A flight of fancy, or fancy cutting your flights...? : Time to get tough
I saw this as one of those 'Great idea but..' notions along with carbon trading, which all seem to presume an instantaneous, and frankly miraculous level of engagement and cooperation between every competitive country and company on the globe to result in a fair and equitable system to be initiated down through corporate to an individual level.
Then I saw this: '...assessed their figures under internationally-accepted methodology'. Which suggests things are further ahead than I thought. What is this and have you a link to it?
If everyone has already accepted the methodology of assessment, then we are a long way to the rest already. But then some seem not to have embraced it yet. If so, why not?
Thursday, November 08, 2007
When the going gets tough, the tough start labelling
Now I know the uneladed pump is green, but now which shade...? Time To Ecolabel Biofuels?
WEEE, I'm doing my bit to help the 3rd world!
Or not. Second hand mobile phones causing waste problems in Kenya
It doesn't matter where it goes or what it does when it gets there, but so long as 'we' recycle and are seen to do it, I am sure spending like there's no tomorrow (don't get me started) on new toys will seem just spiffy.
It doesn't matter where it goes or what it does when it gets there, but so long as 'we' recycle and are seen to do it, I am sure spending like there's no tomorrow (don't get me started) on new toys will seem just spiffy.
Fund, fund fund, 'til Daddy took the T-bird away
And if your business is into ELV's, or any other 're-initiative', this may be for you: WRAP launches new funding scheme
I'm betting Junkk.com or RE:tie won't qualify. But I gladly 'share the lurv'.
I'm betting Junkk.com or RE:tie won't qualify. But I gladly 'share the lurv'.
Here's one I saw earlier that might not make the programme...
... or the front page of the Indy, either: Reducing food packaging will not solve waste problem
A bit of pragmatism at last from our left mouth:right mouth government/quango/media organs? Well, 'an official' at least, though Defra’s 'head of sustainable development' Ms. Bronwen Jones sounds pretty high up the tree to me!
However I must say that, again, the headline is a tad misleading. Of course reducing some food packaging can, will and should reduce unnecessary waste and lead to an even better enviROI+.
A timely reminder in light of the Love Food:Hate Waste initiative now under way?
Now who has being banging on, for how long, in precisely these terms: 'The complexity is on who really has the power here? Retailers are key influencers but they claim that they are just driven by what consumers want. Consumers often claim that their behaviour is unduly influenced by retailers and they are reluctant to act without Government taking the first step and taking the lead. Government wants to be responsive to people but does not want to be accused of being a nanny state. There is a real tension between the three way relationship; the reality is that all these actors have some type of leadership role to play.”?
Guess that's why I get the big bucks... er...
MRW - Food and drink manufacturers pledge to cut packaging and food waste - just hope it's in the right places and for the right reasons
A bit of pragmatism at last from our left mouth:right mouth government/quango/media organs? Well, 'an official' at least, though Defra’s 'head of sustainable development' Ms. Bronwen Jones sounds pretty high up the tree to me!
However I must say that, again, the headline is a tad misleading. Of course reducing some food packaging can, will and should reduce unnecessary waste and lead to an even better enviROI+.
A timely reminder in light of the Love Food:Hate Waste initiative now under way?
Now who has being banging on, for how long, in precisely these terms: 'The complexity is on who really has the power here? Retailers are key influencers but they claim that they are just driven by what consumers want. Consumers often claim that their behaviour is unduly influenced by retailers and they are reluctant to act without Government taking the first step and taking the lead. Government wants to be responsive to people but does not want to be accused of being a nanny state. There is a real tension between the three way relationship; the reality is that all these actors have some type of leadership role to play.”?
Guess that's why I get the big bucks... er...
MRW - Food and drink manufacturers pledge to cut packaging and food waste - just hope it's in the right places and for the right reasons
Strawberries, ripe strawberries!
Wow! After the broccoli growing in Greenland story, strawberry plants still producing ripening fruit in the UK during November!
And I've got to somehow find time to cut my lawns again this weekend, they're still going strong! A few years ago the last cut used to be around the first week of October!
Nuff said!
And I've got to somehow find time to cut my lawns again this weekend, they're still going strong! A few years ago the last cut used to be around the first week of October!
Nuff said!
The public may have a right to know...
...but why do TV companies have a right to say one thing whilst doing another? TV matters: Long Way Down
This more about trust in what you see. But I think it is a telling indictment of what you are often told. Just how many folk are there behind the camera to bring us that guy speaking earnestly to mic about the state of our planet... from a rather nice location but a 4X4 trip, 5* overnighter and return flight away?
This more about trust in what you see. But I think it is a telling indictment of what you are often told. Just how many folk are there behind the camera to bring us that guy speaking earnestly to mic about the state of our planet... from a rather nice location but a 4X4 trip, 5* overnighter and return flight away?
Wood and trees
This from the Indy Letters page about the role of trees in the carbon cycle bears a thought:
How forests store greenhouse gas
Steve Connor's article "Forests losing the ability to absorb man-made carbon" (1 November) illustrates one of the most common misconceptions surrounding absorption of atmospheric carbon by trees: the misapprehension that forests are net absorbers of CO2.
A mature forest is incredibly useful to us as a store of carbon since any carbon that is fixed within the mass of a living tree is carbon that is not contributing to global warming. However, an existing forest can never help us in our plight unless it is spreading to cover more land. A mature forest (like a mature individual tree) is essentially "carbon neutral": it is absorbing only as much as it is releasing.
Unfortunately, there is not one significant area of mature forest on our planet that is increasing in size. We only get a net benefit when we plant new trees and thereby create new forest. We are in desperate need of more trees and the really sad thing is that this article will lead to fewer new trees being planted.
So... my banging on about not knocking down forests is valid, but not enough. Equally, I retain some significant doubts on many (not all) 'offset schemes' which, as I glibly put it, 'whack a fir in t' firmament - hey, an missed acronym: 'WAFIF'.
In fact, this kind of connects to my notion that using FSC-certified products might actually help over recycling by encouraging replanting. Or does it, as the net area does not expand... oh, my spinning head!
Indy - How timber can store carbon
How forests store greenhouse gas
Steve Connor's article "Forests losing the ability to absorb man-made carbon" (1 November) illustrates one of the most common misconceptions surrounding absorption of atmospheric carbon by trees: the misapprehension that forests are net absorbers of CO2.
A mature forest is incredibly useful to us as a store of carbon since any carbon that is fixed within the mass of a living tree is carbon that is not contributing to global warming. However, an existing forest can never help us in our plight unless it is spreading to cover more land. A mature forest (like a mature individual tree) is essentially "carbon neutral": it is absorbing only as much as it is releasing.
Unfortunately, there is not one significant area of mature forest on our planet that is increasing in size. We only get a net benefit when we plant new trees and thereby create new forest. We are in desperate need of more trees and the really sad thing is that this article will lead to fewer new trees being planted.
So... my banging on about not knocking down forests is valid, but not enough. Equally, I retain some significant doubts on many (not all) 'offset schemes' which, as I glibly put it, 'whack a fir in t' firmament - hey, an missed acronym: 'WAFIF'.
In fact, this kind of connects to my notion that using FSC-certified products might actually help over recycling by encouraging replanting. Or does it, as the net area does not expand... oh, my spinning head!
Indy - How timber can store carbon
Fundamentals? Or financial flows?
As oil approaches the $100 per barrel marker, decide for yourself. As reported in the FT.
Not that long ago $80 a barrel was considered damaging for the world economy, yet here we are seeing the $100 barrel around the corner.
And yet some of the big boys are already profiteering. On my journey across the south coast last Sunday I spotted diesel offered at a lowest price of 98.9p/litre, more commonly something like 101.9 to 102.9p/litre, but some Texaco garages had it priced at a staggering 108.9p/litre. I hope the greedy bastards go bust! (Fat chance!)
The sad thing is that it will ALL be at that level before long. And guess who benefits the most? All that extra tax goes straight into the government's coffers. More cash for additional quangos, targets and surveys then?
Not that long ago $80 a barrel was considered damaging for the world economy, yet here we are seeing the $100 barrel around the corner.
And yet some of the big boys are already profiteering. On my journey across the south coast last Sunday I spotted diesel offered at a lowest price of 98.9p/litre, more commonly something like 101.9 to 102.9p/litre, but some Texaco garages had it priced at a staggering 108.9p/litre. I hope the greedy bastards go bust! (Fat chance!)
The sad thing is that it will ALL be at that level before long. And guess who benefits the most? All that extra tax goes straight into the government's coffers. More cash for additional quangos, targets and surveys then?
Palm oil hits troubled waters?
Now we have all read about how palm oil production is increasing rapidly across suitable areas of the planet, especially now that it can also be utilised as a source of bio-diesel.
This from Greenpeace, names some leading British brands which appear to be highly complicit in the destruction of Indonesia's peat swamp forests which are being replaced with palm oil plantations.
The report explains "how peatlands in the Indonesian province of Riau (an area the size of Switzerland) store a massive 14.6 billion tons of carbon (2) - equivalent to one year's global greenhouse gas emissions. Further expansion for the production of palm oil for food and biofuels threatens to release this enormous store of carbon into the atmosphere."
If it is true that "palm oil from companies engaged in forest and peatland destruction is then ‘laundered' through the entire supply chain, ending up with well known" British brands, then I suspect there are going to be some very red faces in forthcoming board meetings.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Guardian - Big food companies accused of risking climate catastrophe - 'Risking'...bless. Funny, I was just reading about P&G's eco-efforts, along with Shell's green ad being pulled by the ASA, and...
This from Greenpeace, names some leading British brands which appear to be highly complicit in the destruction of Indonesia's peat swamp forests which are being replaced with palm oil plantations.
The report explains "how peatlands in the Indonesian province of Riau (an area the size of Switzerland) store a massive 14.6 billion tons of carbon (2) - equivalent to one year's global greenhouse gas emissions. Further expansion for the production of palm oil for food and biofuels threatens to release this enormous store of carbon into the atmosphere."
If it is true that "palm oil from companies engaged in forest and peatland destruction is then ‘laundered' through the entire supply chain, ending up with well known" British brands, then I suspect there are going to be some very red faces in forthcoming board meetings.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Guardian - Big food companies accused of risking climate catastrophe - 'Risking'...bless. Funny, I was just reading about P&G's eco-efforts, along with Shell's green ad being pulled by the ASA, and...
Bad news may actually be good news!
Sounds rather daft doesn't it, but this from The Business reports on a survey (yes, yet another one!) of British companies that looked at how many businesses, across various sectors, were actually measuring their carbon footprint, may just actually be good news from what are apparently bad results.
"The education, hospitality and manufacturing sectors were among the worst offenders, with just 10%-15% saying they measured their carbon footprints, compared with 78% in the leading sector, aerospace. About 40% of companies cited the cost and limited range of environmentally-friendly equipment as the most significant obstacles to going green, while around a third said there was no competitive advantage."
Yet, as commented by the UK Social Investment Forum, "A few years ago, the percentage would have been vanishingly small. To me, this report contains much good news.”
So there you have it, bad news can actually be good news.
_____________
Hmmmmm, "The research follows a report in September by UHY Hacker Young, the accountants, that indicated green taxes were reaping the government 50 times what it handed back in tax breaks for environmental initiatives." I'll have to see if I can find any references to that particular report! But I have to admit that it doesn't surprise me.
Important Addendum:
Just checked back and Peter did actually post a piece about a concurrent report back in September - see "it must be true; its on the BBC".
The strange thing is that the report the Beeb referred to was by the Taxpayers Alliance, which seems, at least to me, to seriously underestimate the scale of the problem. Take a look at this from politics.co.uk. Scary stuff!!
"The UHY research claims official Treasury figures reveal the government accumulates £29.3 billion in green levies, of which only £549 million – or 2 per cent – is handed back to the taxpayer to encourage environmentally conscious activity."
Now if that's accurate, it is not just unethical, it is downright heinous, almost bordering on the bloody fraudulent!
“The concern is that revenue raised from green taxes is being used to fund other government pet projects such as the Olympics.”
Now given the absolute shambles that the grants systems for renewables and insulation etc. are in, then who's conning who?
"The education, hospitality and manufacturing sectors were among the worst offenders, with just 10%-15% saying they measured their carbon footprints, compared with 78% in the leading sector, aerospace. About 40% of companies cited the cost and limited range of environmentally-friendly equipment as the most significant obstacles to going green, while around a third said there was no competitive advantage."
Yet, as commented by the UK Social Investment Forum, "A few years ago, the percentage would have been vanishingly small. To me, this report contains much good news.”
So there you have it, bad news can actually be good news.
_____________
Hmmmmm, "The research follows a report in September by UHY Hacker Young, the accountants, that indicated green taxes were reaping the government 50 times what it handed back in tax breaks for environmental initiatives." I'll have to see if I can find any references to that particular report! But I have to admit that it doesn't surprise me.
Important Addendum:
Just checked back and Peter did actually post a piece about a concurrent report back in September - see "it must be true; its on the BBC".
The strange thing is that the report the Beeb referred to was by the Taxpayers Alliance, which seems, at least to me, to seriously underestimate the scale of the problem. Take a look at this from politics.co.uk. Scary stuff!!
"The UHY research claims official Treasury figures reveal the government accumulates £29.3 billion in green levies, of which only £549 million – or 2 per cent – is handed back to the taxpayer to encourage environmentally conscious activity."
Now if that's accurate, it is not just unethical, it is downright heinous, almost bordering on the bloody fraudulent!
“The concern is that revenue raised from green taxes is being used to fund other government pet projects such as the Olympics.”
Now given the absolute shambles that the grants systems for renewables and insulation etc. are in, then who's conning who?
Trivial TV
I think I can see a reason (though, sadly, no solution) to why the message of MWGW is washing over the majority of the population.
In just a one hour period on our national broadcaster's breakfast slot I was cheerfully informed that it's now OK to be fat, fasting is good for you, vitamin D from sunlight helps prevent ageing but you can get cancer sunbathing. Oh, and if you blow $25k on a dessert you get in the news. And tomorrow it will probably be the exact reverse.
Too many people with too much airspace to fill... and not enough to fill it with.
Trivial TV (from news down), conveying the half-thought, half-a*sed and half-cocked, is killing any chance of anything being taken seriously any more.
So we don't.
Indy - Now doctors say it's good to be fat - Make that print, too. At least they seem equally incredulous. One slightly off-topic, but related point of consideration, especially in an era when overpopulation is looking to be an issue, is the implication of simply 'living longer'. It is surely as vital how one lives that life that is the key.
Indy - This research may bring sanity to the weight debate - what I actually found/find interesting, is the presumption of a 'correct' level. Who set/s that? It seems more designed to suit prevailing dogma, and all this counter-evidence just further erodes faith in the systems that create these notions 'for our own good'.
Gaurdian - Ageing process may be slowed by vitamin D, say scientists - Ah, the nuts of 'may'
In just a one hour period on our national broadcaster's breakfast slot I was cheerfully informed that it's now OK to be fat, fasting is good for you, vitamin D from sunlight helps prevent ageing but you can get cancer sunbathing. Oh, and if you blow $25k on a dessert you get in the news. And tomorrow it will probably be the exact reverse.
Too many people with too much airspace to fill... and not enough to fill it with.
Trivial TV (from news down), conveying the half-thought, half-a*sed and half-cocked, is killing any chance of anything being taken seriously any more.
So we don't.
Indy - Now doctors say it's good to be fat - Make that print, too. At least they seem equally incredulous. One slightly off-topic, but related point of consideration, especially in an era when overpopulation is looking to be an issue, is the implication of simply 'living longer'. It is surely as vital how one lives that life that is the key.
Indy - This research may bring sanity to the weight debate - what I actually found/find interesting, is the presumption of a 'correct' level. Who set/s that? It seems more designed to suit prevailing dogma, and all this counter-evidence just further erodes faith in the systems that create these notions 'for our own good'.
Gaurdian - Ageing process may be slowed by vitamin D, say scientists - Ah, the nuts of 'may'
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
First, sharpen your pencil. Next, knives.
Last night I had an interesting insight into the workings of Government service, and while it was the Education Department, it does not bode well for my dealings with others pertinent to Junkk.com and our future enviro-adventures.A wee while ago, amongst the sea of photocopied notices that my sons convey to and from school (rather selectively, as they can read, and know when me doing the same might not be for the best), I happened across something about an evening event 'to help your child settle in' to their new (secondary) school year (7), and in particular help with their homework.
Being a good parent... actually, make that knowing I could certainly be a better one, especially as regards their academic progress both in and out of school, I signed me & the missus up.
Let me get the good bit upfront right away. Someone, somewhere, saw/sees this as potentially necessary and worthwhile to address what one might term... shortfalls.
Remember that it was me and the missus. Well, that at least brought the total attendance to about a dozen. Out of a year that has some 200+ students. So the first thing I noted was that whatever this was, we represented about 6%. And of those, me and 'er indoors were the only ones who did not seem to have a mighty good appreciation of where their kids needed to be now and in a future already mapped out. This did not seem of great concern to the various organisers, of which there were three, though one was more in a coordinating role and scooted off. The other was some LA edu-guru, who ran/will run the series, and a teacher in support. Now I don't know who is funding this, but if they were unpaid then big up to 'em. If not...
Speaking of funding... See that picture? That is the paperwork we all had dumped on us. Actually, minus a sheaf of paperwork we had to fill out and sign in quintuplicate 'for the funders'. At this point I was wondering what I had got myself into, as I thought this was just a quick chat about homework.
Oh no, we had to put down everything from our race (Jedi.. natch) to educational qualifications, plus a bunch of other psychobabble and gibberish that ran for pages which, I noted, had been formatted and then stapled to include an extra one for each without anything on it. I am not sure that my comment about the funders not being too concerned about waste edicts was very appreciated. We then had to fill out boxes to say where we 'wanted' to be by the end, which seemed to involve copying things down from the flip chart and/or one of these sheets... and then signing them. My wife had to stab me in the thigh to keep me there.
Then we got on to the 'ground rules'. Ok, fine, no speaking out of turn, being rude to teacher or dissing the others. Now they are immortalised in flip chart glory and pinned on a wall. Are all government meetings run this way?
Eventually, we got cracking, and it all pretty much revolves around a wee tome I was vaguely aware of, called the homework diary. Anyway.... WAIT....!
Seems one parent does not have a copy as they were new to the area. Cue massive debate between LA guru and teacher, where it transpires that there was a finite number and they had run out and printing costs a lot and...
Again, my next suggestion was equally unappreciated, namely that as it was... a diary... and all the extra bits were just a few charts and pictures, as 2007 diaries were probably going cheap by the 11th month, and there is this thing called a photocopier, maybe as an interim measure one could be bought and the requisite pages stuck in to get all to an equal level of stationery nirvana.
Meanwhile, back to the homework diary. Seems this is a key piece of the school/pupil/teacher/parent communication system. After this I have my doubts as to whether it is just them, but I have to say that I immediately saw a slight problem in as much as a bunch of adults were relying on 10/11-year-olds to act as reliable go-betweens in spoken word, written word and in deed. In fact, throughout a lot of the evening’s more promising discussions, things seemed to screech to a halt when I piped up to ask, with eyebrow-cocked, how it all worked (bearing in mind we were there to help our little darlings do better despite themselves) if they didn't as such, per se, do what they were supposed to. Waaay too often the LA guru arched her eyebrow and suggested that this was not their problem if people didn't cooperate. If anything epitomised the ‘this is the way it has been done, is being done and always will be done’ box-tick culture I was sensing, this was it. Only I have to play ball to get my kids’ educated as well as possible despite a system that seems to care less (save for having this event).
By this time my thigh was like a pin cushion.
But there were some positives that have already come out of this.
It has been accepted that when the kids have their induction and are told of the vital use of all this stuff on day one, it might be an idea to brief the parents on it all too, especially if they are expected to get involved. And do it at the beginning, too.
It was also appreciated that if there are areas of confusion, fear or laziness, perhaps putting the communications of vital bits of info between school and parent about the person concerned into the self-same person's hands is not the best idea. There also followed a mind-boggling debate about what could/should be done with various communications vis a vis post and the internet. Just one posted mailing from this school of 2,000+ must cost about £1k! Why IT (somehow it ended up at the door of the guy who teaches ICT... don't the UK's schools have IT admin support departments?) was not up to defaulting to all parents who opt in via a database/mail merge system was quite beyond me.
By the end I was both exhausted and livid. I had the impression the poor teacher was sympathetic and would try her best (we squeezed an email address out of her that she promises will get checked and queries answered... poor girl) but LA Lady was not going to be distracted from her schedule.
And so, under threat of death, or an EU fine, or something equally awful, we are committed to more of the same for the next several weeks.
I just hope the boys appreciate it. While the other 188 students, and their parents, who still remain in total ignorance, revel in their bliss.
ADDENDUM 2 - Just went to the second session. Much better. I sensed great relief that we had all turned up again. And much less defensiveness. Apparently some of what had been shared from parents had been fed back into the system, and indeed I know my own kids had engaged more and been asked about it all. Nothing better than a sense that a difference is being made.
Still waaaaay too much psychobabble that consumed the majority of the 2 hr session, but I had a personal breakthrough where I could at last see the connection through what the syllabus set out, what homework was set weekly, what the homework diary was supposed to contain, what I was supposed to relate it to and how that was to be overseen by the teachers.
And, most importantly, a significant willingness to be contacted by the teaching staff... which I will take up with enthusiasm, and appreciation. Not how I do it, but at last worth doing (I hope).
'MAKING & MENDING STUFF' SITES
Online craft, repair, etc sources of inspiration:
Craft - 'Site unseen' - not reviewed
instructables.com - Not exactly a RE:view of the site, but just to say my kids love this costume.
Junkk.com - Well, I would, wouldn't I?
repairclinic.com - not yet reviewed. US-based
It's an 'e-volver' thread, so I'll be adding from me... and you... if you tell me.
Craft - 'Site unseen' - not reviewed
instructables.com - Not exactly a RE:view of the site, but just to say my kids love this costume.
Junkk.com - Well, I would, wouldn't I?
repairclinic.com - not yet reviewed. US-based
It's an 'e-volver' thread, so I'll be adding from me... and you... if you tell me.
Going the distance
Those getting excited by Food Miles may find this, via TreeHugger, of interest: Wine Carbon Study Says East Coasters Should Drink French
Green Van Man?
(DFT) Multi-million fund for low carbon vans
And you know I can't resist the odd highlight...
Setting the tone:
Cleaner, greener van fleets could be a reality on our roads...
Actually, it's more a case of 'why not before?'. However, I do concern myself at the potential for a box getting ticked without the enviROI being properly sussed out.
And you know I can't resist the odd highlight...
Setting the tone:
Cleaner, greener van fleets could be a reality on our roads...
Actually, it's more a case of 'why not before?'. However, I do concern myself at the potential for a box getting ticked without the enviROI being properly sussed out.
As they say she said he said they think we should...
I'm not big on speeches.
They are either long, or boring, or both. They rarely tell you anything worth knowing, or can do much with or about on the spot, and invariably are either preceded or followed up with the content online, so it rather makes being there to be bored to death a major lowpoint of one's day. Unless there's a chance to drag folk from the PowerPoint screen, they stay around afterwards for a chat or the speaker can really inspire.
Speaking of which, we have the Queen reading out the Prime Minister's list.
I may (or likely may not) get interested enough in trawling more and hence posting from elsewhere, but for now here is a press release from the Greens, or at least one of their Principal Speakers (which has me a tad contused as to who speaks for whom).
A few points of note (well, that I noted), with which I am in pretty much agreement:
The 60 per cent by 2050 targets cited in the revised Climate Change Bill
"It's criminally irresponsible to adopt a target that not only flies
in the face of science, but also undermines the UK's commitment to
making a fair contribution ..."
"...low level targets that we are not
likely to meet do not constitute radical action on climate change."
On the Planning Reform Bill
"The current proposals for a separate planning system for major
infrastructure projects mean undermining democracy in favour of an
increasingly centralised and authoritarian government."
"Consulting with local people for disruptive, polluting projects like
airports is essential, and any attempt to 'streamline' these
processes to save money, or to hand them over to appointed yes-men is
a scandalous affront to the rights of ordinary people in the UK."
On the Housing and Regeneration Bill:
"...give priority to the maintenance and
improvement of existing properties before building 3 million new homes."
They are either long, or boring, or both. They rarely tell you anything worth knowing, or can do much with or about on the spot, and invariably are either preceded or followed up with the content online, so it rather makes being there to be bored to death a major lowpoint of one's day. Unless there's a chance to drag folk from the PowerPoint screen, they stay around afterwards for a chat or the speaker can really inspire.
Speaking of which, we have the Queen reading out the Prime Minister's list.
I may (or likely may not) get interested enough in trawling more and hence posting from elsewhere, but for now here is a press release from the Greens, or at least one of their Principal Speakers (which has me a tad contused as to who speaks for whom).
A few points of note (well, that I noted), with which I am in pretty much agreement:
The 60 per cent by 2050 targets cited in the revised Climate Change Bill
"It's criminally irresponsible to adopt a target that not only flies
in the face of science, but also undermines the UK's commitment to
making a fair contribution ..."
"...low level targets that we are not
likely to meet do not constitute radical action on climate change."
On the Planning Reform Bill
"The current proposals for a separate planning system for major
infrastructure projects mean undermining democracy in favour of an
increasingly centralised and authoritarian government."
"Consulting with local people for disruptive, polluting projects like
airports is essential, and any attempt to 'streamline' these
processes to save money, or to hand them over to appointed yes-men is
a scandalous affront to the rights of ordinary people in the UK."
On the Housing and Regeneration Bill:
"...give priority to the maintenance and
improvement of existing properties before building 3 million new homes."
What a week that was!
Hardly a day goes by without it being some kind of 'week'.
Apparently, or at least according to an email I have just had, it is 'Waste Not Week.
Now, as oft noted, my enthusiasm for raising awareness knows no bounds but I have a few small niggles.
The main one is that if there is a 'week' for such things, is there not rather a danger that, by definition, the other 51 are not, how to say, as strong. So I rather prefer to think of not wasting to be more of a 24/7, 365 kinda deal.
Then there's the cost. Who pays for all the effort that goes into such efforts? The DM packs, the PR, etc, etc? And hence the enviROI generated.
And who, exactly, are the beneficiaries? I can see it keeps some folk occupied. And makes money for a goodly proportion. Plus the media can fill a slow news day.
As to the rest of us...?
Apparently, or at least according to an email I have just had, it is 'Waste Not Week.
Now, as oft noted, my enthusiasm for raising awareness knows no bounds but I have a few small niggles.
The main one is that if there is a 'week' for such things, is there not rather a danger that, by definition, the other 51 are not, how to say, as strong. So I rather prefer to think of not wasting to be more of a 24/7, 365 kinda deal.
Then there's the cost. Who pays for all the effort that goes into such efforts? The DM packs, the PR, etc, etc? And hence the enviROI generated.
And who, exactly, are the beneficiaries? I can see it keeps some folk occupied. And makes money for a goodly proportion. Plus the media can fill a slow news day.
As to the rest of us...?
Recipes for the day
I was/am/will be intrigued how the latest anti-food waste 'initiative' will pan out after its massive 'launch'. Here's the latest salvo... serving... Things to do with soggy veg ...
Yum. You can almost here the boxes ticking: PR coverage in the Guardian, check.
Yum. You can almost here the boxes ticking: PR coverage in the Guardian, check.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)