On another thread, in a blogosphere far, far away, I (well as part of a catch-all pejorative grouping) have been accused of trying to get someone fired.
Suffice to say that, by pitching in and asking some questions (as I tend to do when I get interested in the topic), the failure to answer these adequately has put a professional person/entity on the spot. And such is the unfairness of corporate life, there may be a consequence for those who least deserve it to save the skins who deserve it most.
And it's kinda interesting, as the very same outfit who seem to playing the 'poor person' card to deflect criticism (which really only works against them when it's still their scummy systems that make it work out that way) seem to think nothing of making dirty great big, and often woefully ill-informed, statements that can seriously impact the careers and lives of an awful lot of folk. Without so much as a moment's thought.
What inspired me to this train? This: No Job, No Carbon Footprint
Just check this bald statement: Forget environmental taxes - the coming recession will help sweep away a ton of unnecessary consumption quicker than you can say the words “mass redundancies” and “soaring repossessions.”
Note this also please, especially any who may recall what I have banged on about for, well ever: The only areas of the low carbon emissions market that resemble defensive plays are insulation and draught proofing. While these technologies have a payback period of under 4 years they make few appearances in the Power Point presentations Silicon Valley based alternative energy start ups make to the investment community.
What... saving the planet effectively isn't sexy enough????
Actually, this piece is all about the fallout to those who have decided to make a career in green.
I was thinking more about those in other industries; the kind my boys may want to join. Is wanting to be a pilot a smart call now? Or ski instructor? Just killing the air industry will trash, by some estimates, 10% of the the world's economies that depend on tourism. Where do 600million people go to get the alternative job?
No one said it would be a simple deal, I guess.
I'm just glad my little niche is working with the system to help save the planet and avoid waste... plus, with luck, making a decent career out of it.
So... does that mean I should stop asking questions?
No.. I thought not.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
BIG question
'Do politicians have the answers to climate change?'
Well, Newsnight did ask:
It's a bit like saying do they have the answers to 'the weather'. So in this more balance-aware age it probably should be more like 'Could politicians have the means to help mitigate mankind's possible/probable negative influences on climate change?', but I think we know what you mean.
And the answer is, of course.
The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.
Or, if that can be surmounted, have the skill sets in place to communicate anything to people in ways in which they can rationally engage in this day and age.
So... with Clintonesque troofamism, that's an 'affirmative, though enhanced by variable qualifiers to leave the answer to the question sufficiently obscure as to be anything and nothing all at once'....'cos staying in power is really all that matters.
I shall look forward to the results of the poll, but have long expressed concerns by the twofer style (even if it is this time 'focus groups') of getting to anything meaningful in debate.
I am sure for the benefits of ratings, the groups of sceptics and believers will have been selected in advance for the 'richness' of their views.
The trouble with such adherence to entrenched warfare entertainment is that the two extremes get so comfy where they are, surrounded by their mates firing rounds over the horizon and hoping for the odd hit, they forget what they are doing to everything that lies in between.
So usually the only winners in such events are the carrion crows who feed off the carnage they have orchestrated just for the meal of the day. For tomorrow is another headline.
Am I willing to pay more in green taxes? Yes, so long as they are clear, fair, spent where I can see the benefit (not endless quangos and unproductive administrators), have genuine enviROIs, are not just to meet some target, and will make the planet a better place overall for my kids by being imposed.
Will environmental policies influence the way I vote in a general election? Yes, but nothing the current shambolic collection of half-considered knee-jerks, crowd-pleasers and spinmeisters I've witnessed to date have managed to put forward anything to move me beyond 'none of the above' as yet. More's the pity.
Please let it be an interesting, worthwhile session, and not another producer's wet dream that leaves me disappointed again, and Mother Nature with a tear in her eye.
And if by some miracle it does arrive at some consensus and answers without collapsing into another 'tis/'t'isnt 'BigOil funded deniers' vs. 'Hairshirt and ignore the realities of 6B and growing populations', please to the heavens may they be in the form of tangible, worthwhile things that can be DONE, and not just yet more airwave fodder in the form of meaningless WORDS.
I guess I'm looking forward to it:)
ADDENDUM: I hope someone may one day hire me. I was pretty much bang on with all I said above, and have been banging on about for the last few years
[I sent that yesterday in response to the pre-show email. Didn't seem to make it for some reason]
I've now watched it. And I was wrong. At least about the extremes. This was a very polite, reasoned group. Good on 'em.
However...
I was a tad concerned about the research methodology on display. We had 30 'sceptics and deniers' moderated by a guy who says 'I'd rather die of heat than eat less meat'. Sets an objective tone? Not. As was, frankly, his leading the public hands up (which is why we have secret ballots) with incredulous commentary: 'Look... we ONLY have...'.
So I was expecting polarised views. Which is, to an extent, what we were served. But initially from only about half a dozen respondees, over and over. It expanded a bit more when things hit politics, but not by much.
And speaking of politics, why were we served visuals of, and choices between just Brown and Cameron? With, by way of bizarre 'balance', a sole Lib Dem spokesperson in the studio to respond afterwards?
The qualitative trends were interesting, but no more considering the nature of the group.
I was surprised at the high score for HRH, especially from the sceptics, because as examples go his record offers them some pretty good ammo, and certainly better than Mr. Huhne's odd proxy mea culpa for Al Gore.
Post Live Earth and pre Planet Relief (RIP), the BBC must be heaving a sigh... of relief how the cult of celebrity was viewed. (Please note all who just fancy setting up a party in the Green Room with your favourite soap star... er... in the name of awareness).
I was surprised at the consensus on the activist approach. Though it does at least show that guilt and hectoring are no more useful in the persuasion stakes across the board than fines or nanny state lectures.
I was also surprised to see Mr. Branson (if oddly deemed, at least to me, typically representative of the corporate sector) not better received. But then, opening with the notion that alternative fuels are going to solve everything (if showing how a selection of footage or edit can steer things) is not quite the 'reduction' response you'd expect a guy with travel as his business model to come up with. ADDENDUM - Just added a pic of a Virgin ad: fly to New York to shop. About covers it, I think.
And so the polster rounds up with 'Is climate in crisis... we're not sure.' That's quite a claim. based on 30 'we's'. I think most politicians are. I think such as the IPCC are. I think RealClimate is, etc (cue a raft of those who are not...).
So if as he says, 'we' are not, ... why not? And how do 'we' get motivated to act to help in mitigation?
As the topic of the piece it seems clear politicians don't have the answers, possibly, as JP said ' [They] just don't believe you'.
Which is, if others of us also don't, a bit of a problem.
Don't know about a dog's name, but it is its dinner.
Newsnight - Give a dog a bad name
Whatever it's called, please make sure it's kept virtual.
A pet purchase on the day you discuss the consequences of climate change measures may prove... interesting.
As long as it lasts:
VOTING ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Do voters really care about climate change? US pollster Frank Luntz organised a focus group to see
Watch the item
Guardian CiF - What will it take to convince people?
A variation on the above:
GiGo.
To ask if politicians have 'the answer' to climate change a bit like saying do they have the answers to 'the weather'. So in this more balance-aware age it probably should have been more like 'Could politicians have the means to help mitigate mankind's possible/probable negative influences on climate change?', but I think we know what was meant. For me it just became a bit less than effective as the various deaths by a thousand cuts took their toll on the process.
The simple answer is, of course they have.
The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.
Or, if that can be surmounted, have the skill sets in place to communicate anything to people in ways in which they can rationally engage in this day and age.
I looked forward to the results of the poll, but have long expressed concerns by the twofer style (even if it is this time 'focus groups') of getting to anything meaningful in debate.
I am sure for the benefits of ratings, the groups of sceptics and believers were selected in advance for the 'richness' of their views. Having watched it my fears about extremes were misplaced. This was a very polite, reasoned group. Good on 'em.
Because the trouble with the media's attraction to entrenched warfare entertainment is that the two extremes get so comfy where they are, surrounded by their mates firing rounds over the horizon and hoping for the odd hit, they forget what they are doing to everything that lies in between.
So usually the only winners in such events are the carrion crows who feed off the carnage they have orchestrated just for the meal of the day. For tomorrow is another headline.
The two main questions were: 'Am I willing to pay more in green taxes? My ans: - Yes, so long as they are clear, fair, spent where I can see the benefit (not endless quangos and unproductive administrators), have genuine enviROIs, are not just to meet some target, and will make the planet a better place overall for my kids by being imposed.
Then: 'Will environmental policies influence the way I vote in a general election?" Ans: Yes, but nothing the current shambolic collection of half-considered knee-jerks, crowd-pleasers and spinmeisters I've witnessed to date have managed to put forward anything to move me beyond 'none of the above' as yet. More's the pity.
However, I was a tad concerned about the research methodology on display. We had 30 'sceptics and deniers' moderated by a guy who says 'I'd rather die of heat than eat less meat'. Sets an objective tone? Not. As was, frankly, his leading the public hands up (which is why we have secret ballots) with, as you noted, incredulous commentary: 'Look... we ONLY have...'.
So I was expecting polarised views. Which is, to an extent, what we were served. But initially from only about half a dozen respondees, over and over. It expanded a bit more when things hit politics, but not by much.
And speaking of politics, why were we served visuals of, and choices between just Brown (looking forward to his big climate ideas at the conference) and Cameron? With, by way of bizarre 'balance', a sole Lib Dem spokesperson in the studio to respond afterwards?
The qualitative trends were interesting, but no more considering the nature of the group.
I was surprised at the high score for HRH, especially from the sceptics, because as examples go his record offers them some pretty good ammo, and certainly better than Mr. Huhne's odd proxy mea culpa for Al Gore.
Post Live Earth and pre Planet Relief (RIP), the BBC must be heaving a sigh... of relief how the cult of celebrity was viewed. (Please note all who just fancy setting up a party in the Green Room with your favourite soap star... er... in the name of awareness).
I was surprised at the consensus on the activist approach. Though it does at least show that guilt and hectoring are no more useful in the persuasion stakes across the board than fines or nanny state lectures.
I was also surprised to see Mr. Branson (if oddly deemed, at least to me, typically representative of the corporate sector) not better received. But then, opening with the notion that alternative fuels are going to solve everything is not quite the 'reduction' response you'd expect a guy with travel as his Galactic business model to come up with.
And so the polster rounds up with 'Is climate in crisis... we're not sure.' That's quite a claim. based on 30 'we's'. I think most politicians are. I think such as the IPCC are. I think RealClimate is, etc (cue a raft of those who are not...).
So if as he says, 'we' are not, ... why not? And how do 'we' get motivated to act to help in mitigation?
As the topic of the piece it seemed clear politicians don't have the answers, possibly, as Jeremy Paxman said to one:' [They] just don't believe you'.
Personally, I think we need to look at the current crop of messengers because, for all their efforts (and money spent), not many seem to be getting the message.
Guardian - Can politicians solve climate change?
In the spirit of recycling, I'd answer the question as I did when it was posed on Newsnight and referred to on these very pages:
To offer a short answer from this it is, of course.
The only small problems are the democratic electorates with near zero trust that most institutions who would claim to serve them - government, business, media, activist groups - will tell them what's going on without spin, career-advancement, profit or self-interest put first to cloud any rational efforts to address the issue.
And having popped back to look at my blog I find it rather telling irony (and annoying) that Google have plonked an ad on my post... from a Washington Lobbying Firm.
Wind power growing fast
An interesting report on Europe's wind power industry from Business Week.
It seems that the booming wind power industry has already inspired a series of takeovers and acquisitions, as global businesses rush to be able to state that they have renewables as a substantial part of their portfolio.
And of course, there are some interesting financial incentives too .....
"While investment in wind farms helps cut the carbon footprint of European energy companies, there are also significant financial incentives for going green. Under EU and domestic rules, utilities can charge higher rates for renewable electricity, either through government-mandated prices for end customers or so-called renewables obligations, which reward companies for building carbon-friendly power plants."
Let's just hope that the big boys involved don't take their eyes off the enviROI of each new project, and ensure that it is a) in the right location b) actually worth doing and c) not simply a cash making exercise.
It seems that the booming wind power industry has already inspired a series of takeovers and acquisitions, as global businesses rush to be able to state that they have renewables as a substantial part of their portfolio.
And of course, there are some interesting financial incentives too .....
"While investment in wind farms helps cut the carbon footprint of European energy companies, there are also significant financial incentives for going green. Under EU and domestic rules, utilities can charge higher rates for renewable electricity, either through government-mandated prices for end customers or so-called renewables obligations, which reward companies for building carbon-friendly power plants."
Let's just hope that the big boys involved don't take their eyes off the enviROI of each new project, and ensure that it is a) in the right location b) actually worth doing and c) not simply a cash making exercise.
Two for one deal
I'm quite happy to recommend RealClimate as a pretty good place to go if you want some info on the science behind the variosu excitements that hit the headlines. Now they have offered up another source in Nature.
I quite like their style.
I quite like their style.
Or...
Let's use less and reuse what's left.This is the new version of what we'll be getting us down the the bins in our hordes soon.
The campaign created by the Greater London Authority and funded by the London Recycling Fund has enjoyed great success in London. It features the instantly recognisable packaging of well known brands with the brand names substituted by the recycling message ‘Let’s Recycle More’. There are four executions in total, for glass, metal, plastic and paper, to encourage people to recycle more materials, more often.
I can't help but wonder if a bit more going first into the places where such as plastics can go, clearly identified and designed for ease of putting what's appropriate where it will do the most good, might not be better order of business priority-wise.
Then we can get to the creative of motivating people to do it. Though... don't know about you, but that one there hardly makes me feel the urge.
How green are my wheels?
I've just had a press release advising of the launch of WhatGreenCar.com
At first glance this looks a very worthy addition to the the consumer's information grab bag of sites on matters green.
What I do like is the scope - ratings are based on a database of over 16,000 cars, frequency - updated every two weeks, recognition that apples and oranges may make a good fruit salad but a poor car comparison - identifies the Top 10+ green cars in each class and extent - they claim to be the only green car website to give an environmental rating for all new cars based on the life cycle impacts of eight emissions including carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates, plus also assessing the emissions associated with a vehicle’s use and manufacture.
Which, I do note is, 'Unlike the government's new ranking system, which only assesses CO2 exhaust (tailpipe) emissions'. Makes you feel great about the guys in charge, eh?
Speaking of which, I have written to them in hope we may find synergies, whilst pointing out areas we get sniffy about here, such as 'electric' getting morphed into 'non-polluting' without qualification.
But they seem like our kinda folk.
ADDENDUM:
Just had a most pleasant and informative chat with the guy behind it all, Dr. Ben. As knowledgeable as he is measured. I had a few misconceptions put right, for sure. Won't stop me cocking an eyebrow at what I get served up from the green auto industry, but I might well feel the need to bolt on a 'check it out here as well' caveat. There's a little knowledge and there's dangerous misdirections. What he and I did agree on is that it IS very complex but, unfortunately, needs to be made very simple for people to grasp the issues enough to respond rationally.
That, is a very difficult line to walk... er... drive.
Brand Republic - Carbon warnings on car ads
At first glance this looks a very worthy addition to the the consumer's information grab bag of sites on matters green.
What I do like is the scope - ratings are based on a database of over 16,000 cars, frequency - updated every two weeks, recognition that apples and oranges may make a good fruit salad but a poor car comparison - identifies the Top 10+ green cars in each class and extent - they claim to be the only green car website to give an environmental rating for all new cars based on the life cycle impacts of eight emissions including carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates, plus also assessing the emissions associated with a vehicle’s use and manufacture.
Which, I do note is, 'Unlike the government's new ranking system, which only assesses CO2 exhaust (tailpipe) emissions'. Makes you feel great about the guys in charge, eh?
Speaking of which, I have written to them in hope we may find synergies, whilst pointing out areas we get sniffy about here, such as 'electric' getting morphed into 'non-polluting' without qualification.
But they seem like our kinda folk.
ADDENDUM:
Just had a most pleasant and informative chat with the guy behind it all, Dr. Ben. As knowledgeable as he is measured. I had a few misconceptions put right, for sure. Won't stop me cocking an eyebrow at what I get served up from the green auto industry, but I might well feel the need to bolt on a 'check it out here as well' caveat. There's a little knowledge and there's dangerous misdirections. What he and I did agree on is that it IS very complex but, unfortunately, needs to be made very simple for people to grasp the issues enough to respond rationally.
That, is a very difficult line to walk... er... drive.
Brand Republic - Carbon warnings on car ads
Getting IT?
Fancy finding out whether your iPod can come in any colour BUT green? Here you go: The Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics.
Now, how many trendy types in businesses are going to ditch their Bad Apple Macs? Come on, now... be honest.
What we really need now is a logo, too.
But seriously, at least a slap like this may perk 'em up a bit.
Minister calls for greener Government IT
Better late than never. They will publish their initial report in 2008.
Just hope they don't fancy Macs:)
Now, how many trendy types in businesses are going to ditch their Bad Apple Macs? Come on, now... be honest.
What we really need now is a logo, too.
But seriously, at least a slap like this may perk 'em up a bit.
Minister calls for greener Government IT
Better late than never. They will publish their initial report in 2008.
Just hope they don't fancy Macs:)
Or...
... a tad more natural not to fly at all.
But I guess if you really have to go to Australia (thanks Guardian), this is a better way to do it.
There's a hint in the word 'stay', guys
From The Guardian (travel, not environment - different dept.): The green rooms - New green places to stay are popping up all over the world. Here are the latest from five bloggers with their ears to the ground
There's getting there, too, guys, so I'm guessing Cornwall should come top.
There's getting there, too, guys, so I'm guessing Cornwall should come top.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Here's something for our pols to read......
...... a kid's guide to global warming as discussed on video on MSN.
It's probably a forlorn hope, but perhaps we ought to leave a few dozen copies lying around the houses of parliament and one or two of them might begin to understand the problems that our planet appears to be facing.
Oh, if you get the Toby the dog video first, it is quite funny, and short, so be patient.
It's probably a forlorn hope, but perhaps we ought to leave a few dozen copies lying around the houses of parliament and one or two of them might begin to understand the problems that our planet appears to be facing.
Oh, if you get the Toby the dog video first, it is quite funny, and short, so be patient.
Chikungunya may be on its way to the UK
At first sight I thought that this might be some new type of balti that I'd not heard of before, but I was intrigued by why it was associated with climate change.
This report from This Is London tells of the spread of Chikungunya, a horrible crippling muscle disease that has already taken a foothold in southern Europe, and could well reach the UK over the next couple of decades. There were 200 cases in northern Italy this year and one unfortunate soul died as a result. The disease is spread by the Tiger Mosquito, itself a recent and unwanted immigrant to Europe, having been known to be in Italy for only the last 15 years.
Beware, if rising sea levels and food shortages don't get you, Chikungunya just might!
This report from This Is London tells of the spread of Chikungunya, a horrible crippling muscle disease that has already taken a foothold in southern Europe, and could well reach the UK over the next couple of decades. There were 200 cases in northern Italy this year and one unfortunate soul died as a result. The disease is spread by the Tiger Mosquito, itself a recent and unwanted immigrant to Europe, having been known to be in Italy for only the last 15 years.
Beware, if rising sea levels and food shortages don't get you, Chikungunya just might!
Energy Measures Report
The Dept. for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform yesterday published their Energy Measures Report.
This purports to set "out the steps that local authorities can take to:
Here's a chunk from the Planning Module:-
"Sustainability appraisal will be important in shaping appropriate spatial strategies. Sustainability appraisal is required in revising Regional Spatial Strategies and preparing new Local Development Documents (Development Plan Documents and Supplementary Planning Documents). This incorporates requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, and includes consideration of the effects of implementing such plans on certain issues such as air and climatic factors. Guidance has been produced to assist authorities with this".
Which means what, exactly? I really hope they have got guidance on this because its as clear as mud to me!
Having had a quick look it appears to me to be 165 pages of gobbledygook, waffle, hot air and wasted effort. Nothing new there then!
This purports to set "out the steps that local authorities can take to:
- improve energy efficiency;
- increase the levels of microgeneration and low carbon technologies;
- reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and
- reduce the number of households living in fuel poverty."
Here's a chunk from the Planning Module:-
"Sustainability appraisal will be important in shaping appropriate spatial strategies. Sustainability appraisal is required in revising Regional Spatial Strategies and preparing new Local Development Documents (Development Plan Documents and Supplementary Planning Documents). This incorporates requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, and includes consideration of the effects of implementing such plans on certain issues such as air and climatic factors. Guidance has been produced to assist authorities with this".
Which means what, exactly? I really hope they have got guidance on this because its as clear as mud to me!
Having had a quick look it appears to me to be 165 pages of gobbledygook, waffle, hot air and wasted effort. Nothing new there then!
You say cucumbers...
I had to write to the editor of PRW about an editorial (raising an evident conundrum - no obvious search link) headed The Cucumber Question, based, no doubt, on this Naked cucumbers go on trial at the UK's Co-Op
If only in light of this.
If only in light of this.
The bidding on the plane at gate 5 starts at...
It's an interesting debate at least: Green taxes are the only way to stop us flying
I have now read Final Call (with a long overdue review due soon) and can only agree with most of it.
But I have to say that the headline for me needs to change to 'Green taxes are the only way to stop some of us flying'. And whether that will be enough.
And without crippling the entire global tourist industries of the world, along with those that serve them, I can't see how that is going to happen. There are simply too many, with too much, and too much vested in ensuring that 'we' keep on getting from A to B for business or pleasure.
And that of course applies to more potentially equitable 'solutions' such as trading, unless it is on a strictly monitored, per person per year basis, and ignores the fact that a Kalahari bushman or Mekong washerwoman are as entitled to an annual quota as the next jet-setting (because 'we have to for our job') person.
I hate to be negative, but I'm stumped on this one.
I have now read Final Call (with a long overdue review due soon) and can only agree with most of it.
But I have to say that the headline for me needs to change to 'Green taxes are the only way to stop some of us flying'. And whether that will be enough.
And without crippling the entire global tourist industries of the world, along with those that serve them, I can't see how that is going to happen. There are simply too many, with too much, and too much vested in ensuring that 'we' keep on getting from A to B for business or pleasure.
And that of course applies to more potentially equitable 'solutions' such as trading, unless it is on a strictly monitored, per person per year basis, and ignores the fact that a Kalahari bushman or Mekong washerwoman are as entitled to an annual quota as the next jet-setting (because 'we have to for our job') person.
I hate to be negative, but I'm stumped on this one.
The black stuff.
Newsnight addresses CARBON LABELS
I address Newsnight:
Good report. I got some facts (50% of ‘impact’ at agricultural stage alone) and a few important questions were raised.
At the outset Mr. Mason added ‘Do ‘we’ care’? I guess that will become apparent in Mr. Lunz’s poll as mentioned at the end, though I am always dubious on what people say vs. what they think or do in such cases. You tend not to be that honest if it’s about personal efforts to ‘save the planet’, especially if you’ll look bad.
Then we got into the meat (well, one veg) of the slot. I may have missed it but if every stage was covered, it seemed to screech to a halt at disposal. The whole impact of packaging and where it goes didn’t feature*.
So immediately I felt this to be incomplete. What this country, indeed the world, needs, is a grounded set of polices that cover what we consume from when it is taken from the ground to stuck back in it (or pumped skywards). With any leftovers reused, of course (see link via my name:)
Anyway, back to what was discussed. Yes, I may look at this label and say ‘there’s too much carbon’. Actually I don’t think I would say that because I don’t know what is too much for a crisp even compared even to another crisp, much less other foodstuffs. And I doubt I’m having that internal debate as I stand there at each aisle.
There’s also mention that this is the 1st manufacturer of several to get on board with this, I note voluntary, initiative. How many are there? How is all this coordinated? In addition to the health versions that vary depending on brand and retailer, I am aware of a few others either already up or being pitched on carbon footprints and/or food miles already. I have joked, and hope it does not come to haunt me, that soon a pack of Smarties will have a CDR of all it is deemed I should know before and after purchase. And that will have a mini-DVD on it, too, to cover its disposal. I am also afraid to say that, as a middle-aged slob I for one also have no clue whether 181 kcalorie per pack is good or bad for me. They are crisps. They don’t seem like they’d be good. As to 75g of carbon, ditto. Hard to put in context. And not a factor in my purchase efforts.
I note that those who embrace this scheme have ‘2 years to get it right' or lose the rights to this label/logo. Is this the only one? Or one of several? Are they competing? Are they paid for? Who monitors the monitors? Are there any official bodies who can add to the discussion?
I thought Prof. Jackson put it all in much clearer terms. And was also refreshingly pragmatic about the issues. Dairy. Beef. Or by Air: if you care about carbon don’t buy ‘em. Going to happen? A whole new dietary regime for the human race (cue vegetarians, with reason. Of course that is just a time-buying measure as the population increases. And if we are designed as omnivores Mother Nature is playing a cruel last card in her design)? I doubt it. So we get... crisps. And even then I doubt a symbol (of how many?) will do much when the chips are down.
The boss of Walkers has done all this... and doesn’t know if it’s a lot or a little. Well, I’d really wish our government, commercial, activist and even media ‘leaders’ would try and figure such things out a bit quicker before taking all sorts of PR punts to see what sticks. And then prioritize the CO2 reduction which will make the big differences first. As reduction is off the menu, I’d suggest addressing deforestation (remember your show on that?). or, closer to home, insulation for all. But that’s just me.
What also gets me very concerned is when I hear the words ‘government’ and ‘carbon market’ coming together. Money can cure a lot, but it can also sway headings when there’s a ton to be made. So if this is just a measure to get some numbers to apply to targets... oh, boy.... my kids will need to hold their breath.
I can, sort of, accept such things are better than nothing, and possibly are a hint at welcome commitments to reduce. The mention of the pricing policy that lead to such wasteful practices being dropped to the benefit of all was salutatory. But it’s only if they are done in the right ways for the right reasons. I await the TV ads with dread.
So, despite the now inevitable flip BBC climate mea culpa on what ‘just doing your job’ consumed, the question posed at the end was well made, and taken.
I await more.
* http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/
As coordination is key, I have written to DEFRA:
Thank you for this. I hope it will result in positive actions.
I often quote information from such releases, but in this case did so on the Junkk.com blog immediately as it was pertinent and topical to another issue, namely carbon labeling.
You may see merit in coordinating efforts at inter-departmental level to bring all these stands even more closely in sync to maximise the enviROI of the whole consumer supply chain.
I address Newsnight:
Good report. I got some facts (50% of ‘impact’ at agricultural stage alone) and a few important questions were raised.
At the outset Mr. Mason added ‘Do ‘we’ care’? I guess that will become apparent in Mr. Lunz’s poll as mentioned at the end, though I am always dubious on what people say vs. what they think or do in such cases. You tend not to be that honest if it’s about personal efforts to ‘save the planet’, especially if you’ll look bad.
Then we got into the meat (well, one veg) of the slot. I may have missed it but if every stage was covered, it seemed to screech to a halt at disposal. The whole impact of packaging and where it goes didn’t feature*.
So immediately I felt this to be incomplete. What this country, indeed the world, needs, is a grounded set of polices that cover what we consume from when it is taken from the ground to stuck back in it (or pumped skywards). With any leftovers reused, of course (see link via my name:)
Anyway, back to what was discussed. Yes, I may look at this label and say ‘there’s too much carbon’. Actually I don’t think I would say that because I don’t know what is too much for a crisp even compared even to another crisp, much less other foodstuffs. And I doubt I’m having that internal debate as I stand there at each aisle.
There’s also mention that this is the 1st manufacturer of several to get on board with this, I note voluntary, initiative. How many are there? How is all this coordinated? In addition to the health versions that vary depending on brand and retailer, I am aware of a few others either already up or being pitched on carbon footprints and/or food miles already. I have joked, and hope it does not come to haunt me, that soon a pack of Smarties will have a CDR of all it is deemed I should know before and after purchase. And that will have a mini-DVD on it, too, to cover its disposal. I am also afraid to say that, as a middle-aged slob I for one also have no clue whether 181 kcalorie per pack is good or bad for me. They are crisps. They don’t seem like they’d be good. As to 75g of carbon, ditto. Hard to put in context. And not a factor in my purchase efforts.
I note that those who embrace this scheme have ‘2 years to get it right' or lose the rights to this label/logo. Is this the only one? Or one of several? Are they competing? Are they paid for? Who monitors the monitors? Are there any official bodies who can add to the discussion?
I thought Prof. Jackson put it all in much clearer terms. And was also refreshingly pragmatic about the issues. Dairy. Beef. Or by Air: if you care about carbon don’t buy ‘em. Going to happen? A whole new dietary regime for the human race (cue vegetarians, with reason. Of course that is just a time-buying measure as the population increases. And if we are designed as omnivores Mother Nature is playing a cruel last card in her design)? I doubt it. So we get... crisps. And even then I doubt a symbol (of how many?) will do much when the chips are down.
The boss of Walkers has done all this... and doesn’t know if it’s a lot or a little. Well, I’d really wish our government, commercial, activist and even media ‘leaders’ would try and figure such things out a bit quicker before taking all sorts of PR punts to see what sticks. And then prioritize the CO2 reduction which will make the big differences first. As reduction is off the menu, I’d suggest addressing deforestation (remember your show on that?). or, closer to home, insulation for all. But that’s just me.
What also gets me very concerned is when I hear the words ‘government’ and ‘carbon market’ coming together. Money can cure a lot, but it can also sway headings when there’s a ton to be made. So if this is just a measure to get some numbers to apply to targets... oh, boy.... my kids will need to hold their breath.
I can, sort of, accept such things are better than nothing, and possibly are a hint at welcome commitments to reduce. The mention of the pricing policy that lead to such wasteful practices being dropped to the benefit of all was salutatory. But it’s only if they are done in the right ways for the right reasons. I await the TV ads with dread.
So, despite the now inevitable flip BBC climate mea culpa on what ‘just doing your job’ consumed, the question posed at the end was well made, and taken.
I await more.
* http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/
As coordination is key, I have written to DEFRA:
Thank you for this. I hope it will result in positive actions.
I often quote information from such releases, but in this case did so on the Junkk.com blog immediately as it was pertinent and topical to another issue, namely carbon labeling.
You may see merit in coordinating efforts at inter-departmental level to bring all these stands even more closely in sync to maximise the enviROI of the whole consumer supply chain.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Climate change good for some?
For some people a warming planet may bring benefits, for example, this as reported by Reuters, which explains how the melting permafrost of the northern Siberian plains is exposing mammoth and other fossil bones.
"Private collectors and scientific institutes will pay huge sums for the right specimen, and bone-prospectors like Vatagin have turned this region, eight time zones from Moscow, into a paleontological Klondyke."
It sounds like a major money making opportunity for the tiny "Yukagir ethnic group, whose numbers have dwindled to about 800 people". I have to confess that I'd never heard of them before, but bone hunting sounds much more interesting than reindeer herding.
"Private collectors and scientific institutes will pay huge sums for the right specimen, and bone-prospectors like Vatagin have turned this region, eight time zones from Moscow, into a paleontological Klondyke."
It sounds like a major money making opportunity for the tiny "Yukagir ethnic group, whose numbers have dwindled to about 800 people". I have to confess that I'd never heard of them before, but bone hunting sounds much more interesting than reindeer herding.
It isn't just the wheels. It's what turns them.
Inspired by the Lib Dems' 'only carbon-free cars by 2050', and the notion that this would be via electric or hydrogen without being too clear on where these fuels came from, I dug out my Sunday clippings.
Listen up, there’s an electric buzz in the air
Great. I look forward to it all coming to pass.
But please, while the localised pollution advantages are clear, let no one pretend that there are no carbon emissions. The exhaust pipe is just in another place. OK, there's nuclear or renewables, but I don't think we are there yet.
And I'm not sure we will be even by the Lib Dem's 2050 cut-off for fossils in the tank.
It takes energy to get energy in a usable form into a car and to the wheels. You can't cheat nature.
Power cut — the stop-start history of the battery car
And just to be un-PC, let me pop in the lastest JC - The sausage dog with rottweiler bite
While I can't get with the shock-jock ratings digs now he is richer than Croesus and doesn't need the extra, I still believe him to be a good journo. So when he says such as this 'Another thing that’s beyond doubt is that you won’t be driving round in a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius. These use just as much fuel as normal cars...' I take note, while I read this '.. and are designed only to assuage the guilt of people whose opinions come from a man so hopeless he couldn’t even beat George Bush to the White House' and think message vs. messenger. Whilst giggling a tad despite myself.
He's also not a big fan of electric. It's like he knew the other stories were coming out.
Forbes - Least Fuel-Efficient Hybrids - For balance. What worries me is the trend down as buyers find they don't live up to the hype. You wash with bad quality green, you get a stain.
Marketing Week - Car industry in uproar over cigarette-style ad controls - And it's all worked so well with fags. Should be interesting to see how this falls out.
Listen up, there’s an electric buzz in the air
Great. I look forward to it all coming to pass.
But please, while the localised pollution advantages are clear, let no one pretend that there are no carbon emissions. The exhaust pipe is just in another place. OK, there's nuclear or renewables, but I don't think we are there yet.
And I'm not sure we will be even by the Lib Dem's 2050 cut-off for fossils in the tank.
It takes energy to get energy in a usable form into a car and to the wheels. You can't cheat nature.
Power cut — the stop-start history of the battery car
And just to be un-PC, let me pop in the lastest JC - The sausage dog with rottweiler bite
While I can't get with the shock-jock ratings digs now he is richer than Croesus and doesn't need the extra, I still believe him to be a good journo. So when he says such as this 'Another thing that’s beyond doubt is that you won’t be driving round in a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius. These use just as much fuel as normal cars...' I take note, while I read this '.. and are designed only to assuage the guilt of people whose opinions come from a man so hopeless he couldn’t even beat George Bush to the White House' and think message vs. messenger. Whilst giggling a tad despite myself.
He's also not a big fan of electric. It's like he knew the other stories were coming out.
Forbes - Least Fuel-Efficient Hybrids - For balance. What worries me is the trend down as buyers find they don't live up to the hype. You wash with bad quality green, you get a stain.
Marketing Week - Car industry in uproar over cigarette-style ad controls - And it's all worked so well with fags. Should be interesting to see how this falls out.
We now have a choice between a future with a damaged world or a severely damaged world
So why the media silence?
During the early hours of this morning, almost certainly as a consequence of one too many beverages at my local, I was forced to make a visit to the small room. Bladder pressure duly relieved, I then decided, I don't know why, to proceed to the kitchen to make myself a brew, and sat down with the radio on a volume setting almost as low as possible. (Waking she who must be obeyed at that sort of hour could attract a death sentence!)
There was a report about a report that was predicting horrendous consequences for mankind as a direct result of climate change - you know the sort of stuff - millions dying from famine, water, food and oil wars, coastal cities inundated and permanently flooded, increasing typhoons & hurricanes, the extinction of some country states, and, up to [I think they said] 30% of all native species.
Well, I thought to myself, this is absolutely going to be wall to wall in the newspapers and on-line media tomorrow; it was the first time I had heard anything realistic on the Beeb reporting on the potential consequences of climate change, and it was really radical, hair raising stuff.
Yet, apart from this one article in today's Guardian, there is hardly a peep about it, and even this takes a very 'watered down' approach. I can't even find a mention on the BBC website.
"Mitigation has got all the attention but we cannot mitigate out of this problem. We now have a choice between a future with a damaged world or a severely damaged world." OK OK, I agree, that particular bit doesn't sound excessively watered down.
Now the report appears to be the next part (the fourth?) of the next bit of a series from the IPCC. Previous reports have taken up inordinate amounts of media space and coverage.
I'm a curious person, I can't help it. Does anybody out there have any ideas why the deafening media silence on this? Does the media think we can't take the scary scenario stories?
______________
Addendum [Wed 19/9]:
Today has seen at least some reporting of the IPCC's latest report.
Here's the Telegraph's take on the report:
"Stopping global warming in its tracks is no longer feasible because about 1.1ºC of warming is already in the climate system"
"Ten years ago we were all talking about our children and grandchildren. Now when you look at these impacts they will be in the lifetimes of people in [this] room."
And the Indy's interpretation:
"substantial global impacts will occur, such as species extinctions, and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger, flooding."
"the effects of this rise are being felt sooner than anticipated with the poorest countries and the poorest people set to suffer the worst of shifts in rainfall patterns, temperature rises and the viability of agriculture across much of the developing world."
This from The Times:
"Action to limit the impact can only make the difference between moderate and severe damage rather than preventing it altogether."
"Failure to keep rises below 2C, the target of European governments, would leave up to two billion people facing water shortages and condemn at least 10 per cent of animal and plant species to extinction."
The BBC:
They did have something on their news site yesterday - I missed it. And it is very considered and un-emotive (and, I personally think, quite selective) in comparison to what was in the radio report early yesterday.
"And it's evident from the work of the IPCC that even with a maximum of 2C we're not going to avoid some major impacts at the regional level."
"estimate was that the rise could be constrained to between 2C and 3C."
"millions, if not tens of millions, would be at increased risk to their lives from a rise above 2C"
The report actually says millions will probably die as a result of a 2C rise which is now inevitable!
Nothing.
The Express:
Nothing.
The Mirror:
Nothing.
The Financial Times:
Nothing that I can spot yet.
And this is a link to the actual report for anyone with the time to read the entire thing in full.
The clear thing is, the report implies that it is already too late even to mitigate against a 2C temperature rise, and efforts need to be made extremely urgently to prevent any additional temperature rise. It is clearly telling us that millions are probably going to die, and millions more will suffer major food and water deprivation and/or face migration elsewhere to survive.
It's a major wake up call to humanity, yet half of our media seem oblivious to reporting on it!
There was extensive reporting on the publication which came down on the 'climate change IS man made' side. Why so little on the first report that details the impacts that such climate change may have on mankind?
During the early hours of this morning, almost certainly as a consequence of one too many beverages at my local, I was forced to make a visit to the small room. Bladder pressure duly relieved, I then decided, I don't know why, to proceed to the kitchen to make myself a brew, and sat down with the radio on a volume setting almost as low as possible. (Waking she who must be obeyed at that sort of hour could attract a death sentence!)
There was a report about a report that was predicting horrendous consequences for mankind as a direct result of climate change - you know the sort of stuff - millions dying from famine, water, food and oil wars, coastal cities inundated and permanently flooded, increasing typhoons & hurricanes, the extinction of some country states, and, up to [I think they said] 30% of all native species.
Well, I thought to myself, this is absolutely going to be wall to wall in the newspapers and on-line media tomorrow; it was the first time I had heard anything realistic on the Beeb reporting on the potential consequences of climate change, and it was really radical, hair raising stuff.
Yet, apart from this one article in today's Guardian, there is hardly a peep about it, and even this takes a very 'watered down' approach. I can't even find a mention on the BBC website.
"Mitigation has got all the attention but we cannot mitigate out of this problem. We now have a choice between a future with a damaged world or a severely damaged world." OK OK, I agree, that particular bit doesn't sound excessively watered down.
Now the report appears to be the next part (the fourth?) of the next bit of a series from the IPCC. Previous reports have taken up inordinate amounts of media space and coverage.
I'm a curious person, I can't help it. Does anybody out there have any ideas why the deafening media silence on this? Does the media think we can't take the scary scenario stories?
______________
Addendum [Wed 19/9]:
Today has seen at least some reporting of the IPCC's latest report.
Here's the Telegraph's take on the report:
"Stopping global warming in its tracks is no longer feasible because about 1.1ºC of warming is already in the climate system"
"Ten years ago we were all talking about our children and grandchildren. Now when you look at these impacts they will be in the lifetimes of people in [this] room."
And the Indy's interpretation:
"substantial global impacts will occur, such as species extinctions, and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger, flooding."
"the effects of this rise are being felt sooner than anticipated with the poorest countries and the poorest people set to suffer the worst of shifts in rainfall patterns, temperature rises and the viability of agriculture across much of the developing world."
This from The Times:
"Action to limit the impact can only make the difference between moderate and severe damage rather than preventing it altogether."
"Failure to keep rises below 2C, the target of European governments, would leave up to two billion people facing water shortages and condemn at least 10 per cent of animal and plant species to extinction."
The BBC:
They did have something on their news site yesterday - I missed it. And it is very considered and un-emotive (and, I personally think, quite selective) in comparison to what was in the radio report early yesterday.
"And it's evident from the work of the IPCC that even with a maximum of 2C we're not going to avoid some major impacts at the regional level."
"estimate was that the rise could be constrained to between 2C and 3C."
"millions, if not tens of millions, would be at increased risk to their lives from a rise above 2C"
The report actually says millions will probably die as a result of a 2C rise which is now inevitable!
The Daily Mail:
Nothing.
The Express:
Nothing.
The Mirror:
Nothing.
The Financial Times:
Nothing that I can spot yet.
And this is a link to the actual report for anyone with the time to read the entire thing in full.
The clear thing is, the report implies that it is already too late even to mitigate against a 2C temperature rise, and efforts need to be made extremely urgently to prevent any additional temperature rise. It is clearly telling us that millions are probably going to die, and millions more will suffer major food and water deprivation and/or face migration elsewhere to survive.
It's a major wake up call to humanity, yet half of our media seem oblivious to reporting on it!
There was extensive reporting on the publication which came down on the 'climate change IS man made' side. Why so little on the first report that details the impacts that such climate change may have on mankind?
What goes up
This from via Brand Strategy's trends and news for September : DESIGN SPACE
The final frontier is getting closer for Virgin Galactic which unveiled its design for the world’s first spaceport this month. The design is the product of a partnership between global engineering design firm URS Corporation and London architects Foster + Partners and has ‘green’ credentials.
Please, please, could someone explain the association of 'green credentials' in a story about a spaceport to help punt a half dozen zillionaires into low orbit atop a cloud of [what? Last time I heard it wasn't nice stuff] just to have a Kodak moment.
The final frontier is getting closer for Virgin Galactic which unveiled its design for the world’s first spaceport this month. The design is the product of a partnership between global engineering design firm URS Corporation and London architects Foster + Partners and has ‘green’ credentials.
Please, please, could someone explain the association of 'green credentials' in a story about a spaceport to help punt a half dozen zillionaires into low orbit atop a cloud of [what? Last time I heard it wasn't nice stuff] just to have a Kodak moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)