... Or, when a commitment simply gets fudged and/or bungled?
An interesting comment piece from the Telegraph on when what is on the statute books is simply, well, bypassed. Plus, the author reckons what has happened with the fuel poverty commitment will also happen with the climate change bill.
I can hear the arguments already "errrrr, well, the 80% reduction in greenhouse gases was a target see, and we did not have the available finances to meet it, so, errrr, we haven't, errr, met it, well, as yet".
T'was ever thus!
Showing posts with label CLIMATE CHANGE BILL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CLIMATE CHANGE BILL. Show all posts
Monday, November 03, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Sticks and stones
I'm sure I'll stumble across more detailed pieces later today, but the BBC just had a piece on renewables.
Seems an MEP is accusing the government of 'watering down the wording of an EU directive' to move from 'compulsory' to 'optional'.
To which a spokesperson has replied that they are 'committed to meeting targets'.
It just seems so sad to me that in this, or at least the reporting of it, there seems no mention of the actual value, and hence wisdom of such measures, at least on an enviROI basis, as if this no longer matters.
Wording and targets are all that do, apparently.
Addenda (there will be more, I'm sure):
Gaurdian - Britain tries to block green energy laws - The culprit, at least from this piece, looks like a belief in nuclear. Hmn.
On a related issue...
Gaurdian - Don't be fooled by the climate change bill. Carbon trading torpedoes it - the posts are worth it.
Seems an MEP is accusing the government of 'watering down the wording of an EU directive' to move from 'compulsory' to 'optional'.
To which a spokesperson has replied that they are 'committed to meeting targets'.
It just seems so sad to me that in this, or at least the reporting of it, there seems no mention of the actual value, and hence wisdom of such measures, at least on an enviROI basis, as if this no longer matters.
Wording and targets are all that do, apparently.
Addenda (there will be more, I'm sure):
Gaurdian - Britain tries to block green energy laws - The culprit, at least from this piece, looks like a belief in nuclear. Hmn.
On a related issue...
Gaurdian - Don't be fooled by the climate change bill. Carbon trading torpedoes it - the posts are worth it.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
NEWS/GO3 PR - The trouble with mushrooms.
You know: 'kept in the dark and fed on manure'. Plus another, entirely deliberate allusion.
Via a blog post, but from the FoE.
Now, despite being a bit more involved and trying to stay abreast of 'issues' than some, I don't still know enough about nuclear to have a clear view one way or t'other.
However, I do know when I sense a potentially fast one going down, and that I don't like.
Such as this is too important to let pass, at least not without the whole thing being properly discussed. In fact by my reading much is about getting rid of discussion and/or accountability in the future, which can't be right.
And all they are doing is ask that you write to your MP if you agree (or adjust the template if not fully), which is as free will/democratic process in action as I feel life needs be.
As received, E&EO:
Please write to your MP for a more democratic Planning Bill! [inc: link 2 'theyworkfor you']
Deadline Monday 02.06.2008!
Currently being whisked through Parliament, almost unnoticed by the press,
is one of the most anti-democratic pieces of legislation ever to be
attempted in this country.
If the Planning Bill becomes law, in its current state, opposition to large
projects such as nuclear power stations or new motorways will become far
more difficult. We will effectively lose our right to be heard at hearings.
Opposition will take the form of written evidence only and apart from an
"open floor" session, where the developers need not be present, there will
be no other means to oppose. It seems that we will be very much distanced
from any source of information or any voice loud enough to be heard!
Once a large project has been finalized and executed by an
"Infrastructure Planning Commission", an un-elected body with hitherto
unknown powers, the IPC will be above Acts of Parliament. The IPC is not
even answerable to the relevant ministers!
Friends of the Earth demands that the Bill should:
a.. Take climate change into account
b.. Ensure that the General Public have a right to be heard at enquiries
c.. That Ministers remain accountable for decisions
There is very little time left, as this Bill is at the report stage, and is
to be debated in the Commons on the 2nd June 2008.
Please spare a few minutes and go to this link below:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/local/planning/news/planning_bill.html
If you are in agreement with the contents of the template letter, then
please send it to your MP. We would also be very grateful if you could
forward this email on to friends and colleagues.
Via a blog post, but from the FoE.
Now, despite being a bit more involved and trying to stay abreast of 'issues' than some, I don't still know enough about nuclear to have a clear view one way or t'other.
However, I do know when I sense a potentially fast one going down, and that I don't like.
Such as this is too important to let pass, at least not without the whole thing being properly discussed. In fact by my reading much is about getting rid of discussion and/or accountability in the future, which can't be right.
And all they are doing is ask that you write to your MP if you agree (or adjust the template if not fully), which is as free will/democratic process in action as I feel life needs be.
As received, E&EO:
Please write to your MP for a more democratic Planning Bill! [inc: link 2 'theyworkfor you']
Deadline Monday 02.06.2008!
Currently being whisked through Parliament, almost unnoticed by the press,
is one of the most anti-democratic pieces of legislation ever to be
attempted in this country.
If the Planning Bill becomes law, in its current state, opposition to large
projects such as nuclear power stations or new motorways will become far
more difficult. We will effectively lose our right to be heard at hearings.
Opposition will take the form of written evidence only and apart from an
"open floor" session, where the developers need not be present, there will
be no other means to oppose. It seems that we will be very much distanced
from any source of information or any voice loud enough to be heard!
Once a large project has been finalized and executed by an
"Infrastructure Planning Commission", an un-elected body with hitherto
unknown powers, the IPC will be above Acts of Parliament. The IPC is not
even answerable to the relevant ministers!
Friends of the Earth demands that the Bill should:
a.. Take climate change into account
b.. Ensure that the General Public have a right to be heard at enquiries
c.. That Ministers remain accountable for decisions
There is very little time left, as this Bill is at the report stage, and is
to be debated in the Commons on the 2nd June 2008.
Please spare a few minutes and go to this link below:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/local/planning/news/planning_bill.html
If you are in agreement with the contents of the template letter, then
please send it to your MP. We would also be very grateful if you could
forward this email on to friends and colleagues.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Just maybe, perhaps, .....
Monday, November 19, 2007
And as I sign off...
This from the BBC Newsnight 'teaser': 'And we hope an Environment Minister and the director of Greenpeace will go head to head on this story.'
Other than stumbling a bit over 'an' Environment Minister (how many of the sods are there?), that Newsnight still thinks one of their classic twofers - between a stonewalling 'the word of the Gord; and it is good' pol and an activist - will get the majority of the population stuck in the middle any further ahead in understanding where we are and what we need to do that's best for the future, pretty much sums up just how far down the pan the planet really is headed.
Next we'll be getting travel tips from the hugely qualified 'team' (how many, Freedom of Information request-wise, are going?) packing their factor 15 for the Bali joll... er... trip. Doubtless once there they will hook up round the pool with the aforementioned pols(s) and activist directors to figure how best to tell the rest of us what not to do and what will cost us.
New brooms all round, please.
ADDENDUM - Just watched it.
Well good golly; did that go just as I expected, predicted... and feared.
A defensive pol who got the short straw and with non hiding place, in a snit. An equally defensive media supremo on a high horse. And, actually, the guy from Greenpeace... the activist... about the only voice of calm, if not reason.
That said, we were treated to screeds of data. Targets, mainly. Missed ones even more mainly. Unachievable ones to follow, but who cares as they can be fiddled later or it won't matter to the guys who set them, as they'll have retired on the full golden well before it comes home to roost.
Was I any the wiser as a member of public, a parent... a voter... as to who had a grip on this and, more importantly, what was expected of all - government, business, media, public - and how we were going to rally around and resolve what some say is a crisis... or is it not really? We were talking second slot here. With two guys I'd never heard of as guests. In a piece on the UK's efforts to avoid global meltdown. Or not.
About the only concrete things that vaguely sunk in was some waffle about renewables, but again these were just a bunch of figures that meant nothing to me. So we catch up with Germany and end up with x% offshore, solar, tidal and whatnot by 20yy? But what's the ROI? What's the enviROI? We already are seeing vast amounts being poured into green holes by countless departments and quangos staffed by legions of salaried, pensioned paper-pushers, mainly on 'awareness' that seems to have achieved diddly squat. I must now have about a dozen ways to hand to calculate my carbon footprint, when they could have simply handed the money blown on all this to me to stick more loft insulation up to actually reduce it by a huge domestic %. Or sort out the trains. And I'm sorry, from woefully mis-informed plastic bagwagons to well-lobbied offshore projects, I simply do not trust any of this current sorry cabal of interest groups to tell me what's best for my kids, much less actually bite the bullet and get down and dirty to actually do it. Especially if there's the slightest chance that a well-feathered political nest, career or bottom line can get supported first, first-class from Valencia to Bali via Westminster. Offset of course. Just because these things LOOK green and we're told they are doesn't actually make them any better at reducing CO2, especially in the timeframes I'm hearing. Heck, some may meet a target, boost a rating, score a contribution or fund a conference pass... yet make things worse, climatically.
We are TOLD on Friday that the world is facing a climatic disaster. By Saturday few in the media have much to say about it; fewer still on Sunday. Tonight this is the best we can do, after a bit of a hoo-haa over a bank. That's what gets the ratings, so that's where the media will go. The Minister will go with the votes, and they go where the economy goes, so until he can bail it's just a matter of getting away for as long as possible with 'we need all this stuff because of the economic demands of the electorate' while saying lots 'will/may/could/ be done'. So after 1o years of 'looking at', we'll need to settle of a load more navel gazing until... er... the next load.
I respect the sincerity of activist groups such as Greenpeace, but it really is also way too easy to sit and snipe from a comfy, well-funded 'anti'-position, and ignore other, equally basic realities. Such as growing populations and increased demands on a finite planet to support ever more aspirational, competitive individuals upon it. Addressing these does not play well with the core support, and hence only selected parts of the narrative , the easy ones that play well in Islington, seem to get highlighted. But I certainly endorse spiking the pathetic official charade I heard: claiming carbon capture commitments whilst obviously having no such intention as evidenced by certain projects already committed to. Again, I repeat, after 10 years to get sorted, much less underway. What have they been doing the last decade?
No, it's not that simple. But if it is serious (and I have to believe it is), then for all the rest of us to take it seriously we need those who claim to be taking a lead to show it's serious. And some imagination. Sorry... to date, no one and nothing that's been trotted out so far seems to have floated many folks' boats very successfully, even pretty PR picture ones like the WWF effort opening the piece. So even the current crop of more incentive-based, proactive, well-directed, cost-effective and positive efforts (such as they are) are not getting through. At all. It's all fluff and bluster and scare and guilt and levy and fine. And no result.
What a shambolic performance. By the whole sorry lot. My poor kids.
We need doers; not talkers. And quick.
I have just written to BBC Breakfast news:
The day after Mr. Brown's climate speech, in which there are but a few lines on air travel, and we get... plastic bags.
If we are to get serious on this issue, I'd like to see our national broadcaster get its priorities straight.
What is the actual contribution/impact of this plastic product vs. almost any other?
And I am not even convinced that the ban calls, at least in the current from, are much more than misguided, headlines-friendly knee-jerks.
Is the Irish experience a total success as claimed? Are biodegradables the solution as advised, at least in the blanket manner portrayed?
I am not so sure.
And the thoughts of a grocery magazine editor and a 'NetMummy' (the choice of sofa twofer) hardly the considered, expert, objective views I feel like relying upon to help me decide.
Back to Newsnight:
We need less trivial TV, and a lot more like the fish stocks 'waste' topic that is both substantive and worth addressing, especially during yet another 'awareness' (are you? It's called Love Food. Hate Waste. Full colour ads in the Sunday supps) campaign exhorting the consumer not to waste food.
All I can retain is a 'me-not-EUcrat' smiling benignly and saying 'the principle is clear, but the problem is the detail'. The Devil is laughing that it is the latter that now dominates thinking. We can no longer see the deforestation for the bio-crops.
BBC - Brown tackles the home front - an interesting, er...
ANALYSIS
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Key opening line: 'A smiling Gordon Brown set out his environmental vision in London
Gordon Brown might have made it into a list of the world's sexiest men earlier this year...'
'He did the big picture stuff on UN climate negotiations and global projections for fossil fuel burning.' Did he.. really?
'But he homed in on the small ...' and, some would (well, I would) say are plain distractions from the bigger picture... and failings at top level. Abetted by such as this tripe.
'Advisors will dispense wisdom on saving energy and water, microgeneration, and green travel.' More bloody paid. pensioned talkers, taking money from DOING!!!!
If Green Homes is able to stimulate take-up of microgeneration technologies such as domestic wind turbines, ground source heat pumps and biomass co-generation units, it could put take Britain somewhere towards the third EU target, on renewable energy.' Read that though and wonder.
'The costs and the dearth of suppliers mean the take-up of these technologies is unlikely to be huge.' Is that the reason?
'So meeting the renewable energy target is still going to mean construction on a vast scale of wind and tidal turbines, solar arrays, biomass burners and so on.' How about reducing CO2... the enviROI.
Mr Brown did not neglect these areas.
...Mr Brown is aiming for...
The Severn Barrage is up for serious discussion, and planning reforms should make for easier and faster passage of all feasible renewable proposals.
... government policy would be "examined for its impact on carbon emissions"
'The prime minister's speech has generally been well received by the environment and development organisations....' these being?
'Mr Brown's speech has now pushed their plain sibling to the front of the stage, and we shall see if five million small green shoots can together make a rainbow-bright future.' I guessing this guys a shoo-in for the front of the plane to Bali with the minister!
In-credible!
Other than stumbling a bit over 'an' Environment Minister (how many of the sods are there?), that Newsnight still thinks one of their classic twofers - between a stonewalling 'the word of the Gord; and it is good' pol and an activist - will get the majority of the population stuck in the middle any further ahead in understanding where we are and what we need to do that's best for the future, pretty much sums up just how far down the pan the planet really is headed.
Next we'll be getting travel tips from the hugely qualified 'team' (how many, Freedom of Information request-wise, are going?) packing their factor 15 for the Bali joll... er... trip. Doubtless once there they will hook up round the pool with the aforementioned pols(s) and activist directors to figure how best to tell the rest of us what not to do and what will cost us.
New brooms all round, please.
ADDENDUM - Just watched it.
Well good golly; did that go just as I expected, predicted... and feared.
A defensive pol who got the short straw and with non hiding place, in a snit. An equally defensive media supremo on a high horse. And, actually, the guy from Greenpeace... the activist... about the only voice of calm, if not reason.
That said, we were treated to screeds of data. Targets, mainly. Missed ones even more mainly. Unachievable ones to follow, but who cares as they can be fiddled later or it won't matter to the guys who set them, as they'll have retired on the full golden well before it comes home to roost.
Was I any the wiser as a member of public, a parent... a voter... as to who had a grip on this and, more importantly, what was expected of all - government, business, media, public - and how we were going to rally around and resolve what some say is a crisis... or is it not really? We were talking second slot here. With two guys I'd never heard of as guests. In a piece on the UK's efforts to avoid global meltdown. Or not.
About the only concrete things that vaguely sunk in was some waffle about renewables, but again these were just a bunch of figures that meant nothing to me. So we catch up with Germany and end up with x% offshore, solar, tidal and whatnot by 20yy? But what's the ROI? What's the enviROI? We already are seeing vast amounts being poured into green holes by countless departments and quangos staffed by legions of salaried, pensioned paper-pushers, mainly on 'awareness' that seems to have achieved diddly squat. I must now have about a dozen ways to hand to calculate my carbon footprint, when they could have simply handed the money blown on all this to me to stick more loft insulation up to actually reduce it by a huge domestic %. Or sort out the trains. And I'm sorry, from woefully mis-informed plastic bagwagons to well-lobbied offshore projects, I simply do not trust any of this current sorry cabal of interest groups to tell me what's best for my kids, much less actually bite the bullet and get down and dirty to actually do it. Especially if there's the slightest chance that a well-feathered political nest, career or bottom line can get supported first, first-class from Valencia to Bali via Westminster. Offset of course. Just because these things LOOK green and we're told they are doesn't actually make them any better at reducing CO2, especially in the timeframes I'm hearing. Heck, some may meet a target, boost a rating, score a contribution or fund a conference pass... yet make things worse, climatically.
We are TOLD on Friday that the world is facing a climatic disaster. By Saturday few in the media have much to say about it; fewer still on Sunday. Tonight this is the best we can do, after a bit of a hoo-haa over a bank. That's what gets the ratings, so that's where the media will go. The Minister will go with the votes, and they go where the economy goes, so until he can bail it's just a matter of getting away for as long as possible with 'we need all this stuff because of the economic demands of the electorate' while saying lots 'will/may/could/ be done'. So after 1o years of 'looking at', we'll need to settle of a load more navel gazing until... er... the next load.
I respect the sincerity of activist groups such as Greenpeace, but it really is also way too easy to sit and snipe from a comfy, well-funded 'anti'-position, and ignore other, equally basic realities. Such as growing populations and increased demands on a finite planet to support ever more aspirational, competitive individuals upon it. Addressing these does not play well with the core support, and hence only selected parts of the narrative , the easy ones that play well in Islington, seem to get highlighted. But I certainly endorse spiking the pathetic official charade I heard: claiming carbon capture commitments whilst obviously having no such intention as evidenced by certain projects already committed to. Again, I repeat, after 10 years to get sorted, much less underway. What have they been doing the last decade?
No, it's not that simple. But if it is serious (and I have to believe it is), then for all the rest of us to take it seriously we need those who claim to be taking a lead to show it's serious. And some imagination. Sorry... to date, no one and nothing that's been trotted out so far seems to have floated many folks' boats very successfully, even pretty PR picture ones like the WWF effort opening the piece. So even the current crop of more incentive-based, proactive, well-directed, cost-effective and positive efforts (such as they are) are not getting through. At all. It's all fluff and bluster and scare and guilt and levy and fine. And no result.
What a shambolic performance. By the whole sorry lot. My poor kids.
We need doers; not talkers. And quick.
I have just written to BBC Breakfast news:
The day after Mr. Brown's climate speech, in which there are but a few lines on air travel, and we get... plastic bags.
If we are to get serious on this issue, I'd like to see our national broadcaster get its priorities straight.
What is the actual contribution/impact of this plastic product vs. almost any other?
And I am not even convinced that the ban calls, at least in the current from, are much more than misguided, headlines-friendly knee-jerks.
Is the Irish experience a total success as claimed? Are biodegradables the solution as advised, at least in the blanket manner portrayed?
I am not so sure.
And the thoughts of a grocery magazine editor and a 'NetMummy' (the choice of sofa twofer) hardly the considered, expert, objective views I feel like relying upon to help me decide.
Back to Newsnight:
We need less trivial TV, and a lot more like the fish stocks 'waste' topic that is both substantive and worth addressing, especially during yet another 'awareness' (are you? It's called Love Food. Hate Waste. Full colour ads in the Sunday supps) campaign exhorting the consumer not to waste food.
All I can retain is a 'me-not-EUcrat' smiling benignly and saying 'the principle is clear, but the problem is the detail'. The Devil is laughing that it is the latter that now dominates thinking. We can no longer see the deforestation for the bio-crops.
BBC - Brown tackles the home front - an interesting, er...
ANALYSIS
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Key opening line: 'A smiling Gordon Brown set out his environmental vision in London
Gordon Brown might have made it into a list of the world's sexiest men earlier this year...'
'He did the big picture stuff on UN climate negotiations and global projections for fossil fuel burning.' Did he.. really?
'But he homed in on the small ...' and, some would (well, I would) say are plain distractions from the bigger picture... and failings at top level. Abetted by such as this tripe.
'Advisors will dispense wisdom on saving energy and water, microgeneration, and green travel.' More bloody paid. pensioned talkers, taking money from DOING!!!!
If Green Homes is able to stimulate take-up of microgeneration technologies such as domestic wind turbines, ground source heat pumps and biomass co-generation units, it could put take Britain somewhere towards the third EU target, on renewable energy.' Read that though and wonder.
'The costs and the dearth of suppliers mean the take-up of these technologies is unlikely to be huge.' Is that the reason?
'So meeting the renewable energy target is still going to mean construction on a vast scale of wind and tidal turbines, solar arrays, biomass burners and so on.' How about reducing CO2... the enviROI.
Mr Brown did not neglect these areas.
...Mr Brown is aiming for...
The Severn Barrage is up for serious discussion, and planning reforms should make for easier and faster passage of all feasible renewable proposals.
... government policy would be "examined for its impact on carbon emissions"
'The prime minister's speech has generally been well received by the environment and development organisations....' these being?
'Mr Brown's speech has now pushed their plain sibling to the front of the stage, and we shall see if five million small green shoots can together make a rainbow-bright future.' I guessing this guys a shoo-in for the front of the plane to Bali with the minister!
In-credible!
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
As they say she said he said they think we should...
I'm not big on speeches.
They are either long, or boring, or both. They rarely tell you anything worth knowing, or can do much with or about on the spot, and invariably are either preceded or followed up with the content online, so it rather makes being there to be bored to death a major lowpoint of one's day. Unless there's a chance to drag folk from the PowerPoint screen, they stay around afterwards for a chat or the speaker can really inspire.
Speaking of which, we have the Queen reading out the Prime Minister's list.
I may (or likely may not) get interested enough in trawling more and hence posting from elsewhere, but for now here is a press release from the Greens, or at least one of their Principal Speakers (which has me a tad contused as to who speaks for whom).
A few points of note (well, that I noted), with which I am in pretty much agreement:
The 60 per cent by 2050 targets cited in the revised Climate Change Bill
"It's criminally irresponsible to adopt a target that not only flies
in the face of science, but also undermines the UK's commitment to
making a fair contribution ..."
"...low level targets that we are not
likely to meet do not constitute radical action on climate change."
On the Planning Reform Bill
"The current proposals for a separate planning system for major
infrastructure projects mean undermining democracy in favour of an
increasingly centralised and authoritarian government."
"Consulting with local people for disruptive, polluting projects like
airports is essential, and any attempt to 'streamline' these
processes to save money, or to hand them over to appointed yes-men is
a scandalous affront to the rights of ordinary people in the UK."
On the Housing and Regeneration Bill:
"...give priority to the maintenance and
improvement of existing properties before building 3 million new homes."
They are either long, or boring, or both. They rarely tell you anything worth knowing, or can do much with or about on the spot, and invariably are either preceded or followed up with the content online, so it rather makes being there to be bored to death a major lowpoint of one's day. Unless there's a chance to drag folk from the PowerPoint screen, they stay around afterwards for a chat or the speaker can really inspire.
Speaking of which, we have the Queen reading out the Prime Minister's list.
I may (or likely may not) get interested enough in trawling more and hence posting from elsewhere, but for now here is a press release from the Greens, or at least one of their Principal Speakers (which has me a tad contused as to who speaks for whom).
A few points of note (well, that I noted), with which I am in pretty much agreement:
The 60 per cent by 2050 targets cited in the revised Climate Change Bill
"It's criminally irresponsible to adopt a target that not only flies
in the face of science, but also undermines the UK's commitment to
making a fair contribution ..."
"...low level targets that we are not
likely to meet do not constitute radical action on climate change."
On the Planning Reform Bill
"The current proposals for a separate planning system for major
infrastructure projects mean undermining democracy in favour of an
increasingly centralised and authoritarian government."
"Consulting with local people for disruptive, polluting projects like
airports is essential, and any attempt to 'streamline' these
processes to save money, or to hand them over to appointed yes-men is
a scandalous affront to the rights of ordinary people in the UK."
On the Housing and Regeneration Bill:
"...give priority to the maintenance and
improvement of existing properties before building 3 million new homes."
Monday, October 29, 2007
Climate change bill to be 'stronger'?
Every now and then something the government does surprises me, and this is no exception. The original draft climate change bill has been out for public consultation since last March, something that almost inevitably results in a major watering down of the proposed measures.
But, as reported in the Guardian this afternoon, in this case not; the amended proposals have actually come back with the recommendations potentially strengthened!
For example, they are now talking about including the emissions from the aviation and shipping industries (and quite right too!), and "the revised bill also raises the possibility of raising the emissions reductions further". (Oh, that's spoiled it a little for me, there's that word 'possibility' again.)
"The bill will make the UK the first country to put reducing carbon emissions into law. The bill, to be published next month, will put a legal duty on the government to cut emissions by at least 60% by 2050".
Well, let's see, if we cannot meet the 20% from renewables by 2020, I see it getting rather more difficult to meet a target of reducing ALL emissions by 60% by 2050. But then, of course, this lot won't be in power, and it will be a different government who has to meet (or, of course, lower to something that is achievable) that historically set target.
Addendum:
The proposed bill now also includes for some statutory powers for local councils to "pilot incentives for household waste minimisation and recycling." As reported by letsrecycle.com. And, yes, you've guessed correctly, what that almost certainly means is the introduction of pay as you throw schemes.
However, the statement "Any new schemes must be revenue neutral and should not lead to an increase in the overall cost to local residents." rather fills me with dread. In my experience, 'revenue neutral' normally means I finish up paying more for the same services!
Addendum 2:
There is now a useful Q&A section on the climate change bill in the Guardian too.
But, as reported in the Guardian this afternoon, in this case not; the amended proposals have actually come back with the recommendations potentially strengthened!
For example, they are now talking about including the emissions from the aviation and shipping industries (and quite right too!), and "the revised bill also raises the possibility of raising the emissions reductions further". (Oh, that's spoiled it a little for me, there's that word 'possibility' again.)
"The bill will make the UK the first country to put reducing carbon emissions into law. The bill, to be published next month, will put a legal duty on the government to cut emissions by at least 60% by 2050".
Well, let's see, if we cannot meet the 20% from renewables by 2020, I see it getting rather more difficult to meet a target of reducing ALL emissions by 60% by 2050. But then, of course, this lot won't be in power, and it will be a different government who has to meet (or, of course, lower to something that is achievable) that historically set target.
Addendum:
The proposed bill now also includes for some statutory powers for local councils to "pilot incentives for household waste minimisation and recycling." As reported by letsrecycle.com. And, yes, you've guessed correctly, what that almost certainly means is the introduction of pay as you throw schemes.
However, the statement "Any new schemes must be revenue neutral and should not lead to an increase in the overall cost to local residents." rather fills me with dread. In my experience, 'revenue neutral' normally means I finish up paying more for the same services!
Addendum 2:
There is now a useful Q&A section on the climate change bill in the Guardian too.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
A nice little place in the sun
I clicked on this honestly expecting something else: More shabby delaying tactics
No, not the 'big issue' of will he/won't he?
It starts: All the recent scientific evidence suggests that the process of climate change is occurring at a faster pace than previously predicted.
Meanwhile, our Dear Leader has made, by all accounts 'A good start' (well, ignoring the last 10 years I guess) according to most chattering class media, based on all I can see are a collection of puff-piece 'must do's, must do betters, looking intos and not acceptables - Indy Leader: The Prime Minister's speech was full of stirring conviction but gave little away. Well, D'uh. Maybe saying nothing is getting a bit tired, if still proving effective on some.
Mr. Bush was not the only one indulging in his usual shabby delaying tactics. Or did not turn up to the UN meeting. And while the world's largest economy may refuse to engage honestly with the crisis in an abnegation of leadership of epic and scandalous proportions, it's not the only one.
I really could care less about whether there is an election now or later, and that our leadership and the media that serve them in the Westminster Village can say they care about issues rather than playing silly games, whilst playing the silliest games of all and addressing little but trivia, does make me wonder about the sense of proportion this side of the pond as well.
Green Party - Brown is kicking climate change into the long grass - That will be short, Brown grass at this rate.
Time precludes me from doing much other hunting and gathering (and verifying), so I'll leave it to these guys. I can't say I can argue much.
'...instead of changing the Climate Change Bill , he's chosen to kick it into the long grass by leaving it for the climate change committee when it's eventually established. We don't have time for yet more commissions and reviews, for more political delay.'
"Worse than that, Brown's speech failed to indicate any new, effective policy measures on climate change, which are desperately needed after a decade of inaction and failing policies from his government.'
No, not the 'big issue' of will he/won't he?
It starts: All the recent scientific evidence suggests that the process of climate change is occurring at a faster pace than previously predicted.
Meanwhile, our Dear Leader has made, by all accounts 'A good start' (well, ignoring the last 10 years I guess) according to most chattering class media, based on all I can see are a collection of puff-piece 'must do's, must do betters, looking intos and not acceptables - Indy Leader: The Prime Minister's speech was full of stirring conviction but gave little away. Well, D'uh. Maybe saying nothing is getting a bit tired, if still proving effective on some.
Mr. Bush was not the only one indulging in his usual shabby delaying tactics. Or did not turn up to the UN meeting. And while the world's largest economy may refuse to engage honestly with the crisis in an abnegation of leadership of epic and scandalous proportions, it's not the only one.
I really could care less about whether there is an election now or later, and that our leadership and the media that serve them in the Westminster Village can say they care about issues rather than playing silly games, whilst playing the silliest games of all and addressing little but trivia, does make me wonder about the sense of proportion this side of the pond as well.
Green Party - Brown is kicking climate change into the long grass - That will be short, Brown grass at this rate.
Time precludes me from doing much other hunting and gathering (and verifying), so I'll leave it to these guys. I can't say I can argue much.
'...instead of changing the Climate Change Bill , he's chosen to kick it into the long grass by leaving it for the climate change committee when it's eventually established. We don't have time for yet more commissions and reviews, for more political delay.'
"Worse than that, Brown's speech failed to indicate any new, effective policy measures on climate change, which are desperately needed after a decade of inaction and failing policies from his government.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)