Carb-con

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

I had to write:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.'

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

Indy: Carbon offsetting 'can be harmful'
BBC

Interest Groups

Davos 07: what everyone's talking about

Love the post YouCant. This thread is running at about 4 (as I type) to how many on the other, 'BB blog' channel on this site (sorry, I had to contribute there too)?

And, really, to all you other guys, good points all as well.

But careful what you wish for (I posted elsewhere the notion of a show called BIG BOMBER... as a joke... to make a point), whatreallyhappened. I suspect the forces of PCs know (or can find out) where we live and may feel it's easier to make a target-ticking point with us than try and find anyone doing anything actually illegal.

Moderate Views?

The topic of media moderation has been raised: Pulling Blogs Is Bad Policy

"As with all things, the devil is in the details.

I commend the Guardian (and my own, immodestly - on Junkk.com since you didn't ask, but hey, why not try for a plug?) for its immediate upload which, looking at the talk policy in the box above as I write 'will remove posts that contain racist, sexist or offensive/threatening language, personal attacks on the writer or other posters, posts that exceed the maximum length, and posts that are off topic.'

Trouble is, in a few of those cases the definition is a bit vague, and the media controller becomes all powerful in setting an AGENDA by the way they EDIT (a point I have noted in another blog on this site about, of all things, the Big Brother farce).

But obviously something is better than nothing, and I guess we work on trust and faith in those we engage with.

I love the seemingly sound connotations behind words like 'managing' or 'moderated'. But, playing Devil's advocate, and shooting myself in the foot a tad, I could see why a blog may need to be pulled, if I'm unsure why for "legal reasons", when the comments became too ferocious.

I was recently in one such where I was praying for the site owner to intervene as an 'Anon' poster, who knew exactly who I was, drifted into very dark territory.

I agree that the debate can emerge somewhere else, but it's not that easy to track where unless you are determined or don't have a life.

The range of different voices may usually balance the debate, but I have my doubts how well it produces a well-rounded discussion. In my area of interest, the environment, when it comes to major media (though I often wonder how many actual readers there are outside the chattering classes who probably meet in the Ivy for lunch every day anyway) I often sense the dark arts of media professionals and lobbyists keeping things to extremes. Yes, that may on average seem like balance, but not useful debate, to me at least, especially when blogged ‘information’ can be less than verifiable.

And that is where a moderator you trust can be quite useful. I've moderated out very little on my site, but always attempted to put things that are more contentious or open to subjective interpretation at least in some context based on my experience and knowledge. Then at least the reader can assess context.'

Guardian: The world is watching them

Hell in a handbasket

The other day a reader asked me to mention the perverse travesty of the situation in Burma being ignored whilst so much of less import gets coverage and debate and public outrage in support. I replied that I would love to (and now have - it is an issue I have felt strongly about since I lived in Asia. Indeed one of the songs I wrote with my wife for her highly-acclaimed debut album was called 'Shadow of a Hero', about Aung Sung Ki ('scuse spelling)), but really I didn't feel it possible or right for the Junkk 'brand' to err too far, too often from our core area of interest.

Well, sod that.

I have just woken up to the farce that is Big Brother, our political establishment, and the sorry state of this country's chattering classes, the media they serve and read and, sorry to say, a large chunk of my fellow (wo)man.

As I watch the River Wye come up the highstreet, my dustbin head to Aberdeen, my breakfast juice (please let it be squeezed in situ and shipped over) freeze-dried in Orange County, I'd say there were a few other things a tad more important.

Animal Farm

"I normally wouldn't give this a microsecond's thought, let alone commit to keyboard, but as our nation's finest pols, NGOs and media have decided it is more important than anything else (unless a tornado whisks the BB house to Oz), why not me as well?

I have two words to offer: AGENDA and EDIT.

From the media company that sets this up, to the media that feed on the controversy so set up (as if they didn't know), how anyone with a brain can assign any significance to the words and actions of a vetted and selected and manipulated group of human extremes is beyond me. It's like watching a show called BIG BOMBER and getting in a lather because all the guys with (I'll avoid any potentially un-PC or pejorative descriptions here) huddle around in one corner discussing hair bleach and exotic dinner ingredients whilst looking ominously across the room at the lone US Marine popped in to see what happens.

And should things not quite work to the full requirements of the AGENDA, there is always the EDIT. You can leave in, or out, what serves your needs best. Leave to simmer, and serve.

Pathetic. The whole sorry lot of you."

Telegraph
Indy
Indy - a good analysis of several issues
Mad - good to kick a ball rolling!


Guardian, subsequently. I was going to add... 'Especially those making hay out of being 'offended'. Reminds me of when I was in Hong Kong, and all white non-Chinese were dubbed 'Queilos', which wasn't meant as a compliment. Or response? Well, we didn't run around wailing and trying to get a slot on tlak shows. We just figured, 'Hey, why not?', and started calling ourselves that. Kinda took the sting out of it. A lot of maturity is missing here. And commom sense. The day differences between people are not noticed, and commented upon, is when we are all the same clone. And then I'm sure ways will be found to set us apart even then. Learn to swim before you try and tell the tide to stop.

Telegraph, subsequently, for crying out loud. More than you ever will want, or need to know.
Telegraph, ditto
BBC - Jade to donate her TV fee to charity - The classic 'get out of jail free' response to such things if you get caught these days. I wonder what her fee to the News of the World was, and where it went?
GuardianCiF - A very good comment by a guy called Waltz
Indy - India grits its teeth as Jade prepares to jet in - As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Up in smoke?

This is one for the dilemma file (or ITanic Vs.).

Cremation or burial?

Despite most in the eco-sphere on this topic surrounding casket design (Cardboard, bamboo, etc), I must confess to having treated it as a bit of a niche thing, despite death, along with taxes, being a bit of a growth industry, along with the global population.

And that is a key consideration. Because if there's more and more of us standing on top of the earth, there's an ever more limited series of places to stick folk under it. And once we start fighting with the guys planting bio-fuel crops, it could get ugly.

Of course it already has to an extent. When I lived in Singapore over a decade ago, large numbers of ancestors were quietly, if rather unceremoniously JCB'd from their eternal slumbers and popped in an urn in a wall if they were lucky.

So pretty much my whole experience, including personally with my Dad, has been cremation.

But in the whole dental filling (mercury) pollution and simple combustion products (heat, gas) scheme of things, is it a good idea?

I'll have to go find out.

Following In Jeremy Clarkson's Footsteps!

Well, apart from the height. And the money. And the cars.
And less-than-eco attitude. And, for that matter, the job.

Because I was going to say that like him, I today became a local newspaper journalist.

Thing is, he was hired and asked and paid, and I wasn't but offered and wasn't. However I see it as a milestone of sorts. And a good sign (except the STILL doing things for free bit - I need an agent). I have of course written op-eds before, but this seemed like my first real bit of citizen journalism.

The occasion was a council meeting to discuss getting hydro-power in Herefordshire.

The rest you can read here.

What is also worthy of note is that in that spread above, there were at least 3, maybe 4 other stories about the environment. It sis getting BIG! I hope we can play a part.

ps: The lights are mentioned in the article. It was good to see huge chandeliers with low-energy bulbs. At least someone is walking as they talk

A dish best served cold

If you go back in these blogs a fair way, you'll find I was less than impressed with the way SKY's Big Idea competition was handled.

I took part in the online Forum for a while with similarly unhappy contestants, but when it got a bit nasty (either a resident psycho or, more likely, production house minion, PR or lawyer) decided to move to more fruitful areas.

Today the OFCOM paperwork arrived. I'm going to enjoy this. We may even yet profit.

Especially when I read this the same day: ITV Play rapped over 'unfair' quiz

It's a bit broad, but 'rule 2.11 of the broadcasting code, which states that "competitions should be conducted fairly".' And if they can be nabbed on this, then I'd say we're looking even better.

The right behind the write

As readers will appreciate (as in 'know', not 'you're a bonzer dude, mate', sadly ) I trawl a lot and get sent a lot each day. Some of which I share. So it's always nice to see others finding what I have found interesting equally so.

My interests are eclectic, but obviously take in the eco, design, invention, ads, media, etc. One I have just surveyed (I will leave it nameless), which I do open as it is useful, had a monthly round-up. However I was moved to write to them (and those they quoted):

"I am enjoying and valuing the summaries that pop into my in-box from you guys. Such as:

A BURGER AND A CUP OF ETHICS, PLEASE
McDonalds tries to surf the ethical tide and up its green credentials with a rainforest connection. As of January 9th all of its 1,200 outlets in Britain will sell only coffee from growers certified by global non-profit organisation the Rainforest Alliance.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2007/gb20070109_958716.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe_companies
http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/news.cfm?id=mcdonalds

......................................................................................................................

MARKS OFFSETS ITS SPARKS
UK retail giant Marks and Spencer launches its £200m, 100-point eco-plan to inject environmental responsibility into every layer of its business and make it carbon neutral by 2012.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/01/15/ap3328593.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6261939.stm

While it has to be welcome that organisations are moving in a better direction, it is also sad that often the hype is not matched by the subsequent realities. The jury is still out on the above, but even after a few days caution is advised.

I, too read about the McDonalds story and was impressed. However, a qualification and Fairtrade reply I saw tucked away in the Business letters page of the Sunday Times has made me more circumspect.

Equally, after its first flush, the M&S story bears further scrutiny. According to the Telegraph today they have put no numbers to it which, if true is very noble for a such a marketing-led company."

I'd like to think that I here, and we at Junkk.com do try our best to not just take what we're served and pass it on, but cock an eyebrow at least at everything, and where the situation demands add our own take and, if necessary, doubts.

There really is a tad too much these days being served up and taken as given, when a few questions may not hurt before passing on.

All that's Green... need not be?

I was interested in a new travel initiative called Greenbee, from John Lewis Partnership, for whom I have a high regard on several counts.

Sadly, it was not what I thought it would be. Tap in environment to the search, and this is the closest you get.

Interesting name, though. I wonder what lies behind it?

Well, he did ask.

So where are the new ideas?

'...Here, for one.

And if the party's environmental record so far, and even the tangibles behind the 'bold new thinking' is anything to go on, it's a shame the current system/regime is incapable, or unwilling, to genuinely try and find them in new places, and support them if they have merit.'

For once, a short answer (though it need a lot more) to a short question.

ADDENDUNM:

The author has kindly replied, thanking me for my input and suggesting it needs reflecting upon. To which I have followed up (you never know):

'As will many of us, I'm sure. I just hope we have the time to do so before inactions reap unfortunate consequences.

I am of course politically and even corporately (if not commercially) naive, but having embarked upon a one-person effort to DO something about our environmental future, using the skills at my disposal, it can be frustrating to find those that who one thought were claiming and indeed tasked to help were in fact dedicated, either through ignorance, inefficiency or ambition, to thwarting one's efforts at almost every turn. I am currently looking at a govt.-funded quango - to whom I took my business plan for support 3 years ago - now moving into an area of direct competition with me! And this after they claimed no interest in what I was doing 'because it was commercial'. They now have 'sponsors' logos on their site, which is an ad where I come from.

In my 'job' I read a lot, and have done so daily for several years, and the number of times what is said ever gets done at all, much less as claimed originally, makes for a sorry state of affairs. But even most major media are complicit in allowing such short-termism to succeed and flourish.

The system is not working, yet it is still growing and hence becoming ever more complex, which only makes the chances of restitution and repair more difficult. But we must try, if only as individuals, though it would be so much better to do so in concert. An empire of minions between the top and reality can be very comforting for a while, but when there are no more beans to count, or manage, because the bean-makers have been depleted and worn out then even those with index-linking and gold-plating may yet starve. Trouble is, perhaps not in their (career) lifetime.

So it can be hard. I was at a '3rd sector' gathering last year, which claimed to be about improving creative thinking, innovation and pushing social entrepreneurship with private types like me. In my view it failed on all counts, and was almost designed to maintain the status quo behind a facade of hype by the composition of invitees and structure. Pity.

I will keep trying to engage, indeed in some ways for selfish reasons (if there's money I will try and bag some), but really it is not often worth the effort. So we end up with 'us' and 'them'... again.'

Selling beans. No longer counting them. Apparently.

A few days ago I noted the coverage of the M&S green announcement, and felt this was one that needed time to settle.

Happily, others are still paying attention: No figure on M&S's green payback

To whom I felt moved to write (plus a ps on EDF snitching on pot growers):

"Thank you for your piece today, which will make a nice counterpiece in my blog to the mostly uncritical gush that has been accorded this announcement in other quarters.

It has not been my experience that anyone in marketing, especially retail, has not put a price, first, and as high as possible, on anything they do. This has to be a new one.

However, with this new found hue, maybe my little organisation, which does no more than offer free (with paid ads if they want to push something genuinely, planet-savingly, consumer-benefittingly green they sell or do - only not going 'carbon neutral' because, as you say, they should have done ages ago and it really only helps their own bottom line, PR and CSR at AGM time) opportunities for them to upload their product data for reuse and recycling info purposes (which one would have assumed a savvy marketer would see as a possible ADDITIONAL sales opportunity), as has such as ecover, maybe they may feel like getting back to us after 3 years trying to get through the minions, using such e-dm as our Folda-Holda.

We cost them nothing and could make them money, after all. But maybe looking good is more important and needs more attention than actually doing good.

Rgds, Peter Martin

ps: Shining a light on EDF's true role in joint supply-side issues

I was recently at a seminar at the Science Museum where one of my co-presenters was extolling the virtues of hemp as source of textiles, etc. In eco-terms it is even way ahead of bamboo for instance. However all our enthusiasm for the potential (myself included) was dampened slightly when the speaker was asked how we grew it at home... you know the rest.

Still if EDF does feel like making a contribution to global warming in synergistic areas, it may be worth looking at!"

Suits who, Aunty?

In my time I have had occasion to doubt, and take issue with the BBC's ability to remain objective. Or, more and more, the provision of free ads to those who may or may not deserve it. While one presume no money changes hands, one can only wonder what happens 'in kind' (I challenged a piece a while ago that devoted 30 minutes to cosmetic tourism, where a full crew had a week at one resort in South Africa showing little more than slappers having their t&a jobs to great acclaim, and doubtless ratings. No mention of any other options, or indeed the risks).

As it does cross into areas of enviro-concern (suit-miles, local trade, etc), I took issue (in the form of some questions) on its complaints/Newswatch site (which seems to have melded):

"I realise there is a continual fine line being walked in sharing items of consumer interest, but what is it, who sets it and who polices it?

Take this morning's Breakfast TV item on cheap suits.

While it could have been a legitimate piece on outsourcing, global trade, consumer demand and ethical practices, I felt it was little more than an ad for a one week store promo, for which the BBC happily provided free air time. I got the price, how long, where, and that they were machine washable. Even vox pops of impressed shoppers. At no stage were any of the other issues, or indeed alternatives mentioned more than in passing.

Some poor UK craftsperson's venue was used (at least in the slot I saw) to make the commercial, but at no stage was he offered an opinion on quality, etc.

Is my licence funding major supermarkets’ marketing now?

No wonder our retail industry is heading to out of town megamalls with such assistance."

Green and bear it?

This just in from the Green party: Rip up your Npower contracts!
No guys, don't hang back; say how you feel.
Actually, it's nice to see a line that isn't honed to PC-perfection for once.

As there's no link, the full Monty is below.

Wasn't Juice once available via Greenpeace?

Guess it isn't any more.

------------

Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall today urged consumers to rip up their RWE Npower contracts, in light of the companies continued attempts to dump toxic fuel ash from Didcot power station, in Radley Lakes near Oxford.

Massive local opposition to the destruction of the last two remaining lakes at Radley has been ignored by power company RWE npower, and the decision to fill these lakes with toxic ash, despite opposition from Green Cllrs, has been rail-roaded through by Tory dominated Oxfordshire County Council, and subsequently backed by Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Local Government. (1)

In July, The Save Radley Lakes group handed in their own 11,500-name petition to npower at Didcot, and currently squatters are occupying an empty house at Thrupp Lake, as part of the protesters campaign.

Dr Derek Wall, Green Party Principal Speaker today said: "Despite concerns about pollution and flooding issues, and effects on the Lake's ecological and recreational value, Npower are determined to do irreparable damage to the environment and go ahead with their toxic waste plans.

"RWE npower Chief Executive Andy Duff claims to recognise the impact his companies activities have on the communities in which they work, and says he is 'committed to carrying out our business with a sense of responsibility.' (2)

"But Npower is behaving in a gravely irresponsible manner, ignoring the concerns of local people and experts. Clearly Npower's belief in corporate responsibility and environmental sensitivity go out the window when it comes to the crunch.

"Anyone concerned about the environment should not believe the hype surrounding Npower's so called green strand 'Juice', rather they should look to source their electricity from suppliers who put their money where their mouth is."

(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/5168232.stm

(2) http://www.npower.com/About_npower/Our_responsibility.html

Air Head

Lest I be accused of party bias in my coverage of the government and its officer's rather parallel perception of policy vs. actions (or, hypocrisy) in matters airborne, this may do something to redress the balance, if not one's faith in what exist beneath their skins: Planes, trains and the conscience of Tim Yeo

And though nothing to to with it specifically, and referring to another branch of government (reminder: those we pay for to lead us) I'll just add this one in for good measure as it is still pertinent: Rebuilding trust in civil servants

The person has spoken

I may be erring on a Mea Culpa here: Residents back 'gas guzzlers' bid

Whe it broke, I was not keen, and didn't like what was behind it. In mitigation, the background the survey is a little vague. Without being a research expert, or knowing how it was conducted, if one spent an hour in a council estate and asked all you met 'Do you think all those rich sods should flaunt their 4x4s?', maybe the results would be skwed a tad. Who knows? It wasn't asked. I guess BBC reporters live in North London.

I do note that 'a majority thought the extra charges for second car permits were "too punitive".' So having a 4x4 is bad, but driving two cars is good? Hmmn.

What is encouraging, and where I will go along, is where the poll suggests two out of three residents would consider changing to a cleaner car to avoid the higher charges.

Especially as these proposals differ from Chancellor Gordon Brown's transport taxes, which the BBC says (suprisingly up front I feel) have made money for the Exchequer without reducing emissions. These mean less revenue for the council, but lower levels of greenhouse gases.

Good news from the East?

It may not be Kyoto (maybe that's a good thing), but I'll deem it a plus: Asian states sign key energy deal

Not just spin... this is M&Spin

And so the game of who is greener, quicker continues between the nation's retailers. I think I will reserve personal comment a wee while until I have had a chance to digest fully the slew of 'stuff' being issued, beyond saying that something is probably better than nothing. I just hope it is all sincere. Certainly it will be interesting to see what happens to the missive I will soon be sending - again - to senior management in these organisations. Maybe some gatekeeper minion will not pop it in the 'oo-er, too tricky' basket this time.

Here's a small round up of the last 24 hrs:

AP via Forbes: M&S Aims to Become Carbon-Neutral by '12
BBC - M&S Rose goes green in pursuit of profit
Indy - Take a close look at the produce on offer
Indy - slight fly in the ointment, though I thought they were in earlier with 'something' - Tesco follows M&S with climate change move
BBC Newsnight - Ethical Man

I merely note for now that aims are always good, if vague. As is 'much of'. And while there is some cautious welcome from commentators across business and eco-disciplines, there is also a fair bit of... warranted... eye brow twitch ready and waiting. A lot of this, like Tesco a while ago (and again, here) is merely housekeeping to boost internal profits. Not much of real value to the consumer. I also take the point about lumping ethical and eco together to get some rather murky mix of what is 'good'. The question is for whom?

It's just not hockey

A little archive update courtesy of Dave from Solarventi, regarding the ‘hockey stick’ graph so loved by both pro and anti global warming protagonists a while back.

Keeping the pot bubbling was debate surrounding the apparent lack of a dip that should have been there to reflect the ‘little ice age’. He has forwarded a New Scientist article from November last year that effectively mirrors the same conclusions.

And so we fiddle on.

Re:prieve for Re:pair?

There's hope:

I've written to the author: On the mend

"I was very interested in your piece today, and as re:pair is very much in our re:mit, would like to follow up with you. By karmic synergy we are also based in Herefordshire, just like John Harris.

And we are starting to build up a good selection of those, near and further, who can and will fix things. Or the tools and techniques to do it at home. Ask and we may have an answer.. or be able to get one.

And even if the vacuum can't be fixed, there's always re:use."

What goes up...

...Looks like it stays there.

And interesting snippet from the Sunday Times Travel Page Reader's rants.

Seems a reader booked a holiday with an agent back in May. Now the same outfit has decided to 'scrap' fuel tax, but will not refund those booked before Dec. 22.

There were reas.. excuses given, but somehow they didn't... wash.

Medium vs. medium

Mathematically of course, it should be a tie.

Well, I guess we are a medium, and I do cock an eyebrow on occasion, so who's to talk.

So it was nice to see another having a mild go at another, though it did come across as a bit 'green is our turf': An incomprehensible truth - as it's short term I'll pop it all in here:

Sky News viewers will by now be wearily familiar with its "UK's CO2 emissions this week" counter, part of the news channel's must-watch "green week". A giant string of numbers across the bottom of the screen, it is apparently counting - guess what? - the UK's CO2 emissions this week, presumably to tell us what a right bunch of pollutants we are. Hmm, interesting. Last time Monkey looked it was 6,385,073. What does this tell us, exactly? Monkey's not sure. In the absence of any context, it's about as useful as a petrol car with diesel in the tank. And how can Sky be so sure they have the correct figure? Have they strapped some measuring device to the top of the ozone layer, like a giant molecular pedometer? What if this week turned out to be a particularly good one (or bad one, depending on how you look at it) for CO2? We can only hope, in the hope of making it a better story, that they haven't left the cars running in the Isleworth car park all week.

They do have a point. And sadly, I suspect this will not be the last odd bit of green thing, thing and statistics trotted out in the coming... er, however long we have while they slug it out.

We are what we eat

An old politician has raised what he claims is a moral issue: Morality at mealtime

Unsurprisingly, it seems to be a can/can't, is/isn't playground spat bet wen extreme vegans and blood-thirsty carnivores already.


"I almost ignored this discussion as it did not immediately seem to cover my usual remit, which is trying to identify and support any and all ways to ensure we have a future (aka 'help saving the planet')... pragmatically. But of course it is, in more than most ways, and I guess morally is in there somewhere.

Skipping quickly over finite land space and the ever-growing population it is expected to support, it seems pretty clear to me scientifically, that, per acre, veg is better than meat.

Against this 'fact', is another inconvenient one of nature: we were, to the best of my understanding designed to be omnivores.

So, in time, I see a bit of a do on the horizon, perhaps a tad after 4x4s and cheap flights, where to survive at the maximum numbers the planet can sustain (which will, sadly, have an upper limit no matter what choice of cuisine we are given – it will be fun to see who grabs the mantle of trading in this), it may be necessary to ban or price out certain key elements of our dietary lifestyles. Enjoy.

Solyent Green anyone?"

Soemthing in the air tonight. And every night. And day.

And so, it continues, and deteriorates, as predicted: Flying off the handle

"I rather fear another unnecessary war is now being fought on various fronts: class (cheap flights), urban/country divide (4x4s, car travel, wind turbines), etc, and the only victim is DOING something to improve the future.

Sadly, I have a sense that those from both sides, with short term agendas for career, targets or ratings, are happy to keep fanning the flames. And are rewarded with column inches, speaking engagements in Bali (Carb-con traded, naturally) or a nifty book-shifting, greenwashing or policy-pushing slot on Breakfast TV.

With some professional reasons, I'd do read these pages. I am not sure what % of the 'lite green' average consumer population do.

But when competing politicians, activists and their media shock and awe troops do battle, I wonder how many who might engage turn away from the scrum and prefer to do nothing rather than wade through the fog and mud of a very obscure (little that is green can be black or white) no man's land, unable to get decent bearings because of the distracting artillery exchanges of the chattering classes above?"

All the news that's fit to print

What goes around, comes around.

A nice pass on that I, in turn, pass on (and will try and live by): Do you follow these journalistic guidelines?

"And I, in turn, thank you.

Though not a trained, or professional journalist (whatever such animals may be), I do report on things in my blog.

And despite much online being the Wild West of news and opinion, with more than its fair share of cowboys, I choose to believe that those who 'hew close to the line, but let the chips fall where they may' will gain a respect, trust... and an audience."

Time to dig up Voltaire... again

There more than a few words I see or hear that now seem to set off various twitches. One near the top is 'activist'. I am not too sure what it means, but it seems to describe someone who cares a lot about an issue (fair enough), wants to do something about it (also fair), tends to try and do something (laudable, depending) and... seems to think that they have a god-given right to impose their views on other folk as the only course of truth, justice and the 'ist' way. The latter can lead to me getting twitchy.

The BNP is, as far as I am aware, a legitimate (at least in legal terms) political party. So, if you share their views, you can vote for it, vote against it and/or join it.

Like so much in politics, I am uncomfortable with broad brush-strokes, but on balance they don't seem like my kind of people, so I won't be voting for them. But, and here's the M. Voltaire bit, I will defend with my life your right to do so if that's your fancy.

Hence this - Activists taunt the BNP ballerina - did not go down well at all with me (as reported), and if anything left me less impressed with the cause of the 'activists' than the one they are so set against.

As to talks of bans and the like, I'd say you can make a personal stand in support of your views, but when the pols and grants bodies get involved on 'our' behalves, that is a can of worms no one should be considering. 'Nazi' is a term that can apply - if usually inaccurately, but often successfully by the cynical and opportunistic - in many directions.

A bit like much in the environmental world. See, it did have a point for these pages.

Bias Because Can?

OK, needs work. You do better.

I found this article - If the BBC is so good, we will give it money, and the facts within it, interesting, especially in light of my dealing with some aspects of the empire.

More Mea Culpas

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

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

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

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

No one is coming out of this well.

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

Nil points.

Shock - Politician Answers Question(ish)

A short while ago I blogged on a story that the Government was 'planning' to raise council bands for DIY improvements, including environmentally beneficial ones. I wasn't keen.

This morning I am watching TV and a Minister - Phil Willis - has been asked a straight question as to the accuracy of this, and he said 'NO'. Clear enough, and I'm happy to pass it on.

There was, of course, an odd exchange with a suprisingly persistent Breakfast bouffant, where the way was left open to a 'review', which 'we' will all welcome. Hmmmn.

Some are more equal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Physician, Green Thyself

Another forward - NHS gets green support - from Dave of Solarventi, with the comment 'Perhaps I’m becoming overly cynical but I can’t help suspecting that most of this nice tranche of cash will disappear into the NHS whirlpool never to be seen again or it will be wasted on stupid ideas like putting a mini wind turbine on every ward.'

Well, having noted the recent coverage (see previous blog) on the NHS and how it handles health matters, a degree of cynicism on how it will blow £100 million in an area it has not expertise in is warranted I'd say.

What worries me most is: "meet environmental targets ", and how these tie in to the more laudable “Saving energy also means cost savings in the long term that trusts can spend on improving patient care.”

We'll leave it at 'The NHS is aiming to meet two key energy efficiency targets..' ... for now.

The Pain of Plane is Hard to Explain

Actually it's not hard. All those who have elected themselves to speak on our behalves are plane bonkers: Plane Speaking

'I use these commentary pieces and the replies they provoke (often popping in a few of my own to spice the pot) as one would pan for gold. Sadly, I am having to sift through more and more dross to gain any nuggets of use, as the debate seems to have been hijacked by those from extremely entrenched positions (fair enough, if tedious) who are using this space more to try and knock literary spots off each other, and/or make dubious political points at the expense of reasoned debate (not so fair enough).

From those invited to comment, I'd like to have a sense that the medium is seeking those with some expertise, a fair case and the ability to make it. But what I'm seeing more of (across all media) is the ratings/readers-driven wheeze of getting one extreme to pop in their 2p-worth, and then let loose the hounds from both sides and lick up the blood-money from the crowd that gathers.

So it seems we have a naughties 'loadsamunny' live now, pay-later lad telling greenies they are all kill-joys and, if there is global warming it’s too late/not our fault/not worth worrying about, making the point by slagging off an obviously passionate, but rather unrepresentative (I too find prayer meetings on runways a tad OTT, though on reflection did blog at the time of the Greenpeace/Land Rover chain-ganging that it would be ironic if all the luvvies found their weekend ski-trips halted by disgruntled car workers) and didactic enviro-activist. However his response seems to be to get down from a self-created moral high ground (recently vacated by most of our political estsablishment and even some high profile green elites when practicality met self-interest - conferences to speak at; books to sell. Examples to no longer set. Hypocrisy accusations to fend off) into the gutter to simply trade class, who is backing whom, and new/old money insults with few facts or helpful opinion.

I long ago gave up on Radio 1 when such as Chris Moyles and Sara Cox thought I was more interested in who had dissed whom in The Sun or at the Ivy last night rather than the music. Plus I got older (if not wiser).

Now it's taking place in the environmental world too.

I am trying to run a family and ensure that what we do now works for them, AND can sustain a future for their families.

For that I need reasoned debate, information, solutions or, in the absence of the latter, honesty enough to say we don't know (and to err on my more the green sympathies, the acceptance of the notion that if we don't, maybe siding on caution wouldn't hurt) everything and that it would be way better to get on and do worthwhile things rather than talk, or worse divide and rule out anything by getting into camps, and denying opposing views with abuse and swapping tirades.

There is a vast, disenfranchised majority out there who I reckon is finding this all very unhelpful, which is putting them off engaging. Sadly this serves the deniers more than those of us who would seek to engage positively and pragmatically. For instance, frankly, having had several summers in the UK, I’m up for a bit of sun, sand and sea I can get more than a toe into. Now, how about those train fares to somewhere the kids won't get chundered on by a £50k+ hen-nighter who can't afford BA, or WAG off her LearJet with a travel and showbiz journalist in tow....'

I could have had some sympathy with what this guy is trying to do, if not the way he's trying to do it. His defence here shows him no better than the rest, and IMHO, hurting the cause of getting to rational solutions.

P-EU!

Something* is rotten in this land of.... and it stinks of hypocrisy The Stavros Solution

Our Dear Leader here is bad enough (one comment on the blog about 'stopping driving my Range Rover' when he stops flying), but now it's our unelected variety weighing here.

I don't think it's necessary to have a 4x4 in Chelsea. But I do think 4x4s are a necessary product (try pulling a cow out of a wet field with a Prius, or taking on the Taliban with a G-Wiz), and in any case what, again , is the % they contribute vs. MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS!!!!

Plus the already staked them vs. us camps this has created, fueled by the rampant D2AID2AIS (don't do as I do; do as I say) of the opportunistic numbskulls trying to force it through.

Nil points.

*Thanks to Dave of Solarventi for the forward

For whom the wind blows

It may be worth getting in touch with this chap: We're not anti-wind farms - but they should be offshore

"With this issue, I am thirsting for facts, or at least well-informed opinion based on expert and, one presumes, honestly-interpreted knowledge. No one in their right mind would hide the truth just for short-term personal or professional gain, surely.

Thanks to Mr. Constable, I (may) have:

“The Renewables Obligation (RO... costs nearly £1bn a year” (Fact?).

“It fails to distinguish between the relative merits of different renewables, [and] has encouraged underperforming onshore wind turbines in low-wind areas (some less than 10% effective)” (Opinion/Fact?).

“Though of little engineering value, such plants attract speculators because they require smaller capital investment. The result has been to starve high-merit technologies of funding” (Opinion/Fact?).

“The DTI is currently undertaking a major revision to offer more subsidies per unit generated to offshore wind, biomass and tidal technologies. MPs and councillors from all parties are opposing obviously inappropriate applications for onshore wind” (I assume a Fact?).

“Offshore wind... can also provide nearly twice as much electrical energy per unit of capacity as onshore wind” (Fact? Though I wonder about the initial capital costs and hence ROI financially and environmentally)

“Britain's green electricity targets are for the energy produced, not the capacity” (Fact?).

“Large quantities of wind capacity in low-wind regions would generate very little energy, and the targets will still be missed” (Fact?)

Against which, I so far have:

"Dunford's REF has sensible-sounding ideas about renewables. But I am not sure what motivates them promote these." - (A fact and a... question?)

“Yes, let's point fingers at others and make them change their lifestyles. We can sit and watch (and of course, critique)” – (Er, OK)

“... the objection isn't against wind farms per se, just ones that are economically viable. It's HUGELY more expensive to build them offshore, far more so than the added gain in use from the extra wind out there.” (Opinion, but a well taken point. However, when it comes to the viability, economically and environmentally, if they are not turning because the wind isn’t blowing there, what are the relative values of land-based vs. offshore? I need facts!!!)"

Bovicide, he wrote

Boris Johnson is many things. He is an MP, a skilled orator and even more potent scribe. He is also a celebrity, so what he says matters, and in this day and age more than people who know what they are talking about. If he did not have the image he has, and will never shake, I think he would be taken very seriously. Like Jeremy Clarkson, he is intelligent, well-informed and knows how to put a case. And with humour, making it all the more easy to read and be swayed by. As he does here: If you want to be green – kill a cow

I just feel some challenge, and balance, is in order, and perhaps better than the usual extremes that get attracted... and printed.

"Suitably disconcerted by, amongst other things, Stern the Mighty (though his recent performance against an almost diffident Paxo was so squirmingly unconvincing even I felt like ordering a Humvee on the spot), with typical if worryingly disarming humour you have raised some interesting points.

I know these are columns and blogs, and hence should be taken with a pinch of salt factually, but in the spirit if trying to come to some kind of objective informed notions between the polar opposites that inevitably get attracted (I just looked, and inside this pink-skinned eco-worrier there is indeed red, the not of the political persuasion), I'd be grateful to have a bit more by way of substantiation on the following:

"So I dialled up the eco-websites and ... the whole thing turns out to be a complete nonsense."

Along with this:

"Far from soaking up your share of CO2, most trees in non-tropical areas are thought to trap heat and thereby increase global warming."

I'd really like to know. For what it's worth I am very dubious about any Carb-con dis-credited trading schemes put forward by the EU, Tony 'Don't Do As I Do', his mate at the Treasury and all those in the City who have joined with them in some short-term (in political and financial terms) Devil's pact to part us from our cash to fund their pension plan.

I must say I am truly intrigued with Simon's post about pre-Kyoto Chinese construct-to-destruct activity. That smacks of being entirely too possible in this meeting targets vs. making real achievements world we live in... for now."

It ain't what you say. It's where you say it.

I was going to bolt this on to the blog earlier about the hoo-haa coverage following Dear Leader's 'I'm not going to stop flying, but you should' inspirational post-holiday, pre-lecture circuit speech. But I think it deserves its own post.

Newsnight weighed in last night, and I've just watched it online ( a very fine facility I must say).

First up we had the 'we're all doomed' with a junior reporter who was allowed as far as Kew, with suitable irony about the planes flying overhead noted, along with a comment about complaints made that they could have sited it better (in 18whenever.. ha-ha!).

Then we had big-gun Jezza being very polite (I thought) to Lord Stern, who even so managed to look very uncomfortable AND say nothing, despite the guy who commissioned him shooting most of what he'd come up with recently down in flames (a few mixed flying metaphors in there, sorry).

Then we had a senior reporter, Roger Harrabin, do a very interesting Tomorrow's World-styly (it's coming back... yaaaay!) report on inventions to get rid of, reusee and all round make more of our re:sources. Solar ovens in India. PVs in California. Gas storage in Algeria. Eco-architecture in Watford. Cloud sprays in Scotland.

And some good points were made. One being - and I support the Governemnt bod saying it, and who was none too keen on funding the guy who came up with a notion that was on the latter basis: 'it's better to cut not mask'.

But....

I recently saw a BBC 'ad' that was making the claim that Aunty had more folk on the ground in more places than anyone.

So why, in heaven's name, was it necessary to fly Mr. H (and crew?) to India, and Algeria (at least, that I could see) to stand next to a bit of kit for 30 seconds' worth of vox-pop?

I know it's all in the name of entertainment, but really, didn't this just shoot the earlier pieces in the foot a bit?

How Un-PC can I be?

As I stare at the screen of my Mac, as we are setting examples this is not comforting reading: Greenpeace slams Apple’s lack of ‘green’ credentials

But then as I look across at the Windows effort we have and think of this 'Dell unveils 'plant a tree for me', and I feel... better. Shame it's in the US and I can't raise a peep from the UK PR guys.

Also, is slamming a fir in the firmament really doing much? I have my doubts. It has a slight whiff of something green, and it ain't pine essence.

DMlemma for the pols, too

The other day I got a leaflet through my door from the Lib Dems.

As it was in Pol-speek and Am-design I didn't even bother reading or looking at it much, as there were pictures of the MP doing nothing but gurn in front of a thing. But I must now seek it out in the bin.

Because of this: LibDem 'breaks party waste policy'

I may, once, have gone on a list, but it would have had an e-mail if given the option. Now how how do I find out?

As they said on Rowan & Martin's Laugh-in... 'Interesting, but..'

Oh, B*gnor!

A rich seam:

Indy - Blair tries to offset fury over flights policy
An open letter to the prime minister
Newsdesk notes for Tuesday January 9
Blair flies in to a flood of protest
Blair, Monday: I'm not offsetting carbon. Blair, yesterday: Er, I've had a rethink
The top 10 political hypocrites

I replied to one:

'I pop what I write here on my blog on http://www.junkk.com (always worth pitching a mention), so even though no one is going to ever wade through 100+ posts (I have to say I gave up halfway) to read it, it's worth doing anyway.

Most of all I see here the hypocrisy mantra being chanted, both at TB and GM, in almost equal measure.

Fair enough, actually. Speaking personally, I doubt I'll be flying much over the next few years, mainly because I have too much to do here and can't afford it anyway. That would make me a fairly good example setter, should I take it upon myself to tell other folk what to do, or worse try and scold them for not doing what I say (if not do). For obvious reasons, I try no to.

But I have to say, as an ordinary Joe, if the government and eco-media* can't lead by example, it's hard to see why anyone else should.

As to the rest, as my 10-year-olds now seem to have appreciated: 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Or, for that matter, secure the future.

*I merely note, but still find it a tad ironic, that in the blog headed 'Blair flies in to a flood of protest' http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1986570,00.html, there seems to be a lovely (in rotation) ad for a Guardian travel promo, and I don't think the beach is at Bognor.'

Not so full of beans

This is not, on the face of it, anything to do with Junkk's area, but as it does encapsulate a political and management culture in this country that certainly exists with matters environmental, I feel it's worth including.

I watched a very depressing programme, where a biz guru tried to fix the NHS. It was partly depressing that such a flip notion was taken seriously by so many (he managed a few turnarounds... nothing like a full film crew to swing that! Try mano-a-mano to a dude that is gold-plated and unfireable) in the pursuit of ratings, but mainly because in amonst the nonsense and editing a lot was laid bare. And it wasn't pretty.

A guru close to despair

I felt the urge to pitch in:

‘Daily Mail reader would know what to conclude from the programme.’
‘For the Guardian reader, it's harder. ‘

I am in a quandary: how to react? I read both. And the Times. And the Indy. Often the Sun, Mirror, too. Not because I enjoy them particularly, and especially not because I feel I will be informed objectively by any of them.

But there is the slim hope that, as with blogs such as this and the replies they garner, I may acquire enough information to make a reasoned judgement on an issue.

Of course, like most, in this case I also have personal experience to fall back on as well. And I dread taking my Mum to hospital today as a consequence (case in point: two posters in the waiting room. One says 'Help us by asking a friend or relative to bring you'. The other says 'Priority is given to those using hospital transport'). If there was an alternative I'd use it.

I come from the private sector. All I know is that if what you can earn is based on fewer and fewer people who provide a function the 'customer' pays for, the solution is not, at best, piling on a huge % more to 'manage' or ‘administer’ them, or at worst cut them back to fund ever more managers/administrators.

If you lose the bean makers and stop making beans, there is nothing left to count... or report on... or meet targets with.

And then they will stop voting for you as well.'

Nice pack. Shame about what's in it.

An archive clipping, but topical.

I actually cut it out because of the nifty packs on show, a few of which already grace our site.

But sadly, it seems those in the UK are less up-front about the pipe-clogger contents when compared to our US cousins.

Still, it all tastes nice and we can make stuff out of them. Ashes conatiners?

Shame if your bin caught fire, squire

As we're on the topic (see last post) of self-interest, I note this: Councils want to charge you for rubbish

Way-hey! This can only serve any initiative designed to help you put less in your bin, like a certain reuse .com I could mention. Junkk.com.

But, as per the last post again, I hope they have figured out the difference between penalty and incentive is by then.

There's also the small matter of how this will all be measured, charged and policed, but I reckon we're about due for some further breaches of justice by now, combined with the mass hiring of several more layers of Big Brother index-linked, gold-plated bloodsucking.

Airbor(n)e

There's so much flying (pun intended) around on this topic it's hard to know how to keep up.

I started on it a wee while ago, but I think a new post is in order, this time devoted to the guy in charge:

BBC - Blair defends long-haul holidays
Guardian - Carry on flying, says Blair - science will save the planet
Indy - Blair says no politician would ban cheap flights
Telegraph - I'll recycle but I won't give up my long-haul holidays, says Blair

First up, he's right (shock horror): no pol is going to try and ban cheap hols. Therein lies a problem. I don't think anyone is saying that, but something erring on curbing the gasses is needed, and if they only way to get there is in gassy plane...

However, that's as far as I'll cut him some slack.

This is a guy who, as of next year, needs/wants to fly around the world on speaking tours to try and cover the mortgage back home. As many (have to) do. As to the family getting in a snit if they can't build their sandcastles at least 8,000 miles away, well... many of us don't have the option in the first place.

But at least he'll be popping the duty-free rum bottles in the right bin to compensate.

Michael O'Leary and the airlines must be wetting themselves laughing.

Unlike the quoted 'enviro-groups', I'm a bit more than disappointed. This governement is not joined up, or a mob that leads or even feels the need to lead by example. And for that alone they should be made example of come the next election. Please God I can find someone to vote for by then.

ps: I'm not sure if it's telling, but when he says taxing people more is a way to incentivise them I see a bit of a flaw in reasoning. I'm hoping he meant that you encourage with reward and disincentivise with penalties. But they way his government is going I think it's not confusion but policy.

We're often so busy talking we don't stop to listen

With the comment 'Your Kalahari bushman ... (well, Kenyan anyway) has made it into the news this morning.', Dave of Solarventi has sent this in:

How richest fuel global warming - but poorest suffer most from it

'Nuff said?

And the vegetables, Ma'am?

Anyone remember Spitting Image's most famous put down of a government where no one moved unless the boss said so?

David Miliband's declaration that large numbers of voters buy organic food as a 'lifestyle' choice is a significant self-inflicted injury.

"Planes, trains... and aubergines!

When something like this is announced, I immediately look for the agenda behind the back-story.

But for once I am damned if I can find it... yet. Doubtless it will soon become clear once the first punt has seeded, settled in and had a chance to die down.

One thing is for sure, different aspects of government, and the talking heads at the top/in charge (if that's what they are), don't seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet at present, especially across the eco-enviro spectrum."

A silly question deserves a SUPERB answer!

'If you spend more than four hours a day travelling to work, have you got a life?'

"Well, yes. Whether it is the life you want, is another matter.

Some... most of us to not have a choice in the matter.

I write this lucky enough, for now, to work from home. I dread the occasions when I have to travel, no matter the slight benefits of having a few hours to read guilt-free if I'm on the train, or listening to the radio en route, more guiltily, if I am car-borne trading."

I of course refer to that last play on words: car-borne trading. Genius (immodestly). You heard it here first.

On your Marx, get set... stop.

I don't think I am a communist. I rather like the idea of being comfortably off (though am having a bit of an epiphany as to how much one really needs if we are to survive as a species - loads of dosh really means loads of desire to blow it on stuff, travel, etc, otherwise one's mattress really is going to bulk up) and get a cold shudder when I see anything with 'not for profit' on it.

However, two pieces in one of my Sunday's had me looking up 'first against the wall when the revolution comes' in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Blowing the bonus

Buddy, can you spare a billion?

I don't have a problem with wealth as such, so long as it is honestly, morally and ethically earned/gained (which rather removes most inherited varieties, at the top end at least, anyway), but I certainly do with any wasteful, obscene misuse of it.

And I really do not like it being pandered to by those who seek to bask in a few moments of being close to it by offering exposure to those with such shallow lives they can't think of anything better to do with their financial good fortune.

Let's never let a silly thing like facts get in the way of a good debate

I keep saying the guy is a genius, so I hope he'll forgive me showing why every so often, especially if I post his URL.

Anyone reading this blog of late will note that I am getting a little frustrated with a load of folk who should know better, and paid a lot more, who go very quiet when I, and others, ask questions requiring a simple, factual answer.

Now I know why.

Parapet. Head. Stick. Over. Ouch. The Sequel.

Well, it is Monday: Flight from reality

'This has been covered elsewhere (including this online resource) quite extensively, and indicates a hot (well, warm, at least globally) topic.

The arguments and comments seem to be falling pretty well as expected, and predicted - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/parapet-head-stick-over-ouch.html

I thank the few here who have posted without rancour but with a legitimate concern to know more to act responsibly, or asked some legitimate questions which I do hope will be answered by those who claim to know (better).

I fear those we could have hoped to cool the pot so we may all sup from it are principally concerned with stirring it whilst fanning the flames."

ADDENDUM:

A view from a Green MEP, currently en rouet to the pokey, apparently (for her views & actions) on Trident: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2811

Who cares about the Ashes?

One I thank Dave of Solarventi for passing on: 'Dustbin' UK tops landfill table

Parapet. Head. Stick. Over. Ouch.

It's that kind of day: Guardian

"For some reason I don't often get approved for the Telegraph, but I'd like to share what I wrote to them today - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/martin-in-middle.html - as it's happening here, too.

I am not an eco-Nazi. Nor am I a oil-funded climate-denier. I am just a bloke (one who is trying to raise his kids now AND ensure they have a future) trying to figure this all out to do what's best.

And I am certainly not feeling too well served by government, eco-groups, business, NGOs and even the media. All have an agenda (staying/getting elected, getting funding, getting grants to bestow and ratings/readership respectively) that serves, it seems to me, the environment they claim to serve pretty low on the totem.

I agreed with Mr. Leary in my blog a few days ago. That doesn't make me his lackey. I was simply agreeing with his point that retro-actively back-dating taxes was not on. But before he pops a cork and buys another new 737, I'm afraid there's not much else I can offer him in support. Or a lot of others in favour of ever more, ever-more efficient, ever-more offset and carbonally-traded travel: I really rather think we need to not only slow down, but actually even think about travelling less.

However, if the guys in charge of effecting this equitably, fairly and rationally are those in government (or those in governments worldwide), we have a few slight problem to overcome first.

Trust being first. Faith in abilities next. A sense of vision beyond the next sound-bite or election...

Make that more than a few."

Money makes the world go around

My reply to this: A first-class rip-off

"The planet breathes easier as we speak. Not.

Interesting that the PR airline machine has here decided to go for a fiscal comparison.

There is a lesson in this, however. If our leaders (especially those in capital cities) are sincere in us using the most eco-effective method of travel, it may make sense to make them cost-effective as well, by way of incentive?"