Back in 1999, our then chancellor, Ol' Golden Brown, no less, took the unprecedented decision to unload a large proportion of the UK's gold reserves at a time when the price of gold was at the bottom of the market. Dealers still term that price as the "Brown Bottom". (Full story in The Times).
At the time, there was much concern, and many forecasts that it would cost the UK dear. "The 17 auctions achieved prices for the gold of between $256 and $296 an ounce, with an average of $275." The total loss, back in April this year was estimated at some £2 Billion. (It would have been considerably more had not the Euros purchased with much of the proceeds not appreciated in value.)
Well, the price of gold now stands at a record $872.10 per ounce. That means that our PM is directly responsible for a loss to the UK of some £3 Billion+.
Now if I (or anyone else for that matter) had taken such an appalling decision and lost such an immense amount in business I'd have been sacked on the spot. It just goes to prove that there is no such thing as accountability in politics nowadays.
ADDENDUM - Brown's big hitter - When in the mire, don't whatever happens try and sort it out. Hire a better person to explain why it isn't.
ADDENDUM 2 - Unhappy new year to you all!
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Money well, expended
Fit for purpose?
Are you mad?????
Spending perfectly good money on actual tangibles that get delivered directly to where they can do the most good to the most folk... and, worse, with the notion of reward-based incentives attached taboot!
This is heresy.
What we need is more departments, and initiatives, and announcements and quangos and massive communications budgets with oodles of pre and post research to get the BBC to read out as gospel.
However, fair point on weather, etc. But as a matter of principle a heck of a better way to be thinking than the current 'ban, guilt, accuse and refuse' notions and their jaw-dropping black hole budgets.
This notion applies across every area of our lives too, of course.
Are you mad?????
Spending perfectly good money on actual tangibles that get delivered directly to where they can do the most good to the most folk... and, worse, with the notion of reward-based incentives attached taboot!
This is heresy.
What we need is more departments, and initiatives, and announcements and quangos and massive communications budgets with oodles of pre and post research to get the BBC to read out as gospel.
However, fair point on weather, etc. But as a matter of principle a heck of a better way to be thinking than the current 'ban, guilt, accuse and refuse' notions and their jaw-dropping black hole budgets.
This notion applies across every area of our lives too, of course.
The agricultural albedo effect
We've had the mirrors in space idea, and we have people experimenting with dumping iron filings into the oceans to encourage algal blooms, amongst many other strange geo-engineering ideas.
Now scientists have come up with the shiny plant idea. Let's grow lots of crops with shiny leaves and the albedo effect "could reduce maximum daytime temperatures in agricultural regions by as much as 1.9C".
There's that great word again: 'could'.
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - Great minds...?
Now scientists have come up with the shiny plant idea. Let's grow lots of crops with shiny leaves and the albedo effect "could reduce maximum daytime temperatures in agricultural regions by as much as 1.9C".
There's that great word again: 'could'.
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - Great minds...?
Start as you mean to carry on?
Isn't life grand? Asks Newsnight.
Well, not if this is how they see the future of quality news in the year ahead. I rather expect my national broadcaster to devote its pages to weightier issues than having a snipe about someone else being nasty about them, unless it is to correct a factual inaccuracy.
I thought it was just middle age when I moved from Radio 1 to Radio 2, but mainly it was when the 'new yoof' celeb DJs like Chris Moyles decided the listeners needed less music and more on them and their dissin' spats with equally uninteresting nobodies of but minor relevance through 'working' for other iconic media brands.
I could care less what you lot and anyone else from any ratings obsessed, agenda-driven media extreme think of each other, but as a licence fee payer (I can at least opt not to pay for the Daily Mail) I do care a lot about what you are paid to provide: relevant, objective, intelligent, accurate news.
Hard to see any hint of that here. As no link was provided to the piece in question I have no clue as to what was or was not in it, so the only purpose seems to expose a degree of unhealthy self-obsession and importance at the expense of relevant journalism.
ADDENDUM - Oddly, after three attempts over a few days my post has not made it up. I can only presume it did not fit the BBC or its Editor's standards of... whatever they have standards left of. Even more oddly, on the page counter there are 6 replies listed as being posted. Only three are visible. Omission in many ways is the most pernicious form of censoring of all. What I wrote was critical to be sure, but I'd also say justified. On an open blog to exclude the comment seems... telling. I'll try again in a few more days in case it's one those 'tech errors' that often serve to let the passage of time smooth the view in the rear mirror.
ADDENDUM 2 - Nope. Still nothing. One can only wonder why. Go via here via 4 Jan to see how 6 become 3. Not Newsnight's, the BBC's or the cause of honest and balanced journalism's finest hour.
ADDENDUM 3 - Well, there's a thing. It is now (14:29. Tue 8) up now. And I am sure, with some embarrassment, my whinge that it isn't will follow. Good job I did a page capture a few days ago. Rather oddly (still), my comment is now inserted before that of a chap whose comment was up a few days ago (but probably after mine). What an odd system it is.
Well, not if this is how they see the future of quality news in the year ahead. I rather expect my national broadcaster to devote its pages to weightier issues than having a snipe about someone else being nasty about them, unless it is to correct a factual inaccuracy.
I thought it was just middle age when I moved from Radio 1 to Radio 2, but mainly it was when the 'new yoof' celeb DJs like Chris Moyles decided the listeners needed less music and more on them and their dissin' spats with equally uninteresting nobodies of but minor relevance through 'working' for other iconic media brands.
I could care less what you lot and anyone else from any ratings obsessed, agenda-driven media extreme think of each other, but as a licence fee payer (I can at least opt not to pay for the Daily Mail) I do care a lot about what you are paid to provide: relevant, objective, intelligent, accurate news.
Hard to see any hint of that here. As no link was provided to the piece in question I have no clue as to what was or was not in it, so the only purpose seems to expose a degree of unhealthy self-obsession and importance at the expense of relevant journalism.
ADDENDUM - Oddly, after three attempts over a few days my post has not made it up. I can only presume it did not fit the BBC or its Editor's standards of... whatever they have standards left of. Even more oddly, on the page counter there are 6 replies listed as being posted. Only three are visible. Omission in many ways is the most pernicious form of censoring of all. What I wrote was critical to be sure, but I'd also say justified. On an open blog to exclude the comment seems... telling. I'll try again in a few more days in case it's one those 'tech errors' that often serve to let the passage of time smooth the view in the rear mirror.
ADDENDUM 2 - Nope. Still nothing. One can only wonder why. Go via here via 4 Jan to see how 6 become 3. Not Newsnight's, the BBC's or the cause of honest and balanced journalism's finest hour.
ADDENDUM 3 - Well, there's a thing. It is now (14:29. Tue 8) up now. And I am sure, with some embarrassment, my whinge that it isn't will follow. Good job I did a page capture a few days ago. Rather oddly (still), my comment is now inserted before that of a chap whose comment was up a few days ago (but probably after mine). What an odd system it is.
Answering the call
Gordon Brown calls for single food labelling scheme
What, in the great smoke and mirrors scheme of things, does 'calls for' actually mean, or translate as?
I rather suspect this is yet one more in an exponentially expanding series of politician double speak up there to join 'this is not acceptable (but sod all will be done)', 'we're going to look at this (at arm's length, and then wait until it goes away)' and, my personal favourite 'lessons need to learned (then filed and forgotten)'.
I hate to break it to our Dear Leader, but this horse has already long bolted and this consumer is well beyond contusion. He's already at 'if they don't know or care to sort it out sensibly, why should I bother?'. So, as I am on a mixed metaphorical roll, it will be fun to see how this genie gets popped back in it's bottle.
Especially as, at least from my reading of this article, the additional fun of the already several competing and contradictory carbon/food miles efforts already out and/or proposed to add to the screed on packs seems not to be in this mix. Or at least not mentioned.
I'm betting that after a ton of 'working with', which should keep a load of public servants in pensions and consultants in fees until well after the cows have finished burping methane, the most I predict will be several vastly expensive 'campaigns' instead of any tangibles from several left/right hand quangos, so at least the ad and media world may still benefit.
Just not so sure about the consumer or planet's health, though.
Guardian - Energy firms feel heat from government over surge in prices - I'm sorry, but how 'expressing concern' translates into anyone on the other end 'feeling heat' is a stretch.
What, in the great smoke and mirrors scheme of things, does 'calls for' actually mean, or translate as?
I rather suspect this is yet one more in an exponentially expanding series of politician double speak up there to join 'this is not acceptable (but sod all will be done)', 'we're going to look at this (at arm's length, and then wait until it goes away)' and, my personal favourite 'lessons need to learned (then filed and forgotten)'.
I hate to break it to our Dear Leader, but this horse has already long bolted and this consumer is well beyond contusion. He's already at 'if they don't know or care to sort it out sensibly, why should I bother?'. So, as I am on a mixed metaphorical roll, it will be fun to see how this genie gets popped back in it's bottle.
Especially as, at least from my reading of this article, the additional fun of the already several competing and contradictory carbon/food miles efforts already out and/or proposed to add to the screed on packs seems not to be in this mix. Or at least not mentioned.
I'm betting that after a ton of 'working with', which should keep a load of public servants in pensions and consultants in fees until well after the cows have finished burping methane, the most I predict will be several vastly expensive 'campaigns' instead of any tangibles from several left/right hand quangos, so at least the ad and media world may still benefit.
Just not so sure about the consumer or planet's health, though.
Guardian - Energy firms feel heat from government over surge in prices - I'm sorry, but how 'expressing concern' translates into anyone on the other end 'feeling heat' is a stretch.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Pros and Cons
Climate change. Can't live with it. Can't turn on the box without it.
I have long given up with the arguments about the various shades of CC, but remain very interested in how it gets played out, especially when it gets to the man in the Clapham omnibus.
Ca,me across a link to this from a loooong time ago.
The Battle for Influence
Might be worth a listen to. Never know.
I have long given up with the arguments about the various shades of CC, but remain very interested in how it gets played out, especially when it gets to the man in the Clapham omnibus.
Ca,me across a link to this from a loooong time ago.
The Battle for Influence
Might be worth a listen to. Never know.
Bear e-cessities?
Artic Tale
Last thing I read was a pretty credibel notion tha polar bears were not doing too bad, climatically, but the main threat was oil exploartion and/or man's incursion into their territories. Please do not let this be another open goal for the optimists.
I know they are cute and cuddly (well, except the tearing limb from limb thing), but I question if these guys are really the best icon for action.
Just asking as not sure, but might a pretty big threat to Seela surviving be Nanu's mum?
I know what the intention behind this is, but just hope that the actuality doesn't play second fiddle to promoting the message.
Last time I saw a polar bear used was a Curry's ad for an LCD TV.
Last thing I read was a pretty credibel notion tha polar bears were not doing too bad, climatically, but the main threat was oil exploartion and/or man's incursion into their territories. Please do not let this be another open goal for the optimists.
I know they are cute and cuddly (well, except the tearing limb from limb thing), but I question if these guys are really the best icon for action.
Just asking as not sure, but might a pretty big threat to Seela surviving be Nanu's mum?
I know what the intention behind this is, but just hope that the actuality doesn't play second fiddle to promoting the message.
Last time I saw a polar bear used was a Curry's ad for an LCD TV.
Brown lighting
It's what I think you get when you mix red and green. it's the colour of fudge. Nuclear plan puts Brown's green image in spotlight
And again I find myself with some small sympathy for the dilemma he faces. Well, as far as being between a rock and a hard place, but that's why he is in the job he coveted. Frankly I'd have more respect if he just turned round and said 'Look, you can't have it all, I'm going this way' rather than trying to be all things to all people but ending up a nothing to no one.
And yes, I heard him 'Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right."' And nowt there says anything of substance.
I leave the conclusion to one of his own MPs: "The tragedy of Gordon Brown is the only big decisions he appears capable of taking are the wrong ones."
'No nuclear power station has ever been built without substantial subsidies'
What would I give for a simp.. well at least clear chart outlining the ROI and enviROI of the various energy options we are being presented with.
Be it ring-fencing us with windmills, sticking a nuke in the back-garden or firing up a coal-fired without a CO2 scrubber I'd just like to see where the money is coming from, who it is going to, for what and for how long to deliver what to my socket.
And then I'd like to see what the consequences to my kids' futures are of these from the minute a spade goes into the ground (or, more like, more gets blown on pre-consultancy than the project) to the moment they are decommissioned, including all maintenance consequences.
It surely should not be that hard?
Guardian - Which would you rather subsidise? - in the world of some media I rather have a sense of wishing something to be, rather than reporting on what is.
And another - Don't make us nuke - some media are now rather devalued by being a tad exclusive in their discussions, I fear. I'd say they were preaching to a converted flock, but having read some thread replies maybe not.
What is obvious is that the Guardian quoting BBC links and vice versa is not making for a great debate, or very credible these days as any kind of objective justification.
And again I find myself with some small sympathy for the dilemma he faces. Well, as far as being between a rock and a hard place, but that's why he is in the job he coveted. Frankly I'd have more respect if he just turned round and said 'Look, you can't have it all, I'm going this way' rather than trying to be all things to all people but ending up a nothing to no one.
And yes, I heard him 'Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right."' And nowt there says anything of substance.
I leave the conclusion to one of his own MPs: "The tragedy of Gordon Brown is the only big decisions he appears capable of taking are the wrong ones."
'No nuclear power station has ever been built without substantial subsidies'
What would I give for a simp.. well at least clear chart outlining the ROI and enviROI of the various energy options we are being presented with.
Be it ring-fencing us with windmills, sticking a nuke in the back-garden or firing up a coal-fired without a CO2 scrubber I'd just like to see where the money is coming from, who it is going to, for what and for how long to deliver what to my socket.
And then I'd like to see what the consequences to my kids' futures are of these from the minute a spade goes into the ground (or, more like, more gets blown on pre-consultancy than the project) to the moment they are decommissioned, including all maintenance consequences.
It surely should not be that hard?
Guardian - Which would you rather subsidise? - in the world of some media I rather have a sense of wishing something to be, rather than reporting on what is.
And another - Don't make us nuke - some media are now rather devalued by being a tad exclusive in their discussions, I fear. I'd say they were preaching to a converted flock, but having read some thread replies maybe not.
What is obvious is that the Guardian quoting BBC links and vice versa is not making for a great debate, or very credible these days as any kind of objective justification.
To serve and protect?
One comment that has cause to make me pause is that by being all online and all, I am promoting lots of emissions on the energy consequences of all the IT involved.
Being a website and a blog it would be tricky not to run most of what I have, but here's a possible mitigation to share: http://www.googlenrg.com/info.php
NOW HERE'S A MAJOR CAUTION!
The source that sent this to me is usually very good, but there is something about the use of English in the intro that has me cautious, above and beyond any invitation to cut and paste stuff in and around computers.
So I have done nothing yet, and written to Google direct to check.
I'd suggest that you wait with me until I get a reply and update this post.
I want this to be true, and it looks good, but sadly this is a nasty old world and people will use green for just about any odd notion of self-advancement there is.
Being a website and a blog it would be tricky not to run most of what I have, but here's a possible mitigation to share: http://www.googlenrg.com/info.php
NOW HERE'S A MAJOR CAUTION!
The source that sent this to me is usually very good, but there is something about the use of English in the intro that has me cautious, above and beyond any invitation to cut and paste stuff in and around computers.
So I have done nothing yet, and written to Google direct to check.
I'd suggest that you wait with me until I get a reply and update this post.
I want this to be true, and it looks good, but sadly this is a nasty old world and people will use green for just about any odd notion of self-advancement there is.
A river runs through it
I like to find positives, and I am a fan of hydro, so this is a good share: Hydro tunnel makes breakthrough
Also nice to see a 'will' when it comes to power claims. Sadly some other alt. eng. projects seem to have a few coulds 'n caveats attached
Also nice to see a 'will' when it comes to power claims. Sadly some other alt. eng. projects seem to have a few coulds 'n caveats attached
Speaking of rubbish
I noticed this headline: Soldiers bulldoze Naples rubbish
And hence the story. So far, so P-EU.
What intrigued me more, in terms of the nature of news gathering, was this at the end:
Are you in Naples? Have you been affected by the rubbish collection crisis? Use the form below to send us your stories, some of which may be published.
You can send pictures and video to: yourpics@bbc.co.uk or to send via mobile please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100.
I'm all for citizen journalism, but just wondered what checks and balances existed on this, or indeed any other comments or footage that comes in and ends up on a major news site. Do they verify?
Seems like an invitation to create something if one is so minded to sway a story.
And hence the story. So far, so P-EU.
What intrigued me more, in terms of the nature of news gathering, was this at the end:
Are you in Naples? Have you been affected by the rubbish collection crisis? Use the form below to send us your stories, some of which may be published.
You can send pictures and video to: yourpics@bbc.co.uk or to send via mobile please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100.
I'm all for citizen journalism, but just wondered what checks and balances existed on this, or indeed any other comments or footage that comes in and ends up on a major news site. Do they verify?
Seems like an invitation to create something if one is so minded to sway a story.
Over my head
Great. To the pointless, time-consuming (ok, that's the point) barrages on climate change, as a consumer in no man's land I can add government and corporates on energy: NPower blames Government targets for price hike
I'm not so sure I am that concerned on 'blame', but surely we can easily be told just where the actual numbers are derived from and come to our own conclusions?
I'm not so sure I am that concerned on 'blame', but surely we can easily be told just where the actual numbers are derived from and come to our own conclusions?
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Lead by donkeys, informed by sheep
I just watched the Andrew Marr show, with his guest the PM.
About as sorry an example of the state of governance and the media as I could imagine. A load of waffle that told me nothing. But what did surprise was another clear (after the Newsnight/Milliband exchange) example where two sets of major persons claimed totally different things... and I remain clueless as to the truth.
Here's something that this viewer DOES want to know and the country maybe want to understand (I don't pretend to speak for it, as I wish many others equally unable to know would not).
Please advise when all the 'facts' that Andrew and the Prime Minister have shared today with the viewing public have been clarified. They cannot both be right, so one or other must be very, very wrong and/or misinformed.
And, if so, how and why.
Otherwise there ceases to be any point to such interviews.
ADDENDUM :
Mine did not for some reason find favour. Here are a few which did.
About as sorry an example of the state of governance and the media as I could imagine. A load of waffle that told me nothing. But what did surprise was another clear (after the Newsnight/Milliband exchange) example where two sets of major persons claimed totally different things... and I remain clueless as to the truth.
Here's something that this viewer DOES want to know and the country maybe want to understand (I don't pretend to speak for it, as I wish many others equally unable to know would not).
Please advise when all the 'facts' that Andrew and the Prime Minister have shared today with the viewing public have been clarified. They cannot both be right, so one or other must be very, very wrong and/or misinformed.
And, if so, how and why.
Otherwise there ceases to be any point to such interviews.
ADDENDUM :
Mine did not for some reason find favour. Here are a few which did.
To err is human, to fudge... define, naturally
I found this... disconcerting: 'Natural' will remain undefined, says FDA
One might indeed wonder why such 'a lack of a uniform approach to the term has resulted in inconsistent product claims, consumer confusion, and even lawsuits against food companies accused of misleading consumers'.
Or, if of a cynical bent, maybe not.
Guardian - Board stiffs - Meanwhile, this side of the pond.
One might indeed wonder why such 'a lack of a uniform approach to the term has resulted in inconsistent product claims, consumer confusion, and even lawsuits against food companies accused of misleading consumers'.
Or, if of a cynical bent, maybe not.
Guardian - Board stiffs - Meanwhile, this side of the pond.
Tilting windmills
Home wind turbines dealt a blow
I take no pleasure in this. But it does at least maybe encourage greater commitment to assessing enviROIs before endorsing any 'Green is good no matter what ' nonsense, especially from subsidising bodies and the media. I'll leave commerce out of it as most are, and have always been in it for one thing, and caveat emptor.
The problem comes with perceptions. I'd say the notion that at least they remind folk of the need to save is a stretch, especially as less charitable, climate positive media and commenters will pounce on this and use it to further undermine sincere attempts by labelling those who do care and get taken in as rather naive and misguided. Which, frankly, many seem to have been.
Why was this research not available much sooner, and better known? And has there been no objective official guide for the start?
I take no pleasure in this. But it does at least maybe encourage greater commitment to assessing enviROIs before endorsing any 'Green is good no matter what ' nonsense, especially from subsidising bodies and the media. I'll leave commerce out of it as most are, and have always been in it for one thing, and caveat emptor.
The problem comes with perceptions. I'd say the notion that at least they remind folk of the need to save is a stretch, especially as less charitable, climate positive media and commenters will pounce on this and use it to further undermine sincere attempts by labelling those who do care and get taken in as rather naive and misguided. Which, frankly, many seem to have been.
Why was this research not available much sooner, and better known? And has there been no objective official guide for the start?
On the other hand, Jeremy Clarkson might not like it
The £1,290 car delights Indians but horrifies the green lobby
Beyond the poor taste humour of the headline, there is a rather serious back story to this.
Frankly it was/is inevitable. Just economic growth and market forces at work. Can't be denied.
And while I'm sure the green lobby can be relied upon to be horrified, I'm a might more interested in how the global political leadership sees such things developing.
Beyond the poor taste humour of the headline, there is a rather serious back story to this.
Frankly it was/is inevitable. Just economic growth and market forces at work. Can't be denied.
And while I'm sure the green lobby can be relied upon to be horrified, I'm a might more interested in how the global political leadership sees such things developing.
Top of the world?
My views on what makes one, and hence validates one being called a hero are well documented. Along with the media that perpetuate the trend: 50 people who could save the planet
It's a list. And like any list as good as the people who draw it up, their subjective views and their agendas.
To critique is to lay one open to all manner of criticism in return. Anything that encourages those who try to do better by the planet and reward them with praise has to be worthwhile.
But having looked through I can only say how very few I would call either heroes or indeed those who 'could save the planet'.
The sheer preponderance of those who already greet each other in the green VIP room year on year is breathtaking. But in there are a few who are for sure inspirational (my preferred term) and may even be influential in driving a genuine enviROI+ forward by DOING (my preferred result). And I'm glad at least to have been introduced to a few more in this regard who I was not aware of.
As to the rest? Well, the 'debate' 'raging' in the blog between all 12 who have so far posted in one of the country's more significant daily papers (albeit enjoying a tenth the circulation of some others) is telling. If a little sad.
It's a list. And like any list as good as the people who draw it up, their subjective views and their agendas.
To critique is to lay one open to all manner of criticism in return. Anything that encourages those who try to do better by the planet and reward them with praise has to be worthwhile.
But having looked through I can only say how very few I would call either heroes or indeed those who 'could save the planet'.
The sheer preponderance of those who already greet each other in the green VIP room year on year is breathtaking. But in there are a few who are for sure inspirational (my preferred term) and may even be influential in driving a genuine enviROI+ forward by DOING (my preferred result). And I'm glad at least to have been introduced to a few more in this regard who I was not aware of.
As to the rest? Well, the 'debate' 'raging' in the blog between all 12 who have so far posted in one of the country's more significant daily papers (albeit enjoying a tenth the circulation of some others) is telling. If a little sad.
Friday, January 04, 2008
CATEGORY - BAN-ZAI!
Had to be started:
Guardian - The quad squad - My fav so far:
Worldwide, every single year, a number of people greater than zero are killed or seriously injured in newspaper-related accidents.
The solution is clear.
Ban newspapers.
Guardian - The quad squad - My fav so far:
Worldwide, every single year, a number of people greater than zero are killed or seriously injured in newspaper-related accidents.
The solution is clear.
Ban newspapers.
Why am I not surprised?
Government set for another missed target.
Now that's something that doesn't happen very often, isn't it?
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Depends what you mean by 'often', I guess. This took a few hours: Suffolk puts "aspirational" 60% recycling target on ice
Now that's something that doesn't happen very often, isn't it?
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Depends what you mean by 'often', I guess. This took a few hours: Suffolk puts "aspirational" 60% recycling target on ice
You can see where this might lead
And hence I do no more than share... Scientists find hot spot on Saturn's chilly pole
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)