NEWS/GO3 PR - Into the mouths of babes?

In light of all that has happened in the world of environmental issues, policies, taxes, etc of late, I can but share what has just arrived in my in-box, E&EO:

The Aldersgate Group, a coalition of businesses and environmental groups, supports the Prime Minister's vision for the green economy, which he described as the 'fourth technological revolution' of our time. In a speech today to business leaders, he outlined the need for the UK to seize the opportunities of the transition to a low carbon economy.

He stressed that Government must provide the framework to:

* Create thousands of new businesses and hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
* Export British technology and energy solutions to the rest of the world.
* Seize the opportunity of the environmental sector, estimated to grow to $3 trillion globally by 2050.
* Unlock talent, upgrade skills and stimulate innovation.

Gordon Brown was outlining the Government's response to the Commission for Environmental Markets and Economic Performance (CEMEP) that he himself set up in the wake of the Stern Review, which examined what the UK had to do to ensure that it was in the best possible position to seize the new opportunities of the transformation. This is set out in a new report, Building a low carbon economy: unlocking innovation and skills. The Commission enjoyed considerable ministerial involvement, including Alistair Darling and David Miliband, as well as advisors from outside Government, such as Aldersgate Group Chairman Peter Young. The Prime Minister responded with four key objectives:

* Establish a long-term framework with clear, credible and long-term environmental goals.
* Create the conditions for innovation.
* Develop the necessary skills needed to support sustainable growth and become a world leader.
* Building partnerships between businesses, consumers and the Government, so that all sectors play their part.

The impact of this new low carbon economy blueprint will be far reaching, and unusually very one of CEMEP's 24 recommendations have been taken forward in some respect, with none rejected. The prize is a doubling of the 400,000 high paid jobs in the environmental sector as well as the greening of our whole economy to de-risk the UK from the worst impacts of climate change.

Peter Young, a Commissioner on CEMEP and Chairman of the Aldersgate Group said: 'Gordon Brown today turned the myth that you can't be green and grow on its head. The quicker we move the UK into a low carbon economy, the more competitive we will be and the more employment we will create We must act now to seize the jobs of the future and gain an advantage in a fiercely competitive market.

It is very encouraging that Gordon Brown launched such a detailed and joined up response to CEMEP. In combination with the carbon budgets of the Climate Change Bill, this means the Government will have to work together as never before, providing a coherent partnership with business and the third sector where much of the innovation must come from to deliver this next economic revolution'.

The Prime Minister's speech should be appearing soon on the Defra website.

Closely followed by this from DEFRA (excuse any repitition):

Environmental talent key to economic growth: Ministers

Britain must remain at the forefront of the green industrial revolution, creating jobs and economic growth, ministers said today as they published plans to work with business to build a low carbon economy in Britain.

The Government has committed to working with business to make the UK one of the best places in the world to develop and introduce low carbon, resource efficient products and services, and has today published Building a Low Carbon Economy: Unlocking Environmental Innovation and Skills in response to the Commission on Environmental Markets and Economic Performance (CEMEP), which reported late last year.

The Government has identified four main prerequisites for building a low carbon economy:

* A clear, consistent long-term policy framework to provide business with the confidence to invest and to enable the timely development of innovative products and services;

* Policies that positively support innovation, to create the conditions that allow innovation to flourish;

* Developing the right skills by drawing on the talent and creativity of the British people;

* Fostering true partnerships between Government, business, trade unions, higher education bodies and others.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said:

"The UK has a history of moving early on green issues. For example, the Climate Change Bill currently before Parliament is the first of its kind in the world, and it will create certainty for businesses and investors in green industry for decades to come.

"The Government is committed to building a low carbon economy, here and around the world. That means a complete change in the way we live and an economic transformation that will put Britain at the forefront of a technological revolution in the way we use and source our energy. It is the talent of our people that will bring about that revolution."

Business Secretary John Hutton said:

"By the end of the decade, global green industries will be worth as much as the global aerospace industry - in the order of £350 billion a year - and with the potential to create thousands of new green collar jobs in Britain. So there is a clear business case for maximising the opportunities presented by climate change and making sure that Britain unlocks these business opportunities.

"That's why next month we will hold, with the Royal Bank of Scotland, a low carbon economy summit to help identify what further action both government and business need to take. At the same time, we continue to work to ensure a secure, diverse and increasingly low-carbon energy mix for the UK."

Innovation, Universities and Skills Secretary John Denham said:

"By unlocking talent, upgrading skills and backing innovation wherever we can, we will be world leaders in this sector - creating thousands of new businesses, safeguarding millions of jobs, and exporting our knowledge and expertise around the world."

The Government has already:

* announced that it will revise its Manufacturing Strategy to include a low carbon element;

* arranged to host a Low Carbon Economy summit for business on 25 and 26 June;

* committed to launching a consultation on renewable energy, leading to the Renewable Energy Strategy;

* launched a carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration competition;

* established the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which sets a carbon price for around half of European and UK emissions;

* announced the Carbon Reduction Commitment, a cap and trade scheme covering around 4000 - 5000 large organisations not covered by the EU ETS such as supermarkets, government departments, and hotel chains;

* established the Carbon Trust Business Incubator Programme;

* agreed a timetable for all new homes to be zero carbon from 2016, and an ambition for all new non-domestic buildings to be zero carbon from 2019;

* launched the Low Carbon Vehicle Innovation Platform;

* established a network of advice and support for businesses to look at their environmental impacts;

* announced its decision to allow companies to come forward with proposals for new nuclear power stations.

The City of London has become a global hub for carbon trading and the UK is also poised to become the world leader in installed capacity of offshore wind. We have a strong history of innovation and remain world leaders in scientific research.

CEMEP was established in November 2006 to examine what Britain needed to do to ensure we are in the best possible position to seize the new opportunities presented by the environmental sector, and how Government can support this. Chaired by two Cabinet ministers, the Commission's members were drawn from business, trade unions, NGOs and universities across a range of sectors.

1. The Government's response to the CEMEP report is available here

So many potential positives to embrace, so many seriously compromised by the entities and individuals that they get concocted between and emanate from, whose agendas, motivations and trustworthiness are shot. And I say this as a representative of an outfit who may stand to gain... assuming I suck up to the right folk in the right way.

CATEGORY - GRANTS

See how this one evolves.

UK

General

Green Concierge Service - London only?

Green Grants Machine - NEW - 'where you can get information on all the latest funding schemes
to enable your company to become more environmentally friendly'

Damage limitation?

I have been banging on since this blog started about the perils of overselling the negatives of 'global warming' in case the realities turn out not to match the predictions.

In advertising we have a saying (at least between the agency and the client... not so sure about the message to the consumer): 'Promise lower.. and deliver higher'. It's a lot nicer basking in an expectation exceeded than trying to explain one disappointed.

This... is a lot more serious than that, but the principle remains. You can ride a wave of positives, but a negative is seldom just one step back. Just as a recommendation gets 3 good pass-ons, a bad critique can be four times as pervasive, and trust is very hard to build up if it is deemed to be compromised.

Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict - (Who the heck uses 'Global Warming' any more... oh, I get it. But what's this... 'may'? Well that's there because, as with all else, no one actually knows for sure).

So I sought this out having seen it on BBC Breakfast, with the bouffant and blonde 'explaining' well, spinning like tops, that it's well, very complicated and we need to think long term, you see... etc.

All bang on. Thing is, that is not what has been trotted out faithfully in most populist media up until this point. And I rather suspect that those less convinced on the trend may be getting an earful from those actively hostile to the notion. And, frankly, it's going to be tough for those of a more 'climate pessimistic' bent to weather in attempting to mitigate. As I have long predicted.

After all that has been thrown at us over the last few years, in the simplistic, populist way it has, regurgitated by often unchallenging, compliant media, I have to say to 'expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions' is not the best sell I have ever seen. Especially to get folk on board with a fairly fundamental leap of faith in the shift from global warming to climate change to.... 'things go up and down', and often in short periods geographically that seem an age in human terms (especially with News 24 and ratings to meet)'. So while the sky has not yet fallen as it should have done... it still will, honest.'

I await, with dread, how this is played out, especially by all those who consider that they 'know better'.

It's a little. I just hope it's not too late.

Telegraph - Campaign to sue Al Gore 'gains support'- Hmnn. What was that song? 'Swings like a pendulum do'? This is already silly, and getting sillier. All I am seeing is the extremes grabbing the headlines... and profiting from the chaos. I am on record as saying I have my doubts as to AG as messenger, and many of his messages are in the camp I refer to above, but he's entitled to his opinion and in fact is to be credited for bringing many things to world attention, and at an early stage. But suing....? What's all that about?

Addendum: (and so it starts. I search for, and welcome, counter-balancing views... so long as they are rational, science-based, and don't get us in a 'tis/t'isn't loop. It will be interesting to see what arrives from Real Climate... if it does)

EU Referendum (call 'em Climate Optimists) - "…several decades of global cooling" - I thought it was a one decade correction period, so already the issues are muddying.

BBC - Next decade 'may see no warming'

BBBC - Richard Black: "The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon."

To quote the response: Where does "a public" get such crazy notions? From the BBC perhaps? Quite. Maybe I should get into the prediction business.

1984, Pt1 ch4. - A share from a blog which I pass on, as it resonates: "Today's issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones."

The thing is, the discussion has passed from where it should to very odd places by this diversion. And, I guess, this blog is part of it all. But I feel my audience is up to weighing all the issues and perhaps seeing that there is still something well worth considering, and allowing for. But I do believe the time may be upon me to go back more to where I have always been, which is a lot more DOING that really can have no effect but to help with mitigation (if in a small way), and leave the grander debates to those who seem keen to slug it out over definitions of black and white... ironically in the name of all that could be green inbetween.

I still maintain, and always will, that trying to play fast a loose with complex concepts, and their conclusions (or lack of them) can, with a busy and time poor general audience in a spin-cycle media environment, end up with a less than optimal result. So erring on caution might be advised, no matter how urgent the perceived threat, or well-intentioned the desire to deal with it by leaping over the parapets.

Lest WMD becomes 'Warming Motivates Diddly', especially when you launch an attack on it calling for public support (and sacrifice), and once you get to a certain point find what was claimed doesn't exist. Only, in this case, 'yet' is a valid qualifier lost now in the furore.

The Register - NEW - Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? - Doesn't exactly answer the question, but stirs already muddy waters.

Meridional Overturning Circulation will halt global warming. Well, temporarily.

So what on earth is the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) you ask?

It is the 'conveyor belt' that brings warmer water up into the North Atlantic - the gulf stream that makes the UK's climate considerably warmer than it really ought to be. Full story is from The Telegraph.

The MOC "has a 70 to 80-year cycle and when the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures in Europe. When it is weak, as it will be over the next decade, temperatures fall. Scientists think that variations of this kind could partly explain the cooling of global average temperatures between the 1940s and 1970s after which temperatures rose again."

And scientists do not understand quite how reductions in salinity (as caused by fresh water run-off from melting ice sheets and glaciers) may additionally affect these long term ocean circulation trends.

So, although the earth will continue to warm as a whole, probably as a direct consequence of our CO2 emissions, those of us in the UK, and elsewhere around the North Atlantic, are probably going to see little or no overall temperature increase until 2015.

Heads - they win; Tails - you lose!

So you thought that the budget VED increases were well thought out and even good for the environment?

Errrm, no, not in the least. This from TimesOnline highlights the way that our Gov has "quietly abolished the exemption from higher road-tax rates for cars that emit more than 225g of CO2 per km and were registered between March 2001 and March 2006."

So what's the problem you ask?

Well, there are a lot of poorer families out there with older vehicles who will now be considerably worse off. The chancellor reckoned that an average family (how I hate that stupid phrase!) on ~£28.000 p.a. would be better off by some £130 a year. But those with vehicles that fall into the back-dating trap will be paying an extra £220 in VED!

And, probably even worse, similar vehicles registered before 2001 will almost certainly now become worth a lot more than the same model registered after 2001.

“Poorer families who need a bigger car to transport children and luggage will find their car has lost up to £1,000 of its value. They face an impossible choice because many will struggle to pay the higher road tax but won’t be able to afford to buy a more fuel-efficient car with a lower road-tax rating.”

So, rather than helping the environment the back-dating is going to force a lot of poorer people to be worse off, whilst those with vehicles registered prior to 2001 will be forced to continue to run their older high emissions vehicles for as long as possible!

I reckon that this is just yet another green tax grab that was poorly disguised as a sop to the environment!

What first attracted to aging millionaire celebrity...

My views on polls, their methodologies and hence how and where they get used are well know.

So I loved this one. How 'green' are you?!!!

Thing is, look at the results. Those saying 'very' are in the minority! Well, at posting. I may have skewed the result with my vote for us.

Darn honest those Yanks.

I'm easily excited

And I feel like ending the day on a high.

Here's the latest RE:tie prototype, courtesy of the nice folk at the Jewellery Innovation Centre at BCU who are helping us with of product development.

This is not an evolution, but merely another alternative design, which we found was necessary to help our marketing following some feedback at the Caps & Closures Show, where a few nice production-type gurus suggested the flatter block orientation would work better in many hoppers and fast-moving lines. It's also less 'radical', so consumers will 'get' it as it's pretty much what they are used to... only with a hole. Hey, like I say... it didn't hurt the Polo mint.

OK, not so great as a chat up line, but we still like it lots! And as the first model is now getting noticed, and appreciated, as it does the rounds of some brands and retailers, here's hoping these new lovelies will keep the ball rolling in the right way!

There's a lot you can do from the rooftops

Another share from another group:

It looks like a cut and paste from a report, but comes unattributed:

Dirty nappies will be turned into roof tiles when a recycling plant
opens within the next year.

The recycling plant, the first of its kind
in Britain, is expected to divert thousands of tonnes of waste that
would otherwise end up in landfill sites. Nappies processed at the
facility will be turned into a range of products including roof tiles
and plastic cladding. The site will have the capacity to recycle about
30,000 tonnes of nappies and similar absorbant materials such as
incontinence pads each year. It is expected to open late this year or
early in 2009 and will be built at a cost of more than £20
million in Birmingham by the firm Knowaste in partnership with Alpha
Wastecare.It it estimated that up to 750,000 tonnes of nappies -
enough to fill Wembley Stadium eight times - are buried in landfill
sites each year in Britain as part of 29 million tonnes of the
nation's annual municipal waste. Local authorities are under
increasing pressure to reduce the quantity of waste sent to landfill.
Each year until at least 2010 tax per tonne, now standing at pounds 32
for every tonne of waste, will rise.

No sh...! Works for me.

Perfect for those with £199 to spare

Which, I am sure, many in London do.

Green Homes Concierge Service

It also spawns my latest acronym: NiWiYCGI - 'Niwikki' - 'Nice Work if You Can Get It'

Not like you cannot get info for free anywhere else on saving water or what car you should buy, or even good advice on what renewable energy systems to buy.

In addition to what £199 from your pocket could go to in terms of actual energy saving measures, I do wonder how much is spent running the scheme that might be better directed, too. Like many things, one imagines the ROI and enviROI might prove elusive as time goes by.

Still, if you are so moved... here you are . There are at least grants to scope.

Just a thought or two

Inspired by two others (on an often well-informed blog/forum that discusses sustainability issues) key points here..

If we can adopt ways of being and ways of action that are attractive, effective, compassionate, fun and wholly satisfying to us, (and which still allow us “to be a pleasure to be with”!) then there’s a chance that our way of thinking (ie that there is catastrophic collapse imminent) will be heeded, and our ways of action, contagious. Otherwise we surely just invite others to ignore us.

I truly don’t think The Establishment, Media and most professionals have any concept of how close our infrastructure is to collapsing, and as our resources dwindle we won’t be able to pay others to maintain and extend it for us,

My concern is primarily with communications to and hence influencing the behaviour of the public/consumer.

Rather unfashionably, I am devotee of the notion of persuasion-based methods that use reward and incentive as end-benefits for more enviROI+ actions.

What I am not so keen on is (what appears at least to be) more negative methodologies, from fines to guilt to nannying to shame to scare, used to varying degrees by the authorities, media and activist groups. And often with less than clear, or downright less than noble main aims, being less the good of the future and more meeting targets, creating empires/careers, driving ratings or securing funding/donations.

And, IMHO, the public is not buying. Little wonder, bearing the sheer inconsistencies of message and often rank hypocrisy of the messengers.

I simply don't trust almost any subjective pronouncement from HMG, the national broadcaster, all the 'quality' newspapers to not have a rampant agenda attached. So I have to trawl all and then a wadge of even more overt propaganda from all 'sides' online, simply to try and get to a more accurate middle line. Equally with most factual 'information'.

There's also the simple question of credibility. From politicians to many influential editors, one day we get mammoth issues regarding our environment top of mind and then consigned to oblivion the next as more pressing local, selfish issues arrive the next day... 'Minor Royal does something naughty! Meanwhile, in other news, the planet is past tipping point...'

I took the statements and findings of such as the IPCC and UN ('single greatest threat to humanity... etc) very seriously, yet the minute attentions get redirected it all gets dropped (often pretty quickly) in favour of making political capital, money or a quick rating.

No wonder 'we', the great majority who do still rely on sensible guidance from the Establishment (which I regard as encompassing the totality of influencers, who rather worryingly see and hence set themselves up as a separate, distinct and rather 'better' alternative 'we'), have tuned out, assuming we ever tuned in. And may now be cruising blissfully to an unwelcome surprise or two.

I wish I could be more positive, but will continue advocating, and practicing as far as possible, the notions of reduction and/or mitigation in any DOING ways possible and practical... that can still be fun and inspire.

Sites unseen, heard... or accounted for

UK government websites out of control

Report...the Government is not sure exactly how many websites it has, but believes there could be as many as 2,500. Nor does it know how much these websites cost or if anyone is using them.

Does this include quangos? I'm guessing not as they don't have the suffixes indicated. Yet they, and their comms budgets, still drain the public purse, do they not?
It's certainly not easy, especially when there are those who serve more niche social areas that may well be worth supporting... way up to those that really feed a major information interest and could be nice little earners if commercial.
Hence ROIs must be hard to judge, but I think the public deserves better in being able to assess them, from what they do, for whom, with what, at what cost... and to what effect.
Otherwise many seem no more than conveniently vague and unaccountable ways to employ lots of folk at best keeping them busy... or less nobly pushing agendas.
I recently had an emailing from one eco-effort, that seems to have been set up with a massive wadge of wonga with many noisy bells and confusing whistles, staffed by all manner of nifty titled folk, claiming a monthly visitorship of '50,000 hits'. Now I know what the average Reg reader can carry in a fingernail about IT and the web, but this doesn't sound like the best way to share such info, and even if it was doesn't sound like a lot.
And let's not forget, when thinking of bigger (and possibly 'better') sites such as http://www.dft.gov.uk/ActOnCO2/ or recyclenow.com, you are also talking massive ad budgets in support to drive traffic.
It would be great to really challenge these in the same way those not so blessed by 'more benign' funding models are, yet can find themselves competed with for audience... often unfairly. I certainly have experience of going to one quango for help in an area their remit required, only to be rejected but then find what I pitched got cranked out subsequently as part of their offering.
Yet private sites often are much better in delivering public information at much better value, especially by not being constrained by the dead hand of public service agenda, committee mentality and ministerial oversight. You just have to start with some URLs to see how they have not exactly got what it takes to push the buttons of a public used to pretty exciting and entertaining fare.
I find it amazing those we do have to pay for seem to have no way currently of judging their performance and/or worth.

There could be trouble ahead .....

.... according to this from today's Indy. Yes, its full of that nasty little word 'could', but ......

"As many as one billion people could lose their homes by 2050 because of the devastating impact of global warming"

"Hundreds of millions could be forced to go on the move because of water shortages and crop failures in most of Africa, as well as in central and southern Asia and South America"

"Rising sea levels could also cause havoc, with coastal communities in southern Asia, the Far East, the south Pacific islands and the Caribbean seeing their homes submerged."

Sounds like a pretty bleak outlook, doesn't it?

Oo, look, a wolf! And another one. And this time it's HUGE!

I like Treehugger. They have a nice wadge of fun stuff and info and articles and even spirited debate.

However, I don't think they are doing themselves, or any with a concern about what's going on climatically (just had hail and sunshine alternating 3 times in the last hour) and how to address it, many favours with headlines like this:

Bye bye Greenland

Whatever else might happen, I doubt that Greenland is going bye bye. The name itself suggests an earlier incarnation. I believe vineyards were harvested by the Vikings.

All this will do is pit the Two Opposing Corners of the Apocalypse (acronym alert: TOCOTA) against each other... again.

It doesn't really matter much what the end point is, or is not, really, but if there is a direction we're headed, and certain stuff might be wise now, I simply advocate, again, that we look at sensible mitigations.

There is a case for figuring it all out as well long term to ensure resources get directed when and where they will do most good, but this end of the world stuff now kinda just feeds fuel to the absolutists (on both sides - you are either for us or agin' us) to talk us to death for longer.

Hence my not pitching in over there. I think that one is a fight that will last forever, with no middle ground allowed.

The natural CO2/temperature balance

Probably the most important piece of climate research for years.

For some 25 years scientists have argued that there must be an entirely natural mechanism that regulates the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the planet's temperature. It is this assumed natural mechanism that is the basic evidence that skeptics use as a primary argument against mankind having anything to do with climate change.

Well, according to new research published in the journal Nature Geoscience and reported by Reuters, there is evidence that there IS indeed a natural mechanism in operation.

So, there IS a natural CO2/temperature cycle. Should all the climate change 'deniers' start celebrating?

Well, errrmmm, no. Why? Because the evidence from Antarctic ice indicates that the natural cycle prior to the industrial revolution shows that "The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, Zeebe said, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air." I.e. All of the pre-industrial warming (vineyards in Greenland and Northern England) and cooling periods (mini ice age etc.) have occurred naturally over long periods of time with a variation in CO2 levels of only 22 ppm!

But, since the industrial revolution, "the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million". "That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do"

And the rate of increase in CO2 levels appears to be speeding up.

The natural mechanism will eventually remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere, but we are talking about something that would take several hundred thousand years. As we appear to be accelerating the natural mechanism by some 14,000 times the norm, I rather suspect that mankind does not have that sort of time frame in which to address the problem!

It will be interesting to see how widely this gets reported. My guess is that as it is pretty bad news, it will generally get ignored. Let's see.

Addendum 29/4/08:
As I suspected, nothing really mainstream at all - the only coverage I can spot so far is from News.Com.AU, TreeHugger (the first to state what this research actually means - global warming IS man-made) and RedOrbit. I'll keep checking though.

Because graded greens means fewer flowers

Grading Green: The Watchdogs CMOs Must Appease

You know, whilst I broadly agree I rather think there might now be a few more than that. Certainly as I look at my inbox daily from the funded/subsidised/donated whole (and I am sure I have missed a ton) sorry lot of them. Which may be part of the problem.

By already having such diversity, especially without any real knowledge (without a ton of digging) of provenance, objectivity and accountability of these entities all competing for consumers' and/or worried/cynical brand owners' money to pay for empires and comms budgets, what value do I think most of them actually present to the planet.... few. These may be exceptions. Sadly, in comparison that is a tad more than I would so far accord most efforts so far from my own government or major media, at least in terms of clearing things up and offering comprehensible methods of engagement for the average Joe.

The business of telling people about green seems now to have easily outpaced, at least in terms of trying to grab attention and hence sources of revenue, any of those trying to actually do much about it.

Hard to see how we can get back to simpler, trusted ways to make decisions based on meaningful enviROIs now. Too much, and too many, invested in competing for our eyeballs... and wallets.

Who grades the graders?

QUOTE OF THE DAY - So there

I share this for no good reason at all, save that it does refer to my favourite quango, and shows Jeremy Clarkson to be every bit as adept at cruddy acronyms as me.

Though mine are often better...IMHO:

Potato heads are talking rot on food

'A sinister government agency called Wrap (We Rape and Pillage) has spent vast lumps of our money to determine that...' [actually he does specify something, but I'm happy enough to selectively edit here as it seems to apply]

The article is also quite fun, as much as for the comments it inspires. The Times use to allow links, but as it does so no longer I don't see much point, so I'll just lurk on and quote this one.

Nero would be proud

Tory hot air on carbon offsetting

I'd love someone to explain how this offsetting works to reduce emissions and not just redistribute them with an extra cut of City-slicker lifestyle thrown into the mix to reduce the remote chance of a positive enviROI even more.

The only way I can see this working, or any other Carbcon prefixed initiative, other than yet as another a get rich quick obscene green scheme, is that if the whole planet cooperates.

Good luck with that, so to mix a few metaphors, why not make hay on fiddling futures while Rome burns?

Up a GM tree

I have tended to steer clear of GM. hence I share this as is, but more because of the referral to the issue of population.

As the world begins to starve it's time to take GM seriously

This I am also a bit of a wuss on when it comes to commentary (GM is more a case of absolutely not knowing enough to do so, despite doing a 1/2 a degree in something pretty close. Mind you, I was at college with Mendel - the extremes of 'fact' in the thread comments cases in fact).

As with the two 'E's, I do find I lack patience with the idealistic, simplistic and totally self-serving pronouncements of those who wish to ban something without any clear suggestion on how the consequences of such a ban would be handled.

Taketh away. And giveth back.

For years I have been spouting nonsense.

Somewhere along the line (no doubt for its complementary name associations) I picked up the notion of 'Junkentag', a day in Germany when you stick unwanted stuff out on the kerb to be collected by passers by. A delightful notion that does not require state intervention of meddling, save for permissions.

Well, it seems I had the name, at least, wrong.

It's “Sperrmüll”. I think I liked mine better, but whatever it is called, the concept is tops.

What goes up...

Climate 'fix' could deplete ozone

Gotta love a headline that has so many of my favourite journalistic words and punctuation in one sentence: Climate, could, fix and 'quotes'.

In this case I rather hope that those involved may take a moment just to ponder what 'we' are all doing: 'We'll save this planet if we have to kill it off to do it!'

That would be a no, or, rather, 'Are you out of your tiny freakin' minds!!!?', Houston.