This got me to wondering just what one would need to sustain one's family (of 4), acre-wise, when the revolution comes: Ask the experts: The rural consultant
'I was just wondering. Take the future 'situation we might face' to a rather stark conclusion, and what would a family of four need to be self-sustaining?
That is, once it has been ring-fenced and armed against marauding hordes who opted for the weekend break in the Maldives and latest X5 by way of lifestyle investments.'
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Now there's a thought..
Lust, greed and envy - Councils should stop wasting money on green gimmicks and be practical
Bang on. Though, of course, recycling is a tad down the totem, 'Re:worthy-wise'. Reduction and, much more fun, reuse are higher. Oddly, though not if one is of a target-meeting, bonus-accruing, fine-avoiding, box-ticking bent, councils do like their recycling a lot. Which is why we see so much money spent assisting us in doing the right thing. I just can't help but wonder if all that money might not have been better spent on just helping lots of folk actually DO something tangible, as opposed to keep those 'rates' peppy.
Thing is, it's not always that simple to do the right thing if you are so minded. I tried, and look where it got me, just on the matter of plastic bags with, or maybe despite, local authority 'guidance'
Food waste disposal? Sorry, not sure on that one yet, either:
But I'm on the case, soon to be issued is the carbon comparison site comparison, er, site. Because you can never have enough awareness!
Bang on. Though, of course, recycling is a tad down the totem, 'Re:worthy-wise'. Reduction and, much more fun, reuse are higher. Oddly, though not if one is of a target-meeting, bonus-accruing, fine-avoiding, box-ticking bent, councils do like their recycling a lot. Which is why we see so much money spent assisting us in doing the right thing. I just can't help but wonder if all that money might not have been better spent on just helping lots of folk actually DO something tangible, as opposed to keep those 'rates' peppy.
Thing is, it's not always that simple to do the right thing if you are so minded. I tried, and look where it got me, just on the matter of plastic bags with, or maybe despite, local authority 'guidance'
Food waste disposal? Sorry, not sure on that one yet, either:
But I'm on the case, soon to be issued is the carbon comparison site comparison, er, site. Because you can never have enough awareness!
Always look on the bright side of life..' ta-dum
‘Going green’ are we - then where’s the big stick?
Agree with pretty much all... though I would have to say that there are many, though agreed mostly small and often barely significant, ways to 'go green that can confer considerable upsides in terms of time and money over warm fuzziness.
You just need to know where to look, and have a 'why not' kind of attitude to not wasting if it isn't necessary.
Agree with pretty much all... though I would have to say that there are many, though agreed mostly small and often barely significant, ways to 'go green that can confer considerable upsides in terms of time and money over warm fuzziness.
You just need to know where to look, and have a 'why not' kind of attitude to not wasting if it isn't necessary.
The Gord giveth... and...
Gordon Brown's hot air
Hmnn... yes.
Didn't that Newsnight go well?
Meanwhile, I am looking at a tearsheet summary from the Sunday Indy (may have been here, too, sorry), and which may all have changed by now, but it says:
'Small business that want to do their bit for the environment face higher tax bills... the Valuation Office Agency, and arm of the IR , is preparing to tax solar panels, wind turbines and micro-generation tech with higher business rates and council tax. This follows news that GB is set to abandon TB's targets on renewable energy.'
But, as they say, maybe a few days is a long time in politics.
In any case, it may not be that bad. They'll probably lose the records anyway:)
The Gord giveth... and...
Has Brown finally become a bright-green revolutionary?
Bless.
I'm guessing he may be going various hues of all sorts of colours at the 'mo, but I'd be hard pressed to see a hint of green in any of them.
Do you actually read other articles in your paper?
Hmnn... yes.
Didn't that Newsnight go well?
Meanwhile, I am looking at a tearsheet summary from the Sunday Indy (may have been here, too, sorry), and which may all have changed by now, but it says:
'Small business that want to do their bit for the environment face higher tax bills... the Valuation Office Agency, and arm of the IR , is preparing to tax solar panels, wind turbines and micro-generation tech with higher business rates and council tax. This follows news that GB is set to abandon TB's targets on renewable energy.'
But, as they say, maybe a few days is a long time in politics.
In any case, it may not be that bad. They'll probably lose the records anyway:)
The Gord giveth... and...
Has Brown finally become a bright-green revolutionary?
Bless.
I'm guessing he may be going various hues of all sorts of colours at the 'mo, but I'd be hard pressed to see a hint of green in any of them.
Do you actually read other articles in your paper?
Hidden Gems
Recycling award for Morrisons
And a big-up to them
Thing is, as a weekly Morrsions shopper, I can honestly say I have never noticed the things. Or if I have, acted any differently.
As a metaphor for most green initiatives, that's about tops.
And a big-up to them
Thing is, as a weekly Morrsions shopper, I can honestly say I have never noticed the things. Or if I have, acted any differently.
As a metaphor for most green initiatives, that's about tops.
Remember, what you believe need not be what you mean
The ongoing genius of Dilbert.This could go with almost all my posts, frankly, but mainly those regarding Government, the BBC or Guardian CiF.
What 'e sed!
WHO SAYS IT’S JUNK FOOD?
Good point. One of... quite a few on the issue of who says anything is anything. From what constitutes a 'young marketer' (it's another thread somewhere) to what plastic bags are acceptable. On the latter, more serious (jobs and enviROIs are often at stake) side, most seem to originate from unelected knee-jerks with a good PR and/or speed dial to a media luvvie, which then gets hyped and spun to acquire a head of self-interested steam, and thus gets picked up as useful idiot populist distractions from the real, major issues being mishandled by the elected variety.
I should declare a slight interest, as not all that is junk need be bad:
Peter Martin
Junkk Male
Junkk.com
(Mind you, it's the extra Special K that makes all the difference - and yes, we do have a use for that too)
Good point. One of... quite a few on the issue of who says anything is anything. From what constitutes a 'young marketer' (it's another thread somewhere) to what plastic bags are acceptable. On the latter, more serious (jobs and enviROIs are often at stake) side, most seem to originate from unelected knee-jerks with a good PR and/or speed dial to a media luvvie, which then gets hyped and spun to acquire a head of self-interested steam, and thus gets picked up as useful idiot populist distractions from the real, major issues being mishandled by the elected variety.
I should declare a slight interest, as not all that is junk need be bad:
Peter Martin
Junkk Male
Junkk.com
(Mind you, it's the extra Special K that makes all the difference - and yes, we do have a use for that too)
It's good to share
VBS offers airtime incentive to socially beneficial advertisers
Sort of an ee-BOGOF? (Enviro/Electronic)
Now all I need is the £ to match the other one.
Worth a go.
Sort of an ee-BOGOF? (Enviro/Electronic)
Now all I need is the £ to match the other one.
Worth a go.
CATEGORY - FISHING
Another day, another category:
fishonline.org - The Marine Conservation Society, Britain's biggest marine charity, has a list of fish to eat and fish to avoid
fishonline.org - The Marine Conservation Society, Britain's biggest marine charity, has a list of fish to eat and fish to avoid
Fishing in the stocks
I raised this in a recent blog and as it's mentioned in more detail here think it's worth sharing: How do we balance conservation with the interests of the fishing industry?
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why it is beyond the ken of those in charge not to figure out a cost-effective, practical and fair way to police this issue to the satisfaction of the conservationist whilst avoiding such grotesque WASTE!!!! '...between 40 and 60 per cent of fish caught each year is thrown over the side.'
Actually, hold that thought. I can figure out why it is beyond their ken. It's tricky. They don't do tricky any more.
Meanwhile, in the spirit of proactivity: The Marine Conservation Society, Britain's biggest marine charity, has a list of fish to eat and fish to avoid on its website – fishonline.org. Waitrose and Marks & Spencer top its list of supermarkets for sustainable fish.
BBC - Fish dumping 'will ruin industry'
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why it is beyond the ken of those in charge not to figure out a cost-effective, practical and fair way to police this issue to the satisfaction of the conservationist whilst avoiding such grotesque WASTE!!!! '...between 40 and 60 per cent of fish caught each year is thrown over the side.'
Actually, hold that thought. I can figure out why it is beyond their ken. It's tricky. They don't do tricky any more.
Meanwhile, in the spirit of proactivity: The Marine Conservation Society, Britain's biggest marine charity, has a list of fish to eat and fish to avoid on its website – fishonline.org. Waitrose and Marks & Spencer top its list of supermarkets for sustainable fish.
BBC - Fish dumping 'will ruin industry'
Running on empty
I get a lot of things from BBC Breakfast News, but seldom epiphanies.
It happened during a morning catalogue of failures, but three in short order struck me.
1. The HM Customs & Revenue cock up.
2. A story on failures in the NHS, with a couple seeking/getting compo for their kid's poor, ultimately fatal, treatment. They get money for their loss (not quite sure how this benefits them, or indeed susbsequent families, but there we go. I'd want justice, not cash). Where from? And how are those responsible for the mess prevented from repeating them?
3. The summit on 'binge drinking' whereby the government (indeed Mr. 'key issues' Brown) is requiring the drinks industry to 'deal' with the issue. They may be complicit through woeful ethics and morals, but it's all still legal, the rules of which are set by whom?
It is now clear to me that we are in a situation where everyone is responsible, with all the benefits such positions confer, but no one is accountable. This is as true of much in the private sector as public, but in the latter it has become truly endemic. Government. Local Authority. Health Service. Quango. BBC.
And those outside the system are cursed to continually pick up the tab for those within it. Why do I pay for the fine for a failure that has impacted upon me?
From Northern Rock to hospital cock-ups to Treasury melt-downs to you name it, the one thing that has gone stratospheric, is the amount of money institutions (and their failed managements) shell out to 'deal' with the failings of individuals within them.
So it's not just the screw-ups, it's the screw-ups who oversee them too.
We need to ask why. And who. And hold all of them to account.
Speaking of which, I think I now see the reasons behind the various urgencies for various stellar government operatives to move into a new slot. I have a vision of a Looney Tunes cartoon with fizzing packages marked 'my last 10 years' being handed from Blair to Brown and Brown to Darling (and...)
ADDENDUM:
Actually, I was wondering if any of the techno-whizzes out there could do a quick Google/cache/whatever so we could have a list of just how many times a government munchkin has gone on air or in print over the last few months to say 'we must learn from these mistakes', with the rictus grin of one with no intention of doing so.
Better yet, with a wee tally besides to show just how many they patently haven't 'learned from', and the consequences (or not) to those who have suffered from this double-speak, compared (career/£/pension-wise) with those who still gain by getting away with it.
Sorry, I'm grumpy.*
*Two conversations , so far, (one with SKY, one with Halifax) that went in circles as they called me today but wanted first, for data protection reasons, to confirm my details. In light of events, I told them to tell me what they had on me and I would confirm or not. But no, they needed me to tell them. Nice one Nu-Lab! Now nothing can get done... official.
Newsnight
Daily Mash - You gotta laugh, 'else you'll cry
Guardian - The sheer gormlessness of Discgate theatens Labour's claim to power
Indy - Lost in the post: the personal details of 25 million people - a few questions.
Me, I just wonder how the whole salary/pension thing works out once the dust settles.
ADDENDUM: And this, Mr. Darling, is why it matters to me:
HSBC Security Precaution
Dear Valued Customer,
For your security, we have temporarily prevented access to your online banking.
HSBC safeguard your account when there is a possibility that someone other than you is logging on. You may be getting this message because you are logging on from a different location or device.If this is the case, your access may be restored when you revalidate your logon details.Please click on Get Started button below to continue to the verification process
Get Started
N.B (Failure to validate your logon details correctly might lead to online access suspension)
I don't have an HSBC account. It took 'em less than 24hrs to get going on the disarray this situation has created.
BBC - A yawning gap
It happened during a morning catalogue of failures, but three in short order struck me.
1. The HM Customs & Revenue cock up.
2. A story on failures in the NHS, with a couple seeking/getting compo for their kid's poor, ultimately fatal, treatment. They get money for their loss (not quite sure how this benefits them, or indeed susbsequent families, but there we go. I'd want justice, not cash). Where from? And how are those responsible for the mess prevented from repeating them?
3. The summit on 'binge drinking' whereby the government (indeed Mr. 'key issues' Brown) is requiring the drinks industry to 'deal' with the issue. They may be complicit through woeful ethics and morals, but it's all still legal, the rules of which are set by whom?
It is now clear to me that we are in a situation where everyone is responsible, with all the benefits such positions confer, but no one is accountable. This is as true of much in the private sector as public, but in the latter it has become truly endemic. Government. Local Authority. Health Service. Quango. BBC.
And those outside the system are cursed to continually pick up the tab for those within it. Why do I pay for the fine for a failure that has impacted upon me?
From Northern Rock to hospital cock-ups to Treasury melt-downs to you name it, the one thing that has gone stratospheric, is the amount of money institutions (and their failed managements) shell out to 'deal' with the failings of individuals within them.
So it's not just the screw-ups, it's the screw-ups who oversee them too.
We need to ask why. And who. And hold all of them to account.
Speaking of which, I think I now see the reasons behind the various urgencies for various stellar government operatives to move into a new slot. I have a vision of a Looney Tunes cartoon with fizzing packages marked 'my last 10 years' being handed from Blair to Brown and Brown to Darling (and...)
ADDENDUM:
Actually, I was wondering if any of the techno-whizzes out there could do a quick Google/cache/whatever so we could have a list of just how many times a government munchkin has gone on air or in print over the last few months to say 'we must learn from these mistakes', with the rictus grin of one with no intention of doing so.
Better yet, with a wee tally besides to show just how many they patently haven't 'learned from', and the consequences (or not) to those who have suffered from this double-speak, compared (career/£/pension-wise) with those who still gain by getting away with it.
Sorry, I'm grumpy.*
*Two conversations , so far, (one with SKY, one with Halifax) that went in circles as they called me today but wanted first, for data protection reasons, to confirm my details. In light of events, I told them to tell me what they had on me and I would confirm or not. But no, they needed me to tell them. Nice one Nu-Lab! Now nothing can get done... official.
Newsnight
Daily Mash - You gotta laugh, 'else you'll cry
Guardian - The sheer gormlessness of Discgate theatens Labour's claim to power
Indy - Lost in the post: the personal details of 25 million people - a few questions.
Me, I just wonder how the whole salary/pension thing works out once the dust settles.
ADDENDUM: And this, Mr. Darling, is why it matters to me:
HSBC Security Precaution
Dear Valued Customer,
For your security, we have temporarily prevented access to your online banking.
HSBC safeguard your account when there is a possibility that someone other than you is logging on. You may be getting this message because you are logging on from a different location or device.If this is the case, your access may be restored when you revalidate your logon details.Please click on Get Started button below to continue to the verification process
Get Started
N.B (Failure to validate your logon details correctly might lead to online access suspension)
I don't have an HSBC account. It took 'em less than 24hrs to get going on the disarray this situation has created.
BBC - A yawning gap
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
No ifs, No buts.
I think that was the strap line for the benefit fraud advertlet that I saw recently on TV.
Shame that HM Revenue and Customs can't seem to look after their own computer records properly. So Paul Gray, chairman of HM Revenue and Customs, has resigned over this disaster. They managed to lose the personal data of some 25 million people! Have they never heard of backup? The responsibility, and accountability, for this rests at ministerial level.
So, coming on top of the revelations about just how much government (i.e. read, our) money has been used to prop up Northern Rock ........ No if, No buts, Darling; just resign.
But that would require accountability, which does not seem to be a term that exists in the realm of pols nowadays.
Shame that HM Revenue and Customs can't seem to look after their own computer records properly. So Paul Gray, chairman of HM Revenue and Customs, has resigned over this disaster. They managed to lose the personal data of some 25 million people! Have they never heard of backup? The responsibility, and accountability, for this rests at ministerial level.
So, coming on top of the revelations about just how much government (i.e. read, our) money has been used to prop up Northern Rock ........ No if, No buts, Darling; just resign.
But that would require accountability, which does not seem to be a term that exists in the realm of pols nowadays.
These guys run on air!
I somehow missed this a few weeks back, but it's still worth sharing. We've all heard of ill fated attempts to create vehicles that run on compressed air, it's something that engineers have tried to do since the 19th century. Well, as reported in the International Herald Tribune, the time of the compressed air (and/or compressed air / petrol or electric hybrid) vehicle, may be nearer than anyone ever realised.
"One prototype, which looks like a big version of a Smart car, can top 68 miles an hour and, at lower speeds, travel up to 120 miles without refueling. Plug the car into an outlet, and the engine, in compressor mode, will refill the tank in four hours."
"The Scuderi Group, in West Springfield, Massachusetts, has a hybrid engine design that compresses air and burns petroleum fuel in separate cylinders and uses some compressed air to extend the petroleum engine."
It sounds like an awfully cheaper technology than any Hydrogen or fuel cell vehicle. It will be interesting to see what future developments bring.
"One prototype, which looks like a big version of a Smart car, can top 68 miles an hour and, at lower speeds, travel up to 120 miles without refueling. Plug the car into an outlet, and the engine, in compressor mode, will refill the tank in four hours."
"The Scuderi Group, in West Springfield, Massachusetts, has a hybrid engine design that compresses air and burns petroleum fuel in separate cylinders and uses some compressed air to extend the petroleum engine."
It sounds like an awfully cheaper technology than any Hydrogen or fuel cell vehicle. It will be interesting to see what future developments bring.
Observation points
Funny how the same thing can get seen very differently, depending on where it is viewed from.
As some may know, I no longer contribute to 'BBC is Biased' because of their moderation policy, which is every bit as selective as the entity they purport to critique, but I do lurk a lot, as snippets of value and even well-considered notions do still get shared.
However, bearing in mind my attention on last night's BBC Newsnight, and the general 'IPCC-(no) evil, speak (no) evil and hear (no) evil' from all sides since Friday, I found a few things of interest:
'Newsnight reached new depths last night in its coverage of Brown's lunatic 'climate change' (higher tax, Soviet-style) measures.
The set-up was that a Greenpeace fanatic was allowed to lambast a colourless government spokesmen for ten minutes on the theme that the measures were not enough. Not an alternative view in sight. To his shame, Paxman aided and abetted the attack, and 'science' reporter Susan Watts has clearly become the harridan cheerleader for Beeboid climate change fascism. '
Slightly before this, we have:
Another vomit inducing lickfest by bunny hugging Richard Black (BBC Environment correspondent)... [let's just say he's not a fan of several folk].
Or...
Yet more garbage from Brown and lapped up... [actually , a few fair points]
Or...
Yep, Friends of the Earth are no longer an independent organisation. As the 'eureferendum' blog [no link, so I don't know if it is true, which I certainly didn't know 'til now] pointed out, they are more than 50% taxpayer funded, and basically a govt/EU dept. It is disgraceful that the Beeb still treats them as independent, and simply allows all their claims to pass unchallenged.
And...
The BBC'2 "expert" on the enfironment (yes that man with a degree in English) Roger Harrabin was spouting the Nu Labour bile... [Questions were asked]
I could go on. 'They' certainly are. And on. And on. At the moment it's back on a 'tis/t'isnt't MM/MWCC slugfest of absolutes... which as all who read this will know, I just love so much. Not.
What I do find interesting, and hence the reason for quoting here, is how one small microcosm of blogdom wants it all, all ways. I'm not defending the BBC at all here, as many comments are pretty bang on on its woeful role in all this. But mix in the government, activist groups (such as FoE, whose status - although as yet unconfirmed - was news to me... and not optimal to make them as credible as voices of 'balance' in debates) and media such as the Indy, Daily Mail, Guardian CiF, etc, and is it any wonder it's all such a mess?
All it shows to me is that you can never reply on one source, for opinion to be sure, but also fact. Some, such as activist groups and media extremes you expect it from. But our national medium and those we pay and rely upon to navigate our course.... sad.
As some may know, I no longer contribute to 'BBC is Biased' because of their moderation policy, which is every bit as selective as the entity they purport to critique, but I do lurk a lot, as snippets of value and even well-considered notions do still get shared.
However, bearing in mind my attention on last night's BBC Newsnight, and the general 'IPCC-(no) evil, speak (no) evil and hear (no) evil' from all sides since Friday, I found a few things of interest:
'Newsnight reached new depths last night in its coverage of Brown's lunatic 'climate change' (higher tax, Soviet-style) measures.
The set-up was that a Greenpeace fanatic was allowed to lambast a colourless government spokesmen for ten minutes on the theme that the measures were not enough. Not an alternative view in sight. To his shame, Paxman aided and abetted the attack, and 'science' reporter Susan Watts has clearly become the harridan cheerleader for Beeboid climate change fascism. '
Slightly before this, we have:
Another vomit inducing lickfest by bunny hugging Richard Black (BBC Environment correspondent)... [let's just say he's not a fan of several folk].
Or...
Yet more garbage from Brown and lapped up... [actually , a few fair points]
Or...
Yep, Friends of the Earth are no longer an independent organisation. As the 'eureferendum' blog [no link, so I don't know if it is true, which I certainly didn't know 'til now] pointed out, they are more than 50% taxpayer funded, and basically a govt/EU dept. It is disgraceful that the Beeb still treats them as independent, and simply allows all their claims to pass unchallenged.
And...
The BBC'2 "expert" on the enfironment (yes that man with a degree in English) Roger Harrabin was spouting the Nu Labour bile... [Questions were asked]
I could go on. 'They' certainly are. And on. And on. At the moment it's back on a 'tis/t'isnt't MM/MWCC slugfest of absolutes... which as all who read this will know, I just love so much. Not.
What I do find interesting, and hence the reason for quoting here, is how one small microcosm of blogdom wants it all, all ways. I'm not defending the BBC at all here, as many comments are pretty bang on on its woeful role in all this. But mix in the government, activist groups (such as FoE, whose status - although as yet unconfirmed - was news to me... and not optimal to make them as credible as voices of 'balance' in debates) and media such as the Indy, Daily Mail, Guardian CiF, etc, and is it any wonder it's all such a mess?
All it shows to me is that you can never reply on one source, for opinion to be sure, but also fact. Some, such as activist groups and media extremes you expect it from. But our national medium and those we pay and rely upon to navigate our course.... sad.
Coundown to Brussels
In one week I head for Belgium to try and 'sell' the RE:tie.
This piece in a trade journal caught my eye, and prompted a reply:
Are trade shows relevant?
Oh, lordy... I hope so! I just one week, I step into a hall in Brussels (I doubt 'Caps & Closures' will seduce many bar the more committed, or keen, but if you or yours are there please say hi) having blown a small fortune on an entry pass, Eurostar (thanks to all the French strikers) and a nice 2* bijou pension quite near the Marriot (I hope), on the odd notion that if I need to meet (to market my eco-related packaging innovation to) those who deal in Caps & Closures... then this is where I need to be to do it in one efficient shot. But... what will it be? A dozen booths staffed by juniors there to sell and not to deal? Seminars with potentially useful speakers who will vanish as soon as they leave the stage? Me sitting next but one (I will say hi to the guy right next to me at the events and in the canteen, but glad-handing every person smacks of desperation) to the Marketing/Packaging/CSR Director of Tescos and not knowing it? And lots of huddled groups of industry insiders who all know each other and are there more to catch up and play golf than find out new stuff? Fingers crossed... none of the above. And, as you say, I will get to meet the guy(s) who are keen to steal a march on the future. But it does cost, and prohibitively so to those trying to visit. And it is only today, with one week to go, that the organisers have released the site to facilitate serious networking. Not much time when I am also trying to coordinate my mobile pitch. I wish it were easier... and cheaper, but nothing ventured...
THIS is what I am talking about
Checking back on my recent posts to Newsnight, I find this more than interesting submission:
Germany has made progress on renewables, but it's not all jam. According to the article, gearboxes which were supposed to last 20 years have been failing in large numbers. There have also been other failures, including rotor blades flying off.
Now whilst the financial cost and percentage of generated power is often quoted, what never is quoted is the whole reason why these things exist in the first place - CO2. If these devices are failing and having to be replaced or repaired frequently, how much extra carbon does that generate and how does it affect the amount they save - in short - are they saving the planet or just another business opportunity?
It also leads to the question, if the UK rushes into more and more renewable before the technologies are mature, are we going to find costs rising on projects just as the Germans have?
Perhaps Newsnight should do a report on the reality of the German experience.
Spiegel Online - The Dangers of Wind Power
No one is saying we don't look around, or try, all manner of worthy solutions. But get the green-tinted glasses off! All we hear is what these things 'can' do at full tilt, 24/7. But as this shows, there are all manner of other considerations (it focuses on safety, but reliability is obviously bound in) that may mean they are not quite the solutions being claimed... especially on enviROI!
Germany has made progress on renewables, but it's not all jam. According to the article, gearboxes which were supposed to last 20 years have been failing in large numbers. There have also been other failures, including rotor blades flying off.
Now whilst the financial cost and percentage of generated power is often quoted, what never is quoted is the whole reason why these things exist in the first place - CO2. If these devices are failing and having to be replaced or repaired frequently, how much extra carbon does that generate and how does it affect the amount they save - in short - are they saving the planet or just another business opportunity?
It also leads to the question, if the UK rushes into more and more renewable before the technologies are mature, are we going to find costs rising on projects just as the Germans have?
Perhaps Newsnight should do a report on the reality of the German experience.
Spiegel Online - The Dangers of Wind Power
No one is saying we don't look around, or try, all manner of worthy solutions. But get the green-tinted glasses off! All we hear is what these things 'can' do at full tilt, 24/7. But as this shows, there are all manner of other considerations (it focuses on safety, but reliability is obviously bound in) that may mean they are not quite the solutions being claimed... especially on enviROI!
Too little, too late
Well, that's the Telegraph's take on Ol' Golden's key speech on the environment.
"the way he squared the circle was to give us rhetoric and a lot of targets pitched into the future, into someone else's term of office."
"it was extremely hard to see that what Mr Brown was proposing bore any relationship to Churchill's 'action this day'. It was more like 'action by 2020'. Targets for renewables, cars and incineration with energy recovery all tripped off his tongue - aimed at a decade or so hence."
"we have learnt to be wary of targets. We recognise obfuscation when we see it. And the only environmental slogan that will be believed is: 'Action in my term of office.' There was none yesterday."
Quite! I couldn't have put it better myself.
Oh, and I just loved the thought of Milliband and Brown looking for ideas to steal off the Tories.
The Times - seem to think it was all about sealing the fate of the plastic carrier bag.
As do those at The Indy. No, I'm being unfair, in its leading article it does take a serious look at the content of his speech. "The sad truth is that on the really big issues, Britain is taking a lead only in the production of hot air rather than in its reduction."
The Guardian - it's 'new and recycled pledges'. And "just like Blair - Brown was short on new policy."
"the way he squared the circle was to give us rhetoric and a lot of targets pitched into the future, into someone else's term of office."
"it was extremely hard to see that what Mr Brown was proposing bore any relationship to Churchill's 'action this day'. It was more like 'action by 2020'. Targets for renewables, cars and incineration with energy recovery all tripped off his tongue - aimed at a decade or so hence."
"we have learnt to be wary of targets. We recognise obfuscation when we see it. And the only environmental slogan that will be believed is: 'Action in my term of office.' There was none yesterday."
Quite! I couldn't have put it better myself.
Oh, and I just loved the thought of Milliband and Brown looking for ideas to steal off the Tories.
The Times - seem to think it was all about sealing the fate of the plastic carrier bag.
As do those at The Indy. No, I'm being unfair, in its leading article it does take a serious look at the content of his speech. "The sad truth is that on the really big issues, Britain is taking a lead only in the production of hot air rather than in its reduction."
The Guardian - it's 'new and recycled pledges'. And "just like Blair - Brown was short on new policy."
Monday, November 19, 2007
And as I sign off...
This from the BBC Newsnight 'teaser': 'And we hope an Environment Minister and the director of Greenpeace will go head to head on this story.'
Other than stumbling a bit over 'an' Environment Minister (how many of the sods are there?), that Newsnight still thinks one of their classic twofers - between a stonewalling 'the word of the Gord; and it is good' pol and an activist - will get the majority of the population stuck in the middle any further ahead in understanding where we are and what we need to do that's best for the future, pretty much sums up just how far down the pan the planet really is headed.
Next we'll be getting travel tips from the hugely qualified 'team' (how many, Freedom of Information request-wise, are going?) packing their factor 15 for the Bali joll... er... trip. Doubtless once there they will hook up round the pool with the aforementioned pols(s) and activist directors to figure how best to tell the rest of us what not to do and what will cost us.
New brooms all round, please.
ADDENDUM - Just watched it.
Well good golly; did that go just as I expected, predicted... and feared.
A defensive pol who got the short straw and with non hiding place, in a snit. An equally defensive media supremo on a high horse. And, actually, the guy from Greenpeace... the activist... about the only voice of calm, if not reason.
That said, we were treated to screeds of data. Targets, mainly. Missed ones even more mainly. Unachievable ones to follow, but who cares as they can be fiddled later or it won't matter to the guys who set them, as they'll have retired on the full golden well before it comes home to roost.
Was I any the wiser as a member of public, a parent... a voter... as to who had a grip on this and, more importantly, what was expected of all - government, business, media, public - and how we were going to rally around and resolve what some say is a crisis... or is it not really? We were talking second slot here. With two guys I'd never heard of as guests. In a piece on the UK's efforts to avoid global meltdown. Or not.
About the only concrete things that vaguely sunk in was some waffle about renewables, but again these were just a bunch of figures that meant nothing to me. So we catch up with Germany and end up with x% offshore, solar, tidal and whatnot by 20yy? But what's the ROI? What's the enviROI? We already are seeing vast amounts being poured into green holes by countless departments and quangos staffed by legions of salaried, pensioned paper-pushers, mainly on 'awareness' that seems to have achieved diddly squat. I must now have about a dozen ways to hand to calculate my carbon footprint, when they could have simply handed the money blown on all this to me to stick more loft insulation up to actually reduce it by a huge domestic %. Or sort out the trains. And I'm sorry, from woefully mis-informed plastic bagwagons to well-lobbied offshore projects, I simply do not trust any of this current sorry cabal of interest groups to tell me what's best for my kids, much less actually bite the bullet and get down and dirty to actually do it. Especially if there's the slightest chance that a well-feathered political nest, career or bottom line can get supported first, first-class from Valencia to Bali via Westminster. Offset of course. Just because these things LOOK green and we're told they are doesn't actually make them any better at reducing CO2, especially in the timeframes I'm hearing. Heck, some may meet a target, boost a rating, score a contribution or fund a conference pass... yet make things worse, climatically.
We are TOLD on Friday that the world is facing a climatic disaster. By Saturday few in the media have much to say about it; fewer still on Sunday. Tonight this is the best we can do, after a bit of a hoo-haa over a bank. That's what gets the ratings, so that's where the media will go. The Minister will go with the votes, and they go where the economy goes, so until he can bail it's just a matter of getting away for as long as possible with 'we need all this stuff because of the economic demands of the electorate' while saying lots 'will/may/could/ be done'. So after 1o years of 'looking at', we'll need to settle of a load more navel gazing until... er... the next load.
I respect the sincerity of activist groups such as Greenpeace, but it really is also way too easy to sit and snipe from a comfy, well-funded 'anti'-position, and ignore other, equally basic realities. Such as growing populations and increased demands on a finite planet to support ever more aspirational, competitive individuals upon it. Addressing these does not play well with the core support, and hence only selected parts of the narrative , the easy ones that play well in Islington, seem to get highlighted. But I certainly endorse spiking the pathetic official charade I heard: claiming carbon capture commitments whilst obviously having no such intention as evidenced by certain projects already committed to. Again, I repeat, after 10 years to get sorted, much less underway. What have they been doing the last decade?
No, it's not that simple. But if it is serious (and I have to believe it is), then for all the rest of us to take it seriously we need those who claim to be taking a lead to show it's serious. And some imagination. Sorry... to date, no one and nothing that's been trotted out so far seems to have floated many folks' boats very successfully, even pretty PR picture ones like the WWF effort opening the piece. So even the current crop of more incentive-based, proactive, well-directed, cost-effective and positive efforts (such as they are) are not getting through. At all. It's all fluff and bluster and scare and guilt and levy and fine. And no result.
What a shambolic performance. By the whole sorry lot. My poor kids.
We need doers; not talkers. And quick.
I have just written to BBC Breakfast news:
The day after Mr. Brown's climate speech, in which there are but a few lines on air travel, and we get... plastic bags.
If we are to get serious on this issue, I'd like to see our national broadcaster get its priorities straight.
What is the actual contribution/impact of this plastic product vs. almost any other?
And I am not even convinced that the ban calls, at least in the current from, are much more than misguided, headlines-friendly knee-jerks.
Is the Irish experience a total success as claimed? Are biodegradables the solution as advised, at least in the blanket manner portrayed?
I am not so sure.
And the thoughts of a grocery magazine editor and a 'NetMummy' (the choice of sofa twofer) hardly the considered, expert, objective views I feel like relying upon to help me decide.
Back to Newsnight:
We need less trivial TV, and a lot more like the fish stocks 'waste' topic that is both substantive and worth addressing, especially during yet another 'awareness' (are you? It's called Love Food. Hate Waste. Full colour ads in the Sunday supps) campaign exhorting the consumer not to waste food.
All I can retain is a 'me-not-EUcrat' smiling benignly and saying 'the principle is clear, but the problem is the detail'. The Devil is laughing that it is the latter that now dominates thinking. We can no longer see the deforestation for the bio-crops.
BBC - Brown tackles the home front - an interesting, er...
ANALYSIS
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Key opening line: 'A smiling Gordon Brown set out his environmental vision in London
Gordon Brown might have made it into a list of the world's sexiest men earlier this year...'
'He did the big picture stuff on UN climate negotiations and global projections for fossil fuel burning.' Did he.. really?
'But he homed in on the small ...' and, some would (well, I would) say are plain distractions from the bigger picture... and failings at top level. Abetted by such as this tripe.
'Advisors will dispense wisdom on saving energy and water, microgeneration, and green travel.' More bloody paid. pensioned talkers, taking money from DOING!!!!
If Green Homes is able to stimulate take-up of microgeneration technologies such as domestic wind turbines, ground source heat pumps and biomass co-generation units, it could put take Britain somewhere towards the third EU target, on renewable energy.' Read that though and wonder.
'The costs and the dearth of suppliers mean the take-up of these technologies is unlikely to be huge.' Is that the reason?
'So meeting the renewable energy target is still going to mean construction on a vast scale of wind and tidal turbines, solar arrays, biomass burners and so on.' How about reducing CO2... the enviROI.
Mr Brown did not neglect these areas.
...Mr Brown is aiming for...
The Severn Barrage is up for serious discussion, and planning reforms should make for easier and faster passage of all feasible renewable proposals.
... government policy would be "examined for its impact on carbon emissions"
'The prime minister's speech has generally been well received by the environment and development organisations....' these being?
'Mr Brown's speech has now pushed their plain sibling to the front of the stage, and we shall see if five million small green shoots can together make a rainbow-bright future.' I guessing this guys a shoo-in for the front of the plane to Bali with the minister!
In-credible!
Other than stumbling a bit over 'an' Environment Minister (how many of the sods are there?), that Newsnight still thinks one of their classic twofers - between a stonewalling 'the word of the Gord; and it is good' pol and an activist - will get the majority of the population stuck in the middle any further ahead in understanding where we are and what we need to do that's best for the future, pretty much sums up just how far down the pan the planet really is headed.
Next we'll be getting travel tips from the hugely qualified 'team' (how many, Freedom of Information request-wise, are going?) packing their factor 15 for the Bali joll... er... trip. Doubtless once there they will hook up round the pool with the aforementioned pols(s) and activist directors to figure how best to tell the rest of us what not to do and what will cost us.
New brooms all round, please.
ADDENDUM - Just watched it.
Well good golly; did that go just as I expected, predicted... and feared.
A defensive pol who got the short straw and with non hiding place, in a snit. An equally defensive media supremo on a high horse. And, actually, the guy from Greenpeace... the activist... about the only voice of calm, if not reason.
That said, we were treated to screeds of data. Targets, mainly. Missed ones even more mainly. Unachievable ones to follow, but who cares as they can be fiddled later or it won't matter to the guys who set them, as they'll have retired on the full golden well before it comes home to roost.
Was I any the wiser as a member of public, a parent... a voter... as to who had a grip on this and, more importantly, what was expected of all - government, business, media, public - and how we were going to rally around and resolve what some say is a crisis... or is it not really? We were talking second slot here. With two guys I'd never heard of as guests. In a piece on the UK's efforts to avoid global meltdown. Or not.
About the only concrete things that vaguely sunk in was some waffle about renewables, but again these were just a bunch of figures that meant nothing to me. So we catch up with Germany and end up with x% offshore, solar, tidal and whatnot by 20yy? But what's the ROI? What's the enviROI? We already are seeing vast amounts being poured into green holes by countless departments and quangos staffed by legions of salaried, pensioned paper-pushers, mainly on 'awareness' that seems to have achieved diddly squat. I must now have about a dozen ways to hand to calculate my carbon footprint, when they could have simply handed the money blown on all this to me to stick more loft insulation up to actually reduce it by a huge domestic %. Or sort out the trains. And I'm sorry, from woefully mis-informed plastic bagwagons to well-lobbied offshore projects, I simply do not trust any of this current sorry cabal of interest groups to tell me what's best for my kids, much less actually bite the bullet and get down and dirty to actually do it. Especially if there's the slightest chance that a well-feathered political nest, career or bottom line can get supported first, first-class from Valencia to Bali via Westminster. Offset of course. Just because these things LOOK green and we're told they are doesn't actually make them any better at reducing CO2, especially in the timeframes I'm hearing. Heck, some may meet a target, boost a rating, score a contribution or fund a conference pass... yet make things worse, climatically.
We are TOLD on Friday that the world is facing a climatic disaster. By Saturday few in the media have much to say about it; fewer still on Sunday. Tonight this is the best we can do, after a bit of a hoo-haa over a bank. That's what gets the ratings, so that's where the media will go. The Minister will go with the votes, and they go where the economy goes, so until he can bail it's just a matter of getting away for as long as possible with 'we need all this stuff because of the economic demands of the electorate' while saying lots 'will/may/could/ be done'. So after 1o years of 'looking at', we'll need to settle of a load more navel gazing until... er... the next load.
I respect the sincerity of activist groups such as Greenpeace, but it really is also way too easy to sit and snipe from a comfy, well-funded 'anti'-position, and ignore other, equally basic realities. Such as growing populations and increased demands on a finite planet to support ever more aspirational, competitive individuals upon it. Addressing these does not play well with the core support, and hence only selected parts of the narrative , the easy ones that play well in Islington, seem to get highlighted. But I certainly endorse spiking the pathetic official charade I heard: claiming carbon capture commitments whilst obviously having no such intention as evidenced by certain projects already committed to. Again, I repeat, after 10 years to get sorted, much less underway. What have they been doing the last decade?
No, it's not that simple. But if it is serious (and I have to believe it is), then for all the rest of us to take it seriously we need those who claim to be taking a lead to show it's serious. And some imagination. Sorry... to date, no one and nothing that's been trotted out so far seems to have floated many folks' boats very successfully, even pretty PR picture ones like the WWF effort opening the piece. So even the current crop of more incentive-based, proactive, well-directed, cost-effective and positive efforts (such as they are) are not getting through. At all. It's all fluff and bluster and scare and guilt and levy and fine. And no result.
What a shambolic performance. By the whole sorry lot. My poor kids.
We need doers; not talkers. And quick.
I have just written to BBC Breakfast news:
The day after Mr. Brown's climate speech, in which there are but a few lines on air travel, and we get... plastic bags.
If we are to get serious on this issue, I'd like to see our national broadcaster get its priorities straight.
What is the actual contribution/impact of this plastic product vs. almost any other?
And I am not even convinced that the ban calls, at least in the current from, are much more than misguided, headlines-friendly knee-jerks.
Is the Irish experience a total success as claimed? Are biodegradables the solution as advised, at least in the blanket manner portrayed?
I am not so sure.
And the thoughts of a grocery magazine editor and a 'NetMummy' (the choice of sofa twofer) hardly the considered, expert, objective views I feel like relying upon to help me decide.
Back to Newsnight:
We need less trivial TV, and a lot more like the fish stocks 'waste' topic that is both substantive and worth addressing, especially during yet another 'awareness' (are you? It's called Love Food. Hate Waste. Full colour ads in the Sunday supps) campaign exhorting the consumer not to waste food.
All I can retain is a 'me-not-EUcrat' smiling benignly and saying 'the principle is clear, but the problem is the detail'. The Devil is laughing that it is the latter that now dominates thinking. We can no longer see the deforestation for the bio-crops.
BBC - Brown tackles the home front - an interesting, er...
ANALYSIS
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Key opening line: 'A smiling Gordon Brown set out his environmental vision in London
Gordon Brown might have made it into a list of the world's sexiest men earlier this year...'
'He did the big picture stuff on UN climate negotiations and global projections for fossil fuel burning.' Did he.. really?
'But he homed in on the small ...' and, some would (well, I would) say are plain distractions from the bigger picture... and failings at top level. Abetted by such as this tripe.
'Advisors will dispense wisdom on saving energy and water, microgeneration, and green travel.' More bloody paid. pensioned talkers, taking money from DOING!!!!
If Green Homes is able to stimulate take-up of microgeneration technologies such as domestic wind turbines, ground source heat pumps and biomass co-generation units, it could put take Britain somewhere towards the third EU target, on renewable energy.' Read that though and wonder.
'The costs and the dearth of suppliers mean the take-up of these technologies is unlikely to be huge.' Is that the reason?
'So meeting the renewable energy target is still going to mean construction on a vast scale of wind and tidal turbines, solar arrays, biomass burners and so on.' How about reducing CO2... the enviROI.
Mr Brown did not neglect these areas.
...Mr Brown is aiming for...
The Severn Barrage is up for serious discussion, and planning reforms should make for easier and faster passage of all feasible renewable proposals.
... government policy would be "examined for its impact on carbon emissions"
'The prime minister's speech has generally been well received by the environment and development organisations....' these being?
'Mr Brown's speech has now pushed their plain sibling to the front of the stage, and we shall see if five million small green shoots can together make a rainbow-bright future.' I guessing this guys a shoo-in for the front of the plane to Bali with the minister!
In-credible!
A cross between Nixon & Mr. Bean
We don't often feature non-enviro posts on Junkk, but I'm allowing myself a slight diversion into the world of pure (sic) politics.
That post title is the excoriating description of our PM, Ol' Golden, by the Daily Express.
"Only five months into his Premiership Brown shows all the signs of becoming a unique creation: the gruff, unbalanced mediocrity of 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon mixed with the comic absurdity of Mr Bean. No wonder so many Britons seem desperate to leave the country."
I have to confess that I hadn't realised that his ratings had fallen as far in the polls as they suggest. Though to be fair, Ol' Golden's been that quiet of late, I'd almost forgotten he was our PM.
Oh, just for fun, here's the Daily Mail's take on our "constipated" and "dysfunctional" government.
That post title is the excoriating description of our PM, Ol' Golden, by the Daily Express.
"Only five months into his Premiership Brown shows all the signs of becoming a unique creation: the gruff, unbalanced mediocrity of 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon mixed with the comic absurdity of Mr Bean. No wonder so many Britons seem desperate to leave the country."
I have to confess that I hadn't realised that his ratings had fallen as far in the polls as they suggest. Though to be fair, Ol' Golden's been that quiet of late, I'd almost forgotten he was our PM.
Oh, just for fun, here's the Daily Mail's take on our "constipated" and "dysfunctional" government.
Another way to get rid of CO2?
On top of all the weird and wonderful mechanisms already proposed, here's the next idea from Science Daily, slurping. This method suggests getting the oceans to slurp up the excess CO2 by removing Hydrochloric acid from sea-water by electrolysis; thereby increasing its alkalinity, which means it can absorb more CO2. They reckon 700 special treatment plants worldwide could offset all CO2 emissions.
It sounds sort of feasible, but surely reducing our emissions, whilst at least trying to halt our population growth, would be more straightforward? We need to tackle the cause, not the consequences.
It sounds sort of feasible, but surely reducing our emissions, whilst at least trying to halt our population growth, would be more straightforward? We need to tackle the cause, not the consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)