S***page*

Funny old day. April showers a tad early.

So instead of being out in the garden, my favoured weekend haunt, I was mooching about the house, with the TV on.

So it was I came to watch the Politics Show on the BBC. And, being in the region, there was a section on the West Midlands.

One of the topics was about the auto industry (of some interest here), and concerned itself with why we in the UK were not engaging in 'scrappage' (no link on the site, but I'll add one if and when it becomes more reported.

Basically it's an incentive to buy a new, 'more eco' car, by being given upwards of £2k to get rid of your old(er than 9 years... 'excuse me!) one. Very big in Germany, apparently, and hence why not here, as it's a win win for all, and the planet?

I am not so sure, and this is summarised in what I wrote:

A wee while ago I found myself in need (wife not great with black ice) of a new... replacement car. We had a perfectly good '97 Volvo, well maintained to 80k and with the potential of 80k more. On insurance we got £1650 to write it off. As environmental campaigners we took the opportunity to put the money towards a new..er ('02) exact same model... LPG.

Please explain how it is helping the environment and my taxes for me not to have waited for my £2k from the government and buying a 6litre new Jag owned by Tata?

Not sure what more I can say. Until I get an answer this seems more like a punt by those with a few vested interests, and not very well challenged by the BBC, that is hard to reconcile with a green agenda at least, though I can see an economic one. But that is a different story.

*Just lobbed that in as an homage to the Junkk sites rather over keen swear filter, which takes words rather out of context and deletes them even if innocent.

Needs must?

UK 'needs carbon neutral target' Yup. Like we haven't had one of them before.

Guardian - Who deserves your vote? - So long as he's just asking:)

When Johan Eliasch 'defected' from the Tory to Labour camp, in sifting through the usual Westminster Village gossip and bluster I did note an interesting comment, to the effect that if you want to do something NOW it's better to be in government than outside talking about stuff all the time. And a lot easier to be out just talking than in doing.

Hence one wonders whether Labour's less than green deeds vs. words might not illustrate rather clearly the dilemma of political pragmatism. I just hope that in staying in power so resolutely on the back of, yet also despite the climatic evidence they purport to endorse, they simply enjoy a moment in time but leave a poor legacy.

And with the level of trust in almost any institution, government business or indeed media to do any more then serve selfish, short-term interests so low, I don't think any of the current talkers would be any different even if their words did somehow get them in instead.

Meanwhile, from the Green corner (emailed, so no link - thus cut 'n pasted):

GREEN PARTY CONFERENCE SEES LAUNCH OF 'NEXT GENERATION' OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY

The second day of the Green Party's Conference in Liverpool sees Principal
Speaker Sian Berry give her keynote speech, followed by the launch of
"Climate Change - the next generation of policy", a report challenging the
other parties to adopt the Greens’ 10-point policy strategy on climate
change.

FRIDAY HIGLIGHTS

Sian Berry, who is also the Green’s London Mayoral Candidate, will discuss
the need for action, not hot air, on climate change, and introduce the
Green's target candidates for the next general election.

Sian will say: "You can depend on the other parties to back up their warm
words on climate change with a total lack of delivery.

"Gordon Brown thinks you should solve climate change by changing your
lightbulbs. We think you should solve climate change by changing your
government."

Greens' conference Climate Challenge 10 point policy plan

Caroline Lucas MEP and Sian Berry challenge the other parties to show
they’re serious about climate change by adopting the Greens’ 10-point policy
strategy, which calls for an end to all road and runway building, scrapping
bio-fuel production targets, ruling out new nuclear power stations – and
renationalising the railways, as the basis for their own positions.

Motions include proposals to:

* Adopt an annual emissions reduction target of 9 per cent.
* Condemn ‘adaptation’ as a primary response to climate change
* Urgently replace the Kyoto protocol with a framework that includes
measures to protect carbon sinks
* initiate an immediate moratorium on agrofuels from large scale
monocultures

Indy - Liberal Democrats to outlaw petrol-driven cars by 2040 -- How old will Jeremy Clarkson be by then?

I do note: '...should state clearly that no car can be sold in the EU if it still belches carbon by 2040," he added. "It can be electric. It can be fuelled by a hydrogen cell..' and trust that making these means of getting energy to wheels will need to be non-carbon-belching too.

Which brings me to, and without making any comment on the wisdom of the point that '... the party should drop its opposition to building nuclear power plants.'

I'm not sure I see the timeline working on this basis.

Indy - Still leaders in the quest for green solutions - Questing is, of course, good. And setting targets is also fun. I'm not sure that setting ever higher targets is going to get us very far, though. I vote 110%! Do I win?

It's one thing to say stuff. But you have to do it to be credible. And, perhaps, stay credible to do it.

Amongst other things, there is the simple question of leaderships we face. Not just across the board, but especially green. Mr. Brown says either nothing or lets others speak and take the fall. Mr. Cameron says too much and has to change too often. Mr. Campbell is having to say too much on himself. And the Greens, who can say quite a lot you can believe they might stick to, don't say enough on other issues that make them overly credible as even a balanced opposition force... yet. Plus they still seem to be sitting on the whole leader fence which, while noble, makes it hard to know who is saying what and 'speaks' for the party.

GUG - Friends of the Earth: First Reaction to Conservatives 'Green' Policy Report. Two thoughts for the price of one.

GUG - Lib Dem Conference: The Environment - Or three

GUG - Labour Party Conference: Climate Change - Or what the guys in charge are doing.

Sleeping Partners?

Or strange bedfellows? Ok, enough of the bed metaphors. Well, one more. I don't really care who hooks up with whom and will sleep easier so long as the intent is genuine and the results tangible.

Much has been made of Johan Eliasch's move (note: I'm pretty sure they mean 'donate' and not denote in the write-up) from Tory to Labour camp, and as is they way with the navel-gazing, feral beasties of the Westminster Village the environmental issues have taken second billing to the 'defection'.

But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.

It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out.

In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay), I am hopeful.

BBC - Ex-Tory donor to be Brown adviser

BBC - A welcome hand - to which i added this above, with a couple of additions:

But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear (rather obvious point about talking in opposition vs. doing in government taken) then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.

It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out. The whole jet/offset thing is a pity, as the concept of buying off excess shouldn't be allowed to fly, but I guess I can live with it so long as Mr. Eliasch doesn't end up on air at every stage telling us what to do even though 'it would not be, like, you know, practical for him not to'.

In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay) after the Newsnight piece, I am hopeful.

Lord Above. Well, until next year.

I'm afraid I had a few thoughts about The Green Bishop?

Whilst endorsing the notion of something is better than nothing, I have to express some concern about the preponderance of those in the public eye who are publicised as 'giving up [insert eco-damaging indulgence here] for a [acceptable media-worthy personal/corporate inconvenience period here].

As we're on a theological bent, what kind of message does it send that these things can bought off by a brief period of abstinence?

That's like flying half the planet around for a climate change awareness concert about the damage of flying halfway around the planet, and making a big play about offsetting the travel... then going straight back afterwards to... oh.

Let he whose business doesn't 'require' travel cast us back into the Stone Age.

For me, in such cases, the messenger can often be as important for credibility as the message.

Carbcon trading?

On Friday, an email from the BBC Politics Show offered this: Trading in question

If only carbon trading was as easy as apples...
On the international scene, there is really only one game in town for tackling climate change - and that's something called emissions trading.
Put very simply, the idea is that countries get an allowance of carbon, which they can then sell if they don't use all the carbon to which they're entitled.
The theory is that by putting a price on carbon, the market will make it cost effective to reduce pollution.
But is this big idea the best idea?
Paola Buonadonna will be asking if it's the only option, or simply a load of hot air.

I'd suggest they take a gander at this, that I noted that same day: Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved

Sorry kids, it 's going to take a wee bit more than I'd hoped.

Well at least 2 others liked the Budget.

Politics Show West Midlands

Caught the tail-end of the piece with the Lab Enviro Minister and the Lib Dem MP (no Tory? Maybe that was explained earlier).

Pathetic. The former vainly trying to keep his seat in the face of gesture politics ('My ministerial car is a Prius', indeed). The latter trying to do the same whilst trying to explain away, much less justify using whose money to buy-off a trip to Brazil on a jolly.

I hope the voters should them the contempt they deserve. Not for wishing to address environmental issues. But for trying to do it so hamfistedly and in such hypocritical ways.