The best answers come from better questions

Where to start, where to start?

The last several days have been a blur, in every way possible. Time. Location. Thoughts.

The last time I felt remotely rational was Thursday, and since then... wow.

There is a temptation to go back and try and pick up from that point. And though I do intend to blog on what has transpired, I think I'll start on something from today that in many ways sums up the highs and lows I have experienced of late.

Today I actually bought a paper as I walked back from dropping the boys at school. It was the Indy. One look at the cover should tell you why I felt so moved.

As I turned from the newsagents a lady called me back to tell me I'd dropped something. I thought it was ironic what. The dog poo was not it. Though that was ironic, too. And I have to say in the Indy's defence it did not slide from its pages. The other two bits did. The ads for the airline destinations and 4x4s stayed inside, by the way. I find them ironic as well..

Anyway I am, here, going to make no detailed comment on the content (though I will later), as it is just the headline and that alone which I have read so far. And that, and that alone, has already given me pause for thought and reason to comment here.

I DO NOT GIVE A MONKEYS WHO IS GREENEST!!!!!!!

What. The. Heck. Does. That. Mean?

As will be explained in subsequent blogs, I have been in front of and at the receiving end of a large number of folk of late, from cynical business persons to grazing academics, to hard-nosed media producers... and it has not been pretty.

But one thing I do know is what I should have remembered from my ad days: GIGO. Garbage In = Garbage Out. And does that ever have an extra twist in matters enviROI.

Also, as will be explained, there are more gulfs out there than a pro golf tournament's (or Al Gore's) private airstrip.

Science and Media. Pols and Science. Media and Pols. Business and Everyone. Oh, and lets not forget the poor sods just trying to get on with their day in average Joeville.

No wonder this place is in a mess. And I don't just mean the poo.

Climatic depression

Green debate caught in an icy grip

I feel so much happier in the knowledge that my kids and their kids'
futures are in such able and sincere hands, whichever one of the
whole sorry bunch gets to play with the keys to the kingdom.

Not.

I was going to add a bit about the media's role in reporting it all.

But they do own the playground and the ball.

Ready, aim... assess, monitor, report...

Re-cycle of Life

Most councils can only 'see' things like targets.
I wouldn't mind so much but this is usually to the exclusion of all else, or ever getting round to doing anything commonsensical to try and hit them (assuming they actually have an enviROI in the first place).

ps; try getting the kids reusing and repairing. It's way more fun than acting as an unpaid sorter for a £200k local authority boss' bonus chances, and the profits of the recycling contractors.

Junkk.com - Rubbish needn't be a dirty word

Wonder if she'll post it?

Buy now, while stocks last

Gadget overload

We had a stand (one of about six out several hundred, and ours was next to a patio heater vendor) there last year because we were told its theme was 'the environment'.

But as I say, that was soooo 'last year'.

Well, they asked

A road map for originality
We can't move for things that aren't 'fit for purpose'. What other overused phrases are you, on the ground, fed up with?

That's a good question...
We'll need to look into this....
It's obviously not acceptable...
etc...

All closely followed by doing nothing at all to address the issue.

Last Rights

Against Nature - Channel 4

I’m going to break a firmly held principle and comment on something I have not... yet... seen. Again.

In a certain irony, last night as I expounded to a group at Aston Science Park on how we can harness consumer power to effect positive environmental behavior changes through incentive and reward, my twins had decided that some Japanese cartoon was a better bet on Sky than what I had programmed to record. Let’s hope I am as successful in helping save the planet as the spiky doe-eyed dude and his posse of mutant mates.

What struck me at the event was the enthusiasm of all those present for tangible DOING, as opposed to endless debate on esoteric issues, jockeying to be smarter and righter. And while these were folk from the SME’s prepared to stay from early to late evening, I hope it would not be unfair to say many present were representative of the average, working, Previa and not Prius person general public.

So I wonder what they would have made of this? Doubtless there will be great debate in the eco-media, including such as the Indy and Guardian (no chance to scope the onlines yet, and BBC Breakfast doesn’t seem concerned), but I’m pretty sure it will all pass last night’s group by. Unless an editor scents some headlines from contention, and blows it up for a quick ratings fix. Unlikely with X Factor looking like it was rigged.

A lot of my audience confessed to be dubious about what I was pitching as all they knew beforehand was that I was what Jeremy Clarkson has dubbed a ‘mentalist. I am glad to say I left with some converts inspired.

And here is my main point. We still very much seem to be in a ‘media rules of engagement-controlled’ era of green being only viewed in black and white.

In the dark green corner are ‘activists’, empowered eco Nazi book-authors, Al Gore, IPCC scientists, certain government ministers (even a newly converted, if confusingly mixed message PM)... and a largely compliant ‘left’ media ready to publish or broadcast relatively unchallenged global warming propaganda.

In the black gold corner are ‘deniers’, empowered ex eco fascist traitor book-authors, a few government ministers (at least out loud, including a confusingly mixed word vs. deed PM)... and a largely compliant ‘right’ media ready to publish or broadcast relatively unchallenged big-oil lobby-funded propaganda.

And all this lot have very lucrative careers already, and ahead, exchanging artillery exchanges of claim and counter claim, accusation and counter accusation at each other. Facts go out the window, as for every one pro, there are a score cons. And one Prof’s howler is another think-tank PhD’s thesis.

Meanwhile, sod all seems to get done.

And stuck in no person’s land, I believe, are the vast majority of folk like those I was with last night, keen to understand the issues and act rationally on them based on halfway decent information and reasoned debate with some objective outcomes.

To me the issue is simple. In ten years time, if one set are right, we can all breathe easier and a few folk are a bit red faced. The down side is that some economically driven development may not take place and... if you subscribe to the views of such as Mr. Durkin or Bjorn Lomborg, there will be serious consequences to the state of health and lives in the Third World.

If the other set are right, breathing at all may be a tad tricky in some parts, and faces will possibly be redder still, now for exterior reasons as well. Those in the Third World, if they are around, may find the rest of us have our own issues to worry about.

So which side should we err on? I’m voting caution. Especially when there are quite a few credible science guys around who seem to be getting us to quite high percent levels of probability. I’m prepared to move before we are 100% sure global warming WAS catastrophic.

I’ll need to dig it from my blog verbatim, but a long time ago I read a good analogy. If you are in a plane full of journalists and aero engineers flying across the Atlantic, and a problem with it’s structure is raised, do you side with the majority of them who think it best to turn back to check, or do you go with the journalists sitting with the guys in Club class who are just getting comfy, and would prefer to stay on course in case it’s nothing?

It would be wrong to say I don’t care about these esoteric debates, but I find them essentially irrelevant. Natural or man made, serious or not, I simply believe that, for the sake of my kids’ kids, every effort needs to be made to reduce pollution and waste and improve efficiencies. Plus match this all with a reasoned downturn in our aspirations and demands for expansion of consumption as they may be leading us on a downward spiral.

And one thing is key. What I call the EnviROI – the return on investment has to help the planet recover, and not just be to sell books, get ratings, secure salaries, careers or pensions, meet targets or make those who think they are more worthy feel warm and fuzzy. So I have all sorts of doubts that get me offside with a lot of folk. I’m not sure about wind turbines. I think the Government has totally screwed up road pricing, which is necessary but I petitioned against on their terms, And anything with the words ‘carbon’ and ‘trading’ bring me out in cold sweat as all I see is vast hordes of even richer City folk going with Guardian journalists and Mr. Miliband to meet other green elites in Bali to discuss it all.

Sadly, like you Ben, in trying to arrive at conclusions, information I can trust is in short supply, and looks like remaining so for a while.

And from the evidence of this blog (with a few notable, and noble opinions and links, for which I am grateful – though oddly the follow up posts by those who saw the show almost all left me none the wiser to those preceding it), I guess I, and most of the population will need to hunker down in our bunkers a while longer as those who claim know better than us argue over who is right.

Me, I’ll just get back to my shed and keep on doing anything I can to improve matters.

I just had a gander at a few of the follow ups, and they kinda prove my point. Death-match, winner takes the first iceberg shuffleboard on the Titanic.

God spare us from those who would tell us what to think... to the death. All of ours.

ADD:

QED.

Just back from my shed. Cripes.

At least a very few have tried to see a middle ground, work within it and understand it enough to work out a positive solution.

But as to the rest.... 'ding'... Round [pick a number]!

Shame.

Guardian - Noxious emissions

For what it's worth (not much, I'd hazard, looking at the comments here), Bad Science has, is and doubtless will be providing a complementary venue for a not dissimilar cock-fighting tournament.

So I'll just cut 'n paste my 2p here.

Indy - Global warming gurus set a bad example

Dear Mr. Lawson,

We're guessing that would make you a 'no' then?

Times - The global warming debate overheats

Call for help

I just came across this:

An eco-chic bag won’ t stop bulging landfill sites

And as I had a ready retort: it will if it is made out of reused materials (Vac:Sac anyone?), I saw a Junkk.com promo at hand.

Thing is, even though the associated eco-worrier panel has a thingie that says 'Post a Comment', I can't seem to locate how, via my Mac or any PC.

Any ideas?

I'd write to them, but as these 'ladies who do green' are on a fairly narrow path - I must have written a score of times to point out that there are others in addition to Freecycle, all equally free and hence worth mentioning (like our JunkkYard... oh, maybe that's why).

Consumer resistance? I’m all for it

It depends where you look, or are looking from

'...cost me less than £100. It doesn’t have a brand and I don’t know
(or care) who made it... But it doesn’t have to be an expensive
thing of beauty.'

You have a slightly different view to me of 'doesn't have to be expensive'.

However I laud your consumer resistance.

You may pop over a few blogs to a colleague who you may enjoy
debating these pressing issues with.

She is not so sure about buying an eco-bag as a fashion or green
choice. I was moved to point out that many very nice things are now
made (often helping the makers) out of reused materials, and look
nice taboot.

But such things can still be reassuringly priced to get into you gels'
zone of interest.

Bless.

Careful what you wish for

Channel 4 wants to turn your television into a tip

'Should they locate the parts for, and then manage to assemble a working PC , internet connection and power supply (why not? I saw it done on McGyver), they could do worse than log on to Junkk.com daily to see what they can make and how to make it.

And of course share their own innovations with/for others.

That way we can not just anaylse how we live, but improve it too.

A plan?'

The door was opened a crack...

Pathetic MPs fail to test newspapers over ethics

There's a headline I thought I'd never see: MPs, newspapers and ethics all in the same sentence, when they are mutually exclusive, jointly and severally.

At least there was 'pathetic' and 'fail to test'.

I am currently running a test with our national broadcaster, who I co-fund with 59,999,999 (or so) others, and which is in fact responsible to us, but seemingly totally unaccountable for their fine-backed, mandatory-fee-supported media monopoly across all broadcast and some print categories.

Having just listened to a radio talk show create the stage, and then go on to provoke a bar-room brawl first over UK/US relations and then, for good measure, the vehicles 'we' feel should be 'banned' (stirred up with to taste - very bad taste - rants by z-list celebrities), I have popped off the latest in a series of complaints.

I'm guessing two weeks before one of the legions of fob-off-and-forget munchkins gets back with a form 'We had a look/listen. No, there wasn't a problem in our view. If there was we don't care. And anyway, what are you going to do about it? But we do appreciate your feedback and will bear it in mind. Don't bother arguing or asking to go higher because the system doesn't allow for that... for obvious reasons'.

Guardian - Kicking the habit
Celebrities are checking into rehab like there's no tomorrow. Why can't they just buy a self-help book like the rest of us?

Not sure, but I do believe the purchase of self-help books, unless conducted, Britney Hair-styly, does not get you top slot on the nation's broadcaster, or indeed an 'any PR is...' mention here, paying quite a few remora.. sorry.. reporter's, salaries en route .

Nothing like a nice bit of PR support for the media

The final frontier for travel insurance

You may also wish to include cover for flight delays in case any Guardian readers (and reporters) who don't see the irony of supporting rich folk having a Kodak moment atop a column of greenhouse gasses, whilst thinking Greenpeace chaining themselves to a Land Rover production line was a neat idea, suddenly see the value of single standards.

You know where I am going with this, of course

To: BBC West Midlands

I just caught a piece on Breakfast News about a new, non-polluting delivery truck that is 'responsible for no CO2 emissions'.

This is fantastic.

Is there any more information on this, and how it does it?

...Or, as more than a minor issue, the Environment?

The Big Question: Would transatlantic 'open skies' be good for UK airlines and passengers?

Just askin', 's all. I think it should be in the headline.

Indy - Letters: Open skies

Tough with words. Tough on the causes of words. Or just 'tough'?

Miliband to make new emissions pledge

Don't you just love a good Pledge? One simply swipe and a manky bit of dead wood can be made to look and smell nice... for a wee while, until it wears off.

"David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, will try to restore Britain's place as world leader in the battle against climate change next week, with undertakings to cut the country's carbon output by the year 2020."

"He will promise..."

"That way, he hopes to get the UK back on track.."

Repeat after me, 'The Gloucester Old Spot now leaving Terminal 3, again....

"Tony Blair will fly to Brussels today..." Sorry. Not fair. Just... in context, it scanned amusingly.

"The initiative has been applauded by the former US vice president Al Gore, co-author of a film on climate change, and by Mr Miliband." And where, exactly, did that come from? Is Al 'flying in' too? What is this? The Axis of mutual backslappers?

Times - Britain puts climate change on UN agenda - Way-hay! It's on an agenda!

Just made for a Pol's Porkie!

‘Do as I say, not as I do’ is Barroso’s green message

Thing is, if you stick yourself on the pedestal of telling folk what to
do, you really need to figure that a) it's not such a bad idea to do it
yourself, and b) try to have been doing it at least a while or c) at
least before so telling, and d)really don't go to near anything that
might smack of 'imposing'.

Failure to do one or indeed all lends you to being labelled
a) hypocrite ( “This is an opportunity for European leaders to match
intentions with deeds, to turn words into actions.”... Bless), b) a total
plonker and c) totally undeserving of your authority, salary and
pension by , well everyone, really.

Including any colleagues whose last vestiges of credibility
and authority you have just evaporated in the eyes of a cynical
world media and utterly frustrated voting, cash-cow-no-longer,
public.

And frankly, whacking a fir in the firmament is not much better if we
are trying to offset the problem within the 10 year window indicated
by the IPCC. While it looks good to ones mates in the City, the things
don't grow that fast and not all schemes even work on a viable
EnviROI basis anyway.

Meanwhile, those figures are interesting. May I ask if they are for
urban use (as favoured by those in power who don't get out much),
an average cycle or for country/motorway travel?

I just ask because from my country home to anywhere with 2 hrs by
Fiat Panda seemed to me a better bet than Prius. It's hard to see how
a higher capacity petrol engine in the latter, lugging a big, unused
battery, would deliver better emissions performance.

And if so, may I presume this is just the first in further attempts to get
all of 'us' to conform to an ideal that works in the corridors of
'power', and really has little to making the world better for our kids.

ps: while toe-rag is not a bad moniker for the beast (I believe used,
with some irony in smoke-black form by a 'Have you cut your 20%?'
TV commercial not so long ago, I do concern myself that the noble
tribespersons may not fancy the spelling used here.

Yodel-ay-ee-oo!

Carbon trading

And in reply to this great call...?

All I can hear is a big, fat, empty echo.

The journey of a thousand steps...

Want to save the planet? It’s your little changes that mean the most

Agreed.

And to all the other reader who sees this and feels enough to get motivated to do something at home and peronal...ly re:warding, try re:use at junkk.com.

That way you can save the planet, and some time, and some money.

Kinda win-win. Which is nice. If rare.

Speaks for itself, unspeakably

Plane beats train on cost and speed as discount fares prove elusive

You know what we need... another 'initiative'. With a charge on it.

That'll help.

Divide and Fools

This is going to the BBC right now.

Following an interesting and touching piece on Alzheimer's (ironic, since I only heard it having had to drive to Gloucester to collect the card I left in the chip 'n pin doo-dad on Sunday. Oddly Sainsbury's have no policy on letting you, or your bank know. They just keep it a while and then bin it), the Jeremy Vine show descended into the worst example of the sorry state of ratings-driven media I have ever heard.

I think this will be cited as one of the nails in the coffins of our public broadcaster being accorded any credence as an objective news organisation, and certainly raises questions as to why it is allowed a fine-supported, non-opt-out monopoly to collect funds to create and broadcast such trash.

First up we get a 'piece' 'inspired' by some Yuppie Hooray with contacts in PR, who makes a kids' level version of Why the US Is Lovely, condensing several decades into a few tens of seconds of 'what if?' nonsense. Maybe it got 1/4M 'hits' on YouTube. So what? But it was enough to get him in to boost his ad banner rates by sticking him up against some bonkers ex-Guardianista US-phobic who could barely string a sentence together, let alone allowing any form of reasoned debate get in the way of her single-minded prejudices. Then it gets thrown open to 'us', the listening public, so after the break for music we get a bunch of raving pro and antis selected especially by researchers to vent their ill-informed spleens over a completely staged, specious premise. And so it spirals down...

That was bad enough. Then, in the era of discredited phones-ins, to follow we have an 0900 'vote' to see which vehicles should be banned, with another set of twofers from each extreme venting spleens and spewing half-considered, factually irresponsible bile at each other, and us, as Mr. Vine and his producers wet themselves over their soaring ratings.

What public service was served by any of this claptrap? And with this complaint how do I get past the low-level munchkins in the 'file and fob-off' department who will a) sit on this for a week, b) claim they have looked into it thoroughly, then c) find no issue to answer so d) they won't.

This is not a valid process of sincere self-improvement, from a public-service and public-funded entity that has done little lately beyond losing the plot.

I demand to be put in coherent contact with some form of decision maker who can explain these decisions from a position of responsibility and accountability.

The world's a bad enough place without our national broadcaster dividing us all in warring camps for cheap media points. It must be stopped before it is too late. Or... I want my money back.

9 April - It took a while (doesn't it always?) but they have come back as, of course, they have to. What do you think? A fair reply? one deserving of file & forget?

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Jeremy Vine' transmitted on the 6
March 2007.

Firstly, please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know
our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have
had to wait on this occasion.

I understand you have some concerns about the above programme.

I must explain that this was a week-long poll giving the British Public the
chance to select the vehicle they would most like to vote off our roads, if
they could.

It is hoped the programme team can raise the findings of this poll on the 9
March edition [I got this a month later] with those in Government who make/influence transport policy.

Ultimate aim to tackle some big, important questions about road traffic and
the positive measures that could be taken by those in power to alleviate
the anger that so many road users feel: i.e.: How can speed limits be
enforced? Should there be compulsory road tests for cyclists and
horse-riders? Who should pay for the upkeep of the roads and how should
that tax be collected? Does the driving test need to change or be repeated?

Nevertheless, I appreciate you may continue to have some concerns about the
two items you have specified as a whole. Please be assured that I have
registered your complaint and concerns on the daily log, this is an
internal document which will be made available to the 'Jeremy Vine'
production team as well as the senior management of the BBC.

May I take this opportunity to thank you again for taking time to contact
the BBC.

Regards

Katherine Tsang
BBC Information
__________________________________________

The BBC Trust wants to know what's important to you about your BBC. Want to
help it set the BBC's strategic priorities? To get involved just click on
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust.

What ever floats their boat. Which it will, eventually

I just glanced this:

Scientists from 63 countries to investigate polar melting

And without reading it, I just pray it will not involve hordes of them going up to snowy bits in planes and copters to figure out why it's all melting.

Carb-con gestion?

They keep popping up, don't they?

'Carbon allowance' plan for drivers

Motorists could find themselves facing a ceiling on the amount of carbon they are allowed to emit...

This would be 'motorists' where, doing what exactly and when?

I look forward to how they spin this one. Can't be any worse than the road pricing effort.... can it?

Indy - Miliband: 'Time for a green industrial revolution'
Times - 'Make car drivers pay for their pollution'

Patents and le absurd?

We, the Patent Office

In a month's time I'm off to Geneva as part of the UK stand at an International Invention Expo.

I will have in my clutches a small prototype of a big idea that I hope will a) save planet and b) make dosh, not necessarily in that order.

For either to happen, and for there to be a happy ending on b), I have ventured into the mysterious world of Patent applications, assessments and agents and god knows what.

So far it has been like a stag night in 70's SoHo, looking for the naked ladies in strip clubs but going through endless velvet red curtains and being relived of cash at every turn with a promise that 'soon you will be there'. About halfway you know you have been conned, but are too far in to not keep on going.

So I know diddly squat about this process.

However, in the great 'protection of your idea' scheme of things, is such an open season on its intimate details wise, or even desirable?

BusinessWeek - Inside Nathan Myhrvold's Mysterious New Idea Machine
Times - Patents 2.0 comes to Britain

Dragon's Breath

Tel Blog - Some issues remain untouchable

I think I read elsewhere that China has decided enough's enough and the whole corruption thing must stop now. So that's OK then.

As I flit from blog to blog looking at trendy liberals knock spots off each other as to just how much Fairtrade latte you can fit in a Prius' trunk, I read this and have to wonder if the world really has a chance in hell.

BBC - Global impact of Asia's pollution

Open to what... exactly?

Is it just me, or could one wish that journos from one side of a paper actually ponder what those at another my be writing about, and attempt to cover all the issues?

BA fears ill wind may blow from 'open skies'

George of the Rumble

Another from Grist - Turn Up the Heat

Makes you proud to be a Brit, eh?

For every two Beckhams, we have a Monbiot. So at that rate... we're toast. Celebs. And anti-celeb celebs. Can live with 'em, can't... er... no that's about it. And I guess that applies to me too, as an anti-anti-celeb (as I can often 'wonder' in places such as this just how sincere some are themselves or, if sincere, effective on a planetary scale as opposed to on a nice little personal earner basis).

So thank you for this link.

It's so odd. By any measure I trawl the e-pages of the UK media a bit more than most (who needs to get a life?) and until this moment I had no inkling such a thing existed, even courtesy of our George's usual hunting grounds, which I read daily and have done for a few years.

Well worth a gander.

I wonder what other people think of it? I'll have to declare an interest, I had/have something similar in mind, called Pol's Porkies, which stands for POLitician's PORky Pies, which is Cockney slang for lies. But I soon extended it to anyone in the public eye who said one thing and did another. Even better if the former was high-profile and the other low rent.

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/gloucester-old-spot-now-departing.html

Now I have registered it, but have yet to build it. So it's a might miffing when GM crops (geddit?) up and it turns out he has beaten me to the punch.

Popping over the parapet, and with glasses tinted green with envy, I have had a scope and do feel moved to cock a critical eyebrow, as I am wont.

First and foremost, and with no book in the offing... yet... I am always a tad suspicious of anything that is associated with a sales effort. Somehow it seems to weaken the purity of the concept.

Next, and purely subjectively, though with a few decades as a designer under my belt, it all comes off as a bit placard waving graphically, typographically and in copy terms. I thought I'd arrived at a Marxist rallying point to march on Westminster - to protest the price of non-Fairtrade lattes en route through Islington.

This, and the style makes me almost sympathetic to Chris, Richard and our Tel, etc. 'George' is watching you! Which makes 'George' Big Brother, which makes him...?

I also note, and Grist readers will hopefully appreciate this, a distinct lack of humour here. Hard to empathise with very much, frankly.

Which in one way is a pity, because having read his home page mantra I can't disagree with it at all. But in another it is good, because I think, immodestly, I can do a lot better. Mainly by not doing much at all. I intend Polsporkies.info to be of the people, by the people for the people, in much the same way as Junkk.com is. Frustratingly, he has also similar version to my TushTissue (for highlighting 'papering over' jobbies, rather than 'dealing withs') and even NewsFlip, as in the bird, but also as 'flip' commentary, highlighting news that is so superficial as to muddy already murky waters.

But for these I intend to just create the system, probably tabular (said, done, date, attribution, date, etc) make it as user content manged as I can. Then retire immediately having lit the fuse. I very much see it as a factual grid with a only a little moderation to ensure factual accuracy, minimal law suits and perhaps scope to inject a bit of fun to keep things bubbling.

And when I collect my award from Nelson Mandela (it's in there on his site - if you are going to drop a name, his is well worth it), I will worry very much how I detour from my global book tour to do it with out looking down the barrel of my own gun through the hole in my foot. Glad to see he is not all talk though (the actions being...?)

Because there does seem to be a new breed of Green elite whose jobs require them to buzz about (legitimately, by some logic) telling other folk that they should not have jobs that require them to buzz about. This, on occasion, has seen the odd mention of the phrase 'double standard' and even the H word being levelled back. With some justification I may add. And which does weaken the foundations of certain pedestals. And as I have opined before, a fallen idol can do more damage crashing down, and undo a lot of good they may have achieved whilst evangelising.

Fortunately I don't tell folk how to behave. I just ask questions, share information and try to lead by as best an example as I can.

It's less stressful.

Uh-oh... incoming!!!

With all due apologies to Pastor Niemoller..

'First there was the Hybrid, but I do not drive urbanally much, so I did not consider.

Then there was the LPG, but I do not trust Gordon Brown on fuel taxes, so I did not consider.

Then I thought of electric, but it wouldn't get me to the nearest fuel station, much less anywhere else. So I did not consider

And finally, just when I thought bio-diesel was the way to go, there was no sodding thing left to stick in the tank that will do. And the whole thing seemed way beyond consideration any more.'

The Big Green Fuel Lie - no guys, don't hold back, say how you really feel.

Indy - Letters

The more I read, the less I know.

I guess I'll just stick with my trusty Volvo while longer. Just to be safe rather than sorry.

If all else fails, there is always Shank's Pony. I don't get out much anyway:(

Indy - Leading article: A switch to biofuels will not save the planet

ADDENDUM on Grist to a nice comment:

No problem at all , biodiversivist! It's all good, free information exchange, with a few extra Adwords points all round as icing.

And as we're on a roll, or in this case dessert analogy, I can only agree with you and hope you are right.

Shame that the best processes just seem to take their own sweet time, and the quick fixes and those with vested interests is making and shouting about them tend to get in the way en route.

Ming, er... the... erhttp://www2.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

Just watched the Friday Newsnight

Not impressed.

'Is it just me, or is the structure of the site and posting system all a bit odd at the 'mo?

May explain the massive number of posts, I guess.

Just watched my PC download, in a very staccato manner (a function of other site issues perhaps?).

Re: Unwitting discrimination

I have never really understood what the definition(s) of racism is/are, and adding institutional on to it just seems to muddy already murky waters.

Still a lot of folk are making nice careers out the whole thing.

I can only wonder how one can really address something 'unwitting', as surely by definition it is not done on purpose and is almost impossible to 'correct' without highly legitimate accusations of undue influence. And by being a whole lot more sinister than the rather quaint 'positive discrimination', which seems to mean strong-arming a result to suit un-demo or meritocratic agendas that often seem held outside the public's voting wishes.

Ms. Abbott was singularly unconvincing and uncharacteristically tongue-tied and inept when trying to explain away some rather key questions on why one sector alone was performing so poorly. In fact a tack was quickly changed almost mid-sentence, and hence maybe the piece should have been re-labelled, 'institutional class-in-London-ism' instead?

The original title could have held true had the 'wealth of qualitative evidence which suggests that black pupils are disciplined more frequently, more harshly, and for less serious misbehaviour than other pupils" - and that such a differential approach is likely to be unwitting on the part of the teachers' made it on air, but I don't recall any being mentioned. Maybe the qualitative evidence referred to was Ms. Abbott's alone? In which case it made for an interesting insight into journalism today.

Re: Lib Dem poll

Ming, er, who the heck put him in charge? I'm off to a Lib Dem 'do' soon as part of a mission to figure who in my county gets my vote as our MP is standing down.

His performance in this would have been enough to make the odds of my support pretty dim, but the more recently unveiled discussions on pacts with Mr. Brown are, if true, enough to strike that flickering light.

Looking forward to Panorama tonight, though.'


ADDENDUM:

Fixed, is it?

I just tried to post what I wrote a few days ago (see below) and got this:

Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience.
Return to the original entry

Or maybe 'a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again' is what is meant by 'fixing'?

Friends in the best places

The thing that keeps me going with Junkk.com, against a load of hurdles from those (in theory tasked, and often paid well, to help guys like us help the public) who see gatekeeping as more of a door-closing exercise, is the power of one who believes. I am starting to think we may be starting to establish ourselves, and have a chance, when we get something like this sent in by a Junkk user (thank you so much, Mr. Smart):

'Thought I would bring to your attention this article in the Guardian today. You might want to put them in touch with 'the experts' !'

I was moved to reply (below), and rue the possibility that a time may come that I may not have the time or ability to do so, in such a personalised way, in the future.

'Thank you so very much for writing and telling us about this.

If you are talking about us being in any way expert you are too kind, but we do believe we know some stuff, and the collective brainpower and goodwill on our site (who are the ones you meant, for sure!) is a valuable free resource to share for the benefit of one and all, plus the planet!

I will of course try and get in touch, but we will not be holding our breath.

For some odd reason we do not seem in high favour with the media community, which is a pity. I don't quite know why, though we suspect it may be that we are a little more 'Fiesta family' from the rest of the country than 'Prius Person' from within the congestion zone.

I think we will get a lot further, and with greater strength in our foundations, by the support of such Junkketeers as yourself, rather than a flare of media hype (as they often like to tear down as much as build up), but a bit of a mention can't hurt!'

Here's what I wrote, as suggested:

One of our readers has kindly passed us your invitation:

'If you have any ideas for reusing yoghurt bottles, or any other items that usually end up in the bin, we would like to hear them'

Well, you could try here

[I provided links into the site, but won't bother here - you know what it can do).

Or here...

Or here...

Or here...

Or here...

Or... I think you get the idea (well, ideas).

But thank you for some natty new stuff in return that we didn't know about and will be happy to share:)

If you need any more from our archives, we're only a free click away.

Now, watch thi.... er... that space.

Premptive recycling

It's not really funny, but in light of some retroactive tax moves our Gordo has tried, we'd best watch out for such 'initiatives' here, too...

Japan metal thieves steal kids' slides, toilet roof

Good jon no one was 'in use' at the time.

You gotta larf

Nothing to do with anything, but I just couldn't resist!

Berlin plans flat tax on prostitutes

Maybe it's just my mind, but I immediately assumed it was based on bra cup size, which hardly seemed fair.

But maybe it will be more on a sliding scale.

I've heard of worse tax ideas. See I did bring in the big 'e'.

Benny Hill would be proud

It's always the good ones that seem to fail

I tried to post this to a topical thread, that has already been raised here recently.

I think it warrants its own:

Dear Sirs,

I rather suspect that the reason for my first para is explained by the fact that no one could comment. Error message on upload attempt:

No such entry '014124'.

The rest stands:


I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.

Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.

Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.

So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.

Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.

However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.

I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.

But...

I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.

I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.

Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.

It would be a shame if this cannot be debated further, and freely.

I wish I had their awareness. One day...

Re-cycle of Life

You may also like to consider http://www.junkk.com.

It is mainly about ideas to make things out of junk, but amongst other things has a section that is similar to Freecycle (only with user-specified search radius from next door to the whole country, depending on how far you feel like going to collect. Plus a picture upload facility). As both are free, try all and see what works first.

I now know of some others who are also welcome on our site... ta!

Ever get that sinking feeling?

CO2 output from shipping twice as much as airlines

As I scattered my dried apricots on my muesli this morning, I attempted to feel noble in the hope that the ingredients need not have flown here.

Well, it seems not. So I guess that full English with a Gloucester Old Spot forming the main dish is looking pretty darn tasty... and eco... now.

Or.... is it? Dum, de dum, dum... daaaaah!

I am sailing, I am sailing, cross the sea....

10 minus 10 equals?

Home Office condemned for '10 years of mistakes'

How long has the present government been in power again?

Just wish there was an alternative I could have confidence in.

I'll need to sleep on this one

Children losing sleep over global warming

'HALF of children between the ages of seven and 11...'

Well, having eventually got my two 10 year olds out of bed after a full 12hrs, I'd have to say that my awesome statistical analysis on a base of, well, two, would suggest that 100% of Scotsman Press Reports, the surveys they are based on (Somerfield!!!) and all the rather sad folk who use this as an excuse to go Waaaaaah!' are full of it.

Junk Mail for Junkk Male

There goes the day job; I'm hooked!

Sorry... couldn't resist:)

I think Dillbert has hit the nail on the head in his first post, second para.

And is certainly true that here in the UK we have similar systems already in place which are not exactly encouraged by the postal services, who can be a powerful lobby group (a lot of posties are in Unions).

But playing Devil's Advocate, I do wonder (don't know so any answers to clarify welcome) about logistics. I often do want some DM, and could care less about others. How do I register for what I want, how do those who want me to get it send it and how does the postal system vet accordingly... and who pays? I just fear a catch all that means we cease to get a source of information that can be valid and valuable. Thanks to our own Telephone Preference System I cannot call companies on the list, who rather insanely don't want to hear about anything new from people they don't know. And with ISPs like AOL we have had the sending and receipt of email communication under consideration for similar 'vetting', though it seems those that can afford to can pay their way out of it. So one could argue this may discriminate against those less able to afford it. Thin end of a wedge?

Also (same knowledge caveat applies, and bearing in mind I run a re:duction, re:use and re:pair site, hence my concern on mass censorship on e-communication, though ours, like Grist, is opt-in), I was wondering in the great global warming scheme of things how damaging recycled paper products from managed forests are, in the same way as, say, biodiesel.

Could it (shriek-proof earmuff in place) be that encouraging relatively fast growing, protected greenhouse sinks may have a place as part of the carbon capture global repertoire?

Just asking.

Electric Blues

More in/from Grist

I found this post and the answers interesting and informative.

When their intentions are sincere I can live with the fact that some posters may not be up to speed on every aspect of what they post about, so long as questions are posed... and especially when they get answered. So thank you, EastBayBlue, you are obviously very smart and have done the research. That could come possibly across just as well without bashing others over the head?

The legislative impediment to going 4-wheel is interesting. And I agree needs further investigation and answering. I have to say as an ad-man that the thing can be as worthy as you like, but if it looks like it will fall over (amongst other stylistic shortfalls - then again the Prius isn't exactly slick to my eyes) it will suffer consumer resistance. And that needs addressing if these things are credible solutions to emissions.

Maybe you can help me here. I have taken our UK media to task with stories on these efforts before, when they stand next to one and gush that it is' 'pollution free'. By my best estimation, they are not, depending on the source of electricity to charge them. And even nuclear still produces pollution and greenhouse gasses in the form of steam, so really the exhaust pipe is just in another place.

Then there is the efficiency of energy transfer between generator to storage in vehicle at home, and then as a % of miles covered.

Maybe you could help educate me/us further?

I am glad to say, someone kindly has, at least in part, so please revisit the link above.

However, I fear in the same breath I had to share in return less than cheering news at the same time:

That's no car, it's an eco-quadricycle

You couldn't make it up, again

With our beloved supermarkets - Supermarket chain stops petrol sales - still flogging petrol how many days after the silicon story broke with the great advice that 'it should be alright' in some stations, it is a confusing time to be a motorist.

And just when you thought those in power could not screw it up any more, well... enjoy...

'Pay as you drive' schemes are in disarray

Speedy Justice?

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

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

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

Nice to have a soapbox provided

BBC - On the Oscars...

I really should record BBC Breakfast.

As I watch the ineffectual Newswatch (actually a few great questions posed, but as usual not answered in any effective way) with, irony of irony, Climate Change coverage (don't forget to watch, if not mention Ch4's 'Great Global Warming Swindle' next Thursday - as a climate change believer I would hope that it will not be deemed too boring to address with balance, but also diligence to ensure we are properly informed) followed by the commitment made, both in coverage terms AND resources (points well made here already here), with the 'fluff & froth' Oscars... Amazin' Kate, gosh, gush, amazin'.

I just got my latest 'We didn't do it. It wasn't a problem. And if it was what are you going to do?' from the show on my latest complaint as I watch the Saturday guest columnist (who I normally enjoy) mouth off on 'motorists'. He started off with a good point, but ended up being allowed to make, in my view prejudicial commentary.

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Fanshaw, that something fair, equitable... and national... needs to be done on road pricing.

But...

Can we presume that the rail system and connections in the South East from Brighton, to the BBC in London, and the compensation for same, may have resulted in a personal, privileged and unrepresentative view being broadcast without challenge?

Loved the dress... loved it.

Cat. Pigeons. Small room. Retire immediately.

Dominic Lawson: Here is another inconvenient truth (but this one will infuriate the Green lobby)

In light of my last few blogs, I rather suspect it might.

I take no pleasure in being right, but it is obvious the whole debate has been hijacked by polarised (no pun intended, though it is apt) extremes from either side, leaving a massive void of greater reason and compromise almost (I hope) unable to cope, and fill it for those who do not live and breathe the deepest detail of it all.

Good Lord above, this is the Indy. And here, in the spirit of balance (which is why I carry it here) that its name implies, is the only article of substance I could locate in it today, and it's not... how should we say... exactly helping the cause, hmnn?

I have to admit to being a tad te'ed off, because of course I will now have to watch this debunking, and make a comment. On the strength of this review, it warrants attention.

Who knows, I may soften my views on global warming, its causes and what needs to be done to mitigate the effects.

But I still don't think it will change me much from my mission to DO whatever I can to avoid waste and boost efficiencies whenever and wherever possible.

I'll think I'll leave the hot air thing for others to muck about with some more.

Indy - Global warming: An inconvenient truth or hot air?

Guardian - Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change

I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.

Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.

Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.

So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.

Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.

However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.

I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.

But...

I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.

I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.

Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.

Sorry, my buttons got pushed. What a waste of a Friday Morning.

Especially when a picture is worth 1,827 words.





'On Junkk Male2's very very very long post: Thanks, it has its moments. But we do not need Brits telling us how to spell, especially since American "humor" and "civilize" are closer to their respectively Latin and Greek etyma than are the British bastardizations of those words, with an unnecessary "u" and an overly historicized "s." And hitting Al Gore over the head with Mahatma Gandhi is totally unfair, for the reason mentioned above.'

When talking shops go bad....

'Whilst I am not so sure some posters, especially myself, would even agree anyone is attacking anyone (it just comes off a bit like screaming racist at the drop of a hat), I am glad to see at least the effort I put into a serious issue (pseudo or not, the word ‘scandal’ was the opening post, though not one I would have chosen) has been acknowledged, especially in response to what I presumed to be an invitation to take part in a discussion – ‘Still basking in Oscar's glow, Al Gore makes headlines for using a lotta energy. An inconvenient truth or an ugly smear campaign?’

Despite Mark Twain’s fine copywriting advice, I often have a lot to say, but it is sincere and it is well meant. Hopefully this next effort will be better appreciated for its content rather than its length (oh, missus, for the Benny Hillophiles out there). I'll try and do a USA Today version, but no promises... or charts. Sometimes important issues are hard to deal with superficially lest things get taken out of context or suffer from lack of proper investigation and explanation, don't you find? Imagine a Simpson’s length version (including ad breaks) of an important issue, say, like Global Warming (I know, they did do one, and it was very good, though the real message may have passed some by).

Along with a few others who posted in reply to the invitation, I do not believe that the intention of the original post or blog was meant to solicit responses only from those who had something supportive to say to the proposition. Though I guess some in the team can believe certain balls only get played with when you support the side who owns them. But you could argue it’s like those who make and sell baby bottles getting in a snit at any publication that carries a less than flattering report on their safety to babies, and then bunker down and have a group ‘others suck’ in babybottle.com with fellow baby bottlers. Best to take the opportunity to engage in discussion, persuade and prove your product, or case, is valid. If it is. Saying those who pass comment are in the pay of non-babybottlism is just throwing... er... baby bottles out of the pram.

In all my years living and working in the States I never really saw the truth of the old adage 'Separated by a common language', but in that vast, great country, with distance amplifying demographic differences, I must say my sense of humour did meet varied responses. It is to my shame that I neglected to remember this in posting to a blog that spans not just the world but, more importantly, the Atlantic to the Pacific, centre of the known universe.

I would also never presume to tell any one anything. I often opine. I always ask questions. I may suggest another course. But I am not sufficiently convinced of my rectitude in anything to ‘tell’ anyone anything. I sometimes envy those who do, as it allows them to insert their values in places where others may hesitate, or not be welcome. Often this can be with favorable outcomes (depending on whom you ask). On occasion it can be seen as an unmitigated global disaster.

So my opening remark was merely intended as humor. Just as my American co-workers would remind me (I thought with a degree of irony of their own), 'there is no 'I' in team, I felt my light-hearted play on words would be appreciated as a suitable introduction to a piece on the value on ‘team debate’ being conducted in the spirit of levity, with humor at its core. But in being put right on the error of my ways at least I have had a lesson in both ancient linguistics and nationalistic fervour (whoops).

Sadly, you don't need to go looking too hard for offence. If you seek it, it will find you. So I am sorry for any given. It was unintentional.

What I am not sorry for is having a thoughtful opinion on a core issue that the environmental movement faces today.

It is undoubted that the single greatest task that we’re (if I may make so bold as a non-leader) facing today is the motivation of the masses. When a voter or consumer stirs, politicians and corporations pay heed. But I am not so sure about media. By my understanding they are supposed to objectively form and reflect public sentiment and opinion, but it seems all too often they set out to shape it. This may be due to the unelected nature of the senior officers at the helm (not a problem exclusive to the media, one should add). It is hard not to let personal views stray into subjective issues. Just as it is hard for an employee not to see that their next paycheque can depend on supporting those views. Ain't democracy and its defenders wonderful?

It's also desperately unfair, but the media will seldom allow any public figure to change their mind, even over a span of decades.

This is not a problem for Mr. Gore, as his commitment in the long term is undoubted, if perhaps not his effectiveness while in office and, until fairly recently, out of it (by my, non-US awareness). However, as Steven T concedes, this is just the beginning, and the media scene needs to be managed, and managed well to get the result we all are aiming for. That was my main point. What is, is. And how such as the UK press reports needs to be addressed, especially if it is indeed disturbingly unrepresentative of the true facts. We are talking a global situation here. (Tip : defences like ‘Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway’ wouldn’t fly too well here. We don’t waste because we can afford to. Especially when setting examples. So as a suggestion I’d drop that one).

Having spent my time in the States in the more affluent regions of the Coasts, Texas and Utah, I do not feel qualified to speak of the blue-collar (wo)man's views there, or how they get reflected, but I do wonder how representative the views expressed in a niche medium such as this are reflective of national commitment and belief. As we are talking the future of the planet, the number of participants outside of a relatively small clique is still disappointingly small.

Which returns us to the point at hand. The BBC, with access to a nation of 60M, and a more than sympathetic commitment to green issues, was quite happy to run the negative reporting with little context. If it's juicy, tabloids such as The Sun will deliver a print readership in the many millions. You can score positive coverage with celebrity, but it is a tenuous pact that you enter into, and the sword is double-edged, and once unsheathed can be turned very quickly and be hard to return.

Yes, Cameron Diaz will be most welcome to stand in Hyde Park and tell us why she drives a G-Wiz. But it will be asked how she got here to do it. And while Jamiroquai may say that his latest gig to get in the Guinness Book of Records (in a plane) was offset by 'his people', there are those who may suggest that not going up there in the first place may have served the planet, here and now, less well than his immediate career PR.

I mentioned Gandhi because a previous poster had, and not as an ‘attack’. I do not see anything in what I wrote accusing Mr. Gore of anything, unfairly or not. I merely felt it an suitable analogy to give pause for thought to those who expressed the view that double standards are OK so long as it is in a good cause. Especially when dealing with the media and the masses.

Because I simply beg to disagree. If you are trying to persuade the working public, and no longer have a compliant (greater good for the future vs. great headline tomorrow) press to help you shape their views, you better have a good story, with no holes, and an even better team in place to sell it, both in front and in back of camera. I for one simply cannot support ‘a rationale for putting the stress on the problem as opposed to proposing solutions’. As any life assurer will tell you, you don’t sell a policy by scaring people with death. But these boys still make sales... and have been doing so for years... how?

I just think that if you are setting yourself up as a 'leader' or spokesperson for mitigating our effects though personal behaviour, you need to set the credibility bar at a manageable level. It's one, wonderful (though I would imagine the ownership of the resulting valuable invention may result in that being covered, as simply good business) thing to put up $25M chump change as a prize to kill greenhouse gasses, but is it helped by our Mr. Branson also punting rich old folk into orbit to have their Kodak moment on top of a few Brazilian forest's worth of greenhouse gas compo? I'm erring on, at best, a mixed message for those who may see their house rates go up if they don't put insulation in, which many can't afford. I’m only sorry they are not reading this, as I doubt many are.

But it's going to be a great target for those sipping their Fairtrade Fortnight mocha latté dusted with airflown (isn’t that... no... never mind) truffles, who can afford the money, time and selective causes to support without much denting their cosy lifestyles. How many buying the products advertised here do so ‘as well as’ rather than ‘instead of’?

Green is good, but not much for the planet's chances if it is merely seen as a hobbyhorse to jump upon to further conspicuous consumption in another guise. I am not advocating hair-shirtism, but a bit of cutting back could be a good way to go. And to inspire others to embrace the lead, those at the 'top' (wherever that is any more, and I am afraid, as a tea-party sympathizer from the old oppressors’ country, I have my own views on who deserve to be called ‘leaders') could well look at the examples they set.

But in light of some defensive replies (I get one from caniscandia, who with some irony gets one from another. Even poor old Green Granny (no ageism intended) gets a serve for not toeing the line. How divide and rule is that!) I see here to a post about good humor, may I wish you the best of British luck.

If this is the best you can do in the country that has the most power to effect change, the planet is going to need it.

Me, I'm off now to do some more about it. In my shed.

(1,827 words. Sorry, caniscandida;('

I now know while I will not support those who think they know better try and bully those who simply wish to know more. At least on my site.

Grist

Meanwhile, over the pond [link] ...
Knock yourselves out.

Cool. 7 words. I hope caniscandida will be happy... er.. ier

Addendum: We've made up!

You say humor, I say humour...

... but 'the special relationship' remains so long as we maintain our sense of...!

Oo-er... outed. Yes, 'tis I. Thank you for the faint praise, so I will continue writing. Noting your comment on my lengthy predilections (and a slight case of RSI), I made my next (on the Colbert post subsequently) reply brief to the point of invisibility. I rather think it all rather proved a few of my points, mind.

Moods were fouled all round I'd hazard. I just fear the eventual victim will be rational debate and clear, persuasive communication to the general public. And mixed messages.

I actually popped a tweak in the Brit Fairtrader's blog to wonder about the food mile consequences of his actions.

Above and beyond the affordability to some of these worthy efforts by urban journalists, there is also the fact that they send out some contradictory notions that need to be weighed up. Save underpaid mango farmer? Save planet he/she stands on with the rest of us from unnecessary emissions by simply doing without? Tricky dilemma for the ethical activist.

Mine is how to visit my wife's family in Singapore as she hasn't seen them in a few years (maybe I can find a conference to attend and offset?). Green ain't easy, is it?

And so it goes on, and on, and...

They can often afford to save time and save money.

Last time I looked most have to work to earn money to pay mortgages, feed and educate kids, etc. Work means 50 weeks a year at home. A lucky few have other sources of income to fund their beliefs and, one trusts, their practices.

But you are right; I try to spend most of my money and my time at home funding and generating content for my free re:use ideas website. It actually seems to help some save money, AND time, AND the planet (a bit).

Still not too clear how I do this and fulfil family obligations.

Anyway, as we're big on boats being a cure, try this:

Maybe that freighter trip would have served civilisation better by not being taken at all. Hmmmn? I wonder what it was loaded with? Or picking up for the return? Consumer goods to save folk time and spend more money? Who's to say?

I have to say I still find being green a bit of an exercise in compromise. I envy those who are able to be so black and white about it.

It will be interesting to see who can serve the interests of the future best by motivating the masses with pragmatic and realistic solutions, as opposed to whacking out simple sound bites, no matter how dead right they may be.