It was the title that caught my eye: Blears challenges councils to match Government on Devolution
Seemed quite combative for those tasked to work together to serve us.
But it is worth sharing as there are some green bits (well, one) in there:
Communities Secretary Hazel Blears today unveiled a radical re-engineering of the relationship between the state and local councils and communities bringing Government much closer to local people.
The full-set of Whitehall performance indicators that will come into force for local councils next April are published today. They show the Government has slashed the number from 1200 to just 198 giving councils major new freedoms to direct their focus and resources at the issues local people care about from tackling anti-social behaviour, cracking down on gun culture, stepping up work to improve local education standards and tackling climate change.
In a speech to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (Solace) in Cardiff, Ms Blears also delivered a direct challenge to local government - who have long called for greater freedom - saying they must use this "once in a generation" opportunity to deliver better services and make a positive difference in their local community.
Ms Blears also set out other major new freedoms for local Government including:
* Up to £5billion to be transferred out of ring-fenced budgets - this will allow local councils and communities to shift resources to local priorities such as tackling crime or worklessness.
* Business Rates Supplements - a powerful new tool enabling local authorities to work with business to invest in projects that could not otherwise proceed to promote the long-term economic growth and productivity of their areas.
* From next April there will be no new mandatory targets on councils (apart from the 17 statutory targets for educational attainment and early years). The Government will not prescribe any of the targets in Local Area Agreements (LAAs), but will aim to agree them with local partners as part of the negotiation, and councils will be required to involve local communities in the process.
The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partners: Single Set of National Indicators is published today
What do you reckon?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Going to waste
Sorry, I meant going into waste: Defra to get £4 billion a year by 2010
Preventing it, that is. Not meeting targets, hiring countless measuring monkeys or anything.
Because... all together now... 'we need to act now if we are to avoid dangerous climate change'.
My enviROI+ antennae are twitching!
Preventing it, that is. Not meeting targets, hiring countless measuring monkeys or anything.
Because... all together now... 'we need to act now if we are to avoid dangerous climate change'.
My enviROI+ antennae are twitching!
As Oedipus would say, 'Everything is relative'
This from (DEFRA) - Tougher targets for packaging waste
Always a tad dubious about the suffix 'er', as that sets you off on the trail of 'in comparison to what'? But it's the right direction , I guess.
I'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, 'would be' might infer in the great can/could/might scheme of PR, though. Enjoy:
More packaging would be recovered and recycled under proposals set out in a consultation published by Environment Minister Joan Ruddock today.
New business targets would come into effect in January 2008 to help the UK meet its obligations under the EC Packaging Directive. Higher targets are proposed for 2009 and beyond to increase the level of recovery and recycling.
After 2008 it is at the discretion of Member States to set targets beyond the minimum required by the Packaging Directive and the UK has made clear that its aim is to continue to improve performance on packaging waste because of the environmental benefits this brings.
Joan Ruddock said:
"Since the introduction of the UK Packaging Regulations packaging recycling has improved significantly, from just 27% in 1997 to over 57% last year. But there is much more to be done. Further cuts in packaging waste are an essential part of reducing our reliance on landfill and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"The higher targets can also act as a driver to help design out unnecessary packaging in future."
The EU minimum recycling and recovery targets are 55% and 60% respectively. The Government's preferred option would increase the recycling target to 55.7% in 2008, 56.8% in 2009 and 58.4% in 2010, and the recovery target to 60.6%, 61.8% and 63.4% in the same years.
Recycling packaging reduces CO2 emissions because less energy is used to extract and process recycled materials than virgin ones, particularly materials like aluminium.
As well as the environmental benefits of cutting CO2 emissions and reducing reliance on landfill, the proposals have cost benefits of around £1.1m - the difference between the estimated costs to producers of £7.7m, and carbon savings estimated at £8.8m.
The proposals are consistent with the Government's 'polluter pays' principal, and the aims of the new Waste Strategy for England which was published in May.
The consultation is published here
The target system applies to businesses that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year and with an annual turnover of over £2m. It encourages producers to reduce their packaging levels because this reduces the cost to them of recycling and recovering their waste.
Proposed targets (weeeee!) of the Government's preferred option:
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Paper 67.5% 68.5% 69.5% 70.5% 71.5%
Glass 78.5% 80.0% 81.0% 82% 84%
Aluminium 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 41% 42%
Steel 68.0% 68.5% 69.0% 70% 71%
Plastic 26.0% 27.0% 29.0% 31% 33%
Wood 20.5% 21.0% 22.0% 23% 24%
Recovery 69.0% 70.0% 71.0% 73% 75%
Always a tad dubious about the suffix 'er', as that sets you off on the trail of 'in comparison to what'? But it's the right direction , I guess.
I'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, 'would be' might infer in the great can/could/might scheme of PR, though. Enjoy:
More packaging would be recovered and recycled under proposals set out in a consultation published by Environment Minister Joan Ruddock today.
New business targets would come into effect in January 2008 to help the UK meet its obligations under the EC Packaging Directive. Higher targets are proposed for 2009 and beyond to increase the level of recovery and recycling.
After 2008 it is at the discretion of Member States to set targets beyond the minimum required by the Packaging Directive and the UK has made clear that its aim is to continue to improve performance on packaging waste because of the environmental benefits this brings.
Joan Ruddock said:
"Since the introduction of the UK Packaging Regulations packaging recycling has improved significantly, from just 27% in 1997 to over 57% last year. But there is much more to be done. Further cuts in packaging waste are an essential part of reducing our reliance on landfill and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"The higher targets can also act as a driver to help design out unnecessary packaging in future."
The EU minimum recycling and recovery targets are 55% and 60% respectively. The Government's preferred option would increase the recycling target to 55.7% in 2008, 56.8% in 2009 and 58.4% in 2010, and the recovery target to 60.6%, 61.8% and 63.4% in the same years.
Recycling packaging reduces CO2 emissions because less energy is used to extract and process recycled materials than virgin ones, particularly materials like aluminium.
As well as the environmental benefits of cutting CO2 emissions and reducing reliance on landfill, the proposals have cost benefits of around £1.1m - the difference between the estimated costs to producers of £7.7m, and carbon savings estimated at £8.8m.
The proposals are consistent with the Government's 'polluter pays' principal, and the aims of the new Waste Strategy for England which was published in May.
The consultation is published here
The target system applies to businesses that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year and with an annual turnover of over £2m. It encourages producers to reduce their packaging levels because this reduces the cost to them of recycling and recovering their waste.
Proposed targets (weeeee!) of the Government's preferred option:
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Paper 67.5% 68.5% 69.5% 70.5% 71.5%
Glass 78.5% 80.0% 81.0% 82% 84%
Aluminium 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 41% 42%
Steel 68.0% 68.5% 69.0% 70% 71%
Plastic 26.0% 27.0% 29.0% 31% 33%
Wood 20.5% 21.0% 22.0% 23% 24%
Recovery 69.0% 70.0% 71.0% 73% 75%
Laugh, I could have...
Fox's Glacier Mints 'carbon footprint'
Nice to see the funny side being aired. I'm sure Al Gore* would approve!
But the way things might be headed, Fox might just soon be able to walk up* there by pushing the sand all around into a ramp:)
*Peppy having drowned on his 60 mile swim.
Nice to see the funny side being aired. I'm sure Al Gore* would approve!
But the way things might be headed, Fox might just soon be able to walk up* there by pushing the sand all around into a ramp:)
*Peppy having drowned on his 60 mile swim.
It will ride up with wear
I noted this: Tesco measures carbon footprint of own products
Well, 30 of them, anyway. As a test. And being part of a project to assess and develop a carbon labelling standard. I guess it's a start. So long as it goes somewhere soon.
I didn't even know we had a Climate Change Minister, but I can see why she gets the big bucks.
To her stunning insights here I might add that having measured them, there is getting them across in a meaningful way to the poor consumer. Cue another initiative.
The project will provide information on how the standard, called the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, can be applied in a cost-effective, simple way.
I wonder when? I'm assuming that number at the end is not the date.
Well, 30 of them, anyway. As a test. And being part of a project to assess and develop a carbon labelling standard. I guess it's a start. So long as it goes somewhere soon.
I didn't even know we had a Climate Change Minister, but I can see why she gets the big bucks.
To her stunning insights here I might add that having measured them, there is getting them across in a meaningful way to the poor consumer. Cue another initiative.
The project will provide information on how the standard, called the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, can be applied in a cost-effective, simple way.
I wonder when? I'm assuming that number at the end is not the date.
So, do YOU feel like doing what THEY say?
MPs question government 'savings'
We could always fine them, but then who pays the bill... oh.
Gaurdian - Sir John Bourn, guardian of the public purse. In three years he's run up bills of £365k on travel and £27k on meals. Then there's opera, grand prix, polo ...
He scratches their backs? They scratch...?
We could always fine them, but then who pays the bill... oh.
Gaurdian - Sir John Bourn, guardian of the public purse. In three years he's run up bills of £365k on travel and £27k on meals. Then there's opera, grand prix, polo ...
He scratches their backs? They scratch...?
Maybe we will see some trees not for the wood
I need a good news fix: “Zero" Amazon Deforestation Possible by 2015, Brazilian NGOs say
Mind, there is that word... 'possible'.
Mind, there is that word... 'possible'.
Spinning yarns. Telling tales.
The e-blogosphere, from Newsnight to BBC is Biased, is humming a tad on this: Inconvenient verdict delivered on Gore's climate change film
As stated before, I can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The thing is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo di Caprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available.
Bearing in mind this is the Indy I find this rather telling: 'But, in a somewhat more damaging move, the judge forensically examined the documentary's "one-sided" case and found "nine scientific errors" in its content.'
But this is where I get annoyed, not with the 'deniers', but those who keep handing them easy ways to cast doubts: 'Yesterday's ruling will no doubt be greeted with glee among climate-change deniers.' I am seeing it in every post out there. And the other stuff, the actual worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no/] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue. '
I just want to know what we know, and no more and no less, and be guided as best I can to do what is best for my kids' futures. The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides'.
BBC - Gore climate film's 'nine errors'
'... this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.' Ya think?
Guardian - Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
Newsnight - Wednesday, 10 October, 2007
Having now watched this, I wish politicians of all hues (and a few media types, though JP was a noble exception in referring to 'us', I believe, as 'they', which I presume to be a separate breed of human to those who haunt studios) would resist from telling me what I think when I haven't been asked. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has the rest of the country in any meaningful way.
It makes it very hard to stay objective on what IS happening and gets DONE, and resist reacting and seeking the exact opposite just as payback for the presumption.
Which brings me to the world being consumed in a ball of fire by next Tuesday. Or... not.
The eco-blogosphere is humming a bit on this.
And I really can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The piece (as noted) is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo diCaprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available. So what the government was/is doing punting it out anyway escapes me.
Where I do get annoyed in this is with those who keep handing climate optimists easy ways to cast doubts. I am seeing it in every post out there. While the other stuff, the actual for real worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no?] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue', as I read by way of a comeback in the paper. It's always extremes.
So we get a guy up against JP, whose job it is to seek weaknesses in argument and tear them apart, and I am left with ' 'bits' of it were... um... wrong, but not wrong'? Do what? On this basis what else could get the green ('scuse pun) light to be aired at school, so long as it comes with a teacher's disclaimer training manual. I know how that is going to go down having run it by my own kids; 'Er, dad, what are you on about???'. I want them educated in more than box-ticking.
And, as an aside, I was not aware that 'we' 'know' that climate change IS man-made. I am passionately committed to practical (a lot in that), effective (even more there) reduction and/or mitigation on an urgent basis, but just on a slightly different one that I, personally, 'believe', which is 'man' and our activities sure may not be helping much.
And if the MMCC absolute does get disproved (which in some other ways I pray it does, though my business plan might need changing a tad once the party starts) or even just further chipped away, it sets back the entreaties of the less dogmatic advocates. Cry wolf, anyone?
Like greenwashing ads, why push the claim to the point that it is shown to be hyped, or worse false, and undo all the other good the brand has been building? I know it can seem so urgent to some (me inc.) that any means necessary can be tempting to take to get the message out, but not if this is the result.
I can only speak personally to say I just want to know what 'we' know now - no more and no less, with all caveats - and to be guided as best I can be to do what is best for my kids' futures.
The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides' feeding off this as we speak.
Green cannot be viewed just in black and white.
ADDENDUM
* 33.* Baz wrote:
Thank you for this. As one interested but who cannot face the prospect of wading through mammoth reports I can't complain so much if I rely on those who do if the information I get is 'selective'.
I have been convinced enough by what I have been served up to concede that there is the distinct possibility of Man-worsened Climate Change, and even if this ends up being proven in error there seems no great harm in a cautious approach to our race's activities from now on. In any case, moderation, cutting down/out pollution and prevention of waste are no bad things to practice simply in financial terms.
Semantically, do I read this as saying it's a given that climate change in human-induced? You obviously did. I could see it more as looking at 'whether', which seems valid.
That said, I have heard the BBC's main enviro spokespersons/experts (whose qualifications are?) refer to the 'fact' that climate change is caused by man. Is it?
Because then there is also such as this: "the risk is the public might misunderstand what campaigners are saying with what the scientists are actually finding out."
Quite.
As stated before, I can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The thing is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo di Caprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available.
Bearing in mind this is the Indy I find this rather telling: 'But, in a somewhat more damaging move, the judge forensically examined the documentary's "one-sided" case and found "nine scientific errors" in its content.'
But this is where I get annoyed, not with the 'deniers', but those who keep handing them easy ways to cast doubts: 'Yesterday's ruling will no doubt be greeted with glee among climate-change deniers.' I am seeing it in every post out there. And the other stuff, the actual worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no/] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue. '
I just want to know what we know, and no more and no less, and be guided as best I can to do what is best for my kids' futures. The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides'.
BBC - Gore climate film's 'nine errors'
'... this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.' Ya think?
Guardian - Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
Newsnight - Wednesday, 10 October, 2007
Having now watched this, I wish politicians of all hues (and a few media types, though JP was a noble exception in referring to 'us', I believe, as 'they', which I presume to be a separate breed of human to those who haunt studios) would resist from telling me what I think when I haven't been asked. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has the rest of the country in any meaningful way.
It makes it very hard to stay objective on what IS happening and gets DONE, and resist reacting and seeking the exact opposite just as payback for the presumption.
Which brings me to the world being consumed in a ball of fire by next Tuesday. Or... not.
The eco-blogosphere is humming a bit on this.
And I really can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The piece (as noted) is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo diCaprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available. So what the government was/is doing punting it out anyway escapes me.
Where I do get annoyed in this is with those who keep handing climate optimists easy ways to cast doubts. I am seeing it in every post out there. While the other stuff, the actual for real worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no?] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue', as I read by way of a comeback in the paper. It's always extremes.
So we get a guy up against JP, whose job it is to seek weaknesses in argument and tear them apart, and I am left with ' 'bits' of it were... um... wrong, but not wrong'? Do what? On this basis what else could get the green ('scuse pun) light to be aired at school, so long as it comes with a teacher's disclaimer training manual. I know how that is going to go down having run it by my own kids; 'Er, dad, what are you on about???'. I want them educated in more than box-ticking.
And, as an aside, I was not aware that 'we' 'know' that climate change IS man-made. I am passionately committed to practical (a lot in that), effective (even more there) reduction and/or mitigation on an urgent basis, but just on a slightly different one that I, personally, 'believe', which is 'man' and our activities sure may not be helping much.
And if the MMCC absolute does get disproved (which in some other ways I pray it does, though my business plan might need changing a tad once the party starts) or even just further chipped away, it sets back the entreaties of the less dogmatic advocates. Cry wolf, anyone?
Like greenwashing ads, why push the claim to the point that it is shown to be hyped, or worse false, and undo all the other good the brand has been building? I know it can seem so urgent to some (me inc.) that any means necessary can be tempting to take to get the message out, but not if this is the result.
I can only speak personally to say I just want to know what 'we' know now - no more and no less, with all caveats - and to be guided as best I can be to do what is best for my kids' futures.
The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides' feeding off this as we speak.
Green cannot be viewed just in black and white.
ADDENDUM
* 33.* Baz wrote:
Thank you for this. As one interested but who cannot face the prospect of wading through mammoth reports I can't complain so much if I rely on those who do if the information I get is 'selective'.
I have been convinced enough by what I have been served up to concede that there is the distinct possibility of Man-worsened Climate Change, and even if this ends up being proven in error there seems no great harm in a cautious approach to our race's activities from now on. In any case, moderation, cutting down/out pollution and prevention of waste are no bad things to practice simply in financial terms.
Semantically, do I read this as saying it's a given that climate change in human-induced? You obviously did. I could see it more as looking at 'whether', which seems valid.
That said, I have heard the BBC's main enviro spokespersons/experts (whose qualifications are?) refer to the 'fact' that climate change is caused by man. Is it?
Because then there is also such as this: "the risk is the public might misunderstand what campaigners are saying with what the scientists are actually finding out."
Quite.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
I saw three ships a belchin' forth...
Anything that starts with 'New research suggests..' gets my eyebrow well primed, but I do wonder if this is another biggie we are ignoring in favour of trivia: Shipping pollution 'far more damaging than flying'
BBC - Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'
BBC - Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'
Why 'greens' don't want to solve climate change
An interesting and well structured piece from Spiked which argues that environmentalists are against major technological solutions to climate change as it robs them of their raison d'etre.
Well worth a read.
Well worth a read.
Don't call us. And we won't call you.
Inspiring stuff: EVEN GORDON GETS CONFUSED ABOUT TPS!
I am intrigued by big businesses who are on/hide behind TPS.
It rather begs the question as to how they find out anything new.
Having been challenged by a mentor to call (I really, really... don't like cold calling) a major fmcg Marketing Director up to get a chance to pitch my green eco-packaging invention, my first attempt was Trace on reception 'Hoodisayscallin'?" and through to Mrs. Miggins on her IBM Selectric: 'Does he KNOW you?'. To my answer that no, he did not, but I was pretty sure he and his company would like to be aware of a green innovation that made money and saved the planet, she shrieked 'But we're on TPS - I am reporting you!' I quake as I write.
And that was just me going via their website.
Ahhh... doing business in Brown's not very green and very unpleasant land.
I am intrigued by big businesses who are on/hide behind TPS.
It rather begs the question as to how they find out anything new.
Having been challenged by a mentor to call (I really, really... don't like cold calling) a major fmcg Marketing Director up to get a chance to pitch my green eco-packaging invention, my first attempt was Trace on reception 'Hoodisayscallin'?" and through to Mrs. Miggins on her IBM Selectric: 'Does he KNOW you?'. To my answer that no, he did not, but I was pretty sure he and his company would like to be aware of a green innovation that made money and saved the planet, she shrieked 'But we're on TPS - I am reporting you!' I quake as I write.
And that was just me going via their website.
Ahhh... doing business in Brown's not very green and very unpleasant land.
Worked for me
EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS IS THE WRONG STRATEGY
I ran my agency on one simple service principle: promise slightly lower than you know you can deliver... and then, when you do, exceed it by as much as you can.
Never failed.
I ran my agency on one simple service principle: promise slightly lower than you know you can deliver... and then, when you do, exceed it by as much as you can.
Never failed.
But will he get it?
Greenpeace sends message to "Gordon"
Not always a fan of Greenpeace, but sometimes they can do more than most to get our 'we're listening', if rather deaf, leadership to at least confront some stuff they seem to wish didn't exist.
Management Today - Labour’s entrepreneur tax - I know, it's not the same thing. I just needed a palce to stick it before I jumped off the roof.
Indy - Green Taxes: Chancellor accused of stealing Tory idea
Not always a fan of Greenpeace, but sometimes they can do more than most to get our 'we're listening', if rather deaf, leadership to at least confront some stuff they seem to wish didn't exist.
Management Today - Labour’s entrepreneur tax - I know, it's not the same thing. I just needed a palce to stick it before I jumped off the roof.
Indy - Green Taxes: Chancellor accused of stealing Tory idea
Dim thinking on a bright problem
And it's positive!
I'm not in the habit of giving too much ad space for free to just one outfit, but as this is an issue of topicality I thought this warranted inclusion now - Energy saving dimmable light bulbs!
The lack of a dimming facility has been a (slightly trivial, in my view) reason for resistance from both architects and the public in this debate.
I hope this may serve to solve that aspect.
Others remain. There is the subjective area of light cast, which can put off some purists, and my own, which is on reliability (posted before).
ADDENDUM 17/10 - for comparison (on price), I have just been advised of this from Light Bulbs Direct.
I'm not in the habit of giving too much ad space for free to just one outfit, but as this is an issue of topicality I thought this warranted inclusion now - Energy saving dimmable light bulbs!
The lack of a dimming facility has been a (slightly trivial, in my view) reason for resistance from both architects and the public in this debate.
I hope this may serve to solve that aspect.
Others remain. There is the subjective area of light cast, which can put off some purists, and my own, which is on reliability (posted before).
ADDENDUM 17/10 - for comparison (on price), I have just been advised of this from Light Bulbs Direct.
BLOG ACTION DAY
This has been under my nose each time I log on to the blog admin for how long and only now do I notice it!
Bit of a no brainer, really. That's me... and taking part.
Note: I was totally thrown by the need for an RSS number. I have no clue. I need to find out, and if can help I'd be very grateful. If it is connected to the Junkk.com site I could say 120-150,000 unique visitors/month, which would impress!
Apparently, it will work if I just stick a number in. I hate to say 0 as it isn't, but to move on I guess I'll be honest and say I don't know so... zero:(
ADDENDUM - Logo up now. Don't know what went wrong with my upload
What you see...what you get?
It's not that eco, sorry, but my blood was boiling already on the disconnect on what happens and how it gets reported: Newsnight - PRE-BUDGET REPORT
7.At 10:49 PM on 09 Oct 2007,
sue smith wrote:
Stephanie Flanders is wrong, wrong, wrong!
Was/is she? When am I going to get objective information and analysis without layers of agenda overlaid that I need to labour (no relation) over and cross-index to get anywhere near what is going on.
This morning on Breakfast I leaned that 'we' the people, thought that Mr. Darling had cunningly pulled a fast one. I don't recall being asked, nor do I remember a valid poll to substantiate such a statement from what one would hope to be objective journalism.
So it is here on the blog posts (missed the show, sadly) that I actually get close to some analysis that guides me to an informed view on yesterday's efforts by Mr. Darling.
In the 'fight back', I have noticed the well-trained..er.. briefed cabinet clones and supporting sympathetic/sycophantic media are spinning this as applicable to a very small number of folk and dependents who don't deserve 'it'. Such as Polly Toynbee on the Andrew Marr show, invited, one presumes, to show balance.
I'll have to leave the reality of that to the lies, damn lies and political number crunchers to fight over.
All I know is that when my Mum hit 75 she could no longer look after herself. So we sold her big house and popped her in a small one next to ours so I could keep an eye on her.
Thing is, at 50, and having worked from home for a decade, with my old CV, any attempt to hit the workforce as a consequence of various downturns, combined with the farce that is the equal opportunity legislation on any practical application (ask anyone over 40 - who admits to it - how a CV gets treated), means I am looking at a very long creek ahead and a very short paddle.
What's left of Mum's legacy would go a long way to mitigating that and help me feel a bit better about where my future will be placed without being a burden on the kids or society either.
So to all those well paid and golden pensioned Ministers and media luvvies who can't see how this might play well with those who do work hard and try and keep things in the family, I have a very short phrase for you: at least I still have my vote.
And for a presenter to say no one will remember who did what at the booth when the time comes, I speak solely for myself in saying 'Oh yes I will.'
7.At 10:49 PM on 09 Oct 2007,
sue smith wrote:
Stephanie Flanders is wrong, wrong, wrong!
Was/is she? When am I going to get objective information and analysis without layers of agenda overlaid that I need to labour (no relation) over and cross-index to get anywhere near what is going on.
This morning on Breakfast I leaned that 'we' the people, thought that Mr. Darling had cunningly pulled a fast one. I don't recall being asked, nor do I remember a valid poll to substantiate such a statement from what one would hope to be objective journalism.
So it is here on the blog posts (missed the show, sadly) that I actually get close to some analysis that guides me to an informed view on yesterday's efforts by Mr. Darling.
In the 'fight back', I have noticed the well-trained..er.. briefed cabinet clones and supporting sympathetic/sycophantic media are spinning this as applicable to a very small number of folk and dependents who don't deserve 'it'. Such as Polly Toynbee on the Andrew Marr show, invited, one presumes, to show balance.
I'll have to leave the reality of that to the lies, damn lies and political number crunchers to fight over.
All I know is that when my Mum hit 75 she could no longer look after herself. So we sold her big house and popped her in a small one next to ours so I could keep an eye on her.
Thing is, at 50, and having worked from home for a decade, with my old CV, any attempt to hit the workforce as a consequence of various downturns, combined with the farce that is the equal opportunity legislation on any practical application (ask anyone over 40 - who admits to it - how a CV gets treated), means I am looking at a very long creek ahead and a very short paddle.
What's left of Mum's legacy would go a long way to mitigating that and help me feel a bit better about where my future will be placed without being a burden on the kids or society either.
So to all those well paid and golden pensioned Ministers and media luvvies who can't see how this might play well with those who do work hard and try and keep things in the family, I have a very short phrase for you: at least I still have my vote.
And for a presenter to say no one will remember who did what at the booth when the time comes, I speak solely for myself in saying 'Oh yes I will.'
I defend the BBC...ish
I had to weigh in on a discussion prompted by the reporting of the opening up of the Northwest Passage for [insert time period here according to relative MMGW persuasion]
'.. if we're likely to see Dr. David G. on the news explaining the lack of evidence for man-made global warming'
Not quite fair. If the combined might of everyone from the IPCC to RealClimate can't 'prove' anything one way or another to the satisfaction of all then I doubt he could... or should be asked to. Though the BBC’s role in sharing pertinent, objective information is of course both topical and of interest.
As previously head-above-parapetted, personally I think there is climate change; it is negative; it is getting worse and it is worth looking at ways to mitigate man's possible influences. And pronto. But I do have some strong views on how, and how the current cabal of government, media, interest groups and activists are clouding an already murky issue to the extent that the general public are kicking back.
So I do think flying a reporter up to an iceberg to do a noddy in front of a snowman sends out a mixed message at best. And every time I see a twee reporter skipping around a G-Wiz saying it doesn't pollute it makes me wince.
The message is too important to be compromised by sloppy reporting or pandering to targets or box ticking agendas. And I especially feel every overkill story sets the cause of rational argument back by giving those who are more vocal in their ‘optimism’ (I find denier to be a pejorative) a chance to attack detail at the expense of the bigger picture.
Speaking of which...
I was wondering if any from the BBC, and perhaps the Department of Denial that is JR (though I'd prefer a more qualified and less selective responder) has any thoughts on the BBC erring on the side of the 'green trap' policy wisdom by the government in terms of political discussion (the Conservatives and Lib Dems and Greens all being a tad more considered, if often confused, in at least discussing options, and often unpopular ones) whilst bombarding us with ‘we're all doomed scenarios on ice’ that may just be coincidental in the great climatic scheme of things. Or getting a set of Islington knickers in a twist on issues which, while certainly part of the overall scheme of things, are less of a priority or concern right now than, say, home insulation or deforestation.
I was amongst a covey of 'mentalists (I am one!) last night who had ventured out from the big city in their Priuses (nothing like lugging a battery down the M4 to make you feel good about the planet) . But perhaps Tewksbury was the wrong place to suggest that 4x4s and bottled water were not necessary, especially when we find out just how well our political masters have, are and might be thinking of handling the consequences of avoiding the green trap with their flood plans.
ADDENDUM - I GOT MODERATED!!!!
For this:
I do not want or intend to get into a 'tis/t'isn't MMGW argument (they go nowhere and simply consume precious energy pointlessly), but simply share this 'for the pot':
Sustainability: A Nobel Cause
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=481
Ignoring all the warmly-debated science, I merely note who is chatting, and the key fact that they do not seem to be obsessing too much on matters of idealism, rather cold hard cash.
I have great respect for RealClimate (though the posters are getting a little more feisty of late - I like my science objective), and hence the comments in reply to the original post make for equally interesting reading by way of balance.
And noting the mere hint that a pol is doing stuff not for the mid/far future but to prop up economics now really does damage.
[Peter, I'm afraid you can't say "I don't want to get into an argument about this", and then present a provocative article! The Moderator.]
Peter | Homepage | 10.10.07 - 10:59 am | #
I'm afraid I felt to delete my post (and leave in what they did) like this was unwarranted:
OK, stick the RealClimate article I featured back up without that opener (I guess you'll have to delete that - but will it remain in Googlecache?), along with the rest of my thoughts on how it and the post in reply highlighted some interesting politico/media MMGW issues and how people can respond to them.
I'll then let the various extremes fight over whether 'it' exists at all whilst missing the actual point.
I will then engage or not if I so wish. Happy?
As it stands, and perhaps despite my poor wording, I'd say the chop you have instigated serves the cause of moderation poorly. I'd have thought leaving the totality up and saying what you think about it to be more appropriate. I don't think anything I wrote contravened any of the site rules. I just shared some info pertinent to the thread and in advance advised I was not terribly keen on arguing about something no one knows about for sure one way or another yet.
Currently no one has a clue what you/we are on about.
That serves who well, exactly?
Their site. Their ball. Their loss.
ADDENDUM:
It went up. And then it got deleted. An interesting insight into the actions of those who talk of bias.
ADDENDUM 2:
Another day, and the possibility of another moderator. So I popped this in.
Removing the option of the public to comment! Now who'd do a thing like that?
bob | 11.10.07 - 8:04 am | #
Can't imagine. But, as oft noted, it is free and the owner's ball to play with. See how long this stays up.
ps: I put in a link to RealClimate to make a point on the MMGW 'debate' being about 'tis/t'isn't happening (at all) vs. looking ahead at reasonable solutions. Shame no one got a chance to see, much less comment on it and my sloppy first line was used as an excuse to whip out the entire (pretty innocuous) rest of the post.
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
I might be heading for my first ban, which will be a milestone! Shame, as I do value some of what gets discovered, shared and discussed, but not when the discussions get steered in the same way as the entity they purport to accuse of dodgy practices.
ADDENDUM 3:
A challenge:
Peter:
[The Moderator: Peter, if you want to discuss our moderation policy, e-mail us on biasedbbc@googlemail.com (but in short, off-topic comments are likely to be deleted).]
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
Thank you for the opportunity for discussion.
I think BBBC has some fine minds at work, and I value the information I glean. As well as the debate.
Sadly, I rather felt the moderation in the case that prompted my subsequent comment to have been an example more of what the BBC is often accused of, with reason, and seriously affected my view of the site as a consequence.
The piece in question was on a thread concerning climate change, which has been very much in the news and indeed on the BBBC site on numerous occasions, but really quite frequently of late, as associated with Mr. Gore's movie and Nobel.
My point in the 'moderated' piece has been quite eloquently made by subsequent events, namely that anything regarding sensible debate on anything climatic gets immediately co-opted into two extreme camps: the so-called 'deniers' and the 'green at all costers', with suitable descriptive ing/ist/zi perjoratives added to taste, and a lot of playing the man and not the ball.
I'd guess that most on BBBC fall into the former. OK, it's a private blog. Most in the BBC fall into the latter. No so fair enough, as they are my public broadcaster. I get very unhappy when I read about such as Roger Harrabin's qualifications and editorial memos or Mr. Gore's various less than noble activities. Not because I don't think there is a climate issue, or indeed that man might well be rather unhelpful, but because I don't think the negative exposure these inaccuracies and exaggeration and secret agendas in the cause of 'doing what's best' for 'the people' are working or help. Especially when they boomerang.
So I am dedicated to information, and as well shaped opinion as I can get it. Which is why I watch BBC and read BBBC. The truth is often in the middle.
And hence I like to share as well, to see what might come back.
All I said is that I didn't want to get into a pointless MMGW argument. For a start, to my best assessment, even though that acronym is used by rather extreme 'denier' posters, the fact of man's causing it is nowhere to be found. I allow for possibly 'man worsened' at best.
And my post discussed that, cited highly valid sources such as Real Climate, but also quoting Chancellor Merkel to show how where you start from in this issue always pretty much predicts where the argument will end up.
Yet all this was deleted. What was left was the first line, alluding to 'a provocative article'. On the basis of my saying I didn't want the argument hijacked in the usual direction it always does.
How that is off topic fails me. But if as I presume you refer to my dropping a point about editing to support a view in a thread about the BBC doing just that, I'd say a little self-analysis may be in order.
Here's the sequence as you may have deleted it all and Google cache may not be available: (see above).
Keep up the good work. Try and stop the less so.
Didn't take long. I got a reply.
We delete a *lot* of comments every day. I don't know why you have
presumed it's just yours that has been deleted (or why you have
presumed that we only delete comments that we don't agree with).
Perhaps it's because we usually just delete a post without comment,
which we didn't do in your case (because of your newbie status). Or
perhaps it's because you're very much a "me" blogger.
We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them. They are by far the most numerous category of
comments that we delete. About 90% of those that we delete are
arguing *against* the existence and/or severity of GW. (Similarly,
about 90% of the comments we delete are taking an anti-BBC line). It
is simply not justified for you to assume that you were deleted
because you didn't "toe a party line".
We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more
relevant and more concise ones. You gave us a good excuse to delete
yours because you said you were "adding one for the pot", which
created the impression that you were leaving us something that would
create a blizzard of comments which you could step away from. In
addition, we had noticed that you had a tendency for long, rambling
off-topic comments, and we're not very interested in that.
If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a
dedicated site.
I'll leave it all in, critique and all. You know what? They're right. Sometimes I do post over-long screeds. I may even ramble, though I'd like to think that without the benefit of time it is just exploring all the options. We live in a sound bite culture that suffers from the whole issue not being considered properly.
As to the rest, I'd say quite breathtaking, defevensive, illogical arrogance. Not a little less than pleasant, too, as I was invited to get in touch. And as they have admitted to an approach of censoring what they feel like, I can't see they are any different to the BBC TV/online efforts they critique for being 'selective', or what they call biased.
I'll still use 'em to find stuff. But as for their status as an online place of even debate, for me at least, their reputation is shot. I have learned a lot about moderation from this, and I hope it will make my blog the better for it.
Plus my RSI might improve.
'.. if we're likely to see Dr. David G. on the news explaining the lack of evidence for man-made global warming'
Not quite fair. If the combined might of everyone from the IPCC to RealClimate can't 'prove' anything one way or another to the satisfaction of all then I doubt he could... or should be asked to. Though the BBC’s role in sharing pertinent, objective information is of course both topical and of interest.
As previously head-above-parapetted, personally I think there is climate change; it is negative; it is getting worse and it is worth looking at ways to mitigate man's possible influences. And pronto. But I do have some strong views on how, and how the current cabal of government, media, interest groups and activists are clouding an already murky issue to the extent that the general public are kicking back.
So I do think flying a reporter up to an iceberg to do a noddy in front of a snowman sends out a mixed message at best. And every time I see a twee reporter skipping around a G-Wiz saying it doesn't pollute it makes me wince.
The message is too important to be compromised by sloppy reporting or pandering to targets or box ticking agendas. And I especially feel every overkill story sets the cause of rational argument back by giving those who are more vocal in their ‘optimism’ (I find denier to be a pejorative) a chance to attack detail at the expense of the bigger picture.
Speaking of which...
I was wondering if any from the BBC, and perhaps the Department of Denial that is JR (though I'd prefer a more qualified and less selective responder) has any thoughts on the BBC erring on the side of the 'green trap' policy wisdom by the government in terms of political discussion (the Conservatives and Lib Dems and Greens all being a tad more considered, if often confused, in at least discussing options, and often unpopular ones) whilst bombarding us with ‘we're all doomed scenarios on ice’ that may just be coincidental in the great climatic scheme of things. Or getting a set of Islington knickers in a twist on issues which, while certainly part of the overall scheme of things, are less of a priority or concern right now than, say, home insulation or deforestation.
I was amongst a covey of 'mentalists (I am one!) last night who had ventured out from the big city in their Priuses (nothing like lugging a battery down the M4 to make you feel good about the planet) . But perhaps Tewksbury was the wrong place to suggest that 4x4s and bottled water were not necessary, especially when we find out just how well our political masters have, are and might be thinking of handling the consequences of avoiding the green trap with their flood plans.
ADDENDUM - I GOT MODERATED!!!!
For this:
I do not want or intend to get into a 'tis/t'isn't MMGW argument (they go nowhere and simply consume precious energy pointlessly), but simply share this 'for the pot':
Sustainability: A Nobel Cause
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=481
Ignoring all the warmly-debated science, I merely note who is chatting, and the key fact that they do not seem to be obsessing too much on matters of idealism, rather cold hard cash.
I have great respect for RealClimate (though the posters are getting a little more feisty of late - I like my science objective), and hence the comments in reply to the original post make for equally interesting reading by way of balance.
And noting the mere hint that a pol is doing stuff not for the mid/far future but to prop up economics now really does damage.
[Peter, I'm afraid you can't say "I don't want to get into an argument about this", and then present a provocative article! The Moderator.]
Peter | Homepage | 10.10.07 - 10:59 am | #
I'm afraid I felt to delete my post (and leave in what they did) like this was unwarranted:
OK, stick the RealClimate article I featured back up without that opener (I guess you'll have to delete that - but will it remain in Googlecache?), along with the rest of my thoughts on how it and the post in reply highlighted some interesting politico/media MMGW issues and how people can respond to them.
I'll then let the various extremes fight over whether 'it' exists at all whilst missing the actual point.
I will then engage or not if I so wish. Happy?
As it stands, and perhaps despite my poor wording, I'd say the chop you have instigated serves the cause of moderation poorly. I'd have thought leaving the totality up and saying what you think about it to be more appropriate. I don't think anything I wrote contravened any of the site rules. I just shared some info pertinent to the thread and in advance advised I was not terribly keen on arguing about something no one knows about for sure one way or another yet.
Currently no one has a clue what you/we are on about.
That serves who well, exactly?
Their site. Their ball. Their loss.
ADDENDUM:
It went up. And then it got deleted. An interesting insight into the actions of those who talk of bias.
ADDENDUM 2:
Another day, and the possibility of another moderator. So I popped this in.
Removing the option of the public to comment! Now who'd do a thing like that?
bob | 11.10.07 - 8:04 am | #
Can't imagine. But, as oft noted, it is free and the owner's ball to play with. See how long this stays up.
ps: I put in a link to RealClimate to make a point on the MMGW 'debate' being about 'tis/t'isn't happening (at all) vs. looking ahead at reasonable solutions. Shame no one got a chance to see, much less comment on it and my sloppy first line was used as an excuse to whip out the entire (pretty innocuous) rest of the post.
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
I might be heading for my first ban, which will be a milestone! Shame, as I do value some of what gets discovered, shared and discussed, but not when the discussions get steered in the same way as the entity they purport to accuse of dodgy practices.
ADDENDUM 3:
A challenge:
Peter:
[The Moderator: Peter, if you want to discuss our moderation policy, e-mail us on biasedbbc@googlemail.com (but in short, off-topic comments are likely to be deleted).]
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
Thank you for the opportunity for discussion.
I think BBBC has some fine minds at work, and I value the information I glean. As well as the debate.
Sadly, I rather felt the moderation in the case that prompted my subsequent comment to have been an example more of what the BBC is often accused of, with reason, and seriously affected my view of the site as a consequence.
The piece in question was on a thread concerning climate change, which has been very much in the news and indeed on the BBBC site on numerous occasions, but really quite frequently of late, as associated with Mr. Gore's movie and Nobel.
My point in the 'moderated' piece has been quite eloquently made by subsequent events, namely that anything regarding sensible debate on anything climatic gets immediately co-opted into two extreme camps: the so-called 'deniers' and the 'green at all costers', with suitable descriptive ing/ist/zi perjoratives added to taste, and a lot of playing the man and not the ball.
I'd guess that most on BBBC fall into the former. OK, it's a private blog. Most in the BBC fall into the latter. No so fair enough, as they are my public broadcaster. I get very unhappy when I read about such as Roger Harrabin's qualifications and editorial memos or Mr. Gore's various less than noble activities. Not because I don't think there is a climate issue, or indeed that man might well be rather unhelpful, but because I don't think the negative exposure these inaccuracies and exaggeration and secret agendas in the cause of 'doing what's best' for 'the people' are working or help. Especially when they boomerang.
So I am dedicated to information, and as well shaped opinion as I can get it. Which is why I watch BBC and read BBBC. The truth is often in the middle.
And hence I like to share as well, to see what might come back.
All I said is that I didn't want to get into a pointless MMGW argument. For a start, to my best assessment, even though that acronym is used by rather extreme 'denier' posters, the fact of man's causing it is nowhere to be found. I allow for possibly 'man worsened' at best.
And my post discussed that, cited highly valid sources such as Real Climate, but also quoting Chancellor Merkel to show how where you start from in this issue always pretty much predicts where the argument will end up.
Yet all this was deleted. What was left was the first line, alluding to 'a provocative article'. On the basis of my saying I didn't want the argument hijacked in the usual direction it always does.
How that is off topic fails me. But if as I presume you refer to my dropping a point about editing to support a view in a thread about the BBC doing just that, I'd say a little self-analysis may be in order.
Here's the sequence as you may have deleted it all and Google cache may not be available: (see above).
Keep up the good work. Try and stop the less so.
Didn't take long. I got a reply.
We delete a *lot* of comments every day. I don't know why you have
presumed it's just yours that has been deleted (or why you have
presumed that we only delete comments that we don't agree with).
Perhaps it's because we usually just delete a post without comment,
which we didn't do in your case (because of your newbie status). Or
perhaps it's because you're very much a "me" blogger.
We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them. They are by far the most numerous category of
comments that we delete. About 90% of those that we delete are
arguing *against* the existence and/or severity of GW. (Similarly,
about 90% of the comments we delete are taking an anti-BBC line). It
is simply not justified for you to assume that you were deleted
because you didn't "toe a party line".
We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more
relevant and more concise ones. You gave us a good excuse to delete
yours because you said you were "adding one for the pot", which
created the impression that you were leaving us something that would
create a blizzard of comments which you could step away from. In
addition, we had noticed that you had a tendency for long, rambling
off-topic comments, and we're not very interested in that.
If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a
dedicated site.
I'll leave it all in, critique and all. You know what? They're right. Sometimes I do post over-long screeds. I may even ramble, though I'd like to think that without the benefit of time it is just exploring all the options. We live in a sound bite culture that suffers from the whole issue not being considered properly.
As to the rest, I'd say quite breathtaking, defevensive, illogical arrogance. Not a little less than pleasant, too, as I was invited to get in touch. And as they have admitted to an approach of censoring what they feel like, I can't see they are any different to the BBC TV/online efforts they critique for being 'selective', or what they call biased.
I'll still use 'em to find stuff. But as for their status as an online place of even debate, for me at least, their reputation is shot. I have learned a lot about moderation from this, and I hope it will make my blog the better for it.
Plus my RSI might improve.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
We live in a world of crazy decisions
This article from Effect Measure (who I have to confess I hadn't come across until today), highlights how governmental agencies still take crazy decisions.
It relates to the interim approval by the EPA for the use of Methyl Iodide as a fumigant to replace highly toxic Methyl Bromide; approval for which has been withdrawn under the Montreal protocol as it is regarded as a ozone depleter.
Now anyone with an iota of chemistry knowledge might suspect that replacing one halogen with another is not really likely to make too much of a change in a chemical's characteristics. And in this case you would be correct; Methyl Iodide is also highly toxic, being both a "neurotoxin and carcinogen that has caused thyroid tumors, neurological damage and miscarriages in lab animals".
"methyl iodide is nasty. If you want to use it you must employ a certified applicator, establish a buffer zone of 25 to 500 feet around the fields, no use within a quarter mile of a school, day care facility, nursing home, hospital, prison or playground. And if you are a shoveler, tractor driver or applicator you have to be trained and you have to wear a respirator. Farm workers can't re-enter the fields for five days after application."
The EPA is supposed to be the US 'Environmental Protection Agency': what the hell is going on over there?
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - The author has kindly posted a correction which I repeat here:
"Note there was an inadvertent error in that post. Methyl bromide is an ozone depleter, not a greenhouse gas. My error. I corrected it in the post. "
It still doesn't sound like a very welcome addition to the gaseous cocktail we are sharing with future generations.
It relates to the interim approval by the EPA for the use of Methyl Iodide as a fumigant to replace highly toxic Methyl Bromide; approval for which has been withdrawn under the Montreal protocol as it is regarded as a ozone depleter.
Now anyone with an iota of chemistry knowledge might suspect that replacing one halogen with another is not really likely to make too much of a change in a chemical's characteristics. And in this case you would be correct; Methyl Iodide is also highly toxic, being both a "neurotoxin and carcinogen that has caused thyroid tumors, neurological damage and miscarriages in lab animals".
"methyl iodide is nasty. If you want to use it you must employ a certified applicator, establish a buffer zone of 25 to 500 feet around the fields, no use within a quarter mile of a school, day care facility, nursing home, hospital, prison or playground. And if you are a shoveler, tractor driver or applicator you have to be trained and you have to wear a respirator. Farm workers can't re-enter the fields for five days after application."
The EPA is supposed to be the US 'Environmental Protection Agency': what the hell is going on over there?
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - The author has kindly posted a correction which I repeat here:
"Note there was an inadvertent error in that post. Methyl bromide is an ozone depleter, not a greenhouse gas. My error. I corrected it in the post. "
It still doesn't sound like a very welcome addition to the gaseous cocktail we are sharing with future generations.
An interesting snippet on Peak Oil
From Andrew Leonard of Salon.com, who takes a slightly bemused view of the rather optimistic stance that some in the oil industry are still taking; 'there's loads more left to be extracted from the planet' and 'climate change will make the extraction of oil from hostile polar regions easier'.
"The oil companies are going to be in business for a long long time, extracting every last milliliter of oil and gas from every last nook and cranny in the earth. Whether we can afford to pay for the resulting product is an entirely different question."
Quite!
________________
Well, unless you believe the Russian's theory that crude oil and natural petroleum gas are simply primordial materials erupted from the depths of our planet and nothing to do with being a biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains. As reported on Scoop in September.
"The oil companies are going to be in business for a long long time, extracting every last milliliter of oil and gas from every last nook and cranny in the earth. Whether we can afford to pay for the resulting product is an entirely different question."
Quite!
________________
Well, unless you believe the Russian's theory that crude oil and natural petroleum gas are simply primordial materials erupted from the depths of our planet and nothing to do with being a biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains. As reported on Scoop in September.
More warnings from Flannery
This quite intrigued me. According to The Mirror, Tim Flannery (who now appears to have become accepted as 'a world recognised climate change scientist') states that the forthcoming report from the IPCC (due in November) will "show that greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in mid-2005 had reached about 455 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent -- a level not expected for another 10 years."
Now that appears to be significantly important news; we are ten years ahead of schedule against what was actually one of the worst scenarios as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned.
"What the report establishes is that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that could potentially cause dangerous climate change."
OK, so where's the rest of the British press? This has been reported worldwide, across all types of publications, but so far, only the Mirror appears to have covered it here. This isn't a scare scenario, it is apparently reporting on scientifically measured levels of what is already in our atmosphere. It is extremely significant information.
Why the deafening silence from the UK meejah?
Addendum:
Just spotted that The Metro also carried this story yesterday too. Cannot immediately see any mention of it in the rest of the press though, yesterday or today.
Now that appears to be significantly important news; we are ten years ahead of schedule against what was actually one of the worst scenarios as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned.
"What the report establishes is that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that could potentially cause dangerous climate change."
OK, so where's the rest of the British press? This has been reported worldwide, across all types of publications, but so far, only the Mirror appears to have covered it here. This isn't a scare scenario, it is apparently reporting on scientifically measured levels of what is already in our atmosphere. It is extremely significant information.
Why the deafening silence from the UK meejah?
Addendum:
Just spotted that The Metro also carried this story yesterday too. Cannot immediately see any mention of it in the rest of the press though, yesterday or today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)