I think this deserves its own gig
ARTICLES
Guardian - Chaotic flood defences leave large areas at risk, say MPs - Surprise, surprise. But next time what's the betting we hear 'It's AGW... no one expected this level of...'
BBC - Benn denies flood plan 'chaos' - 'Did too'...'Do not, so muhr...'. Edifying
Indy - Is flooding really as big a risk to Britain now as terrorism?
Times - Thousands more face floods - break out the wellies!
BBC - Insurers agree flood cover deal - Helps a bit
Telegraph - NEW - Flood game shows UK cities under water - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi, though given his reasons I am not so sure I'm that thrilled: 'Given your proximity to a river prone to flooding, I think I should leave this one to you.'
INFORMATION
Environment Agency Floodline - actually quite useful, with email and text warnings
Flood Maps
Flood forum
Floodsim - NEW - a game, though maybe not too much fun for some
Homecheck -
Association of British Insurers -
I'll need to add more when they come in, or collate later. For now, check out the labels below
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Aphids versus Computer Models?
Now there have been raging debates about the validity and accuracy (or not) of the complex computer models used to assess climate change possibilities and actualities; but this article from PhysOrg suggests that some of the UK's natural inhabitants, namely Aphids, are much better indicators of just what climate change is actually occurring.
One particular species is now appearing almost four weeks ahead of the 42 year average. The big problem is that these tiny little insects, although invaluable in the food chain for many native species, are a serious threat to many of our food crops. With the possible onset of an EU pesticide ban that could remove a whole raft of the chemical treatments used to protect UK crops, this could (yes, its that word 'could' again) lead to food shortages.
(OK, so the pesticide ban story is from the Daily Mail which actually used the word 'WILL', but you get the point.)
Next bout, Aphids versus Pesticides? Sounds like another interesting dilemma in the offing.
One particular species is now appearing almost four weeks ahead of the 42 year average. The big problem is that these tiny little insects, although invaluable in the food chain for many native species, are a serious threat to many of our food crops. With the possible onset of an EU pesticide ban that could remove a whole raft of the chemical treatments used to protect UK crops, this could (yes, its that word 'could' again) lead to food shortages.
(OK, so the pesticide ban story is from the Daily Mail which actually used the word 'WILL', but you get the point.)
Next bout, Aphids versus Pesticides? Sounds like another interesting dilemma in the offing.
Yet another Government Website ......
..... on, you've guessed it, climate change.
This new section on DEFRA's website is all about 'Adapting to climate change'.
OK, so what does it tell us? Well, at first glance, it would seem very little that any of the other Gov. developed websites devoted to what they are doing (I couldn't resist a little snigger then) about climate change.
All the links appear to be to existing Gov. website sources already devoted to, errrr, climate change. All the usual suspects, 'Office of climate change', 'Energy savings trust', 'UKCIP', 'ActOnCO2', the new climate change bill etc. But very little new.
I can't help pondering that our Gov's entire raison d'etre here is to be seen to be doing something, whilst actually doing, well, very little. ("Yes, minister, we've put online another fantastic website for the public to access loads of information from").
And what was the cost of this latest 'joining up the web-links' site? Not provided. But you would be forgiven for guessing that it has cost at least a few tens of thousands of pounds.
Oh, sorry, it is a Gov. sponsored website extension. So let's make that a few hundreds of thousands of pounds shall we? Plus how many additional civil servants with ring-fenced gold plated pensions to administer?
Well worth it ...... not!
This new section on DEFRA's website is all about 'Adapting to climate change'.
OK, so what does it tell us? Well, at first glance, it would seem very little that any of the other Gov. developed websites devoted to what they are doing (I couldn't resist a little snigger then) about climate change.
All the links appear to be to existing Gov. website sources already devoted to, errrr, climate change. All the usual suspects, 'Office of climate change', 'Energy savings trust', 'UKCIP', 'ActOnCO2', the new climate change bill etc. But very little new.
I can't help pondering that our Gov's entire raison d'etre here is to be seen to be doing something, whilst actually doing, well, very little. ("Yes, minister, we've put online another fantastic website for the public to access loads of information from").
And what was the cost of this latest 'joining up the web-links' site? Not provided. But you would be forgiven for guessing that it has cost at least a few tens of thousands of pounds.
Oh, sorry, it is a Gov. sponsored website extension. So let's make that a few hundreds of thousands of pounds shall we? Plus how many additional civil servants with ring-fenced gold plated pensions to administer?
Well worth it ...... not!
What's your excuse
Blog Traffic Is Getting Bigger and Bigger
Do you write for a blog?
If so................why?
Money. I realised that I read a lot to help stock my site, so it wasn't a stretch to stick links to what I read on my blog and add a comment or two.
People like what I find and/or share, and some even like my comments.
So they visit more. More visitors=more money.
Plus I get invited to things.
Which is neat, 'cos I don't get out much.
The irony is of course, that until I put AdSense or something on here, I am not making a bean. So it must be for love, not money. Go figure.
Do you write for a blog?
If so................why?
Money. I realised that I read a lot to help stock my site, so it wasn't a stretch to stick links to what I read on my blog and add a comment or two.
People like what I find and/or share, and some even like my comments.
So they visit more. More visitors=more money.
Plus I get invited to things.
Which is neat, 'cos I don't get out much.
The irony is of course, that until I put AdSense or something on here, I am not making a bean. So it must be for love, not money. Go figure.
I'm greener than you... I've screwed up more!
How far will the climate campers go?
Hilarious.
If one thing to me defines the state of things 'environmental', it's that whatever happens*, one bunch will be getting the hump and having a go at another bunch and ending up in a bit of snit.
Which is why I tend to prefer and hence favour associations with those who work quietly, effectively, proactively and tangibly in DOING what they can, where they can, whenever they can to make a tangible, positive difference, and inspire engagement in the general public by the power of their example, empathy and commitment.
But I guess protests and bans do get more media and hence feed systems that depend on 'awareness' (even if communications and getting one's point across are not always a strong suit, evidently) rather more effectively.
*Interestingly, I have noticed a rather concerning trend, at least for the principle of free speech and the spirit of debate. And that's on blogs and forums folk being 'accused' (Witch! Burn... well, give 'em a nasty pallor with a CFL light!) of undermining 'the cause' by disagreeing with the group think du jour.
So careful what you wish for. 'And then they came for the lite greens who did not (want, feel like, see the need to, etc) foreswear their all, and there was no one left to speak...'
Addendum - The Mancunian way - see comment 11:16 to 11.25am.
Gaurdian - NEW - Dirty tactics to defend a dirty industry
Gaurdian - NEW - The stakes could not be higher. Everything hinges on stopping coal - Whilst I might agree that coal needs a serious look at in the mix, I have to say I tend these days to stop at most that starts with 'stopping' (if you get my drift).. at least as a call to action in this regard. Kinda sweet that the first para to such pieces now has to start with a mitigating planet-commitment action... 'Sitting in a teepee eating Fairtrade..', '...boarding a train.'. I wonder how it plays with those sitting at work 9-5, 5 (or more) days a week? No matter how important, and valid, the message, the cred of most self-appointed messengers is really going South.
Newsnight - NEW - Climate change - Ta for the tip, Chlo_F:
One other, worthy aspect of the 'green' debate is how it is running past the general/consuming public from many sources, especially those who see themselves as 'guiding lights'.
Rather topical as the subject of communicating with the great unwashed, er, me... has cropped up of course with the VED, too.
Another from the Guardian - on the topic of medium and messengers - worth a gander:
Here
Meanwhile here's another aspect that seems... pertinent:
I do have to wonder how those who may agree that we are in a pickle (but also may not agree with some aspects as outlined by other advocates) might seek the week off from our day jobs were they not funded in some way by more sympathetic employers. Maybe the relevant minister could be asked for her opinions on our rights to do this on the basis that we are looking after a needy planet?
Meanwhile, I shall now for all due balance pop over to the Times**, Telegraph**, and maybe even such as the News of the World*** (circulation what, and to whom, versus the Guardian readership?) to see how all this is playing there:)
Over the past few months the voters who read such tomes seem to have had an influence it would be silly to (try to) ignore (or, worse, dismiss), eh?
**Nothing so far..
***Shudddrs
Newsnight - ADDENDUM - (had to edit a bit... got carried away)
We are, seemingly, facing a global crisis (the single greatest we face I believe, according to a UN head) based on some predictions that point to our growing numbers and what each one of us needs (heat, stuff, travel) and likes (more stuff & more travel), that inevitably lead to the generation of emissions and... consequences (I do note that some views as to man’s relative contribution, or not, have not been included in this particular debate, which is hence taking this as a given, which in turn some might feel a slight omission given the weight public opinion and hence political action that can and should hold sway in such matters, but oh, well).
Thanks to some interesting PR surrounding a protest at a power facility, an aspect of this topic has again come to the fore for a brief flurry under the sun before we worry about JP’s undies again.
In yesterday’s blog preamble, I wondered how all this was playing with the various options we, the public, get our information from.
Well, certainly some mention in such as The Independent and Guardian for print, and on broadcast news the BBC.
However, not a lot I could glean from many other places, including anything much originating from our government. There’s a surprise.
So I turn to a late night news programme in the hope of some objectivity to help me learn the issues, to help me shape an option should I ever be asked to vote sensibly on the directions we take (assuming voting is still in fashion in the near future – I do notice that these days the majority not voting the ‘right’ way can get frowned upon, and to quite extensive coverage in some places, by minority commentators who seem to think, and are often accepted by the bookers who give them airtime, as ‘knowing better’).
And what, or rather who do I find? An ‘environmental activist’ of questionable qualifications (‘Leading’? By what measure and whose agreement?), who seems to have carved a career by writing provocative articles in a very minor broadsheet, who seems to be saying ‘Oh heck, anything but coal.. let’s go nuke, then’. Words, if loose, that are deemed (again, er.. why and by whom) to have sent ripples throughout, well, parts of North London at least.
I’m not sure, but I have this small notion that the issue is not that simple. And spans not just the choices we face on energy, but also economic vs. environmental balances, geo-political considerations, immigration, population and a host of other stuff I really don’t envy those staked with unraveling this Gordian knot (and not Gordon, for sure).
But a group have decided they don’t fancy an aspect, and so we get a ratings punt by a broadcast medium using a media-friendly person’s dubious pontifications as a basis, or more like bedrock for a whole discussion. Does the BBC not have anyone of relevance to add to this critical discussion at the level one would expect from a premier news programme? Or is the speed dial restricted to the half-dozen usual suspects who write for the Guardian and live in the mews next door when not in their country cottage? I have no problem with opinions from all walks, but surely they need to be balanced (and not a blooming classic ‘two/threefer wheeling out extremes from far sides... a nuke industry spokesperson for heaven’s sake, but billed – I need to find from fellow posters - as a ‘former energy minister’. No wonder the whole thing is a farce and trust in media and government is out the window). And can we not get some objective science and engineering FACTS in the mix? Possibly a bit of rational economic pragmatism and/or political realism too?
Beyond the beliefs, not all of us obviously have the financial ability to scoot hither and thither looking for the next ban or protest, so when it comes to how we heat our homes and other factors self interest may guide us. And this is, very possible short-term thinking. So I was stuck by the comment ‘There largely to protest’, that rather sums up how many may come to view these efforts, when rarely is there much by way of viable alternatives presented (though I think I did glean a few halfway sensible tilts towards efficiency gains). ‘Ruining my day’ vs. ‘status quo’. Tough call.
So what’s going to get me, or my kids’ kids first? A C02 (man-caused/worsened or not still a little up in the air, ‘scuse pun) dawn, or a nuclear one (Space 1999 style)?
So far, I have no blooming clue, and nothing sensible to help try and figure it out. Certainly not when it is ignored or treated piecemeal and often in a contradictory manner by the majority of most read (and watched) media, or served up in such a daft fashion by the minority of the rest.
I am not at all keen in playing the person and not the argument, but we really do need more sense of objectivity, and ‘opinion former’s’ backgrounds do become very pertinent... What stance they are taking? Where are they getting their money from? A book deal? A lobby group? Quango target bonus? An activist board salary/pension? The message can often end up being very coloured by the messengers, especially self-proclaimed ones deemed ‘expert’. Is there anyone left who is not in someone’s pocket? Including the media? Jonathan Porritt seemed the only halfway rational person in the whole lot. Maybe he did have alternatives to mitigate the pain of mitigation, but I didn’t catch many.
I see James Lovelock mentioned. As with a few others in this Heat’ed debate, I am afraid the more I see his opinion in an article with ‘his new book is published.. at £16.95 by [coincidental news media publishing arm]’ at the end, the less I feel inclined to read on without a very cranked eyebrow.
Especially when I also read ‘his opinion is that CO2 is far more lethal than compact bunkers of nuclear waste’ not so long after I find he may be one of the first passengers atop a column of greenhouse gasses on the Virgin orbital gawping (rich) tourist shuttle.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-goes-up.html
Maybe this thing is ‘the future’, but if we are talking about emissions now, exhaust smoke on a jolly seems a contradictory, if not smoke and mirrors foundation upon which to base one’s argument.
Do I like the idea of coal (especially without any viable CCS) as proposed? No. But do I like the idea of nuclear much better, especially as many key aspects seem still unresolved... disposal, ROI, enviROI, etc). No, not yet.
But I see how delay can be viewed as frustrating. However the way the issues are portrayed certainly don’t help... well, me at least. ‘The environmental movement is split’ I heard the reporter say, well, challenge at one stage, doubtless for a provocative response. What the heck IS ‘the environmental movement’. It seems a rather odd, artificial construct almost designed to create a ‘them’ vs. others quality that can help nobody, and especially the quality of discussion.
Stop giving sound bite airtime on a hobby horse basis. If it is as serious as has been suggested, treat it seriously and get a decent spread of sensible views who can at least explain where we currently are rationally. It has to be better than the sensationalist spinning that passes for news I see in this arena, and I’m frankly fed up with it.
Gaurdian - NEW - Kingsnorth protester diary: Come to the camp - Working as planned, is it?
Hilarious.
If one thing to me defines the state of things 'environmental', it's that whatever happens*, one bunch will be getting the hump and having a go at another bunch and ending up in a bit of snit.
Which is why I tend to prefer and hence favour associations with those who work quietly, effectively, proactively and tangibly in DOING what they can, where they can, whenever they can to make a tangible, positive difference, and inspire engagement in the general public by the power of their example, empathy and commitment.
But I guess protests and bans do get more media and hence feed systems that depend on 'awareness' (even if communications and getting one's point across are not always a strong suit, evidently) rather more effectively.
*Interestingly, I have noticed a rather concerning trend, at least for the principle of free speech and the spirit of debate. And that's on blogs and forums folk being 'accused' (Witch! Burn... well, give 'em a nasty pallor with a CFL light!) of undermining 'the cause' by disagreeing with the group think du jour.
So careful what you wish for. 'And then they came for the lite greens who did not (want, feel like, see the need to, etc) foreswear their all, and there was no one left to speak...'
Addendum - The Mancunian way - see comment 11:16 to 11.25am.
Gaurdian - NEW - Dirty tactics to defend a dirty industry
Gaurdian - NEW - The stakes could not be higher. Everything hinges on stopping coal - Whilst I might agree that coal needs a serious look at in the mix, I have to say I tend these days to stop at most that starts with 'stopping' (if you get my drift).. at least as a call to action in this regard. Kinda sweet that the first para to such pieces now has to start with a mitigating planet-commitment action... 'Sitting in a teepee eating Fairtrade..', '...boarding a train.'. I wonder how it plays with those sitting at work 9-5, 5 (or more) days a week? No matter how important, and valid, the message, the cred of most self-appointed messengers is really going South.
Newsnight - NEW - Climate change - Ta for the tip, Chlo_F:
One other, worthy aspect of the 'green' debate is how it is running past the general/consuming public from many sources, especially those who see themselves as 'guiding lights'.
Rather topical as the subject of communicating with the great unwashed, er, me... has cropped up of course with the VED, too.
Another from the Guardian - on the topic of medium and messengers - worth a gander:
Here
Meanwhile here's another aspect that seems... pertinent:
I do have to wonder how those who may agree that we are in a pickle (but also may not agree with some aspects as outlined by other advocates) might seek the week off from our day jobs were they not funded in some way by more sympathetic employers. Maybe the relevant minister could be asked for her opinions on our rights to do this on the basis that we are looking after a needy planet?
Meanwhile, I shall now for all due balance pop over to the Times**, Telegraph**, and maybe even such as the News of the World*** (circulation what, and to whom, versus the Guardian readership?) to see how all this is playing there:)
Over the past few months the voters who read such tomes seem to have had an influence it would be silly to (try to) ignore (or, worse, dismiss), eh?
**Nothing so far..
***Shudddrs
Newsnight - ADDENDUM - (had to edit a bit... got carried away)
We are, seemingly, facing a global crisis (the single greatest we face I believe, according to a UN head) based on some predictions that point to our growing numbers and what each one of us needs (heat, stuff, travel) and likes (more stuff & more travel), that inevitably lead to the generation of emissions and... consequences (I do note that some views as to man’s relative contribution, or not, have not been included in this particular debate, which is hence taking this as a given, which in turn some might feel a slight omission given the weight public opinion and hence political action that can and should hold sway in such matters, but oh, well).
Thanks to some interesting PR surrounding a protest at a power facility, an aspect of this topic has again come to the fore for a brief flurry under the sun before we worry about JP’s undies again.
In yesterday’s blog preamble, I wondered how all this was playing with the various options we, the public, get our information from.
Well, certainly some mention in such as The Independent and Guardian for print, and on broadcast news the BBC.
However, not a lot I could glean from many other places, including anything much originating from our government. There’s a surprise.
So I turn to a late night news programme in the hope of some objectivity to help me learn the issues, to help me shape an option should I ever be asked to vote sensibly on the directions we take (assuming voting is still in fashion in the near future – I do notice that these days the majority not voting the ‘right’ way can get frowned upon, and to quite extensive coverage in some places, by minority commentators who seem to think, and are often accepted by the bookers who give them airtime, as ‘knowing better’).
And what, or rather who do I find? An ‘environmental activist’ of questionable qualifications (‘Leading’? By what measure and whose agreement?), who seems to have carved a career by writing provocative articles in a very minor broadsheet, who seems to be saying ‘Oh heck, anything but coal.. let’s go nuke, then’. Words, if loose, that are deemed (again, er.. why and by whom) to have sent ripples throughout, well, parts of North London at least.
I’m not sure, but I have this small notion that the issue is not that simple. And spans not just the choices we face on energy, but also economic vs. environmental balances, geo-political considerations, immigration, population and a host of other stuff I really don’t envy those staked with unraveling this Gordian knot (and not Gordon, for sure).
But a group have decided they don’t fancy an aspect, and so we get a ratings punt by a broadcast medium using a media-friendly person’s dubious pontifications as a basis, or more like bedrock for a whole discussion. Does the BBC not have anyone of relevance to add to this critical discussion at the level one would expect from a premier news programme? Or is the speed dial restricted to the half-dozen usual suspects who write for the Guardian and live in the mews next door when not in their country cottage? I have no problem with opinions from all walks, but surely they need to be balanced (and not a blooming classic ‘two/threefer wheeling out extremes from far sides... a nuke industry spokesperson for heaven’s sake, but billed – I need to find from fellow posters - as a ‘former energy minister’. No wonder the whole thing is a farce and trust in media and government is out the window). And can we not get some objective science and engineering FACTS in the mix? Possibly a bit of rational economic pragmatism and/or political realism too?
Beyond the beliefs, not all of us obviously have the financial ability to scoot hither and thither looking for the next ban or protest, so when it comes to how we heat our homes and other factors self interest may guide us. And this is, very possible short-term thinking. So I was stuck by the comment ‘There largely to protest’, that rather sums up how many may come to view these efforts, when rarely is there much by way of viable alternatives presented (though I think I did glean a few halfway sensible tilts towards efficiency gains). ‘Ruining my day’ vs. ‘status quo’. Tough call.
So what’s going to get me, or my kids’ kids first? A C02 (man-caused/worsened or not still a little up in the air, ‘scuse pun) dawn, or a nuclear one (Space 1999 style)?
So far, I have no blooming clue, and nothing sensible to help try and figure it out. Certainly not when it is ignored or treated piecemeal and often in a contradictory manner by the majority of most read (and watched) media, or served up in such a daft fashion by the minority of the rest.
I am not at all keen in playing the person and not the argument, but we really do need more sense of objectivity, and ‘opinion former’s’ backgrounds do become very pertinent... What stance they are taking? Where are they getting their money from? A book deal? A lobby group? Quango target bonus? An activist board salary/pension? The message can often end up being very coloured by the messengers, especially self-proclaimed ones deemed ‘expert’. Is there anyone left who is not in someone’s pocket? Including the media? Jonathan Porritt seemed the only halfway rational person in the whole lot. Maybe he did have alternatives to mitigate the pain of mitigation, but I didn’t catch many.
I see James Lovelock mentioned. As with a few others in this Heat’ed debate, I am afraid the more I see his opinion in an article with ‘his new book is published.. at £16.95 by [coincidental news media publishing arm]’ at the end, the less I feel inclined to read on without a very cranked eyebrow.
Especially when I also read ‘his opinion is that CO2 is far more lethal than compact bunkers of nuclear waste’ not so long after I find he may be one of the first passengers atop a column of greenhouse gasses on the Virgin orbital gawping (rich) tourist shuttle.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-goes-up.html
Maybe this thing is ‘the future’, but if we are talking about emissions now, exhaust smoke on a jolly seems a contradictory, if not smoke and mirrors foundation upon which to base one’s argument.
Do I like the idea of coal (especially without any viable CCS) as proposed? No. But do I like the idea of nuclear much better, especially as many key aspects seem still unresolved... disposal, ROI, enviROI, etc). No, not yet.
But I see how delay can be viewed as frustrating. However the way the issues are portrayed certainly don’t help... well, me at least. ‘The environmental movement is split’ I heard the reporter say, well, challenge at one stage, doubtless for a provocative response. What the heck IS ‘the environmental movement’. It seems a rather odd, artificial construct almost designed to create a ‘them’ vs. others quality that can help nobody, and especially the quality of discussion.
Stop giving sound bite airtime on a hobby horse basis. If it is as serious as has been suggested, treat it seriously and get a decent spread of sensible views who can at least explain where we currently are rationally. It has to be better than the sensationalist spinning that passes for news I see in this arena, and I’m frankly fed up with it.
Gaurdian - NEW - Kingsnorth protester diary: Come to the camp - Working as planned, is it?
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
It's a cold, wet Tuesday. How to cheer myself up?
I know I don't have writer's block. But I certainly have newsletter writer's block.It's August, and although 90% complete, I still can't seem to find the oomph to finish and send the April Junkk newsletter.
Anyway, when I do (and I must), I do hope that I will manage to ensure that it gets personalised properly by integrating the template with the mailing list.
However, if I fail up (it has been known), I can take comfort that those who might be a tad better funded, staffed and experienced can still miss a trick:)
See how the fields are drawn up, I also note that it is often best to do something (as I do) like Hi
You got it free here first
But if you have a spare $1ok, you can get it confirmed, probably in a tad more detail here:
The Media’s Key Role in ‘Greenwashing Washout’
I am ashamed to admit (and hence pondering whether to ask) what a LOHAS consumer is (I suspect... it's me. Addendum: Oh, it is), but really this is the key section:
'...consumers express more distrust of the media, underscoring the importance of communicating only the most meaningful, memorable and relevant environmental news to have the best chance of regaining consumer trust.'
Certain media... take note. You know who you are. If you care.
Enviromental Leader - Greenwashers Get Site Of Their Very Own
The Media’s Key Role in ‘Greenwashing Washout’
I am ashamed to admit (and hence pondering whether to ask) what a LOHAS consumer is (I suspect... it's me. Addendum: Oh, it is), but really this is the key section:
'...consumers express more distrust of the media, underscoring the importance of communicating only the most meaningful, memorable and relevant environmental news to have the best chance of regaining consumer trust.'
Certain media... take note. You know who you are. If you care.
Enviromental Leader - Greenwashers Get Site Of Their Very Own
Monday, August 04, 2008
The climate change smokescreen
The title of an interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which focuses on the on-going PR campaign to deny climate change that has, at least in part, been funded by the big oil boys.
"There are at least three other reasons the oil companies' PR campaign has had success for climate change deniers. First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed as political orthodoxy rather than objective knowledge, a curiously postmodern argument."
Interesting to note that Exxon Mobil has announced that it will "cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change." This piece claims that it took a shareholder revolt to get that decision. I seem to recollect that they denied funding any such organisations a couple of years ago.
Interesting conclusion too .....
"The tide slowly turned on tobacco denial and the science finally was accepted. Some people still choose to smoke and some pay a price for it.
"There are at least three other reasons the oil companies' PR campaign has had success for climate change deniers. First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed as political orthodoxy rather than objective knowledge, a curiously postmodern argument."
Interesting to note that Exxon Mobil has announced that it will "cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change." This piece claims that it took a shareholder revolt to get that decision. I seem to recollect that they denied funding any such organisations a couple of years ago.
Interesting conclusion too .....
"The tide slowly turned on tobacco denial and the science finally was accepted. Some people still choose to smoke and some pay a price for it.
But climate is different. There are no 'smoke-free areas' on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign."
(Hmmmm ... no smoke free areas? Try a British pub. Mind you, you'd better hurry, at the rate they are closing there will be very few left soon.)
I wonder if the UK press will pick up on this? It could perhaps be the signal for another extremely entrenched and divisive war of words. With the great majority stuck in the middle in no-mans land again!
Addendum: From the International Herald Tribune, a piece entitled 'Convincing the skeptics'.Rubbish Facts
I have been alerted by Dave of Solarventi to a 'debate' raging on the Jeremy Vine show (actually Matthew Bannister) on R2 regarding fines for bin taxes.
A lot of arguments made (and coming in as I write) are now well recycled (!), but one issue raised by the 'experts' struck me and hence I have written in:
Just listening to the 'debate', where the facts flying around, especially without much context, are worth as much as stats.
If there have been 'only' 1,000 prosecutions so far, one presumes these to have been successful. How many have not been? What have been the costs to the taxpayer of people and systems to generate this deterrent/revenue generator, over and above the ever so slight public negative perception of anything green hued these days (VED anyone?).
I suspect the £70k garnered so far might not have covered the costs of a few Civ. Servants for one year, and hence how much has been wasted that could have gone in much greener and more efficient directions?
A lot of arguments made (and coming in as I write) are now well recycled (!), but one issue raised by the 'experts' struck me and hence I have written in:
Just listening to the 'debate', where the facts flying around, especially without much context, are worth as much as stats.
If there have been 'only' 1,000 prosecutions so far, one presumes these to have been successful. How many have not been? What have been the costs to the taxpayer of people and systems to generate this deterrent/revenue generator, over and above the ever so slight public negative perception of anything green hued these days (VED anyone?).
I suspect the £70k garnered so far might not have covered the costs of a few Civ. Servants for one year, and hence how much has been wasted that could have gone in much greener and more efficient directions?
Driving Miss, Crazy Thinking?
Just watching a BBC Breakfast News report on a plan to tax folk out of older, less efficient cars into new, more efficient ones.
I'm all for efficiency measures; not sure keen on taxes, to be blunt.
Featuring Tim Yeo MP, it is an interesting situation. Actually, interesting to me was also the fact that I think I heard that of his committee of 17, um, 16 were not in favour (tbc* - it hasn't been repeated in any subsequent slots, oddly), but he was sure 'it would have got though if they hadn't had to rush 'cos they were all off on hols now.' Hmn.
To be sure, he was 'balanced' by a lady from the RAC, but I notice she has been dropped in subsequent clips. Which is a shame, because she is making the fair point that it is hardly fair, or very eco (what is the carbon consequence of a new car's manufacture?), to hit folk who still have the car they bought under available rules a while ago, and then try and force them to buy a new one in the name of green.
Mr. Yeo at least was advocating that revenue generated remained within the eco-pot, but again I think I caught he was talking about paying folk like me to scrap my 11-year old Volvo.
Now, I don't know what he is proposing, but it is currently something like £180 for a junker. But my car is, to all intents and purposes, perfect. Admittedly, it is only worth £2000 at best, but even if they compo'd me that value, just what the heck can I get? There seems to be some odd, dare I say, London pol/chatterati notion, that I happen to have the extra £15,000 on top to buy a Prius, assuming they did an estate that carries what mine does.
For possibly selfish reasons, but also with my eco-eyebrow cranked as well, I am not too thrilled the direction which this one is going, nor with the way our national broadcaster is trying to rather over-enthusiastically push the agenda of those who would claim one thing but possibly not have it all thought out as well as it might. And not for the first time.
Addendum - looks like Mr. Yeo was early morning only. There was a follow-on with a chap from the Society of Motor Traders (who one presumes might have a vested interest in flogging new, but possibly second hand across the board as well) and the point I am making was at least alluded to, namely the cost of the upgrade.
*Links, I am sure, to come...
Didn't take long:
BBC - MPs sceptical over car tax rise
Indy - 'Pay to scrap gas-guzzlers'
Indy - Driven to distraction
Telegraph - Government's green car tax plans in disarray - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi
BBC - Plans for a graduated car tax
Autoindustry - NEW - Another link from Dave of Solarventi - A light right foot will do more to reduce CO2 than retrospective road tax, says the IAM - this tends to support the logic of more useage-based 'influence', which must translate into fuel tax. But this obviously becomes a political and 'fairness' (since when was that a problem) issue with those for whom driving, and over fair distances, is not really an option.
Gaurdian - NEW - The Mancunian way - Whilst being fine with all sorst of views being expressed, in light of the way media is shaped by what we are first served, I have to have a certain sympathy with the poster who notes this: 'I thought that Dr Huq was an academic specialising in pop music at a London Poly. I don't mean that in a nasty way. It is just that I don't see the connection with Manchester or transportation. Transportation is a complex issue that usually needs post-graduate training in engineering or mathematics to talk about in a sensible way. Some economics would not go astray either.'
Greenbang - NEW - Emissions car tax – a load of hot air? - I've been a bit rude, too. Sorry.
Gaurdian - NEW - Golf's water waste means only the fairways are green - Why here? Read on:
Telegraph - NEW - Anyone for green humbugs? Read to the end:)
I'm all for efficiency measures; not sure keen on taxes, to be blunt.
Featuring Tim Yeo MP, it is an interesting situation. Actually, interesting to me was also the fact that I think I heard that of his committee of 17, um, 16 were not in favour (tbc* - it hasn't been repeated in any subsequent slots, oddly), but he was sure 'it would have got though if they hadn't had to rush 'cos they were all off on hols now.' Hmn.
To be sure, he was 'balanced' by a lady from the RAC, but I notice she has been dropped in subsequent clips. Which is a shame, because she is making the fair point that it is hardly fair, or very eco (what is the carbon consequence of a new car's manufacture?), to hit folk who still have the car they bought under available rules a while ago, and then try and force them to buy a new one in the name of green.
Mr. Yeo at least was advocating that revenue generated remained within the eco-pot, but again I think I caught he was talking about paying folk like me to scrap my 11-year old Volvo.
Now, I don't know what he is proposing, but it is currently something like £180 for a junker. But my car is, to all intents and purposes, perfect. Admittedly, it is only worth £2000 at best, but even if they compo'd me that value, just what the heck can I get? There seems to be some odd, dare I say, London pol/chatterati notion, that I happen to have the extra £15,000 on top to buy a Prius, assuming they did an estate that carries what mine does.
For possibly selfish reasons, but also with my eco-eyebrow cranked as well, I am not too thrilled the direction which this one is going, nor with the way our national broadcaster is trying to rather over-enthusiastically push the agenda of those who would claim one thing but possibly not have it all thought out as well as it might. And not for the first time.
Addendum - looks like Mr. Yeo was early morning only. There was a follow-on with a chap from the Society of Motor Traders (who one presumes might have a vested interest in flogging new, but possibly second hand across the board as well) and the point I am making was at least alluded to, namely the cost of the upgrade.
*Links, I am sure, to come...
Didn't take long:
BBC - MPs sceptical over car tax rise
Indy - 'Pay to scrap gas-guzzlers'
Indy - Driven to distraction
Telegraph - Government's green car tax plans in disarray - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi
BBC - Plans for a graduated car tax
Autoindustry - NEW - Another link from Dave of Solarventi - A light right foot will do more to reduce CO2 than retrospective road tax, says the IAM - this tends to support the logic of more useage-based 'influence', which must translate into fuel tax. But this obviously becomes a political and 'fairness' (since when was that a problem) issue with those for whom driving, and over fair distances, is not really an option.
Gaurdian - NEW - The Mancunian way - Whilst being fine with all sorst of views being expressed, in light of the way media is shaped by what we are first served, I have to have a certain sympathy with the poster who notes this: 'I thought that Dr Huq was an academic specialising in pop music at a London Poly. I don't mean that in a nasty way. It is just that I don't see the connection with Manchester or transportation. Transportation is a complex issue that usually needs post-graduate training in engineering or mathematics to talk about in a sensible way. Some economics would not go astray either.'
Greenbang - NEW - Emissions car tax – a load of hot air? - I've been a bit rude, too. Sorry.
Gaurdian - NEW - Golf's water waste means only the fairways are green - Why here? Read on:
Telegraph - NEW - Anyone for green humbugs? Read to the end:)
Do-do
A bit of Monday philosophy...
There's what's right to do.
There's what I should do.
There's what some want me to do.
There's what others want me to do.
There's what I could do.
There's what I want to do.
There's what I can afford to do.
And, there's what I will do.
It might be worth some remembering those options, especially in terms of the way they present their views to me when seeking to influence my behaviour through cooperation or coercion.
It just might help us all avoid mutual.. do-do.
There's what's right to do.
There's what I should do.
There's what some want me to do.
There's what others want me to do.
There's what I could do.
There's what I want to do.
There's what I can afford to do.
And, there's what I will do.
It might be worth some remembering those options, especially in terms of the way they present their views to me when seeking to influence my behaviour through cooperation or coercion.
It just might help us all avoid mutual.. do-do.
Weights & measures
European trend to recycling leads to mass shortage of wheelie bins in UK
Just being naughty, but turtle-chocking aside, I wonder how many plastic bags' worth of plastic ends up in a wheelie bin?
And, more importantly, I wonder why I have not heard much on these things being made from recycled plastic, though I guess there may be QC issues under the elements.
Just hope the various designs have been thought through for the best enviROI with the most efficient collection and disposal systems and not just to meet targets or score a profit. What are the odds?
Just being naughty, but turtle-chocking aside, I wonder how many plastic bags' worth of plastic ends up in a wheelie bin?
And, more importantly, I wonder why I have not heard much on these things being made from recycled plastic, though I guess there may be QC issues under the elements.
Just hope the various designs have been thought through for the best enviROI with the most efficient collection and disposal systems and not just to meet targets or score a profit. What are the odds?
The colour of complexity
I have long claimed that little that's green can only be viewed in black and white.
Perhaps now the time has arrived to work and appreciation of red in to the picture?
Greens: Abandon economic growth to beat CO2 offshoring
Since the first passionate debates in my mid-teens, through Uni and beyond, I have always envied those who latched on to a noble cause, sought and often gained glory (and now nice careers) by being very single minded in (usually) being just against something.
I don't know if it is a curse, but I have always tended to look beyond the core issue, and certainly have got in a tangle as a consequence.
Which can of course also affect the arguments often put forward by some proponents: 'As to how that should be done, Bond was reluctant to give specifics.'
It's all well and good saying 'how awful...' and there is some legitimacy in saying 'this is bad; we need to stop...', but frankly having nice little jobs (involving using a lot of the toys 'progress' has generated, because, well, that's different... it's their jobs. As opposed to the ones we do, apparently) just lurking in these areas without coming up with much by way of credible alternative seems frankly parasitic at best.
And I do wonder at the value of all of this, at least in this form, as it seems to exist in a bubble occupied mainly occupied by the usual suspects from the various extremes who seem to have carved lucrative niches taking each other on, and more often than not way over the head, and hence engagement of the general public.
I am not saying that much of what is being raised doesn't need to be, but do concern myself at the sanctimonious pedestal mounters that think they are the key ones who need to do so.
Indy - NEW - The WMD that really should be worrying us - By way of... I'm not sure what, actually.
Perhaps now the time has arrived to work and appreciation of red in to the picture?
Greens: Abandon economic growth to beat CO2 offshoring
Since the first passionate debates in my mid-teens, through Uni and beyond, I have always envied those who latched on to a noble cause, sought and often gained glory (and now nice careers) by being very single minded in (usually) being just against something.
I don't know if it is a curse, but I have always tended to look beyond the core issue, and certainly have got in a tangle as a consequence.
Which can of course also affect the arguments often put forward by some proponents: 'As to how that should be done, Bond was reluctant to give specifics.'
It's all well and good saying 'how awful...' and there is some legitimacy in saying 'this is bad; we need to stop...', but frankly having nice little jobs (involving using a lot of the toys 'progress' has generated, because, well, that's different... it's their jobs. As opposed to the ones we do, apparently) just lurking in these areas without coming up with much by way of credible alternative seems frankly parasitic at best.
And I do wonder at the value of all of this, at least in this form, as it seems to exist in a bubble occupied mainly occupied by the usual suspects from the various extremes who seem to have carved lucrative niches taking each other on, and more often than not way over the head, and hence engagement of the general public.
I am not saying that much of what is being raised doesn't need to be, but do concern myself at the sanctimonious pedestal mounters that think they are the key ones who need to do so.
Indy - NEW - The WMD that really should be worrying us - By way of... I'm not sure what, actually.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Priorities, Gordon... priorities
Plus a smidge of political savvy, maybe...?
Overfill your bin and you’ll be treated worse than a shoplifter
Another fine mess you've got yourself into, I'd say.
Overfill your bin and you’ll be treated worse than a shoplifter
Another fine mess you've got yourself into, I'd say.
Relative values
Golf's water waste means only the fairways are green
'To ease your emissions that little bit extra, decline the golf cart and get some exercise, and pack some biodegradable golf balls and environmentally friendly tees.'
Yup, that'll do it.
'To ease your emissions that little bit extra, decline the golf cart and get some exercise, and pack some biodegradable golf balls and environmentally friendly tees.'
Yup, that'll do it.
Debateable
One thing so often missing in matters of debate is effective, balanced moderation.
I have just written to the BBC:
I have just watched the 'debate' between the climate activist and the industry representative.
At one point both 'sides' clearly stated totally stated a report stated diametrically opposite things.
Is there any chance of the moderators/interviewers letting us know who was/is right?
I am already fed up with the classic 'twofer' technique serving ratings more, butbeing allowed to mouth off without being checked adds zero value and the media just gives any old tossed off claim credence in this manner.
I have just written to the BBC:
I have just watched the 'debate' between the climate activist and the industry representative.
At one point both 'sides' clearly stated totally stated a report stated diametrically opposite things.
Is there any chance of the moderators/interviewers letting us know who was/is right?
I am already fed up with the classic 'twofer' technique serving ratings more, butbeing allowed to mouth off without being checked adds zero value and the media just gives any old tossed off claim credence in this manner.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Shorter. Cheaper. Greener
Speed Conferences - Ever Been To One?
Hold 'em on 2nd Life for free and I'm in.
I'm still plotting my revolutionary new conference format:)
Hold 'em on 2nd Life for free and I'm in.
I'm still plotting my revolutionary new conference format:)
Something stinks
And I think it is this:
Auctioning off the right to emit carbon dioxide is likely to net the UK government nearly €2.5bn (£2bn) over the next four years, under plans to be announced today.
Telegraph - Green light for carbon credit sale
And now I know why: 'The Government, which has said the money raised will go to the Exchequer, remains on a collision course with the EU, which has insisted that any monies raised from carbon permit trading should be used to fund projects designed to combat climate change.'
Telegraph - A windfall tax will not solve our energy crisis - 'The Treasury perennially refuses to ring-fence revenues from "green" taxes - thereby undermining its credibility.'
Just thought it was worth repeating for effect:)
Times - NEW - Gordon Brown plans ‘green tax’ on energy firms to help poor
Auctioning off the right to emit carbon dioxide is likely to net the UK government nearly €2.5bn (£2bn) over the next four years, under plans to be announced today.
Telegraph - Green light for carbon credit sale
And now I know why: 'The Government, which has said the money raised will go to the Exchequer, remains on a collision course with the EU, which has insisted that any monies raised from carbon permit trading should be used to fund projects designed to combat climate change.'
Telegraph - A windfall tax will not solve our energy crisis - 'The Treasury perennially refuses to ring-fence revenues from "green" taxes - thereby undermining its credibility.'
Just thought it was worth repeating for effect:)
Times - NEW - Gordon Brown plans ‘green tax’ on energy firms to help poor
Look out Kermit!
These are early days PR punts I'm guessing, so I won't accord them fully fledged category status as yet, but looks like your pond is a teeming fuel dump:
Indy - How to turn water into rocket fuel – scientists unlock power of the sun
Guardian - 'Oil from algae' promises climate friendly fuel
Both interesting, but also sort of focusing still on our desire to still combust, ultimately, rather than doing it less and less.
Still, it's nice to get a space story in without it being a major green eyebrow crank.
Indy - How to turn water into rocket fuel – scientists unlock power of the sun
Guardian - 'Oil from algae' promises climate friendly fuel
Both interesting, but also sort of focusing still on our desire to still combust, ultimately, rather than doing it less and less.
Still, it's nice to get a space story in without it being a major green eyebrow crank.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)