If I have one main wish for the future, and the future of my family, it is that we see the current crop of messengers swept away so we can really set about addressing some critical issues: This time it's personal
Why? Well not because 'there is a disconnect between awareness of climate change and the lifestyle changes necessary to combat it', but because many proponents of that view seem unable to accept that they don’t understand what's going on in most average folks' minds well enough to even dream of setting about effecting any change of behaviour that may stand some chance of succeeding. And unless you are prepared to dig up some statesperson of dubious provenance from earlier ages, and shut down pretty much every democratic institution (especially a free press), you are in for a bumpy ride.
And I have to ruefully glance at one (of many) groups who truly stand out for their astounding ability to see no irony in preaching from pedestals about the evils of pedestals. And that is our now very self-serving free press. If there’s a rating in the offing, editorial will publish whatever gets the eyeballs, and sod the consequences.
At the end of a year that started with Stern and ended with Bali, with our race standing at a precipice, what do I see in the New Year round-ups? A few ecoshrews figuring that getting their air-flown tofu in paper instead of plastic bags has just about sorted it all, and deification of some guy who has so far avoided being accorded the title Typhoid Trevor by advocating all share in his vision of composting bogs in Streatham. 6 billion and counting means some eco-ideals are no longer, well, that ideal.
Britain may or may not be en route to some nifty targets, but I have near zero faith that these will mean anything much save as ways for ever more box-tickers to score a bonus or a lobbyist to rack up an even better commission. The system seems totally corrupted by having little to do with any tangible enviROI, and a lot more to do with profit or career enhancements.
And this situation is all at the door of a mainly self-created green elite who are great at saying but self-evidently so far pretty darn woeful at much in the way of doing by example. In fact, the most effort seems so far to be in areas of why, well, y'know, it's not really practical for 'them' to cut back, as such.
Lead, and if the story makes sense and the leader sharing the vision credible, then we will follow. If the story stinks and those spouting it seen to be playing a less than straight game, and you're on a non-starter.
By heavens it's not going to be easy. The whole thing is so vast, and complex and interconnected it's hard to know where to start, but it isn’t with some numptie MEP claiming their use of EurosStar and giving festive goats rather than X-box games qualifies them to join a fact-finding committee to study the impact of climate change in Lapland at Christmas (with the family) in mid-shuttle between Brussels and Strasbourg. It is just so much laughable hot air.
As is bottled water campaigns by Yummier-than-thou-mummies who write a column for a bleeding heart eco-quality, with both having really tricky ethical issues on the big stuff, such as what’s the best eco-lodge for the Easter break. Not perhaps notions top of mind or even shared at all by the majority of readers of, say, the News of the World. That would be a publication with some several times more readers, too. Go figure.
So where are these lifestyle choices to be made to have any impact, and who is going to make them... and persuaded by whom?
If you are going to be interventionist you better be whiter than white, otherwise there is a wall ready and waiting when the revolution comes.
I for one would advocate giving persuasion a much better chance. But first that needs the current crop of woeful 'leadership', in authority, activism and especially the media, being given the order of the Royal boot. Then get in some folk who genuinely care, understand the audience and can shine as those who can and will lead by example. Sadly, with the current system now embedded as firmly as leech’s teeth can be, that is a sadly dim possibility, and fading with each conference season and target setting consultation.
Yet we are both in agreement on the value of the carrot. And I can also see that there also needs to be some stick. Only not the kind wielded so far, and certainly not in the hands of those who to date think they are qualified or entitled to wield them.
I contend that most people are not that lazy. And even if they are then that's just a fact you work around to achieve your goal. Breaking my own rule (I find it arrogance in the extreme when a medium or politician claims to speak for me when they clearly do not), but for writing simplicity may I claim that 'we' are simply not ... so far... very well informed about the threats posed by probable man -worsened climate change (see, I have a different notion of what we face to offer up to you 'global warming' orthodoxy). And for sure none of the discussions, much less solutions I’ve had presented so far seem to me very well argued to date. In fact most seem to have been totally hijacked by extremes, with careers and fees and profits all very much front of mind well before any actual doing what's right for our kids.
I'd suggest some priorities need to be established. Pronto. Especially the putting houses in order variety. I for one can't take many politicians seriously when Bali in Winter managed to swell in delegateship tenfold, yet still with no obvious result at all. Or any finger-wave in these pages for instance, so long as there are ads for skiing trips or luxury cars in the sidebar.
Which might explain that low rate of behaviour change. Ya think?
I shudder that the conclusion seems to have arrived at the ‘solutions’ of ‘Consciousness-raising and green taxes’, especially with the laughable caveat of 'even if carefully thought out and organised'. Checked the competence card lately?
Too right they 'may have only marginal effects'. Just think what could have been done with the hundreds of millions already p*ssed away on scores of overlapping quangos and their bloated, self-serving (how you can get a bonus based on awareness results created by spending public money on ad campaigns seems truly astounding, if not a downright conflict of interest) comms budgets. So this voter at least will be... 'resisting' if they figure this is a nifty way to get more on the public sector payroll to then fund their pay and pensions with 'green taxes’.
Yes, many changes are needed. and urgently. But I’d suggest a bit more doing, and in a very different direction, than any more sodding thinking. None I have read or seen so far has seemed to offer one whit of an actual difference. We need something new.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
And a Carbcon New Year
I have a backlog of several score links that I suspect will now be outdated, so best to simply get back in the groove: Power firms to pocket £6bn from carbon 'handouts' in new emissions regime
Not, perhaps, the greatest support for the principle for trading in carbon, I'd venture.
Again, while I see the principle as being perhaps the only viable way to achieve practical mitigations in the short term and balance things out, but like with so much else it really seems to fall apart when the current crop of those in 'control' are on the case.
Not, perhaps, the greatest support for the principle for trading in carbon, I'd venture.
Again, while I see the principle as being perhaps the only viable way to achieve practical mitigations in the short term and balance things out, but like with so much else it really seems to fall apart when the current crop of those in 'control' are on the case.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Orf-setting on one's hols
Not the way I'd quite wanted to return to the blog after a brief respite, but from some reason this one got my goat (and not the one I didn't buy instead of actual under-tree presents for the kids, the other luvvie-yummie season's planet-saving commentary topic) - Eurostar goes from bad to worse
Having just used EuroStar I was of course attracted by the heading, and having enjoyed a great trip actually on the thing had to disagree. But this again got me on what motivates folk. So I then had to agree that it is silly to divorce the service experience, costs and time from the overall experience, and that's even before playing the green card.
But I guess what dragged me out of my sick-bed (I know how to spent the festive season in style) was yet another (not the first, won't be the last) dalliance with matters 'green' that was again well up there (and you know where I mean) with the last 'quality' daily utterance from some Islington eco-goddess about her latest sainted trip for the weekend overseas to visit her eco-guru at his tofu-finca in Tuscany, like most of us gad about like this. I just live for when we get served green fare by some who are more in tune with how most of this country lives... and may respond if only engaged with by those who we can actually relate to and respect when it comes to our kids' futures.
Hailing from way out West Mids, the relative positions of Waterloo vs. St. Pancras seem to make little difference, especially by tube (public transport is still an option even for those in jobs that can also involve rushes) from Paddington. And on a recent trip it all seemed to work well enough from Gloucester to the centre of Brussels. Maybe I was just lucky that the transit was conducted in a remarkably pleasant, quiet and swift period.
The rest, of course, truly sucked. Having got there an hour before the required 'check-in' time, it was a chore to be in the freezing cold with nowhere to sit as the only place to do that was in the 'departure' lounge. And I was not about to suffer the cost or pretensions of the idiotic champagne bar, which seemed only a rather sad little square associated with a lonely line of booths. So I perched on my bag munching my sarnie, the wrapping of which I could not dispose of in any waste bins as there were none. Made for a fun debate with the play-policeman who could not persuade me to drop it on the floor as I suspected some kind of litter-fine scam at work to complement all the other 'initiatives' in London that are in the name of green, and I don't mean the colour of the planet.
So I'm on board with the notion that some improvements are required to make this an attractive alternative, service-wise, vs. flying, above simple fiscal realities (as I'd booked well in advance it was equivalent, and hence an easy call. The time element is also on par, though the check-in pretensions erode that advantage).
But as we are are on an eco-note, I'd really appreciate those who write for this, and all other London Luvvie-centric publications with notions of greeniferousness, to give pause before citing their usage of EuroStar as 'a get into eco-nirvana free card', especially when associated with such asides as '...when we took our skiing holiday last week...'
I'm sure for you all, leaping on the nearest form of off-UK transport at the hols to some distant resort is as common hailing a cab. But for many finances, the environment, or both, may mean staying at home is the more likely option.
So if I have one wish for the new year, it is we have a clear distinction between being green, simply trying to look it and... most of all... making a meal of tokenistic attempts at the latter. Especially from those who can afford to do a lot more and talk a lot less.
Having just used EuroStar I was of course attracted by the heading, and having enjoyed a great trip actually on the thing had to disagree. But this again got me on what motivates folk. So I then had to agree that it is silly to divorce the service experience, costs and time from the overall experience, and that's even before playing the green card.
But I guess what dragged me out of my sick-bed (I know how to spent the festive season in style) was yet another (not the first, won't be the last) dalliance with matters 'green' that was again well up there (and you know where I mean) with the last 'quality' daily utterance from some Islington eco-goddess about her latest sainted trip for the weekend overseas to visit her eco-guru at his tofu-finca in Tuscany, like most of us gad about like this. I just live for when we get served green fare by some who are more in tune with how most of this country lives... and may respond if only engaged with by those who we can actually relate to and respect when it comes to our kids' futures.
Hailing from way out West Mids, the relative positions of Waterloo vs. St. Pancras seem to make little difference, especially by tube (public transport is still an option even for those in jobs that can also involve rushes) from Paddington. And on a recent trip it all seemed to work well enough from Gloucester to the centre of Brussels. Maybe I was just lucky that the transit was conducted in a remarkably pleasant, quiet and swift period.
The rest, of course, truly sucked. Having got there an hour before the required 'check-in' time, it was a chore to be in the freezing cold with nowhere to sit as the only place to do that was in the 'departure' lounge. And I was not about to suffer the cost or pretensions of the idiotic champagne bar, which seemed only a rather sad little square associated with a lonely line of booths. So I perched on my bag munching my sarnie, the wrapping of which I could not dispose of in any waste bins as there were none. Made for a fun debate with the play-policeman who could not persuade me to drop it on the floor as I suspected some kind of litter-fine scam at work to complement all the other 'initiatives' in London that are in the name of green, and I don't mean the colour of the planet.
So I'm on board with the notion that some improvements are required to make this an attractive alternative, service-wise, vs. flying, above simple fiscal realities (as I'd booked well in advance it was equivalent, and hence an easy call. The time element is also on par, though the check-in pretensions erode that advantage).
But as we are are on an eco-note, I'd really appreciate those who write for this, and all other London Luvvie-centric publications with notions of greeniferousness, to give pause before citing their usage of EuroStar as 'a get into eco-nirvana free card', especially when associated with such asides as '...when we took our skiing holiday last week...'
I'm sure for you all, leaping on the nearest form of off-UK transport at the hols to some distant resort is as common hailing a cab. But for many finances, the environment, or both, may mean staying at home is the more likely option.
So if I have one wish for the new year, it is we have a clear distinction between being green, simply trying to look it and... most of all... making a meal of tokenistic attempts at the latter. Especially from those who can afford to do a lot more and talk a lot less.
Friday, December 28, 2007
TW3 - 2007
Those were the weeks that were. A year gone by.
Not the greatest, I'm sorry to say. As the less than encouraging signs of what we might be facing mount in number and severity, they have hardly been matched in number and certainly not in quality (least, as I can judge) by any person, persons or significant measures that look set to steer us in a better direction.
Even those who do care, or at least claim to, seem mostly a sorry and/or uninspiring lot. Greenwashers (out to make a quick extra buck by association but not action), greengilders (out to make a quick extra buck by painting rosy, career-enhancing solutions that all too often lack any definable enviROI+), and the 'The Rise of the Eco-Shrew' (out to make a quick buck by getting paid to talk... endlessly... about some minute and relatively pointless aspect that they demand all should embrace whilst simultaneously ignoring reality, enviROI or credibility).
And who has dominated as the year ended and a new one starts? Well, having scoured the online pages on Sunday (the traditional round-up point) and today (another common source for summaries and predictions), following the year of Stern (may have been the year before), IPCC, Valencia, Bali and the next Kyoto, all I could find by way of shaping 'the most significant crisis the world faces' was nothing from the political establishment, a Fox's Glacier Mint ad from the corporate world and from our mighty media... a few yummie-mummies who are planning on taking fewer plastic bags on their next skiing trip, and a chap who has not yet started a typhoid epidemic in Streatham with his composting outdoor loo. Plus a welter of others planning to head all sorts of places to study the impact of their job (which is not like your or my jobs, apparently) getting there is having.
With the exception of the BBC in broadcast and online form, at least one can be mostly reassured that almost no one other than those within the privileged eco/authority/media elite has a clue what they are doing, or cares very much what they have to say. But they do now wield a rather inordinate influence despite this, and it is a concern.
In two days I get back to work proper, hopefully over my man flu. And that, sadly, means a little less Junkk.com and RE:tie, and a bit more day job. Things are now tight, and I need to do a bit more of what I am good at what people really seem to want.. and are prepared to pay for.
It's simply a matter of personal and family survival. But as I need to take the longer view on this family's future I will not be leaving it all behind, but sometimes one has to prioritise.
It can only be hoped for the future that those in power, and/or with influence, can do it too, and a bit more effectively, and tangibly, and to genuine levels of enviROi+, than they have to date.
I'm looking for messages that make sense, and can lead to making a real difference. And from messengers who one can believe, and believe in, to rally every section of society and not some self-serving niche elite.
Here's hoping. Have a great 2008.
Not the greatest, I'm sorry to say. As the less than encouraging signs of what we might be facing mount in number and severity, they have hardly been matched in number and certainly not in quality (least, as I can judge) by any person, persons or significant measures that look set to steer us in a better direction.
Even those who do care, or at least claim to, seem mostly a sorry and/or uninspiring lot. Greenwashers (out to make a quick extra buck by association but not action), greengilders (out to make a quick extra buck by painting rosy, career-enhancing solutions that all too often lack any definable enviROI+), and the 'The Rise of the Eco-Shrew' (out to make a quick buck by getting paid to talk... endlessly... about some minute and relatively pointless aspect that they demand all should embrace whilst simultaneously ignoring reality, enviROI or credibility).
And who has dominated as the year ended and a new one starts? Well, having scoured the online pages on Sunday (the traditional round-up point) and today (another common source for summaries and predictions), following the year of Stern (may have been the year before), IPCC, Valencia, Bali and the next Kyoto, all I could find by way of shaping 'the most significant crisis the world faces' was nothing from the political establishment, a Fox's Glacier Mint ad from the corporate world and from our mighty media... a few yummie-mummies who are planning on taking fewer plastic bags on their next skiing trip, and a chap who has not yet started a typhoid epidemic in Streatham with his composting outdoor loo. Plus a welter of others planning to head all sorts of places to study the impact of their job (which is not like your or my jobs, apparently) getting there is having.
With the exception of the BBC in broadcast and online form, at least one can be mostly reassured that almost no one other than those within the privileged eco/authority/media elite has a clue what they are doing, or cares very much what they have to say. But they do now wield a rather inordinate influence despite this, and it is a concern.
In two days I get back to work proper, hopefully over my man flu. And that, sadly, means a little less Junkk.com and RE:tie, and a bit more day job. Things are now tight, and I need to do a bit more of what I am good at what people really seem to want.. and are prepared to pay for.
It's simply a matter of personal and family survival. But as I need to take the longer view on this family's future I will not be leaving it all behind, but sometimes one has to prioritise.
It can only be hoped for the future that those in power, and/or with influence, can do it too, and a bit more effectively, and tangibly, and to genuine levels of enviROi+, than they have to date.
I'm looking for messages that make sense, and can lead to making a real difference. And from messengers who one can believe, and believe in, to rally every section of society and not some self-serving niche elite.
Here's hoping. Have a great 2008.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Has global warming stopped?
A very intriguing question. One which, if the answer turns out to be a resounding yes, might make some of the alarm generated by the IPCC, and some of the planned actions following the Bali bash, appear rather ridiculous.
Now this from the New Statesman, is by the well respected, ex BBC Science Correspondent, David Whitehouse. It makes what seems at first glance an apparently valid point - the rate of temperature increase over the last decade has been flat. In fact, he states that "the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly."
He reports that the data is taken from "US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC" but he does not provide links to any actual data used.
Remember the brouhaha that resulted when it was discovered that the warmest year in one part of the central USA was back in the 1930's? That turned out to be the selective use of local and regional data, but it created a huge upwelling of support for the 'anti' global warming brigade. I have to confess that I'm surprised that this particular article does not appear to be massively referenced so far throughout the www.
Back to my main point: without reference to the exact data as used, just how do we know that this is an accurate interpretation? Let's face it, there is clearly something quite drastic happening in and around the area of the Arctic circle and above, as the recorded data shows record summer temperatures in places like Melville Island, Greenland and Alaska, whilst the North West passage was open for a record six weeks plus and the ice pack had its lowest extent since records began.
As the author quite rightly states - "the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on." Clearly, human understanding of a system as complex as the climate of our planet is not going to be perfect, there are far too many unknowns and imponderables, and we have but little understanding of potential feedback loops and so called tipping points.
"The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped."
No argument with the first parts of that at all, but warming has certainly not stopped in the Arctic circle, so why make that statement as if it applies to the entire planet?
I'm sorry, but articles like this will only incite more confusion, misunderstanding, obfuscation and poles-apart (no pun intended) debate. We need to know the full facts, not selective morsels fed to us like tid-bits from the media news table.
Broccoli growing in Greenland, whilst Walrus starve because the remnants of the ice sheet are too far out and over water too deep for them to find food, plus extreme temperatures of 48C in Greece and Italy this summer do not seem to fit, at least to my mind, with the counter evidence that the author presents.
Would someone please just tell us the truth? It must be out there somewhere.
_______________
N.b.
Should it turn out that the supposedly venerable group of scientists at the IPCC are deliberately ignoring vital temperature evidence that this particular author is using; or are perhaps discounting it as little more than a hiccup in the overall scale of things whilst they are doggedly determined to prove that man worsened climate change is happening at any cost (including the omission of important data); then I'll quite happily write an entire retraction of my comments and questions and offer the author a high five.
Now this from the New Statesman, is by the well respected, ex BBC Science Correspondent, David Whitehouse. It makes what seems at first glance an apparently valid point - the rate of temperature increase over the last decade has been flat. In fact, he states that "the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly."
He reports that the data is taken from "US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC" but he does not provide links to any actual data used.
Remember the brouhaha that resulted when it was discovered that the warmest year in one part of the central USA was back in the 1930's? That turned out to be the selective use of local and regional data, but it created a huge upwelling of support for the 'anti' global warming brigade. I have to confess that I'm surprised that this particular article does not appear to be massively referenced so far throughout the www.
Back to my main point: without reference to the exact data as used, just how do we know that this is an accurate interpretation? Let's face it, there is clearly something quite drastic happening in and around the area of the Arctic circle and above, as the recorded data shows record summer temperatures in places like Melville Island, Greenland and Alaska, whilst the North West passage was open for a record six weeks plus and the ice pack had its lowest extent since records began.
As the author quite rightly states - "the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on." Clearly, human understanding of a system as complex as the climate of our planet is not going to be perfect, there are far too many unknowns and imponderables, and we have but little understanding of potential feedback loops and so called tipping points.
"The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped."
No argument with the first parts of that at all, but warming has certainly not stopped in the Arctic circle, so why make that statement as if it applies to the entire planet?
I'm sorry, but articles like this will only incite more confusion, misunderstanding, obfuscation and poles-apart (no pun intended) debate. We need to know the full facts, not selective morsels fed to us like tid-bits from the media news table.
Broccoli growing in Greenland, whilst Walrus starve because the remnants of the ice sheet are too far out and over water too deep for them to find food, plus extreme temperatures of 48C in Greece and Italy this summer do not seem to fit, at least to my mind, with the counter evidence that the author presents.
Would someone please just tell us the truth? It must be out there somewhere.
_______________
N.b.
Should it turn out that the supposedly venerable group of scientists at the IPCC are deliberately ignoring vital temperature evidence that this particular author is using; or are perhaps discounting it as little more than a hiccup in the overall scale of things whilst they are doggedly determined to prove that man worsened climate change is happening at any cost (including the omission of important data); then I'll quite happily write an entire retraction of my comments and questions and offer the author a high five.
Getting noticed #101: banning is best
Making things is usually a long process of increments. And sadly our media these days like quick, big, immediate hits.
So a good way to get noticed is to crank up a ban. Not sure it's worked quite the way the DPM intended with her prostitution solution, but it certainly seems to have worked for others: PLASTIC BAGS
I feel a tad uncomfortable questioning such a person, who is obviously sincere, but as part of the bigger picture I just need to ensure, for the sake of my kids' futures, that she is at least well guided. Not to mention supported by the right folk for the right reasons.
In a year where so much of such vast importance and impact in the world of climate change has come to the fore, I have always found the issue of plastic bags in the great scheme of things intriguing. Depending on who is quoted, some 200 per person per annum. I wonder if those at Blue Peter could tell us how many Fairy Liquid bottles they represent in terms of oil-based manufacture and disposal consequences?
But this lady's passion is undoubted and her concern admirable. And her story more than impactful, with its successful uptake a sure indication of the public mood. No wonder the media has found it so attractive. I can't imagine what it must be like to spend one's career as a documentary film-maker flying around the world to enjoy and capture nature's beauty, and find it so casually spoiled by the impositions of modern society.
There are so few positives about these things they make an excellent, and obvious target. But then I started to ponder the alternatives. It's one thing to ban something, but then having banned it one must look at the alternatives. Which is what I decided to do. Mainly because I felt I was getting a lot on the ban, but not as much on the consequences.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html
It's an ongoing education, and indeed this programme has added to it, at least indirectly, as there was one small informational piece that has resulted, namely the experience of the Irish contributor above. This provides an interesting and worthy counterpoint to other experiences I had learned of that were less positive, at least when it comes to the overall enviROI of the exercises. What seems undoubted is that the scourge of 'witches knickers' has been dealt with, but I still wonder at what cost in other areas.
It also has served to highlight the critical need for coordinated approaches between government, local authorities and business in creating logistical systems that are both effective environmentally (cost is 'an' issue, but trade-offs may need to be factored in if our priority is emissions as opposed to profits or litter) and capable of being easily engaged with by the public/consumer. Popping in the village deli with one's bike basket daily is one thing. Tescos en route home of a Friday night for a weekly shop is another. And here I am less convinced of deliverables. Especially when confronted with solutions that have 'bio' in the description.
Yes, with all else we are confronting in matters climatic, I did notice Mr. Brown has thrown his full weight behind... banning plastic bags. So one looks forward to him, and the media, getting as interested, and in the necessary detail, to do justice to all the other topics of high relevance to our nation's carbon footprint. Maybe next a ban on pets, perhaps? Or imported wine? Or beer (how much water consumed to create a pint?). Or...
Instead of, and hence less media attractive as a ban, as a fellow small town-dweller I was thinking more of a campaign to encourage our local retailers to shut their doors during cold snaps to avoid the heat loss pouring out into the sky. I rather fancied 'Shut it and Save'. The only down side I can perceive is the potential consumer-reluctance posed by a closed door, but everything else seems a win-win all round, even to their utility costs. What do you reckon?
Indy - Unbelievable bags - at least it has been asked. I look forward to the answer.
Sir: Last week I visited a Waterstone's bookstore to buy a couple of book tokens as Christmas presents. I asked the shop assistant for a paper bag to protect the tokens but was told that Waterstone's prefer to use plastic bags because the carbon footprint of paper bags is greater than for plastic, because of shipping from abroad, which is where most paper bags are sourced. If true, this is astonishing. Perhaps other readers could clarify the situation.
Gaurdian - Dialling danger
Why here? For this, albeit subjective, comment: "The purge on plastic bags in Ireland has also been a dramatic success." Oh dear gawd, I thought this silliness was confined to Annapolis. More energy and waste is produced making paper bags than are used make plastic bags. Also, plastic bags are also useful for picking up my dogs poop.
So a good way to get noticed is to crank up a ban. Not sure it's worked quite the way the DPM intended with her prostitution solution, but it certainly seems to have worked for others: PLASTIC BAGS
I feel a tad uncomfortable questioning such a person, who is obviously sincere, but as part of the bigger picture I just need to ensure, for the sake of my kids' futures, that she is at least well guided. Not to mention supported by the right folk for the right reasons.
In a year where so much of such vast importance and impact in the world of climate change has come to the fore, I have always found the issue of plastic bags in the great scheme of things intriguing. Depending on who is quoted, some 200 per person per annum. I wonder if those at Blue Peter could tell us how many Fairy Liquid bottles they represent in terms of oil-based manufacture and disposal consequences?
But this lady's passion is undoubted and her concern admirable. And her story more than impactful, with its successful uptake a sure indication of the public mood. No wonder the media has found it so attractive. I can't imagine what it must be like to spend one's career as a documentary film-maker flying around the world to enjoy and capture nature's beauty, and find it so casually spoiled by the impositions of modern society.
There are so few positives about these things they make an excellent, and obvious target. But then I started to ponder the alternatives. It's one thing to ban something, but then having banned it one must look at the alternatives. Which is what I decided to do. Mainly because I felt I was getting a lot on the ban, but not as much on the consequences.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html
It's an ongoing education, and indeed this programme has added to it, at least indirectly, as there was one small informational piece that has resulted, namely the experience of the Irish contributor above. This provides an interesting and worthy counterpoint to other experiences I had learned of that were less positive, at least when it comes to the overall enviROI of the exercises. What seems undoubted is that the scourge of 'witches knickers' has been dealt with, but I still wonder at what cost in other areas.
It also has served to highlight the critical need for coordinated approaches between government, local authorities and business in creating logistical systems that are both effective environmentally (cost is 'an' issue, but trade-offs may need to be factored in if our priority is emissions as opposed to profits or litter) and capable of being easily engaged with by the public/consumer. Popping in the village deli with one's bike basket daily is one thing. Tescos en route home of a Friday night for a weekly shop is another. And here I am less convinced of deliverables. Especially when confronted with solutions that have 'bio' in the description.
Yes, with all else we are confronting in matters climatic, I did notice Mr. Brown has thrown his full weight behind... banning plastic bags. So one looks forward to him, and the media, getting as interested, and in the necessary detail, to do justice to all the other topics of high relevance to our nation's carbon footprint. Maybe next a ban on pets, perhaps? Or imported wine? Or beer (how much water consumed to create a pint?). Or...
Instead of, and hence less media attractive as a ban, as a fellow small town-dweller I was thinking more of a campaign to encourage our local retailers to shut their doors during cold snaps to avoid the heat loss pouring out into the sky. I rather fancied 'Shut it and Save'. The only down side I can perceive is the potential consumer-reluctance posed by a closed door, but everything else seems a win-win all round, even to their utility costs. What do you reckon?
Indy - Unbelievable bags - at least it has been asked. I look forward to the answer.
Sir: Last week I visited a Waterstone's bookstore to buy a couple of book tokens as Christmas presents. I asked the shop assistant for a paper bag to protect the tokens but was told that Waterstone's prefer to use plastic bags because the carbon footprint of paper bags is greater than for plastic, because of shipping from abroad, which is where most paper bags are sourced. If true, this is astonishing. Perhaps other readers could clarify the situation.
Gaurdian - Dialling danger
Why here? For this, albeit subjective, comment: "The purge on plastic bags in Ireland has also been a dramatic success." Oh dear gawd, I thought this silliness was confined to Annapolis. More energy and waste is produced making paper bags than are used make plastic bags. Also, plastic bags are also useful for picking up my dogs poop.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
New Year. New Opportunities.
It was a good long run, and I gave it my best shot, but a hurdle has been stumbled over.
Sadly, my hopes for Stage 2 funding on the Fillip initiative have not been realised. Of course it was great to get to the finals, but it was not to be.
And not the happiest of news to get just before the festive break.
I guess it was just one I felt was so 'right', namely the means to protect the idea and package it in a form to take to major institutions nationally and internationally, my inherent 'wait 'til you see the cheque before popping the cork' caution still had too much of a sneaking hope that this would be 'the big one' attached. Especially as the day before we'd learned that the international search examiner has concluded that the invention is 'novel' and 'not obvious', which is good in IP terms.
Though my IP adviser was upbeat, I must say I walked out the presentation pretty much certain of the result.
There was one question that was asked, and though I know the answer we gave was reasonable I knew it was not the one that was required.
This was to ask why, in light of all the PR and awards, there were no companies or VCs beating a path to my door.
Though not given in such terms, it seemed pretty simple to answer. As of this moment, no companies relevant to the concept have yet been approached, save for the technical folk at closures manufacturers. And this was done more to confirm the practical applicability, and also to seek complementary branding techniques to add sales and marketing value to its obvious raw material and CSR benefits. Both these aims were achieved at the Brussels conference, and frankly as no one thinks much of anything from late November save the best way to Xerox their tushie at the company bash, I saw no point in following even that up 'til the New Year.
And as to VCs, well, it's not an area I have a huge experience with, but other than a few rare instances, I rather think that you go to them. That's just the way it is. Being money folk they know how you keep the upper hand in negotiations, and making the first approach isn't it.
So I had concentrated on looking down the idea and building a solid story behind it using the talents I do have, before considering engaging other talents I know I do not to bring it to those who bring it to market.
Sure I am more than disappointed, and this is doubtless reflected here, but I must say that I am really losing faith in the system that claims to be keen to support the solo creative innovator, but all too often seems more geared to dealing with more traditional enterprises who talk in terms that make the boxes a wee bit easier to tick.
I know RE:tie can make it. And in doing so be an acorn from which so much else in the world of second use design can derive inspiration, so it will be be onward and upward come the New Year.
As one door closes, another opens...
Sadly, my hopes for Stage 2 funding on the Fillip initiative have not been realised. Of course it was great to get to the finals, but it was not to be.
And not the happiest of news to get just before the festive break.
I guess it was just one I felt was so 'right', namely the means to protect the idea and package it in a form to take to major institutions nationally and internationally, my inherent 'wait 'til you see the cheque before popping the cork' caution still had too much of a sneaking hope that this would be 'the big one' attached. Especially as the day before we'd learned that the international search examiner has concluded that the invention is 'novel' and 'not obvious', which is good in IP terms.
Though my IP adviser was upbeat, I must say I walked out the presentation pretty much certain of the result.
There was one question that was asked, and though I know the answer we gave was reasonable I knew it was not the one that was required.
This was to ask why, in light of all the PR and awards, there were no companies or VCs beating a path to my door.
Though not given in such terms, it seemed pretty simple to answer. As of this moment, no companies relevant to the concept have yet been approached, save for the technical folk at closures manufacturers. And this was done more to confirm the practical applicability, and also to seek complementary branding techniques to add sales and marketing value to its obvious raw material and CSR benefits. Both these aims were achieved at the Brussels conference, and frankly as no one thinks much of anything from late November save the best way to Xerox their tushie at the company bash, I saw no point in following even that up 'til the New Year.
And as to VCs, well, it's not an area I have a huge experience with, but other than a few rare instances, I rather think that you go to them. That's just the way it is. Being money folk they know how you keep the upper hand in negotiations, and making the first approach isn't it.
So I had concentrated on looking down the idea and building a solid story behind it using the talents I do have, before considering engaging other talents I know I do not to bring it to those who bring it to market.
Sure I am more than disappointed, and this is doubtless reflected here, but I must say that I am really losing faith in the system that claims to be keen to support the solo creative innovator, but all too often seems more geared to dealing with more traditional enterprises who talk in terms that make the boxes a wee bit easier to tick.
I know RE:tie can make it. And in doing so be an acorn from which so much else in the world of second use design can derive inspiration, so it will be be onward and upward come the New Year.
As one door closes, another opens...
Perhaps she simply doesn't like them?
This is a bit of an odd one, but it has quite amused me. The International Herald Tribune reports on a Swiss lady who has been purloining her neighbour's outside Christmas ornaments.
Now I have no problem with a few fancy Christmas lights etc. But if, like me, she simply detests those unsightly and horrible brightly light inflatable snowmen, reindeer, Father Christmases and elves (and even Homer Simpson's for Gawd's sake) that seem to have proliferated across the UK over the last two or three years (as well as across Switzerland by the sound of it), then I'm happy to admit that I'm fully on her side!!
Now I have no problem with a few fancy Christmas lights etc. But if, like me, she simply detests those unsightly and horrible brightly light inflatable snowmen, reindeer, Father Christmases and elves (and even Homer Simpson's for Gawd's sake) that seem to have proliferated across the UK over the last two or three years (as well as across Switzerland by the sound of it), then I'm happy to admit that I'm fully on her side!!
The Bush giveth and the Bush taketh away
Well, I'm amazed. Despite the doubts expressed by millions of American citizens, Dubya has finally signed a bill which will help to reduce vehicle carbon emissions - see today's Guardian Unlimited.
"The legislation, though limited in scope, represents the biggest fuel efficiency push by the US since the 1970s oil crisis."
Good!
"The new law also contains provisions to increase the use of ethanol as an alternative to petrol."
Errrrmm, not really too good - more corn grown means ever more Nitrogen runoff and will expand the Gulf's 'dead zone', not to mention causing further increases in the price of what is a staple food item. (see full story from Mathaba.Net)
But even more interestingly, on the same day, comes news that the White House, via the EPA, has blocked several States from applying even more vigorous local state laws on auto emissions. This makes zero sense whatsoever!
The Washington Post has a more complete explanation of the EPA's ruling.
"The legislation, though limited in scope, represents the biggest fuel efficiency push by the US since the 1970s oil crisis."
Good!
"The new law also contains provisions to increase the use of ethanol as an alternative to petrol."
Errrrmm, not really too good - more corn grown means ever more Nitrogen runoff and will expand the Gulf's 'dead zone', not to mention causing further increases in the price of what is a staple food item. (see full story from Mathaba.Net)
But even more interestingly, on the same day, comes news that the White House, via the EPA, has blocked several States from applying even more vigorous local state laws on auto emissions. This makes zero sense whatsoever!
The Washington Post has a more complete explanation of the EPA's ruling.
Xmas cheer
Well, it tickled me. A poster on an eco-forum asked the following about 'carbcon ratings':
I notice that the terms ‘carbon positive’ and ‘carbon negative’ are being used to mean the same thing (i.e. net absorption/reduction of CO2). Those using the term ‘carbon negative’ seem to be clear that ‘carbon positive’ is what fossil fuels are...
If we want to create a company that goes better than ‘carbon neutral’, how should we describe it? And does anyone know whether the understanding of these terms varies by geography? (e.g. US vs Europe vs Asia)
I was moved to reply:
How about 'carbon cautious'?
It ticks all the right boxes (a major plus already, at least in the UK/EU), being rather meaningless, pretty vague and in fact can be whatever anyone wishes to take from it.
Certainly an entire new industry and set of government departments could easily be created around it on this basis, especially in complement to all the rest doing roughly the same thing. In fact, one could probably score a nifty grant for it all. Especially to translate it all into Mandarin or Urdu come the next Kyoto/Bali round.
That aside, it may actually be a tad more accurate. At least it could be argued to not make any definitive claims (which in any case are often hard to weigh, at least on a consumer level. I have often cocked an eyebrow at some claims of 'positivity', as most new activities are almost inevitably worse in terms of enviROI (which is what I apply) unless directly creating some purely mitigating result) whilst conveying a truly warm and fuzzy sense of at least wanting to do the right thing.
However, as your question has ably demonstrated, a positive can as easily be a negative. So I look forward to how those better informed will explain it to us all. But then it would seem equally inevitable that it will all rather depend on which measure they have been tasked to endorse.
I notice that the terms ‘carbon positive’ and ‘carbon negative’ are being used to mean the same thing (i.e. net absorption/reduction of CO2). Those using the term ‘carbon negative’ seem to be clear that ‘carbon positive’ is what fossil fuels are...
If we want to create a company that goes better than ‘carbon neutral’, how should we describe it? And does anyone know whether the understanding of these terms varies by geography? (e.g. US vs Europe vs Asia)
I was moved to reply:
How about 'carbon cautious'?
It ticks all the right boxes (a major plus already, at least in the UK/EU), being rather meaningless, pretty vague and in fact can be whatever anyone wishes to take from it.
Certainly an entire new industry and set of government departments could easily be created around it on this basis, especially in complement to all the rest doing roughly the same thing. In fact, one could probably score a nifty grant for it all. Especially to translate it all into Mandarin or Urdu come the next Kyoto/Bali round.
That aside, it may actually be a tad more accurate. At least it could be argued to not make any definitive claims (which in any case are often hard to weigh, at least on a consumer level. I have often cocked an eyebrow at some claims of 'positivity', as most new activities are almost inevitably worse in terms of enviROI (which is what I apply) unless directly creating some purely mitigating result) whilst conveying a truly warm and fuzzy sense of at least wanting to do the right thing.
However, as your question has ably demonstrated, a positive can as easily be a negative. So I look forward to how those better informed will explain it to us all. But then it would seem equally inevitable that it will all rather depend on which measure they have been tasked to endorse.
Government (or an unreasonable facsimile of) by degree
'Insidious' is not a nice word. But by heck it is apt for what seems to be happening these days.
Hardly a BBC bulletin goes by without the latest 'could' being trotted out from those who claim the responsibility of governing us, but who will seek any and all ways to avoid any accountability, from announcement through to consequences.
Hence this 'could' will ooze into an 'is' and end up as a 'has', with little or no challenge from anyone, most especially our lazy media.
Just this morning I sat amazed as just two were dutifully trotted out, with the sofa set primed with just the right balance of warm and fuzzy to ease things in.
First up was the latest on mobile phones. I've blogged on this before. If it's illegal, then fine (and I don't mean that in the fiscal manner, as too much law seems to be revenue targeted than spirit or even letter of the law), I know where I stand. But now there seems to be yet another, and predictably more aggressive, though equally vague set of ways to hold 'us' accountable for something or other at the whim of a police officer, supported by a compliant justice system.
Then there was middle-age drinking. It seems that if you go over a daily 105ml daily, you are a raving alcky bent on self-destruction. Now this would be laughable but for the less than subtle between-lines message read out by a truly frighteningly smooth government spokeslady (she had a sense of humour and so charmingly trotted out her facts that even the already pliant blonde and bouffant felt it rude to do anything else but giggle). And this seems to be that if you can even remotely be deemed to have done something in your history that may or may not be proven to be in any way due to lifestyle choices, then 'they' can decide to opt you out of the health system you have paid into all your life.
There is a sickening predictability to all this, along with inevitability.
And what really gets me is that the vagueness seems only to work one way. By being guilty until proven innocent the doors are opened for institutional abuse at every level and across every branch.
And it all seems dedicated to one simple aim, and that is to divert money away from those who work hard and pay their way (because all those who do not will be exceptions to such rules, though withdrawing votes on the basis of self-harm, poor lifestyle, non-contribution, etc would not seem on the cards) to ensure a ready supply of the dwindling cash resources to ensure this bunch of breeding parasites keep their pay, bonuses (what the heck are a raft of government types on bonuses for?) and pensions.
Sorry, today has not been a much better day than yesterday.
Hardly a BBC bulletin goes by without the latest 'could' being trotted out from those who claim the responsibility of governing us, but who will seek any and all ways to avoid any accountability, from announcement through to consequences.
Hence this 'could' will ooze into an 'is' and end up as a 'has', with little or no challenge from anyone, most especially our lazy media.
Just this morning I sat amazed as just two were dutifully trotted out, with the sofa set primed with just the right balance of warm and fuzzy to ease things in.
First up was the latest on mobile phones. I've blogged on this before. If it's illegal, then fine (and I don't mean that in the fiscal manner, as too much law seems to be revenue targeted than spirit or even letter of the law), I know where I stand. But now there seems to be yet another, and predictably more aggressive, though equally vague set of ways to hold 'us' accountable for something or other at the whim of a police officer, supported by a compliant justice system.
Then there was middle-age drinking. It seems that if you go over a daily 105ml daily, you are a raving alcky bent on self-destruction. Now this would be laughable but for the less than subtle between-lines message read out by a truly frighteningly smooth government spokeslady (she had a sense of humour and so charmingly trotted out her facts that even the already pliant blonde and bouffant felt it rude to do anything else but giggle). And this seems to be that if you can even remotely be deemed to have done something in your history that may or may not be proven to be in any way due to lifestyle choices, then 'they' can decide to opt you out of the health system you have paid into all your life.
There is a sickening predictability to all this, along with inevitability.
And what really gets me is that the vagueness seems only to work one way. By being guilty until proven innocent the doors are opened for institutional abuse at every level and across every branch.
And it all seems dedicated to one simple aim, and that is to divert money away from those who work hard and pay their way (because all those who do not will be exceptions to such rules, though withdrawing votes on the basis of self-harm, poor lifestyle, non-contribution, etc would not seem on the cards) to ensure a ready supply of the dwindling cash resources to ensure this bunch of breeding parasites keep their pay, bonuses (what the heck are a raft of government types on bonuses for?) and pensions.
Sorry, today has not been a much better day than yesterday.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
INDY Cards
Yes, it's acronym time again!
And as I am now officially too late to send any myself, I can explain why I will not be sending any INDY cards.
That stands for 'I'm Not Dead Yet' which, as far as I can ascertain, is all the purpose they serve; a one line greeting and signature that confirms that, as at time of writing, the author was still alive, along with family (evidenced by still being included on the sign off).
Now some may assume this ritual is why I don't participate. Not really. It's a heck of a lot better than nothing, and at least still shows that you are on a list in their household, even if it is only Xmas card one.
Many presume it to be my eco-cred (as in 'entials') kicking in. Or a mean-spirited few my thrifty Scottish origins.
Nope. I am just not that organised. And by virtue of major procrastination, have now managed to get to a point where it's all been academic for several years now.
But why do 'they' still write?
Well, usually, once faced with a few spare days and truly dire outdoor conditions over the break, I do manage to write and tell 'em my/our news. There's the basic round robin skeleton, which can then be easily tuned to become more than personal both ways.
Or, better yet, by being part of a a Eurasian dynasty, I can stretch things to CNY and make out that's the one we celebrate here.
And the best part is, assuming they are in when I hit send, they can be pretty sure I'm still kicking as of the last few minutes at least.
And as I am now officially too late to send any myself, I can explain why I will not be sending any INDY cards.
That stands for 'I'm Not Dead Yet' which, as far as I can ascertain, is all the purpose they serve; a one line greeting and signature that confirms that, as at time of writing, the author was still alive, along with family (evidenced by still being included on the sign off).
Now some may assume this ritual is why I don't participate. Not really. It's a heck of a lot better than nothing, and at least still shows that you are on a list in their household, even if it is only Xmas card one.
Many presume it to be my eco-cred (as in 'entials') kicking in. Or a mean-spirited few my thrifty Scottish origins.
Nope. I am just not that organised. And by virtue of major procrastination, have now managed to get to a point where it's all been academic for several years now.
But why do 'they' still write?
Well, usually, once faced with a few spare days and truly dire outdoor conditions over the break, I do manage to write and tell 'em my/our news. There's the basic round robin skeleton, which can then be easily tuned to become more than personal both ways.
Or, better yet, by being part of a a Eurasian dynasty, I can stretch things to CNY and make out that's the one we celebrate here.
And the best part is, assuming they are in when I hit send, they can be pretty sure I'm still kicking as of the last few minutes at least.
£1,800 each!
That's what the cost is to each taxpayer for the gov's bail out of Northern Rock according to the Telegraph! And, as ever, the inimitable Matt manages to say it in spades.
I just hope that:-
1) they've taken it out of existing revenue, and
2) aren't planning additional taxation somewhere to make up the shortfall
What's the betting that I'm wrong on 2)?
Ban Humbugs, too
The latest bit of BBC half-cock, insincere, CSR box-ticking self-flagellation: The ethics of Christmas presents
So far, at time of writing, 5 responses. And I doubt they have kids.
Do they really think they are going to effect any change in public/consumer culture like this?
Totally agree with the theory. But then there's the real world.
With twin 11-year olds and, at time of writing, still not enjoying 12 hr working days, I'm afraid making much that would be worthwhile or that would be appreciated has gone out of the window, so thank heavens for the internet. Opening two envelopes before the first 6am cartoon has finished its opening credits really is also not an option. Sorry, that's a hair-shirt cultural shift that seems to appeal only to a limited, already converted audience. So 'we' stick with centuries of tradition and expectation and social pressure, often propagated by the media, and give tantalising, wrapped presents. Like dolls (so Elsa is not exactly going to be present-free, then, as compromises do get made).
Your colleagues certainly are not quite on message, as I watch the sofa set on Breakfast discuss strategies for 'standby presents' with an 'etiquette specialist' and a 'relationship expert'.
Still, at least I know what goes into the cherries in the Boxing Day fruit salad, thanks to another colleague who flew to Chile to stand under a tree and tell us how awful it was that they were being shipped here.
All valid messages. All less than credible considering the choice, and choices of messengers. But I'm sure ALL six(ish) on this thread are fully on board.
So big up on the latest token BBC 'have yourself a guilty Xmas' slot, though the personal examples set are noted with admiration. Except the fireworks thing. Not sure that improves what goes up into the atmosphere, in smoke, much.
Hope the kids have a blast. I'm looking forward to playing with mine, the missus and gran... at home. I wonder how many from luvvie London are hitting Heathrow for a quick flit to Lapland to see a polar bear before stock... ice blocks run out? You can always call it a climate change study/awareness initiative I guess.
Season's Greetings:)
So far, at time of writing, 5 responses. And I doubt they have kids.
Do they really think they are going to effect any change in public/consumer culture like this?
Totally agree with the theory. But then there's the real world.
With twin 11-year olds and, at time of writing, still not enjoying 12 hr working days, I'm afraid making much that would be worthwhile or that would be appreciated has gone out of the window, so thank heavens for the internet. Opening two envelopes before the first 6am cartoon has finished its opening credits really is also not an option. Sorry, that's a hair-shirt cultural shift that seems to appeal only to a limited, already converted audience. So 'we' stick with centuries of tradition and expectation and social pressure, often propagated by the media, and give tantalising, wrapped presents. Like dolls (so Elsa is not exactly going to be present-free, then, as compromises do get made).
Your colleagues certainly are not quite on message, as I watch the sofa set on Breakfast discuss strategies for 'standby presents' with an 'etiquette specialist' and a 'relationship expert'.
Still, at least I know what goes into the cherries in the Boxing Day fruit salad, thanks to another colleague who flew to Chile to stand under a tree and tell us how awful it was that they were being shipped here.
All valid messages. All less than credible considering the choice, and choices of messengers. But I'm sure ALL six(ish) on this thread are fully on board.
So big up on the latest token BBC 'have yourself a guilty Xmas' slot, though the personal examples set are noted with admiration. Except the fireworks thing. Not sure that improves what goes up into the atmosphere, in smoke, much.
Hope the kids have a blast. I'm looking forward to playing with mine, the missus and gran... at home. I wonder how many from luvvie London are hitting Heathrow for a quick flit to Lapland to see a polar bear before stock... ice blocks run out? You can always call it a climate change study/awareness initiative I guess.
Season's Greetings:)
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The first climate change refugees
We mentioned Tuvalu and the Torres Straits islands quite a while back as they appeared to be potentially the first islands to be evacuated because of rising sea levels and tidal surges. It looks as if they will now be second or third after one of the Carteret Islands, which are a low level island group making up part of Papua New Guinea.
This report from the Daily Mail highlights the problems that the Carteret Islands have suffered over recent years from tidal surges, and on how the first refugees from one of the islands are having to relocate because of the rising sea levels.
"The fruit trees that carried mango, banana, breadfruit and paw-paw are all dead from the sea water that has killed their roots and the children survive on a diet of just coconuts and fish. The roots of their black hair turn yellow, signifying malnutrition."
This report from the Daily Mail highlights the problems that the Carteret Islands have suffered over recent years from tidal surges, and on how the first refugees from one of the islands are having to relocate because of the rising sea levels.
"The fruit trees that carried mango, banana, breadfruit and paw-paw are all dead from the sea water that has killed their roots and the children survive on a diet of just coconuts and fish. The roots of their black hair turn yellow, signifying malnutrition."
"Grass-roofed huts have been washed away by the tidal surges and families have been forced to move further inland to higher ground, away from the beaches where, in decades past, fishing nets were hung out to dry from waterside homes."
I rather suspect that the small group having to relocate will prove to be the first of an ever increasing number over the coming decades.You can't write com... tragedy this go... er...
Just watched the BBC lunchtime news,
Seems there is a week long series on green food.
Second up was a piece on growing tomatoes locally, using a £40m greenhouse heated by the waste heat from a nearby factory. No real details, but hard to fault.
But first, the cherry on the cake (hold that thought).
It was about Chilean cherries. You can see where this is going, well, coming from, I'm sure.
Actually quite balanced in many ways, including frequent reference to the fact that this trade means jobs in Chile (hold that job thought, too).
Had a guy from the Soil Association explaining the consequences of it all, but he did also concede that 'we' need to cut back, and perhaps only have the odd cherry as a luxury. Now, how a business can exist and be sustained on that I don't know. Which has troubled me as a matter of economic fact when we do fancy such as a 4x4 or bottled water. You need a constant, reliable market to ensure supply, surely?
Anyway, to the nub.
To put all this in full context, the BBC reporter flew to Chile. Now, one could argue that this was just his job (held those thoughts?), was just this once or whatever, but for the added value of him saying what he said from under a cherry tree... how does this play?
No, really.
Seems there is a week long series on green food.
Second up was a piece on growing tomatoes locally, using a £40m greenhouse heated by the waste heat from a nearby factory. No real details, but hard to fault.
But first, the cherry on the cake (hold that thought).
It was about Chilean cherries. You can see where this is going, well, coming from, I'm sure.
Actually quite balanced in many ways, including frequent reference to the fact that this trade means jobs in Chile (hold that job thought, too).
Had a guy from the Soil Association explaining the consequences of it all, but he did also concede that 'we' need to cut back, and perhaps only have the odd cherry as a luxury. Now, how a business can exist and be sustained on that I don't know. Which has troubled me as a matter of economic fact when we do fancy such as a 4x4 or bottled water. You need a constant, reliable market to ensure supply, surely?
Anyway, to the nub.
To put all this in full context, the BBC reporter flew to Chile. Now, one could argue that this was just his job (held those thoughts?), was just this once or whatever, but for the added value of him saying what he said from under a cherry tree... how does this play?
No, really.
SITE - HOME PRINTED XMAS CARDS
This started as a link for a simple Xmas-related site: dltk-cards.com
Of course nothing in matters green can ever be that simple.
Because having initially though 'neato, a way to do stuff at hoe last minute', I began to ponder consequences. As you do.
I ended up still in favour, having borne a few things in mind.
This family wraps prezzies in newspaper. It last a nanosecond once the opening bell is rung, and no one gives a monkeys for it under the tree or once discarded. It is useful to help light the fire (we unplug the fireplace and switch off the central heating).
Trouble is, it's hard to see who gets what. A label is useful..
Labels cost money, need to be made and printed and then got to the house from a shop.
Hence, and so long as they are printed on the back of other paper, and the most is made of the page coverage, I am prepared to live with the PC and ink commitment.
Hope that adds up.
Of course nothing in matters green can ever be that simple.
Because having initially though 'neato, a way to do stuff at hoe last minute', I began to ponder consequences. As you do.
I ended up still in favour, having borne a few things in mind.
This family wraps prezzies in newspaper. It last a nanosecond once the opening bell is rung, and no one gives a monkeys for it under the tree or once discarded. It is useful to help light the fire (we unplug the fireplace and switch off the central heating).
Trouble is, it's hard to see who gets what. A label is useful..
Labels cost money, need to be made and printed and then got to the house from a shop.
Hence, and so long as they are printed on the back of other paper, and the most is made of the page coverage, I am prepared to live with the PC and ink commitment.
Hope that adds up.
Dividing Fools
Now it has been established that everything dark (as in side) green is the fault of the US, I'll be keen to see how things closer to home now get laid elsewhere: Europe divided over targets for cutting car CO2 emissions
I do of course note my favourite word in there: targets.
In the morasses (is that the plural?)that were/are Kyoto and/or Bali, I was starting to sense that aspects of the US environmental position (as distinct from their economic one, which is a very different kettle of tariffs. Though even here it seemed 'optimistic' to expect a dominant economy to hobble itself in comparison to not only business competitors, but military ones as well. You can't build tanks on the cheap unless you are cranking up a weekly coal-fired power station and steel mill) were worth pondering.
For instance, I would have loved more in-depth and agenda-free analysis of their claims that in real terms they had actually achieved cuts whilst the EU had trumpeted setting a bunch of targets that they then had promptly failed to meet (see above, and the UK's awesome record to date).
I know which I prefer on my enviROi basis.
ADDENDUM- The Curse of the Common Moniker
Wading through this I was a bit surprised to see a quote attributed to me that I had not written in yesterday's HYS. Only it wasn't me. Just another with my name. Thank heavens that, in amongst a ton of off-topic, personal-flaming that now scars such forums, this guy was relatively rational. Though what he wrote was not what I did.
Letters - I include this merely because it does offer and interesting spread of views. One that I did appreciate was the point that to make their point on emissions of carbon the Indy chose an image of cooling towers, which only release steam. Which is, of course, a green house 'gas', though one would have preferred them to have made the distinction.
I do of course note my favourite word in there: targets.
In the morasses (is that the plural?)that were/are Kyoto and/or Bali, I was starting to sense that aspects of the US environmental position (as distinct from their economic one, which is a very different kettle of tariffs. Though even here it seemed 'optimistic' to expect a dominant economy to hobble itself in comparison to not only business competitors, but military ones as well. You can't build tanks on the cheap unless you are cranking up a weekly coal-fired power station and steel mill) were worth pondering.
For instance, I would have loved more in-depth and agenda-free analysis of their claims that in real terms they had actually achieved cuts whilst the EU had trumpeted setting a bunch of targets that they then had promptly failed to meet (see above, and the UK's awesome record to date).
I know which I prefer on my enviROi basis.
ADDENDUM- The Curse of the Common Moniker
Wading through this I was a bit surprised to see a quote attributed to me that I had not written in yesterday's HYS. Only it wasn't me. Just another with my name. Thank heavens that, in amongst a ton of off-topic, personal-flaming that now scars such forums, this guy was relatively rational. Though what he wrote was not what I did.
Letters - I include this merely because it does offer and interesting spread of views. One that I did appreciate was the point that to make their point on emissions of carbon the Indy chose an image of cooling towers, which only release steam. Which is, of course, a green house 'gas', though one would have preferred them to have made the distinction.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Bali Hype?
Further to the kick-off last week, I thought I'd start here: Key climate summit opens in Bali
I'm sure there'll be more (posts, that is. And, thinking on it, summits, too).
I hadn't appreciated this thing went on for almost 2 weeks!
Update 1:
Reuters - "Naughty" nations in a coal lot of trouble in Bali - Hard to imagine this is the first I have come across. And I am not sure this tactic will work too well.
Reuters - Indonesia plants trees to offset Bali emissions - Better than nothing, I guess, but how about not cutting down millions of acres of mature ones? Just a thought. Party on, doods.
Update 2:
Indy - Diplomats warned that climate change is security issue, not a green dilemma - Waking up to...?????! Guess that's why they get the big bucks.
Guardian - High hopes for Bali - Altogether now: 'Everyone's got high hopes, they got...' I wonder how he's finding it there? Still, he has had but three replies to date, and one was a duplicate. So maybe they are in the minority.
Update 3:
The Economist - Getting serious in Bali - '..expectations for Bali are low, and were being managed downwards before the meeting..' At least a few tens of thousands of folk had a nice break, though. Seriously.
Update 4:
Times - Americans 'must change their lifestyle' for the sake of planet - Just the Yanks? Phew! For a minute I thought we might all need to pull together. This will really get them onside.
Times - Atheists, agnostics and religious leaders are as one in their belief in the need to save the world from Man, they say in a joint statement. Which was nice.
Indy - Demonstrations across the globe mark Bali summit - at least they got a nice day for it. No, really. But stuff like this... "We're doing this in solidarity with the women around the world who are already suffering the effects of climate chaos" do make me sigh. I have zero in common with this mindset.
Latest Update 5:
Guardian - US balks at Bali carbon targets - One has to wonder what would be 'helpful' in this day and age. That said, there is a slight sense that the US is getting dumped with the role of saying no on behalf of a few less honest brokers, too.
Guardian - Q&A: Bali climate change conference
Guardian - Bali diary - Not exactly a great bit of journalsitic input, really.
'For all I have got out of this circus so far by way of information and/or insights and/or inspiration, and suspect I will get out of it as the consequence of a collection of 'all the talents' in global statespersonship lobbing up for the last few days of several, I ain't holding my breath.
But, as you say, it has to be held somewhere. So it may as well be lush. Hope it was worth the trip.'
Latest Update 6:
Gaurdian - UN calls for (my italics) 40 per cent cut in emissions by rich countries - equal billing to a 'it's for the penguins' plea. Let's see which one works.
BBC - Editors Blog - Environmental briefing
BBC - Key climate summit opens in Bali
Latest Update 7:
BBC - Tackling climate change - Bali summit - This link came from, it's fair to say, a less than climate supportive blog. Thing is, I have to say that certain aspects were a real gift to them:
'Matthew Price went to Boston'
'Nick Higham met them'
'Roger Harrabin went to the United Arab Emirates to meet...'
'Sanjoy Majumder visited Pawan and Sangeeta Kamra at their home in south Delhi.'
'Quentin Sommerville went to meet them.'
You can imagine what the obvious question was. On top of this, I simply wonder if this investment in time, money and energy got beyond being tucked away in the back of the BBC website to have any real value at all. Beyond the quality of the reports, that is.
I do despair. Hope Rog enjoyed the UAE en route to/from Bali. But, of course, he has to do this as it's his job.
Gaurdian - UN chief: World 'must act now' on climate change
Guardian - Progress at Bali
Indy - Bali conference close to deal on saving forests
Times - Act now on climate change or face oblivion, warns UN chief - say it often enough, and...
Times - Carbon stand-off puts climate talks at risk
Latest Update 8:
Reuters - EU-U.S. climate impasse in Bali easing - Encouraging headline, at least!
Guardian - US proposal threatens climate change deal - then again...
Sometime later, a last minute flurry resulted in... something.
BBC - Climate deal sealed by US U-turn - I'm never quite sure in the new media speak, but in a negotiation I'd have thought conceding a point to get closer to agreement was heading towards a compromise; not a U-turn. In fact one can see how these days, when faced by such an 'interpretation' by the media, some may feel the need to dig in to avoid such an accusation.
Latest Update 9:
Well it's all over, bar the shouting. And there has been a lot. At least in the papers I have read. Depressingly, there seem to have been some very partisan positions immediately taken almost immediately. In many ways I see the process to have driven some further apart, though there is a glimmer that the result may have moved a smidge to something 'better'.
I am not sure I can be bothered to add the links to the various newspapers, as the takes they have, and the views on their blogs, pretty much fall into predictable areas. Maybe I'll wait 'til tomorrow and let the Sunday's do a summary and then drop it.
What I will say is I just watched Richard North on the BBC, now called 'environmental commentator' (whatever that actually means), in an exchange with Richard Simmons I think in the studio. And the views were to my now weary, cynical mind pretty balanced. My favourite was that the 'green lobby' isn't helping much and needs to be sidelined. That'll go down well in the corporate boardrooms of a few eco-activist charity/not-for-profits I'll be bound!
I would welcome more such pragmatic reporting and/or commentary in future. In fact, if I see it I may share it in favour of some from such as the Indy, Guardian or Daily Mail which now seem to have frankly little to do with the issues and more with the prejudices of the editorial staff and the readerships, all circling their wagons and just feeling cosy with their mates either lobbing out whatever they fancy that serves, or going for a group hug when one from the other side lands in their midst. The quality of debate has sure dropped to near zero, along with much chance of objective information sharing.
Postscript:
Yes, they're just from one paper (I'm not sure I saw much, if anything, from any others. Moving on), and one with a fairly entrenched standpoint, but I think these make fitting, if depressing postscripts to it all. I really doubt I will be moved to look for or share much else.
Guardian - US pours cold water on Bali optimism
Guardian - We've been suckered again by the US. So far the Bali deal is worse than Kyoto
Ah well, if nothing else, at least the rest of 'us' can blame the US. No fault anywhere else, from UK pols who say one thing and do another, to enviro-gurus whose job requires them to do what the rest of us must, in their terms, avoid.
Were it that easy.
Guardian - Road to nowhere? - So it was all worthwhile, then? Hmmn.
I'm sure there'll be more (posts, that is. And, thinking on it, summits, too).
I hadn't appreciated this thing went on for almost 2 weeks!
Update 1:
Reuters - "Naughty" nations in a coal lot of trouble in Bali - Hard to imagine this is the first I have come across. And I am not sure this tactic will work too well.
Reuters - Indonesia plants trees to offset Bali emissions - Better than nothing, I guess, but how about not cutting down millions of acres of mature ones? Just a thought. Party on, doods.
Update 2:
Indy - Diplomats warned that climate change is security issue, not a green dilemma - Waking up to...?????! Guess that's why they get the big bucks.
Guardian - High hopes for Bali - Altogether now: 'Everyone's got high hopes, they got...' I wonder how he's finding it there? Still, he has had but three replies to date, and one was a duplicate. So maybe they are in the minority.
Update 3:
The Economist - Getting serious in Bali - '..expectations for Bali are low, and were being managed downwards before the meeting..' At least a few tens of thousands of folk had a nice break, though. Seriously.
Update 4:
Times - Americans 'must change their lifestyle' for the sake of planet - Just the Yanks? Phew! For a minute I thought we might all need to pull together. This will really get them onside.
Times - Atheists, agnostics and religious leaders are as one in their belief in the need to save the world from Man, they say in a joint statement. Which was nice.
Indy - Demonstrations across the globe mark Bali summit - at least they got a nice day for it. No, really. But stuff like this... "We're doing this in solidarity with the women around the world who are already suffering the effects of climate chaos" do make me sigh. I have zero in common with this mindset.
Latest Update 5:
Guardian - US balks at Bali carbon targets - One has to wonder what would be 'helpful' in this day and age. That said, there is a slight sense that the US is getting dumped with the role of saying no on behalf of a few less honest brokers, too.
Guardian - Q&A: Bali climate change conference
Guardian - Bali diary - Not exactly a great bit of journalsitic input, really.
'For all I have got out of this circus so far by way of information and/or insights and/or inspiration, and suspect I will get out of it as the consequence of a collection of 'all the talents' in global statespersonship lobbing up for the last few days of several, I ain't holding my breath.
But, as you say, it has to be held somewhere. So it may as well be lush. Hope it was worth the trip.'
Latest Update 6:
Gaurdian - UN calls for (my italics) 40 per cent cut in emissions by rich countries - equal billing to a 'it's for the penguins' plea. Let's see which one works.
BBC - Editors Blog - Environmental briefing
BBC - Key climate summit opens in Bali
Latest Update 7:
BBC - Tackling climate change - Bali summit - This link came from, it's fair to say, a less than climate supportive blog. Thing is, I have to say that certain aspects were a real gift to them:
'Matthew Price went to Boston'
'Nick Higham met them'
'Roger Harrabin went to the United Arab Emirates to meet...'
'Sanjoy Majumder visited Pawan and Sangeeta Kamra at their home in south Delhi.'
'Quentin Sommerville went to meet them.'
You can imagine what the obvious question was. On top of this, I simply wonder if this investment in time, money and energy got beyond being tucked away in the back of the BBC website to have any real value at all. Beyond the quality of the reports, that is.
I do despair. Hope Rog enjoyed the UAE en route to/from Bali. But, of course, he has to do this as it's his job.
Gaurdian - UN chief: World 'must act now' on climate change
Guardian - Progress at Bali
Indy - Bali conference close to deal on saving forests
Times - Act now on climate change or face oblivion, warns UN chief - say it often enough, and...
Times - Carbon stand-off puts climate talks at risk
Latest Update 8:
Reuters - EU-U.S. climate impasse in Bali easing - Encouraging headline, at least!
Guardian - US proposal threatens climate change deal - then again...
Sometime later, a last minute flurry resulted in... something.
BBC - Climate deal sealed by US U-turn - I'm never quite sure in the new media speak, but in a negotiation I'd have thought conceding a point to get closer to agreement was heading towards a compromise; not a U-turn. In fact one can see how these days, when faced by such an 'interpretation' by the media, some may feel the need to dig in to avoid such an accusation.
Latest Update 9:
Well it's all over, bar the shouting. And there has been a lot. At least in the papers I have read. Depressingly, there seem to have been some very partisan positions immediately taken almost immediately. In many ways I see the process to have driven some further apart, though there is a glimmer that the result may have moved a smidge to something 'better'.
I am not sure I can be bothered to add the links to the various newspapers, as the takes they have, and the views on their blogs, pretty much fall into predictable areas. Maybe I'll wait 'til tomorrow and let the Sunday's do a summary and then drop it.
What I will say is I just watched Richard North on the BBC, now called 'environmental commentator' (whatever that actually means), in an exchange with Richard Simmons I think in the studio. And the views were to my now weary, cynical mind pretty balanced. My favourite was that the 'green lobby' isn't helping much and needs to be sidelined. That'll go down well in the corporate boardrooms of a few eco-activist charity/not-for-profits I'll be bound!
I would welcome more such pragmatic reporting and/or commentary in future. In fact, if I see it I may share it in favour of some from such as the Indy, Guardian or Daily Mail which now seem to have frankly little to do with the issues and more with the prejudices of the editorial staff and the readerships, all circling their wagons and just feeling cosy with their mates either lobbing out whatever they fancy that serves, or going for a group hug when one from the other side lands in their midst. The quality of debate has sure dropped to near zero, along with much chance of objective information sharing.
Postscript:
Yes, they're just from one paper (I'm not sure I saw much, if anything, from any others. Moving on), and one with a fairly entrenched standpoint, but I think these make fitting, if depressing postscripts to it all. I really doubt I will be moved to look for or share much else.
Guardian - US pours cold water on Bali optimism
Guardian - We've been suckered again by the US. So far the Bali deal is worse than Kyoto
Ah well, if nothing else, at least the rest of 'us' can blame the US. No fault anywhere else, from UK pols who say one thing and do another, to enviro-gurus whose job requires them to do what the rest of us must, in their terms, avoid.
Were it that easy.
Guardian - Road to nowhere? - So it was all worthwhile, then? Hmmn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)