Is ol' Golden Brown's first major decision going to revive Old King Coal? A decision that could "lock Britain into the same centralised, inefficient power system that wastes two-thirds of the energy going into it as heat up the cooling towers." Not to mention a decision that would mean that the UK would entirely miss it's emission targets by a mile.
I somehow missed the original article in Sunday's Observer, but this from The Guardian CIF is a fascinating, albeit sobering, read. Should the UK break with tradition and radically transform energy production or should we re-awaken and revive Old King Coal?
"Gordon Brown has been handed a historic opportunity to break from Blair's confused and fragmented approach to energy generation. He could revolutionise our energy system by implementing renewables, energy efficiency and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) on an unprecedented scale."
So which way will he go? I hope it is not the case, but my guess is that short termism and what is perceived as the 'cheap' option will win the day yet again, almost certainly to the detriment of future generations.
If we start building new coal fired power stations, especially without utilising clean burn and carbon sequestration technologies, the UK will be taking an enormous retrograde step. Milliband would never have concurred with this - I'm beginning to wonder whether he was he moved (we all thought he was promoted but maybe it was just sideways?) to pave the way for an unpalatable decision?
I hope not. And as the first comment posted says - "fingers crossed"!
Addendum:
If Ol' Golden DOES opt for the radical approach and includes for a major expansion of renewables, I hope he's aware that some renewable technology is getting quite difficult to get hold of! According to this from The Guardian, there is now a worldwide shortage of wind turbines.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
GIGO
Can't believe I've never used that acronym before. For those few who may not know it, it stands for garage in:garbage out. And it sums up my views having seen this Newsnight piece: Why are we so rubbish about rubbish?
Yes, 'we' should be ashamed. Even the two year old spoke better English than most I hear these days, even on the... yoof... BBC. So the popping of a newspaper in the bin with a shrug and the words 'I don't speak German' made the point about British practices (bought and wasted) eloquently, especially the ones we have to 'foreign' languages.
This was a very interesting piece, but to me didn't answer a key question: to what extent were we seeing the results of differences in official policy?
While the Austrians said they were 'happy to pay', even though they generate just as much rubbish (not looking quite so smart at the pack design/legislative end then) not once in the piece did I hear the mention of fines, chips and bins. Well, Ok, bins were mentioned a lot.
Now, I am looking at our RE:box right now besides my home office desk, which gets collected weekly with its paper haul, along with the basket that we fill with glass and metal. No TetraPacks or plastic, but that's because they are not accepted. Yet. Despite the efforts of some (such as Innocent - heard of their campaign?), I believe we still only have only one process plant for the former, which makes the enviROI (cost to environment) of logistics alone very poor. As to the latter, I combine (dedicated trips in the XC90 or Range Rover for two bottles of pop not perhaps the best) my trips to the supermarket with the equivalent of a yellow bag of plastics, where a lot of others seem to be doing the same. Mind you, the enviROI of a dirty great diesel truck lugging 98% fresh air around seems less than optimal.
So, sorry, I don't think the problem here is at consumer end. I think it is upstream, in terms of what is put into the system, and what 'we' are provided to deal with it all. Because, looking around, I see an awful lot of will, with too much no 'way'. And that.. is down to policy. Who in the UK can say that they are always within 500m of a recycling point... and that they know where it is all going?
I even have some sympathy with retailers. So the Austrian supermarket ships back a lot of stuff in its trucks at night. I'm pretty sure most of ours do too. I'm also aware of a few who are set to take back batteries, and even if they don't our local council site certainly does. If it's not national it should be, and that gets us back to...policy.
I don't know if ours are too timid, but they certainly don't seem very joined up, and that can, and does lead to a lot of waste with competing schemes, not to mention the vast amounts blown on different, often overlapping, 'initiatives' left, right and centre, which seem more dedicated to showing 'something' is looking like being done without actually knuckling down and coordinating anything actually (cost) effective.
Which brings me back to enviROI. Whatever we do let's make sure we do it with the actual intent of saving the planet, and not just meeting a few targets to get a quick bonus. I look at the Red Bull cup and think 'good idea!'. But is it? I don't know. It has to be collected, separated and steam cleaned, I presume, for reuse. You see, often one eco-measure (landfill) can conflict with another (energy carbon emissions). All must be (forgive the box-ticking pun) weighed up.
It's a pity the energy from waste issue is not being handled more maturely here. We are happy to live and work next to vehicles belching lord knows what out, or have a bonfire, but stick a metal chimney up and all hell breaks loose. Maybe if it looked like Willy Wonka's hookah more would be cool on the things. It's not like the quality of air can't be guaranteed... assuming you trust the contractor, operator and commissioning authority. Oh... well... moving on.
One thing that was not mentioned was the even more environmentally-friendly option of reuse.
I found it rather telling (unless it was a BBC 'edit for effect') to see a perfectly good pram go in a skip. Rather than recycling, there are some rather nifty measures for avoiding what is still an energy intensive process. Such as Freecycle or Junkk.com's (which also has hundreds of 2nd use ideas from thousands of people to spare almost anything from the bin if it can enjoy a new life) JunkkYard
You see 'we', the people, may not be any more rubbish at rubbish than our Euro cousins after all.
All 'we' need are the right tools and some effective guidance from 'our' leadership. But, speaking of which, if you put garbage in at the front, that's pretty much all you can expect at the end.
Yes, 'we' should be ashamed. Even the two year old spoke better English than most I hear these days, even on the... yoof... BBC. So the popping of a newspaper in the bin with a shrug and the words 'I don't speak German' made the point about British practices (bought and wasted) eloquently, especially the ones we have to 'foreign' languages.
This was a very interesting piece, but to me didn't answer a key question: to what extent were we seeing the results of differences in official policy?
While the Austrians said they were 'happy to pay', even though they generate just as much rubbish (not looking quite so smart at the pack design/legislative end then) not once in the piece did I hear the mention of fines, chips and bins. Well, Ok, bins were mentioned a lot.
Now, I am looking at our RE:box right now besides my home office desk, which gets collected weekly with its paper haul, along with the basket that we fill with glass and metal. No TetraPacks or plastic, but that's because they are not accepted. Yet. Despite the efforts of some (such as Innocent - heard of their campaign?), I believe we still only have only one process plant for the former, which makes the enviROI (cost to environment) of logistics alone very poor. As to the latter, I combine (dedicated trips in the XC90 or Range Rover for two bottles of pop not perhaps the best) my trips to the supermarket with the equivalent of a yellow bag of plastics, where a lot of others seem to be doing the same. Mind you, the enviROI of a dirty great diesel truck lugging 98% fresh air around seems less than optimal.
So, sorry, I don't think the problem here is at consumer end. I think it is upstream, in terms of what is put into the system, and what 'we' are provided to deal with it all. Because, looking around, I see an awful lot of will, with too much no 'way'. And that.. is down to policy. Who in the UK can say that they are always within 500m of a recycling point... and that they know where it is all going?
I even have some sympathy with retailers. So the Austrian supermarket ships back a lot of stuff in its trucks at night. I'm pretty sure most of ours do too. I'm also aware of a few who are set to take back batteries, and even if they don't our local council site certainly does. If it's not national it should be, and that gets us back to...policy.
I don't know if ours are too timid, but they certainly don't seem very joined up, and that can, and does lead to a lot of waste with competing schemes, not to mention the vast amounts blown on different, often overlapping, 'initiatives' left, right and centre, which seem more dedicated to showing 'something' is looking like being done without actually knuckling down and coordinating anything actually (cost) effective.
Which brings me back to enviROI. Whatever we do let's make sure we do it with the actual intent of saving the planet, and not just meeting a few targets to get a quick bonus. I look at the Red Bull cup and think 'good idea!'. But is it? I don't know. It has to be collected, separated and steam cleaned, I presume, for reuse. You see, often one eco-measure (landfill) can conflict with another (energy carbon emissions). All must be (forgive the box-ticking pun) weighed up.
It's a pity the energy from waste issue is not being handled more maturely here. We are happy to live and work next to vehicles belching lord knows what out, or have a bonfire, but stick a metal chimney up and all hell breaks loose. Maybe if it looked like Willy Wonka's hookah more would be cool on the things. It's not like the quality of air can't be guaranteed... assuming you trust the contractor, operator and commissioning authority. Oh... well... moving on.
One thing that was not mentioned was the even more environmentally-friendly option of reuse.
I found it rather telling (unless it was a BBC 'edit for effect') to see a perfectly good pram go in a skip. Rather than recycling, there are some rather nifty measures for avoiding what is still an energy intensive process. Such as Freecycle or Junkk.com's (which also has hundreds of 2nd use ideas from thousands of people to spare almost anything from the bin if it can enjoy a new life) JunkkYard
You see 'we', the people, may not be any more rubbish at rubbish than our Euro cousins after all.
All 'we' need are the right tools and some effective guidance from 'our' leadership. But, speaking of which, if you put garbage in at the front, that's pretty much all you can expect at the end.
Monday, July 16, 2007
A little application. Well, a lot, actually.
I saw this ad in Media Week.Being well smart, beyond 'a festival of minds' and 'the biggest names tackle the biggest issue' I figured the word green might mean something I could/should be interested in, so I logged on to the website.
Strewth, they don't make it easy, do they?
All I could find out, beyond the fact it was green and big, was it was shaping up at six hundred quid for the probable privilege of again being talked at by some guys who will need to pop off after talking, a few hundred (doubtless eco) hand-outs and stands with LCDs showing wind turbines, some eco-canapes (or not) and sitting at a table populated by a bunch of overpaid guys with titles like 'Head of Sustainability' who all knew each other, only talked amongst themselves as a consequence, and moved in packs keeping each other, and conferences like this, in business. And at the end of the day agreeing 'something should be done'. At least, enough to tick over until the next conference/summit... festival.
However, for my sins, there may be a few in there worth meeting. So in a sad repeat of my last whinge power, which got me invited to the Guardian Climate Change Summit (this being a festival, maybe I should mention I can play a mean triangle), if anyone is a speaker.......:)
The Cola Challenge
Another industry magazine that I like and hence surf on occasion for tidbits is Plastics & Rubber Weekly. And this caught my attention: Coca-Cola launches lightweighted PET bottle in UK
Especially this: Potential resin saving of 700tpa, says company.
But....
While I think all can agree that just about every aspect of this story is a very good thing, I do have to ask if (and if so, where the money went, and/or gets refunded) it was necessary for the trials to be partly funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap).
I also wonder if I could sign up to Wrap’s Courtauld Commitment to 'reduce packaging waste'. Then there would be 26 signatories to the agreement. Any why not? If money is there for the taking, you'd be silly not to get your hands on it.
So I don't blame Coke at all for going for it. But I just have to wonder, again, why it is necessary to use public money to fund multi-billion turnover (and profit) companies to help them reduce their manufacturing costs, when surely it is in their own interests to do so?
And thus allow money from the public purse to go to areas where there is perhaps more need, and less self-interest at work.
I'm sure there's a good reason, but I'll guess I'll have to keep looking, and make a note to ask £200kpa execs at the top of this generous quango the next time I see them.
I decided to see if I could get some answers:
Great news. This should be a real positive to share with all the negatives we get these days on (over)packaging.
Quick question. What does ‘partially funded’ mean? It seems unlikely that a multi-billion $/£ company needs to be funded at all, especially when, beyond savings on waste the future savings of raw material costs must surely be vast. How’s it work?
Where does this money come from? And were does it go to? How much are we talking about? Is it secret? I’m interested in the provenance chain.
And is this on the same basis of a similar thing I heard about a while ago with Heinz, and Tescos, for instance, which seemed to cause some concern at the time as to why two such vast profit making enterprises were being subsidised from the public purse. I’m presuming they’ll be paying it back which, in view of the manufacturing raw materials spared, should not be too, long, right?
Signing to this Agreement seems a good way to get oodles of public funds to play with, and hence can anyone get some money by signing it?
I’d really like to know as it seems very generous, and it would be great to have some too.
Especially this: Potential resin saving of 700tpa, says company.
But....
While I think all can agree that just about every aspect of this story is a very good thing, I do have to ask if (and if so, where the money went, and/or gets refunded) it was necessary for the trials to be partly funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap).
I also wonder if I could sign up to Wrap’s Courtauld Commitment to 'reduce packaging waste'. Then there would be 26 signatories to the agreement. Any why not? If money is there for the taking, you'd be silly not to get your hands on it.
So I don't blame Coke at all for going for it. But I just have to wonder, again, why it is necessary to use public money to fund multi-billion turnover (and profit) companies to help them reduce their manufacturing costs, when surely it is in their own interests to do so?
And thus allow money from the public purse to go to areas where there is perhaps more need, and less self-interest at work.
I'm sure there's a good reason, but I'll guess I'll have to keep looking, and make a note to ask £200kpa execs at the top of this generous quango the next time I see them.
I decided to see if I could get some answers:
Great news. This should be a real positive to share with all the negatives we get these days on (over)packaging.
Quick question. What does ‘partially funded’ mean? It seems unlikely that a multi-billion $/£ company needs to be funded at all, especially when, beyond savings on waste the future savings of raw material costs must surely be vast. How’s it work?
Where does this money come from? And were does it go to? How much are we talking about? Is it secret? I’m interested in the provenance chain.
And is this on the same basis of a similar thing I heard about a while ago with Heinz, and Tescos, for instance, which seemed to cause some concern at the time as to why two such vast profit making enterprises were being subsidised from the public purse. I’m presuming they’ll be paying it back which, in view of the manufacturing raw materials spared, should not be too, long, right?
Signing to this Agreement seems a good way to get oodles of public funds to play with, and hence can anyone get some money by signing it?
I’d really like to know as it seems very generous, and it would be great to have some too.
Smile, you can afford more stuff
Somewhere in my drafts archive is a piece I am writing about human behaviour and motivations. I can't seem to find it to finish it, but as I just came across this wanted to share as it was a telling complement: BBC - Emissions don't make Europe happy
I have a saying: 'Happiness is solar powered'. It really only was meant for my reaction to a sunny day, but maybe it can resonate further, but hopefully won't get hijacked for any undeserving low-enviROI initiatives.
I have a saying: 'Happiness is solar powered'. It really only was meant for my reaction to a sunny day, but maybe it can resonate further, but hopefully won't get hijacked for any undeserving low-enviROI initiatives.
"There used to be seven. Now there are six."
This is nothing to do with Snow White's companions, and nothing to do with fairy tales, it is what is actually happening as sea levels rise. As the climate change debate goes on and on, the evidence from communities living on low level islands is starting to become irrefutable.
This article from The Gulf Times highlights the danger to the people of Tuvalu, a tiny South Pacific nation. Thousands have already emigrated to New Zealand, others stoically remain, determined that their home will not be engulfed by rising sea levels, and the increasing frequency of typhoons and 'king' [super high] tides.
There used to be seven smaller islets surrounding the main island of Funafuti, but one has disappeared since the late 1990s, leaving a strip of rubble visible only at low tide.
For some, climate change is all a political conspiracy, oft seen as a way of increasing taxation; for others, it is literally becoming a matter of life and death.
ADDENDUM from Junkk Male
Letter in the Indy - Tuvalu is doomed no matter what - Unsubstantiated of course (but then most news is, too), but I do think worth bearing in mind.
This article from The Gulf Times highlights the danger to the people of Tuvalu, a tiny South Pacific nation. Thousands have already emigrated to New Zealand, others stoically remain, determined that their home will not be engulfed by rising sea levels, and the increasing frequency of typhoons and 'king' [super high] tides.
There used to be seven smaller islets surrounding the main island of Funafuti, but one has disappeared since the late 1990s, leaving a strip of rubble visible only at low tide.
For some, climate change is all a political conspiracy, oft seen as a way of increasing taxation; for others, it is literally becoming a matter of life and death.
ADDENDUM from Junkk Male
Letter in the Indy - Tuvalu is doomed no matter what - Unsubstantiated of course (but then most news is, too), but I do think worth bearing in mind.
What's a Boy or Girl to think?
We have lately had a spate of people telling us not only what we should (with any useful info on how being noticeable in the absence) think but, apparently with magical telepathic powers, what we are thinking.
From government to local authorities to the media, our opinions are being shaped, it seems, by telling us that what were thinking is in fact not what we are thinking. I guess that having seen the error of our ways by it coming from such trusted sources we will immediately revise them. Not.
So we have on the BBC this morning a report about the state of our rubbish laws.
What was most striking to me was a piece featuring some residents in Oxford (one of the more enlightened councils, I'd always thought) who were a bit fed up being told that there was no problem with bi-weekly collections, when in fact, by the evidence of all their senses (especially olfactory), there was. Seems they had not read the research or press releases thoroughly enough.
And so we arrive at the fact (well...) that this brainwave to force us to recycle more (nothing to do with saving money, oh, no) is, in fact, not working out: MPs: Fortnightly bin collections are an unworkable mess
Now, in my new capacity as Scoop Male, I have gone off and sourced this report. Well, I googled and clicked two links. Bernstein and Woodward look out!
I feel I must... should... as the quotes from the report writers made... gasp... a lot of sense, and were all the more refreshing by being from 'in-house' taboot, it being a Labour MP who headed it all.
Thing is, it is now in a list of several I have yet to read. Ho hum.
But things like this make it look worth the effort:
"In the long term there should be a move towards a national strategy to encourage householders and retailers to cut down on food waste. At present a third of all food bought is subsequently thrown away, wasting households on average £400 a year and adding to refuse collection costs."
“We would like the Government come up with a core definition of what householders should expect from their refuse collection. This should include no complicated rules, rubbish collected when the council says it will be and schemes to suit every household from the largest rural home to the most crowded urban area.
“What we do not want is, as Ben Bradshaw, then the Minister for Waste, put it, local authorities “blundering” into AWC before proper consideration and consultation has taken place as to whether this is the best system for that area.”
Or, let the BBC show what it is good at: MPs criticise bin collection plan Plus report. 63 b****y pages! Maybe later.
Guardian - Q&A: Rubbish collections
Guardian - Fortnightly collections not always the answer, say MPs
From government to local authorities to the media, our opinions are being shaped, it seems, by telling us that what were thinking is in fact not what we are thinking. I guess that having seen the error of our ways by it coming from such trusted sources we will immediately revise them. Not.
So we have on the BBC this morning a report about the state of our rubbish laws.
What was most striking to me was a piece featuring some residents in Oxford (one of the more enlightened councils, I'd always thought) who were a bit fed up being told that there was no problem with bi-weekly collections, when in fact, by the evidence of all their senses (especially olfactory), there was. Seems they had not read the research or press releases thoroughly enough.
And so we arrive at the fact (well...) that this brainwave to force us to recycle more (nothing to do with saving money, oh, no) is, in fact, not working out: MPs: Fortnightly bin collections are an unworkable mess
Now, in my new capacity as Scoop Male, I have gone off and sourced this report. Well, I googled and clicked two links. Bernstein and Woodward look out!
I feel I must... should... as the quotes from the report writers made... gasp... a lot of sense, and were all the more refreshing by being from 'in-house' taboot, it being a Labour MP who headed it all.
Thing is, it is now in a list of several I have yet to read. Ho hum.
But things like this make it look worth the effort:
"In the long term there should be a move towards a national strategy to encourage householders and retailers to cut down on food waste. At present a third of all food bought is subsequently thrown away, wasting households on average £400 a year and adding to refuse collection costs."
“We would like the Government come up with a core definition of what householders should expect from their refuse collection. This should include no complicated rules, rubbish collected when the council says it will be and schemes to suit every household from the largest rural home to the most crowded urban area.
“What we do not want is, as Ben Bradshaw, then the Minister for Waste, put it, local authorities “blundering” into AWC before proper consideration and consultation has taken place as to whether this is the best system for that area.”
Or, let the BBC show what it is good at: MPs criticise bin collection plan Plus report. 63 b****y pages! Maybe later.
Guardian - Q&A: Rubbish collections
Guardian - Fortnightly collections not always the answer, say MPs
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Edit,or? 2
A few days ago I decided to weigh in on the small matter of the BBC excusing editing news footage to suit a younger agenda (where dealing with the truth gives way to hitting a rating) thanks to all its new, trendy, yoof employees coming from a Big Brother mentality.
But a blog by one of the Newsnight editors seemed so grotesque in trying to steer the debate I really had to make comment (it's a ways down).
Thing is, to date, only one comment seems to have been made, with mine (and, I suspect a few others), curiously yet to appear. Though critical, and indeed very well written as I noted, it was not perhaps as stinging as some that may have been inspired.
Technical hitch? Or just another example of editing.
What was there was some kind of link thing to other blogs. The first two I looked at were quite supportive. I wish I could figure out all these new tech opportunities and take part, as they might benefit from a bit of balance to avoid looking like it's all staged. Or maybe it is by invitation only.
Anyway, here it is again:
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order
Post 1 from Mike S clearly, factually and with great eloquence, pretty much answers your end question, I'd say.
That a viewer who was a live part of this 'process' feels this way I'd hazard shows the meaning was a bit more than 'remotely' affected by the dis-order.
Nice try.
'Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis.'
But in maintaining those standards, grappling with the ethics of using the edit suite to alter a meaning really shouldn't be the greatest dilemma, now, should it?
Nice try.
'...claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.'
Is it really accurate to call it a claim if, in fact, this is/was precisely the case?
Nice try.
'However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same.'
Um, or not. See above.
Nice try.
Glad for all concerned that at least it 'didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.' Wouldn't want to breach a guideline in doing an ethical, professional, honest job, now would we?
Not sure, having read this, whether some viewers' trust factors in the BBC or its news operatives' standards will have improved, though.
And this is such a shame. And makes the point. Having now watched the story, without that Achilles Heel (which was so subtle I honestly had trouble appreciating it), it was a telling piece for all the other 'imagery', if not facts conveyed.
I really don't know what to believe, so maybe it's best to believe none of it. Which is a pity, as black-suited press munchkins and jobsworth plods creating a wall of silence around our shy leader (as opposed to an opposition version who has amazing spontaneous total recall of relative camera sizes) does come across as a worry. None of it seemed real. And surely, as press with greater access (as alluded to, a form of editing in its own right) than the public will ever enjoy, it is for you to cut through all this spin and give us the clear, unvarnished truth.
In the 'war games' that rather bizarrely seem to exist - if only for the entertainment of those who play them - between accredited press and our elected representatives, in theory conducted on 'our' behalf to inform and allow us to form views we can carry to the polling booth, this is more than a worry.
Indy - Now 'Newsnight' admits doctoring a report - Just call me 'Scoop'
ADDENDUM - 9.25am 16/07 - It looks like the comments are no dripping in. The one I lauded (the only one to make it up these last few days) is lost in the middle, so how that happened I know not. Mine is yet to appear.
Guardian - Out of order - Indeed
ADDENDUM 2 - 10.30am 16-07 - It's up.
I would like to explain that I made my post (26) a few days ago, at which point post 19 by Mike S was the one and only one up there. As it remained for a few days.
I guess the order got changed. Oh, the irony:)
Indy - Production firm apologises to BBC for Queen blunder - So, give the BBC anything and they'll run it if it looks better than it is?
Guardian - Box of tricks - It's taking me a while to figure if they are saying that it's all alright as we should know it's all fixed. Or not?
I also note, at this juncture, all involved have, indeed, moved on. In their jobs. Salaries intact. Bless.
Indy - Victoria's reality check
Indy - BBC: Decline of a great institution
Indy - Ray Snoddy on Broadcasting - I was going to start watching Newswatch again, but then I saw the words 'draw a line under it all'
Indy - You can trust me, I'm a press journalist - You can't get humour this good on the... er... humour pages.
Guardian - Poll reveals how trust in BBC has plummeted after scandals - Well, there's a thing. But what is their definition of 'heads rolled'?
Biased BBC - a blog for those who may feel we are poorly served by those we pay, and have no other choice but to. Good piece here: Crisis-prone BBC needs management clear-out
But a blog by one of the Newsnight editors seemed so grotesque in trying to steer the debate I really had to make comment (it's a ways down).
Thing is, to date, only one comment seems to have been made, with mine (and, I suspect a few others), curiously yet to appear. Though critical, and indeed very well written as I noted, it was not perhaps as stinging as some that may have been inspired.
Technical hitch? Or just another example of editing.
What was there was some kind of link thing to other blogs. The first two I looked at were quite supportive. I wish I could figure out all these new tech opportunities and take part, as they might benefit from a bit of balance to avoid looking like it's all staged. Or maybe it is by invitation only.
Anyway, here it is again:
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order
Post 1 from Mike S clearly, factually and with great eloquence, pretty much answers your end question, I'd say.
That a viewer who was a live part of this 'process' feels this way I'd hazard shows the meaning was a bit more than 'remotely' affected by the dis-order.
Nice try.
'Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis.'
But in maintaining those standards, grappling with the ethics of using the edit suite to alter a meaning really shouldn't be the greatest dilemma, now, should it?
Nice try.
'...claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.'
Is it really accurate to call it a claim if, in fact, this is/was precisely the case?
Nice try.
'However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same.'
Um, or not. See above.
Nice try.
Glad for all concerned that at least it 'didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.' Wouldn't want to breach a guideline in doing an ethical, professional, honest job, now would we?
Not sure, having read this, whether some viewers' trust factors in the BBC or its news operatives' standards will have improved, though.
And this is such a shame. And makes the point. Having now watched the story, without that Achilles Heel (which was so subtle I honestly had trouble appreciating it), it was a telling piece for all the other 'imagery', if not facts conveyed.
I really don't know what to believe, so maybe it's best to believe none of it. Which is a pity, as black-suited press munchkins and jobsworth plods creating a wall of silence around our shy leader (as opposed to an opposition version who has amazing spontaneous total recall of relative camera sizes) does come across as a worry. None of it seemed real. And surely, as press with greater access (as alluded to, a form of editing in its own right) than the public will ever enjoy, it is for you to cut through all this spin and give us the clear, unvarnished truth.
In the 'war games' that rather bizarrely seem to exist - if only for the entertainment of those who play them - between accredited press and our elected representatives, in theory conducted on 'our' behalf to inform and allow us to form views we can carry to the polling booth, this is more than a worry.
Indy - Now 'Newsnight' admits doctoring a report - Just call me 'Scoop'
ADDENDUM - 9.25am 16/07 - It looks like the comments are no dripping in. The one I lauded (the only one to make it up these last few days) is lost in the middle, so how that happened I know not. Mine is yet to appear.
Guardian - Out of order - Indeed
ADDENDUM 2 - 10.30am 16-07 - It's up.
I would like to explain that I made my post (26) a few days ago, at which point post 19 by Mike S was the one and only one up there. As it remained for a few days.
I guess the order got changed. Oh, the irony:)
Indy - Production firm apologises to BBC for Queen blunder - So, give the BBC anything and they'll run it if it looks better than it is?
Guardian - Box of tricks - It's taking me a while to figure if they are saying that it's all alright as we should know it's all fixed. Or not?
I also note, at this juncture, all involved have, indeed, moved on. In their jobs. Salaries intact. Bless.
Indy - Victoria's reality check
Indy - BBC: Decline of a great institution
Indy - Ray Snoddy on Broadcasting - I was going to start watching Newswatch again, but then I saw the words 'draw a line under it all'
Indy - You can trust me, I'm a press journalist - You can't get humour this good on the... er... humour pages.
Guardian - Poll reveals how trust in BBC has plummeted after scandals - Well, there's a thing. But what is their definition of 'heads rolled'?
Biased BBC - a blog for those who may feel we are poorly served by those we pay, and have no other choice but to. Good piece here: Crisis-prone BBC needs management clear-out
Sun to blame for global warming. Not! Well,.... maybe!
Who are we supposed to believe? Does anyone have a method we can follow to fight our way out of this pandora's box of utter confusion?
We suspected that this just might be the case - "this debate will still run and run and run."
First we had a counter AGW theory - climate change is not anthropogenic at all, its all to do with natural cycles in the sun's output - solar radiation levels, magnetic field changes, sunspots, solar flares etc.......
...... Then along comes research that supposedly proves that this is definitely not the case, and looking at the data graphs in the New Scientist (link below), the evidence appeared quite compelling ........
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
...... Well, further to previous posts on this subject on this very blog, it now looks as if it all comes down to "interpretation of the data". This opinion article from The Telegraph suggests that ....
"Last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. Nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion."
And "Using the global temperature data endorsed by the Inter-national Panel on Climate Change, one can reach a completely different conclusion."
So what was conclusive last week is no longer so this week!
The argument (and debate) is over .... NOT!
Wake me up in twenty years time please.
We suspected that this just might be the case - "this debate will still run and run and run."
First we had a counter AGW theory - climate change is not anthropogenic at all, its all to do with natural cycles in the sun's output - solar radiation levels, magnetic field changes, sunspots, solar flares etc.......
...... Then along comes research that supposedly proves that this is definitely not the case, and looking at the data graphs in the New Scientist (link below), the evidence appeared quite compelling ........
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
...... Well, further to previous posts on this subject on this very blog, it now looks as if it all comes down to "interpretation of the data". This opinion article from The Telegraph suggests that ....
"Last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. Nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion."
And "Using the global temperature data endorsed by the Inter-national Panel on Climate Change, one can reach a completely different conclusion."
So what was conclusive last week is no longer so this week!
The argument (and debate) is over .... NOT!
Wake me up in twenty years time please.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Consequences
What are, or rather should be, the consequences of failure?
A simple answer is more than likely impossible, because, as with all things, so much depends on circumstance.
But generally speaking, I'd say there are a few basic guidelines I would adopt, learned mainly from my experiences as an employee, owner of a company and supplier to a client base.
First up, and so long as there is no history, if it was an honest mistake then one quickly accepts this, puts things to rights and allows one and all to learn from it.
If however we are talking a deliberate mistake, and worse repetition of same, things move in another direction. Again you move quickly to put it right, and ensure (this time - asking how this notion failed as a check before) that it cannot be repeated. But the lesson is different. It must be taught. And that is you do not carry out something that is deliberately wrong, and if you do you must bear the consequences. Otherwise what message does that send to future perpetrators, and those who may gain or lose from their actions. And all who bear witness?
It gets fuzzy once you move into chains of authority. But then that is what they are for.
In commerce it was simple. If a subordinate fouled up, deliberately or not, unless the client was more than forgiving my company bore the consequences. Discipline was down to me and my partner, but in a relationship business we could forgive but clients often would not, or forget, so when it comes to who is funding whom (especially salaries), things could get... complex.
To avoid a lot of problems that could arise, we therefore had extensive, and rigourous approval chains, most of which extended to the client side as well.
So a lot of checks were made before it got to me, and then before anything was actioned it went to the client.
If there was a cock-up, that usually protected us financially, because an approval signature is a wonderful thing, but reputations and relationships could and would still suffer, often fatally.
In the end, the consequence would pretty much always end up at one place: my pocket.
Sadly, with almost all Gov, Local Gov and even NGO variations, there seems to be rather less rigorous adherence to the notion of no authority without responsibility, and that with responsibility comes accountability.
So it's hard in the current climate of 'it wasn't me, and even if it was it doesn't matter' to see how the good will prosper and the bad will get weeded out. In fact it almost seems designed to ensure that those who play a system for their own benefit, secure in their position no matter what, will rise to the top,... not like cream, but a bad smell.
A simple answer is more than likely impossible, because, as with all things, so much depends on circumstance.
But generally speaking, I'd say there are a few basic guidelines I would adopt, learned mainly from my experiences as an employee, owner of a company and supplier to a client base.
First up, and so long as there is no history, if it was an honest mistake then one quickly accepts this, puts things to rights and allows one and all to learn from it.
If however we are talking a deliberate mistake, and worse repetition of same, things move in another direction. Again you move quickly to put it right, and ensure (this time - asking how this notion failed as a check before) that it cannot be repeated. But the lesson is different. It must be taught. And that is you do not carry out something that is deliberately wrong, and if you do you must bear the consequences. Otherwise what message does that send to future perpetrators, and those who may gain or lose from their actions. And all who bear witness?
It gets fuzzy once you move into chains of authority. But then that is what they are for.
In commerce it was simple. If a subordinate fouled up, deliberately or not, unless the client was more than forgiving my company bore the consequences. Discipline was down to me and my partner, but in a relationship business we could forgive but clients often would not, or forget, so when it comes to who is funding whom (especially salaries), things could get... complex.
To avoid a lot of problems that could arise, we therefore had extensive, and rigourous approval chains, most of which extended to the client side as well.
So a lot of checks were made before it got to me, and then before anything was actioned it went to the client.
If there was a cock-up, that usually protected us financially, because an approval signature is a wonderful thing, but reputations and relationships could and would still suffer, often fatally.
In the end, the consequence would pretty much always end up at one place: my pocket.
Sadly, with almost all Gov, Local Gov and even NGO variations, there seems to be rather less rigorous adherence to the notion of no authority without responsibility, and that with responsibility comes accountability.
So it's hard in the current climate of 'it wasn't me, and even if it was it doesn't matter' to see how the good will prosper and the bad will get weeded out. In fact it almost seems designed to ensure that those who play a system for their own benefit, secure in their position no matter what, will rise to the top,... not like cream, but a bad smell.
Good question. Let's build on that.
Why not use the 420,000 empty homes to solve the housing crisis?
Makes about as much sense as fudging about obsessing about plastic bags, 4x4s and carbon offset schemes when every year deforestation accounts for more carbon consequence (in terms of 'sink') than the US produces (as emissions).
Priorities, anyone? Prevention better than cure?
It's all about seeming to do things than actually doing anything worthwhile these days.
Surely repair or restoration can be accorded value in the target-obsessed, and rewarding political cultures of today.
Makes about as much sense as fudging about obsessing about plastic bags, 4x4s and carbon offset schemes when every year deforestation accounts for more carbon consequence (in terms of 'sink') than the US produces (as emissions).
Priorities, anyone? Prevention better than cure?
It's all about seeming to do things than actually doing anything worthwhile these days.
Surely repair or restoration can be accorded value in the target-obsessed, and rewarding political cultures of today.
The last straw? Hydrogen-powered vehicle exhaust pipes
An informative article on hydrogen: Hydrogen fuel stations: Is this really the fuel of the future?
I was about to groan at the though of a media-muppet drinking from the back end of a car and exclaiming, as always happens with electric cars, 'Look, there's no pollution!'. So it is good to see the fact of its (current) production in energy (and hence emissions) terms laid out clearly.
I was about to groan at the though of a media-muppet drinking from the back end of a car and exclaiming, as always happens with electric cars, 'Look, there's no pollution!'. So it is good to see the fact of its (current) production in energy (and hence emissions) terms laid out clearly.
And if Gordon decides on igloos, polar bears are in trouble, too
And not just from global warming - How the human population explosion is threatening the Indian elephant's survival
Finite land area. Hyperbolic birth rates. Tech and ethical overrides on 'natural' checks and balances (well, tsunamis, flooding on plains, avian flu notwithstanding).
You do the math.
Indy - A deadly challenge to the environment
Finite land area. Hyperbolic birth rates. Tech and ethical overrides on 'natural' checks and balances (well, tsunamis, flooding on plains, avian flu notwithstanding).
You do the math.
Indy - A deadly challenge to the environment
The check's in the Mail
Shoppers want less packaging, survey shows
Following Dave's post a few back, let's see the Indy and the Mail slug it out in saving us from the pack-attack.
I would point out that, in surveys, almost 100% of those asked say they recycle. Not exactly borne out by the facts. So when asked in the current climate (geddit) if you are in favour of something that is patently pure consumerist waste, you are unlikely to admit you are not. Actual desires and purchase behaviour may be slightly different, I suspect.
Ho-hum, now another massive bunch of data to wade through, and interpret for methodology and agenda-bias, before commenting on in detail here.
Following Dave's post a few back, let's see the Indy and the Mail slug it out in saving us from the pack-attack.
I would point out that, in surveys, almost 100% of those asked say they recycle. Not exactly borne out by the facts. So when asked in the current climate (geddit) if you are in favour of something that is patently pure consumerist waste, you are unlikely to admit you are not. Actual desires and purchase behaviour may be slightly different, I suspect.
Ho-hum, now another massive bunch of data to wade through, and interpret for methodology and agenda-bias, before commenting on in detail here.
That's US, guys!
Money talks: How concern for the planet is changing the way we shop
But mainly if you live in London, natch.
But mainly if you live in London, natch.
Where does the money really go?
Bid to make supermarkets charge 10p for carrier bags
All I know is that I worry about that word 'could', when it comes to the redirection of the funds. One for the NAO perhaps? 9p admin, I'll bet.
I still await an answer on the actual volume/weight the 167 (down from the figure the BBC shared, and I quoted (ah, stats, damned stats, and news info) a while ago) bags 'we' use each year, and how it stacks up against other plastics in our waste stream.
And, sorry, I simply don't believe that 1 in 200 figure.
Everyone I know either reuses them (or doesn't that count? So it's OK to buy a bin liner instead?) or recycles. I'll accept a low %age, but not 1.
All I know is that I worry about that word 'could', when it comes to the redirection of the funds. One for the NAO perhaps? 9p admin, I'll bet.
I still await an answer on the actual volume/weight the 167 (down from the figure the BBC shared, and I quoted (ah, stats, damned stats, and news info) a while ago) bags 'we' use each year, and how it stacks up against other plastics in our waste stream.
And, sorry, I simply don't believe that 1 in 200 figure.
Everyone I know either reuses them (or doesn't that count? So it's OK to buy a bin liner instead?) or recycles. I'll accept a low %age, but not 1.
Worth a watch*, I'd say
Raft of flaws found in popular carbon offsetting schemes - An episode of Dispatches on Channel 4 on Monday entitled "The Great Green Smoke Screen" will show academics and environmentalists questioning the ethics and impact of offsetting.
"Dispatches questioned whether big companies such as HSBC and Sky had any right to claim they were "carbon neutral" as a result of buying offsets to undo the effects of their pollution. Instead the programme hinted that more should be done to limit the polluting activity in the first place."
You heard it here first. Well... ish.
*Do however, bear in mind that Ch4 screened another 'Great' doco not so long ago. And if the BBC can get itself mired by editing for effect... and ratings, well, who do we believe now?
"Dispatches questioned whether big companies such as HSBC and Sky had any right to claim they were "carbon neutral" as a result of buying offsets to undo the effects of their pollution. Instead the programme hinted that more should be done to limit the polluting activity in the first place."
You heard it here first. Well... ish.
*Do however, bear in mind that Ch4 screened another 'Great' doco not so long ago. And if the BBC can get itself mired by editing for effect... and ratings, well, who do we believe now?
Maybe they have offset it?
Toxic tyre fires burn in Ulster as loyalists celebrate the Battle of the Boyne
Or will claim it's to save on landfill?
Friday, July 13, 2007
Icebergs
As a free public information website, I was as equally fascinated by what was in this piece - Government urged to improve Web sites - as what was not.
First up, tell us what we don't know: they are too complex and are difficult to navigate. Well, D'uh.
The we get to the provision of information about the cost and usage of government Web sites.
I find it MIND-BOGGLING that the government spends £208 million a year (of whose money?) on its Web sites... but knows little about who access them or how they are used.
If ever there was a case to get them out of the public sector's dead hands this was it. They don't know what they're doing. They patently don't know why they're doing it. And they don't seem to care whether it works so long as it looks like they are doing something. And the heck with any ROI, which any sane business would apply to its comms efforts.
These are tools. Their only value is in being used. Not just for being there. I mentioned recently about a site that was all excited about 7,000 'hits', which a kennelcam of a dead dog rotting would exceed.
I'd also love to know what the breakdown of costs of design , build, operation and maintenance are for some, especially in the enviro-arena.
I'm betting several have 'departments' (which explains them looking like camels), all on salary with pension. Junkk.com has one bloke... so far... plus a few nice mates helping. And as and when it does need to grow, it will be funded by ads.
Which is better value?
ADDENDUM
That'll teach me. Now, when the heck will I find the time to read it?
Report
Exec summary
Another thing - 89 pages!!!!
First up, tell us what we don't know: they are too complex and are difficult to navigate. Well, D'uh.
The we get to the provision of information about the cost and usage of government Web sites.
I find it MIND-BOGGLING that the government spends £208 million a year (of whose money?) on its Web sites... but knows little about who access them or how they are used.
If ever there was a case to get them out of the public sector's dead hands this was it. They don't know what they're doing. They patently don't know why they're doing it. And they don't seem to care whether it works so long as it looks like they are doing something. And the heck with any ROI, which any sane business would apply to its comms efforts.
These are tools. Their only value is in being used. Not just for being there. I mentioned recently about a site that was all excited about 7,000 'hits', which a kennelcam of a dead dog rotting would exceed.
I'd also love to know what the breakdown of costs of design , build, operation and maintenance are for some, especially in the enviro-arena.
I'm betting several have 'departments' (which explains them looking like camels), all on salary with pension. Junkk.com has one bloke... so far... plus a few nice mates helping. And as and when it does need to grow, it will be funded by ads.
Which is better value?
ADDENDUM
That'll teach me. Now, when the heck will I find the time to read it?
Report
Exec summary
Another thing - 89 pages!!!!
Postives and negatives
Carbon neutral homes for mere mortals
You cover a lot of interesting, and valid points, and it is hard to disagree with most, if not all.
But the devil can be in the details, so in the spirit of debate may I raise a few points for consideration.
First up, and it's a doozy, is to try and get towards an acceptable definition of 'carbon neutrality'. To my eyes and ears it is ever so slightly loose and, depending on who decides to embrace it, the poor old public/consumer could be forgiven in thinking it is all manner of things that it may not actually be.
Personally, I have been trying to advocate the notion of enviROI, which is different to the financial version because the amount of money is nowhere near as relevant (though a factor - money poured into black holes may more usefully be redirected to green ones) as the impact on our planet, and hence kids' futures. So you may never get a return on an eco-investment, but it is still worth doing if reducing CO2 is your bag. The corollary of this is that you may make all sorts of noise on the green hue of it all, but actually the initiative may work out worse once every factor has been taken into account. This does have a bearing on construction issues as mentioned later.
In defence of aged rockers, so long as Metallica insulate their homes with their beards, and otherwise do as they say, I see nothing odd at all. What I do find less than compelling, however, is Squander Spice standing up with her newborn to plug her next concert whilst saying her presence was 'for her daughter's future', and then barely a week goes by before it turns out the group is getting a Lear jet each in case they have a hissy fit with each other. One reason why some felt the messengers rather undercut the message in this case. So which topic actually did get out there? I'd hazard it's more 'anyone else but me', which is hardly a motivational kickstart to the masses.
And while the last few days the media wires have been humming with such vastly critical topics as plastic bags and water bottles, I am glad to see that here we do have some thoughts on what is a more major issue, namely personal home energy consumption.
Back to the CN definition, even without heating I'd say that, without offsetting (a whole other, and equally mine-strewn topic), the CNzeroHome is still going to err on the negative simply because quite a lot would be involved in making it. See, new stuff does have a carbon consequence, the minute you dig its building blocks from the soil.
And while I am very happy to consider solar, heat-pumps, wind turbines, etc, beyond ROI I still have to be convinced with some on the enviROI.
Insulation is a bit of a no-brainer, so I can't quite figure out why vast amounts of effort is not being made to maximise this aspect's benefits RIGHT NOW. How many homes, for instance, could be insulated with the £5M blown on the latest carbon footprint ad campaign?
And as one who lives in a dwelling where carbon footprints are what you walk from the fireplace to the outside loo, I get nervous when the ODPM new-builds on flood plains look like getting a tip-top rating in the HIPS stakes, but without a cavity wall to fill in my very much already existing structure, I worry about being unfairly discriminated against by some rampant, half-cock, ill-considered box-ticking process over product.
But if we are to have new-builds, then yes, for heaven's sake let them be as you describe.
UK builders will of course take note, and will charge accordingly, no doubt.
You cover a lot of interesting, and valid points, and it is hard to disagree with most, if not all.
But the devil can be in the details, so in the spirit of debate may I raise a few points for consideration.
First up, and it's a doozy, is to try and get towards an acceptable definition of 'carbon neutrality'. To my eyes and ears it is ever so slightly loose and, depending on who decides to embrace it, the poor old public/consumer could be forgiven in thinking it is all manner of things that it may not actually be.
Personally, I have been trying to advocate the notion of enviROI, which is different to the financial version because the amount of money is nowhere near as relevant (though a factor - money poured into black holes may more usefully be redirected to green ones) as the impact on our planet, and hence kids' futures. So you may never get a return on an eco-investment, but it is still worth doing if reducing CO2 is your bag. The corollary of this is that you may make all sorts of noise on the green hue of it all, but actually the initiative may work out worse once every factor has been taken into account. This does have a bearing on construction issues as mentioned later.
In defence of aged rockers, so long as Metallica insulate their homes with their beards, and otherwise do as they say, I see nothing odd at all. What I do find less than compelling, however, is Squander Spice standing up with her newborn to plug her next concert whilst saying her presence was 'for her daughter's future', and then barely a week goes by before it turns out the group is getting a Lear jet each in case they have a hissy fit with each other. One reason why some felt the messengers rather undercut the message in this case. So which topic actually did get out there? I'd hazard it's more 'anyone else but me', which is hardly a motivational kickstart to the masses.
And while the last few days the media wires have been humming with such vastly critical topics as plastic bags and water bottles, I am glad to see that here we do have some thoughts on what is a more major issue, namely personal home energy consumption.
Back to the CN definition, even without heating I'd say that, without offsetting (a whole other, and equally mine-strewn topic), the CNzeroHome is still going to err on the negative simply because quite a lot would be involved in making it. See, new stuff does have a carbon consequence, the minute you dig its building blocks from the soil.
And while I am very happy to consider solar, heat-pumps, wind turbines, etc, beyond ROI I still have to be convinced with some on the enviROI.
Insulation is a bit of a no-brainer, so I can't quite figure out why vast amounts of effort is not being made to maximise this aspect's benefits RIGHT NOW. How many homes, for instance, could be insulated with the £5M blown on the latest carbon footprint ad campaign?
And as one who lives in a dwelling where carbon footprints are what you walk from the fireplace to the outside loo, I get nervous when the ODPM new-builds on flood plains look like getting a tip-top rating in the HIPS stakes, but without a cavity wall to fill in my very much already existing structure, I worry about being unfairly discriminated against by some rampant, half-cock, ill-considered box-ticking process over product.
But if we are to have new-builds, then yes, for heaven's sake let them be as you describe.
UK builders will of course take note, and will charge accordingly, no doubt.
Packaging & Marketing 5 – Consumer & Environment 0
"What’s that you’re doing Walt?"
"It’s a new idea I’m working on for marketing products that are waaaaaay too cheap."
"Really? So how’s it gonna work?"
"Well, you take a dirt cheap product, like a really cheap shower gel, and you put it into sexy bottles that cost three times the product it contains. It’s a real winner."
"Come on Walt! Get real! So just how do you plan to make people buy it then?"
"Easy, you spend huge wadges on neat advertising, like loads of telly time; price it at five or six times what the entire package is worth, and people will rush to buy it like lemmings."
"But that makes no sense at all Walt!"
"Maybe not to you, but I reckon I’ll make a fortune out of it."
"Sorry Walt, I’m not really with you on this one ……. I just can’t see how it can possibly work, people just aren’t that stupid. And just what do they do with the sexy bottles when they’ve used up the shower gel? Oh ...... I’m with it now ....... they’re paying for the sexy plastic bottle so they can use it for something else, aren’t they?"
"No! They just chuck ‘em away!"
_________________________________
It all sounds absolutely crazy, doesn’t it, but that’s exactly what’s happening with many health and beauty products on the market today. Another little expose from the Daily Mail which neatly demonstrates the massively over-inflated cost to the consumer of some products, and even touches on the downstream cost (to the environment) of throwing the container (that cost three times more than the contained product, and will take more than 400 years to decompose) into landfill sites.
"It's crazy. You pay more for the packaging than the ingredients and then you have to pay again to chuck the wretched stuff away."
Quite! I couldn’t have put it better myself. We live in a mad, mad world.
"It’s a new idea I’m working on for marketing products that are waaaaaay too cheap."
"Really? So how’s it gonna work?"
"Well, you take a dirt cheap product, like a really cheap shower gel, and you put it into sexy bottles that cost three times the product it contains. It’s a real winner."
"Come on Walt! Get real! So just how do you plan to make people buy it then?"
"Easy, you spend huge wadges on neat advertising, like loads of telly time; price it at five or six times what the entire package is worth, and people will rush to buy it like lemmings."
"But that makes no sense at all Walt!"
"Maybe not to you, but I reckon I’ll make a fortune out of it."
"Sorry Walt, I’m not really with you on this one ……. I just can’t see how it can possibly work, people just aren’t that stupid. And just what do they do with the sexy bottles when they’ve used up the shower gel? Oh ...... I’m with it now ....... they’re paying for the sexy plastic bottle so they can use it for something else, aren’t they?"
"No! They just chuck ‘em away!"
_________________________________
It all sounds absolutely crazy, doesn’t it, but that’s exactly what’s happening with many health and beauty products on the market today. Another little expose from the Daily Mail which neatly demonstrates the massively over-inflated cost to the consumer of some products, and even touches on the downstream cost (to the environment) of throwing the container (that cost three times more than the contained product, and will take more than 400 years to decompose) into landfill sites.
"It's crazy. You pay more for the packaging than the ingredients and then you have to pay again to chuck the wretched stuff away."
Quite! I couldn’t have put it better myself. We live in a mad, mad world.
A week is a long time in climate change
I hate to tell you I told you so, but: Tell Us What You Flaunt, What You Really Really Flaunt
This would not be the same Geri Halliwell who stood up at Wembley and reckoned that it was 'for her daughter's sake' was it?
Nothing blows cred like a two-faced celeb.
ADDENDUM
Meanwhile, across the pond: Will.I.Am Scraps Plan to Blow Up Hummer
With the funniest comment I've seen: 'He could ship it to Baghdad. That'd be like recylcing it and blowing it up.'
And was this the follow-up 'awareness' the organisers were really after: Where is Fergie's love for her HUMMER?
BBC - Jeremy Vine Show - Interesting debate, if a twofer
I wrote to Prof: Luckhurst:
I was just sent an email linking to the Jeremy Vine discussion you had (I presume a while ago at the time of the BBC withdrawal) regarding Live Earth.
I just wanted to say how nice it was to hear a calm, rational and considered analysis of the situation.
As a committed environmental campaigner and sometime commenter, I was saddened how polarised the discussion around this issue became, though not surprised in light of how anything climate change is immediately consigned to extremes. The media is more than complicit in setting up this situation. So your comment on the blue waters in between that are seldom acknowledged or addressed really resonated.
As did the point, which was key to my lack of enthusiasm, that previous such efforts simply had not worked. And if 'awareness' (itself a rather vague target at best) was all, then as far as I could see the main result was the vast majority of normal folk were further put off by the superficial posturings of a celebrity-obsessed green elite.
And frankly we are seeing it again with the latest surrounding Mr. Gore. However sincere he might be, I cannot separate the messenger from the message. And there seems a huge disconnect between what is being said by a minority of hugely rich and privileged folk who can afford to play with such things (and not really doing that much to mitigate their own lifestyle excesses, frankly), and the general population that are being talked down to from rather shaky pedestals with populist pronouncements that are almost exclusively negative, scaremongering, guilt-tripping, fine-laden or... plain wrong and open to damaging rebuttal (and what will get remembered more? The good stuff or the cons?). Which makes the efforts of methodical, reason-based, pragmatic and incentive-based attempts at persuasion all the harder to 'sell'.
I want to see this planet turned around. It's my greatest possible legacy to my kids. But by heavens those who have taken it upon themselves to do it 'for our own good' are making a mess of it so far. And the media sure is not helping. And I often have to wonder what the motivations are.
This would not be the same Geri Halliwell who stood up at Wembley and reckoned that it was 'for her daughter's sake' was it?
Nothing blows cred like a two-faced celeb.
ADDENDUM
Meanwhile, across the pond: Will.I.Am Scraps Plan to Blow Up Hummer
With the funniest comment I've seen: 'He could ship it to Baghdad. That'd be like recylcing it and blowing it up.'
And was this the follow-up 'awareness' the organisers were really after: Where is Fergie's love for her HUMMER?
BBC - Jeremy Vine Show - Interesting debate, if a twofer
I wrote to Prof: Luckhurst:
I was just sent an email linking to the Jeremy Vine discussion you had (I presume a while ago at the time of the BBC withdrawal) regarding Live Earth.
I just wanted to say how nice it was to hear a calm, rational and considered analysis of the situation.
As a committed environmental campaigner and sometime commenter, I was saddened how polarised the discussion around this issue became, though not surprised in light of how anything climate change is immediately consigned to extremes. The media is more than complicit in setting up this situation. So your comment on the blue waters in between that are seldom acknowledged or addressed really resonated.
As did the point, which was key to my lack of enthusiasm, that previous such efforts simply had not worked. And if 'awareness' (itself a rather vague target at best) was all, then as far as I could see the main result was the vast majority of normal folk were further put off by the superficial posturings of a celebrity-obsessed green elite.
And frankly we are seeing it again with the latest surrounding Mr. Gore. However sincere he might be, I cannot separate the messenger from the message. And there seems a huge disconnect between what is being said by a minority of hugely rich and privileged folk who can afford to play with such things (and not really doing that much to mitigate their own lifestyle excesses, frankly), and the general population that are being talked down to from rather shaky pedestals with populist pronouncements that are almost exclusively negative, scaremongering, guilt-tripping, fine-laden or... plain wrong and open to damaging rebuttal (and what will get remembered more? The good stuff or the cons?). Which makes the efforts of methodical, reason-based, pragmatic and incentive-based attempts at persuasion all the harder to 'sell'.
I want to see this planet turned around. It's my greatest possible legacy to my kids. But by heavens those who have taken it upon themselves to do it 'for our own good' are making a mess of it so far. And the media sure is not helping. And I often have to wonder what the motivations are.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Edit, or?
This from Newsday, or is it night (it seems they can now be one in the same)? The Queen and the BBC
Not long ago I had a pathetic, insincere, form (I have had others that are lifted from the same template - sorry for the delay, we know it's important, we've had a check, so we screwed up, so what, yadayada...) 'apology' from the BBC following a complaint about a piece where what I had written got 'edited' to make it the exact reverse of what I said.
Having just had a complaint to OFCOM about an edit that featured me and my company - which turned black into white - upheld, SKY has replied in its defence to the effect that because it was only a few seconds long it doesn't matter (so showing Fidel Castro on the Grassy Knoll would be fine), and in any case it would set 'a bad precedent' for reality TV shows to accurately represent, er, reality. Astounding.
And to show this extends to every level of our current media, this is the Editor's full reply in my local paper to a letter from a reader (rightly) complaining that they edited his letter to completely change its meaning: 'Apologies to... It is not our normal practice to alter the sense of letters.'
Well all I can say is that it seems to be a pretty prevalent, abnormal practice nowadays across the whole sorry industry (even news, apparently), and getting more and more frequent as ever more sad ways are sought to drive up ratings through 'enhancing' actuality. Bear in mind that when they say 'Tell us what you think..' and you do so, that what they say you think may end up a very different version in this edit-obsessed, unaccountable, fake media age.
And now, on top of Blue Peter, etc, we have this.
I created a while ago a category on my blog called tushtissue. It refers to the gobsmacking front to try and weasel out of the fact that you were caught with your pants down. More appropriately, with them round your ankles deliberately trying to score a cheap rating, or political point, or column inch by conveying something totally untrue. And then denying it.
So, who would like to take a bet that no one, anywhere, will be found to carry the can, or bear the consequences? A myriad fingers will point in every direction, and the whole thing will get lost in the 'What's?'.
It's a sad, sad state we are in. Thanks Tony. Thanks Gordon. Thanks BBC. Thanks Fleet Street. Thanks every miserable overpaid 'senior executive' out there who laps the cream but will never shoulder the pain - of their own sorry actions.
I am sure we can look forward to a bumper edition of Newswatch, where all three of those up at dawn at the weekend can review the arrogant troupe of executive 'mea not blooming culpas' for whopping abuses of editorial standards broadcast to millions during prime time, fobbing off Uncle Ray during his cozy file-size chat with the usual 'it wasn't me, or if it was it wasn't that bad, or if it was it didn't matter, or if it does who cares?'
BBC Trust? Interesting, oxymoronic choice of words.
You cannot lie and expect to get away with it. Repeat. You should not be able to lie and get away with it. Repeat. You can lie and get away with it.
Now that's what I call editing.
Daily Mail - BBC's grovelling apology to Queen over 'tantrum' film - Well, they had to, really. It's the DM, after all. And read the comments. Not one cares about the changing of facts.
Times - Crisis of trust after BBC says sorry again - And sorry seems to be the easiest word...
I'm sure there 'll be more...
Guardian - Fincham: I'm staying put - there's a surprise: BBC exec not going to accept consequences shock. Plus the footage. Sweet. And not a thing ... yet... in CiF
Indy - Now we are really not amused: BBC forced to apologise for claiming Queen had a tantrum - Which would be, let's see... an outright lie? No, we really should leave it be and move on now.
Telegraph - Should the controller of BBC1 step down over the Queen gaffe?
Telegraph - Trust, the BBC and the Queen
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order - the first (very well articulated) comment says it all.
Me, I'm a gobby sod:
Post 1 from Mike S clearly, factually and with great eloquence, pretty much answers your end question, I'd say.
That a viewer who was a live part of this 'process' feels this way I'd hazard shows the meaning was a bit more than 'remotely' affected by the dis-order.
Nice try.
'Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis.'
But in maintaining those standards, grappling with the ethics of using the edit suite to alter a meaning really shouldn't be the greatest dilemma, now, should it?
Nice try.
'...claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.'
Is it really accurate to call it a claim if, in fact, this is/was precisely the case?
Nice try.
'However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same.'
Um, or not. See above.
Nice try.
Glad for all concerned that at least it 'didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.' Wouldn't want to breach a guideline in doing an ethical, professional, honest job, now would we?
Not sure, having read this, whether some viewers' trust factors in the BBC or its news operatives' standards will have improved, though.
And this is such a shame. And makes the point. Having now watched the story, without that Achilles Heel (which was so subtle I honestly had trouble appreciating it), it was a telling piece for all the other 'imagery', if not facts conveyed.
I really don't know what to believe, so maybe it's best to believe none of it. Which is a pity, as black-suited press munchkins and jobsworth plods creating a wall of silence around our shy leader (as opposed to an opposition version who has amazing spontaneous total recall of relative camera sizes) does come across as a worry. None of it seemed real. And surely, as press with greater access (as alluded to, a form of editing in its own right) than the public will ever enjoy, it is for you to cut through all this spin and give us the clear, unvarnished truth.
In the 'war games' that rather bizarrely seem to exist - if only for the entertainment of those who play them - between accredited press and our elected representatives, in theory conducted on 'our' behalf to inform and allow us to form views we can carry to the polling booth, this is more than a worry.
BBC Breakfast 14/07
I just watched your comment piece on the BBC 'Queen' edit.
At risk of finding my comments here edited, I have to take issue with some of the things said.
It is astounding that any justification could be spun out of the culture of reality shows being 'known' to be... er... not real. And that this is accepted by the chattering classes is a real worry.
Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality. There are no blurred boundaries, from 'entertainment' to hard news. No exceptions.
I have an upheld complaint with OFCOM underway based on this very point.
GUARDIAN - BBC orders inquiry as pressure mounts
Cif - Don't believe everything you see - some amazing stuff about the Blue Peter issue I didn't know before. The rest of the posts show all that's wrong with blogging.
Indy - Pressure on BBC1 chief mounts over Queen slur
Times - BBC chief knew Queen footage was misleading 17 hours before apology
Telegraph - Behaving badly... the BBC and Fincham
Telegraph - Fincham should stay
Not long ago I had a pathetic, insincere, form (I have had others that are lifted from the same template - sorry for the delay, we know it's important, we've had a check, so we screwed up, so what, yadayada...) 'apology' from the BBC following a complaint about a piece where what I had written got 'edited' to make it the exact reverse of what I said.
Having just had a complaint to OFCOM about an edit that featured me and my company - which turned black into white - upheld, SKY has replied in its defence to the effect that because it was only a few seconds long it doesn't matter (so showing Fidel Castro on the Grassy Knoll would be fine), and in any case it would set 'a bad precedent' for reality TV shows to accurately represent, er, reality. Astounding.
And to show this extends to every level of our current media, this is the Editor's full reply in my local paper to a letter from a reader (rightly) complaining that they edited his letter to completely change its meaning: 'Apologies to... It is not our normal practice to alter the sense of letters.'
Well all I can say is that it seems to be a pretty prevalent, abnormal practice nowadays across the whole sorry industry (even news, apparently), and getting more and more frequent as ever more sad ways are sought to drive up ratings through 'enhancing' actuality. Bear in mind that when they say 'Tell us what you think..' and you do so, that what they say you think may end up a very different version in this edit-obsessed, unaccountable, fake media age.
And now, on top of Blue Peter, etc, we have this.
I created a while ago a category on my blog called tushtissue. It refers to the gobsmacking front to try and weasel out of the fact that you were caught with your pants down. More appropriately, with them round your ankles deliberately trying to score a cheap rating, or political point, or column inch by conveying something totally untrue. And then denying it.
So, who would like to take a bet that no one, anywhere, will be found to carry the can, or bear the consequences? A myriad fingers will point in every direction, and the whole thing will get lost in the 'What's?'.
It's a sad, sad state we are in. Thanks Tony. Thanks Gordon. Thanks BBC. Thanks Fleet Street. Thanks every miserable overpaid 'senior executive' out there who laps the cream but will never shoulder the pain - of their own sorry actions.
I am sure we can look forward to a bumper edition of Newswatch, where all three of those up at dawn at the weekend can review the arrogant troupe of executive 'mea not blooming culpas' for whopping abuses of editorial standards broadcast to millions during prime time, fobbing off Uncle Ray during his cozy file-size chat with the usual 'it wasn't me, or if it was it wasn't that bad, or if it was it didn't matter, or if it does who cares?'
BBC Trust? Interesting, oxymoronic choice of words.
You cannot lie and expect to get away with it. Repeat. You should not be able to lie and get away with it. Repeat. You can lie and get away with it.
Now that's what I call editing.
Daily Mail - BBC's grovelling apology to Queen over 'tantrum' film - Well, they had to, really. It's the DM, after all. And read the comments. Not one cares about the changing of facts.
Times - Crisis of trust after BBC says sorry again - And sorry seems to be the easiest word...
I'm sure there 'll be more...
Guardian - Fincham: I'm staying put - there's a surprise: BBC exec not going to accept consequences shock. Plus the footage. Sweet. And not a thing ... yet... in CiF
Indy - Now we are really not amused: BBC forced to apologise for claiming Queen had a tantrum - Which would be, let's see... an outright lie? No, we really should leave it be and move on now.
Telegraph - Should the controller of BBC1 step down over the Queen gaffe?
Telegraph - Trust, the BBC and the Queen
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order - the first (very well articulated) comment says it all.
Me, I'm a gobby sod:
Post 1 from Mike S clearly, factually and with great eloquence, pretty much answers your end question, I'd say.
That a viewer who was a live part of this 'process' feels this way I'd hazard shows the meaning was a bit more than 'remotely' affected by the dis-order.
Nice try.
'Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis.'
But in maintaining those standards, grappling with the ethics of using the edit suite to alter a meaning really shouldn't be the greatest dilemma, now, should it?
Nice try.
'...claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.'
Is it really accurate to call it a claim if, in fact, this is/was precisely the case?
Nice try.
'However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same.'
Um, or not. See above.
Nice try.
Glad for all concerned that at least it 'didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.' Wouldn't want to breach a guideline in doing an ethical, professional, honest job, now would we?
Not sure, having read this, whether some viewers' trust factors in the BBC or its news operatives' standards will have improved, though.
And this is such a shame. And makes the point. Having now watched the story, without that Achilles Heel (which was so subtle I honestly had trouble appreciating it), it was a telling piece for all the other 'imagery', if not facts conveyed.
I really don't know what to believe, so maybe it's best to believe none of it. Which is a pity, as black-suited press munchkins and jobsworth plods creating a wall of silence around our shy leader (as opposed to an opposition version who has amazing spontaneous total recall of relative camera sizes) does come across as a worry. None of it seemed real. And surely, as press with greater access (as alluded to, a form of editing in its own right) than the public will ever enjoy, it is for you to cut through all this spin and give us the clear, unvarnished truth.
In the 'war games' that rather bizarrely seem to exist - if only for the entertainment of those who play them - between accredited press and our elected representatives, in theory conducted on 'our' behalf to inform and allow us to form views we can carry to the polling booth, this is more than a worry.
BBC Breakfast 14/07
I just watched your comment piece on the BBC 'Queen' edit.
At risk of finding my comments here edited, I have to take issue with some of the things said.
It is astounding that any justification could be spun out of the culture of reality shows being 'known' to be... er... not real. And that this is accepted by the chattering classes is a real worry.
Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality. There are no blurred boundaries, from 'entertainment' to hard news. No exceptions.
I have an upheld complaint with OFCOM underway based on this very point.
GUARDIAN - BBC orders inquiry as pressure mounts
Cif - Don't believe everything you see - some amazing stuff about the Blue Peter issue I didn't know before. The rest of the posts show all that's wrong with blogging.
Indy - Pressure on BBC1 chief mounts over Queen slur
Times - BBC chief knew Queen footage was misleading 17 hours before apology
Telegraph - Behaving badly... the BBC and Fincham
Telegraph - Fincham should stay
Bag, bag, you're dead!
I like an industry magazine called Recycling & Waste World, and have been meaning to write in for a while. At last I have, following an editorial on plastic carrier bags.
The IPPC report barely makes a page, let alone a few broadsheet fronts, before being dropped in favour of the latest BB antics. The concert for Diana gets three times the audience of Live Earth. Nice to see we have our priorities firmly figured out. Speaking of which, witches' kickers yet again seem to be rearing their heads. No doubt inspired by Newsnight's investigation earlier in the week as to bottled water in restaurants contributing to global warming (quaffing airflown food or imported beer or wine, or simply going out to eat didn't seem to figure in the discussion), only yesterday we had an expose on BBC Breakfast of the shifty shifting habits of home delivery supermarket services. Actually it was pretty shocking, especially one chain managing to use 15 where 3 would have done, but at least we got a two-for-one deal on talking heads to explain it was being looked at... now this issue has been brought to their attention. Being such a recent thing 'n all. I await the green TVC claims to wash o'er the airwaves in due course.
Anyway, may I use these pages to ask a question of those more than able to answer. Apparently, 'we' use 290 of things annually. And with all sorts of other options available, as the editorial pointed out, that really cannot be good, or make much sense, at least environmentally. But is this really the most pressing issue we face when compared to, say, deforestation (more C02 sink lost than the USA emits in a year), or home insulation (what is it? 25% of our consumption of energy)? I was just wondering what this amount of plastic actually represented as a block, especially when most surely does get reused as bags, as a substitute for bin liners or recycled in store bins? In, say, 2L Evian bottle terms? Or 500ml sun lotion jars.
I don't know, and hence that why I ask. Because I simply wonder if all this effort, from political to corporate to media levels, is the best place to direct various energies, especially when it demands so much of consumers' attention, and diverts it from, how to put it, areas with perhaps a more significant enviROI (imposition on the planet, which can still be positive even if financially the ROI is negative. A noble call to make).
Big up to IKEA, for 'taking the plunge' I guess, and I'm sure they will assess the customer reaction as it transpires, but I really hope that such efforts, and the usually immense PR and ad cost thrown behind them (which may often be a tad more usefully invested elsewhere if the planet is the actual priority) are matched equally in areas that may produce more, and more significant results.
Your point on the actual facts of bio/compostables are well taken (a degradable bag will not do too well in your composter), vital for the consumer to be aware of and, to this one at least, almost a complete mystery still. That is woeful. On the part of all who would claim to be concerned. There's no point asking for an eco-pack/bag, or using it, if you don't know much more than it is 'green-ish',. Where it comes from and where it goes to is a critical part of the decision chain, one which the consumer is too often being dumped with handling.
The 'bag for life' story you highlight typifies the process vs. product mentality too many 'in the know' are complicit in propagating, mainly because this often means more sales or awareness boxes being ticked, even if the planet is no better off, much less the poor sap who thinks they are helping. And when 'exposed', as was the infamous version you highlight Anya Hindmarch's 'I'm not a plastic bag', imported from Asia), the backfire, and 'average' consumer's reaction to it of 'well if a bunch of rich folk are going to play silly, then why should I bother?' often makes it all simply more difficult to persuade with genuine initiatives.
Like you say, wherever possible bring your own, because if it's not always possible to remove or reduce then reuse. I reckon that's the way. But then I would, wouldn't I?
Daily Mail - The £5 a bottle mineral water - from a cloud in the South Seas - the other side of the coin
The IPPC report barely makes a page, let alone a few broadsheet fronts, before being dropped in favour of the latest BB antics. The concert for Diana gets three times the audience of Live Earth. Nice to see we have our priorities firmly figured out. Speaking of which, witches' kickers yet again seem to be rearing their heads. No doubt inspired by Newsnight's investigation earlier in the week as to bottled water in restaurants contributing to global warming (quaffing airflown food or imported beer or wine, or simply going out to eat didn't seem to figure in the discussion), only yesterday we had an expose on BBC Breakfast of the shifty shifting habits of home delivery supermarket services. Actually it was pretty shocking, especially one chain managing to use 15 where 3 would have done, but at least we got a two-for-one deal on talking heads to explain it was being looked at... now this issue has been brought to their attention. Being such a recent thing 'n all. I await the green TVC claims to wash o'er the airwaves in due course.
Anyway, may I use these pages to ask a question of those more than able to answer. Apparently, 'we' use 290 of things annually. And with all sorts of other options available, as the editorial pointed out, that really cannot be good, or make much sense, at least environmentally. But is this really the most pressing issue we face when compared to, say, deforestation (more C02 sink lost than the USA emits in a year), or home insulation (what is it? 25% of our consumption of energy)? I was just wondering what this amount of plastic actually represented as a block, especially when most surely does get reused as bags, as a substitute for bin liners or recycled in store bins? In, say, 2L Evian bottle terms? Or 500ml sun lotion jars.
I don't know, and hence that why I ask. Because I simply wonder if all this effort, from political to corporate to media levels, is the best place to direct various energies, especially when it demands so much of consumers' attention, and diverts it from, how to put it, areas with perhaps a more significant enviROI (imposition on the planet, which can still be positive even if financially the ROI is negative. A noble call to make).
Big up to IKEA, for 'taking the plunge' I guess, and I'm sure they will assess the customer reaction as it transpires, but I really hope that such efforts, and the usually immense PR and ad cost thrown behind them (which may often be a tad more usefully invested elsewhere if the planet is the actual priority) are matched equally in areas that may produce more, and more significant results.
Your point on the actual facts of bio/compostables are well taken (a degradable bag will not do too well in your composter), vital for the consumer to be aware of and, to this one at least, almost a complete mystery still. That is woeful. On the part of all who would claim to be concerned. There's no point asking for an eco-pack/bag, or using it, if you don't know much more than it is 'green-ish',. Where it comes from and where it goes to is a critical part of the decision chain, one which the consumer is too often being dumped with handling.
The 'bag for life' story you highlight typifies the process vs. product mentality too many 'in the know' are complicit in propagating, mainly because this often means more sales or awareness boxes being ticked, even if the planet is no better off, much less the poor sap who thinks they are helping. And when 'exposed', as was the infamous version you highlight Anya Hindmarch's 'I'm not a plastic bag', imported from Asia), the backfire, and 'average' consumer's reaction to it of 'well if a bunch of rich folk are going to play silly, then why should I bother?' often makes it all simply more difficult to persuade with genuine initiatives.
Like you say, wherever possible bring your own, because if it's not always possible to remove or reduce then reuse. I reckon that's the way. But then I would, wouldn't I?
Daily Mail - The £5 a bottle mineral water - from a cloud in the South Seas - the other side of the coin
How much petrol does the USA consume each day?
OK, so we all think ...... a lot, its probably the largest single consumer on the planet as far as nations go.
So how about as much as South Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, Spain, Venezuela, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil combined?
Nope, nowhere near.
So what if we also add the consumption of France, Australia, Iran and Italy?
Nope, still nowhere near.
OK, so if we also add Britain, Mexico, Germany and Russia into the equation, we must be getting close?
Nope! Even if you add and Canada, China and Japan into the equation, you still don't get a cumulative figure that reaches the daily gas (petrol) consumption of the USA.
They say a picture paints a thousand words - but this is simply a jaw-dropper. Take a look at the graphic from Treehugger.
Gob-smacking!! As someone who invariably has an opinion on just about anything, as far as this goes I'm, well ......... simply speechless!!
So how about as much as South Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, Spain, Venezuela, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil combined?
Nope, nowhere near.
So what if we also add the consumption of France, Australia, Iran and Italy?
Nope, still nowhere near.
OK, so if we also add Britain, Mexico, Germany and Russia into the equation, we must be getting close?
Nope! Even if you add and Canada, China and Japan into the equation, you still don't get a cumulative figure that reaches the daily gas (petrol) consumption of the USA.
They say a picture paints a thousand words - but this is simply a jaw-dropper. Take a look at the graphic from Treehugger.
Gob-smacking!! As someone who invariably has an opinion on just about anything, as far as this goes I'm, well ......... simply speechless!!
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Bag Lads
Like I say, this morning's Breakfast was a rich seam.
So along with all the other vastly crucial environmental issues covered of late, our Declan does an expose of... plastic bags. There's a novelty.
I simply don't get it. And have still to find out just what amount of plastic the 290 a year 'we' 'use' actually amounts to as a block when compared to say, the half dozen Fairy Liquid bottles we get through each year. Or if it really matters vs., well, most other things, really.
Anyway, the target was online deliveries, and it was actually quite surprising that these bozos use plastic bags, and just how many they do use, with Declan's best buds ASDA swinging in at 50% above the rest (15 for a normal 3-bag shop).
What was not surprising was that, good golly, they are all 'looking at' new ways. Now, let's see, home delivery have been going on how long? And NOW they decide to get all proactive. Sad.
And then we get a two-for-one deal on spokespersons, with the classic retail clone of sharp-suit, shaved-head and monotone mantra from a couple of high-power (in their minds) 'executives'. I bet a brace of 318 Beemers were being waxed in the underground garage as we watched. And 'make some noise' parties to Ibiza with Linda in accounts getting finalised on the Bluetooth as they headed back to shopping-central.
Their families must be so proud. I'm sure they are worth every penny. As is my licence fee.
So along with all the other vastly crucial environmental issues covered of late, our Declan does an expose of... plastic bags. There's a novelty.
I simply don't get it. And have still to find out just what amount of plastic the 290 a year 'we' 'use' actually amounts to as a block when compared to say, the half dozen Fairy Liquid bottles we get through each year. Or if it really matters vs., well, most other things, really.
Anyway, the target was online deliveries, and it was actually quite surprising that these bozos use plastic bags, and just how many they do use, with Declan's best buds ASDA swinging in at 50% above the rest (15 for a normal 3-bag shop).
What was not surprising was that, good golly, they are all 'looking at' new ways. Now, let's see, home delivery have been going on how long? And NOW they decide to get all proactive. Sad.
And then we get a two-for-one deal on spokespersons, with the classic retail clone of sharp-suit, shaved-head and monotone mantra from a couple of high-power (in their minds) 'executives'. I bet a brace of 318 Beemers were being waxed in the underground garage as we watched. And 'make some noise' parties to Ibiza with Linda in accounts getting finalised on the Bluetooth as they headed back to shopping-central.
Their families must be so proud. I'm sure they are worth every penny. As is my licence fee.
Sun to blame for global warming. Not.
Some new evidence from eminent British & Swiss researchers concludes that variability in the sun's energy output cannot be responsible for recent global warming. Full report from Reuters, though I'm certain it will be all over the press like a rash later today; it's already been mentioned by Wogan on Radio 2.
"There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming. "
"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures".
That rather takes one of the major planks out from the BOFDis' none AGW case.
I wonder just how many will take any notice? And what's the betting that some other eminent solar scientists will come up with data that indicates just the opposite within a few days?
This debate will still run and run and run and run ..................
Want to reassess this and other evidence for yourself? Probably the best start point can be found in the New Scientist - Environment section: "Climate change: A guide for the perplexed".
Some other takes on the same research.
"the temperature increase should be slowing down but in fact it is speeding up." The Guardian
"This should settle the debate," - BBCi
"All quiet on the solar front" - The Register.
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
"At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous." Royal Society spokesman - as quoted in The Telegraph.
"Find another culprit" - Guardian CIF - some interesting debate in the many comments already, the majority coming from the 'deniers' side already.
______________
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) - Real Climate
"There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming. "
"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures".
That rather takes one of the major planks out from the BOFDis' none AGW case.
I wonder just how many will take any notice? And what's the betting that some other eminent solar scientists will come up with data that indicates just the opposite within a few days?
This debate will still run and run and run and run ..................
Want to reassess this and other evidence for yourself? Probably the best start point can be found in the New Scientist - Environment section: "Climate change: A guide for the perplexed".
Some other takes on the same research.
"the temperature increase should be slowing down but in fact it is speeding up." The Guardian
"This should settle the debate," - BBCi
"All quiet on the solar front" - The Register.
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
"At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous." Royal Society spokesman - as quoted in The Telegraph.
"Find another culprit" - Guardian CIF - some interesting debate in the many comments already, the majority coming from the 'deniers' side already.
______________
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) - Real Climate
Damage Limitation
A rich seam on Breakfast News this morning.
Only getting around to it now as I have found out I have an actual ad job tomorrow. No money, but a speaking gig for the local Chamber. Still all promo and no dinero!
I am prompted to comment having watched a piece about the new government's commitment... or indeed obsession (simply put, they need to house Labour voters quick or they won't vote Labour any more) with 'affordable' home building. But what made me actually get pondering in depth was connecting it with another piece later on about youth services, highlighted by kids this summer apparently being at a loss what to do in the new built-up areas, and finding less than productive activities to occupy themselves as a consequence.
I guess I should own up to being a wiMOANby - which is 'Why in my, or anyone's back yard?' - here, as we look to be facing such issues even in rural Herefordshire.
A town of 10,000 is being required to bolt on a ton (make that several) more dwellings on the outskirts. Frankly, the area can probably afford it without great impact on the look of the place, but I'm not so sure about the ability of the land to cope with the loss of rainfall run-off (concrete drives do not soak up as well as farmland), or the infrastructure with all those extra loos flushing, hoses watering, etc.
And then there are the kids. As the guest in the show wisely commented, Mr. Brown is throwing all these efforts at sticking up ever more boxes, but what about the social networks to cope with the needs of those who live in them? Even he, bless him, had to slap down one of his already unruly underlings for getting waaaay to ahead of the game in this regard (with, I am sure, a nice big pad of her own to retreat to, on full pension, when the time comes).
It's such a tricky one, but I can't see how the end point, even locally, in rich Western 'here', is being so ignored in favour of short-term fixes. Where does one draw the line? Or don't we? Do we just keep expanding and expanding until all the towns and cities are joined up, and then we start to point to the sky, like some Blade Runneresque nightmare. Ridley Scott's genius vision was not far off the mark, even down to the climatic consequences.
Of course there needs to be some consideration for 'key workers', but on the other hand I can't see why, or indeed how the solution to people's expectations of living can be accommodated by simply sticking on more, especially in places that simply may not be suitable. And while our population may not be growing as fast as some other places, it patently still seems to be placing a burden on the finite land area that exists to support us. So, along with a few other things, maybe now is the time to look at achieving a balance, and/or managing expectations of what we can now afford. Maybe my kids will need to dwell in my cave with their families after all. Not like they'll be going far. And then the little sods can look after me in my dotage as well. Ain't nature... er, nurture wonderful?
ADDENDUM:
To Newsnight - GORDON'S GRAND DESIGNS
Would someone who knows, or cares, like to inform me (and anyone else interested) at what point this country cannot absorb any more concrete before its green and pleasant land area can sustain habitable living no further?
I just ask because there has to be such a point. As Mark Twain said about investing in land (if defied by Hong Kong and Singapore), they are not making any more of it. Now we've expanded to pretty much score every viable bit, with some left over to live off as opposed to on, I'd say a rethink may be in order.
But if ever-expanding populations are not to be addressed, and it's all a bit iffy on the re-election front to not ensure every man, woman, child and their dog get guaranteed their own abode in wilful defiance of logic if not market forces, I can only be reassured that I won't be around when it sinks in that maybe you don't get what you want, have to learn to expect less than you're used to, and that three into two may well have to go.... again.
Only getting around to it now as I have found out I have an actual ad job tomorrow. No money, but a speaking gig for the local Chamber. Still all promo and no dinero!
I am prompted to comment having watched a piece about the new government's commitment... or indeed obsession (simply put, they need to house Labour voters quick or they won't vote Labour any more) with 'affordable' home building. But what made me actually get pondering in depth was connecting it with another piece later on about youth services, highlighted by kids this summer apparently being at a loss what to do in the new built-up areas, and finding less than productive activities to occupy themselves as a consequence.
I guess I should own up to being a wiMOANby - which is 'Why in my, or anyone's back yard?' - here, as we look to be facing such issues even in rural Herefordshire.
A town of 10,000 is being required to bolt on a ton (make that several) more dwellings on the outskirts. Frankly, the area can probably afford it without great impact on the look of the place, but I'm not so sure about the ability of the land to cope with the loss of rainfall run-off (concrete drives do not soak up as well as farmland), or the infrastructure with all those extra loos flushing, hoses watering, etc.
And then there are the kids. As the guest in the show wisely commented, Mr. Brown is throwing all these efforts at sticking up ever more boxes, but what about the social networks to cope with the needs of those who live in them? Even he, bless him, had to slap down one of his already unruly underlings for getting waaaay to ahead of the game in this regard (with, I am sure, a nice big pad of her own to retreat to, on full pension, when the time comes).
It's such a tricky one, but I can't see how the end point, even locally, in rich Western 'here', is being so ignored in favour of short-term fixes. Where does one draw the line? Or don't we? Do we just keep expanding and expanding until all the towns and cities are joined up, and then we start to point to the sky, like some Blade Runneresque nightmare. Ridley Scott's genius vision was not far off the mark, even down to the climatic consequences.
Of course there needs to be some consideration for 'key workers', but on the other hand I can't see why, or indeed how the solution to people's expectations of living can be accommodated by simply sticking on more, especially in places that simply may not be suitable. And while our population may not be growing as fast as some other places, it patently still seems to be placing a burden on the finite land area that exists to support us. So, along with a few other things, maybe now is the time to look at achieving a balance, and/or managing expectations of what we can now afford. Maybe my kids will need to dwell in my cave with their families after all. Not like they'll be going far. And then the little sods can look after me in my dotage as well. Ain't nature... er, nurture wonderful?
ADDENDUM:
To Newsnight - GORDON'S GRAND DESIGNS
Would someone who knows, or cares, like to inform me (and anyone else interested) at what point this country cannot absorb any more concrete before its green and pleasant land area can sustain habitable living no further?
I just ask because there has to be such a point. As Mark Twain said about investing in land (if defied by Hong Kong and Singapore), they are not making any more of it. Now we've expanded to pretty much score every viable bit, with some left over to live off as opposed to on, I'd say a rethink may be in order.
But if ever-expanding populations are not to be addressed, and it's all a bit iffy on the re-election front to not ensure every man, woman, child and their dog get guaranteed their own abode in wilful defiance of logic if not market forces, I can only be reassured that I won't be around when it sinks in that maybe you don't get what you want, have to learn to expect less than you're used to, and that three into two may well have to go.... again.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Water, water, everywhere. And yet we import so much to drink.
Maybe if flood water was made de riqueur at the table it would solve two problems at once:) H2O snobbery
Bless. A few weeks ago a piece in Newsnight highlights the fact that the loss of carbon sink through deforestation is in excess of the USA's entire annual output... and it gets just 30 posts, mostly shared billing with the next cold war.
But to worry about the snobbery of bottled water we're up to 130 and counting!
Still doesn't make much sense to me, but for a special non-alcoholic complement to the meal (I'm guessing all are still OK with a nice bottle of Aussie Chardonnay and some airflown whatever, drizzled in stuff and topped with a dusting of more stuff) I'm not sure the tap can quite match the sparkle of a Perrier (sans benzene, of course).
But we seem again to be getting into 'what's necessary' territory here.
As the majority are discussing the affronts endured at a dining venue that is not their home, one could possibly also ask how eco it is shunting one and all to another place to have a meal.
Bigger questions could be directed to those who know about such things as to how such imports are allowed, and what their relative carbon footprints are compared to other food and beverage options. And, if deemed acceptable in the consumer choice chain for sale (and taxing) by the authorities, why there are not better mechanisms to share the responsibility for viable, economic, decent enviROI recycling process amounts all through the delivery chain, from manufacturer (bottler), through consumer (sorry) to reclaim rather than landfill. Of course there are reuse options a wee bit higher up the waste hierarchy, and at http://www.junkk.com we have quite a few and are more than happy to see uploaded lots more.
However, to get with the flow (more water puns, sorry) of this pressing debate, just for personal fun, I have never understood paying for the still variety as I can't taste the difference. And how special an event is with a plastic bottle amidst the setting is also in my view an aspect to consider.
So... a sexy blue fizzy Ty Ant or bulbous green glass Perrier (see them made into gorgeous lights here: http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97 ) would be sadly missed.
The plastic flatties less so, for sure, though there is quite an industry out there that may have trouble surviving supplying only the needs of those with less comprehensive piped delivery systems. Me, I'd prefer to unemploy a few Amazonian or Sabah loggers before the staff of Pelegrino.
Kill plastics off if that's the priority to save the planet. But be careful what you wish for, as there is plenty more on your table that is really not necessary or ecologically that desirable either, and once the fingers get pointing, who knows where next they may get directed?
Nice to see Newsnight still tackling the big issues though, especially to let pass without much consideration as to why a few days ago the global concert to sort out climate awareness managed to score 1/3 the audience of the one from a sadly missed Princess. I guess it's all about priorities. And ratings.
Cheers!
ADDENDUM - Wow, we're well on our way to 250 posts. Meanwhile, as Dave has kindly been sharing, the whole climate change issue seems to be getting some welcome, if questionably-covered, additional focus.
I'm sorry, but the vast majority of comments in this (water) piece really seem to highlight the problem. A bunch of liberal yuppies arguing about the water they drink at the Ivy, vs. a few more significant issues that most, I'd hazard, won't even entertain forgoing. Yet these are the very minority yapping away at the majority from their pedestals of privilege and, I'm afraid, simply either p*ssing them off or causing a lot of deaf ears to be turned.
I drink bottled water once in a blue moon. And yes, it is usually when I am out and fancy a fizzy complement to a meal when wine is out and I'm driving. Have any of these folk on their high horses considered just how much beer is consumed in inefficient packaging, not to mention the numbers of pints of water required to make one? What's next? Eco-Prohibition?
Such obsession with trivia by the chattering classes is really obscuring the bigger picture I fear.
ADDENDUM:
NEWS FROM: Green Party in England & Wales
Londoners urged to get bottled water off the menu
Londoners are being urged to make a stand for the environment by
rejecting the social pressure which leads to them ordering bottled
water rather than asking for perfectly good tap water. The call comes
after city officials in New York launched a campaign to persuade
people to abandon bottled water.
Londoners drink the bottled water equivalent of just over 1 Olympic-
sized swimming pool per week, of which 25% is imported. Bottled water
is now the world’s fastest-growing drinks sector worth £1.2bn a year
and research shows that it is now outselling coca-cola in London.
Yet, new figures from the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) show that
tap water has improved and now meets stringent quality standards in
99.98% of cases.
Jenny Jones, Green Party member of the London Assembly, has warned of
the damaging ecological impact of bottled water.
Jenny Jones said:
“Londoners need to show some independence and show that ordering tap
water with your meal, or at the pub, is fashionable and the right
thing to do. Selling water in bottles and burning massive quantities
of fossil fuels for its transportation does not make economic or
environmental sense.
“Most containers for bottled water are made from non-degradable
plastics, which take a 450 years to break down when disposed of in
landfill sites. Even glass bottles of water still take a lot of
energy to crush and recycle, whereas all we do with a restaurant
glass of water is wash it up afterwards.”
Notes to Editors (and why not you, dear readers, too):
1. Defra figures on water consumption in London are available here
2. Inspectors said 99.98% of tap samples met industry standards
in 2006, up from 99.96% in 2005.
3. Bottled Water Information Office (BWIO).
4. Jenny Jones is also chair of London Food.
But.... then they should maybe resist the urge to order a perfectly good pint, glass of Chardonnay, Thai prawn...
Then I wonder how many Olympic sized swimming pools of tap water get wasted per minute through leaks.
I know it's a 'better than nothing', but this really smacks of a rather odd rallying cry to get the public on board with, in the great scheme of things, along with oh, say, plastic bags (past and future posts)!
And when people are getting blotto at the drop of a hat, do we really need to make water less attractive (without inferring anything about 'tap', of course).
I think I'm zigging while others zag.
Gaurdian - Let's lose our bottle
Bless. A few weeks ago a piece in Newsnight highlights the fact that the loss of carbon sink through deforestation is in excess of the USA's entire annual output... and it gets just 30 posts, mostly shared billing with the next cold war.
But to worry about the snobbery of bottled water we're up to 130 and counting!
Still doesn't make much sense to me, but for a special non-alcoholic complement to the meal (I'm guessing all are still OK with a nice bottle of Aussie Chardonnay and some airflown whatever, drizzled in stuff and topped with a dusting of more stuff) I'm not sure the tap can quite match the sparkle of a Perrier (sans benzene, of course).
But we seem again to be getting into 'what's necessary' territory here.
As the majority are discussing the affronts endured at a dining venue that is not their home, one could possibly also ask how eco it is shunting one and all to another place to have a meal.
Bigger questions could be directed to those who know about such things as to how such imports are allowed, and what their relative carbon footprints are compared to other food and beverage options. And, if deemed acceptable in the consumer choice chain for sale (and taxing) by the authorities, why there are not better mechanisms to share the responsibility for viable, economic, decent enviROI recycling process amounts all through the delivery chain, from manufacturer (bottler), through consumer (sorry) to reclaim rather than landfill. Of course there are reuse options a wee bit higher up the waste hierarchy, and at http://www.junkk.com we have quite a few and are more than happy to see uploaded lots more.
However, to get with the flow (more water puns, sorry) of this pressing debate, just for personal fun, I have never understood paying for the still variety as I can't taste the difference. And how special an event is with a plastic bottle amidst the setting is also in my view an aspect to consider.
So... a sexy blue fizzy Ty Ant or bulbous green glass Perrier (see them made into gorgeous lights here: http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97 ) would be sadly missed.
The plastic flatties less so, for sure, though there is quite an industry out there that may have trouble surviving supplying only the needs of those with less comprehensive piped delivery systems. Me, I'd prefer to unemploy a few Amazonian or Sabah loggers before the staff of Pelegrino.
Kill plastics off if that's the priority to save the planet. But be careful what you wish for, as there is plenty more on your table that is really not necessary or ecologically that desirable either, and once the fingers get pointing, who knows where next they may get directed?
Nice to see Newsnight still tackling the big issues though, especially to let pass without much consideration as to why a few days ago the global concert to sort out climate awareness managed to score 1/3 the audience of the one from a sadly missed Princess. I guess it's all about priorities. And ratings.
Cheers!
ADDENDUM - Wow, we're well on our way to 250 posts. Meanwhile, as Dave has kindly been sharing, the whole climate change issue seems to be getting some welcome, if questionably-covered, additional focus.
I'm sorry, but the vast majority of comments in this (water) piece really seem to highlight the problem. A bunch of liberal yuppies arguing about the water they drink at the Ivy, vs. a few more significant issues that most, I'd hazard, won't even entertain forgoing. Yet these are the very minority yapping away at the majority from their pedestals of privilege and, I'm afraid, simply either p*ssing them off or causing a lot of deaf ears to be turned.
I drink bottled water once in a blue moon. And yes, it is usually when I am out and fancy a fizzy complement to a meal when wine is out and I'm driving. Have any of these folk on their high horses considered just how much beer is consumed in inefficient packaging, not to mention the numbers of pints of water required to make one? What's next? Eco-Prohibition?
Such obsession with trivia by the chattering classes is really obscuring the bigger picture I fear.
ADDENDUM:
NEWS FROM: Green Party in England & Wales
Londoners urged to get bottled water off the menu
Londoners are being urged to make a stand for the environment by
rejecting the social pressure which leads to them ordering bottled
water rather than asking for perfectly good tap water. The call comes
after city officials in New York launched a campaign to persuade
people to abandon bottled water.
Londoners drink the bottled water equivalent of just over 1 Olympic-
sized swimming pool per week, of which 25% is imported. Bottled water
is now the world’s fastest-growing drinks sector worth £1.2bn a year
and research shows that it is now outselling coca-cola in London.
Yet, new figures from the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) show that
tap water has improved and now meets stringent quality standards in
99.98% of cases.
Jenny Jones, Green Party member of the London Assembly, has warned of
the damaging ecological impact of bottled water.
Jenny Jones said:
“Londoners need to show some independence and show that ordering tap
water with your meal, or at the pub, is fashionable and the right
thing to do. Selling water in bottles and burning massive quantities
of fossil fuels for its transportation does not make economic or
environmental sense.
“Most containers for bottled water are made from non-degradable
plastics, which take a 450 years to break down when disposed of in
landfill sites. Even glass bottles of water still take a lot of
energy to crush and recycle, whereas all we do with a restaurant
glass of water is wash it up afterwards.”
Notes to Editors (and why not you, dear readers, too):
1. Defra figures on water consumption in London are available here
2. Inspectors said 99.98% of tap samples met industry standards
in 2006, up from 99.96% in 2005.
3. Bottled Water Information Office (BWIO).
4. Jenny Jones is also chair of London Food.
But.... then they should maybe resist the urge to order a perfectly good pint, glass of Chardonnay, Thai prawn...
Then I wonder how many Olympic sized swimming pools of tap water get wasted per minute through leaks.
I know it's a 'better than nothing', but this really smacks of a rather odd rallying cry to get the public on board with, in the great scheme of things, along with oh, say, plastic bags (past and future posts)!
And when people are getting blotto at the drop of a hat, do we really need to make water less attractive (without inferring anything about 'tap', of course).
I think I'm zigging while others zag.
Gaurdian - Let's lose our bottle
We are all members of the blackfoot tribe
I missed seeing this last night, but then I rarely see Corrie with anything more than half an eye open.
DEFRA has launched a £5Million ad campaign aimed at making us all more aware of our carbon footprints. Full story from The Guardian.
Nice use of an excellent Kinks track (Shangri-La), but will the man in the street even understand the ad, let alone the underlying message? Let's see.
DEFRA has launched a £5Million ad campaign aimed at making us all more aware of our carbon footprints. Full story from The Guardian.
Nice use of an excellent Kinks track (Shangri-La), but will the man in the street even understand the ad, let alone the underlying message? Let's see.
The convenient solution?
A clever title for an interesting short film (10mins) from Greenpeace promoting investment in renewables and CHP schemes above the development of any further nuclear power generation capabilites.
Some quite interesting facts & figures appear, not least of which is the scale of government funding in renewables R&D compared to the funding going into existing nuclear waste clean up! A bit of a gobsmacker!
So is it the convenient solution? Well, watch the video and make up your own mind.
My major concern is more, how shall I put it .... the 'inconvenient unkown'; as in, do we actually have the time to develop and deploy large scale new renewable schemes based on things like wave and tidal power, technologies which, as yet, are still very much in their infancy?
Some quite interesting facts & figures appear, not least of which is the scale of government funding in renewables R&D compared to the funding going into existing nuclear waste clean up! A bit of a gobsmacker!
So is it the convenient solution? Well, watch the video and make up your own mind.
My major concern is more, how shall I put it .... the 'inconvenient unkown'; as in, do we actually have the time to develop and deploy large scale new renewable schemes based on things like wave and tidal power, technologies which, as yet, are still very much in their infancy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)