Fame!... Lab

I think my weekend activities require a more positive response than I accorded them ion the previous blog, but I was trying to make a point to a bunch of 'scientists' who really did seem to be playing shuffleboard to the death, with the winner getting the last deckchair to rearrange on the Titanic.

The Nesta FameLab I had known about for a wee while, but then forgot about until Friday. Coming hot on the heels of another event, courtesy of the University of Warwick's nb2bc initiative (of which more later, in another blog, with suitable temporal confusion), I was all at sixes and sevens.

Basically I lobbed up at the 9am registry in Cardiff (after major fight with the Uni parking system - coupons. You have to buy them and then stick them on your car. Fair enough. Thing is, you can't buy them until 10am when public buildings who sell them may open. But you can get a ticket for not displaying beforehand. Stupid... or what?) and got my number.

Then it was off to rehearse for and hour and a half until showtime. As described before, I totally blew it. Bad preparation, a total inability to remember what i had to say and stick to it according to script I (lifelong curse), plus an arc lamp blinding me all conspired to ensure that while my stalk was good, it got cut off mid flow at the designated 3-minute limit.

However, the judges were very nice, and my fallow contestants nicer still, so I decided to hang about to watch the final in the afternoon. Plus there was a course on public speaking beforehand, which was well worth attending, so I did. To kill time I scooted off into the City, and had a very fruitful time buying a countdown and count up timer to help me in future.

Because I decided to give it another go. They won't allow the same day, but they will allow another place, so I got on the phone and asked the family to get ready as we were going to Plymouth that night. Nothing quiet like spontaneity.

For me it was a long day and a lot of travel (hey, i know, but don't blame me. And it does get worse... sorry), but we ended up in the fair city of Plymouth in time for a slap up seafood dinner and a very nice night on a last minute deal at the China Fleet Club.

Next morning we popped back across Tamar Bridge and arrived in good order at the venue, which was the Aquarium. Wow, what a place. Worth it just for that.

Surprisingly, not many people had signed up, so I was soon schedule din later that morning as the judges had all swanned off in boredom. So we really scoped the place out with the kids. And then I went off to rehearse my revised talk, complete with timers.

I really thought it was quite good, (see previous blog) but again blew out. That will teach me not to read the brief. They want people who want to be science reporters. Now I'm up for that, but I was, am more interested in people who are trying to make a difference by understanding the science and not letting buggers who would try to blind us with it use science to pull the wool over our eyes. So I am bigger on digging out answers to questions than having pat replies served up. As I say, a journey to be embarked upon together than a review served up from a limited, and agenda strewn viewpiont. But to win against the system you have to play it, and I did not do that. More fool me.

I am encouraged. For the judges comments there is no doubting my ability to conjure a story... but I just need to have one that has a neat beginning, middle and end. Mine was to open to satisfy.

But I appreciate the process and the opportunity. You can always improve and learn, and improve some more. And try again. So I am going to keep plugging away, like Robert the Bruce's spider. There are a couple more to go, and I think I will tackle them.

It will be hard, but next time I think I will not bang on on the environment. And just spin a story about a lobster, which I read on a panel at the aquarium. It was very interesting, and I have a lovely lady called Amanda who worked there to thank for fleshing the facts out into what I think could be a winner on the basis the programme is seeking to fulfil.

And once I win, then I set about changing the system. From within.

Weekend (of planet) report

I wrote this for here: Insert “swindle” joke here.

Shame to waste, as it will pretty much serve to explain what I was up to all weekend.

I usually figure it's not worth posting by the time blog replies hit a hundred, because if I cannot be bothered to read past the first few score (I just did, before hitting 'submit', and realise that about half a dozen folk are just lobbing entrenched viewpoints to and fro, backed by ever more unscientific 'support' for arguments) why would anyone do the same to get as far as mine?

But as I have been away, it is topical to what I was doing and, goshdarnit, it's good practice for my blog, so it's not really a total waste after all. At least for me.

This weekend I was in both Cardiff and Plymouth, pitching in a NESTA competition called FameLab, which is all about bringing science, and an appreciation of same, to the viewing public. So, inspired in no small measure by the IPCC report, the Channel 4 doco and the discussion on this very blog a few days ago, as I had nothing else prepared I decided to spout forth on 'Sick Planet Syndrome; Myths and Facts. Causes and Cures'.

The first day was an unmitigated disaster, as I hadn't prepared very well and also had an arc lamp in my eyes for the precise 3 minutes one got to hold forth, and hence failed to see the 20' countdown signal, thus missing my conclusion.

This was that, at present, either camp could be right. Or wrong... evidently, at least as far as the masses might be concerned. (I have a personal view, of course).

Sadly, getting this in when I did manage to say it the next day didn't help much. I even wore a black cowboy hat for 'big oil climate denying science' and a jaunty white eco-hat for 'we're toast, green taxes all round' science, to make my point that not all science (especially green) was, could be or should be black or white, pro or con, with nothing allowed in between. On reflection, it may also have not helped that for the former viewpoint I also said a big 'Yee-haa!" to camera and big-upped the doco, as Ch4 is one of the sponsors.

And speaking of not helping, I also opined it certainly wasn't doing much of value knocking spots off each other by such methods - used by opposing groups, and played up by a compliant if not complicit media - as attacking the person, or who is backing them or whatever, and not the facts.

My jury (or rather judging panel) of eminent scientists and TV producers were still not impressed. For this show they wanted... needed a conclusion. A solution as I had promised. That was my whole point. I had offered one, at least as I saw it, which was accepting there WAS NOT always a definitive conclusion, and you can often need to act before you have one, on the best you've got. I guess that's the Civil Engineer in me kicking in. We prefer things not to fall over and will move to shore things up before they topple, Tower of Pisa notwithstanding.

So much in science is a journey rather than a destination, and it can be fun to share the ride rather than dispense a unidirectional commentary.

But if the train is rattling around a bit maybe I believe it would be best to stop the rocking (I would say of the boat, but that would be a mixed metaphor too far) and simply work together on stabilising it now, rather than keeping thrashing about trying to prove who is right or wrong on whether it will fall off the rails before getting to the end-point.

No, it seems quick fixes, soundbites and being seen to be 'righter and brighter' rather than just doing better is the order of the day. Questions being posed and left open are not favoured when answers abound, even if they are poorly founded ones. Or, possibly, just plain wrong. Delivery, with a neat opening, middle and ending that leaves nothing for the imagination, or the individual to ponder or discover for themselves, is to be ruthlessly enforced. It seems that the last thing anyone from the [insert (profession)-elite here] wants is the masses actually having an opinion or trying to influence how their lives are directed rather than those who know better.

I think I understand now why I get so agitated by science reporting these days. These guys are not required by a huge 'system' to allow anything trouble the viewer by way of loose ends. Hence with climate change: 'the planet is doomed... for this reason'. Period. Or, 'the planet is fine... for this reason'. Period. Nice soundbite. Nice headline. Nice ratings.

Not awfully helpful, though, when we're not too sure.

I'd like to wish all well and scoot off to another place where I can work with those from science and media (and government and commerce, and...) who are more concerned with moving on whilst trying to locate a tangible negotiated result, rather than staying still to bully through unconditional, theoretical Pyrrhic victories. But sadly the venue options on this planet are looking limited. And just getting there may open up a whole new can of worms.

Seems I might owe Richard Branson an apology. Maybe Virgin Galactic is the best chance we've got. But bumping some billionaire from his Kodak moment atop a cloud of greenhouse gasses seems such a compromised way of doing it, and there is the small matter of effecting the swap.

Bad Science. Naughty Science. No wonder the majority of the public switches off. And of those who do try to stay with it, like my mate Nick (a computer science grad), when both sides get in the gutter the more optimistic option being espoused often gets a more willing ear. So now I have to work a bit harder to keep him of the view that waiting until the Durkin's of this world are proved 100% wrong may not be the best plan for now. Or, indeed, the future. What are my chances?

STOP PRESS: Here's the promo in my in-box from the nation's broadcaster for tonight:

MONDAY 12 MARCH 22:30 GMT - BBC TWO
FROM GAVIN ESLER

CLIMATE CHANGE
As Gordon Brown and David Cameron compete on being greener-than-thou, we examine the science once again. Despite the fact that most reputable scientists agree that human activity in raising carbon emissions is leading to global warming, could they - in fact - be wrong?

ADDENDUM:

I remain impressed with the principle of Bad Science, and for sure a lot of the intellectual firepower, but sadly not so much the practice. There is too much a sense of being 'in with the in crowd', which to me weakens the objectivity of the comments, and I think reflects poorly on the moderator which, in this case, is the principal.

I'm intrigued.

Firstly that anyone still checks back this far, and secondly would post at 5:52pm to ask someone who last posted at 12.47pm to give up, when there have been several posts subsequently. Unless that tricky in/out missing post thing has cropped up again to catch the likes of me out too.

But mainly I'm interested in why EssTee may be deemed to be embarrassing themselves and, hence, why they should be required to give up.

I may not agree with some or indeed all of what they are saying, but there are some interesting points being made that I will take the time to assess, along with others.

And having been witness to, and indeed too often (for my blood pressure) a participant in escalating flame wars, I can't see some of the accusations that have managed to gang up on poor old EssTee to be entirely warranted.

To this infrequent, though interested visitor, it's coming across as rather too cosy a club, and a rather one-sided one at that.

Which does not seem very healthy for debate.

EssTee, for what's it's worth, as far as I am concerned you can keep on banging away. I'd avoid addressing anything other than the facts, and rising to the bait of those who would tempt you in venturing into unproductive areas.

But when you are on the facts, please try and ensure that they are as good as you can make them, with appropriate attribution, and let them speak for themselves.

With luck, and reasoned arguments put forward by those with differing opinions, I may come to a reasonable opinion of my own.

I may even decide such a forum is worth adding it to. I admire your courage, if not your standpoint and aspects of style, because this is not a playing field that seems very level, and the ball is too easily threatened with retraction should one look like playing for any but the home team.

ADD-ADDENDUM

A pleasant enough reply overnight. Actually, the point made got me to thinking about the function of and difference between a Blog with comments and a Forum. Junkk.com has both. I must confess to being woeful at dipping in to our own Forum and due to time constraints rather shamefully leave it to others. I am trying to solicit a team of moderators.

Because, with the obvious concern on accusations of agenda-driven 'censorship', I appreciate the role of the originator in keeping things on track. I, for one, would not allow attacking the person rather than the message without comment and even censure.

Thanks Deano,

I didn't know about the Forum. I just get the odd email from Ben with a link, and this one was a major flag to click on for me. What comments are meant for posting here then?

And while I came to it only late in the day I couldn't resist pitching in to this one (it is quite topical in the news as most will gather, and my major concern is the consuming public's take on it all). And again later as I did feel that very good rebuttals of poor, over-edited or agenda-driven mantras were being eroded by sharing a sea of poor, over-edited or agenda-driven mantras.

So actually, I now have a lot to worry about. I already spend waaaaay too much time on major media blogs and forums sifting away in the hope (frequently satisfied, more often than not frustrated) of sensible debate and worthwhile information and directions to tangible areas of worthwhile activity.

I rather suspect, and the evidence here presents a concern, that anything that does not toe a majority line may need to stand ready for a 'robust' challenge - which may well be warranted and even demanded - and one can only hope that this will be the facts and not the person or pejorative groupings.

Sadly, despite this it looks like a rich seam, so there goes the social life even more!

Indy, Indy, on the floor, what green nonsenseee is being talked today... and not just by Gore

That latter.... may.... not be quite fair.

However, as a read around a few other bits 'n bobs would indicate that you cannot be considered a true e-martyr unless you have questions the gods of e-dom and had their minions shout at you to repent. So I guess it's worth it.

Being a man, and hence incapable of multitasking, I'll have to get on today's Indy right away or I'll forget.

Politicians step up the battle to secure the green vote

Mr Cameron... stole a march on ministers yesterday by announcing plans for a set of "environmental taxes" intended to curb air travel.

What I heard made quite a lot of sense, which is more than I can say for the BBC blonde's attempt to spin it otherwise. Shame about the green laces nonsense, though.

The Chancellor will call today for a "new world order" ....

No, really, that's how it's being pitched? Who writes their stuff? Because if that's what comes first then what comes next, no matter how rational, is not getting read. By me at least (ok, I will. I have too).

The rest was so much hogwash. If they are still banging on about Dave's turbine, the Indy needs to wake up in this decade and smell the Fairtrade herbal tea from the back allotment.

Which political party is the greenest?

Er... the Green party?

No, seriously. Last time I looked, they were a political party and do seem pretty, well' green.

As to whether that's enough to be in power, or indeed to be trusted with running a country and balance the enviro-stuff is another matter. But still.

Tony Juniper: This new political battleground is welcome

FoE he's a Jolly good fellow!

Guardian - Labour to set legal limit on UK carbon emissions
Guardian - Brown and Cameron battle over green air travel and phasing out old-style light bulbs
Guardian - Scientists give cautious welcome to environmental initiatives - In light of a lot else recently, what, exactly, are 'scientists' ? I'm betting a few chaps whose numbers they know and are good for a quick quote.

The best answers come from better questions

Where to start, where to start?

The last several days have been a blur, in every way possible. Time. Location. Thoughts.

The last time I felt remotely rational was Thursday, and since then... wow.

There is a temptation to go back and try and pick up from that point. And though I do intend to blog on what has transpired, I think I'll start on something from today that in many ways sums up the highs and lows I have experienced of late.

Today I actually bought a paper as I walked back from dropping the boys at school. It was the Indy. One look at the cover should tell you why I felt so moved.

As I turned from the newsagents a lady called me back to tell me I'd dropped something. I thought it was ironic what. The dog poo was not it. Though that was ironic, too. And I have to say in the Indy's defence it did not slide from its pages. The other two bits did. The ads for the airline destinations and 4x4s stayed inside, by the way. I find them ironic as well..

Anyway I am, here, going to make no detailed comment on the content (though I will later), as it is just the headline and that alone which I have read so far. And that, and that alone, has already given me pause for thought and reason to comment here.

I DO NOT GIVE A MONKEYS WHO IS GREENEST!!!!!!!

What. The. Heck. Does. That. Mean?

As will be explained in subsequent blogs, I have been in front of and at the receiving end of a large number of folk of late, from cynical business persons to grazing academics, to hard-nosed media producers... and it has not been pretty.

But one thing I do know is what I should have remembered from my ad days: GIGO. Garbage In = Garbage Out. And does that ever have an extra twist in matters enviROI.

Also, as will be explained, there are more gulfs out there than a pro golf tournament's (or Al Gore's) private airstrip.

Science and Media. Pols and Science. Media and Pols. Business and Everyone. Oh, and lets not forget the poor sods just trying to get on with their day in average Joeville.

No wonder this place is in a mess. And I don't just mean the poo.

Climatic depression

Green debate caught in an icy grip

I feel so much happier in the knowledge that my kids and their kids'
futures are in such able and sincere hands, whichever one of the
whole sorry bunch gets to play with the keys to the kingdom.

Not.

I was going to add a bit about the media's role in reporting it all.

But they do own the playground and the ball.

Ready, aim... assess, monitor, report...

Re-cycle of Life

Most councils can only 'see' things like targets.
I wouldn't mind so much but this is usually to the exclusion of all else, or ever getting round to doing anything commonsensical to try and hit them (assuming they actually have an enviROI in the first place).

ps; try getting the kids reusing and repairing. It's way more fun than acting as an unpaid sorter for a £200k local authority boss' bonus chances, and the profits of the recycling contractors.

Junkk.com - Rubbish needn't be a dirty word

Wonder if she'll post it?

Buy now, while stocks last

Gadget overload

We had a stand (one of about six out several hundred, and ours was next to a patio heater vendor) there last year because we were told its theme was 'the environment'.

But as I say, that was soooo 'last year'.

Well, they asked

A road map for originality
We can't move for things that aren't 'fit for purpose'. What other overused phrases are you, on the ground, fed up with?

That's a good question...
We'll need to look into this....
It's obviously not acceptable...
etc...

All closely followed by doing nothing at all to address the issue.

Last Rights

Against Nature - Channel 4

I’m going to break a firmly held principle and comment on something I have not... yet... seen. Again.

In a certain irony, last night as I expounded to a group at Aston Science Park on how we can harness consumer power to effect positive environmental behavior changes through incentive and reward, my twins had decided that some Japanese cartoon was a better bet on Sky than what I had programmed to record. Let’s hope I am as successful in helping save the planet as the spiky doe-eyed dude and his posse of mutant mates.

What struck me at the event was the enthusiasm of all those present for tangible DOING, as opposed to endless debate on esoteric issues, jockeying to be smarter and righter. And while these were folk from the SME’s prepared to stay from early to late evening, I hope it would not be unfair to say many present were representative of the average, working, Previa and not Prius person general public.

So I wonder what they would have made of this? Doubtless there will be great debate in the eco-media, including such as the Indy and Guardian (no chance to scope the onlines yet, and BBC Breakfast doesn’t seem concerned), but I’m pretty sure it will all pass last night’s group by. Unless an editor scents some headlines from contention, and blows it up for a quick ratings fix. Unlikely with X Factor looking like it was rigged.

A lot of my audience confessed to be dubious about what I was pitching as all they knew beforehand was that I was what Jeremy Clarkson has dubbed a ‘mentalist. I am glad to say I left with some converts inspired.

And here is my main point. We still very much seem to be in a ‘media rules of engagement-controlled’ era of green being only viewed in black and white.

In the dark green corner are ‘activists’, empowered eco Nazi book-authors, Al Gore, IPCC scientists, certain government ministers (even a newly converted, if confusingly mixed message PM)... and a largely compliant ‘left’ media ready to publish or broadcast relatively unchallenged global warming propaganda.

In the black gold corner are ‘deniers’, empowered ex eco fascist traitor book-authors, a few government ministers (at least out loud, including a confusingly mixed word vs. deed PM)... and a largely compliant ‘right’ media ready to publish or broadcast relatively unchallenged big-oil lobby-funded propaganda.

And all this lot have very lucrative careers already, and ahead, exchanging artillery exchanges of claim and counter claim, accusation and counter accusation at each other. Facts go out the window, as for every one pro, there are a score cons. And one Prof’s howler is another think-tank PhD’s thesis.

Meanwhile, sod all seems to get done.

And stuck in no person’s land, I believe, are the vast majority of folk like those I was with last night, keen to understand the issues and act rationally on them based on halfway decent information and reasoned debate with some objective outcomes.

To me the issue is simple. In ten years time, if one set are right, we can all breathe easier and a few folk are a bit red faced. The down side is that some economically driven development may not take place and... if you subscribe to the views of such as Mr. Durkin or Bjorn Lomborg, there will be serious consequences to the state of health and lives in the Third World.

If the other set are right, breathing at all may be a tad tricky in some parts, and faces will possibly be redder still, now for exterior reasons as well. Those in the Third World, if they are around, may find the rest of us have our own issues to worry about.

So which side should we err on? I’m voting caution. Especially when there are quite a few credible science guys around who seem to be getting us to quite high percent levels of probability. I’m prepared to move before we are 100% sure global warming WAS catastrophic.

I’ll need to dig it from my blog verbatim, but a long time ago I read a good analogy. If you are in a plane full of journalists and aero engineers flying across the Atlantic, and a problem with it’s structure is raised, do you side with the majority of them who think it best to turn back to check, or do you go with the journalists sitting with the guys in Club class who are just getting comfy, and would prefer to stay on course in case it’s nothing?

It would be wrong to say I don’t care about these esoteric debates, but I find them essentially irrelevant. Natural or man made, serious or not, I simply believe that, for the sake of my kids’ kids, every effort needs to be made to reduce pollution and waste and improve efficiencies. Plus match this all with a reasoned downturn in our aspirations and demands for expansion of consumption as they may be leading us on a downward spiral.

And one thing is key. What I call the EnviROI – the return on investment has to help the planet recover, and not just be to sell books, get ratings, secure salaries, careers or pensions, meet targets or make those who think they are more worthy feel warm and fuzzy. So I have all sorts of doubts that get me offside with a lot of folk. I’m not sure about wind turbines. I think the Government has totally screwed up road pricing, which is necessary but I petitioned against on their terms, And anything with the words ‘carbon’ and ‘trading’ bring me out in cold sweat as all I see is vast hordes of even richer City folk going with Guardian journalists and Mr. Miliband to meet other green elites in Bali to discuss it all.

Sadly, like you Ben, in trying to arrive at conclusions, information I can trust is in short supply, and looks like remaining so for a while.

And from the evidence of this blog (with a few notable, and noble opinions and links, for which I am grateful – though oddly the follow up posts by those who saw the show almost all left me none the wiser to those preceding it), I guess I, and most of the population will need to hunker down in our bunkers a while longer as those who claim know better than us argue over who is right.

Me, I’ll just get back to my shed and keep on doing anything I can to improve matters.

I just had a gander at a few of the follow ups, and they kinda prove my point. Death-match, winner takes the first iceberg shuffleboard on the Titanic.

God spare us from those who would tell us what to think... to the death. All of ours.

ADD:

QED.

Just back from my shed. Cripes.

At least a very few have tried to see a middle ground, work within it and understand it enough to work out a positive solution.

But as to the rest.... 'ding'... Round [pick a number]!

Shame.

Guardian - Noxious emissions

For what it's worth (not much, I'd hazard, looking at the comments here), Bad Science has, is and doubtless will be providing a complementary venue for a not dissimilar cock-fighting tournament.

So I'll just cut 'n paste my 2p here.

Indy - Global warming gurus set a bad example

Dear Mr. Lawson,

We're guessing that would make you a 'no' then?

Times - The global warming debate overheats

Call for help

I just came across this:

An eco-chic bag won’ t stop bulging landfill sites

And as I had a ready retort: it will if it is made out of reused materials (Vac:Sac anyone?), I saw a Junkk.com promo at hand.

Thing is, even though the associated eco-worrier panel has a thingie that says 'Post a Comment', I can't seem to locate how, via my Mac or any PC.

Any ideas?

I'd write to them, but as these 'ladies who do green' are on a fairly narrow path - I must have written a score of times to point out that there are others in addition to Freecycle, all equally free and hence worth mentioning (like our JunkkYard... oh, maybe that's why).

Consumer resistance? I’m all for it

It depends where you look, or are looking from

'...cost me less than £100. It doesn’t have a brand and I don’t know
(or care) who made it... But it doesn’t have to be an expensive
thing of beauty.'

You have a slightly different view to me of 'doesn't have to be expensive'.

However I laud your consumer resistance.

You may pop over a few blogs to a colleague who you may enjoy
debating these pressing issues with.

She is not so sure about buying an eco-bag as a fashion or green
choice. I was moved to point out that many very nice things are now
made (often helping the makers) out of reused materials, and look
nice taboot.

But such things can still be reassuringly priced to get into you gels'
zone of interest.

Bless.

Careful what you wish for

Channel 4 wants to turn your television into a tip

'Should they locate the parts for, and then manage to assemble a working PC , internet connection and power supply (why not? I saw it done on McGyver), they could do worse than log on to Junkk.com daily to see what they can make and how to make it.

And of course share their own innovations with/for others.

That way we can not just anaylse how we live, but improve it too.

A plan?'

The door was opened a crack...

Pathetic MPs fail to test newspapers over ethics

There's a headline I thought I'd never see: MPs, newspapers and ethics all in the same sentence, when they are mutually exclusive, jointly and severally.

At least there was 'pathetic' and 'fail to test'.

I am currently running a test with our national broadcaster, who I co-fund with 59,999,999 (or so) others, and which is in fact responsible to us, but seemingly totally unaccountable for their fine-backed, mandatory-fee-supported media monopoly across all broadcast and some print categories.

Having just listened to a radio talk show create the stage, and then go on to provoke a bar-room brawl first over UK/US relations and then, for good measure, the vehicles 'we' feel should be 'banned' (stirred up with to taste - very bad taste - rants by z-list celebrities), I have popped off the latest in a series of complaints.

I'm guessing two weeks before one of the legions of fob-off-and-forget munchkins gets back with a form 'We had a look/listen. No, there wasn't a problem in our view. If there was we don't care. And anyway, what are you going to do about it? But we do appreciate your feedback and will bear it in mind. Don't bother arguing or asking to go higher because the system doesn't allow for that... for obvious reasons'.

Guardian - Kicking the habit
Celebrities are checking into rehab like there's no tomorrow. Why can't they just buy a self-help book like the rest of us?

Not sure, but I do believe the purchase of self-help books, unless conducted, Britney Hair-styly, does not get you top slot on the nation's broadcaster, or indeed an 'any PR is...' mention here, paying quite a few remora.. sorry.. reporter's, salaries en route .

Nothing like a nice bit of PR support for the media

The final frontier for travel insurance

You may also wish to include cover for flight delays in case any Guardian readers (and reporters) who don't see the irony of supporting rich folk having a Kodak moment atop a column of greenhouse gasses, whilst thinking Greenpeace chaining themselves to a Land Rover production line was a neat idea, suddenly see the value of single standards.

You know where I am going with this, of course

To: BBC West Midlands

I just caught a piece on Breakfast News about a new, non-polluting delivery truck that is 'responsible for no CO2 emissions'.

This is fantastic.

Is there any more information on this, and how it does it?

...Or, as more than a minor issue, the Environment?

The Big Question: Would transatlantic 'open skies' be good for UK airlines and passengers?

Just askin', 's all. I think it should be in the headline.

Indy - Letters: Open skies

Tough with words. Tough on the causes of words. Or just 'tough'?

Miliband to make new emissions pledge

Don't you just love a good Pledge? One simply swipe and a manky bit of dead wood can be made to look and smell nice... for a wee while, until it wears off.

"David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, will try to restore Britain's place as world leader in the battle against climate change next week, with undertakings to cut the country's carbon output by the year 2020."

"He will promise..."

"That way, he hopes to get the UK back on track.."

Repeat after me, 'The Gloucester Old Spot now leaving Terminal 3, again....

"Tony Blair will fly to Brussels today..." Sorry. Not fair. Just... in context, it scanned amusingly.

"The initiative has been applauded by the former US vice president Al Gore, co-author of a film on climate change, and by Mr Miliband." And where, exactly, did that come from? Is Al 'flying in' too? What is this? The Axis of mutual backslappers?

Times - Britain puts climate change on UN agenda - Way-hay! It's on an agenda!

Just made for a Pol's Porkie!

‘Do as I say, not as I do’ is Barroso’s green message

Thing is, if you stick yourself on the pedestal of telling folk what to
do, you really need to figure that a) it's not such a bad idea to do it
yourself, and b) try to have been doing it at least a while or c) at
least before so telling, and d)really don't go to near anything that
might smack of 'imposing'.

Failure to do one or indeed all lends you to being labelled
a) hypocrite ( “This is an opportunity for European leaders to match
intentions with deeds, to turn words into actions.”... Bless), b) a total
plonker and c) totally undeserving of your authority, salary and
pension by , well everyone, really.

Including any colleagues whose last vestiges of credibility
and authority you have just evaporated in the eyes of a cynical
world media and utterly frustrated voting, cash-cow-no-longer,
public.

And frankly, whacking a fir in the firmament is not much better if we
are trying to offset the problem within the 10 year window indicated
by the IPCC. While it looks good to ones mates in the City, the things
don't grow that fast and not all schemes even work on a viable
EnviROI basis anyway.

Meanwhile, those figures are interesting. May I ask if they are for
urban use (as favoured by those in power who don't get out much),
an average cycle or for country/motorway travel?

I just ask because from my country home to anywhere with 2 hrs by
Fiat Panda seemed to me a better bet than Prius. It's hard to see how
a higher capacity petrol engine in the latter, lugging a big, unused
battery, would deliver better emissions performance.

And if so, may I presume this is just the first in further attempts to get
all of 'us' to conform to an ideal that works in the corridors of
'power', and really has little to making the world better for our kids.

ps: while toe-rag is not a bad moniker for the beast (I believe used,
with some irony in smoke-black form by a 'Have you cut your 20%?'
TV commercial not so long ago, I do concern myself that the noble
tribespersons may not fancy the spelling used here.

Yodel-ay-ee-oo!

Carbon trading

And in reply to this great call...?

All I can hear is a big, fat, empty echo.

The journey of a thousand steps...

Want to save the planet? It’s your little changes that mean the most

Agreed.

And to all the other reader who sees this and feels enough to get motivated to do something at home and peronal...ly re:warding, try re:use at junkk.com.

That way you can save the planet, and some time, and some money.

Kinda win-win. Which is nice. If rare.

Speaks for itself, unspeakably

Plane beats train on cost and speed as discount fares prove elusive

You know what we need... another 'initiative'. With a charge on it.

That'll help.