In the great global warming debate, there has long been a succession of 'experts' wheeled out to denounce any statement suggesting the climate change is anthropogenic in any way. One of these experts is Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute, who has appeared in dozens of media reports, live talk shows and debates in the USA.
This from PR-Watch.Org reports on how Michaels has withdrawn as a witness from a high profile Vermont court case rather than be forced to disclose his sources of funding.
Surely he hadn't got something to hide, had he?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Wot 'e sed
Also from the Indy Letters Page, this time from a former Chairperson: More recycling of plastic water bottles
Bearing in mind the Indy and others are trying to ban this method of packaging for this source of fluid, I'll just highlight a few key bits:
Cahal Milmo's article "Bottled drinks companies under pressure to boost recycling rates" (18 September) demonstrated the commitment of soft-drinks and bottled-water companies to deal with the ecological impact of "wasted" plastic bottles, particularly PET (polyethylene terephthalate).
PET plastic is one of the best materials for transporting and retailing soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. Its manufacturing process is ideal for on-site production, with the final bottle being exceptionally strong, flexible and lightweight. It meets the needs of producers and distributors, as well as the consumer, being safe in the home and convenient to carry; and it can be recycled.
What is wrong is that few governments are able to deliver effective recycling systems. The UK's landfill treatment of waste is disastrous. PET has a "long life", which is not good news in a landfill but it can now be recycled to "food grade" standard with more efficiency than glass. Already some UK and European bottled-water brands incorporate recycled PET in their new bottle production. The UK lags behind, largely because our plastics waste is not efficiently "streamed" so there is a shortage of "clean" UK PET waste for recycling. However, now the UK's first PET recycling plant has started operations supply should improve.
Ian Hall
Former Chairman, the Natural Mineral Water Association
Bearing in mind the Indy and others are trying to ban this method of packaging for this source of fluid, I'll just highlight a few key bits:
Cahal Milmo's article "Bottled drinks companies under pressure to boost recycling rates" (18 September) demonstrated the commitment of soft-drinks and bottled-water companies to deal with the ecological impact of "wasted" plastic bottles, particularly PET (polyethylene terephthalate).
PET plastic is one of the best materials for transporting and retailing soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. Its manufacturing process is ideal for on-site production, with the final bottle being exceptionally strong, flexible and lightweight. It meets the needs of producers and distributors, as well as the consumer, being safe in the home and convenient to carry; and it can be recycled.
What is wrong is that few governments are able to deliver effective recycling systems. The UK's landfill treatment of waste is disastrous. PET has a "long life", which is not good news in a landfill but it can now be recycled to "food grade" standard with more efficiency than glass. Already some UK and European bottled-water brands incorporate recycled PET in their new bottle production. The UK lags behind, largely because our plastics waste is not efficiently "streamed" so there is a shortage of "clean" UK PET waste for recycling. However, now the UK's first PET recycling plant has started operations supply should improve.
Ian Hall
Former Chairman, the Natural Mineral Water Association
In the Red
I noticed this in the Indy Letters page: Time is short to avoid a new mass extinction of species
Now I know that I'm easily impressed by titles, so I accord Prof. & Dr. perhaps more than I should, but this makes for interesting reading. I'd never heard of the Red List 'til now.
Read behind the lines of this: if a successor species exists that's able to understand [extinction] at all, as having had a completely new cause: humanity. There'll be an extremely thin layer of rock dividing deeper levels full of diverse fossils from shallower levels with hardly any. The marker layer will contain abundant plastic polymer molecules, radioactive decay products from artificial nuclear fusion, and distinctive concentrations of metals.
I don't know if the author means it this way, but my main take is that are simply too darn many of us. The rest are consequences of that. Nice to see our political leaders have their priorities right, then. Not.
Now I know that I'm easily impressed by titles, so I accord Prof. & Dr. perhaps more than I should, but this makes for interesting reading. I'd never heard of the Red List 'til now.
Read behind the lines of this: if a successor species exists that's able to understand [extinction] at all, as having had a completely new cause: humanity. There'll be an extremely thin layer of rock dividing deeper levels full of diverse fossils from shallower levels with hardly any. The marker layer will contain abundant plastic polymer molecules, radioactive decay products from artificial nuclear fusion, and distinctive concentrations of metals.
I don't know if the author means it this way, but my main take is that are simply too darn many of us. The rest are consequences of that. Nice to see our political leaders have their priorities right, then. Not.
A nice little place in the sun
I clicked on this honestly expecting something else: More shabby delaying tactics
No, not the 'big issue' of will he/won't he?
It starts: All the recent scientific evidence suggests that the process of climate change is occurring at a faster pace than previously predicted.
Meanwhile, our Dear Leader has made, by all accounts 'A good start' (well, ignoring the last 10 years I guess) according to most chattering class media, based on all I can see are a collection of puff-piece 'must do's, must do betters, looking intos and not acceptables - Indy Leader: The Prime Minister's speech was full of stirring conviction but gave little away. Well, D'uh. Maybe saying nothing is getting a bit tired, if still proving effective on some.
Mr. Bush was not the only one indulging in his usual shabby delaying tactics. Or did not turn up to the UN meeting. And while the world's largest economy may refuse to engage honestly with the crisis in an abnegation of leadership of epic and scandalous proportions, it's not the only one.
I really could care less about whether there is an election now or later, and that our leadership and the media that serve them in the Westminster Village can say they care about issues rather than playing silly games, whilst playing the silliest games of all and addressing little but trivia, does make me wonder about the sense of proportion this side of the pond as well.
Green Party - Brown is kicking climate change into the long grass - That will be short, Brown grass at this rate.
Time precludes me from doing much other hunting and gathering (and verifying), so I'll leave it to these guys. I can't say I can argue much.
'...instead of changing the Climate Change Bill , he's chosen to kick it into the long grass by leaving it for the climate change committee when it's eventually established. We don't have time for yet more commissions and reviews, for more political delay.'
"Worse than that, Brown's speech failed to indicate any new, effective policy measures on climate change, which are desperately needed after a decade of inaction and failing policies from his government.'
No, not the 'big issue' of will he/won't he?
It starts: All the recent scientific evidence suggests that the process of climate change is occurring at a faster pace than previously predicted.
Meanwhile, our Dear Leader has made, by all accounts 'A good start' (well, ignoring the last 10 years I guess) according to most chattering class media, based on all I can see are a collection of puff-piece 'must do's, must do betters, looking intos and not acceptables - Indy Leader: The Prime Minister's speech was full of stirring conviction but gave little away. Well, D'uh. Maybe saying nothing is getting a bit tired, if still proving effective on some.
Mr. Bush was not the only one indulging in his usual shabby delaying tactics. Or did not turn up to the UN meeting. And while the world's largest economy may refuse to engage honestly with the crisis in an abnegation of leadership of epic and scandalous proportions, it's not the only one.
I really could care less about whether there is an election now or later, and that our leadership and the media that serve them in the Westminster Village can say they care about issues rather than playing silly games, whilst playing the silliest games of all and addressing little but trivia, does make me wonder about the sense of proportion this side of the pond as well.
Green Party - Brown is kicking climate change into the long grass - That will be short, Brown grass at this rate.
Time precludes me from doing much other hunting and gathering (and verifying), so I'll leave it to these guys. I can't say I can argue much.
'...instead of changing the Climate Change Bill , he's chosen to kick it into the long grass by leaving it for the climate change committee when it's eventually established. We don't have time for yet more commissions and reviews, for more political delay.'
"Worse than that, Brown's speech failed to indicate any new, effective policy measures on climate change, which are desperately needed after a decade of inaction and failing policies from his government.'
Monday, September 24, 2007
Shouldn't do what it says on the tin
Food Flight! The Argument Over Flying Organic Food - Is one of those that in most ways is sad, but in others make you giggle when you shouldn't.
Just how the Soil Association can figure removing an organic label from something airflown defeats me purely as a matter of language. The two are different, and distinct.
But it also shows the knots the various competing nanny-movements are getting themselves into, and dragging us down with them as well.
Especially when I read this: We at TreeHugger would hope that viable alternative jet fuels or solar powered planes or those using zero-emission fuel cell technology would come into play before it comes to that.
Solar powered planes! Today I am having trouble lighting a bulb with a 1sqm array.
Indy - It would be neither fair nor helpful to ban all air freight
I'm not sure '...only one tenth of carbon emissions from food transportation-, and growing is quite the thing to dismiss.
And while I agree that wasting less food would be far more effective I just wonder how? In fact, taking our own family, some of the most vilified packaging initiatives seem to be helping: individual salad or one person portions, as examples.
The rest is fair discussion.
Indy letters - Food air-freighted from Africa
Just how the Soil Association can figure removing an organic label from something airflown defeats me purely as a matter of language. The two are different, and distinct.
But it also shows the knots the various competing nanny-movements are getting themselves into, and dragging us down with them as well.
Especially when I read this: We at TreeHugger would hope that viable alternative jet fuels or solar powered planes or those using zero-emission fuel cell technology would come into play before it comes to that.
Solar powered planes! Today I am having trouble lighting a bulb with a 1sqm array.
Indy - It would be neither fair nor helpful to ban all air freight
I'm not sure '...only one tenth of carbon emissions from food transportation-, and growing is quite the thing to dismiss.
And while I agree that wasting less food would be far more effective I just wonder how? In fact, taking our own family, some of the most vilified packaging initiatives seem to be helping: individual salad or one person portions, as examples.
The rest is fair discussion.
Indy letters - Food air-freighted from Africa
One man's issue of conscience can be another's meal
Having lived in Asia, I have seen first hand how other cultures do their thing. And cope. I have also seen how predominantly Western sensibilities can lob a big ethical spanner in a very complex works: The ‘carbon offset’ child labourers
So when I saw this headline I thought 'Oo, 'eck, here we go again'. 'Better dead so one can feel fine, than fed and spoil the luvvies' bleeding heart wine' was how some viewed the activities of a few liberal groups crashing about the jungle in days of old. It's a tricky one, but to some kids not having a job was worse than having a rotten one.
This piece seems a bit of a stretch, though. Even with my faith in low to no provenance-checked carbon buy-offs so well entrenched.
But I really can't see how 'helping persuade' families to give up labour-saving (and cost sucking) diesel pumps is so awful. I guess it depends on what is meant by 'help persuade'.
Which may be explained (though I doubt soon, here or anywhere) by the Indian experts who have criticised the scheme, saying it forces anyone to do anything. The bit about travellers I'll go with.
But then we get to the Old Ming sells his Jag to prove he's green issue, namely: “It’s not being monitored properly. It’s not reducing emissions. People are selling their diesel pumps to others who are using them.”
That does warrant a look, and frankly outweighs the several awards. And if four reports had identified major benefits, maybe they're all worth looking at in more depth.
So when I saw this headline I thought 'Oo, 'eck, here we go again'. 'Better dead so one can feel fine, than fed and spoil the luvvies' bleeding heart wine' was how some viewed the activities of a few liberal groups crashing about the jungle in days of old. It's a tricky one, but to some kids not having a job was worse than having a rotten one.
This piece seems a bit of a stretch, though. Even with my faith in low to no provenance-checked carbon buy-offs so well entrenched.
But I really can't see how 'helping persuade' families to give up labour-saving (and cost sucking) diesel pumps is so awful. I guess it depends on what is meant by 'help persuade'.
Which may be explained (though I doubt soon, here or anywhere) by the Indian experts who have criticised the scheme, saying it forces anyone to do anything. The bit about travellers I'll go with.
But then we get to the Old Ming sells his Jag to prove he's green issue, namely: “It’s not being monitored properly. It’s not reducing emissions. People are selling their diesel pumps to others who are using them.”
That does warrant a look, and frankly outweighs the several awards. And if four reports had identified major benefits, maybe they're all worth looking at in more depth.
There's what is. There's what might be. And then there's what probably should be.
I have 'do what?!' sensors. And when I read something like this they get put on alert: ‘Fertilising’ oceans with iron may combat climate change
Now I like science along with the next fellow. I also really like things that can help. But when I see something that 'may' work being written up so factually, especially when it's about a short-term mitigation 'solution' of dubious merit that impacts the rest of the planet, I do wonder why it's up there.
It's only later you get to find out that there are some down sides. Mind you, lobbing a ton of car in to get back 100,000 tons of C02 seems like a deal... if it works. Maybe we could set up a ramp at Land's End. Furthest out gets a prize. I know, a trip to the Antarctic!
Meanwhile this, which I saw in passing, seemed more of a worry: Rapeseed biofuel ‘produces more greenhouse gas than oil or petrol’ - then you read the comments. What to believe?
Tinkers those journos, eh?
Now I like science along with the next fellow. I also really like things that can help. But when I see something that 'may' work being written up so factually, especially when it's about a short-term mitigation 'solution' of dubious merit that impacts the rest of the planet, I do wonder why it's up there.
It's only later you get to find out that there are some down sides. Mind you, lobbing a ton of car in to get back 100,000 tons of C02 seems like a deal... if it works. Maybe we could set up a ramp at Land's End. Furthest out gets a prize. I know, a trip to the Antarctic!
Meanwhile this, which I saw in passing, seemed more of a worry: Rapeseed biofuel ‘produces more greenhouse gas than oil or petrol’ - then you read the comments. What to believe?
Tinkers those journos, eh?
The cause now seeking a celeb may be found at...
Speaking of celebs (well some in the big business world seem to be accorded that accolade), I found this an interesting 3rd party view on just what it all achieves: Look at us, doing good
Now, no one can or has arched an eyebrow more and higher than me on who bolts themselves to what with questionable consequences and even worse motivations, but to have a skewering from within ranks was novel.
I even pop in a picture I'd cut out last week while we aware in London with a view to going 'OMG, I must get some of those!'
You have to love this, from one of the best examples: “I do Third World, I’ve been doing Third World since 1994,”
So here's a website for those who want to give in a targeted, intelligent and private way, rather than those who only ever get their chequebook out with their tiara: the Big Give
It will be interesting to see how well it does (I guess by definition we won't see much about from whom), and how much support the parasite industries feel like supporting it either, beyond this piece.
More on Hydrogen
I could not help but note that at the awards on Friday (love saying that) one of the co-winners was Citroen, in a category with a few other big names doing all sorts of eco stuff.
Thing is, I don't think they do much involving anything other than small cars going a long way on existing fuels. Interesting.
Anyways, last week Jeremy Clarkson was waxing lyrical about hydrogen. This week there are some replies. I was surprised, but as one come from a Professor of Engineering, it is worth keeping one's mind open. Especially this:
It takes slightly more energy to produce hydrogen by splitting water (the only means we have of obtaining it), than is produced when the hydrogen is recombined by burning it in an engine.
I wonder if we'll hear more on this. Doubt we'll see Stuart Rose going to Plan C5 too soon, though.
ADDENDUM -
As it is provoking a worthy and fascinating discussion, here's a new one for fun:
BBC - Hydrogen powered bus is showcased
'Depending on how it is produced, hydrogen fuel is a clean, green source of power that can be easily stored.
The bus is powered by a cell which uses hydrogen as it fuel, cutting out the need for non-environmentally friendly fuels, the university said.'
... depending on how it is produced, then? Which means it is...?
This is all valuable research, to be sure, but the fudge on its current eco-friendliness is a thorn in my view that mars the narrative.
Thing is, I don't think they do much involving anything other than small cars going a long way on existing fuels. Interesting.
Anyways, last week Jeremy Clarkson was waxing lyrical about hydrogen. This week there are some replies. I was surprised, but as one come from a Professor of Engineering, it is worth keeping one's mind open. Especially this:
It takes slightly more energy to produce hydrogen by splitting water (the only means we have of obtaining it), than is produced when the hydrogen is recombined by burning it in an engine.
I wonder if we'll hear more on this. Doubt we'll see Stuart Rose going to Plan C5 too soon, though.
ADDENDUM -
As it is provoking a worthy and fascinating discussion, here's a new one for fun:
BBC - Hydrogen powered bus is showcased
'Depending on how it is produced, hydrogen fuel is a clean, green source of power that can be easily stored.
The bus is powered by a cell which uses hydrogen as it fuel, cutting out the need for non-environmentally friendly fuels, the university said.'
... depending on how it is produced, then? Which means it is...?
This is all valuable research, to be sure, but the fudge on its current eco-friendliness is a thorn in my view that mars the narrative.
There are rules, and then there are rules made to break your faith in the system
As I think Transport for London were a co-sponsor of the Awards, Friday was not the night to have a go at them or anything, but I was not best impressed to find that, having arrived (yes, we went by car - try getting back to Ross at night any other way) at 5.30pm and inadvertently passing into the C-zone (and the actual signage being VERY unclear to those not from London who may not be aware of the 'rules'), by obviously having to wait 'ti the next day to pay our fee (the House of Lords not being a major retailer of such things) we'd been stung another £2 (on top of £8) for the privilege. Why? There is no reason I can see other than sheer, naked, greed.
Also, as we are on the not so small matter of legislation and the public it serves, on the news I heard that 'forgetting' who was driving if snapped by a robot is now going to be made an offence. My wife and I swapped several times en route home to stay fresh. We have no clue who was in which seat when. yet we are guilty until we can prove... er, no... we are just guilty. This is madness.
And how many pols in our 'Houses of' are prone to having no recollection of events by way of getting out of them. That is sheer hypocrisy.
Also, as we are on the not so small matter of legislation and the public it serves, on the news I heard that 'forgetting' who was driving if snapped by a robot is now going to be made an offence. My wife and I swapped several times en route home to stay fresh. We have no clue who was in which seat when. yet we are guilty until we can prove... er, no... we are just guilty. This is madness.
And how many pols in our 'Houses of' are prone to having no recollection of events by way of getting out of them. That is sheer hypocrisy.
DEAR LEADER
Putting words in Gordon's mouth - what he does with them is another matter.
Labour 07: A range of opinion-formers and campaigners says what they'd like to see the prime minister address in his conference speech. And you?
Dear Mr. Brown,
As you've had a wee while to figure some stuff out, and do at last seem moved to tackle them, I'd be keen to hear what's the plan with what some (including your predecessor) seem (well, TB has gone off on other fun and games, I guess) to think is a pretty major issue, namely climate change?
Thing is, this neat little collection of 'opinion-formers' (Really? By whose measure?) and campaigners (I guess it depends on who gets asked) above seems to have avoided even mentioning it, as have all bar one (so far) posters.
Is it therefore as a irrelevant in the great scheme of things as this deafening silence would seem to indicate, or simply not too convenient to think about (much less address right now, well, until later) in the scramble for power?
The current lack of motivation on the part of the general public becomes ever more easy to explain in light of such woeful fudging.
My understanding is that doing nothing was/is/won't be an option, and while it may seem a nifty way to hit the high points in the polls by having no stance on anything, at least for now, I'd really appreciate some leadership. Playing coy with 'your' next election is a game to play; playing fast and loose with my kids' futures isn't.
I really am intrigued as to how what some are saying is the greatest threat 'we' face isn't an agenda item. Who knows what I don't?
BBC - World leaders at climate summit - And they would be...?
BBC - Brown refuses to end poll fever -And who has this sickness? Not I!
BBC - Decision not taken? - Ahhhhh, so.
Guardian - Brown urges US to accept carbon limits - Ahhhh, an 'urge'. That'll do it. Meanwhile, if we can get back home a mo'...
If that letter is his most significant statement to date on the matter, one can only imagine what would happened if he was too focused elsewhere to be much bothered.
I am grateful to Adam of CNET (more on them soon) for the link.
Labour 07: A range of opinion-formers and campaigners says what they'd like to see the prime minister address in his conference speech. And you?
Dear Mr. Brown,
As you've had a wee while to figure some stuff out, and do at last seem moved to tackle them, I'd be keen to hear what's the plan with what some (including your predecessor) seem (well, TB has gone off on other fun and games, I guess) to think is a pretty major issue, namely climate change?
Thing is, this neat little collection of 'opinion-formers' (Really? By whose measure?) and campaigners (I guess it depends on who gets asked) above seems to have avoided even mentioning it, as have all bar one (so far) posters.
Is it therefore as a irrelevant in the great scheme of things as this deafening silence would seem to indicate, or simply not too convenient to think about (much less address right now, well, until later) in the scramble for power?
The current lack of motivation on the part of the general public becomes ever more easy to explain in light of such woeful fudging.
My understanding is that doing nothing was/is/won't be an option, and while it may seem a nifty way to hit the high points in the polls by having no stance on anything, at least for now, I'd really appreciate some leadership. Playing coy with 'your' next election is a game to play; playing fast and loose with my kids' futures isn't.
I really am intrigued as to how what some are saying is the greatest threat 'we' face isn't an agenda item. Who knows what I don't?
BBC - World leaders at climate summit - And they would be...?
BBC - Brown refuses to end poll fever -And who has this sickness? Not I!
BBC - Decision not taken? - Ahhhhh, so.
Guardian - Brown urges US to accept carbon limits - Ahhhh, an 'urge'. That'll do it. Meanwhile, if we can get back home a mo'...
If that letter is his most significant statement to date on the matter, one can only imagine what would happened if he was too focused elsewhere to be much bothered.
I am grateful to Adam of CNET (more on them soon) for the link.
The equations of living
Some of these new equations of living are very funny, some quite quirky. Check them out on the mini slide show on the ClimateChangeAction blog. I particularly like the one for Greenwash.
Greenwash = Words divided by Deeds
Greenwash = Words divided by Deeds
Riding the waves
The UK government has granted planning permission for what is being billed as the world's first large scale wave farm. As reported by EDIE, the wave farm, 15 miles off the coast, should generate some 20MegaWatts, thereby providing up to 3% of Cornwall's domestic electricity needs once operational in 2009.
If this works well, perhaps, in another couple of decades or so, we'll see these all around the UK's coast, probably alongside a forest of offshore wind farms.
If this works well, perhaps, in another couple of decades or so, we'll see these all around the UK's coast, probably alongside a forest of offshore wind farms.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
RESULT!
Well... veni, munchie, didn't we... do well!
I have to say one of the more glittering occasions I've have ever attended.
Prior to the awards we had a private tour of the Houses of Lords and Commons, and very interesting it was too! I stood right at the point that our Leader stands (sitting not allowed as the leather can't take too much, and in any case who knows what lurks underneath), and forgot to have my picture taken. Ah well.
That lack of photo archiving is made up for below, and when the 'official' shots arrive we'll blow that trumpet, too. Along with fellow winners such as Citroen and Tesco, so we were in good company.
All, in all, a worthy night out. Thank you EAST Journal.
I have to say one of the more glittering occasions I've have ever attended.
Prior to the awards we had a private tour of the Houses of Lords and Commons, and very interesting it was too! I stood right at the point that our Leader stands (sitting not allowed as the leather can't take too much, and in any case who knows what lurks underneath), and forgot to have my picture taken. Ah well.
That lack of photo archiving is made up for below, and when the 'official' shots arrive we'll blow that trumpet, too. Along with fellow winners such as Citroen and Tesco, so we were in good company.
All, in all, a worthy night out. Thank you EAST Journal.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Debate in this country sucks. No it doesn't.. yes it...
Readers will have no doubt gathered by now I'm a gobby sod. Not just here, but elsewhere (usually cc'd here too in case I get 'moderated').
By virtue of birth, parenting, education, travel, nature and nurture, I have ended up with views. And I often like to share them.
I'd like to think the way I do it is as inclusive as possible, and do try to think of myself as relatively 'centric' in most things, though I do stray in various directions (or back the other way if I change my mind... it is allowed). And as these can vary an awful lot between various topics/issues, I really... REALLY get irritated when some clown tries to find a neat pigeonhole that somehow manages in their minds to encompass all that they think I feel about health, defence, religion, climate change, etc.
And that seems to be happening a lot in the blogosphere, with a worrying trend to even more tackle the player than address the ball. Not that this is a new phenomenon, as our able pols are showing at the moment. More Chis Moyles than Winston Churchill in the Westminster Village and studios that they dash to.
The Internet has indeed revolutionised the exchange and discussion of information. No more are we served up what we are thought to want, or need, by a select group who were no more put in charge of such things than we ourselves have been. They just ended up in a relatively better position to broadcast their thoughts to us all. Many, sadly, mistook the position they were in and the entity that made them known as being less important than they were/are themselves. I know of few who would get where they are without '...from the xx' in the intro.
So we come to matters of trust. And an awful lot of the more traditional organs of education and information have been found wanting in this regard. Call it bias, lack of balance or whatever, the fact is that by selective editing even accurate facts can be presented in the best way to support whatever the creator wishes. For instance, I just watched an edition of the BBC's navel gazing dawn slot Newswatch and was surprised to see the Planet Relief issue dredged up again. Just two viewers, selected lord alone how, and the thing was debated in terms of whether or not climate change is happening or not. To the best of my knowledge that was never the issue (certainly not for me); as it was certainly initially 'sold' as another celeb-style hooly in the vein of Live Earth. The way this came across was the muzzling of an educational documentary. What was all that about?
This is where the Internet is great. Because pretty quick you can get access to some stuff that shows that there is a whole other story out there. And, in some cases, makes a story of why the first story ended up the way it did. It's a fact of modern life. I don't like that it is happening, but I know it is and so I adapt and move on.
My mistake has been to engage too closely on occasion. There really is no point (save for some places where risking a contact URL can be worth it to gain converts to the cause visiting and signing up if they like what one has to say) pitching in.
The views are too entrenched and the people espousing them too self-absorbed to even contemplate allowing another point in. I have mentioned this need for tribal belonging before. Hence you get those on, say, BBC is Biased who think all who doubt them are left-wingers, and those on say, Guardian CiF who think those who would disagree with them are right wingers. And usually there is a hefty dollop of pejorative speculation without any hint of substantiation thrown in to muddy the soup some more. I have actually seen on one such the words 'we have spoken', when referring to a collection of less than two hundred (and ignoring the fact that not all of them did actually agree), when calling for the censure of a publication's columnist. The logic seemed to be that he had drifted from the club line, and hence needed to be ejected.
This is why I fear slightly for debate. Because not only do all these factions believe they are 'the ones', there are those (who should know better but with little time to delve more as they should) who are letting this minute little bunch hold even the modicum of sway that they don't deserve. This is no electorate. These are all, by definition, groups of people, admittedly passionate and often clever, who can and will do all they can to see their views prevail.
So even if I see 99 out of a 100 say black to another's white, I will first try and see how they come to this view, and support it objectively, before according it any value. And, in any case, from this very room I can crank up at least a dozen variations of 'me' to say what I think, disagree with it, support it and back again, all with different IP addresses if I wish. So numbers mean nothing. Which is why internet petitions are plain daft.
Take this as a typical comment: 'You types do not get it. The British public regard you ...' on Newsnight, which gets more posts on the naming of a pet than climate change, and can when passions stir manage all of 200 tops (for a national broadcaster), usually from the same suspects (inc. yours truly). Hardly the 'British public', eh?
I will be cutting right back on the pitching in to these troll fests from now on, but will still maintain a watching brief as they can throw up useful leads.
But... accord any of them, even those moderated by major media, more than passing respect as reliable sources of subjective information or reasonably objective opinion...? Or even as anything like a reasonable barometer of how folk really think...?
You are 'aving a larf.
By virtue of birth, parenting, education, travel, nature and nurture, I have ended up with views. And I often like to share them.
I'd like to think the way I do it is as inclusive as possible, and do try to think of myself as relatively 'centric' in most things, though I do stray in various directions (or back the other way if I change my mind... it is allowed). And as these can vary an awful lot between various topics/issues, I really... REALLY get irritated when some clown tries to find a neat pigeonhole that somehow manages in their minds to encompass all that they think I feel about health, defence, religion, climate change, etc.
And that seems to be happening a lot in the blogosphere, with a worrying trend to even more tackle the player than address the ball. Not that this is a new phenomenon, as our able pols are showing at the moment. More Chis Moyles than Winston Churchill in the Westminster Village and studios that they dash to.
The Internet has indeed revolutionised the exchange and discussion of information. No more are we served up what we are thought to want, or need, by a select group who were no more put in charge of such things than we ourselves have been. They just ended up in a relatively better position to broadcast their thoughts to us all. Many, sadly, mistook the position they were in and the entity that made them known as being less important than they were/are themselves. I know of few who would get where they are without '...from the xx' in the intro.
So we come to matters of trust. And an awful lot of the more traditional organs of education and information have been found wanting in this regard. Call it bias, lack of balance or whatever, the fact is that by selective editing even accurate facts can be presented in the best way to support whatever the creator wishes. For instance, I just watched an edition of the BBC's navel gazing dawn slot Newswatch and was surprised to see the Planet Relief issue dredged up again. Just two viewers, selected lord alone how, and the thing was debated in terms of whether or not climate change is happening or not. To the best of my knowledge that was never the issue (certainly not for me); as it was certainly initially 'sold' as another celeb-style hooly in the vein of Live Earth. The way this came across was the muzzling of an educational documentary. What was all that about?
This is where the Internet is great. Because pretty quick you can get access to some stuff that shows that there is a whole other story out there. And, in some cases, makes a story of why the first story ended up the way it did. It's a fact of modern life. I don't like that it is happening, but I know it is and so I adapt and move on.
My mistake has been to engage too closely on occasion. There really is no point (save for some places where risking a contact URL can be worth it to gain converts to the cause visiting and signing up if they like what one has to say) pitching in.
The views are too entrenched and the people espousing them too self-absorbed to even contemplate allowing another point in. I have mentioned this need for tribal belonging before. Hence you get those on, say, BBC is Biased who think all who doubt them are left-wingers, and those on say, Guardian CiF who think those who would disagree with them are right wingers. And usually there is a hefty dollop of pejorative speculation without any hint of substantiation thrown in to muddy the soup some more. I have actually seen on one such the words 'we have spoken', when referring to a collection of less than two hundred (and ignoring the fact that not all of them did actually agree), when calling for the censure of a publication's columnist. The logic seemed to be that he had drifted from the club line, and hence needed to be ejected.
This is why I fear slightly for debate. Because not only do all these factions believe they are 'the ones', there are those (who should know better but with little time to delve more as they should) who are letting this minute little bunch hold even the modicum of sway that they don't deserve. This is no electorate. These are all, by definition, groups of people, admittedly passionate and often clever, who can and will do all they can to see their views prevail.
So even if I see 99 out of a 100 say black to another's white, I will first try and see how they come to this view, and support it objectively, before according it any value. And, in any case, from this very room I can crank up at least a dozen variations of 'me' to say what I think, disagree with it, support it and back again, all with different IP addresses if I wish. So numbers mean nothing. Which is why internet petitions are plain daft.
Take this as a typical comment: 'You types do not get it. The British public regard you ...' on Newsnight, which gets more posts on the naming of a pet than climate change, and can when passions stir manage all of 200 tops (for a national broadcaster), usually from the same suspects (inc. yours truly). Hardly the 'British public', eh?
I will be cutting right back on the pitching in to these troll fests from now on, but will still maintain a watching brief as they can throw up useful leads.
But... accord any of them, even those moderated by major media, more than passing respect as reliable sources of subjective information or reasonably objective opinion...? Or even as anything like a reasonable barometer of how folk really think...?
You are 'aving a larf.
Arctic Ice Watch - Update
Following on from our last report, the rapid disappearance of the Arctic's ice cover finally seems to have ceased. The NSIDC reports that, based on the 5 day moving average that they use, the minimum ice coverage occured about the 16th September. (Note that they do point out that at this time of year it is still possible for some additional ice loss to occur.)
On this date the ice extent coverage was 4.13 million square kilometers (1.59 million square miles) which appears to be the 2007 minimum. The five-day 2005 minimum (the previous record low) was 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) in 2005, which has been shattered by 1.19 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles). That's an area of ice less than before that is roughly the size of Texas and California combined, or nearly five United Kingdoms.
On top of that, the fabled North West passage has been largely navigable for just over 5 weeks, something that has not occurred in recorded human history. Even the North-East passage has only been blocked by a few kilometres of ice this year.
Whichever side of the climate change debate you fall on (man-made, natural or man enhanced natural), the evidence that the planet is warming significantly and rapidly is now almost unarguable.
What on earth will the next few decades bring about for the Arctic? The Costa Del Greenland perhaps?
'Talking, talking, talking, happy talk...'
'...talk about things we'd like to do!' Green language Alison Benjamin on how green issues are changing our language
What green terms do you think should be added to the dictionary?
I was going to say I don't really care so long as they get beyond terms pretty quick smart, and translate into action.
But as you've asked, I give you: enviROI.
It's the Return on Investment of any initiative or action to the planet's well-being. If CO2 (and a few other greenhouses gasses) is the accepted measure of what's doing us in, then all I ask for the sake of my kids' futures is that whatever it takes to get something out there it is mitigated and then exceeded by the net benefits of existing vs. getting made, operating and disposed of at the end.
It need not have a great financial ROI, though this must be viewed in comparison to other initiatives which could be funded that have better enviROIs.
Now, would any politician, activist, quango board member, head of industry, media commentator or other talking head with a career to forge, cause to promote, target to meet, subsidy to exploit or rating to drive up please explain to me in ways I can understand and act upon, which of what's on offer will deliver such a thing in a timeframe that won't talk us past the tipping point I hear so much about?
I'm gunning first simply for respites such as preventing deforestation internationally (rather than paying a bunch of sharp suits to plant lots more new ones as a salve, which means, as you infer, that SOD is OFF) and supporting any waste reduction systems such as insulation programmes nationally. Plus a few more I can think of that are here, now and do stuff that works with clear benefit to person and planet in the form of viable reduction and reuse. With little by way of hangers-on that add nothing to the positive, proactive process of just getting doing their jobs.
What green terms do you think should be added to the dictionary?
I was going to say I don't really care so long as they get beyond terms pretty quick smart, and translate into action.
But as you've asked, I give you: enviROI.
It's the Return on Investment of any initiative or action to the planet's well-being. If CO2 (and a few other greenhouses gasses) is the accepted measure of what's doing us in, then all I ask for the sake of my kids' futures is that whatever it takes to get something out there it is mitigated and then exceeded by the net benefits of existing vs. getting made, operating and disposed of at the end.
It need not have a great financial ROI, though this must be viewed in comparison to other initiatives which could be funded that have better enviROIs.
Now, would any politician, activist, quango board member, head of industry, media commentator or other talking head with a career to forge, cause to promote, target to meet, subsidy to exploit or rating to drive up please explain to me in ways I can understand and act upon, which of what's on offer will deliver such a thing in a timeframe that won't talk us past the tipping point I hear so much about?
I'm gunning first simply for respites such as preventing deforestation internationally (rather than paying a bunch of sharp suits to plant lots more new ones as a salve, which means, as you infer, that SOD is OFF) and supporting any waste reduction systems such as insulation programmes nationally. Plus a few more I can think of that are here, now and do stuff that works with clear benefit to person and planet in the form of viable reduction and reuse. With little by way of hangers-on that add nothing to the positive, proactive process of just getting doing their jobs.
Feeling in safe hands?
In light of my previous post, to Newsnight, following their insights into the state of political response to climate change and the reaction of the electorate to it.
This has just popped in from the Green Party (well, a spokesperson, I guess): GREEN TORIES? NOT LIKELY!
Siân Berry takes on Zac Goldsmith:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709200057
To see Zac Goldsmith's reply please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709190003
To see Siân's orginal post please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709170001
Q... blooming E... flipping D
This has just popped in from the Green Party (well, a spokesperson, I guess): GREEN TORIES? NOT LIKELY!
Siân Berry takes on Zac Goldsmith:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709200057
To see Zac Goldsmith's reply please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709190003
To see Siân's orginal post please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709170001
Q... blooming E... flipping D
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Consequences
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)