As reported in Guardian CIF today.
The article contains some very interesting and some very worrying snippets.
"The IPCC predicted an ice-free Arctic by the end of the century; some scientists now predict it for 2020. Ten years ago, it was thought that the Greenland ice cap - 11,000 feet high in some places - would take centuries to melt. Now, the pace of melting of the ice cap, and the unpredictable interaction of the feedback loops such melting may trigger, makes any firm prediction hazardous. In Greenland they know human civilisation is already entering unknown territory."
"But as the ice melts, the dark seas and the bare rock surface absorb heat, further accelerating melting and triggering sea level rises that will inundate, among other places, the Nile Delta, much of San Francisco and 40% of Bangladesh."
"'For the last 10,000 years,' Corell says, 'we have been living in a remarkably stable climate that has allowed the whole of human development to take place. In all that time, through the mediaeval warming and the Little Ice Age, there was only a variation of 1C. Now we see the potential for sudden changes of between 2C and 6C. We just don't know what the world is like at those temperatures. We are climbing rapidly out of mankind's safe zone into new territory, and we have no idea if we can live in it."
As the Arctic ice cap itself is disappearing (see Arctic Ice Update), the Greenland ice sheet appears to be starting to follow suit too. The potential for sea level rises that may have massive effects on mankind is well understood. The worrying thing is that the evidence suggests that it is already starting to happen at an accelerating pace.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Trust me. I'm a green ad man.
Do green and ethical claims need to be monitored? You know I like such questions.
Looking first at the headline, my immediate thought was 'isn't every claim monitored?'. I know the ASA site is alive with greenwash complaints, mostly upheld, which may explain the consumer reaction. Fool me once, shame on me... etc.
To the question in the body... er... which logo?
I made a joke a while ago that may yet turn out to be true, that soon my Smartie pack will have a CDR attached with all it is deemed I must know to 'assist' my purchase choice and disposal obligations contained therein. With of course, a CDR on that to 'assist' with its disposal in turn.
I believe we have already two health systems in place, no? And these are embraced - either legislatively or voluntarily - by some of the manufacturers and retailers but not all. In the wings we have Carbon Footprints and or food miles. Morrisons has already launched theirs (noted here, I believe), while WRAP is talking up another. And now this.
Am I going to have a clue what this is all about as I walk the aisles or watch an 8pt para scroll along the base of an ad? So... will it give advertisers credence? I don't think it will, no.
Nice use of funds though.
I also note that this initiative has been awarded an UnLtd grant. These guys are the ones who did not deem Junkk.com or RE:tie to have any social contribution or commercial application.
Brand Republic - Public distrustful of green claims in advertising
I'll repeat a bit from my answer to your other post question elsewhere.
How does this scheme fit into all the above? Extra, or instead of? And while costs need to be covered, there has to be an immediate concern on anything that is paid for by those it endorses, surely? No reason why I should I guess, but no word I can recall in the various trades of the industries involved either. Just how new is this? And how extensive?
The principle is fine, but I am unclear how it fits into the current industry and legislative frameworks already in place.
Looking first at the headline, my immediate thought was 'isn't every claim monitored?'. I know the ASA site is alive with greenwash complaints, mostly upheld, which may explain the consumer reaction. Fool me once, shame on me... etc.
To the question in the body... er... which logo?
I made a joke a while ago that may yet turn out to be true, that soon my Smartie pack will have a CDR attached with all it is deemed I must know to 'assist' my purchase choice and disposal obligations contained therein. With of course, a CDR on that to 'assist' with its disposal in turn.
I believe we have already two health systems in place, no? And these are embraced - either legislatively or voluntarily - by some of the manufacturers and retailers but not all. In the wings we have Carbon Footprints and or food miles. Morrisons has already launched theirs (noted here, I believe), while WRAP is talking up another. And now this.
Am I going to have a clue what this is all about as I walk the aisles or watch an 8pt para scroll along the base of an ad? So... will it give advertisers credence? I don't think it will, no.
Nice use of funds though.
I also note that this initiative has been awarded an UnLtd grant. These guys are the ones who did not deem Junkk.com or RE:tie to have any social contribution or commercial application.
Brand Republic - Public distrustful of green claims in advertising
I'll repeat a bit from my answer to your other post question elsewhere.
How does this scheme fit into all the above? Extra, or instead of? And while costs need to be covered, there has to be an immediate concern on anything that is paid for by those it endorses, surely? No reason why I should I guess, but no word I can recall in the various trades of the industries involved either. Just how new is this? And how extensive?
The principle is fine, but I am unclear how it fits into the current industry and legislative frameworks already in place.
Seeing the light
Illuminating ideas
And a chance for a plug:
Valuable post and comments.
I'm staring at a row of GU10 halogens and deciding what's best to get the light I need for my work vs. the costs vs. the enviROI.
The low energy bayonet/screw fitting elsewhere were a no-brainer.
However, in the Grush (green rush), one factor has arisen that I think is worthy of more attention: reliability.
There are some I have been suckered into buying that have lasted but a few months. The key is low-energy, long-life. But not only that, write the date of installation on the base and keep the receipts. Simple maths usually means the shop will refund you for a dud. And if enough of us do it, they will only stock the goodies.
And a chance for a plug:
Valuable post and comments.
I'm staring at a row of GU10 halogens and deciding what's best to get the light I need for my work vs. the costs vs. the enviROI.
The low energy bayonet/screw fitting elsewhere were a no-brainer.
However, in the Grush (green rush), one factor has arisen that I think is worthy of more attention: reliability.
There are some I have been suckered into buying that have lasted but a few months. The key is low-energy, long-life. But not only that, write the date of installation on the base and keep the receipts. Simple maths usually means the shop will refund you for a dud. And if enough of us do it, they will only stock the goodies.
Friday morning chews
We need a good story that covers all the bases. I hope this will be one such: Non-stick gum could slash £150m street cleaning costs
Who fancies the licence for Singapore?
Who fancies the licence for Singapore?
Me, too
When it hits the business section more than the environment one, you know things are afoot: I don't believe that going green should cost more, says Asda chief
So I think, with others, we can all be happy to see the guys earning the big bucks and able to make the big differences starting to catch up.
The discrepancy between what the chiefs of our two most significant retail entities say (much less do) is striking.
Who is right, I wonder?
Guardian - Mr High Street - There is a bit about M&S' enviro moves too, if you look hard.
So I think, with others, we can all be happy to see the guys earning the big bucks and able to make the big differences starting to catch up.
The discrepancy between what the chiefs of our two most significant retail entities say (much less do) is striking.
Who is right, I wonder?
Guardian - Mr High Street - There is a bit about M&S' enviro moves too, if you look hard.
Further to the previous post ....
..... here is the Guardian's take on the Tory proposals. I think that this provides a more concise and clear summary than most of the rest of the media.
This is the article reproduced in full.
_________________________________________
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male):
I guess it's part of the political fabric, but it sill seems a shame that whatever one lot does the other lot(s) will trash it all. Anyhoo, as those with perhaps more claim to being green than most, here's what I got sent (maybe there'll be more detail on what was in the report to come):
Greens dismiss Tory environmental claims
Speaking in advance of this week's publication of the Conservative
Party's 'Quality of Life' review, Green Party Principal Speakers Siân
Berry and Derek Wall today dismissed suggestions that the Tories had
gone Green.
Green Party Principal Speaker Siân Berry said:
"It seems clear that Cameron is trying to slide out of his previous
promise that the Tories would support a new round of nuclear power
stations only as a last resort.
"Backing nuclear power makes a mockery of their green pretensions.
"Dirty, dangerous, unnecessary and expensive - support for this
ailing industry comes at a cost of funding for the cutting edge
renewables technology.
Principal Speaker Derek Wall said:
"If they were serious about tackling climate change, the Tories would
call for an immediate moratorium on any more road building or
aviation growth.
"As it is, their belief that a bigger economy is a better economy
undermines any hope they have of adopting the right policies for
tackling climate change."
"The Conservatives privatisation of public transport under Thatcher
is one of the reasons why 80 per cent of journeys are by car. They
need to support the renationalisation of rail as well as reregulation
of bus travel."
Not the greatest in consumer-helpful, specfics-heavy retorts I might have hoped for, especially when reaching back to the Thatcher era at one point.
This is the article reproduced in full.
_________________________________________
Under proposals published yesterday the Tories have promised to redefine the measure of the UK's success away from simply measuring GDP and towards a group of indicators taking in economic wellbeing, societal wellbeing and environmental wellbeing.
Now there's a can of worms waiting to be opened!!Climate change
· Set a target for carbon dioxide emissions focused on ensuring global temperatures rise no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels. This means the UK must plan for an 80% cut in global emissions by 2050, higher than current government targets.
Now that is ambitious - and, unfortunately, probably unachievable.
· Reform the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) so that all permits to the utility sector and aviation are subject to auction, a means of raising the cost.
· "Clean development mechanisms" (such as carbon trading) should not be used as a way of avoiding domestic reductions in C02 emissons.
It will be interesting to see how they could enforce that.
Flying
· Moratorium on airport expansion, VAT on aviation fuel in domestic flights, and inclusion of aviation in ETS. Reform air passenger duty so it is linked to the flight and not the passenger.
· Publish comparative details of carbon dioxide emissions on tickets and set up a global trust for all climate change communication.
Motoring
· A new purchase tax on cars of up to 10% depending on CO2 output, as well as a sliding VAT scale between 5% and 17.5%. Vehicle excise duty set at maximum of £500, more than double the present £215 top rate.
Interesting!
· Introduce car efficiency targets of 120g of CO2 emitted per kilometre by 2012 and 80-100g by 2020 throughout the EU.
European vehicle manufacturers are struggling to meet the EU's current target of 140g, the UK trying to enforce even more stringent cuts is rather pointless.
· Place cigarette-style warnings, of a mandated size, on all car adverts.
This will be an utter waste of time if you ask me!
· Introduce a new employer parking spaces tax set at market rate.
Could cause a few problems, especially for bigger businesses.
· Reduce volume of car trips by 10%-17% by designing neighbourhoods where people can walk between amenities.
Errrmm, like, how? My nearest bank/cinema/post office etc. is over 6 miles away.
· Review cost-benefit analysis of road building.
Surely they do this already? If not, why the hell not?
Countryside
· Trespassers and burglars should no longer have the right to sue for damage done to them on other people's property.
That just might win them a few votes!
· Improve the needs test to control out of town shopping.
· Abolish regional government tier in planning.
Meaning what, exactly?
· Double council tax on a home that remains empty for more than a year.
· Relax planning controls on all estates with four or more houses built since 1945.
Also, meaning what, exactly?
· Review the spread of buy to let.
· Local councils, by referendum, able to rule that only people living in a countryside home for 200 days a year or more are allowed to buy the property.
That could prove extremely difficult to implement!
Energy efficiency
· Abolish home information packs, the government's controversial attempt to streamline the house buying process.
· A mandatory code for new sustainable homes, plus energy performance certificates requiring improvements by landlords and homeowners when major changes are made to a house.
About time too - we should have been doing this 30 years ago!
· Financial incentives (such as council tax rebates) plus low-cost capital to help homeowners improve energy efficiency, and reduced stamp duty for energy- efficient homes.
Bring it on!! The most sensible idea so far!
· All public companies to make annual statement on energy use by setting out their energy consumption per square metre.
Hmmmm, I thought that they are already supposed to do this? (Not necessarily by per M2)
· Smart meters introduced over a period of 10 years to aid energy saving.
Again, we should have been doing this years ago!
· Standby switches to be abandoned subject to EU agreement.
Not sure that this is achievable - I'd prefer to ban products that consume anything more than say, 1 watt, whilst on standby mode. Imagine having to reset the clock on your DVD/VCR every single time you switch it on!
Energy
· No new coal power stations after 2020 without carbon capture and storage. Existing stations will have until 2025 to introduce the technology.
Hoo - bloody -ray! Again, we should have been doing this for years now!
· No taxpayer/government funding for nuclear fission, risks and costs of nuclear borne by the private sector. But new carbon price in ETS will make nuclear more competitive.
So does that mean that fusion technology research is still funded?
· Withdraw subsidy for onshore wind farms.
If they are in poor, wind inefficient locations, then yes, it makes sense, otherwise I'm not too certain.
Food and waste
· Bans on the landfilling of recyclable and compostable materials.
Errrrm, wasn't this already supposed to be in place? Or is that just some local councils own initiative?
· 20p deposit on returnable bottles.
Back to the good old days when I was a kid! Bottle collecting for pocket money!
· Incinerators would capture and generate heat.
And put out lots of CO2 and toxins unless mandatorily fitted with CO2 and noxious gas scrubbers.
· A strengthened, legally binding code of practice on supermarkets and a ban on selling below cost price.
Hmmmm, a code of practice or legislation? Loss leading is a way of life for the big supermarket chains, it's one of the only tools they have for gaining market share!
· Reform Common Agricultural Policy but do not cut the amount of money spent on CAP in the UK.
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male):
I guess it's part of the political fabric, but it sill seems a shame that whatever one lot does the other lot(s) will trash it all. Anyhoo, as those with perhaps more claim to being green than most, here's what I got sent (maybe there'll be more detail on what was in the report to come):
Greens dismiss Tory environmental claims
Speaking in advance of this week's publication of the Conservative
Party's 'Quality of Life' review, Green Party Principal Speakers Siân
Berry and Derek Wall today dismissed suggestions that the Tories had
gone Green.
Green Party Principal Speaker Siân Berry said:
"It seems clear that Cameron is trying to slide out of his previous
promise that the Tories would support a new round of nuclear power
stations only as a last resort.
"Backing nuclear power makes a mockery of their green pretensions.
"Dirty, dangerous, unnecessary and expensive - support for this
ailing industry comes at a cost of funding for the cutting edge
renewables technology.
Principal Speaker Derek Wall said:
"If they were serious about tackling climate change, the Tories would
call for an immediate moratorium on any more road building or
aviation growth.
"As it is, their belief that a bigger economy is a better economy
undermines any hope they have of adopting the right policies for
tackling climate change."
"The Conservatives privatisation of public transport under Thatcher
is one of the reasons why 80 per cent of journeys are by car. They
need to support the renationalisation of rail as well as reregulation
of bus travel."
Not the greatest in consumer-helpful, specfics-heavy retorts I might have hoped for, especially when reaching back to the Thatcher era at one point.
And when they were up they were up, and when they were green they came down
There used to be a phase, now very un-PC and hence used no more: Indian Giver. Basically it meant (I think) offering something and then retracting it. It doesn't take much to see how this process is often worse than doing nothing at all.
So we come to Cameron 'drops controversial green pledges'
No sooner than I was getting my head around the 549 (lost two here) page report's summary (the full thing I'll leave to the 'RILEwings' (hey... and acronym: RIght/LEft wings) to cherry pick and gnaw to death, or hope some halfway objective journo may do so) than it looks like it really isn't worth the bother.
A shame, because that's not really how it was meant, but in this instant gratification/immediate reaction world, it was hard to separate a 'study' from policy. So while you can admire looking at an issue, warts and all, there seems to be a need to package it such that this clear distinction gets made in the minds of those for whom it is intended.
As it stands, I have no clue what is in or out, and hence really can have no opinion save for what seems a good idea, what might not be and, as they are different, what may/may not be good ideas to have if you want to win an election to get to do rather than just talk.
Carrots are good in this regard, but they better be pretty clear and trusted to salve the likely reaction to some less than lifestyle friendly hits.
There is also my enviROI bugbear: big vs. populist hits. At least as to what gets reported, which may be beyond the party's control.
The Quality of Life report analysis in the Indy does, I hope at least with the Recommendation ( I am unsure about the Expert View), conform to my desire for objectivity. I can't disagree with them, though I would want a lot more. For instance developing sustainable timber into stopping deforestation. I share its key points here:
Greenhouse gases
Recommendation: To combat climate change, the Tories should plan for an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, not the current 60 per cent target.
Expert view: This will hardly be among today's headlines about restricting flying and making gas guzzling cars more expensive, but to green campaigners it will stand out as an absolutely key commitment. It is increasingly clear to scientists that a 60 per cent cut in Co2 will not nearly be enough to halt the progress of global warming. In its draft Climate Change bill, however, the Labour government is sticking with the 60 per cent target.
Nuclear energy
Recommendation: The final decision on whether or not to build a new generation of nuclear power stations should be left to the private sector, and primarily based on economics.
Expert view: This nuclear fence-sitting is very different from the historic Conservative line on nuclear power, which (especially under Margaret Thatcher) was to give it unquestioning and rock-solid support. It also sharply differentiates the Tories from Labour, who are firmly backing nuclear power, and the Lib Dems, who would ban it. Probably a compromise that the Tory leadership, and the party, will go along with; the greens are pleased.
Biofuels
Recommendation: A Tory government should press ahead with biofuels to cut down Co2 emissions, but be very careful of the pitfalls associated with them.
Expert view: Transport fuels made from crops produce no net Co2 (because they absorb it as they grow) and therefore are increasingly seen as a quick fix to cut missions. But they also present potentially enormous environmental and social problems, including rainforest destruction and large-scale use of agricultural land, driving up food prices. Biofuels, says the report, should play an increasing role but be chosen for quality not quantity, with origin verified by the Government.
Sustainable timber
Recommendation: A Tory government should make the importation of timber from questionable sources illegal.
Expert view: Legislation should be brought in to ensure that only legal and sustainable timber products are sold in the UK. Many green campaigners and others concerned about the continuing destruction of the rainforests will welcome this proposal heartily. According to the World Wide Fund forNature, in 2005 the UK was the biggest importer of illegal timber in Europe, with the total making up 26 per cent of our imported wood.
Indy - Should we believe politicians when they promise to save the earth? I don't think so - my point about the messenger vs. the message writ clear. I must try and track Zac's Telegraph piece.
Telegraph - 'We can't carry on soaking up resources'
So we come to Cameron 'drops controversial green pledges'
No sooner than I was getting my head around the 549 (lost two here) page report's summary (the full thing I'll leave to the 'RILEwings' (hey... and acronym: RIght/LEft wings) to cherry pick and gnaw to death, or hope some halfway objective journo may do so) than it looks like it really isn't worth the bother.
A shame, because that's not really how it was meant, but in this instant gratification/immediate reaction world, it was hard to separate a 'study' from policy. So while you can admire looking at an issue, warts and all, there seems to be a need to package it such that this clear distinction gets made in the minds of those for whom it is intended.
As it stands, I have no clue what is in or out, and hence really can have no opinion save for what seems a good idea, what might not be and, as they are different, what may/may not be good ideas to have if you want to win an election to get to do rather than just talk.
Carrots are good in this regard, but they better be pretty clear and trusted to salve the likely reaction to some less than lifestyle friendly hits.
There is also my enviROI bugbear: big vs. populist hits. At least as to what gets reported, which may be beyond the party's control.
The Quality of Life report analysis in the Indy does, I hope at least with the Recommendation ( I am unsure about the Expert View), conform to my desire for objectivity. I can't disagree with them, though I would want a lot more. For instance developing sustainable timber into stopping deforestation. I share its key points here:
Greenhouse gases
Recommendation: To combat climate change, the Tories should plan for an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, not the current 60 per cent target.
Expert view: This will hardly be among today's headlines about restricting flying and making gas guzzling cars more expensive, but to green campaigners it will stand out as an absolutely key commitment. It is increasingly clear to scientists that a 60 per cent cut in Co2 will not nearly be enough to halt the progress of global warming. In its draft Climate Change bill, however, the Labour government is sticking with the 60 per cent target.
Nuclear energy
Recommendation: The final decision on whether or not to build a new generation of nuclear power stations should be left to the private sector, and primarily based on economics.
Expert view: This nuclear fence-sitting is very different from the historic Conservative line on nuclear power, which (especially under Margaret Thatcher) was to give it unquestioning and rock-solid support. It also sharply differentiates the Tories from Labour, who are firmly backing nuclear power, and the Lib Dems, who would ban it. Probably a compromise that the Tory leadership, and the party, will go along with; the greens are pleased.
Biofuels
Recommendation: A Tory government should press ahead with biofuels to cut down Co2 emissions, but be very careful of the pitfalls associated with them.
Expert view: Transport fuels made from crops produce no net Co2 (because they absorb it as they grow) and therefore are increasingly seen as a quick fix to cut missions. But they also present potentially enormous environmental and social problems, including rainforest destruction and large-scale use of agricultural land, driving up food prices. Biofuels, says the report, should play an increasing role but be chosen for quality not quantity, with origin verified by the Government.
Sustainable timber
Recommendation: A Tory government should make the importation of timber from questionable sources illegal.
Expert view: Legislation should be brought in to ensure that only legal and sustainable timber products are sold in the UK. Many green campaigners and others concerned about the continuing destruction of the rainforests will welcome this proposal heartily. According to the World Wide Fund forNature, in 2005 the UK was the biggest importer of illegal timber in Europe, with the total making up 26 per cent of our imported wood.
Indy - Should we believe politicians when they promise to save the earth? I don't think so - my point about the messenger vs. the message writ clear. I must try and track Zac's Telegraph piece.
Telegraph - 'We can't carry on soaking up resources'
Thursday, September 13, 2007
First it was cars, then planes, now shipping.
There has been one major form of transportation which seems, at least until now, to have largely escaped any media attention; I suspect they have simply kept quiet themselves whilst watching the flak aimed at others. But no secret remains so forever, and finally, a mainstream media source, Reuters, has pointed the finger at shipping, which some analysts claim emits almost as much CO2 as the airline industry.
"In Los Angeles alone, the ships in port spew more pollution than the metro area's six million cars combined"
"the trillion-dollar industry, which carries around 90 percent of world trade by volume on about 50,000 merchant ships, also accounts for about 10 percent of global sulphur dioxide emissions, a cause of acid rain, as well as large amounts of toxic nitrous oxide and particulate emissions."
I wonder how long it will be before the tabloids and the ragtops pick this one up and start advising their readers to take the chunnel, rather than the ferry, to France? Or perhaps the embattled aviation industry will use this as a stick with which to point blame at others?
"In Los Angeles alone, the ships in port spew more pollution than the metro area's six million cars combined"
"the trillion-dollar industry, which carries around 90 percent of world trade by volume on about 50,000 merchant ships, also accounts for about 10 percent of global sulphur dioxide emissions, a cause of acid rain, as well as large amounts of toxic nitrous oxide and particulate emissions."
I wonder how long it will be before the tabloids and the ragtops pick this one up and start advising their readers to take the chunnel, rather than the ferry, to France? Or perhaps the embattled aviation industry will use this as a stick with which to point blame at others?
Made me smile. Then frown.
This from the ever-useful MRW: Councils' decisions questioned by Repic letter
At first blush it looks like little in our consumer sphere to get involved with, but then I decided to have a nosey.
Considering the amounts involved, how such decisions are arrived at should be of massive public interest, and especially when they affect how we set up the planet of the future. For our kids? Or targets and/or bonuses?
Councils may 'have expressed concern about this letter'. I'd like to know why. And what the answers are.
This - “Local authorities may deem the information requested as commercially sensitive and decide not to give it out.” is one hell of a get out (of jail free?)!
At first blush it looks like little in our consumer sphere to get involved with, but then I decided to have a nosey.
Considering the amounts involved, how such decisions are arrived at should be of massive public interest, and especially when they affect how we set up the planet of the future. For our kids? Or targets and/or bonuses?
Councils may 'have expressed concern about this letter'. I'd like to know why. And what the answers are.
This - “Local authorities may deem the information requested as commercially sensitive and decide not to give it out.” is one hell of a get out (of jail free?)!
Slate, thatch, or crossply?
This is the kind of thing I think WRAP (or, more accurately, its support systems) does well: Recycling Tyres Into Roof Tiles
So long as the numbers add up (inc. enviROI), this looks a winner.
I wish all involved well.
So long as the numbers add up (inc. enviROI), this looks a winner.
I wish all involved well.
Money=?
Google Founders' Ultimate Perk: A NASA Runway
I think I'm boring most when I point out that it's hard to have a ton of cash and not spend it on stuff like toys and going places (or how all media, no matter how eco-sensitive, can resist reporting such excess in the awed terms accorded celeb lifestyles). I guess they just managed a neat combo.
Here's hoping we don't end up being lectured on going green from this quarter too overtly.
But I'm sure they offset like billy-o.
Guardian - Is black the new green? - Gotta love 'em though. Nice reply. IT feedback also noted.
I think I'm boring most when I point out that it's hard to have a ton of cash and not spend it on stuff like toys and going places (or how all media, no matter how eco-sensitive, can resist reporting such excess in the awed terms accorded celeb lifestyles). I guess they just managed a neat combo.
Here's hoping we don't end up being lectured on going green from this quarter too overtly.
But I'm sure they offset like billy-o.
Guardian - Is black the new green? - Gotta love 'em though. Nice reply. IT feedback also noted.
Big Mac
I referred to it before but, as is the way, almost forgot due to events, dear boys and guys... events. The Conservative report is now out, and warrants another outing, starting here: Tory report backs increased taxes on flights and cars
Interestingly, listening to the Jeremy Vine show 'tother day, I would say the BBC is seemingly in pendulum mode balance wise, because this didn't half cop it!
I'm sure there'll be more. And I just hope I can find the time to read it all (but at 549 pages that may not happen - which may be a metaphor for the disconnect between those telling us stuff and us listening/doing) and add my t'pennyworth without relying on others, and their biases, to creep in first.
To kick off: A quality report
I'd love to read it (ta, Guardian) to form my own view, but at 549 pages that may not happen.
Which, in a climate where there is a seeming disconnect between those who are telling us what to do, and what 'we' actually pay attention to and act upon, may explain some things.
I guess I'll do what I always do and just let the various 'wings' slug it out and bumble along in my own sweet way if it makes sense, seems fair and has a decent enviROI.
Guardian - MPs: government should help citizens 'do their bit' on climate change - Well, D'uh. As opposed to what?
Interestingly, listening to the Jeremy Vine show 'tother day, I would say the BBC is seemingly in pendulum mode balance wise, because this didn't half cop it!
I'm sure there'll be more. And I just hope I can find the time to read it all (but at 549 pages that may not happen - which may be a metaphor for the disconnect between those telling us stuff and us listening/doing) and add my t'pennyworth without relying on others, and their biases, to creep in first.
To kick off: A quality report
I'd love to read it (ta, Guardian) to form my own view, but at 549 pages that may not happen.
Which, in a climate where there is a seeming disconnect between those who are telling us what to do, and what 'we' actually pay attention to and act upon, may explain some things.
I guess I'll do what I always do and just let the various 'wings' slug it out and bumble along in my own sweet way if it makes sense, seems fair and has a decent enviROI.
Guardian - MPs: government should help citizens 'do their bit' on climate change - Well, D'uh. As opposed to what?
Now That's Radical !!
But by my reckoning, has about as much chance as the the proverbial snowball's in hell.
This little snippet from NewCarNet suggests that the only way that the Greater London Authority could achieve its intended aim of a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2025, is to ban all private cars from the city!
This little snippet from NewCarNet suggests that the only way that the Greater London Authority could achieve its intended aim of a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2025, is to ban all private cars from the city!
When, well, IF in London
It's how I like my conferences. So long as they end up as billed, that is: Relevant, topical, hopefully balanced (you have to look at provenance - COMPASS has a 'leaning') informative... and free.
The title looks fair. Wish I could go. Hope it moves things on.
Can a consumer society stop climate change?
Climate change is arguably the biggest challenge we face, however can it be stopped in an increasingly consumer society? Some have suggested if we continue to consume at the present rate we'd need 4 planets to sustain our current consumption levels.
With the main parties facing growing pressure to live up to their rhetoric on climate change and in the run-up to the climate change bill, Compass has convened a special debate to discuss these issues at: 6pm on Thursday 4 October in Central London (exact venue tbc).
Our high-profile international speaker Clive Hamilton is the executive director of The Australia Institute, Australia’s leading progressive think tank. He's best known for his work on climate change policy, consumerism and the problems of economic growth. In 2004 the Australia Institute teamed up with the IPPR in London and the Center for American Progress in Washington to form the International Climate Change Taskforce. Clive has published extensively, including the best-selling books Growth Fetish and Affluenza (co-authored with Richard Denniss) and What's Left: The death of social democracy. His most recent book is Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change.
At the debate he'll be joined by Compass chair Neal Lawson who's currently writing a book called All Consuming (www.allconsuming.org.uk) for publication in Spring 2008. More speakers are to be announced and the event will be chaired by Green Alliance Director Stephen Hale.
The event is free to attend, but early registration is essential to guarantee your place. Please email gavin@compassonline.org.uk to register.
The title looks fair. Wish I could go. Hope it moves things on.
Can a consumer society stop climate change?
Climate change is arguably the biggest challenge we face, however can it be stopped in an increasingly consumer society? Some have suggested if we continue to consume at the present rate we'd need 4 planets to sustain our current consumption levels.
With the main parties facing growing pressure to live up to their rhetoric on climate change and in the run-up to the climate change bill, Compass has convened a special debate to discuss these issues at: 6pm on Thursday 4 October in Central London (exact venue tbc).
Our high-profile international speaker Clive Hamilton is the executive director of The Australia Institute, Australia’s leading progressive think tank. He's best known for his work on climate change policy, consumerism and the problems of economic growth. In 2004 the Australia Institute teamed up with the IPPR in London and the Center for American Progress in Washington to form the International Climate Change Taskforce. Clive has published extensively, including the best-selling books Growth Fetish and Affluenza (co-authored with Richard Denniss) and What's Left: The death of social democracy. His most recent book is Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change.
At the debate he'll be joined by Compass chair Neal Lawson who's currently writing a book called All Consuming (www.allconsuming.org.uk) for publication in Spring 2008. More speakers are to be announced and the event will be chaired by Green Alliance Director Stephen Hale.
The event is free to attend, but early registration is essential to guarantee your place. Please email gavin@compassonline.org.uk to register.
The mouth says no. The dress says yes.
I'd hate to be on any jury. But especially a rape one. Despite too many CSI episodes it would be impossible to convict, especially when it's down to the word of the two sole witnesses.
This, is just slightly to do with that. It's about the dilemma one faces as a medium with a model based on ad revenue, and allied influences, as discussed in other blogs today (sponsorship, funding, etc). You have to be careful that what you say is not countered too much (if at all), but what's happening around you, and hence associated with you.
On Junkk.com I fully intend (and need) to have ads to help me pay my way. And logic dictates the ads on certain sections are relevant to them.
I'd like to think that I can mange to make sure that they are just ads, that they conform to all necessary ethical and ASA-required standards (if you look at their weekly hit-list, that's a big 'if'), and the reader treats them and the messages as such.
I was pondering this as I was reading a green-related piece in the Guardian today.
I was alse attracted to the button (above right), which got me to the page (above left), which in turn led me further down a pretty exclusive trail on the green and wonderful world of British Gas.
Now I don't know, but I am unsure as to their relative merits in the great green firmament, especially of energy production/supply (our biggest national CO2 emitter, no?), but I just felt the way all this was set up gave rather to much credence to what is in fact a naked corporate pitch.
I have no problem with sponsorship, but I do think it is incumbent upon the medium to ensure that the advertiser does not end up so dominating the screen that any chance of objectivity in message or editorial is tainted.
Well, he asked... in the Guardian
Can this really save the planet? Is the question posed, surrounding by more ads with the word green than you could shake a self-powered torch at.
And, for fun (if not irony), right next to this: Aston Martin tops cool brands list (Junkk.com oddly, not yet there).
I have of course been banging on about big vs. small picture for a while. But as he sets them out initially it's in a different area. All the small tips cited are 'why nots?', easy to effect and usually save money. The ones that get me going are diversions, and often divisive ones, such as bottled water witch hunts, which over-shadow campaigns (are they any?) to coordinate 'ground to grounded' life cycle systems that involve all in the waste chain and don't just throw a bunch of targets and jargon at the poor consumer to sort out. Plus insulation (we'll, in all senses of the word, come back to that).
Of course if you 'take these simple steps today... they really do "make a difference". Do 'em!
Only later do we get to easier agreement. With some facts I can only assume are correct. There will be others incoming as I write, I'm sure.
A long time ago in a publication I asked those who know (I think it was either a plastics or recycling trade mag), just how much 'plastic', the 100-300 (estimates vary) carriers 'we' use (and 'I' reuse; a fact often not factored in by those who still purchase bin liners) represents? Sadly, to date, no answer. I just wondered if it would equate to the number of Fairy Liquid bottles not reused at the BBC, insert sleeves/DVDs at the Indy or water fountain bottles at the LibDem HQ... each week.
I have to disagree on the standby thing. While I rail against those who get over eco-puritan about where their definitions of 'what's necessary' stops (usually at what they deem is required for a comfy, green-glow lifestyle), these things simply are not. And the figures I have seen suggest that they gobble a lot that is pure waste. So... bad call.
And these things are cumulative y'know. So I am very happy, both financially and economically, with my Ecokettle.
Which is a pity, because it all set a tone that coloured what I do agree with way down the piece: that there is any equivalence between these lifestyle preferences and the serious decisions that really reduce emissions - stopping flying, living close to work and living in a well-insulated house. (I critique as I read, so OK it's here... at last. No apologies for leaving mine up there.
And I have to agree , a tad, about the wallpaper. The latest blonde celeb to get wheeled out to promote her film/TV/book on the back of some green effort she was the face of, managed recycling, having a shower and... er... that was it. Meanwhile, she was off to Bali for a shoot next week.
Which brings one to the role of media in all this, as discussed on these posts many times before. They really can't have both, and both ways. Either stick with the line on climate or not, but don't try the first whilst promoting celebrity and consumer excess at every turn via editorial and ads. Or getting snitty because some green commentators (if I may make so bold as to include myself) and, more importantly, most public (and, eventually, the BBC), don't see such as Live Earth and/or Planet Relief as the best way forward.
But as one more than critical of blowing money that could be better spent elsewhere than on quango board members' bonus-boosting comms budgets, I am more than interested (assuming it's true - so pending attribution/confirmation) that 'making the solutions easy is no guarantee that anyone will carry them out.' And that, ' The government spent £22m on the Do Your Bit campaign and has subsequently admitted that it produced no measurable change in personal behaviour.' How much so far on telling us to recycle, for instance? And what does ActOnCo2 do exactly for the money? And what was the ROI, much less the enviROI of these efforts?
Especially if, with such as recycling, Mori (assuming... yada.. I need an acronym for these points. Subject To Unequivocal Follow-Up Proof - STUFUP) 'concluded that it was becoming an act of "totem behaviour" and that "individuals use recycling as a means of discharging their responsibility to undertake wider changes in lifestyle".
And I really can't fault this: 'Governments and businesses are, if anything, even more prone to tokenistic behaviour than individuals. Encouraging small voluntary actions by the public, customers or staff looks good and is much safer than passing restrictive legislation or rethinking your entire business model.'
So, in conclusion...
... what we need is a sense of proportion. No question.
We also need to rethink the way we talk about climate change. Ditto. Plus those who have taken it upon themselves to be considered leaders of the charge, whilst often charging (or earning) so lucratively in the process, as I can't say the job most are doing amounts to much that helps my kids' futures.
And let's be clear that voluntary action will never be enough - we will need radical political, economic and social change. I hear you, brother!
So let's start by doing away with that wretched phrase "you can save the planet". Well, it doesn't bother me, but I usually bolt 'and save money, too' on the end, at least with Junkk.com (I popped in a hyperlink and forget that the full point makes a big difference. D'Oh!) . Seems to work.
But I will add one more, teensie bit: 'And your positive suggestions would be...?" They may be around, but here would be a good place to share too.
Read Bibi van der Zee's response to this article: What's wrong with turning lights off?
Again interesting, but again the order of priority had me thrown. At least Fiesta family gets a mention. And again the notion that 'awareness' is worth it if it translates into action, but with little regard that some efforts may actually have a reverse effect. As has, say , the city-centric but nationwide anti 4x4 campaigns out in the country.
And, for fun (if not irony), right next to this: Aston Martin tops cool brands list (Junkk.com oddly, not yet there).
I have of course been banging on about big vs. small picture for a while. But as he sets them out initially it's in a different area. All the small tips cited are 'why nots?', easy to effect and usually save money. The ones that get me going are diversions, and often divisive ones, such as bottled water witch hunts, which over-shadow campaigns (are they any?) to coordinate 'ground to grounded' life cycle systems that involve all in the waste chain and don't just throw a bunch of targets and jargon at the poor consumer to sort out. Plus insulation (we'll, in all senses of the word, come back to that).
Of course if you 'take these simple steps today... they really do "make a difference". Do 'em!
Only later do we get to easier agreement. With some facts I can only assume are correct. There will be others incoming as I write, I'm sure.
A long time ago in a publication I asked those who know (I think it was either a plastics or recycling trade mag), just how much 'plastic', the 100-300 (estimates vary) carriers 'we' use (and 'I' reuse; a fact often not factored in by those who still purchase bin liners) represents? Sadly, to date, no answer. I just wondered if it would equate to the number of Fairy Liquid bottles not reused at the BBC, insert sleeves/DVDs at the Indy or water fountain bottles at the LibDem HQ... each week.
I have to disagree on the standby thing. While I rail against those who get over eco-puritan about where their definitions of 'what's necessary' stops (usually at what they deem is required for a comfy, green-glow lifestyle), these things simply are not. And the figures I have seen suggest that they gobble a lot that is pure waste. So... bad call.
And these things are cumulative y'know. So I am very happy, both financially and economically, with my Ecokettle.
Which is a pity, because it all set a tone that coloured what I do agree with way down the piece: that there is any equivalence between these lifestyle preferences and the serious decisions that really reduce emissions - stopping flying, living close to work and living in a well-insulated house. (I critique as I read, so OK it's here... at last. No apologies for leaving mine up there.
And I have to agree , a tad, about the wallpaper. The latest blonde celeb to get wheeled out to promote her film/TV/book on the back of some green effort she was the face of, managed recycling, having a shower and... er... that was it. Meanwhile, she was off to Bali for a shoot next week.
Which brings one to the role of media in all this, as discussed on these posts many times before. They really can't have both, and both ways. Either stick with the line on climate or not, but don't try the first whilst promoting celebrity and consumer excess at every turn via editorial and ads. Or getting snitty because some green commentators (if I may make so bold as to include myself) and, more importantly, most public (and, eventually, the BBC), don't see such as Live Earth and/or Planet Relief as the best way forward.
But as one more than critical of blowing money that could be better spent elsewhere than on quango board members' bonus-boosting comms budgets, I am more than interested (assuming it's true - so pending attribution/confirmation) that 'making the solutions easy is no guarantee that anyone will carry them out.' And that, ' The government spent £22m on the Do Your Bit campaign and has subsequently admitted that it produced no measurable change in personal behaviour.' How much so far on telling us to recycle, for instance? And what does ActOnCo2 do exactly for the money? And what was the ROI, much less the enviROI of these efforts?
Especially if, with such as recycling, Mori (assuming... yada.. I need an acronym for these points. Subject To Unequivocal Follow-Up Proof - STUFUP) 'concluded that it was becoming an act of "totem behaviour" and that "individuals use recycling as a means of discharging their responsibility to undertake wider changes in lifestyle".
And I really can't fault this: 'Governments and businesses are, if anything, even more prone to tokenistic behaviour than individuals. Encouraging small voluntary actions by the public, customers or staff looks good and is much safer than passing restrictive legislation or rethinking your entire business model.'
So, in conclusion...
... what we need is a sense of proportion. No question.
We also need to rethink the way we talk about climate change. Ditto. Plus those who have taken it upon themselves to be considered leaders of the charge, whilst often charging (or earning) so lucratively in the process, as I can't say the job most are doing amounts to much that helps my kids' futures.
And let's be clear that voluntary action will never be enough - we will need radical political, economic and social change. I hear you, brother!
So let's start by doing away with that wretched phrase "you can save the planet". Well, it doesn't bother me, but I usually bolt 'and save money, too' on the end, at least with Junkk.com (I popped in a hyperlink and forget that the full point makes a big difference. D'Oh!) . Seems to work.
But I will add one more, teensie bit: 'And your positive suggestions would be...?" They may be around, but here would be a good place to share too.
Read Bibi van der Zee's response to this article: What's wrong with turning lights off?
Again interesting, but again the order of priority had me thrown. At least Fiesta family gets a mention. And again the notion that 'awareness' is worth it if it translates into action, but with little regard that some efforts may actually have a reverse effect. As has, say , the city-centric but nationwide anti 4x4 campaigns out in the country.
Fishing for evidence?
Sometimes you just don't have to - the evidence comes to you!
Every now and again we hear reports of unusual species turning up off the coast of the UK. The Basking Sharks that are now commonly observed off Cornwall on an almost daily basis were very rarely sighted 30 years ago. But it seems that bigger is better as far as reporting is concerned - species such as a Loggerheads Turtle generate a local influx of umpteen television crews turning up to record the event. Scary species are good too - just look at the hours of recent coverage on the TV and in the press about the Great White Shark - which turned out to be, well, not a member of that particular family.
Now many marine species are highly sensitive to even minuscule changes in temperature, salinity and interruptions to the food chain, whether they are large and/or scary (and hence worthy of major news coverage) or small.
But when something that has only been recorded 42 times in the last 150 years starts arriving off our coast in noticeable numbers you would think that it just might get some serious news coverage. The trouble is, this particular chap, a warm, temperate marine species, only grows to a couple of pounds or so, so it just doesn't have the newsworthiness clout that a large turtle or a big shark has.
This from local website thisiscornwall, highlights the arrival of the Amberjack in British coastal waters. Now 42 sightings in 150 years doesn't sound too important, but when you consider that 12 of those sightings have been over the last three months, and 4 of those were over the last weekend alone, then it just has to be significant.
Now the Amberjack isn't exactly a handsome little fish, nor is it big or scary, but what it does present is genuine and almost incontrovertible evidence of just what is happening to the seas off our coast as climate change slowly increases water temperatures.
Little fish may be sweet, but unfortunately they don't increase the media ratings, despite the importance of what they might portend.
____________________________
n.b.1 I have since found out that there are several species of Amberjack, one of which can grow to a whopping 170 lb in weight. The ones currently appearing are all of the smaller species.
n.b.2 Wasn't the guy in the photo in 'Village People' years ago?
Every now and again we hear reports of unusual species turning up off the coast of the UK. The Basking Sharks that are now commonly observed off Cornwall on an almost daily basis were very rarely sighted 30 years ago. But it seems that bigger is better as far as reporting is concerned - species such as a Loggerheads Turtle generate a local influx of umpteen television crews turning up to record the event. Scary species are good too - just look at the hours of recent coverage on the TV and in the press about the Great White Shark - which turned out to be, well, not a member of that particular family.
Now many marine species are highly sensitive to even minuscule changes in temperature, salinity and interruptions to the food chain, whether they are large and/or scary (and hence worthy of major news coverage) or small.
But when something that has only been recorded 42 times in the last 150 years starts arriving off our coast in noticeable numbers you would think that it just might get some serious news coverage. The trouble is, this particular chap, a warm, temperate marine species, only grows to a couple of pounds or so, so it just doesn't have the newsworthiness clout that a large turtle or a big shark has.
This from local website thisiscornwall, highlights the arrival of the Amberjack in British coastal waters. Now 42 sightings in 150 years doesn't sound too important, but when you consider that 12 of those sightings have been over the last three months, and 4 of those were over the last weekend alone, then it just has to be significant.
Now the Amberjack isn't exactly a handsome little fish, nor is it big or scary, but what it does present is genuine and almost incontrovertible evidence of just what is happening to the seas off our coast as climate change slowly increases water temperatures.
Little fish may be sweet, but unfortunately they don't increase the media ratings, despite the importance of what they might portend.
____________________________
n.b.1 I have since found out that there are several species of Amberjack, one of which can grow to a whopping 170 lb in weight. The ones currently appearing are all of the smaller species.
n.b.2 Wasn't the guy in the photo in 'Village People' years ago?
It's not. But if it was. Oh it is. And it's ok. Or...
As a fearless parapet head-sticker-over of a contrary but good nature, I usually have some time for 'sceptical environmentalist' Bjorn Lomborg. So I decided this may be worth a gander: Global Warming, the Great Lifesaver
However, I have a rule of thumb, and that is 'if they're promoting a book to you, careful how you look, too'. Sure enough, there's a new tome in tow (Junkk.com, by the way is available now, price: free).
I stand ready to be corrected, but the main premise seems a stretch, for two reasons alone (what, Peter pithy?):
1 - If it's a trend, I'm guessing we may go through balmy and hit roasty toasty pretty quick. Not all of us can survive by sunbathing for a living. Or under water. Or...
2 - This all seems a bit centric on those parts of the world which do, admittedly, get cold. What about those that are already hot all the time? I know he's blond and blue-eyed and all, but don't they count? Maybe that's covered elsewhere in the book.
But, at least, Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist, believes that “global - that's global - warming is real and man-made.”
Indy - Stark warning of extinction list: 'Life on Earth is disappearing' - The thing about ignoring lists is that you might one day find yourself on them. Ask Pastor Neimoller.
Guardian - Heeding the right global warnings - By the man himself. Hard to equate to the other one I read. Ho hum. Selective editing is all. Very good links in the posts.
However, I have a rule of thumb, and that is 'if they're promoting a book to you, careful how you look, too'. Sure enough, there's a new tome in tow (Junkk.com, by the way is available now, price: free).
I stand ready to be corrected, but the main premise seems a stretch, for two reasons alone (what, Peter pithy?):
1 - If it's a trend, I'm guessing we may go through balmy and hit roasty toasty pretty quick. Not all of us can survive by sunbathing for a living. Or under water. Or...
2 - This all seems a bit centric on those parts of the world which do, admittedly, get cold. What about those that are already hot all the time? I know he's blond and blue-eyed and all, but don't they count? Maybe that's covered elsewhere in the book.
But, at least, Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist, believes that “global - that's global - warming is real and man-made.”
Indy - Stark warning of extinction list: 'Life on Earth is disappearing' - The thing about ignoring lists is that you might one day find yourself on them. Ask Pastor Neimoller.
Guardian - Heeding the right global warnings - By the man himself. Hard to equate to the other one I read. Ho hum. Selective editing is all. Very good links in the posts.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Doom, Gloom and more Doom
Climate change already seems to be hitting parts of the Mediterranean very hard. Having spoken to several friends who have recently returned from holiday in various Mediterranean locations such as Greece, Sicily and Malta (lucky lot!), and having listened to all of them moaning that at 40C+ in the shade (48C in one instance!), it was just too damned hot to go out during the early afternoon, I wasn't too surprised to come across this from the International Herald Tribune which reports that the Mediterranean Sea itself may be at risk.
"temperature rises could wipe out 'up to 50 percent of the species,' the study said. The decline in the algae population measured last winter also reduced by 30 percent the sea's ability to absorb carbon dioxide"
Now that's getting scary.
And on the same day we get a story from Reuters Africa suggesting that the impact of global warming could be as devastating as nuclear war!
"The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war"
That's very worrying!
Meanwhile, as reported in the Guardian yesterday, our own MOD has commissioned a study "to identify countries where battles could break out over increasingly scarce supplies of food and water, as well as predict the likely conditions in which British troops may have to fight in future". The study is attempting to identify just what the consequences of an over-populated planet undergoing significant climatic change might be, but it sounds more like significant pre-preparation for some nasty worst case future scenarios.
Now that's really filled me full of doom and gloom!
"temperature rises could wipe out 'up to 50 percent of the species,' the study said. The decline in the algae population measured last winter also reduced by 30 percent the sea's ability to absorb carbon dioxide"
Now that's getting scary.
And on the same day we get a story from Reuters Africa suggesting that the impact of global warming could be as devastating as nuclear war!
"The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war"
That's very worrying!
Meanwhile, as reported in the Guardian yesterday, our own MOD has commissioned a study "to identify countries where battles could break out over increasingly scarce supplies of food and water, as well as predict the likely conditions in which British troops may have to fight in future". The study is attempting to identify just what the consequences of an over-populated planet undergoing significant climatic change might be, but it sounds more like significant pre-preparation for some nasty worst case future scenarios.
Now that's really filled me full of doom and gloom!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)