Dilemmas abound in the world of green.
And, sadly, nature is not always the best guide. I think I am safe in saying that we, humin beans, are essentially omnivores. And that includes eating meat. It's not strictly essential, but what we were designed for (OK, actually raw, but that can be covered in an appendix... geddit).
And, in the great climatic scheme of things, that is actually a bit of a design fault, if we are also to ignore our developing intellectually beyond the level of pragmatic and practical population balance measures.
There's no getting around the fact that, for a day's worth of sun, an acre of crops feed a lot more folk than an acre of crops feeding a cow... feeding some folk.
So... and accepting it is just another delaying tactic, vegetarianism is another potential mitigation in our march to destruction. Though it does I suppose leave around an awful lot of belching and windy Friesans to serve the cause of greenhouse reduction less well. So, just one last T-bone then?
Note: National Vegetarian Week in May
Links (evolving, natch, as advised or I stumble over new ones)
ARTICLES
Indy - Can you reduce your carbon footprint with a vegan diet?
Guardian - Credit crunch? The real crisis is global hunger. And if you care, eat less meat - I think this is the right place for it. A few other sacred cows ('scuse pun) get dragged in, too - biofuels, population, etc. Nice holiday ads though... somewhere to stay when writing about those on $2 a day I guess)
Indy - The Big Question: Is changing our diet the key to resolving the global food crisis?
Observer - It is time to become a vegetarian?
BBC Newsnight - Is it time to turn vegetarian? I argue with the 'facts' of the statement, not the ethics: In environmental discussions, Mother Nature, or doing what's 'natural' is often cited, in my view rightly, as a good thing. As one of her creations, it seems odd that our omnivorous design is now deemed by many as a flaw.
And the meat-banning advocacy might not serve too well some of the poster children of the climate change movement. Polar Bears or Tigers, for instance.
Whilst seeing the logic in part of what he says, I have to disagree with Mr. de Boer that this option is 'a solution'. At best it is a measure that buys some more time if other factors are not addressed.
Especially with greater affluence bringing currently already quite carnivorous cultures to the... er... table. In their billions. I kinda think we've been here before, too.
Guardian - UN says eat less meat to curb global warming - married to a Chinese with a great culinary repertoire, 'one meat free day' is not a stretch for us.
Guardian - Meathead mayor - I didn't post his piece because I thought he was being a bit silly and unnecessarily provocative (basically 'bacon breakfast, lunch and dinner 24/7, 365/365 - which is how to wind up the Guardian readers and ensure a high rating). QED.
Spiked - Why I’ve got a beef with going vegetarian
Guardian - NEW - Eating less meat won't save the planet
INFO
Veggievision - source of info
SUPPLIERS
Thursday, September 11, 2008
One law for the [ ]*
*insert exceptions/interest groups that will not be you here.
I think this op-ed from Ch 4 sums it up best:
We’ve just heard that Greenpeace have won in their legal battle over their protest at the Kingsnorth power station in Kent. They’ve been found not guilty of causing criminal damage in their protest against the coal-fired station. Essentially the Greenpeace argument was that climbing up a chimney and daubing “Gordon” on it was not criminal damage, as it was lawfully right because it was needed to prevent the greater damage caused by the government’s energy policy and resulting carbon emissions. If you like, it was the old argument: you can bash down a door legally, to put out the fire on the other side of it. So where now? Can you go home tonight and chuck paint over the neighbour’s 4x4, to make a case against emissions? Anyone up for super-gluing the gates of the nearest coal-fired power station? I could go on whilst the lawyer is out of the room. But does it actually open any precedent at all? We take a look, hopefully with a lawyer. Precedent is doubtful. Environmentalists have already pulled something similar to this before, damaging GM crops, but beware of wider precedents.
So now, to add to when I go on holiday overseas I can claim I am raising awareness of climate change, I might try spinning some bit of local law-breaking as part of addressing a greater truth, possibly elsewhere. Worth a try, I guess. Always wondered what lay beyond those flood gates.
Guardian - Policy, not protesters, should be on trial
Times - Protesters cleared over damage to power plant
Spectator - Greenwashing A Jury - Not a good few days for jury decisions to some, but also not great to those who then decide they don't like the result. The system was used, and delivered its result. Seesm to me there was a failure by the prosecution to prove their case. Maybe not enough irony-free experts flown over from the USA to further help, um, 'awareness'?
I think this op-ed from Ch 4 sums it up best:
We’ve just heard that Greenpeace have won in their legal battle over their protest at the Kingsnorth power station in Kent. They’ve been found not guilty of causing criminal damage in their protest against the coal-fired station. Essentially the Greenpeace argument was that climbing up a chimney and daubing “Gordon” on it was not criminal damage, as it was lawfully right because it was needed to prevent the greater damage caused by the government’s energy policy and resulting carbon emissions. If you like, it was the old argument: you can bash down a door legally, to put out the fire on the other side of it. So where now? Can you go home tonight and chuck paint over the neighbour’s 4x4, to make a case against emissions? Anyone up for super-gluing the gates of the nearest coal-fired power station? I could go on whilst the lawyer is out of the room. But does it actually open any precedent at all? We take a look, hopefully with a lawyer. Precedent is doubtful. Environmentalists have already pulled something similar to this before, damaging GM crops, but beware of wider precedents.
So now, to add to when I go on holiday overseas I can claim I am raising awareness of climate change, I might try spinning some bit of local law-breaking as part of addressing a greater truth, possibly elsewhere. Worth a try, I guess. Always wondered what lay beyond those flood gates.
Guardian - Policy, not protesters, should be on trial
Times - Protesters cleared over damage to power plant
Spectator - Greenwashing A Jury - Not a good few days for jury decisions to some, but also not great to those who then decide they don't like the result. The system was used, and delivered its result. Seesm to me there was a failure by the prosecution to prove their case. Maybe not enough irony-free experts flown over from the USA to further help, um, 'awareness'?
Pitching envROI
Subsidised recycling is poor value for money
An interesting piece. Whilst there is little to disagree with in matters of fact, the slant taken become significant. Here an almost pure approach to the financial aspects in terms of return is considered. One can almost imagine that at the other extreme there might be one in the Guardian with uncritical green-tinted glasses advocating the 'environment', no matter what.
Such a shame, as surely between the enterprise and the social there is something more valid in terms of money possible, that can both serve the needs and interests of the planet and those upon it.
An attempt to encapsulate these economic AND environmental principles is attempted in the definition of enviROI*
It is hard to put subsidy and value for money together in the same sentence without accepting the 'value' of the social benefits that are gained.
Rationally, 'wasting' anything cannot be a good thing, and sticking raw materials back in the ground lacks a certain logic, unless one looks at it in a purely short term, time-dependent monentary manner. Surely this is evident by virtue of some landfills being considered for mining now? One has to wonder, much as one would putting one's 1960's mass-production sports coupe on blocks until now, what the 'value' might have been of setting aside useful materials in a segregated manner ready for economies re-embracing into the manufacturing system now. Nothing is infinite. So anything that does not tackle a problem and shunts it away is only a delaying tactic imposed on the future. Understandable, if not laudable if there is no imperative to even think about the problem, much less solutions, but very dubious if clear issues have been identified on the horizon.
I fear I must therefore take issue with the defence of landfill just on the basis of there being more places to stick stuff. It doesn't seem very nice, and it doesn't seem to make much sense.
Therefore my personal advocacy is much more energy (mental, that is) is devoted to more creative ways of reducing our waste in the first place, and making more of that which is, I accept, inevitably produced and discarded. Reduction, reuse...recycling. I fear the current cabal who should have/be addressing this for long enough - government, LAs, quangos (so many quangos), manufacturers, retailers, and even many media - have so far been WOEFUL, if not plain dishonest. At best we have bazzillions going on disjointed systems, little empires and epic comms budgets, all of which seem primarily designed to make it the poor public/consumer's problem.
I agree about the targets. I agree about the jobsworths. But also I agree about the green-blinkered groups, who see anything that is not consumerist as therefore automatically 'good' when, if I understand the debate correctly, the key issue now is Co2 emissions rather than stuff in the wrong place... or generating methane in an unmanaged way. Hence silly ban-wagons that make some feel good when in fact pumping more up in the air than was before.
Sadly, this debate already seems polarised. It's either landfill or recycling. I rather like to think there may be something in between that occupies a satisfactory middle ground and even, god forbid, ticks a few boxes, too.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
What a waste of a country
I sometimes wonder if I am getting too jaded by the system.
In passing, I added a few blogs past a link to an ITV recycling expose with little comment as I was not terribly surprised. I have long known, and been disgusted by the fact that recycling collection targets are based on amounts that tick boxes rather than actual value of recyclate. So big fat bonuses and careers are forged on the acquisition of a spurious 'thing' that makes bureaucrats wet themselves but serve the environment little. And yet it happens so often, in so many places, I cease to bat an eye.
But then I happened to read a blog post from some others who, it is safe to say, care, and until this point had some faith in the system. I still care, a lot, but as to faith in the system...
A Rubbish Service TV programme on ITV1
Addendum - It may be viewed for a period here*
Their sense of anguish and frustration was... is frankly palpable. And little wonder.
With all we know. And all that is being said, and claimed, and claimed to be done, and spent, and even after the exact same thing being brought out by the BBC (remember the Grosvenor situation? Though the Fred Pearce book (reviewed here) does have an extra insight into some aspects) years ago, the general public gets shown this.
How on earth will any group cohesion be possible on a national level when we are exposed to fines and abuses in the name of green at one end, and such rampant disarray (being charitable) at the other?).
It seems to me it is only by letting the will, and good will of the people to blossom will anything sensible take shape. Almost all the pols, LAs, consultants, advisors, officers, research and myriad of other 'eco-posts' are but expensive, distracting, 'jobs for the boys' drains on actually doing what's right and proper for our kids' futures.
My only concern is that the main way I can try and effect change, through my vote, will be ineffective these days as I simply cannot pin down, and hence target those who are responsible and give them the career and financial kicking they deserve. And so the rumbling ship of.. in a state will simply plough on, regardless. What a waste of a country.
Newsnight -
Last night ITV ran an expose of the state of our national recycling policies and systems, whereby an OAP seems eligible to be sent to Elba for popping an extra cabbage leaf to their bin, yet the person in charge of such a policy at their LA has no clue where container loads of 'recycling' (note: the tonnages box-ticked are only on what it is (might be); nor whether it is any use to man nor beast) goes, but for sure will be ready first in line to get their bonus for an all round sterling job.
http://www.itv.com/News/tonight/episodes/Arubbishservice/default.html
I am minded of a BBC expose back in Dec 2005 that covered pretty much the same thing.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2005/12/tiger-in-turkey-hut-more-like.html
What, if anything, has changed, bar the bonus structures on an index-linked basis, plus what's shaping up as a terrific 'guilty 'til proven still guilty' revenue-collection system?
Maybe when our convoy of governance has got back from its outing to trying to run the country again without more wheels falling off, maybe one of the succession of environment Ministers (past and present... maybe even Mr. Milliband?) might be invited to waffl... comment on how we have come so... er.. far.
I really don't see much point in all these stories if they are not followed up and the protagonists held to account.
* I have now watched the programme - first up the usual quango talking heads waffling and promising investigation and action. Heard that before? What amazes me is that this still goes on and those involved (inc. pols, LAs, etc) seem to think that they are immune from the consequences. But on such evidence, maybe they are right.
It is good that there are such programmes, but I have to wonder what the follow-up will be.. after the last one. But at least this time the point was made about the level of penalties we are being subjected to in the UK on a personal level, and maybe if enough of us get miffed enough at such rampant inequality and hypocrisy we may decide to get angry enough to react.
I did/do have to wonder how it came to be that the UK waste processor seemed to accept some highly contaminated waste quite stocially and simply passed it on as 'damaged goods'. Surely they should fire it straight back as rejected? Money talks, surely?
These highly paid government servants and fat cats cannot be allowed to weasel out of this based simply on a huge number of 'don't knows'. One agrees the public may feel 'let down', but suggests we continue recycling. That's all well and fine (note that word). But there are people accountable, and they should be held to it.
In passing, I added a few blogs past a link to an ITV recycling expose with little comment as I was not terribly surprised. I have long known, and been disgusted by the fact that recycling collection targets are based on amounts that tick boxes rather than actual value of recyclate. So big fat bonuses and careers are forged on the acquisition of a spurious 'thing' that makes bureaucrats wet themselves but serve the environment little. And yet it happens so often, in so many places, I cease to bat an eye.
But then I happened to read a blog post from some others who, it is safe to say, care, and until this point had some faith in the system. I still care, a lot, but as to faith in the system...
A Rubbish Service TV programme on ITV1
Addendum - It may be viewed for a period here*
Their sense of anguish and frustration was... is frankly palpable. And little wonder.
With all we know. And all that is being said, and claimed, and claimed to be done, and spent, and even after the exact same thing being brought out by the BBC (remember the Grosvenor situation? Though the Fred Pearce book (reviewed here) does have an extra insight into some aspects) years ago, the general public gets shown this.
How on earth will any group cohesion be possible on a national level when we are exposed to fines and abuses in the name of green at one end, and such rampant disarray (being charitable) at the other?).
It seems to me it is only by letting the will, and good will of the people to blossom will anything sensible take shape. Almost all the pols, LAs, consultants, advisors, officers, research and myriad of other 'eco-posts' are but expensive, distracting, 'jobs for the boys' drains on actually doing what's right and proper for our kids' futures.
My only concern is that the main way I can try and effect change, through my vote, will be ineffective these days as I simply cannot pin down, and hence target those who are responsible and give them the career and financial kicking they deserve. And so the rumbling ship of.. in a state will simply plough on, regardless. What a waste of a country.
Newsnight -
Last night ITV ran an expose of the state of our national recycling policies and systems, whereby an OAP seems eligible to be sent to Elba for popping an extra cabbage leaf to their bin, yet the person in charge of such a policy at their LA has no clue where container loads of 'recycling' (note: the tonnages box-ticked are only on what it is (might be); nor whether it is any use to man nor beast) goes, but for sure will be ready first in line to get their bonus for an all round sterling job.
http://www.itv.com/News/tonight/episodes/Arubbishservice/default.html
I am minded of a BBC expose back in Dec 2005 that covered pretty much the same thing.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2005/12/tiger-in-turkey-hut-more-like.html
What, if anything, has changed, bar the bonus structures on an index-linked basis, plus what's shaping up as a terrific 'guilty 'til proven still guilty' revenue-collection system?
Maybe when our convoy of governance has got back from its outing to trying to run the country again without more wheels falling off, maybe one of the succession of environment Ministers (past and present... maybe even Mr. Milliband?) might be invited to waffl... comment on how we have come so... er.. far.
I really don't see much point in all these stories if they are not followed up and the protagonists held to account.
* I have now watched the programme - first up the usual quango talking heads waffling and promising investigation and action. Heard that before? What amazes me is that this still goes on and those involved (inc. pols, LAs, etc) seem to think that they are immune from the consequences. But on such evidence, maybe they are right.
It is good that there are such programmes, but I have to wonder what the follow-up will be.. after the last one. But at least this time the point was made about the level of penalties we are being subjected to in the UK on a personal level, and maybe if enough of us get miffed enough at such rampant inequality and hypocrisy we may decide to get angry enough to react.
I did/do have to wonder how it came to be that the UK waste processor seemed to accept some highly contaminated waste quite stocially and simply passed it on as 'damaged goods'. Surely they should fire it straight back as rejected? Money talks, surely?
These highly paid government servants and fat cats cannot be allowed to weasel out of this based simply on a huge number of 'don't knows'. One agrees the public may feel 'let down', but suggests we continue recycling. That's all well and fine (note that word). But there are people accountable, and they should be held to it.
Green Halo
It's a new term I am playing with for things that seem to be fine in a 'why not?' way, but seem to have also been accorded a clunky bit of green in the process to , er, 'help'.
And this is a terrible example by being actually the exact reverse.
Driving instructors get green light from DSA to teach students 'eco-safety'
It's a bit of green with a clunky bit of 'why not?' attached.
Thing is, I am not sure it is serving the message of either too well by being so clunky.
I can get my head around driving safely, and being taught how to be even more so. I can also sort of get an eco-version, though much is plain common sense, but a few I have read about (Not here) might save a bit of gas but are certainly not helping safety at all.
But all in all, if I ever hear 'Eco-safety' like this, I'll ru... drive a mile... fast.
Good job I am not being asked to do another test... yet.
Times - Eco-safe driving: more lessons, more money - All becomes clear. And gives sensible green advocacy and even steeper slope to surmount... in 3rd, of course.
Newsnight - Post 3.
And this is a terrible example by being actually the exact reverse.
Driving instructors get green light from DSA to teach students 'eco-safety'
It's a bit of green with a clunky bit of 'why not?' attached.
Thing is, I am not sure it is serving the message of either too well by being so clunky.
I can get my head around driving safely, and being taught how to be even more so. I can also sort of get an eco-version, though much is plain common sense, but a few I have read about (Not here) might save a bit of gas but are certainly not helping safety at all.
But all in all, if I ever hear 'Eco-safety' like this, I'll ru... drive a mile... fast.
Good job I am not being asked to do another test... yet.
Times - Eco-safe driving: more lessons, more money - All becomes clear. And gives sensible green advocacy and even steeper slope to surmount... in 3rd, of course.
Newsnight - Post 3.
A lot is explained
Politicians need wisdom when chosing green regulation
An interesting discussion around the Two E's, plus a worthy link as well.
An interesting discussion around the Two E's, plus a worthy link as well.
A small reminder
I thought this letter in the Indy today was well articulated:
Energy policy about to hit the iceberg
Your correspondents ("Bringing down the cost of solar panels", 4 September) are not just re-arranging the Titanic's deckchairs, they are busily hammering holes in her hull. Yes, you can make anything appear viable by offering subsidies, but artificial "feed-in" tariffs, renewables obligation certificates and support for biofuel producers merely transfer the economic costs to the taxpayer and the environmental costs to the planet.
Most renewables, particularly micro-generation, do not just leave users out of pocket; in many cases their production and distribution absorb more energy and emit more carbon than the units will ever pay back. By contrast, turning down the central heating or putting out some lights costs nothing and saves money on the next bill, not in 160 years.
We must recognise that reducing our energy consumption is essential, because all forms of fuel are running out, because we are increasingly dependent on foreign regimes for our supplies and because most energy use causes CO2 emissions. We must have an energy policy which includes sustainable sources such as underground coal gasification, geothermal energy and community-based combined heat and power. Unlike most renewables, these offer energy 365 days a year. Wind and solar have a place when they can be installed on an industrial scale at the point of use, but those who believe they will allow us to continue our squanderous lifestyle while saving the planet are recklessly deluded.
Energy policy about to hit the iceberg
Your correspondents ("Bringing down the cost of solar panels", 4 September) are not just re-arranging the Titanic's deckchairs, they are busily hammering holes in her hull. Yes, you can make anything appear viable by offering subsidies, but artificial "feed-in" tariffs, renewables obligation certificates and support for biofuel producers merely transfer the economic costs to the taxpayer and the environmental costs to the planet.
Most renewables, particularly micro-generation, do not just leave users out of pocket; in many cases their production and distribution absorb more energy and emit more carbon than the units will ever pay back. By contrast, turning down the central heating or putting out some lights costs nothing and saves money on the next bill, not in 160 years.
We must recognise that reducing our energy consumption is essential, because all forms of fuel are running out, because we are increasingly dependent on foreign regimes for our supplies and because most energy use causes CO2 emissions. We must have an energy policy which includes sustainable sources such as underground coal gasification, geothermal energy and community-based combined heat and power. Unlike most renewables, these offer energy 365 days a year. Wind and solar have a place when they can be installed on an industrial scale at the point of use, but those who believe they will allow us to continue our squanderous lifestyle while saving the planet are recklessly deluded.
Thing is... are we really surprised?
Main parties 'reneging on green promises'
Well, we all know what a 'pol's promise' is owrth at best. Butthis could equally lurk in the 'Two E's" category as a reson if not excuse.
Well, we all know what a 'pol's promise' is owrth at best. Butthis could equally lurk in the 'Two E's" category as a reson if not excuse.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
What's missing from this headline...
..is 'Probably Man-Worsened...', my preferred prefix.
Found after 300m years: rainforest fossils show how climate change could look
Mainly because we are looking some 299m years before the first Humvee.
A point not missed by some already or, I suspect to come, others.
Doesn't make things easy, does it?
Found after 300m years: rainforest fossils show how climate change could look
Mainly because we are looking some 299m years before the first Humvee.
A point not missed by some already or, I suspect to come, others.
Doesn't make things easy, does it?
PROF'S POSER - Where's an actuary when you need one?
The other day these bits of paper arrived.At first I was going to bin them, but then I had a read, and as a consequence of that called up the sender.
You see, our washing machine is at last 10 years old. Still doing a sterling job, bar a few hiccups year on year that have been resolved.
Thing is, I don't recall ever seeing such an insurance before, so they must n=know what they are doing.
The deal is not cheap, coming in at well over £100 a year. But the up side is tempting. They either fix it if...when it dies, or give us a new one.
Now, my main aim is environmental (no, really) in that I like the notion of repair if at all possible (lord knows what the enviROI on a call-out is), but I was also wondering about the numbers.
Being that a new one is around £2-300, does it make any sense to take out such a policy at this stage?
Oh, what a tangled web...
Now I am the first to admit that this little spit 'n sawdsut operation is more than prone to the odd IT-boo-boo.You don't want 'em, or like 'em, but they happen.
So it is always reassuring when someone oodles bigger cocks up.
Assuming they didn't mean to address me this way, of course.
How to get in the news: screw up a bit less
Or, 'Stats they way, uh-huh, I like it'.
I know it is good to big up positives and if it's local it has to be good, but you have to wonder what basis news rooms shape their stories. Mabye just a great press release?
Seems our very own Severn Trent water service is the most improved for complaints with some measure or other (I'd never heard of it before). I know this thanks to BBC Midlands Today (will try and get the link - er, good luck via the awful BBC search feature).
Great.
Thing is, as far as I could gather, this accolade is more a matter of the % they have improved from a rather dire level before. So, from god awful to just awful gets you in the media, it seems.
I wonder if there are any out there just doing well and no better than before, and how they feel?
I know it is good to big up positives and if it's local it has to be good, but you have to wonder what basis news rooms shape their stories. Mabye just a great press release?
Seems our very own Severn Trent water service is the most improved for complaints with some measure or other (I'd never heard of it before). I know this thanks to BBC Midlands Today (will try and get the link - er, good luck via the awful BBC search feature).
Great.
Thing is, as far as I could gather, this accolade is more a matter of the % they have improved from a rather dire level before. So, from god awful to just awful gets you in the media, it seems.
I wonder if there are any out there just doing well and no better than before, and how they feel?
I even had a category ready
This deserves its own gig. More so by being in the Guardian:
Elitist evangelists
I am hard-pressed to figure out what the £30k 'damage' was/is, but 'if you commit the crime, you do the time', etc, I guess.
However, this is one CiF I'll watch from the sidelines.
Telegraph - NEW - Climate change chicanery - The author is a major climate optimist, and hence all written should be viewed in this light but, if true, the point about the function of an expert witness in a legal trial is a good one, and I'd like that question on how two advocates came to be used in this role was allowed.
Elitist evangelists
I am hard-pressed to figure out what the £30k 'damage' was/is, but 'if you commit the crime, you do the time', etc, I guess.
However, this is one CiF I'll watch from the sidelines.
Telegraph - NEW - Climate change chicanery - The author is a major climate optimist, and hence all written should be viewed in this light but, if true, the point about the function of an expert witness in a legal trial is a good one, and I'd like that question on how two advocates came to be used in this role was allowed.
CATEGORY - TV SHOWS
Haven't created a category in a while. Here's a new one.
BBC
Earth: The Climate Wars - one down, 2 & 3 next Sunday and the one after
ITV
A Rubbish Service -
I might even get round to a re:view every so often. Mind you, I keep missing 'em! Most najors now have a week long follow-up window. Then... YouTube/iPod is your friend?
BBC
Earth: The Climate Wars - one down, 2 & 3 next Sunday and the one after
ITV
A Rubbish Service -
I might even get round to a re:view every so often. Mind you, I keep missing 'em! Most najors now have a week long follow-up window. Then... YouTube/iPod is your friend?
Where does what we recycle go to?
Of course our local authorities ensure that all recycled rubbish is accounted for and properly and usefully handled, don't they?
Well, not so, according to this from the Telegraph a few days ago.
200 authorities DO know exactly where recycled rubbish ends up.....
but, 135 are unable to confirm where recycled rubbish goes......
and 20 have no idea whatsoever where it goes to!!
I had cause to be briefly back at home when the recycling lorry made it's collection last week, and my eyebrows rose considerably higher as I watched the guys empty our carefully separated paper, glass and metal into, you've guessed it, one single mixed container! On top of this, now it seems that no-one can genuinely account for where it goes too!
Its beginning to make me wonder whether the weekly rubbish sort out is worth the effort.
Addendum (JM) -
Telegraph - Do we waste too much?
Telegraph - The European Union's recycling regulations are a failure
ITV - A Rubbish Service - Missed it, but really there are too many these days. Sounds like more of the same. Worth doing, but the lack of change in the face of such exposes is telling.
Well, not so, according to this from the Telegraph a few days ago.
200 authorities DO know exactly where recycled rubbish ends up.....
but, 135 are unable to confirm where recycled rubbish goes......
and 20 have no idea whatsoever where it goes to!!
I had cause to be briefly back at home when the recycling lorry made it's collection last week, and my eyebrows rose considerably higher as I watched the guys empty our carefully separated paper, glass and metal into, you've guessed it, one single mixed container! On top of this, now it seems that no-one can genuinely account for where it goes too!
Its beginning to make me wonder whether the weekly rubbish sort out is worth the effort.
Addendum (JM) -
Telegraph - Do we waste too much?
Telegraph - The European Union's recycling regulations are a failure
ITV - A Rubbish Service - Missed it, but really there are too many these days. Sounds like more of the same. Worth doing, but the lack of change in the face of such exposes is telling.
Monday, September 08, 2008
RE:VIEW - Confessions of an Eco Sinner, Fred Pearce
The things I end up doing.Here I am (well, there I was, so long, so very long ago now), on holiday, chilling out, and yet still one in my literary entertainment armoury was still work.
And there it is. On the table of a Turkish sailing yacht, surrounded by the paraphernalia of a decent sunny break.
Thank heavens for the title, then. It's hard to do a re:view, especially if it is of an eco-tome, without at least giving nod to the fact that where one is, what one is doing and how one got there cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be deemed to be very 'green'. In fact, and this is something I intend to revisit later, during my two week break I had to concede that almost no aspect of the travel industry is designed (even if reasons may vary) to involve much that is reduce, reuse, recycle or anything else that helps the planet. It's all short term, lots of using, going and quick bucks which, when it comes to economics vs. ecology, presses the scales pretty much one way.
Now this book is not only about tourism and, in fact, though there is a lot of travel involved, deals with this aspect rarely (unlike Leo Hickman's 'Final Call', which I have yet to address (and still mocks me over there with all its sticker notes poking out) despite having read it a long time previously - this is just fresher in my mind). It is more to do with the stuff of our day to day lives, and the wheres, whens, whys and hows of how it gets to be here from a lot of there.
First the good news. I learned a lot I did not know before, and it is written in a style that is easy to digest. I do wonder, as I have and will with all such publications, who the audience might be, especially who might fork out £12.99 (now £11.69) for the privilege. Though well researched, ordered and presented, the facts are all pretty much 'out there', for free, thanks to the likes of Tim, Larry, Sergey et al. So you are paying more for the authority of the author to access worthy sources, and his ability to put things in meaningful context. Which, for the most part Fred Pearce does very well.
I'm pondering a book myself, as it is (well, seems) a good way to at least crank some profile and maybe even make a few bob. But there are dilemmas abounding. No matter how recycled the stock, and offset the endeavours, there is no getting around the certain irony of something designed at the very least to stir some critical awareness of the consequences our consumer-driven, travel-addicted ways on the planet and others... pretty much through involving a whole bunch of consuming and travelling. I continually wonder how much awareness Mother Earth can withstand, but only so long as those whose careers and funding depends on them being entitled to go about their business (which can often be a pleasure, too) whilst in essence laying out why it is 'bad' for anyone else to do so.
These are to me the blinkers of the 'green elite', who somehow can't, or won't, get their heads around the fact that most could only dream of being paid to follow a global path over sea, sand or snow, or be called to chat with a multi-billionaire in his castle about his legacy visions.
On balance, the author mostly steers this dodgy path quite well, though there is no doubt his is a career built on saying rather than doing. And not doing a fair bit of what he says others shouldn't, or should at least feel just awful about if they do. At least he does not come across as holier than thou, and more valuably often does raise certain 'truths' as being less great for the planet than some advocates would have you believe.
So, from the gold in your ring to the offset (I didn't) not on your conscience, if this is the kind of thing you like to read to raise your awareness/information levels sensibly, I'd say it's a good one.
Junkk Rating: JJJJ
At last, a less than ideal solution
I tend to find that most eco-initiatives seem to take as their base a rather ideal start point.
Hence I am pleased to share this, sent in by one of the forums I am member of:
Old Home Superhome
As it says:
Old Home SuperHome is an ongoing programme to transform the energy efficiency of existing housing stock in the UK, with the ultimate aim of reducing domestic carbon emissions by 60%.
Read more here...
The scheme is building and promoting a network of exemplar, energy-efficient old dwellings, which will be local and publicly accessible, within 15 minutes, to nearly everyone in the country.
Click here to use the interactive map and find a superhome near you!
There are not too many (yet) but guess what, there is one near me! I feel a visit is in order. With a house whose structure covers six eras, and but one room with cavity walls, I have felt a lot trotted out by various bodies was totally irrelevant to my living situation.
This seems much more practical.
Camden Council - Low energy Victorian house refurbishment
Hence I am pleased to share this, sent in by one of the forums I am member of:
Old Home Superhome
As it says:
Old Home SuperHome is an ongoing programme to transform the energy efficiency of existing housing stock in the UK, with the ultimate aim of reducing domestic carbon emissions by 60%.
Read more here...
The scheme is building and promoting a network of exemplar, energy-efficient old dwellings, which will be local and publicly accessible, within 15 minutes, to nearly everyone in the country.
Click here to use the interactive map and find a superhome near you!
There are not too many (yet) but guess what, there is one near me! I feel a visit is in order. With a house whose structure covers six eras, and but one room with cavity walls, I have felt a lot trotted out by various bodies was totally irrelevant to my living situation.
This seems much more practical.
Camden Council - Low energy Victorian house refurbishment
Applications on a (recycled) postcard...
'Climate crisis' needs brain gain
Well, for sure there have not been many brilliant minds applied so far, at least of those that have made the most noise.
'What if Tim Berners Lee had been working in a solar [power] laboratory? Perhaps he would have done it there as well. '
Hmnn, and if Einstein had been working for Greenpeace, he could have invented biofuel.
Guardian - NEW - Reach for the stars
Well, for sure there have not been many brilliant minds applied so far, at least of those that have made the most noise.
'What if Tim Berners Lee had been working in a solar [power] laboratory? Perhaps he would have done it there as well. '
Hmnn, and if Einstein had been working for Greenpeace, he could have invented biofuel.
Guardian - NEW - Reach for the stars
Karma
Funny.I was just pondering what best to go with this, the latest genius insight from Dilbert, when I was sent this by Dan of Greenbang.
UK clean tech innovators look to move abroad for cash.
Don't know about 'young talent..' but the way things are "There is a danger that some very smart technologies could move offshore..' can add another to its list.
Maybe the US is no better? I doubt it. I guess I should head to Birmingham today. I hear the government is there.. listening away.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Making a splash
This is not so much about the environment, but about the state of science and its reporting.
Last night I watched a doco on a tsunami that was supposed to have happened in the Cro-Magnon era of human existence in the Mediteranean.
Seems a slab of Etna on Sciliy may have slid down and sent out a wave a 100' high that washed the East shores clear.
And I recall a similar recent progamme about the Caanry Islands whereby the US eastern seaboard is soon to be wiped out.
Now, I am all for awarness and preparation, but I do rather wonder what, other than getting some worried, such as the latter really achieves.
But I also wonder about the science. In both shows, the most telling demo is when a slab of material is rushed down a slope in a lab to impact a model of a water feature. Sure enough, by the end a dirty great wave was impacting the other end.
Thing is, whilst accpeting the sheer power of the forces, but I do have to wonder about the relative sizes we're talking about here. A small section of an island in an entire ocean does not seem comparable. Nor does the 'route' being a narrow channel constrained by perspex. The energy disapation in a radial manner over tens of thousands of square miles would surely absorb a heck of a lot?
However, when an entire undersea shelf drop/rise over multiple miles takes place, as it did with the Boxing Day tragedy, that is a different kettle of fish.
Last night I watched a doco on a tsunami that was supposed to have happened in the Cro-Magnon era of human existence in the Mediteranean.
Seems a slab of Etna on Sciliy may have slid down and sent out a wave a 100' high that washed the East shores clear.
And I recall a similar recent progamme about the Caanry Islands whereby the US eastern seaboard is soon to be wiped out.
Now, I am all for awarness and preparation, but I do rather wonder what, other than getting some worried, such as the latter really achieves.
But I also wonder about the science. In both shows, the most telling demo is when a slab of material is rushed down a slope in a lab to impact a model of a water feature. Sure enough, by the end a dirty great wave was impacting the other end.
Thing is, whilst accpeting the sheer power of the forces, but I do have to wonder about the relative sizes we're talking about here. A small section of an island in an entire ocean does not seem comparable. Nor does the 'route' being a narrow channel constrained by perspex. The energy disapation in a radial manner over tens of thousands of square miles would surely absorb a heck of a lot?
However, when an entire undersea shelf drop/rise over multiple miles takes place, as it did with the Boxing Day tragedy, that is a different kettle of fish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)