By virtue of living right next to it, having watched the flooding on TV I was expecting the Wye River to soon be joining me in the lounge.
Strangely, nothing happened, he says, firmly touching wood.
But there are some pretty nasty things going down, and I have been interested in the coverage so far. Especially on Breakfast TV, with the boss lady of the Environment Agency on hand to offer the kind of advice that is great in theory, but perhaps a little less easy to put into practice.
I also caught a few 'never seen befores' flying about as to the level of the, well, levels.
Now, at risk of being labelled a 'big oil-funded denier' BOFDi, I had cause to ponder this.
As one who thinks there may be something to all this (and hence merit in appropriate mitigations), I nonetheless do concern myself at what gets laid at whose door, opening up which Pandora's Box first to put things right.
My main area of kinked eyebrow is how much is down to new and unimproved weather conditions caused by man-made climate change (with all sorts of carbon trading initiatives just waiting to be brought to bear as a consequence, with measurability and accountability on the never-never), and how much to pretty dire decisions on the ground; which can, and should, be made accountable quicksmart.
There are a lot more of us, living on a lot more land, concreting it over, requiring resources from it and pushing gunk back out. To what extent are these demands, and the political 'quick fixes' ('Eh up, let's pop 500 registered voters on that flood plain, lad') to accommodate these responsible for these floods, and how much to the heavens that have opened to cause this issue?
Both are serious, and both need addressing. But I would just like to make sure those Chicken Littles who are responsible for the more immediate, short term and more correctable causes (if, as I suspect, they may exist) do not get a free pass by shunting everyone's attention solely to a falling sky.
Indy - Letters: Flooding - Looks like I am not alone
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Democracy Inaction 2
Last night, after a long day, I struggled up the hill to the local council offices for a meeting about the 'Town Plan'.
I was flattered to have been asked, especially as the invitation was based on my potential contribution to proactive and positive environmental measures. So long as no one was expecting me to do a Canute on the floods, I was hoping to have something to offer.
I'm afraid to say I ended up leaving after an hour and a half when, after the obligatory tea break, the next session looked like an equally pointless point-of-order marathon as the first. With nothing on matters environmental looking like being anywhere in the frame.
I come from a different world, obviously. In advertising, time is money, and everything is designed to shorten the first and reduce the second. So the brief is all, and being brief even better. So while meetings are inevitable you have a clear agenda and ensure only those who need to be there are, and you bang through what everyone needs to do to arrive at actions as soon as possible.
What I stumbled into was a masterpiece of vague, over-populated mainly by those with no other commitments in their waking hours save for the task of putting others to sleep. And an inordinate love of their own voices. The only high, and amazing point, was the presence of some committed young folk who actually cared enough to attend, one presumes in the hope that they will make a difference. Big up to them. And good luck.
There was talk of the democratic process, but as a town resident I would never have heard of it unless invited, seemingly through being a bit known for Junkk.com, but also for making some noise about other local issues of late. And though there was a fair spread of folk there, I'd say a few dozen was hardly representative and honestly most were, like me, and with a few exceptions, the wrong side of 50, mainly councillors or parish representatives. Let's face it, at 7pm you are not going to get many with families to feed, or simply be with at the end of a working day.
I also got to pondering who was paid to be there, who was compensated (travel at least), and who was there on a voluntary basis. Because a lot was being served up that seemed to be calling on folk to do even more for no compensation beyond 'contributing to the community'. Noble for sure, but also the realm of those who do not have other commitments or calls on their earning hours, or keen and able to play the system for firmly held beliefs.
Now I'll try to do my bit. But with no agenda, the whole exercise seemed to be spinning on its axis, with all sorts of pockets of priority jockeying for position. I had no idea where the money for all this was coming from, where it was going, or indeed what it was intended to do. And as a further layer of consultation and feedback, I had to wonder what on earth the various elected representatives (paid and not) I'd recently gone through the trouble of voting for... were for. Most were there, rather silent, and seemingly waiting for a bunch of others to step in to act as a buffer zone for some rather ill-defined discussions with, to me, the end result being anything but clear.
I do care about the direction my home area takes, but honestly couldn't cope with being part of this effort to be part of how it gets taken there. And that, I guess, is to my demerit.
But it did get me thinking about what is needed to rekindle an interest in the democratic process in the silent public majority, and that, to me would chiefly involve clear communication and a commitment to making the process as entertaining as possible. With a definite sense of reward (in this case, seeing a clear result) for taking the time to participate.
And while it is difficult to balance, I simply cannot see how organising free-for-all bunfights, with everyone shouting at once, is going to arrive at anything remotely rational. If at all, it will always be those who shout loudest or put up a more united block who will prevail. That may seem democratic, but in a time-poor, career-driven society, it really still does play into the hands of the few. I may have had a contribution to make, but simply could not see how I could make it in such a zoo, or how such efforts would pay off. So I left early. It will be interesting to see how it gets reported and what actually does get achieved over the years (which is the timeframe indicated). I guess I cannot complain if it does take things in a direction I don't like, as I had a chance to be part. But then isn't what I gave my proxy to elected representatives to do? And should I wish to get my views across I can surely approach them one on one directly for a meaningful exchange and leave them to fight my corner in such debates I cannot, or choose not to attend?
Sadly, what I see these days, from national to this most local of levels, is anything but 'democratic'. Process but no product. Waffle and jargon and procedure. Unaccountable layers.
It may not be the best system, and it may be the best there is, but by heavens if it is designed to confuse or bore me into submission when I do care enough to try to be part, lord help us if decisions are based on what the rest of the public can be inspired (or, rather not) to engage with.
Maybe if they did it as a version of Big Brother: the Town Plan, more people would be inclined to take part.
I was flattered to have been asked, especially as the invitation was based on my potential contribution to proactive and positive environmental measures. So long as no one was expecting me to do a Canute on the floods, I was hoping to have something to offer.
I'm afraid to say I ended up leaving after an hour and a half when, after the obligatory tea break, the next session looked like an equally pointless point-of-order marathon as the first. With nothing on matters environmental looking like being anywhere in the frame.
I come from a different world, obviously. In advertising, time is money, and everything is designed to shorten the first and reduce the second. So the brief is all, and being brief even better. So while meetings are inevitable you have a clear agenda and ensure only those who need to be there are, and you bang through what everyone needs to do to arrive at actions as soon as possible.
What I stumbled into was a masterpiece of vague, over-populated mainly by those with no other commitments in their waking hours save for the task of putting others to sleep. And an inordinate love of their own voices. The only high, and amazing point, was the presence of some committed young folk who actually cared enough to attend, one presumes in the hope that they will make a difference. Big up to them. And good luck.
There was talk of the democratic process, but as a town resident I would never have heard of it unless invited, seemingly through being a bit known for Junkk.com, but also for making some noise about other local issues of late. And though there was a fair spread of folk there, I'd say a few dozen was hardly representative and honestly most were, like me, and with a few exceptions, the wrong side of 50, mainly councillors or parish representatives. Let's face it, at 7pm you are not going to get many with families to feed, or simply be with at the end of a working day.
I also got to pondering who was paid to be there, who was compensated (travel at least), and who was there on a voluntary basis. Because a lot was being served up that seemed to be calling on folk to do even more for no compensation beyond 'contributing to the community'. Noble for sure, but also the realm of those who do not have other commitments or calls on their earning hours, or keen and able to play the system for firmly held beliefs.
Now I'll try to do my bit. But with no agenda, the whole exercise seemed to be spinning on its axis, with all sorts of pockets of priority jockeying for position. I had no idea where the money for all this was coming from, where it was going, or indeed what it was intended to do. And as a further layer of consultation and feedback, I had to wonder what on earth the various elected representatives (paid and not) I'd recently gone through the trouble of voting for... were for. Most were there, rather silent, and seemingly waiting for a bunch of others to step in to act as a buffer zone for some rather ill-defined discussions with, to me, the end result being anything but clear.
I do care about the direction my home area takes, but honestly couldn't cope with being part of this effort to be part of how it gets taken there. And that, I guess, is to my demerit.
But it did get me thinking about what is needed to rekindle an interest in the democratic process in the silent public majority, and that, to me would chiefly involve clear communication and a commitment to making the process as entertaining as possible. With a definite sense of reward (in this case, seeing a clear result) for taking the time to participate.
And while it is difficult to balance, I simply cannot see how organising free-for-all bunfights, with everyone shouting at once, is going to arrive at anything remotely rational. If at all, it will always be those who shout loudest or put up a more united block who will prevail. That may seem democratic, but in a time-poor, career-driven society, it really still does play into the hands of the few. I may have had a contribution to make, but simply could not see how I could make it in such a zoo, or how such efforts would pay off. So I left early. It will be interesting to see how it gets reported and what actually does get achieved over the years (which is the timeframe indicated). I guess I cannot complain if it does take things in a direction I don't like, as I had a chance to be part. But then isn't what I gave my proxy to elected representatives to do? And should I wish to get my views across I can surely approach them one on one directly for a meaningful exchange and leave them to fight my corner in such debates I cannot, or choose not to attend?
Sadly, what I see these days, from national to this most local of levels, is anything but 'democratic'. Process but no product. Waffle and jargon and procedure. Unaccountable layers.
It may not be the best system, and it may be the best there is, but by heavens if it is designed to confuse or bore me into submission when I do care enough to try to be part, lord help us if decisions are based on what the rest of the public can be inspired (or, rather not) to engage with.
Maybe if they did it as a version of Big Brother: the Town Plan, more people would be inclined to take part.
Monday, June 25, 2007
A Eureka Moment That May Let You Paint Your House Infra Red
How do you fancy painting your house to generate your own electricity? Sound a bit far-fetched?
Well, human ingenuity never ceases to amaze, even if prompted by a chance discovery. Research into solar nanotechnology now suggests that within 10 years or so you may be able paint your house with pigments containing 'Quantum Dots' which will convert the sun's infra red emissions directly into electricity. Because this technology works on the infra red spectrum, it remains efficient even during cloudy and overcast weather.
See Solar Paint at bookofjoe for the full story.
"I'm gonna paint that [Electric] Bill right out of my life"
Well, human ingenuity never ceases to amaze, even if prompted by a chance discovery. Research into solar nanotechnology now suggests that within 10 years or so you may be able paint your house with pigments containing 'Quantum Dots' which will convert the sun's infra red emissions directly into electricity. Because this technology works on the infra red spectrum, it remains efficient even during cloudy and overcast weather.
See Solar Paint at bookofjoe for the full story.
"I'm gonna paint that [Electric] Bill right out of my life"
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Democracy Inaction
Today is a huge day in UK Politics. Most of us may not feel that way. But it's true.
This pm, we get a new PM. And a new mini-me DPM.
The first we get by default. The second by some sort of vote that I had little interest in, which may explain why I had little influence over it, even if I would have been allowed.
The Westminster Village (a collective term for those who feed off being in, and reporting on, the political establishment) has wet more kickers over it all than the ladies' loo queue at a Tom Jones concert. The rest of us seem to be less than agog.
Personally, I am positively affronted by what I am getting served up by supposedly independent media to ease into power a person whose only statements of note seem to be surrounding the oddly conflicting notions of listening more whilst 'not allowing' a heck of lot.
But most tellingly, I note that the person who will be this unelected (at least by me) 'leader's' offsider is likely to be decided by 10% of those eligible to vote. As mandates go, that is pathetic.
Yet we are talking some of the most powerful positions in our country. But our media seem more concerned by the prospect of fine dining at a some gilded tables than the provenance or quality of the fare.
Maybe we get what we deserve. But maybe we are served such poor options is it any surprise most can't bear to stomach them. But that, is a BIG problem.
ADDENDUM: I am not very party political (the current crop all disappoint me) , so I don't propose to go on much more on this. But in terms of media reaction just take this: New Labour, new era
'Gordon Brown hailed the start of a new political era' - what was he part of for the past ten years?
'In his victory speech...' - 'handover' or 'acceptance' would seem more accurate. What victory did he fight and win?
'...Mr Brown has pulled it off.' What? Doing nothing for long enough? A rare, but useful talent to succeed in today's UK.
"With a man and a woman elected leader and deputy it is Labour that leads the way." Suddenly Labour felt different.' - So meritocracy based on no more than ability is not what it's all about then?
'The aim of the speech was to challenge the misleading caricature.' - Which may have some foundation in fact, maybe?
Sod it... I can't wade though any more of this travesty under the banner of a name that claims it is Independent.
Will Gordon let her speak? - Ok, I couldn't resist. Look at that title. And this from, if not a supporter, one who has a certain empathy with New (and now 'improved', apparently) Labour.
This pm, we get a new PM. And a new mini-me DPM.
The first we get by default. The second by some sort of vote that I had little interest in, which may explain why I had little influence over it, even if I would have been allowed.
The Westminster Village (a collective term for those who feed off being in, and reporting on, the political establishment) has wet more kickers over it all than the ladies' loo queue at a Tom Jones concert. The rest of us seem to be less than agog.
Personally, I am positively affronted by what I am getting served up by supposedly independent media to ease into power a person whose only statements of note seem to be surrounding the oddly conflicting notions of listening more whilst 'not allowing' a heck of lot.
But most tellingly, I note that the person who will be this unelected (at least by me) 'leader's' offsider is likely to be decided by 10% of those eligible to vote. As mandates go, that is pathetic.
Yet we are talking some of the most powerful positions in our country. But our media seem more concerned by the prospect of fine dining at a some gilded tables than the provenance or quality of the fare.
Maybe we get what we deserve. But maybe we are served such poor options is it any surprise most can't bear to stomach them. But that, is a BIG problem.
ADDENDUM: I am not very party political (the current crop all disappoint me) , so I don't propose to go on much more on this. But in terms of media reaction just take this: New Labour, new era
'Gordon Brown hailed the start of a new political era' - what was he part of for the past ten years?
'In his victory speech...' - 'handover' or 'acceptance' would seem more accurate. What victory did he fight and win?
'...Mr Brown has pulled it off.' What? Doing nothing for long enough? A rare, but useful talent to succeed in today's UK.
"With a man and a woman elected leader and deputy it is Labour that leads the way." Suddenly Labour felt different.' - So meritocracy based on no more than ability is not what it's all about then?
'The aim of the speech was to challenge the misleading caricature.' - Which may have some foundation in fact, maybe?
Sod it... I can't wade though any more of this travesty under the banner of a name that claims it is Independent.
Will Gordon let her speak? - Ok, I couldn't resist. Look at that title. And this from, if not a supporter, one who has a certain empathy with New (and now 'improved', apparently) Labour.
Something for another time
I was idly watching (is there any other way?) BBC Breakfast 'News' this morning, when an innocuous little piece came on about some Eastern European state whose capital has become a City of Culture.
So far, so what. But my ears pricked up when it was introduced in the voiceover by mentioning the fact that such places had been 'opened up' as weekend short-hauls by the explosion in budget airlines. 'Interesting,' I thought, 'I wonder where this is going?'.
Well, for the majority of the next 5 minutes it went there with a full crew to have a very good time, seemingly without irony.
Then we were back at the studio, with one of the BBC's 'experts' (folk who are a) a mate, b) next door and c) On a Sunday prepared to get up at a silly hour. So I have no idea who she was) to discuss it all.
And then, near the end, we had the eco-tilt.
'I suppose we should acknowledge the environmental aspect of all this', she said.
Well, that would be a plan, considering all that has preceded it, both in the BBC's corporate contribution simply by making the piece, but also the consequences of 'selling' the notion so well.
I don't pretend it's an easy one, but I found the jocular bouffant-du-jour anchor chain's final comment so very telling 'Well, yes. But that is something for another time.'
Er, when? And if not by you, who? And why?
So far, so what. But my ears pricked up when it was introduced in the voiceover by mentioning the fact that such places had been 'opened up' as weekend short-hauls by the explosion in budget airlines. 'Interesting,' I thought, 'I wonder where this is going?'.
Well, for the majority of the next 5 minutes it went there with a full crew to have a very good time, seemingly without irony.
Then we were back at the studio, with one of the BBC's 'experts' (folk who are a) a mate, b) next door and c) On a Sunday prepared to get up at a silly hour. So I have no idea who she was) to discuss it all.
And then, near the end, we had the eco-tilt.
'I suppose we should acknowledge the environmental aspect of all this', she said.
Well, that would be a plan, considering all that has preceded it, both in the BBC's corporate contribution simply by making the piece, but also the consequences of 'selling' the notion so well.
I don't pretend it's an easy one, but I found the jocular bouffant-du-jour anchor chain's final comment so very telling 'Well, yes. But that is something for another time.'
Er, when? And if not by you, who? And why?
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Sector Spectre
There's a very interesting site called Intelligent Giving, which is devoted to some critical (in the best senses of the word, pro and con) analysis of the world of charity.
I was idly having a rummage, when this caught my eye: The mysterious other Miliband
You have to register to reply, but I think can view simply by clicking, so with luck you can see the context of what moved me to comment:
I was also going to pass over the matter of this speechwriter, or indeed their height, as beyond irrelevant. Then I had a rethink. Physical attributes are, or at least should be still pretty much nothing to do with anything. But at least I can now spot a tall chap in an OTS (jargon is all) crowd and yell out the provided moniker to zero in if he responds... and isn't David Walliams role playing.
Because it does now occur to me that if this is the person penning what's uttered, I may have the whole organ grinder/'revenue collection executive' relationship backwards when it comes to getting heard, and seeing what one has to say work its way into the mouth of Blair (few more hours) babies.
Which brings us to the next point. Having been to a few events now when the billed highlight seems to be a Ministerial speech, I have to say that I am getting a tad bored with a talking head and a Power(what's the)Point parrotfest, as the inevitable provision of the notes (as created, I'm sure, by lovely chaps called Dominic) rather renders the speaker superfluous. Unless, of course, they hang around to answer a few questions (though doubtless in a whole 'not last decade', more honest, direct but still useless Brownian 'I'm not sure I accept that' /'I'm not going to allow that' style).
Or, better yet, step down from the podium and actually at least listen to a few from the floor not selected by Dom's also lovely PR colleague Pen ( I made that up), before hitting the studios to tell the country that they 'have been talking with...' and now have a real grip on what's going on at street level.
I always find the reason given for bailing as truly special: 'they'd love to stay, but they are very busy'. Which rather sends the message that those in the audience are not, and having turned up to be talked at obviously have the spare time to do so and should be grateful for providing an audience.
On the third point, I can only speak for myself as to the level of gruntlement around my sphere, with a slight sense of how others feel by actually hanging around to chat with them long after the ministerial Prius and team has offset it's way to the next non-flying visit. So I must have missed the 'up-and-coming/credible' feedback, but if it comes from a qualified, reliable, attributed and unbiased source will of course bear it in mind. Equally in assessing levels of charisma and authenticity, compared to predecessors in what confusingly (to me at least) is acknowledged earlier as a role that has not existed before. And if that role has not many purse strings, one has to wonder what it, and all those under it, are there for. Money talks. Anything else squawks.
When it comes to feeling well served by those tasked with supporting a sector I find myself peripherally part of, I'd have to suggest that while 'saying' nice is awfully spiffy, a bit more getting on and doing - efficiently, cost-effectively and tangibly where it has the maximum positive result - would be more in order.
The addition of 2000 (more?) public servants may be necessary to help effect this, but if that's the main contribution that can be cited so far, on past evidence it does not fill me with much hope that the majority of effort (and money) will not just end up, again, in a well-trumpeted process at the expense of any actual product.
I'm pretty sure that the previous respondent was one of that 2000, or a ministerial interference runner (I wonder how many in Westminster we pay to deflect us from asking questions and/or getting answers? of our political mast... servants), so it may be fun to come back to see if and what my opinion gets dismissed with.
I was idly having a rummage, when this caught my eye: The mysterious other Miliband
You have to register to reply, but I think can view simply by clicking, so with luck you can see the context of what moved me to comment:
I was also going to pass over the matter of this speechwriter, or indeed their height, as beyond irrelevant. Then I had a rethink. Physical attributes are, or at least should be still pretty much nothing to do with anything. But at least I can now spot a tall chap in an OTS (jargon is all) crowd and yell out the provided moniker to zero in if he responds... and isn't David Walliams role playing.
Because it does now occur to me that if this is the person penning what's uttered, I may have the whole organ grinder/'revenue collection executive' relationship backwards when it comes to getting heard, and seeing what one has to say work its way into the mouth of Blair (few more hours) babies.
Which brings us to the next point. Having been to a few events now when the billed highlight seems to be a Ministerial speech, I have to say that I am getting a tad bored with a talking head and a Power(what's the)Point parrotfest, as the inevitable provision of the notes (as created, I'm sure, by lovely chaps called Dominic) rather renders the speaker superfluous. Unless, of course, they hang around to answer a few questions (though doubtless in a whole 'not last decade', more honest, direct but still useless Brownian 'I'm not sure I accept that' /'I'm not going to allow that' style).
Or, better yet, step down from the podium and actually at least listen to a few from the floor not selected by Dom's also lovely PR colleague Pen ( I made that up), before hitting the studios to tell the country that they 'have been talking with...' and now have a real grip on what's going on at street level.
I always find the reason given for bailing as truly special: 'they'd love to stay, but they are very busy'. Which rather sends the message that those in the audience are not, and having turned up to be talked at obviously have the spare time to do so and should be grateful for providing an audience.
On the third point, I can only speak for myself as to the level of gruntlement around my sphere, with a slight sense of how others feel by actually hanging around to chat with them long after the ministerial Prius and team has offset it's way to the next non-flying visit. So I must have missed the 'up-and-coming/credible' feedback, but if it comes from a qualified, reliable, attributed and unbiased source will of course bear it in mind. Equally in assessing levels of charisma and authenticity, compared to predecessors in what confusingly (to me at least) is acknowledged earlier as a role that has not existed before. And if that role has not many purse strings, one has to wonder what it, and all those under it, are there for. Money talks. Anything else squawks.
When it comes to feeling well served by those tasked with supporting a sector I find myself peripherally part of, I'd have to suggest that while 'saying' nice is awfully spiffy, a bit more getting on and doing - efficiently, cost-effectively and tangibly where it has the maximum positive result - would be more in order.
The addition of 2000 (more?) public servants may be necessary to help effect this, but if that's the main contribution that can be cited so far, on past evidence it does not fill me with much hope that the majority of effort (and money) will not just end up, again, in a well-trumpeted process at the expense of any actual product.
I'm pretty sure that the previous respondent was one of that 2000, or a ministerial interference runner (I wonder how many in Westminster we pay to deflect us from asking questions and/or getting answers? of our political mast... servants), so it may be fun to come back to see if and what my opinion gets dismissed with.
There's what was. There's what is. And there's... what????????
I watched a BBC news slot this morning when it seemed that all involved with the last decade of government (and staying on) seemed to be awarded a 'get out of everything free' card.
Me... I prefer to look at track records and facts. Or such as they are. And here's one: Council tax 'doubles in 10 years'
Or, to put it another, equally walletally-painful way: 'three times higher than the rate of inflation and twice the increase in average earnings'.
Now, there is an attempt at balance, and: "Councils may well turn round and say well that's because they're providing better services."
O........k. What do we reckon?
Maybe there could be another reason; one raised a short while ago.
Now, there was a slight tweak back to the 'Cross of Ross' posting in the reply section, but really, can there be much doubt as to where a large wadge of the money seems to be going, and 'increased services' are hard to reconcile when weekly rubbish collections are moving in a distinctly unincreased direction.
I'm afraid all this does is push my trust factor in government, and some rather... cooperative... aspects of publicly-funded media, even lower.
BBC - Brown interview: key quotes - I am simply intrigued as to how what is factual 'cannot be accepted' in so many cases. What the heck does that mean?
NOT Gordon Brown
So he has learned, will reach out, build consensus and answer questions at last.
But if the answers to such questions are, and allowed to be (especially in the case of what is surely easily established fact) 'I don't accept that', I'm afraid to all of the above I can only have one reply:
"I don't accept that".
But, as always in this newsflip era, that's probably all there is time for. Shame. On all involved, and complicit.
Friday, 22 June, 2007 - Not looking like many others were too impressed with either the interviewee, or ers. For all the good it does.
Me... I prefer to look at track records and facts. Or such as they are. And here's one: Council tax 'doubles in 10 years'
Or, to put it another, equally walletally-painful way: 'three times higher than the rate of inflation and twice the increase in average earnings'.
Now, there is an attempt at balance, and: "Councils may well turn round and say well that's because they're providing better services."
O........k. What do we reckon?
Maybe there could be another reason; one raised a short while ago.
Now, there was a slight tweak back to the 'Cross of Ross' posting in the reply section, but really, can there be much doubt as to where a large wadge of the money seems to be going, and 'increased services' are hard to reconcile when weekly rubbish collections are moving in a distinctly unincreased direction.
I'm afraid all this does is push my trust factor in government, and some rather... cooperative... aspects of publicly-funded media, even lower.
BBC - Brown interview: key quotes - I am simply intrigued as to how what is factual 'cannot be accepted' in so many cases. What the heck does that mean?
NOT Gordon Brown
So he has learned, will reach out, build consensus and answer questions at last.
But if the answers to such questions are, and allowed to be (especially in the case of what is surely easily established fact) 'I don't accept that', I'm afraid to all of the above I can only have one reply:
"I don't accept that".
But, as always in this newsflip era, that's probably all there is time for. Shame. On all involved, and complicit.
Friday, 22 June, 2007 - Not looking like many others were too impressed with either the interviewee, or ers. For all the good it does.
Friday, June 22, 2007
The future's a wind-up
I wanted to end the week on a positive note so, despite the title, here it is: Why just a logo is now a no-no
It's an awful lot of journo/marketo guff for what is, in essence a nice simple, relevant bit of eco-A&P.
You're stuck in the middle of nowhere, in the mud, and your only mechanism of survival (seemingly) at a music festival is a device that enables you to spend all your time calling out, listening in or playing Tetris. Go figure.
And because all such activities suck the heart from it in a day (mine lasts a week between charges, and I'm rigging up the solar panel to do the job anyway) you need a juice injection.
So thanks to those nice folk at Orange, you can spend all day further not listening to any music (or at least seeing where it comes from) queuing up for a free handcrank of fresh minutes.
Not sure it's my cup of tea, but then, even though (or because) I'm a customer, I'm not their audience.
Altogether now, children: 'Make sarm noise!'
It's an awful lot of journo/marketo guff for what is, in essence a nice simple, relevant bit of eco-A&P.
You're stuck in the middle of nowhere, in the mud, and your only mechanism of survival (seemingly) at a music festival is a device that enables you to spend all your time calling out, listening in or playing Tetris. Go figure.
And because all such activities suck the heart from it in a day (mine lasts a week between charges, and I'm rigging up the solar panel to do the job anyway) you need a juice injection.
So thanks to those nice folk at Orange, you can spend all day further not listening to any music (or at least seeing where it comes from) queuing up for a free handcrank of fresh minutes.
Not sure it's my cup of tea, but then, even though (or because) I'm a customer, I'm not their audience.
Altogether now, children: 'Make sarm noise!'
There are those who write for the major media. Those who they write about. Those who pay to read it. And the real world.
I don't pay. But I do read 'em. Mainly because I have to. But when you come across stuff like this - Three is the magic number - you just have to wonder.... why? Or maybe... who?!! Or, just settle for a: 'do what'!!!!!!?
I don't think I can add much to what a few less than impressed posters have already.
The whole overpaid, inbred world of the idle broadsheet generation has truly lost the plot.
I don't think I can add much to what a few less than impressed posters have already.
The whole overpaid, inbred world of the idle broadsheet generation has truly lost the plot.
Alberta's 'Black Goo' Rush
We all knew that a great deal more R&D funding would be redirected into renewables as the price of crude oil stayed high, right? Well, not really ...... in fact, hardly at all.
Although some of the Big Oil players ARE looking at some renewable energy forms, and indeed, buying up the rights to quite a few patents in this field, the renewables R&D spend pales into insignificance in comparison to what is happening right now in the Canadian oil shale belt.
The extended high crude oil price has finally made Alberta's Black Goo commercially exploitable, and the cost to the planet is ........ even higher CO2 emissions!
"The industry already contributing to climate change more than any other is frantically turning up the heat. The process of refining bitumen emits three to four times the greenhouse gases produced by extracting oil from traditional wells, making the tar sands the largest single contributor to Canada's growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, the industry plans to more than triple production by 2020, with no end in sight. If prices stay high, it will soon become profitable to extract an additional 141 billion barrels from the tar sand, which would place the largest oil reserves in the world in Alberta."
For a depressing read see the full article by Naomi Klein at Rabble News. The black goo rush was recently described by the FT as "north America's biggest resources boom since the Klondike gold rush"
All in all a bit of a one-sided match: Renewable Energies 0 - Big Oil 6
And the winner of the prize for the newest destructive eco-disaster is .......... Northern Alberta.
Although some of the Big Oil players ARE looking at some renewable energy forms, and indeed, buying up the rights to quite a few patents in this field, the renewables R&D spend pales into insignificance in comparison to what is happening right now in the Canadian oil shale belt.
The extended high crude oil price has finally made Alberta's Black Goo commercially exploitable, and the cost to the planet is ........ even higher CO2 emissions!
"The industry already contributing to climate change more than any other is frantically turning up the heat. The process of refining bitumen emits three to four times the greenhouse gases produced by extracting oil from traditional wells, making the tar sands the largest single contributor to Canada's growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, the industry plans to more than triple production by 2020, with no end in sight. If prices stay high, it will soon become profitable to extract an additional 141 billion barrels from the tar sand, which would place the largest oil reserves in the world in Alberta."
For a depressing read see the full article by Naomi Klein at Rabble News. The black goo rush was recently described by the FT as "north America's biggest resources boom since the Klondike gold rush"
All in all a bit of a one-sided match: Renewable Energies 0 - Big Oil 6
And the winner of the prize for the newest destructive eco-disaster is .......... Northern Alberta.
But, what's being brought to bear to WIN?
I always say, something is a lot better than nothing: Glastonbury fights climate change
You can almost sense it coming...
But.
We seem to now have yet another awareness campaign to play with. At which you go to, and ... sign-up.
And in return you get a wristband, made (no matter what) from...?
At least there are a bunch of other BTNs in the rest of the piece.
I'm sure it pays a lot on campaign managers' salaries and airmiles offsets, at least.
You can almost sense it coming...
But.
We seem to now have yet another awareness campaign to play with. At which you go to, and ... sign-up.
And in return you get a wristband, made (no matter what) from...?
At least there are a bunch of other BTNs in the rest of the piece.
I'm sure it pays a lot on campaign managers' salaries and airmiles offsets, at least.
So long as he* is so spot on, I just have to share
The ongoing genius of *Scott Adams' Dilbert satire (Green poke era)And, sometimes, opportunities just get presented: NHS urged to cut carbon emissions
So the next time you go in for a one thing...
"Fill 'er up please." "Certainly sir ..... apple or pear?"
Could we be filling up our cars on fruit juice based fuels one day?
An interesting article on the potential of producing a new type of bio-fuels from fruit sugars. The chemistry appears sound but I'd like to know a little more about the catalysts they are using, and just how much energy is required in the generation of the fuel in order to determine its exact enviROI. Full text at Economist.com.
Imagine the FT headlines in perhaps 30 to 40 years time .....
"Big Oil takes backseat to Big Fruit!" Or,
"Granny Smiths lines up hostile bid for Exxon-Mobil".
An interesting article on the potential of producing a new type of bio-fuels from fruit sugars. The chemistry appears sound but I'd like to know a little more about the catalysts they are using, and just how much energy is required in the generation of the fuel in order to determine its exact enviROI. Full text at Economist.com.
Imagine the FT headlines in perhaps 30 to 40 years time .....
"Big Oil takes backseat to Big Fruit!" Or,
"Granny Smiths lines up hostile bid for Exxon-Mobil".
IP, IP 'ooray!
I was away dawn 'til dusk yesterday at an ultimately very useful conference on Intellectual Property hosted by a West Midlands organisations called Fillip.
At first I thought I made a big mistake and was in for a loooong day, as I sat surrounded by what seemed every lawyer in the region, to be talked at by every other lawyer in the region. The seminar pack was certainly not encouraging, as the curse of PowerPoint was again to be unleashed - I cringed when one speaker actually said "I'll just read what's on the screen and, of course, in your notes". Thank the lor' that we were not being billed by the minute!!!
But, as with all things, you have to sift a lot of silt to get a nugget, and they did appear. A fact here, an anecdote there. Bearing in mind the target audience was the SME market, I was getting quite frustrated to have presentation after presentation that was pitched at companies to whom 'only a few thousand' is not a real issue to find, albeit for a key aspect of business such as IP. But one real beacon was Mandy Haberman, of anywayup cup fame, who was a real inspiration (her turning point was sending a prototype, filled with Ribena, in an unpadded box to a Tesco buyer... who called with and order by return), much like Heather of Wiggly Wigglers the other week, not just for her success but the fights she had to (successfully) take on to emerge triumphant. Though it must be said the sheer number of scumbuckets around worldwide (mainly in major corporates) there are ready to screw anyone for a penny is depressing.
I was there mainly for the RE:tie but, thanks to the trusty Lappy Sling, Junkk.com got a look in, too.
One of the speakers was from CadburySchweppes, and seemed keen to talk more and introduce me to the right people.
I certainly came away more than ever convinced of the vale of IP, but also the sheer complexity and cost of it. This honestly does put best practice out of the reach of many at the small 's' of the SME spectrum, and it is always worth trying to get that across.
That was my message, and it was welcomed. In fact, as a consequence of the day, I am now more than happily off on a another tangent, but one I hope will for once be more than productive and even profitable.
At first I thought I made a big mistake and was in for a loooong day, as I sat surrounded by what seemed every lawyer in the region, to be talked at by every other lawyer in the region. The seminar pack was certainly not encouraging, as the curse of PowerPoint was again to be unleashed - I cringed when one speaker actually said "I'll just read what's on the screen and, of course, in your notes". Thank the lor' that we were not being billed by the minute!!!
But, as with all things, you have to sift a lot of silt to get a nugget, and they did appear. A fact here, an anecdote there. Bearing in mind the target audience was the SME market, I was getting quite frustrated to have presentation after presentation that was pitched at companies to whom 'only a few thousand' is not a real issue to find, albeit for a key aspect of business such as IP. But one real beacon was Mandy Haberman, of anywayup cup fame, who was a real inspiration (her turning point was sending a prototype, filled with Ribena, in an unpadded box to a Tesco buyer... who called with and order by return), much like Heather of Wiggly Wigglers the other week, not just for her success but the fights she had to (successfully) take on to emerge triumphant. Though it must be said the sheer number of scumbuckets around worldwide (mainly in major corporates) there are ready to screw anyone for a penny is depressing.
I was there mainly for the RE:tie but, thanks to the trusty Lappy Sling, Junkk.com got a look in, too.
One of the speakers was from CadburySchweppes, and seemed keen to talk more and introduce me to the right people.
I certainly came away more than ever convinced of the vale of IP, but also the sheer complexity and cost of it. This honestly does put best practice out of the reach of many at the small 's' of the SME spectrum, and it is always worth trying to get that across.
That was my message, and it was welcomed. In fact, as a consequence of the day, I am now more than happily off on a another tangent, but one I hope will for once be more than productive and even profitable.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
"Driving towards a brick wall"?
So just what were the actual outcomes of the G8 meeting last week?
I found little in the outputs that made me feel any the more secure - it was all 'moving towards', 'look at', 'review our position', 'agree to think about' - all talk, and very little actual do or will, and certainly no actual definitive targets at which to aim. I concur that it was more of a 'tactical political shift', rather than a positive way forward.
So, rather than attempt to review the entire G8 gamut, this rather eyebrow raising item from freelance journalist Ralph Surette pretty much says it all. Although written very much from a Canadian perspective, I can't find anything in it with which to disagree.
The "Captains of no progress" are still at the helm, and the "dirty, lumbering supertanker called the world economy" shows but only minimal signs of changing course.
How far off is that wall? Is there time to brake and/or change course? How about listening to the G8 String Octet? Maybe they sound a little similar to Nero fiddling as Rome burned? Or the band on the Titanic playing as she slowly went down?
Fading out .... 'For those in peril on the sea........'
Thanks due to David Suzuki for the title of this post.
I found little in the outputs that made me feel any the more secure - it was all 'moving towards', 'look at', 'review our position', 'agree to think about' - all talk, and very little actual do or will, and certainly no actual definitive targets at which to aim. I concur that it was more of a 'tactical political shift', rather than a positive way forward.
So, rather than attempt to review the entire G8 gamut, this rather eyebrow raising item from freelance journalist Ralph Surette pretty much says it all. Although written very much from a Canadian perspective, I can't find anything in it with which to disagree.
The "Captains of no progress" are still at the helm, and the "dirty, lumbering supertanker called the world economy" shows but only minimal signs of changing course.
How far off is that wall? Is there time to brake and/or change course? How about listening to the G8 String Octet? Maybe they sound a little similar to Nero fiddling as Rome burned? Or the band on the Titanic playing as she slowly went down?
Fading out .... 'For those in peril on the sea........'
Thanks due to David Suzuki for the title of this post.
Today's forecast - Heavy Wars
Oh dear ..... another frightening glimpse of the future?
The UN's top environment official is now predicting massive geo-political disasters caused by water shortage and migration wars in Africa and East Asia. Full story from The Independent.
"Climate change has become a major security issue that could lead to "a world going up in flames", the United Nations' top environment official has warned. From rising sea levels in the Indian Ocean to the increasing spread of desert in Africa's Sahel region, global warming will cause new wars across the world, said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). "
It looks like our bet-hedging arms dealer (See Monday's blog - Arms dealing - the career of the future?) is possibly a very perceptive chappie indeed.
The UN's top environment official is now predicting massive geo-political disasters caused by water shortage and migration wars in Africa and East Asia. Full story from The Independent.
"Climate change has become a major security issue that could lead to "a world going up in flames", the United Nations' top environment official has warned. From rising sea levels in the Indian Ocean to the increasing spread of desert in Africa's Sahel region, global warming will cause new wars across the world, said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). "
It looks like our bet-hedging arms dealer (See Monday's blog - Arms dealing - the career of the future?) is possibly a very perceptive chappie indeed.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The slooooowest crash in IT history
You can't get humour like this any more.You may recall (and by skipping back a few posts actually read - oh heck here it is) that I shared the news of the latest Govt. eco/carbon/climate website to consume more funds to 'help' 'us' go greener, namely ActonCo2 (as opposed to EalingCo2...har-har. They may titter in West London).
Well, possibly thanks to the most concerted PR campaign by every Govt. PR agency (I must have had thirty emails) in the land, and the cooperation of the likes of me, it seems that it doesn't work after 5pm (no civil service jokes, please).
Having pointed a few of you at it, I had a flood (well, two) of emails to say that it says 'come back later'. And, checking myself, this seems to be the case.
Now the explanation is that it's because it's so popular. And I would wish for such a 'happy problem'.
Or, just maybe, it's because all the complicated guff I mentioned in my quick review (slow review not possible as there is not access for now) means that it's all tied up dealing with the few folk who can get through. And having failed, and once the PR has worn off, how many will go back?
Expensive. Useless. And looks a lot better than it delivers. Ring any bells?
He IS reading my blog...
... and then making a brilliant satirical cartoon out of it: Dilbert.OK, so it's just coincidence.
Memo to all Pols, activists and holier-than thou media: try leading by example before climbing in the driving seat. Your lack of deeds vs. the words is starting to grate.
But... is it art?
Well, I don't know much about it, but I know what I like: Turning the place over.Very little to do with saving the planet (probably a negative enviROI, truth be told, as it obviously had construction and has operational costs. Plus it is only temporary), but as life is about a bit more than that, if we are going to p*ss stuff away, I am quite impressed with this.
Back now to being an eco-grinch.
Two Wongs don't...
In the interview referred to in my last post, Mr. Miliband made a fair point when challenged about relative actions. But it's hard not be struck by today's Guardian lead - China passes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter - and a rather smaller associated plea - 'Are you doing your bit?' - in the same piece.
Now, as my sons titter, and some quango-funded PC-brigade try and figure out how to bust me for that headline, I can only agree with Mr. M that it does probably make his job a lot harder when he meets his Chinese counterpart if we are doing diddly to put our own house in order.
But....
I'm afraid that, as the man to convince me of anything, much less the wisdom of saving my own future, he is not proving the most inspired of choices... or messengers.
Bar this one reasonable retort, in the interview he was not convincing at all. And the examples of what 'we' are being called upon to engage with and/or do are not doing much either.
Even his 'defence' of the point regarding the example of his soon-to-be-ex-boss' predilection for jumping on a plane at the sound of an envelope being opened was fudged, and deliberately spun away without giving any answer. So why should we listen... or act? And speaking of China, the book I am reviewing, Last Call, paints one heck of a picture of the imminent Asia tourist industry. Scary.
You need more than facts to persuade. You need trust. And passion.
I am looking for what's right to support and do, but on this basis I'm afraid Minister. M is not looking like the one to deliver it.
Now, as my sons titter, and some quango-funded PC-brigade try and figure out how to bust me for that headline, I can only agree with Mr. M that it does probably make his job a lot harder when he meets his Chinese counterpart if we are doing diddly to put our own house in order.
But....
I'm afraid that, as the man to convince me of anything, much less the wisdom of saving my own future, he is not proving the most inspired of choices... or messengers.
Bar this one reasonable retort, in the interview he was not convincing at all. And the examples of what 'we' are being called upon to engage with and/or do are not doing much either.
Even his 'defence' of the point regarding the example of his soon-to-be-ex-boss' predilection for jumping on a plane at the sound of an envelope being opened was fudged, and deliberately spun away without giving any answer. So why should we listen... or act? And speaking of China, the book I am reviewing, Last Call, paints one heck of a picture of the imminent Asia tourist industry. Scary.
You need more than facts to persuade. You need trust. And passion.
I am looking for what's right to support and do, but on this basis I'm afraid Minister. M is not looking like the one to deliver it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)