Live Earth appears set to break all records in terms of TV viewing figures - see The Guardian. With the broadcasts going live to an estimated 800 million in China alone, they estimate a potential 2 billion people will actually view the Live Earth shows at some stage.
Profits from Live Earth will go to Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. But the entire event has been questioned by Bob Geldof, organiser of Live Aid and Live8. In May he said: "I hope they're a success. But why is he [Gore] actually organising them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect? Everybody's known about that for years. We are all f**king conscious of global warming."
Oh dear, if these numbers turn out to be true, Sir Bob will choke on his guinness!
Junkk Male adds:
Guardian - Public doubts on global warming - This is interesting (and scary) more for the replies. There is either a very well coordinated collection of BOFDis out there (possible) ready to pounce on any such thing in such as the Guardian, or a high level of disenfranchisement (sorry, I think probable) due to how all this is being (mis)handled.
Thing is, there seems to be a woeful effort to accept this latter possibility and work to change it effectively. I'm afraid that sticking with the 'we know better than you and you're an idiot for not accepting what we say' doesn't seem to play too well. And, frankly, I can see why it doesn't.
Be it those paid to wallow in GW/CC from government to academia to even the media, it simply isn't getting through in any meaningful way to those who really matter: the masses.
And if this is the reaction in Guardian PiousVille, just imagine what is going on in Mail MondeoLand. Actually, without wishing to get too 'demographic' (which sounds better than a variety of 'ists' I could be accused of), as I do spend a fair while in Times/Telegraph/BBC territory too, I can pretty much attest that a large chunk of well-educated, highly-paid professionals are not exactly on board either. And it's making me as popular at parties as a poo in the pool.
I'd say those who have self-appointed themselves as 'our' saviours need to have a bit of a rethink, and at least change their tunes a bit. Or find another cause to feed off if they are part of the vast army sucking bazillions out of talking a lot but evidently getting very little DONE.
I'm back, by the way. Wish it was good to be so:)
ADDENDUM 2:
I have now listened to the Al Gore Today interview, which was preceded by a piece about the MORI poll in question.
Interesting. I have to say I was perhaps listening out for it, but what came across a little to strongly in both was, again, this notion that any other opinions are wrong and, more importantly, should not be allowed to exist.
While I am obviously quite convinced that 'something' is deteriorating, and whatever mankind is up to sure isn't helping, I cannot help but feel that being so smug or, worse, arrogant as to deny those who would wish to exercise the right to a contrary opinion, is a poor strategy.
If their arguments are causing doubt, the more important question is to why they still feel that way (are they really so prepared to be the last of their lines, or at least labelled as those who stood by and/or contributed to the end?), and others are inclined to agree. Once this is understood one can work to persuade, using all fair and ethical means possible (especially by example, of which sadly I find many elements of the forthcoming concert, human and otherwise, to be sending at best a mixed message), those who are not acting to start doing so.
There will doubtless be plenty of commentary following the event, and I will be interested to see how it pans out short, medium and long term. But I have to say I will not be one of those signing yet another online 'pledge', if that is deemed to be of great significance. At the Oxford Climate Conference I watched, heard referred to and indeed met a few 'hard-nosed men'... and they don't get moved that easily by such things. What will... I'm working on.
From the Today Blog on this - I'm afraid to say that, as with all the other climate change 'debates', as the extremes dug in and the artillery/entrench war settled in, I tuned out. And I really do care enough to try and stay with it.
ADDENDUM 3:
Gaurdian - Why rock won't save the planet - Well considered in my (JunkkMale) view
Monday, July 02, 2007
My bank's greener than yours!
So just how green is your bank?
An interesting question and one which we might increasingly ask as nearly all of them have jumped onto one of the green bandwagons somewhere along the line.
Following the recent launches of the American Express Red, and the Co-operative Bank charity card, today we have the launch of the 'Green' Barclaycard - story from The Guardian. This promises to donate half of the profits to PURE, a UK charity that invests in low energy projects.
As the authors put it .....
"Many of these initiatives have been greeted with scepticism by critics who accuse the banks of jumping on the climate change bandwagon to get more publicity."
.... Quite! It seems a peculiar way to donate to charity if you ask me!
And on the same day, HSBC appoint Sir Nicholas Stern, author of the government report on climate change, as a 'special advisor'. From TimesOnline.
"His appointment further demonstrates that sustainability issues are at the forefront of HSBC’s agenda.”
OK ...... I think I'm with the general idea so far .....
It [HSBC] said that his role would include "providing direct advice on specific strategic issues in emerging markets where the bank has aspirations to grow its business; advising on the socioeconomic implications of climate change and representing HSBC on these issues; contributing to management development programmes ... and providing advice to major clients of the group who seek to develop sustainable business strategies or other programmes relating to climate change and to economic development issues".
.... A nice, clear, concise remit that means ....... just what, exactly?
ADDENDUM (form Junkk Male):
Mad - Green backs…I mean banks
Or, worse, if not done with genuine intent, long term commitment and tangible follow-through, does it just add to the level of 'green noise' that is already saturating the airwaves, and further contribute to the public tuning out?
My little site gets a press release every few days from some bank or other saying how they have gone carbon neutral, or some supermarket to say they are switching to green energy.
Good on them! But as a consumer, other than meeting a legislative obligation or reducing running costs this impacts me how, exactly?
I have always written back to applaud their moves, but go on to suggest that to get my little online resource to publish their PR it would need to be a tad more tangible in the area of actual savings to planet and said consumer.
In the case of banks, this could take the form of low or at-cost loans to put in insulation. A loss-leader to get custom at a later stage. If they end up saving money on energy, once they go into profit then they may wish to buy into something else that requires finance... hopefully something equally responsible.
Some have moved in that direction, but most, sadly, seem more keen to bank the money and invest more on spun veneer than actual substance.
Which seems quite a waste.
An interesting question and one which we might increasingly ask as nearly all of them have jumped onto one of the green bandwagons somewhere along the line.
Following the recent launches of the American Express Red, and the Co-operative Bank charity card, today we have the launch of the 'Green' Barclaycard - story from The Guardian. This promises to donate half of the profits to PURE, a UK charity that invests in low energy projects.
As the authors put it .....
"Many of these initiatives have been greeted with scepticism by critics who accuse the banks of jumping on the climate change bandwagon to get more publicity."
.... Quite! It seems a peculiar way to donate to charity if you ask me!
And on the same day, HSBC appoint Sir Nicholas Stern, author of the government report on climate change, as a 'special advisor'. From TimesOnline.
"His appointment further demonstrates that sustainability issues are at the forefront of HSBC’s agenda.”
OK ...... I think I'm with the general idea so far .....
It [HSBC] said that his role would include "providing direct advice on specific strategic issues in emerging markets where the bank has aspirations to grow its business; advising on the socioeconomic implications of climate change and representing HSBC on these issues; contributing to management development programmes ... and providing advice to major clients of the group who seek to develop sustainable business strategies or other programmes relating to climate change and to economic development issues".
.... A nice, clear, concise remit that means ....... just what, exactly?
ADDENDUM (form Junkk Male):
Mad - Green backs…I mean banks
Or, worse, if not done with genuine intent, long term commitment and tangible follow-through, does it just add to the level of 'green noise' that is already saturating the airwaves, and further contribute to the public tuning out?
My little site gets a press release every few days from some bank or other saying how they have gone carbon neutral, or some supermarket to say they are switching to green energy.
Good on them! But as a consumer, other than meeting a legislative obligation or reducing running costs this impacts me how, exactly?
I have always written back to applaud their moves, but go on to suggest that to get my little online resource to publish their PR it would need to be a tad more tangible in the area of actual savings to planet and said consumer.
In the case of banks, this could take the form of low or at-cost loans to put in insulation. A loss-leader to get custom at a later stage. If they end up saving money on energy, once they go into profit then they may wish to buy into something else that requires finance... hopefully something equally responsible.
Some have moved in that direction, but most, sadly, seem more keen to bank the money and invest more on spun veneer than actual substance.
Which seems quite a waste.
Make fun of the big boys and you end up getting hurt.
Remember the prank pulled by The Yes Men on Big Oil about the spoof product Vivoleum?
Well, it appears that the big boys at Exxon were not amused - it seems that they actually managed (allegedly) to get the ISP to pull The Yes Men site and their email capabilities, for a while at least.
See The Inquirer for details.
Isn't it amazing just how much the school playground pecking order and real world big business are alike? Make too much fun of the big boys and you will usually end up getting hurt.
Well, it appears that the big boys at Exxon were not amused - it seems that they actually managed (allegedly) to get the ISP to pull The Yes Men site and their email capabilities, for a while at least.
See The Inquirer for details.
Isn't it amazing just how much the school playground pecking order and real world big business are alike? Make too much fun of the big boys and you will usually end up getting hurt.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Today's Top Ten .....
... Predictions. (About Climate Change)
As presented in The Times by the eminent Scientist (maybe?), Zoologist (yes), Climatologist (probably not?) and sometime explorer, Tim Flannery.
Nothing to cause too much dissention in them, was my first thought, but the response comments contain some of the most vitriolic, vehement arguments against AGW that I've ever seen.
"His next job will be as a carnival psychic, clairvoyant, or palm reader. He is well rehearsed in making vague predictions that fit any eventuality."
"Anyone who considers Tim Flannery to be a font of scientific knowledge displays their own ignorance. "
"It is my understanding that Tim Flannery has no scientific credentials. His claims have little or no substance. "
"ten of the most wishy washy unproven and heavily contradicted predictions of all time, I'd say."
"The notion that Man is causing global warming is as ludicrous as a flea floating on his back down a river, with an erection, yelling 'Raise the drawbridge!' "
I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I can't help suspecting that these responses are probably very similar to what the first 'scientists' who claimed the earth was round, as opposed to flat, received. (Generally just before they were put to death as heretics!)
Just a little poser for you - is this the same Tim Flannery who was voted Australian of the year and subsequently much abused by some in government over there?
As presented in The Times by the eminent Scientist (maybe?), Zoologist (yes), Climatologist (probably not?) and sometime explorer, Tim Flannery.
Nothing to cause too much dissention in them, was my first thought, but the response comments contain some of the most vitriolic, vehement arguments against AGW that I've ever seen.
"His next job will be as a carnival psychic, clairvoyant, or palm reader. He is well rehearsed in making vague predictions that fit any eventuality."
"Anyone who considers Tim Flannery to be a font of scientific knowledge displays their own ignorance. "
"It is my understanding that Tim Flannery has no scientific credentials. His claims have little or no substance. "
"ten of the most wishy washy unproven and heavily contradicted predictions of all time, I'd say."
"The notion that Man is causing global warming is as ludicrous as a flea floating on his back down a river, with an erection, yelling 'Raise the drawbridge!' "
I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I can't help suspecting that these responses are probably very similar to what the first 'scientists' who claimed the earth was round, as opposed to flat, received. (Generally just before they were put to death as heretics!)
Just a little poser for you - is this the same Tim Flannery who was voted Australian of the year and subsequently much abused by some in government over there?
Let the work of change begin
So ol' Golden's now in charge, and talking about change. The Telegraph.
After ten years of 'fiscal prudence' ensconced in No. 11, during which time ol' Golden has presided over: ...............
- An iniquitous raid on pension funds (including a huge chunk of mine);
- More than 100 increases in various taxes, both direct and indirect;
- The employment of millions of extra 'public servants' (who the rest of us have to pay for, including their gold-plated, index-linked pensions!);
- Council tax that has gone up by more than three times the level of inflation over the decade(with a corresponding reduction in services!);
- The pouring of extra billions into the NHS bottomless hole without any visible improvement;
- The waste of billions on what now appear to be pointless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;
- 'Massaged' inflation figures against which pay deals have been set, so that millions now earn less in real terms than they did ten years ago;
........ I'm afraid that all I have left in my own pocket is ............... change.
What's the betting that the new incumbent of No. 11 finds some novel way of taking that off me too?
BBC - Brown to unveil further changes
BBC - Cabinet faces: Old and new - Hilary Benn for Environment. Let's see.
After ten years of 'fiscal prudence' ensconced in No. 11, during which time ol' Golden has presided over: ...............
- An iniquitous raid on pension funds (including a huge chunk of mine);
- More than 100 increases in various taxes, both direct and indirect;
- The employment of millions of extra 'public servants' (who the rest of us have to pay for, including their gold-plated, index-linked pensions!);
- Council tax that has gone up by more than three times the level of inflation over the decade(with a corresponding reduction in services!);
- The pouring of extra billions into the NHS bottomless hole without any visible improvement;
- The waste of billions on what now appear to be pointless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;
- 'Massaged' inflation figures against which pay deals have been set, so that millions now earn less in real terms than they did ten years ago;
........ I'm afraid that all I have left in my own pocket is ............... change.
What's the betting that the new incumbent of No. 11 finds some novel way of taking that off me too?
BBC - Brown to unveil further changes
BBC - Cabinet faces: Old and new - Hilary Benn for Environment. Let's see.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Think tank says nuclear is not viable option
There are many of us who have always assumed that the nuclear power generation option was the reliable, if not necessarily the most pleasant or desirable, backstop; perhaps giving mankind a few more decades leeway in order to develop more efficient and cost effective renewable energy power generation options.
It looks as if we will have to think again. This report via Reuters suggests that the planet cannot afford it, in terms of cost, logistics, or of security.
" ... if it [nuclear] was to play a significant part in curbing carbon emissions, nuclear power would have to provide one-third of electricity by 2075. That .... meant building four new nuclear plants a month, every month, globally for the next 70 years."
One of the report's conclusions is:- "Unless it can be demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power can make a major contribution to global CO2 mitigation, nuclear power should be taken out of the mix"
Back to the "Arks 'R Us" drawing board then .......
It looks as if we will have to think again. This report via Reuters suggests that the planet cannot afford it, in terms of cost, logistics, or of security.
" ... if it [nuclear] was to play a significant part in curbing carbon emissions, nuclear power would have to provide one-third of electricity by 2075. That .... meant building four new nuclear plants a month, every month, globally for the next 70 years."
One of the report's conclusions is:- "Unless it can be demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power can make a major contribution to global CO2 mitigation, nuclear power should be taken out of the mix"
Back to the "Arks 'R Us" drawing board then .......
Silence is Golden
There are awards in the enviro sector, too (actually, I am pretty sure there are awards for everything, including Funeral Direction), with equally scammy entries, and so I feel justified in sharing: What is your stand on "scams"?
Half a day gone almost, and still no reply. Hmnn.
Maybe it's creative use of white space, with minimal, but eloquent, copy (or, in fact, none).
I know, let's submit it! Does this Forum count as a legit medium? Now, which category....
Oh, rats, I've spoiled it now. Sorry.
Half a day gone almost, and still no reply. Hmnn.
Maybe it's creative use of white space, with minimal, but eloquent, copy (or, in fact, none).
I know, let's submit it! Does this Forum count as a legit medium? Now, which category....
Oh, rats, I've spoiled it now. Sorry.
Floods of neglect?
I'm not even going to comment on this other than to recommend reading the article, and perhaps the first 12 or 15 response comments. Talk about lighting the blue touchpaper!
Taken from The Guardian CIF, this just shows how far apart peoples' views can get when stirred up just a tad.
There's a slightly more measured article on the Channel 4 website that's also worth a viewing.
I'll just wade back across to the office now .................
Taken from The Guardian CIF, this just shows how far apart peoples' views can get when stirred up just a tad.
There's a slightly more measured article on the Channel 4 website that's also worth a viewing.
I'll just wade back across to the office now .................
MyFace and SpaceBook. And YouBo. And BeTube. And...
I'm over 40. So I can't network socially (apparently) online simply by an inability to work these new-fangled computer thingies.
Nor, some yoof commentators would have us believe, should I try.
Well, sadly for them, and for the sake of Junkk.com, I have, and am. Trying, that is.
I have to admit some work for me. Some don't. I see the value of all, to varying degrees, and need to 'work' them to help our message. I don't see me being the best to do this, so am hoping that some of the chats I'm having with educational institutions about work placements here for students will bring a golden opportunity or few. I'm still not clear how one breaks through, as a vast marketplace, even online, still requires something to make your shingle stand out. Either a growing friends list, I guess, or the quick hit of a popular viral.
So I was simply interested, with little to add as the debate seems to have been well covered already, in this: Do Facebook and MySpace suffer from a class divide in the UK?
Then again, for profile maybe I should.... Dudes....er, Word up!
Nor, some yoof commentators would have us believe, should I try.
Well, sadly for them, and for the sake of Junkk.com, I have, and am. Trying, that is.
I have to admit some work for me. Some don't. I see the value of all, to varying degrees, and need to 'work' them to help our message. I don't see me being the best to do this, so am hoping that some of the chats I'm having with educational institutions about work placements here for students will bring a golden opportunity or few. I'm still not clear how one breaks through, as a vast marketplace, even online, still requires something to make your shingle stand out. Either a growing friends list, I guess, or the quick hit of a popular viral.
So I was simply interested, with little to add as the debate seems to have been well covered already, in this: Do Facebook and MySpace suffer from a class divide in the UK?
Then again, for profile maybe I should.... Dudes....er, Word up!
"Any colour, so long as it's green"?
This certainly twitched my eyebrows somewhat. From The Times.
BMW "makes cars that are much more fuel-efficient than the likes of the hybrids built by Japanese manufacturers"
Well, that statement made my eyebrows reach the top of my forehead! If that's true, why the German consumer rush for the Pious et al?
They reckon that its down to a "colossal failure of marketing by the German auto industry".
The consumer survey final point is a real WOW:-
Within ten years ...."more than a quarter of people say that they will not have a car at all and 50 per cent say that they will have some kind of environmentally friendly vehicle: a hybrid, an electric car, a hydrogen-fuelled car or an LPG-powered car."
So its all about consumer perception then. The big question is just how much that perception is driven by marketing? Or, perhaps, how much is marketing driven by consumer perception?
Who's greenwashing who? If the Advert says it's green, then is it always so? EnviROI answers on a postcard please.
Addendum:
And on the same day that this story appears, BMW announce plans to radically reduce the CO2 emissions across their vehicle range. Details on Motoring Reuters. And other additional gizmos to reduce fuel consumption - details at What Car.
Maybe the first salvos in a new marketing effort to overcome their previous 'colossal failure'?
BMW "makes cars that are much more fuel-efficient than the likes of the hybrids built by Japanese manufacturers"
Well, that statement made my eyebrows reach the top of my forehead! If that's true, why the German consumer rush for the Pious et al?
They reckon that its down to a "colossal failure of marketing by the German auto industry".
The consumer survey final point is a real WOW:-
Within ten years ...."more than a quarter of people say that they will not have a car at all and 50 per cent say that they will have some kind of environmentally friendly vehicle: a hybrid, an electric car, a hydrogen-fuelled car or an LPG-powered car."
So its all about consumer perception then. The big question is just how much that perception is driven by marketing? Or, perhaps, how much is marketing driven by consumer perception?
Who's greenwashing who? If the Advert says it's green, then is it always so? EnviROI answers on a postcard please.
Addendum:
And on the same day that this story appears, BMW announce plans to radically reduce the CO2 emissions across their vehicle range. Details on Motoring Reuters. And other additional gizmos to reduce fuel consumption - details at What Car.
Maybe the first salvos in a new marketing effort to overcome their previous 'colossal failure'?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Cause and effect... s
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)