Nothing more edifying or informative than a medium talking about media by trying to slag off another medium.
Press panic
Bet he's glad he asked now.
Showing posts with label CiF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CiF. Show all posts
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
A voice in the wilderness?
Like I can get this lot to change their minds: Striking a balance on climate warnings
Navel-gazing is, one has to concede, hard to resist. And for some it can be profitable. While there's no doubt that some self-analysis can be worthwhile, if not downright necessary.
This piece raises some key points about the mindset of what, I rather suspect, is a vocal minority, and generally from the extremes of the (Probably man-worsened, negative impact - my preferred prefix) climate change 'debate'. And it is a fair complement to another, raised recently on these pages, which sadly was closed for comment before any could be made:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2008/04/ears-of-babes.html
(now I have.. a cheeky fix, sorry)
I prefer not to get into these endless 'tis/t'isn't happening' matches as they seem, frankly, unwinnable exercises in going nowhere... if loudly and painfully.
And with the vast pressures of environmental issues having to be weighed against the equally potent influences of economic factors on a finite living space with increasing population, I have nothing but sympathy with those in power sincerely (important distinction) trying to understand where 'we' are, where 'we' are going, need to go and hence make some well tricky decisions whilst keeping their jobs.
But as a matter of principle, in motivating more than those who just like to tick a box or score a debating point, I'd simply like to advocate that those who truly do care about the future, and would like to try and influence our progress into it (I was going to add 'for the better', but that opens new cans of worms) spend a wee bit more time on encouraging the positives. And certainly a lot less blowing up, and blowing up over the all too frequent nags, nannies, bans, woes, fines, guilt trips and other less than inspiring or motivating methods that are mostly being used to such 'great' effect (not) in getting the majority of the public as individuals to try a bit harder to change their collective lifestyles.
Seek end-benefit-driven, reward/incentive-based actions, make them work and share their successes. And people may well get on board. Seems to work with most advertising in our consumer-driven systems.
Endless doom and gloom is not the best motivator. Which is why life assurers don't sell policies based on 'You're gonna die!' as the primary message, no matter how accurate and to the point it may be.
But sadly, 'Good News' is accepted as a tough sell in the media world. Maybe time to rise to the challenge of making it work... and profitably?
Yes, the title does say 'striking a balance', which seems to accept that the near total commitment to 'we're all doooomed' is not working, but I fear the advocacy to seeking a new way of persuasion is too little... hopefully not too late.
I just want to achieve a result. Don't care too much how it's done, so long as it is done well, for the right reasons... and quick.
Navel-gazing is, one has to concede, hard to resist. And for some it can be profitable. While there's no doubt that some self-analysis can be worthwhile, if not downright necessary.
This piece raises some key points about the mindset of what, I rather suspect, is a vocal minority, and generally from the extremes of the (Probably man-worsened, negative impact - my preferred prefix) climate change 'debate'. And it is a fair complement to another, raised recently on these pages, which sadly was closed for comment before any could be made:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2008/04/ears-of-babes.html
(now I have.. a cheeky fix, sorry)
I prefer not to get into these endless 'tis/t'isn't happening' matches as they seem, frankly, unwinnable exercises in going nowhere... if loudly and painfully.
And with the vast pressures of environmental issues having to be weighed against the equally potent influences of economic factors on a finite living space with increasing population, I have nothing but sympathy with those in power sincerely (important distinction) trying to understand where 'we' are, where 'we' are going, need to go and hence make some well tricky decisions whilst keeping their jobs.
But as a matter of principle, in motivating more than those who just like to tick a box or score a debating point, I'd simply like to advocate that those who truly do care about the future, and would like to try and influence our progress into it (I was going to add 'for the better', but that opens new cans of worms) spend a wee bit more time on encouraging the positives. And certainly a lot less blowing up, and blowing up over the all too frequent nags, nannies, bans, woes, fines, guilt trips and other less than inspiring or motivating methods that are mostly being used to such 'great' effect (not) in getting the majority of the public as individuals to try a bit harder to change their collective lifestyles.
Seek end-benefit-driven, reward/incentive-based actions, make them work and share their successes. And people may well get on board. Seems to work with most advertising in our consumer-driven systems.
Endless doom and gloom is not the best motivator. Which is why life assurers don't sell policies based on 'You're gonna die!' as the primary message, no matter how accurate and to the point it may be.
But sadly, 'Good News' is accepted as a tough sell in the media world. Maybe time to rise to the challenge of making it work... and profitably?
Yes, the title does say 'striking a balance', which seems to accept that the near total commitment to 'we're all doooomed' is not working, but I fear the advocacy to seeking a new way of persuasion is too little... hopefully not too late.
I just want to achieve a result. Don't care too much how it's done, so long as it is done well, for the right reasons... and quick.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
More CIF Peak Oil Argument
As ever, any article on Peak Oil in The Guardian's CIF section attracts a huge barrage of proponents from the extremes at both ends, and this is no exception.
Now I cannot understand why the concept of Peak Oil can be regarded as a 'doomsday cult' as the author implies. Likewise, in response to "And there is a grain of truth to peak oil theory. Oil is a finite reserve, so the more we extract, the closer we come to exhausting the resource."; A 'grain of truth'! It's an inescapable fact! Look, crude oil is a finite resource that human beings risk exhausting to their own detriment, as our modern industrial civilization is based almost entirely upon it!
No-one, other than a handful of real doom-mongerers, is suggesting that Peak Oil implies a sudden and disastrous disappearance of petroleum as a resource. However, it is entirely clear that over the coming decades the amount of easily available and recoverable sweet (i.e. easily usable) crude is without doubt going to decline. It may decline slowly over several decades, or it may start to decline at an accelerating rate some time in the future, but decline it inevitably will.
As for Peak Oil's proponents being "a rag-bag of geologists, green activists, Malthusians, and people who yearn for a return to some pre-industrial idyll", well, the only one of those monikers I can hold my hand up to is that I am (well, was) a trained Geologist (Geo-Chemist actually).
And comparing the cost of a barrel of oil with a barrel of Coca-Cola - well, that has to be one of the most spurious comparisons I have ever seen!
Perhaps, as one of the CIF posters suggests, we should term the problem that is now starting to confront us as Cheap Oil, rather than Peak Oil. Maybe more people will be able to understand that description.
Whatever side of the argument that you sit on, it is abundantly clear that: in conjunction with [Likely] Man Worsened Climate Change (with its associated loss of water supplies and harsher crop growing conditions); an already rapid increase in the prices of staple foodstuffs; the ever increasing population of our little lump of planetary rock; our continuing destruction of native environments in the pursuit of earning a few bucks; our rape of the oceans already highly depleted resources; Peak (OK then, Cheap) Oil, is simply one problem in a long list of issues that humanity needs to address urgently.
Now if that makes me subject to being termed a 'Malthusian' then so be it. Sorry, but to me, it seems little more than basic common sense. Remember what happened to the population of Easter Island?
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Glimmers of sense, if not hope
Crunch time for social enterprises
A great piece, with some excellent links. Thank you.
A few years back I was invited as a guest at one of these shindigs. Usual suspects. Different minister. Same platitudes.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2006/08/asking-for-thirds.html
I wasn't there (see below), but one thing that I do sense has not moved on is the acknowledgement of those in high office of the sheer breadth and scope that can be brought under this vast umbrella that is 'social enterprise', or even if anyone has yet managed to come up with a decent definition of what one actually is. Maybe that is the problem, there cannot be 'one'. Especially as we all, inevitably, end up competing to survive.
Because I for one find it very hard to lump together those doing invaluable work with, say, drug addicted street kids - which by any measure hardly seems a consumer group likely to lead to a self-sustaining business model any time soon - and compare it with what I'm up to. And that can have an effect. It does often rather feel that the truly vocational are also placed side by side with those who have a for-profit model when it comes to awards and funding, but with unspoken agendas at play which can lead to vast commitments of time and funds which often stand no chance of success from the off.
I had a rummage and some might find this - a purely personal view from one at the sharp (and, it seems, usually wrong) end interesti... well, another view, at least:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/beam-me-up.html
There is a lot of good to be done, and businesses to be run, successfully, doing it, but I do fear that at the moment the thrust of support and guidance given is not from the best qualified or able, and even if with the best intentions, perhaps not with the best results. Especially in terms of value for money/ROI to those doing the investing or those in theory intended to benefit.
Addendum:
SEC - Response to BERR's enterprise strategy
A great piece, with some excellent links. Thank you.
A few years back I was invited as a guest at one of these shindigs. Usual suspects. Different minister. Same platitudes.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2006/08/asking-for-thirds.html
I wasn't there (see below), but one thing that I do sense has not moved on is the acknowledgement of those in high office of the sheer breadth and scope that can be brought under this vast umbrella that is 'social enterprise', or even if anyone has yet managed to come up with a decent definition of what one actually is. Maybe that is the problem, there cannot be 'one'. Especially as we all, inevitably, end up competing to survive.
Because I for one find it very hard to lump together those doing invaluable work with, say, drug addicted street kids - which by any measure hardly seems a consumer group likely to lead to a self-sustaining business model any time soon - and compare it with what I'm up to. And that can have an effect. It does often rather feel that the truly vocational are also placed side by side with those who have a for-profit model when it comes to awards and funding, but with unspoken agendas at play which can lead to vast commitments of time and funds which often stand no chance of success from the off.
I had a rummage and some might find this - a purely personal view from one at the sharp (and, it seems, usually wrong) end interesti... well, another view, at least:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/beam-me-up.html
There is a lot of good to be done, and businesses to be run, successfully, doing it, but I do fear that at the moment the thrust of support and guidance given is not from the best qualified or able, and even if with the best intentions, perhaps not with the best results. Especially in terms of value for money/ROI to those doing the investing or those in theory intended to benefit.
Addendum:
SEC - Response to BERR's enterprise strategy
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A tale of two Macs
And what a tale it is. The good, the bad... and the ugly.
We have a rare case of genuine good design and service. Some rather less wonderful bits. And perhaps the most annoying... and telling example of corporate greed I can imagine.
The Good
See that picture? That what a very powerful computer came in. I was/am impressed. Not just what didn't need to go into the making of the thing, but also how little required to be packaged.
Also there has been the basic plug and play nature of the handover.
And finally the support. Free (for 90 days, local tel rates) and so far all problems solved
The Bad
The fact that it now won't work some old stuff that was/is still perfectly good.
The Ugly
The attitude of a software company, FileMaker, to this situation. I was going live with it and fester. Luckily, I had a vent source presented:
Guardian - Buy a new Mac running Leopard, or wait?
On a related issue, 'The quick tale of the £30 software that became several hundred', which does not reflect in my view well on the marketing policies of some companies and indeed can often have serious consequences to the environment. A few weeks ago I was mailed by FileMaker about Bento, which looked a nifty little bit of £30 Address Book software to add to my Mac Mini. Trouble was, it only would work with Leopard, and mine was a first model running Tiger. Ok... time for a software upgrade. Now it was an extra £100. Trouble was, Leopard was going to stretch the hardware capabilities of my aging Mini, so for various other reasons (more memory, USB 2.0, etc) I decided to get a new one. Trouble is... having gone through all that, guess what? My new Mac Mini running Leopard will not now run my current version of FileMaker. It would be funny if it were not tragic. Now I have come to accept, if not like, that if one wants to run the latest bloatware version of some software, you often need to upgrade to, and pay for the latest bloatOS taboot, to run it. With all hardware consequences. But this new wrinkle just miffs me. I have perfectly good software running perfectly well and my brand new machine is not backward compatible. And FileMaker's response? 'Tough! It's not supported. No upgrade. Start again. Buy v9... that's £250 please.' I'm sure Apple are probably not innocent in all this, but for what it is worth, and hugging a Redwood Tree as I write, the new machine is a honey, and while I did need the phone support several times to help the migration (bit of fun with the assumption that in going from a Mini to a Mini two monitors would magically exist on my desk), this was truly slick, along with the auto back-up Time Machine, which is awesome. Also, on a small eco note. I am looking at a packaging box about the size of two telephone directories with a bit of foam inside as big as last night's meal tray. I know Mac are not the highest on the green IT list, but to get a wee box tucked away on my desktop doing all I could wish with so little manufacturing and delivery consequences impressed a lot. Anyway, as I don't feel like giving FileMaker my continued custom, as they are stuffing me back to square one can anyone suggest an alternative database software I can put in my new Mac that will grow with me into the far future?
Times - Get a green glow in your home office - Spreading the joy
Writing about two sets of wrong
A top-sliced licence fee will trigger the BBC's destruction
'...the BBC, which is more loved and trusted than any government can hope to be.'
Everything is relative, I suppose. So an interesting defence position.
But I really wish those who enjoy our attention by virtue of where they are rather than who, and often seek/claim to speak for us (by claiming they 'know' what 'we' are thinking but usually are content to simply hector at instead) would stop this habit of making sweeping statements of fact that lack any valid substantiation.
For a start I rather doubt the whole country feels the same way about anything.
And now moving onto percentages, I reject the notion that a pol on a fact-finding tour surrounded by minders has any hope in hell of finding out what most average, working, licence-fee paying without option under threat of prison folk feel about Aunty than those they have on speed dial to pop into the studios from their North London boudoirs.
Parts of the BBC are great. Some of the BBC staff are great. A whole bunch else is/are not. And needs to change... or be changed.
'...the BBC, which is more loved and trusted than any government can hope to be.'
Everything is relative, I suppose. So an interesting defence position.
But I really wish those who enjoy our attention by virtue of where they are rather than who, and often seek/claim to speak for us (by claiming they 'know' what 'we' are thinking but usually are content to simply hector at instead) would stop this habit of making sweeping statements of fact that lack any valid substantiation.
For a start I rather doubt the whole country feels the same way about anything.
And now moving onto percentages, I reject the notion that a pol on a fact-finding tour surrounded by minders has any hope in hell of finding out what most average, working, licence-fee paying without option under threat of prison folk feel about Aunty than those they have on speed dial to pop into the studios from their North London boudoirs.
Parts of the BBC are great. Some of the BBC staff are great. A whole bunch else is/are not. And needs to change... or be changed.
Monday, January 21, 2008
One day, the machine will stop
That's a quote taken from John Gray's piece in Sunday's Guardian CIF.
I found the article quite interesting, mainly for the plethora of viewpoints that the usual gamut of posters on CIF bring, but also for Gray's analogy of our planet being an obese patient hooked up to a life support system.
"To some extent, technology may be able to replace the biosphere that has been destroyed, but, like an obese patient hooked up to an artificial life-support system, we will be living on borrowed time. One day, the machine will stop."
He also manages to hint at the policy that dare not speak its name.
"Far more than fantastical schemes for renewable energy, we need to ensure that contraception and abortion are freely available everywhere. A world of fewer people would be far better placed to deal with climate change than the heavily overpopulated one we are heading for now."
Oh, by the way, you'll need a good 20 minutes spare if you want to read all the comments posted.
And, just for balance, as I found the article interesting reading, one poster terms Gray "a flip-flopper who has perfected an incredibly irritating style of writing which is best characterised as 'smugism' : statement of large philosophical beliefs expressed with loads of magisterial certainty, without any argument."
Ouch!
I found the article quite interesting, mainly for the plethora of viewpoints that the usual gamut of posters on CIF bring, but also for Gray's analogy of our planet being an obese patient hooked up to a life support system.
"To some extent, technology may be able to replace the biosphere that has been destroyed, but, like an obese patient hooked up to an artificial life-support system, we will be living on borrowed time. One day, the machine will stop."
He also manages to hint at the policy that dare not speak its name.
"Far more than fantastical schemes for renewable energy, we need to ensure that contraception and abortion are freely available everywhere. A world of fewer people would be far better placed to deal with climate change than the heavily overpopulated one we are heading for now."
Oh, by the way, you'll need a good 20 minutes spare if you want to read all the comments posted.
And, just for balance, as I found the article interesting reading, one poster terms Gray "a flip-flopper who has perfected an incredibly irritating style of writing which is best characterised as 'smugism' : statement of large philosophical beliefs expressed with loads of magisterial certainty, without any argument."
Ouch!
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Fit to print?
For a while that title had 'REPLY!!!' added to it. It didn't just refer to this: Are carbon diet books worth the paper they're printed on?
It's a new plan to try and address my rather woeful backlog archive system.
You see, over Xmas I did read a ton of stuff and saved the links meaning to get around to either replying and/or posting them up. But then my computer crashed and all those good intentions and worthy topics got lost as they were lurking in some task bar and not really saved as such.
Hence this is a way, in theory, to tackle something that does seem worthy of comment, not just here but there, too. And when I do, that REPLY!!! do-dad will get deleted and all... will be as it should. Hopefully.
Watch this space, I will be back.
Meantime, feel free to pitch in on either!
And, now, I have:
Good question. And some thoughtful answers already
I run a free website, http://www.junkk.com, predominantly promoting second use, so I am rather sensitive to a) trying one's best to offer solutions whilst not becoming part of the problem, and b) not trying to make too quick a buck out of anything 'green'.
So the points you make are well taken and hard to refute.
Partly through personal purchase and partly through being on some kind of (very welcome) PR list I do get sent quite a few of such tomes, and hence have had the chance to contrast, compare and, when there's time, re:view.
Being simplistic, looking at the stack on my table that I have assembled to try and offer some sensible thoughts on your question, a few basic categories are suggested:
1) Books that tell you stuff
2) Books that show you stuff
3) Books that show and tell you stuff
4) All the above, written from the point of view of what the person has done, other people have done or that 'you', the reader can do.
5) All the above... etc, only more telling you what you should do. I prefer the previous one.
6) Books that make you think. These often have elements from the preceding choices in the mix.
I'm sure there's a bunch more, but at the end of the day really it all boils down to information and/or entertainment.
In the spirit of positivity I don't propose to name any I think bad (it's pretty subjective), but there are some that stand out, at least to me, for their contributions to understanding, changing perceptions, altering behaviours or just being a plain nifty read.
Now, I'm not one to deny anyone the chance at making a buck, and they can often be quite useful, but books of lists don't really do it for me. I have tried popping them in the loo for a 5 minute bit of daily research, but really they are mostly quite boring. And almost inevitably outdated as soon as they are printed. Plus in the internet era I really cannot imagine what I couldn't find just as easily, and for free, online. Like here! A recent exception is Paul Waddington's 'Shades of Green' by virtue of accepting that there are such shades, and it's best to engage on the basis that a volunteer is worth 10 pressed wo/men.
For thought-provoking worthiness, I can look at two and say that they were 'good reads' to get your head around what ‘we’re’ facing, if being pretty darn depressing.
One is Richard Girling's 'Rubbish', and the other (without sucking up too much) is Leo Hickman's 'The Final Call'. The latter exposes the dilemma of anyone who cares about the environment and choosing to work for its betterment, still somehow having to deal with saying (or reporting, and in a cautionary way) one thing and patently doing pretty much what the reader is being told they shouldn’t.
All I know is that, for my forthcoming review (I have promised the publisher for months), there are about 50 bits of paper poking out at points that interested me, told me stuff I didn't know or got my dander up.
As to who else might feel the same, other than committed converts I don't know. It’s a stretch to think many climate 'optimists' would opt to buy it to be persuaded... unless a subsequent review can convince a few it's worth the effort... and cost. Hence the value of what you have invited here.
One thing I do look for is solutions, and preferably ones that as an average person one can engage with. And do so because they are fun, cheap, practical... and work. So why not?
There are more than a few 'how to's' I don't really like because they come across a tad too hair shirt and/or nanny state or finger-wagging. Or are less than useful in pushing certain agendas on a one-sided basis. Two I felt did achieve a nice balance, and were all the more powerful by being via personal experiences, were Penney Pozyer’s companion to her TV series and Janey Lee Grace’s ‘Imperfectly Natural Woman’. Library point noted, though I think having ‘em to hand can’t hurt and they are certainly more worthy on the shelf than many others I have!
And there are others in this vein, but often as you turn one massive (if made from recycled material) page after the next, with three words and one picture, you do get to wondering how much is for show and how much is to really make a genuine difference ‘doing’.
Thank you for the opportunity to ponder these things. Because I have been asked if I might be interested in producing a book of my own in my little area of planetary saving, and the dilemmas above have to date given me pause.
But there's no doubting that, done in the right way for the right reasons, what is in a book can find its way to many useful places and do good when it gets there. And there's the not insignificant factor of the more than useful revenue it can send the way of the authors to help them in their next, hopefully equally knowledge base-enhancing quest. Research does take time and consume funds, so in the spirit of sharing the odd reward can be appreciated. And what better than in the form of driving one up the best-seller lists?
From my limited investigations, in the great scheme of things so long as one is using the appropriate materials and the most effective logistics, such things can surely at least be cut some slack by being better than most and often better than nothing when it comes to finding and setting new readers on what one can only hope to be more inspirational paths.
Hard to measure the enviROI on it all, but if done for the right reasons and written well, they can surely only be forces for the planet’s future good. And often folk don’t have the time or inclination to trawl around, so can be great summaries for those keen to get going.
And, if one thinks about it, the stack of rainforest that is one’s copy of the Sunday paper, or the scores of ‘green’ magazines, pretty much add up to a nice chunk in the doorstep recycling bin eventually. At least by being nicely packaged these books can lurk and maybe promote the odd guest to have a quick peruse and act on what they’ve been inspired by.
It's a new plan to try and address my rather woeful backlog archive system.
You see, over Xmas I did read a ton of stuff and saved the links meaning to get around to either replying and/or posting them up. But then my computer crashed and all those good intentions and worthy topics got lost as they were lurking in some task bar and not really saved as such.
Hence this is a way, in theory, to tackle something that does seem worthy of comment, not just here but there, too. And when I do, that REPLY!!! do-dad will get deleted and all... will be as it should. Hopefully.
Watch this space, I will be back.
Meantime, feel free to pitch in on either!
And, now, I have:
Good question. And some thoughtful answers already
I run a free website, http://www.junkk.com, predominantly promoting second use, so I am rather sensitive to a) trying one's best to offer solutions whilst not becoming part of the problem, and b) not trying to make too quick a buck out of anything 'green'.
So the points you make are well taken and hard to refute.
Partly through personal purchase and partly through being on some kind of (very welcome) PR list I do get sent quite a few of such tomes, and hence have had the chance to contrast, compare and, when there's time, re:view.
Being simplistic, looking at the stack on my table that I have assembled to try and offer some sensible thoughts on your question, a few basic categories are suggested:
1) Books that tell you stuff
2) Books that show you stuff
3) Books that show and tell you stuff
4) All the above, written from the point of view of what the person has done, other people have done or that 'you', the reader can do.
5) All the above... etc, only more telling you what you should do. I prefer the previous one.
6) Books that make you think. These often have elements from the preceding choices in the mix.
I'm sure there's a bunch more, but at the end of the day really it all boils down to information and/or entertainment.
In the spirit of positivity I don't propose to name any I think bad (it's pretty subjective), but there are some that stand out, at least to me, for their contributions to understanding, changing perceptions, altering behaviours or just being a plain nifty read.
Now, I'm not one to deny anyone the chance at making a buck, and they can often be quite useful, but books of lists don't really do it for me. I have tried popping them in the loo for a 5 minute bit of daily research, but really they are mostly quite boring. And almost inevitably outdated as soon as they are printed. Plus in the internet era I really cannot imagine what I couldn't find just as easily, and for free, online. Like here! A recent exception is Paul Waddington's 'Shades of Green' by virtue of accepting that there are such shades, and it's best to engage on the basis that a volunteer is worth 10 pressed wo/men.
For thought-provoking worthiness, I can look at two and say that they were 'good reads' to get your head around what ‘we’re’ facing, if being pretty darn depressing.
One is Richard Girling's 'Rubbish', and the other (without sucking up too much) is Leo Hickman's 'The Final Call'. The latter exposes the dilemma of anyone who cares about the environment and choosing to work for its betterment, still somehow having to deal with saying (or reporting, and in a cautionary way) one thing and patently doing pretty much what the reader is being told they shouldn’t.
All I know is that, for my forthcoming review (I have promised the publisher for months), there are about 50 bits of paper poking out at points that interested me, told me stuff I didn't know or got my dander up.
As to who else might feel the same, other than committed converts I don't know. It’s a stretch to think many climate 'optimists' would opt to buy it to be persuaded... unless a subsequent review can convince a few it's worth the effort... and cost. Hence the value of what you have invited here.
One thing I do look for is solutions, and preferably ones that as an average person one can engage with. And do so because they are fun, cheap, practical... and work. So why not?
There are more than a few 'how to's' I don't really like because they come across a tad too hair shirt and/or nanny state or finger-wagging. Or are less than useful in pushing certain agendas on a one-sided basis. Two I felt did achieve a nice balance, and were all the more powerful by being via personal experiences, were Penney Pozyer’s companion to her TV series and Janey Lee Grace’s ‘Imperfectly Natural Woman’. Library point noted, though I think having ‘em to hand can’t hurt and they are certainly more worthy on the shelf than many others I have!
And there are others in this vein, but often as you turn one massive (if made from recycled material) page after the next, with three words and one picture, you do get to wondering how much is for show and how much is to really make a genuine difference ‘doing’.
Thank you for the opportunity to ponder these things. Because I have been asked if I might be interested in producing a book of my own in my little area of planetary saving, and the dilemmas above have to date given me pause.
But there's no doubting that, done in the right way for the right reasons, what is in a book can find its way to many useful places and do good when it gets there. And there's the not insignificant factor of the more than useful revenue it can send the way of the authors to help them in their next, hopefully equally knowledge base-enhancing quest. Research does take time and consume funds, so in the spirit of sharing the odd reward can be appreciated. And what better than in the form of driving one up the best-seller lists?
From my limited investigations, in the great scheme of things so long as one is using the appropriate materials and the most effective logistics, such things can surely at least be cut some slack by being better than most and often better than nothing when it comes to finding and setting new readers on what one can only hope to be more inspirational paths.
Hard to measure the enviROI on it all, but if done for the right reasons and written well, they can surely only be forces for the planet’s future good. And often folk don’t have the time or inclination to trawl around, so can be great summaries for those keen to get going.
And, if one thinks about it, the stack of rainforest that is one’s copy of the Sunday paper, or the scores of ‘green’ magazines, pretty much add up to a nice chunk in the doorstep recycling bin eventually. At least by being nicely packaged these books can lurk and maybe promote the odd guest to have a quick peruse and act on what they’ve been inspired by.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Money well, expended
Fit for purpose?
Are you mad?????
Spending perfectly good money on actual tangibles that get delivered directly to where they can do the most good to the most folk... and, worse, with the notion of reward-based incentives attached taboot!
This is heresy.
What we need is more departments, and initiatives, and announcements and quangos and massive communications budgets with oodles of pre and post research to get the BBC to read out as gospel.
However, fair point on weather, etc. But as a matter of principle a heck of a better way to be thinking than the current 'ban, guilt, accuse and refuse' notions and their jaw-dropping black hole budgets.
This notion applies across every area of our lives too, of course.
Are you mad?????
Spending perfectly good money on actual tangibles that get delivered directly to where they can do the most good to the most folk... and, worse, with the notion of reward-based incentives attached taboot!
This is heresy.
What we need is more departments, and initiatives, and announcements and quangos and massive communications budgets with oodles of pre and post research to get the BBC to read out as gospel.
However, fair point on weather, etc. But as a matter of principle a heck of a better way to be thinking than the current 'ban, guilt, accuse and refuse' notions and their jaw-dropping black hole budgets.
This notion applies across every area of our lives too, of course.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Bear e-cessities?
Artic Tale
Last thing I read was a pretty credibel notion tha polar bears were not doing too bad, climatically, but the main threat was oil exploartion and/or man's incursion into their territories. Please do not let this be another open goal for the optimists.
I know they are cute and cuddly (well, except the tearing limb from limb thing), but I question if these guys are really the best icon for action.
Just asking as not sure, but might a pretty big threat to Seela surviving be Nanu's mum?
I know what the intention behind this is, but just hope that the actuality doesn't play second fiddle to promoting the message.
Last time I saw a polar bear used was a Curry's ad for an LCD TV.
Last thing I read was a pretty credibel notion tha polar bears were not doing too bad, climatically, but the main threat was oil exploartion and/or man's incursion into their territories. Please do not let this be another open goal for the optimists.
I know they are cute and cuddly (well, except the tearing limb from limb thing), but I question if these guys are really the best icon for action.
Just asking as not sure, but might a pretty big threat to Seela surviving be Nanu's mum?
I know what the intention behind this is, but just hope that the actuality doesn't play second fiddle to promoting the message.
Last time I saw a polar bear used was a Curry's ad for an LCD TV.
Brown lighting
It's what I think you get when you mix red and green. it's the colour of fudge. Nuclear plan puts Brown's green image in spotlight
And again I find myself with some small sympathy for the dilemma he faces. Well, as far as being between a rock and a hard place, but that's why he is in the job he coveted. Frankly I'd have more respect if he just turned round and said 'Look, you can't have it all, I'm going this way' rather than trying to be all things to all people but ending up a nothing to no one.
And yes, I heard him 'Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right."' And nowt there says anything of substance.
I leave the conclusion to one of his own MPs: "The tragedy of Gordon Brown is the only big decisions he appears capable of taking are the wrong ones."
'No nuclear power station has ever been built without substantial subsidies'
What would I give for a simp.. well at least clear chart outlining the ROI and enviROI of the various energy options we are being presented with.
Be it ring-fencing us with windmills, sticking a nuke in the back-garden or firing up a coal-fired without a CO2 scrubber I'd just like to see where the money is coming from, who it is going to, for what and for how long to deliver what to my socket.
And then I'd like to see what the consequences to my kids' futures are of these from the minute a spade goes into the ground (or, more like, more gets blown on pre-consultancy than the project) to the moment they are decommissioned, including all maintenance consequences.
It surely should not be that hard?
Guardian - Which would you rather subsidise? - in the world of some media I rather have a sense of wishing something to be, rather than reporting on what is.
And another - Don't make us nuke - some media are now rather devalued by being a tad exclusive in their discussions, I fear. I'd say they were preaching to a converted flock, but having read some thread replies maybe not.
What is obvious is that the Guardian quoting BBC links and vice versa is not making for a great debate, or very credible these days as any kind of objective justification.
And again I find myself with some small sympathy for the dilemma he faces. Well, as far as being between a rock and a hard place, but that's why he is in the job he coveted. Frankly I'd have more respect if he just turned round and said 'Look, you can't have it all, I'm going this way' rather than trying to be all things to all people but ending up a nothing to no one.
And yes, I heard him 'Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right."' And nowt there says anything of substance.
I leave the conclusion to one of his own MPs: "The tragedy of Gordon Brown is the only big decisions he appears capable of taking are the wrong ones."
'No nuclear power station has ever been built without substantial subsidies'
What would I give for a simp.. well at least clear chart outlining the ROI and enviROI of the various energy options we are being presented with.
Be it ring-fencing us with windmills, sticking a nuke in the back-garden or firing up a coal-fired without a CO2 scrubber I'd just like to see where the money is coming from, who it is going to, for what and for how long to deliver what to my socket.
And then I'd like to see what the consequences to my kids' futures are of these from the minute a spade goes into the ground (or, more like, more gets blown on pre-consultancy than the project) to the moment they are decommissioned, including all maintenance consequences.
It surely should not be that hard?
Guardian - Which would you rather subsidise? - in the world of some media I rather have a sense of wishing something to be, rather than reporting on what is.
And another - Don't make us nuke - some media are now rather devalued by being a tad exclusive in their discussions, I fear. I'd say they were preaching to a converted flock, but having read some thread replies maybe not.
What is obvious is that the Guardian quoting BBC links and vice versa is not making for a great debate, or very credible these days as any kind of objective justification.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Navel gazing
If I have one main wish for the future, and the future of my family, it is that we see the current crop of messengers swept away so we can really set about addressing some critical issues: This time it's personal
Why? Well not because 'there is a disconnect between awareness of climate change and the lifestyle changes necessary to combat it', but because many proponents of that view seem unable to accept that they don’t understand what's going on in most average folks' minds well enough to even dream of setting about effecting any change of behaviour that may stand some chance of succeeding. And unless you are prepared to dig up some statesperson of dubious provenance from earlier ages, and shut down pretty much every democratic institution (especially a free press), you are in for a bumpy ride.
And I have to ruefully glance at one (of many) groups who truly stand out for their astounding ability to see no irony in preaching from pedestals about the evils of pedestals. And that is our now very self-serving free press. If there’s a rating in the offing, editorial will publish whatever gets the eyeballs, and sod the consequences.
At the end of a year that started with Stern and ended with Bali, with our race standing at a precipice, what do I see in the New Year round-ups? A few ecoshrews figuring that getting their air-flown tofu in paper instead of plastic bags has just about sorted it all, and deification of some guy who has so far avoided being accorded the title Typhoid Trevor by advocating all share in his vision of composting bogs in Streatham. 6 billion and counting means some eco-ideals are no longer, well, that ideal.
Britain may or may not be en route to some nifty targets, but I have near zero faith that these will mean anything much save as ways for ever more box-tickers to score a bonus or a lobbyist to rack up an even better commission. The system seems totally corrupted by having little to do with any tangible enviROI, and a lot more to do with profit or career enhancements.
And this situation is all at the door of a mainly self-created green elite who are great at saying but self-evidently so far pretty darn woeful at much in the way of doing by example. In fact, the most effort seems so far to be in areas of why, well, y'know, it's not really practical for 'them' to cut back, as such.
Lead, and if the story makes sense and the leader sharing the vision credible, then we will follow. If the story stinks and those spouting it seen to be playing a less than straight game, and you're on a non-starter.
By heavens it's not going to be easy. The whole thing is so vast, and complex and interconnected it's hard to know where to start, but it isn’t with some numptie MEP claiming their use of EurosStar and giving festive goats rather than X-box games qualifies them to join a fact-finding committee to study the impact of climate change in Lapland at Christmas (with the family) in mid-shuttle between Brussels and Strasbourg. It is just so much laughable hot air.
As is bottled water campaigns by Yummier-than-thou-mummies who write a column for a bleeding heart eco-quality, with both having really tricky ethical issues on the big stuff, such as what’s the best eco-lodge for the Easter break. Not perhaps notions top of mind or even shared at all by the majority of readers of, say, the News of the World. That would be a publication with some several times more readers, too. Go figure.
So where are these lifestyle choices to be made to have any impact, and who is going to make them... and persuaded by whom?
If you are going to be interventionist you better be whiter than white, otherwise there is a wall ready and waiting when the revolution comes.
I for one would advocate giving persuasion a much better chance. But first that needs the current crop of woeful 'leadership', in authority, activism and especially the media, being given the order of the Royal boot. Then get in some folk who genuinely care, understand the audience and can shine as those who can and will lead by example. Sadly, with the current system now embedded as firmly as leech’s teeth can be, that is a sadly dim possibility, and fading with each conference season and target setting consultation.
Yet we are both in agreement on the value of the carrot. And I can also see that there also needs to be some stick. Only not the kind wielded so far, and certainly not in the hands of those who to date think they are qualified or entitled to wield them.
I contend that most people are not that lazy. And even if they are then that's just a fact you work around to achieve your goal. Breaking my own rule (I find it arrogance in the extreme when a medium or politician claims to speak for me when they clearly do not), but for writing simplicity may I claim that 'we' are simply not ... so far... very well informed about the threats posed by probable man -worsened climate change (see, I have a different notion of what we face to offer up to you 'global warming' orthodoxy). And for sure none of the discussions, much less solutions I’ve had presented so far seem to me very well argued to date. In fact most seem to have been totally hijacked by extremes, with careers and fees and profits all very much front of mind well before any actual doing what's right for our kids.
I'd suggest some priorities need to be established. Pronto. Especially the putting houses in order variety. I for one can't take many politicians seriously when Bali in Winter managed to swell in delegateship tenfold, yet still with no obvious result at all. Or any finger-wave in these pages for instance, so long as there are ads for skiing trips or luxury cars in the sidebar.
Which might explain that low rate of behaviour change. Ya think?
I shudder that the conclusion seems to have arrived at the ‘solutions’ of ‘Consciousness-raising and green taxes’, especially with the laughable caveat of 'even if carefully thought out and organised'. Checked the competence card lately?
Too right they 'may have only marginal effects'. Just think what could have been done with the hundreds of millions already p*ssed away on scores of overlapping quangos and their bloated, self-serving (how you can get a bonus based on awareness results created by spending public money on ad campaigns seems truly astounding, if not a downright conflict of interest) comms budgets. So this voter at least will be... 'resisting' if they figure this is a nifty way to get more on the public sector payroll to then fund their pay and pensions with 'green taxes’.
Yes, many changes are needed. and urgently. But I’d suggest a bit more doing, and in a very different direction, than any more sodding thinking. None I have read or seen so far has seemed to offer one whit of an actual difference. We need something new.
Why? Well not because 'there is a disconnect between awareness of climate change and the lifestyle changes necessary to combat it', but because many proponents of that view seem unable to accept that they don’t understand what's going on in most average folks' minds well enough to even dream of setting about effecting any change of behaviour that may stand some chance of succeeding. And unless you are prepared to dig up some statesperson of dubious provenance from earlier ages, and shut down pretty much every democratic institution (especially a free press), you are in for a bumpy ride.
And I have to ruefully glance at one (of many) groups who truly stand out for their astounding ability to see no irony in preaching from pedestals about the evils of pedestals. And that is our now very self-serving free press. If there’s a rating in the offing, editorial will publish whatever gets the eyeballs, and sod the consequences.
At the end of a year that started with Stern and ended with Bali, with our race standing at a precipice, what do I see in the New Year round-ups? A few ecoshrews figuring that getting their air-flown tofu in paper instead of plastic bags has just about sorted it all, and deification of some guy who has so far avoided being accorded the title Typhoid Trevor by advocating all share in his vision of composting bogs in Streatham. 6 billion and counting means some eco-ideals are no longer, well, that ideal.
Britain may or may not be en route to some nifty targets, but I have near zero faith that these will mean anything much save as ways for ever more box-tickers to score a bonus or a lobbyist to rack up an even better commission. The system seems totally corrupted by having little to do with any tangible enviROI, and a lot more to do with profit or career enhancements.
And this situation is all at the door of a mainly self-created green elite who are great at saying but self-evidently so far pretty darn woeful at much in the way of doing by example. In fact, the most effort seems so far to be in areas of why, well, y'know, it's not really practical for 'them' to cut back, as such.
Lead, and if the story makes sense and the leader sharing the vision credible, then we will follow. If the story stinks and those spouting it seen to be playing a less than straight game, and you're on a non-starter.
By heavens it's not going to be easy. The whole thing is so vast, and complex and interconnected it's hard to know where to start, but it isn’t with some numptie MEP claiming their use of EurosStar and giving festive goats rather than X-box games qualifies them to join a fact-finding committee to study the impact of climate change in Lapland at Christmas (with the family) in mid-shuttle between Brussels and Strasbourg. It is just so much laughable hot air.
As is bottled water campaigns by Yummier-than-thou-mummies who write a column for a bleeding heart eco-quality, with both having really tricky ethical issues on the big stuff, such as what’s the best eco-lodge for the Easter break. Not perhaps notions top of mind or even shared at all by the majority of readers of, say, the News of the World. That would be a publication with some several times more readers, too. Go figure.
So where are these lifestyle choices to be made to have any impact, and who is going to make them... and persuaded by whom?
If you are going to be interventionist you better be whiter than white, otherwise there is a wall ready and waiting when the revolution comes.
I for one would advocate giving persuasion a much better chance. But first that needs the current crop of woeful 'leadership', in authority, activism and especially the media, being given the order of the Royal boot. Then get in some folk who genuinely care, understand the audience and can shine as those who can and will lead by example. Sadly, with the current system now embedded as firmly as leech’s teeth can be, that is a sadly dim possibility, and fading with each conference season and target setting consultation.
Yet we are both in agreement on the value of the carrot. And I can also see that there also needs to be some stick. Only not the kind wielded so far, and certainly not in the hands of those who to date think they are qualified or entitled to wield them.
I contend that most people are not that lazy. And even if they are then that's just a fact you work around to achieve your goal. Breaking my own rule (I find it arrogance in the extreme when a medium or politician claims to speak for me when they clearly do not), but for writing simplicity may I claim that 'we' are simply not ... so far... very well informed about the threats posed by probable man -worsened climate change (see, I have a different notion of what we face to offer up to you 'global warming' orthodoxy). And for sure none of the discussions, much less solutions I’ve had presented so far seem to me very well argued to date. In fact most seem to have been totally hijacked by extremes, with careers and fees and profits all very much front of mind well before any actual doing what's right for our kids.
I'd suggest some priorities need to be established. Pronto. Especially the putting houses in order variety. I for one can't take many politicians seriously when Bali in Winter managed to swell in delegateship tenfold, yet still with no obvious result at all. Or any finger-wave in these pages for instance, so long as there are ads for skiing trips or luxury cars in the sidebar.
Which might explain that low rate of behaviour change. Ya think?
I shudder that the conclusion seems to have arrived at the ‘solutions’ of ‘Consciousness-raising and green taxes’, especially with the laughable caveat of 'even if carefully thought out and organised'. Checked the competence card lately?
Too right they 'may have only marginal effects'. Just think what could have been done with the hundreds of millions already p*ssed away on scores of overlapping quangos and their bloated, self-serving (how you can get a bonus based on awareness results created by spending public money on ad campaigns seems truly astounding, if not a downright conflict of interest) comms budgets. So this voter at least will be... 'resisting' if they figure this is a nifty way to get more on the public sector payroll to then fund their pay and pensions with 'green taxes’.
Yes, many changes are needed. and urgently. But I’d suggest a bit more doing, and in a very different direction, than any more sodding thinking. None I have read or seen so far has seemed to offer one whit of an actual difference. We need something new.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Tick, tick, tick ...
That's the countdown started. This from the Guardian CIF by John Sauven reckons we have about 100 months for humanity to sort out CO2 emissions.
He makes some very valid points.......
But many will undoubtedly disagree, and I guess that by about 3 o'clock this afternoon, this CIF post will have turned into the usual set of extremely opposed views and multiple 'knocking the spots off each other' posts.
Seems to be that with anything to do with climate change on CIF t'was ever thus.
___________________
Interesting point from one of the posters.
"Growth at any cost is the basic tenet of all economists - interestingly that's also the basic tenet of cancer"
He makes some very valid points.......
"Sadly, 'progress' is not just slow, we are moving in the wrong direction. Global energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions are increasing rapidly rather than plummeting. In the desperate scramble to secure energy supplies, the world is becoming ever more dependent on oil supplies from areas of conflict and energy supplies that are environmentally devastating - such as tar sands in Canada and palm oil for biofuels from peatland clearance in Indonesia.
This cannot continue."
Quite.But many will undoubtedly disagree, and I guess that by about 3 o'clock this afternoon, this CIF post will have turned into the usual set of extremely opposed views and multiple 'knocking the spots off each other' posts.
Seems to be that with anything to do with climate change on CIF t'was ever thus.
___________________
Interesting point from one of the posters.
"Growth at any cost is the basic tenet of all economists - interestingly that's also the basic tenet of cancer"
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Blondin would be proud!
Thing is, some can be so good at balancing, and arguing about how well they are doing it, they can forget to move along - BBC's unnecessary balancing act?
And while it can be fun engaging in witty banter with the hecklers, there is a slight danger the main audience gets bored and looks elsewhere for their 'entertainment'.
Ignoring the glorious irony of so many worthy sorts whizzing about the globe to bring to us the perils of, amongst other things, whizzing about the globe (I know, it's your job, but there do seem to be some a lot more equal than oth... whose jobs require it more than those they take to task. Two? In this period? Why Bali and Valencia? Are not the majority of movers and shakers not more concentrated in, say, New York? And can combine the two more effectively? How many of 'you' will be there?), this does of course require some serious consideration, as the opinions and actions of the UK public can be markedly influenced by what the national broadcaster chooses to share. And be held to account for sharing. There are other media outlets and blogs to this, which others do read.
This is the CiF, so one knows where many are coming from, and often how they choose to view debate, especially when it comes to those less blessed with the rectitude of thought their sources of information provide.
Many do not come from the same place. And I'd love to run this sentence by the readers of the News of the World, whose ABC readership also is exposed to Aunty but might be seen to be at the other end of a scale to this mighty organ: 'We must also be smarter in the way we interpret the often vociferous views expressed by the public on climate change in our vibrant inter-active space. While welcoming a diversity of voices, we must make sure that we do not conflate self-selecting audience responses with a broad audience opinion.' Um, ok.
Many might not know much (or care) about Voltaire, but could still feel uneasy with 'I might not agree with what you have to say, but as it's silly you are obviously a [enter ist/inger/zi or other pejorative here] or just woefully misinformed, and hence unworthy of being heard 'cos we know what's right and good for you.
I'd suggest there is an argument therefore for letting all sides prevail (appreciating this is about extent), and allow the people to decide based on the merits (or not) of what they have to say (speaking personally, a classic Newsnight 'twofer' with each corner served by a grotesque extreme serves no one well). Looking here there is an uneasy sense that there are those who feel any questioning of anything with a green tag comes under the category of 'heretic' and must be excised.
Meanwhile, I really prefer things moved on a bit from getting proved right or wrong on the basis of absolutes, and some stopped worrying so much about vindication and shared more positive actions (all a bit 'ban the...' at the mo') that can be engaged with here and now, with consensus.
If, as I believe, man-worsened climate change ('man-made' being a tag I see a lot and puts me off as it has yet been shown to be true - and every sunspot, Mars-warming story chips away at such a stance. Cue the scientists: 'but you are ignorant!!!' As are most of us... that's the point. You win an audience over by understanding, not despising them) is a distinct possibility, I am much more keen on sensible, pragmatic, high enviROI + things (so I do ask more of an offshore wind farm than 'it's got to be done to save the polar bears') that can be shown to work that will engage and persuade all around to get on board.
Popping out endless apocalyptic scenarios that often give the 'deniers' plenty of comeback ammo seems counterproductive (especially when shown to be factually tenuous or in support of other lobbies), as are endless jollies that seem more about ratings and green 'in-crowd' exclusion zones rather than anything with much hope of touching the lives, hopes and aspirations of the vast working majority.
Even if it is not actually meant (and I really don't think... hope... it is. Any more than I can get my head around some Texas oil baron having no concern for their grandkids if they KNOW they are wrong), here can lie the seeds of a sense of swindle, where agenda, target and dogmatism can conflate (weeee...) with feeling the buzz of being in a driving seat, and put one out of touch with your audience. Ignore the needs, and desires, of the masses at your peril.
Inform us. Educate us and, if it can be done properly and well, persuade us. But please do not be tempted to talk down to us or, worse, select what we need to know 'for our own good'. Tricky in a sound-bite driven culture, but that's the balance you need to find.
BBC - Climate sceptics
And while it can be fun engaging in witty banter with the hecklers, there is a slight danger the main audience gets bored and looks elsewhere for their 'entertainment'.
Ignoring the glorious irony of so many worthy sorts whizzing about the globe to bring to us the perils of, amongst other things, whizzing about the globe (I know, it's your job, but there do seem to be some a lot more equal than oth... whose jobs require it more than those they take to task. Two? In this period? Why Bali and Valencia? Are not the majority of movers and shakers not more concentrated in, say, New York? And can combine the two more effectively? How many of 'you' will be there?), this does of course require some serious consideration, as the opinions and actions of the UK public can be markedly influenced by what the national broadcaster chooses to share. And be held to account for sharing. There are other media outlets and blogs to this, which others do read.
This is the CiF, so one knows where many are coming from, and often how they choose to view debate, especially when it comes to those less blessed with the rectitude of thought their sources of information provide.
Many do not come from the same place. And I'd love to run this sentence by the readers of the News of the World, whose ABC readership also is exposed to Aunty but might be seen to be at the other end of a scale to this mighty organ: 'We must also be smarter in the way we interpret the often vociferous views expressed by the public on climate change in our vibrant inter-active space. While welcoming a diversity of voices, we must make sure that we do not conflate self-selecting audience responses with a broad audience opinion.' Um, ok.
Many might not know much (or care) about Voltaire, but could still feel uneasy with 'I might not agree with what you have to say, but as it's silly you are obviously a [enter ist/inger/zi or other pejorative here] or just woefully misinformed, and hence unworthy of being heard 'cos we know what's right and good for you.
I'd suggest there is an argument therefore for letting all sides prevail (appreciating this is about extent), and allow the people to decide based on the merits (or not) of what they have to say (speaking personally, a classic Newsnight 'twofer' with each corner served by a grotesque extreme serves no one well). Looking here there is an uneasy sense that there are those who feel any questioning of anything with a green tag comes under the category of 'heretic' and must be excised.
Meanwhile, I really prefer things moved on a bit from getting proved right or wrong on the basis of absolutes, and some stopped worrying so much about vindication and shared more positive actions (all a bit 'ban the...' at the mo') that can be engaged with here and now, with consensus.
If, as I believe, man-worsened climate change ('man-made' being a tag I see a lot and puts me off as it has yet been shown to be true - and every sunspot, Mars-warming story chips away at such a stance. Cue the scientists: 'but you are ignorant!!!' As are most of us... that's the point. You win an audience over by understanding, not despising them) is a distinct possibility, I am much more keen on sensible, pragmatic, high enviROI + things (so I do ask more of an offshore wind farm than 'it's got to be done to save the polar bears') that can be shown to work that will engage and persuade all around to get on board.
Popping out endless apocalyptic scenarios that often give the 'deniers' plenty of comeback ammo seems counterproductive (especially when shown to be factually tenuous or in support of other lobbies), as are endless jollies that seem more about ratings and green 'in-crowd' exclusion zones rather than anything with much hope of touching the lives, hopes and aspirations of the vast working majority.
Even if it is not actually meant (and I really don't think... hope... it is. Any more than I can get my head around some Texas oil baron having no concern for their grandkids if they KNOW they are wrong), here can lie the seeds of a sense of swindle, where agenda, target and dogmatism can conflate (weeee...) with feeling the buzz of being in a driving seat, and put one out of touch with your audience. Ignore the needs, and desires, of the masses at your peril.
Inform us. Educate us and, if it can be done properly and well, persuade us. But please do not be tempted to talk down to us or, worse, select what we need to know 'for our own good'. Tricky in a sound-bite driven culture, but that's the balance you need to find.
BBC - Climate sceptics
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The sky is falling... I mean it!
Emergency talk costs lives?
Some people think the rhetoric of climate change is too emotive. While others, like me, would wish some could just stick to the facts and stop trying to gild various lollies, equally shrilly, for 'our' own good.
No doubt it's serious. And needs addressing.
I just can't help but notice that the current level of rhetoric doesn't seem to be working. So maybe we need a change in that approach, plus of those who see themselves as the messengers of 'the word'.
Maybe there's a lesson from the ad world (ok, it's a first when it comes to man-worsened climate change), which I have worked in most of my life, and especially life assurers. It has long been appreciated that shrieking 'we're all going to die!' doesn't sell policies as well as more subtle, end-benefit, persuasion-based approaches.
Oh, and rushing out the next half-considered survey to offer a ready target for those of a more cynical disposition to illuminate, tends to knock calmer efforts back even more.
It looks like we are playing chicken with the future, but I'm not to sure the nicely funded Green-Elite Chicken Littles who think they have grasped the wheel are best suited to turn it.
Some people think the rhetoric of climate change is too emotive. While others, like me, would wish some could just stick to the facts and stop trying to gild various lollies, equally shrilly, for 'our' own good.
No doubt it's serious. And needs addressing.
I just can't help but notice that the current level of rhetoric doesn't seem to be working. So maybe we need a change in that approach, plus of those who see themselves as the messengers of 'the word'.
Maybe there's a lesson from the ad world (ok, it's a first when it comes to man-worsened climate change), which I have worked in most of my life, and especially life assurers. It has long been appreciated that shrieking 'we're all going to die!' doesn't sell policies as well as more subtle, end-benefit, persuasion-based approaches.
Oh, and rushing out the next half-considered survey to offer a ready target for those of a more cynical disposition to illuminate, tends to knock calmer efforts back even more.
It looks like we are playing chicken with the future, but I'm not to sure the nicely funded Green-Elite Chicken Littles who think they have grasped the wheel are best suited to turn it.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Gooey mess in aisle 3!
What's your environmental "eureka" moment?
Well, he asked:
Looking down at a hospital crib at two innocents who I had had a hand in bringing into a world that to that point I had had a hand in being a little less than I'd wish it to be, as handed down to me by my parents.
If I can raise my children comfortably whilst still passing on to them a planet better than I inherited (or at least headed in a better direction), I will deem that a fair legacy for my time on Earth.
Well, he asked:
Looking down at a hospital crib at two innocents who I had had a hand in bringing into a world that to that point I had had a hand in being a little less than I'd wish it to be, as handed down to me by my parents.
If I can raise my children comfortably whilst still passing on to them a planet better than I inherited (or at least headed in a better direction), I will deem that a fair legacy for my time on Earth.
It's not what you know. It's how you choose to share it.
The climate change 'debate' rumbles on, not always productively. I think this is a worthwhile exchange to share in this regard: Find the error
Journalistic errors, no matter how minor, need to be corrected. But I must say that as I read this, I found myself wondering what the heck was going on (whilst admitting that the error, and its explanations, really stretched this science graduate. Well we are talking over 30 years ago). What the residents of Ely made of it gawd knows.
However, I did note the conclusion, which seemed an epitome of civilised behaviour on all sides.
To me there is a lesson, and that is in addressing the issue of CC it is best to maintain a calm, dignified and factual approach, free of smug 'we know stuff' and relentless, complex links.
Help those seeking knowledge to understand and they will appreciate it. They may even err on acting more proactively on what you have shared.
Guardian - Free energy? It doesn't measure up - By coincidence.
I found this a good reply: "science is fun when you're making people look stupid"
Oh dear. No - science is fun when you're making people - including yourself - less stupid.
I will add it to another I use to inspire my own actions and, where I can those around me: 'A great man (it was a pre-PC era) makes others feel small. A truly great man makes others feel great'
Guardian - A balanced contribution - It's related.. sort of.
Guardian - Cry wolf, but gently - Now who else has been saying something like that (I think I may have phrased it differently though - Don't cry wolf, just persuade via honesty and reason!) Interesting to see the author that inspired my original post coming into the frame. I have used this to add a new search label that is a growing cause for concern - Climate Fatigue. I fear it will crop up again.
Journalistic errors, no matter how minor, need to be corrected. But I must say that as I read this, I found myself wondering what the heck was going on (whilst admitting that the error, and its explanations, really stretched this science graduate. Well we are talking over 30 years ago). What the residents of Ely made of it gawd knows.
However, I did note the conclusion, which seemed an epitome of civilised behaviour on all sides.
To me there is a lesson, and that is in addressing the issue of CC it is best to maintain a calm, dignified and factual approach, free of smug 'we know stuff' and relentless, complex links.
Help those seeking knowledge to understand and they will appreciate it. They may even err on acting more proactively on what you have shared.
Guardian - Free energy? It doesn't measure up - By coincidence.
I found this a good reply: "science is fun when you're making people look stupid"
Oh dear. No - science is fun when you're making people - including yourself - less stupid.
I will add it to another I use to inspire my own actions and, where I can those around me: 'A great man (it was a pre-PC era) makes others feel small. A truly great man makes others feel great'
Guardian - A balanced contribution - It's related.. sort of.
Guardian - Cry wolf, but gently - Now who else has been saying something like that (I think I may have phrased it differently though - Don't cry wolf, just persuade via honesty and reason!) Interesting to see the author that inspired my original post coming into the frame. I have used this to add a new search label that is a growing cause for concern - Climate Fatigue. I fear it will crop up again.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Muddying the global warming waters
Now as the debate/argument/bun-fight continues to rage over whether or not global warming is man made, man worsened or an entirely natural occurrence, aficionados from both sides have been involved in some very shady dealings. From big oil funding renowned scientists to produce articles ridiculing the consensus science outputs of the IPCC, through to documentaries broadcast as fact when half of the 'facts' had been massaged and even falsified. Plus we have Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth', now also regarded as containing flawed arguments and containing some overt exaggeration. Both sides have been equally responsible for creating supposed 'facts' out of little more than conjecture.
During all this, I have not come across anything quite as stupid and irresponsible as this, as reported by NineMSN, which details how someone created a fake journal (The Journal of Geoclimatic Studies) and a completely false article, which purported to prove that marine bacteria emit 300 times more CO2 than mankind does.
So what happened? Well a British scientist spotted it, and emailed it to 2000 colleagues worldwide, which cascaded it rapidly around the planet's scientific community. Of course it caused raptures of delight within the MMGW skeptic community, as it supposedly provided the absolute evidence that global warming is definitively not man made. Well, it did for a little while, until the very same scientist realised that it was a completely spurious spoof.
Where we are dealing with entrenched viewpoints, especially around an area as important to mankind as global warming, the last thing that is required is the action of some irresponsible idiot(s) creating completely false science in order to muddy the waters even further.
What we all want to know, where possible, are the facts: clear, concise and unexpurgated. We do not want to be told lies, artificially invented 'facts' or even to be presented with massaged evidence. For scientists to blur things around the edges is to some degree understandable, but whoever was behind this is totally irresponsible, stupid and asinine.
The only saving grace is that it was recognised as a spoof before any of the major media picked up on the story.
____________
Addendum: 12/11/07
Finally, an admission from one of the guilty partners in Guardian CIF. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to even side with, let alone agree with, either his motive or his intentions.
During all this, I have not come across anything quite as stupid and irresponsible as this, as reported by NineMSN, which details how someone created a fake journal (The Journal of Geoclimatic Studies) and a completely false article, which purported to prove that marine bacteria emit 300 times more CO2 than mankind does.
So what happened? Well a British scientist spotted it, and emailed it to 2000 colleagues worldwide, which cascaded it rapidly around the planet's scientific community. Of course it caused raptures of delight within the MMGW skeptic community, as it supposedly provided the absolute evidence that global warming is definitively not man made. Well, it did for a little while, until the very same scientist realised that it was a completely spurious spoof.
Where we are dealing with entrenched viewpoints, especially around an area as important to mankind as global warming, the last thing that is required is the action of some irresponsible idiot(s) creating completely false science in order to muddy the waters even further.
What we all want to know, where possible, are the facts: clear, concise and unexpurgated. We do not want to be told lies, artificially invented 'facts' or even to be presented with massaged evidence. For scientists to blur things around the edges is to some degree understandable, but whoever was behind this is totally irresponsible, stupid and asinine.
The only saving grace is that it was recognised as a spoof before any of the major media picked up on the story.
____________
Addendum: 12/11/07
Finally, an admission from one of the guilty partners in Guardian CIF. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to even side with, let alone agree with, either his motive or his intentions.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Just one, wafer-thin fact...
A flight of fancy, or fancy cutting your flights...? : Time to get tough
I saw this as one of those 'Great idea but..' notions along with carbon trading, which all seem to presume an instantaneous, and frankly miraculous level of engagement and cooperation between every competitive country and company on the globe to result in a fair and equitable system to be initiated down through corporate to an individual level.
Then I saw this: '...assessed their figures under internationally-accepted methodology'. Which suggests things are further ahead than I thought. What is this and have you a link to it?
If everyone has already accepted the methodology of assessment, then we are a long way to the rest already. But then some seem not to have embraced it yet. If so, why not?
I saw this as one of those 'Great idea but..' notions along with carbon trading, which all seem to presume an instantaneous, and frankly miraculous level of engagement and cooperation between every competitive country and company on the globe to result in a fair and equitable system to be initiated down through corporate to an individual level.
Then I saw this: '...assessed their figures under internationally-accepted methodology'. Which suggests things are further ahead than I thought. What is this and have you a link to it?
If everyone has already accepted the methodology of assessment, then we are a long way to the rest already. But then some seem not to have embraced it yet. If so, why not?
The public may have a right to know...
...but why do TV companies have a right to say one thing whilst doing another? TV matters: Long Way Down
This more about trust in what you see. But I think it is a telling indictment of what you are often told. Just how many folk are there behind the camera to bring us that guy speaking earnestly to mic about the state of our planet... from a rather nice location but a 4X4 trip, 5* overnighter and return flight away?
This more about trust in what you see. But I think it is a telling indictment of what you are often told. Just how many folk are there behind the camera to bring us that guy speaking earnestly to mic about the state of our planet... from a rather nice location but a 4X4 trip, 5* overnighter and return flight away?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)