Flying in the face of reality

I'm just back from my first holiday in a while, and intend to share some thoughts inspired by my travels soon, but first would like to share a press release from the NCC (National Consumer Council).

UK holidays are good for the environment but bad for the pocket

The NCC calls for collective action on climate change by urging government, business and regulators to address the domestic tourist industry and make UK destinations more attractive and better value for consumers.

As record numbers of Britons fly abroad, the NCC argues that far more could be done for climate change by making UK holidays better value, in particular by reversing the high costs of rail fares, accommodation and leisure facilities.

Despite the UK being hit by floods this summer, a new report reveals that many people think Britain is becoming warmer and a better place to spend holidays. Around one in three (32%) say they are prepared to switch future holiday plans to avoid flying. But, in the face of high costs and inertia, only one in twenty five (4%) do so. Examples emerging from research show that:

· Barcelona is cheaper than Blackpool. For example, the total cost of travel to Blackpool with accommodation in mid-August can work out more expensive than a similar trip to Barcelona. A return flight with seven nights’ accommodation costs £518. This compares to £554 for a return train ticket from London to Blackpool and a week’s accommodation.

· Planes are cheaper than trains. Seven in ten people have decided not to travel by train because of the cost of a ticket, according to fellow consumer organisation Passenger Focus. Only 40% of people who do travel on trains feel they are getting value for money. However, the vast majority (80%) would travel more on trains if the fares were a bit cheaper.

Ed Mayo, NCC Chief Executive said: ‘People are increasingly being asked to think before flying, but poor value at home means that this is a stick without a carrot.’

The NCC’s report: The Environmental Contract: How to harness public action on climate change

I couldn't agree more with almost all of this, but there are certain facts that cannot be escaped.

While my holiday was mainly to see relatives, it did coincide with being in a place that had sun, sea and sand.

Ignoring costs of travel and accommodation, the simple fact is that because of these factors (plus being happy with a $2 bowl of noodles for lunch), I sat in a deckchair for several days doing sod all (and spending same), while my kids played in the sea and made sandcastles. Sadly, in the UK each day of any holiday requires at least £100 to feed and entertain, sun out or not (more if not).

This is a simple matter of money. And a lot of it. And little here will change that, though many of the initiatives suggested will help. Along with global warming... if that is indeed what is going to happen. This summer has not bee the best evidence for this, though.

A holiday is about relaxing. Sitting in a wet tent seeing your bank account getting sucked dry hourly is not really going to do that. Sorry.

Trading places

This is a hoot: Rich 'can pay poor to cut carbon'

"Rich nations should be absolved from the need to cut emissions if they pay developing countries to do it on their behalf,"

Actually I have no problem wit the rich paying the poor to reduce emissions (with such as my still much vaunted, but sadly poorly supported, championing of buying up the mature rainforests as opposed to whacking a fir in the firmament), but to suggest that this is in exchange for going on doing what you're doing is plain daft. Who pays his salary?

In passing, I see this has angered environmental groups. What is an 'environmental group anyway? is Junkk.com one? How do you get such an accolade?

Dirty deals, done dirt cheap..

I don't know about you, but I have long since given up even trying price comparison sites as they simply are not worth the effort: Price comparison sites -- how impartial are they?

The reason was simple: they are obviously not very impartial and seldom, if ever, lead to a good deal. So it frankly amazes me how they exist, let alone proliferate and, it seems, make pots of money.

Insurance, shopping, utilities... all of them are simply a waste of space.

An interesting piece (and piece of logic) from Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert at the end, too.

Comparing the comparison sites

Dilemma, etc

It has been a short while, so it's nice to see another celebrity has been wheeled out to help us with our climate unawareness.

And to do so by travelling the world to visit lots of poor, but film-worthy places.

So this time I was treated to a very agitated Sienna Miller on BBC News 24 saying 'bring it on' to all those the blonde and the bouffant indicated my be being a bit cynical.

Thing is, I was pretty much on board until we we treated to how she offsets all her flights as 'it really wouldn't be practical, etc, etc... for her not to' . A bit of a mea culpa in this regard will be following at some juncture soon.

But what really cranked the eyebrow was how she has teamed up with Vodafone... yes, that's acres of free public broadcast PR for Vodafone... on a scheme to recycle your old mobiles. And what's really great is that the poor folk get some pounds too! I don't know, but popping 10% of value to charity on such a vast contributor to carbon as a 2"x5" mobly hardly seems top of the enviROI list to me, but hey-ho.

And now, having got that out of the way, her new film, which she's shooting next week, is...

It's a dilemma. Sure something needs to be done. But I remain unsure that these are the best people to do it. The media plays along because they get ratings from sticking a blonde celeb on screen, and can also gush a bit about global warming but also stir it up by asking here if she has a 4x4 or drinks Evian. I for one just find it a real trivial distraction.

And speaking of dilemmas, check out the picture above from today's Guardian. They will help us with ours!

Thing is, the only reason I saw that ad is because I clicked on a piece advertising an exclusive interview with conductor Claudio Abbado... (cue awestruck 'Oooooo') '..on a private jet'. I guess this was relevant because they were at least Lear-sharing.

Personally, I don't think celebrity and eco-cred mixes. So I really wish the media wouldn't do it.

There's Gold in them thar (Green) Hills!

This from the Indy: Democrats in $7bn plan to turn US green

What I liked most about the potential of this was that the green collar jobs referred to seem to be mostly productive, focusing on actually making something that makes a positive enviROI difference.

While over here, almost anything I see promoting the cause of green seems to be in the areas of trading or researching or managing or awareness, etc. Whilst some oversight and complementary admin is necessary, as I often say, if you have nothing but folk counting beans on the backs of those making 'em, soon all will starve. I just look at what is being blown on quango board level salaries or public/commercial 'green' comms budgets that could be invested in tangibles, and weep.

A lot of what I read here makes sense, though of course this is from the opposition, and some areas do pose a concern, such as this: 'Sensing winds of change, American businesses are also lobbying for subsidies for everything from corn to ethanol plants and coal-to-oil, despite dubious environmental benefits.'

Whenever I see the word 'lobby', especially associated with 'subsidy', I fear the enviROI goes out the window.

And considering the scale of the problem, $7B seems pretty modest.

STABO £

Still smarting from being banned by the Beeb, I have decided to pick on someone my own si... er... someone else: Recycle Now Urges Holiday Makers to Get on-Board and Recycle their Brochures

Recycle Now the national recycling campaign for England, is issuing a reminder urging all holidaymakers to recycle their used holiday brochures instead of binning them and sending them to landfill.

Now, while it is a perfectly fine and logical message, if (as is claimed by the same mob) we are a nation of recyclers now, why on earth would I not pop my holiday brochure in my paper kerbside RE:box along with all the rest? Do I really need to be told this?

This just smacks of Statin' The Absolute Bleedin' Obvious and blowing a wadge of wonga in the process that could be better applied elsewhere.

Now, as Aunty asked...

Gotta love those 'we're listening' types at Newsnight, with their ironically titled (my message was rejected 'as I am not allowed to post comments' any more, it seems): Send a message to the TV industry

"Be as rude as you like, but no obscenities please or we won't be able to put your comment up."

No problem. I'll just pop down and catch some on my kids' TV shows:)

Meanwhile, back to answering the question, though some posters have already served up some beauts... which will be consummately ignored....

So here's one. Stop asking for opinions and then not paying a blind bit of notice to them. Stop taking serious, considered critiques and showing them only the contempt a dawn slot on Newswatch - with a sniffy producer/editor who could care less as he/she knows they are immune from consequence - can deliver.

And while everything in life needs a measure, can the BBC at least stop using the acquisition of ratings as the way in which 'executives' are rewarded? That way they might just try and actually serve the people and deliver quality programming as opposed to just trying to climb the corporate ladder as high as they can before bailing to land a nice cushy number elsewhere (or, better yet, promoted up or sideways internally after a cock-up).

Try reporting the news rather than making it (up).

Share with us the truth. We can handle it. It doesn't need to be 'enhanced'. Editing should be to make a story as clear as possible; not steer an agenda.

Finally, please remember that while it is the people who help make the brand, the brand makes the person. So stop being so damn lazy as to claim some individuals are not replaceable and hence lead to the obscene levels of pay that celebrity can create.

The exposure of the BBC is a gateway to riches enough already without using the licence fee to boost the salaries even more. I want my money used responsibly and accountably, with due humility and gratitude to the awesome privilege and career opportunity it represents to be in such a job.

Treat those who are forced to pay to watch as clientele to respect, inform and entertain, not some cash cow to support a nifty, gold-plated, privileged exclusive club lifestyle.

ps:

Find a better, more helpful and less arrogant way to help me post than getting this waaaaay too often, and having to use 'other methods':

Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
You are not allowed to post comments.
Return to the original entry

ADDENDUM;

I have now tried two other computers with no success at avoiding this message.

The SOBs really don't make it easy, do they? Or improve their own sorry reputations. For all the good it will do me, I have written to them on one of their 'we're here to respond' forms:

What, exactly, is this [reply] meant to mean? And how, exactly, is it meant to help resolve what may be a technological glitch but simply comes across as gross censorship?

Guardian - Give TV bosses a piece of your mind - do the guys working in the London media scene actually do any work, or just occupy these posts to snipe at each other?

Guardian - BBC scandals stoking crisis of distrust, say Paxman and Marr
Guardian - After the trust has gone - executives reflect on a turbulent year for TV
Guardian - The BBC has squandered trust. But we will win it back - If he says so, Same people. Same system.

Merton rule is/not to be abolished

Please feel free to delete 'is' or 'not' - whichever you find appropriate!

According to this article from yesterday's Guardian Unlimited central government is planning to torpedo the Merton rule; a rule under which local councils sign up to an agreement whereby 10% of all energy requirements on any new development will be met by using renewables.

"housing minister Yvette Cooper, who last year wanted all local authorities to adopt a Merton rule, will soon publish a new draft planning policy statement which outlines the abolition of the rule."

So it appears that our government is reverting to a regressive mode yet again.

But ........ today's Daily Mail reports an entirely different perspective.

"Contrary to fears expressed by some environmentalists, Ms Cooper will not be abolishing the Merton Rule"

"A spokesman for the Department of Communities and Local Government denied the planning guidance would ditch the Merton approach."

Now I know that the media always want to portray their stories as the most up-to-date and correct, but here there are two entirely poles-apart comments on the same subject.

OK, so which one represents the truth and which is a load of porkies? Or is it all intended to add to the plethora of obfuscation? I give up! I really don't know who to believe now!

ADDENDUM from Junkk Male

Recycling Waste World - Lib Dems slam plans to abolish Merton Rule
Guardian - Don't scrap green housing rule, urge campaigners

Gone. And probably forgotten.

Well, I'm back.

But I must take the chance to thank co-poster Dave (and other respondents) for keeping the blog-flame (alt.energy sourced hydrogen as fuel, of course) burning.

So much has happened. So much is happening. So much yet to happen. But I think maybe it's best to simply start anew (as soon as I have cleared the e and snail post mountain that needs dealing with) rather than trying any major historical catch-ups. It's not like I was keeping up too well real-time, without trying to deal with archives as well.

It's still worth looking back a few as it needed me to get back to authorise a few replies from the control panel, and there have been some good ones, thank you.

Also, one that is a real hoot.

Catch you later.

Nuclear will produce as much CO2 as fossil fuel plants

This argument, as we have pointed out many times already on this very blog, will run and run.

In an admittedly fairly lengthy video clip from E&ENews On-Point show, Nuclear Policy Research Institute founder Helen Caldicott discusses her new book, and makes a claim that as uranium ore gets scarcer then the equivalent CO2 output of a nuclear plant will increase and eventually equate to the CO2 output of a fossil fuel plant.

At one point she claims that "the nuclear industry lies"! She also claims that terrorists could very easily cause a nuclear plant meltdown!

So what many of us viewed as a stop-gap technology is perhaps as nasty at CO2 emission as fossil fuel power plants?

Now I'm confused even more!

When the best choice is less choice?

The title is taken from an interview with Jonathan Porritt - full detail from NewConsumer.com.

As ever with Porritt, the article is well worth a read, making lots of very salient points on our full blown consumerism and how we may have to change our ways.

"But the truth is that in the rich world very large numbers of us need to get used to consuming less. That’s just inevitable, we will either have to do so because our carbon budgets won’t be big enough to sustain our patterns of consumption – and everything has a carbon price tag attached to it – or because more and more people will recognise that that’s part of the responsibility of living on a shared earth – we have to make the limited resources available to all, not just the lucky ones living in rich countries like ours."

Anybody want to argue with that?

Never let it be said .....

..... that we don't put both sides of the argument.

This from the International Herald Tribune presents counter arguments to the level of zealousy that some believers in anthropogenic climate change have climbed.

It has quite a hefty dig at Sharon Begley, whose article we featured on this very blog recently.

"Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation."

Valid points both, but I would point out in response that empirically measured scientific data, and not just scientific consensus or hypothesis alone, has already largely concluded that man made global warming is almost certainly a reality.

Maybe the argument will never really be over until millions start dying of flooding and starvation. And, of course, by then, perhaps it may well be way too late?
_______________
And according to this from the Salt Lake Tribune, because I worry about climate change and the impact that it may have on my children and grandchildren, then I'm a "global warming fundamentalist" who is "pushing planet worship on us in a manner that would make a jihadist proud"!

This from another using the NASA data correction argument - data which only applies to the central USA (downgrading some years average temperatures by 0.03 degrees C) - he conveniently ignores the fact that the data (and any extrapolation from it) is still perfectly correct for the rest of the planet. (As explained in The Times - 16/8)

I've been called some things in my time, but never a jihadist!

And, just for the sake of argument - here, from SanDiego.com, is some scientific data about Lake Tahoe - especially for those who won't believe that there is any actual empirically measured scientific data.

Recycle your sex toys?

This certainly made me smile, an article about a 'rabbit amnesty' (no, not the cuddly white tailed bunny version!) from 24dash.com.

Better than going to landfill I suppose!

ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Just got my latest issue of The Ecologist. And guess what... there it was! And no reason why not. Hey. we noticed, and shared, it as soon as we stopped giggling. But it does show the mentality all who publish have, and what's going to get exposure ('oh, missus) first these days!

Green Tax On Air Travel?

It must be the season for surveys and public polls.

It would seem that a green tax on flights will probably be applied to all your flights before too long. Oft talked about and partly fudged already, but not genuinely implemented, probably because it has always been regarded as a vote loser, this from today's Indy suggests that public perceptions have changed to such an extent that almost half those polled are now "in favour of a tax on air travel to try to curb harmful the CO2 emissions that cause global warming."

Let's just hope that if (or perhaps when) it is implemented in one form or another that:-

a) It is implemented in a sensible and logical, understandable manner.
b) It isn't a typical bodge job.
c) The monies raised are actually used to help against global warming.

Well ...... its not too much to ask .... is it?
_______________

Meanwhile, on the other side of the big pond, the US FAA is planning to double or triple air traffic capacity by 2025. This from In These Times asks a very pertinent question - "is it [The FAA] giving concerns about aviation’s effects on climate change the attention they deserve?"

Given the political clout of the US aviation industry, I think I can hazard a good guess at what the answer is. Can you?

Climate Change Perceptions Study

Today has seen the publication of a study of people's perceptions of climate change in the NW of England. The study from the Northwest Climate Change Partnership (NWCCP) highlights the differences with which which people regard climate change and it's causes.

For instance:- "56.3 per cent are personally concerned about climate change" So the other 43.7% apparently just don't give a fig?

Yet only "20% of people are doing nothing to address climate change" ... so the numbers just don't add up.

It all just shows that, as Peter has commented many times before, the answers that you get from surveys don't necessarily reflect the actions that people actually take.

The good news, however, is that "68.8 per cent believe that they are doing something to help slow down climate change but are aware that there is more that they could do".

I find that number quite encouraging ...... well, providing it is a genuine reflection of what people actually meant rather than what they answered.

A Proactive Council That's Getting Things Right

Its not often that I find myself commending a local council initiative, but this one is really worth a mention. This from the Society Of Procurement Officers highlights a scheme introduced by the London borough of Richmond whereby the first 1,000 residents who install cavity wall or loft insulation will be given a £100 rebate on their council tax bill. Even when that particular pot is empty, anyone else will still receive £50 from British Gas.

A typical cost for installing cavity wall insulation in a three bedroomed semi is ~ £250 and for loft insulation ~£275. OK, the rebate's not earth shattering, but its a start, and, as they say, every little helps. And I commend the Richmond councilors for pushing this through.

What a shame that central government doesn't appear to be able to learn something from the initiatives driven by their more local brethren.
_____________

And while central government prevaricates (see 'Coming clean on going green' below), the local councils forge ahead. Now more than 130 local councils have signed up to the Nottingham declaration - as reported in the Plymouth Herald.

Coming clean on going green?

Well, it would seem that our esteemed government has once again shot itself through both bollo ..... errrm, feet. This from The Guardian highlights a leaked internal briefing memo in which they admit that the UK has absolutely no chance of meeting it's 'renewables' targets.

Uncle Tony signed up to the EU target of 20% of energy from 'renewables' by 2020 under a blaze of publicity and a great deal of self congratulatory crowing. Now it appears that we will be lucky to even meet 5% by 2020!

"It said that Britain had achieved 'little so far' on wind, solar or hydroelectric sources of power, and even getting to 9% from the current level of 2% would be 'challenging'. On current policies, renewables would only account for 5% of Britain's overall energy mix by 2020."

And worse, the re-badged DTI (have this lot never read Gaius Petronius?) advised "lobbying EU member states to agree that the target could be interpreted more flexibly by including investment in solar farms in north Africa, or by counting nuclear energy as 'renewable'."

And there's a section in the briefing memo that "asks ministers to examine 'what options there are for statistical interpretations of the target that would make it easier to achieve'."
Good lord! That's an instruction to feel free to make up numbers and tell lies any time you need to!

In summary, it looks now as if the target was an unachievable sham, and while the publicity made our ex-leader look good at the time, the real truth is that our current leadership team are simply looking for ways to prevaricate their way out of the mess by dissembling, skull-duggery, statistical manipulation and even downright cheating.

It's all too reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned - perhaps they could have entitled the piece - 'Coming clean on going Brown'? And of course no-one will get sacked, side-lined, punished or admonished at all, whilst still maintaining their gold plated pensions and salaries; it will all be smoothed over with more bull.

Arse covering, spin and blame deflection seem to be the only things our wonderful government are any good at all, under whatever leader!

The EC might be showing its teeth, but our lot appear to be simply passing lies through theirs!
___________________

More on this story from View London.
"Officials at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform would not comment on the document". Well, there's a surprise!

Ooooh look! We now have an official response from the PMS. See Downing Street Says.
Hmmm, they argued their way out of that one well didn't they?
___________________
Addendum:
Today's Guardian (14/8) has another interesting article from George Monbiot, who can always be relied upon to stir up the angst and ire of the masses. He points out, quite correctly, that back in March this year he questioned the government's 20% target. To be fair to Monbiot, he hardly crows about this at all (just an in passing 'lying bastards'), as the main thrust of his piece is the apparent contradiction that the media portrays whereby an editorial on one page exhorts us to become greener, whilst advertising alongside is for 4x4's and exotic travel holidays. Definitely well worth a read.

Addendum 2:
Well, it seems that the EC is still confident that the UK will meet its 20% emissions reduction target. See this from the International Local Government Association.
Given the chicanery and statistical manipulation that is going on I rather feel that that confidence is spectacularly misplaced!

The EC shows its teeth over vehicle CO2 emissions!

The EC industry commissioner seems to be taking a tough line with the European motor manufacturers.

The EC has been talking about limiting new vehicle CO2 emissions for what seems like years now, and is still nowhere near implementing any enforceable legislation. However, this article from Auto Industry suggests that the let out clause that all the motor manufacturers in Europe assumed that they would be able to use once legislation came in is not going to be available to them.

Essentially, most of the motor manufacturers thought that they would be able to buy their way out of their environmental responsibility for any models they produced with excessive CO2 emissions, (a type of offsetting?), but this looks like it will no longer be a future option for them.

Its rare for me to say this, but, for once, a big up to the EC. (If they carry it through!)

Met Office Prediction - Heatwaves

The latest UK meteorological office weather predictions provide an interesting set of long term 'forecasts', although I think I prefer the term predictions. This from The Guardian provides a concise summary.

"Powerful computer simulations used to create the world's first global warming forecast suggests temperature rises will stall in the next two years, before rising sharply at the end of the decade."

So the prediction for the next few years is that temperature increases will plateau at current levels until 2009/2010; something to do with natural shifts in climate canceling out the global warming caused by greenhouse gases. After that though, we are in for steadily climbing temperatures, increasingly warmer summers and increasingly heavy rainfall periods.

"From 2010, they warn, every year has at least a 50% chance of exceeding the record year of 1998 when average global temperatures reached 14.54C."

Weather forecasting is an inexact science, and they often cannot even get it right a few days ahead, so many may question the accuracy of their powerful computer simulations. But if they are correct, then perhaps now is the time to stock up on sunscreen, brollies and sandbags?

There's a fuller article with perhaps better explanation on the National Geographic News site.

Hmmmm, even the Daily Mail has picked up on this story.
___________________

Meanwhile, in a rather worrying move, Ol' Golden Brown seems to have downgraded the status of the cabinet committee on climate change - see this article from EDIE. And we all thought that he considered climate change a 'major challenge to mankind'!
___________________

"One giant leap backward for life on Earth"

Further to the post on the potential riches hidden on the sea bed under the arctic ice cap comes a second article, this time from the LA Times, which provides another set of alarming information.

Apparently, geologists believe that something like 25% of the planet's as yet undiscovered oil and gas may lie under the arctic ice, so its no real surprise that the Russian two miles deep flag planting stunt took place last week. And now "Norway, Canada and Denmark (through its possession of Greenland) are all using the continental-shelf argument to claim the Arctic seabed as an extension of their own sovereign territories".

OK, not specifically alarming in its own right, though the geo-political arguments that will ensue as these and other major world powers start to argue about just how to divvy up the arctic's riches are the sort of thing that has caused major conflict throughout human history. No, this worry concerns something else that is locked up under the ice, and in the permafrost in the surrounding continental land masses.

"While governments and oil giants are hoping the melting ice will allow them access to the world's last treasure trove of oil and gas, climatologists are deeply worried about something else buried under the ice that, if unearthed, could wreak havoc on the biosphere, with dire consequences for human life."

The big worry is the release of CO2 and, more importantly, methane, which scientists have long known to be the most potent of the greenhouse gases, as organic matter locked up in the permafrost and on the seabed decays when warming occurs. I'll let these quotes from the article make the key points.


" ... researchers warned of a tipping point sometime within this century, when the release of methane could create an uncontrollable feedback effect, dramatically warming the atmosphere, which would in turn warm the land, lakes and seabed, further melting the permafrost and releasing more methane. Once that threshold is reached, there will be nothing humans can do. Scientists suspect that similar events have occurred in the ancient past, between glacial periods."

"A global tragedy of monumental proportions is unfolding at the top of the world, and the human race is all but oblivious to what's happening. "

I've always found some human behaviour very strange, and this is no exception. Here we have climatologists warning of an atmospheric methane injection tipping point that may cause runaway global warming; yet all the various governments appear to worry about is how to grab as much of the arctic's potential resources as possible.

It was ever thus.