Kept in the dark. Fed... well, in the cause of coming to a view, not much of use.
I remain dubious about nuclear for a variety of reasons, articulated before, but mainly for the ongoing lack of guarantees for what happens 'down the road'. Space 1999 and all that.
But I do concede that, if on the other hand we are facing more immediate peril from the consequences of our energy addictions currently met by burning fossil fuels, with growing populations and recovering economies we are in between a rock an a hard place.
I am not really in the mood, or of a mind to go into all that throws up here, but it is complex, and I if that were not enough of a worry given the evident competencies of our current 'leaderships', the selfish, careerist, money-driven short-termism shown so far suggests that some things are often seen as just alternatives, rather than as part of a time-buying strategy on the road to stability.
However, or maybe because of this, this worries me...
Pro-nuclear Green candidate faces axe
And it worries me because of the politics. We are in an era of either/or, black and white, all or nothing. Nuance is not an option. Especially in the politico-media establishment.
My frustrations with the, in theory 'democratic' political process is now almost total. I have no faith that anything I do via my MP matters any more. And much of this is because too often I see him 'told' how to vote for party reasons rather than any hint of representing my views, or what he sees as the good of the county and country he represents.
Now I can see how the views of these individuals can clash with that of the party, and indeed the manifesto it needs to stand behind in campaigning, but there strikes me as something worrying about that last phrase: “We will be taking appropriate measures.”
Showing posts with label GREEN PARTY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GREEN PARTY. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Mirror, mirror. Well, Guardian, Guardian.
There's a trendy Volvo TV commercial running at the 'mo.
It's not very good, but does embody well the trend of 'how one looks at things': 'Do you see art... or vandalism?' when referring to graffiti. 'Security... or nanny state?'. That kind of thing.
Which brings me to this press release, and the event to which it refers.
GREEN MEP TO SLATE E.ON ‘GREENWASH’ SPONSORSHIP AT GUARDIAN ENVIRONMENT SUMMIT
Green MEP for the South East Dr Caroline Lucas will use her speaking time at
tomorrow’s Guardian Climate Change Summit to slate energy giant E.ON's
sponsorship of the high profile event promoting responsible environmental
policy.
She commented: “While I welcome the Guardian's efforts to promote private,
public, political and campaign sector debate around climate change, and
accept that commercial backing is necessary in this instance, the decision
to allow a company like E.ON to gain a PR win by sponsoring the summit is
completely misguided.
“E.ON is currently applying for planning permission to build the first new
coal-fired power station in Britain for 30 years at Kingsnorth in Kent. The
new plant would emit more than 7 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere
each year - that's as much C02 as the world's 24 lowest emitting countries
combined - and would potentially keep doing so for 50 years.”
Earlier this month, Dr Lucas was joined by Keith Allott, head of climate
change campaigns at WWF, in writing to the Guardian to ask that E.ON’s
commercial backing be revoked.
She said: “This is not an issue of calling into doubt the Guardian’s
unquestioned reputation for unbiased reporting – I have no doubt that the
Guardian will continue to report on E.ON’s activities without fear or
favour. This is an issue of E.ON associating itself with the Guardian's
summit as a cynical move to try to repair its damaged reputation.
"It's understandable that it should try. What is not understandable is that
the Guardian should connive in its attempt.”
.
E.ON is the subject of a massive campaign involving a host of environmental
organisations and activist groups. The Environmental Audit Committee, Royal
Society and the Investors Group on Climate Change have also been highly
critical of the UK's preference for coal, as symbolised by Kingsnorth.
Dr Lucas will take part in an organised protest against E.ON’s involvement
in the Guardian Climate Change Summit on the morning of the event. She will
join members of the activist group Greenwash Guerillas outside London’s
Business Design Centre to highlight the company’s crimes against the
climate.
The longstanding Green campaigner will also speak on the need to forge ahead
with environmental policy in the current economic climate, as well as
outlining the urgent need to invest in a future of fossil-fuel-free
renewable energy. She will say:
“We are facing a triple crisis – the credit crunch, the climate crisis, and
the crisis of soaring oil prices, underpinned by encroaching peak oil. Some
say that we cannot afford environmental measures. But it is precisely at a
time of economic difficulty that strong measures to reduce our crippling
dependence on fossil fuels are needed most.
“What we need is a Green New Deal: a massive investment in energy
efficiency, renewable energy and wider environmental transformation in the
UK, could lead to the creation of thousands of new green collar jobs,
addressing all three aspects of the crisis at the same time.”
Those with long memories will recall I once attended this conference, having railed in this blog about the exclusivity created by the cost of attending. And I was 'rescued' to become part of the machine by the kind support of a Tesco Director who was speaking, and invited me as his guest.
He actually did pretty well, but the main sponsor, Shell, copped it as is e.on this time, as I recall. And I wonder if Boris will be there as was Ken before?
Thing is, to what extent should, or can you critique, when the needs of your job (money, publicity, etc) pretty much suck you in to being part of the very thing you are criticising, or taking others to task for being part of.
I think it is cute indeed that e.on are the main sponsors, and that The Guardian see no problem taking their money to confer a green hue upon them with all the attendant 'it's helping the climate' hoopla, but then Ms. Lucas is there too. Even if she is using it as a means to bash her hosts from within. Interesting to post the strategy in advance.
It's not very good, but does embody well the trend of 'how one looks at things': 'Do you see art... or vandalism?' when referring to graffiti. 'Security... or nanny state?'. That kind of thing.
Which brings me to this press release, and the event to which it refers.
GREEN MEP TO SLATE E.ON ‘GREENWASH’ SPONSORSHIP AT GUARDIAN ENVIRONMENT SUMMIT
Green MEP for the South East Dr Caroline Lucas will use her speaking time at
tomorrow’s Guardian Climate Change Summit to slate energy giant E.ON's
sponsorship of the high profile event promoting responsible environmental
policy.
She commented: “While I welcome the Guardian's efforts to promote private,
public, political and campaign sector debate around climate change, and
accept that commercial backing is necessary in this instance, the decision
to allow a company like E.ON to gain a PR win by sponsoring the summit is
completely misguided.
“E.ON is currently applying for planning permission to build the first new
coal-fired power station in Britain for 30 years at Kingsnorth in Kent. The
new plant would emit more than 7 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere
each year - that's as much C02 as the world's 24 lowest emitting countries
combined - and would potentially keep doing so for 50 years.”
Earlier this month, Dr Lucas was joined by Keith Allott, head of climate
change campaigns at WWF, in writing to the Guardian to ask that E.ON’s
commercial backing be revoked.
She said: “This is not an issue of calling into doubt the Guardian’s
unquestioned reputation for unbiased reporting – I have no doubt that the
Guardian will continue to report on E.ON’s activities without fear or
favour. This is an issue of E.ON associating itself with the Guardian's
summit as a cynical move to try to repair its damaged reputation.
"It's understandable that it should try. What is not understandable is that
the Guardian should connive in its attempt.”
.
E.ON is the subject of a massive campaign involving a host of environmental
organisations and activist groups. The Environmental Audit Committee, Royal
Society and the Investors Group on Climate Change have also been highly
critical of the UK's preference for coal, as symbolised by Kingsnorth.
Dr Lucas will take part in an organised protest against E.ON’s involvement
in the Guardian Climate Change Summit on the morning of the event. She will
join members of the activist group Greenwash Guerillas outside London’s
Business Design Centre to highlight the company’s crimes against the
climate.
The longstanding Green campaigner will also speak on the need to forge ahead
with environmental policy in the current economic climate, as well as
outlining the urgent need to invest in a future of fossil-fuel-free
renewable energy. She will say:
“We are facing a triple crisis – the credit crunch, the climate crisis, and
the crisis of soaring oil prices, underpinned by encroaching peak oil. Some
say that we cannot afford environmental measures. But it is precisely at a
time of economic difficulty that strong measures to reduce our crippling
dependence on fossil fuels are needed most.
“What we need is a Green New Deal: a massive investment in energy
efficiency, renewable energy and wider environmental transformation in the
UK, could lead to the creation of thousands of new green collar jobs,
addressing all three aspects of the crisis at the same time.”
Those with long memories will recall I once attended this conference, having railed in this blog about the exclusivity created by the cost of attending. And I was 'rescued' to become part of the machine by the kind support of a Tesco Director who was speaking, and invited me as his guest.
He actually did pretty well, but the main sponsor, Shell, copped it as is e.on this time, as I recall. And I wonder if Boris will be there as was Ken before?
Thing is, to what extent should, or can you critique, when the needs of your job (money, publicity, etc) pretty much suck you in to being part of the very thing you are criticising, or taking others to task for being part of.
I think it is cute indeed that e.on are the main sponsors, and that The Guardian see no problem taking their money to confer a green hue upon them with all the attendant 'it's helping the climate' hoopla, but then Ms. Lucas is there too. Even if she is using it as a means to bash her hosts from within. Interesting to post the strategy in advance.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Nice one
Couldn't resist. Credit the Green Party (well, at least one of their 'principal speakers') for this: IF BLAIR COULDN'T CUT UK'S EMISSIONS IN 10 YEARS, WHAT HOPE THE WORLD'S?
As provided:
Green Party Principal Speak Dr. Derek Wall today labelled Tony Blair
as "no friend of the earth", and attacked the former Prime Minister's
"woeful record" on carbon emissions reduction in the decade he was
Prime Minister of the UK, questioning whether he is the right man to
lead the new global initiative to tackle climate change by cutting the
world's emissions.
Dr. Wall highlighted the fact that despite 3 manifesto pledges to
decrease emissions to 20% of 1990 levels by 2010, a year before Tony
Blair resigned as Prime Minister in 2007 the UKs carbon dioxide
emissions were the highest they have ever been under Labour - 2.2%
above 1997 levels. To be on track to meet the 2010 target, emissions
should have been around 10% lower than 1997 levels by then.
Dr. Wall said
"Tony Blair is an insane choice for climate change czar. His woeful
record in 10 years of Government saw an expansion of CO2 levels and a
criminal neglect of renewable and sustainable energy policies in
favour of more roads, more carbon intensive international trade and a
dangerous new nuclear energy programme.
"His first call should be for an end to the expansion of Heathrow and
short haul flights, a stop to the investment and promotion of
agrofuels, and a greater emphasis on renewable energy production.
"Blair is trying to create a niche in international environmental
negotiations based on an appalling record of disregard for the cause
of climate change.
"Tony Blair is no friend of the earth and everyone knows this."
I merely re-iterate my very small drum banging on the choice of messengers for such critical messages as those that will require 'selling' to the the voting public in times to come. I am afraid that anything inspired by TB on matters enviro is tainted from the off.
ENN - Britain's Blair takes on climate change - Or, cut and pasting it another way...
Greenbang - Tony Blair fancies himself as climate change saviour
I share your... um... optimism?
If ever there was a messenger who has all the heft of a lifetime of having done what he says, for the tricky task of bringing others (not yet so secure in the post-needing votes, mega-$ book tour thing) round to doing things that may not be so palatable to career, profit, economy...
Well, like you say, good luck with that.
As provided:
Green Party Principal Speak Dr. Derek Wall today labelled Tony Blair
as "no friend of the earth", and attacked the former Prime Minister's
"woeful record" on carbon emissions reduction in the decade he was
Prime Minister of the UK, questioning whether he is the right man to
lead the new global initiative to tackle climate change by cutting the
world's emissions.
Dr. Wall highlighted the fact that despite 3 manifesto pledges to
decrease emissions to 20% of 1990 levels by 2010, a year before Tony
Blair resigned as Prime Minister in 2007 the UKs carbon dioxide
emissions were the highest they have ever been under Labour - 2.2%
above 1997 levels. To be on track to meet the 2010 target, emissions
should have been around 10% lower than 1997 levels by then.
Dr. Wall said
"Tony Blair is an insane choice for climate change czar. His woeful
record in 10 years of Government saw an expansion of CO2 levels and a
criminal neglect of renewable and sustainable energy policies in
favour of more roads, more carbon intensive international trade and a
dangerous new nuclear energy programme.
"His first call should be for an end to the expansion of Heathrow and
short haul flights, a stop to the investment and promotion of
agrofuels, and a greater emphasis on renewable energy production.
"Blair is trying to create a niche in international environmental
negotiations based on an appalling record of disregard for the cause
of climate change.
"Tony Blair is no friend of the earth and everyone knows this."
I merely re-iterate my very small drum banging on the choice of messengers for such critical messages as those that will require 'selling' to the the voting public in times to come. I am afraid that anything inspired by TB on matters enviro is tainted from the off.
ENN - Britain's Blair takes on climate change - Or, cut and pasting it another way...
Greenbang - Tony Blair fancies himself as climate change saviour
I share your... um... optimism?
If ever there was a messenger who has all the heft of a lifetime of having done what he says, for the tricky task of bringing others (not yet so secure in the post-needing votes, mega-$ book tour thing) round to doing things that may not be so palatable to career, profit, economy...
Well, like you say, good luck with that.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
NEWS/GO3 PR - Pocket battles
A PR last night from the Green (Party) Machine (London) has strirred a musing in me. Let me share it here as supplied, but I do propose to comment:
ABOLISH ROAD TAX AND CHARGE THE POLLUTERS, DARLING
The Green Party's Principal Speaker, Caroline Lucas MEP has today
urged the government to reward responsible motorists by abolishing
the Road Tax, and shifting the responsibility onto gas-guzzlers
through the fuel duty. The call comes as road lobbyists meet with the
Chancellor to plead for a smaller increase in fuel tax.
Dr Lucas said:
"The flat road tax on vehicle ownership takes no account of road
usage, and provides no incentive or reward for making less polluting
travel choices. A far fairer alternative would be to scrap it and move
the responsibility onto fuel tax.
"But today we see the road lobby arguing against this fairer measure.
The AA has consistently argued for more roadbuilding, more traffic,
more pollution. They have attempted to block every effort to reduce
our dependency on petrol. Now the price has inevitably risen, and
they want the rest of us to pay for it through our taxes, or in cuts
to services.
"Most car owners would like to take more public transport, but some
lobbyists seem determined to make it as hard for them as possible.
Does Alasdair Darling have the guts to stand up to them?"
At first blush, what is not to agree with? Polluter pays. Simple.
Thing is, this is issued by a self-evidently London-centric source (not suprisingly, as their candidate is gunning for mayor. Which, by the way, I was totally unaware of, for which the major media might be asked why. It's the Boris & Ken show, with Hugh coming in on occasion. No one else gets a peep). But to the best of my interpretation, this call refers to a national issue.
And there be the rub. And it's our old chum again. The politics of the pocket. Or Eco(nomics) vs. Eco(logy).
In London, you don't really need a car, especially to do your job. Distances are shorter. Cycling is an option. Tubes and trains and busses abound. So the Prius is really just to get the luvs to cello practice without paying the congestion charge.
But elsewhere you might need to drop a few hundred miles a week in your Fiesta just to earn a crust.
So what seems so simple need not necessarily be so... or certainly fair. It's a tricky balance, but whoever starts trying to do it properly will get my vote. Make that whenever...
ABOLISH ROAD TAX AND CHARGE THE POLLUTERS, DARLING
The Green Party's Principal Speaker, Caroline Lucas MEP has today
urged the government to reward responsible motorists by abolishing
the Road Tax, and shifting the responsibility onto gas-guzzlers
through the fuel duty. The call comes as road lobbyists meet with the
Chancellor to plead for a smaller increase in fuel tax.
Dr Lucas said:
"The flat road tax on vehicle ownership takes no account of road
usage, and provides no incentive or reward for making less polluting
travel choices. A far fairer alternative would be to scrap it and move
the responsibility onto fuel tax.
"But today we see the road lobby arguing against this fairer measure.
The AA has consistently argued for more roadbuilding, more traffic,
more pollution. They have attempted to block every effort to reduce
our dependency on petrol. Now the price has inevitably risen, and
they want the rest of us to pay for it through our taxes, or in cuts
to services.
"Most car owners would like to take more public transport, but some
lobbyists seem determined to make it as hard for them as possible.
Does Alasdair Darling have the guts to stand up to them?"
At first blush, what is not to agree with? Polluter pays. Simple.
Thing is, this is issued by a self-evidently London-centric source (not suprisingly, as their candidate is gunning for mayor. Which, by the way, I was totally unaware of, for which the major media might be asked why. It's the Boris & Ken show, with Hugh coming in on occasion. No one else gets a peep). But to the best of my interpretation, this call refers to a national issue.
And there be the rub. And it's our old chum again. The politics of the pocket. Or Eco(nomics) vs. Eco(logy).
In London, you don't really need a car, especially to do your job. Distances are shorter. Cycling is an option. Tubes and trains and busses abound. So the Prius is really just to get the luvs to cello practice without paying the congestion charge.
But elsewhere you might need to drop a few hundred miles a week in your Fiesta just to earn a crust.
So what seems so simple need not necessarily be so... or certainly fair. It's a tricky balance, but whoever starts trying to do it properly will get my vote. Make that whenever...
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
As they say she said he said they think we should...
I'm not big on speeches.
They are either long, or boring, or both. They rarely tell you anything worth knowing, or can do much with or about on the spot, and invariably are either preceded or followed up with the content online, so it rather makes being there to be bored to death a major lowpoint of one's day. Unless there's a chance to drag folk from the PowerPoint screen, they stay around afterwards for a chat or the speaker can really inspire.
Speaking of which, we have the Queen reading out the Prime Minister's list.
I may (or likely may not) get interested enough in trawling more and hence posting from elsewhere, but for now here is a press release from the Greens, or at least one of their Principal Speakers (which has me a tad contused as to who speaks for whom).
A few points of note (well, that I noted), with which I am in pretty much agreement:
The 60 per cent by 2050 targets cited in the revised Climate Change Bill
"It's criminally irresponsible to adopt a target that not only flies
in the face of science, but also undermines the UK's commitment to
making a fair contribution ..."
"...low level targets that we are not
likely to meet do not constitute radical action on climate change."
On the Planning Reform Bill
"The current proposals for a separate planning system for major
infrastructure projects mean undermining democracy in favour of an
increasingly centralised and authoritarian government."
"Consulting with local people for disruptive, polluting projects like
airports is essential, and any attempt to 'streamline' these
processes to save money, or to hand them over to appointed yes-men is
a scandalous affront to the rights of ordinary people in the UK."
On the Housing and Regeneration Bill:
"...give priority to the maintenance and
improvement of existing properties before building 3 million new homes."
They are either long, or boring, or both. They rarely tell you anything worth knowing, or can do much with or about on the spot, and invariably are either preceded or followed up with the content online, so it rather makes being there to be bored to death a major lowpoint of one's day. Unless there's a chance to drag folk from the PowerPoint screen, they stay around afterwards for a chat or the speaker can really inspire.
Speaking of which, we have the Queen reading out the Prime Minister's list.
I may (or likely may not) get interested enough in trawling more and hence posting from elsewhere, but for now here is a press release from the Greens, or at least one of their Principal Speakers (which has me a tad contused as to who speaks for whom).
A few points of note (well, that I noted), with which I am in pretty much agreement:
The 60 per cent by 2050 targets cited in the revised Climate Change Bill
"It's criminally irresponsible to adopt a target that not only flies
in the face of science, but also undermines the UK's commitment to
making a fair contribution ..."
"...low level targets that we are not
likely to meet do not constitute radical action on climate change."
On the Planning Reform Bill
"The current proposals for a separate planning system for major
infrastructure projects mean undermining democracy in favour of an
increasingly centralised and authoritarian government."
"Consulting with local people for disruptive, polluting projects like
airports is essential, and any attempt to 'streamline' these
processes to save money, or to hand them over to appointed yes-men is
a scandalous affront to the rights of ordinary people in the UK."
On the Housing and Regeneration Bill:
"...give priority to the maintenance and
improvement of existing properties before building 3 million new homes."
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
A lot of principals
As the media are abuzz with 'who stabbed Ming' (and I could care less), today I had a PR from the Green Party about their leadership: GREEN PARTY EXECUTIVE ELECTION RESULTS
As they are, well, greener than most, I think it's worth knowing about.
One interesting point, especially in view of the fun and games the other major parties seem to have with their 'leaders', is that these guys don't have one... er.. any.
However, whilst attractive in some ways, in this 'we are all equal' world, especially when it comes to intellectual firepower, I am trying to get my head around (the need for) a male and female 'principal speaker'. Is one for stag parties and one for hen nights?
I know from bitter experience what a 50/50 split can do for company morale if the principals fall out.
As they are, well, greener than most, I think it's worth knowing about.
One interesting point, especially in view of the fun and games the other major parties seem to have with their 'leaders', is that these guys don't have one... er.. any.
However, whilst attractive in some ways, in this 'we are all equal' world, especially when it comes to intellectual firepower, I am trying to get my head around (the need for) a male and female 'principal speaker'. Is one for stag parties and one for hen nights?
I know from bitter experience what a 50/50 split can do for company morale if the principals fall out.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Lobby horses
When we at the awards recently (have I mentioned that?) we were give a conducted tour of the two Houses, which are connected by the lobby. This is where you can go an grab your MP and get a word in.
Hence, I guess, the origins of the word 'lobby'. Like most things it seems to have moved on a bit and, like most things, I have mixed feelings.
Nobody can be denied the right to speak their piece and, I guess, if those with a bit more wonga can drum up a few more to express then I guess that's democracy in a capitalist society.
Where I am erring on being put offside is when this has all turned into an industry and money, in some form or other (from withdrawal of support for, say, jobs in a community to unmarked tenners in a brown envelope) is used to effect some influence on a voting pattern.
Of course I'm sop naive to see how this can happen, does happen and is very difficult to police.
So I cranked the old eyebrow on getting this (no link that I could see):
GREENS REVEAL OIL LOBBY INVOLVEMENT IN TORY CONFERENCE
Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall today questioned how
'green' the Tory Party can be given their links to big business,
especially the oil lobby, after it was revealed that the UK Petroleum
Industry are sponsoring a 'Tory Green Initiative' event at the
upcoming Tory conference. (1)
Dr Wall said: "Crucial to any real action on climate change are
polices that will reduce our reliance on fossil based fuels, and so
curb our emissions.
"But this is at odds with the needs of the oil lobby, who rely on our
addiction to oil to keep their profits booming.
"If the government got serious about tackling climate change,
companies like Shell would see a stark drop in their profits.
"How can the Tory party be expected to understand, or even agree with
that premise when they are hob-nobbing with organisations like the UK
Petroleum Industry at their conference?
"UK PIA are sponsoring the Tory Green Initiative dinner at their
forthcoming conference. Chris Hunt, the CEO of PIA will speak
alongside John Gummer, Chairman of the recent Tory Quality of Life
report. (1)
"This comes as no surprise, the Tories have long been the party of
big business,with a soft spot for fossil fuels. Alan Duncan, Shadow
Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform,
worked as a trader of oil and refined products with Shell.
"But it isn't just the Tories whose ability to make policies that
focus on tackling climate change is compromised, the Lib Dems are
also finding it hard going.
"Deputy Leader Vince Cable used to be Chief Economist for the oil
company Shell!"
(1) Please see
Now the thing is, in trying to be objective, I could point out that the Guardian Climate Change Summit was in fact sponsored mainly by Shell. On the one hand yes, you could say at least they were trying to make an effort, or on the other it was just a bit of greenwashing. Thing is, they got slaughtered on the day, so I think we could perhaps allow folk the opportunity to make their own minds up on a sponsor's motives so long as the agenda stays clear and open. Hob-nobbing is fine. Nobbling is not. To deny the former is a silly step too far, and in any case would only encourage the latter to happen behind much darker doors.
Equally, tackling the player and not the ball is also counter-productive. OK, Mr. Cable used to be employed by Shell. Maybe he has 'links'; maybe he does not. It would surely be better to judge him on his actions as a Lib Dem pol than allude to old allegiances in such a vague way.
Hence, I guess, the origins of the word 'lobby'. Like most things it seems to have moved on a bit and, like most things, I have mixed feelings.
Nobody can be denied the right to speak their piece and, I guess, if those with a bit more wonga can drum up a few more to express then I guess that's democracy in a capitalist society.
Where I am erring on being put offside is when this has all turned into an industry and money, in some form or other (from withdrawal of support for, say, jobs in a community to unmarked tenners in a brown envelope) is used to effect some influence on a voting pattern.
Of course I'm sop naive to see how this can happen, does happen and is very difficult to police.
So I cranked the old eyebrow on getting this (no link that I could see):
GREENS REVEAL OIL LOBBY INVOLVEMENT IN TORY CONFERENCE
Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall today questioned how
'green' the Tory Party can be given their links to big business,
especially the oil lobby, after it was revealed that the UK Petroleum
Industry are sponsoring a 'Tory Green Initiative' event at the
upcoming Tory conference. (1)
Dr Wall said: "Crucial to any real action on climate change are
polices that will reduce our reliance on fossil based fuels, and so
curb our emissions.
"But this is at odds with the needs of the oil lobby, who rely on our
addiction to oil to keep their profits booming.
"If the government got serious about tackling climate change,
companies like Shell would see a stark drop in their profits.
"How can the Tory party be expected to understand, or even agree with
that premise when they are hob-nobbing with organisations like the UK
Petroleum Industry at their conference?
"UK PIA are sponsoring the Tory Green Initiative dinner at their
forthcoming conference. Chris Hunt, the CEO of PIA will speak
alongside John Gummer, Chairman of the recent Tory Quality of Life
report. (1)
"This comes as no surprise, the Tories have long been the party of
big business,with a soft spot for fossil fuels. Alan Duncan, Shadow
Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform,
worked as a trader of oil and refined products with Shell.
"But it isn't just the Tories whose ability to make policies that
focus on tackling climate change is compromised, the Lib Dems are
also finding it hard going.
"Deputy Leader Vince Cable used to be Chief Economist for the oil
company Shell!"
(1) Please see
Now the thing is, in trying to be objective, I could point out that the Guardian Climate Change Summit was in fact sponsored mainly by Shell. On the one hand yes, you could say at least they were trying to make an effort, or on the other it was just a bit of greenwashing. Thing is, they got slaughtered on the day, so I think we could perhaps allow folk the opportunity to make their own minds up on a sponsor's motives so long as the agenda stays clear and open. Hob-nobbing is fine. Nobbling is not. To deny the former is a silly step too far, and in any case would only encourage the latter to happen behind much darker doors.
Equally, tackling the player and not the ball is also counter-productive. OK, Mr. Cable used to be employed by Shell. Maybe he has 'links'; maybe he does not. It would surely be better to judge him on his actions as a Lib Dem pol than allude to old allegiances in such a vague way.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
A nice little place in the sun
I clicked on this honestly expecting something else: More shabby delaying tactics
No, not the 'big issue' of will he/won't he?
It starts: All the recent scientific evidence suggests that the process of climate change is occurring at a faster pace than previously predicted.
Meanwhile, our Dear Leader has made, by all accounts 'A good start' (well, ignoring the last 10 years I guess) according to most chattering class media, based on all I can see are a collection of puff-piece 'must do's, must do betters, looking intos and not acceptables - Indy Leader: The Prime Minister's speech was full of stirring conviction but gave little away. Well, D'uh. Maybe saying nothing is getting a bit tired, if still proving effective on some.
Mr. Bush was not the only one indulging in his usual shabby delaying tactics. Or did not turn up to the UN meeting. And while the world's largest economy may refuse to engage honestly with the crisis in an abnegation of leadership of epic and scandalous proportions, it's not the only one.
I really could care less about whether there is an election now or later, and that our leadership and the media that serve them in the Westminster Village can say they care about issues rather than playing silly games, whilst playing the silliest games of all and addressing little but trivia, does make me wonder about the sense of proportion this side of the pond as well.
Green Party - Brown is kicking climate change into the long grass - That will be short, Brown grass at this rate.
Time precludes me from doing much other hunting and gathering (and verifying), so I'll leave it to these guys. I can't say I can argue much.
'...instead of changing the Climate Change Bill , he's chosen to kick it into the long grass by leaving it for the climate change committee when it's eventually established. We don't have time for yet more commissions and reviews, for more political delay.'
"Worse than that, Brown's speech failed to indicate any new, effective policy measures on climate change, which are desperately needed after a decade of inaction and failing policies from his government.'
No, not the 'big issue' of will he/won't he?
It starts: All the recent scientific evidence suggests that the process of climate change is occurring at a faster pace than previously predicted.
Meanwhile, our Dear Leader has made, by all accounts 'A good start' (well, ignoring the last 10 years I guess) according to most chattering class media, based on all I can see are a collection of puff-piece 'must do's, must do betters, looking intos and not acceptables - Indy Leader: The Prime Minister's speech was full of stirring conviction but gave little away. Well, D'uh. Maybe saying nothing is getting a bit tired, if still proving effective on some.
Mr. Bush was not the only one indulging in his usual shabby delaying tactics. Or did not turn up to the UN meeting. And while the world's largest economy may refuse to engage honestly with the crisis in an abnegation of leadership of epic and scandalous proportions, it's not the only one.
I really could care less about whether there is an election now or later, and that our leadership and the media that serve them in the Westminster Village can say they care about issues rather than playing silly games, whilst playing the silliest games of all and addressing little but trivia, does make me wonder about the sense of proportion this side of the pond as well.
Green Party - Brown is kicking climate change into the long grass - That will be short, Brown grass at this rate.
Time precludes me from doing much other hunting and gathering (and verifying), so I'll leave it to these guys. I can't say I can argue much.
'...instead of changing the Climate Change Bill , he's chosen to kick it into the long grass by leaving it for the climate change committee when it's eventually established. We don't have time for yet more commissions and reviews, for more political delay.'
"Worse than that, Brown's speech failed to indicate any new, effective policy measures on climate change, which are desperately needed after a decade of inaction and failing policies from his government.'
Friday, September 21, 2007
Feeling in safe hands?
In light of my previous post, to Newsnight, following their insights into the state of political response to climate change and the reaction of the electorate to it.
This has just popped in from the Green Party (well, a spokesperson, I guess): GREEN TORIES? NOT LIKELY!
Siân Berry takes on Zac Goldsmith:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709200057
To see Zac Goldsmith's reply please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709190003
To see Siân's orginal post please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709170001
Q... blooming E... flipping D
This has just popped in from the Green Party (well, a spokesperson, I guess): GREEN TORIES? NOT LIKELY!
Siân Berry takes on Zac Goldsmith:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709200057
To see Zac Goldsmith's reply please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709190003
To see Siân's orginal post please go to:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709170001
Q... blooming E... flipping D
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Confused!*!
There was an interesting article on this morning's Indy on-line version about how both the Lib Dems and the Tories had developed plans for major CO2 emissions cuts for the whole of the UK.
But coming back to it to review it for comment, the article has now been removed from their site!
What gives? Has someone dropped a major clanger? Or was someone telling porkies and they withdrew it as soon as it was realised?
______________________
Update:
The article is now back in place, albeit looking slightly amended, though I cannot honestly state just what has actually changed. The original was timed at something like 07:09, this version is timed at 09:15.
Maybe a minor editorial change was all that happened?
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - This from the Greens: Lucas questions grey parties' commitment to tackling climate change - 'Grey parties'. I like that... clever.
But coming back to it to review it for comment, the article has now been removed from their site!
What gives? Has someone dropped a major clanger? Or was someone telling porkies and they withdrew it as soon as it was realised?
______________________
Update:
The article is now back in place, albeit looking slightly amended, though I cannot honestly state just what has actually changed. The original was timed at something like 07:09, this version is timed at 09:15.
Maybe a minor editorial change was all that happened?
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - This from the Greens: Lucas questions grey parties' commitment to tackling climate change - 'Grey parties'. I like that... clever.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Who's In Charge?
I publish this, if a tad belatedly, in full: Caroline Lucas: The greens need a clear voice – and a leader
Published: 23 August 2007
At Heathrow and around the country, last weekend, the climate camp deservedly hit the headlines, with its urgent message on the action needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. Now, it's time for the follow-up. The green movement needs to gain some of the levers of power, in order to transform protest into policy implementation.
The Green Party needs to rise to that challenge. Despite the steady osmosis of its policies and ideas into the political mainstream and an increase in support at the ballot box, the urgency of climate change suggests that we should be far bigger players than we currently are.
A look at the way political commentators describe the state of the parties' popularity tells us what the problem is, straight away: Brown "bounces" while Cameron "wobbles".
But not a single column inch has told the story of the Greens' near-doubling in support over a number of polls taken during the past two years – and why? Partly at least because the party doesn't have a figurehead that can represent our ideas.
The truth is that the media – and most voters – don't relate to abstract concepts: rather they relate to the people who espouse and embody them.
After 30-odd years of trying to ignore that reality, we are running out of time. The need for Green political influence has never been so urgent, and never has there been so much at stake.
Scientists tell us that the next eight to 10 years will be critical in terms of whether we have any chance of avoiding the worst of climate change.
It is still the case that only the Green Party has both the radical policies and the political commitment that are so desperately needed to make sure we do.
For example, the cosy Westminster consensus has brought us a Climate Change Bill with hopelessly inadequate targets. According to scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, rather than constraining warming to less than two degrees which is essential to our chances of being able to stabilise the climate, the Bill's targets are more likely to contribute to a world that's four or five degrees warmer than in pre-industrial times.
This isn't just a terrifying prospect – it's a political scandal, and the Greens have to be in Parliament, challenging it and exposing it.
The trouble is Government advisers only give advice that they deem to be "politically realistic" – in other words, advice that won't require any major transformation of the economy or business as usual.
Greens have to be heard saying what others refuse to say: that the definition of what is "politically realistic" has to be, first and foremost, that which guarantees a habitable planet, not that which guarantees the greatest possible financial returns to companies and to their shareholders.
The real irony, of course, is that a radical transformation of the way we live our lives and do business will actually create a whole series of social win-wins: warmer homes, stronger communities, tastier food, less time spent stuck in traffic jams – even an end to the "status anxiety" which makes so many of us unhappy or even depressed.
But as the public debate over cutting emissions moves on, politicians, businesses and the media remain focussed on the costs and hardships of moving to a low-carbon economy. Rare are the voices talking about the benefits. We're not talking about huddling around a candle in a cave; rather, about chatting over a sumptuous meal of locally produced food, in a warm, well-insulated house, with friends and neighbours, having arrived by bike (easy, along uncongested streets), on foot or by public transport.
So our message is urgent, our skills and approach are needed now more than ever, and our electoral support is rising. Yet without an identifiable leadership team, we're just not getting the media attention and political success we deserve.
That's why the Green Party is looking at its internal structures: holding a referendum of all of its party members on whether to build on the set-up of having two "principal speakers" to the vital next stage: having a leader and a deputy leader (or two co-leaders) to act as recognisable, inspiring, leading voices for the thousands of dedicated party activists who collectively make the party what it is. Such a leadership wouldn't have the authority, so beloved of Brown and Cameron, to ignore party members' wishes and draw power to the centre.
They would be a very "green" leadership, elected by members every two years and remaining entirely accountable to the Greens' supreme policy-making body, our biannual conferences, and subject to recall.
Leadership doesn't have to be top down and authoritarian. Green leadership is about empowering and enabling voters to act, a leadership that inspires and motivates rather than one which dictates.
We think that the time is right to take radical Green policies and radical Green politics into the mainstream – and that by voting for identifiable and accountable leadership party members will be taking a vitally important step towards being able to do just that.
The author is the Green Party's MEP for South-east England. The article was written with the
assistance of Darren Johnson, Leader of the Green Group on Lewisham Council
The first thing that struck me was that I hadn't actually realised the Green's didn't have a leader (and I'm guessing our Caroline has her hat ready). And that this might explain a lot about how I feel about them as a viable political entity. They just seem like a bit of a nice bunch who oppose a lot of stuff. Would a leader bring them and what they are seeking to do into voter focus? No idea.
But looking at the alternatives, the presence of a leader doesn't seem to help much. We have Mr. Cameron who seems to stand for everything and nothing. Meanwhile Mr. Brown seems to be proving that the best way to stay on top is to stay out of the way and remain invisible. How long this will succeed who knows, but if polls (that's two 'l's') are to believed he has got away with the last 10 years plus the last few months pretty well on this basis. And surrounding himself with the most colourless collection on non-people I have ever had the misfortune to shake my head in disbelief at has not hurt either.
Maybe we do get who we deserve.
Greens decry lack of Government action on climate change
I am grateful to Dave of Solarventi for this link - Green party pragmatics - which adds further to this discussion in some detail. Sadly, I think it still rather confirms the feeling of some that the lack of a leader makes it hard to 'place' them in this media age, no matter how g*d-awful all the other leaders with their 'please all the people all the time' antics are in serving their parties and the country. Maybe the Greens have a point, though it seems to serve them poorly at the polls if one comment is to be believed.
Published: 23 August 2007
At Heathrow and around the country, last weekend, the climate camp deservedly hit the headlines, with its urgent message on the action needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. Now, it's time for the follow-up. The green movement needs to gain some of the levers of power, in order to transform protest into policy implementation.
The Green Party needs to rise to that challenge. Despite the steady osmosis of its policies and ideas into the political mainstream and an increase in support at the ballot box, the urgency of climate change suggests that we should be far bigger players than we currently are.
A look at the way political commentators describe the state of the parties' popularity tells us what the problem is, straight away: Brown "bounces" while Cameron "wobbles".
But not a single column inch has told the story of the Greens' near-doubling in support over a number of polls taken during the past two years – and why? Partly at least because the party doesn't have a figurehead that can represent our ideas.
The truth is that the media – and most voters – don't relate to abstract concepts: rather they relate to the people who espouse and embody them.
After 30-odd years of trying to ignore that reality, we are running out of time. The need for Green political influence has never been so urgent, and never has there been so much at stake.
Scientists tell us that the next eight to 10 years will be critical in terms of whether we have any chance of avoiding the worst of climate change.
It is still the case that only the Green Party has both the radical policies and the political commitment that are so desperately needed to make sure we do.
For example, the cosy Westminster consensus has brought us a Climate Change Bill with hopelessly inadequate targets. According to scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, rather than constraining warming to less than two degrees which is essential to our chances of being able to stabilise the climate, the Bill's targets are more likely to contribute to a world that's four or five degrees warmer than in pre-industrial times.
This isn't just a terrifying prospect – it's a political scandal, and the Greens have to be in Parliament, challenging it and exposing it.
The trouble is Government advisers only give advice that they deem to be "politically realistic" – in other words, advice that won't require any major transformation of the economy or business as usual.
Greens have to be heard saying what others refuse to say: that the definition of what is "politically realistic" has to be, first and foremost, that which guarantees a habitable planet, not that which guarantees the greatest possible financial returns to companies and to their shareholders.
The real irony, of course, is that a radical transformation of the way we live our lives and do business will actually create a whole series of social win-wins: warmer homes, stronger communities, tastier food, less time spent stuck in traffic jams – even an end to the "status anxiety" which makes so many of us unhappy or even depressed.
But as the public debate over cutting emissions moves on, politicians, businesses and the media remain focussed on the costs and hardships of moving to a low-carbon economy. Rare are the voices talking about the benefits. We're not talking about huddling around a candle in a cave; rather, about chatting over a sumptuous meal of locally produced food, in a warm, well-insulated house, with friends and neighbours, having arrived by bike (easy, along uncongested streets), on foot or by public transport.
So our message is urgent, our skills and approach are needed now more than ever, and our electoral support is rising. Yet without an identifiable leadership team, we're just not getting the media attention and political success we deserve.
That's why the Green Party is looking at its internal structures: holding a referendum of all of its party members on whether to build on the set-up of having two "principal speakers" to the vital next stage: having a leader and a deputy leader (or two co-leaders) to act as recognisable, inspiring, leading voices for the thousands of dedicated party activists who collectively make the party what it is. Such a leadership wouldn't have the authority, so beloved of Brown and Cameron, to ignore party members' wishes and draw power to the centre.
They would be a very "green" leadership, elected by members every two years and remaining entirely accountable to the Greens' supreme policy-making body, our biannual conferences, and subject to recall.
Leadership doesn't have to be top down and authoritarian. Green leadership is about empowering and enabling voters to act, a leadership that inspires and motivates rather than one which dictates.
We think that the time is right to take radical Green policies and radical Green politics into the mainstream – and that by voting for identifiable and accountable leadership party members will be taking a vitally important step towards being able to do just that.
The author is the Green Party's MEP for South-east England. The article was written with the
assistance of Darren Johnson, Leader of the Green Group on Lewisham Council
The first thing that struck me was that I hadn't actually realised the Green's didn't have a leader (and I'm guessing our Caroline has her hat ready). And that this might explain a lot about how I feel about them as a viable political entity. They just seem like a bit of a nice bunch who oppose a lot of stuff. Would a leader bring them and what they are seeking to do into voter focus? No idea.
But looking at the alternatives, the presence of a leader doesn't seem to help much. We have Mr. Cameron who seems to stand for everything and nothing. Meanwhile Mr. Brown seems to be proving that the best way to stay on top is to stay out of the way and remain invisible. How long this will succeed who knows, but if polls (that's two 'l's') are to believed he has got away with the last 10 years plus the last few months pretty well on this basis. And surrounding himself with the most colourless collection on non-people I have ever had the misfortune to shake my head in disbelief at has not hurt either.
Maybe we do get who we deserve.
Greens decry lack of Government action on climate change
I am grateful to Dave of Solarventi for this link - Green party pragmatics - which adds further to this discussion in some detail. Sadly, I think it still rather confirms the feeling of some that the lack of a leader makes it hard to 'place' them in this media age, no matter how g*d-awful all the other leaders with their 'please all the people all the time' antics are in serving their parties and the country. Maybe the Greens have a point, though it seems to serve them poorly at the polls if one comment is to be believed.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Greenism
I'm stumped. I've been it before. I will be again. And I certainly am now. And it is epitomised by this: MEP HITS OUT AT MEDIA OVER CLIMATE CHANGE DOUBT...
... from a press release which I print in full here:
LUCAS LIKENS CLIMATE SCEPTICISM TO HOLOCAUST DENIAL - GREEN MEP Caroline Lucas has hit out at the media after a poll revealed that a majority of people in the UK believe that scientists aren’t agreed about the facts of climate change – or that it is being caused by human activity. According to latest figures by pollsters Ipsos-MORI, some 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change”. Just 22 per cent disagreed. Dr Lucas, who is a member of the European Parliament’s Environment and Climate Change committees, said: “This is very worrying. Politicians will never take the steps necessary to cut emissions unless voters demand that they do so, and they won’t demand it if they remain sceptical about their role in changing the climate in the first place. “The media are, at least in part, to blame: their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening, or that it isn’t manmade, as though there is a serious ongoing scientific debate about this. “But the fact is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: almost every scientist in the world agrees that climate change is happening, that it is being fuelled by human activity, and that our best chance of ameliorating its worst impacts lies in dramatically cutting global greenhouse gas emissions. “By suggesting otherwise the media is, albeit inadvertently, promoting dangerous scepticism about climate change – and undermining our chances of doing anything about it.” Dr Lucas, who was named Politician of the Year in the recent Observer Ethical Awards 2007, likened climate change scepticism to holocaust denial. “The media’s attempt to seem balanced is in fact distorting the public’s understanding of perhaps the most pressing issue facing us all today – and it’s tragic. It doesn’t make any sense: would the media insist on having a holocaust-denier to balance any report about the second word war? Of course not - but by insisting on giving so much airtime to climate change deniers, it is doing exactly the same thing.”
This is yet another, oddly familiar salvo, that can be added to the exchanges noted of late, including some we've had most latterly on these very pages just yesterday.
Here I am, trying to do my best to do what's best for my kids' futures on this planet, and I seem to have found myself in the BOFDi camp.
Let me be clear. I think the evidence for climate change (Global warming is getting pretty discredited as a term , at least to use in public debate, as low temperatures and flash floods are hard to reconcile with the term) is pretty clear. I also believe that, at best, what mankind is doing sure isn't helping. So anything we do... now... in mitigation to slow, halt and reverse the process is a priority, especially as, to this 'live for tomorrow' society, we are talking efforts that equate to turning a supertanker, inasmuch as what we do today won't get noticed - good or bad - for several decades.
But...
I simply cannot go along with the notion that 'green is always good', and in the name of climate change action all manner of statements and/or initiatives can be allowed to go undebated as to validity and value. I guess it is one of the greater failings of the democratic process, especially when time is of the essence.
But while I have great respect for Dr. Lucas, when I see such as this '...their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening...' I have to fall on the side of a much maligned (usually by me) media.
What is she saying? That 'we' shouldn't try to be balanced? There is an inherent arrogance here, that the majority are not to fit to make up their own minds up, and need to have only what is fit to shape them spoonfed by independent sources, such (well, within certain boundaries of credibility) as the media.
If the naysayers are holding sway, why are the majority of people accepting their stances? This is what needs to be addressed, and in ways civilised society is used to and must expect: debate and persuasion.
I simply can't accept you 'rig' it to suit your point of view prevailing, not matter how urgent the need to get moving.
And let's not forget, as noted also on these pages, climate change is also being used as a very convenient tool to excuse, distract from or otherwise promote activities that do still bear scrutiny, along with the agendas of those making the most noise, and with the most to profit from ROI over enviROI, especially if... when... they become the Gods of Green, whose word is taken as gospel with no naysaying permitted.
I'd hate to get to a situation similar to the one often found, for instance with Africa, where legitimate concerns on activities conducted and claims made can be easily deflected by accusations of 'racism'.
Please not let's have 'greenism' being bandied about in the same way.
... from a press release which I print in full here:
LUCAS LIKENS CLIMATE SCEPTICISM TO HOLOCAUST DENIAL - GREEN MEP Caroline Lucas has hit out at the media after a poll revealed that a majority of people in the UK believe that scientists aren’t agreed about the facts of climate change – or that it is being caused by human activity. According to latest figures by pollsters Ipsos-MORI, some 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change”. Just 22 per cent disagreed. Dr Lucas, who is a member of the European Parliament’s Environment and Climate Change committees, said: “This is very worrying. Politicians will never take the steps necessary to cut emissions unless voters demand that they do so, and they won’t demand it if they remain sceptical about their role in changing the climate in the first place. “The media are, at least in part, to blame: their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening, or that it isn’t manmade, as though there is a serious ongoing scientific debate about this. “But the fact is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: almost every scientist in the world agrees that climate change is happening, that it is being fuelled by human activity, and that our best chance of ameliorating its worst impacts lies in dramatically cutting global greenhouse gas emissions. “By suggesting otherwise the media is, albeit inadvertently, promoting dangerous scepticism about climate change – and undermining our chances of doing anything about it.” Dr Lucas, who was named Politician of the Year in the recent Observer Ethical Awards 2007, likened climate change scepticism to holocaust denial. “The media’s attempt to seem balanced is in fact distorting the public’s understanding of perhaps the most pressing issue facing us all today – and it’s tragic. It doesn’t make any sense: would the media insist on having a holocaust-denier to balance any report about the second word war? Of course not - but by insisting on giving so much airtime to climate change deniers, it is doing exactly the same thing.”
This is yet another, oddly familiar salvo, that can be added to the exchanges noted of late, including some we've had most latterly on these very pages just yesterday.
Here I am, trying to do my best to do what's best for my kids' futures on this planet, and I seem to have found myself in the BOFDi camp.
Let me be clear. I think the evidence for climate change (Global warming is getting pretty discredited as a term , at least to use in public debate, as low temperatures and flash floods are hard to reconcile with the term) is pretty clear. I also believe that, at best, what mankind is doing sure isn't helping. So anything we do... now... in mitigation to slow, halt and reverse the process is a priority, especially as, to this 'live for tomorrow' society, we are talking efforts that equate to turning a supertanker, inasmuch as what we do today won't get noticed - good or bad - for several decades.
But...
I simply cannot go along with the notion that 'green is always good', and in the name of climate change action all manner of statements and/or initiatives can be allowed to go undebated as to validity and value. I guess it is one of the greater failings of the democratic process, especially when time is of the essence.
But while I have great respect for Dr. Lucas, when I see such as this '...their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening...' I have to fall on the side of a much maligned (usually by me) media.
What is she saying? That 'we' shouldn't try to be balanced? There is an inherent arrogance here, that the majority are not to fit to make up their own minds up, and need to have only what is fit to shape them spoonfed by independent sources, such (well, within certain boundaries of credibility) as the media.
If the naysayers are holding sway, why are the majority of people accepting their stances? This is what needs to be addressed, and in ways civilised society is used to and must expect: debate and persuasion.
I simply can't accept you 'rig' it to suit your point of view prevailing, not matter how urgent the need to get moving.
And let's not forget, as noted also on these pages, climate change is also being used as a very convenient tool to excuse, distract from or otherwise promote activities that do still bear scrutiny, along with the agendas of those making the most noise, and with the most to profit from ROI over enviROI, especially if... when... they become the Gods of Green, whose word is taken as gospel with no naysaying permitted.
I'd hate to get to a situation similar to the one often found, for instance with Africa, where legitimate concerns on activities conducted and claims made can be easily deflected by accusations of 'racism'.
Please not let's have 'greenism' being bandied about in the same way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)