CATEGORY - ALT ENERGY

For now, just links as I happen across, or get told about them:

NOTE - New info/links as stumbled across subsequently indicated by NEW

GENERAL

Indy - Letters - Real facts about the Severn Barrage - Actually a pithy breakdown, though subject to confirmation factually

Indy - Greener power to the people: the real energy alternative?

What still astounds, and depresses me is that even now, with all that we face and all that is in place and/or being proposed, from government to major media I still have no clear idea what the facts are to make objective choices.

From nuclear to wind to micro, I really have no idea what will work, what won't and, crucially, what the actual numbers are, from ROI to enviROI.

Sadly it all still seems shaped by agenda, lobby-pressure, targets and, often, the green-tinted view that if it is' eco' it must be good no matter what.

Guardian - - How power from the people could cut CO2 emissions - with government help

Guardian - Hutton tells power grid to clear barriers to wind

Guardian - A renewed effort on green energy

Times - Why going green will still cost the earth - My favourite headline! Not, however, reading the rest.

Times - Homes that produce their own energy

Without the Hot Air - Summary of an academic study linked in a blog I frequent. Pro or con, as always, read, and treat with one eyebrow cocked.

Times - How China’s thirst for oil can save the planet - some more alt eng at the end

Telegraph - Latest microgeneration technology for houses - some excellent links to the various options mentioned below

Times - Expert fears over green energy targets

A worthy share from a forum I frequent:

10 Steps in 10 Years to 100 Percent Renewable Power

original article here

BBC - Britain 'faces power cuts threat' - As stated, it is reporting a report from an interst group. Does anyone do 'objective' any more?

Guardian - Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels - Rather significant, IMHO

Indy - Green energy targets will not be met without government aid - That's what money from whom, again? Nothing to do with some players more keen on dosh than targets (neither looking like serving my kids' futures in terms I fancy, mind) pulling out as the business models don't add up, I hope.

INFORMATION

coopfire.coop -
green.energyhelpline.com -
greenenergy360.org
grunweb.org.uk -
localpower.org - NEW
Microgeneration Certification Scheme -
nhbcfoundation.org -
nef.org.uk -
renewable energy foundation -

Algae

algalbiomass.org -
algaeatwork.com -
algaefuelmaking.com -
nationalalgaeassociation.com -
Newsnight - All of a sudden... algae is everywhere
Gaurdian - UK announces world's largest algal biofuel project
Newsnight - I share a moment
What is it about entities that end in 'Trust' that seem to inspire anything but in those who are exposed to their vision?Sadly, we share a similar view of quangos, and especially those appointed by, funded via and hence beholden to those who created them.Vast empires of persons, pay, perks and pensions, whose first aim is to secure budgets and then blow them on comms exercises mainly aimed at self-justification and/or securing more funding than actually applying much to any..DOING, as such. I anticipate a major round of announcements in this regard soon, as part of looking like something might happen to make my kids' future better, but not really getting round to anything tangible. Doubtless ably shared in PR support by a quick trip to a snowy place in a helicopter by all the usual suspects and their crews from you know who to tell 'us' what awaits if 'we' don't sort ourselves out. Trust me.
Yours in hoping we share the right rocket when the world really catches cold... (see Hitchhikers Guide)
Indy - Oil giant Exxon sees the future – and it is green algae - Doesn't make it right of course, but in matters green, when you are trying to track the future, it is often worth following the money. And it is interesting where multi-billion oil companies are going into, and avoiding/getting out of. Oddly, there is often a slight disconnect with political directions. I wonder why?

Biochar

Guardian - Woodchips with everything. It's the Atkins plan of the low-carbon world - I have seen this referred to a lot. Time to get up to speed. So view this as but one view I quote. The comments will help.

Gaurdian - James Lovelock on Biochar: let the Earth remove CO2 for us - As night follows day...

Biofuel

FT.com - via blog - hey, it's good news, at least in one area... I hope!
Indy - Can biofuel help prevent global warming, or will it only make matters worse?
Bear in mind it's 'a' discussion from 'a' paper. In fact I'm thinking this deserves it's own category as it really isn't alt. energy and is definitely a hot topic.
Guardian - Burning biofuels may be worse than coal and oil, say experts - Glad I didn't (well, couldn't afford) the SAAB Biodiesel! I'd be keyed everywhere. Goes well with the one below, though:)
Guardian - UK biofuels really do help the planet - Letter from the NFU. That's of the UK. hence I am unsure if the headline is accurate.
Indy - Shell starts algae biodiesel research site in Hawaii
Times - Shell joins search for green fuel with plan to make diesel from algae

Oooooooo....kay.

It 'may' be green....er.

But what still comes out the pipe when it's combusted?

ASA - SAAB - Interesting insight into the issues. Note the number of complainants. I will be interested if the latest Prius TVC gets though unscathed. Some fairly hefty claims in there, including one that seems to say it actively scrubs CO2 from the air. Bearing in mind 5-25% of a cars' carbon impact is at manufacture, which seems to be ignored in this ad, I look forward to the supporting evidence.

Telegraph - Airline industry could be flying on biofuels in five years - Another when one kinda needs to divorce the local smartness of the technology from the bigger picture of its' consequences. In amongst an already 'could'-heavy piece, I stumble here: '..depending on the availability of sufficient crops to produce it.' Might one add '..at the expense of food supplies?'. Not sure "The feedstocks are very expensive but as we build the market, more people will grow energy crops." really addresses that dilemma.

Guardian - US car manufacturers plough a lonely furrow on biofuels - Haven't seen much on this topic lately. Perhaps this suggests why?

Biogas

Junkk - Heard of making a pig's ear of things?

Ecologist - NEW - Biogas: is your council about to waste your waste? - Why, in the name of all that is backstreet brown enveloped, are our councils cutting daft deals that are tied down for 25 years!!!?

Biomass

Times - Wind puts sun in the shade for investors - Actually it's about a few things, but I simply noted this at the end: '..the company should benefit from a move by certain utilities towards the burning of biomass, such as wood, as they strive to reduce carbon emissions.
UK company Drax, for example, recently announced plans to build a facility in a power plant in the north of England, reportedly capable of handling around 1.5m tons of biomass per year. Webber said it was likely that it would import wood from North America for fuel.'

CHP - Combined Heat & Power (involves combos of various others, especially the two above)

EPA - Catalog of CHP Technologies - US-based, but v. useful! Why do I get the feeling that, for all the froth and bother from the EU, an awful lot of US-based stuff is just getting on with it... and getting streets ahead.

Energy from Waste

Telegraph - Why are we not using waste as fuel to generate heat and power? -
Telegraph - Waste produces waste - I should have known (well, remembered) this, but was stuck by this in the author's letter: '...burning does not decrease the mass of waste; it actually increases it. The illusion of disposal is maintained because a large proportion is “aerosolled” into the air as highly reactive and toxic gases and dust. The remaining ash goes to landfill'
This reply in rebuttal to his letter/claim is also worth noting. Complex, eh?

Feed in Tariff

Newsnight - Actually in the post threads. I join to ponder whether being FiT for purpose might lead to a good enviROI.

Fusion

Telegraph - Nuclear fusion energy project could lead to limitless clean electricity

GeoEngineering

Guardian - Geo-engineers, too, have a vital role in saving the planet
The Register - 'Sunshade' global-cooling plan would ruin solar power
BBC - Setback for climate technical fix - See comment from Dave

GRID - NEW Sub-category - without the means of distribution being sorted, all else is academic

Indy - NEW - The undersea secret that's bringing more power to the people - the claim is that it is boring. I find it anything but.

Heat Pumps

Indy - The latest craze in hi-tech heating sounds great – but the figures simply don't add up - Another possible enviROI poor option? Or......

ADDENDUM - Note feedback in comments section!

Hydro

Times - Britain's rivers called on to provide renewable energy

Laser Fusion

Indy - Lasers point way to clean energy

Liquified Natural Gas

ASA - Insights via, of all things, a ruling on an Exxon ad. Guardian

Microgeneration

Marketing Week - BG to launch range of home energy generation products - It is to be hoped that the ROI and enviROIs of these will be properly spelled out and understood before rushing in.

Indy - Donnachadh McCarthy: The Home Ecologist - An odd situation, at best

BERR - Quality mark gives consumers confidence in going green - If they say so. Actually, I have been asking for such a thing for ages. Hope this will prove valuable.

Ocean Thermal

New Scientist - Plumbing the oceans could bring limitless clean energy - Interesting, with that 'could', but I still caution that there is no such thing as a free lunch

Tidal

gizmag - World's first commercial scale tidal energy generator nears completion -
Wave Energy Today - if you need to know about the subject 'in depth' (sorry)

Junkk.com - Issues raised surrounding the Severn Barrage

Junkk

Various

BBC - Cash cuts see green grants halved - an action says a lot more than most green spin.

Smart Planet - Top five UK renewable electricity technologies - via a tip kindly provided by Ian of Wave Energy News

Telegraph - UK lags behind on eco energy

Times - Going green: how much does it cost and is it worthwhile? - Not very extensive, but a little more to the gristmill

Wave

Junkk

Wind

BBC - Wind turbines

BBC - Wind turbine expansion plans due - has a sidebar video on arguments pro-con

Times - Giant offshore wind farms to supply half of UK power - 'to infinity... and beyond!'

BERR - Link to windspeed calculations, and other info

Times - Country out-performs towns in household wind turbine trials - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi. Actually I am sure I had something on this recently. Now, where the heck would it be posted? Wind category, probably.

Junkk - Bogey Men

BBC - RSPB calls for more UK wind farms - Well, at least shredded seagulls are off the menu. I always thought this was a silly objection.

Daily Mail - Brussels demands thousands more wind turbines across the UK - targets vs. enviROI. Can't quite get my head around the EU setting rules for countries with different systems and climate.

ASA - You want to see how complex this can be? Check out this!

How to you manage beans if you don't understand how they grow?

The lack of science qualifications in Government and media continues to frustrate.

I am not alone.

Science in Whitehall

And what is PPE? Procrastinating, Pretension and Expenses? (though I do acknowledge the honourable member is relatively - a key distinction, and not counting the family property empire - 'clean' in comparison to others who see greening in perhaps a different way than some).

Couldn't agree more on the need for more science advice in government.

Just, please could we have it balanced and free of agenda? If the salary depends from the off on making the numbers fit the desired result, that is not science. That is simply politics packaged in a different way.

When switching off just won't do

7-Eleven Getting Big Gulp-Sized LED Upgrade

'in order to do its part to reduce GHG emissions'

I am glad that they have 'seen the light', but let us not get too carried away with echoing the PR.
'The savings will be worth it as the lights will use about 75% less energy than fluorescents.' '..after they see what kind of savings 7-11 reaps.'

Not to mention the kudos... oh... they can see that already.

Please, let there not be vast acres of print media issued to tell one and all about this measure.

Actually I'd be keen to know exactly how long the $1B investment will take to get to payback... and then accrue major operational savings; not really for the eco-cred but just to stamp on some beancounters' foreheads to show that green can make green.

It needn't be an 'either/or'.

Policy is from politicians. And politicians react to voters.

The green tax revolt: Britons will not foot bill to save planet, poll shows

Whatever may be said, those in power want, first and foremost, to stay there. And you don't do that by running against the will of those who vote.

After their performance of late, I am not expecting much from the incumbents.

Of course, other than poorly thought-out and possibly plain daft enviROI- tax-or headline-grabbing tinkering that just irritates or puts folk off anything that is billed as 'green'. Like they have worked so well, so far.

Green campaigners are right to be dismayed, but many (not all) also need to look to themselves as well for way too many petty, self-serving Planet Ban-it campaigns, especially on trivial issues.

And with hard-working folk under ever more pressures on time and income, the sheer number of fund-draining initiatives... and personnel... being imposed on the tax/ratepayer or donor by government, LAs, quangos, and activist groups, is looking like a heck of a burden to carry in the face of difficult to comprehend, and still very poorly communicated (despite multi-million £ comms budgets) climatic times.

An awful lot of folk saying an awful lot of things and very little being DONE to actually derive many worthwhile, end-benefit results that folk can relate to. Or TRUST. When it comes to much that of necessity involves effort or cost in less than fun ways - like reduction or mitigation - it's not easy, but the current lot don't seem to be doing it very well... as these findings would suggest.

I do not however imagine seeing a reduction in the green-tosh/wash/scare/target/nanny/offset industries, etc and all the associated 'green hangers-on' (inc. many in the media, who often jaunt, irony free, to Bali at the drop of a conference to decry unnecessary jaunting) anytime soon.

Sites unseen, heard... or accounted for

UK government websites out of control

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

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

Nero would be proud

Tory hot air on carbon offsetting

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

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

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

It's a vote winner, luv

The climate change movement must be inclusive

At first I thought this a sentiment worth checking further. Then I read on...

'The climate change movement must be inclusive
The climate change movement must broaden its social base ...'

I'd say a good place for change might be your terminology. What on Earth is 'the climate change movement'. I don't recognise it, it doesn't make much sense and I don't very much like the sound of it.

A vast swathe of what ifs and must be done, with almost zero tangibles on what and how, especially in terms to engage and inspire those not so blessed to feed in the Westminster political or Islington media trough.

And that last para is priceless, showing our current leadership's true grasp of the issues and mindsets of those they claim to represent.

Par for the course, mind.

Addendum:

I have a fair idea what the responses from Dalston and Stoke Newington might be, but as an insider what do you reckon the deep thoughts on this might be from No.10?

Britain's Dirty Business

You guys get paid to come up with stuff like this, and then more to opine on how the general public are not getting with the 'green' programme?

Or is this another left-hand, right-hand minor issue that has slipped passed our elected representatives. I'm betting 10p it is.

Quote of the day - Publican service broadcasting

Let no one excuse the BBC of lack of balance.

Thing is, I do sometimes wonder if they think things through. Following weeks... months... years... of nanny state preaching (with some good reason, and value) on the ills of youth alcohol abuse, we have another Declan commercial break (I know the line between fair PR sharing as news and blatant free exposure for a brand is a fine, and hence difficult one, but really, this isn't some retail boss flogging their latest fluff under the pretext of a news item), this time at the Bushmills distillery. Something along the lines of:

"How do we/you (didn't catch it properly) improve its appeal to younger drinkers..."

...followed by a few minutes free commercial, including mixes (with cranberry juice!) for the younger palate. Nice.

This was, irony free, followed by a piece on kickboxing , introduced along the lines of 'how we improve our kids' behaviour?'.

I have one small suggestion... don't glorify and promote hard liquor cocktails in this manner on the national broadcaster, especially one that has been sanctimoniously trotting out youth binge drinking messages at the same time, when my 11-year-olds are having breakfast. Just a thought.

As with things environmental, if the media can't get consistent with their messages, there is little chance of our youth getting it. I think of AGW scare stories and consumer tut-tutting in complement, followed immediately by some celebs excesses on a far-flung beach. It is inconsistent and divisive. And not a little hypocritical. There's a surprise.

Ask a question...

Is humanity's restlessness a threat to the planet?

'Is this restless addiction to travel - and our desperate demand for more fuel to feed it - our fatal flaw as a species?'

Don't know about fatal (in comparison to say, staying in one place and cooking dinner on a fire the size of Krakatoa, or heating the home with the Siberian tundra.. if you happen to live there of course, and not on a 'must-see' trip courtesy of the Guardian travel pages) but if (yawning gap for the black/green corner to slug it out) one accepts the premise being touted by some/many in government/media/evidence-of-our-own-eyes that carbon is causing a problem, and if we (next yawning gap) as a species are responsible for the consequences of more than is ideal getting out and up then, on balance, I'd have to say it sure can't be helping. Now what?

Then again, having watched Star Trek, maybe our hunger to travel is our only saviour as we seek whole new worlds to breed across and pollute. So it could be Mr. Branson has a point with Virgin 'Have a greenhouse gas Kodak moment' Galactic.

Guardian - I'm trying hard to be eco-friendly. But please don't ask me to give up flying to visit my family - The perfect complement. So much one could say, so much one knows one should not. Bless.

Lawn Ranger

Peter will not be happy.

Keep off the grass

One can indeed get on dodgy turf weighing the economically-driven (though when it's with the truth it becomes quicksand) and the environmental.

You're (on the side of) right, they don't have a blade worth standing upon in word or deed in trying to make money from green this way.

Now, time to pop back to the travel section of this paper where, apparently, 'Angel Falls' is a must see:)

Peter is the lovely chap who pops in once a week to kick me from being creative eco-luvvie into self-sustaining business person. He thinks the two are compatible, but some compromises can and need to be made.

And as the belt tightens, I am seeing his point. Better fed than dead. And if you are fed, you can keep doing what you do... to support the family ... and, with luck, make an enviROI+ difference.

I don't think such as the Guardian is doing any damage, and in fact has a long history of keeping the green flag flying, often persuasively.

But it's just that, well, sometimes the rather overt Planet Ban-it in one corner tends to jar with the corporate money making going on a few pages over. Often it can, and is used by those who might disagree to highlight if not flaws in their advocacy, but certainly selective campaigning. I am sure many in Islington will gladly return their back lot to natures' best, but also that it will be well up on the priority list of green guilt compared to giving Angel Falls a miss.

For what it is worth, I have to say puring gunk onto weeds is not the best eco-option, but I do confess to zapping a few dandelions with something last summer, as excavating them made my lawn look the Somme.

One day at a time?

Is Earth Day enough to save the planet?

As with all things, it is a question of degree. And the sad inevitability that what was once small, personal and intimate pretty quickly becomes big, corporate and a monumental overblown bore.

The first I knew about Earth Day was an email from one of the x zillion well funded ngos/charity newsletters I subscribe to to try and glean some worthwhile information on worthwhile things that get or can be DONE.

A banner ad in the middle informed me that ''we' didn't wait to act'. I am guessing it was meant for the US, because the picture was of the Normandy landings, and I am pretty sure 'they' did wait a wee while until nudged a bit by Adm. Yamamoto's frequent flyer programme.

First click got me to the donation page.

As I was unsure how much of my contribution would go on private jets for the management board, guest celebs and media hangers on, and how much would go on media comms budgets (plus sponsors - I was also treated to an Earth Day ad from a Fortune 500 company promoting its bleach) for awareness of their next concert, day/wheeze, I gave it a miss.

And got on with just another one of the 365 days each year I try and DO my best for my kids' futures.

Comments are now closed... no wonder!

Becuase I doubt I was the first poised to hit the keyboard!

Should you 'green' your CV?

What pure, unadulterated tripe dressed up under a question about an issue, even if mocking. Good job it's not April 1. But I still think the author has tongue well in cheek.

Shame the moderators did not see fit to let the thread even start, let alone run.

At least fish4PR got what it needed out of a 'survey'.

Too much spin; not enough substance

Again, on the subject of wind farms I read a lot on subjective passion; very littel that allows me to add anything up.

Tutting at wind farms

Somehow this has all seemed to be devolved into some kind spat between ramblers, shredded seagulls and.. the END OF THE WORLD!!!!

Whilst all aspects - social, tourist, etc - are certainly of consideration, a few priorities are in order. Especially if we are to remain addicted to unlimited procreation and hence energy addiction in support of demand... and man-worsened negative climate change via greenhouse gas emissions goes from possible to probable to... worth doing something about.

However, in all such pieces, I would dearly love to see also included some clear ROI and enviROI figures for the relative values of the various alternative energy solutions being proposed and, it seems often championed and/or funded without question by simply not being something else.

I have to presume these numbers have been produced and show clear advantages to our futures on this planet. And if so, would be quite potent to me when being required to weigh against more local ecological or lifestyle issues.

I can see by its location and ambient weather conditions how a facility like this one does look more likely to be able to generate electricity in a 'greener' manner than some alternatives, but do all that are proposed? What about downtimes? Maintenance? Transmission logistics?

Sorry, I still feel there is a wee bit too much spin going on (from the inevitable extremes of such 'debates'), and not enough substance.

Addendum:

This is becoming the talk of the blogosphere.

BBC - Proposals to build one of Europe's biggest onshore wind farms are turned down by the Scottish Government.

As have added to the above to one:

This has stirred things up a tad, but I do wonder if in the right way, and amongst the right folk.

Some things are very hard to quantify, so I have total sympathy for those trying to place a value on something as subjective as a view.

However, as a mere MoP (member of the public) trying to wade through a morass of advocacies that may require my cross in a box one day, the whole thing seems to be maintained at a very simplistic, and emotional level.

And I for one, would REALLY like some confirmed, hard numbers on this.

Without them it all comes across as a battle of interest groups, and as belts get tightened, what (possibly incorrectly, but it's a better attitude than being against anything at all) may seem affordable indulgences for many might drop off the options list in favour of what may seem (often incorrectly) essentials.

BBC Green - Blow to wind power

Guardian - Endangered birds come first: Scottish ministers say no to huge wind farm on Lewis peatland - some numbers, but how good are they?

Saved!

Just, not sure by whom, or if in the right way.

Earth Day Roundup: Cool Things You Can Do

Rather unfortunate ad currently on this page from 'we can solve it', to this Brit at least (footage of the Normandy landings with the line 'we didn't wait'. Well, not until Pearl Harbor, anyway).

But if tactlessly put, perhaps a better message than the one from SJ Johnson at top (also currently), a family company who are working on making better the health of our family and the environment with... Windex, Pledge & Shout?

I kinda feel 'working on' and anything suffixed '-er' might best be kept in the 'Jobs in progress' file before splashing on the media spend, especially for Earth Day. Lest one be accused, however unfairly, of allowing Corporate America to co-opt and monetize it.

Of Greentosh and Earth Day

THE EARTH DAY BLOG

We have had the hour, which worked so well. I guess some, better funded than most, have seen fit to expand with another 23. Keeps the roof over their heads I guess.

Greentosh... LOL.

I like it, especially in its less sinister incarnation. Other than this blog I would not have know it was Earth Day save for a press release advocating I ditch something I have and replace it with the new, eco version they are offering.... for the planet. Bless.

So long as they don't fib, good luck to 'em, but with one small caveat on the overall effect all this if having on the credibility and patience of the consumer.

I recall at copyriter skool the story of a Canadian canned salmon brand that was suffering because the flesh was white. The solution, which worked gangbusters, was the line 'guaranteed not to go pink'. Sex may sell, but perceived negatives can shift loyalties. Just ask the Democratic Party candidate machines.

The sad fact is that there is, very probably, a fair bit out there now that I would like to know about and act upon because it is, genuinely, better for the future of our kids. And may not even cost a premium. Sadly all but swamped by the dross.

Thanks for sharing. Cheered me up a bit.

I have to question one stat though: 'The average dustbin contains enough unrealised energy for 500 baths, 3500 showers or 5,000 hours of television.'

If it's true, then 'Back to the Future's' Doc Whassiname's Radio Shack fission plant must be closer than I thought.

As to the Howie's scheme being a lot less fun, I'd say it rather depends on who you ask. I guess if it's the agency, client, models and production crew left at T5 I guess you are right. As to getting the job done with least eco-impact and zero carbon-hypocrisy... top marks.

Speaking of which, make sure you catch the latest BBC green effort tonight. Something about kids' fashion. I got a DM piece the size of a LiLo on it last week. And it was on the Breakfast News this morning.

First point of business in boosting our awareness: flying a bunch of folk to India for what seemed like 'The Sulky Six Go 'Whatevah' in Mumbai'. You can't get irony that good any more.

Happy Earth Day.

Something has got up the nose of the Newsnight editor

Some may say I might not be the only one. At least, so far, no one can excuse them of overt censorship, yet...

Further to an earlier post... Blogging - a new era

6. At 09:01 am on 19 Apr 2008, PeterBarron wrote: Oh come on Junkkmale (4), give it a chance. It's only been going for a day.

Oh... I am sorry that you appear frustrated at my lack of enthusiasm and support... well, for the additional 'improvements' to the blogging experience made in addition/complement to the infamous error codes. Now sorted, if I may repeat my congrats on that at least.

How much of a chance do you need? The same the BBC gave BA and the T5 planners for things that had a fair old while and a healthy wadge of wonga to get right, and yet...

It's just that when asked/invited to give an opinion I naturally assumed that one is going to be expected... even if aspects might be unfavourable. Maybe specifying a minimum time window to allow for settling in would have been helpful? Oh, but then there's that 'comments closed' situation. Hence an upper limit too. So a window of posting opportunity maybe? Dilemmas abound.

Might I be allowed to ask what IS the rationale for closing a comment thread? Looking back a few it seems not to be based on a simple time period.

I also like to know if I can about who I am chatting with, so I clicked the link to check and find out more on your name. Sadly, just this, as far as I could locate: Blog Network Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers. User Profile Listed below are comments made by between and across all BBC Blogs. « NewerOlder »

My pointing out that live links was an unfortunate deletion was a feedback suggestion by the way, though if it was causing problems maybe there was good reason for deleting this option. I am sure that might have been noticed and discussed when this was planned...right? It just all seems to have been coming as a bit of a surprise to you.

And there do now seem a lot fewer folk than there used to be, along with the off-page redirections to further sources I appreciated.

Anyway, I am glad to see this thread is still allowed to remain active. But I'll have to remember the latest bit of nuSpeek to add to all the others of our age: '...as I understand it the new features are there in order to manage the huge workload robustly, not to stifle debate.'

Rather Clintonian. 'As you understand it'? Don't you KNOW? It is your programme's site blog is it not?

I concede that I may be in a minority, though I take some comfort in the experiences and opinions shared by some others.... in a total of 16 comments (so far - 1 from me and 4 from you guys, so at least we're now in double digits) on fundamental changes to the blog thread page of one of the last serious news programmes of the broadcaster to a nation of 60 million.

In my line, advertising, a critique from a customer who cares enough to write is the most valuable thing you can get, and should be cherished. And embraced. But I'm afraid by deed and tone you and and your organisation often make me feel that is not high on the agenda where you work, managing huge workloads, um, 'robustly'.

That's for whom... again?

ADDENDUM 1

Talk about Newsnight: Comment guidelines

Talk about Newsnight is a blog which aims to bring the programme team closer to its audience by providing an insight into our production process and offering a platform for review, analysis and debate of the subjects we are covering.
When joining in debates and responding to blog entries we are happy for you to criticise the programme and to ask serious questions about our coverage. Where we can we will respond.
...etc...

ADDENDUM 2

Can't fault him for not replying, and in fact quite graciously (though perhaps with tongue in cheek:):

I wasn't intending to be rude or defensive - of course I embrace and cherish your comments, and I'm pleased at the very least that 2-way communication is working better than before.

The "give it a chance" referred to your comment that user numbers were smaller than before - it will take a while to get the numbers up, but I hope that the ease of commenting will help.

I agree entirely on the live links, which I hope will be available soon.

The reason for my Clintonian defence is that the blog fix has been done across the BBC by a team not under Newsnight's direct control.

So we are finding our way with it too.

I remain concerned that so many aspects of this revamp involved deletions of things that, to me, encouraged open debate. I still have no answer as the the rationale behind having a 'comments closed' shutter. And also that the editorial aspects of the blog fix seem to have been carried out with little or no input from the Newsnight editor.

Peter (19) - thank you for your considered reply.

And with the welcome addition of Cloe-F at least we're up to a 22-way conversation now:)

I am sure this may well steadily rise as existing posters get to grips with the new system (I ended up with a 'name' I'd forgotten about thanks to some registration/cookie combo when I signed on to the BBC site ages ago), and possibly new friends now the infamous 502 is consigned to history.

However, Cloe_F's tech feedback might prove enough to dissuade many in this 'data-available' concerned age. Another aspect one might have hoped had been raised at pre-planning stage?

But I am sure that now it is shared it will be addressed. You do indeed have access to some very well informed folk, with valuable experiences to share, especially in some pertinent areas of expertise. Which is what I would be sorry to lose.

It is a shame that your team had no, or little input on the mechanisms for feedback on the work you do. As journalists and editors I am sure you are usually more than interested in every aspect of how news and opinion is gleaned and disseminated. And blanket impositions, even with good intentions, can often end up pleasing none of the people, none of the time.

Moderation is a tricky path. It's not just what gets said, but whether something is allowed in ... or out... and why. Or for how long. As those involved elsewhere with such as 'Have Your Say' for instance might have found. I don't bother with these efforts because, beyond anonymous venting in the wind, there is little incentive or reward for investing the thought and time. And the result is all too often a highlighted 'soundbite' chosen to suit.

Clearly, this thread is looking quite healthy for open debate in this regard so far and, with luck, will improve even more.

But what did prompt my original concerns back last week (16/17 April) was the 'comment closed' time out, the rationale for which (if it is to stay as an option) still remains unclear. I've noticed it elsewhere, in such as Guardian CiF, and can't see a good reason for it, considering the internet/web's ability to allow information to expand with the interest and demand it stimulates.

With this 'new', robust system, and the clearly re-energised moderating team it has empowered, I am sure leaving things open to accommodate the odd subsequent follow-up commentary is technically and administratively possible if the will is there.

24/04

It's the little things.

Some days have passed. I already have a sense that a few things might be addressed. But others might be quietly ignored. Like links to poster's URLs.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I noticed that the advisory on the nature of moderation (pre/post - oddly not a field that one change applies throughout) was a tad erratic and informed them.

It has now been changed.

You're welcome, BBC. Oddly no acknowledgement, so to subsequent posters I might appear to be to be incorrect in my advice. Just rude, or spiteful taboot? Thank heavens for the cache. Like I say, it's the little things, and they do mount up.

It must have been something in my drinking water

A wee while ago I made suggestion/posed a question to BBC Newswatch about the handling of a piece of reporting/editorial that had a acquired a bit of notoriety in the blogosphere:

COMMENTS: I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin. In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage. Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?

They have been gracious enough to now reply:

'It's an interesting point, but my view in writing that introduction was that we shouldn't take at face value something that appears on the internet. It was a private conversation published by one side and could have been altered. That's why the first question to Roger Harrabin was to ascertain if the published version was actually true...'

As followers of this blog will recall, I was quite keen that the facts were first established before passions were stirred. Hopefully they will grant me that. I must confess that, after the Clintonian reply from Newsnight's Peter Barron a few blogs previously, I still am slightly unclear on the actual facts, which I had sought from the protagonists:

It's a view I fully accept. Which is why, when the silage hit the windmill I participated in several blog exchanges that had long since passed the point of being concerned about verification, simply to ask if, at all, there was any confirmation that the more 'damaging' phrasing had actually been by him, in these words. I am still struggling to get to this in a form I can take as accurate, but from what you write may I take it that it was/is? Sadly in this day and age, conversations, and especially written ones fired over the ether to unknown correspondents, are seldom as private as we might wish. Maybe Ms. Abbess was a trusted source to this point? But it is good to know that the BBC at least has reporting and editorial standards still that would mean such confidences would never be breached, even without clearly stated guidelines, caveats and immediate flagging as to whether potentially controversial asides should be on or off record before being broadcast.

Now, I wonder, is what I wrote to them 'between us'. No mention made. Equally, what I got back. I hope it is therefore OK to share.

LAST WORD?:

At least one fact is now confirmed, if not from the actual horse's mouth, at least his jockey/trainer/stable owner (you know what I mean). Quick, too:

I think yes, the exchange was accurate (though perhaps not all that took place) but I thought it sensible to hear it confirmed from the horse's mouth...

Let me tell you what I.. er.. you think

Prequel: Suggesting a new form of journalistic/editorial action for when something factual but deemed 'unsuitable' by some gets changed to suit agenda pressures: it gets 'harraBINNED'.

I haven't mentioned this 'til now as it honestly seemed like an April Fool, but as it has got as far as Nature*:

Heated row over cooling article

Depending on where you read, the BBC has either not commented, or seen merit in brevity to the point of being a tad terse, as evidenced in the explanatory quote here.

I have had my eyebrow cocked over this since the first 'outing' a few days ago, if only having seen the extent of the exchanges, the speed of replies, the response time of the changes... and that this whole tidy bundle went up verbatim courtesy, I presume, of the proud heroine.

But is there any confirmation yet, preferably from Mr. Harrabin, that this exchange - as shared on many blogs verbatim - is in fact what went down?

The facts of the original vs. subsequent posts are already beyond doubt, sadly, for public trust in news reporting and editorial standards when 'passionate agendas' are at involved. Sorry, I can live with the original and still think the weather is acting damn strange, so it don't need 'clarifying' for me. Just another piece in the jigsaw.

But if proven, I fear the work of those of a more balanced viewpoint just got heaps harder in advocating that if things are as bad as some are saying (I don't take phrases like 'The most serious threat to mankind...' from major international public figures lightly) then some mitigating actions should be embraced, when such activities between protagonists like a minor activist and major medium end up splattered around like this.

The more you seek to suppress inconvenient views (even, or especially if they are possibly ready to be found wanting), the more you will make them attractive. The best action, surely, is to share, and debate, openly. It is a concern that highly significant data is subject to the interpretation and vetting of such a limited number of persons of questionable analytical qualifications in a huge, objective-by-charter media outlet. Who else, beyond Mr. Harrabin, decides what is or is not put up, changed or removed? And what science training and ethical objectivity is in place to guide them on 'our' behalves? Especially if so easily swayed by a lone voice with a different take?

I freely confess I don't know yet what is going on with Probably Man-Worsened Negative Climate Change, but in making judgements I certainly don't feel too on board with the notion that what I am getting fed is being pre-adjusted by such as my national broadcaster... to help with my understanding in a 'better' direction.

I will be very interested in how this plays... or possibly fizzles out. But whatever happens, if as described I suspect it will lurk as a rather potent card should the reporting of significant state-backed media ever be cited in support of contentious science issues.

The Spectator - An emerging truth

ADDENDUM - I have given it a wee while, but regret that, at time of writing, my comment to Nature's blog has not passed muster, and hence I have now had to designate it 'Moderated Out'. I can think of no obvious reason from the content I provided, which is a pity. I also note that there are no other comments posted either at present.

BBC - NEW - Climate change debate - A reply, of sorts, if not a very convincing explanation, and not quite from the author, but a sort of one from a BBC Editor. Interestingly, vindication is drawn mainly from, surprise, the Nature article that seemed unable to carry my comment.

I have no desire to get into a climate argument, pro or con. I know what I know. And I know what a bunch of people think I need to believe, 'pro' and 'con'.

My greater concern is with how such as our national broadcaster dishes up its 'objective' news reports and, more critically, how these get received by its audience... from those ready to pounce to those who could honestly give a monkeys. So, do I believe a word of this 'explanation'... not so much. It is hard to get around such as the 'is that better for you?' reply from the author to the activist, and the timings of changes. And I doubt the rather bland effort here will do much to blunt the more 'passionate' critics of AGM... and the BBC... and its reporting of the issue.

I also maintain an ongoing concern about news sources' comfort with the why and how of making subsequent changes without much by way of sharing the trail or the reasons for them. In an era when the earlier versions seem easily retained and subsequently shared in comparison, it seems foolish not to admit to all previous attempts and own the high ground of why they have come to be revised. Otherwise you simply feed fuel to fires that often need not flare up as much as some have... and often with reason.

If this denialist bunker mentality is maintained between such as the government and the BBC, I see real problems ahead if those who are being talked to cease to have any faith in what is being said.

No comments to this piece at time of writing (Sat 12 April, 17.30) and much as I am tempted I don't feel like pitching in first. Mind you, with the other trust-inducing aspect of our licence fee funded 4th estate - the glitchy and selectively moderated blog system - working so well still, I doubt much beyond glowing accolades will get posted anyway. Sad.

And, in this case, much as the tone of the piece would seem to suggest the stable door is again neatly closed and balance regained, that horse is long gone.

JunkScience - What did the WMO say and when did they say it? - While the blog is hardly CP, there is an interesting thread post that I think shares some of my own views and amplifies on my points. The notion of a double agent (the poor lady - who it should be remembered is only a minor activist who acted rather foolishly in pride at having effected, she believed, a result - has rather done a bit of damage, if only as a catalyst. I was, I must confess rather flabbergasted to learn from the BBC that the exchange was in fact as it was first advised) is rather delicious and may set a whole new set of conspiracy theorists off. Not to mention attempts all round to create the next.

Both sides (and such as myself) should take note: there is a fine, if not impossible to identify and navigate line between having an opinion and seeking to make others change theirs (almost all activists and AGM-related blogs, CP or CO, ultimately review what is written, said and/or broadcast for 'signs' of erring in favour of one view or other, and then apply pressure to 'correct' it).

That is why it is so critical that major media does all it can to be, and seen to be, objective.

The Register - The BBC, the UN, and climate bullying - There are few posts with contrary/explanatory views around, especially from those media of a more CP bent. I guess they are adopting the Brown 'Hunker in a Bunker' Defence 'til it blows over.

Newswatch - I have written:

I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin.

In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage.

Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?

For all the good it will do me.

I actually have some respect for Ray Snoddy, but just about everything about the show is the stuff of a bad joke, from its graveyard scheduling to the endless line of rather irritated journos/editors who have been dragged out of bed early to say: 'It didn't happen. Well, if it did, it didn't matter. Well if it does... so what? I/we think it doesn't matter, it's too late ... and what are... can you do about it anyway?'.

An attitude that now seems to have spread throughout the whole feedback system that was in theory instigated to engage in frank and honest dialogue with the audience. For instance, the new blog posting system may have solved the 502 errors, but it's also chopping out the volume and variety of considered feedback to such as Editor's, Newsnight, etc.

Not so much death by a thousand cuts, but regaining control by driving those with better things to do away through dumbing down, looking for short, slick soundbites and pulling the plug before stuff gets going... and interesting.

And, frankly, simply still knowing they can get away with pretty much anything because there is nothing that can be DONE about it.

I have never been so disillusioned with the state of public service and how it gets conducted in this country, as I am now.

It's amazing what needs looking at*. By whom. And for how much.

Thing is, who pays?

It's from a post on a blog in the Guardian, and hence for now is unconfirmed:

'Natural England spent 233 Million pounds last year. 90 million was salaries. And you think that there is no monetary benefit to accepting AGW?'

Just wondering, and all the more when I notice the ROI and enviROI suggested by the (Natural England spent 233 Million pounds last year. 90 million was salaries - unconfirmed) funding numbers above, what form(s) all these efforts into looking at 'climate change' and its effects on stuff will take, to what end, and whether or not a bunch of other equally green largesse-blessed folk are not doing pretty much the same thing(s)?

Also will the impacts of a entity that spreads like wildfire, requiring new ecotowns and affordable homes and hybrids and trips to Antarctica (I'm sure you'll find an ad banner around here somewhere), be part of the bigger picture... or broken out separately as another issue?

Yes, what we punt out globally is well worth concerning ourselves with, but what we stomp on in our own back yard must not be ignored.

I am just trying to get my head around those numbers, but especially if they are duplicated, as I am sure they are, around lord knows hwo many other NGOs, quangos, etc, 'in the name of green'.

* In politics, it means 'Getting caught having done b-all, and now buying some time talking to continue doing b-all'.

Snap Happy

Not directly enviro, but as we are moving towards increased monitoring and fines as regards such as rubbish disposal, it does become pertinent.

I just watched a BBC piece on a photographer who was taking street scenes, and was approached by a Community Support Officer who required him to delete the images because what he was doing was 'against the law'.

There was some discussion, with, all of all people, the editor of a shutterbug magazine, but no input from more relevant possible interviewees on the much more critical issues... IMHO.

Hence I have been moved to write:

Regarding the police support officer requiring someone to act against their wishes and rights by invoking a non-existent 'law'...

What is are the consequences, especially as regards this officers' career in enforcement and the greater issue of how the public responds to official instruction?

Personally , I now feel even less inclined to listen to and/or comply with anything from some jobsworth in a hi-vis jacket, which could lead to some less than helpful confrontations, but possibly useful precedent come a court case.

Come on BBC, we need answers and advice beyond a little 'outrage' human interest flutter. This goes to the heart of how the individual works with the state.

I certainly have concerns that there is an expanding class of individual who seem to think they can wield 'the law', with little tangible comeback from those they are meant to be serving if this is abused. If someone doesn't know the law, they should not be given the opportunity to enforce it.