etching/erosion, having not thought of it until he pointed it out:
Not just erosion, but the risk of burial....sand and wind build sands
dunes, see http://www.saharamet.com/desert/photos/Sahara.html
These are considerations that those standing ready to blow bazillions on projects of still uncertain enviROI will, I hope, at least have answers to. And will be brought to the fore by responsible journalists in major media before charging off on the next set of vast capital projects in the name of green.
There was another poster with some other interesting points on transmission drop outs, etc, based on the proximity principle, but have not his permission yet to quote verbatim and credit.
Addendum -
EU Referendum - Gullible or not?
Sticks and stones
I'm sure I'll stumble across more detailed pieces later today, but the BBC just had a piece on renewables.
Seems an MEP is accusing the government of 'watering down the wording of an EU directive' to move from 'compulsory' to 'optional'.
To which a spokesperson has replied that they are 'committed to meeting targets'.
It just seems so sad to me that in this, or at least the reporting of it, there seems no mention of the actual value, and hence wisdom of such measures, at least on an enviROI basis, as if this no longer matters.
Wording and targets are all that do, apparently.
Addenda (there will be more, I'm sure):
Gaurdian - Britain tries to block green energy laws - The culprit, at least from this piece, looks like a belief in nuclear. Hmn.
On a related issue...
Gaurdian - Don't be fooled by the climate change bill. Carbon trading torpedoes it - the posts are worth it.
Seems an MEP is accusing the government of 'watering down the wording of an EU directive' to move from 'compulsory' to 'optional'.
To which a spokesperson has replied that they are 'committed to meeting targets'.
It just seems so sad to me that in this, or at least the reporting of it, there seems no mention of the actual value, and hence wisdom of such measures, at least on an enviROI basis, as if this no longer matters.
Wording and targets are all that do, apparently.
Addenda (there will be more, I'm sure):
Gaurdian - Britain tries to block green energy laws - The culprit, at least from this piece, looks like a belief in nuclear. Hmn.
On a related issue...
Gaurdian - Don't be fooled by the climate change bill. Carbon trading torpedoes it - the posts are worth it.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
INVENTION SITES
It occurs to me that as I invent things, so may others who read this blog or visit Junkk.com. Here's another evolving list of sites that may help.
American Inventor - US-based, but international is scope. Nice ideas and also ads, too. I have written for them on occasion.
cipa - NEW
Design to Order - It's in Japanese - read more here
Instructables
Invention Lab - sponsored by Radio Shack
Invention showcase
WRTI - Home of Inventique, a very useful monthly mailing
IP-related
Idea Buyer - some good info. Caution on the selling!
Intellectual Property Office - very useful!
Own-It
Again, let me know of others and I'll add them. Reviews to come as and when.
American Inventor - US-based, but international is scope. Nice ideas and also ads, too. I have written for them on occasion.
cipa - NEW
Design to Order - It's in Japanese - read more here
Instructables
Invention Lab - sponsored by Radio Shack
Invention showcase
WRTI - Home of Inventique, a very useful monthly mailing
IP-related
Idea Buyer - some good info. Caution on the selling!
Intellectual Property Office - very useful!
Own-It
Again, let me know of others and I'll add them. Reviews to come as and when.
e-Wagen?
I still have a perfectly good, if dead Golf shell at the bottom of the garden. Could this be another option?
Crowd-sourcing the e-car
Crowd-sourcing the e-car
EVENT - Innocent Village Fete
WHEN: Saturday 2nd August and Sunday 3rd August 2008
WHAT: Innocent Village Fete
WHERE: Regent's Park, London
WHAT... MORE?: From the PR:
Now in its second year, the fete is a great day out for all the family and the perfect way to while away the hours on a hot summer’s day (fingers crossed for lots of sunshine). It all starts at 11am and runs until 7pm. So, pencil it in your diary, scribble it on your hand and tell all your friends. It’s going to be great - that nice duck herding man is already booked and raring to go.
Over the weekend, you’ll be able to indulge in the following fete pursuits: welly-wanging, duck herding, dog agility (just for dogs), coconut shy, ferret racing, Morris dancing, old fashioned funfair rides, cream teas, home-made cakes, tombola, a band stand and lots more.
There will also be a dedicated kids’ zone with kids’ food stalls, rides, a petting zoo and a special reading area from our favourite children’s book publishers Puffin.
And there'll be lots of life’s necessities too: a huge farmers’ market (with stalls from Borough Market), live music from a host of artists including,The James Taylor Quartet, Imelda May, The Fairey Band, The Ukulele Orchestra, The Boy Least Likely To and many more, an Acoustic Bandstand, our patented al fresco ballroom, a picnic area, a knitting tent, arts and crafts, massages and a feel good area if it all gets a bit much. There’ll also be lots of smoothies to taste.
The fete is a non profit making event that supports Samaritans, Friends of the Earth, Wellchild and the innocent foundation.
HOW MUCH: Tickets are £7.50 for adults and £3.50 for kids (plus £1.50 adult booking fee / £1 kids booking fee) and are available via Ticketmaster.
URL: http://www.innocentvillagefete.com/
COMMENTS: Wished we lived in London!
WHAT: Innocent Village Fete
WHERE: Regent's Park, London
WHAT... MORE?: From the PR:
Now in its second year, the fete is a great day out for all the family and the perfect way to while away the hours on a hot summer’s day (fingers crossed for lots of sunshine). It all starts at 11am and runs until 7pm. So, pencil it in your diary, scribble it on your hand and tell all your friends. It’s going to be great - that nice duck herding man is already booked and raring to go.
Over the weekend, you’ll be able to indulge in the following fete pursuits: welly-wanging, duck herding, dog agility (just for dogs), coconut shy, ferret racing, Morris dancing, old fashioned funfair rides, cream teas, home-made cakes, tombola, a band stand and lots more.
There will also be a dedicated kids’ zone with kids’ food stalls, rides, a petting zoo and a special reading area from our favourite children’s book publishers Puffin.
And there'll be lots of life’s necessities too: a huge farmers’ market (with stalls from Borough Market), live music from a host of artists including,The James Taylor Quartet, Imelda May, The Fairey Band, The Ukulele Orchestra, The Boy Least Likely To and many more, an Acoustic Bandstand, our patented al fresco ballroom, a picnic area, a knitting tent, arts and crafts, massages and a feel good area if it all gets a bit much. There’ll also be lots of smoothies to taste.
The fete is a non profit making event that supports Samaritans, Friends of the Earth, Wellchild and the innocent foundation.
HOW MUCH: Tickets are £7.50 for adults and £3.50 for kids (plus £1.50 adult booking fee / £1 kids booking fee) and are available via Ticketmaster.
URL: http://www.innocentvillagefete.com/
COMMENTS: Wished we lived in London!
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Mr Green in the Study with the Patio Heater
Well, I had to get 'green' and 'study' in there to intro this, a call for help with reaserch from BCU who, as you may know have been helpful in our RE:tie efforts:
The research will feed into a Big Debate with leading eco figures.
I was wondering if you would mind taking a few minutes out in order to complete the electronic questionnaire and if you could encourage your team/colleagues to fill in the research as well as we would like to have as many responses as possible. Everyone who completes the questionnaire will receive a complimentary invitation to a highly energetic Debate, to be held on 15th September at the International Convention Centre, in which they will have the opportunity to influence individuals like Peter Ainsworth (Shadow Environmental Secretary), Leonora Oppenheim (treehugger.com) and Richard Bilton (senior correspondent for the BBC on environmental matters) on the sustainable agenda.
The questionnaire only takes about 8 minutes to complete.
Click on www.bcu.ac.uk/grrreen and click on the green attitudes button
The research will feed into a Big Debate with leading eco figures.
I was wondering if you would mind taking a few minutes out in order to complete the electronic questionnaire and if you could encourage your team/colleagues to fill in the research as well as we would like to have as many responses as possible. Everyone who completes the questionnaire will receive a complimentary invitation to a highly energetic Debate, to be held on 15th September at the International Convention Centre, in which they will have the opportunity to influence individuals like Peter Ainsworth (Shadow Environmental Secretary), Leonora Oppenheim (treehugger.com) and Richard Bilton (senior correspondent for the BBC on environmental matters) on the sustainable agenda.
The questionnaire only takes about 8 minutes to complete.
Click on www.bcu.ac.uk/grrreen and click on the green attitudes button
The dogs of (either) for (or against) are unleashed
Interesting how far and how deep the fallout from the CH4 censure ruling released, as referred to in previous recent posts.
As readers will know, I subscribe to various forums (that, depending on how anal the owners and readers/users are, can be demmed/meant as 'lists').
They can be very valuable, and often inspir spirited debate.
They can also be mean-spirited, as I have again found to my cost (not for the first time... nor will it be the last).
To this:
Re: Ofcom ruling - The Great Global Warming Swindle
Actually both sides claim victory. Channel4 seem to have been let off
on a rather bizarre technicality
"Ofcom's Broadcasting Code requires Channel 4 to show "due
impartiality" on "matters of major political and industrial
controversy and major matters relating to current public policy".
Human hands are driving climate change, Ofcom acknowledges
The last segment of the programme, dealing with the politics of
climate change, broke this obligation, Ofcom judged, and did not
reflect a range of views, as required under the code.
But the main portion of the film, on climate science, did not breach
these rules.
Ofcom's logic is that "the link between human activity and global
warming... became settled before March 2007".
This being so, it says, climate science was not "controversial" at
the time of broadcast, so Channel 4 did not break regulations by
broadcasting something that challenged the link.
"That's a very big inconsistency," said Sir John Houghton. "They said
it's completely settled, so why worry - so they can just broadcast
any old rubbish." "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm
I replied thus:
'...so they can just broadcast any old rubbish."
Indeed. But I despair of any rational, objective and especially accurate reporting from just about anyone these days, be it from perverse agenda, a desire for ratings or just plain rubbish standards.
I was watching BBC News this morning about some Green Motor show and although it was fluff as a result of claims made had to write in twice:
H2...oh? - I am a big fan of the potential of hydrogen as an automotive fuel, and fully accept that it is mainly water that comes out the exhaust pipe (which is good at point of release) but is it true to say a car using it is 'zero emission'? I think it may have some consequence as the car and fuel still needs to be made.
Declan: 'Green cars... ...Without the environmental cost' Without... or reduced? They are different.
There are too many people deciding for the public who are, IMHO, not that well placed to lay claim to the role, often with those above them with some very odd notions on what 'is best'. Often with a target of some rather dubious green profit forecast as their guide than what is best for my kids.
It is a sad state affairs when I now take much from the state broadcaster, especially when broadcasting matters of state, with at best a pinch of salt on such critical issues as climate, worthy reductions & mitigations, etc. And across all other major media, especially print, the lines are pretty clearly drawn... with sniping mainly from very extreme corners that serve those in the middle ground poorly served for worthwhile subjective argument let alone objective fact. And the tabloids really only care if they can scream about either a disaster, jobsworth-abuse or score a PR-partnership for a week 'til a minor royal has a blonde moment.
Hence I tend to navigate around many sources to try and get to a middle ground, but boy does it do your head in trying.
To which I had this, shared with all:
Perhaps surprisingly, reporting on technical stuff is not as easy as it looks since it involves maintaining your contact base (ie not completely enraging them so they don’t take your calls) while interpreting complex scientific matters while not attempting to engage a reader who’d prefer to be reading the football while keeping your editor and (sometimes sales people) happy. All this is done to deadline with minimal resources.
Give it a whirl and let me know how you get on.
Fair dos. But I did sense a ceratin critique not such much to my argument as to my abilities, so I replied:
Well if I did at the moment under the guise of being an objective seeker of truth I'd say it might well be a case of two wrongs making an even bigger mess.
Which is why I tend to steer clear of absolutes and stating things as fact when they might not be. These things can come back to pull rugs.
But you know, given sufficient resources, staff, researchers, access to expert input, and holding true to some journalistic and editorial integrity, plus a bit of honesty and humility, I might be tempted to give it a go one day.
And I'd like to think that I'd lay out the facts and issues as I know them, to the best of my ability, and get them proofed and checked at every stage. And invite the reader to join me on a journey of mutual discovery where all opinion, if well thought through and shared in a civilised manner, is welcome. So even hard and fast rules can evolve.
Until then, I guess I'll have to live with what the current, and unlikely to improve circumstances (as they have spiralled downhill) you describe throws up.
Seems hardly satisfactory. Maybe you are right. Best not to express an opinion. Doesn't do much good. I made my suggestions to the BBC at about 7am. They were still running with what I believed to be inaccurate/misguided information by the end of the show.
Was I incorrect?
All seems a bit like brooking no critique of the Captain of the Exxon Valdez by suggesting to a miffed Alaskan that he tries steering a supertanker whilst merry.
And as I had been invited (challenged), I then added this:
Ah, a shared love of writing.
Mine is, perhaps, for now, less professional (I don't get paid - and I was going to be flip about what such as Clarkson or Liddle do find in his wallet, but I don't smoke and like my hair short. And while I often respect their commitments to good journalistic standards in going deep and not being afraid to feast on the odd sacred cow, I despair that writers of such calibre have sold out to ratings (and their rewards) by such shock-jock, rabble-rousing idiocies as running over cyclists being a sensible comment to pass) in my latest chosen area of interest, but it doesn't stop me. So we have that in common as well.
Give it a whirl and let me know how you get on.
Actually, I have... er.. do on occasion, when the mood takes.
Let me see, bearing my soul... and exposed underbelly, how about this...
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html
Didn't claim it was definitive, but gave it my best shot.
How'd I do? My scorecard (heavily biased mind)
reporting on technical stuff is not as easy - agreed
as it looks since it involves maintaining your contact base (ie not completely enraging them so they don’t take your calls) - must have been lucky with mine so far
while interpreting complex scientific matters while not attempting to engage a reader who’d prefer to be reading the football - OK, I'll concede my audience might be more empathetic
while keeping your editor - he's a nice guy, honest:) And for now likes things that way.
and (sometimes sales people) happy - ah, well, a man can dream of a day when the sales director bursts in and says 'So what if we have 2M guys who trust what you write... I've negotiated a spread sponsored by Porsche, so you must say the Cayenne Turbo is the best in its class for emissions!!! And I then say... no (unless it is).'
All this is done to deadline with minimal resources - er...tick... and, tick.
I'm guessing not all are written as the reader might hope or imagine. But I'm sure you know better than I.
OK, I was being... at tad... sarky, and while it's no excuse 'he did start it'.
But now I have this, currently off forum, direct:
Is that post really appropriate on a list of over 700 members?
Does it inform?
Who benefitted from you sending that to us all, rather than off-list to Michael?
Please, have some courtesy.
To which I am sorely tempted to reply with this:
Is that post really appropriate on a list of over 700 members?
I thought so. You think not. If not appropriate to some I guess it is worth asking. I wonder what the other 698 think. Are you an owner... or moderator*?
If it breached any rules I am sorry and would not repeat it, if allowed to stay. If so, what might they be?
Does it inform?
If you refer to my last, it most certainly did, especially anyone interested in plastic bags.
And, perhaps, those keen to see me try and answer the question... challenge posted to me as an individual, admittedly as a result of my being concerned in general terms at the levels of journalism to which the public is exposed. Interestingly I did not disagree with anyone here, but a view, and it has led to this, so quickly.
Who benefitted from you sending that to us all, rather than off-list to Michael?
I trust you demanded the same of him first. But then this did arise as a result of interesting interpretations of two wrongs...
Please, have some courtesy.
I fear I fail to see the lack of courtesy, especially when much more blatant examples of its lack are prevalent on this 'list' that I simply delete if they do not appeal.
But then consistency does not seem to be a strong suit on occasion.
* If not, I suggest you call for me to be censured.
Now, should I?
I do confess, the level of heat directed, personally, at those who do not toe the line, especially party line group thinks on so-called sustainable blogs, is a real worry.
Addendum: I have now had this, off forum, from the initial challenger:
A blog – even a fine, upstanding and popular one such as yours – is a completely different thing from journalism. I’m not saying better or worse, just different and not comparable.
To which I have replied, in the same manner. I hope addressing some possible inherent inconsistencies in tone and fact in a courteous manner:
Thanks for the compliment, if sincere. As to your following statement it is an interesting distinction, and one I'd like to have debated, but no longer in such circumstances.
I have also been written to 'off list' by someone who suggests, amongst some other views I really cannot agree with or subscribe to, that I was discourteous, though whether he meant to the list or just you I am not sure.
If the former I am sure he has written to you too (by virtue of your writing direct now I suspect yes - I am having some trouble assessing what is and is not deemed acceptable for mass broadcast and what is not. It cannot be matters of extensive philosophical musings vs. factual shares if recent post are anything to go by. So I'll for now go with 'inconsistent', erring on don't cross the group ethos... whatever that is. I believe in sustainability but often don't with the way it is advocated, practiced or preached ). However if only the latter it seems I may yet need to respond to those I may have offended.
I did not set out to be and hence do not think I was discourteous, but it is possible by my responding to a challenge in the spirit of healthy debate it may have come across that way, in which case I apologise.
But I also fear that, while this list still has its uses as a source of information and even worthy opinion, if I get targeted off list by those who do not like certain views or my right to express them, then its use is now seriously curtailed.
Addendum - Separate to my little local difficulty, a few other posters have engaged in what can most charitably be called philosophical discussions and/or disagreements. As it was limited to a small group I quickly learned to scan and delete and move on.
Now the group is tearing itself apart. There are the pompous literalists calling for all sorts of 'measures', my nemesis suggesting the chosen ones move to another group he is part of 'where only the right sort of poster and post is allowed', and a few wondering what the heck all the fuss is about. It is these latter I feel the most sorry for, and wonder to what extent they represent a noisy few from a silent majority who will simply give up as a result of the smugs and bullies. Especially those who feel that having an alternative opinion is not to be tolerated.
A sad, small, metaphor for where we are still?
As readers will know, I subscribe to various forums (that, depending on how anal the owners and readers/users are, can be demmed/meant as 'lists').
They can be very valuable, and often inspir spirited debate.
They can also be mean-spirited, as I have again found to my cost (not for the first time... nor will it be the last).
To this:
Re: Ofcom ruling - The Great Global Warming Swindle
Actually both sides claim victory. Channel4 seem to have been let off
on a rather bizarre technicality
"Ofcom's Broadcasting Code requires Channel 4 to show "due
impartiality" on "matters of major political and industrial
controversy and major matters relating to current public policy".
Human hands are driving climate change, Ofcom acknowledges
The last segment of the programme, dealing with the politics of
climate change, broke this obligation, Ofcom judged, and did not
reflect a range of views, as required under the code.
But the main portion of the film, on climate science, did not breach
these rules.
Ofcom's logic is that "the link between human activity and global
warming... became settled before March 2007".
This being so, it says, climate science was not "controversial" at
the time of broadcast, so Channel 4 did not break regulations by
broadcasting something that challenged the link.
"That's a very big inconsistency," said Sir John Houghton. "They said
it's completely settled, so why worry - so they can just broadcast
any old rubbish." "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517509.stm
I replied thus:
'...so they can just broadcast any old rubbish."
Indeed. But I despair of any rational, objective and especially accurate reporting from just about anyone these days, be it from perverse agenda, a desire for ratings or just plain rubbish standards.
I was watching BBC News this morning about some Green Motor show and although it was fluff as a result of claims made had to write in twice:
H2...oh? - I am a big fan of the potential of hydrogen as an automotive fuel, and fully accept that it is mainly water that comes out the exhaust pipe (which is good at point of release) but is it true to say a car using it is 'zero emission'? I think it may have some consequence as the car and fuel still needs to be made.
Declan: 'Green cars... ...Without the environmental cost' Without... or reduced? They are different.
There are too many people deciding for the public who are, IMHO, not that well placed to lay claim to the role, often with those above them with some very odd notions on what 'is best'. Often with a target of some rather dubious green profit forecast as their guide than what is best for my kids.
It is a sad state affairs when I now take much from the state broadcaster, especially when broadcasting matters of state, with at best a pinch of salt on such critical issues as climate, worthy reductions & mitigations, etc. And across all other major media, especially print, the lines are pretty clearly drawn... with sniping mainly from very extreme corners that serve those in the middle ground poorly served for worthwhile subjective argument let alone objective fact. And the tabloids really only care if they can scream about either a disaster, jobsworth-abuse or score a PR-partnership for a week 'til a minor royal has a blonde moment.
Hence I tend to navigate around many sources to try and get to a middle ground, but boy does it do your head in trying.
To which I had this, shared with all:
Perhaps surprisingly, reporting on technical stuff is not as easy as it looks since it involves maintaining your contact base (ie not completely enraging them so they don’t take your calls) while interpreting complex scientific matters while not attempting to engage a reader who’d prefer to be reading the football while keeping your editor and (sometimes sales people) happy. All this is done to deadline with minimal resources.
Give it a whirl and let me know how you get on.
Fair dos. But I did sense a ceratin critique not such much to my argument as to my abilities, so I replied:
Well if I did at the moment under the guise of being an objective seeker of truth I'd say it might well be a case of two wrongs making an even bigger mess.
Which is why I tend to steer clear of absolutes and stating things as fact when they might not be. These things can come back to pull rugs.
But you know, given sufficient resources, staff, researchers, access to expert input, and holding true to some journalistic and editorial integrity, plus a bit of honesty and humility, I might be tempted to give it a go one day.
And I'd like to think that I'd lay out the facts and issues as I know them, to the best of my ability, and get them proofed and checked at every stage. And invite the reader to join me on a journey of mutual discovery where all opinion, if well thought through and shared in a civilised manner, is welcome. So even hard and fast rules can evolve.
Until then, I guess I'll have to live with what the current, and unlikely to improve circumstances (as they have spiralled downhill) you describe throws up.
Seems hardly satisfactory. Maybe you are right. Best not to express an opinion. Doesn't do much good. I made my suggestions to the BBC at about 7am. They were still running with what I believed to be inaccurate/misguided information by the end of the show.
Was I incorrect?
All seems a bit like brooking no critique of the Captain of the Exxon Valdez by suggesting to a miffed Alaskan that he tries steering a supertanker whilst merry.
And as I had been invited (challenged), I then added this:
Ah, a shared love of writing.
Mine is, perhaps, for now, less professional (I don't get paid - and I was going to be flip about what such as Clarkson or Liddle do find in his wallet, but I don't smoke and like my hair short. And while I often respect their commitments to good journalistic standards in going deep and not being afraid to feast on the odd sacred cow, I despair that writers of such calibre have sold out to ratings (and their rewards) by such shock-jock, rabble-rousing idiocies as running over cyclists being a sensible comment to pass) in my latest chosen area of interest, but it doesn't stop me. So we have that in common as well.
Give it a whirl and let me know how you get on.
Actually, I have... er.. do on occasion, when the mood takes.
Let me see, bearing my soul... and exposed underbelly, how about this...
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html
Didn't claim it was definitive, but gave it my best shot.
How'd I do? My scorecard (heavily biased mind)
reporting on technical stuff is not as easy - agreed
as it looks since it involves maintaining your contact base (ie not completely enraging them so they don’t take your calls) - must have been lucky with mine so far
while interpreting complex scientific matters while not attempting to engage a reader who’d prefer to be reading the football - OK, I'll concede my audience might be more empathetic
while keeping your editor - he's a nice guy, honest:) And for now likes things that way.
and (sometimes sales people) happy - ah, well, a man can dream of a day when the sales director bursts in and says 'So what if we have 2M guys who trust what you write... I've negotiated a spread sponsored by Porsche, so you must say the Cayenne Turbo is the best in its class for emissions!!! And I then say... no (unless it is).'
All this is done to deadline with minimal resources - er...tick... and, tick.
I'm guessing not all are written as the reader might hope or imagine. But I'm sure you know better than I.
OK, I was being... at tad... sarky, and while it's no excuse 'he did start it'.
But now I have this, currently off forum, direct:
Is that post really appropriate on a list of over 700 members?
Does it inform?
Who benefitted from you sending that to us all, rather than off-list to Michael?
Please, have some courtesy.
To which I am sorely tempted to reply with this:
Is that post really appropriate on a list of over 700 members?
I thought so. You think not. If not appropriate to some I guess it is worth asking. I wonder what the other 698 think. Are you an owner... or moderator*?
If it breached any rules I am sorry and would not repeat it, if allowed to stay. If so, what might they be?
Does it inform?
If you refer to my last, it most certainly did, especially anyone interested in plastic bags.
And, perhaps, those keen to see me try and answer the question... challenge posted to me as an individual, admittedly as a result of my being concerned in general terms at the levels of journalism to which the public is exposed. Interestingly I did not disagree with anyone here, but a view, and it has led to this, so quickly.
Who benefitted from you sending that to us all, rather than off-list to Michael?
I trust you demanded the same of him first. But then this did arise as a result of interesting interpretations of two wrongs...
Please, have some courtesy.
I fear I fail to see the lack of courtesy, especially when much more blatant examples of its lack are prevalent on this 'list' that I simply delete if they do not appeal.
But then consistency does not seem to be a strong suit on occasion.
* If not, I suggest you call for me to be censured.
Now, should I?
I do confess, the level of heat directed, personally, at those who do not toe the line, especially party line group thinks on so-called sustainable blogs, is a real worry.
Addendum: I have now had this, off forum, from the initial challenger:
A blog – even a fine, upstanding and popular one such as yours – is a completely different thing from journalism. I’m not saying better or worse, just different and not comparable.
To which I have replied, in the same manner. I hope addressing some possible inherent inconsistencies in tone and fact in a courteous manner:
Thanks for the compliment, if sincere. As to your following statement it is an interesting distinction, and one I'd like to have debated, but no longer in such circumstances.
I have also been written to 'off list' by someone who suggests, amongst some other views I really cannot agree with or subscribe to, that I was discourteous, though whether he meant to the list or just you I am not sure.
If the former I am sure he has written to you too (by virtue of your writing direct now I suspect yes - I am having some trouble assessing what is and is not deemed acceptable for mass broadcast and what is not. It cannot be matters of extensive philosophical musings vs. factual shares if recent post are anything to go by. So I'll for now go with 'inconsistent', erring on don't cross the group ethos... whatever that is. I believe in sustainability but often don't with the way it is advocated, practiced or preached ). However if only the latter it seems I may yet need to respond to those I may have offended.
I did not set out to be and hence do not think I was discourteous, but it is possible by my responding to a challenge in the spirit of healthy debate it may have come across that way, in which case I apologise.
But I also fear that, while this list still has its uses as a source of information and even worthy opinion, if I get targeted off list by those who do not like certain views or my right to express them, then its use is now seriously curtailed.
Addendum - Separate to my little local difficulty, a few other posters have engaged in what can most charitably be called philosophical discussions and/or disagreements. As it was limited to a small group I quickly learned to scan and delete and move on.
Now the group is tearing itself apart. There are the pompous literalists calling for all sorts of 'measures', my nemesis suggesting the chosen ones move to another group he is part of 'where only the right sort of poster and post is allowed', and a few wondering what the heck all the fuss is about. It is these latter I feel the most sorry for, and wonder to what extent they represent a noisy few from a silent majority who will simply give up as a result of the smugs and bullies. Especially those who feel that having an alternative opinion is not to be tolerated.
A sad, small, metaphor for where we are still?
Auntie giveth, and Auntie taketh away
No one could excuse the BBC of being anything less than an enthusiastic proponent of matters green.
However, in its zeal I do wish it reporters could attempt to get their heads around certain realities so things can be put in proper context.
Today business reporter Declan Curry is at a Motor Show, which has a green section. So far, so interesting.
However, I have had to write in now twice:
H2...oh? - I am a big fan of the potential of hydrogen as an automotive fuel, and fully accept that it is mainly water that comes out the exhaust pipe (which is good at point of release) but is it true to say a car using it is 'zero emission'? I think it may have some consequence as the car and fuel still needs to be made.
Declan: 'Green cars... ...Without the environmental cost' Without... or reduced? They are different.
Telegraph - British International Motor Show: Green gloss masks red shift for car industry
I think I am on a loser here. They are, pssobly, 'better', but I guess the definition is now too firmly entrenched to save us from a marekting onslaught that ignores the actual enviROI:
21/07/2008: “2p A Mile” Car Ready To Roll Off Production Line
A zero-emission electric car that does the equivalent of 250 miles to the gallon is set for a summer launch.
EU Referedum - NEW - Green illiteracy
However, in its zeal I do wish it reporters could attempt to get their heads around certain realities so things can be put in proper context.
Today business reporter Declan Curry is at a Motor Show, which has a green section. So far, so interesting.
However, I have had to write in now twice:
H2...oh? - I am a big fan of the potential of hydrogen as an automotive fuel, and fully accept that it is mainly water that comes out the exhaust pipe (which is good at point of release) but is it true to say a car using it is 'zero emission'? I think it may have some consequence as the car and fuel still needs to be made.
Declan: 'Green cars... ...Without the environmental cost' Without... or reduced? They are different.
Telegraph - British International Motor Show: Green gloss masks red shift for car industry
I think I am on a loser here. They are, pssobly, 'better', but I guess the definition is now too firmly entrenched to save us from a marekting onslaught that ignores the actual enviROI:
21/07/2008: “2p A Mile” Car Ready To Roll Off Production Line
A zero-emission electric car that does the equivalent of 250 miles to the gallon is set for a summer launch.
EU Referedum - NEW - Green illiteracy
Monday, July 21, 2008
Ah, the sweet smell of a comms budget
Government kids website pays £6 for every visitor
No, it's not about the environment. But it's in this blog because it so easily could be.
As a matter of interest, is their a public/FoI-type thingie to find out what has been blown on creating'/gets blown on running Govt./quango sites and how this all equates to actual usage?
No, it's not about the environment. But it's in this blog because it so easily could be.
As a matter of interest, is their a public/FoI-type thingie to find out what has been blown on creating'/gets blown on running Govt./quango sites and how this all equates to actual usage?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Who'd have thunk?
Report rigged. Enquiry hijacked... shock.
BAA invented ‘green’ jumbo to help win Heathrow case
Now, how confident to we feel on Nuclear, Wind farms, GM...?
BAA invented ‘green’ jumbo to help win Heathrow case
Now, how confident to we feel on Nuclear, Wind farms, GM...?
Saturday, July 19, 2008
It's a view, certainly
Over on my other blog, there is reference to a BBC Editor who is 'helping' the government on some political options.
There is a small storm however, based on the fact that he essentially outlines an either/or for them, and by association the reader, that sort of throws the imposition or sparing of pain ultimately back on the public. Basically tax more or provide fewer services.
What he has been caught doing, and held to account for, is ignoring another option which, while equally unpalatable, should at least be in the mix. And that is trim the fat within the machine of government itself first. No real surprise of course, bearing in mind the unique way the BBC is funded, and the way this government has conducted itself over the last decade. How many more packaged and pensioned civ. servs and quango-getters on the public payroll now...1 million?
Which is what struck me reading this, for obvious reasons that will become clear, if horrible to be thinking about:
The natural consequence of human greed
There is no excuse not to do what one can, but it certainly makes me even more determined not to get on the sanctimonious route of many of the greenerati who may do all sorts of stuff, and doubtless rush to print to tell us they are, and we should, but for whom the actual back to basics suggested in this piece would not be part of the programme so long as the economy, nice job and/or trust fund delivers.
There is a small storm however, based on the fact that he essentially outlines an either/or for them, and by association the reader, that sort of throws the imposition or sparing of pain ultimately back on the public. Basically tax more or provide fewer services.
What he has been caught doing, and held to account for, is ignoring another option which, while equally unpalatable, should at least be in the mix. And that is trim the fat within the machine of government itself first. No real surprise of course, bearing in mind the unique way the BBC is funded, and the way this government has conducted itself over the last decade. How many more packaged and pensioned civ. servs and quango-getters on the public payroll now...1 million?
Which is what struck me reading this, for obvious reasons that will become clear, if horrible to be thinking about:
The natural consequence of human greed
There is no excuse not to do what one can, but it certainly makes me even more determined not to get on the sanctimonious route of many of the greenerati who may do all sorts of stuff, and doubtless rush to print to tell us they are, and we should, but for whom the actual back to basics suggested in this piece would not be part of the programme so long as the economy, nice job and/or trust fund delivers.
Look, flying pigs!
Flying empty aeroplanes to keep landing slots should never happen
I have been here before. I wonder why I am back again.
There is what is, and there is what should be. Which is why 'should' is one of my least favourite words, especially when used in headlines.
I have been here before. I wonder why I am back again.
There is what is, and there is what should be. Which is why 'should' is one of my least favourite words, especially when used in headlines.
Don't know what to make of this
I tend to steer clear of Climate Changey stuff as it inevitably ends up so far at two extremes as to be essentially useless as information and simply overall unpleasant to be amongst.
However, I do feel this worth posting, as I was alerted to it by a rather coy reference on BBC Breakfast News, which also seemed to be having trouble with the 'censure' bit being followed by the 'did not mislead' bit.
Channel 4 to be censured over climate film
As soon as I finish this sentence I might hop over to the Ch4 site to see how they spin it. What's the betting there might be a different order of emphasis?
... well there's a surprise. Nothing. At least, that I could find. And what a woeful site! Some of the news items are months old!
Thing is, I really don't know what to make of it all. At best there seems to be some value in news creators being told not to tell porkies, and also for those who would deny the deniers to get to grips with the fact that there are many who are not yet convinced of various 'facts' and consequent solutions, and that sulking is not going to cut it in rebuttal. I'd suggest tackling the arguments rather than the persons making them, and lock down the science rather blowing it out of proportion such that subsequent errors don't prove a gift to those seeking to spin another way.
As for the BBC, I'd also suggest getting a little more balance in, and a little less theatre in trying to help the public assess it. Lord Monckton and Roger Harrabin, while undoubtedly well-informed by now (so many miles flown in the pursuit of knowledge), are hardly well placed to reassure me that what I am getting has been sifted for even the most basic factual rigour.
Addendum - Global warming and the arks of the 41st century - seems about the right place for it
Addendum 2 - OFCOM ruling - that only a person with too much time, or no life, could love.
BBC - Climate documentary 'broke rules' (on e way of looking at it)
The Register - Climate Swindle film: bruised egos, but no offence (another way)
The Times - Channel 4 censured for programme that said climate change was a fraud (and another, reflecting the Guardian article referred to above. Ain't news reporting grand these days?)
Ch4 - All I could find: CHANNEL 4 APOLOGY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE DOCUMENTARY
The broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, has made serious criticisms of a Channel 4 documentary which challenged the consensual theory within the scientific community that human activity is the prime cause of global warming and climate change.
The regulator has found The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was aired last year, failed to meet obligations to be impartial and to represent a range of views, and was ‘unjust and unfair’ in the way it treated and represented individuals. But, concludes Ofcom, the programme did not mislead audiences ‘so as to cause harm’.
Read our five-minute guide to climate change
Indy - C4's climate change documentary 'was unfair but not misleading'
Indy - Michael McCarthy: Ofcom's judgement failed to address the key question... was this programme accurate?
Gaurdian - Why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? -
Gaurdian - Watchdog's verdict on Channel 4 climate film angers scientists -
Gaurdian - The public has been swindled - Might be time to pop over to another chann... paper route. This is getting... predictabel... partisan... etc. Sure it will be 'over there', too.
Telegraph - Channel 4 censured for misrepresenting scientists on climate change
Telegraph - Climate change fanatics censor inconvenient truths - a minority view perhaps - I have to say that the whole thing is rather embodied to me by one 'side' using the term 'deniers' and the other 'fanatics', with no sesne of anything other than these entrenched views existing... or being allowed to. Me, I'm a climate* dunno'er, but best to err on caution. But none of this lot get my voet to speak for me.
The Times, so far, seems to have missed it.
BBC - Newsnight - A Great Channel 4 Swindle? - always good for a laugh
Ch4 - It's not we who make the public sceptical on climate change - If I were to take anything as a member of the media from this sorry affair, it is:
1)Don't take sides
2)Don't pander to agendas
3)Don't chase ratings
4)Don't make things up
5)If you get it wrong, apologise, put it right... and don't do it again.
Which does of course applies to all sides in this 'argument'. I for one am fed sick of the extremes and, sadly, my first thought is to ignore the whole sorry lot.
* as in Probably Man-Worsened
Gaurdian - The great lunar rockism con - What strikes me most is how many replies have been deleted.
Telegraph - NEW - Channel 4 defends itself against green censorship
However, I do feel this worth posting, as I was alerted to it by a rather coy reference on BBC Breakfast News, which also seemed to be having trouble with the 'censure' bit being followed by the 'did not mislead' bit.
Channel 4 to be censured over climate film
As soon as I finish this sentence I might hop over to the Ch4 site to see how they spin it. What's the betting there might be a different order of emphasis?
... well there's a surprise. Nothing. At least, that I could find. And what a woeful site! Some of the news items are months old!
Thing is, I really don't know what to make of it all. At best there seems to be some value in news creators being told not to tell porkies, and also for those who would deny the deniers to get to grips with the fact that there are many who are not yet convinced of various 'facts' and consequent solutions, and that sulking is not going to cut it in rebuttal. I'd suggest tackling the arguments rather than the persons making them, and lock down the science rather blowing it out of proportion such that subsequent errors don't prove a gift to those seeking to spin another way.
As for the BBC, I'd also suggest getting a little more balance in, and a little less theatre in trying to help the public assess it. Lord Monckton and Roger Harrabin, while undoubtedly well-informed by now (so many miles flown in the pursuit of knowledge), are hardly well placed to reassure me that what I am getting has been sifted for even the most basic factual rigour.
Addendum - Global warming and the arks of the 41st century - seems about the right place for it
Addendum 2 - OFCOM ruling - that only a person with too much time, or no life, could love.
BBC - Climate documentary 'broke rules' (on e way of looking at it)
The Register - Climate Swindle film: bruised egos, but no offence (another way)
The Times - Channel 4 censured for programme that said climate change was a fraud (and another, reflecting the Guardian article referred to above. Ain't news reporting grand these days?)
Ch4 - All I could find: CHANNEL 4 APOLOGY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE DOCUMENTARY
The broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, has made serious criticisms of a Channel 4 documentary which challenged the consensual theory within the scientific community that human activity is the prime cause of global warming and climate change.
The regulator has found The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was aired last year, failed to meet obligations to be impartial and to represent a range of views, and was ‘unjust and unfair’ in the way it treated and represented individuals. But, concludes Ofcom, the programme did not mislead audiences ‘so as to cause harm’.
Read our five-minute guide to climate change
Indy - C4's climate change documentary 'was unfair but not misleading'
Indy - Michael McCarthy: Ofcom's judgement failed to address the key question... was this programme accurate?
Gaurdian - Why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? -
Gaurdian - Watchdog's verdict on Channel 4 climate film angers scientists -
Gaurdian - The public has been swindled - Might be time to pop over to another chann... paper route. This is getting... predictabel... partisan... etc. Sure it will be 'over there', too.
Telegraph - Channel 4 censured for misrepresenting scientists on climate change
Telegraph - Climate change fanatics censor inconvenient truths - a minority view perhaps - I have to say that the whole thing is rather embodied to me by one 'side' using the term 'deniers' and the other 'fanatics', with no sesne of anything other than these entrenched views existing... or being allowed to. Me, I'm a climate* dunno'er, but best to err on caution. But none of this lot get my voet to speak for me.
The Times, so far, seems to have missed it.
BBC - Newsnight - A Great Channel 4 Swindle? - always good for a laugh
Ch4 - It's not we who make the public sceptical on climate change - If I were to take anything as a member of the media from this sorry affair, it is:
1)Don't take sides
2)Don't pander to agendas
3)Don't chase ratings
4)Don't make things up
5)If you get it wrong, apologise, put it right... and don't do it again.
Which does of course applies to all sides in this 'argument'. I for one am fed sick of the extremes and, sadly, my first thought is to ignore the whole sorry lot.
* as in Probably Man-Worsened
Gaurdian - The great lunar rockism con - What strikes me most is how many replies have been deleted.
Telegraph - NEW - Channel 4 defends itself against green censorship
Thursday, July 17, 2008
PETITION - ESTABLISHING ESTABLISHMENT STANDS
These days it seems a lot gets done in our names by our 'representatives' and other 'leaders'.
Fair enough. Often we are too busy, or lazy, to get involved in the minutiae of governance, which is why we trust elected, and often not quite so elected folk to get up to stuff in our name. Approving and disapproving. Asking and taking to task.
However, often there seem these days to be powerful forces at work that can skew what happens in our name away from courses that we might hope for, and even approve of. Everything from lobby groups to the rather unattractive, if to some degree understandable notion that what might be right, specially for later on (when out of office and either in comfortable index-linked retirement or 6' under) might not attract votes, as such, now.
Worse still, I am sensing some voting on key issues is not so much on the issue themselves, to to removing checks and balances that might at first glance seem innocuous, but actually are there to address more controversial topics at a later stage.
Again, by the time all this happens those who instituted/scuppered the deal might well be long gone.
It might exist already, but I propose a simple chart (with key headings - Nuclear, Planning, etc) of those in power, predominantly MPs, Ministers, MEPs, etc, but also quango heads and even business leaders, who are on record as being 'pro' or 'con' an action/piece of legalisation/etc, especially with their voting record along with a brief, comprehensible summary (this is key, so every voter can understand the issues, at least as well as they are capable of being expressed) of what the consequences of their voting might be and, if and when proven, has/is/will come to pass.
At the very least I want these fine chaps and chapesses to be confronted with the consequences of their actions and, even if they are long gone, in an archived way their descendants can appreciate their legacies (good... and bad).
Perhaps it could be called 'The Parapet Post'? And for some, maybe it become, with cause, a pillory?
ADDENDUM - Bit of fun: as there seemed to be nothing like it, I have submitted a petition:
'The Parapet Post' – a simple online, constantly updated, archived chart/record of our leaders’ voting records on topics, with possible and actual outcomes listed.
We are too busy, or lazy, to get involved in the minutiae of governance, so we trust elected, and often not quite so elected folk to act in our name. Approving/disapproving. Asking/taking to task.
However, these days powerful forces can skew away from courses that we might hope for, and even approve of. Everything from lobby groups to vote-driven self interest.
Voting on key issues can not be so much on the issues themselves, but to removing checks and balances that might at first glance seem innocuous, but actually are there to address more controversial topics at a later stage.
I request a simple online chart (with key headings - Nuclear, Planning, etc) of those in power, predominantly MPs, Ministers, MEPs, etc, but also quango heads, who are on record as being 'pro' or 'con' an action/piece of legislation/etc, especially with their voting record along with a brief, comprehensible summary (this is key, so every voter can understand the issues, at least as well as they are capable of being expressed) of what the consequences of their voting might be and, if and when proven, has/is/will come to pass.
BBC - Poll finds AMs back more powers
Guardian - NEW - How many MPs are climate change sceptics? - LED burning crosses at the ready?
Addendum - 17/07/08 - Oh, wo..e is me. And boy, was it quick:
I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected.
Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:
* Issues for which an e-petition is not the appropriate channel
Further information: Sites containing this requested
information already exist e.g. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow
the following link:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/TheParapetPost/BCfF51CgkEwAEDq1PTALogg
You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your
petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions.
Hmn. While the cited site is very good, it really doesn't do what I was asking, at least in the easy to assess, tabular, evolving manner I was suggesting.
Still, I still have Pols Porkies or the Wall of sLime to develop.
Fair enough. Often we are too busy, or lazy, to get involved in the minutiae of governance, which is why we trust elected, and often not quite so elected folk to get up to stuff in our name. Approving and disapproving. Asking and taking to task.
However, often there seem these days to be powerful forces at work that can skew what happens in our name away from courses that we might hope for, and even approve of. Everything from lobby groups to the rather unattractive, if to some degree understandable notion that what might be right, specially for later on (when out of office and either in comfortable index-linked retirement or 6' under) might not attract votes, as such, now.
Worse still, I am sensing some voting on key issues is not so much on the issue themselves, to to removing checks and balances that might at first glance seem innocuous, but actually are there to address more controversial topics at a later stage.
Again, by the time all this happens those who instituted/scuppered the deal might well be long gone.
It might exist already, but I propose a simple chart (with key headings - Nuclear, Planning, etc) of those in power, predominantly MPs, Ministers, MEPs, etc, but also quango heads and even business leaders, who are on record as being 'pro' or 'con' an action/piece of legalisation/etc, especially with their voting record along with a brief, comprehensible summary (this is key, so every voter can understand the issues, at least as well as they are capable of being expressed) of what the consequences of their voting might be and, if and when proven, has/is/will come to pass.
At the very least I want these fine chaps and chapesses to be confronted with the consequences of their actions and, even if they are long gone, in an archived way their descendants can appreciate their legacies (good... and bad).
Perhaps it could be called 'The Parapet Post'? And for some, maybe it become, with cause, a pillory?
ADDENDUM - Bit of fun: as there seemed to be nothing like it, I have submitted a petition:
'The Parapet Post' – a simple online, constantly updated, archived chart/record of our leaders’ voting records on topics, with possible and actual outcomes listed.
We are too busy, or lazy, to get involved in the minutiae of governance, so we trust elected, and often not quite so elected folk to act in our name. Approving/disapproving. Asking/taking to task.
However, these days powerful forces can skew away from courses that we might hope for, and even approve of. Everything from lobby groups to vote-driven self interest.
Voting on key issues can not be so much on the issues themselves, but to removing checks and balances that might at first glance seem innocuous, but actually are there to address more controversial topics at a later stage.
I request a simple online chart (with key headings - Nuclear, Planning, etc) of those in power, predominantly MPs, Ministers, MEPs, etc, but also quango heads, who are on record as being 'pro' or 'con' an action/piece of legislation/etc, especially with their voting record along with a brief, comprehensible summary (this is key, so every voter can understand the issues, at least as well as they are capable of being expressed) of what the consequences of their voting might be and, if and when proven, has/is/will come to pass.
BBC - Poll finds AMs back more powers
Guardian - NEW - How many MPs are climate change sceptics? - LED burning crosses at the ready?
Addendum - 17/07/08 - Oh, wo..e is me. And boy, was it quick:
I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected.
Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:
* Issues for which an e-petition is not the appropriate channel
Further information: Sites containing this requested
information already exist e.g. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow
the following link:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/TheParapetPost/BCfF51CgkEwAEDq1PTALogg
You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your
petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions.
Hmn. While the cited site is very good, it really doesn't do what I was asking, at least in the easy to assess, tabular, evolving manner I was suggesting.
Still, I still have Pols Porkies or the Wall of sLime to develop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)