First they came for the 4x4s, and I did...

With all due deference to the seriousness of Pastor Neimoller's words, it looks like next in line for a bit of high priority trendy liberal media angst is... patio heaters!

And for once I am quiet happy to be on the side of good... er... green. At least, so long as it's basically letting all and sundry who think they're nifty that, on balance, they are not perhaps the greatest contribution to global warmin... er... climate change. In fact I was livid when the Ideal Home stuck my stand during their 'Environmental Theme' next to one selling the blooming things.

So we have the usual perky BBC blonde bouncing around post flood duty asking some outdoorsy types 'what they think'.

My favourite was the girl who said they were required because 'we need to experience the outdoors'. Sweet. Then there was the pub landlord who reckoned they stopped people flying to Spain. And the pub chain CEO who was dead against them and had commissioned much PR to get the BBC to advertise him.. er... them... er the good works they are doing. Plus fresh prawns at £6.99 and a bottle of Chilean red thrown in...:)

Seems this is the unintended consequence of the new anti-smoking laws; all the smokers don't like to be chilly when they are outside, so need the exterior brought up to speed temperature wise, along with the rest of the planet, it seems. Actually I never found out what the carbon cost of a fag was. Must check.

It has coincided with a minor debate I was/am having on an eco-blog (members only, don'tchaknow) following a post asking what was the best way to heat outdoors. Sadly my idea of either buying woolly jumpers from the local charity shop, or commissioning the knitting circle to whip up branded shawls (think of the PR!) was not favoured.

I am currently having an exchange with a guy who is telling me underfloor heating is radiant and only heats the person and not the air, which I'm having trouble grasping.

So to a long and growing list we can now add patio heaters. I just hope Dave's Humveee terrorists don't get wind of it or they'll be flying over to blow them up.

Meanwhile, the forests get cut down, the oil shale is being strip mined, etc, etc. Oh, and the floods were soooo yesterday.

BBC - 'Dump patio heater wear a jumper' - I'm sure they don't mean dump it. Just don't use it anymore. JunkkYard - hatstand?

Indy - Hot Air - How do you 'secretly own' one? And 'environment hypocrisy is a new concept?
Indy - Enemy of the planet: The ethics of consumption

Guardian - Not in my back yard

I think there are few that can disagree that the things are hard to justify on any count, but especially in an era when unnecessary man, er, person made emissions are figured to be accelerating climate change.

I, for one, was livid that my (eco) stand (of about 6 out of 700) at the supposed Enviro-themed Ideal Home Show a few years ago was positioned next to one flogging the things by the score.

But...

In the great scheme of things, I would dearly love to have some kind of understandable comparative table that shows where the areas of greatest enviROIs are. There will of course be those of a communal nature (governmental, local authority and corporate), and then individual.

Such as patio heaters, 4x4s, budget airlines and Evian bottles will fall under the latter (noting that two of those might have been missed somewhat in certain areas lately had they been fully banned as advocated by some).

Whilst recognising every little thing adds up, matters and makes a difference, I am more than interested in where these iconic examples of activist and selective action chattering class ire actually rate against, say, home insulation.

With such information to hand perhaps we can more effectively prioritise the big hits that will make a real difference first, and sweat the small stuff later.

Especially as the shrill nanny nature of most efforts I am seeing so far seem almost inevitably destined to create a backlash from those who are less likely to chain themselves to the local pub's heater whilst sipping a nice chilled Chilean Chablis. And are the ones who really need to be brought onside.

But I guess it sells a few more papers and fills a slot at the end of the news stirring the pot.

Ask, and you will... er... um...

A bit more water-borne fun & games with Newsnight

I prefer to 'watch' the PC feed the next day, but as seems to happen every so often it is pointing elsewhere. So it is hard to comment in detail.

And as I am also getting a pop-up when I do (on my PC, requiring me to log on from another) which says rather baldly, and unhelpfully, 'you are not allowed to comment' (er, why?) it gets even trickier.

So may I express a frustration with such posting efforts that when very pertinent questions do get asked, they almost inevitably do not get answered.

How about an on-air follow-up when it is obviously warranted and you have some nifty one-liners to pose?

I am still trying to understand how these floods are described by all levels of government from Dear Leader down as 'without precedent' and 'unable to predict', when I keep hearing that they have happened before (on Newsnight) and were predicted (Guardian Front Page).

Who doesn't know their facts, or is simply enhancing the truth?

32.78m AOD

That is the height, in metres, that the lowest corner of my house at damp course level is 'Above Ordnance Datum'.

I know this because a few years ago some chappies were at the end of the road doing hard hat/high-vis jackety-type things with levels, and I asked them to give me that measurement.

I figured it would come in handy one day.

Hopefully it still will. I am a great believer in prevention being better than cure, so rather than mopping out the utility room and having a fight with the loss adjuster, I would like to try and make my house as flood proof as possible, against the chance that this 'one in a hundred year event' might happen again next month.

Thing is, I am not off to the best of starts.

The best the Environment Agency floodline could come up with was the offer of a sandbag. Now I am sure they are better than nothing, but I have a few grander plans in mind. Slotted posts with neoprene sleeves to accommodate tapered slats, for one. Quick to erect. Easy to store. With luck, using the best of Junkk.com. Already I have sealed the (now defunct) dryer outlet with a nifty sweet can lid that slid over a treat.

But to figure out what's for the best I need to know what height to make them. And this is proving an effort. I can't seem to get any sense out of anyone so far on what 'might' happen. Which makes planning tricky.

All I have managed so far is to get on a list that sends an email to tell me I'm about to be flooded if I'm in. And a text if I'm out. And as to the brook alongside that is copping the run-off from the new housing estate on the hillside farmland, that's not included as it is another department.

Spiffy.

ADDENDUM - You want some fun? Try getting a definition for Ordnance Datum, much less what it is in your vicinity.

The best I have, so far, is:

chart datum Set reference point on charts for water depth in relation to tides. On metric charts for which the UK Hydrographic Office is the charting authority, chart datum is a level as close as possible to Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), the lowest predictable tide under average meteorological conditions (from Ministry of Defence, 1987). This is not the same as Ordnance Datum, the fixed reference point for heights and contours shown on Ordnance Survey maps, which is based on mean sea level (MSL) as recorded at Newlyn (Cornwall) over a seven-year period from 1915 to 1921.

ADDENDUM 2 -

Having signed up to them, I just had an automated mobile call and email to tell me to 'stand down'. So that seemed to work, at least.

Sadly this is not going to help me with the fact that the continued high levels seem to have opened a breech between the brook and my cellar such that the pumps are now working 24/7. I fear I need to get tanking. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££:(

Telegraph - Bogged down with bureaucracy

My pride and joy Hummer - What a bummer!

An interesting article from last Friday's Belfast Telegraph reporting on an act of eco-vandalism that has divided the USA into two factions.

A poor ( intentional ironic pun ) chap has had his Hummer severely beaten up by a gang of eco-warriors who caused $12,000 worth of damage to his pride and joy.

The really odd thing is that although polls in the US show that more and more Americans are becoming environmentally aware, the hardest thing for them to give up is their gas-guzzlers. As the New York Post put it - “We buy gas guzzlers, but we vote for gas sipping.”

And, yes, you've guessed it, the sale of Hummers is still on the way up - "in June, according to the latest figures from General Motors, the world’s largest car manufacturer, Hummer sales were up by 11 per cent."

I bet Arnie's glad his runs on Hydrogen! Mind you, imagine the bang if they managed to split the fuel tank on his with a baseball bat!

The funny side of things

There is always a humorous side to everything, and Matt of The Telegraph inevitably manages to produce a cartoon that sums things up in a way that can make everyone smile.

Genius is a rare thing, but Matt has it in spades.

I predict a riot

Oh, dear. This if this is the best we can do I'd advise buying bigger wellies - Newsnight Floods

Unpredicted power cuts. Something without precedent I am sure at the BBC. It must be climate change. Lessons must be learned. Debates will be had. But, for now, let's move on.

First up, let me just say how bang on - 'watching TV without electricity. LOL' - almost all the comments have been so far, and forgive me for rehashing any, but there is much to rake over.

'Without precedent'. So says Dear Leader and his gang. Well, is/was it, or not? Especially if, as advised, 1903 was the wettest on record and 1947 & 1956 were a tad damp, too. And what has happened 'was no different' to 1968 in the West Midlands or 1912 in East Anglia.

Which rather makes a mockery of 'Acts of God' along with 'No one could have predicted'.

Surely to [that same invoked entity] this was entirely predictable, and should have been anticipated. And as we are getting hit with climate change awareness communications (via PR and massively-funded ad campaigns of questionable value) daily, might we not suppose that in a joined up government a projection may have been made from such historical data, a few factors such as increased population, consequent building, drainage and run off bolted on, to arrive at the notion that, at some stage, it was going to happen again, and maybe even a bit worse?

I have never heard such woeful backsliding, and backside covering so far (with a prediction of more totally precedented examples to come).

If Mr. Brown's solution so far is to swim in and promise a bit more money to make up for what he was part of removing in the past, I'd say the only bounce from any location near water he'd see if he called an election was out! How long are we going to be treated to an erasing of any complicity in the last decade, when all those responsible for what is happening now were part of the obvious failures in policy and action (with all due, obligatory, praise to those at the sharp... er, wet... end of the public service delivery systems who actually have to mop up their bosses' foul-ups) that has brought us to this point?

And if... when this money arrives, forget the Environment Agency two Labour MPs so virulently trashed various for 'rubbish systems' on this very point (this would be the same Agency a Minister of Government subsequently has very confidence in? How disjointed is that!?), how can we trust this shambolic bunch to utilise any more cash any more effectively than they have already? We have the evidence of our own pruny toes to show what they are capable of at a strategic level. The only defensive systems I see deployed so far are career-covering words. As Baroness Young said: 'there is no accounting'. Quite.

I'm not quite sure how many Ministers of Mud (Ok, the environment) we deserve, but Mr. Phil 'No Point Trying' Woolas was an inspired choice of spokesperson to help us through this. 'Not the time for lessons learned', just as all around are trying to bail themselves out by rehashing this rather tired mantra enough times in the hope it will all soon pass over. And speaking of tired mantras, there is, apparently, 'a big debate to be had'. Well we're having it now matey, and the likes of you are looking pretty poor in the showing so far.

Was he really saying that as it was going to be really bad the lack of doing anything in some places was excusable. With a system that is claimed to be totally 'fluid' (excuse the pun) from one hour to the next, you don't even try? And big up to the commenter who noted he doesn't seem to have grasped the Thames Barrier's actual function. Funny if not tragic. It sure doesn't fill me with much confidence in the competence being brought to bear so far.

And Newsnight, why, oh why do you persist with the 'twofer' bookend debate style. Actually the flood victim lady was at least quite well-informed and confident, but for an issue this massive she's all we get to go head to head with a Minister backed by a bazillion assistants and briefings (not that it did him much good)?

And as a tax, local rate and licence fee payer with the River Wye looking to do the same thing one day, and wishing to prevent a lot more than I can cure or see excluded on insurance, why did we not get an answer to the question of DEFRA's Flood Resistance Grants? I would like, no... need... no... demand to know!

Along with why we are not spending money wisely on tangible preventative measures as opposed to p*ssing it all away on more and more quangos and ad campaigns to make 'us' aware on our carbon footprints. I'm pretty sure some were quite relieved that 4x4s and bottled water (last week was it that Newsnight jumped on that trivial bandwagon?) were still available at the moment, and a bit more concerned about the much bigger carbon footprint pictures that might be responsible for such massive natural phenomena.

So let's not just look to the skies to explain what has happened on the ground here. I'm afraid what I am seeing and hearing is indeed caused by man (PC-alert: men and women), but mostly all living in one small village in Westminster.

I was more than interested in the Climate Change discussion (no so much a debate as they were really agreeing with each other) between Meteorologist of 30 years' experience Philip Eden, and environmentalist of, er, no obvious fixed qualification, George Monbiot. An interesting pairing.

I'd have loved to have seen Mr. Eden across the table from Mr. Brown or Woolas to hear them deal with the fact that there was indeed plenty of precedent, and all this could be and indeed has been predicted. Maybe even mitigated?

In fact this should be the end of the story, along with their over-spun careers. But no, one can say almost anything outright wrong and get away with it pretty easily these days.

Especially in the current media climate where there is an attention span... of oh, that's all we have time for. Meanwhile, in other news... I for one would like to return to the hundreds more concerned with Jeremy's tie. Not.

I'll leave the final words to the only qualified scientist I heard all night: 'If this is what happens within our current limits of experience, what is going to happen in the future?' I'm just not sure if he was talking about the weather, or the guys tasked to help us address its consequences.

Boogey me... er... atmospheric phenomena

Get used to 'em: Floods force many to face climate change reality

While there is a (pretty valid) school of thought that 'we' need a pretty big 'something' by way of a climatic kick in the pants, I do wonder if pinning everything on 'climate change' isn't going to get to be a common, and convenient, catch-all, and hence lose its effect PDQ.

I don't know for sure, but at the moment I'm guessing that these floods could equally force a few to face the facts of overpopulation, woeful political priorities, disastrous land management practices and even that most awful of all: stuff happens.

Sitting in my room on July trying to figure which water borne menace will get me first - the river coming up or the rain down/sideways - it's hard not to get the feeling that this is all a tad 'odd'. But then it is not, it seems, without historical precedent. Any hence if nature is just doing its funky thing, then all the billion £ claims are more a matter of how many of us there are now, where we were told/allowed to stick our homes, and fill 'em with expensive kit for insurers to try and get out of paying for.

So when I see such as this: "...mechanism may well explain an observed rise in flash floods in Europe over the last decade.." I worry a bit. Especially with the all too wonderful 'may'.

At least this is definitive: '... parts of China have seen the heaviest rainfall since records began,' though I have expressed caution on 'toll' figures bearing in mind our race's spread over the planet. The Boxing Day tsunami killed a lot more than Krakatoa because in those days Swedish tourists were not skinny-bathing in Phuket, and half of India hadn't cut down the mangrove swaps to get a sea view.

I'm no statistician, so I'll go with this: 'This year's UK floods were an event statistical models say should happen once only every 30 to 50 years, Mehlhorn says: the floods in 2000 were a 25-30 years event. Two such events in only seven years are not statistically impossible, but they are unlikely. Other countries have seen similar increases in such disasters.' But again I think it too easy to just say that it's down to what is dropping from the skies and not a lot to do with what it is all dropping on.

And, frankly, one (while critical) is in the future, while the other is now. So while both need addressing, let it be for the right reasons, and not to get a lot of pretty key questions off a load of folk who should be tasked to explain themselves. Because if we don't have the right folk, with the right abilities, and the right motivations in charge of the future... we're screwed.

And that IS scary.

Floods and tears

I think this whole deal deserves a dedicated page. Let's start off with this from the Green Party:

Greens condemn government response to flooding
FLOODING CHAOS IS JUST A TASTER OF WHAT IS TO COME

Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall today condemned the
government's management of floods in the UK:

"The chaos caused by flooding over the last few weeks is just a tiny
taster of what climate change will mean in the future. Climate
change will lead to more extreme weather rather than simply warming
Britain.

"It's as if Evesham has been hit by Hurrican Katrina and Gordon Brown
is showing all the signs of leadership of his climate change denying
ally George Bush

"Government failure to prepare for the flooding is matched by
government failure to tackle the causes of climate change. On the
one hand the government is encouraging the building of new houses on
flood plains, on the other it is expanding Heathrow and our motorway
network.

"We need to cut CO2 by 90 per cent in the next few decades.

"At present Britain is neither cutting greenhouse gases nor
prepaparing to deal with the consequences of climate change. It is
like a Doctor would will neither prevent nor attempt to cure an illness.

"We must stop building on flood plains, invest in flood protection
but above all, cut back on the expansion of roads, airports and new
fossil fuel power stations.

Hard to argue with most of that. Written in a hurry, looks like!
More to come, I'm sure.

Reuters - Thousands without water after floods in England
Indy - A 21st century catastrophe - '...a disaster caused by 21st-century weather. This weather is different from anything that has gone before.' I don't know, so I merely ask: is this the case? I merely note the meteorologist's opinion on Newsnight in an associated blog post. The rest is worth reading though, but I must confess to being confused now.
Indy - Ministers under fire as experts warn of worse to come - And when it does, I am sure it will be unpredicted... again. How is that we can't even get the financial numbers straight?
Indy - Get used to floods - actually quite rational

Guardian - Ministers warned three years ago over flood defence failings - All together now, 'Oh no we weren't!'. "Oh yes you were!" It's a bad pantomime.
Guardian - Going under - some explanations

BBC - Floods: At-a-glance - If your feet are wet it's too late
BBC - Claims over floods to 'top £2bn' - And I think the wrong folk end up paying
BBC - Humans 'affect global rainfall' - I'm pretty sure we affect a lot more than that!

Indy - Amid this latest apocalypse, the prophets of doom are all peddling their own agendas - But I'm guessing most will have no blooming clue what they are on about if this is a sample.
Indy - Drought, growth and a changing climate
Indy Letters - Some interesting views

Times - Shocking news: Britain’s a wet country - 65 posts! 66 now:

It's a pity this has become an is/isn't climate change issue.

But then that's probably fine by those in power and heading up various quangos who have been saying that it's all 'unprecedented' when it isn't, and 'couldn't be predicted' when it was.

So while this diversionary argument - though a key one, globally - rages, those who should be held to account for why the water that fell (for whatever reason) ended up in a suburban semi's living room. And why my insurance rates go up to compensate.

It's not just the planet that ends up paying for such ineptitude.

ADDENDUM - actually it's an archive I just got round to:

Times - Labour plans flood defence cuts as Britain flounders in the deluge - I'm guessing not, now. A fun read, this way round.

Times - If this is a national disaster, I’m a tomato

I suppose it's open to a semantic debate as to how bad it needs to get before we hit 'disaster' as an acceptable term, but as the discussion is what one sees in the media I was just looking at your own paper from earlier this month: Labour plans flood defence cuts as Britain flounders in the deluge And then I was trying to reconcile this with 'The Government has proved itself calmly competent. ... the pragmatic, unhysterical approach of the new Prime Minister has suited the country well. No soundbites; no grimaces; no posturing.' as the words from this same person and his calmly competent acolytes are still ringing in my ears: 'This is unprecedented... there was no way to predict it'. When, of course, it isn't and it wasn't'.

Remind me, and those currently not in theri comfy sitting room, is a tomato a over-ripe fruit or a tastless vegetable?

The Ecologist - High Tide

You're quite right. 'We' do tend to be moving towards a blame culture, don't we?

But then again, I think that refers to the trend of not holding ourselves accountable for things we pretty much do to, or bring upon ourselves.

There are still quite a few instances where 'we' are required to play ball and/or pay a bunch of folk an awful lot of money to make things run smoothly and safely.

So when something is immediately pointed anywhere but where it should be by a cabinet of Chicken Littles and their chattering class supporters, especially solely skywards, as 'an Act of God (well, that plus anthrowhatsit climate change)' that 'is without precedent (not according to the meteorologist with 30 years' experience I saw on Newsnight) ' and 'could not have been predicted (not according to the front page I read in the Guardian)' I'm afraid I do start to wonder who is doing what for the money, and whether they are doing it effectively or even competently.

Especially when the water I am more worried about is not coming up from the river but down from paved over farmland or drainage systems that cannot cope through poor planing or maintenance.

Of course 'we' are not in control. Thanks to our ever-increasing spread across this planet there is a ton of stuff, which yes, does happen, and there will doubtless be tons more. But we try and prepare, mitigate and, if all else fails, cope.

If those tasked to do it screw up, and then try and blame the boogey man, I'm sorry, that's not finger pointing, asking why is just an absolutely necessary demand for accountability.

And to try and redirect the appropriate questions from some very key areas and people means that history, and nature, will just repeat itself. Which will not serve future generations very well.

And yes, weren't the fireman super? But might it not be better to keep them for the fires and get in place guys who might do their jobs well enough that these noble souls are not called out to pluck grannies from floodplain-located housing estates it would be 'unrealistic' not to build?

Just a thought.

Putting the cart before the horse?

At least this little piece from The Beeb may provide some with a smile on a dismal, damp, and for many, flooded Monday morning.

I noted with an ironic smile the name of the horse and an even bigger smile when I noted the name of the first passenger. I hope that Clarkson's a strong horse!

Thing is, a horse and cart during London's rush hour is probably just about as fast as a car anyway. I wonder if they'll be exempt from Ken's congestion charge?

As for helping the environment, well, it's probably nothing but a minuscule drop in the floods really.

Independent Assessement?

One of the defining aspects of modern life is convenience.

We either don't have, are not given or simply think we don't have time to do anything unless it is easy and now.

I was pondering this this morning. I have been given an extra half day thanks to the floods preventing me getting to my next 'summit', and have decided to invest a little time in the media's 'take' on it all.

Thing is, I am, like most, pretty time poor. And my news snacking is hence governed primarily on convenience. And the differences are marked.

Taking the 'big 4' 'qualities' (well, that's their term) as a fair spread of left/right, social/consumerist information and opinion, I should at least try and scope the Times, Telegraph, Guardian and Indy.

Now the Times does, not (to the best of my knowledge) send a daily email. That makes them a daily visit, which is hassle. Though I do like their article listings when you do. Plus they do allow comment, though they moderate a lot and you are not allowed a link to your site.

The Telegraph used to send my a daily email, but it has gone now. They do allow comment on some limited things as well.

The Guardian also used to send me a daily, but that also has vanished. And they of course have 'comment is free', which I do indulge in. Bit of a 'club' though.

And that leaves the Indy. They don't have any comment system that I can find, other than letters to the editor, and so far they have not fancied any of mine. Their loss. But a pity.

But what I do get, and like, is their daily email. Clear categories, click to link.

And hence of them all, I mostly use theirs. For no better reason than convenience. Sad.

But it was interesting as today's allowed me to look at what I was being served up and be more critical. Especially with some rather exciting times in the whole politico-enviro water-borne unfirmament, with the Indy falling down on the green end of the spectrum, one supposes.

Here are the headings on this topic I scrolled down:

Scientists confirm global warming link to increased rain - 'Hmnn...' he said, Homer Simpson style... 'scientists'.

'There's been nothing like this since 1938' - Or all manner of other dates I've heard trotted out. So in 1938 they copped the consequences of the Industrial revolution then? And we're now getting the fallout (literally) from WW2? Something either doesn't make sense, or it is not being well explained to me.

Record rainfall hits China - OK, at least they are getting it on record levels (though from where it does not say. And sorry to be brutal, but if there are lot more of us around, a lot more are going to suffer from natural disasters, so human counts are a bit of a red herring) . It's the 50 coal-fired power stations, I tell you (in Mandarin)!

Science reporting's dark secret - Worth bearing in mind as you read:)

Leading article: The blame game and a plan for the future - 'It is impossible to state unequivocally that the floods that have caused such misery in parts of England over recent days are a direct consequence of accelerating climate change'. Doesn't quite tally with the first one, though, does it?

Ministers will allow thousands of new homes in flood zones - I guess they are hoping for a quick vote before the next downpour.

And, finally , the Letters page - One on windfarms makes an interesting read in the context of the moment. Addendum - trying to find out a bit more, I found this, which may (or not) offer some balance.

Now... is that enough to inform me adequately, and lead to a balanced view on things?

The policy that dare not speak its name .....

.... appears yet again in one of the Sunday's.

This from yesterday's Observer, an article about Chris Rapley, the new head of the science museum, who argues that a reduction in the planet's birthrate is the easiest method of minimising the impacts of climate change.

"What I am saying is that if we invest in ways to reduce the birthrate - by improving contraception, education and healthcare - we will stop the world's population reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and 10 billion. That in turn will mean less carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere because there will be fewer people to drive cars and use electricity."

His views concur with the recent report from the Optimum Population Trust, which called for each couple in Britain to be limited to having two children each.

I wonder how long before one of the main political parties starts to dare to contemplate policies such as this? It couldn't happen, could it?

And interesting to note that there is an estimated theoretical limit for the planet's population, which is 8 to 10 billion. What do we number now - somewhere in excess of 6 billion?

What a shower

There is a certain irony (well, or worse) to a bunch of eco-types like me converging on a place using various carbon-emitting methods to get there.

Or not.

I am just back from almost getting to Cheltenham for another climate gathering. But it was not to be. Maybe just as well, as I am not too sure how my own home will fare as things seem to be deteriorating. I say seems, as I have to suggest that one thing that really has got to me is how poor the information is, or at least how it is disseminated.

I checked the Environment, Highways Agencies and the AA to see about making my trip, and from what I could gather it was fine. It may be the information was out there, but I sure as heck couldn't access it easily.

I only found out about my trip's impossibility when I passed from BBC Hereford and Worcester to BBC Gloucester on the radio. For heaven's sake, guys, people do travel between counties. How about coverage slightly beyond your little sphere?

Ditto flooding. Why can't one just key in a postcode and get the latest info. I tried it on the EA site but really got no joy. All I could get was an archive map of the flood plain for my area (pictured). Thing is, if the water gets to some places indicated we're all in trouble. It covers a hill that probably rises 50m. Time to get on to the EA and my insurers to point out that even a metre matters to know if you are going to be underwater, and what the costs of protection are/should be. I certainly plan some defences as this is all not going to improve.

By way of a few thoughts at the end, I noted with interest as I headed back several acres covered with polytunnels. I'm guessing these don't allow the water to soak away?

Also the BBC proudly showing us where I just wasn't, Tewksbury... from a helicopter. Just to show us the water treatment plant. Solar-powered whirlybird was it, guys?

And speaking of the water treatment planet, I am guessing those who reckon bottled water is the eco-antichrist might either by saying a) 'told you so' or b) 'give me all the Evians on the shelf, quick' depending on where they are sitting. A bit like 4x4s, you need to be careful what you wish for. I know these things are not optimal in comparison to other options, but are they really worthy of all the efforts to ban them in comparison to other major climate change causes, and is it worth losing them as options as they do seem to offer certain advantages to cope with some situations?

Still, as a cheery Beeb has shared, at least the berry crops are doing well. I wonder if they are grown under plastic?

Keeping track of business

This blog cocks a quizzical eyebrow at the activities of some in the corporate world from time to time. But it's usually case specific and subjective. So try Climate Counts too.

This website may be the place to go to get a broader analysis.

Introduced by ClimateBiz, the blurb was enough to get me to check it out:

Every week it seems like a new company -- or a slew of companies -- hops on the climate fight bandwagon: Company A goes carbon-neutral; Company B signs on to a climate-change pact. The end result is often a lot of fanfare without much follow-up: are these companies actually making concrete plans to meet their goals? And if so, what effect will it have?

So it's understandable to see the news this month that consumers don't necessarily trust companies or the government when it comes to climate change information. The whole topic -- complex, scientific, overly techy and hard to sort fact from fiction -- seems almost a perfect recipe to inspire public cynicism. Is one company's 10 percent reduction better or worse than another company's 20 percent reduction? Depending on what they're really talking about, it might be. But who really knows?

All of which makes Climate Counts, a new organization that rates companies on their climate performance, even more refreshing. By taking a clear look at how well companies are living up to their climate-change goals -- grandiose or moderate as they may be -- Climate Counts stands a chance of leveling the playing field, and creates the kinds of norms and standards we all need to understand and assess companies' climate commitment, or lack thereof. Stay tuned as we see if this tool helps companies walk their talk.

The provenenace behind it looks OK, but keep a wary eye on motivations (you know ours - we only really care about enviROI, and when it sucks, we call a spade a duck)

So when we read such as this - 'STRIDING - The best Climate Counts choice. These companies still have work to do, but they're beginning to hit their stride. Let them know you value their commitment and look forward to their continued climate leadership.' - about Coke, we do wonder.

Maybe becuase it's US-based.

Vague on solving problems. Vague of the causes of problems.

A committee of MPs not only thought the Iran 'M/marine' affair was mishandled, but seemed unable to locate anyone who was to blame for decisions made all the way up the chain.

This is what I switched on Breakfast TV to find out. No one is to blame any more. And it's 'wholly unsatisfactory'. That'll have all of 'em quaking.

Moving on to a more immediate, and topical issue. Flooding.

Baroness Young of the Environment Agency is wheeled on to explain why a bunch of folk are sitting on their roofs, either not protected or not assisted in good order.

What struck me first was the reasons. There have not been floods like this 'in 200 years'. And a lot of it was down to significant 'run'off'. Hmmn.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we not had a bunch of officials banging on for a wee while about climate change, with vast amounts of time and energy being 'invested' in campaigns to get us to 'think' about such huge issues as plastic bags. So they were/are aware that some stinky stuff was/is going to happen. Yet the main thing I seem to be hearing is that it is all 'unprecedented'.

Well, at least since 200 years ago, when climate change was what happened four times a year and you just made sure the crops got rotated properly to cope. As opposed to sticking a supermarket carpark on top of them. You'd think they'd have figured it was not only going to happen again, but be even more serious - As Mr. Brown has said: '[they] have to learn lessons for the future'. Like so much else, it all is such a big surprise after the last 10 years being the number 2 in cabinet, I suppose.

Today, I shall be mostly figuring out how to protect my home from the possibility that no one will be responsible/accountable for the fact that the Wye (or more likely run-off from the hills surrounding it) may do what it has done over the millenia (note to EA and my insurers: despite your warning letter, my house has never been flooded before).

You know what? Instead of flood defences, I think we need another really useful, award-winning campaign. All supported by a bloated system of over-staffed, contradictory agencies to ensure that whatever happens (or doesn't), it's no one's fault.

I just watched Peter Sissons take apart a Labour apologist on her attempt to excuse it all away as an 'Act of God'.... well, done!

As I close, our new Environment Minister is due to explain. Can't wait.

ADDENDUM -

Watching now. He doesn't accept that anything was bungled. Asked a direct question, he didn't answer as to who was in charge. A trend at play here. But we get a nonsense appeal to big up the 'moppers uppers' in the emergency services. These are guys at the sharp end. Maybe the guys at the fat end need to explain why they, and those they were deployed to aid, were put at risk in the first place. And fudges on whether the £15M cut from the budget last year was from capital or elsewhere is just a weasel. Note that amount... to cope with flooding infrastructure for the UK. And weight it against the budget for several different 'awareness ' campaigns'.

On the point of building on flood plains, it seems that now they will take it into account. Only... now?

Telegraph - Flood failures: Ministers 'mishandled crisis'
Telegraph - Prevention, not cure
BBC - One family's M5 nightmare - 4x4's.... cause or coping tool? Can a Prius float?
BBC - Benn defends response to flooding - Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has defended the government's response to the floods, although he accepted there were "lessons to be learned" - As well??? Is it a government of parrots?
Times - Families to foot bill for £2.5bn floods - Well, you wouldn't expect the clowns repsonsible to, would you?

Political common sense shock!

Of course it may be a tad early to cheer too much: Brown to lobby EU on greener VAT

Words and phrases like 'to (as opposed to 'will') lobby (as opposed to 'get in their faces')' and 'push for' (which means?) or 'would seek' (and ye need not necessarily find?) rather make it in the realms of a punt... or, rather, pledge.

And you have gotta love this bit: 'The European Commission welcomed the initiative but said it would require agreement from all 27 member states.' I stand ready to be disabused, but that sounds like 'Yo, Gordo. Still settling in and need to show you're in charge, eh? Sure, we'll help a bit. But the answer is going to be no, ok? But you knew that, right?'

Huge idea, though. Wonder why no one thought of, and/or suggested it before/

Especially as we're trying to encourage better enviro-practice all round.

ps: Is it just me, but is everyone's nearby river coming through their front door?

Swings. Roundabouts. And other low carbon exercises.

More like snakes and ladders! I have just had though an advisory that there is now a bunch of stuff up on the Guardian Climate Change Summit site.

That's the good news. The bad news is that it has reminder me that I completely forgot to finish off my review, and now can't find my notes.

Watch this space (well, key it in to the labels box).

Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad

It's a wet, grey, miserable Friday. So let's start with a grump.

I can see it's a lawnmower, and that's it's cordless. I'll accept quiet.

But... pollution-free?

Yet again, there seems to be confusion as the existence of an exhaust pipe in the process of delivering the energy to the wheels.

Keep off the grass

I was going to spend the day's end linking to all the Auntie-bashing in the tabs, but really, life is too short.

I think we know what they'll all be saying, and then doing exactly the same on their own pages tomorrow.

So I figured I'd share this instead, which I noticed as I walked the boys home today.

I'm guessing that Woolies haven't quite got their heads round greenwashing as a dark art quite yet. Refreshing honesty, though.

Yee-haa! Blast that lawn with the best the labs can brew up!

Google Bads

As it's 'in vogue', I will apologise unreservedly for something unacceptable.

What might make me a tad different to a few others who one might mention, is that I will try and sort this out for real.

I can't fire anyone. And I can't withhold my business (well I could, I guess, but I think trying to sort it out may be the best solution as they are free, and the only game in town).

However, I am going to try and track a person in Google Ads and ask them to stop allowing ads for things that really are not appropriate going on my site.

It's a long shot, and does highlight a problem, not just for me, but the mighty Google.

Because these puppies are automated, and it looks like a few greenwashing corporates have figured out that adding a key phrase or two on your sadder than sad message does get you places who would not ordinarily open their door to you.

Smart sods. But we will foil your plan! Hahahaha... manically.

Yours in sorrow...

FIRST STAB: I new this wouldn't be easy. So far all I have found is a help link that takes me to a Forum

My blog is on my site, and both have ads placed by AdSense.

Now I know that these things are (have to be) automated), but I just got - rightly - ribbed for an ad sitting atop my environmental site blog, from ExxonMobile.

I guess it is because they were/are claiming that they are helping the environment... er... somehow, but really.

Who the heck do I get in touch with to discuss filtering such guff out.

And, frankly, if major greenwashing corporates can circumvent the system this easily, then Google needs to up its vetting game.

What next? Porn ads in kids' sites simply by adding the word 'toys' to their tags?

ADDENDUM -

Hey the system works! A most useful reply already. On the case.

Door show

Trust?

Look... there... a framed orifice through which you can pass from one place to another.

Apparently, from now on, if anyone in the BBC does something 'naughty' (my flip word for a broad tranche of policy, journalistic and editorial 'lapses'), they will be 'shown the door'.

So says an evidently irritated DG, Mark Thompson, who looks like he has much better things to do than deal with the public's views on his outfit. Apparently this is how trust will be regained. A fair task, given what's in this blog and the papers today. And will putting staff on a course (I presume at the licence payers expense) resolve this... I doubt it. And truly resent wasting such funds on a mop up which is more of a backside covering effort of tissuelike thinness than anything tangible. As are allusions to compensation. Using what mechanisms? What money? From where? To whom?

However, in the spirit of 'moving on', which is the phrase du jour of all senior (and, in the old days, responsible/accountable) executives/pols, it looks like this will be the latest free pass bestowed on all complicit in misleading the viewing public. And if that is the case again, why on earth should anyone trust anything said or done in the future.

While charitable financial dodginess is bad enough, I can't help but note that we have also moved from what in many ways I see as a much more critical issue to address, and that is the notion, which seems endemic and to pervade every level of the organisation, that reality and truth are entirely adjustable to improve ratin... er... the story.

In a cosy fire side chat with the boss, some quite remarkable things are covered and, essentially, dismissed.

I think I heard the word unacceptable several times. It becomes rather meaningless if in the same breaths it becomes pretty clear a lot has been and is accepted.

Short term contracts and pressure/ may be reasons, but they are not excuses. And while they can be responsible for a lot of things, they can surely not be held accountable for swapping critical chronologies in news items to 'enhance reality'... in the name of what? It is only now that I find out that reordering is 'not good practice'. It blooming well is a darn site more than that if it changes meaning, or has the DG not read the posts on this blog on the matter.

So there is a duty to have an 'eye to the culture'. Do what? And, er, only now? And an 'eye' will really sort it, for sure.

Great play was also made of how open 'they' are all being now. You know, if George Washington was not found standing next to that felled tree with an axe, one wonders just how open he would have been if not challenged. It's all being treated as a bit of a one off that will blow over, which of course it will.

We get the obligatory resignation question, with the standard 'best for the person who got us in this situation to dig us out of it and prevent future repeats' reply, which worked so well for Charles Clarke.

If these things happen, and they are not for 'personal gain', why do it? Of course it is for personal gain, because you gain personally from the salary and status of your career. And to progress that means satisfying the demands of your job, which means your superiors. It's hardly anything to do with training or lack of it... it is policy. Yet again we are seeing those at the sharp end being used as a buffer and deflection from those above who are really responsible and should be accountable, and then 'sacrificed' (and then pardoned) with a 'jolly good telling to' on an internal basis.

This is not a one off. It has been a whole series, and in a short time. And nothing I have heard or seen leads me to suspect that anything has or will be done beyond short-term damage limitation.

And that's all we have time for. Moving on...

Trust? Don't talk to me about trust.

Indy - BBC reveals further cases of fake phone-ins -
Indy - When broadcasters become the news

There will be more, I'm sure...

BBC - BBC boss backed in phone scandal - Well, there's a shock
Creative Match - BBC confess to 'disrespecting the audience' in phone in scam

What worries me as much, is how the 'issue' has now moved onto the equally (if not legally/financially even more) significant area of phone-ins, but we have 'moved on' (key phrase of any senior exec trying to protect tushie) from the fact that a) the truth is out there... waaaaaay out there... and b) the odd notion that there's no much wrong with a little 'enhanced reality (ie: outright fabrication) between feral fiends of the media and the public in this new Big Brother short-contract, high pressure, yoof-media 'professional' age.

I used to, only half-jokingly, write that something I read was on the BBC 'so it must be true'. Oh, the irony.

Gaurdian - Comic Relief among shows that deceived BBC viewers
Gaurdian - Trust angry over charity appeal lies
Guardian - Ofcom gets tough and says broadcasters are in denial - ya think???!
Guardian - Newsdesk notes for Thursday July 19
Guardian - Does the BBC deserve its public "shaming"?
Guardian - Don't believe all you see on TV - I think they'r ekeen on this!

I couldn't face the Tabs and Tories, as I rather suspect they will be a tad to the right of my own thinking only with a slight whiff of 'holier than thou'.

Indy - In defence of the BBC - Well it does need it a bit. Plus several side bar links worth scoping

I find this telling, though: Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, resisted calls from Conservative MPs for the Government to intervene. She told the House of Commons: "It is of course important they have the trust of all their viewers but this is not just an issue for the BBC but across all broadcasters."

I felt moved to write under the heading 'Apples. Oranges. And Lemons':

Excuse me? Harriet Harman says "It is of course important they have the trust of all their viewers but this is not just an issue for the BBC but across all broadcasters."

Our local plod have tried to excuse their inability to properly police crime by pointing out resources are tight and anyway it is a lot worse elsewhere. That's like me trying to get off a speeding conviction by saying other folk are going faster.

And one small, additional, point. Who pays... er, gets forced to pay for the BBC?

Guardian - When they stop calling - Positively Clintonian. It's 'enhancing' the truth; not lying.
Guardian - So the BBC is a subversive leftwing conspiracy? You could have fooled me

As is too often the case, we seem to be being presented a rather stark 'either/or' here.

As has been pointed out, certain distractions, now followed by near apocalyptic warnings, have rather managed to drown out the fact that some people up the executive chain in the BBC decided that telling the truth needed some enhancement. In short, portraying some things as real that were not. Which is, apparently, different to lying. Just like taking money under false pretences now seems not to be fraud.

And, in so doing, using whose money?

What I'm seeing is an attempt to blow this out of all proportion to arrange a major puff of smoke, around which mirrors will be rearranged, things will 'move on' and nothing will actually change.

Until the next time.

Maybe, just maybe, we nail down who did what, and if it was wrong hold them properly accountable?

Marketing Week - The commercial uses of BBC abuses - a worthy analysis of who should really be looked at more thoroughly in all this.

Hurricane Spiros

While I am always a tad dubious about anything that has the words 'may' and 'according to scientists' in it, this may be worth noting next time you book a break -
Warming may bring hurricanes to Mediterranean

And if it happens which, heaven forfend it does, it may be a tad difficult to explain away.

Which may get the CC deniers on board at last, which only leaves the 'man-worsened' and 'worth mitigating' steps to go.

London to get huge desalination plant

Its obviously a day for water stories......

I think Peter (with his Civ. Eng. qualifications) could volunteer as project manager for this one from Reuters.

London is going to build a £200 million desalination plant to produce 140 million litres of drinking water a day.

In the meantime 25% (see below) of all of London's potable water is still lost through leakage. They reckon that at least 50% of London's water consumption could be saved by the simple promotion (a small financial household incentive would surely have been a better idea?) of rain water harvesting systems etc. (especially as climate change experts forecast that summer rainfall will actually increase over current levels.)

On the basis of other current grand projects initiated by our really sensible government, the final cost will, of course, be at least £450 million.

Oh, "the plant will only run on bio-diesel". So that's OK then because that's nice and green.
Oh, and its "only going to be used intermittently" - whatever that's supposed to mean! (If there is only a peak demand intermittment requirement, then why not sort out the current problems instead of throwing a massive project at a minor set of problems?)

(Just a thought, but, looking at current climatic trends, as most of London is likely to be at, or even below, sea level in 40 or 50 years time, maybe its not such a bad idea after all? [If they build it on 30 Metre stilts!])

That 25% of potable water currently lost via leakage amounts to the insignificant figure of some 702 million litres per day!! (Don't despair, it used to be a lot worse than that!)

Addendum:

Here's The Guardian's take on the proposals - "Green groups condemn water plant go-ahead."

Whilst, rather surprisingly, Christian Today heads up its article on the subject with "London Fights Climate Change to get Clean Water to Booming Population"

While we are on the subject of the Swiss ....

..... do read this from Magnus Linklater in TimesOnline Comment.

Twenty billion gallons of water are required to artificially make snow across the alps each winter!

"Because alpine resorts are, despite their icy surroundings, often short of water, these precious supplies must either be stored on site or ferried up by helicopter. The Swiss, veteran users of airborne travel, favour the latter. The French dig reservoirs. The Austrians do both. "

And they fly the water up in helicopters!

"It would be hard to conjure up a more potent symbol of environmental perversity than the use of carbon-spewing fossil fuels to help to dispose of millions of gallons of carefully extracted water in order that a few thousand tourists can slide down a slope for an extra week."

Quite! I can't think of anyone who can logically argue with that!

Renewables Strategy Just Like Swiss Cheese?

Is the government's strategy to encourage the installation of renewable energy components on new build developements failing?

The conclusion, as a consequence of loop-holes built into the legislation, appears to be a resounding yes!

Quite a while back the government introduced a new set of building regulations and these have now become enshrined in planning law. A minimum of 10% of the energy consumption of any new build must be provided via renewable energy means. At the time there was a great deal of consternation amongst developers and architects alike - it looked as if it would mean a significant increase in costs on any development - and hence a hefty premium on the cost of any new property.

Speaking to some developers a few weeks ago, I asked them about this problem. Their response ....... we just chuck in more insulation, put in low energy lighting, and we can meet the renewables requirement.

I was not quite sure at the time that I understood just how this could work, but this article from a town planner in Newcastle expains thing quite clearly.

"If green energy measures are to be included in the building, such as energy efficient lighting and extra insulation, this will reduce the carbon footprint of the building, thereby reducing the 10% requirement."

"It is usually more cost effective to cut the energy consumption of a building than to provide renewable equipment. "

So the renewables requirement can be met by ignoring renewables and by simply reducing the overall energy consumption of a new build. Not a bad thing in itself, but I think certainly not what was originally intended.

Nice piece of legislation or what? Swiss cheese with loop-holes that big you can drive an artic through!

Addendum:

Just to prevent any confusion, reducing a new build's projected carbon footprint by 10% does NOT then mean that only 10% of the remaining energy consumption has then to be met using renewables. Because of this loop-hole, the use of additional insulation and low energy lighting etc. means that the renewables requirement for new builds, in some cases, has been met without using any renewables at all! (i.e. The exact opposite of what the new regulations were trying to achieve)

Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male):

Saw this and thought of you:

Our group has been working on design/construction of
low energy/affordable housing units and finally we
have produced a 3BR house protorype that costs almost
half the price of similar size house on the market. We
are happy to share our findings with you.

Kind regards,
Dr M Hedman
SolXO Ltd.
United Kingdom

Left Fist. Meet Right Fist. Now make a fist of things.

A wee while ago there was a tad of a spat over road pricing, which resulted in a high profile petition. Looks like there may be again - 'Big Brother' plan for police to use new road cameras

I blogged a fair bit on it (and you can, if you are so disposed, locate it by popping said phrase in the blogger search).

I was... am in favour of it, so long as a load of factors were established and guaranteed for fair and competent delivery first. Which they were not. So I joined the petition.

Now in all that debate I do recall an interview with one Doctor (as in the figures) Ladyman, who I think was challenged by a Sun columnist in whether or not 'we' were to be tracked as part of all this. The answer, for this was not perhaps a good thing to admit in a Big Brother overloaded government's term, was no. Or at least 'a looking at it' no. Few were convinced. I think I wondered how you effectively charged anyone for distance covered if you didn't track them. It was not so much the fact of the process, but the mess the fudge-up caused.

And so now we see yet another issue of trust laid bare for what it was... and is.

And they keep asking the people to cooperate with them.

Indy - Row over police use of cameras criticised - Though I don't quiet understand the headline. Are they saying having a row is to be/being criticised?

The Energy Solution That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Oooooh! I first thought, another perhaps daring to suggest we sort of try to limit the human population growth somewhat? But no, in a cogent and logical comment article Raymond J. Learsy argues that the US could dig its way out of the thrall of the oil barons by ......... rationing.

"it became clear to me at least, that those with a vested interest in oil, oil production, oil and energy distribution, oil governance, are all for conservation, protecting the environment, as long as it does not negatively impact the price of oil and energy."

"lets consider ethanol and alternative fuels, but we don't really have a viable infrastructure in place, and can it really displace meaningful amounts of oil. What is the environmental impact of all bio based fuels among such as cellulosic, corn, sugar based ethanol? Of course we support biofuels if they are sustainable."

His translation:-

"lets stay with oil as long as we can, or as long as we can ask questions that cause programmed doubt to derail the urgent development of alternative fuels and alternative solutions."

"the consumer is playing against loaded dice."

Well, no one will argue against that last point. What he says may, at least in part, be true, but I think he's a brave chappie who just may have stuck his head over the parapet a little too far. Those Big Oil boys have some very big guns!
And starving the planet's largest consumers of petrol is going to be an immense ask!

Are we aware yet?

I risk being ticked off as a grump, but I was just wondering how much more awareness this planet can afford: Man swims at north pole

I'm assuming he didn't swim there, and I seem to recall on the news more than few around who went with to 'share the moment'. And broadcast it to boost those ratings.

I'm thinking of starting a travel agency called Awareness Offsets, whereby you go pretty much where you fancy, but when you get back you can upload your home movies and claim it was to 'raise awareness' of the area of outstanding natural beauty you just screwed up by trampling all over it or simply by getting there.

You may even get a media outlet - especially a green one - to fund you! But only if you move in their circles, Ok, yah?

'Dere was 'dese tree fellas...

It is a sorry comment on even sorrier times that I have to preface my comments on last night's Ch4 'Great Green Smokescreen' with the caution that it is a) a supposed 'news' item b) on TV and c) on Ch 4.

These are the guys who brought us another 'Great..' not so long ago. So who knows what is true?

For what it's worth, a lot did ring pretty close to what I have stumbled across and/or feel and/or has been shared by me and others on this blog.

You only have to go back a few posts to find a few eyebrows being cocked at the PR and ad onslaughts by such as HSBC, SKY and BP, who rather crudely seem to have managed to make 3/4 of a million out of 2,500 (cars, that is), and all from a few acres of pig poo under a very dodgy looking tarp. Editing for effect? Well, if the 'disclaimers' were anything to go by - 'Oops! Got us in one. We'll take that claim off right away. Byeeee!". Plus almost BBCesque fudges on how tricky the facts are to get right. Are they scientists or what? I bet if it was finding a barrel of oil at 30,000 feet they'd have the numbers down to a decimal place.

Then we get straight into the meat of the piece: the guys who sit in deckchairs flogging trendies (individual and company variety) tracts of 'land' with 'trees' (no mention of the deforestation of mature areas being a much better option) to assuage liberal guilt that does not quite extend to cutting back. £10 gets you off a flight, as in off on the next one so long as you are rich... and either very dumb or very blinkered. Along with some authority figures I'd say, as from what I saw the Forestry Commission (hold that word in mind each time you hear of guys who sell you stuff to pollute some more) was using whose money to subsidise these guys to flog whose trees?

Cut to commercial. Vauxhall ecoflex, since you didn't ask. It's a car, by the way. I think. One of those with a leaf in the exhaust. But I'm sure it's so green you can go an extra few miles on the same amount. And hence you probably will. Ok, a better than nothing, but I have a drawer bulging with car ads which really are pushing my greenwash tolerance to the limit.

Thing is, it seems no one can agree on these footprints anyway (er, why?) so they are all pretty much making it up. What next? A two for one deal? The explanations and/or mitigations offered by the offwithhisheadsetters were all less than convincing. Especially the one who offered two prices; one direct and one via their client BA. Guess which one was lower? It's all about multipliers, apparently. And so, because 'we' don't know, yet, what they are, we don't allow for them. Works for me. Well, actually, when it comes to the future of my kids' planet, it really, really doesn't guys.

It was at this point the reporter admitted to being confused and unsure who to trust. Well, there's a surprise.

Speaking of trusting the media (Neat link, huh?), there was a good case of actual facts being used, assuming, of course they were true. Some Bulgarian project or other. Claim and counter claim of whether it made any darn difference bounced around until we ended up at the bank. And when it comes to money, they don't lie. And the bank says 'no'. So yet another pot into which a load of green got consummately p*ssed away. After commission.

SKY (a CH 4 competitor, mind) didn't come out too well, if only in making big claims that didn't seem to add up. I recall them being major speakers at the Guardian Climate Change Summit, and while the vast commitments made were mentioned all right, what was not was how the regular reviews of their 12.5% investment wasn't looking too solid on enviROI. I wonder what these guys with CSR Director or Eco Advisor as titles actually do all day?

Cue next ad... for a racing car!

Then we get back to the ways to make a big difference, in London at least, with... wait for it... a Carbon Neutral (the term has been shown to be less than helpful by now - in fact DEFRA was quoted as saying companies really shouldn't call themselves that) variety show!

That'll do it!

Or... food miles on a pack of crisps. Sorted!

There was, apparently, no real comment from the Carbon Trust. There are those two words again. Only this time together.

The conclusion was that there was no real harm to it all, but the question was asked if it was a dangerous diversion. I'd rather say that if it is a dangerous diversion there is a lot of potential harm.

Seeing some London luvvie called Fanny, who rejoices in the title 'Head of Policy' for an outfit called Global Cool, lob up in a Chauffeured Prius, to share such dazzling insights as not flushing the loo hardly inspired me.

And to those of more modest means it simply made the whole thing look like a silly little fad.

Do all these things for heavens sake, but get the info for free. Why do you need to pay money to rich folk to show you care about your kids and their futures?

ADDENDUM _ just came across a note I jotted in the lounge as I watched the Ch4 news preceding this. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change (didn't even, until now, know we had one), was being challenged by Jon Snow on what the government was doing to clear all this up. Apparently they are 'working towards' a solution. Well that's it all sorted then. Now I see why they get the big bucks. Meantime, for the poor consumer's sake, let's be hoping that major multinationals have no more 'website malfunctions' to... misle.. er... 'confuse' us.

Guardian - Last night's TV: Dispatches: The Great Green Smoke Screen - I like my review better. And I didn't even snipe about the 4x4, as the Ch4 guy wasn't really preaching. As some do.

Indy - Raft of flaws found in popular carbon offsetting schemes - It's like they watched the same programme! Oh, they did. Interesting that no one (else) is at least pointing out the provenance of the story, which tends to suggest these carbon offset schemes have a lot of explaining to do. As have any sloppy corporates who saw/see green as a quick way to look green with no real thought going into the substance.