I was going to bolt this to another post, but it deserves its own: Scientists say Kyoto protocol is 'outdated failure'
Now I am pretty sure those at either extreme of the the CC divide will spin this (if they refer to it at all - I pretty sure one will) in their usual ways.
But I simply note that it is the means, not the necessity, that is being critiqued.
And, frankly, not before time, with some heft.
We need to sweep away the chancers and the inept who have rushed in to seek green gold, and then discover and support those who can derive actual meaningful enviROIs for the planet from the horribly complex reality that is the global political sphere.
Indy - Sarkozy's green revolution in danger of producing nothing more than hot air - Good start:)
Indy - Is the Kyoto treaty an outdated failure based on the wrong premises? - The Charles Clarke option: 'keep me in charge as my fouling up is experienced fouling up'
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Going in circles
I report no more than the facts. and invite you to cock your own eyebrow.
On BBC News this morning it is gushed that a new venue has been added to the F1 calendar: my old tramping ground of Singapore.
However, as if running around in circles for hours powered by awesomely tuned internal combustion engines were not enough, it will be held at night.
Apparently, this will require lights that are four times greater in power than a footy stadium.
Maybe they will get in extra generators.
On BBC News this morning it is gushed that a new venue has been added to the F1 calendar: my old tramping ground of Singapore.
However, as if running around in circles for hours powered by awesomely tuned internal combustion engines were not enough, it will be held at night.
Apparently, this will require lights that are four times greater in power than a footy stadium.
Maybe they will get in extra generators.
What's a boy or girl to do?
I bang on a lot about doing here. And will continue to do so.
I have more faith in the benefits of substantive, positive creative activity than an awful lot else waaaaaay too much energy gets expended upon.
But every so often I give pause to ponder the consequences of 'doing'.
No so long ago I debated with myself at length how so much of the human condition that drives one to make stuff might indeed now be what's causing us the problems we are experiencing. There are simply so many of us making so much, the consequences of the processes are having a global effect... possibly.
Makes having a great idea... that needs manufacture... less of a thrill if you are cursed with the thought in the back of your mind that it might just add to the short-term problem. I certainly have a file full of such things. And a few might well feed the family a lot quicker than Junkk.com, I can tell you!
But actually, when it comes to 'doing', at least in this post, I am thinking of the people who don't do that much that's really very 'necessary' or 'useful', and what on earth society would do with them if they are no longer funded (via salaries, etc) to be kept occupied and in chauffeured Priuses or Bali conferences. Tricky.
The pages of government documents and the media and activist websites are full of things to ban. Some worthy of consideration; some vacuous, self-serving rants.
Trouble is, behind almost all is an entire infrastructure of folk who would be, quite simply, out of a job if these things did, in fact' cease to be'.
Take the leisure market. By some estimates, it represents 10% of the world's economy. No more flights would mean 600 million (well, a large % as 'we' returned to our roots. Though the thought of competing with 60M Brits for a campsite slot is not appealing) out of work. And they cannot all become Local government compost advisers or carbon traders.
Woah. Big, connected issues need big, coordinated thinking. Trouble is, I am not seeing any big thinkers on the horizon. At least, any who are not out for No. 1 first and only.
Indy - The ethical dilemma posed by organic food - QED
Guardian- Air-freight food must pass fair trade test to retain organic label in future
Sloppy Science Reporting Alert!
'Air freight by weight can generate 177 times more greenhouse gases than shipping'
What does that mean without any context?
ADDENDUM -
Meanwhile, where the big money is - Olympic consultants cost £1m a week - And they are doing...?
I have more faith in the benefits of substantive, positive creative activity than an awful lot else waaaaaay too much energy gets expended upon.
But every so often I give pause to ponder the consequences of 'doing'.
No so long ago I debated with myself at length how so much of the human condition that drives one to make stuff might indeed now be what's causing us the problems we are experiencing. There are simply so many of us making so much, the consequences of the processes are having a global effect... possibly.
Makes having a great idea... that needs manufacture... less of a thrill if you are cursed with the thought in the back of your mind that it might just add to the short-term problem. I certainly have a file full of such things. And a few might well feed the family a lot quicker than Junkk.com, I can tell you!
But actually, when it comes to 'doing', at least in this post, I am thinking of the people who don't do that much that's really very 'necessary' or 'useful', and what on earth society would do with them if they are no longer funded (via salaries, etc) to be kept occupied and in chauffeured Priuses or Bali conferences. Tricky.
The pages of government documents and the media and activist websites are full of things to ban. Some worthy of consideration; some vacuous, self-serving rants.
Trouble is, behind almost all is an entire infrastructure of folk who would be, quite simply, out of a job if these things did, in fact' cease to be'.
Take the leisure market. By some estimates, it represents 10% of the world's economy. No more flights would mean 600 million (well, a large % as 'we' returned to our roots. Though the thought of competing with 60M Brits for a campsite slot is not appealing) out of work. And they cannot all become Local government compost advisers or carbon traders.
Woah. Big, connected issues need big, coordinated thinking. Trouble is, I am not seeing any big thinkers on the horizon. At least, any who are not out for No. 1 first and only.
Indy - The ethical dilemma posed by organic food - QED
Guardian- Air-freight food must pass fair trade test to retain organic label in future
Sloppy Science Reporting Alert!
'Air freight by weight can generate 177 times more greenhouse gases than shipping'
What does that mean without any context?
ADDENDUM -
Meanwhile, where the big money is - Olympic consultants cost £1m a week - And they are doing...?
Knowing 'why' may be interesting...
... but in the case of shooting yourself in the foot nowhere near as useful as first not doing it.
Sadly I am on a self-imposed ban from commenting (though I'd get moderated anyway) on a site I still monitor for interesting facts and links. And I saw this:
We all know there’s global warming, it’s ‘why’ that needs an answer. Many scientists, based on research by the Danish Space Center, think it’s down to solar wind activity which reduce cloud cover and increase water vapourisation (clouds account for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect). Just ask Al Gore why polar ice caps are melting on Mars and both Mars and Jupiter are warming up at the same rate as Earth or does he believe there are little green men on Mars belching out CO2.
Too many well paid research, media and political jobs depend on scare mongering findings. Politicians use CO2 as a means of extracting more taxes and the BBC obey their masters.
Here’s my take on the maths ....
CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
97% of all CO2 is natural and 3% of CO2 is man made.
Therefore man made CO2 accounts for 0.0012% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The UK is responsible for 2% of the world’s man made CO2.
Therefore the UK’s contribution to the world’s man made CO2 emissions is 0.06%.
Therefore a 10% reduction in the UK CO2 emissions = 10% of 2% of 3% of 0.04%.
This equals 0.0000024% reduction in the world’s total emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Compelling stuff (well, Danish Space Centre vs. IPCC... hmnn). Note that the poster is on board with GW. But what I find interesting, and a little scary, is the absolutism of what I am sure is a decimal-perfect academic linear analysis.
No hint that 3% going to four may be a very bad thing in a sensitive system not in natural control (and I accept, thanks to my own eyebrow twitch, that it's hard to ignore that a Krakatoa or Mt. Pinatubo might further tilt the atmospheric nasties, but we're talking avoidable stuff here).
And speaking of avoidable, there's the age-old UK vs. the rest. The prisoner's dilemma.
I see such posts daily. And often they are fed by the latest rather extreme MMGW-pessimistic claims made by those quite high on the official/media tree I would dearly wish were more cautious, as they simply hand the optimists an easy distraction.
Take the forest fires in California. For start, if one accepts it's getting 'warmer' (is it?) a fire seems a fairly likely thing.
But interestingly all culpability claims that have pointed at 'Man' have indeed played the MMGW card. Why just that, when there is still so much to going on to discredit that notion alone!!!!!? What about all the other factors our expanding populations impose? Like sticking houses in front of fires where they used to burn away with no human contact? Or sucking the water out of every place possible to feed golf courses, etc.
There is a very complex thing at work here, and man most likely is not helping, but neither is simply pointing at the sky and shrieking global warming as you whip out your sustainability consultation fee document or recycling target estimates.
ADDENDUM - On the other hand - Science Daily - Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say - Experts, eh? One minute you have none, and the next minute a bunch come along and say all sorts of conflicting things.
BBC - Hurricanes and global warming - a link?
Sadly I am on a self-imposed ban from commenting (though I'd get moderated anyway) on a site I still monitor for interesting facts and links. And I saw this:
We all know there’s global warming, it’s ‘why’ that needs an answer. Many scientists, based on research by the Danish Space Center, think it’s down to solar wind activity which reduce cloud cover and increase water vapourisation (clouds account for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect). Just ask Al Gore why polar ice caps are melting on Mars and both Mars and Jupiter are warming up at the same rate as Earth or does he believe there are little green men on Mars belching out CO2.
Too many well paid research, media and political jobs depend on scare mongering findings. Politicians use CO2 as a means of extracting more taxes and the BBC obey their masters.
Here’s my take on the maths ....
CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
97% of all CO2 is natural and 3% of CO2 is man made.
Therefore man made CO2 accounts for 0.0012% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The UK is responsible for 2% of the world’s man made CO2.
Therefore the UK’s contribution to the world’s man made CO2 emissions is 0.06%.
Therefore a 10% reduction in the UK CO2 emissions = 10% of 2% of 3% of 0.04%.
This equals 0.0000024% reduction in the world’s total emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Compelling stuff (well, Danish Space Centre vs. IPCC... hmnn). Note that the poster is on board with GW. But what I find interesting, and a little scary, is the absolutism of what I am sure is a decimal-perfect academic linear analysis.
No hint that 3% going to four may be a very bad thing in a sensitive system not in natural control (and I accept, thanks to my own eyebrow twitch, that it's hard to ignore that a Krakatoa or Mt. Pinatubo might further tilt the atmospheric nasties, but we're talking avoidable stuff here).
And speaking of avoidable, there's the age-old UK vs. the rest. The prisoner's dilemma.
I see such posts daily. And often they are fed by the latest rather extreme MMGW-pessimistic claims made by those quite high on the official/media tree I would dearly wish were more cautious, as they simply hand the optimists an easy distraction.
Take the forest fires in California. For start, if one accepts it's getting 'warmer' (is it?) a fire seems a fairly likely thing.
But interestingly all culpability claims that have pointed at 'Man' have indeed played the MMGW card. Why just that, when there is still so much to going on to discredit that notion alone!!!!!? What about all the other factors our expanding populations impose? Like sticking houses in front of fires where they used to burn away with no human contact? Or sucking the water out of every place possible to feed golf courses, etc.
There is a very complex thing at work here, and man most likely is not helping, but neither is simply pointing at the sky and shrieking global warming as you whip out your sustainability consultation fee document or recycling target estimates.
ADDENDUM - On the other hand - Science Daily - Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say - Experts, eh? One minute you have none, and the next minute a bunch come along and say all sorts of conflicting things.
BBC - Hurricanes and global warming - a link?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
More spin on renewables
After all the brouhaha of the last few days, leaked cabinet documents notwithstanding, Ol' Golden still manages to come out with this today at PM questions. (As reported on the 10 Downing Street site.)
"The UK was also in full support of an EU-wide aim of generating 20 percent of all energy through renewable sources by 2020"
But his own people have been telling us that it's impossible to achieve!
Even Shane Warne would be proud of the amount of spin this topic is getting.
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) : Tuesday, 23 October, 2007 Newsnight
Missed the show but the blog has proven... interesting.
I was getting a bit confused by the interchangeability of the Green Party and Greenpeace. Good to see the cutback money is now being invested wisely in Strictly Come Celebanything. I guess I should ignore all BBC output at odd times as suspect in future.
And nice to see that the IT 'system' treats even those who run it with the fruits of its duplicationist nature (10 & 12) at times, too.
Still can't quite figure out why the moderator can't deal with these, though.
ps: Barely worth trying to debate the state of this country's renewables record/policies. But if I hear the word 'target' one more time I think I may just have to pin one on the self-serving clowns who see setting, and then missing (or changing) them as serving the public or their trust with funding well.
How much is being p*ssed away in this box-ticking obsessed culture these days, where hype and spin are valued so much more than actually doing a darn thing that helps or works?
ADDENDUM 2 (me again) - A PR (wish they'd pop it on a site and give a URL) from the Greens. One thing I do note is no mention of Labour. Did they do nothing? Or is this just playing wedge driving between no-government parties?
Liberal-Tory proposal on car emissions scuppers efforts to combat climate change
Efforts to tackle climate change in Europe suffered a profound setback today as the European Parliament voted to accept a joint proposal by UK Tory and Liberal MEPs to allow cars to produce higher C02 emissions.
The report adopted today outlines ways in which emissions reductions from cars should be achieved and what limit values should be proposed.
The amendment to the report by UK Tory and Liberal proposed to set weaker emissions limits for carmakers and to postpone the introduction of these limit values by a further three years to 2015 (1). This is despite the increasing urgency with which these parties are calling for tougher environmental legislation.
Commenting on today's vote and the amendment, UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas said:
"The proposal by Liberal and Tory MEPs to allow carmakers to produce dirtier cars and to delay the introduction of urgently needed emissions limits has scuppered EU efforts to combat climate change. The amendment accepted by MEPs today reveals just how cheap the media-friendly 'green-speak' of the Liberals and Tories really is.
"An independent study, presented by the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament last week, showed that only by introducing strict limit values for passenger cars as soon as possible will the sector be able to contribute sufficiently to enable the EU to meet an overall CO2 reduction target of 20% by 2020 (2). The study showed that an average CO2 emissions limit value of 120 g/km must be introduced by 2012 if cars are to contribute their share towards the EU's overall emissions reductions and that stricter limit values for 2020 will also be necessary.
“In order to meet the 30% reduction, which scientists say is absolutely vital if industrialised countries are to tackle climate change, significant measures not only to reduce vehicles emissions but also to reduce the amount of car travel are necessary.
"The EU must make these deep cuts in its CO2 emissions if it is to try and keep climate change in check. Letting the worst performing sectors off the hook, by allowing them to delay urgently needed emissions cuts, makes a mockery of the EU's climate strategy.
“The European Parliament has consistently called for strong measures to tackle climate change but by accepting the Tory-Liberal amendments to its report, it has ignored Green calls for more weighty action."
Editors notes:
(1) The European Parliament voted today, 24 October, on its report (Davies) on EU legislative measures to reduce CO2 emissions from cars. The EP Environment Committee voted in September for an average limit value of 120 g/km limit value to be set for CO2 emissions from new cars (by technical means which are influenced by driver behaviour). Liberal MEP Chris Davies and Conservative MEP Martin Callanan tabled an amendment for a limit value of 125 g/km and for the introduction to be delayed until 2015.
(2) The study gives a comparison of the actual CO2 reductions that would be achieved through the different emissions limit values currently under debate, which reveals that only with a 120 g/km limit for 2012 and a strong follow-up limit value in 2020, will the necessary emissions reductions from passenger cars be achieved. The EU will have to reduce its overall emissions by around 830 million tonnes if it is to meet its base target of a 20% reduction by 2020. Given passenger cars already account for around 12% of overall EU CO2 emissions, this means the sector will have to reduce its CO2 emissions by 80-100 million tonnes. The limit values which were proposed by the Liberals and Tories fall far short from delivering this reduction.
The study and political summary can be found at the following links:
Study
Political summary
Ah, here's the Labour bit: Leaked documents expose Labour's broken promises on climate change
Gaurdian - Surrendering our future
"The UK was also in full support of an EU-wide aim of generating 20 percent of all energy through renewable sources by 2020"
But his own people have been telling us that it's impossible to achieve!
Even Shane Warne would be proud of the amount of spin this topic is getting.
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) : Tuesday, 23 October, 2007 Newsnight
Missed the show but the blog has proven... interesting.
I was getting a bit confused by the interchangeability of the Green Party and Greenpeace. Good to see the cutback money is now being invested wisely in Strictly Come Celebanything. I guess I should ignore all BBC output at odd times as suspect in future.
And nice to see that the IT 'system' treats even those who run it with the fruits of its duplicationist nature (10 & 12) at times, too.
Still can't quite figure out why the moderator can't deal with these, though.
ps: Barely worth trying to debate the state of this country's renewables record/policies. But if I hear the word 'target' one more time I think I may just have to pin one on the self-serving clowns who see setting, and then missing (or changing) them as serving the public or their trust with funding well.
How much is being p*ssed away in this box-ticking obsessed culture these days, where hype and spin are valued so much more than actually doing a darn thing that helps or works?
ADDENDUM 2 (me again) - A PR (wish they'd pop it on a site and give a URL) from the Greens. One thing I do note is no mention of Labour. Did they do nothing? Or is this just playing wedge driving between no-government parties?
Liberal-Tory proposal on car emissions scuppers efforts to combat climate change
Efforts to tackle climate change in Europe suffered a profound setback today as the European Parliament voted to accept a joint proposal by UK Tory and Liberal MEPs to allow cars to produce higher C02 emissions.
The report adopted today outlines ways in which emissions reductions from cars should be achieved and what limit values should be proposed.
The amendment to the report by UK Tory and Liberal proposed to set weaker emissions limits for carmakers and to postpone the introduction of these limit values by a further three years to 2015 (1). This is despite the increasing urgency with which these parties are calling for tougher environmental legislation.
Commenting on today's vote and the amendment, UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas said:
"The proposal by Liberal and Tory MEPs to allow carmakers to produce dirtier cars and to delay the introduction of urgently needed emissions limits has scuppered EU efforts to combat climate change. The amendment accepted by MEPs today reveals just how cheap the media-friendly 'green-speak' of the Liberals and Tories really is.
"An independent study, presented by the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament last week, showed that only by introducing strict limit values for passenger cars as soon as possible will the sector be able to contribute sufficiently to enable the EU to meet an overall CO2 reduction target of 20% by 2020 (2). The study showed that an average CO2 emissions limit value of 120 g/km must be introduced by 2012 if cars are to contribute their share towards the EU's overall emissions reductions and that stricter limit values for 2020 will also be necessary.
“In order to meet the 30% reduction, which scientists say is absolutely vital if industrialised countries are to tackle climate change, significant measures not only to reduce vehicles emissions but also to reduce the amount of car travel are necessary.
"The EU must make these deep cuts in its CO2 emissions if it is to try and keep climate change in check. Letting the worst performing sectors off the hook, by allowing them to delay urgently needed emissions cuts, makes a mockery of the EU's climate strategy.
“The European Parliament has consistently called for strong measures to tackle climate change but by accepting the Tory-Liberal amendments to its report, it has ignored Green calls for more weighty action."
Editors notes:
(1) The European Parliament voted today, 24 October, on its report (Davies) on EU legislative measures to reduce CO2 emissions from cars. The EP Environment Committee voted in September for an average limit value of 120 g/km limit value to be set for CO2 emissions from new cars (by technical means which are influenced by driver behaviour). Liberal MEP Chris Davies and Conservative MEP Martin Callanan tabled an amendment for a limit value of 125 g/km and for the introduction to be delayed until 2015.
(2) The study gives a comparison of the actual CO2 reductions that would be achieved through the different emissions limit values currently under debate, which reveals that only with a 120 g/km limit for 2012 and a strong follow-up limit value in 2020, will the necessary emissions reductions from passenger cars be achieved. The EU will have to reduce its overall emissions by around 830 million tonnes if it is to meet its base target of a 20% reduction by 2020. Given passenger cars already account for around 12% of overall EU CO2 emissions, this means the sector will have to reduce its CO2 emissions by 80-100 million tonnes. The limit values which were proposed by the Liberals and Tories fall far short from delivering this reduction.
The study and political summary can be found at the following links:
Study
Political summary
Ah, here's the Labour bit: Leaked documents expose Labour's broken promises on climate change
Gaurdian - Surrendering our future
And why not?
As one looking for a rather rare complement to myself to help further the Junkk/RE:tie causes, this caught my eye.It's a classified jobs ad from the Appointments section of the Sunday Times.
Interestingly, and perhaps problematically, it makes no mention of the product or indeed company/person behind it.
I guess that comes if the right candidate bites.
I have decided to write to the contact to simply ask that if they get a candidate who is good, but perhaps a tad cheaper (and hence beneath them) to send 'em my way.
Can't hurt, eh?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Green? That's rich!
I read one paper a week hardcopy: The Sunday Times.
The reason is mainly one of habit. I just like to sit and read a paper, by hand, for a few hours, and I think it was a combo of the free TV listings and an IT supplement called Doors (now absorbed into the Lifestyle section) that got me on it. Of course, I still surf all the rest online. Though interestingly, during the week I get perhaps more via online with the Indy and Guardian, as these guys send me an email daily. The Telegraph used to, but it seems to have vanished. The Times, as far as I am aware, does not.
Anyway, there is no substitute to having it in your hands to get a 'feel' for the paper. And I suddenly realised how this one (and frankly all the others, no matter what 'ing' their hue) has moved beyond where I am as a reader and, one presumes, target for ad materials.
Just to sample two articles from two sections this week:
Private jet sales breaking barrier
How green is my mansion?
Now I'm all for aspirational stuff, but it really seems to me that, between editorial such as this, and the ads that complement (?) them, there is a huge disconnect between what we are being served up as 'normal' lifestyle and what most of us are dealing with.
Especially that latter piece. Fun though it is to touch such worlds, if only by flattering shallow egos, I think the so-called 'quality's' need to drag their minions out of the rear-ends of all those in high fiance and celebdom and start reflecting some more pragmatic issues that really do affect us 'all'.
PRwatch - Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed
The reason is mainly one of habit. I just like to sit and read a paper, by hand, for a few hours, and I think it was a combo of the free TV listings and an IT supplement called Doors (now absorbed into the Lifestyle section) that got me on it. Of course, I still surf all the rest online. Though interestingly, during the week I get perhaps more via online with the Indy and Guardian, as these guys send me an email daily. The Telegraph used to, but it seems to have vanished. The Times, as far as I am aware, does not.
Anyway, there is no substitute to having it in your hands to get a 'feel' for the paper. And I suddenly realised how this one (and frankly all the others, no matter what 'ing' their hue) has moved beyond where I am as a reader and, one presumes, target for ad materials.
Just to sample two articles from two sections this week:
Private jet sales breaking barrier
How green is my mansion?
Now I'm all for aspirational stuff, but it really seems to me that, between editorial such as this, and the ads that complement (?) them, there is a huge disconnect between what we are being served up as 'normal' lifestyle and what most of us are dealing with.
Especially that latter piece. Fun though it is to touch such worlds, if only by flattering shallow egos, I think the so-called 'quality's' need to drag their minions out of the rear-ends of all those in high fiance and celebdom and start reflecting some more pragmatic issues that really do affect us 'all'.
PRwatch - Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed
Peak oil - are we already there?
Peak Oil has been a much talked about event for quite a few years now, but this from The Guardian reports on the findings of Germany's Energy Watch Group, suggests that far from having many years to go before we get there, peak oil actually occurred in 2006. (Oh, and note the eye-catching and scaremongering headline, which talks of 'war and unrest', neither of which are mentioned again in the article.)
"The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel."
And I've noticed today that some futures for oil are trading around the $100+ mark.
"But the government prefers to sleep on without even doing a contingency study. For those of us who know that premature peak oil is a clear and present danger, it is impossible to understand such complacency."
There's nowt like burying your head in the sand; and this in the very week that our very own government is going to backtrack on its much vaunted renewables targets! (See Not Ready. Miss. Re-Aim below). So when big oil's pumps run dry, as they inevitably will, at least here in the UK we'll be able to fill up with alternative renewable fuels like bio-deisel and ethanol ....... NOT!!
Addendum:
More scary headlines ........ 'Peak Oil could trigger meltdown of society' is the headline that Renew, Reuse, Recycle comes up with for its interpretation of this same report.
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male)
Guardian - It's rip-off Britain, even when it comes to climate change - I so envy such as Directors of orgnaisations who get paid well to say lots of things. Post by 'askingquestions' is well worth a read.
Gaurdian - Give ministers some credit for green measures
"The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel."
And I've noticed today that some futures for oil are trading around the $100+ mark.
"But the government prefers to sleep on without even doing a contingency study. For those of us who know that premature peak oil is a clear and present danger, it is impossible to understand such complacency."
There's nowt like burying your head in the sand; and this in the very week that our very own government is going to backtrack on its much vaunted renewables targets! (See Not Ready. Miss. Re-Aim below). So when big oil's pumps run dry, as they inevitably will, at least here in the UK we'll be able to fill up with alternative renewable fuels like bio-deisel and ethanol ....... NOT!!
Addendum:
More scary headlines ........ 'Peak Oil could trigger meltdown of society' is the headline that Renew, Reuse, Recycle comes up with for its interpretation of this same report.
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male)
Guardian - It's rip-off Britain, even when it comes to climate change - I so envy such as Directors of orgnaisations who get paid well to say lots of things. Post by 'askingquestions' is well worth a read.
Gaurdian - Give ministers some credit for green measures
We don't need another hero
At least, and with all due deference to Tina Turner, if this is what is meant: Heroes of the environment
I actually got that from the Guardian, but lost the link. Maybe from the horse's orifice is better.
I was going to post on the CiF 'debate' but it was already below gutter level and seemed worth avoiding.
Suffice to say, I remain pretty sure my feelings about the right messengers for the message were enhanced by the fall out. What do these journalists and editors do to compile such things? Google a few green words and assume those who get the most mentions (in any context) must be doing the most?
And I say as a very reluctantly-named Green 'Hero' in a recent competition.
I actually got that from the Guardian, but lost the link. Maybe from the horse's orifice is better.
I was going to post on the CiF 'debate' but it was already below gutter level and seemed worth avoiding.
Suffice to say, I remain pretty sure my feelings about the right messengers for the message were enhanced by the fall out. What do these journalists and editors do to compile such things? Google a few green words and assume those who get the most mentions (in any context) must be doing the most?
And I say as a very reluctantly-named Green 'Hero' in a recent competition.
Why I love the internet (and blogs)
I clicked on this because it mentioned pop concerts not being the best way forward: Anita was a true activist
But I ended up appreciating it more for what blogs can throw up (if true and proven).
Check out post #5/Principe
Seems that BOFDIs are not the only one's who have, or fund, those who might push their interests for reasons other than those stated.
One man's activist is another's agenda pusher?
But I will try and stick with the argument and ignore who is making it. Nice one, Guardian.
But I ended up appreciating it more for what blogs can throw up (if true and proven).
Check out post #5/Principe
Seems that BOFDIs are not the only one's who have, or fund, those who might push their interests for reasons other than those stated.
One man's activist is another's agenda pusher?
But I will try and stick with the argument and ignore who is making it. Nice one, Guardian.
Not ready. Miss. Re-aim.
Labour's plan to abandon renewable energy targets
It's not MY fault that today has a bit of a target theme.
There are just so many of 'em you'd think someone could hit something.
But no.
Hence the next best thing seesm to be to remove them as anything worth going for in the first, or last, place.
Thing is, just how much has been consumed... wasted... in all the processes leading up them so far?
I think we should know. To see what else maybe we can do without.
It's not MY fault that today has a bit of a target theme.
There are just so many of 'em you'd think someone could hit something.
But no.
Hence the next best thing seesm to be to remove them as anything worth going for in the first, or last, place.
Thing is, just how much has been consumed... wasted... in all the processes leading up them so far?
I think we should know. To see what else maybe we can do without.
Making a monkey of surveys
Some online surveys I get seem to be powered by a thing called 'Survey Monkey'.
Never really thought about it until now, but considering the number we get, and the value most have, you could do worse to hire a troupe of chimps to write the questions, ask 'em, collate the answers, publish the results and then report on them.
The latter brings me to the fact that according to the BBC (I'm sure some online will clarify further later) the people of Winchester need to hang their heads in shame.
Yes, in the nth survey result of the week on matters eco, and the second just today, we learn that this fair town is single-handedly causing the world to burn.
There will be a fuss, and a flurry of stuff, and then the circus will move on. What possible use is all that?
Never really thought about it until now, but considering the number we get, and the value most have, you could do worse to hire a troupe of chimps to write the questions, ask 'em, collate the answers, publish the results and then report on them.
The latter brings me to the fact that according to the BBC (I'm sure some online will clarify further later) the people of Winchester need to hang their heads in shame.
Yes, in the nth survey result of the week on matters eco, and the second just today, we learn that this fair town is single-handedly causing the world to burn.
There will be a fuss, and a flurry of stuff, and then the circus will move on. What possible use is all that?
Targets, with the possibility of more targets soon
Just caught the tail end of a BBC News piece on excess packaging.
Don't know what kicked it off (will add later if any follow-up on or offline), but on the sofa was a guy from M&S and Lucy Siegel from the Observer.
He was rather copping it from her and the BBC sofa warriors, and I was wondering why. From the sound of it either a) they came bottom in 'a' survey (in which case one wonders which one, as they came top in the majority I read... ah, surveys) or b) the others didn't turn up. A few 'statements' were read out.
Other than being discomfiting for this gent, who was subject to a set of target and date demands, and agreeing that 'things need to improve', I am unsure where this piece moved us on to.
The key, certainly alluded to, is working together with those tasked to deal with the waste produced in manners such that the consumer knows what to do... and does it.
But representatives of such entities were noticeably absent. Leaving us with just another set of targets now that will be forgotten, and likely be unmet, as soon as the media turn their attention elsewhere.
ADDENDUM - That'll teach me to hang fire! it is actually a major feature. Seems that yet another survey (my fourth in a week), this time from the Local Government Association (LGA) has dumped on our major retailers for the packaging waste problem.
As to M&S, it seems they came bottom (which makes one wonder about the other surveys mentioned in these posts recently), which rather suggest that plans (even if they are 'A') are about as much cop as targets.
Actually I have no cause yet (until I read an online report in more detail) to change much else of what I wrote. I rather suspect this might stray into a bit of finger-pointing as the LAs and government (well silent so far) are not exactly innocent here.
Also, in terms of enviROI, I really hope that we won't see some knee-jerk actions away from what looks good or meets a target at the expense of common sense. I do wonder if there is more concern about what is not going into the appropriate bin and gets measured as opposed to what costs the planet. It seems disingenuous to equate what and how one buys from a street stall with the logistics of a supermarket. And a skip full of neatly sorted veg trays may be lovely to behold, but not if elsewhere there are ten full of rejected food waste.
Indy - National supermarkets criticised over failure to cut levels of packaging
Didn't take long! And yes, yet another survey. I just have to wonder... 'a market?'
This amplification doesn't change my views on reasons behind much of this, or indeed the lack of real solutions.
Indy - Customers could dump wrappers before leaving shop under new law
BBC - tried to find the story. Got as far as here. Failed as link didn't work.
One word: 'could'. Next words: Is this unfairly shunting the issue onto only one section when we need a proper, coordinated approach from all protagonists first?'
Guardian - M&S gets the lowest green rating in packaging survey - What price a £100kpa CSR guru now?
Guardian (podcast) - 'The cost is passed on to the council taxpayer' - Let the games begin.
I was on board pretty much until the end.
That came across a tad as 'Help 'us' meet targets or we'll drop the fines on 'you'.'
What if these targets are not that relevant in the overall enviROI+ scheme of things (I don't know, but would like to see how a trip to one supermarket compares in terms of 'footprint' to going to several places. Or how the consequences of packaging waste stack up vs. food waste as a consequence of rejected/disposed of foodstuffs).
When there are so many departments/quangos whose officers/directors are on bonuses based on simply getting rates up in their sectors, I am afraid my confidence is dented in the motives any comms effort, especially funded with our money, on ads and PR campaigns.
Our paying to fund the mechanism to drive up rates to improve such folks' bonuses strikes me as a conflict of interest at best.
And in a nation of 60B+ and soaring, most working 12 hrs a day just to stay on top of life's demands (and those of a growing public service in terms of salaries and pensions), I am not yet convinced just whose best interests are being served by some of these initiatives and the media efforts thrown behind them.
Don't know what kicked it off (will add later if any follow-up on or offline), but on the sofa was a guy from M&S and Lucy Siegel from the Observer.
He was rather copping it from her and the BBC sofa warriors, and I was wondering why. From the sound of it either a) they came bottom in 'a' survey (in which case one wonders which one, as they came top in the majority I read... ah, surveys) or b) the others didn't turn up. A few 'statements' were read out.
Other than being discomfiting for this gent, who was subject to a set of target and date demands, and agreeing that 'things need to improve', I am unsure where this piece moved us on to.
The key, certainly alluded to, is working together with those tasked to deal with the waste produced in manners such that the consumer knows what to do... and does it.
But representatives of such entities were noticeably absent. Leaving us with just another set of targets now that will be forgotten, and likely be unmet, as soon as the media turn their attention elsewhere.
ADDENDUM - That'll teach me to hang fire! it is actually a major feature. Seems that yet another survey (my fourth in a week), this time from the Local Government Association (LGA) has dumped on our major retailers for the packaging waste problem.
As to M&S, it seems they came bottom (which makes one wonder about the other surveys mentioned in these posts recently), which rather suggest that plans (even if they are 'A') are about as much cop as targets.
Actually I have no cause yet (until I read an online report in more detail) to change much else of what I wrote. I rather suspect this might stray into a bit of finger-pointing as the LAs and government (well silent so far) are not exactly innocent here.
Also, in terms of enviROI, I really hope that we won't see some knee-jerk actions away from what looks good or meets a target at the expense of common sense. I do wonder if there is more concern about what is not going into the appropriate bin and gets measured as opposed to what costs the planet. It seems disingenuous to equate what and how one buys from a street stall with the logistics of a supermarket. And a skip full of neatly sorted veg trays may be lovely to behold, but not if elsewhere there are ten full of rejected food waste.
Indy - National supermarkets criticised over failure to cut levels of packaging
Didn't take long! And yes, yet another survey. I just have to wonder... 'a market?'
This amplification doesn't change my views on reasons behind much of this, or indeed the lack of real solutions.
Indy - Customers could dump wrappers before leaving shop under new law
BBC - tried to find the story. Got as far as here. Failed as link didn't work.
One word: 'could'. Next words: Is this unfairly shunting the issue onto only one section when we need a proper, coordinated approach from all protagonists first?'
Guardian - M&S gets the lowest green rating in packaging survey - What price a £100kpa CSR guru now?
Guardian (podcast) - 'The cost is passed on to the council taxpayer' - Let the games begin.
I was on board pretty much until the end.
That came across a tad as 'Help 'us' meet targets or we'll drop the fines on 'you'.'
What if these targets are not that relevant in the overall enviROI+ scheme of things (I don't know, but would like to see how a trip to one supermarket compares in terms of 'footprint' to going to several places. Or how the consequences of packaging waste stack up vs. food waste as a consequence of rejected/disposed of foodstuffs).
When there are so many departments/quangos whose officers/directors are on bonuses based on simply getting rates up in their sectors, I am afraid my confidence is dented in the motives any comms effort, especially funded with our money, on ads and PR campaigns.
Our paying to fund the mechanism to drive up rates to improve such folks' bonuses strikes me as a conflict of interest at best.
And in a nation of 60B+ and soaring, most working 12 hrs a day just to stay on top of life's demands (and those of a growing public service in terms of salaries and pensions), I am not yet convinced just whose best interests are being served by some of these initiatives and the media efforts thrown behind them.
Monday, October 22, 2007
There's climate. And the weather. And how it gets referred to.
I liked his book. Seems a nice guy. But Leo Hickman has dropped a notch in my estimation here: And now for the weather
From the BBC pitching English grads to 'analyse' environmental data, to Al Gore being called a climate science student, I am seeing a worrying trend.
And that is some precautionary advocates getting a little out of their depth on the science side and paying the price.
Trouble is, they take a lot with them. Their past good works for one. And the task those trying to stay on a very objective course with roughly the same aim, but different methodologies.
I won't be posting as this looks like a really t'is/tisn't flame war in the making. I just hope the rebuttal doesn't end up with the now wearily familiar 'so ok it's not all accurate, but his heart's in the right place'.
From the BBC pitching English grads to 'analyse' environmental data, to Al Gore being called a climate science student, I am seeing a worrying trend.
And that is some precautionary advocates getting a little out of their depth on the science side and paying the price.
Trouble is, they take a lot with them. Their past good works for one. And the task those trying to stay on a very objective course with roughly the same aim, but different methodologies.
I won't be posting as this looks like a really t'is/tisn't flame war in the making. I just hope the rebuttal doesn't end up with the now wearily familiar 'so ok it's not all accurate, but his heart's in the right place'.
Slow suicide. Or fast. It's just which method we choose.
Scientists have a new way to reshape nature, but none can predict the cost
As creative souls who are driven (through ego, desire for reward, etc) to 'make' things, it seems we have reached a rather tricky point in our race's 'development'.
The planet can no longer absorb all of us and what we do to pollute it.
Hence there are some big questions to ask, though I don't see many in a position to do anything about them even going near.
From climate change to health issues to food production, technology assuredly can buy us more time by squeezing gallons out of pint pots.
But unless we accept that there is a finite limit to which we are inexorably heading, I'd suggest most I read about and see debated with great passion here is soon going to be academic.
I'd just like to see a few priorities rearranged is all.
As creative souls who are driven (through ego, desire for reward, etc) to 'make' things, it seems we have reached a rather tricky point in our race's 'development'.
The planet can no longer absorb all of us and what we do to pollute it.
Hence there are some big questions to ask, though I don't see many in a position to do anything about them even going near.
From climate change to health issues to food production, technology assuredly can buy us more time by squeezing gallons out of pint pots.
But unless we accept that there is a finite limit to which we are inexorably heading, I'd suggest most I read about and see debated with great passion here is soon going to be academic.
I'd just like to see a few priorities rearranged is all.
Compostable bioplastics - the future?
An interesting article from the Baltimore Sun, reporting on the emergence of the first biodegradable bioplastics which can actually be composted.
There appear to be a number of criticisms, not least of which is cost (three times conventional petroleum based plastics) but also that manufacture produces CO2 (as does conventional plastics manufacture?). There are also concerns from some that GM bacteria are used in some of the processes (plus GM feed crops too, in some cases), and there seem to be some unanswered questions around recycling. However, they do not produce any of the toxins involved in the production of PVC's, PET's and Polystyrenes etc.
I reckon that these warrant further watching and investigation, they do seem to provide some potential advantages for the future. There are some concern factors that will also need to be taken into account, but, as crude oil prices continue to rise (which is inevitable) the cost of conventional plastics will rise accordingly. There will come a time when bioplastics will surely become the materials of choice, if only because of the biodegradability factor.
There appear to be a number of criticisms, not least of which is cost (three times conventional petroleum based plastics) but also that manufacture produces CO2 (as does conventional plastics manufacture?). There are also concerns from some that GM bacteria are used in some of the processes (plus GM feed crops too, in some cases), and there seem to be some unanswered questions around recycling. However, they do not produce any of the toxins involved in the production of PVC's, PET's and Polystyrenes etc.
I reckon that these warrant further watching and investigation, they do seem to provide some potential advantages for the future. There are some concern factors that will also need to be taken into account, but, as crude oil prices continue to rise (which is inevitable) the cost of conventional plastics will rise accordingly. There will come a time when bioplastics will surely become the materials of choice, if only because of the biodegradability factor.
Surveys say...
... very little, really.
Brighton's best? Well maybe...
Named by whom? And on what basis?
I know it's all terribly fun and all playing greenupmanship (as your piece ably shares) once sufficient dosh is tucked away, but it's coming to something when we don't even bother to worry much about which pointless green survey is getting touted today to tell us... nothing much really.
I'm guessing that it's the carrier bag ban thing. Which, if I am to believe the latest Volkswagen TV ad, is what we now measure the efficacy of buying new 'green' cars upon.
Brighton's best? Well maybe...
Named by whom? And on what basis?
I know it's all terribly fun and all playing greenupmanship (as your piece ably shares) once sufficient dosh is tucked away, but it's coming to something when we don't even bother to worry much about which pointless green survey is getting touted today to tell us... nothing much really.
I'm guessing that it's the carrier bag ban thing. Which, if I am to believe the latest Volkswagen TV ad, is what we now measure the efficacy of buying new 'green' cars upon.
A simple guide to climate change
This simple to understand overview of the current scientific understanding of climate change comes from the Royal Society. It responds to eight of the common contentious arguments in simple terms, explaining where the known scientific evidence lies.
"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming."
Well worth spending a little time exploring.
"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming."
Well worth spending a little time exploring.
How green is my...well... anything?
Supermarkets fail to be “truly green”
Attracted by that headline, I have to now question the value of such surveys, especially under the rather vague catch-all banner of 'green' or indeed what makes one so... or not.
In just one week I think I was sent at least three. And while the protagonists were similar, their rankings bounced around so much as to make comparisons less than helpful.
Of course it is down to methodologies, but what consumer has the time or inclination to delve too deeply.
Which, like the plethora of existing and proposed labelling schemes, makes one question what value these things have save to create a bit of revenue for those who play with such things, those who write about them (myself included) and a a few box-tickers somewhere.
Not sure if my kids or the planet gain much, though.
Especially now, having seen the latest Volkswagen Bluemotion car TVC, our future brand new car purchases are apparently to be pitched in terms of the number of plastic bag equivalents driving one will 'save' a year. Do what???!
ps: I never did get told how much actual plastic (in weight/volume/Fairy Liquid bottles), the seeming 200+/- that 'we' use each year equates tot warrant the peculiar devotion this 'product' excites in seaside councils and Islington-residing journalists.
Guardian - A molehill of mange
While they may once have had some minor value, all polls and surveys are hardly worth the keyboard strokes that go into their creation, publishing or subsequent discussion.
For a start there are so many. And second they all contradict each other.
Last week my little website got 3 separate surveys on 'green' supermarkets. In one Tesco was top. In the next it was bottom.
I asked for methodology and got little the wiser. So I ignore them all, save on my blog where I made roughly this point.
So, in addition to the vast armies employed to create and analyse this dross, I can add myself as one more who profited slightly for their pointless existence.
Attracted by that headline, I have to now question the value of such surveys, especially under the rather vague catch-all banner of 'green' or indeed what makes one so... or not.
In just one week I think I was sent at least three. And while the protagonists were similar, their rankings bounced around so much as to make comparisons less than helpful.
Of course it is down to methodologies, but what consumer has the time or inclination to delve too deeply.
Which, like the plethora of existing and proposed labelling schemes, makes one question what value these things have save to create a bit of revenue for those who play with such things, those who write about them (myself included) and a a few box-tickers somewhere.
Not sure if my kids or the planet gain much, though.
Especially now, having seen the latest Volkswagen Bluemotion car TVC, our future brand new car purchases are apparently to be pitched in terms of the number of plastic bag equivalents driving one will 'save' a year. Do what???!
ps: I never did get told how much actual plastic (in weight/volume/Fairy Liquid bottles), the seeming 200+/- that 'we' use each year equates tot warrant the peculiar devotion this 'product' excites in seaside councils and Islington-residing journalists.
Guardian - A molehill of mange
While they may once have had some minor value, all polls and surveys are hardly worth the keyboard strokes that go into their creation, publishing or subsequent discussion.
For a start there are so many. And second they all contradict each other.
Last week my little website got 3 separate surveys on 'green' supermarkets. In one Tesco was top. In the next it was bottom.
I asked for methodology and got little the wiser. So I ignore them all, save on my blog where I made roughly this point.
So, in addition to the vast armies employed to create and analyse this dross, I can add myself as one more who profited slightly for their pointless existence.
Just the facts, Ma'am
It's essential that we can all see the whole picture
I think you are being unfair to those concerned with simple accuracy in the conveyance of information (especially when expecting folk to make key decisions upon it), but well said... written!
What you share has particular resonance in my main area of interests these days, the environment.
Cherry picking facts that are convenient to the agenda/message of the author is rife, and as far as I can make out serving no one (including that author) well.
You can sort of expect an advertiser to try and paint the best picture, but even here the extremes have been taken to silly levels, as the ASA weekly testifies.
But when it comes to the media, from scientific data to surveys to just about anything I am presented, usually with a sexed up headline, as 'fact', I simply don't believe it unless I can see all the source data that lead to the - often wildly unrepresentative - conclusion.
And let's not get onto our political establishment.
So, as a minor medium myself, it amazes me to see press releases I have rejected until I get follow-up substantiation (which seldom happens), dutifully cut and pasted in pretty major organs.
As you say, 'just the facts, ma'am'.
I think you are being unfair to those concerned with simple accuracy in the conveyance of information (especially when expecting folk to make key decisions upon it), but well said... written!
What you share has particular resonance in my main area of interests these days, the environment.
Cherry picking facts that are convenient to the agenda/message of the author is rife, and as far as I can make out serving no one (including that author) well.
You can sort of expect an advertiser to try and paint the best picture, but even here the extremes have been taken to silly levels, as the ASA weekly testifies.
But when it comes to the media, from scientific data to surveys to just about anything I am presented, usually with a sexed up headline, as 'fact', I simply don't believe it unless I can see all the source data that lead to the - often wildly unrepresentative - conclusion.
And let's not get onto our political establishment.
So, as a minor medium myself, it amazes me to see press releases I have rejected until I get follow-up substantiation (which seldom happens), dutifully cut and pasted in pretty major organs.
As you say, 'just the facts, ma'am'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)