EVENT - LONDON AWARE '08

As provided by organisers*

MONTH - May 2008

FIELD: Environmental

WHEN: 10th & 11th May, 10am - 6pm

WHAT: LONDON AWARE '08

WHAT... MORE?:

Greener Living Expo
Pioneering Greener Living Expo, LONDON AWARE '08, will take place on Saturday 10th and Sunday 11th of May 2008 in Exhibition Hall 1 of the Barbican. It will be a 'one stop shop' for regular people and businesses who want to live and work in a more sustainable way.

LONDON AWARE '08 will inspire the public, the business world and charities, bringing them together to share ideas.

Exhibitors
Our exhibitors will be showcasing a huge variety of products, services and advice to help you reduce your carbon footprint. These will include:

advice & information services
carbon offsetting
charities & NGOs
eco-build
eco-tourism
ethical investment
green consumer products
hybrid / alternative vehicles
organic food
recycling & eco-packaging
renewable & alternative energy

Authors
An inspiring selection of topical authors will be present at LONDON AWARE '08. They will be available for book signing and general discussion. The full list will be released shortly.

WHERE: EC1Y 8JL

WHO:
Speakers

To add depth and integrity to LONDON AWARE '08 there will be two lecture theatres with our selected expert guest speakers talking on climate change related topics. The speakers include environmental scientists, CEO’s, CSR managers, politicians, futurists and an Arctic explorer, all of whom share a common interest - to make LONDON AWARE '08 the success it needs to be. Because UK AWARE are keen to make LONDON AWARE '08 a thought provoking experience, all talks are free.

Non Profit Sector / Charity / Non Government Action Groups

1 Cat Dorey* Greenpeace
2 Martyn Williams* Friends of the Earth
3 James Lloyd* People and Planet
4 David Hall International Campaign Director for The Climate Group, Together
5 Bremely Lyngdoh Founder of 5 NGO’s, London School of Economics

Politics

6 Darren Johnson* Green Party and London Assembly
7 Chit Chong Green Party
8 Tom Pye* Ministry of Defence
9 Chris Huhne Liberal Democrats

Environmental Science

10 Lai Waqanisau Environmental Scientist
11 Jenny Bird Researcher for Climate Change Institute of Public Policy
12 Fred Pearce* Consultant to the "New Scientist" periodical

CSR

13 Charlie Browne* IKEA
14 Solitare Townsend* Futerra

Environmental Consultants

15 Francisco Ascui Founder of Climate Managers
16 Veronica Broomes Environmental Consultant and lecturer on climate change
17 Trevor Floyd* Chartered engineer, Environment Consultancy Group
18 Brian Whitington* Director of Carbonline
19 Martin Baxter Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
20 Simon Graham Environmental Strategy Advisor for The Commercial Group

Misc

21 Nathan Allen Arctic explorer
22 Chris Church Community Environment Associates, London 21
23 Polly Higgins Concentrating Solar Power, TREC-UK

Sustainable Innovation

24 Trevor Baylis OBE Inventor of the Wind Up Radio
25 Mike Grenville Founder of Forest Road Transition Village
26 Suzy Edwards Sustainability Consultant
27 Robert Rabinowitz Pure, The Clean Planet Trust
28 Martin Charter Centre for Sustainable Design
29 Peter Littlewood Young Peoples Trust for the Environment
30 Mathew Rhodes Encraft
31 Sally Uren* Forum For The Future
32 Rob Holdway Giraffe Innovation, Channel 4 ‘Dumped’

HOW: £5.00 (children & students free)
As a social enterprise, we are keen to support suitable charities which we admire. Ticket sales from LONDON AWARE '08 will be donated to Cool Earth, People & Planet and Stop Climate Chaos.

URL: www.ukaware.com

COMMENTS: * I met one of the team recently and it was great to chat. My kinda peeps. Also... and please note, by using the templates provided to help me help them help you, they got up on blog (and will soon on site and in newsletter PDQ. Make my life easy, and rewards will flow...:)

... with the possibility of?

When you are mulling the massive, and massively complex issue of climate change, sometimes it's worth popping round the local science society.

And there hear about it from the horse's mouth.. or, at least, an actual climate scientist.

Last night ours, Ross Science Society, hosted a talk billed as 'Global Warming' by Professor Bob Spicer.

Armed with no more than a laptop, projector and a ready, engaging wit (plus a bucketload of knowledge), the good Professor held a packed room in informed and entertained thrall for a good few hours. No mean feat as the majority of visuals were pretty much (initially) indecipherable graphs and charts. But there were a few laughs as well, which was all the more surprising as the subject matter, and his conclusions based on them, were none too cheery. As this is a chap who only the day before was having a chat with the DG of the BBC about their coverage of things planetary, he's a guy obviously worth listening to.

Let me nail my colours to the mast. I personally think there is an unusual level of climate change taking place, and am prepared to acknowledge that our race might not be helping it in the right direction. I also feel there is a lot of dodgy stuff flying about in the name of green.

So I was very happy to be in the presence of a scientist who was very keen to stick to the facts, what 'we' know and, more importantly, what 'we' don't. And how that can matter... a lot, especially when it comes to what the public gets told, and why, by all sorts of folk with all sorts of agendas.

For start, he made the valid point that the term 'Global Warming' is misleading. Because the climate can change, with no warming at all, in many places. So ‘climate change’ is the best way to hang a descriptor upon what is happening. And I was also pleased to find that is where he left it. Too often discussions on this topic have the prefix 'mad-made', which immediately carries a lot of baggage. I personally prefer, and subscribe to the probability of ‘man-worsened’, and I think the Prof. appreciated this description when I chatted with him afterwards.

Because to one who spends too much time reading on this topic, it was refreshing to see shared that, although there is compelling evidence that 'personkind' - and our activities - sure are not helping, nature has a history of throwing a series of highly (and lowly) volatile spanners into the mix, too. Ignoring this does not serve the intelligence of those trying to get a handle of this issues very well. Or help steer their intentions.

Why is all this important? Well for a start there's a lot of planning that needs to take place for the future, and you can only plan for something if you have a pretty good idea of what exactly (key word) you are planning for. In bald terms, if one does see climate change proceeding in the manner most scientists such as Prof. Spicer and his colleagues suggest (and, crucially, freely admitting that most if not all climate models being used are pretty 'loose' at best - Prof. Spicer had some rather colourful views on those produced, at vast expense, by our very own Met Office, which is a bit of a worry) , then governments are either looking at preparing for consequences, and/or mitigating against them.

And that, depending on where you live, means either looking at a lot more water around, and/or in places a lot higher temperatures. Neither of which is that helpful, reducing an already finite land area, and rendering what's left less able to sustain those upon it (the issue of population was touched upon but briefly, being both an elephant in the room and a can of worms, if you can handle that notion. Maybe a can of elephants?).

Having listened to the good Professor I had my personal knowledge base enhanced, and beliefs on the whole confirmed. I'm sure those of a ‘climate pessimistic’ bent would have had much to nod along with (though I do wonder whether those more zealously inclined might have paused to question some extreme or dogmatic orthodoxy that does get fired about too strenuously), and those more ‘optimistic’ (I find tags like 'deniers' unhelpfully pejorative) must surely been given good cause to think more deeply on whether much of what 'we' do is really sustainable, and should proceed unchecked.

What I was left with was even less doubt that this is a massive issue, and whilst individuals can make a difference with some well guided personal efforts, it is for those at the top who have the power to make the most significant differences in the timeframes necessary. Sadly, I did not get the feeling that those in charge were really yet on top of this.

So what can 'we' do, if so moved and persuaded to act? Well, I'd suggest the best is keep on trying to get to the bottom of issues, don't accept all you're told until you’re fully convinced on the enviROI (environmental benefits), and try and act in any and all ways that seem to offer the best mitigating outcomes: Reduction, Reuse and, where appropriate, sensible Recycling. All can, in a small way, help. As to sweating the big stuff, remember that we as individuals may not make a huge difference, but those who can still depend on one powerful thing we can still wield: our vote. Please use it wisely.

'Generation C'

Well, at least the majority of teenagers seem to be growing up aware of the problems that they are going to inherit from their forefathers. As reported by Greenpeace.

"Two thirds of those polled believe climate change will have a negative effect on their lives."

Let's hope we act in time to minimise the effects on them, their children and their grandchildren.
____________________
There is just a chance that the sun itself will help to mitigate the temperature rises likely due to man, as it appears to have entered a period of very low activity. According to this from the Belfast Telegraph, we really ought to be heading into a mini ice age.

Living in the anthropocene

Basically, that's a scientific term coined for the particular part of the earth's history when humanity is having a noticeable impact on the planet's biosphere; it is, in fact, exactly where we are today.

[The biosphere, by the way, is that teeny-weeny microscopically thin band around our planet that all life survives in. Look really, really carefully. Why? Because it's so thin, you can't even see it on this beautiful image of our little lump of planetary rock.]

As the legions of pols, 'experts', negotiators and media hangers-on enjoy their get together in Bali, there are many commentators pondering on the possible outputs, both socio-economic and political, as well as the potential end effect of humanity failing to take significant efforts to rectify the situation. This report on BBC Comment by Malini Mehra, is one such. I found it interesting, if perhaps, at least to my mind, a little on the naive side, though I fully endorse her final comment that "As the delegates in Bali reflect on our future, they would do well to think as human beings."

Unfortunately, a human being is a pretty selfish animal, and most will, if push comes to shove, do whatever they can to protect their own family and kind. I.e. Man thinks, and largely acts, locally, not for humanity as a whole. My biggest fear is that should inaction turn out to be the primary output from Bali, significant portions of humanity will finish up over the next few decades between a rock and a hard place, with a distinct lack of survival resources (mainly food and water, but undoubtedly oil and all its derivatives, primarily fuels, will also be a major factor too), and that this will be the gunpowder that starts off a chain of (at first small and local, but later probably developing into WWIII) resource wars. Let's face it, there are already many warnings in place of food and water shortages, both current and predicted, as this from Reuters highlights this very day; and we have talked about the implications of Peak Oil many times on this very blog already. On top of that food prices have started to rise inexorably - see Fox News. "The world's agricultural production is projected to decrease by 16 percent by 2020 due to global warming". Just for a minute consider the implications of that statement; and on a planet where the human population is rising rapidly! And we've not even mentioned the potential issues that rising sea levels could heap upon the problem.

I really, really hope that I'm totally wrong, but if mankind's history can be taken as an indicative pointer to the future, then I don't see too much hope unless genuine and significant action is taken now. (Well, yesterday really.)

In reality, it would appear that the future depends upon the legions of pols, 'experts', advisers, negotiators and media hangers-on, currently sunning themselves in Bali. And you wonder why I feel pessimistic about it?

If humanity doesn't get its finger out soon, the Anthropocene could turn out to be one of the shortest eras of geological history.

Space, the final (af)front...

In light of my oft-cocked eyebrow at some who claim green whilst promoting space tourism, I think Dilbert has provided the necessary cover illustration.

It ain't easy making green

Last night I watched the tail end of Dragon's Den.

I had to say that, as always (and why I gave up a long time ago), it and all involved (bar the pitchers) made my skin crawl.

What made me hang on was the fact I was awaiting the subsequent show, and the piece in question was heralded as 'environmental', and that they were getting a lot on this these days.

The question should not be so much that the only real interest these rich, successful, glided titans had was how how to make money out of this, with the barest of tilts to just trying to do a good thing and make money too, but that I was still surprised that these icons of all that the viewers want to be were so.... devoid of any consideration for anything beyond the mighty £.

But such pragmatism is a necessary complement to succeed, and you need to succeed to make a difference. Ergo, deals with devils need to be made. £40k for 40% of a business ain't one I'd make, however, no matter how desperate.

It really isn't easy being green. Even less so to make real money out of it (unless you are an offshore wind farm maker with a tame MEP and nifty lobbyist, or trying to score funds to run a ban-wagon in your town - the latest anti-plastic bag affair I noted got £1000 to pursue their aims).

But I plug on. What doesn't help is to see that some much bigger, better organisations and more established outfits are struggling too.

Support Grist

I wish them well. Won't be sending any dosh as, well, I need all I can scrape for Junkk.com, but at least maybe I can send 'em a few more clicks via this blog to help the cause.

I'm nice like that.

You, Me, Dupree... and the BBC

I ended up here for another reason. I ended up staying a tad longer.

With the IPCC report and Valencia now it seems but distant memories, with the full brunt of Bali doubtless soon to wash over us as the 15-20,000 concerned country delegates and their entourages chew on the thorny issue of climate change, I'd like to make a small plea for more in-depth reporting on the factual issues.

I am brought here having noticed a side bar on 4x4s, where plain inaccuracy is excused as 'shorthand', and will be 'looked at more carefully'. Along with 'learned from' this has to be one of the most dire and ineffective attempts to not really provide a good reason, let alone explanation, or offer an reassurance on the quality of reporting we can expect to get.

It is also simply not good enough to rely on any old press release as gospel just because it has a green tint.

From electric cars not having any emissions (the exhaust is just in another place) to wind farms with rather optimistic ratings to plastic bag bans (are we really going to get a town by town piece all around the country? Modbury was 'first'. OK) that may not actually be as 'friendly' as shared (this may show why it is a lot more complex and worthy of deeper consideration: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html ), I simply think that we, the consuming public, need a better explanation of all the issues, warts and all, to help decide our actions.

By green-gilding everything uncritically and without thought, you run the risks of a) misinforming, b) encouraging poor practices, c) simply disappointing or d) giving unnecessary ammunition to those who would advocate a less concerned, more hedonistic approach to our planet's precious resources.

Green is usually one heck of a good thing. But you still need to look at each and every aspect of it on what can be some quite complex interactions and/or merits before shoving any old stuff out in its name.

There are simply too many who see it only as the colour of money or the rally of a 'ban-wagon', and will use it for less noble ends than the saving of this planet.

And if as the efforts of the organisations above would suggest, and as echoed by our government and media such as the BBC, this is the greatest challenge we face as a race, then it surely deserves to be taken a lot more seriously, to the highest standards of journalistic challenge, at every level.

At the moment too much is being pumped out as an '... and finally', by the most junior of staff, and the consequent tone, lack of investigation and/or frequent errors are eroding the good and necessary works on the much bigger picture.

I could be RSS'd

You might not know it but, with luck, this blog is now strangely different.

As a consequence of getting in a tangle trying to log on to another site 'feed' (this word crops up a lot... and I am still not much the wiser), I ended up clicking a bunch of things and....

...the long and short of it is that I think I have now added an RSS 'feed' option via 'Feedburner' to by blog.

What's that mean? Well, to be honest I have currently no blooming idea.

I think what it means that if you like what you see and read here, and want to come back, you can click on something that makes it easier. It may even mean you get told when a post goes up, which means several a day.

Oops.

It's OK.... because I'm worth it:)

There is also a small Brazilian woodland's worth of print out on my desk to read in bed tonight as there were scores of links to instructions to do new stuff - all with odd names - that may make the experience better all round. So I guess I'll be playing a while. Icons. Twiddly bits. Audio. Video. Stats.

And of course between my Mac and PC and Safari and IE and Firefox, it all looks totally different in each browser. I can see a little button up there now on one at least (though not, oddly, FireFox, who are Google/Blogger chums), which is nice.

Hope it works out. For the best. For all of us.

Moments from a blog

While Junkk.com devotes itself to the unremittingly positive and 'nice', this blog at least affords me the luxury of having a bit of a rant and, on occasion, a go.

I really must restrain myself. But, I'd like to think, there is some justification inasmuch as I am usually only keen to pop some pompous bubble, usually being inflated with hot air by one (or collection of same) who seems to 'know' what's good for us. Or, worse, is so convinced that what some others are doing is not, see it as their mission to stop 'em. I guess there are a few areas where a ban sadly is the only recourse, but I'd really like to think we have exhausted all other options first before reaching for the speed dial to one's PR, who in turn reaches for the speed dial to their favourite Editor to launch a 'reporter' off on a slow news day. And put a few folk making stuff out of a job.

But just as I used to envy my mates at uni who got all the girls by coming all over bomb banning, whilst I had this small niggle that maybe greeting the Russians with a Lee Enfield might not quite be the best deterrent of first effectiveness, so I must confess to thinking how blooming easy it would be just to have at anything that comes across my sights, and do so from the cosy cover of it being, or even just looking, 'green'...ish. Or not even having to concern oneself with any alternatives or, if one has, then whether these really are effective anyway.

This struck me as I was working through the Telegraph blogs. What fun it would be to just let rip, and the heck with whether it's fair or justified or anything other than a good way to daub myself in an arboreal hue and bask in the approbation of half of Islington, Dorset or the South Cotswolds (well, the bits not scraping a living in real jobs, that is).

Just look what I could do (I've left out the political ones, though even a few here offer pickings of richness:

Adding elegance to a room - Fireplaces, huh? That would be the dirty great hole up which a vast amount of the central heating escapes?

Confessions of a fake blonde - How much peroxide, in how many bottles, from how many trips... get consumed to look like a BBC news reader?

A portrait's progress - 'Squeezed in a trip to South Africa'. As you do.

I could go on (and do the same for all the rest), but I think I'm coming over all Marvin (it's a HitchHiker's Guide thing), and really can't be bothered.

At least most would have got a comment. Which rather begs the question as to what these types do... and who pays them. I guess it's the travel ads.

There's no business...

... like snow business: Mad fer it – we’re going skiing in a £31m shed

As a genuine question, as I really have no clue as to the answer, I was wondering how these things compared in terms of carbon whatevers?

Yes, getting a family to the ski slopes has a consequence (snow cannon point noted) , but I guess so does running a dirty great big chiller too... 24/7, 365/365?

And if the numbers are not optimal... who gave planning permission? I'd hope not some LA type who is trying to save the planet with bi-weekly collections.

In politics, a week is a long time. Ten years, however...

I was going to let this pass, but having watched yet another pol dredge for tushtissue into distant history, I simply cannot fail to pass comment.

On the matter of cancer care Alan Johnson, Minister for something or other (there are so many doing so little in so short a time before being 'reassigned' I can't keep up), was on BBC Breakfast this morning trumpeting some 'new' 'initiative' to 'resolve' some woeful state of service provision. And somehow, in a blizzard of stats he was allowed to refer us back to .... the previous administration.

My kids are now eleven.

So for over a decade they have 'moved on', 'looked at' and 'learned from' a lot.

I can't quite figure out how this is a feat that seems so far to have escaped the government who have been in power for the same period, and seems top have decided the best defence is to come out with such utter tripe to justify the hiring of extra hundreds of thousands (articles in the papers at the weekend on just how much our pensions equate to those of MPs (hint: not favourably), and how much of our local taxes goes to the pensions of public service employees) and the blowing of bazillions that have achieved diddly squat.

To put just one area in context as we're equating things with my kids: just 5 years ago they would have been in the world top 3 for literacy. Now, 5 years later and after 10 years of this administration, we're at 15th (source: Daily Mail. I'll live with 'em for facts).

The only mystery to me is how they keep getting away with this for so long, and what motivations are actually still serving to get even the most manipulable examples of the voting public, even those on the juiciest end of the public trough, still seem to plonk their x on the names of such numpties.

EVENT - I'm dreaming of a Green Christmas - London Science Museum Dana Centre

A bit last minute, but for any in or near London here's one I can reccomend:

MONTH - December

FIELD: Enviro, Science, Awareness
WHEN: Tomorrow, Dec 4 (corrected - tx Dave), 7-8.30pm
WHAT: Dreaming of a Green Christmas?
WHAT... MORE?: A few more key details
WHERE: Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2DD
WHO: Well, yours truly for one!
HOW: It's free. But you need to book.
URL: Link. Call 020 7942 4040 or e-mail tickets@danacentre.org.uk
COMMENTS: We went last year. It was fun and informative. And guess what... Junkk Male Peter will be going again, with a bunch of new stuff to show off! Including his famous Green Santa outfit.

Holding up mirrors

I am about to start my Sunday Trawl of the papers..

Before I click on a single article.I just wanted to share the first thing that popped up in front of me.

I have not yet opened it, so it may be a critical appraisal. Or maybe yet another uncontradictory though unusual complement to editorial elsewhere on climate change. Let's see.

The Observer - 'Would madam care to taste the cloud juice?'

You read it here first... well, second, well...

Just make sure you always read this with eyebrow aware of the origins.

CBS Seeking 'Irreverent,' 'Hip' Journalist for Eco-Beat (No Knowledge Required)

But facts are facts.

I just have to say that, while minor, this really does offer an unfortunate insight into how climate change is viewed and treated by those tasked with sharing it with the general public. Actually, It is the use of the word 'journalist' that throws one. One suspects this is really an empty talking head that spouts the script provided. What is more of relevance is what lies behind those words supplied.

But it all serves up a tasty morsel to those who cast nasturtiums. And in this I am one. The issue of climate is too serious not to entrust to those who care about dealing with it professionally. You can be irreverent and hip, but you should have a pretty good grasp of what's going on... or what is not yet known.

Abilities all to sadly lacking in most I see spouting forth, doubtless packing their Speedos for Bali.

A lot of space

Not exactly a priority in the great scheme of things, but I am watching the BBC news and something has struck me.

While I appreciate the dilemma presented by space travel between scientific investigation and the vast carbon footprint it lays down, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why the national broadcaster would be so actively promoting space tourism in all its forms.

Other than the dubious justification of using private money to fund public works (like rich hunters getting to kill whatever they fancy to support conservation), there seems to me no other way to describe this activity other than sticking a rich bozo atop a column of greenhouse gasses to have a Kodak moment.

Yet it warrants a visit to NASA to promote to those of us who will never afford it, even if we feel the urge. Odd.

Sorely Missed: *

You can pop in the appropriate noun here: *

Newsnight: Stern climate questions

As was in Brussels I obviously did miss it. But maybe not much as I interpret post 100.

In the hands of our media and those in authority tasked to shape our futures, this Bali effort is looking more and more of a joke as it approaches.

God help us if they find Maddie's teddy bear at the same time as any worthwhile consensus or call for action is broadcast. I know what our beleaguered PM will rush to the studios to comment upon first.

A week may be a long time in politics. But it seems an hour can be an eternity when it comes to weighing priorities: the end of the human race, versus the travails of some individuals who are just part of it.

Brussels Sprouts

Well, I’m back from sunny (make that grey and wet) Brussels, having attended ‘Caps & Closures 2007’.

It really is too early to answer the question I was asked more than once at the end: ‘Was it worth it?’

To put that in context, it was often preceded by another that I had posed to me at the beginning: ‘What are you doing here?’

My answer to both was/is the same: ‘I’ll let you know when the cheque clears’.

All it takes is one. But when I walked in, saw the format and the presentation slide document... I almost turned straight around to hit the bars (which are pretty good).

It’s hard to be all things to all people, and when you are at the annual conference of those on the planet whose life revolves around the bits that top bottles and jars, you pretty much know what to expect, but there were some unpleasant surprises.

First up, over the majority of the two days we were there to be talked at, and mainly by folk who had paid to give a 30 minute pitch to those who had paid to sit and listen to them. And I have to say that when I was on the nth ‘nozzle cleaning design’ I was glazing over a tad. Hence I was tasked with meeting and pitching to as many relevant folk as possible at the coffee break, lunch and post event.

I was also up against a bunch of guys who all knew each other, knew their topic backwards, thought of little else… and wore suits as opposed to shirts emblazoned with ‘Junkk.com – home of the award-winning eco-cap design, the RE:tie’, and carry laptops and not pink Vac:Sacs.

Still… nothing ventured…

Actually, I ended up jotting down a lot of useful stuff to help enhance my pitch for the concept once back and can get in a room with those who can make strategic decisions… and sign cheques. Because, sadly, there were few… very few… of such folk there.

That said I do believe there were several who, if not in such positions themselves, were at least in pretty close, if only round the water cooler. And, best yet, for a collection of rather literal, often jaded representatives of a $400Billion industry who get pitched to an awful lot by crackpot inventors, all went from impatient cynicism to highly complimentary approval in the space of my elevator pitch (usually on a sofa in the lobby – maybe I should have tried the lift, it would be more private!).

I guess it was summed up by the feedback from a representative of Coca-Cola (who, sadly, use no packs that have a closure that can evolve into a RE:tie) who said he’d seen a lot, and this was one the best innovations he’d seen. But then I was also cautioned about the nature of the indus... beast I am trying to influence. You don’t easily steer something that cranks out units in the billions daily, and once you apply the corporate system to the mix you are talking many years for even the best to work through to production.

So a lot ahead still, but a good set of seeds have been sown and, if I may be slightly optimistic, have already shown signs of germinating.

Methane from a very unexpected source

Here's another source of methane (one of the most potent of the greenhouse gases) that needs to be taken into account in any climate model. It seems that certain shrubs (woody) plants themselves actually produce methane by some, as yet, unexplained mechanism, as reported in RSC Chemistry World.

Fortunately it would appear that herbaceous plants don't emit methane, but upland wooded areas may well yet turn out to be a source of at least some of the naturally occurring methane in the earth's atmosphere.

Fickle weather

One of the dire warnings issued by climatologists was that the likelihood and frequency of really nasty hurricanes would increase as global warming took hold. But the 2007 weather has, of course, been totally fickle, and refused to play ball. As the USA's 2007 hurricane season draws to a close, the country has escaped almost entirely unscathed (whilst Mexico and Central America have taken the brunt of the major storms this season).

Anybody fancy a little wager that this first fact will be seized upon by the BOFDi brigade as more evidence that global warming is not taking place?

More windmills for Don Quixote to tilt at?

Spain is going to invest in a project to develop vast windfarms in order to reduce its dependence on natural gas and coal fired power stations. As reported in today's Telegraph.

"The Ministry of Industry plans to announce over the next few weeks its more detailed plans to erect tens of thousands of pylons.
This will require a further investment of about €45,000m in order to produce 107.845 MW of electricity by the year 2030. The ambitious scheme involves tripling wind power in order to reduce Spain's dependency on foreign suppliers of gas (North Africa) and to reduce pollution."

The overall plan is to produce up to 49% of energy requirements from renewables by 2030. My bet is that Spain will succeed while here in the UK we will still not even be at the 20% target set for 2020, even when we get to 2030.

Labour party donations

As ever, the inimitable genius that is Matt of the Daily Telegraph manages to sum up the whole sorry mess in a single amusing cartoon.

Coming on top of the cash for questions affair and more recently the missing HMRC data files, it looks as if this could create more than a few ripples.

Here's the Telegraph's take on the story.

The Guardian's take is worth a look too, as is this from The Times.

In fact, the more this story unfolds, it looks as if we may well see a few more heads rolling before long.

Addendum 29/11/07:
Hmmmm, looks like the plot is thickening already. See this from this mornings Guardian Unlimited. I find it extremely odd that the party's treasurer (who also just happens to be 'Harridan' Harman's husband; and of course, 'Harridan' herself did accept a donation via such a 'conduit' "in good faith") claims to know absolutely nothing about the use of 'conduits' for the acceptance of donations. On top of that they had one of the so called 'conduits' on Radio 5 this morning; a builder from the NE by the name of Ray Ruddock. What is very interesting is that the labour party donations record shows that he has paid in some £200,000 but he claimed he was only aware of handing over some £80,000 in donations.

Another interesting snippet via Guido Fawkes. This one is going to run and run!

Oh, check out Matt's cartoon today in the Telegraph too. Brilliant!

Whitehall could save millions on offices

There's that special word again, 'could'. Isn't it amazing how often it crops up in headlines?

However, in this case, as reported on epolitix.com, I suspect that they probably couldn't. Why? Because they would set up a special project, staffed by innumerable representatives of the government's best super-pensioned, unaccountable, jobs-worth, empty-suited and highly paid staff (not counting the super expensive consultants that they would undoubtedly call in for help). This little lot would almost certainly blow more in undertaking the project than it could ever save.

(Oh dear, I've just used the 'could' word myself; I must slap myself on the wrist.)

Not the first, and certainly not the last

Here's another in the long line of consumer adverts (19 so far this year) that has been found to have breached the ASA's environmental code as reported by the Guardian.

Boeing used figures that assumed that their new super jumbo (the 747-8 Intercontinental) was flying at 100% capacity, the UK rules state that CO2 emissions for aircraft should be calculated using the figure of a standard 79.7% capacity.

At the rate that adverts eulogising most businesses 'green' products are starting to appear, I reckon the ASA is going to become rather busy over the next couple of years.
______________________
There's also a nice little commentary by Leo Hickman on the same subject in yesterday's Guardian Blogs.

10 years to fix climate

That's the depressing heading of a UNDP report as interpreted by Reuters.

I'll leave it up to you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions.

Bali climate summit

We've all heard about the upcoming summit meeting on climate change in Bali. Now I reckoned there might be a few hundred pols and associated hangers on, plus several hundred media teams, but this from The Times reports on what seems to have become a major international circus.

"Calculations suggest flying the 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green campaigners and television crews into Indonesia will generate the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of extra CO2. That is similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad." Strewth!!

"Indonesian officials say the final tally could reach 20,000 — and fear it could stretch the resort’s infrastructure to the limit." "The preparations are acquiring the feel of a huge party, with the Indonesian government seeing it as a chance to revive Bali as a tourist destination".

Sounds like it's going to be one hell of a party. I hope they don't forget just what it is that they are there to achieve.

Addendum: (28/11)
Some of them could have fun getting there if they're flying via the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, as this from Associated Press reports.

Addendum 2:
But the Bali bash seems to have stirred some action into the Indonesian government as indicated by this report from Pravda. The trouble is, if trees are disappearing at the rate of 300 soccer pitches worth per hour, planting another 79 million of them seems to be rather too little too late.

Too good not to share

Not much to do with the planet, but in light of recent events I thought this PR headline received last night explained a lot: :Children take over a Government Department for a day

Well, they can only improve on the current lot.

In case you're interested, it's called 'Take Over Day'.

Auto Trumpet Tooting #104

Hey, I feel I am allowed. It's nice to get a boost on a Friday.

It's Friday, I have a whole night ahead of me preparing for my trip to Brussels to try and flog the RE:tie next week (so please allow for a distinct paucity of postings - with luck oodles upon my return, if only on EuroStar's performance. I am already impressed that I had an email to prepare me for French strike eventualities had I being using TGV services in France).

Wish me luck!

Atmospheric CO2 at record levels

From Nasdaq News.

"The global average concentrations in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide, or CO2, and nitrous oxide, or N2O, were higher than ever in measurements coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization".

Levels in 2006 reached "381.2 parts per million, according to the agency. Nitrous oxide totaled 320.1 parts per billion, which is a quarter per cent higher than in 2005."

"There is 36.1% more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there was in the late 18th century, primarily because of combustion of fossil fuels" and "it appears the upward trend will continue at least for the next few years."

They calculate that CO2 has now contributed some 91% of the warming effect on the biosphere over the last five years. That's the first time I've spotted an empirical measure of the contribution to warming that CO2 makes, and given the number of new fossil fuel power stations coming on stream each year, frankly, it rather scares the hell out of me.

Take a walk and charge up your mobile

I had always anticipated that someone would come up with these one day; after all, it works on a smaller scale with self winding watches; but it just seems to have taken far more years than I expected.

This from Tech.co.uk marks the arrival of the kinetic motion charged battery, though you probably won't see them available until 2010.

Climate of peers

The climate 'debate' rumbles on... and on.

Thanks to another site I was directed to two areas - one of discussion; one of 'information', I guess, that to me shows just where we are.... just with our national broadcaster.

The climate questionnaire - I really am not sure what to make of this. It is just 'there'. No explanation, or context. What if you keyed in 'climate' in the search and ended up here? Odd. But an interesting set of questions, some of which many within the BBC could ask of themselves. And without default answers in place.

Climate sceptics - I'd say between the original post and the replies you about have it all in a nutshell. Not an exchane I will be getting into a hurry, though.

It has one of my favourite quotes, which I did comment upon before when it was invoked in another piece (I think the Guardian):

'We must also be smarter in the way we interpret the often vociferous views expressed on climate in our vibrant inter-active space. While welcoming a diversity of voices, we must make sure that we do not conflate self-selecting audience responses with a broad audience opinion.'

On the whole the replies to this piece do not seem overly happy with the BBC's reporting and, interestingly, fewer than I expected got involved in 'tis/t'isn't' facts-fisking exchanges. It was more about the way things get reported, which is how the debate should be.

That said, I found a few things troubling. Sorry, but I do see a total presumption that a certain line is the only true one and places any critique as minority or from suspect motives. And that from the way it has been set up it is almost inevitable that those who many not agree with it in totality are therefore not 'us' but 'them'. That is unfair and dangerous.

I also note, with sad inevitability, that when one group do not like the free opinions of others being expressed, much less dominating, the default is to drum up the notion that there is an organised dark campaign at work. To an extent it may be possible that those with passion and/or money can afford and wish to influence such forums, but it was ever thus. And it's open to both sides, editorial/moderation polices permitting.

For a while I have found the terminology worrying often to the point of pejorative... and beyond. Too often I have seen an 'eco-fascist' for a person who thinks flying isn't such a great thing, or 'Big oil funded denier' for another who may not quite see how certain truths are not yet proven. In between are milder, but certainly pigeon-holing versions such as 'treehugger' or 'sceptic', but they are still there to label and mock.

I was wondering what I would call myself, as one who concedes man-worsened climate change as a distinct possibility and hence reason to act in any and all ways possible and practical, but without the dogmatic, absolutist and often censorious zeal of some who require total fealty to their mission - which, sadly, seems to be to prostrate oneself at the altar of man-made global warming and any half-considered knee-jerk that might come up to 'correct' it, first-class, via a conference in Bali and a nice EU subsidy. And the hell with enviROI.

I'm erring on being a 'Climate AQUA'. Always Questioning, Unremittingly Acting.

So sorry. Not the finest hour of our national broadcaster, at least in persuading this licence fee payer they are doing their job and/or are worth the money.

You say whitewash, I say greenwash

In fact, I reckon it is a complete and utter sham.

Peter mentioned this a little while ago, in his post Responsibility 'du jour'. But this, from the Las Vegas Sun on just how Land Rovers are being marketed across t'other side of the big pond makes for very interesting reading.

"A $60,000, eight-cylinder, 12 mile-per-gallon Land Rover as the car for the environmentally conscious might seem like an oxymoron." No! It IS an oxymoron! It doesn't matter how much bloody offsetting is done; it is still an inefficient, highly polluting, CO2 emitting gas guzzler!

"offset programs like the ones Land Rover and Volkswagen America are offering on their cars are a good way to reach environmental newbies". Sorry, but that's just utter humbug!

"Much of what we do in society is ... insanity" Ahhh, some sense in the article at last; I cannot disagree with that one iota!

Powered by pond scum?

We have briefly mentioned the potential of algae for the production of bio-fuels before. This from Business Week paints an eyebrow raising picture of just how much investment is going into this particular pond. (Well, it didn't sound right to say field!)

Interesting to note just who some of the players are too. A number of the major industrial boys are already significantly into the race.

Another failing government initiative?

The Carbon Trust was set up by the government some five years ago with a target remit to reduce UK carbon emissions some 4.4 million tons by 2010.

So far it doesn't seem to be doing too well, as reported by epolitix.com.

Oh well, it only received funding of £100 million last year. Perhaps it needs a funding increase?

ADDENDUM - Junkk Male

Sorry, I had to leap in on the page here. This is EXACTLY what I have been banging on about.

I don't dispute there is 'some' call for 'some' support of 'some' initiatives, but what the hell is the actual enviROI+ to the planet and our kids of such as this amount of money going to guys like these... and countless others... to blow on....what!????

Just think what could have been done with £100M in tangibles as opposed to endless pointless ads in the Sundays and every banner ad I can think of.

If I had run my media spend like this I'd have been busted to the mailroom!!!!

From the BBC to here, the word 'Trust' is fast becoming shorthand for anything you should do but..

Lovely Peter, meter maven

I am not a big fan of ratings, at least as usually rolled out by 'the man', but this shows 'promise': New scheme to rate green energy

For a start, this is a major, if not one-off decision (unlike sussing out every tin of beans' carbon footprint/airmiles/health/junkk, etc) and frankly it is a blooming zoo getting to grips with who does what at present. It needs standardising for any meaningful comparison to be made.

Of course, we do have to trust that the regulator has the practice of enviROI+ to heart as opposed to 'pushing' fond agendas.

An Englishman's acre...

This got me to wondering just what one would need to sustain one's family (of 4), acre-wise, when the revolution comes: Ask the experts: The rural consultant

'I was just wondering. Take the future 'situation we might face' to a rather stark conclusion, and what would a family of four need to be self-sustaining?

That is, once it has been ring-fenced and armed against marauding hordes who opted for the weekend break in the Maldives and latest X5 by way of lifestyle investments.'

Now there's a thought..

Lust, greed and envy - Councils should stop wasting money on green gimmicks and be practical

Bang on. Though, of course, recycling is a tad down the totem, 'Re:worthy-wise'. Reduction and, much more fun, reuse are higher. Oddly, though not if one is of a target-meeting, bonus-accruing, fine-avoiding, box-ticking bent, councils do like their recycling a lot. Which is why we see so much money spent assisting us in doing the right thing. I just can't help but wonder if all that money might not have been better spent on just helping lots of folk actually DO something tangible, as opposed to keep those 'rates' peppy.

Thing is, it's not always that simple to do the right thing if you are so minded. I tried, and look where it got me, just on the matter of plastic bags with, or maybe despite, local authority 'guidance'

Food waste disposal? Sorry, not sure on that one yet, either:

But I'm on the case, soon to be issued is the carbon comparison site comparison, er, site. Because you can never have enough awareness!

Always look on the bright side of life..' ta-dum

‘Going green’ are we - then where’s the big stick?

Agree with pretty much all... though I would have to say that there are many, though agreed mostly small and often barely significant, ways to 'go green that can confer considerable upsides in terms of time and money over warm fuzziness.

You just need to know where to look, and have a 'why not' kind of attitude to not wasting if it isn't necessary.

The Gord giveth... and...

Gordon Brown's hot air

Hmnn... yes.

Didn't that Newsnight go well?

Meanwhile, I am looking at a tearsheet summary from the Sunday Indy (may have been here, too, sorry), and which may all have changed by now, but it says:

'Small business that want to do their bit for the environment face higher tax bills... the Valuation Office Agency, and arm of the IR , is preparing to tax solar panels, wind turbines and micro-generation tech with higher business rates and council tax. This follows news that GB is set to abandon TB's targets on renewable energy.'

But, as they say, maybe a few days is a long time in politics.

In any case, it may not be that bad. They'll probably lose the records anyway:)

The Gord giveth... and...

Has Brown finally become a bright-green revolutionary?

Bless.

I'm guessing he may be going various hues of all sorts of colours at the 'mo, but I'd be hard pressed to see a hint of green in any of them.

Do you actually read other articles in your paper?

Hidden Gems

Recycling award for Morrisons

And a big-up to them

Thing is, as a weekly Morrsions shopper, I can honestly say I have never noticed the things. Or if I have, acted any differently.

As a metaphor for most green initiatives, that's about tops.

Remember, what you believe need not be what you mean

The ongoing genius of Dilbert.

This could go with almost all my posts, frankly, but mainly those regarding Government, the BBC or Guardian CiF.

What 'e sed!

WHO SAYS IT’S JUNK FOOD?

Good point. One of... quite a few on the issue of who says anything is anything. From what constitutes a 'young marketer' (it's another thread somewhere) to what plastic bags are acceptable. On the latter, more serious (jobs and enviROIs are often at stake) side, most seem to originate from unelected knee-jerks with a good PR and/or speed dial to a media luvvie, which then gets hyped and spun to acquire a head of self-interested steam, and thus gets picked up as useful idiot populist distractions from the real, major issues being mishandled by the elected variety.

I should declare a slight interest, as not all that is junk need be bad:

Peter Martin
Junkk Male
Junkk.com

(Mind you, it's the extra Special K that makes all the difference - and yes, we do have a use for that too)

It's good to share

VBS offers airtime incentive to socially beneficial advertisers

Sort of an ee-BOGOF? (Enviro/Electronic)

Now all I need is the £ to match the other one.

Worth a go.

CATEGORY - FISHING

Another day, another category:

fishonline.org - The Marine Conservation Society, Britain's biggest marine charity, has a list of fish to eat and fish to avoid

Fishing in the stocks

I raised this in a recent blog and as it's mentioned in more detail here think it's worth sharing: How do we balance conservation with the interests of the fishing industry?

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why it is beyond the ken of those in charge not to figure out a cost-effective, practical and fair way to police this issue to the satisfaction of the conservationist whilst avoiding such grotesque WASTE!!!! '...between 40 and 60 per cent of fish caught each year is thrown over the side.'

Actually, hold that thought. I can figure out why it is beyond their ken. It's tricky. They don't do tricky any more.

Meanwhile, in the spirit of proactivity: The Marine Conservation Society, Britain's biggest marine charity, has a list of fish to eat and fish to avoid on its website – fishonline.org. Waitrose and Marks & Spencer top its list of supermarkets for sustainable fish.

BBC - Fish dumping 'will ruin industry'

Running on empty

I get a lot of things from BBC Breakfast News, but seldom epiphanies.

It happened during a morning catalogue of failures, but three in short order struck me.

1. The HM Customs & Revenue cock up.

2. A story on failures in the NHS, with a couple seeking/getting compo for their kid's poor, ultimately fatal, treatment. They get money for their loss (not quite sure how this benefits them, or indeed susbsequent families, but there we go. I'd want justice, not cash). Where from? And how are those responsible for the mess prevented from repeating them?

3. The summit on 'binge drinking' whereby the government (indeed Mr. 'key issues' Brown) is requiring the drinks industry to 'deal' with the issue. They may be complicit through woeful ethics and morals, but it's all still legal, the rules of which are set by whom?

It is now clear to me that we are in a situation where everyone is responsible, with all the benefits such positions confer, but no one is accountable. This is as true of much in the private sector as public, but in the latter it has become truly endemic. Government. Local Authority. Health Service. Quango. BBC.

And those outside the system are cursed to continually pick up the tab for those within it. Why do I pay for the fine for a failure that has impacted upon me?

From Northern Rock to hospital cock-ups to Treasury melt-downs to you name it, the one thing that has gone stratospheric, is the amount of money institutions (and their failed managements) shell out to 'deal' with the failings of individuals within them.

So it's not just the screw-ups, it's the screw-ups who oversee them too.

We need to ask why. And who. And hold all of them to account.

Speaking of which, I think I now see the reasons behind the various urgencies for various stellar government operatives to move into a new slot. I have a vision of a Looney Tunes cartoon with fizzing packages marked 'my last 10 years' being handed from Blair to Brown and Brown to Darling (and...)

ADDENDUM:

Actually, I was wondering if any of the techno-whizzes out there could do a quick Google/cache/whatever so we could have a list of just how many times a government munchkin has gone on air or in print over the last few months to say 'we must learn from these mistakes', with the rictus grin of one with no intention of doing so.

Better yet, with a wee tally besides to show just how many they patently haven't 'learned from', and the consequences (or not) to those who have suffered from this double-speak, compared (career/£/pension-wise) with those who still gain by getting away with it.

Sorry, I'm grumpy.*

*Two conversations , so far, (one with SKY, one with Halifax) that went in circles as they called me today but wanted first, for data protection reasons, to confirm my details. In light of events, I told them to tell me what they had on me and I would confirm or not. But no, they needed me to tell them. Nice one Nu-Lab! Now nothing can get done... official.

Newsnight

Daily Mash - You gotta laugh, 'else you'll cry

Guardian - The sheer gormlessness of Discgate theatens Labour's claim to power

Indy - Lost in the post: the personal details of 25 million people - a few questions.

Me, I just wonder how the whole salary/pension thing works out once the dust settles.

ADDENDUM: And this, Mr. Darling, is why it matters to me:

HSBC Security Precaution

Dear Valued Customer,

For your security, we have temporarily prevented access to your online banking.
HSBC safeguard your account when there is a possibility that someone other than you is logging on. You may be getting this message because you are logging on from a different location or device.If this is the case, your access may be restored when you revalidate your logon details.Please click on Get Started button below to continue to the verification process

Get Started
N.B (Failure to validate your logon details correctly might lead to online access suspension)

I don't have an HSBC account. It took 'em less than 24hrs to get going on the disarray this situation has created.

BBC - A yawning gap

No ifs, No buts.

I think that was the strap line for the benefit fraud advertlet that I saw recently on TV.

Shame that HM Revenue and Customs can't seem to look after their own computer records properly. So Paul Gray, chairman of HM Revenue and Customs, has resigned over this disaster. They managed to lose the personal data of some 25 million people! Have they never heard of backup? The responsibility, and accountability, for this rests at ministerial level.

So, coming on top of the revelations about just how much government (i.e. read, our) money has been used to prop up Northern Rock ........ No if, No buts, Darling; just resign.

But that would require accountability, which does not seem to be a term that exists in the realm of pols nowadays.

These guys run on air!

I somehow missed this a few weeks back, but it's still worth sharing. We've all heard of ill fated attempts to create vehicles that run on compressed air, it's something that engineers have tried to do since the 19th century. Well, as reported in the International Herald Tribune, the time of the compressed air (and/or compressed air / petrol or electric hybrid) vehicle, may be nearer than anyone ever realised.

"One prototype, which looks like a big version of a Smart car, can top 68 miles an hour and, at lower speeds, travel up to 120 miles without refueling. Plug the car into an outlet, and the engine, in compressor mode, will refill the tank in four hours."

"The Scuderi Group, in West Springfield, Massachusetts, has a hybrid engine design that compresses air and burns petroleum fuel in separate cylinders and uses some compressed air to extend the petroleum engine."

It sounds like an awfully cheaper technology than any Hydrogen or fuel cell vehicle. It will be interesting to see what future developments bring.

Observation points

Funny how the same thing can get seen very differently, depending on where it is viewed from.

As some may know, I no longer contribute to 'BBC is Biased' because of their moderation policy, which is every bit as selective as the entity they purport to critique, but I do lurk a lot, as snippets of value and even well-considered notions do still get shared.

However, bearing in mind my attention on last night's BBC Newsnight, and the general 'IPCC-(no) evil, speak (no) evil and hear (no) evil' from all sides since Friday, I found a few things of interest:

'Newsnight reached new depths last night in its coverage of Brown's lunatic 'climate change' (higher tax, Soviet-style) measures.

The set-up was that a Greenpeace fanatic was allowed to lambast a colourless government spokesmen for ten minutes on the theme that the measures were not enough. Not an alternative view in sight. To his shame, Paxman aided and abetted the attack, and 'science' reporter Susan Watts has clearly become the harridan cheerleader for Beeboid climate change fascism. '

Slightly before this, we have:

Another vomit inducing lickfest by bunny hugging Richard Black (BBC Environment correspondent)... [let's just say he's not a fan of several folk].

Or...

Yet more garbage from Brown and lapped up... [actually , a few fair points]

Or...

Yep, Friends of the Earth are no longer an independent organisation. As the 'eureferendum' blog [no link, so I don't know if it is true, which I certainly didn't know 'til now] pointed out, they are more than 50% taxpayer funded, and basically a govt/EU dept. It is disgraceful that the Beeb still treats them as independent, and simply allows all their claims to pass unchallenged.

And...

The BBC'2 "expert" on the enfironment (yes that man with a degree in English) Roger Harrabin was spouting the Nu Labour bile... [Questions were asked]

I could go on. 'They' certainly are. And on. And on. At the moment it's back on a 'tis/t'isnt't MM/MWCC slugfest of absolutes... which as all who read this will know, I just love so much. Not.

What I do find interesting, and hence the reason for quoting here, is how one small microcosm of blogdom wants it all, all ways. I'm not defending the BBC at all here, as many comments are pretty bang on on its woeful role in all this. But mix in the government, activist groups (such as FoE, whose status - although as yet unconfirmed - was news to me... and not optimal to make them as credible as voices of 'balance' in debates) and media such as the Indy, Daily Mail, Guardian CiF, etc, and is it any wonder it's all such a mess?

All it shows to me is that you can never reply on one source, for opinion to be sure, but also fact. Some, such as activist groups and media extremes you expect it from. But our national medium and those we pay and rely upon to navigate our course.... sad.

Coundown to Brussels

In one week I head for Belgium to try and 'sell' the RE:tie.

This piece in a trade journal caught my eye, and prompted a reply:

Are trade shows relevant?

Oh, lordy... I hope so! I just one week, I step into a hall in Brussels (I doubt 'Caps & Closures' will seduce many bar the more committed, or keen, but if you or yours are there please say hi) having blown a small fortune on an entry pass, Eurostar (thanks to all the French strikers) and a nice 2* bijou pension quite near the Marriot (I hope), on the odd notion that if I need to meet (to market my eco-related packaging innovation to) those who deal in Caps & Closures... then this is where I need to be to do it in one efficient shot. But... what will it be? A dozen booths staffed by juniors there to sell and not to deal? Seminars with potentially useful speakers who will vanish as soon as they leave the stage? Me sitting next but one (I will say hi to the guy right next to me at the events and in the canteen, but glad-handing every person smacks of desperation) to the Marketing/Packaging/CSR Director of Tescos and not knowing it? And lots of huddled groups of industry insiders who all know each other and are there more to catch up and play golf than find out new stuff? Fingers crossed... none of the above. And, as you say, I will get to meet the guy(s) who are keen to steal a march on the future. But it does cost, and prohibitively so to those trying to visit. And it is only today, with one week to go, that the organisers have released the site to facilitate serious networking. Not much time when I am also trying to coordinate my mobile pitch. I wish it were easier... and cheaper, but nothing ventured...

THIS is what I am talking about

Checking back on my recent posts to Newsnight, I find this more than interesting submission:

Germany has made progress on renewables, but it's not all jam. According to the article, gearboxes which were supposed to last 20 years have been failing in large numbers. There have also been other failures, including rotor blades flying off.
Now whilst the financial cost and percentage of generated power is often quoted, what never is quoted is the whole reason why these things exist in the first place - CO2. If these devices are failing and having to be replaced or repaired frequently, how much extra carbon does that generate and how does it affect the amount they save - in short - are they saving the planet or just another business opportunity?
It also leads to the question, if the UK rushes into more and more renewable before the technologies are mature, are we going to find costs rising on projects just as the Germans have?
Perhaps Newsnight should do a report on the reality of the German experience.
Spiegel Online - The Dangers of Wind Power

No one is saying we don't look around, or try, all manner of worthy solutions. But get the green-tinted glasses off! All we hear is what these things 'can' do at full tilt, 24/7. But as this shows, there are all manner of other considerations (it focuses on safety, but reliability is obviously bound in) that may mean they are not quite the solutions being claimed... especially on enviROI!

Too little, too late

Well, that's the Telegraph's take on Ol' Golden's key speech on the environment.

"the way he squared the circle was to give us rhetoric and a lot of targets pitched into the future, into someone else's term of office."

"it was extremely hard to see that what Mr Brown was proposing bore any relationship to Churchill's 'action this day'. It was more like 'action by 2020'. Targets for renewables, cars and incineration with energy recovery all tripped off his tongue - aimed at a decade or so hence."

"we have learnt to be wary of targets. We recognise obfuscation when we see it. And the only environmental slogan that will be believed is: 'Action in my term of office.' There was none yesterday."

Quite! I couldn't have put it better myself.

Oh, and I just loved the thought of Milliband and Brown looking for ideas to steal off the Tories.

The Times - seem to think it was all about sealing the fate of the plastic carrier bag.

As do those at The Indy. No, I'm being unfair, in its leading article it does take a serious look at the content of his speech. "The sad truth is that on the really big issues, Britain is taking a lead only in the production of hot air rather than in its reduction."

The Guardian - it's 'new and recycled pledges'. And "just like Blair - Brown was short on new policy."