What do you get when you mix a pretty consumerist viewpoint (Wired), with one from the green corner (EcoGeek): WIRED's Call to Environmentalists: True or False
For once, a not too extreem set of views from both sides... ish.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
And so it begins ....... again?
Another classic from cartoon genius Matt of the Telegraph to preface this post about rising fuel prices.
___________________
Now the last time the haulage businesses started protesting at the price of fuel, it wasn't too long before it turned into a blockade of fuel depots and the UK ground to a halt.
As this from the Telegraph highlights, it looks very much like things are headed the same way. One thousand large lorries crawling through London is pretty much going to grind things to a complete standstill. And it seems human nature that when enough people protest, others start to join in.
I wonder what the chances of our Gov taking any notice are? Especially given the fact that some oil futures are now trading just short of $140/barrel and each 5p/litre rise sticks another several £Billion in their coffers each year.
LOL
Rose’s catty jibe at Kate
'Rose was invited to take part in a talk on “corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability”...
After the speech, Rose jumped into a helicopter, which whisked him to the airport, where he was due to fly out to clubbers’ paradise Ibiza for the bank holiday.'
Not just hypocrisy... M&S hyspocrisy.
Interesting that this is considered 'on message'.
'Rose was invited to take part in a talk on “corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability”...
After the speech, Rose jumped into a helicopter, which whisked him to the airport, where he was due to fly out to clubbers’ paradise Ibiza for the bank holiday.'
Not just hypocrisy... M&S hyspocrisy.
Interesting that this is considered 'on message'.
Deep Fertiliser
No idea where to put this, but the subject of of the vast amount of phosphates we waste is pertinent: Waste not, want not
All the news that fit not to print
Seems worth a share to avoid unnecessary IT waste- HP Smart Web Printing
Friday, May 23, 2008
It will probably happen over here too!
Fuel price rises are causing a few rather unexpected problems over in the USA too. This from MSNBC reports on the fact that waste cooking oil (known as french fry grease over there) is now being regularly stolen by 'rustlers' who transesterify the oil into bio-diesel in home made backyard stills.
A few years ago waste cooking oil was a commodity that you had to pay people to take away. Now they pay you for it. The increasing cost of petrol and diesel has now made it a commodity worthy of theft!
Watch out for the grease rustlers near you soon!
A few years ago waste cooking oil was a commodity that you had to pay people to take away. Now they pay you for it. The increasing cost of petrol and diesel has now made it a commodity worthy of theft!
Watch out for the grease rustlers near you soon!
Not all oil is quite what it seems
This from News.co.au had me in stitches - I'm quite au fait with people 'taking the p**s', but 'selling the p**s' is a new one on me!
Note the last statement. We think we're suffering, but Zimbabwe has 165,000 per cent inflation and 80 per cent unemployment. Strewth!
Note the last statement. We think we're suffering, but Zimbabwe has 165,000 per cent inflation and 80 per cent unemployment. Strewth!
Stingers on the forecourt
This from Metro.co.uk is symptomatic of the craziness that is resulting from what the ever increasing cost of fuel is doing to the world.
The number of non-paying drive aways on petrol forecourts has increased to the point that service stations are now fitting automated stingers to shred the tyres of any car that attempts to drive off without paying!
What next? Maybe armed guards with machine guns?
The number of non-paying drive aways on petrol forecourts has increased to the point that service stations are now fitting automated stingers to shred the tyres of any car that attempts to drive off without paying!
What next? Maybe armed guards with machine guns?
In praise of means testing. Not.
Especially when it comes to enviro-support.
Aussies too rich for solar panels
This could just as easily go over to my El Burro Hotay blog.
I am not a big supporter of means testing. In theory it could mean a necessary measure of support going to those most in need.
In practice it just means a whole new layer of unproductive pay and pension parasites get in the way of sensible delivery. There's a newgovernment over there, right?
And, too often, consequences that actually undermine the theoretical benefits intended.
Ripper.
Aussies too rich for solar panels
This could just as easily go over to my El Burro Hotay blog.
I am not a big supporter of means testing. In theory it could mean a necessary measure of support going to those most in need.
In practice it just means a whole new layer of unproductive pay and pension parasites get in the way of sensible delivery. There's a newgovernment over there, right?
And, too often, consequences that actually undermine the theoretical benefits intended.
Ripper.
Syncrude
Perhaps it ought to have been named SinCrude given the damage that recovering oil from oil tar sands causes to the environment.
A fascinating insight into the booming Alberta Tar Sands extraction industry from Time Magazine. Canada looks set to become the 'Venezuela of the north', and its all down to those nice chaps from big oil's biggest, ExxonMobil.
Well worth a read.
A fascinating insight into the booming Alberta Tar Sands extraction industry from Time Magazine. Canada looks set to become the 'Venezuela of the north', and its all down to those nice chaps from big oil's biggest, ExxonMobil.
Well worth a read.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
IDEA - Tin Can Lid
I really should spend more time on what this is all about... ideas.Here's one I made earlier: the latest Junkk reuse idea.
Currently doing service on last night's Tuna and Corn cans.
Why don't you...
Had a rather busy morning on other blogs.
Mostly involving various folk (on various topics) rather vocally suggesting that I 'do my bit' by various green means.
Thing is, in most cases, I'd love to... if I could afford it, in time and/or money.
Of course I can visit a client by bike, but it will take several hours. And they don't cover travel time.
I'd love to visit chums in London with the family by train. But it's silly money.
Hence I identify more with those not in the eco-glitterati end of earning a crust, and have a few suggestions in return...
Addendum:
I have been accused of 'slagging off' British Rail in critiquing the reliability of the service to this neck 'o the woods, and not being about positive solutions. I have been moved to reply:
You are right of course, in most respects.
And I am one who does not like to find myself as anything but on the positive and encouraging side of things.
However, it is difficult to do a SWOT analysis of things or situations without looking at all sides. If you only see the SO and choose to ignore the WT, you might find some say 'so what'?
My personal interest is how things play out with the consumer, so that positive ways can be sought to encourage one and all to embrace more mutually 'helpful' environmental behaviours.
Things will not happen unless people vote with their wallets or feet, especially in commerce or politics/legislation, respectively.
I, for one, was not of the understanding that there was any more such a things as 'British Rail', as the country is now cross-crossed with diverse networks. The 'old' system was not very good as I recall, but this one seems little better, and that's with the benefit of a lot more money and experience.
Your lack of a driving licence, for whatever reason, has shaped your travelling ever since.
However, I would beg to suggest that this might not be the case with the majority of the population, be it for work or social reasons.
And so most have options, and with market forces will make them according to their needs and aspirations: cost, convenience, reliability, etc.
To which can also be added comprehensibility. In matters enviro, communications are a major factor.
But in most industries you can't often get away with telling a customer they are dumb for not getting to grips with the menu or price list. They will, forgive me, just walk away. The booking and paying aspects should be the easiest parts of the customer experience, not amongst the most confusing and/or onerous.
Then, having persuaded your audience to try out your product/service, if it falls short excuses can get you a fair way, but not for long.
It's a shame that things on the continent are apparently equally as bad (not sure they'll thank you for sharing), but really that does not help the case here very much to an already less than thrilled buying public.
I agree the media plays it up, but one has to have sympathy with the local lady to where I live who recently failed to win compensation for a vast % of her daily trips being late or cancelled.
There are some (is it helpful to infer a pejorative by suggesting something like 'Guardian journalists?) who may be able to afford the money a time of a slow sojourn as the wind blows them, but most are on a 9-5 deadline and tight budgets, with pretty unsympathetic bosses or clients keeping... um.. track.
Assuming getting more people on trains is what is required, and desirable (other stories for other times), denying what is wrong and hence avoiding ways to improve may prove an idealistic, optimistic notion in seducing new customers aboard.
In the case I cited before, if I can be reassured that a fair % of trips I make from London mid-evening out West will not leave me stranded, I might be tempted back. Others have much worse, and often more onerous crosses to bear. What solving these is worth to secure our patronage vs. the alternatives, I leave to the actuaries.
Mostly involving various folk (on various topics) rather vocally suggesting that I 'do my bit' by various green means.
Thing is, in most cases, I'd love to... if I could afford it, in time and/or money.
Of course I can visit a client by bike, but it will take several hours. And they don't cover travel time.
I'd love to visit chums in London with the family by train. But it's silly money.
Hence I identify more with those not in the eco-glitterati end of earning a crust, and have a few suggestions in return...
Addendum:
I have been accused of 'slagging off' British Rail in critiquing the reliability of the service to this neck 'o the woods, and not being about positive solutions. I have been moved to reply:
You are right of course, in most respects.
And I am one who does not like to find myself as anything but on the positive and encouraging side of things.
However, it is difficult to do a SWOT analysis of things or situations without looking at all sides. If you only see the SO and choose to ignore the WT, you might find some say 'so what'?
My personal interest is how things play out with the consumer, so that positive ways can be sought to encourage one and all to embrace more mutually 'helpful' environmental behaviours.
Things will not happen unless people vote with their wallets or feet, especially in commerce or politics/legislation, respectively.
I, for one, was not of the understanding that there was any more such a things as 'British Rail', as the country is now cross-crossed with diverse networks. The 'old' system was not very good as I recall, but this one seems little better, and that's with the benefit of a lot more money and experience.
Your lack of a driving licence, for whatever reason, has shaped your travelling ever since.
However, I would beg to suggest that this might not be the case with the majority of the population, be it for work or social reasons.
And so most have options, and with market forces will make them according to their needs and aspirations: cost, convenience, reliability, etc.
To which can also be added comprehensibility. In matters enviro, communications are a major factor.
But in most industries you can't often get away with telling a customer they are dumb for not getting to grips with the menu or price list. They will, forgive me, just walk away. The booking and paying aspects should be the easiest parts of the customer experience, not amongst the most confusing and/or onerous.
Then, having persuaded your audience to try out your product/service, if it falls short excuses can get you a fair way, but not for long.
It's a shame that things on the continent are apparently equally as bad (not sure they'll thank you for sharing), but really that does not help the case here very much to an already less than thrilled buying public.
I agree the media plays it up, but one has to have sympathy with the local lady to where I live who recently failed to win compensation for a vast % of her daily trips being late or cancelled.
There are some (is it helpful to infer a pejorative by suggesting something like 'Guardian journalists?) who may be able to afford the money a time of a slow sojourn as the wind blows them, but most are on a 9-5 deadline and tight budgets, with pretty unsympathetic bosses or clients keeping... um.. track.
Assuming getting more people on trains is what is required, and desirable (other stories for other times), denying what is wrong and hence avoiding ways to improve may prove an idealistic, optimistic notion in seducing new customers aboard.
In the case I cited before, if I can be reassured that a fair % of trips I make from London mid-evening out West will not leave me stranded, I might be tempted back. Others have much worse, and often more onerous crosses to bear. What solving these is worth to secure our patronage vs. the alternatives, I leave to the actuaries.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
LOL x 2
Together chiefs hit back at us
Good one...
...campaign director of Together, has to say (sent to Greenbang by a press officer).
And two...
With so much noise around going ‘green’ nowadays, Together seeks to provide consumers with a trusted reference for what they can do to tackle climate change.
And... for heavens' sake, why do all these vastly over-funded (and hence staffed, and resourced - Campaign Director, plus press officer?) and overlapping gov/industry/quango things come across so gosh-darn po-faced? I know it's their careers and a box-tick under CSR and all come the AGM, but get real. There are scores of these things.
Does the normal consumer notice? Or care? Hey, it's their dough so blow it any way they feel like, but that's the second outing for a short list of stuff I heard when I was at school with IK Brunel. Next they'll have a full-blown campaign on 'bath with a friend'.
Is this really the best use of money, especially if (and I am not sure if it is) public funds are getting blown (what's a Campaign Director run to these days?) on yet more awareness at the expense of actually supporting DOING initiatives.
With all the tangible reduction/mitigation ideas out there ready to be supported, THIS is the kind of me-too initiative that most value is seen in?
No wonder this country has blown £60B on quangos and all the real innovators are upping sticks. The lunatics have hired accountants to pay consultants to review the state of the asylum so lessons can be learned, with a view to putting place a new layer of assessment to hand back whatever is left to the few poor sods there are out there actually making a few beans to count... and then tax.
Rant over. Carry on.
Good one...
...campaign director of Together, has to say (sent to Greenbang by a press officer).
And two...
With so much noise around going ‘green’ nowadays, Together seeks to provide consumers with a trusted reference for what they can do to tackle climate change.
And... for heavens' sake, why do all these vastly over-funded (and hence staffed, and resourced - Campaign Director, plus press officer?) and overlapping gov/industry/quango things come across so gosh-darn po-faced? I know it's their careers and a box-tick under CSR and all come the AGM, but get real. There are scores of these things.
Does the normal consumer notice? Or care? Hey, it's their dough so blow it any way they feel like, but that's the second outing for a short list of stuff I heard when I was at school with IK Brunel. Next they'll have a full-blown campaign on 'bath with a friend'.
Is this really the best use of money, especially if (and I am not sure if it is) public funds are getting blown (what's a Campaign Director run to these days?) on yet more awareness at the expense of actually supporting DOING initiatives.
With all the tangible reduction/mitigation ideas out there ready to be supported, THIS is the kind of me-too initiative that most value is seen in?
No wonder this country has blown £60B on quangos and all the real innovators are upping sticks. The lunatics have hired accountants to pay consultants to review the state of the asylum so lessons can be learned, with a view to putting place a new layer of assessment to hand back whatever is left to the few poor sods there are out there actually making a few beans to count... and then tax.
Rant over. Carry on.
CDM's, CER's and a strong whiff of corruption.
It looks as if the much vaunted Clean Development Mechanism, developed under the Kyoto Protocol and run by the U.N. is not quite having the emissions reduction effect that was it's primary goal.
According to this from the Guardian, things are not going too well under the schemes; "evidence is accumulating that it is increasing greenhouse gas emissions behind the guise of promoting sustainable development. The misguided mechanism is handing out billions of dollars to chemical, coal and oil corporations and the developers of destructive dams - in many cases for projects they would have built anyway."
"chemical companies can earn almost twice as much from selling CERs as from selling refrigerant gases. This has spurred concern that refrigerant producers may be increasing their output solely so that they can produce, and then destroy, more waste gases."
Wherever something is traded, there's almost always a small proportion of that trade that is corrupt to some degree or other. This, however, seems to indicate corruption, cheating and falsification on a mega scale. The thing is, these schemes are potentially rather important to the future of humanity, and they need to be managed and controlled carefully and correctly.
But, under the control of the U.N. , properly managed and controlled? Fat chance!
Addendum:
And, of course, where there is trading, whether in carbon credits or anything else, and there is a chance to line your own pockets, the sharks circle about and dart in every now and again to take their own substantial piece of the action. I'm talking, of course, about lawyers, as this from MSNBC explains.
According to this from the Guardian, things are not going too well under the schemes; "evidence is accumulating that it is increasing greenhouse gas emissions behind the guise of promoting sustainable development. The misguided mechanism is handing out billions of dollars to chemical, coal and oil corporations and the developers of destructive dams - in many cases for projects they would have built anyway."
"chemical companies can earn almost twice as much from selling CERs as from selling refrigerant gases. This has spurred concern that refrigerant producers may be increasing their output solely so that they can produce, and then destroy, more waste gases."
Wherever something is traded, there's almost always a small proportion of that trade that is corrupt to some degree or other. This, however, seems to indicate corruption, cheating and falsification on a mega scale. The thing is, these schemes are potentially rather important to the future of humanity, and they need to be managed and controlled carefully and correctly.
But, under the control of the U.N. , properly managed and controlled? Fat chance!
Addendum:
And, of course, where there is trading, whether in carbon credits or anything else, and there is a chance to line your own pockets, the sharks circle about and dart in every now and again to take their own substantial piece of the action. I'm talking, of course, about lawyers, as this from MSNBC explains.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Careful who you wish to be
It comes with my Sunday paper, but the 'Style' section is one I could well do without.
It usually has me reaching for the bucket, but now the luvvies have 'discovered' green it's more like the AK.
I was going to pass this one by, but as a poster pointed out, 'Socially Conscious Upwardly Mobile' does have a certain ring: Scuppie power
It usually has me reaching for the bucket, but now the luvvies have 'discovered' green it's more like the AK.
I was going to pass this one by, but as a poster pointed out, 'Socially Conscious Upwardly Mobile' does have a certain ring: Scuppie power
NEWS/GO3 PR - All in a good cause
Some will know I am tad weary, and leery, of many 'awareness' efforts, and have of late been a often dubious of various advocates going off hither and thither in the name of climate.
However, I will share this, simply because its footprint is low (at least they are not all flying to the Antarctic to see what flying to the Antarctic does) and the return to a necessary group (our young) is high.
PR as provided, E&EO.
CLIMATE ADVOCATES CALLED UP TO CUT OUR CARBON CRAVING
As part of its Low Carbon Futures programme, The British Council is launching a nationwide search for 30 motivated young people to take urgent action to cut carbon use by joining Challenge Europe, an ambitious pan-European programme designed to change the way we use carbon.
Developed by the UK’s international body for cultural relations, the British Council, Challenge Europe is recruiting 30 Climate Advocates aged between 18 – 35 years old in Wales, England and Scotland to work together to develop innovative solutions that will reduce our addiction to fossil fuels in the public, private or commercial sectors. UK Climate Advocates will work in partnership with local scientists, entrepreneurs, academics, politicians and community leaders to ensure that the boldest and the best of these ideas are turned into reality.
Challenge Europe aims to show that individuals currently outside the climate change arena can bypass debate and make a profound impact on a pan-European scale. The British Council aims to engage over 200 genuinely motivated Climate Advocates to work together to develop over 40 innovative solutions that will change fundamentally the way we use carbon.
The British Council is actively partnering with a number of organisations across Europe, who will support the Climate Advocates throughout Challenge Europe by sharing expertise, best-practice and offering guidance.
Successful applicants will be selected by independent panel, and will come from a wide range of sectors and backgrounds, offering skills from the scientific and technical, to the creative and voluntary sectors. All will be adventurous, driven, knowledgeable in their field and highly committed. They do not necessarily need to show evidence of previous work in the climate change field, but will be ready to commit a minimum of 150 hours of their time to the programme.
To apply, visit www.britishcouncil.org/lcf-challenge-europe by 26th May 2008.
However, I will share this, simply because its footprint is low (at least they are not all flying to the Antarctic to see what flying to the Antarctic does) and the return to a necessary group (our young) is high.
PR as provided, E&EO.
CLIMATE ADVOCATES CALLED UP TO CUT OUR CARBON CRAVING
As part of its Low Carbon Futures programme, The British Council is launching a nationwide search for 30 motivated young people to take urgent action to cut carbon use by joining Challenge Europe, an ambitious pan-European programme designed to change the way we use carbon.
Developed by the UK’s international body for cultural relations, the British Council, Challenge Europe is recruiting 30 Climate Advocates aged between 18 – 35 years old in Wales, England and Scotland to work together to develop innovative solutions that will reduce our addiction to fossil fuels in the public, private or commercial sectors. UK Climate Advocates will work in partnership with local scientists, entrepreneurs, academics, politicians and community leaders to ensure that the boldest and the best of these ideas are turned into reality.
Challenge Europe aims to show that individuals currently outside the climate change arena can bypass debate and make a profound impact on a pan-European scale. The British Council aims to engage over 200 genuinely motivated Climate Advocates to work together to develop over 40 innovative solutions that will change fundamentally the way we use carbon.
The British Council is actively partnering with a number of organisations across Europe, who will support the Climate Advocates throughout Challenge Europe by sharing expertise, best-practice and offering guidance.
Successful applicants will be selected by independent panel, and will come from a wide range of sectors and backgrounds, offering skills from the scientific and technical, to the creative and voluntary sectors. All will be adventurous, driven, knowledgeable in their field and highly committed. They do not necessarily need to show evidence of previous work in the climate change field, but will be ready to commit a minimum of 150 hours of their time to the programme.
To apply, visit www.britishcouncil.org/lcf-challenge-europe by 26th May 2008.
'Why won't 'they' do anything?'.. we ask, without irony.
The war to end all wars
It's a shame that such threads usually deteriorate into 'tis/t'isn't happening AGW advocacies.
I used to believe that such certainties were unlikely to be achieved, and hence rather beside the point. Being proved right as a climate pessimist is a Phyrric victory at best. But as my greater interest is in what motivates the masses (or, in the case of most that is 'green' from all self-appointed bodies (activist, government (when it suits), business (ditto) & media (double ditto)... so far, not much) I tend to ponder more the messages as well as the messengers to try and understand why most still are not engaging.
As an example, BBC's Newsnight trailed a major piece with Mr. Miliband on this 'major' issue and invited pre-feedback for during the show, with the promise of answers afterwards.
A 100+ questions were posed. A few (very... few) were asked live. And a selected half dozen dispatched later (much... later).
Before even watching this, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.
As stated by many world leaders, repeated here, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.
Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.
I was fascinated by an accompanying piece, where it was stated it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other.
So why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
Look, if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won during the show - AGW soon got dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda 'you' (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
Government, and even 'climate-sympathetic' media organs have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all.
I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by however many here, or there, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on.
Front page news? It barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even on the site. Now, what's gracing the key pages of the Guardian today, and not some niche blog tucked away to keep a small audience entertained?
That... is the legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.
And so, sadly, I have my answer.
It's a shame that such threads usually deteriorate into 'tis/t'isn't happening AGW advocacies.
I used to believe that such certainties were unlikely to be achieved, and hence rather beside the point. Being proved right as a climate pessimist is a Phyrric victory at best. But as my greater interest is in what motivates the masses (or, in the case of most that is 'green' from all self-appointed bodies (activist, government (when it suits), business (ditto) & media (double ditto)... so far, not much) I tend to ponder more the messages as well as the messengers to try and understand why most still are not engaging.
As an example, BBC's Newsnight trailed a major piece with Mr. Miliband on this 'major' issue and invited pre-feedback for during the show, with the promise of answers afterwards.
A 100+ questions were posed. A few (very... few) were asked live. And a selected half dozen dispatched later (much... later).
Before even watching this, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.
As stated by many world leaders, repeated here, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.
Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.
I was fascinated by an accompanying piece, where it was stated it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other.
So why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
Look, if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won during the show - AGW soon got dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda 'you' (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
Government, and even 'climate-sympathetic' media organs have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all.
I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by however many here, or there, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on.
Front page news? It barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even on the site. Now, what's gracing the key pages of the Guardian today, and not some niche blog tucked away to keep a small audience entertained?
That... is the legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.
And so, sadly, I have my answer.
You can't build on Greenbelt ......
..... well, errrrr ...... except when you get the Gov's approval to redraw the boundaries so it is no longer classified as Greenbelt! Full disgraceful story from the Telegraph the other day.
"The move will see the land redesignated so it can be sold to developers to try to meet ministers' house-building targets. Official documents warn that the process "will result in significant change" for local communities."
Oh, so its being done so that yet another set of ministerial targets (probably erroneous) can be met. Sorry, but don't these chumps realise that once land has been built on you can never change it back (OK, 'redesignate' it) to Greenbelt!?
And I just love that term they use - 'redesignated' - I seem to recollect that there was a similar term for this back in the old days when parliamentary constituencies regularly had their boundaries changed - wasn't it called gerrymandering?
"The move will see the land redesignated so it can be sold to developers to try to meet ministers' house-building targets. Official documents warn that the process "will result in significant change" for local communities."
Oh, so its being done so that yet another set of ministerial targets (probably erroneous) can be met. Sorry, but don't these chumps realise that once land has been built on you can never change it back (OK, 'redesignate' it) to Greenbelt!?
And I just love that term they use - 'redesignated' - I seem to recollect that there was a similar term for this back in the old days when parliamentary constituencies regularly had their boundaries changed - wasn't it called gerrymandering?
Inspired?
One more for my new ad-related blog, Bordello Ivory Tales (link RHS), but it still applies here, if not more so.
In case the image is not clear, 90% is of a plane. You can see the headline.
Now, honestly, has that got you running to book a train?
I'm sorry, but waaaay too many green-related ads are a total waste of money. This was 2/3 page colour in the Sunday Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)