"It's a plant' - Or, how not to serve the cause of enviro-persuasion

Planted question damages Clinton in key primary state

It's not so much that it was done (I'd guess it is almost standard practice, at least between No 10 and the BBC) but, like Nixon, the getting caught. And being so clunky. And for such a god-awful question... but mostly for such a sad answer if it was 'prepared'.

Gaurdian - I'm glad you asked

All these messages. And where to stick them.

I was watching the Breakfast News this morning, and in an hour counted about three 'campaigns' for awareness.

One that struck home was something to do with disability, but mainly because it involves Aardman and its awesome animations. But mainly I sat there thinking just how much money had already been consumed rather than actually going where it might help. Especially as I listened to the dapper Director of Communications articulating his 'vision', doubtless outside a several storey Belgravia Office.

Beyond the amount of money going into sticking these in front of us at every turn, as a copywriter I frankly despair at the creative strategies and executions I witness.

See that pear ad? It was in the Sunday Times magazine today (guess how much that costs). It now has copy. Guess what it says: 'Sadder still, it could still be eaten'. Then a bunch of waffle about what food waste costs and a 'tip' (at last) about how to prolong its life: stick it in the fridge. Well, D'uh. Unless it's a banana, as that doesn't seem to work. Or bread. Which seems to go mouldy quicker.

I'm sure these exceptions are on the site, which I will of course share. Through gritted lack of funding.

The next was from the Grauniad. Some eco-energy effort that they have hooked up with. Ignoring the actuality of what they may be selling in competition to others, which seems not to trouble the 'supporting' (er, getting paid) medium, does that line have you, Mr/s. business person, rushing to sign up? Me, either.

And finally, a poster from my supermarket carpark. Inspired? Was I... heck. How much could this spend be better applied where it can DO some GOOD!

A week is a long time in plastic bags

It's a matter of almost biblical proportion. And so I read this: Sunday Times - Stores face ban on free carrier bags*

Last week, of course, was one 'in focus', so it was wall to wall. And, to be fair, tucked away in my magazine was a wall chart. Interestingly it highlighted a quote that stated the rather obvious point that was happening at present was more to do with making money before worrying about planet.

But we're all still at it. Government. Newspapers. Me.

See that first picture? That's today's mail. Half a dozen plastic bags containing stuff I subscribe to. (I also realised there are duplicates and am on the cancellation trail... assuming they will let me - often targets mean they are not keen on reduced numbers).

See the second picture? That yesterday's shopping and the week's plastic from mailings. Depending on whether I remember or not to bring my climate summit hessian tote, I now acquire about 3-4 carriers a week. Which get used as bin liners.

Against that there is a BINFUL of publication wrappers. All useless (though I have an idea on how to make them useful). Now I don't pretend to know the details of why they may or may not be needed, enviROI vs. ROI, but that looks to me like an awful lot of plastic bags I have seen not one squawk about from government or liberal media, with all their campaigning and protest and names and shames.

And just for fun, I have been sent a screed of stuff on a major consultation (it's in here somewhere) on it all by the London Assembly. How many people spending how much time on something of how much relevance at the expense of what else?

Shopping bag levy or ban in London?

Should there be a London-wide ban on the use of shopping bags? Or are Londoners prepared to pay for the bags they get with their shopping? What action are Londoners taking to reduce the number of plastic bags they use? And how can retailers minimise the impact their bags have on the environment?

These and other questions will be considered at a meeting of the London Assembly’s Environment Committee on Thursday 15 November 2007 at City Hall.

Committee Members will question representatives from the following organisations on how to reduce the number of shopping bags issued in London in light of proposals from London Councils to impose a ban or levy on all single use shopping bags in the capital:

· Friends of the Earth
· London Councils
· British Retail Consortium
· Carrier Bag Consortium
· Marks and Spencer
· Sainsbury’s

I know it's An issue, but is it really as big a one as this lot would make out?

* ps - small note on surveys. When I read this 'The move follows a six-week public consultation in which 60% of the 1,752 people who took part supported a ban', my eyebrow goes into orbit. What on earth does 'took part' mean? If it is 'could be bothered to reply', well, what did they think they'd say?

Stale Cream

I have a saying: 'Cream rises to the top; you can't push it'. I may have to rethink that: Quango fat cats reap the price

Recently our local prospective parliamentary candidate wrote in our local paper about DEFRA. He reveals it has spent £1.1 billion on consultants. And yet has managed to acheive almost sod all.

I still mind forking out, but wouldn't so much if the result(s) were any damn good!!! And there seems to be no effective way to get rid of them, leaving them clear to squander more and more, again and again.

Fat cat row over public sector pay

Some great, telling comments in feedback.

Slim down the fat cats

Peers help themselves to £300 a day tax-free

Indy - Pay for public sector bosses rises by 12.8 per cent

Indy - Gordon Brown's efforts to enlarge Blair's 'big tent' are beginning to backfire spectacularly - As much a Friend of..' as those he critiques, by enough smoke to indicate the presence of fire... only with no bright sparks. Just smouldering members.

Reader's Digest - November - Feeding Time in Quango Land - Sadly no link. I will write to them and post here.

Apparently, these things are set up 'to be the most effective and efficient method of conducting government business, and are closed down when no longer required'. Really? How many have been pensioned off? I use that word on purpose, because from the jobs ads I see in the papers, an awful lot look to be in it for a very long haul, golden parachutes included. Once folk are in public service jobs, they seem to be impossible to dislodge, no matter how unproductive or inept.

I also note 'Ministers are accountable'. Well, great. But how does one get a hold of the accounts to see how good they are at overseeing all this? How does one measure the ROIs on the bazzillions these guys spend? Especially when the order of priority seems to be self, bonuses, staff, offices and empires, before we get to comms budgets to drive up 'rates' that in turn are tied to bonuses, which just has to be a major conflict of interest at best. And that's before any money actually gets to doing something where it is meant to go.

My area of interest, the environment, is riven with such waste and squandering. And with no sign of a let-up. In just the last few weeks I have seen at least two 'new' campaigns doing roughly the same thing as each other, with different target-rewarded quangos at their hearts. They just seem to exist as highly expensive, rewarding (for those in them) game-playing entities with no sensible measures of value. And I can't see for the life of me see why, other than to create yet more layers of fat beholden to political masters come voting time, and perhaps a nifty unelected layer of protection for when the sh*t hits the fan and some compliant sacrificial goats are required to fall on swords for a huge payoff.

Only even this doesn't seem to apply as they all are hanging on for extremely dear life.

Pathetic!

BBC - Quango pays director's firm £2m - 'Nice work if you can get, if you can get it..'

Satisfying Sunday... so far

Though it serves to remind me to get in my shed more often and find new ones, this is still worth a share.

A long time ago our sink tap broke. And I managed to fix it, Junkk-style.

Since then I have also done the same for my Mum's, which had the same problem. Well, now the other 'side' of mine has gone. It took me about 5 minutes to repair. No longer do I have the MacD bottle, but I soon found another that had the same component.

RE:sult!

Enough's enough?

As one who has had two, I was attracted to this piece: Three's a crowd

I have to say we didn't stop at the twins through any great enviro commitment; in fact it was only their arrival that got me to embark on this journey. But even so, it was so wonderfully typical to see how an Observer chatterer could get one to being a 'modern Malthusian'. I am thinking of swapping Jedi for this on the next census or 18-page grant application 'we need to know ALL about you' section.

Actually I rather liked the simple mathematical logic described in the intro.

And, within the rest there is the odd interesting fact, such as this (if true): 'On your acre, can you grow all your food, absorb all the waste your lifestyle creates, have space for your home, recreational space, travelling space, provide the other resources you need and leave space for public services? Obviously not.' As I look at our half acre (mostly uncultivatable), that doesn't look too good when there's five (granny inc.) of us to sustain when the revolution comes or the bomb drops. I wonder what one does require? There's an attraction in having that land area (suitably stocked - including surrounding Claymores to discourage 'visitors') to hand as a fall-back.

In fact the whole piece is a fairly elegant roam around 'the issue', but really dips in, and then out, as do many of those who seem pretty active in stirring furiously in other, related e-areas the rest of the time, especially when it comes to the 'don't do that' invocations.

It all rather makes me think there are those who like flying about getting parachuted into high-profile local conflicts and winning medals for battles, but have no interest in winning a world war.

The future's bright, the future will be subject to change

I found this interesting on several levels - And you thought that the age of spin was no more

There's the fact that the media can be easily seduced, with checking, into publishing a story on something before it happens.

There's the fact that few, if any, seem worried it didn't happen after all.

There's the fact that those in senior PR at government level know this. Including the 'boss'.

The fact they don't really care what this all means.

And there's the fact that I only found it tucked away as a comment piece based on what seems an already forgotten opposition MP's campaign.

We're get what we deserve, I guess.

Look... no exhaust pipe. So it doesn't pollute!

I saw this today in the newsagent rack and headed straight here to blog: Green tax puts extra £1,000 on family cars

At the same time, manufacturers will be given incentives to accelerate... those that run entirely on electricity.

I have been beaten to it. Though only one has so far mildy enquired as to where and how the 'leccy gets made. If this is the quality of official thought and media reporting we have today... god help our future.

Gooey mess in aisle 3!

What's your environmental "eureka" moment?

Well, he asked:

Looking down at a hospital crib at two innocents who I had had a hand in bringing into a world that to that point I had had a hand in being a little less than I'd wish it to be, as handed down to me by my parents.

If I can raise my children comfortably whilst still passing on to them a planet better than I inherited (or at least headed in a better direction), I will deem that a fair legacy for my time on Earth.

It's not what you know. It's how you choose to share it.

The climate change 'debate' rumbles on, not always productively. I think this is a worthwhile exchange to share in this regard: Find the error

Journalistic errors, no matter how minor, need to be corrected. But I must say that as I read this, I found myself wondering what the heck was going on (whilst admitting that the error, and its explanations, really stretched this science graduate. Well we are talking over 30 years ago). What the residents of Ely made of it gawd knows.

However, I did note the conclusion, which seemed an epitome of civilised behaviour on all sides.

To me there is a lesson, and that is in addressing the issue of CC it is best to maintain a calm, dignified and factual approach, free of smug 'we know stuff' and relentless, complex links.

Help those seeking knowledge to understand and they will appreciate it. They may even err on acting more proactively on what you have shared.

Guardian - Free energy? It doesn't measure up - By coincidence.

I found this a good reply: "science is fun when you're making people look stupid"
Oh dear. No - science is fun when you're making people - including yourself - less stupid.

I will add it to another I use to inspire my own actions and, where I can those around me: 'A great man (it was a pre-PC era) makes others feel small. A truly great man makes others feel great'

Guardian - A balanced contribution - It's related.. sort of.

Guardian - Cry wolf, but gently - Now who else has been saying something like that (I think I may have phrased it differently though - Don't cry wolf, just persuade via honesty and reason!) Interesting to see the author that inspired my original post coming into the frame. I have used this to add a new search label that is a growing cause for concern - Climate Fatigue. I fear it will crop up again.

It's Friday. It's 5 o'clock. And he's gone crackers, Jack!

Had to happen. I agree with the media: Eat, drink and be merry – you can ignore this unhealthy obsession with obesity

Dear Mr. Lawson,

I agree with all you say... with one small, wafer thin revision to suggest:

It is the uncritical reporting of scare stories as fact which does little service to almost anything that gets covered these days, I fear.

Yours sincerely,

First leak of the final IPPC report

This comes from canada.com and makes for very depressing reading. Essentially, the message is prepare to adapt to a hotter climate because it is too late to stop accelerating global warming.

"Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation, but adaptation is also necessary."

And the report misses some key new evidence, which came to late for inclusion.

"The report is said to understate the danger since alarming new evidence missed the deadline for inclusion. It does not, for example, include data showing global emissions are now climbing faster than ever as China and India power their economic booms with fossil fuels. And there is no mention of this summer's Arctic ice retreat, described as 'astounding' by scientists and government officials who fear the Arctic may be hitting a 'tipping point.'"

Coming on a day when most of the east and south east of England has just about survived a combined tidal and storm surge by a matter of centimetres, all I can say is, have a happy weekend.

Addendum:
Of course, there are always some who cannot accept that what scientists say is correct, as exemplified in this from Fox News. Note his figures are based on 54 survey responses out of 345 IPCC scientists. (There were 2500+ overall involved.) Note the last two questions. As I've said before, ask the right question and you can get the answer you want.

Booking the Cooks

Sorry, couldn't resist that headline - Household brands accused of "cooking the climate" as British government prepares for climate summit

This is what Greenpeace does well, but they do of course have a pretty strict agenda so read it all with eyebrow ready. That said, some uncomfortable reading in the CSR departments and boardrooms of some major brands.

Gaurdian - Does it pay to get into bed with business?

Power is only positive if well directed.

I just got around to reading this: Climate change: we have the power

Not a bad summary of where we are, with a refreshing look at where we could be, by design as much as accident. However, as I found myself muttering away, I thought I'd share some of these mutterings here, along with a few key quotes that provoked them.

In October 2007, I can now reveal the net outcome of all this science. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. CO2 emissions, now approaching 30 billion tonnes a year, have continued to rise inexorably. Good start, eh?

Green Europe is actually doing worse than the sceptical United States. European emissions continue to rise while, last year, American emissions fell by 1.6%. News, and unwelcome, but not perhaps surprising, for an entity that seems totally dominated by appearance of action over action itself.

How we [address] this is the issue. Technologically it’s a problem. Politically it’s a nightmare, requiring unprecedented levels of global co-operation from a species whose second and third favourite pastimes are tribalism and war. Now, whodaathunk?

“We are kind of poised, says Rapley, “to see if technology really is the cavalry coming over the horizon or not.” The good news is that we can definitely hear hoof beats and a bugle. Not from what I saw crest the hill, I fear, at least in this piece.

First, air-scrubbing. I'm sorry, I just can't see any merit with messing with nature on an industrial scale as a solution to the mess we might have made of nature by messing with it on an industrial scale. So almost all these 'solutions' seem scary at best.

So then we come to capture/sinks: The big advantage is that, once installed, this system consumes no energy. Ignoring the vast commitment of resources under that 'once installed', so many of these proposals seem to ignore operation, maintenance and disposal. These things are almost all in hostile environments. I love the idea of 'free energy' by harnessing the elements, but nature can bend a girder or smash a concrete block in a heartbeat. Are these things credible in any sensible enviROI+ terms?

The problem, as Sir Nicholas Stern said in the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, is that climate change is the result of the greatest market failure in history: the abject failure to put a price on growth. Yes. But look at the rhetoric of every pol, business 'leader' or media editorial: it's all about growth. And how you divorce any growth from the greatest driver of all, population, lord alone knows.

Carbon trading schemes – whereby we buy and sell carbon credits that allow us to emit – look like a solution, but their record so far has been abysmal. No, they are not that good. To see why, look at who is running them.

“We have met the enemy,” says Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University in New York, “and he is us. He’s not the Saudi oil minister or George Bush. He is us.” Fair quote. Not exactly a motivator, or very specific, but worth bearing in mind.

Painting everything white might also be a good idea. 'Might' I don't like. Is it? Surely we know by now. I blogged on the impact of bright yellow rape fields vs. darker hued crops an age ago. How does their reflective area compare to a ribbon of tarmac?

...and though fully electric cars are on the way, it is not yet clear whether they will be good enough and cheap enough to lure consumers away from petrol. Or, for that matter, how their energy supply produces any less Co2.

...there are hundreds of schemes for offsetting your carbon when you fly, but less than 1% of passengers use them. A ratio worthy of Gov/Quango overlapping awareness schemes. Why do they even exist, let alone fund the majority of venal/misguided parasites who run them?

And nuclear plants, once built, are more or less emission-free. There are also ZEPPs – zero-emission power plants that use new ways of handling coal and oil. Again, we know how to do this. We just have to find the will. Hmn.

All these divisions point to a fundamental problem for the green movement that has dogged all its campaigning and drained its political credibility. They squabble among themselves, and, beneath the surface, it’s always about the same thing: what are we trying to achieve? Quite. But they don't half consume a lot of time and generate a lot of hot air in doing so.

'There are three things nobody need argue about. First, global warning is a reality; secondly, it is largely caused by humans; thirdly, we know how to slow or reverse it.' For me it is yes, probably/silly not to assume it and... do we, really? That last seems to contradict a lot else written in this piece. The problem seems to be all the factions who think they know better and are still fighting for a piece of a stale pie. It's an almost intractable problem, because who (myself included) can resist an opinion? And, more importantly, if a vast 'fix' is to be committed to, the whole population needs to be sure it will, in fact, work. Few things I've learned of, save many reduction-based notions, have such certainty.

I will use this blog to share, discuss, critique and debate, but I will use Junkk.com and ideas such as RE:tie to try and chip away with solutions I truly believe will help do something tangible.

Telling you where to go

I am thinking of reviving a debate I once had with myself into a Prof's Poser, on the subject of Sat Nav's.

Are they enviROI+ or negative?

When it comes to toys I am your man. But we don't have one. I am fine with maps. But 'er indoors is not, and no gender commentary intended. And last weekend I had a call from her in London having circled fruitlessly for an age trying to locate her destination. Would this electronic box have saved her frustration... and a load of emissions as well? At least enough to offset its creation shipping, use and disposal? I'm erring on yes.

However, having watched today's Breakfast TV one could have doubts. Seems they are the instrument of the devil, sending container lorries through small villages and dropping coaches in the river.

Thing is, while these make for powerful, negative images, I can only wonder if the right things are being addressed here.

I am afraid I would have to ask serious questions of a coach driver who can get into the middle of a field at the behest of a 2" square screen vs. the evidence of his own eyes. And taking the example of our own fair town, there are big signs at each end to advise that large vehicles are not suitable. Mind you, they have the stupid disclaimer 'except for access', so basically a tank transporter could decide it needs to come through, and hence it is all ignorable and equally unenforceable.

Made for a silly story though. And a blog post. Which is about all. Oh, and another metaphor for trivial TV and the triumph of everything over common sense.

Muddying the global warming waters

Now as the debate/argument/bun-fight continues to rage over whether or not global warming is man made, man worsened or an entirely natural occurrence, aficionados from both sides have been involved in some very shady dealings. From big oil funding renowned scientists to produce articles ridiculing the consensus science outputs of the IPCC, through to documentaries broadcast as fact when half of the 'facts' had been massaged and even falsified. Plus we have Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth', now also regarded as containing flawed arguments and containing some overt exaggeration. Both sides have been equally responsible for creating supposed 'facts' out of little more than conjecture.

During all this, I have not come across anything quite as stupid and irresponsible as this, as reported by NineMSN, which details how someone created a fake journal (The Journal of Geoclimatic Studies) and a completely false article, which purported to prove that marine bacteria emit 300 times more CO2 than mankind does.

So what happened? Well a British scientist spotted it, and emailed it to 2000 colleagues worldwide, which cascaded it rapidly around the planet's scientific community. Of course it caused raptures of delight within the MMGW skeptic community, as it supposedly provided the absolute evidence that global warming is definitively not man made. Well, it did for a little while, until the very same scientist realised that it was a completely spurious spoof.

Where we are dealing with entrenched viewpoints, especially around an area as important to mankind as global warming, the last thing that is required is the action of some irresponsible idiot(s) creating completely false science in order to muddy the waters even further.

What we all want to know, where possible, are the facts: clear, concise and unexpurgated. We do not want to be told lies, artificially invented 'facts' or even to be presented with massaged evidence. For scientists to blur things around the edges is to some degree understandable, but whoever was behind this is totally irresponsible, stupid and asinine.

The only saving grace is that it was recognised as a spoof before any of the major media picked up on the story.

____________
Addendum: 12/11/07
Finally, an admission from one of the guilty partners in Guardian CIF. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to even side with, let alone agree with, either his motive or his intentions.

Nice job (if not weather) if you can get it

As they do have an agenda all of their own I don't usually pay too much heed to most anti-MWCC blogs, but this one has some interesting links: UN Climate Panel to Discuss Global Warming at Tropical Resort

The main issue here is perception. And I do not perceive this very well.

Bearing in mind I used to use 'some conference in Bali' as a joke for the trend to 'not do as said' and it has come horribly true, there are some serious questions I do share in the mocking.

One accepts, sort of, that conferences have to be held to achieve consensus internationally, but why on earth here? Surely the majority of those relevant to this are located in greater proximity to somewhere less airmiles deficient? Like where the UN is? It's why I accept most things I have to attend are in London and not nearer to Ross. The costs are also something one needs to get one's head around, but again I suspect these will be high anywhere... so long as it's viewed as a great big jolly as much as an attempt to address the issue.

And as for the media... if ANY of the usual suspects are flying a cabal of 'reporters' (especially science/enviro editors who have little appreciation of the complexity of the issues, from publications who care for little other than a headline or punting out an agenda), I will treat them with the contempt they deserve. Unless of course they can manage to report objectively and with some positives and proactivity to balance the rampant irony of them being where they are, doing what they do, when doubtless one big 'idea' will be curtailing the flying for pleasure or business of those whose needs and aspirations are less 'essential' than theirs.

When this effort was planned, was no thought given to how it would play, and the damage this would do to any reasonable efforts being made by delegates?

Just words

As Dave is allowed a non-enviro post, then so am I. It has been a bad day (got blown out on another chance at some dosh - these things really drain the time and money bank), so I need to lash out.

This is one of those doofus 'polls' that litter our media these days. OK, rarely much harm, expect when the idle clicks of bored surfers get catapulted into a 'survey shows..' headline.

Thing is, I just couldn't get past how everything these days is so darn sloppy, especially when it comes to filling in stuff and at its most hair-rending when it is human-free online and automated.

Artist or vandal? On what basis? If it's on a canvas then it may well be art. If it's on a public surface I'd say the law is clear.

And then, if you want 'the answers to...' No ! These are not answers. These are the collated responses to a question that offered two options. All you are getting is what some people thought of the options offered.

Rant over. Back to work.

Feed me money or I go bang!

Not really enviro in any way, but very amusing for a dank and dismal Thursday afternoon. From Reuters, reporting on a Japanese piggy bank that explodes if you don't top it up regularly!

Well, it tickled my admittedly strange sense of humour!

Doing what it says on the tin

Just got this in: (DEFRA) Offsetting projects to create jobs and cut emissions

Don't know why, but the first thing that popped into my head was an expression from the military: DEFRACon 3.

Because I rather leapt to the notion that whatever else might or might happen, jobs would for sure be created. It's just a matter of where, and doing what, that concerns me, especially when I read on to this:

Government Carbon Offsetting Fund Members

Central Government (including participating agencies)

Cabinet Office
The Prime Minister's Office
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Department for Local Government and Planning
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
Department of Health
Department for International Development
Department for Transport
Government Car and Despatch Agency
Department for Work and Pensions
The Rent Service
Export Credits Guarantee Department
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Valuation Office Agency
Her Majesty's Treasury
Home Office
Identity and Passport Service
Criminal Records Bureau
Forensic Science Service
Law Officers' Department
Crown Prosecution Service
Serious Fraud Office
Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
Attorney General's Office
Treasury Solicitors
HM CPS Inspectorate
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Sustainable Development Commission

Other partners

Parliament
(including both Houses and the British American Parliamentary Group)
The Greater London Authority
Metropolitan Police Service
Transport for London
London Development Agency
The Royal Household

That seems an awful lot here (I'm guessing there is a, or a department off offset munchkins in each to play with all this) for not so many there.

I also still need to get my head around the whole carbcon deal to appreciate how it truly saves my kids' futures, as paying towards the projects 'would ensure that the carbon footprint of Government air travel was neutralised by ensuring emissions were avoided elsewhere. This will help to cut emissions and ensure developing countries are not impoverished by carbon-cutting measures.'

Maybe it needs to be explained to me in ways I can grasp, but that doesn't seem to me to be, as per the title, cutting emissions, but moving them around a bit, globally, which is not quite the same thing... is it?

At least it's acknowledged in the small print that "Offsetting emissions from transport isn't the answer to climate change ".

Apparently, 'the GCOF is being managed by EEA Fund Management Ltd, who won the contract to source and deliver 255,000 Certified Emission Reduction Credits, with a provision for a further 50,000 credits, over three years from a range of Kyoto-registered projects. Credits will be supplied from the project portfolio of Trading Emissions PLC, to whom EEA is the Investment Advisor.' Whatever that means.

Defra's aim is sustainable development. Nice.

One couldn't also help but wonder if, as it is taxpayers money being used here, the offsets might not be more [insert non-judgemental phase here]-lly targeted first more locally, perhaps on insulation for non-golden pensioners, and other folk who have paid all their lives to fund civil service salaries and pensions.