Buy pass

Of all the activist groups, I have found Greenpeace to be the most erratic to follow and/or support consistently.

Protest is very much the bedrock of a free society, and they have dealt in this for decades, pretty much always effectively but not, IMHO, always wisely.

As a rule of thumb, I am not in favour of anything that creates risk, breaks laws, incites violence or, and especially, efforts that selectively target and inconvenience poor schmoes just trying to get on with their lives.

With this latter at least, I usually wonder how the perpetrators would feel if their chance and a holiday or somesuch was ruined by a bunch of others who are often a tad selective about what they do and what they aim to stop.

However, smart ways of raising profile that hit the pockets evenly by being more targeted at corporates and governments (it all ends up back in our wallets no matter what, let's not forget) are, when done well, to be admired.

Hence I think the purchase of a parcel of land in the way of the proposed 3rd runway, to be divided into mini-plots, to be very smart.

Not quite so sure on some of the justifications being used (the spokesperson was very inarticulate and hence less than persuasive in soliciting public support on SKY news just now), and again the choice of celebrity messengers (a few of the luvvies being against this seem quite well travelled, and indeed seem more concerned with what was going on over their West London homes than sea levels in the Maldives), but this is one worth following to see how the various protagonists handle it all (I see Mr. Brown in a dithering funk, the business community tying itself in contradictory 'good for the community' knots and the activists getting more radical and losing public sympathy pretty quickly... all per usual).

BBC - Protesters buy up Heathrow land

One law for the [ ]*

*insert exceptions/interest groups that will not be you here.

I think this op-ed from Ch 4 sums it up best:

We’ve just heard that Greenpeace have won in their legal battle over their protest at the Kingsnorth power station in Kent. They’ve been found not guilty of causing criminal damage in their protest against the coal-fired station. Essentially the Greenpeace argument was that climbing up a chimney and daubing “Gordon” on it was not criminal damage, as it was lawfully right because it was needed to prevent the greater damage caused by the government’s energy policy and resulting carbon emissions. If you like, it was the old argument: you can bash down a door legally, to put out the fire on the other side of it. So where now? Can you go home tonight and chuck paint over the neighbour’s 4x4, to make a case against emissions? Anyone up for super-gluing the gates of the nearest coal-fired power station? I could go on whilst the lawyer is out of the room. But does it actually open any precedent at all? We take a look, hopefully with a lawyer. Precedent is doubtful. Environmentalists have already pulled something similar to this before, damaging GM crops, but beware of wider precedents.

So now, to add to when I go on holiday overseas I can claim I am raising awareness of climate change, I might try spinning some bit of local law-breaking as part of addressing a greater truth, possibly elsewhere. Worth a try, I guess. Always wondered what lay beyond those flood gates.

Guardian - Policy, not protesters, should be on trial

Times - Protesters cleared over damage to power plant

Spectator - Greenwashing A Jury - Not a good few days for jury decisions to some, but also not great to those who then decide they don't like the result. The system was used, and delivered its result. Seesm to me there was a failure by the prosecution to prove their case. Maybe not enough irony-free experts flown over from the USA to further help, um, 'awareness'?

I even had a category ready

This deserves its own gig. More so by being in the Guardian:

Elitist evangelists

I am hard-pressed to figure out what the £30k 'damage' was/is, but 'if you commit the crime, you do the time', etc, I guess.

However, this is one CiF I'll watch from the sidelines.

Telegraph - NEW - Climate change chicanery - The author is a major climate optimist, and hence all written should be viewed in this light but, if true, the point about the function of an expert witness in a legal trial is a good one, and I'd like that question on how two advocates came to be used in this role was allowed.

125 million migrants

That's the number calculated to leave the worst hit regions of South East Asia should global warming raise temperatures by 4C to 5C (the IPCC forecast), according to Greenpeace.

Looks like we might need to plan a few more 'eco-towns' then? (See the Red Flag post below)

'Generation C'

Well, at least the majority of teenagers seem to be growing up aware of the problems that they are going to inherit from their forefathers. As reported by Greenpeace.

"Two thirds of those polled believe climate change will have a negative effect on their lives."

Let's hope we act in time to minimise the effects on them, their children and their grandchildren.
____________________
There is just a chance that the sun itself will help to mitigate the temperature rises likely due to man, as it appears to have entered a period of very low activity. According to this from the Belfast Telegraph, we really ought to be heading into a mini ice age.

Booking the Cooks

Sorry, couldn't resist that headline - Household brands accused of "cooking the climate" as British government prepares for climate summit

This is what Greenpeace does well, but they do of course have a pretty strict agenda so read it all with eyebrow ready. That said, some uncomfortable reading in the CSR departments and boardrooms of some major brands.

Gaurdian - Does it pay to get into bed with business?

Palm oil hits troubled waters?

Now we have all read about how palm oil production is increasing rapidly across suitable areas of the planet, especially now that it can also be utilised as a source of bio-diesel.

This from Greenpeace, names some leading British brands which appear to be highly complicit in the destruction of Indonesia's peat swamp forests which are being replaced with palm oil plantations.

The report explains "how peatlands in the Indonesian province of Riau (an area the size of Switzerland) store a massive 14.6 billion tons of carbon (2) - equivalent to one year's global greenhouse gas emissions. Further expansion for the production of palm oil for food and biofuels threatens to release this enormous store of carbon into the atmosphere."

If it is true that "palm oil from companies engaged in forest and peatland destruction is then ‘laundered' through the entire supply chain, ending up with well known" British brands, then I suspect there are going to be some very red faces in forthcoming board meetings.

ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Guardian - Big food companies accused of risking climate catastrophe - 'Risking'...bless. Funny, I was just reading about P&G's eco-efforts, along with Shell's green ad being pulled by the ASA, and...

Bums on seats. Heads in hands?

Greenpeace tears into retail 'eco-villains'

I can't be sure (there have been a lot recently in different guises), but this would be the fourth 'survey' of green goodness/badosity this week.

And what are we, the public to make of this?

At this rate we'll need to go to about 20 different outlets to get the best option of each shopping list need.

In the old days that would have been the shops in the street. However this would seem to indicate a 'green-crawl' to do the weekly shopping.

And whilst in some ways understandable, does not replying warrant an 'F'? I am unsure that not subjecting oneself to a body's 'cooperate or else' 'survey' paints the surveyor in the best light either.

I fear a battle looms, and the consumer and planet again will be the main losers.

Guardian - Sainsbury's aims to regain green ground from rivals - I'm sure they mean to 'be' the most 'yadayadagreen' retailer, not 'seen to be'...;) That would be, well, it just wouldn't wash.

Message from the front

GREENPEACE AND FRIENDS OF THE EARTH - BOTH USING YOUTUBE

Whale & Chips - Can't fault it/them. More power to this kind of activity, which is where Greenpeace excels.

Shop Local - It's well done, and I guess gets a message across. But from my earliest days it was dinned into me by a succession of CDs that, while fun, devoting the majority of your ad to the negative is often taking the easy, soft and otherwise not so effective option.

OK, so there's an exclusive dig at Tesco (missing me completely as we have the choice of Morrisons or Somerfield). Fair 'nuff. I guess they symbolise the evil empire to many (odd they topped the Climate Brand Index thingie on these pages t'other day, though).

But really what else did I get? Some nice local folk were going to vanish. Tell me about it. Our High Street has more boarded up shopfronts and charity shops than there are actual businesses!

It certainly is not easy. And there are a myriad issues to address, from parking convenience to time pressures to costs (though often local can be cheaper) and the fact that council rates are not exactly helping.

It would be neat to see the sense of fun of this execution being injected into a positive branding message for the quality of the produce and the experience.

I love walking the strip and getting fresh food that tastes 100% better, and all with a cheery bit of personal service taboot.

Trouble is, they don't usually offer this on Sundays, which is often the only day I am free to help with the shopping.

ADDENDUM, thanks to Dave -

Talkingretail.com today reports that Tesco comes out on top of a new 'climate brand index'. This has been launched to track consumer perceptions of how a business is performing in terms of climate change issues.

Interesting to note that BP manages second place.

Me again: Meanwhile..... M&S, Sainsbury's and Waitrose top green supermarkets study

But will he get it?

Greenpeace sends message to "Gordon"

Not always a fan of Greenpeace, but sometimes they can do more than most to get our 'we're listening', if rather deaf, leadership to at least confront some stuff they seem to wish didn't exist.

Management Today - Labour’s entrepreneur tax - I know, it's not the same thing. I just needed a palce to stick it before I jumped off the roof.

Indy - Green Taxes: Chancellor accused of stealing Tory idea

I don't often fully side with Greenpeace .....

.... but, for once, I support this particular initiative, and would urge all our readers to do just the same.

We have mentioned the Arctic gold rush on a number of occasions in this very blog. See Gold Under Them There Bergs and Giant Leap Backwards, voicing the very same concerns that Greenpeace is now doing.

However, as this article from the Greenpeace web pages explains, what we really need, as the Arctic polar ice field slowly disappears, is for the Arctic resources to be protected from exploitation just as those of the Antarctic are under the 1991 international agreement. They ask that all readers sign a petition requesting the very same protection for the Arctic, and seek to have it given the status of a World Park.

I urge all readers to please visit the link and sign the petition. That is, if you prefer the Arctic to remain an untouched world park rather then see it get turned into yet another major oilfield.

And yes, I know the little film clip is utterly naff!!

The convenient solution?

A clever title for an interesting short film (10mins) from Greenpeace promoting investment in renewables and CHP schemes above the development of any further nuclear power generation capabilites.

Some quite interesting facts & figures appear, not least of which is the scale of government funding in renewables R&D compared to the funding going into existing nuclear waste clean up! A bit of a gobsmacker!

So is it the convenient solution? Well, watch the video and make up your own mind.

My major concern is more, how shall I put it .... the 'inconvenient unkown'; as in, do we actually have the time to develop and deploy large scale new renewable schemes based on things like wave and tidal power, technologies which, as yet, are still very much in their infancy?