Had to happen. I agree with the media: Eat, drink and be merry – you can ignore this unhealthy obsession with obesity
Dear Mr. Lawson,
I agree with all you say... with one small, wafer thin revision to suggest:
It is the uncritical reporting of scare stories as fact which does little service to almost anything that gets covered these days, I fear.
Yours sincerely,
Friday, November 09, 2007
First leak of the final IPPC report
This comes from canada.com and makes for very depressing reading. Essentially, the message is prepare to adapt to a hotter climate because it is too late to stop accelerating global warming.
"Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation, but adaptation is also necessary."
And the report misses some key new evidence, which came to late for inclusion.
"The report is said to understate the danger since alarming new evidence missed the deadline for inclusion. It does not, for example, include data showing global emissions are now climbing faster than ever as China and India power their economic booms with fossil fuels. And there is no mention of this summer's Arctic ice retreat, described as 'astounding' by scientists and government officials who fear the Arctic may be hitting a 'tipping point.'"
Coming on a day when most of the east and south east of England has just about survived a combined tidal and storm surge by a matter of centimetres, all I can say is, have a happy weekend.
Addendum:
Of course, there are always some who cannot accept that what scientists say is correct, as exemplified in this from Fox News. Note his figures are based on 54 survey responses out of 345 IPCC scientists. (There were 2500+ overall involved.) Note the last two questions. As I've said before, ask the right question and you can get the answer you want.
"Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation, but adaptation is also necessary."
And the report misses some key new evidence, which came to late for inclusion.
"The report is said to understate the danger since alarming new evidence missed the deadline for inclusion. It does not, for example, include data showing global emissions are now climbing faster than ever as China and India power their economic booms with fossil fuels. And there is no mention of this summer's Arctic ice retreat, described as 'astounding' by scientists and government officials who fear the Arctic may be hitting a 'tipping point.'"
Coming on a day when most of the east and south east of England has just about survived a combined tidal and storm surge by a matter of centimetres, all I can say is, have a happy weekend.
Addendum:
Of course, there are always some who cannot accept that what scientists say is correct, as exemplified in this from Fox News. Note his figures are based on 54 survey responses out of 345 IPCC scientists. (There were 2500+ overall involved.) Note the last two questions. As I've said before, ask the right question and you can get the answer you want.
Booking the Cooks
Sorry, couldn't resist that headline - Household brands accused of "cooking the climate" as British government prepares for climate summit
This is what Greenpeace does well, but they do of course have a pretty strict agenda so read it all with eyebrow ready. That said, some uncomfortable reading in the CSR departments and boardrooms of some major brands.
Gaurdian - Does it pay to get into bed with business?
This is what Greenpeace does well, but they do of course have a pretty strict agenda so read it all with eyebrow ready. That said, some uncomfortable reading in the CSR departments and boardrooms of some major brands.
Gaurdian - Does it pay to get into bed with business?
Power is only positive if well directed.
I just got around to reading this: Climate change: we have the power
Not a bad summary of where we are, with a refreshing look at where we could be, by design as much as accident. However, as I found myself muttering away, I thought I'd share some of these mutterings here, along with a few key quotes that provoked them.
In October 2007, I can now reveal the net outcome of all this science. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. CO2 emissions, now approaching 30 billion tonnes a year, have continued to rise inexorably. Good start, eh?
Green Europe is actually doing worse than the sceptical United States. European emissions continue to rise while, last year, American emissions fell by 1.6%. News, and unwelcome, but not perhaps surprising, for an entity that seems totally dominated by appearance of action over action itself.
How we [address] this is the issue. Technologically it’s a problem. Politically it’s a nightmare, requiring unprecedented levels of global co-operation from a species whose second and third favourite pastimes are tribalism and war. Now, whodaathunk?“We are kind of poised, says Rapley, “to see if technology really is the cavalry coming over the horizon or not.” The good news is that we can definitely hear hoof beats and a bugle. Not from what I saw crest the hill, I fear, at least in this piece.
First, air-scrubbing. I'm sorry, I just can't see any merit with messing with nature on an industrial scale as a solution to the mess we might have made of nature by messing with it on an industrial scale. So almost all these 'solutions' seem scary at best.
So then we come to capture/sinks: The big advantage is that, once installed, this system consumes no energy. Ignoring the vast commitment of resources under that 'once installed', so many of these proposals seem to ignore operation, maintenance and disposal. These things are almost all in hostile environments. I love the idea of 'free energy' by harnessing the elements, but nature can bend a girder or smash a concrete block in a heartbeat. Are these things credible in any sensible enviROI+ terms?
The problem, as Sir Nicholas Stern said in the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, is that climate change is the result of the greatest market failure in history: the abject failure to put a price on growth. Yes. But look at the rhetoric of every pol, business 'leader' or media editorial: it's all about growth. And how you divorce any growth from the greatest driver of all, population, lord alone knows.
Carbon trading schemes – whereby we buy and sell carbon credits that allow us to emit – look like a solution, but their record so far has been abysmal. No, they are not that good. To see why, look at who is running them.
“We have met the enemy,” says Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University in New York, “and he is us. He’s not the Saudi oil minister or George Bush. He is us.” Fair quote. Not exactly a motivator, or very specific, but worth bearing in mind.
Painting everything white might also be a good idea. 'Might' I don't like. Is it? Surely we know by now. I blogged on the impact of bright yellow rape fields vs. darker hued crops an age ago. How does their reflective area compare to a ribbon of tarmac?
...and though fully electric cars are on the way, it is not yet clear whether they will be good enough and cheap enough to lure consumers away from petrol. Or, for that matter, how their energy supply produces any less Co2.
...there are hundreds of schemes for offsetting your carbon when you fly, but less than 1% of passengers use them. A ratio worthy of Gov/Quango overlapping awareness schemes. Why do they even exist, let alone fund the majority of venal/misguided parasites who run them?
And nuclear plants, once built, are more or less emission-free. There are also ZEPPs – zero-emission power plants that use new ways of handling coal and oil. Again, we know how to do this. We just have to find the will. Hmn.
All these divisions point to a fundamental problem for the green movement that has dogged all its campaigning and drained its political credibility. They squabble among themselves, and, beneath the surface, it’s always about the same thing: what are we trying to achieve? Quite. But they don't half consume a lot of time and generate a lot of hot air in doing so.
'There are three things nobody need argue about. First, global warning is a reality; secondly, it is largely caused by humans; thirdly, we know how to slow or reverse it.' For me it is yes, probably/silly not to assume it and... do we, really? That last seems to contradict a lot else written in this piece. The problem seems to be all the factions who think they know better and are still fighting for a piece of a stale pie. It's an almost intractable problem, because who (myself included) can resist an opinion? And, more importantly, if a vast 'fix' is to be committed to, the whole population needs to be sure it will, in fact, work. Few things I've learned of, save many reduction-based notions, have such certainty.
I will use this blog to share, discuss, critique and debate, but I will use Junkk.com and ideas such as RE:tie to try and chip away with solutions I truly believe will help do something tangible.
Telling you where to go
I am thinking of reviving a debate I once had with myself into a Prof's Poser, on the subject of Sat Nav's.
Are they enviROI+ or negative?
When it comes to toys I am your man. But we don't have one. I am fine with maps. But 'er indoors is not, and no gender commentary intended. And last weekend I had a call from her in London having circled fruitlessly for an age trying to locate her destination. Would this electronic box have saved her frustration... and a load of emissions as well? At least enough to offset its creation shipping, use and disposal? I'm erring on yes.
However, having watched today's Breakfast TV one could have doubts. Seems they are the instrument of the devil, sending container lorries through small villages and dropping coaches in the river.
Thing is, while these make for powerful, negative images, I can only wonder if the right things are being addressed here.
I am afraid I would have to ask serious questions of a coach driver who can get into the middle of a field at the behest of a 2" square screen vs. the evidence of his own eyes. And taking the example of our own fair town, there are big signs at each end to advise that large vehicles are not suitable. Mind you, they have the stupid disclaimer 'except for access', so basically a tank transporter could decide it needs to come through, and hence it is all ignorable and equally unenforceable.
Made for a silly story though. And a blog post. Which is about all. Oh, and another metaphor for trivial TV and the triumph of everything over common sense.
Are they enviROI+ or negative?
When it comes to toys I am your man. But we don't have one. I am fine with maps. But 'er indoors is not, and no gender commentary intended. And last weekend I had a call from her in London having circled fruitlessly for an age trying to locate her destination. Would this electronic box have saved her frustration... and a load of emissions as well? At least enough to offset its creation shipping, use and disposal? I'm erring on yes.
However, having watched today's Breakfast TV one could have doubts. Seems they are the instrument of the devil, sending container lorries through small villages and dropping coaches in the river.
Thing is, while these make for powerful, negative images, I can only wonder if the right things are being addressed here.
I am afraid I would have to ask serious questions of a coach driver who can get into the middle of a field at the behest of a 2" square screen vs. the evidence of his own eyes. And taking the example of our own fair town, there are big signs at each end to advise that large vehicles are not suitable. Mind you, they have the stupid disclaimer 'except for access', so basically a tank transporter could decide it needs to come through, and hence it is all ignorable and equally unenforceable.
Made for a silly story though. And a blog post. Which is about all. Oh, and another metaphor for trivial TV and the triumph of everything over common sense.
Muddying the global warming waters
Now as the debate/argument/bun-fight continues to rage over whether or not global warming is man made, man worsened or an entirely natural occurrence, aficionados from both sides have been involved in some very shady dealings. From big oil funding renowned scientists to produce articles ridiculing the consensus science outputs of the IPCC, through to documentaries broadcast as fact when half of the 'facts' had been massaged and even falsified. Plus we have Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth', now also regarded as containing flawed arguments and containing some overt exaggeration. Both sides have been equally responsible for creating supposed 'facts' out of little more than conjecture.
During all this, I have not come across anything quite as stupid and irresponsible as this, as reported by NineMSN, which details how someone created a fake journal (The Journal of Geoclimatic Studies) and a completely false article, which purported to prove that marine bacteria emit 300 times more CO2 than mankind does.
So what happened? Well a British scientist spotted it, and emailed it to 2000 colleagues worldwide, which cascaded it rapidly around the planet's scientific community. Of course it caused raptures of delight within the MMGW skeptic community, as it supposedly provided the absolute evidence that global warming is definitively not man made. Well, it did for a little while, until the very same scientist realised that it was a completely spurious spoof.
Where we are dealing with entrenched viewpoints, especially around an area as important to mankind as global warming, the last thing that is required is the action of some irresponsible idiot(s) creating completely false science in order to muddy the waters even further.
What we all want to know, where possible, are the facts: clear, concise and unexpurgated. We do not want to be told lies, artificially invented 'facts' or even to be presented with massaged evidence. For scientists to blur things around the edges is to some degree understandable, but whoever was behind this is totally irresponsible, stupid and asinine.
The only saving grace is that it was recognised as a spoof before any of the major media picked up on the story.
____________
Addendum: 12/11/07
Finally, an admission from one of the guilty partners in Guardian CIF. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to even side with, let alone agree with, either his motive or his intentions.
During all this, I have not come across anything quite as stupid and irresponsible as this, as reported by NineMSN, which details how someone created a fake journal (The Journal of Geoclimatic Studies) and a completely false article, which purported to prove that marine bacteria emit 300 times more CO2 than mankind does.
So what happened? Well a British scientist spotted it, and emailed it to 2000 colleagues worldwide, which cascaded it rapidly around the planet's scientific community. Of course it caused raptures of delight within the MMGW skeptic community, as it supposedly provided the absolute evidence that global warming is definitively not man made. Well, it did for a little while, until the very same scientist realised that it was a completely spurious spoof.
Where we are dealing with entrenched viewpoints, especially around an area as important to mankind as global warming, the last thing that is required is the action of some irresponsible idiot(s) creating completely false science in order to muddy the waters even further.
What we all want to know, where possible, are the facts: clear, concise and unexpurgated. We do not want to be told lies, artificially invented 'facts' or even to be presented with massaged evidence. For scientists to blur things around the edges is to some degree understandable, but whoever was behind this is totally irresponsible, stupid and asinine.
The only saving grace is that it was recognised as a spoof before any of the major media picked up on the story.
____________
Addendum: 12/11/07
Finally, an admission from one of the guilty partners in Guardian CIF. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to even side with, let alone agree with, either his motive or his intentions.
Nice job (if not weather) if you can get it
As they do have an agenda all of their own I don't usually pay too much heed to most anti-MWCC blogs, but this one has some interesting links: UN Climate Panel to Discuss Global Warming at Tropical Resort
The main issue here is perception. And I do not perceive this very well.
Bearing in mind I used to use 'some conference in Bali' as a joke for the trend to 'not do as said' and it has come horribly true, there are some serious questions I do share in the mocking.
One accepts, sort of, that conferences have to be held to achieve consensus internationally, but why on earth here? Surely the majority of those relevant to this are located in greater proximity to somewhere less airmiles deficient? Like where the UN is? It's why I accept most things I have to attend are in London and not nearer to Ross. The costs are also something one needs to get one's head around, but again I suspect these will be high anywhere... so long as it's viewed as a great big jolly as much as an attempt to address the issue.
And as for the media... if ANY of the usual suspects are flying a cabal of 'reporters' (especially science/enviro editors who have little appreciation of the complexity of the issues, from publications who care for little other than a headline or punting out an agenda), I will treat them with the contempt they deserve. Unless of course they can manage to report objectively and with some positives and proactivity to balance the rampant irony of them being where they are, doing what they do, when doubtless one big 'idea' will be curtailing the flying for pleasure or business of those whose needs and aspirations are less 'essential' than theirs.
When this effort was planned, was no thought given to how it would play, and the damage this would do to any reasonable efforts being made by delegates?
The main issue here is perception. And I do not perceive this very well.
Bearing in mind I used to use 'some conference in Bali' as a joke for the trend to 'not do as said' and it has come horribly true, there are some serious questions I do share in the mocking.
One accepts, sort of, that conferences have to be held to achieve consensus internationally, but why on earth here? Surely the majority of those relevant to this are located in greater proximity to somewhere less airmiles deficient? Like where the UN is? It's why I accept most things I have to attend are in London and not nearer to Ross. The costs are also something one needs to get one's head around, but again I suspect these will be high anywhere... so long as it's viewed as a great big jolly as much as an attempt to address the issue.
And as for the media... if ANY of the usual suspects are flying a cabal of 'reporters' (especially science/enviro editors who have little appreciation of the complexity of the issues, from publications who care for little other than a headline or punting out an agenda), I will treat them with the contempt they deserve. Unless of course they can manage to report objectively and with some positives and proactivity to balance the rampant irony of them being where they are, doing what they do, when doubtless one big 'idea' will be curtailing the flying for pleasure or business of those whose needs and aspirations are less 'essential' than theirs.
When this effort was planned, was no thought given to how it would play, and the damage this would do to any reasonable efforts being made by delegates?
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Just words
As Dave is allowed a non-enviro post, then so am I. It has been a bad day (got blown out on another chance at some dosh - these things really drain the time and money bank), so I need to lash out.This is one of those doofus 'polls' that litter our media these days. OK, rarely much harm, expect when the idle clicks of bored surfers get catapulted into a 'survey shows..' headline.
Thing is, I just couldn't get past how everything these days is so darn sloppy, especially when it comes to filling in stuff and at its most hair-rending when it is human-free online and automated.
Artist or vandal? On what basis? If it's on a canvas then it may well be art. If it's on a public surface I'd say the law is clear.
And then, if you want 'the answers to...' No ! These are not answers. These are the collated responses to a question that offered two options. All you are getting is what some people thought of the options offered.
Rant over. Back to work.
Feed me money or I go bang!
Not really enviro in any way, but very amusing for a dank and dismal Thursday afternoon. From Reuters, reporting on a Japanese piggy bank that explodes if you don't top it up regularly!
Well, it tickled my admittedly strange sense of humour!
Well, it tickled my admittedly strange sense of humour!
Doing what it says on the tin
Just got this in: (DEFRA) Offsetting projects to create jobs and cut emissions
Don't know why, but the first thing that popped into my head was an expression from the military: DEFRACon 3.
Because I rather leapt to the notion that whatever else might or might happen, jobs would for sure be created. It's just a matter of where, and doing what, that concerns me, especially when I read on to this:
Government Carbon Offsetting Fund Members
Central Government (including participating agencies)
Cabinet Office
The Prime Minister's Office
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Department for Local Government and Planning
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
Department of Health
Department for International Development
Department for Transport
Government Car and Despatch Agency
Department for Work and Pensions
The Rent Service
Export Credits Guarantee Department
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Valuation Office Agency
Her Majesty's Treasury
Home Office
Identity and Passport Service
Criminal Records Bureau
Forensic Science Service
Law Officers' Department
Crown Prosecution Service
Serious Fraud Office
Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
Attorney General's Office
Treasury Solicitors
HM CPS Inspectorate
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Sustainable Development Commission
Other partners
Parliament
(including both Houses and the British American Parliamentary Group)
The Greater London Authority
Metropolitan Police Service
Transport for London
London Development Agency
The Royal Household
That seems an awful lot here (I'm guessing there is a, or a department off offset munchkins in each to play with all this) for not so many there.
I also still need to get my head around the whole carbcon deal to appreciate how it truly saves my kids' futures, as paying towards the projects 'would ensure that the carbon footprint of Government air travel was neutralised by ensuring emissions were avoided elsewhere. This will help to cut emissions and ensure developing countries are not impoverished by carbon-cutting measures.'
Maybe it needs to be explained to me in ways I can grasp, but that doesn't seem to me to be, as per the title, cutting emissions, but moving them around a bit, globally, which is not quite the same thing... is it?
At least it's acknowledged in the small print that "Offsetting emissions from transport isn't the answer to climate change ".
Apparently, 'the GCOF is being managed by EEA Fund Management Ltd, who won the contract to source and deliver 255,000 Certified Emission Reduction Credits, with a provision for a further 50,000 credits, over three years from a range of Kyoto-registered projects. Credits will be supplied from the project portfolio of Trading Emissions PLC, to whom EEA is the Investment Advisor.' Whatever that means.
Defra's aim is sustainable development. Nice.
One couldn't also help but wonder if, as it is taxpayers money being used here, the offsets might not be more [insert non-judgemental phase here]-lly targeted first more locally, perhaps on insulation for non-golden pensioners, and other folk who have paid all their lives to fund civil service salaries and pensions.
Don't know why, but the first thing that popped into my head was an expression from the military: DEFRACon 3.
Because I rather leapt to the notion that whatever else might or might happen, jobs would for sure be created. It's just a matter of where, and doing what, that concerns me, especially when I read on to this:
Government Carbon Offsetting Fund Members
Central Government (including participating agencies)
Cabinet Office
The Prime Minister's Office
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Department for Local Government and Planning
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
Department of Health
Department for International Development
Department for Transport
Government Car and Despatch Agency
Department for Work and Pensions
The Rent Service
Export Credits Guarantee Department
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Valuation Office Agency
Her Majesty's Treasury
Home Office
Identity and Passport Service
Criminal Records Bureau
Forensic Science Service
Law Officers' Department
Crown Prosecution Service
Serious Fraud Office
Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
Attorney General's Office
Treasury Solicitors
HM CPS Inspectorate
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Sustainable Development Commission
Other partners
Parliament
(including both Houses and the British American Parliamentary Group)
The Greater London Authority
Metropolitan Police Service
Transport for London
London Development Agency
The Royal Household
That seems an awful lot here (I'm guessing there is a, or a department off offset munchkins in each to play with all this) for not so many there.
I also still need to get my head around the whole carbcon deal to appreciate how it truly saves my kids' futures, as paying towards the projects 'would ensure that the carbon footprint of Government air travel was neutralised by ensuring emissions were avoided elsewhere. This will help to cut emissions and ensure developing countries are not impoverished by carbon-cutting measures.'
Maybe it needs to be explained to me in ways I can grasp, but that doesn't seem to me to be, as per the title, cutting emissions, but moving them around a bit, globally, which is not quite the same thing... is it?
At least it's acknowledged in the small print that "Offsetting emissions from transport isn't the answer to climate change ".
Apparently, 'the GCOF is being managed by EEA Fund Management Ltd, who won the contract to source and deliver 255,000 Certified Emission Reduction Credits, with a provision for a further 50,000 credits, over three years from a range of Kyoto-registered projects. Credits will be supplied from the project portfolio of Trading Emissions PLC, to whom EEA is the Investment Advisor.' Whatever that means.
Defra's aim is sustainable development. Nice.
One couldn't also help but wonder if, as it is taxpayers money being used here, the offsets might not be more [insert non-judgemental phase here]-lly targeted first more locally, perhaps on insulation for non-golden pensioners, and other folk who have paid all their lives to fund civil service salaries and pensions.
Just one, wafer-thin fact...
A flight of fancy, or fancy cutting your flights...? : Time to get tough
I saw this as one of those 'Great idea but..' notions along with carbon trading, which all seem to presume an instantaneous, and frankly miraculous level of engagement and cooperation between every competitive country and company on the globe to result in a fair and equitable system to be initiated down through corporate to an individual level.
Then I saw this: '...assessed their figures under internationally-accepted methodology'. Which suggests things are further ahead than I thought. What is this and have you a link to it?
If everyone has already accepted the methodology of assessment, then we are a long way to the rest already. But then some seem not to have embraced it yet. If so, why not?
I saw this as one of those 'Great idea but..' notions along with carbon trading, which all seem to presume an instantaneous, and frankly miraculous level of engagement and cooperation between every competitive country and company on the globe to result in a fair and equitable system to be initiated down through corporate to an individual level.
Then I saw this: '...assessed their figures under internationally-accepted methodology'. Which suggests things are further ahead than I thought. What is this and have you a link to it?
If everyone has already accepted the methodology of assessment, then we are a long way to the rest already. But then some seem not to have embraced it yet. If so, why not?
When the going gets tough, the tough start labelling
Now I know the uneladed pump is green, but now which shade...? Time To Ecolabel Biofuels?
WEEE, I'm doing my bit to help the 3rd world!
Or not. Second hand mobile phones causing waste problems in Kenya
It doesn't matter where it goes or what it does when it gets there, but so long as 'we' recycle and are seen to do it, I am sure spending like there's no tomorrow (don't get me started) on new toys will seem just spiffy.
It doesn't matter where it goes or what it does when it gets there, but so long as 'we' recycle and are seen to do it, I am sure spending like there's no tomorrow (don't get me started) on new toys will seem just spiffy.
Fund, fund fund, 'til Daddy took the T-bird away
And if your business is into ELV's, or any other 're-initiative', this may be for you: WRAP launches new funding scheme
I'm betting Junkk.com or RE:tie won't qualify. But I gladly 'share the lurv'.
I'm betting Junkk.com or RE:tie won't qualify. But I gladly 'share the lurv'.
Here's one I saw earlier that might not make the programme...
... or the front page of the Indy, either: Reducing food packaging will not solve waste problem
A bit of pragmatism at last from our left mouth:right mouth government/quango/media organs? Well, 'an official' at least, though Defra’s 'head of sustainable development' Ms. Bronwen Jones sounds pretty high up the tree to me!
However I must say that, again, the headline is a tad misleading. Of course reducing some food packaging can, will and should reduce unnecessary waste and lead to an even better enviROI+.
A timely reminder in light of the Love Food:Hate Waste initiative now under way?
Now who has being banging on, for how long, in precisely these terms: 'The complexity is on who really has the power here? Retailers are key influencers but they claim that they are just driven by what consumers want. Consumers often claim that their behaviour is unduly influenced by retailers and they are reluctant to act without Government taking the first step and taking the lead. Government wants to be responsive to people but does not want to be accused of being a nanny state. There is a real tension between the three way relationship; the reality is that all these actors have some type of leadership role to play.”?
Guess that's why I get the big bucks... er...
MRW - Food and drink manufacturers pledge to cut packaging and food waste - just hope it's in the right places and for the right reasons
A bit of pragmatism at last from our left mouth:right mouth government/quango/media organs? Well, 'an official' at least, though Defra’s 'head of sustainable development' Ms. Bronwen Jones sounds pretty high up the tree to me!
However I must say that, again, the headline is a tad misleading. Of course reducing some food packaging can, will and should reduce unnecessary waste and lead to an even better enviROI+.
A timely reminder in light of the Love Food:Hate Waste initiative now under way?
Now who has being banging on, for how long, in precisely these terms: 'The complexity is on who really has the power here? Retailers are key influencers but they claim that they are just driven by what consumers want. Consumers often claim that their behaviour is unduly influenced by retailers and they are reluctant to act without Government taking the first step and taking the lead. Government wants to be responsive to people but does not want to be accused of being a nanny state. There is a real tension between the three way relationship; the reality is that all these actors have some type of leadership role to play.”?
Guess that's why I get the big bucks... er...
MRW - Food and drink manufacturers pledge to cut packaging and food waste - just hope it's in the right places and for the right reasons
Strawberries, ripe strawberries!
Wow! After the broccoli growing in Greenland story, strawberry plants still producing ripening fruit in the UK during November!
And I've got to somehow find time to cut my lawns again this weekend, they're still going strong! A few years ago the last cut used to be around the first week of October!
Nuff said!
And I've got to somehow find time to cut my lawns again this weekend, they're still going strong! A few years ago the last cut used to be around the first week of October!
Nuff said!
The public may have a right to know...
...but why do TV companies have a right to say one thing whilst doing another? TV matters: Long Way Down
This more about trust in what you see. But I think it is a telling indictment of what you are often told. Just how many folk are there behind the camera to bring us that guy speaking earnestly to mic about the state of our planet... from a rather nice location but a 4X4 trip, 5* overnighter and return flight away?
This more about trust in what you see. But I think it is a telling indictment of what you are often told. Just how many folk are there behind the camera to bring us that guy speaking earnestly to mic about the state of our planet... from a rather nice location but a 4X4 trip, 5* overnighter and return flight away?
Wood and trees
This from the Indy Letters page about the role of trees in the carbon cycle bears a thought:
How forests store greenhouse gas
Steve Connor's article "Forests losing the ability to absorb man-made carbon" (1 November) illustrates one of the most common misconceptions surrounding absorption of atmospheric carbon by trees: the misapprehension that forests are net absorbers of CO2.
A mature forest is incredibly useful to us as a store of carbon since any carbon that is fixed within the mass of a living tree is carbon that is not contributing to global warming. However, an existing forest can never help us in our plight unless it is spreading to cover more land. A mature forest (like a mature individual tree) is essentially "carbon neutral": it is absorbing only as much as it is releasing.
Unfortunately, there is not one significant area of mature forest on our planet that is increasing in size. We only get a net benefit when we plant new trees and thereby create new forest. We are in desperate need of more trees and the really sad thing is that this article will lead to fewer new trees being planted.
So... my banging on about not knocking down forests is valid, but not enough. Equally, I retain some significant doubts on many (not all) 'offset schemes' which, as I glibly put it, 'whack a fir in t' firmament - hey, an missed acronym: 'WAFIF'.
In fact, this kind of connects to my notion that using FSC-certified products might actually help over recycling by encouraging replanting. Or does it, as the net area does not expand... oh, my spinning head!
Indy - How timber can store carbon
How forests store greenhouse gas
Steve Connor's article "Forests losing the ability to absorb man-made carbon" (1 November) illustrates one of the most common misconceptions surrounding absorption of atmospheric carbon by trees: the misapprehension that forests are net absorbers of CO2.
A mature forest is incredibly useful to us as a store of carbon since any carbon that is fixed within the mass of a living tree is carbon that is not contributing to global warming. However, an existing forest can never help us in our plight unless it is spreading to cover more land. A mature forest (like a mature individual tree) is essentially "carbon neutral": it is absorbing only as much as it is releasing.
Unfortunately, there is not one significant area of mature forest on our planet that is increasing in size. We only get a net benefit when we plant new trees and thereby create new forest. We are in desperate need of more trees and the really sad thing is that this article will lead to fewer new trees being planted.
So... my banging on about not knocking down forests is valid, but not enough. Equally, I retain some significant doubts on many (not all) 'offset schemes' which, as I glibly put it, 'whack a fir in t' firmament - hey, an missed acronym: 'WAFIF'.
In fact, this kind of connects to my notion that using FSC-certified products might actually help over recycling by encouraging replanting. Or does it, as the net area does not expand... oh, my spinning head!
Indy - How timber can store carbon
Fundamentals? Or financial flows?
As oil approaches the $100 per barrel marker, decide for yourself. As reported in the FT.
Not that long ago $80 a barrel was considered damaging for the world economy, yet here we are seeing the $100 barrel around the corner.
And yet some of the big boys are already profiteering. On my journey across the south coast last Sunday I spotted diesel offered at a lowest price of 98.9p/litre, more commonly something like 101.9 to 102.9p/litre, but some Texaco garages had it priced at a staggering 108.9p/litre. I hope the greedy bastards go bust! (Fat chance!)
The sad thing is that it will ALL be at that level before long. And guess who benefits the most? All that extra tax goes straight into the government's coffers. More cash for additional quangos, targets and surveys then?
Not that long ago $80 a barrel was considered damaging for the world economy, yet here we are seeing the $100 barrel around the corner.
And yet some of the big boys are already profiteering. On my journey across the south coast last Sunday I spotted diesel offered at a lowest price of 98.9p/litre, more commonly something like 101.9 to 102.9p/litre, but some Texaco garages had it priced at a staggering 108.9p/litre. I hope the greedy bastards go bust! (Fat chance!)
The sad thing is that it will ALL be at that level before long. And guess who benefits the most? All that extra tax goes straight into the government's coffers. More cash for additional quangos, targets and surveys then?
Palm oil hits troubled waters?
Now we have all read about how palm oil production is increasing rapidly across suitable areas of the planet, especially now that it can also be utilised as a source of bio-diesel.
This from Greenpeace, names some leading British brands which appear to be highly complicit in the destruction of Indonesia's peat swamp forests which are being replaced with palm oil plantations.
The report explains "how peatlands in the Indonesian province of Riau (an area the size of Switzerland) store a massive 14.6 billion tons of carbon (2) - equivalent to one year's global greenhouse gas emissions. Further expansion for the production of palm oil for food and biofuels threatens to release this enormous store of carbon into the atmosphere."
If it is true that "palm oil from companies engaged in forest and peatland destruction is then ‘laundered' through the entire supply chain, ending up with well known" British brands, then I suspect there are going to be some very red faces in forthcoming board meetings.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Guardian - Big food companies accused of risking climate catastrophe - 'Risking'...bless. Funny, I was just reading about P&G's eco-efforts, along with Shell's green ad being pulled by the ASA, and...
This from Greenpeace, names some leading British brands which appear to be highly complicit in the destruction of Indonesia's peat swamp forests which are being replaced with palm oil plantations.
The report explains "how peatlands in the Indonesian province of Riau (an area the size of Switzerland) store a massive 14.6 billion tons of carbon (2) - equivalent to one year's global greenhouse gas emissions. Further expansion for the production of palm oil for food and biofuels threatens to release this enormous store of carbon into the atmosphere."
If it is true that "palm oil from companies engaged in forest and peatland destruction is then ‘laundered' through the entire supply chain, ending up with well known" British brands, then I suspect there are going to be some very red faces in forthcoming board meetings.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Guardian - Big food companies accused of risking climate catastrophe - 'Risking'...bless. Funny, I was just reading about P&G's eco-efforts, along with Shell's green ad being pulled by the ASA, and...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)