Been a bit quiet here of late.
More than I'd like.
It's just that, on top of the day job, I have been trying to stay on top of some rather hairy bits and bobs swirling around the blogosphere regarding the science of climate change.
And it's still swirling, at least in some quarters.
Which makes a little episode I was involved in today all the more pertinent.
From this blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/11/a_guide_to_making_your_fortune.html#comments
It's all up there (for now... excuse me if I have some concerns about stealth editing from on high in certain quarters) so I'll just past the last one:
Further to my last post, I have now heard again from the BBC, and as it is not fully referred to in the note above, feel the explanation is worth sharing:
We owe you an apology.
The post as originally published did indeed contain a mistake, which was
corrected on Sunday morning.
We have now published an update to the blog, which makes this clear.
The reason we confidently informed you that no amendments had been made
to the blog was that we believed only one person on duty on Sunday had
the privileges required to make changes to Justin Rowlatt's blog - and
that person made no changes the copy. We have since discovered that
there was another person on duty with the ability to change the blog,
and this person made the change referred to in the blog comments.
Apologies again for getting it wrong in our first reply to your
complaint.
To which I have replied:
But I think you may owe the guy who spotted it more of one, and thanks for catching it. Which kind makes the general point I was making about a policy of flagging changes even more pertinent.
Order, for now, one trusts, is restored. But it does show the value of checking, and persistence. On top of not being above a cranked eyebrow when things do not seem to be adding up.
Indeed.
Showing posts with label NEWSNIGHT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NEWSNIGHT. Show all posts
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Climate of confusion
Newsnight is one of the more significant news/current affairs programmes we have in this country.
That's not saying a lot.
I watched this, and the protagonists selected, with my jaw on the ground.
How much has changed?
Just watched the chat... 'legally-binding' came up a lot. Lot of eggs in the kitchen?
I just hope that, whatever does get discussed, agreed, and bound up, most people will move beyond the fact that a treaty has been established to what it's actually committing folk to and with what in mind.
With the current level of global boxtickocracy and short-term legacy jockeying, I'll be fascinated whether emissions actually get reduced, or just shunted around a lot more as various interested parties take their cut.
Monday 9 November 2009
Just now watched Mr. Rowlatt's kitchen cabinet meeting.
If this is the calibre of political heft and serious journalism surrounding this huge, complex, vital issue that we may expect... oh.
I do indeed now expect that President 'only if it's going to look good' O will swing by to bestow blessings on a bit of a thing... and no one present, observing or hoping to be adequately informed will end up having the slightest clue who has committed to what and whether it will make a blind bit of difference - save to boost business and first class seat uptake, convention hotel and 5 star restaurant bookings, and a few folks' golf handicaps. These things always seem to happen, a lot, in nice places.
Meanwhile populations will grow, economies will need to expand, forests will be felled, green fields will turn first brown and then get concreted over, affordably, runways will be added, nukes will get commissioned... and a BBC 'science' moppet will point at the business end of a Tesla as others will Copenhagen and declaim 'Look... it's not emitting, and meeting all sorts of lovely bonus-driving, fine-avoiding, lobby-pleasing targets'. So long as such things make sense environmentally and practically in complement with other socio-economic parameters, fine. If not, its just a silly game, with the only winners being those on the pitch and a few in the sponsors' and media boxes, with the rest paying.
However, it is not enough to observe and/or critique, so when the opportunity presents I will grab it:
Update on your questions for Ed Miliband
What will be the outcome to total global emissions of a 'successful' outcome?
Then... where from? Up or down? Country by country, industry by industry. Plus cost impositions... or gains, as a consequence.
And of these what % will be tangible, practical, genuine enviROI+ reductions, and what % redistribution or redesignation?
How, with expanding populations encroaching or dependent on ever more territory and resources can the growing economy mantra from all governments to support these be satisfied without further increases in consumption and hence pollution vs. in the situation suggested, held and reduced?
There is no such thing as a free lunch. What, honestly, is going to have to give? In terms a worker in a factory making stuff to sell and be consumed can relate to job wise, to the lifestyle-centric mind of a student with an eye on the latest iPhone or LCD TV from John Lewis (non-list) can relate to. For good or ill.
In committing all efforts and funds to avoiding/mitigating the potential consequences of (A)GW, has any thought been given to the possibility that it is (now/already, as claimed by some in high office) unavoidable (whatever the cause) and contingencies made to support best practice coping mechanisms?
Or are all bets on 'man' being the sole cause, and hence all efforts by our race should be committed to reversing our impacts?
In case this proves incorrect, and/or the efforts made prove ineffective/insufficient, what will be the consequences to this country?
I am hoping he might answer some, and the key ones, and not waffle. Or choose a distracting line.
I have tried to be careful to avoid any hint that my concern is on whether PMWNCC is happening as per any 'line' or fact to prevent the inevitable extreme artillery barrages. My interest is in what he and his merry crew have actually considered or, and equally important, not considered around the consequences of a 'warming' planet.
I just had a mate call me up in a rage. He took the now redundant RE:boxes to the bring site as his new green wheelie has arrived to improve things. They wouldn't take it and suggested he pop over the road and pop it in the landfill skip. Somewhere a box is binned and another is ticked or a target in one area is met that is not counted against one lost in another. And a planet weeps another tear.
But I will never stop trying to find tangible, practical, enviROI+ solutions wherever and whenever I can. Always have (wow, was it 5 years ago? And those boxes had years left in them yet). Always will. If I am able.
That's not saying a lot.
I watched this, and the protagonists selected, with my jaw on the ground.
How much has changed?
Just watched the chat... 'legally-binding' came up a lot. Lot of eggs in the kitchen?
I just hope that, whatever does get discussed, agreed, and bound up, most people will move beyond the fact that a treaty has been established to what it's actually committing folk to and with what in mind.
With the current level of global boxtickocracy and short-term legacy jockeying, I'll be fascinated whether emissions actually get reduced, or just shunted around a lot more as various interested parties take their cut.
Monday 9 November 2009
Just now watched Mr. Rowlatt's kitchen cabinet meeting.
If this is the calibre of political heft and serious journalism surrounding this huge, complex, vital issue that we may expect... oh.
I do indeed now expect that President 'only if it's going to look good' O will swing by to bestow blessings on a bit of a thing... and no one present, observing or hoping to be adequately informed will end up having the slightest clue who has committed to what and whether it will make a blind bit of difference - save to boost business and first class seat uptake, convention hotel and 5 star restaurant bookings, and a few folks' golf handicaps. These things always seem to happen, a lot, in nice places.
Meanwhile populations will grow, economies will need to expand, forests will be felled, green fields will turn first brown and then get concreted over, affordably, runways will be added, nukes will get commissioned... and a BBC 'science' moppet will point at the business end of a Tesla as others will Copenhagen and declaim 'Look... it's not emitting, and meeting all sorts of lovely bonus-driving, fine-avoiding, lobby-pleasing targets'. So long as such things make sense environmentally and practically in complement with other socio-economic parameters, fine. If not, its just a silly game, with the only winners being those on the pitch and a few in the sponsors' and media boxes, with the rest paying.
However, it is not enough to observe and/or critique, so when the opportunity presents I will grab it:
Update on your questions for Ed Miliband
What will be the outcome to total global emissions of a 'successful' outcome?
Then... where from? Up or down? Country by country, industry by industry. Plus cost impositions... or gains, as a consequence.
And of these what % will be tangible, practical, genuine enviROI+ reductions, and what % redistribution or redesignation?
How, with expanding populations encroaching or dependent on ever more territory and resources can the growing economy mantra from all governments to support these be satisfied without further increases in consumption and hence pollution vs. in the situation suggested, held and reduced?
There is no such thing as a free lunch. What, honestly, is going to have to give? In terms a worker in a factory making stuff to sell and be consumed can relate to job wise, to the lifestyle-centric mind of a student with an eye on the latest iPhone or LCD TV from John Lewis (non-list) can relate to. For good or ill.
In committing all efforts and funds to avoiding/mitigating the potential consequences of (A)GW, has any thought been given to the possibility that it is (now/already, as claimed by some in high office) unavoidable (whatever the cause) and contingencies made to support best practice coping mechanisms?
Or are all bets on 'man' being the sole cause, and hence all efforts by our race should be committed to reversing our impacts?
In case this proves incorrect, and/or the efforts made prove ineffective/insufficient, what will be the consequences to this country?
I am hoping he might answer some, and the key ones, and not waffle. Or choose a distracting line.
I have tried to be careful to avoid any hint that my concern is on whether PMWNCC is happening as per any 'line' or fact to prevent the inevitable extreme artillery barrages. My interest is in what he and his merry crew have actually considered or, and equally important, not considered around the consequences of a 'warming' planet.
I just had a mate call me up in a rage. He took the now redundant RE:boxes to the bring site as his new green wheelie has arrived to improve things. They wouldn't take it and suggested he pop over the road and pop it in the landfill skip. Somewhere a box is binned and another is ticked or a target in one area is met that is not counted against one lost in another. And a planet weeps another tear.
But I will never stop trying to find tangible, practical, enviROI+ solutions wherever and whenever I can. Always have (wow, was it 5 years ago? And those boxes had years left in them yet). Always will. If I am able.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Lions lead by Mynah birds
Just tweeted this. Decided it warrants a post.
Obama could go to Copenhagen, but only if the talks go well
Statesmen? What are they...11?
'In other words, if everything goes well, and it is clear that a historic climate agreement can be reached, president Obama will be prepared to turn up to share in the glory. If the meeting looks like being a horrible mess, ending up in acrimony and recrimination, we should expect the president to keep several thousand miles between him and the smell of failure.'
Mind you... 'Mr Brown said he would definitely go to Copenhagen, and urged other leaders to do the same.'
If any other 'leaders' learn from history, they'll keep several thousand miles from the smell of failure, too.
Newsnight - Ethical Man - Climate conference 'set to fail' (at least the headline is the less dramatic way round this time)
Is 'set to' the same as 'will'?
Anyway, interesting, as I read this the same day, coincidentally in the FT
Obama could go to Copenhagen, but only if the talks go well
I'm guessing that might mean a 'with regrets' RSVP then?
No photo-op, no President? All those Nobel gestures in vain, too.
When expectations get pre-managed too much, the outcome seems seldom optimal.
I am sure that if he passes he will be sorely missed, especially by our PM.
Enjoy the trip to America.
I forgot to add... 'again... and it's such a pity the BBC has no US-based reporters', as there is a certain irony in the sheer number of times a BBC employee ethically flies in the name of green 'awareness', especially in the name of get upwards of two readers... often.)
Obama could go to Copenhagen, but only if the talks go well
Statesmen? What are they...11?
'In other words, if everything goes well, and it is clear that a historic climate agreement can be reached, president Obama will be prepared to turn up to share in the glory. If the meeting looks like being a horrible mess, ending up in acrimony and recrimination, we should expect the president to keep several thousand miles between him and the smell of failure.'
Mind you... 'Mr Brown said he would definitely go to Copenhagen, and urged other leaders to do the same.'
If any other 'leaders' learn from history, they'll keep several thousand miles from the smell of failure, too.
Newsnight - Ethical Man - Climate conference 'set to fail' (at least the headline is the less dramatic way round this time)
Is 'set to' the same as 'will'?
Anyway, interesting, as I read this the same day, coincidentally in the FT
Obama could go to Copenhagen, but only if the talks go well
I'm guessing that might mean a 'with regrets' RSVP then?
No photo-op, no President? All those Nobel gestures in vain, too.
When expectations get pre-managed too much, the outcome seems seldom optimal.
I am sure that if he passes he will be sorely missed, especially by our PM.
Enjoy the trip to America.
I forgot to add... 'again... and it's such a pity the BBC has no US-based reporters', as there is a certain irony in the sheer number of times a BBC employee ethically flies in the name of green 'awareness', especially in the name of get upwards of two readers... often.)
Friday, October 02, 2009
PR OPPORTUNITY - Another road trip, another possible chance to attract the media
Making and mending around Britain
Fresh from Ethical Man, it seems Newsnight is on the green trail again.
This one seems quite proactive and 'Doing-oriented', so worthy of waving at them in passing. Let's see if we can attract their attention before they hit London. Host Mary Jane Baxter is getting/generating a fair bit of coverage...
Here's our pitch:
Oh, it is not a passing trend. We have been advocating reuse as not only helping planet, but saving pocket, too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/content/articles/2006/05/16/womble_man_feature.shtml And when such as the Guardian ask Junkk.com to help run a national reuse competition with them, then it can only be a good sign:
http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608z609&parent_id=609&renleewtsapf=301 Already netted some notions from the sublime:
http://www.junkk.com/junkkdetail.asp?slevel=0z622&parent_id=622&renleewtsapf=1917 To the frankly so simple, why didn't anyone think of it before?...
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2009/06/idea-cup-stack-holder.html So when you're swinging through the West Midlands (though the route on the map seems a bit East-centric), do pop by, a lot can and does happen here...
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2009/09/voucher-palm-lives-again.html And, if you're quick, we have an entire cosy cottage you can use as a base (aged parent off to care home and being marketed to let as we speak). Always welcome a hand, along with a boost, here.
Oh, and if it is mainly about fashion... Vac:Sac anyone?
http://www.junkk.com/junkkdetail.asp?slevel=0z622z709&parent_id=709&renleewtsapf=1730 Or a repair.. http://www.junkk.com/junkkdetail.asp?slevel=0z622&parent_id=622&renleewtsapf=1330 ps: You might even find out how to save some money on fuel as well. http://junkk.blogspot.com/2009/01/journeys-with-veronique-now-our-life-is.html
Fired off a hello. Let's see what results. Let us know if you apply/get coverage, too. If you do, please 'gis a mention if you found it here. I was soooo tempted not to mention and keep it to ourselves.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Sticks, stones, words...
I got a compliment just now from a fellow blogger I respect.
On a blog that is important, but I am always conscious how often I take the author to task.
Newsnight - Can climate spending save money?
In thanking her, I ended up writing a fair bit (which might see the snipers cocking their rifles..., so sod 'em), but I am proud of what I wrote and the sentiments that inspired it.
Sadly I find my contributions on a few blogs to err a tad too often at eyebrow crankings when I honestly prefer the rewards of positivity and incentivisation, but I am cursed by an odd mix of an education and early career in the sciences and engineering, followed by an even longer one, to date, in the dubious world of persuading the masses, that is advertising and design. So I tend to detect BS masquerading as fact, especially when gilded with some unsubtle smoke and mirrors swirling around to make it palatable.
Combine all that with a passion for environmental common sense in making this planet better for my kids than I inherited (not looking great so far), and I often slam into problems of detail when it comes to what I have coined the enviROI of various 'eco initiatives' (namely, even if the £/$ financial return still sucks, it can still be OK, unless it so out of kilter money is being simply poured down a green hole and away from better projects). Plus I do find that some self-appointed messengers bearing certain messages they deem vital (often with cause), either don't seem to have noticed (or are bothered) that the vast majority who DO matter either don't care for their pitches, or are a tad offside on the often multiplicity of standards between what they say (others should do) and what they might actually inspire by way of example (exemption by believing one is acting in the public interest is a fair conceit, and epic delusion, at best). I think many do register this discrepancy (often aided by those pushing other agendas I find equally discomfiting) and at best ignore, or at worst kick back. Which, IMHO, is not helping much.
Hence I like to crank the odd eyebrow, and often suggest the odd sharp object may be directed at overinflated sacks of hot air, in the hope that a more measured, moderate dialogue based on fact, objectivity and compromise might see us drift to truly productive shores than just trying to win often unwinnable debates.
There is so much that can be DONE, but talk is still vital to coordinate valuable efforts. I like them civilised and intelligent, and by way of a 'backatcha' have enjoyed reading your posts not just for the content, but the manner of their delivery. It is possible to disagree with style, and maybe in so doing change a view that a knee jerk will only make worse. And humour is well, harder to resist. Funny (not ha-ha) how some keep failing to appreciate that.
Green is good, but only if you really think about it, and in debate it is also worth recalling that green can rarely be viewed just in black and white, as some often seem to forget. Or don't seem to care.
I think the human race will work this whole thing through, but possibly not to the satisfaction of the many who see life as a series of absolutes, be they through dogma, idealism or a bunch of other rather restricting standpoints.
And as I learn or am persuaded by new information, links or just great arguments from the likes of your goodself, and many others here (who you seem to tease the best from), I often find my views can and do evolve and even change. I hope for the better. For my... our kids' sake.
On a blog that is important, but I am always conscious how often I take the author to task.
Newsnight - Can climate spending save money?
In thanking her, I ended up writing a fair bit (which might see the snipers cocking their rifles..., so sod 'em), but I am proud of what I wrote and the sentiments that inspired it.
Sadly I find my contributions on a few blogs to err a tad too often at eyebrow crankings when I honestly prefer the rewards of positivity and incentivisation, but I am cursed by an odd mix of an education and early career in the sciences and engineering, followed by an even longer one, to date, in the dubious world of persuading the masses, that is advertising and design. So I tend to detect BS masquerading as fact, especially when gilded with some unsubtle smoke and mirrors swirling around to make it palatable.
Combine all that with a passion for environmental common sense in making this planet better for my kids than I inherited (not looking great so far), and I often slam into problems of detail when it comes to what I have coined the enviROI of various 'eco initiatives' (namely, even if the £/$ financial return still sucks, it can still be OK, unless it so out of kilter money is being simply poured down a green hole and away from better projects). Plus I do find that some self-appointed messengers bearing certain messages they deem vital (often with cause), either don't seem to have noticed (or are bothered) that the vast majority who DO matter either don't care for their pitches, or are a tad offside on the often multiplicity of standards between what they say (others should do) and what they might actually inspire by way of example (exemption by believing one is acting in the public interest is a fair conceit, and epic delusion, at best). I think many do register this discrepancy (often aided by those pushing other agendas I find equally discomfiting) and at best ignore, or at worst kick back. Which, IMHO, is not helping much.
Hence I like to crank the odd eyebrow, and often suggest the odd sharp object may be directed at overinflated sacks of hot air, in the hope that a more measured, moderate dialogue based on fact, objectivity and compromise might see us drift to truly productive shores than just trying to win often unwinnable debates.
There is so much that can be DONE, but talk is still vital to coordinate valuable efforts. I like them civilised and intelligent, and by way of a 'backatcha' have enjoyed reading your posts not just for the content, but the manner of their delivery. It is possible to disagree with style, and maybe in so doing change a view that a knee jerk will only make worse. And humour is well, harder to resist. Funny (not ha-ha) how some keep failing to appreciate that.
Green is good, but only if you really think about it, and in debate it is also worth recalling that green can rarely be viewed just in black and white, as some often seem to forget. Or don't seem to care.
I think the human race will work this whole thing through, but possibly not to the satisfaction of the many who see life as a series of absolutes, be they through dogma, idealism or a bunch of other rather restricting standpoints.
And as I learn or am persuaded by new information, links or just great arguments from the likes of your goodself, and many others here (who you seem to tease the best from), I often find my views can and do evolve and even change. I hope for the better. For my... our kids' sake.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Survival of The Selfish
The latest Newsnight discussion has maintained my frustration with certain messengers and their messages.
But also inspired a philosophical notion or two evolving Darwin. As you do.
'I am in the persuasion business' (Miliband. E)
Now, how is that going so far? Looking at the Indy, Gruaniad and even here... not so great, really, I'd hazard. And why?
'...won't realise the scale of the danger until it is too late'
...is already suffering slightly as I am still trying to purge the image of Miliband's D. and E. in an office in some Nordic capital, with a papier mache model of downtown Gothenburg they made in tech class last week, pushing around wooden models of crocodiles (plastic ones from China via Toys 'R Us obviously a big no-no) as various Eurocrats run around squealing 'the horror, the horror!' and, hopefully, forgetting to mention ze 3rd runway, which is... er... 'different'.
And then onward and, er, still airborne, we have Mr. Kennedy of yet another committee I doubt comes cheap, getting us off the notion of 3 long hauls a year. Not so sure many of us this side of the screen have much of a problem with that already (esp. on Ms. Armstrong's quoted stats), but O.....K. Nice to have a quangocrat's package to be well placed to empathise with the public.
But, but... lest we bash a luxury, let's head over to what by any measure might be deemed a necessity. Phew... we can have green energy (that will meet all the targets, apparently), but 'we' will have to pay. Ignoring what lies behind that little gem to a few sections of society paying tax but not funded by them so much as some, I would have been keen to pursue further the enviROI of that statement. Can we be assured that, if enough wonga gets thrown around, the planet will also benefit too? I am a little unclear, as we head to 70M and counting, TV owning (and licence fee paying -yay!) viewers, where the energy from this and other stuff might be coming from, greenly.
Like biofuelled 747s, might there not be... consequences elsewhere?
And while it was interesting that the Eddy and Fanny love in did get to some 'you're rights!' from one side at least, I remain less than clear, and hence convinced on how just saying something makes it, Picard-like, 'so'. That darn persuasion thing again.
I think the time is right for another poll to show how 'we' are all on board... that is, the pledge bit at least, if not not stopping boarding the planes, as such, unless it is for highly necessary stuff that really should not be brought up, like earning livings, etc (sadly, while Ms. A has produced a noble piece of thought provocation I am sure, and all credit for that, the in-person advocacy was not perhaps as convincing as it might have been in complement. I rather fear Mr. Nixon looked like the soul of televisual conviction and audience empathy in companion, especially when confronted by a questioner not perhaps as 'on message' as others).
But at least she manged to provoke a truly statespersonlike response from one of our 'leaders' with the gibe on his likely tenure. Haven't seen or heard its like since since 3G, when I managed to drop Harbottle right in it for one of my dark deeds... 'But, but...Sir... it's not faaaaaair...'. Easy to see why the opposition benches quake when such power of wit, speed and oratory is unleashed. And makes me proud to think how the UK is going to be represented in he forthcoming negotiations*. I can imagine the likes of the Chinese reps, whose model of governance I remain unsure if Ms. Armstrong was or was not advocating... in this instance at least... really going for the bared throat approach, concession wise.
And as for the sound-biter bit exchanges. 'Impossiblists' vs. defeatists trumped by the shining knight of... 'we're doomed in months, but.. er... optimism' (sorry, the attempted claim of realism is a shipping industry -sized 'that's another issue' long since sailed).
Oh dear. As we're on a water-borne metaphorical streak, this I have just witnessed is what is going to effect a sea change to the careering tanker that is short termism-informed local politics globally and recession-driven public fears, and hence opinion????
* The last exchange was so telling. Because from what I heard it seems the getting of a deal IS THE TARGET, to pols and media alike. Without, it appears, no great concerns as to what that deal might be actually doing, planet wise. Again.
I wish I could have watched iPlayer longer, but the further irony of (ex, twice) Ethical Man at Heathrow Airport in light of the above was satire too far.
I am off now to ponder the notion of the Survival of the Selfish, and how Darwinian theory can be related to the human. We are already a long way from the motivations and actions of a Serengeti Lion pride, and in many cases can be proudly so, but not perhaps so far we should forget that a faltering competitor is still accorded about as much slack as tonight's dinner.
So I'll keep on doing all I can to improve efficiencies and reducing unnecessary wastes, but for the sake of future generations I might also be paying heed to survival strategies as well, just in case man proves either nothing to do with future impositions nature might visit upon us, or our mitigating efforts are not up to the task if we are. Especially bearing in mind the deeds vs. words of those who already see themselves in other, 'better' arks to the majority, by virtue of being somehow 'unique' in mysterious, though a tad 'more equal' ways.
Call it Plan 'A' open brackets(contingency)close brackets. I like to keep my options open, especially when the hens currently sitting all above our one basket seem pretty headless, mobile and putting on a lot of excess weight daily.
Via a post - 87 days to Copenhagen - With 87 days to go until the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the UK, Danish, French, Finnish and Swedish Foreign Ministers have agreed a joint letter to newspaper editors. - Again with the nifty picture, guys! I honestly tried to reads the letter, but if these guys are in the persuasion/motivation business... sheesh.
But also inspired a philosophical notion or two evolving Darwin. As you do.
'I am in the persuasion business' (Miliband. E)
Now, how is that going so far? Looking at the Indy, Gruaniad and even here... not so great, really, I'd hazard. And why?
'...won't realise the scale of the danger until it is too late'
...is already suffering slightly as I am still trying to purge the image of Miliband's D. and E. in an office in some Nordic capital, with a papier mache model of downtown Gothenburg they made in tech class last week, pushing around wooden models of crocodiles (plastic ones from China via Toys 'R Us obviously a big no-no) as various Eurocrats run around squealing 'the horror, the horror!' and, hopefully, forgetting to mention ze 3rd runway, which is... er... 'different'.
And then onward and, er, still airborne, we have Mr. Kennedy of yet another committee I doubt comes cheap, getting us off the notion of 3 long hauls a year. Not so sure many of us this side of the screen have much of a problem with that already (esp. on Ms. Armstrong's quoted stats), but O.....K. Nice to have a quangocrat's package to be well placed to empathise with the public.
But, but... lest we bash a luxury, let's head over to what by any measure might be deemed a necessity. Phew... we can have green energy (that will meet all the targets, apparently), but 'we' will have to pay. Ignoring what lies behind that little gem to a few sections of society paying tax but not funded by them so much as some, I would have been keen to pursue further the enviROI of that statement. Can we be assured that, if enough wonga gets thrown around, the planet will also benefit too? I am a little unclear, as we head to 70M and counting, TV owning (and licence fee paying -yay!) viewers, where the energy from this and other stuff might be coming from, greenly.
Like biofuelled 747s, might there not be... consequences elsewhere?
And while it was interesting that the Eddy and Fanny love in did get to some 'you're rights!' from one side at least, I remain less than clear, and hence convinced on how just saying something makes it, Picard-like, 'so'. That darn persuasion thing again.
I think the time is right for another poll to show how 'we' are all on board... that is, the pledge bit at least, if not not stopping boarding the planes, as such, unless it is for highly necessary stuff that really should not be brought up, like earning livings, etc (sadly, while Ms. A has produced a noble piece of thought provocation I am sure, and all credit for that, the in-person advocacy was not perhaps as convincing as it might have been in complement. I rather fear Mr. Nixon looked like the soul of televisual conviction and audience empathy in companion, especially when confronted by a questioner not perhaps as 'on message' as others).
But at least she manged to provoke a truly statespersonlike response from one of our 'leaders' with the gibe on his likely tenure. Haven't seen or heard its like since since 3G, when I managed to drop Harbottle right in it for one of my dark deeds... 'But, but...Sir... it's not faaaaaair...'. Easy to see why the opposition benches quake when such power of wit, speed and oratory is unleashed. And makes me proud to think how the UK is going to be represented in he forthcoming negotiations*. I can imagine the likes of the Chinese reps, whose model of governance I remain unsure if Ms. Armstrong was or was not advocating... in this instance at least... really going for the bared throat approach, concession wise.
And as for the sound-biter bit exchanges. 'Impossiblists' vs. defeatists trumped by the shining knight of... 'we're doomed in months, but.. er... optimism' (sorry, the attempted claim of realism is a shipping industry -sized 'that's another issue' long since sailed).
Oh dear. As we're on a water-borne metaphorical streak, this I have just witnessed is what is going to effect a sea change to the careering tanker that is short termism-informed local politics globally and recession-driven public fears, and hence opinion????
* The last exchange was so telling. Because from what I heard it seems the getting of a deal IS THE TARGET, to pols and media alike. Without, it appears, no great concerns as to what that deal might be actually doing, planet wise. Again.
I wish I could have watched iPlayer longer, but the further irony of (ex, twice) Ethical Man at Heathrow Airport in light of the above was satire too far.
I am off now to ponder the notion of the Survival of the Selfish, and how Darwinian theory can be related to the human. We are already a long way from the motivations and actions of a Serengeti Lion pride, and in many cases can be proudly so, but not perhaps so far we should forget that a faltering competitor is still accorded about as much slack as tonight's dinner.
So I'll keep on doing all I can to improve efficiencies and reducing unnecessary wastes, but for the sake of future generations I might also be paying heed to survival strategies as well, just in case man proves either nothing to do with future impositions nature might visit upon us, or our mitigating efforts are not up to the task if we are. Especially bearing in mind the deeds vs. words of those who already see themselves in other, 'better' arks to the majority, by virtue of being somehow 'unique' in mysterious, though a tad 'more equal' ways.
Call it Plan 'A' open brackets(contingency)close brackets. I like to keep my options open, especially when the hens currently sitting all above our one basket seem pretty headless, mobile and putting on a lot of excess weight daily.
Via a post - 87 days to Copenhagen - With 87 days to go until the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the UK, Danish, French, Finnish and Swedish Foreign Ministers have agreed a joint letter to newspaper editors. - Again with the nifty picture, guys! I honestly tried to reads the letter, but if these guys are in the persuasion/motivation business... sheesh.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
PING, and, with luck, no pong
Taking e-life into hands here. 3rd (and last) test of social posting networking service http://ping.fm. Now my blog, having tried character limited outlets such as twitter and LinkedIn. Let's also see what it does with a long URL:
http://ping.fm/03qUd
If this all works, I am impressed!
Currently, twitter has worked; LinkedIN MIA, though I may be looking in the wrong places.
There is also a danger of overlaps, so sorry for any duplicates until I suss out the default settings.
ADDENDUM
Looks promising, and a definite time saver.
I do not that, of course, you do not get a Title added ( I have now done so, manually), or any Labels (ditto). Easy to follow up.
I think I'll let it simmer awhile on the few tests (Blog, twitter & LinkedIn) to see what happens over the net 24hrs by way of duplicates as the automated aggregators do their thing.
Newsnight - Send your questions for the Twitter CEO -
How on earth do I manage all the deluge of tweets I get now I am, often as a courtesy, following those who follow me in addition to he just plain worthwhile? I see Yoko Ono manages. Do she have a horde of 'people', cloning tech, a time machine... or is just a very polite, awesomely multitasking lady who needs no sleep?
At the very least how can you go through and zap all the 'Good morning's, just brushed my teeth..' to retain in archive just he nifty ones with useful info/links?
Those latter I am finding very useful.
http://ping.fm/03qUd
If this all works, I am impressed!
Currently, twitter has worked; LinkedIN MIA, though I may be looking in the wrong places.
There is also a danger of overlaps, so sorry for any duplicates until I suss out the default settings.
ADDENDUM
Looks promising, and a definite time saver.
I do not that, of course, you do not get a Title added ( I have now done so, manually), or any Labels (ditto). Easy to follow up.
I think I'll let it simmer awhile on the few tests (Blog, twitter & LinkedIn) to see what happens over the net 24hrs by way of duplicates as the automated aggregators do their thing.
Newsnight - Send your questions for the Twitter CEO -
How on earth do I manage all the deluge of tweets I get now I am, often as a courtesy, following those who follow me in addition to he just plain worthwhile? I see Yoko Ono manages. Do she have a horde of 'people', cloning tech, a time machine... or is just a very polite, awesomely multitasking lady who needs no sleep?
At the very least how can you go through and zap all the 'Good morning's, just brushed my teeth..' to retain in archive just he nifty ones with useful info/links?
Those latter I am finding very useful.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Return fair?
Newsnight's 'Ethical Man' has enjoyed a high profile journey of late.
And I have followed, not always approvingly.
Now his latest has come to an end: Looking back over an action-packed odyssey
Sadly, I feel we are again in an area of the best messengers for the message, as this frank if perhaps not wise introductory justification from his plane seat* would suggest :
'... to be honest, I have had enough... I know it's a cop out'. Ain't flying great (well, in most ways) when others pay (especially if it's for the family, too... ask the DG). There's also the small matter of *'Doing this 6500 mile trip around America without flying' So, basically, it has all just been a bit of show for a show that has green more as a theme. Hmn. Inspiring. But I have enjoyed the bits without the agenda bolted on, especially anything that reduces practically, improves efficiencies and minimises waste. These, and those who create them, are who I hold out real hope for.
His last series ended after a year with him dropping most things mainly because, as far as I could judge, on a personal basis he didn't find it much fun and, fortunately for him, professionally there was no need to keep on doing it as the cameras were now off.
Not sure things will work out too well if the rest of the population being treated to programmes of this nature adopt the same attitude.
And I have followed, not always approvingly.
Now his latest has come to an end: Looking back over an action-packed odyssey
Sadly, I feel we are again in an area of the best messengers for the message, as this frank if perhaps not wise introductory justification from his plane seat* would suggest :
'... to be honest, I have had enough... I know it's a cop out'. Ain't flying great (well, in most ways) when others pay (especially if it's for the family, too... ask the DG). There's also the small matter of *'Doing this 6500 mile trip around America without flying' So, basically, it has all just been a bit of show for a show that has green more as a theme. Hmn. Inspiring. But I have enjoyed the bits without the agenda bolted on, especially anything that reduces practically, improves efficiencies and minimises waste. These, and those who create them, are who I hold out real hope for.
His last series ended after a year with him dropping most things mainly because, as far as I could judge, on a personal basis he didn't find it much fun and, fortunately for him, professionally there was no need to keep on doing it as the cameras were now off.
Not sure things will work out too well if the rest of the population being treated to programmes of this nature adopt the same attitude.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
We're all "doomed", well, some* of us... maybe
It's a great headline: Possible unease over climate model stretching
Well, for a blogger like me it is at least.
I don't usually 'do' climate: too polarised.
But I do do communications, especially how the system persuades the people. And this is a doozy.
All very tricky. And one I don't envy the various 'powers that be', what with the massive authority, moral, trust and every other-wise that they currently enjoy with the (growing, but let's not worry about that) population.
I am just not sure that trying to unease the public into things slowly is quite working on past and present evidence, and when every flurry of climate foreboding is often followed by loooong fallow periods where navels get gazed at and economies get weighed (especially in terms of getting re-elected), if can often come across as tokenistic at best, half... um.. considered or, worse, when taxes heave into view, a tad opportunistic.
I must say that following what has doubtless been a very thorough briefing, that even as supportive a medium as the state broadcaster is littering its latest report with a preponderance of qualifying "quote" marks on every claim is hardly encouraging. *Especially on top of the "might's" and "depending's". The only certainties seem to be that as the grids get smaller, the derriere-covering gets greater. And, IMHO, that negates the whole exercise.
And if eyebrows are cranking here, I can only imagine what they will be like in some media, and how that will in turn be absorbed by some a wee bit preoccupied paying their Mum's annual care bills with less than certain leaders by example reckon is needed annually to sort out swirly ceilings, house ducks or faux timber their 50" TV rooms. Or certain quango senior execs still seem to score mega-bonuses for when what they are supposed to be doing fails and they try and blame the consequences of blocked drains or concreting over greenfields on a bit of weather.
At least Mr. Benn can hold his head high in this regard, but whether a disenchanted, distracted public will notice the distinction is doubtful.
ps: When it says 'on Thursday' on a blog dated Thursday, can I presume we are talking a weeks' time for the launch of this "research"?
Addendum - Having just found this via a Guardian writer Twitter feed, I am guessing not.
Well, for a blogger like me it is at least.
I don't usually 'do' climate: too polarised.
But I do do communications, especially how the system persuades the people. And this is a doozy.
All very tricky. And one I don't envy the various 'powers that be', what with the massive authority, moral, trust and every other-wise that they currently enjoy with the (growing, but let's not worry about that) population.
I am just not sure that trying to unease the public into things slowly is quite working on past and present evidence, and when every flurry of climate foreboding is often followed by loooong fallow periods where navels get gazed at and economies get weighed (especially in terms of getting re-elected), if can often come across as tokenistic at best, half... um.. considered or, worse, when taxes heave into view, a tad opportunistic.
I must say that following what has doubtless been a very thorough briefing, that even as supportive a medium as the state broadcaster is littering its latest report with a preponderance of qualifying "quote" marks on every claim is hardly encouraging. *Especially on top of the "might's" and "depending's". The only certainties seem to be that as the grids get smaller, the derriere-covering gets greater. And, IMHO, that negates the whole exercise.
And if eyebrows are cranking here, I can only imagine what they will be like in some media, and how that will in turn be absorbed by some a wee bit preoccupied paying their Mum's annual care bills with less than certain leaders by example reckon is needed annually to sort out swirly ceilings, house ducks or faux timber their 50" TV rooms. Or certain quango senior execs still seem to score mega-bonuses for when what they are supposed to be doing fails and they try and blame the consequences of blocked drains or concreting over greenfields on a bit of weather.
At least Mr. Benn can hold his head high in this regard, but whether a disenchanted, distracted public will notice the distinction is doubtful.
ps: When it says 'on Thursday' on a blog dated Thursday, can I presume we are talking a weeks' time for the launch of this "research"?
Addendum - Having just found this via a Guardian writer Twitter feed, I am guessing not.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Well, he did ask.
Ethical Man on twitter:
What's up? Disappointing response on blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/... not interested in the future of the world?
about 20 hours ago from web
Leads to:
Has Obama lost his bottle on climate?
I fear that the replies so far might not be quite what was wished for by the author. On any measure. So far, not even ten, in reply to a challenge made by a national broadcaster who has spent and is spending a lot (both money and carbon) to push matters in ways that I frankly don't think the majority of the public are either interested in an or buying. That... is poor enviROI at best... wasteful, elitist vanity programming at worst. Here's my reply:
Prompted by the 'disappointing response' (quantity? quality? Or level of support?) challenge in twitter, I can assure you I care very much about the future of my kids on this planet.
However, I do have some concerns about how well it is being served by those who have either appointed themselves or are in privileged positions to help share information in such a way so free thinking folk can make their minds up in an objective atmosphere. And hence, while the message can often have value, I tend to view the messengers, from individual to corporate, quite critically. Especially when 'they' claim to speak for 'me and mine'.
So, taking that last line of the piece, speaking of using less energy....
I fear I had to crank my eyebrow quite early at the notion of using a helicopter for a few seconds' shot 'to picture the scale' of the gently turning wind farm blades.
Like the Hummer-driving-engineer, it seems that many industries - even green-supportive media - can't seem to 'do their jobs' without breezily excusing away certain compromises that are not often accorded lesser mortals struggling to make a crust. This can create a sense of them vs. us situation, often erring on 'do as we say, not as we still like doing because we're creating 'awareness' between which an empathetic bridge is hard to forge.
I was also a bit intrigued about the priorities that can come across, which seemed to me to be;
1) Making money
2) Reduction in GHGs (not clear if that is to 'target' and hence often subsidy-supported, which often is not quite the same as doing right by the planet) and....
3) Production of enviROI+ energy
I would have thought that, beyond reducing at any viable, reasonable, practical point, the generation of energy in a form that produces the lowest 'harmful' by-products should be the main aim, and any advocacy challenged to prove they are so.
And while gimmicks can have a place, especially to help entertain to encourage education and hence information, they can distract. Hence I'd still like a lot more science, and if issues are not clear-cut, well debated by professional scientists and engineers, and not a gaggle of usual suspect interest groups that may make for good TV or meet agendas, but hardly help me arrive at a view on worthy initiatives to support.
For instance there was one point mentioned that I would have liked delved into a lot more. And that was the fact that this vast wind farm was actually located near a town of just 10,000 folk. Now, maybe that's because it's where the wind is. But how does it stack up against, say solar, on a cradle to grave basis (with subsidies stripped away to get a true cost/benefit comparison. It looked pretty darn sunny there. And, just as I subscribe to the notion of wearing a jummie to crank the thermostat down here in winter, I'd probably suggest a suit and tie might lead to the a/c getting cranked up more than it need be where the sun do shine).
And this in turn leads to further questions on massive generation vs. microgeneration, as surely remote locations at distance from consumption do mean compromises to efficiency of delivery.
These are key points that often get glossed over when the discussion seems mainly to be dominated by interest groups, pols and those involved with money on the line. Even academics can be tainted by dubious associations and hence motivations. Hence contentious areas really require more than a couple a views, preferably around the same table, and moderated by chairperson(s) qualified to keep hyperbole in check and call questionable claims to account.
Not something I see or here very often throughout the MSM, and oddly so considering the criticality of the topic and passions that can be aroused in debate.
Hence the decisions made, not made and bottling of by our currently less than stellar political classes become very hard to call.
ps: Did T Boone's people strap you/Justin to the chair for that interview? You/He looks terrified. Can't think why, Mr. Pickens seems a guy well worth listening to?
What's up? Disappointing response on blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/... not interested in the future of the world?
about 20 hours ago from web
Leads to:
Has Obama lost his bottle on climate?
I fear that the replies so far might not be quite what was wished for by the author. On any measure. So far, not even ten, in reply to a challenge made by a national broadcaster who has spent and is spending a lot (both money and carbon) to push matters in ways that I frankly don't think the majority of the public are either interested in an or buying. That... is poor enviROI at best... wasteful, elitist vanity programming at worst. Here's my reply:
Prompted by the 'disappointing response' (quantity? quality? Or level of support?) challenge in twitter, I can assure you I care very much about the future of my kids on this planet.
However, I do have some concerns about how well it is being served by those who have either appointed themselves or are in privileged positions to help share information in such a way so free thinking folk can make their minds up in an objective atmosphere. And hence, while the message can often have value, I tend to view the messengers, from individual to corporate, quite critically. Especially when 'they' claim to speak for 'me and mine'.
So, taking that last line of the piece, speaking of using less energy....
I fear I had to crank my eyebrow quite early at the notion of using a helicopter for a few seconds' shot 'to picture the scale' of the gently turning wind farm blades.
Like the Hummer-driving-engineer, it seems that many industries - even green-supportive media - can't seem to 'do their jobs' without breezily excusing away certain compromises that are not often accorded lesser mortals struggling to make a crust. This can create a sense of them vs. us situation, often erring on 'do as we say, not as we still like doing because we're creating 'awareness' between which an empathetic bridge is hard to forge.
I was also a bit intrigued about the priorities that can come across, which seemed to me to be;
1) Making money
2) Reduction in GHGs (not clear if that is to 'target' and hence often subsidy-supported, which often is not quite the same as doing right by the planet) and....
3) Production of enviROI+ energy
I would have thought that, beyond reducing at any viable, reasonable, practical point, the generation of energy in a form that produces the lowest 'harmful' by-products should be the main aim, and any advocacy challenged to prove they are so.
And while gimmicks can have a place, especially to help entertain to encourage education and hence information, they can distract. Hence I'd still like a lot more science, and if issues are not clear-cut, well debated by professional scientists and engineers, and not a gaggle of usual suspect interest groups that may make for good TV or meet agendas, but hardly help me arrive at a view on worthy initiatives to support.
For instance there was one point mentioned that I would have liked delved into a lot more. And that was the fact that this vast wind farm was actually located near a town of just 10,000 folk. Now, maybe that's because it's where the wind is. But how does it stack up against, say solar, on a cradle to grave basis (with subsidies stripped away to get a true cost/benefit comparison. It looked pretty darn sunny there. And, just as I subscribe to the notion of wearing a jummie to crank the thermostat down here in winter, I'd probably suggest a suit and tie might lead to the a/c getting cranked up more than it need be where the sun do shine).
And this in turn leads to further questions on massive generation vs. microgeneration, as surely remote locations at distance from consumption do mean compromises to efficiency of delivery.
These are key points that often get glossed over when the discussion seems mainly to be dominated by interest groups, pols and those involved with money on the line. Even academics can be tainted by dubious associations and hence motivations. Hence contentious areas really require more than a couple a views, preferably around the same table, and moderated by chairperson(s) qualified to keep hyperbole in check and call questionable claims to account.
Not something I see or here very often throughout the MSM, and oddly so considering the criticality of the topic and passions that can be aroused in debate.
Hence the decisions made, not made and bottling of by our currently less than stellar political classes become very hard to call.
ps: Did T Boone's people strap you/Justin to the chair for that interview? You/He looks terrified. Can't think why, Mr. Pickens seems a guy well worth listening to?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Am I unethical?
I think I might be.
'Cos I had a few issues with the latest offering from BBC's Ethical Man, as alerted by some less than impressed comments on the main Newsnight blog...
Ethical Man goes down to the woods
Whoa, a lot to digest there, if you'll excuse the mental image, as much ground is covered and over various timelines.
I would also rather wish the intros were changed from 'saving the world from climate change'. This rather paints one into a corner from the off. The climate changes. What is bad is that it might be doing it negatively, and our puny race could yet be a mitigating factor if it is man (person?)-made or, my preference, worsened.
Anyhoo, first up there's the news from Washington and this conference that is dominating the world's headlines.
Not too encouraged that almost immediately we learn that there's no actual progress, as it's more a kind of discussion vs. any actual negotiations, and the key host player is 'hoping for a dialogue' and 'thinks that will happen'. O......k. Good intentions can pave many things.
Then we hit the fact that India and China say all sorts of fluffy things are fine, but the West 'goes' first. Hold that thought.
As I try and chew on our representative saying, in one sentence 'You can't get agreement based on science', and then in one later there's 'a commitment to science'. I have long been concerned about the competencies of our politico-media establishment in this arena, but maybe should be reassured: there now seem to be two sets of sciences. How very Star Trek/Gate.
I have to give Mr. Rowlatt credit for pressing certain points in this interview, especially to provoke the gem that our government’s cabinet ministers don't seem to think they have much influence over the police 'service' and its actions. Novel. Who, in the name of public service accountability, does then?
And then I got a bit lost on the timeline, but I think it was the near present that we headed from Detroit East. Traveling can indeed be difficult, but most journeys can be made anywhere still, though agreed often not so quickly. There's the rub. If you have stuff, or a schedule, compromises need to be made. From families of four with two weeks in Cancun booked, to struggling eco-types needing to get to London for a climate conference (at £500+VAT for the day), to BBC journalists and their crews with a programme to make. Or pols heading with entourages and Caddies in the hold. Tricky when the finger wagging starts if you are not careful... or being hypocritical.
But a full load of activists in a Prius has to be as good as it gets, on a motorway, on a long haul trip... I'm sure. At least once the urban bit kicked in... if they didn't get lost. I am sure a Sat Nav was deemed evil, even if the lofted waving mobiles at the subsequent love in were deemed 'different', somehow. Even those have directions now, surely?
Anyway, these 'agents of change' (a different one to the climate variety, I guess) were a joy to behold, especially to those who had them under their spell. Once 'hope for change' wears off, I am thinking 'You are right and they are wrong' will be a great substitute when dealing with others not as keen on the views held... in a democracy. Words like 'impose' and 'enforce' have a worrying ring as backstop rhetoric vs. popular public delivery, too. And, bearing in mind the theme of this 'journey' another I am not sure I am not keen the UK learning from the US. Ta very much.
Especially when backed by 'Obama's EPA' (the environment’s protection agency not good enough?) and its larger than life leader, Ms. Jackson. A vegetarian, I am sure.
I have to say I then got a bit confused again by who was in government, who was in the quango and who was an activist with time on their hands. And who was paying for who to teach whom to do what against who.
I'll have to check and see if my local tech has civil disobedience on the curriculum, and who is funding any nifty tactics being so shared, such as resisting arrest. Might be handy in Gordon and Barak's new world order that maybe I missed in the BBC's G20 coverage.
Again a good stab at getting yet another senior administration pop star to grapple with consequences, Mr. Rowlatt, but he really didn't seem to be too convincing on the link between higher energy costs and the economic consequences. Not part of the narrative that should be overplayed, I'm guessing. Change...! Hope...! You first...! I'm more equal than you...! So it's really OK I hitch a ride on Al's jet!!!
However it was interesting that, after all this, there is still the small matter of convincing Congress and the Senate. And, I might add, having held that thought from earlier for so long, those nice folk in India and China. But there's just a few billion each that I am sure 12,000 energised 'merican yoof can reach, though I'd say a Prius might struggle with the wet bits and some terrain 'soon2B banned' 4x4s could be more suitable for.
Then, finally, we scoot to the woods. And speaking of what's done naturally, why do slots like this have such terribly faked 'surprise' first meetings? It was set up.. in advance. At the due time a fleet arrived at a remote location in the middle of a forest, at night. I reckon they were alerted.
Actually here was one potentially truly inspiring aspect, though I do have my caveats, especially when pondering eating a curry to provide the raw materials, and washing it down with a beverage, beer, that uses vast litres of water to 'make' it, at least commercially. Not a totally coherent signal.
But then this is a person who has traveled the world to spread the word on his concept, minimizing the impacts of human waste. I am sure the benefits created have many times overcome the cost of such a journey.
I would have liked to learn more about this frankly, and will beaver off thus inspired.... virtually of course (if worrying about the humming servers).
I was especially intrigued that the pathogens are destroyed, what with all this swine flu lark at the moment.
It would be interesting to see how this stacks up against our crumbling Victorian sewage systems in a row of City centre terraces. Though the space required would seem to suggest that wider spaces might be required for it to be really practical. Maybe all those college grads could be prevailed upon to give it a stab in their multi-storey dorms.
I'm guessing interesting, but not too practical for most applications. Again.
Addendum -
I was sent this, related, email:
President Obama is hosting a round of international climate negotiations in Washington DC, gathering the biggest climate emitters to try to kick−start UN talks. But oil companies are flooding the airwaves with advertisements to stop the momentum.
Avaaz.org, the global campaigning group, has filmed an advert spoofing the slick Exxon ads. It's hilarious − you can see it at this link −− check it out:
But I still had/have to reply:
Negative advertising can be effective indeed. Certainly gets you noticed, and often awarded.
But I forged a pretty good ad business, on top of career, by being more concerned on behalf of my clients with the tangible end-benefit a good product could confer to the maximum number of potential consumers.
My clients are now my kids, and their futures. I tend to prefer any money to go into proactive solutions, but being realistic these can complemented by inspiration using a fair amount of creative, honest persuasion, in turn based on information and education rather than out-gunning the other side's messages or buying power. Especially when that latter seems unwinnable if you look at the war chests and resources being deployed.
Without seeing the oil companies' ads it's hard to know what their messages are, or the media schedules to guess the eyeball impact.
But if they are being crass and unsubtle and OTT with the kneejerks, I figure it's going to backfire.
However, leading by example with one right, sold well, can really develop into more rights, and soon overcome a lot of wrongs.
Anyway, they seem to have their $100k already. It will be interesting to see how many slots that gets, when, and how many negotiators are exposed to it at the right time in the best environment. And are then motivated to respond in the desired way to it.
Or just find it has cropped up in the awards in 10 months' time.
'Cos I had a few issues with the latest offering from BBC's Ethical Man, as alerted by some less than impressed comments on the main Newsnight blog...
Ethical Man goes down to the woods
Whoa, a lot to digest there, if you'll excuse the mental image, as much ground is covered and over various timelines.
I would also rather wish the intros were changed from 'saving the world from climate change'. This rather paints one into a corner from the off. The climate changes. What is bad is that it might be doing it negatively, and our puny race could yet be a mitigating factor if it is man (person?)-made or, my preference, worsened.
Anyhoo, first up there's the news from Washington and this conference that is dominating the world's headlines.
Not too encouraged that almost immediately we learn that there's no actual progress, as it's more a kind of discussion vs. any actual negotiations, and the key host player is 'hoping for a dialogue' and 'thinks that will happen'. O......k. Good intentions can pave many things.
Then we hit the fact that India and China say all sorts of fluffy things are fine, but the West 'goes' first. Hold that thought.
As I try and chew on our representative saying, in one sentence 'You can't get agreement based on science', and then in one later there's 'a commitment to science'. I have long been concerned about the competencies of our politico-media establishment in this arena, but maybe should be reassured: there now seem to be two sets of sciences. How very Star Trek/Gate.
I have to give Mr. Rowlatt credit for pressing certain points in this interview, especially to provoke the gem that our government’s cabinet ministers don't seem to think they have much influence over the police 'service' and its actions. Novel. Who, in the name of public service accountability, does then?
And then I got a bit lost on the timeline, but I think it was the near present that we headed from Detroit East. Traveling can indeed be difficult, but most journeys can be made anywhere still, though agreed often not so quickly. There's the rub. If you have stuff, or a schedule, compromises need to be made. From families of four with two weeks in Cancun booked, to struggling eco-types needing to get to London for a climate conference (at £500+VAT for the day), to BBC journalists and their crews with a programme to make. Or pols heading with entourages and Caddies in the hold. Tricky when the finger wagging starts if you are not careful... or being hypocritical.
But a full load of activists in a Prius has to be as good as it gets, on a motorway, on a long haul trip... I'm sure. At least once the urban bit kicked in... if they didn't get lost. I am sure a Sat Nav was deemed evil, even if the lofted waving mobiles at the subsequent love in were deemed 'different', somehow. Even those have directions now, surely?
Anyway, these 'agents of change' (a different one to the climate variety, I guess) were a joy to behold, especially to those who had them under their spell. Once 'hope for change' wears off, I am thinking 'You are right and they are wrong' will be a great substitute when dealing with others not as keen on the views held... in a democracy. Words like 'impose' and 'enforce' have a worrying ring as backstop rhetoric vs. popular public delivery, too. And, bearing in mind the theme of this 'journey' another I am not sure I am not keen the UK learning from the US. Ta very much.
Especially when backed by 'Obama's EPA' (the environment’s protection agency not good enough?) and its larger than life leader, Ms. Jackson. A vegetarian, I am sure.
I have to say I then got a bit confused again by who was in government, who was in the quango and who was an activist with time on their hands. And who was paying for who to teach whom to do what against who.
I'll have to check and see if my local tech has civil disobedience on the curriculum, and who is funding any nifty tactics being so shared, such as resisting arrest. Might be handy in Gordon and Barak's new world order that maybe I missed in the BBC's G20 coverage.
Again a good stab at getting yet another senior administration pop star to grapple with consequences, Mr. Rowlatt, but he really didn't seem to be too convincing on the link between higher energy costs and the economic consequences. Not part of the narrative that should be overplayed, I'm guessing. Change...! Hope...! You first...! I'm more equal than you...! So it's really OK I hitch a ride on Al's jet!!!
However it was interesting that, after all this, there is still the small matter of convincing Congress and the Senate. And, I might add, having held that thought from earlier for so long, those nice folk in India and China. But there's just a few billion each that I am sure 12,000 energised 'merican yoof can reach, though I'd say a Prius might struggle with the wet bits and some terrain 'soon2B banned' 4x4s could be more suitable for.
Then, finally, we scoot to the woods. And speaking of what's done naturally, why do slots like this have such terribly faked 'surprise' first meetings? It was set up.. in advance. At the due time a fleet arrived at a remote location in the middle of a forest, at night. I reckon they were alerted.
Actually here was one potentially truly inspiring aspect, though I do have my caveats, especially when pondering eating a curry to provide the raw materials, and washing it down with a beverage, beer, that uses vast litres of water to 'make' it, at least commercially. Not a totally coherent signal.
But then this is a person who has traveled the world to spread the word on his concept, minimizing the impacts of human waste. I am sure the benefits created have many times overcome the cost of such a journey.
I would have liked to learn more about this frankly, and will beaver off thus inspired.... virtually of course (if worrying about the humming servers).
I was especially intrigued that the pathogens are destroyed, what with all this swine flu lark at the moment.
It would be interesting to see how this stacks up against our crumbling Victorian sewage systems in a row of City centre terraces. Though the space required would seem to suggest that wider spaces might be required for it to be really practical. Maybe all those college grads could be prevailed upon to give it a stab in their multi-storey dorms.
I'm guessing interesting, but not too practical for most applications. Again.
Addendum -
I was sent this, related, email:
President Obama is hosting a round of international climate negotiations in Washington DC, gathering the biggest climate emitters to try to kick−start UN talks. But oil companies are flooding the airwaves with advertisements to stop the momentum.
Avaaz.org, the global campaigning group, has filmed an advert spoofing the slick Exxon ads. It's hilarious − you can see it at this link −− check it out:
But I still had/have to reply:
Negative advertising can be effective indeed. Certainly gets you noticed, and often awarded.
But I forged a pretty good ad business, on top of career, by being more concerned on behalf of my clients with the tangible end-benefit a good product could confer to the maximum number of potential consumers.
My clients are now my kids, and their futures. I tend to prefer any money to go into proactive solutions, but being realistic these can complemented by inspiration using a fair amount of creative, honest persuasion, in turn based on information and education rather than out-gunning the other side's messages or buying power. Especially when that latter seems unwinnable if you look at the war chests and resources being deployed.
Without seeing the oil companies' ads it's hard to know what their messages are, or the media schedules to guess the eyeball impact.
But if they are being crass and unsubtle and OTT with the kneejerks, I figure it's going to backfire.
However, leading by example with one right, sold well, can really develop into more rights, and soon overcome a lot of wrongs.
Anyway, they seem to have their $100k already. It will be interesting to see how many slots that gets, when, and how many negotiators are exposed to it at the right time in the best environment. And are then motivated to respond in the desired way to it.
Or just find it has cropped up in the awards in 10 months' time.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Still grabbing headlines
I don't mean to tease (well...) but often Aunty doesn't seem to do irony.
Newsnight
It's looking like the Obama Administration is finding out that real life is not like a Disney Movie.
And that redirecting a pendulum that has probably swung too far one way is like changing the course of an oil tanker (how apt) and might take time and a bit more subtlety than trying to whack it with a mallet in the other direction, from foreign affairs to climate.
Speaking of the latter, I am glad our new International (I'm guessing Global has unfortunate connotations) Ethical Person has flown back out West again to cover what those on the ground there already could not, with all those contacts he built up before, and expertise in the field.
At least he managed to find this pre-Copenhagen, Kyoto's end conference that President O did not attend, but Mrs. Clinton did. As it wasn't linked above here I tried the BBC search (ever the optimist) first, and then even Google let me down. Couldn't catch the title: 'Major Economic Forum'?
Then over to Congress for testimony from such as a non-cutesy Mr. Gore. Speaking of the dangers in dealing in absolutes, I think I heard him say that 'man-made global warming pollution causes global warming'. Non negotiable. Now, I had thought the debate had moved to climate change, and for some even newer incarnations, but it seems a tough sell to not even concede that man's contribution may well be significant and worth addressing, but possibly not total in the natural scheme of things.
Anyway, in the spirit of sensible enviROI efforts back home, I have just had a DEFRA PR headed '£11m to protect our seas from climate change '. Actually the headline does not accurately the content of the release (what does these days?), but the words 'drop in the ocean' still spring to mind.
Newsnight
It's looking like the Obama Administration is finding out that real life is not like a Disney Movie.
And that redirecting a pendulum that has probably swung too far one way is like changing the course of an oil tanker (how apt) and might take time and a bit more subtlety than trying to whack it with a mallet in the other direction, from foreign affairs to climate.
Speaking of the latter, I am glad our new International (I'm guessing Global has unfortunate connotations) Ethical Person has flown back out West again to cover what those on the ground there already could not, with all those contacts he built up before, and expertise in the field.
At least he managed to find this pre-Copenhagen, Kyoto's end conference that President O did not attend, but Mrs. Clinton did. As it wasn't linked above here I tried the BBC search (ever the optimist) first, and then even Google let me down. Couldn't catch the title: 'Major Economic Forum'?
Then over to Congress for testimony from such as a non-cutesy Mr. Gore. Speaking of the dangers in dealing in absolutes, I think I heard him say that 'man-made global warming pollution causes global warming'. Non negotiable. Now, I had thought the debate had moved to climate change, and for some even newer incarnations, but it seems a tough sell to not even concede that man's contribution may well be significant and worth addressing, but possibly not total in the natural scheme of things.
Anyway, in the spirit of sensible enviROI efforts back home, I have just had a DEFRA PR headed '£11m to protect our seas from climate change '. Actually the headline does not accurately the content of the release (what does these days?), but the words 'drop in the ocean' still spring to mind.
Friday, April 17, 2009
He keeps asking. Seems a shame not to reply.
Newsnight's Ethical Man is really pleased with this one.
Test driving an electric car in Motor City
Not being a journalist I am not sure what his personal views on how good it is has to do with much, but it is the blog complement so OK.
I fear that, as one of not very many to devote a fair whack of time to reviewing as requested, I still cannot find it easy to agree that the series is really beginning to get to grips with the issues.
For the investment (ROI or enviROI), I found it again factually sparse and lacking in persuasive content. The Volt is an embarrassment (Post 3 is very pertinent) ,though I do wonder why many posters seem more concerned as to whether it was first.
Well, let's see if this week we can discover what the US can teach us (other than how to use 2 x more energy, which I'd rather we didn't), as this might well yet validate the pleasure of finding what was promised for the series gets delivered.
Sadly, the thoughts of a few of a few in a near empty hall - or bartend...er... Mayor Steve (a real people-s champion if he can be swayed to sign up to a commitment on no more than being told to on camera by a UK reporter) - have to be viewed as potentially interesting, but hardly representative. And speaking of context, as well as a matter of interest, if 911 mayors (may now be 935 - http://www.usmayors.org/ )in the US have signed up to cuts, what might the total number be? And what?s the breakdown? I just ask because if Boris signed up London he'd probably be OK. As to a pol with a constituency in the boonies with one bus a day to work... not so sure.
I am also not clear what is meant by 'low carbon travel'. The distance alluded to when this was first raised is surely irrelevant in the context it was mentioned. Yes, the size of the country and population has meant more inevitably is used just shunting a few hundred million folk hundreds of miles when we deal in scores here. The more important issue is efficiency. I see no need for a 6 litre car there to get from A 2 B in comfort and safety any more than I do here. Hence I was as unimpressed with Gov. Arnie's Hummer as Sir Stuart Rose's 7 Series Hydrogen effort, as they made potentially good points in a totally compromised way.
As to whether democratic societies are capable of making short term sacrifices, I would certainly like to think so. But as been pointed out by such as President Obama and PM Brown, we are now in the era of world economies. I guess we should be grateful then that India is a democracy, but there is a small concern as to what the Chinese government may decide for its people when the Shanghai Nano is rolled out. That one will be crossed when arrived at.. all very Prisoner's Dilemma. But if North Korea can be persuaded to stop the whole nuke thing by us getting rid of ours, then anything is possible. And in any case this is, should be, about the technologies and policies of reduction and efficiency domestically.
I also get a bit eyebrow cranky on anything with the word 'carbon' and any term meaning money or trading being bolted together. So nice in theory, so hard to grasp in practice without thinking that such as business class travel will soon only be for politicians, City traders... and journalists that get invited aboard to take us for a ride.
Getting all global, with a touch of egalitarianism thrown in, in our new world order I wonder if there might not end up being some 'them' and 'us' still to avoid further 'issues' cropping up.
Because if I am to be bestowed with an allowance of one log to heat the home, a trip to Tescos to feed the family and an annual short haul to Majorca on Ryan Air, which I can trade with Madonna on weekly kid shopping expeditions, or BBC eco-reporters for visits to Antarctica to see the damage caused by folk going to Antarctica, it seems only fair that every soul on the planet gets the same, from Kalahari bushpersons to Mekong fisherfolk.
And while the latter might not be able to afford the trips or goodies, they would be theirs to trade. Which rather leads me to wonder if the whole thing might not get a lot worse as a consequence of a bunch of rich, or expenses-driven individuals and/or businesses simply buying what they want, only now with a guilt-free sticker. And there are a lot of rich folk and ratings-thirsty journos with places to go and people to see, who I am sure our poorer cousins will be happy to trade with for cash to buy Chinese Nanos. Expectation of better things is part of the economy-growing cycle.
Nothing less than saving the world for climate change? If all $1B gets ?us? is the Chevy Volt as featured, I?d say that the US might be stretched to show us anything worth a darn for now. But nice that it all comes to complement the coincidental PR assault on the airwaves and columns over here, right now, from the likes of trusted pols such as Mandelson, Brown and now Hoon (see Richard Black?s latest post). Sadly not getting as easy a ride from many quarters (even... especially eco ones) that seem inconveniently now able to raise some concerns, from where the battery raw materials are to come from to how the 'leccy gets generated and then delivered. I merely wonder if trying to get our cross-pond cousins into 2 litre diesels delivering 60mpg might not be a more productive effort for now, whilst other, cleaner, higher enviROI options are honed before leaping to a green crowd pleaser. Hence I doubt that Mr. Clarkson, and his audience, are too concerned yet. But at least they might know that you use a lot more fuel at 100mph vs. 60mph, and how much it costs planet and licence fee to replace a piece of kit not fixed down properly in seeking to get a bit of nifty TV footage more than any other consideration.
So, again, to paraphrase what the nice lady said at one point, 'what's all this supposed to prove??'
Guardian - NEW - Tesla's Elon Musk: the democratisation of electric cars is speeding up - 'The automotive industry has reached a clear consensus that the future is electric and is offering consumers more affordable and effective vehicles' - has it, indeed.
I would love one of these cars. It certainly was raised in comparison, very positively, if not by the investigative reporter, after a paean to the joys of the $1B (and counting) Chevy Volt, by Newsnight's Ethical Man.
But just as I worry what Gordon & Alistair might do to spoil my growing affection for my £3500 (meeting my definition of affordable, if not some others better placed, perhaps), '02 LPG Volvo, there is a rather worrying question mark on the future of the 'fuel', especially its cost.
But , it's nice to know the automotive industry has reached a clear consensus that the future is electric and is offering consumers more affordable and effective vehicles... at least for the auto industry, I guess.
And while advertorials are not unheard of in the media - today the BBC was helping a lady sell tacky flog spy stuff for about 5 minutes - I tend to respond better to the message, and the medium carrying it, if the information is objective, allowing me to make up my own mind. A bit like the DamGreen 'affair', this is not proving easy, as most 'official' info is carried by a rather suspect establishment, from Hoonian press releases on the BBC website to, well, many from the rest of a certain section of the MSM that knows what's good for us.
Leaving the much bogey-personed blogosphere to offer alternative views, from such rampant oil-pocket entities as Uni Engineering Professors and the Green Party.
So while I am grateful to affluent early adopters, I am also hoping they got their dosh by being challenging of what they are told too, and are making their decisions based on the future of all our kids, and not just what some in the right circles tell them will look good.
ps: I think most credible boffins have stopped using the warming thing, opting for the more accurate, as far as it goes, climate change, with even this now evolving, as planetary things tend to do.
pps: 'a fleet of electric Smart microcars for zero-emission urban commuting' - now, how does that 'zero' get arrived at?
The Ecologist - NEW - Can electric vehicles overtake competing green car technologies? -
The Gaurdian - NEW - The flaws in the electric car scheme
The Gaurdian - NEW - Where's the chemistry in electric cars? - I thought it was going to be about science!
The Gaurdian - NEW - Watt an idea
Test driving an electric car in Motor City
Not being a journalist I am not sure what his personal views on how good it is has to do with much, but it is the blog complement so OK.
I fear that, as one of not very many to devote a fair whack of time to reviewing as requested, I still cannot find it easy to agree that the series is really beginning to get to grips with the issues.
For the investment (ROI or enviROI), I found it again factually sparse and lacking in persuasive content. The Volt is an embarrassment (Post 3 is very pertinent) ,though I do wonder why many posters seem more concerned as to whether it was first.
Well, let's see if this week we can discover what the US can teach us (other than how to use 2 x more energy, which I'd rather we didn't), as this might well yet validate the pleasure of finding what was promised for the series gets delivered.
Sadly, the thoughts of a few of a few in a near empty hall - or bartend...er... Mayor Steve (a real people-s champion if he can be swayed to sign up to a commitment on no more than being told to on camera by a UK reporter) - have to be viewed as potentially interesting, but hardly representative. And speaking of context, as well as a matter of interest, if 911 mayors (may now be 935 - http://www.usmayors.org/ )in the US have signed up to cuts, what might the total number be? And what?s the breakdown? I just ask because if Boris signed up London he'd probably be OK. As to a pol with a constituency in the boonies with one bus a day to work... not so sure.
I am also not clear what is meant by 'low carbon travel'. The distance alluded to when this was first raised is surely irrelevant in the context it was mentioned. Yes, the size of the country and population has meant more inevitably is used just shunting a few hundred million folk hundreds of miles when we deal in scores here. The more important issue is efficiency. I see no need for a 6 litre car there to get from A 2 B in comfort and safety any more than I do here. Hence I was as unimpressed with Gov. Arnie's Hummer as Sir Stuart Rose's 7 Series Hydrogen effort, as they made potentially good points in a totally compromised way.
As to whether democratic societies are capable of making short term sacrifices, I would certainly like to think so. But as been pointed out by such as President Obama and PM Brown, we are now in the era of world economies. I guess we should be grateful then that India is a democracy, but there is a small concern as to what the Chinese government may decide for its people when the Shanghai Nano is rolled out. That one will be crossed when arrived at.. all very Prisoner's Dilemma. But if North Korea can be persuaded to stop the whole nuke thing by us getting rid of ours, then anything is possible. And in any case this is, should be, about the technologies and policies of reduction and efficiency domestically.
I also get a bit eyebrow cranky on anything with the word 'carbon' and any term meaning money or trading being bolted together. So nice in theory, so hard to grasp in practice without thinking that such as business class travel will soon only be for politicians, City traders... and journalists that get invited aboard to take us for a ride.
Getting all global, with a touch of egalitarianism thrown in, in our new world order I wonder if there might not end up being some 'them' and 'us' still to avoid further 'issues' cropping up.
Because if I am to be bestowed with an allowance of one log to heat the home, a trip to Tescos to feed the family and an annual short haul to Majorca on Ryan Air, which I can trade with Madonna on weekly kid shopping expeditions, or BBC eco-reporters for visits to Antarctica to see the damage caused by folk going to Antarctica, it seems only fair that every soul on the planet gets the same, from Kalahari bushpersons to Mekong fisherfolk.
And while the latter might not be able to afford the trips or goodies, they would be theirs to trade. Which rather leads me to wonder if the whole thing might not get a lot worse as a consequence of a bunch of rich, or expenses-driven individuals and/or businesses simply buying what they want, only now with a guilt-free sticker. And there are a lot of rich folk and ratings-thirsty journos with places to go and people to see, who I am sure our poorer cousins will be happy to trade with for cash to buy Chinese Nanos. Expectation of better things is part of the economy-growing cycle.
Nothing less than saving the world for climate change? If all $1B gets ?us? is the Chevy Volt as featured, I?d say that the US might be stretched to show us anything worth a darn for now. But nice that it all comes to complement the coincidental PR assault on the airwaves and columns over here, right now, from the likes of trusted pols such as Mandelson, Brown and now Hoon (see Richard Black?s latest post). Sadly not getting as easy a ride from many quarters (even... especially eco ones) that seem inconveniently now able to raise some concerns, from where the battery raw materials are to come from to how the 'leccy gets generated and then delivered. I merely wonder if trying to get our cross-pond cousins into 2 litre diesels delivering 60mpg might not be a more productive effort for now, whilst other, cleaner, higher enviROI options are honed before leaping to a green crowd pleaser. Hence I doubt that Mr. Clarkson, and his audience, are too concerned yet. But at least they might know that you use a lot more fuel at 100mph vs. 60mph, and how much it costs planet and licence fee to replace a piece of kit not fixed down properly in seeking to get a bit of nifty TV footage more than any other consideration.
So, again, to paraphrase what the nice lady said at one point, 'what's all this supposed to prove??'
Guardian - NEW - Tesla's Elon Musk: the democratisation of electric cars is speeding up - 'The automotive industry has reached a clear consensus that the future is electric and is offering consumers more affordable and effective vehicles' - has it, indeed.
I would love one of these cars. It certainly was raised in comparison, very positively, if not by the investigative reporter, after a paean to the joys of the $1B (and counting) Chevy Volt, by Newsnight's Ethical Man.
But just as I worry what Gordon & Alistair might do to spoil my growing affection for my £3500 (meeting my definition of affordable, if not some others better placed, perhaps), '02 LPG Volvo, there is a rather worrying question mark on the future of the 'fuel', especially its cost.
But , it's nice to know the automotive industry has reached a clear consensus that the future is electric and is offering consumers more affordable and effective vehicles... at least for the auto industry, I guess.
And while advertorials are not unheard of in the media - today the BBC was helping a lady sell tacky flog spy stuff for about 5 minutes - I tend to respond better to the message, and the medium carrying it, if the information is objective, allowing me to make up my own mind. A bit like the DamGreen 'affair', this is not proving easy, as most 'official' info is carried by a rather suspect establishment, from Hoonian press releases on the BBC website to, well, many from the rest of a certain section of the MSM that knows what's good for us.
Leaving the much bogey-personed blogosphere to offer alternative views, from such rampant oil-pocket entities as Uni Engineering Professors and the Green Party.
So while I am grateful to affluent early adopters, I am also hoping they got their dosh by being challenging of what they are told too, and are making their decisions based on the future of all our kids, and not just what some in the right circles tell them will look good.
ps: I think most credible boffins have stopped using the warming thing, opting for the more accurate, as far as it goes, climate change, with even this now evolving, as planetary things tend to do.
pps: 'a fleet of electric Smart microcars for zero-emission urban commuting' - now, how does that 'zero' get arrived at?
The Ecologist - NEW - Can electric vehicles overtake competing green car technologies? -
The Gaurdian - NEW - The flaws in the electric car scheme
The Gaurdian - NEW - Where's the chemistry in electric cars? - I thought it was going to be about science!
The Gaurdian - NEW - Watt an idea
Monday, March 30, 2009
I decide to reply to a BBC blooger...
On the one hand, I love useful info. On the other, I don't like being 'fed'.
There were a few elements of 'medium vs. messenger' here, and also some 'politically correct' BBC lines being taken.
Are we all doomed?
Other than death, taxes and licence fees, No. But I'm guessing you mean the humin race, and more specifically through 'probably man-worsened climate change'. In which case no, not for a while, and 'I am not sure anyone knows, yet, but it might be worth sussing out the skinny to prepare'.
Well, we came to America to do nothing less than save the world.
And here was me thinking it was another 'don't do as we do, don't do what we say don't do' jolly to get a programme out and crank up some ratings in the niche end of the schedule, and some hits on a blog. But it is great you had a good time, and guys like our Darryl liked the reach the BBC has so much she caught up with you again.
If a few things might assist in certain endeavours, I'd pop in 'realism' and 'pragmatism' for two.
I have a colleague who lives in fear of their blog because of the aggressive and rude comments people post.
That is neither welcome nor, to use one of our Dear Leader's most fatuous phrases, 'acceptable'. Aggression and rudeness are poor ways to move opinion, IMHO. Especially if the pieces that have provoked such reactions are factual, objective, and free from 'enhanced narratives' and 'interpreted events'. That's what effective, honest moderation is for.
However, as your colleague Susan and her 'superior' might appreciate, it is not unlikely there will be a robust expression of disagreement if liberties are taken. Folk were not keen that President Obama's speech was turned in the edit suite into an 'emerging truth'.
That said...
'...if readers or viewers disagreed their only way to respond was a letter to the editor that, almost always, would go unpublished, if not unread.'
You are aware of the BBC 'House Rules', I take it? They can be, and often are used to delete just about anything that some do not fancy. Still.
A fact that seems to be causing some rumblings in the blogosphere. You can't control what you don't own.
But I'll look forward to the report. So long as it is guided by 'hewing close to the line, and letting the chips fall where they may', and not dogma or agenda. And by heavens the science stays sensible and the enviROI top of mind.
If not, I'm sure a few will be on hand to give you the heads up.
There were a few elements of 'medium vs. messenger' here, and also some 'politically correct' BBC lines being taken.
Are we all doomed?
Other than death, taxes and licence fees, No. But I'm guessing you mean the humin race, and more specifically through 'probably man-worsened climate change'. In which case no, not for a while, and 'I am not sure anyone knows, yet, but it might be worth sussing out the skinny to prepare'.
Well, we came to America to do nothing less than save the world.
And here was me thinking it was another 'don't do as we do, don't do what we say don't do' jolly to get a programme out and crank up some ratings in the niche end of the schedule, and some hits on a blog. But it is great you had a good time, and guys like our Darryl liked the reach the BBC has so much she caught up with you again.
If a few things might assist in certain endeavours, I'd pop in 'realism' and 'pragmatism' for two.
I have a colleague who lives in fear of their blog because of the aggressive and rude comments people post.
That is neither welcome nor, to use one of our Dear Leader's most fatuous phrases, 'acceptable'. Aggression and rudeness are poor ways to move opinion, IMHO. Especially if the pieces that have provoked such reactions are factual, objective, and free from 'enhanced narratives' and 'interpreted events'. That's what effective, honest moderation is for.
However, as your colleague Susan and her 'superior' might appreciate, it is not unlikely there will be a robust expression of disagreement if liberties are taken. Folk were not keen that President Obama's speech was turned in the edit suite into an 'emerging truth'.
That said...
'...if readers or viewers disagreed their only way to respond was a letter to the editor that, almost always, would go unpublished, if not unread.'
You are aware of the BBC 'House Rules', I take it? They can be, and often are used to delete just about anything that some do not fancy. Still.
A fact that seems to be causing some rumblings in the blogosphere. You can't control what you don't own.
But I'll look forward to the report. So long as it is guided by 'hewing close to the line, and letting the chips fall where they may', and not dogma or agenda. And by heavens the science stays sensible and the enviROI top of mind.
If not, I'm sure a few will be on hand to give you the heads up.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
It's a tough job...
Ethical dilemmas: is walking more polluting than driving?
Not to mention flying hither and thither in the name of 'awareness', it seems.
What a dilemma! Two hours relaxing in the soft leather seats of a billionaire's private jet or 20 hours behind the wheel of a hire car
One faced by many around the world, daily, I'm sure. Along with the other daunting choices faced. Has Mr. Harrabin got back from his scuba diving trip yet? Message and messengers again spring to mind.
Not to mention flying hither and thither in the name of 'awareness', it seems.
What a dilemma! Two hours relaxing in the soft leather seats of a billionaire's private jet or 20 hours behind the wheel of a hire car
One faced by many around the world, daily, I'm sure. Along with the other daunting choices faced. Has Mr. Harrabin got back from his scuba diving trip yet? Message and messengers again spring to mind.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Reporting - information vs. opinion?
I have usually appreciated Ethical Man... when I learn useful new stuff.
What we've been up to...
But not when I feel an agenda is at play, and the science gets tinkered with.
Merry Japes, eh?
Full load in a car... excellent. Be interesting to see how that equates to other forms of transport when you're off on a protest when you're not off on spring break skiing I guess.
Just wondering, how does a hybrid perform in such cases at high speed over long distances, lugging that battery along?
I guess it can be used for the all the laptops and iPod battery chargers no student would be seen without. Even on an Amish visit.
Pity about the hitch-hiking law (?)... very nanny-state. The rationale will be interesting, and how that gets reported vis a vis other government-imposed efforts 'for our own good'.
What we've been up to...
But not when I feel an agenda is at play, and the science gets tinkered with.
Merry Japes, eh?
Full load in a car... excellent. Be interesting to see how that equates to other forms of transport when you're off on a protest when you're not off on spring break skiing I guess.
Just wondering, how does a hybrid perform in such cases at high speed over long distances, lugging that battery along?
I guess it can be used for the all the laptops and iPod battery chargers no student would be seen without. Even on an Amish visit.
Pity about the hitch-hiking law (?)... very nanny-state. The rationale will be interesting, and how that gets reported vis a vis other government-imposed efforts 'for our own good'.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Are you.. one of us?
Stated like that... would you want to be?
Obama harnesses the green power of the crowd
I really felt like kicking back, despite a desire to support any positives. It was just all... so... smug
a movement that will battle for action on global warming
If they are rallying behind the cry of 'Global warming' I rather fear it's not the best of starts.
This has rather been discredited as a major motivator. Even the next incarnation, climate change (at least shared by Ms. Tolkan, Jesse or Jessy?), is now being scheduled by some for another incarnation.
I maintain my view that while the message may well be pretty vital, and some elected representatives seem pretty sensible, the number of unelected messengers and their often rather contradictory if not rather 'elitist' 'one of us' (at best) messages does not seem to be moving the masses terribly well.
I wonder why?
Obama harnesses the green power of the crowd
I really felt like kicking back, despite a desire to support any positives. It was just all... so... smug
a movement that will battle for action on global warming
If they are rallying behind the cry of 'Global warming' I rather fear it's not the best of starts.
This has rather been discredited as a major motivator. Even the next incarnation, climate change (at least shared by Ms. Tolkan, Jesse or Jessy?), is now being scheduled by some for another incarnation.
I maintain my view that while the message may well be pretty vital, and some elected representatives seem pretty sensible, the number of unelected messengers and their often rather contradictory if not rather 'elitist' 'one of us' (at best) messages does not seem to be moving the masses terribly well.
I wonder why?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
But is it...
Ethical Man is reborn
Like the last one, I'll probably value some of the information, but I suspect the overall message will crank an eyebrow as various aspects are 'cherry picked' and just as casually dropped later as part of the 'enhanced narrative'.
Ethical Man Project
Facebook Group
Twitter
Blog
Can't wait. Even aspects of the first sentence starts my eyebrow quivering... '..buy a hybrid car'.
Then of course there was what got done for the story, and what happened in fact...
'We stopped flying,'
But he didn't. He flew to Jamaica to 'report' on energy saving bulbs. And the family may have had a year out camping, and very nice too, but I very much doubt when it was all over there was not the odd ski trip with the rest of the BBC school break crew subsequently.
'..got rid of the car'
Not sure that's quite a fair representation. They sold their car to a friend on the basis they could use it when required, and/or rented.
Plus of course all that goes on behind the camera to make what is in front look slick.
And finally... and again... when it's all over then what? Fly back and take a nice holiday?
Looking at the comments so far (I have refrained), it is already shaping up as pretty polarised with, I am surprised to note, a large chunk not best impressed. Not sure this is working out as well as it might for the message, though the messeners look liek they'll be having some fun. It's a journey I'd love to do one day.
Like the last one, I'll probably value some of the information, but I suspect the overall message will crank an eyebrow as various aspects are 'cherry picked' and just as casually dropped later as part of the 'enhanced narrative'.
Ethical Man Project
Facebook Group
Blog
Can't wait. Even aspects of the first sentence starts my eyebrow quivering... '..buy a hybrid car'.
Then of course there was what got done for the story, and what happened in fact...
'We stopped flying,'
But he didn't. He flew to Jamaica to 'report' on energy saving bulbs. And the family may have had a year out camping, and very nice too, but I very much doubt when it was all over there was not the odd ski trip with the rest of the BBC school break crew subsequently.
'..got rid of the car'
Not sure that's quite a fair representation. They sold their car to a friend on the basis they could use it when required, and/or rented.
Plus of course all that goes on behind the camera to make what is in front look slick.
And finally... and again... when it's all over then what? Fly back and take a nice holiday?
Looking at the comments so far (I have refrained), it is already shaping up as pretty polarised with, I am surprised to note, a large chunk not best impressed. Not sure this is working out as well as it might for the message, though the messeners look liek they'll be having some fun. It's a journey I'd love to do one day.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
We do science, we do
As an ex-scientist/engineer I have a firm belief in the value of this country's support of same.
Hence I was attracted to this article in the Newsnight blog:
Restoring science to its rightful place
Sadly, as the comments in reply (the first is a doozy, especially the end piece. I speak as one trying to forge a commercial model new media entity dealing in the environment, and one day found myself competing with BBC Green) would suggest, it has been found rather wanting.
Science deals in fact, as does... should... reporting. It is hard not to feel this piece was more opinion dressed up. And I do wonder how appropriate it is for a 'reporter' for the BBC to be quite so definitive in her critiques on an outgoing administration when much is still unknown. The optimism for an agent of 'change', whatever that is, is perhaps understandable given the degree of uncritical analysis of the new President's plans to date, but surely should be couched in terms, dare I say science-based ones, that accept it's hard to predict based on what we don't yet know.
Shame the vast majority subjected to the broadcast are unlikely to be exposed to such worthy and relevant debate to appreciate the critical underpinnings of 'science', and not the fluffy, agenda-driven versions too often trotted out by our national broadcaster and its often less than qualified, or if so (Ms. Watts' resume is a lot more relevant than most), barely competent and/or objective cabal of 'analysts'.
I happen to think there is much worth considering seriously in the environmental arena, but as a fact-based environmentalist shudder at each grotesque, rushed-out bit of spin from the BBC that seems designed to push an 'ideal' (at least in their eyes), but when found wanting simply sets back the worthy, public-influencing, patient, test and confirm methodologies that can lead to genuine insights we can act on with confidence.
Harmless Sky - BBC Newsnight - Warming up President Obama’s inaugural speech? - Hmnn
The Newsnight editor has now responded:
Hello All,
Re the opening of Susan's piece. We did edit sections of the speech to reflect the elements in it that referred to Science. The aim was to give people an impression or montage of what Obama said about science in his inauguration speech. This was signposted to audiences with fades between each point. It in no way altered the meaning or misrepresented what the
President was saying. You can look for yourself above.
Apologies for not responding sooner. I thought I had. BBC Editors find this blogging software frustrating at times too.
Peter Rippon
Editor, Newsnight
I am afraid I found his reply wanting:
Hello back. Thank you for at last replying, on behalf of Ms. Watts and all involved in this. And the apology... if only for the delay in reply. I can see how, being the editor of a news programme caught in a sticky situation brought to one's attention in places, such as your own blog, one could forget doing so before now. I wonder what aspect of the blogging software let you down? It seems to have been working fine for quite a while now (or was your first effort 'moderated', which I agree can be 'frustrating'?).
It's a pity how often a BBC reply can often seem more like bringing in some Kimberly diamond miners when it comes to digging a deeper hole.
I don't propose to address the 'techniques' and what they were intended to facilitate, as others have clearly explained how well it went down. Nor do I intend to get into any discussion of climate, 'optimist' or 'pessimist', save to say as one environmentally concerned erring on caution, 'helping the cause along' by rigging things makes me groan as it makes my efforts at factual persuasion all the harder.
However, I do now unfortunately have yet more words and phrases to add to along, growing and rather ignoble list of 'journalistic'/reportage'/'editorial' doublespeak being used in weak post justification, that does the cause of conveying objective news little credit.
So to such as 'interpreting events' I can now, sadly, add...
'... reflect the elements...'
'... give people an impression or montage of what [was] said... about [topic]..]
' This was signposted...'
The first two seem barely more than excuses for changing things to suit. The third simply a weasel for very stealthily enabling/excusing very stealthy editing.
Sorry, not convinced, and it would seem I am not alone. Nil points.
Gaurdian - Newsnight in fakery row over Obama report - The quantity, and quality of the replies show a worrying inisght into the midsets at play.
Telegraph - BBC accused of fakery over Barack Obama inauguration speech
Telegraph - Obama can afford to lay off press officers now the BBC is working for him free of charge
Hence I was attracted to this article in the Newsnight blog:
Restoring science to its rightful place
Sadly, as the comments in reply (the first is a doozy, especially the end piece. I speak as one trying to forge a commercial model new media entity dealing in the environment, and one day found myself competing with BBC Green) would suggest, it has been found rather wanting.
Science deals in fact, as does... should... reporting. It is hard not to feel this piece was more opinion dressed up. And I do wonder how appropriate it is for a 'reporter' for the BBC to be quite so definitive in her critiques on an outgoing administration when much is still unknown. The optimism for an agent of 'change', whatever that is, is perhaps understandable given the degree of uncritical analysis of the new President's plans to date, but surely should be couched in terms, dare I say science-based ones, that accept it's hard to predict based on what we don't yet know.
Shame the vast majority subjected to the broadcast are unlikely to be exposed to such worthy and relevant debate to appreciate the critical underpinnings of 'science', and not the fluffy, agenda-driven versions too often trotted out by our national broadcaster and its often less than qualified, or if so (Ms. Watts' resume is a lot more relevant than most), barely competent and/or objective cabal of 'analysts'.
I happen to think there is much worth considering seriously in the environmental arena, but as a fact-based environmentalist shudder at each grotesque, rushed-out bit of spin from the BBC that seems designed to push an 'ideal' (at least in their eyes), but when found wanting simply sets back the worthy, public-influencing, patient, test and confirm methodologies that can lead to genuine insights we can act on with confidence.
Harmless Sky - BBC Newsnight - Warming up President Obama’s inaugural speech? - Hmnn
The Newsnight editor has now responded:
Hello All,
Re the opening of Susan's piece. We did edit sections of the speech to reflect the elements in it that referred to Science. The aim was to give people an impression or montage of what Obama said about science in his inauguration speech. This was signposted to audiences with fades between each point. It in no way altered the meaning or misrepresented what the
President was saying. You can look for yourself above.
Apologies for not responding sooner. I thought I had. BBC Editors find this blogging software frustrating at times too.
Peter Rippon
Editor, Newsnight
I am afraid I found his reply wanting:
Hello back. Thank you for at last replying, on behalf of Ms. Watts and all involved in this. And the apology... if only for the delay in reply. I can see how, being the editor of a news programme caught in a sticky situation brought to one's attention in places, such as your own blog, one could forget doing so before now. I wonder what aspect of the blogging software let you down? It seems to have been working fine for quite a while now (or was your first effort 'moderated', which I agree can be 'frustrating'?).
It's a pity how often a BBC reply can often seem more like bringing in some Kimberly diamond miners when it comes to digging a deeper hole.
I don't propose to address the 'techniques' and what they were intended to facilitate, as others have clearly explained how well it went down. Nor do I intend to get into any discussion of climate, 'optimist' or 'pessimist', save to say as one environmentally concerned erring on caution, 'helping the cause along' by rigging things makes me groan as it makes my efforts at factual persuasion all the harder.
However, I do now unfortunately have yet more words and phrases to add to along, growing and rather ignoble list of 'journalistic'/reportage'/'editorial' doublespeak being used in weak post justification, that does the cause of conveying objective news little credit.
So to such as 'interpreting events' I can now, sadly, add...
'... reflect the elements...'
'... give people an impression or montage of what [was] said... about [topic]..]
' This was signposted...'
The first two seem barely more than excuses for changing things to suit. The third simply a weasel for very stealthily enabling/excusing very stealthy editing.
Sorry, not convinced, and it would seem I am not alone. Nil points.
Gaurdian - Newsnight in fakery row over Obama report - The quantity, and quality of the replies show a worrying inisght into the midsets at play.
Telegraph - BBC accused of fakery over Barack Obama inauguration speech
Telegraph - Obama can afford to lay off press officers now the BBC is working for him free of charge
Friday, January 02, 2009
New Year recycling
While I was away I noticed something that I couldn't resist commenting on...
Next year on Newsnight ... possibly the return of Ethical Man.
If you are doing another 'Ethical Man', while I appreciate all the useful information that was/is/will be shared to help make informed environmental commitments, it would be useful if the options laid out are balanced and have the full enviROI consequences, pro and con, laid out. Try finding a reporter qualified to report and challenge the issues, and able to appreciate the irony of standing on ice floes to which they have flown, to decry the consequences of the rest of 'us' flying.
So.. no more 'analysts', please.
Plus, as purely personal opinion, when it comes to the gimmick, I do rather question the eventual message sent out that whatever a family does commit to can be picked up and then dropped once the show run is over. That rather errs on 'do as we say, and did for a wee while because it ticks a box'. A planet is for life, not just a special segment.
I think the facts, and objective consequences, being laid out will suffice.
And if a Newsnight twofer is still deemed necessary, might one hope for more moderate (or at least a change from the usual researcher's speed-dial suspects) debaters be invited to discuss any disputed issues?
A Plane Stupid or Greenpeace spokesperson vs. a big oil or airline lobbyist frankly leaves the likes of me stuck in a no man's land as the two extremes trade global warming absolutes at each other.
You can't appreciate the subtle hues of green if they are only presented in black or white. Much like most other topics.
Serve the interests of the public (those who can only afford small hatchbacks rather than Priuses), not market rate pay grades driven by ratings.
Next year on Newsnight ... possibly the return of Ethical Man.
If you are doing another 'Ethical Man', while I appreciate all the useful information that was/is/will be shared to help make informed environmental commitments, it would be useful if the options laid out are balanced and have the full enviROI consequences, pro and con, laid out. Try finding a reporter qualified to report and challenge the issues, and able to appreciate the irony of standing on ice floes to which they have flown, to decry the consequences of the rest of 'us' flying.
So.. no more 'analysts', please.
Plus, as purely personal opinion, when it comes to the gimmick, I do rather question the eventual message sent out that whatever a family does commit to can be picked up and then dropped once the show run is over. That rather errs on 'do as we say, and did for a wee while because it ticks a box'. A planet is for life, not just a special segment.
I think the facts, and objective consequences, being laid out will suffice.
And if a Newsnight twofer is still deemed necessary, might one hope for more moderate (or at least a change from the usual researcher's speed-dial suspects) debaters be invited to discuss any disputed issues?
A Plane Stupid or Greenpeace spokesperson vs. a big oil or airline lobbyist frankly leaves the likes of me stuck in a no man's land as the two extremes trade global warming absolutes at each other.
You can't appreciate the subtle hues of green if they are only presented in black or white. Much like most other topics.
Serve the interests of the public (those who can only afford small hatchbacks rather than Priuses), not market rate pay grades driven by ratings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)