David Miliband sets out to shock on global warming tour
When I saw the picture, I thought he was going to come up on delegates and go 'Boo!'
But no.
David Miliband will address EU, French, Swedish and Danish foreign ministries, to date unaware of the spectre of a 4C warmer world, with alligators basking off the coast of Sweden, a vast desert surrounding the Mediterranean and a largely uninhabitable mainland Europe.
That should have them reeling in the isles.
Maybe they will, as they are foreign ministries and this is from the climate side of things, and not all have brothers who know such things.
If not... He then travels to New York.
Bless.
I am sure they will all give Miliband. D a Gold Star for his latest effort. What is itabout the man that everything comes across as an 11+ project?
Addendum 1:
Meanwhile, at another token effort near you, our pols show just how much they have grasped not just the issues, but the public mood:
Brown turns down heat and Mandelson gets on his bike to support 10:10
When the readership of the Guardian is pretty much unanimous in their distain, you have to wonder whether they could tie their shoelaces without falling over.
Read the pledges, and what folk think of them.
Addendum 2:
Just heard the Director General of the Government's climate change task force (a title like that's got to be £150kpa minimum) taken apart by Eammon Homes (not an interviewer of great surgical skill you'd have thought) over some pretty daft claims. And it certainly didn't help his case when he tried to mollify those he seems to have told 'must' cut 90% of their emissions to keep their air industry going, by then saying he and his brood were off several times a year and might knock a couple of their international flights out in future to chip in.
I can see how that might have gone down with both the staycation brigade and those who could only afford a wet weekender in Tenby.
And talk about shifty. You could almost see him trying to scoot off stage left to get to the warm embrace of a BBC studio asap.
Addendum 3:
Live Q&A: David Miliband on the Copenhagen summit
Yes, that is the picture I would have chosen, too. A leader to follow to the ends of the earth, indeed.
Addendum 4:
BBC Newsnight - A stark message from the Milibands on climate change - 'a double act with a certain air of the hastily convened about it' - This from the BBC. They really are throwing the A team at this.
How the heck are we going to inspire coherent action from the majority of the population, when those few 'leaders' we have who do seem to have some inkling that this might be worth addressing (one hopes with the right reasons in mind) are either numpties, crooked, rampant hypocrites or (worst in my book) plainly incapable of a) understanding science (they all seem to have got z's in Politics at Oxford and seem to take verbatim whatever lobbysist - pro or anti climate-cause - who walks in their door as gospel) or b) identifying with the hopes, fears, aspirations and willingness to help of the vast majority of real folk just a tad fed up with being patronised, fined or cheated by a totally out of touch elite.
Times - NEW - Climate change talks ‘in danger’, warns David Miliband - And I quote: Mr Miliband refused to say how much the British Government was willing to contribute to the $100 billion (£61 billion) that Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, said in June should be paid each year by developed countries to poorer nations to help them to cope with climate change.
Showing posts with label David Miliband. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Miliband. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Sunday, May 03, 2009
What's in a name?
Miliband seeks private plane hire
No, sillies, he's the other one. Who now doesn't 'do' the green bits his brother tells us we need to.
So it's all OK.
Actually, I accept fair and reasonable commitment of resources if they are necessary and produce results. So shunting at least one of these ineffective numpties around in the style to which they have become accustomed might be a good deal, but for the fact it just seems to get them places to screw up and make the UK look bad a lot quicker.
NoW - Plane stupid - Not perhaps my favourite paper, but the one with the highest UK readership by a major margin.
Indy - NEW - Private jet for David Miliband defended - speaking of relative circulations
No, sillies, he's the other one. Who now doesn't 'do' the green bits his brother tells us we need to.
So it's all OK.
Actually, I accept fair and reasonable commitment of resources if they are necessary and produce results. So shunting at least one of these ineffective numpties around in the style to which they have become accustomed might be a good deal, but for the fact it just seems to get them places to screw up and make the UK look bad a lot quicker.
NoW - Plane stupid - Not perhaps my favourite paper, but the one with the highest UK readership by a major margin.
Indy - NEW - Private jet for David Miliband defended - speaking of relative circulations
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Well, they have asked...
The questions at least go up. Let's see what gets asked... and answered:
David Miliband on Newsnight
Qu 1: Will it ever be possible to see the choices (especially many, much vaunted 'alternative' options) broken out as peer-reviewed, agenda-free, non-lobbyist-influenced, 'clearly identified subsidy-support requiring' and based in fact? Also in spin-free, clear, objective, accurate, pro and con terms so that 'we', the voting, tax-paying public, can assess, decide upon and/or support, confident that we are not being managed by government, compliant media and interest groups to achieve box-ticking targets that have little to do with our kids' futures by being little more than just 'looking' like 'carbon' is being reduced?
Qu 2. If so, please do. A few starters for 10 (off the top of my head - sorry, no legions of research wonks at my disposal, as have most govt. ministers and programme makers)...
Wind farms.
Nuclear.
Latest Road Tax logic.
Coal fired power stations with no scrubbing systems planned.
Vast quangos with even greater comms budgets that DO what, exactly?
Focusing on trivia such as plastic bags when there is a LOT more, more critically, going on.
Cutting support in key areas allowing an individual option to help, such as solar, etc
Plus a few others I am sure others have/will provide...
Addendum:
BBC - Climate modelling uncertainty
New questions added to the above:
I have just watched the BBC Environmental 'analyst' Roger 'is that ok with you, it's now been HarraBINNED' objective piece from last night, which I am sure reflects the 'emerging truth' view of the government and its compliant media establishment.
I also note that, as stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, that AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours. Hence, if this IS the case...
Qu: Why are government still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits?
Qu: Why are most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits?
Qu: If, as claimed in the piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why don't you just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
If there was a leadership contest announced I bet you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
Qu: Why, as it is as sure as night follows day that this will become a back-burner (warming) issue again with the next sound-bite or ratings story, should anyone believe the next Chicken Little initiative you and your colleagues trot out now, or when next resurrected in the future?
Qu: If it is as serious as you claim it to be, why do you not make it as serious on every and any agenda you can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
If war broke out... again... I'm sure the wheels of government and media would still turn. We'd just all be a bit more... focused. Not a bad thing?
Qu: Why do you think the government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven so totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all?
Actually, the answers to the preceding questions might explain that. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
Qu: Do you think that anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what you, the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
If this is not front page news tomorrow, throughout the UK at least, I will have my answer.
Yet I will plod on, whilst raising and supporting my family, trying to use and waste as little as I can, but trusting and feeling inclined to do what I am told 'is good for me' even less.
That... is the legacy of those who have brought us to this point.
Not great for a national lead...er... followership, really. And while the bunker may buy you more time than most, it is not really a solution.
Addendum 2 - Talk about Newsnight
Kismet. What I wrote above was not posted. Not sure why. Maybe there was a glitch (Like that can't happen! If so there was no indication on the site, but I did notice the word 'error' in the URL string. Not really expecting Auntie to acknowledge or address this anytime soon - though it's now 'down' at time of writing), maybe I wrote to much... or maybe you cannot post twice.
Anyway, it has given me an opportunity to digest and reply to the piece in a more considered way, and with a better chance of being seen, and making my point. Look how many replies refer to 'the single greatest issue to humanity', and how many, er, don't.
100+ questions posed. A few asked live. It will be interesting to see what we get, as promised, subsequently today.
Before even watching the Miliband piece, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.
As stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.
Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.
If, as claimed in Mr Harrabin's accompanying piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
And if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won - how soon did AGW get dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda you (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
Government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
Front page news? It has barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even here!
That... is the sad legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.
And I have my answer.
The speech - “GREEN PEACE: ENERGY, EUROPE AND THE GLOBAL ORDER”
- is it just me, or is anything with the words 'global order' ('new world' is just as snappy) a tad sinister?
Indy - NEW - Ministers cannot win case for green taxes if they won't apply them to green causes - The thick plotten, methinks
Guardian - NEW - A fair trade - A quaint 'open letter'
David Miliband on Newsnight
Qu 1: Will it ever be possible to see the choices (especially many, much vaunted 'alternative' options) broken out as peer-reviewed, agenda-free, non-lobbyist-influenced, 'clearly identified subsidy-support requiring' and based in fact? Also in spin-free, clear, objective, accurate, pro and con terms so that 'we', the voting, tax-paying public, can assess, decide upon and/or support, confident that we are not being managed by government, compliant media and interest groups to achieve box-ticking targets that have little to do with our kids' futures by being little more than just 'looking' like 'carbon' is being reduced?
Qu 2. If so, please do. A few starters for 10 (off the top of my head - sorry, no legions of research wonks at my disposal, as have most govt. ministers and programme makers)...
Wind farms.
Nuclear.
Latest Road Tax logic.
Coal fired power stations with no scrubbing systems planned.
Vast quangos with even greater comms budgets that DO what, exactly?
Focusing on trivia such as plastic bags when there is a LOT more, more critically, going on.
Cutting support in key areas allowing an individual option to help, such as solar, etc
Plus a few others I am sure others have/will provide...
Addendum:
BBC - Climate modelling uncertainty
New questions added to the above:
I have just watched the BBC Environmental 'analyst' Roger 'is that ok with you, it's now been HarraBINNED' objective piece from last night, which I am sure reflects the 'emerging truth' view of the government and its compliant media establishment.
I also note that, as stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, that AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours. Hence, if this IS the case...
Qu: Why are government still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits?
Qu: Why are most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits?
Qu: If, as claimed in the piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why don't you just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
If there was a leadership contest announced I bet you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
Qu: Why, as it is as sure as night follows day that this will become a back-burner (warming) issue again with the next sound-bite or ratings story, should anyone believe the next Chicken Little initiative you and your colleagues trot out now, or when next resurrected in the future?
Qu: If it is as serious as you claim it to be, why do you not make it as serious on every and any agenda you can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
If war broke out... again... I'm sure the wheels of government and media would still turn. We'd just all be a bit more... focused. Not a bad thing?
Qu: Why do you think the government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven so totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all?
Actually, the answers to the preceding questions might explain that. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
Qu: Do you think that anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what you, the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
If this is not front page news tomorrow, throughout the UK at least, I will have my answer.
Yet I will plod on, whilst raising and supporting my family, trying to use and waste as little as I can, but trusting and feeling inclined to do what I am told 'is good for me' even less.
That... is the legacy of those who have brought us to this point.
Not great for a national lead...er... followership, really. And while the bunker may buy you more time than most, it is not really a solution.
Addendum 2 - Talk about Newsnight
Kismet. What I wrote above was not posted. Not sure why. Maybe there was a glitch (Like that can't happen! If so there was no indication on the site, but I did notice the word 'error' in the URL string. Not really expecting Auntie to acknowledge or address this anytime soon - though it's now 'down' at time of writing), maybe I wrote to much... or maybe you cannot post twice.
Anyway, it has given me an opportunity to digest and reply to the piece in a more considered way, and with a better chance of being seen, and making my point. Look how many replies refer to 'the single greatest issue to humanity', and how many, er, don't.
100+ questions posed. A few asked live. It will be interesting to see what we get, as promised, subsequently today.
Before even watching the Miliband piece, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.
As stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.
Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.
If, as claimed in Mr Harrabin's accompanying piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
And if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won - how soon did AGW get dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda you (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
Government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
Front page news? It has barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even here!
That... is the sad legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.
And I have my answer.
The speech - “GREEN PEACE: ENERGY, EUROPE AND THE GLOBAL ORDER”
- is it just me, or is anything with the words 'global order' ('new world' is just as snappy) a tad sinister?
Indy - NEW - Ministers cannot win case for green taxes if they won't apply them to green causes - The thick plotten, methinks
Guardian - NEW - A fair trade - A quaint 'open letter'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)