Political common sense shock!

Of course it may be a tad early to cheer too much: Brown to lobby EU on greener VAT

Words and phrases like 'to (as opposed to 'will') lobby (as opposed to 'get in their faces')' and 'push for' (which means?) or 'would seek' (and ye need not necessarily find?) rather make it in the realms of a punt... or, rather, pledge.

And you have gotta love this bit: 'The European Commission welcomed the initiative but said it would require agreement from all 27 member states.' I stand ready to be disabused, but that sounds like 'Yo, Gordo. Still settling in and need to show you're in charge, eh? Sure, we'll help a bit. But the answer is going to be no, ok? But you knew that, right?'

Huge idea, though. Wonder why no one thought of, and/or suggested it before/

Especially as we're trying to encourage better enviro-practice all round.

ps: Is it just me, but is everyone's nearby river coming through their front door?

Something rotten in the state of...everything, really

Though not actually about very much to do with the environment, I'd put this forward as a short, well-crafted analysis into how the state seems to be playing things 'on our behalves' - In the drink unaware

It is about a less than sympathetic industry, booze, but there are parallels to be drawn and lessons to be learned over here in eco-land.

To kick off, I am unsure as to how much of what is proposed is going to make a blind bit of difference to the reality of the situation. And, yet again a bunch of folk, from a legal industry to those who are allowed to use its wares, seem somehow destined to be caught up in a dodgy morass of competing do-gooding, revenue-generation (let's not forget that the less we drink, the more they need to make it up in taxes elsewhere) and official ineptitude, topped off with no actual responsibility or accountability at any stage.

Dealing with what goes into the system - namely people's desire and ability (and, with life the way it is now, some might say need) to drink - not being addressed very well (I really question how many million-£ campaigns it would take to stop any strata to go' that's a good ad; I'll give the beer a miss'), a failure for 'us' on a personal level to deal with it and, at the gutter end the state's inability to cope with the consequences, this seems a hiding to nothing that will cost a lot, do not much and probably make things worse. But will make a bunch more meddlers and consultants and officers of the state richer in ever more extensive empires of control.

A bit like most green 'initiatives' that I'm seeing of late.

The rich are different to you and I. They can better afford to cope with (knee) jerks.

I suspect that I will be adding links from elsewhere to these, not to mention a whole raft of emotive comment, Just what the media loves.

Pressure group urges higher air taxes to penalise 'rich' flyers

Brown tackles 'Chelsea tractors' in final Budget

As with road pricing I simply fear potentially necessary measures to manage personal travel emissions will get snarled up by woeful knee jerk legalisation that has little to do with the environment and more to do with hype. Not all who fly or use 4x4s are rich or doing so simply for fun.

Let's see how the BBC mangle that one.

ps: The banner ads at time of writing were... ironic. One for short haul flights. And the other for a dirty great Beemer.

BBC - Budget 'to hit gas guzzlers hard'
Guardian - Budget to give tax breaks for green homes

Sir,

As a strong advocate of incentive based measures, this is, on the surface, hard to fault. I just worry about the practice. And how fair it can be made without more legions of civil servants draining the public purse simply to assess measure, approve and/or fine.

Not all are in a position to whack up a wind turbine to order. At least the payback is being claimed as on energy created and sent back tot he grid.

What I am not keen on is greenwashing measures, that may be acceptable if it leaves the financial ROI to the wallet and conscience of the consumer, but not if the ultimate enviROI is actually worse for not being done at all. That would not be helping my kids' futures.

The question then arises whose shorter term interests are being served.

It's not just the question. These days it's who is asking it.

DO YOU WANT GREEN SNOOPERS IN YOUR HOME?

No. But how do I know any more that they will be as described here?

Speedy Justice?

Just watched a piece on citizen speed radar traps. With kids I totally agree with any form of traffic calming. But sorry, not by anyone but those trained and legally tasked with doing so. Not some granny with a gun.

Are these devices reliable?
Are the operators' eyes reliable?
Are they sure to be objective?
Are the records held against other traffic infractions?
What is the opportunity to appeal and have the records expunged?

Can I get a local neighbour to assess me for tax?

One law for you. And one for me.

Fines clampdown ‘will hit innocent drivers’

Let me get this straight.

Without due process or any burden of proof being established,
someone's rightful property can be seized and impounded against
their proving they are innocent?

And the justification for this being it's 'needed to help tackle the problem of unpaid congestion charges by drivers registered outside London.'

Now, what if Gordon Brown phoned them up and suggested a fellow
Ministerial colleague's Caravan-tower was in breach?

Why don't they just line-up against the wall and shoot each other?
It would save the rest of us the job.

Light out. The end of some tunnel vision?

Why do I feel the dead hand of a target, combined with some typically unjoined up thinking here?

Get ready for the big blackout

At first I thought 'Why not?' as a lot of motorway miles are driven
using just headlights. But beyond the human, I wonder about the
eco-cost of lights vs. the consequences of an accident in terms of
persons, travel and material damage/repair/recycling.

Brian has made a good suggestion.

Or there are ranges of low energy light made by Philips I have seen.

Off the people. Bye bye the people. Screw the people

Busybodies will be the death of us smokers

Leave it out! I mean the 'smokers' bit in your headline.

I have never smoked. Never will. I loathe all about it, and cannot stand the fact that a person who would get most agitated if I started burning polystyrene cups next to them as they travel, eat or any other activity that brings us into proximity, can think they have had any right, ever, to do so. But...

I agree. You want to do for yourself in or outdoors where it doesn't affect me and my own, knock yourself out. But here I see the matter of policing sensibly the how and the when gets tricky, along with costs to the taxpayer in scooping diseased lungs out of 30 year-olds at the expense of a kid with a hereditary ailment who happens to have lost a postcode lottery.

These would of course be matters for civilised debate, to arrive at an equitable solution.

But oh no, we have some fatuous 'the people require' vindication slapped on top of a spun elf & safety justification, when in fact it is just another attempt to stick more vote-nanny-loves-ya bodies on the solid gold, index-linked public payroll, funded in part by fines imposed outside of due legal process by the very folk whose salaries depend on a bust, on the sector of society who are most likely to cooperate and stump up. Meanwhile, at a gun dealer near you...

It's almost as logical as allowing a certain class of car to be made and then demonise the manufacturers for making them and people for buying them, when overhead a much worse form of transport pollution flies by almost unhindered by legislation to deliver air-flown berries to Islington supermarkets.

What next? Fining kids for putting (if indeed they did - innocent 'til proven, 'n all...) the wrong type of paper in a recycling bin. Oh... they have.

CARBON LEGACY

Death... taxes. If you want a good read on a Sunday, trust the Sunday papers.

The Express has a campaign to scrap IHT. Better than nothing, but if I know the Treasury and politicians of any hue with a pension to support, that is a tad black and white. And has a snowballs chance of doing not much more than adding to the readership.

So I have fired off an e-petition to No. 10. I doubt it will get the support a major tabloid can swing, but it seems a more reasonable compromise with a certain amount of imminent planet-saving attached, as opposed to a left-wing Govt./right-wing paper bunfight. If nothing else, what's not to like as a voter. Your dosh goes to funding a pol's golden sideways transfer when they cock up, or to making things that help save the planet for our kids.

Here's the text:

We petition the prime minster to enable the creation of a ‘Carbon Legacy’, as a direct, future generation-benefiting substitute for Inheritance Tax

IHT debate boils down into 2 main areas. Individuals get frustrated seeing a major % of savings go not to securing descendant’s futures, but to fund much that is... wasteful. To Govt IHT is an historical plum to good to be denied, justified by wealth being redistributed ‘for the common good’. Climate change is accepted by all as the most serious issue we face, Carbon Legacy is a fruitful compromise between entrenched positions, which remain deadlocked. A no middleman bequest, down to the IHT limit, donated to any initiative that is proven to be tangibly DOING something to improve matters on a measurable e-ROI, free from all but the most crucial instruments of management/oversight. No ‘redirection’! Funds straight to where most needed, to do the most good for the future. Some devils in the detail, but doable with consensus. In so doing it must surely satisfy both the needs and aspirations of all sides.

I'll let you know if an when it's approved. Oh, and here's the longer version:

The problem with IHT is complex, but boils down into two main areas.

As far as the individual is concerned, having worked and been taxed all one’s life, there is a certain frustration with seeing a major % of one’s hard-earned go not to the future generations that will bear your name, but to fund quite a lot that might be deemed... wasteful.

As far as the government is concerned, this is too good an historical plum to be denied, and the claim is usually that such wealth should be redistributed ‘for the common good’.

With climate change accepted as the most important issue facing future generations, might I suggest a fruitful compromise: Carbon Legacy.

A no frills, no middleman, bequest of whatever amount one wishes, but certainly down (from whatever excess there may be) to the IHT limit; donated to any project or initiative that is proven to be tangibly doing something to improve matters, and is free from ministers, activists, City-types, lobbyists, targets, assessors, licensees and all other instruments of jobsworth cut-carving. Money straight where it is needed, to do the most good for the future. A few devils in the detail, but surely doable with relatively easy consensus.

And in so doing it must surely satisfy both the needs and aspirations of both sides. Unless people and governments are really that greedy or think they can take it with them.

I’ll suggest my own website Junkk.com as an initial beneficiary [you can delete that if it’s too commercial a plug, though we are free and really doing something tangible to help save this planet].

And it’s surely 1000% better than anything potential future deputy prime ministers can come up with by way of equitable, and practical, redistribution of wealth.

Who knows? Maybe it will strike a chord. If so, I hope it will not go the way of the road pricing one: democracy inaction:)

Guardian - The 'death trap' menacing middle Britain is a myth

Just popped over from another thread where we're discussing the economics of climate change, and the small fact there soon may not be much to leave, let alone tax.

So, Yoda-like, may I suggest that there is 'another way': CARBON LEGACY

I even thought it good enough to start a petition on the No.10 site.

If you think so too, please join in.

Let's have schools to match London's wealth

Following Mr. Hain's not-very subtle and totally pie-in-the sky notions of wealth distribution, and certain newspapers' equally Air Old Spot attempt at IHT removal, I decided (sadly about a minute before it all went ballistic on road-pricing and my submission seems to have been lost in the greenwash) to instigate a petition to create a 'Carbon Legacy'.

It was... is... an attempt to introduce a spirit of pragmatic compromise between the various rocks and hard places trying to score points off each other with no chance, and no intention, of actually getting anything done, but looking great and scoring profile for not doing so.

It's designed to provide an option for City high-flyers, Premiership footballers, Media darlings, and anyone with more than a semi in Surbiton to bequeath their excess squillions to tangible future-saving projects and not some Treasury dam-plugging black-hole.

It's on the basis that if you can't take it with you, you won't mind leaving it at least to your own next generation's future, if not actually to them.

Fancy joining in? Or, assuming it's legal and/or ethical, have you something better in mind for you money once you're gone?

To: Breakingviews.com

Attn: Hugo Dixon

Re: Carbon Legacy

Following Boris Johnson's reference to your influnence in such matters, might I commend to you the following IHT suggestion, that may appeal to those with an interest in a genuine legacy for their hard-won money.

The people have spoken - so what?

A million motorists embarrass road price ministers

Embarrass a minister? How does one do that? They are gold-plated, index-linked, unfireably (actually in Mr. Blunkett's case that's no true, but he did turn it into a nice earner) immune from the consequences of their actions... or inactions.

"...he said that many of the claims made by those promoting the petition were “falsehoods”. He promised that there would be safeguards to protect motorists’ privacy and that the system would not be used to catch drivers speeding."

Speaking of falseho... errors of omission... this is followed by..

"Mr Alexander did not offer assurances that the scheme would not raise the overall tax burden on motorists."

With a slight silence on the main point, which is most motorists don't trust the money raised to go towards improving transport infrastructure.

Trust is wearing thin, guys, and no amount of smoke and mirrors will avoid that.

And as we are juggling numbers, a million is probably about the number of legal (we'll ignore all the untaxed, insured guys they can seem to catch) drivers who were entitled to vote, did so, and gave this government their 'mandate'.

Telegraph - Downing St to email road pricing protesters
BBC - More road-charging debate pledged - There is an interestingA/V snippet off this that is worth listening to. from the headline I thought it was going to be about methodology. I after all have about 20 email addresses, so I guess I could boost any petition without thorough checks by simply using these. That said, the old paper one was equally subject to problems of checking. You could argue that it used to be more difficult, but in an e-age, why should that prevent feelings being expressed and supported.

Actually, the main thrust by an 'expert' (actually a guy from an industry in danger of being put out of business by such people power) was that it was only becuase it was from a well-organised lobby. Was it? I thought it was a guy who started a ball rolling. It is also insulting to say there are more important issues people care about. For me it was not so much road pricing, but ill-considered, inequitable legalisation being pushed through by self-serving pols. And that I do care about very high on my list.

Telegraph - One million people can't be wrong

'...going on to suggest that the signers were misinformed.'

How? I have also seen that notion floated that the level of response is as a result of 'coordinated action'. A guy posts on a petition and the people respond. What would they prefer.. a public funded campaign to tell us what to think?

Such crass attempts at dismissing genuine people power shows how out of touch these guys are.

I do believe we will need some sort of controls to manage traffic and emissions, but not the ill-considered, unfair and self-serving ones these bright young advisers and their political dinosaur masters have tried to stuff through.

I signed because I would want to see where my money went in helping transport, not to fill a hole in their index-linked pension plans.

Telegraph - Capital paid heavy price for congestion charge
Telegraph - Road tolls could be Labour's poll tax
Independent - The road to nowhere: Government urged to stick with plans for road pricing

This is typical sloppy reporting. I was interested to see who was doing the urging and on what basis. There's also a list of pros and cons. One I note missing is that there is no clear information on where the money will go.

I think my buttons got pushed

Is the rubbish tax a rubbish tax?

Pay for what you use... or in this case.. refuse... no problem (unless you are a politician. Ask Mrs. T about the Poll Tax).

Pay on top of what you are paying already.... big problem. That is not an economic incentive. That is a very uneconomic disincentive. And smacks of yet another not very stealthy tax grab under the guise of green to try and prop up runaway public spending on failed or inefficient systems, policies and campaigns (how many waste quangos dispensing how much to ad agencies do we now have?), imposed on those few making something (plus the poor, pensioners, etc) to support those who advise, empire-build (how many compost-awareness officers do we need?) assess, monitor, target-meet and beancount's gold-plated pensions and index-linked salaries.

While I can accept and admire the wisdom of such an approach and the obvious success elsewhere, I no longer have any faith in the self-interested, dis-jointed central and local authority systems and knee-jerk policy-addicted wonks who will try and fail make it all happen fairly, sensibly and efficiently, without mainly lining the pockets of those most able and least deserving.

I have a big house. I can stack as many RE-Boxes as the council issues in my cellar. My mum has a combo kitchen/lounge/dining area. So she needs to get stuff out as simply and quickly as possible. How do we make that work? It has to, but I doubt the fine-first brigade cares so long as they can whack a chip in a bin or give a dust-person the power to impose charges and fines on a par with a court of law.

I write this as one who produces almost no waste beyond that recycled and composted because I make things out of it using sites such as Junkk.com, which truly believes that you incentivise with genuine re:wards. A lesson those in power seem to have completely overlooked.

I have written to the editor:

Dear Sir,

We need to get a handle on waste.

But what amazes me is the massive gap between those who are being asked to address it (the public), those staked to help them (gov, local gov and NGOs such as WRAP, etc).

I have blogged on this further on your pages and my own site, and offer this cut-down for hard copy:

Pay for what you use... or in this case.. refuse... no problem.

Pay on top of what you are paying already.... big problem. That is not an economic incentive. That is a very uneconomic disincentive. And smacks of yet another not very stealthy tax grab under the guise of green to try and prop up runaway public spending on failed or inefficient systems, policies and campaigns to support those who advise, empire-build assess, monitor, target-meet and beancount.

While I can accept and admire the wisdom of such an approach and the obvious success elsewhere, I no longer have any faith in the systems and knee-jerk policy-addicted attempts to make it all happen fairly, sensibly and efficiently, without mainly lining the pockets of those most able and least deserving.

It has to be made to work, but I doubt the fine-first brigade cares so long as they can whack a chip in a bin or give a dust-person the power to impose charges and fines on a par with a court of law.

If you'd like to discuss any further on how the war on waste is being fought more between us than on it, I'd be happy to share.

Telegraph - Common sense: a virtue Labour lacks

Speaking of backfiring...

I was in a plane once that backfired. It was a TWA internal flight. Nastiest thing I had ever been in. Taxiing to the runway and then 'bang!'. I'm halfway to the chutes before I realise everyone else hasn't batted an eyelid.

Speaking of planes...

For a brief moment I could see part of Mr. O's case. I still can't accept retroactive anything as fair or just. So Gordon's tax on folk who had saved and paid for their trip is plain wrong to me. Anything from now on, simple supply and demand.

However, in the great scheme of coming out with one thing and being called on it: Ryanair retracts emissions claim.

Nice one, Newsnight.

Whether the original made a gain and the retraction detracted from it is another issue entirely.

Strike a light

No time for British clock changes

"...the move could have saved around 100 lives a year through reducing evening traffic accidents, and around £485 million in energy costs", plus, as a consequence, the greenhouse gasses produced.

I have followed this and thought the debate to be less clear on the benefits, so it is good to find clear safety, scientific, economic and environmental bases in support of it.

Hence the obvious question is, why did it fail as, if ever there was a... rare... no brainer, this would seem to be it.

Perhaps it would the social unpopularity of the move in more Northern counties and indeed countries, whose representation in Parliament is at a remarkably high %age?

Shedding some light

I'm rather proud of thast headline, inspired by this: Home front

To which I wrote this, direct to author and on blog:

"The question then arises: "is there any carbon offsetting to be had", is a good one, as that seems to be the point to any useful reduction measure.

And from all your useful discussions and valuable research for the article... is there?

Or at least a lead on someone who can advise us, factually and/or objectively? I find it hard to believe in this computerised age there is not a model that can easily assess domestic and work usage patterns to derive a pretty good answer, and in a lot less than three years.

Otherwise this bill is a waste, if not an exercise in futility, like so many headline* (if not vote) -catching 'green' issues (potentially good or bad on the various ROIs one can try to apply) before it.

ps: Thank you, Walt OBrien, for a truly useful new fact (to me at least) that I will now add to our site's archive and campaign for things that actually 'do' something."

* I could have added 'Headline-creating, too', as these things often are only used in the negative to make a quick dig and are then left to be ignored. I, for one, would truly like to know the situation to be able to have a proper view on it.

ADDENDUM: Stuck in a dark age

Carb-con

For the first time in a long time, I read a piece that seemed to pretty much say what I've been eyebrow-twitching, if not saying, for a while, and in quite calm, lucid and pragmatic terms: Planting trees won't offset jetting to the sun

I had to write:

'There's a certain irony to this headline as I watch my garden head to Oz (and I don't mean Botany Bay - great cartoon by Matt in The Telegraph on just this point, by the way).

Just wanted to say I agree with you. Which for a pretty committed 'green' may sound surprising. I see this issue as too much 'Carb-con jobs for the boys', and not enough doing what's necessary, right and fair.

I also like to see the issue(s) put as factually as possible, and in terms most if not all average folk can appreciate. Well done.

The rest of what you say is less easy to applaud, by simply being so true and unpalatable.

We do need leadership. Strong leadership. And by example (I'm almost afraid to point you at this). Plus we need sensible media support. This is the first I've seen in a while.

Thank you.'

Now, I wonder, will the 'Anon' dogs of PR and lobbyists appear from to savage this debate into further deadlock and inertia?

Indy: Carbon offsetting 'can be harmful'
BBC

More Mea Culpas

I hope I am being consistent in my reporting, and try to pass on news upon which I comment with a suitable amount of 'as read'.

I'm sure some references will follow to add to this later, but again as I watch the BBC I have to qualify something I blogged on earlier.

It would appear that a small glimmer of agreement between me and Mr. Leary of RyanAir may have been premature. I thought he was making worthy stand against retroactive taxation on behalf of his customers. Er... it seems not.

In fact, with the farce that is the imposition of this tax, he's gone from being what I thought was one of the good guys to a true black hat, customer service wise. He's going to turn folk away at the desk.

No one is coming out of this well.

Not even the financial community. It seems that the travel and hospitality industries are legally allowed to sneak back into even your credit card accounts without asking to make up such tariff differences. This of course could push you into further handling costs and OD charges through no fault of your own.

Nil points.

Some are more equal

Maybe you can help me? What is a lobbyist? I ask because this post got me to wondering.

'I have sympathy, as even in the delicate groves of enviro e-academe, you can end up with some rather disconcerting equivalents of G.Bush's 'bring it on'. Especially prevalent where one uses humour, logic and facts to successfully counter (and show-up, wherein may lie the problem), bias, agendas, hissy-fits and hype. Speaking of which, you are right to ponder one's contribution to 'no such thing as bad publicity', but logically staying silent is not an option should one be concerned that all good persons (ok, I'm a PC-brigade coward) do nothing.

In one rather nasty incident recently, I found myself pulling out of a deteriorating online 'debate' with an 'Anon' (who knew who I was when I did not know them) when they said the next time the 'gloves were coming off' and they 'would get into the gutter'. I have since wondered whether, at risk of sounding like a schoolyard wimp, that was worth taking further with the Forum host at least, if not further. Surely what you describe above could be deemed a threat of assault?

As a pure aside, and bearing in mind my area of specialisation, I was interested in your use of the word 'lobby', as it has cropped up a lot, like with Tony 'D2AID2AIS' (don't do as I do, do as I say) Blair's holiday flip-flops on airlines and travel. Thanks to a Green MEP press release I read a government Minister is frustrated he can't do anything because of 'the power of the air lobby'!

I know it has its origins in meeting out of Chambers or some such, and hence doubtless originated here, but until now I had it as a US-based phenomenon and didn't really pay it much heed. No longer. These guys are unelected yet shaping my future.

But what is it? Far as I can gather it's a guy paid a lot by some other guys to whisper into a guy with a vote's ear to swing their way. So far, so open to corruption. But in the case of people not open to a bung, which I presume includes HMG and its officers, how is it any more powerful than 'putting one's point across'. Which is fine, unless it gets more sinister and drifts into areas of undue influence.

If we're talking 'or else' then surely it is illegal, he said naively, having watched Judge John Deed last night.'

The Gord giveth. And the Gord taketh it all back (and some)

A monstrous tax , if the article is true, says it all.

Already pointed out a few times, the fact that adding double glazing gets you penalised is about as insane as it gets.

"I've just up in to read this after a hard week's work followed by an equally hard, if satisfying, weekend of DIY to try and make more of my
home (including some more eco-additions). For which it seems I am now going to be further taxed!!!!!

So here's one not-very-well-off, very enviro-aware homeowner with a family to provide for, then self and spouse to get through retirement, who also happens to be a registered voter and knows what their vote is for.

I know who is not getting it. I just hope I can find someone in (or trying to get there) the lunatic asylum that is Westminster who can demonstrate they have enough of what it takes (common sense, sesne of duty, statespersonship, courage, no spin-doctor gatekeeper/mouthpieces, etc) to attract mine their way.

Small tip: you don't get a good grasp of what the average, normal, decent, hard-working people of Britain are managing on and think about the state of it all in a multi-millionaire's pad in Florida, cozying-up with the chattering classes on a Breakfast TV or Sunday paper political columnist's sofa, hugging a husky or selling on a gas-guzzler to keep on guzzling.

I just hope that the claim about this tax is not true - I went from 'Homes TO BE valued...' to ...WITH A VIEW to extending them in the UK... to 'a similar system is BEING PLANNED for England'.
Before I start boiling the oil: is it or isn't it going to be attempted? - as I am at the end of my tether with the whole sorry, unfireable, hypocritical, index-linked, golden handshaken lot of them.


And, sadly, what is true there are an awful lot now. I'm guessing it has at last sunk in they’ll need paying for. But THIS is not the way to try and solve that little self-created problem.

Trust me."

Trust me, I'm a Pol trying to save my bac.. the planet.

The enemy of my enemy...?

Who would have thought I'd ever side with Mr. O'Leary?

But with this - Fight over Brown’s ‘green’ levy - I have.

" am no great fan of Mr. O'Leary or his airline, but good luck to him.

Retroactive legislation is the thin end of a very steep wedge.

"... the tax, which the Chancellor claims will benefit the environment, will be applied to any passenger with a current booking made before the announcement was made."

Good claim. How, exactly, will this benefit the environment? The flight is taking place anyway. EasyJet may considering barring those who refuse (who would/can?) and that may mean a few kg less to lift, but the actual environmental impact is the same. Just some extra money going to... what, exactly?

Yes, ways must be found to resolve the environmental impact of travelling, and soon, but this will just create a 'them and us' divide which will make conversion of opinion and behaviours that much more difficult."

Just last night I was watching TV and in one break there were two ads for cereals. One with actor Ray Winstone talking about the nanny state, and the other with a load of 'official robots' trying to stop you eating tasty food. The industry and the government going to head to head, with the latter using our money to wage it so they can play with the ad agencies.

Pathetic.

ADDENDA:

Let's get this straight. I don't think the existence, financial incentives and hence proliferation of a mjaor greenhouse gas industry can be a good thing.

What I don't like is when 'green' is used to 'bash and tax' without thought, or only with a view to making a money and not a difference.

Knock yourselves out trying to figure who is coming out of this well:

BBC - Airlines savaged over environment
Reuters - Minister criticises Ryanair on emissions
Guardian - Labour targets airlines over carbon emissions
Guardian - Rise of low-cost flights comes at high price
Telegraph - Virgin holds talks on low-cost long-haul flights
Telegraph - Ryanair 'unacceptable face of capitalism'

Firefighting with pound notes?

OK, so there are no more £ notes. Bear with me.

Bearing in mind that we are starting to hear the first glimmers of printed carbon footprints on things we buy (my initial thoughts: great in theory, probably necessary, but on present evidence the practice will simply make things worse, expect for those involved who will make a killing consulting and administering it) I found these two pieces worth pondering as the health aspects of what we consumer are further ahead in the whole politico/legislato/lobbyo/mediaballyhoo mix than environment:

Food agency takes on industry over junk labels
&
Why Kellogg's saw red over labelling scheme

Those tasked with looking after us seem to have an addiction to 'communication'. To someone whose careers, past, present and future, revolve around this, that would seem a good thing. But I do see a rather unhealthy trend to taking an easy option, namely an 'ad campaign', which may be visible, may well cause a blip in target measurement, but costs a heck of a lot to a poor ROI.

Much as I'd blooming well hope the multi-millions of our money 'invested' in improving recycling rates (and champagne toasts in agencies, government departments, quango, recycling company and council offices to the profits (and returned?) made a careers forged) did manage a few %, I still question if that was/is the best use of such vast amounts.

So now we have directors and departments scooting off to SoHo and shoots to create an air something that the very industry it's targeted at won't wear and can swamp in a weekend's ad spend.

Hmnn.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the 'industry' in any way. But isn't it amazing commerce, authorities and even the media can compartmentalise?

I know the issue du jour here is health, but with greenwashing so last month, but doubtless back 'in' the next, I can't help but raise an eyebrow at this:

"Early last year Kellogg's flew a handful of journalists in a private jet to its Old Trafford cornflakes factory."

Nice work if you can get it. I guess they may have felt it rude to ask why a train ride would not have sufficed.