O, solar mi... o mi

I'll be posting this also under the main Solar category (label link below) as it's an interesting set of insights.

One of the blog/forums I frequent is a very worthwhile source of links, thoughts and, until recently, debate. In a less than thrilling example of how some 'purists' can shape the group think I have found myself much less likely to contribute by off-forum... approaches. Makes me all the more determined to police a fair but firm moderating line here to keep the bullies in check and the debate productive.

Recently there was a posting citing a Guardian piece, which I duly noted. Frankly I didn't do much else as it was about a bit of a punt and I tend to avoid these 'til they get serious.

Guardian - £37bn plan to power EU with the Saharan sun

However, a follow-up posting on this forum did catch my eye, and as it was in the ongoing spirit of challenge and making one think a bit more before leaping headlong into the 'green is good no arguments allowed' mode that I am so critical of (and seems all too practiced by so called 'professional journalists' in certain quarters, at best for a quick story, at worst ratings or some subjective agenda. Plus, if you read on, such as Dear Leader and Cher Napoleon, so it has already got serious), I thought what was written was worth sharing at least, and have been given permission by Frank Holland, the author:

I have been examining DESERTEC
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp/in_brief.htm for some time. It all sounds
so simple that even politicians can understand it. You build solar
energy generating systems where there is a lot of sun, the Sahara
desert. Then you send the electricity across North Africa, across the
Med, into Europe and split it into a fabulous grid system, see
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/elec_eng/grid.htm .

Well look at the distribution map at http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/ look at
all the places terrorists could cause damage...blow up a few lines and
cripple Europe. There are 8 lines feeding Europe, with long stretches
which could not be secured all the time.

Plus a little problem called desert winds, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Desert_(ecoregion)

Sand driven by wind will soon take the shine off all those mirrors used
to concentrate the sun light.

As always with these mega projects there are always downsides, but the
enthusiasts down play those.

Local micro generation will be much more stable with millions of
connections to the grid, a few failures will be unimportant to the whole
system.

I cannot speak for his background but these points were well made, and supported by links to more information, as with this one on my agreeing with his point on wind etching/erosion, having not thought of it until he pointed it out:

Not just erosion, but the risk of burial....sand and wind build sands
dunes, see http://www.saharamet.com/desert/photos/Sahara.html

These are considerations that those standing ready to blow bazillions on projects of still uncertain enviROI will, I hope, at least have answers to. And will be brought to the fore by responsible journalists in major media before charging off on the next set of vast capital projects in the name of green.

There was another poster with some other interesting points on transmission drop outs, etc, based on the proximity principle, but have not his permission yet to quote verbatim and credit.

Addendum -

EU Referendum - Gullible or not?

Red top in the morning, global sheperd's warning

A nice link I have been sent: ‘Ye Olde Hot Aire’*: reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press

Brilliant, but shame it did not have a management summary!

Addendum -

No sooner posted than sorted. A kind addition from a fellow forum member. A lot better, but still, a mouthful:

IOP PUBLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Environ. Res. Lett. 3 (2008) 024002 (8pp)
Abstract

This letter explores daily print media coverage of climate change in four United Kingdom (UK) tabloid newspapers: The Sun (and News of the World), Daily Mail (and Mail on Sunday), the Daily Express (and Sunday Express), and the Mirror (and Sunday Mirror).

Through examinations of content in articles over the last seven years (2000–2006), triangulated with semi-structured interviews of journalists and editors, the study finds that UK tabloid coverage significantly diverged from the scientific consensus that humans
contribute to climate change. Moreover, there was no consistent increase in the percentage of accurate coverage throughout the period of analysis and across all tabloid newspapers, and these findings are not consistent with recent trends documented in United States and UK ‘prestige press’ or broadsheet newspaper reporting. Findings from interviews indicate that inaccurate reporting may be linked to the lack of specialist journalists in the tabloid press. This study therefore contributes to wider discussions of socio-economic inequality, media and the environment. Looking to newspapers that are consumed by typically working class readership, this article contributes to ongoing investigations related to what media representations mean for ongoing science–policy interactions as well as potentialities for public engagement.

Sorry if I missed it if it was in there. Sadly not always the time to go through all such things in detail, which is kind of the whole problem suggested. Though I suspect many tabloid editors do go through... and then choose to take certain directions anyway.

There is of course the base stance being taken as read as well. I'd also note in passing that though the audience for this is specialist, there may be an argument to try and package key points in a way to get the desired message across a tad more easily.

My old mantra of the fault being not so much with those you don't convince, but with you for failing to convince them.

Us, us, us

It seems a shame that sensible discussion on climate change seems to have been turned into factional media spats.

Whose eco-disaster is it, anyway?

It seems simply incredible that the whole issue breaks down so simply, and divisively, on such clear cut, and unfortunate lines.

Why do I suspect the engagement will be more between the media protagonists, when serving the public, and the cause of the future, less well.

Silly Question

Newsnight - Energy Policy

16. At 11:58 am on 29 May 2008, bookhimdano :energy policy

There's the rub. Who knows? And why do the majority of the population (inc. me) not?

The German example you share seems inspirational, proactive, positive and profitable.

Yet, apparently... 'the uk govt refuse to have a two way grid as they do not believe there is any evidence it would work'.

Now belief is all well and subjective. Surely to heavens it is not beyond the wit of media to help us get to find out what the actual facts and/or truth is? Then the people can lobby for what is good for pocket... and planet.

I would dearly love some clear information and discussion on this (and others), and not a 'tis/t'isn't twofer with extremes from the dogmatic activist or box-ticker/lobbyist/subsidy junkie end of a debate.

And even if we do get actual engineers and/or number crunchers, if they still have opposing viewpoints might we hope for a host with experience and training enough to actually get to definitive answers we can act/vote on than a 'that's all we have time for' ratings segment that gets filed and forgotten in days?

Flower Power

Just watched the BBC coverage of the Chelsea Flower Show, which is, apparently, taking note of climate change.

The eco theme this year (subsequent ones will be interesting as fashion is all about not being 'so last year') is laudable, but having watched aluminium rolls (so that's what my recycling old cans goes to make), plastic sheet wrapping plants that get rejected as not being perfect, and having just heard the reference to using hairdryers (to make plants blossom more quickly), I am having trouble getting my head around the notion. I bet the skips when it closes are also a treat.

This currently seems about as eco as our disastrous attendance at the Ideal Home Show a few years ago, when about 1% of the stands were actually anything to do with tangibly making a difference to the planet.

Everything has an eco-cost of course, and weighing the investment (with 'awareness' the vague cloud, that can be dark or light, hanging over all such efforts) is a horrible task, but much of what I saw looked more to do with winning by looking green rather than saving by being it.

Indy - Green fingers - I guess you had to be there

Indy - Environmental damage of Flower show -

Damage limitation?

I have been banging on since this blog started about the perils of overselling the negatives of 'global warming' in case the realities turn out not to match the predictions.

In advertising we have a saying (at least between the agency and the client... not so sure about the message to the consumer): 'Promise lower.. and deliver higher'. It's a lot nicer basking in an expectation exceeded than trying to explain one disappointed.

This... is a lot more serious than that, but the principle remains. You can ride a wave of positives, but a negative is seldom just one step back. Just as a recommendation gets 3 good pass-ons, a bad critique can be four times as pervasive, and trust is very hard to build up if it is deemed to be compromised.

Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict - (Who the heck uses 'Global Warming' any more... oh, I get it. But what's this... 'may'? Well that's there because, as with all else, no one actually knows for sure).

So I sought this out having seen it on BBC Breakfast, with the bouffant and blonde 'explaining' well, spinning like tops, that it's well, very complicated and we need to think long term, you see... etc.

All bang on. Thing is, that is not what has been trotted out faithfully in most populist media up until this point. And I rather suspect that those less convinced on the trend may be getting an earful from those actively hostile to the notion. And, frankly, it's going to be tough for those of a more 'climate pessimistic' bent to weather in attempting to mitigate. As I have long predicted.

After all that has been thrown at us over the last few years, in the simplistic, populist way it has, regurgitated by often unchallenging, compliant media, I have to say to 'expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions' is not the best sell I have ever seen. Especially to get folk on board with a fairly fundamental leap of faith in the shift from global warming to climate change to.... 'things go up and down', and often in short periods geographically that seem an age in human terms (especially with News 24 and ratings to meet)'. So while the sky has not yet fallen as it should have done... it still will, honest.'

I await, with dread, how this is played out, especially by all those who consider that they 'know better'.

It's a little. I just hope it's not too late.

Telegraph - Campaign to sue Al Gore 'gains support'- Hmnn. What was that song? 'Swings like a pendulum do'? This is already silly, and getting sillier. All I am seeing is the extremes grabbing the headlines... and profiting from the chaos. I am on record as saying I have my doubts as to AG as messenger, and many of his messages are in the camp I refer to above, but he's entitled to his opinion and in fact is to be credited for bringing many things to world attention, and at an early stage. But suing....? What's all that about?

Addendum: (and so it starts. I search for, and welcome, counter-balancing views... so long as they are rational, science-based, and don't get us in a 'tis/t'isn't loop. It will be interesting to see what arrives from Real Climate... if it does)

EU Referendum (call 'em Climate Optimists) - "…several decades of global cooling" - I thought it was a one decade correction period, so already the issues are muddying.

BBC - Next decade 'may see no warming'

BBBC - Richard Black: "The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon."

To quote the response: Where does "a public" get such crazy notions? From the BBC perhaps? Quite. Maybe I should get into the prediction business.

1984, Pt1 ch4. - A share from a blog which I pass on, as it resonates: "Today's issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones."

The thing is, the discussion has passed from where it should to very odd places by this diversion. And, I guess, this blog is part of it all. But I feel my audience is up to weighing all the issues and perhaps seeing that there is still something well worth considering, and allowing for. But I do believe the time may be upon me to go back more to where I have always been, which is a lot more DOING that really can have no effect but to help with mitigation (if in a small way), and leave the grander debates to those who seem keen to slug it out over definitions of black and white... ironically in the name of all that could be green inbetween.

I still maintain, and always will, that trying to play fast a loose with complex concepts, and their conclusions (or lack of them) can, with a busy and time poor general audience in a spin-cycle media environment, end up with a less than optimal result. So erring on caution might be advised, no matter how urgent the perceived threat, or well-intentioned the desire to deal with it by leaping over the parapets.

Lest WMD becomes 'Warming Motivates Diddly', especially when you launch an attack on it calling for public support (and sacrifice), and once you get to a certain point find what was claimed doesn't exist. Only, in this case, 'yet' is a valid qualifier lost now in the furore.

The Register - NEW - Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? - Doesn't exactly answer the question, but stirs already muddy waters.

Quote of the day - Publican service broadcasting

Let no one excuse the BBC of lack of balance.

Thing is, I do sometimes wonder if they think things through. Following weeks... months... years... of nanny state preaching (with some good reason, and value) on the ills of youth alcohol abuse, we have another Declan commercial break (I know the line between fair PR sharing as news and blatant free exposure for a brand is a fine, and hence difficult one, but really, this isn't some retail boss flogging their latest fluff under the pretext of a news item), this time at the Bushmills distillery. Something along the lines of:

"How do we/you (didn't catch it properly) improve its appeal to younger drinkers..."

...followed by a few minutes free commercial, including mixes (with cranberry juice!) for the younger palate. Nice.

This was, irony free, followed by a piece on kickboxing , introduced along the lines of 'how we improve our kids' behaviour?'.

I have one small suggestion... don't glorify and promote hard liquor cocktails in this manner on the national broadcaster, especially one that has been sanctimoniously trotting out youth binge drinking messages at the same time, when my 11-year-olds are having breakfast. Just a thought.

As with things environmental, if the media can't get consistent with their messages, there is little chance of our youth getting it. I think of AGW scare stories and consumer tut-tutting in complement, followed immediately by some celebs excesses on a far-flung beach. It is inconsistent and divisive. And not a little hypocritical. There's a surprise.

A metaphor for the age

No, not Terminal 5.

I refer to the BBC forums comment system. As the licence fee has gone up, so every aspect of our national broadcaster has plummeted. I'd like my money back, but that's not an option.

It started with a comment by invitation:

Going Carla crazy

It's too much to hope that the current (0) comments is anything more than yet another glitch in the moderating system, or maybe my fellow commentors have so far managed to resist (at 1820 GMT) where I cannot. If so... bravo!

And good on the Gallic diplomat!

You and your lot really have lost the plot.

If 'In the Newsnight office Carla Bruni has.. been the most talked about subject of the week', then I weep for serious news journalism ever taking place again. Are you all just in demob mode for the Olympic jolly or what? Will it just be the trainees and temps running the show, getting their story ideas from Heat magazine?

ps: I don't think it is just the Daily Mail who have had trouble deciding whether it is plastic bags or this lady who are of most importance to the future of news, the governance of the world or the future of the planet.

Of course, I was too prescient from the outset. After a few days of retrying, I might have to give up. But have tried another tack:

Friday 28 March, 2008

Excuse being off topic, but as this little bit still works (for now) I am just experimenting with this posting system, which was either a) created by the T5 designers on an off day or b) has given up any pretence of being an open, free and objective forum and is now in the hands of highly selective moderation. Or maybe the BBC is just trying to grind us into submission to accept yet another fee hike?

Free the 502 commenters from their limbo hell!

Shambles is too good a word for the whole sorry bunch. Like they care. What's the worst that can happen to them? Probably all en route to Beijing already.

Addendum 1:

I have been moved to send the above to Newswatch, for all the good that will do. Though Ray Snoddy may find one grumpy editor to say 'who cares?' on Sunday at dawn.

Why does the BBC bother with forums for audience comments?

I just ask, as after yet another frustrating few days trying to deal with the woeful system that we have all paid for, I have had to resort to a few other blogs that actually seem to work, including my own: [as above]

Addendum 2:

At time of writing (Sunday 7.20pm) nothing has changed. And no reply has yet been received, at least here... even to my complaint. Other than being mightily miffed personally, I am now even more concerned that any pretence at free and objective news and debate is now dead. Other than my little isolated outpost being outraged, the silence is pretty effective. Don't like the opinion? Ignore it! And ignore any follow up. What you don't see won't hurt you. But if you have an agenda you can let a few selected 'acceptable' thoughts slip through. It really is extraordinary. Where, if I could be bothered, do I go next? A registered letter to the BBC Trust? Sadly the compromise of that final word has rendered the ultimate avenue nonsense a long time ago. Even if this was a genuine glitch, just like the T5 debacle there has been no attempt to concede there even is a problem and PR an explanation at least.

Daily Mail - Fury of BBC over Cameron's £250m bid to end its public service monopoly -

"Once you take away part of the licence fee you break the trust between the BBC and the licence-fee payer," said a senior BBC executive. "The viewer won't know who on earth their money is going to and will say, 'why on earth should I pay this any more?'

Oh... will I?

Addendum - An answer.. of sorts. Unlike some, as I get 'em, they go up:

Thank you for your email. I can confirm that the problems you are
experiencing are due to technical difficulties that we are aware of and
working on. We intend to revamp the blog system in the next couple of
weeks which will end these problems. Until then I can only apologise for
the inconvenience caused and thank you for your patience.

Had to reply as yet again I have been thwarted:

Dear Team Assistant,

Thank you for your reply.

I am aware that there are technical difficulties. And would be amazed if the BBC had not been aware of them since they cropped up (which was when? It seems like months... or more).

I do note, with optimism, the confidence that these will be fixed, though am cautious on the vague timeline.

Having just tried, unsuccessfully , AGAIN, I am intrigued as to what has been causing these errors, and in so selective a manner. Evidently some are blessed with access and some are not.

Is it because I is Mac?

I am unsure if they will get the Ali G allusion.

BBBC - NEW - 'If you get error 502 you are probably blocked (as I am) from posting. They block your IP address. the BBC do this all the time.'

'Is this verified/able?

I currently get a 502 on every post (to Newsnight, Editor's Blogs, etc. Even, ironically, to the exchanges about them 'fixing' a system they 'admit' is 'broken'). That said, some get through, though most get 'lost'. Therefore a blanket 'ban' is hard to credit. Even a 'moderating' (sorry for all the quotes, but there is a lot that raises 'questions') stance is tricky to grasp as often many I offer up are not that complimentary of the guys who have kicked off the post either.

In fact I am exchanging pleasantries with a junior munchkin in some fob-off department as we speak. Not sure she liked my 'Is it 'cos I is Mac' comment, bless her. It's not... er.. supposed to be, by the way.

But if I get the merest whiff that such selectivity to agenda is taking place with an entity I co-fund, and especially when I have devoted good time at their request to contribute, I will be... grumpy.

And, like the Incredible Sulk, they won't like me when I'm grumpy.'

Sticks stones and weasel words

I have missed out on a few grants in my time, not so much of what I do, but because I often can't.. won't say things happen in ways the clipboard jockeys demand.

And I don't sign forms that are not accurate. Despite 'encouragement' to do so to 'help'.

So I was intrigued not only by the story of a couple denied fostering accreditation because they wouldn't say they didn't resort to the odd smack, but by how it got reported and who got plonked onto the BBC sofa to 'discuss'.

Just love the endless troupes of PC 'experts' that get wheeled on, all so happy that if people tell them something they want to hear then it must be true. Which they then trot out on air so we must believe it is fact, too.

Boxes are ticked. Surveys collated. Idealistic worlds and dreamy headlines created. Only 10% approve of smacking? Very likely, along with the 110% who recycle daily. What else are you going to say these days?

Are we really keen on a world where not only do folk lie in a heartbeat to achieve a result, but the authorities and media choose to ignore and accept this inevitable result of their policies and coverage, just to ensure they get the results they want?

And speaking of talking a lot but without much clarity on the doing, I am now watching a piece on the amount of rubbish washing up on the beaches. It is awful... and a disgrace... and I agree that the only possible solution is international action (so all credit to those who have given their free time to doing a tidy and get coverage to make this point).

But as to what actions we are left a little wondering by the statement that 'it's got worse'. Well, D'uh. And as more and more people come online to make, buy, use and dispose of ever more stuff it's likely to get even worse still. All I do, and for now know I can do, is put my rubbish in the designated containers provided.

I don't think it is that productive to use PR and media to tell the public to stop consuming in this simplistic way, as I don't see folk giving up on fish to prevent fishing nets strangling seals.

Perhaps it would be better to focus for public support on the currently woeful actions of some individuals (not sure how effective telling a person who litters not to actually is, mind) and mechanisms of disposal that mean too many of these now sadly inevitable by-products of human activity are ending up in the drink?

Addendum - Welsh beaches plagued by plastic - 'Beaches in Wales have more plastic litter than any other country in the UK, an annual beach survey finds'.

Image problem

Just watching a piece on BBC Brekky about people paving over their drives causing flooding.

In a sedate suburban avenue the reporter posed before a very extensively covered front lawn, upon which was perched a dirty great Merc 4x4.

'Hmnn', I thought. "Why would a drive/vehicle combo like that have been chosen? Ho-hum. Subtle. But there is a fair question to be asked as to why one needs such a thing in such a location. Another story'.

But no, the piece was then introduced as being an alliterative choice (I forget the precise words) between 'Your flora and your four by four'.

So far, so... obvious. It was a front lawn, there must have been a trowel handy to lay it on with.

But then a few moments later, it was email read-out time. Now I don't know if they were shy on things to share, had a rare desire for objective critique sharing, or thought it was a chance to make a bitchy, snarky point that they know best how to 'do' 'reporting', but the bouffant and blonde read out the suggestion from a viewer that 'Perhaps such driveways also play host to more modest vehicles, too'. I have to say it was calmly, fairly, and rather pertinetly put, too.

So, to much curling of lip, we get the 'witty' suggestion that it perhaps should have been 'Peugeots instead of Petunias'.

Another less than fine hour in the great 'we have no subjective agenda' that is the output of our public broadcaster. I am not sure if these front persons write their own stuff, but it's not coming across very well.

Yesterday I took the bouffant to task on a piece on ageism. To a studio guest who had just shared she had lost her job through turning 70 his flip first (I can alliterate too) comment was 'But you don't look it'. My question as to whether her dismissal would have been OK if she had looked it (physical comeliness not being a factor in BBC presenter selection, natch) was not replied to, oddly.

There are points to be made, but if this is the best way they can think to make them I doubt they will create many converts.

ADDENDUM:

Just watched a follow up. And on a more serious, and in one case helpful note this raised a few more tangible issues.

First up, and of relevance, was that many householders were opting for this because the council was introducing paid parking in the street. Well, D'Uh. Why paid? No option for residents permits? No wonder the residents are thinking of solutions closer to home.

Next, there is the very sensible consideration that if you do opt this way, go porous! This option needed much positive promotion.

I'll also bolt on some commentary about a related issue (as brought up)... flooding.

I fully accept that this trend will not help with run off. But the point was raised as to how this stacks up against paving over vast tracts of virgin countryside with new towns, however eco.

And it was also shared that people who had been flooded last year were not doing much to protect themselves against future floods. Well, speaking personally, I still await any sensible response beyond 'look at the website' or 'do you want a sandbag' from my council or the Environment Agency as to what options I might engage.

So I am none too surprised that the proactive measures being taken by householders are not that great, especially whilst wondering if the authorities might get around to addressing the bigger picture (clear drains, etc) first.

The single greatest threat...

A piece (front page admittedly), by a scientist (not an insignificant one, mind) in a paper (well, speaking of 'significance'... Climate target is not radical enough - study

Meanwhile, the rest of the media and government are a bit busy elsewhere today, tomorrow... next week...

I know I don't usually 'go here', but no wonder this is proving tricky for the public/consumer to get their heads around in terms of truth, priority, best actions...

Words and Deeds

I was just catching up on my Sunday reading online, after a most productive day making some kitchen units and pottering in the garden in the sun.

This little effort caught my eye.

It seems that while villages can still score a bag-ban mention (latest is in Norfolk) we have now moved to country level in the green competition stakes.

Well, I can think of worse things to strive for.

It was an relatively interesting piece I guess, but really the accolade rather seems to boil ('scuse pun) on whether you are sitting on top of a volcano or have near limitless hydro on tap. Basically how you make your 'leccy. And having lucked out on that score, you can offset your ethics away and buy anything you fancy, secure in the knowledge that the overall tally will look better than the next person..

Anyhoo, the Indy has kindly provided some ideas on the same page for what form of transport you might opt for where your home might be.

Where's the real damage being done?

Map shows toll on world's oceans

NEW addenda at end.

The other day, at my boy's parent/teacher day, we ended up sitting with their IT tutor. Far from being just about bits and bytes, it seems the course delves much deeper than I imagined in how they use their computers to increase their knowledge base.

So we got onto resources. Several were mentioned, from Google to Wikipedia, and I was reassured to find that nothing was to be taken at face value, and multiple sources from a broad span surveyed to try and arrive at a fair view, even in matters of 'fact'.

But I was suprised when the the BBC site was mentioned, and this was laughed off with the most derision of all.

I came to the link above via a site that, it is fair to say, is 'climate optimistic' and not very pro-BBC.

So in no way was the thrust of this concerned with the rather sobering notion of what mankind is doing to the planet it inhabits.

But it did highlight how our national broadcaster, by 'doing science' in this way, just adds to the waffle and fudge on this subject, that ends up meaning so little.

I have to say I immediately stumbled on the 4% stat. Not 3% or 5%; somehow it is known that '...only about 4% of the world's oceans remain undamaged by human activity'. I think as they refer to 'sqkm' it is by area and not volume, but am not to sure. It would surely make a difference. Especially after the recent piece on the plastic vortex we noted here.

'The authors say the data is a "wake-up call" to policymakers.' I'll say, and to all of us. But at 96% down I'd say our work is cut out. This just seems so...vast... so... total... what on earth can credibly be done?

Apparently, '...the two biggest drivers in destroying marine habitats were climate change and over-fishing.' Surprising. I would have thought pollution would have rated higher than over-fishing. I also now have another niggle when it comes to 'CC'. Hence I am thinking of extending my personal acronym to PMWNICC. Climate changes all the time. To be meaningful in this context surely they mean 'Probably Man-Worsened Negative Impact CC'?

And to counter 'climate change' of this nature, the notion seems to be more conservation efforts. Hmmn.

To quote this critic, 'they [the BBC] thunder, but with characteristic vagueness don't say what this action, management or rolling up of sleeves actually entails.'

I tend to agree. Yes, we need to be aware of this stuff. But not get fed it in a way that either makes us tune out, feel helpless, ignore it or, worse, treat it as immediately suspect and irrationally, but perhaps inevitably, rebound more to a cosier counterview.

I continue to think with such sloppy reporting and agenda-driven editorial the BBC are simply making things worse.

Addenda -

Huge study gives wake-up call on state of world's oceans
And this... 'Human activity damages more than 40% of seas'

BBBC - NEW - I include the full comment with the link. No question that this sea-borne rubbish is nothing short of littering or even vandalism. I simply have a problem equating what washes up in a Pacific island with what I as a consumer put in my bin. Which seems to be the link trying to be made. Whilst all efforts at reductions in unnecessary plastics are sensible, in the shorter term I'd have thought it more worthwhile to look much more at disposal systems, from collection to reprocessing. Someone lobbing something over the side of a Panama-registered ship is harder to identify with as we grapple with PMWNICC.

Lunar Dead Centre

Directly following a piece on the splitting of an ice shelf 'due to Global Warming', irony-free zone that is the BBC has just aired a piece on... commercial air travel.

I have now seen it, and see no reason to change what I wrote in advance:

'Looking forward to how the advertised piece on burying one's ashes on the moon is shared.

Whilst exchange may be no robbery, dust for dust, bearing in mind the fuel cost for every gram sent into orbit, I just wonder what the carbon consequences might be?'

Seemed worth a Newswatch serve:

Directly following a piece on the splitting of an ice shelf 'due to Global Warming', and followed by another plastic bag expose (how did David Shuckman get to Midway Island, by the way? Nice work if you can get it)* the irony-free zone that is the BBC has just aired a piece on... commercial space travel.

The commercial relationship is uncomfortable enough, but the mixed messages being pumped out on best environmental practices by consumers is staggering.

Next you'll have a reporter gushing forth with Richard Branson together on the first Virgin Galactic launch!

ADDENDA -

BBC - Antarctic shelf 'hangs by thread'

BBBC - It seems it has been noted elsewhere, and it appears the airlines are doing well out of... plastic bags. Medium and messenger...hmnnn.

*BBBC - NEW - And lo... the jolly was good.

Picture imperfect?

Call it grumpy Tuesday. End in sight?

The sad thing is I actually agree that there is a need for stirring imagery to motivate. I just am getting weary of a new class of eco-warrior who see it as their job to educate the rest of us in the error of our ways, but seem immune to the slight irony behind much of what they do for fun and/or employment being pretty much what the rest of us are being told we mustn't any more.

And, if true, when there turns out to be sting in the tail (there would appear to be another story about the plight of the village in the picture), it rather sets the more moderate causes back a tad.

I guess I'll get a slapping from the 'but you're missing the point (of flying the world to share this)' crowd, but it all rather smacked of 'them' and 'the rest of us'. Like doco makers who 'do' the Caribbean or dive shop owners in the Red Sea getting their knickers in a twist about plastic bags as the main priority. Hence:

Just wondering, but from what was that picture of Kivalina taken?

Passing plane, fine(ish - but it rather begs who is in it going where and why), but if someone went up in a helicopter I'm guessing that will be ok because 'it's their job', and there was a need to 'raise awareness'.

The way it's going I think the Antarctic will have set up a pub at the airport to handle all the journos popping up there to do a piece to camera about, well, all of this being caused by other folk flying hither and thither... if not to do a piece to or with a camera.

But as our new climate savour TB would say, 'it's not like, really practical for HIM not to fly'.

I guess some just have more green cred to blow than others.

So here's a wheeze for all those in the 'meedya' popping off for a weekend's skiing while the snow holds this Easter: when you're taking your happy snaps off piste, just claim it's for a piece on the effects of global warming.

Seems to work. And nice if you can get it.

I wonder what road tax they pay?

There's a trend afoot, epitomised by this: Lexus hybrid woos Sainsbury's chief

First we had Sir Stuart Rose in his 6 litre hydrogen 7 Series Beemer, now this.

Now I'm all for encouraging better environmental practice, but our national broadcaster doing commercials (it was on the main page - doubtless to show how 'we' can stop glaciers melting) for retailers and makers of high end greener-ish luxury motors, sorry, limos, doesn't seem the best way to bring it home to the masses. At least, in ways that might be taken in the inspirational way that will doubtless be claimed.

I'm opening a book on Sir Terry or (actually the others don't seem to have the PR direct dial to the BBC these others do, so don't get on that often for their names to register) being covered roller-skating (£17.99 a pair, with 10% off to viewers) over the Atlantic to visit the US operation.

Meanwhile, much more importantly...

There's a little slot at the end of the BBC morning news.

It's reserved for Yummy Mummies (and, it seems, dozy, slobby, homeworking Dads) having a wee moment having kicked the kids off to school, the spouse to real work and just finshed sorting the debris all this has left.

It's usually celeb-lite time.

But, in keeping with Auntie's new civic awareness, the PR's pushing their clients forward usually need a bit more to sweetn the deal than they act in some soap. And a cause is always a good one. I just wish all concerned were not so naked in what the real reasons for appearing are, and scoot so superficially over the theoretical actual reason for them being on.

So today we had one Tamsin Outhwaite on matters 'green'. I seem to recall her being on in this regard before*, so she has a bit of form. But for a moment it looked promising. Something about green heroes and awards, and a woman in Wandsworth who has created a site called Nappy Valley to help with reuse (Good luck. I rather think that, as with JunkkYard, FreeCycle has kind of been there and done it).

But before I could jot anything down it was on to her new TV series, a gritty drama based....

Which is, I'm betting, what the site will be on about (actually, it's on ITV, so maybe not), rather than sharing her insights on not leaving the TV on standby, not having a bath, etc.

*Addendum - found it. To be fair, the same cause. Different, though brand new, career event though.

The headlines don't work*

Which is more accurate in conveying the notion that a bit of research may have a contrary (though possibly worthwhile) view from a team (no matter how 'offical') on the value (or not) of depression medication?:

Effectiveness of antidepressant drugs questioned

Antidepressant drugs don't work – official study

Anti-depressants 'of little use'

Prozac, used by 40m people, does not work say scientists

New anti-depressants 'little effect'

What is wrong with our news media? I have 'contributed' to the BBC, who at least allow the possibility:

'IF' what I read is borne out, this is indeed of serious concern, but is the headline and how this news has been portrayed fair and accurate in conveying the notion that 'a' bit of research may have 'a' contrary (though possibly worthwhile) view from 'a' team (no matter how 'offical') on the value (or not) of depression medication?

Are the entire prescribing medical profession fools or charlatans then? If so, I want my £100kpa back.

So whatever you do read, on anything substantive remember: read long, read broad and don't read anything into anything until you think you might have gained all the relevant facts, and as good a cross-section of opinion as you can to arrive at a well-informed one of your own.

Live by the headlines, links and summaries served up to 'help' us in this time-poor infromation age we live in, and you may get what you deserve.

*With apologies to The Verve

Games people play

Just for fun, I popped a comment, somewhat tongue in cheek, into the Andrew Marr show comments section, after a rather, how to say, 'less than challenging' interview with Ken Livingstone. Just to see if they could tell when someone is being utterly ironic, and highlight the value (at least here), of such moderated comments when all you need to attribute is a name and location.

Don't know why they bother with any pretence, when they could pretty much write 'em themselves.

Anyway, it's good to know the London Mayoral leadership will be guided by the likes of the BBC, based not on celebrity or gesture politics or personality attacks, but with the actual records, words and deeds of the candidates and those they have surrounding them investigated thoroughly.

Or, as I neglected to add in my initial post, should I perhaps influence the moderators on its inclusion... not.

Bless.

'Awesome show today. Andrew really took to task and nailed Mr. Livingstone on all his claims, whilst teasing out the substantive issues that truly matter in helping voters make informed political decisions.
Peter, UK'

Mind you, you can never have enough 'support': What's at stake An interesting insight into the value of agenda-driven media (both right and left)

Irony, with a dash of dilemma

I've been up and watching the BBC news for about 45 minutes now as I deal with the overnight emails.

So far a potentially interesting story about the methods and motivations behind trying to effect better public behaviour in domestic recycling. And it seems that, surprise, surprise, the predominantly threat-based mechanisms touted are not quite working out, or into the systems as extensively or smoothly as they might.

Good. Well... good... ish. Something still needs to be done, and my experience that hasty, ill-conceived compromises are it. Or, as the MP select commitee has called it, 'a messy compromise'. (Where have I heard that applied to almost all in our current level of governance lately?).

Addendum 1: Just got the latest from LA on the Oscars. Seems half the BBC is now flying in to, um, 'help'. Bless.

Addendum 2: At least they are trying to offset it all, I presume, by acting as a commercial station. At least BBC Midlands. Seems someone is flogging their business, a newsagents, on eBay. Hope we licence payers get a cut of the ad revenue that has been devoted to this sale. I wonder if Aunty will help me shift my motor?



Which brings me to persuasion, preferably via inspiration and reward, which I favour.

And, by association, example.

And in this, accepting we live in a highly celebrity-influenced culture, we are surely very dependent on what our media serve us up with this as the majority of their fare, from who they talk about, how they talk about them... and, even, who we have talking at us about them.

So to help me get in the right frame of mind to cut back a tad, I have just endured a 5 minute gush about the Oscar party excesses. The dresses, the booze, the outrageous demands and incredible requirements for a one-off that will all get disposed of the next day.

I just threw that in, in-passing, as this blog was actually initiated by something else earlier.

And that was an exchange between the main presenter and the weather girl about their drives to work this morning.

Now at this time of the morning it's doubtful they have much choice and even they did, to use Tony Blair's words, 'it would be highly impractical [for them]' (though I doubt in the BBC's terms the same applies to some poor shift worker waiting for a night bus), but I just wondered where the cut off might be for such as the BBC (and others) before individual behaviour that is deemed climatically unfavourable becomes a matter for media approbrium with no sense of double standards, 'doing what we say, and not...' and all round wanting it all ways?

I can see it is tricky, but as one who sees the need for a change in behaviour yet makes big compromises on various lifestyle, cost, convenience bases almost daily, at least I don't preach what I am unable or unwilling to practice.

The medium as the messenger. But sadly, when it comes to example, too often rare in consistency and seldom well done.