Recognising the role of the cock-up

A few summers ago, my family attended the Big Green Gathering.

We had a hoot. And yes, despite it heaving down. Again. In 'summer'.

So I was sad to read of its demise.

However, the back story rumbles.

Is the Big Green Gathering another victim of the crackdown on dissent?

A Monbiot piece is rarely worth commenting in (on is different:) as things get polarised very quickly (I see a 'you're a racist' got in pretty quickly), but there are some facts in there.

And by my assessment, I am erring on cock-up rather than anything else.

Which is a pity, as it was no harm at all, pretty fun, and possibly a fair bit of good.

Which is more than I can say for stirring up notions of establishment crackdowns when parties you like fall foul of legislative impositions, especially those often brought in my your mates to support parties you do.

All I will say is that when I read: 'Is it paranoia, or are they really out to get us? Most of the time it's paranoia. Every week I'm approached by people whispering about vapour trails from planes being used to control our minds, free energy devices suppressed by oil companies or missile attacks on the twin towers' at the very least it explains a fair bit. One just has to hop the author is cluey enough to at least chat with others before coming to conclusions based on whispers in his ear form the comfort zone.

Voltaire Revolution Power - VRP

A new 'bon mot' & Acronym.

Voltaire rather famously coined (or, depending on your source, is mostly attributed as having done so - no time to dig deeper for now; frankly it seems odd such a famous quote is not better documented) the phrase that best describes the core root of a civilised democratic society: "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I therefore find it interesting, if a little sad, when some, and often the noisily libertarian-claiming entities, kind of miss the irony of a stance that really would generate a lot of power if M. Voltaire was connected up in his grave to a generator:

England's pork barrel politics is paying for airlines to burn the planet

Any readers new to this process will note that this thread has some interesting characteristics:

a. very few of the responses deal with the substance of the article.

b. a large number of them concern the class or other characteristics of the author, rather than anything he has to say.

c. many of them concentrate on seeking to dismiss an issue which was not the central theme of the article but nevertheless informs it: climate change.

You might wonder what on earth is going on. You are not the only one.

Is it really too much to ask that we might have an informed debate about the issues raised here, none of which are trivial: namely the absence of democracy in England, the role of the RDAs and the revelation that taxpayers' money has been used to subsidise damaging activities that the government claims to have left to the free market?

Or are we going to allow these threads to be dominated by astroturfers?

OK, he's miffed. And has some right to be. There are clearly trolls simply there to wind him, and those who agree with him, up. But I fear in reacting as he has, and writing in this way, he has also undermined much of the authority he would seek to claim.

07 Jul 09, 8:36am

I am always intrigued by the use of the words 'we' and 'you' in an open blog, especially when the former is combined with 'allow'.

I'd suggest letting folks' arguments succeed or fail on their merits, or lack of.

Some are still able to make up their own minds without being 'assisted'.

That said, I tend to agree with the rest of the sentiments.

Readers of this blog will know that I have a real issue with 'them' and us' at the best of times, and especially when I find myself rolled up into someone's claim to speak or act for me when they clearly might not.

And, logically, other than venting, on an open blog I would love to hear how Mr. Monbiot proposes that 'he/they' do not 'allow' comment 'they' do not happen to like from some vagauely ill-defined 'others' in future.

'First came the trolls, and I moderated.
Then came for the astroturfers, and I moderated.
Then came those who simply disagreed with me, and I moderated.
Finally, when I had moderated all bar myself, there was no one left to read my blog.'

Paraphrased in honour of another key quote - unarguably attributed - regarding freedoms of speech.

At best pointless. At worst, a slippery path.

Something to bear in mind when targets get mentioned in certain quarters

And at certain odd, rare, times....

Why did the government dump its green building regulations plan?

I often disagree with Mr. Monbiot*, but he does raise a worthy question here.

Maybe one for Ed Miliband, who was out and about recently.

*Especially on matters of 'tis/t'isn't climate change. When he comes up with stuff like this, it steer well clear as it really can only end up in tears... and no winners.

Big issues. No #36G.

Can cosmetic surgery ever be green?

Nice to see the Londonistas getting to the 'meat' (sorry) of the big eco-issues.

I can see this really bothering my missus of an evening. Population control (major s**t-fight on the BBC this morning. And an interesting way of spinning it in The Observer), MMGW, etc... and getting perky in a way that will impress the gels at the next eco-gathering. Mind you, we do often get excited about plastics, so maybe it's 'in the zone'.

Sadly no option to respond.

My answer to the headline is.. 'Of course. A rusty blade. Limited access to medical care, a bit of gangrene and Bob's your uncle (or boobs the colour of pus-flecked corruption).

Probably just as well I didn't get the chance.

Next up... 'Is your fresh Tofu flown in AND offset?'

Addendum

No, I think this one is better... and for real. Sadly:

The Aga saga: George Monbiot v William McGrath

Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

There are many, complex matters of climatic concern worth taking seriously...

Time to change 'climate change'

My point has, is and will be that such as this is not, IMHO, exactly helping that to happen.

I think I gave up after the nth 'could' or 'might'. Whilst at least honest qualifiers, they were usually qualifying an extreme end.

A point rather picked up upon. And it wasn't until almost the end of the first page (not really worth wading through t'other 6...so far) that the first 'supportive' comment was made, rather ironically ignoring the author and referring to the 'deniers' being out in force. Hardly the most original, or cogent rebuttal that could be made.

I await with interest, and a bit of a sigh, 'climate breakdowners' being deemed the next pejorative stick to bash others with in the ongoing war of words. FWIW, as a communications professional, I'd say it's a move away from the evident main aim. In all this the anthropomorphic aspect seems to have been dropped, which is pretty key, plus of course the possible contribution of nature to man's pollutants as well. Maybe 'nature firsters'?

A bit like when I see Dear Leader 'representing' the UK, much as I believe in my cause, with such as this I sometimes have this guilty desire to be on another side. At least the arguments are often articulated a lot better, and with more humour.

Are you... a NIMBY?

This has been prompted by a discussion group, in turn prompted by:

Nimbyism is 'hardening' in Britain..

I fear this term is often rather in the same category as a few other, if not pejoratives, but at least intentionally loaded critiques, along with 'denier' or 'treehugger', that do not serve the cause of rational debate very well.

As one who can think if nothing more impressive to look at than a ridge of rotating turbines, I have to accept that there are those who might not.

And if I'm not too bothered one way or t'other as I pass by, it might be worth giving pause to think of those who might have had one view and are now faced with another... daily.

Plus there are other issues to be sensitive to. Those who post here regularly are more informed and qualified than eye to confirm this, but it is my understanding that there is some noise pollution for homes close by. Also that house prices in the immediate area can be unfavourably affected.

These are legitimate concerns. And I sometimes feel those not on the wrong end of such initiatives, whilst be very passionate in defence of the big picture, can also be a tad insensitive in their critiques. And, in so doing, get a few backs up in the process. Which, more often than not, can introduce... 'delays'.

I, for one, rather shudder when it see it wielded, especially when picked up by the MSM on a slow news day.

Addendum:

I got a cheery reply. Now, 'they' have started a competition to find alternatives. Current top pick is 'obfuscators'. Look what I started:(

Here's what I wrote:

I won't be joining in, but those who feel so inspired may get some fodder from this and the comments in response:

Monbiot's royal flush: Top 10 climate change deniers*

I did note one point made that of that list there were some who were there despite not disputing the fact that climate was changing, or even going further, but seemed to have got on the 'wrong side' by having different thoughts on the best way to address the future as a consequence.

So... be careful with those definitions; they can come back on one.

I look forward to to the winning entry.

Have a lovely evening, which it is out of my window. Off down the shed to make some stuff out of some junk with the kids... by way of example.

Peter
Climatically neutral, reduction positive, waste negative, talk-talk dubious, walk-walk advocate

* I was moved, of course, to chip in..

Just wondrin', having read the piece and as many of the replies as I could cope with, if this ad hominem, ''tis/t'isnt spat between a few folk who seem to be making a lot of career headways out of staking claims on the far extremes, and their various entrenched supporters, are actually DOING anything worthwhile to make the future any better for my kids?

From what I have read here... not so much.

Maybe it is better this way. Lord help the future if most I have read actually get in charge of anything based on their ability to persuade and/or lead.

Addendum 2:

Another reply. Slightly less cheery. And one which rather leads me to think that my plea fell on deaf ears. Some views, and the blogs that cater to them, are too entrenched it seems. And so various groups wallow in their group thinking, rejecting and indeed forcing out any views that do not conform to the ones they hold, no matter how sincere or rationally held. Hardly the best way forward IMHO...

I suggest that you look to the Climate progress blog by Joe Romm, particularly at a recent item on anti-science syndrome (ASS), wherein those who are complete deniers are referred to as ASS wholes!

http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/anthony-watts-up-with-that-anti-science-denier-website-weblog-awards/

Now, what's the betting the only reaction we're likely to get/hear about is something equally 'colourful' in return. Ho hum. Whatever happened to addressing the issues and not the person?

Sometimes you just have to sit back and appreciate the show

This is indeed a class war, and the campaign against the Aga starts here

Actually, some pretty good points being made, but I rather suspect this may get all rather lost as some whipping up a lasagne en route to the next protest won't see it that way.

And, as I now notice the sidebar, it just has to get more... 'interesting'....

This is something worse than class war

One I think I will observe, discretely from a distance. Whilst many Fiesta-driving, tabloid-buying MoPs (Members of the Public Striving) might well know nothing about the battle raging aroun.. above them.

Win win?

There have been a few today (except, possibly, the planet*).

Scargill challenging (no hyperbolic headline grabbing there) Monbiot to go into respective rooms full of Co2 and radioactive waste.

And in some sort of luvvie melt-down of the Guardian pages' favourite sons and daughters, Monbiot having a go at Burchill.

I'd rather be a hypocrite than a cynic like Julie Burchill

'Handbags', or should it be 'book launches at dawn''.

I'm just trying to get my understanding of English sorted, especially when it come to matters environmental.

A cynic is, generously, one who might have a questioning attitude expressed in a not altogether 'nice' way, or, at worst , 'suggests a disbelief in the sincerity of human motives':

Which would seem not altogether unreasonable when dealing with, say, 'a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc.', or.... 'that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs'.

Tough call. A person with a cranked eyebrow at all they are supposed to swallow, or one who effectively says one thing but does another.

The planet breathes easier in such company, I am sure.

Where will it end? In tears, I fear. Especially when class is brought in for good measure.

*George Monbiot won the day in tussle with Julie Burchill

Telling. Outside a rather insulated bubble quite far from where I live, I am not sure who 'won' or not, Mr. White, but I rather suspect my kids' futures on this planet were net losers. Hope you all got what you needed from the exchange.

Personally I'd leave environmental commentary to people who do care and actually DO positive stuff than endlessly count debating points. But I thought your contribution to this morning's piece of Dear Leader's fitness to govern regime was cutting edge. Keep up the good work in the BBC studio next door. They do have space to fill, as you say. Mind you, what they choose to fill it with... Might one ask why such a critical debate is booked between two sound bite extremes and not any who may bring rational information and even decently subjective debate to the table. That's rhetorical. All any of you in the media want... need... are addicted to... is ratings. Which is how you are measured and make your money. Mind you, when it comes to the other 'green' that gets sampled as an issue on occasion, what can... do you all spent it on?

Telegraph - Class will matter more, not less -

Gaurdian - NEW - Old King Coal is a brave old soul, but he is talking utter nonsense - I'll post it, but can muster little interest to read or comment on what now seems personality-driven issues. Coming soon: Eco-'celebrity' mudslinging tag team action... the DVD, book and world (while it lasts, but might as well make some serious dosh on the back of its demise) tour!
Dire. Meanwhile, elsewhere, there might be some actually quietly working away on DOING positive, proactive things that might make a difference.

Lead Balloon

With all due credit to the author: If there is a God, he's not green. Otherwise airships would take off

I like the idea. It's just the disconnect with the realities of the numbers of people there now are, the time they have and the money they can spend. Another topic in many ways, but this just comes across as silly.

I think it's triff.

Sign me up! All I'll need is no day job and limitless funds... or write on enviro issues for eco-aware (if not actually practicing) publications.

I can see it now: 'My blog of a slow food sojourn around the World in the footsteps of Phiny Fogg'

Chapter 2 - Oh, the inhumanity!

'To the clink of organically sourced New Zealand Chablis in recycled (plastic, while lighter, may contain BPA) glasses, we glanced down to see millions of RyanAir eco-unawares/don't cares gobbling up their two week annual holidays crammed on non-eco-tourist (ie: keep the proles out) beaches. I am moved to head to my cabin and Blackberry a post forthwith. It is to be hoped the sights will improve over the next few months when we get to more remote places... Richard has invited us to his island to learn about the next initiative whilst watching some rocket display.'

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, in a normal family home near you...

Peak soil as well as peak oil?

That's just a little snippet from a well reasoned article by George Monbiot, on biofuels. Monbiot argues that many of the crops (and even crop wastes) grown for biofuels actually create a net carbon debt of decades (and even centuries in some cases), and lead to soil exhaustion, not to mention competing with land for food production.

"Removing crop wastes means replacing the nutrients they contain with fertiliser, which causes further greenhouse gas emissions. A recent paper by the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen suggests that emissions of nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas 296 times more powerful than CO2) from nitrogen fertilisers wipe out all the carbon savings biofuels produce, even before you take the changes in land use into account. Growing special second generation crops, such as trees or switchgrass, doesn’t solve the problem either: like other energy crops, they displace both food production and carbon emissions."

So just when we were beginning to think that some selected biofuels were the way forward, the counter arguments appear to become more convincing.

"All these convoluted solutions are designed to avoid a simpler one: reducing the consumption of transport fuel. But that requires the use of a different commodity. Global supplies of political courage appear, unfortunately, to have peaked some time ago."

Political courage? Come on George, we haven't see any of that for decades!

Monbiot on population

Gentlemen (and ladies), fire up your flames.... Population growth is a threat. But it pales against the greed of the rich

With a headline like that, I'm guessing rationality from any 'side' will be noticeable by its absence.

So I think a good lurk is in order here.

Just a quicky

The rich world's policy on greenhouse gas now seems clear: millions will die

Sorry, my limit is 50 posts, so I'll just throw this in and apologise if anyone else has made the point.

It just tickles me we get such articles in a publication with a banner ad that says 'Prefer the Sun? Prefer the Snow? Guardian Unlimited will send you a brochure'

Don't fly as fly do, fly as I fly.

This was billed as a 'must read'. All I can say is... why?

Well-grounded fear of flying

As I was just saying on my blog and site, which are available, free, along with some stuff you can DO....

'Re: the unearthed 'exclusive' in little-known publication Newsweek.

Noted enviro-writer Mr. Monbiot's plan is certainly 'a' plan, if honestly described by him as being based on 'inexact science', with a few of his 'rough estimates' lobbed in, with the odd 'guess'. I just hope the deniers don't see that little lot as an opportunity for robust rebuttal.

Beyond offering such unwelcome ammo to the 'do nothing' camp, I'm not sure quite how practical this plan is. But then you don't sell many books or get invited to many interviews based on the politics of compromise. News media like to drive ratings first, not inform, and the best way is to pop a couple of pit bulls from opposing camps in the ring and let the games begin. Let's see what big-oil funded shock-jock they can wheel out to say anything that hasn't been countered a million times before.

I'm sure a lot more will read and respond to the magazine (me, I am happy to get it online), but to add to the mighty one views (rating 0.5) at my time of reading the linked piece, and having read a lot of Mr. M's thoughts before, to be charitable and acknowledge the breadth of his knowledge in this arena it seemed to suffer from some rather drastic editing.

I can't recall quite how he promoted his book, Heat (available in all good bookstores at a very reasonable price), or gets to and from his many commitments without the need for personal transport, but as Frank Drebin says, that is not important right now. I am sure getting paid to do his job travelling about is more important than many other folk with careers and families to support.

As for trading the eco-consequences of such travel, is this just between rich folk, or does the population of the globe get to play too?

Per Mr. Cameron's (our Leader of the Opposition here in the UK) notion, I'm guessing a few hundred thousand Kalahari bushmen are ready to let you get to the Earth Aid concert in a private 737, with on board LPG Humvee, based on their allocation. With about 5.5 billion more folk waiting in line.

Green Air - Flying the Sanctimonious, Irony-free Skies'

Stop interupting me with proactive ideas. I have a deabte to win!

I am pretty committed to not bothering any more with the debates about climate change as they are so predictable from instigation to the flame wars that follow. But, hey...

There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out

Meanwhile...back on THIS planet.

Reading all this I was thinking how clever it was to have a banner ad to match a post about climate change that said something like 'How do you like things... Hot?' or 'Cold?''. Then I realised it was targeted at Guardian readers planning their next holidays abroad... a long way abroad.

Bless. Still, it's good to talk.

Sod it. There goes the SAAB (the money to buy it aspect may have been a factor, too)

If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels

Oops.

Will the next pro/con sledgehammer issue and its big (corn) oil denier and eco-fascist advocates please take to the stand... the people were in danger of thinking they had some idea of how to help save the planet, at least with personal transport. Seems not. Phew. Imagine if something had been resolved? Where are the op-ed jollies in that!!!

Next thing we'll find out that CarbCon trading is just a nifty way for short-term pols meet targets, tick boxes and make your mates in the City rich enough to fly you around the lecture circuit in their private jets.

I guess I'll hang with the 10 year old Volvo a tad longer.

Actually, there are some good points to be gleaned. I'll let you do that for yourselves.

George of the Rumble

Another from Grist - Turn Up the Heat

Makes you proud to be a Brit, eh?

For every two Beckhams, we have a Monbiot. So at that rate... we're toast. Celebs. And anti-celeb celebs. Can live with 'em, can't... er... no that's about it. And I guess that applies to me too, as an anti-anti-celeb (as I can often 'wonder' in places such as this just how sincere some are themselves or, if sincere, effective on a planetary scale as opposed to on a nice little personal earner basis).

So thank you for this link.

It's so odd. By any measure I trawl the e-pages of the UK media a bit more than most (who needs to get a life?) and until this moment I had no inkling such a thing existed, even courtesy of our George's usual hunting grounds, which I read daily and have done for a few years.

Well worth a gander.

I wonder what other people think of it? I'll have to declare an interest, I had/have something similar in mind, called Pol's Porkies, which stands for POLitician's PORky Pies, which is Cockney slang for lies. But I soon extended it to anyone in the public eye who said one thing and did another. Even better if the former was high-profile and the other low rent.

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/gloucester-old-spot-now-departing.html

Now I have registered it, but have yet to build it. So it's a might miffing when GM crops (geddit?) up and it turns out he has beaten me to the punch.

Popping over the parapet, and with glasses tinted green with envy, I have had a scope and do feel moved to cock a critical eyebrow, as I am wont.

First and foremost, and with no book in the offing... yet... I am always a tad suspicious of anything that is associated with a sales effort. Somehow it seems to weaken the purity of the concept.

Next, and purely subjectively, though with a few decades as a designer under my belt, it all comes off as a bit placard waving graphically, typographically and in copy terms. I thought I'd arrived at a Marxist rallying point to march on Westminster - to protest the price of non-Fairtrade lattes en route through Islington.

This, and the style makes me almost sympathetic to Chris, Richard and our Tel, etc. 'George' is watching you! Which makes 'George' Big Brother, which makes him...?

I also note, and Grist readers will hopefully appreciate this, a distinct lack of humour here. Hard to empathise with very much, frankly.

Which in one way is a pity, because having read his home page mantra I can't disagree with it at all. But in another it is good, because I think, immodestly, I can do a lot better. Mainly by not doing much at all. I intend Polsporkies.info to be of the people, by the people for the people, in much the same way as Junkk.com is. Frustratingly, he has also similar version to my TushTissue (for highlighting 'papering over' jobbies, rather than 'dealing withs') and even NewsFlip, as in the bird, but also as 'flip' commentary, highlighting news that is so superficial as to muddy already murky waters.

But for these I intend to just create the system, probably tabular (said, done, date, attribution, date, etc) make it as user content manged as I can. Then retire immediately having lit the fuse. I very much see it as a factual grid with a only a little moderation to ensure factual accuracy, minimal law suits and perhaps scope to inject a bit of fun to keep things bubbling.

And when I collect my award from Nelson Mandela (it's in there on his site - if you are going to drop a name, his is well worth it), I will worry very much how I detour from my global book tour to do it with out looking down the barrel of my own gun through the hole in my foot. Glad to see he is not all talk though (the actions being...?)

Because there does seem to be a new breed of Green elite whose jobs require them to buzz about (legitimately, by some logic) telling other folk that they should not have jobs that require them to buzz about. This, on occasion, has seen the odd mention of the phrase 'double standard' and even the H word being levelled back. With some justification I may add. And which does weaken the foundations of certain pedestals. And as I have opined before, a fallen idol can do more damage crashing down, and undo a lot of good they may have achieved whilst evangelising.

Fortunately I don't tell folk how to behave. I just ask questions, share information and try to lead by as best an example as I can.

It's less stressful.

Uh-oh... incoming!!!