For a while that title had 'REPLY!!!' added to it. It didn't just refer to this: Are carbon diet books worth the paper they're printed on?
It's a new plan to try and address my rather woeful backlog archive system.
You see, over Xmas I did read a ton of stuff and saved the links meaning to get around to either replying and/or posting them up. But then my computer crashed and all those good intentions and worthy topics got lost as they were lurking in some task bar and not really saved as such.
Hence this is a way, in theory, to tackle something that does seem worthy of comment, not just here but there, too. And when I do, that REPLY!!! do-dad will get deleted and all... will be as it should. Hopefully.
Watch this space, I will be back.
Meantime, feel free to pitch in on either!
And, now, I have:
Good question. And some thoughtful answers already
I run a free website, http://www.junkk.com, predominantly promoting second use, so I am rather sensitive to a) trying one's best to offer solutions whilst not becoming part of the problem, and b) not trying to make too quick a buck out of anything 'green'.
So the points you make are well taken and hard to refute.
Partly through personal purchase and partly through being on some kind of (very welcome) PR list I do get sent quite a few of such tomes, and hence have had the chance to contrast, compare and, when there's time, re:view.
Being simplistic, looking at the stack on my table that I have assembled to try and offer some sensible thoughts on your question, a few basic categories are suggested:
1) Books that tell you stuff
2) Books that show you stuff
3) Books that show and tell you stuff
4) All the above, written from the point of view of what the person has done, other people have done or that 'you', the reader can do.
5) All the above... etc, only more telling you what you should do. I prefer the previous one.
6) Books that make you think. These often have elements from the preceding choices in the mix.
I'm sure there's a bunch more, but at the end of the day really it all boils down to information and/or entertainment.
In the spirit of positivity I don't propose to name any I think bad (it's pretty subjective), but there are some that stand out, at least to me, for their contributions to understanding, changing perceptions, altering behaviours or just being a plain nifty read.
Now, I'm not one to deny anyone the chance at making a buck, and they can often be quite useful, but books of lists don't really do it for me. I have tried popping them in the loo for a 5 minute bit of daily research, but really they are mostly quite boring. And almost inevitably outdated as soon as they are printed. Plus in the internet era I really cannot imagine what I couldn't find just as easily, and for free, online. Like here! A recent exception is Paul Waddington's 'Shades of Green' by virtue of accepting that there are such shades, and it's best to engage on the basis that a volunteer is worth 10 pressed wo/men.
For thought-provoking worthiness, I can look at two and say that they were 'good reads' to get your head around what ‘we’re’ facing, if being pretty darn depressing.
One is Richard Girling's 'Rubbish', and the other (without sucking up too much) is Leo Hickman's 'The Final Call'. The latter exposes the dilemma of anyone who cares about the environment and choosing to work for its betterment, still somehow having to deal with saying (or reporting, and in a cautionary way) one thing and patently doing pretty much what the reader is being told they shouldn’t.
All I know is that, for my forthcoming review (I have promised the publisher for months), there are about 50 bits of paper poking out at points that interested me, told me stuff I didn't know or got my dander up.
As to who else might feel the same, other than committed converts I don't know. It’s a stretch to think many climate 'optimists' would opt to buy it to be persuaded... unless a subsequent review can convince a few it's worth the effort... and cost. Hence the value of what you have invited here.
One thing I do look for is solutions, and preferably ones that as an average person one can engage with. And do so because they are fun, cheap, practical... and work. So why not?
There are more than a few 'how to's' I don't really like because they come across a tad too hair shirt and/or nanny state or finger-wagging. Or are less than useful in pushing certain agendas on a one-sided basis. Two I felt did achieve a nice balance, and were all the more powerful by being via personal experiences, were Penney Pozyer’s companion to her TV series and Janey Lee Grace’s ‘Imperfectly Natural Woman’. Library point noted, though I think having ‘em to hand can’t hurt and they are certainly more worthy on the shelf than many others I have!
And there are others in this vein, but often as you turn one massive (if made from recycled material) page after the next, with three words and one picture, you do get to wondering how much is for show and how much is to really make a genuine difference ‘doing’.
Thank you for the opportunity to ponder these things. Because I have been asked if I might be interested in producing a book of my own in my little area of planetary saving, and the dilemmas above have to date given me pause.
But there's no doubting that, done in the right way for the right reasons, what is in a book can find its way to many useful places and do good when it gets there. And there's the not insignificant factor of the more than useful revenue it can send the way of the authors to help them in their next, hopefully equally knowledge base-enhancing quest. Research does take time and consume funds, so in the spirit of sharing the odd reward can be appreciated. And what better than in the form of driving one up the best-seller lists?
From my limited investigations, in the great scheme of things so long as one is using the appropriate materials and the most effective logistics, such things can surely at least be cut some slack by being better than most and often better than nothing when it comes to finding and setting new readers on what one can only hope to be more inspirational paths.
Hard to measure the enviROI on it all, but if done for the right reasons and written well, they can surely only be forces for the planet’s future good. And often folk don’t have the time or inclination to trawl around, so can be great summaries for those keen to get going.
And, if one thinks about it, the stack of rainforest that is one’s copy of the Sunday paper, or the scores of ‘green’ magazines, pretty much add up to a nice chunk in the doorstep recycling bin eventually. At least by being nicely packaged these books can lurk and maybe promote the odd guest to have a quick peruse and act on what they’ve been inspired by.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
A very costly decision
Back in 1999, our then chancellor, Ol' Golden Brown, no less, took the unprecedented decision to unload a large proportion of the UK's gold reserves at a time when the price of gold was at the bottom of the market. Dealers still term that price as the "Brown Bottom". (Full story in The Times).
At the time, there was much concern, and many forecasts that it would cost the UK dear. "The 17 auctions achieved prices for the gold of between $256 and $296 an ounce, with an average of $275." The total loss, back in April this year was estimated at some £2 Billion. (It would have been considerably more had not the Euros purchased with much of the proceeds not appreciated in value.)
Well, the price of gold now stands at a record $872.10 per ounce. That means that our PM is directly responsible for a loss to the UK of some £3 Billion+.
Now if I (or anyone else for that matter) had taken such an appalling decision and lost such an immense amount in business I'd have been sacked on the spot. It just goes to prove that there is no such thing as accountability in politics nowadays.
ADDENDUM - Brown's big hitter - When in the mire, don't whatever happens try and sort it out. Hire a better person to explain why it isn't.
ADDENDUM 2 - Unhappy new year to you all!
At the time, there was much concern, and many forecasts that it would cost the UK dear. "The 17 auctions achieved prices for the gold of between $256 and $296 an ounce, with an average of $275." The total loss, back in April this year was estimated at some £2 Billion. (It would have been considerably more had not the Euros purchased with much of the proceeds not appreciated in value.)
Well, the price of gold now stands at a record $872.10 per ounce. That means that our PM is directly responsible for a loss to the UK of some £3 Billion+.
Now if I (or anyone else for that matter) had taken such an appalling decision and lost such an immense amount in business I'd have been sacked on the spot. It just goes to prove that there is no such thing as accountability in politics nowadays.
ADDENDUM - Brown's big hitter - When in the mire, don't whatever happens try and sort it out. Hire a better person to explain why it isn't.
ADDENDUM 2 - Unhappy new year to you all!
Money well, expended
Fit for purpose?
Are you mad?????
Spending perfectly good money on actual tangibles that get delivered directly to where they can do the most good to the most folk... and, worse, with the notion of reward-based incentives attached taboot!
This is heresy.
What we need is more departments, and initiatives, and announcements and quangos and massive communications budgets with oodles of pre and post research to get the BBC to read out as gospel.
However, fair point on weather, etc. But as a matter of principle a heck of a better way to be thinking than the current 'ban, guilt, accuse and refuse' notions and their jaw-dropping black hole budgets.
This notion applies across every area of our lives too, of course.
Are you mad?????
Spending perfectly good money on actual tangibles that get delivered directly to where they can do the most good to the most folk... and, worse, with the notion of reward-based incentives attached taboot!
This is heresy.
What we need is more departments, and initiatives, and announcements and quangos and massive communications budgets with oodles of pre and post research to get the BBC to read out as gospel.
However, fair point on weather, etc. But as a matter of principle a heck of a better way to be thinking than the current 'ban, guilt, accuse and refuse' notions and their jaw-dropping black hole budgets.
This notion applies across every area of our lives too, of course.
The agricultural albedo effect
We've had the mirrors in space idea, and we have people experimenting with dumping iron filings into the oceans to encourage algal blooms, amongst many other strange geo-engineering ideas.
Now scientists have come up with the shiny plant idea. Let's grow lots of crops with shiny leaves and the albedo effect "could reduce maximum daytime temperatures in agricultural regions by as much as 1.9C".
There's that great word again: 'could'.
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - Great minds...?
Now scientists have come up with the shiny plant idea. Let's grow lots of crops with shiny leaves and the albedo effect "could reduce maximum daytime temperatures in agricultural regions by as much as 1.9C".
There's that great word again: 'could'.
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - Great minds...?
Start as you mean to carry on?
Isn't life grand? Asks Newsnight.
Well, not if this is how they see the future of quality news in the year ahead. I rather expect my national broadcaster to devote its pages to weightier issues than having a snipe about someone else being nasty about them, unless it is to correct a factual inaccuracy.
I thought it was just middle age when I moved from Radio 1 to Radio 2, but mainly it was when the 'new yoof' celeb DJs like Chris Moyles decided the listeners needed less music and more on them and their dissin' spats with equally uninteresting nobodies of but minor relevance through 'working' for other iconic media brands.
I could care less what you lot and anyone else from any ratings obsessed, agenda-driven media extreme think of each other, but as a licence fee payer (I can at least opt not to pay for the Daily Mail) I do care a lot about what you are paid to provide: relevant, objective, intelligent, accurate news.
Hard to see any hint of that here. As no link was provided to the piece in question I have no clue as to what was or was not in it, so the only purpose seems to expose a degree of unhealthy self-obsession and importance at the expense of relevant journalism.
ADDENDUM - Oddly, after three attempts over a few days my post has not made it up. I can only presume it did not fit the BBC or its Editor's standards of... whatever they have standards left of. Even more oddly, on the page counter there are 6 replies listed as being posted. Only three are visible. Omission in many ways is the most pernicious form of censoring of all. What I wrote was critical to be sure, but I'd also say justified. On an open blog to exclude the comment seems... telling. I'll try again in a few more days in case it's one those 'tech errors' that often serve to let the passage of time smooth the view in the rear mirror.
ADDENDUM 2 - Nope. Still nothing. One can only wonder why. Go via here via 4 Jan to see how 6 become 3. Not Newsnight's, the BBC's or the cause of honest and balanced journalism's finest hour.
ADDENDUM 3 - Well, there's a thing. It is now (14:29. Tue 8) up now. And I am sure, with some embarrassment, my whinge that it isn't will follow. Good job I did a page capture a few days ago. Rather oddly (still), my comment is now inserted before that of a chap whose comment was up a few days ago (but probably after mine). What an odd system it is.
Well, not if this is how they see the future of quality news in the year ahead. I rather expect my national broadcaster to devote its pages to weightier issues than having a snipe about someone else being nasty about them, unless it is to correct a factual inaccuracy.
I thought it was just middle age when I moved from Radio 1 to Radio 2, but mainly it was when the 'new yoof' celeb DJs like Chris Moyles decided the listeners needed less music and more on them and their dissin' spats with equally uninteresting nobodies of but minor relevance through 'working' for other iconic media brands.
I could care less what you lot and anyone else from any ratings obsessed, agenda-driven media extreme think of each other, but as a licence fee payer (I can at least opt not to pay for the Daily Mail) I do care a lot about what you are paid to provide: relevant, objective, intelligent, accurate news.
Hard to see any hint of that here. As no link was provided to the piece in question I have no clue as to what was or was not in it, so the only purpose seems to expose a degree of unhealthy self-obsession and importance at the expense of relevant journalism.
ADDENDUM - Oddly, after three attempts over a few days my post has not made it up. I can only presume it did not fit the BBC or its Editor's standards of... whatever they have standards left of. Even more oddly, on the page counter there are 6 replies listed as being posted. Only three are visible. Omission in many ways is the most pernicious form of censoring of all. What I wrote was critical to be sure, but I'd also say justified. On an open blog to exclude the comment seems... telling. I'll try again in a few more days in case it's one those 'tech errors' that often serve to let the passage of time smooth the view in the rear mirror.
ADDENDUM 2 - Nope. Still nothing. One can only wonder why. Go via here via 4 Jan to see how 6 become 3. Not Newsnight's, the BBC's or the cause of honest and balanced journalism's finest hour.
ADDENDUM 3 - Well, there's a thing. It is now (14:29. Tue 8) up now. And I am sure, with some embarrassment, my whinge that it isn't will follow. Good job I did a page capture a few days ago. Rather oddly (still), my comment is now inserted before that of a chap whose comment was up a few days ago (but probably after mine). What an odd system it is.
Answering the call
Gordon Brown calls for single food labelling scheme
What, in the great smoke and mirrors scheme of things, does 'calls for' actually mean, or translate as?
I rather suspect this is yet one more in an exponentially expanding series of politician double speak up there to join 'this is not acceptable (but sod all will be done)', 'we're going to look at this (at arm's length, and then wait until it goes away)' and, my personal favourite 'lessons need to learned (then filed and forgotten)'.
I hate to break it to our Dear Leader, but this horse has already long bolted and this consumer is well beyond contusion. He's already at 'if they don't know or care to sort it out sensibly, why should I bother?'. So, as I am on a mixed metaphorical roll, it will be fun to see how this genie gets popped back in it's bottle.
Especially as, at least from my reading of this article, the additional fun of the already several competing and contradictory carbon/food miles efforts already out and/or proposed to add to the screed on packs seems not to be in this mix. Or at least not mentioned.
I'm betting that after a ton of 'working with', which should keep a load of public servants in pensions and consultants in fees until well after the cows have finished burping methane, the most I predict will be several vastly expensive 'campaigns' instead of any tangibles from several left/right hand quangos, so at least the ad and media world may still benefit.
Just not so sure about the consumer or planet's health, though.
Guardian - Energy firms feel heat from government over surge in prices - I'm sorry, but how 'expressing concern' translates into anyone on the other end 'feeling heat' is a stretch.
What, in the great smoke and mirrors scheme of things, does 'calls for' actually mean, or translate as?
I rather suspect this is yet one more in an exponentially expanding series of politician double speak up there to join 'this is not acceptable (but sod all will be done)', 'we're going to look at this (at arm's length, and then wait until it goes away)' and, my personal favourite 'lessons need to learned (then filed and forgotten)'.
I hate to break it to our Dear Leader, but this horse has already long bolted and this consumer is well beyond contusion. He's already at 'if they don't know or care to sort it out sensibly, why should I bother?'. So, as I am on a mixed metaphorical roll, it will be fun to see how this genie gets popped back in it's bottle.
Especially as, at least from my reading of this article, the additional fun of the already several competing and contradictory carbon/food miles efforts already out and/or proposed to add to the screed on packs seems not to be in this mix. Or at least not mentioned.
I'm betting that after a ton of 'working with', which should keep a load of public servants in pensions and consultants in fees until well after the cows have finished burping methane, the most I predict will be several vastly expensive 'campaigns' instead of any tangibles from several left/right hand quangos, so at least the ad and media world may still benefit.
Just not so sure about the consumer or planet's health, though.
Guardian - Energy firms feel heat from government over surge in prices - I'm sorry, but how 'expressing concern' translates into anyone on the other end 'feeling heat' is a stretch.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Pros and Cons
Climate change. Can't live with it. Can't turn on the box without it.
I have long given up with the arguments about the various shades of CC, but remain very interested in how it gets played out, especially when it gets to the man in the Clapham omnibus.
Ca,me across a link to this from a loooong time ago.
The Battle for Influence
Might be worth a listen to. Never know.
I have long given up with the arguments about the various shades of CC, but remain very interested in how it gets played out, especially when it gets to the man in the Clapham omnibus.
Ca,me across a link to this from a loooong time ago.
The Battle for Influence
Might be worth a listen to. Never know.
Bear e-cessities?
Artic Tale
Last thing I read was a pretty credibel notion tha polar bears were not doing too bad, climatically, but the main threat was oil exploartion and/or man's incursion into their territories. Please do not let this be another open goal for the optimists.
I know they are cute and cuddly (well, except the tearing limb from limb thing), but I question if these guys are really the best icon for action.
Just asking as not sure, but might a pretty big threat to Seela surviving be Nanu's mum?
I know what the intention behind this is, but just hope that the actuality doesn't play second fiddle to promoting the message.
Last time I saw a polar bear used was a Curry's ad for an LCD TV.
Last thing I read was a pretty credibel notion tha polar bears were not doing too bad, climatically, but the main threat was oil exploartion and/or man's incursion into their territories. Please do not let this be another open goal for the optimists.
I know they are cute and cuddly (well, except the tearing limb from limb thing), but I question if these guys are really the best icon for action.
Just asking as not sure, but might a pretty big threat to Seela surviving be Nanu's mum?
I know what the intention behind this is, but just hope that the actuality doesn't play second fiddle to promoting the message.
Last time I saw a polar bear used was a Curry's ad for an LCD TV.
Brown lighting
It's what I think you get when you mix red and green. it's the colour of fudge. Nuclear plan puts Brown's green image in spotlight
And again I find myself with some small sympathy for the dilemma he faces. Well, as far as being between a rock and a hard place, but that's why he is in the job he coveted. Frankly I'd have more respect if he just turned round and said 'Look, you can't have it all, I'm going this way' rather than trying to be all things to all people but ending up a nothing to no one.
And yes, I heard him 'Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right."' And nowt there says anything of substance.
I leave the conclusion to one of his own MPs: "The tragedy of Gordon Brown is the only big decisions he appears capable of taking are the wrong ones."
'No nuclear power station has ever been built without substantial subsidies'
What would I give for a simp.. well at least clear chart outlining the ROI and enviROI of the various energy options we are being presented with.
Be it ring-fencing us with windmills, sticking a nuke in the back-garden or firing up a coal-fired without a CO2 scrubber I'd just like to see where the money is coming from, who it is going to, for what and for how long to deliver what to my socket.
And then I'd like to see what the consequences to my kids' futures are of these from the minute a spade goes into the ground (or, more like, more gets blown on pre-consultancy than the project) to the moment they are decommissioned, including all maintenance consequences.
It surely should not be that hard?
Guardian - Which would you rather subsidise? - in the world of some media I rather have a sense of wishing something to be, rather than reporting on what is.
And another - Don't make us nuke - some media are now rather devalued by being a tad exclusive in their discussions, I fear. I'd say they were preaching to a converted flock, but having read some thread replies maybe not.
What is obvious is that the Guardian quoting BBC links and vice versa is not making for a great debate, or very credible these days as any kind of objective justification.
And again I find myself with some small sympathy for the dilemma he faces. Well, as far as being between a rock and a hard place, but that's why he is in the job he coveted. Frankly I'd have more respect if he just turned round and said 'Look, you can't have it all, I'm going this way' rather than trying to be all things to all people but ending up a nothing to no one.
And yes, I heard him 'Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right."' And nowt there says anything of substance.
I leave the conclusion to one of his own MPs: "The tragedy of Gordon Brown is the only big decisions he appears capable of taking are the wrong ones."
'No nuclear power station has ever been built without substantial subsidies'
What would I give for a simp.. well at least clear chart outlining the ROI and enviROI of the various energy options we are being presented with.
Be it ring-fencing us with windmills, sticking a nuke in the back-garden or firing up a coal-fired without a CO2 scrubber I'd just like to see where the money is coming from, who it is going to, for what and for how long to deliver what to my socket.
And then I'd like to see what the consequences to my kids' futures are of these from the minute a spade goes into the ground (or, more like, more gets blown on pre-consultancy than the project) to the moment they are decommissioned, including all maintenance consequences.
It surely should not be that hard?
Guardian - Which would you rather subsidise? - in the world of some media I rather have a sense of wishing something to be, rather than reporting on what is.
And another - Don't make us nuke - some media are now rather devalued by being a tad exclusive in their discussions, I fear. I'd say they were preaching to a converted flock, but having read some thread replies maybe not.
What is obvious is that the Guardian quoting BBC links and vice versa is not making for a great debate, or very credible these days as any kind of objective justification.
To serve and protect?
One comment that has cause to make me pause is that by being all online and all, I am promoting lots of emissions on the energy consequences of all the IT involved.
Being a website and a blog it would be tricky not to run most of what I have, but here's a possible mitigation to share: http://www.googlenrg.com/info.php
NOW HERE'S A MAJOR CAUTION!
The source that sent this to me is usually very good, but there is something about the use of English in the intro that has me cautious, above and beyond any invitation to cut and paste stuff in and around computers.
So I have done nothing yet, and written to Google direct to check.
I'd suggest that you wait with me until I get a reply and update this post.
I want this to be true, and it looks good, but sadly this is a nasty old world and people will use green for just about any odd notion of self-advancement there is.
Being a website and a blog it would be tricky not to run most of what I have, but here's a possible mitigation to share: http://www.googlenrg.com/info.php
NOW HERE'S A MAJOR CAUTION!
The source that sent this to me is usually very good, but there is something about the use of English in the intro that has me cautious, above and beyond any invitation to cut and paste stuff in and around computers.
So I have done nothing yet, and written to Google direct to check.
I'd suggest that you wait with me until I get a reply and update this post.
I want this to be true, and it looks good, but sadly this is a nasty old world and people will use green for just about any odd notion of self-advancement there is.
A river runs through it
I like to find positives, and I am a fan of hydro, so this is a good share: Hydro tunnel makes breakthrough
Also nice to see a 'will' when it comes to power claims. Sadly some other alt. eng. projects seem to have a few coulds 'n caveats attached
Also nice to see a 'will' when it comes to power claims. Sadly some other alt. eng. projects seem to have a few coulds 'n caveats attached
Speaking of rubbish
I noticed this headline: Soldiers bulldoze Naples rubbish
And hence the story. So far, so P-EU.
What intrigued me more, in terms of the nature of news gathering, was this at the end:
Are you in Naples? Have you been affected by the rubbish collection crisis? Use the form below to send us your stories, some of which may be published.
You can send pictures and video to: yourpics@bbc.co.uk or to send via mobile please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100.
I'm all for citizen journalism, but just wondered what checks and balances existed on this, or indeed any other comments or footage that comes in and ends up on a major news site. Do they verify?
Seems like an invitation to create something if one is so minded to sway a story.
And hence the story. So far, so P-EU.
What intrigued me more, in terms of the nature of news gathering, was this at the end:
Are you in Naples? Have you been affected by the rubbish collection crisis? Use the form below to send us your stories, some of which may be published.
You can send pictures and video to: yourpics@bbc.co.uk or to send via mobile please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100.
I'm all for citizen journalism, but just wondered what checks and balances existed on this, or indeed any other comments or footage that comes in and ends up on a major news site. Do they verify?
Seems like an invitation to create something if one is so minded to sway a story.
Over my head
Great. To the pointless, time-consuming (ok, that's the point) barrages on climate change, as a consumer in no man's land I can add government and corporates on energy: NPower blames Government targets for price hike
I'm not so sure I am that concerned on 'blame', but surely we can easily be told just where the actual numbers are derived from and come to our own conclusions?
I'm not so sure I am that concerned on 'blame', but surely we can easily be told just where the actual numbers are derived from and come to our own conclusions?
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Lead by donkeys, informed by sheep
I just watched the Andrew Marr show, with his guest the PM.
About as sorry an example of the state of governance and the media as I could imagine. A load of waffle that told me nothing. But what did surprise was another clear (after the Newsnight/Milliband exchange) example where two sets of major persons claimed totally different things... and I remain clueless as to the truth.
Here's something that this viewer DOES want to know and the country maybe want to understand (I don't pretend to speak for it, as I wish many others equally unable to know would not).
Please advise when all the 'facts' that Andrew and the Prime Minister have shared today with the viewing public have been clarified. They cannot both be right, so one or other must be very, very wrong and/or misinformed.
And, if so, how and why.
Otherwise there ceases to be any point to such interviews.
ADDENDUM :
Mine did not for some reason find favour. Here are a few which did.
About as sorry an example of the state of governance and the media as I could imagine. A load of waffle that told me nothing. But what did surprise was another clear (after the Newsnight/Milliband exchange) example where two sets of major persons claimed totally different things... and I remain clueless as to the truth.
Here's something that this viewer DOES want to know and the country maybe want to understand (I don't pretend to speak for it, as I wish many others equally unable to know would not).
Please advise when all the 'facts' that Andrew and the Prime Minister have shared today with the viewing public have been clarified. They cannot both be right, so one or other must be very, very wrong and/or misinformed.
And, if so, how and why.
Otherwise there ceases to be any point to such interviews.
ADDENDUM :
Mine did not for some reason find favour. Here are a few which did.
To err is human, to fudge... define, naturally
I found this... disconcerting: 'Natural' will remain undefined, says FDA
One might indeed wonder why such 'a lack of a uniform approach to the term has resulted in inconsistent product claims, consumer confusion, and even lawsuits against food companies accused of misleading consumers'.
Or, if of a cynical bent, maybe not.
Guardian - Board stiffs - Meanwhile, this side of the pond.
One might indeed wonder why such 'a lack of a uniform approach to the term has resulted in inconsistent product claims, consumer confusion, and even lawsuits against food companies accused of misleading consumers'.
Or, if of a cynical bent, maybe not.
Guardian - Board stiffs - Meanwhile, this side of the pond.
Tilting windmills
Home wind turbines dealt a blow
I take no pleasure in this. But it does at least maybe encourage greater commitment to assessing enviROIs before endorsing any 'Green is good no matter what ' nonsense, especially from subsidising bodies and the media. I'll leave commerce out of it as most are, and have always been in it for one thing, and caveat emptor.
The problem comes with perceptions. I'd say the notion that at least they remind folk of the need to save is a stretch, especially as less charitable, climate positive media and commenters will pounce on this and use it to further undermine sincere attempts by labelling those who do care and get taken in as rather naive and misguided. Which, frankly, many seem to have been.
Why was this research not available much sooner, and better known? And has there been no objective official guide for the start?
I take no pleasure in this. But it does at least maybe encourage greater commitment to assessing enviROIs before endorsing any 'Green is good no matter what ' nonsense, especially from subsidising bodies and the media. I'll leave commerce out of it as most are, and have always been in it for one thing, and caveat emptor.
The problem comes with perceptions. I'd say the notion that at least they remind folk of the need to save is a stretch, especially as less charitable, climate positive media and commenters will pounce on this and use it to further undermine sincere attempts by labelling those who do care and get taken in as rather naive and misguided. Which, frankly, many seem to have been.
Why was this research not available much sooner, and better known? And has there been no objective official guide for the start?
On the other hand, Jeremy Clarkson might not like it
The £1,290 car delights Indians but horrifies the green lobby
Beyond the poor taste humour of the headline, there is a rather serious back story to this.
Frankly it was/is inevitable. Just economic growth and market forces at work. Can't be denied.
And while I'm sure the green lobby can be relied upon to be horrified, I'm a might more interested in how the global political leadership sees such things developing.
Beyond the poor taste humour of the headline, there is a rather serious back story to this.
Frankly it was/is inevitable. Just economic growth and market forces at work. Can't be denied.
And while I'm sure the green lobby can be relied upon to be horrified, I'm a might more interested in how the global political leadership sees such things developing.
Top of the world?
My views on what makes one, and hence validates one being called a hero are well documented. Along with the media that perpetuate the trend: 50 people who could save the planet
It's a list. And like any list as good as the people who draw it up, their subjective views and their agendas.
To critique is to lay one open to all manner of criticism in return. Anything that encourages those who try to do better by the planet and reward them with praise has to be worthwhile.
But having looked through I can only say how very few I would call either heroes or indeed those who 'could save the planet'.
The sheer preponderance of those who already greet each other in the green VIP room year on year is breathtaking. But in there are a few who are for sure inspirational (my preferred term) and may even be influential in driving a genuine enviROI+ forward by DOING (my preferred result). And I'm glad at least to have been introduced to a few more in this regard who I was not aware of.
As to the rest? Well, the 'debate' 'raging' in the blog between all 12 who have so far posted in one of the country's more significant daily papers (albeit enjoying a tenth the circulation of some others) is telling. If a little sad.
It's a list. And like any list as good as the people who draw it up, their subjective views and their agendas.
To critique is to lay one open to all manner of criticism in return. Anything that encourages those who try to do better by the planet and reward them with praise has to be worthwhile.
But having looked through I can only say how very few I would call either heroes or indeed those who 'could save the planet'.
The sheer preponderance of those who already greet each other in the green VIP room year on year is breathtaking. But in there are a few who are for sure inspirational (my preferred term) and may even be influential in driving a genuine enviROI+ forward by DOING (my preferred result). And I'm glad at least to have been introduced to a few more in this regard who I was not aware of.
As to the rest? Well, the 'debate' 'raging' in the blog between all 12 who have so far posted in one of the country's more significant daily papers (albeit enjoying a tenth the circulation of some others) is telling. If a little sad.
Friday, January 04, 2008
CATEGORY - BAN-ZAI!
Had to be started:
Guardian - The quad squad - My fav so far:
Worldwide, every single year, a number of people greater than zero are killed or seriously injured in newspaper-related accidents.
The solution is clear.
Ban newspapers.
Guardian - The quad squad - My fav so far:
Worldwide, every single year, a number of people greater than zero are killed or seriously injured in newspaper-related accidents.
The solution is clear.
Ban newspapers.
Why am I not surprised?
Government set for another missed target.
Now that's something that doesn't happen very often, isn't it?
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Depends what you mean by 'often', I guess. This took a few hours: Suffolk puts "aspirational" 60% recycling target on ice
Now that's something that doesn't happen very often, isn't it?
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Depends what you mean by 'often', I guess. This took a few hours: Suffolk puts "aspirational" 60% recycling target on ice
You can see where this might lead
And hence I do no more than share... Scientists find hot spot on Saturn's chilly pole
But, is it art?
This in Treehugger: Stockholm's Feeling...Pale Green
This from me:
I may be missing something here, but in the great environmental awareness scheme of things, how does 'emblazoning with massive mood lighting' work, exactly, enviROI-wise?
How is this different to chiding anyone with a massive outdoor Xmas display (which, if one is serious, and Grinch-accusation immune, a fair point)?
Maybe we shoudl get 747's to do coloured contrails and call it art?
This from me:
I may be missing something here, but in the great environmental awareness scheme of things, how does 'emblazoning with massive mood lighting' work, exactly, enviROI-wise?
How is this different to chiding anyone with a massive outdoor Xmas display (which, if one is serious, and Grinch-accusation immune, a fair point)?
Maybe we shoudl get 747's to do coloured contrails and call it art?
Not the message intended?
I too, have followed the one laptop per child cause quite carefully (from my laptop), so when I came across this it was of interest: Intel says bye to One Laptop
Sadly, or maybe I should say fortunately, where once the BBC weighing into a clear example of corporate abuse would have had me onside, I now find myself wondering about the full... accurate... story (a few avenues raised already in the thread replies). Nice one, guys.
Anyway, another thing popped into my head as I read:
'Yes, it is truly awful when a corporation says one thing but does another.
Just wondering why, with climate change and all, the BBC felt the need for two technology correspondents (you can never have enough of those to promote endless new consumer must-have juice gobblers) to go to the same far flung outpost?
Speaking of which, I hope Las Vegas is nice this time of year, too.'
I can see it now: 'Ah... but this is different. This is our job.' And no irony plugging the latest i-Tat in the same segment as the blonde and bouffant scold us on our wasteful ways.
Reuters - Intel drops out of One Laptop Per Child program
Sadly, or maybe I should say fortunately, where once the BBC weighing into a clear example of corporate abuse would have had me onside, I now find myself wondering about the full... accurate... story (a few avenues raised already in the thread replies). Nice one, guys.
Anyway, another thing popped into my head as I read:
'Yes, it is truly awful when a corporation says one thing but does another.
Just wondering why, with climate change and all, the BBC felt the need for two technology correspondents (you can never have enough of those to promote endless new consumer must-have juice gobblers) to go to the same far flung outpost?
Speaking of which, I hope Las Vegas is nice this time of year, too.'
I can see it now: 'Ah... but this is different. This is our job.' And no irony plugging the latest i-Tat in the same segment as the blonde and bouffant scold us on our wasteful ways.
Reuters - Intel drops out of One Laptop Per Child program
Accolades on toast
At least between a snake and a ladder you can eat the snake (tastes like chicken:). Sadly, I remain unsure of the relative nutritional values of a swing and/or a roundabout.
Anyhoo, while it does not (yet) put food on the table), the mail has brought another accolade, this time from FMCG Magazine's 'Best of 2007'.
What is also worthy of note is that the headline feature in this annual round up of all that is great and good in the world of what we consume is by the Director of Sustainability and Competitiveness of the Food and Drinks Federation.
His first line on the vision of the industry for 2008: 'Making a real difference for the environment'.
Ready when they are.
Who, or what, pays?
The last few blogs have cited examples from the morning Indy trawl on matters environmental.
But I have decided to write about one which I had honestly ignored as peripheral, but now realise is a worthy metaphor for the whole environment vs. economic growth debate.
And that's factory farming.
In the effective front page visual style for which the paper is often justly lauded, one is confronted by the space a chicken gets to exist within until converted into ingredients.
And it ain't pretty.
Yet, as the floor high stack of trays in my basement testifies (yes, I do keep 'em all, and in four years they mount up - one day I'll find a use for them), despite being told this before has not made a whopping difference, in this household at least.
Why? Well as meat eaters we do like variety (and I doubt most other choices exist through much better lives), but mainly it's down to money. As stated, I can feed a family of five for £2.50. Ethics kinda go out the window.
What would stop us? I can only think of a few reasons. There's health, and these dasy it seems there's always a bit of research that the guv'mint can whip out for the BBC to print any time we need to be steered away from something. But it's always short term. And memories are short.
Next up is money. The more expensive it gets, the less we'll consume. Market forces forcing the market to shrink? Possible, but not so hot for supermarket profit or political popularity. Skiing in Verbier or Goujons for Sunday lunch? Hmnn.
Or you could just ban it.
Like I say, not a bad metaphor. I guess we'll just live with the odd front page in the Indy then. And the guilt.
But I have decided to write about one which I had honestly ignored as peripheral, but now realise is a worthy metaphor for the whole environment vs. economic growth debate.
And that's factory farming.
In the effective front page visual style for which the paper is often justly lauded, one is confronted by the space a chicken gets to exist within until converted into ingredients.
And it ain't pretty.
Yet, as the floor high stack of trays in my basement testifies (yes, I do keep 'em all, and in four years they mount up - one day I'll find a use for them), despite being told this before has not made a whopping difference, in this household at least.
Why? Well as meat eaters we do like variety (and I doubt most other choices exist through much better lives), but mainly it's down to money. As stated, I can feed a family of five for £2.50. Ethics kinda go out the window.
What would stop us? I can only think of a few reasons. There's health, and these dasy it seems there's always a bit of research that the guv'mint can whip out for the BBC to print any time we need to be steered away from something. But it's always short term. And memories are short.
Next up is money. The more expensive it gets, the less we'll consume. Market forces forcing the market to shrink? Possible, but not so hot for supermarket profit or political popularity. Skiing in Verbier or Goujons for Sunday lunch? Hmnn.
Or you could just ban it.
Like I say, not a bad metaphor. I guess we'll just live with the odd front page in the Indy then. And the guilt.
A tale of two 'e's
Here's something you won't read too often on these pages: I feel sorry for the PM.And not just him, but any politician these days.
The reason is that screen grab from my daily Indy.
Because those two sequential headlines epitomise the rock and hard place that anyone in power faces, especially and ironically when it comes to... power: economy vs. environment.
Ignoring any enviROi considerations/arguments for the moment, just look at those in terms of stark political choices.
No one said/says it's going to be easy, but one things for sure... I don't feel too keen on trying to warm my home on endless supplies of the Brown stuff: fudge.
ADDENDUM - thank heavens I put in that caveat about the envROI! As I was posting this Dave is posting the same thing with a much more focused view on the detail.
Unlike many arguments, and I see Dave and I maybe diverging, at least on a pragmatic basis, when it comes to the realities vs. ideals for such as nuclear in the future, the lack of carbon capture in the design seems plain bonkers.
Indy - A test of the Government's environmental credentials
Save money. Polar bears, possibly not.
Time we had a picture.I cut this out before Xmas.
Bearing (geddit) in mind that the new generations of TV screen are quite thirsty I thought the imagery was... cute.
Indy - Plans to drill for Alaskan oil threaten polar bear numbers - OK, it's still about oil, but I think also makes my point that it's more likely that man will directly finish these poor guys off way before the consequences of climate change will.
When it comes to fighting for territory, there will only be one winner. And once we've stuck a condo on all the territory we can find, then I guess Darwin kicks in, closely followed by Malthus.
Guardian - Bearfaced lies - there may be some facts in all this, but I'm not sure
'Sheer negligence'
From today's Indy, commenting on the proposal to build a new coal fired power station in Kent. (Hell, the project doesn't even include for any CO2 capture! Though the 'new technology' is 20% more efficient than older coal fired power stations.)
"The Government is also neglecting the energy conservation and micro-generation front. Mr Brown has promised new environmental regulations for new housing. But much more is needed to encourage conservation in the existing housing stock. Why have government grants for the installation of domestic renewable energy systems been cut? Why is there no right for households to sell domestically-generated power back to the grid, as exists in numerous other countries? This is not the excusable behaviour of a government caught on the horns of a difficult energy dilemma; it is sheer negligence."
Quite!
Addendum:
From UKWatch.Net, taken from CIF, and clearly stating just why coal simply cannot be the way forward.
"The Government is also neglecting the energy conservation and micro-generation front. Mr Brown has promised new environmental regulations for new housing. But much more is needed to encourage conservation in the existing housing stock. Why have government grants for the installation of domestic renewable energy systems been cut? Why is there no right for households to sell domestically-generated power back to the grid, as exists in numerous other countries? This is not the excusable behaviour of a government caught on the horns of a difficult energy dilemma; it is sheer negligence."
Quite!
Addendum:
From UKWatch.Net, taken from CIF, and clearly stating just why coal simply cannot be the way forward.
Peak oil / peak water.
An interesting article from Online Journal on how peak oil might affect America. One or two quite interesting observations and comments, not least of which is the suggestion that "Peak Oil and the steps we must take to solve its effects upon our society will naturally contribute to also slowing down the escalation of Global Warming." I also find it interesting that peak oil might just indicate the potential demise of the huge global supermarket entities.
Now peak water usage in the UK apparently occurs in the South East of England, where average use is greater than anywhere else in Europe, according to Times Online. Well, that didn't really surprise me overtly, but I was surprised to note that "the South East of England has less (water) available per person than Sudan or Syria".
Now peak water usage in the UK apparently occurs in the South East of England, where average use is greater than anywhere else in Europe, according to Times Online. Well, that didn't really surprise me overtly, but I was surprised to note that "the South East of England has less (water) available per person than Sudan or Syria".
Between the lines
I was brought to this by a climatically optimistic post that inspired the inevitable pointless fisking exchanges thereafter. However, my attention was focused more on what happened after the headline: 2007 to be 'warmest on record'
That would be the line of copy you get to, having first read a rather different message via some rather odd new journalistic 'weren't me guv' technique of sticking something in apostrophes by way of shirking any responsibility for journalistic accuracy or editorial objectivity.
So we then get...'The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, the UK's Met Office says.'
I really would wish our national broadcaster would stop shooting itself in the foot like this and handing such distractions to those who would have us debate the detail endlessly at the expense of the bigger picture.
Personally I could care less if 2007 is or isn't the warmest year (OK, it does matter statistically as part of a trend), but I sure don't see it helping the cause of encouraging restraint and mitigation of our race's possible impact on climate, to try and crank out scare stories that may end up looking plain daft by being not, as such, true.
Just give us the facts as they are known, guys. At this rate I half expect to soon see that 'No 10 is expected to say that the PM is considering supporting this claim' by way of a front page that says nothing by tries to convey much.
ADDENDUM:
2007 'second warmest year' in UK - see above
That would be the line of copy you get to, having first read a rather different message via some rather odd new journalistic 'weren't me guv' technique of sticking something in apostrophes by way of shirking any responsibility for journalistic accuracy or editorial objectivity.
So we then get...'The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, the UK's Met Office says.'
I really would wish our national broadcaster would stop shooting itself in the foot like this and handing such distractions to those who would have us debate the detail endlessly at the expense of the bigger picture.
Personally I could care less if 2007 is or isn't the warmest year (OK, it does matter statistically as part of a trend), but I sure don't see it helping the cause of encouraging restraint and mitigation of our race's possible impact on climate, to try and crank out scare stories that may end up looking plain daft by being not, as such, true.
Just give us the facts as they are known, guys. At this rate I half expect to soon see that 'No 10 is expected to say that the PM is considering supporting this claim' by way of a front page that says nothing by tries to convey much.
ADDENDUM:
2007 'second warmest year' in UK - see above
Thursday, January 03, 2008
The weather's going crazy
Yesterday afternoon I stood outside the office in a temperature of 11C. At the same time today it was -2.5C, and with a biting easterly wind making it feel more like -10C.
And if that simply demonstrates the daily extremes that our little planet seems to be suffering, how about this from WFTV, reporting on snow flurries in Florida of all places!
Strangely, a couple of weeks ago I was convinced that I saw some swallows winging around the estate. I kept my mouth shut, fearing ridicule from my peers, and dismissed the evidence of my eyes. I decided that I was perhaps way overdue for my annual sight test at the opticians. Then today, I found out I wasn't going mad, when I chanced upon this from the Telegraph - therein it states that swallows were spotted in Cheshire in December!
One swallow doesn't make a summer, they say. Perhaps in a few years time we'll have to change it to 'one swallow doesn't make a winter'?
And if that simply demonstrates the daily extremes that our little planet seems to be suffering, how about this from WFTV, reporting on snow flurries in Florida of all places!
Strangely, a couple of weeks ago I was convinced that I saw some swallows winging around the estate. I kept my mouth shut, fearing ridicule from my peers, and dismissed the evidence of my eyes. I decided that I was perhaps way overdue for my annual sight test at the opticians. Then today, I found out I wasn't going mad, when I chanced upon this from the Telegraph - therein it states that swallows were spotted in Cheshire in December!
One swallow doesn't make a summer, they say. Perhaps in a few years time we'll have to change it to 'one swallow doesn't make a winter'?
Awareness is as awareness does(n't?)
It's not strictly enviro, but as a parent I am at least involved in the latest of what now seems a daily 'awareness' 'campaign' that seems to get pumped out willy-nilly by some government department via the sofa-crew at the Beeb.
I comment, because it might just as easily have been green-related, and I simply question the thinking behind this endless stream of stuff in theory designed to shape our behaviours, especially when it comes to the costs and number and people involved vs. the result: the prROI?
So this outing, in theory to help me and my kids eat more healthily, we are presented with a lady called Patsy Palmer who, we are gushingly informed, is a glammy mummy.
If they say so. Anyhoo, I was intrigued by her opening inspirational lines to the effect that she, the role model du jour, didn't actually eat veg at all as a kid as it tasted yucky, but now the guv'mint has approached her she's here to tell you she does now. Even makes her own smooothies now, natch.
But much more importantly, we then zoomed asap on to her book/play/new TV series or whatever the real reason was for this daft charade.
Why, oh why to we get fed such half-a*sed, ill-considered dross in the name of 'awareness'? I dread to think of the amount of public money blown by a collection of folk - from PRs to commissioning editors to heads of public something in some Whitehall black hole to d-list (usually, female & blonde) celebs with an eye to a career boost - on endless, tokenistic box-ticking efforts that can surely achieve b-all?
Especially when the default-setting for the brain-strains involved is to wheel on folk to front these things based on little more than the fact that people might be 'aware' of them as opposed to having any tangible connection with what they are supposed to espouse.
What next? George Michael on the dangers of drugs & booze? Russell Brand to campaign against moral laxness? The Spice Girls (I want Lobster!) against gratuitous excess?
About the only up side is that they rarely do much damage beyond consuming further precious funds from where they could actually do some good.
At least I hope so. Can anyone remember what the last campaign was and who fronted it? I think it was yesterday.
ADDENDUM
As if to prove my point (or not, if you have heard of this person, and if you have see them as a keen recycler because it says so on the press release), this just in: Anna Ryder Richardson Launches Annual Christmas Card Recycling Campaign
For what it's worth, this is of course a good thing to do, and as we have a perfectly adequate weekly doorstep collection system I'll just be tipping 'em (all six - I think we're all pretty electronic in my set now) in the box under my desk, as always.
Or should I be redirecting them away from this established waste stream to another to help meet another body achieve a different target?
I comment, because it might just as easily have been green-related, and I simply question the thinking behind this endless stream of stuff in theory designed to shape our behaviours, especially when it comes to the costs and number and people involved vs. the result: the prROI?
So this outing, in theory to help me and my kids eat more healthily, we are presented with a lady called Patsy Palmer who, we are gushingly informed, is a glammy mummy.
If they say so. Anyhoo, I was intrigued by her opening inspirational lines to the effect that she, the role model du jour, didn't actually eat veg at all as a kid as it tasted yucky, but now the guv'mint has approached her she's here to tell you she does now. Even makes her own smooothies now, natch.
But much more importantly, we then zoomed asap on to her book/play/new TV series or whatever the real reason was for this daft charade.
Why, oh why to we get fed such half-a*sed, ill-considered dross in the name of 'awareness'? I dread to think of the amount of public money blown by a collection of folk - from PRs to commissioning editors to heads of public something in some Whitehall black hole to d-list (usually, female & blonde) celebs with an eye to a career boost - on endless, tokenistic box-ticking efforts that can surely achieve b-all?
Especially when the default-setting for the brain-strains involved is to wheel on folk to front these things based on little more than the fact that people might be 'aware' of them as opposed to having any tangible connection with what they are supposed to espouse.
What next? George Michael on the dangers of drugs & booze? Russell Brand to campaign against moral laxness? The Spice Girls (I want Lobster!) against gratuitous excess?
About the only up side is that they rarely do much damage beyond consuming further precious funds from where they could actually do some good.
At least I hope so. Can anyone remember what the last campaign was and who fronted it? I think it was yesterday.
ADDENDUM
As if to prove my point (or not, if you have heard of this person, and if you have see them as a keen recycler because it says so on the press release), this just in: Anna Ryder Richardson Launches Annual Christmas Card Recycling Campaign
For what it's worth, this is of course a good thing to do, and as we have a perfectly adequate weekly doorstep collection system I'll just be tipping 'em (all six - I think we're all pretty electronic in my set now) in the box under my desk, as always.
Or should I be redirecting them away from this established waste stream to another to help meet another body achieve a different target?
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Navel gazing
If I have one main wish for the future, and the future of my family, it is that we see the current crop of messengers swept away so we can really set about addressing some critical issues: This time it's personal
Why? Well not because 'there is a disconnect between awareness of climate change and the lifestyle changes necessary to combat it', but because many proponents of that view seem unable to accept that they don’t understand what's going on in most average folks' minds well enough to even dream of setting about effecting any change of behaviour that may stand some chance of succeeding. And unless you are prepared to dig up some statesperson of dubious provenance from earlier ages, and shut down pretty much every democratic institution (especially a free press), you are in for a bumpy ride.
And I have to ruefully glance at one (of many) groups who truly stand out for their astounding ability to see no irony in preaching from pedestals about the evils of pedestals. And that is our now very self-serving free press. If there’s a rating in the offing, editorial will publish whatever gets the eyeballs, and sod the consequences.
At the end of a year that started with Stern and ended with Bali, with our race standing at a precipice, what do I see in the New Year round-ups? A few ecoshrews figuring that getting their air-flown tofu in paper instead of plastic bags has just about sorted it all, and deification of some guy who has so far avoided being accorded the title Typhoid Trevor by advocating all share in his vision of composting bogs in Streatham. 6 billion and counting means some eco-ideals are no longer, well, that ideal.
Britain may or may not be en route to some nifty targets, but I have near zero faith that these will mean anything much save as ways for ever more box-tickers to score a bonus or a lobbyist to rack up an even better commission. The system seems totally corrupted by having little to do with any tangible enviROI, and a lot more to do with profit or career enhancements.
And this situation is all at the door of a mainly self-created green elite who are great at saying but self-evidently so far pretty darn woeful at much in the way of doing by example. In fact, the most effort seems so far to be in areas of why, well, y'know, it's not really practical for 'them' to cut back, as such.
Lead, and if the story makes sense and the leader sharing the vision credible, then we will follow. If the story stinks and those spouting it seen to be playing a less than straight game, and you're on a non-starter.
By heavens it's not going to be easy. The whole thing is so vast, and complex and interconnected it's hard to know where to start, but it isn’t with some numptie MEP claiming their use of EurosStar and giving festive goats rather than X-box games qualifies them to join a fact-finding committee to study the impact of climate change in Lapland at Christmas (with the family) in mid-shuttle between Brussels and Strasbourg. It is just so much laughable hot air.
As is bottled water campaigns by Yummier-than-thou-mummies who write a column for a bleeding heart eco-quality, with both having really tricky ethical issues on the big stuff, such as what’s the best eco-lodge for the Easter break. Not perhaps notions top of mind or even shared at all by the majority of readers of, say, the News of the World. That would be a publication with some several times more readers, too. Go figure.
So where are these lifestyle choices to be made to have any impact, and who is going to make them... and persuaded by whom?
If you are going to be interventionist you better be whiter than white, otherwise there is a wall ready and waiting when the revolution comes.
I for one would advocate giving persuasion a much better chance. But first that needs the current crop of woeful 'leadership', in authority, activism and especially the media, being given the order of the Royal boot. Then get in some folk who genuinely care, understand the audience and can shine as those who can and will lead by example. Sadly, with the current system now embedded as firmly as leech’s teeth can be, that is a sadly dim possibility, and fading with each conference season and target setting consultation.
Yet we are both in agreement on the value of the carrot. And I can also see that there also needs to be some stick. Only not the kind wielded so far, and certainly not in the hands of those who to date think they are qualified or entitled to wield them.
I contend that most people are not that lazy. And even if they are then that's just a fact you work around to achieve your goal. Breaking my own rule (I find it arrogance in the extreme when a medium or politician claims to speak for me when they clearly do not), but for writing simplicity may I claim that 'we' are simply not ... so far... very well informed about the threats posed by probable man -worsened climate change (see, I have a different notion of what we face to offer up to you 'global warming' orthodoxy). And for sure none of the discussions, much less solutions I’ve had presented so far seem to me very well argued to date. In fact most seem to have been totally hijacked by extremes, with careers and fees and profits all very much front of mind well before any actual doing what's right for our kids.
I'd suggest some priorities need to be established. Pronto. Especially the putting houses in order variety. I for one can't take many politicians seriously when Bali in Winter managed to swell in delegateship tenfold, yet still with no obvious result at all. Or any finger-wave in these pages for instance, so long as there are ads for skiing trips or luxury cars in the sidebar.
Which might explain that low rate of behaviour change. Ya think?
I shudder that the conclusion seems to have arrived at the ‘solutions’ of ‘Consciousness-raising and green taxes’, especially with the laughable caveat of 'even if carefully thought out and organised'. Checked the competence card lately?
Too right they 'may have only marginal effects'. Just think what could have been done with the hundreds of millions already p*ssed away on scores of overlapping quangos and their bloated, self-serving (how you can get a bonus based on awareness results created by spending public money on ad campaigns seems truly astounding, if not a downright conflict of interest) comms budgets. So this voter at least will be... 'resisting' if they figure this is a nifty way to get more on the public sector payroll to then fund their pay and pensions with 'green taxes’.
Yes, many changes are needed. and urgently. But I’d suggest a bit more doing, and in a very different direction, than any more sodding thinking. None I have read or seen so far has seemed to offer one whit of an actual difference. We need something new.
Why? Well not because 'there is a disconnect between awareness of climate change and the lifestyle changes necessary to combat it', but because many proponents of that view seem unable to accept that they don’t understand what's going on in most average folks' minds well enough to even dream of setting about effecting any change of behaviour that may stand some chance of succeeding. And unless you are prepared to dig up some statesperson of dubious provenance from earlier ages, and shut down pretty much every democratic institution (especially a free press), you are in for a bumpy ride.
And I have to ruefully glance at one (of many) groups who truly stand out for their astounding ability to see no irony in preaching from pedestals about the evils of pedestals. And that is our now very self-serving free press. If there’s a rating in the offing, editorial will publish whatever gets the eyeballs, and sod the consequences.
At the end of a year that started with Stern and ended with Bali, with our race standing at a precipice, what do I see in the New Year round-ups? A few ecoshrews figuring that getting their air-flown tofu in paper instead of plastic bags has just about sorted it all, and deification of some guy who has so far avoided being accorded the title Typhoid Trevor by advocating all share in his vision of composting bogs in Streatham. 6 billion and counting means some eco-ideals are no longer, well, that ideal.
Britain may or may not be en route to some nifty targets, but I have near zero faith that these will mean anything much save as ways for ever more box-tickers to score a bonus or a lobbyist to rack up an even better commission. The system seems totally corrupted by having little to do with any tangible enviROI, and a lot more to do with profit or career enhancements.
And this situation is all at the door of a mainly self-created green elite who are great at saying but self-evidently so far pretty darn woeful at much in the way of doing by example. In fact, the most effort seems so far to be in areas of why, well, y'know, it's not really practical for 'them' to cut back, as such.
Lead, and if the story makes sense and the leader sharing the vision credible, then we will follow. If the story stinks and those spouting it seen to be playing a less than straight game, and you're on a non-starter.
By heavens it's not going to be easy. The whole thing is so vast, and complex and interconnected it's hard to know where to start, but it isn’t with some numptie MEP claiming their use of EurosStar and giving festive goats rather than X-box games qualifies them to join a fact-finding committee to study the impact of climate change in Lapland at Christmas (with the family) in mid-shuttle between Brussels and Strasbourg. It is just so much laughable hot air.
As is bottled water campaigns by Yummier-than-thou-mummies who write a column for a bleeding heart eco-quality, with both having really tricky ethical issues on the big stuff, such as what’s the best eco-lodge for the Easter break. Not perhaps notions top of mind or even shared at all by the majority of readers of, say, the News of the World. That would be a publication with some several times more readers, too. Go figure.
So where are these lifestyle choices to be made to have any impact, and who is going to make them... and persuaded by whom?
If you are going to be interventionist you better be whiter than white, otherwise there is a wall ready and waiting when the revolution comes.
I for one would advocate giving persuasion a much better chance. But first that needs the current crop of woeful 'leadership', in authority, activism and especially the media, being given the order of the Royal boot. Then get in some folk who genuinely care, understand the audience and can shine as those who can and will lead by example. Sadly, with the current system now embedded as firmly as leech’s teeth can be, that is a sadly dim possibility, and fading with each conference season and target setting consultation.
Yet we are both in agreement on the value of the carrot. And I can also see that there also needs to be some stick. Only not the kind wielded so far, and certainly not in the hands of those who to date think they are qualified or entitled to wield them.
I contend that most people are not that lazy. And even if they are then that's just a fact you work around to achieve your goal. Breaking my own rule (I find it arrogance in the extreme when a medium or politician claims to speak for me when they clearly do not), but for writing simplicity may I claim that 'we' are simply not ... so far... very well informed about the threats posed by probable man -worsened climate change (see, I have a different notion of what we face to offer up to you 'global warming' orthodoxy). And for sure none of the discussions, much less solutions I’ve had presented so far seem to me very well argued to date. In fact most seem to have been totally hijacked by extremes, with careers and fees and profits all very much front of mind well before any actual doing what's right for our kids.
I'd suggest some priorities need to be established. Pronto. Especially the putting houses in order variety. I for one can't take many politicians seriously when Bali in Winter managed to swell in delegateship tenfold, yet still with no obvious result at all. Or any finger-wave in these pages for instance, so long as there are ads for skiing trips or luxury cars in the sidebar.
Which might explain that low rate of behaviour change. Ya think?
I shudder that the conclusion seems to have arrived at the ‘solutions’ of ‘Consciousness-raising and green taxes’, especially with the laughable caveat of 'even if carefully thought out and organised'. Checked the competence card lately?
Too right they 'may have only marginal effects'. Just think what could have been done with the hundreds of millions already p*ssed away on scores of overlapping quangos and their bloated, self-serving (how you can get a bonus based on awareness results created by spending public money on ad campaigns seems truly astounding, if not a downright conflict of interest) comms budgets. So this voter at least will be... 'resisting' if they figure this is a nifty way to get more on the public sector payroll to then fund their pay and pensions with 'green taxes’.
Yes, many changes are needed. and urgently. But I’d suggest a bit more doing, and in a very different direction, than any more sodding thinking. None I have read or seen so far has seemed to offer one whit of an actual difference. We need something new.
And a Carbcon New Year
I have a backlog of several score links that I suspect will now be outdated, so best to simply get back in the groove: Power firms to pocket £6bn from carbon 'handouts' in new emissions regime
Not, perhaps, the greatest support for the principle for trading in carbon, I'd venture.
Again, while I see the principle as being perhaps the only viable way to achieve practical mitigations in the short term and balance things out, but like with so much else it really seems to fall apart when the current crop of those in 'control' are on the case.
Not, perhaps, the greatest support for the principle for trading in carbon, I'd venture.
Again, while I see the principle as being perhaps the only viable way to achieve practical mitigations in the short term and balance things out, but like with so much else it really seems to fall apart when the current crop of those in 'control' are on the case.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Orf-setting on one's hols
Not the way I'd quite wanted to return to the blog after a brief respite, but from some reason this one got my goat (and not the one I didn't buy instead of actual under-tree presents for the kids, the other luvvie-yummie season's planet-saving commentary topic) - Eurostar goes from bad to worse
Having just used EuroStar I was of course attracted by the heading, and having enjoyed a great trip actually on the thing had to disagree. But this again got me on what motivates folk. So I then had to agree that it is silly to divorce the service experience, costs and time from the overall experience, and that's even before playing the green card.
But I guess what dragged me out of my sick-bed (I know how to spent the festive season in style) was yet another (not the first, won't be the last) dalliance with matters 'green' that was again well up there (and you know where I mean) with the last 'quality' daily utterance from some Islington eco-goddess about her latest sainted trip for the weekend overseas to visit her eco-guru at his tofu-finca in Tuscany, like most of us gad about like this. I just live for when we get served green fare by some who are more in tune with how most of this country lives... and may respond if only engaged with by those who we can actually relate to and respect when it comes to our kids' futures.
Hailing from way out West Mids, the relative positions of Waterloo vs. St. Pancras seem to make little difference, especially by tube (public transport is still an option even for those in jobs that can also involve rushes) from Paddington. And on a recent trip it all seemed to work well enough from Gloucester to the centre of Brussels. Maybe I was just lucky that the transit was conducted in a remarkably pleasant, quiet and swift period.
The rest, of course, truly sucked. Having got there an hour before the required 'check-in' time, it was a chore to be in the freezing cold with nowhere to sit as the only place to do that was in the 'departure' lounge. And I was not about to suffer the cost or pretensions of the idiotic champagne bar, which seemed only a rather sad little square associated with a lonely line of booths. So I perched on my bag munching my sarnie, the wrapping of which I could not dispose of in any waste bins as there were none. Made for a fun debate with the play-policeman who could not persuade me to drop it on the floor as I suspected some kind of litter-fine scam at work to complement all the other 'initiatives' in London that are in the name of green, and I don't mean the colour of the planet.
So I'm on board with the notion that some improvements are required to make this an attractive alternative, service-wise, vs. flying, above simple fiscal realities (as I'd booked well in advance it was equivalent, and hence an easy call. The time element is also on par, though the check-in pretensions erode that advantage).
But as we are are on an eco-note, I'd really appreciate those who write for this, and all other London Luvvie-centric publications with notions of greeniferousness, to give pause before citing their usage of EuroStar as 'a get into eco-nirvana free card', especially when associated with such asides as '...when we took our skiing holiday last week...'
I'm sure for you all, leaping on the nearest form of off-UK transport at the hols to some distant resort is as common hailing a cab. But for many finances, the environment, or both, may mean staying at home is the more likely option.
So if I have one wish for the new year, it is we have a clear distinction between being green, simply trying to look it and... most of all... making a meal of tokenistic attempts at the latter. Especially from those who can afford to do a lot more and talk a lot less.
Having just used EuroStar I was of course attracted by the heading, and having enjoyed a great trip actually on the thing had to disagree. But this again got me on what motivates folk. So I then had to agree that it is silly to divorce the service experience, costs and time from the overall experience, and that's even before playing the green card.
But I guess what dragged me out of my sick-bed (I know how to spent the festive season in style) was yet another (not the first, won't be the last) dalliance with matters 'green' that was again well up there (and you know where I mean) with the last 'quality' daily utterance from some Islington eco-goddess about her latest sainted trip for the weekend overseas to visit her eco-guru at his tofu-finca in Tuscany, like most of us gad about like this. I just live for when we get served green fare by some who are more in tune with how most of this country lives... and may respond if only engaged with by those who we can actually relate to and respect when it comes to our kids' futures.
Hailing from way out West Mids, the relative positions of Waterloo vs. St. Pancras seem to make little difference, especially by tube (public transport is still an option even for those in jobs that can also involve rushes) from Paddington. And on a recent trip it all seemed to work well enough from Gloucester to the centre of Brussels. Maybe I was just lucky that the transit was conducted in a remarkably pleasant, quiet and swift period.
The rest, of course, truly sucked. Having got there an hour before the required 'check-in' time, it was a chore to be in the freezing cold with nowhere to sit as the only place to do that was in the 'departure' lounge. And I was not about to suffer the cost or pretensions of the idiotic champagne bar, which seemed only a rather sad little square associated with a lonely line of booths. So I perched on my bag munching my sarnie, the wrapping of which I could not dispose of in any waste bins as there were none. Made for a fun debate with the play-policeman who could not persuade me to drop it on the floor as I suspected some kind of litter-fine scam at work to complement all the other 'initiatives' in London that are in the name of green, and I don't mean the colour of the planet.
So I'm on board with the notion that some improvements are required to make this an attractive alternative, service-wise, vs. flying, above simple fiscal realities (as I'd booked well in advance it was equivalent, and hence an easy call. The time element is also on par, though the check-in pretensions erode that advantage).
But as we are are on an eco-note, I'd really appreciate those who write for this, and all other London Luvvie-centric publications with notions of greeniferousness, to give pause before citing their usage of EuroStar as 'a get into eco-nirvana free card', especially when associated with such asides as '...when we took our skiing holiday last week...'
I'm sure for you all, leaping on the nearest form of off-UK transport at the hols to some distant resort is as common hailing a cab. But for many finances, the environment, or both, may mean staying at home is the more likely option.
So if I have one wish for the new year, it is we have a clear distinction between being green, simply trying to look it and... most of all... making a meal of tokenistic attempts at the latter. Especially from those who can afford to do a lot more and talk a lot less.
Friday, December 28, 2007
TW3 - 2007
Those were the weeks that were. A year gone by.
Not the greatest, I'm sorry to say. As the less than encouraging signs of what we might be facing mount in number and severity, they have hardly been matched in number and certainly not in quality (least, as I can judge) by any person, persons or significant measures that look set to steer us in a better direction.
Even those who do care, or at least claim to, seem mostly a sorry and/or uninspiring lot. Greenwashers (out to make a quick extra buck by association but not action), greengilders (out to make a quick extra buck by painting rosy, career-enhancing solutions that all too often lack any definable enviROI+), and the 'The Rise of the Eco-Shrew' (out to make a quick buck by getting paid to talk... endlessly... about some minute and relatively pointless aspect that they demand all should embrace whilst simultaneously ignoring reality, enviROI or credibility).
And who has dominated as the year ended and a new one starts? Well, having scoured the online pages on Sunday (the traditional round-up point) and today (another common source for summaries and predictions), following the year of Stern (may have been the year before), IPCC, Valencia, Bali and the next Kyoto, all I could find by way of shaping 'the most significant crisis the world faces' was nothing from the political establishment, a Fox's Glacier Mint ad from the corporate world and from our mighty media... a few yummie-mummies who are planning on taking fewer plastic bags on their next skiing trip, and a chap who has not yet started a typhoid epidemic in Streatham with his composting outdoor loo. Plus a welter of others planning to head all sorts of places to study the impact of their job (which is not like your or my jobs, apparently) getting there is having.
With the exception of the BBC in broadcast and online form, at least one can be mostly reassured that almost no one other than those within the privileged eco/authority/media elite has a clue what they are doing, or cares very much what they have to say. But they do now wield a rather inordinate influence despite this, and it is a concern.
In two days I get back to work proper, hopefully over my man flu. And that, sadly, means a little less Junkk.com and RE:tie, and a bit more day job. Things are now tight, and I need to do a bit more of what I am good at what people really seem to want.. and are prepared to pay for.
It's simply a matter of personal and family survival. But as I need to take the longer view on this family's future I will not be leaving it all behind, but sometimes one has to prioritise.
It can only be hoped for the future that those in power, and/or with influence, can do it too, and a bit more effectively, and tangibly, and to genuine levels of enviROi+, than they have to date.
I'm looking for messages that make sense, and can lead to making a real difference. And from messengers who one can believe, and believe in, to rally every section of society and not some self-serving niche elite.
Here's hoping. Have a great 2008.
Not the greatest, I'm sorry to say. As the less than encouraging signs of what we might be facing mount in number and severity, they have hardly been matched in number and certainly not in quality (least, as I can judge) by any person, persons or significant measures that look set to steer us in a better direction.
Even those who do care, or at least claim to, seem mostly a sorry and/or uninspiring lot. Greenwashers (out to make a quick extra buck by association but not action), greengilders (out to make a quick extra buck by painting rosy, career-enhancing solutions that all too often lack any definable enviROI+), and the 'The Rise of the Eco-Shrew' (out to make a quick buck by getting paid to talk... endlessly... about some minute and relatively pointless aspect that they demand all should embrace whilst simultaneously ignoring reality, enviROI or credibility).
And who has dominated as the year ended and a new one starts? Well, having scoured the online pages on Sunday (the traditional round-up point) and today (another common source for summaries and predictions), following the year of Stern (may have been the year before), IPCC, Valencia, Bali and the next Kyoto, all I could find by way of shaping 'the most significant crisis the world faces' was nothing from the political establishment, a Fox's Glacier Mint ad from the corporate world and from our mighty media... a few yummie-mummies who are planning on taking fewer plastic bags on their next skiing trip, and a chap who has not yet started a typhoid epidemic in Streatham with his composting outdoor loo. Plus a welter of others planning to head all sorts of places to study the impact of their job (which is not like your or my jobs, apparently) getting there is having.
With the exception of the BBC in broadcast and online form, at least one can be mostly reassured that almost no one other than those within the privileged eco/authority/media elite has a clue what they are doing, or cares very much what they have to say. But they do now wield a rather inordinate influence despite this, and it is a concern.
In two days I get back to work proper, hopefully over my man flu. And that, sadly, means a little less Junkk.com and RE:tie, and a bit more day job. Things are now tight, and I need to do a bit more of what I am good at what people really seem to want.. and are prepared to pay for.
It's simply a matter of personal and family survival. But as I need to take the longer view on this family's future I will not be leaving it all behind, but sometimes one has to prioritise.
It can only be hoped for the future that those in power, and/or with influence, can do it too, and a bit more effectively, and tangibly, and to genuine levels of enviROi+, than they have to date.
I'm looking for messages that make sense, and can lead to making a real difference. And from messengers who one can believe, and believe in, to rally every section of society and not some self-serving niche elite.
Here's hoping. Have a great 2008.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Has global warming stopped?
A very intriguing question. One which, if the answer turns out to be a resounding yes, might make some of the alarm generated by the IPCC, and some of the planned actions following the Bali bash, appear rather ridiculous.
Now this from the New Statesman, is by the well respected, ex BBC Science Correspondent, David Whitehouse. It makes what seems at first glance an apparently valid point - the rate of temperature increase over the last decade has been flat. In fact, he states that "the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly."
He reports that the data is taken from "US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC" but he does not provide links to any actual data used.
Remember the brouhaha that resulted when it was discovered that the warmest year in one part of the central USA was back in the 1930's? That turned out to be the selective use of local and regional data, but it created a huge upwelling of support for the 'anti' global warming brigade. I have to confess that I'm surprised that this particular article does not appear to be massively referenced so far throughout the www.
Back to my main point: without reference to the exact data as used, just how do we know that this is an accurate interpretation? Let's face it, there is clearly something quite drastic happening in and around the area of the Arctic circle and above, as the recorded data shows record summer temperatures in places like Melville Island, Greenland and Alaska, whilst the North West passage was open for a record six weeks plus and the ice pack had its lowest extent since records began.
As the author quite rightly states - "the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on." Clearly, human understanding of a system as complex as the climate of our planet is not going to be perfect, there are far too many unknowns and imponderables, and we have but little understanding of potential feedback loops and so called tipping points.
"The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped."
No argument with the first parts of that at all, but warming has certainly not stopped in the Arctic circle, so why make that statement as if it applies to the entire planet?
I'm sorry, but articles like this will only incite more confusion, misunderstanding, obfuscation and poles-apart (no pun intended) debate. We need to know the full facts, not selective morsels fed to us like tid-bits from the media news table.
Broccoli growing in Greenland, whilst Walrus starve because the remnants of the ice sheet are too far out and over water too deep for them to find food, plus extreme temperatures of 48C in Greece and Italy this summer do not seem to fit, at least to my mind, with the counter evidence that the author presents.
Would someone please just tell us the truth? It must be out there somewhere.
_______________
N.b.
Should it turn out that the supposedly venerable group of scientists at the IPCC are deliberately ignoring vital temperature evidence that this particular author is using; or are perhaps discounting it as little more than a hiccup in the overall scale of things whilst they are doggedly determined to prove that man worsened climate change is happening at any cost (including the omission of important data); then I'll quite happily write an entire retraction of my comments and questions and offer the author a high five.
Now this from the New Statesman, is by the well respected, ex BBC Science Correspondent, David Whitehouse. It makes what seems at first glance an apparently valid point - the rate of temperature increase over the last decade has been flat. In fact, he states that "the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly."
He reports that the data is taken from "US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC" but he does not provide links to any actual data used.
Remember the brouhaha that resulted when it was discovered that the warmest year in one part of the central USA was back in the 1930's? That turned out to be the selective use of local and regional data, but it created a huge upwelling of support for the 'anti' global warming brigade. I have to confess that I'm surprised that this particular article does not appear to be massively referenced so far throughout the www.
Back to my main point: without reference to the exact data as used, just how do we know that this is an accurate interpretation? Let's face it, there is clearly something quite drastic happening in and around the area of the Arctic circle and above, as the recorded data shows record summer temperatures in places like Melville Island, Greenland and Alaska, whilst the North West passage was open for a record six weeks plus and the ice pack had its lowest extent since records began.
As the author quite rightly states - "the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on." Clearly, human understanding of a system as complex as the climate of our planet is not going to be perfect, there are far too many unknowns and imponderables, and we have but little understanding of potential feedback loops and so called tipping points.
"The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped."
No argument with the first parts of that at all, but warming has certainly not stopped in the Arctic circle, so why make that statement as if it applies to the entire planet?
I'm sorry, but articles like this will only incite more confusion, misunderstanding, obfuscation and poles-apart (no pun intended) debate. We need to know the full facts, not selective morsels fed to us like tid-bits from the media news table.
Broccoli growing in Greenland, whilst Walrus starve because the remnants of the ice sheet are too far out and over water too deep for them to find food, plus extreme temperatures of 48C in Greece and Italy this summer do not seem to fit, at least to my mind, with the counter evidence that the author presents.
Would someone please just tell us the truth? It must be out there somewhere.
_______________
N.b.
Should it turn out that the supposedly venerable group of scientists at the IPCC are deliberately ignoring vital temperature evidence that this particular author is using; or are perhaps discounting it as little more than a hiccup in the overall scale of things whilst they are doggedly determined to prove that man worsened climate change is happening at any cost (including the omission of important data); then I'll quite happily write an entire retraction of my comments and questions and offer the author a high five.
Getting noticed #101: banning is best
Making things is usually a long process of increments. And sadly our media these days like quick, big, immediate hits.
So a good way to get noticed is to crank up a ban. Not sure it's worked quite the way the DPM intended with her prostitution solution, but it certainly seems to have worked for others: PLASTIC BAGS
I feel a tad uncomfortable questioning such a person, who is obviously sincere, but as part of the bigger picture I just need to ensure, for the sake of my kids' futures, that she is at least well guided. Not to mention supported by the right folk for the right reasons.
In a year where so much of such vast importance and impact in the world of climate change has come to the fore, I have always found the issue of plastic bags in the great scheme of things intriguing. Depending on who is quoted, some 200 per person per annum. I wonder if those at Blue Peter could tell us how many Fairy Liquid bottles they represent in terms of oil-based manufacture and disposal consequences?
But this lady's passion is undoubted and her concern admirable. And her story more than impactful, with its successful uptake a sure indication of the public mood. No wonder the media has found it so attractive. I can't imagine what it must be like to spend one's career as a documentary film-maker flying around the world to enjoy and capture nature's beauty, and find it so casually spoiled by the impositions of modern society.
There are so few positives about these things they make an excellent, and obvious target. But then I started to ponder the alternatives. It's one thing to ban something, but then having banned it one must look at the alternatives. Which is what I decided to do. Mainly because I felt I was getting a lot on the ban, but not as much on the consequences.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html
It's an ongoing education, and indeed this programme has added to it, at least indirectly, as there was one small informational piece that has resulted, namely the experience of the Irish contributor above. This provides an interesting and worthy counterpoint to other experiences I had learned of that were less positive, at least when it comes to the overall enviROI of the exercises. What seems undoubted is that the scourge of 'witches knickers' has been dealt with, but I still wonder at what cost in other areas.
It also has served to highlight the critical need for coordinated approaches between government, local authorities and business in creating logistical systems that are both effective environmentally (cost is 'an' issue, but trade-offs may need to be factored in if our priority is emissions as opposed to profits or litter) and capable of being easily engaged with by the public/consumer. Popping in the village deli with one's bike basket daily is one thing. Tescos en route home of a Friday night for a weekly shop is another. And here I am less convinced of deliverables. Especially when confronted with solutions that have 'bio' in the description.
Yes, with all else we are confronting in matters climatic, I did notice Mr. Brown has thrown his full weight behind... banning plastic bags. So one looks forward to him, and the media, getting as interested, and in the necessary detail, to do justice to all the other topics of high relevance to our nation's carbon footprint. Maybe next a ban on pets, perhaps? Or imported wine? Or beer (how much water consumed to create a pint?). Or...
Instead of, and hence less media attractive as a ban, as a fellow small town-dweller I was thinking more of a campaign to encourage our local retailers to shut their doors during cold snaps to avoid the heat loss pouring out into the sky. I rather fancied 'Shut it and Save'. The only down side I can perceive is the potential consumer-reluctance posed by a closed door, but everything else seems a win-win all round, even to their utility costs. What do you reckon?
Indy - Unbelievable bags - at least it has been asked. I look forward to the answer.
Sir: Last week I visited a Waterstone's bookstore to buy a couple of book tokens as Christmas presents. I asked the shop assistant for a paper bag to protect the tokens but was told that Waterstone's prefer to use plastic bags because the carbon footprint of paper bags is greater than for plastic, because of shipping from abroad, which is where most paper bags are sourced. If true, this is astonishing. Perhaps other readers could clarify the situation.
Gaurdian - Dialling danger
Why here? For this, albeit subjective, comment: "The purge on plastic bags in Ireland has also been a dramatic success." Oh dear gawd, I thought this silliness was confined to Annapolis. More energy and waste is produced making paper bags than are used make plastic bags. Also, plastic bags are also useful for picking up my dogs poop.
So a good way to get noticed is to crank up a ban. Not sure it's worked quite the way the DPM intended with her prostitution solution, but it certainly seems to have worked for others: PLASTIC BAGS
I feel a tad uncomfortable questioning such a person, who is obviously sincere, but as part of the bigger picture I just need to ensure, for the sake of my kids' futures, that she is at least well guided. Not to mention supported by the right folk for the right reasons.
In a year where so much of such vast importance and impact in the world of climate change has come to the fore, I have always found the issue of plastic bags in the great scheme of things intriguing. Depending on who is quoted, some 200 per person per annum. I wonder if those at Blue Peter could tell us how many Fairy Liquid bottles they represent in terms of oil-based manufacture and disposal consequences?
But this lady's passion is undoubted and her concern admirable. And her story more than impactful, with its successful uptake a sure indication of the public mood. No wonder the media has found it so attractive. I can't imagine what it must be like to spend one's career as a documentary film-maker flying around the world to enjoy and capture nature's beauty, and find it so casually spoiled by the impositions of modern society.
There are so few positives about these things they make an excellent, and obvious target. But then I started to ponder the alternatives. It's one thing to ban something, but then having banned it one must look at the alternatives. Which is what I decided to do. Mainly because I felt I was getting a lot on the ban, but not as much on the consequences.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html
It's an ongoing education, and indeed this programme has added to it, at least indirectly, as there was one small informational piece that has resulted, namely the experience of the Irish contributor above. This provides an interesting and worthy counterpoint to other experiences I had learned of that were less positive, at least when it comes to the overall enviROI of the exercises. What seems undoubted is that the scourge of 'witches knickers' has been dealt with, but I still wonder at what cost in other areas.
It also has served to highlight the critical need for coordinated approaches between government, local authorities and business in creating logistical systems that are both effective environmentally (cost is 'an' issue, but trade-offs may need to be factored in if our priority is emissions as opposed to profits or litter) and capable of being easily engaged with by the public/consumer. Popping in the village deli with one's bike basket daily is one thing. Tescos en route home of a Friday night for a weekly shop is another. And here I am less convinced of deliverables. Especially when confronted with solutions that have 'bio' in the description.
Yes, with all else we are confronting in matters climatic, I did notice Mr. Brown has thrown his full weight behind... banning plastic bags. So one looks forward to him, and the media, getting as interested, and in the necessary detail, to do justice to all the other topics of high relevance to our nation's carbon footprint. Maybe next a ban on pets, perhaps? Or imported wine? Or beer (how much water consumed to create a pint?). Or...
Instead of, and hence less media attractive as a ban, as a fellow small town-dweller I was thinking more of a campaign to encourage our local retailers to shut their doors during cold snaps to avoid the heat loss pouring out into the sky. I rather fancied 'Shut it and Save'. The only down side I can perceive is the potential consumer-reluctance posed by a closed door, but everything else seems a win-win all round, even to their utility costs. What do you reckon?
Indy - Unbelievable bags - at least it has been asked. I look forward to the answer.
Sir: Last week I visited a Waterstone's bookstore to buy a couple of book tokens as Christmas presents. I asked the shop assistant for a paper bag to protect the tokens but was told that Waterstone's prefer to use plastic bags because the carbon footprint of paper bags is greater than for plastic, because of shipping from abroad, which is where most paper bags are sourced. If true, this is astonishing. Perhaps other readers could clarify the situation.
Gaurdian - Dialling danger
Why here? For this, albeit subjective, comment: "The purge on plastic bags in Ireland has also been a dramatic success." Oh dear gawd, I thought this silliness was confined to Annapolis. More energy and waste is produced making paper bags than are used make plastic bags. Also, plastic bags are also useful for picking up my dogs poop.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
New Year. New Opportunities.
It was a good long run, and I gave it my best shot, but a hurdle has been stumbled over.
Sadly, my hopes for Stage 2 funding on the Fillip initiative have not been realised. Of course it was great to get to the finals, but it was not to be.
And not the happiest of news to get just before the festive break.
I guess it was just one I felt was so 'right', namely the means to protect the idea and package it in a form to take to major institutions nationally and internationally, my inherent 'wait 'til you see the cheque before popping the cork' caution still had too much of a sneaking hope that this would be 'the big one' attached. Especially as the day before we'd learned that the international search examiner has concluded that the invention is 'novel' and 'not obvious', which is good in IP terms.
Though my IP adviser was upbeat, I must say I walked out the presentation pretty much certain of the result.
There was one question that was asked, and though I know the answer we gave was reasonable I knew it was not the one that was required.
This was to ask why, in light of all the PR and awards, there were no companies or VCs beating a path to my door.
Though not given in such terms, it seemed pretty simple to answer. As of this moment, no companies relevant to the concept have yet been approached, save for the technical folk at closures manufacturers. And this was done more to confirm the practical applicability, and also to seek complementary branding techniques to add sales and marketing value to its obvious raw material and CSR benefits. Both these aims were achieved at the Brussels conference, and frankly as no one thinks much of anything from late November save the best way to Xerox their tushie at the company bash, I saw no point in following even that up 'til the New Year.
And as to VCs, well, it's not an area I have a huge experience with, but other than a few rare instances, I rather think that you go to them. That's just the way it is. Being money folk they know how you keep the upper hand in negotiations, and making the first approach isn't it.
So I had concentrated on looking down the idea and building a solid story behind it using the talents I do have, before considering engaging other talents I know I do not to bring it to those who bring it to market.
Sure I am more than disappointed, and this is doubtless reflected here, but I must say that I am really losing faith in the system that claims to be keen to support the solo creative innovator, but all too often seems more geared to dealing with more traditional enterprises who talk in terms that make the boxes a wee bit easier to tick.
I know RE:tie can make it. And in doing so be an acorn from which so much else in the world of second use design can derive inspiration, so it will be be onward and upward come the New Year.
As one door closes, another opens...
Sadly, my hopes for Stage 2 funding on the Fillip initiative have not been realised. Of course it was great to get to the finals, but it was not to be.
And not the happiest of news to get just before the festive break.
I guess it was just one I felt was so 'right', namely the means to protect the idea and package it in a form to take to major institutions nationally and internationally, my inherent 'wait 'til you see the cheque before popping the cork' caution still had too much of a sneaking hope that this would be 'the big one' attached. Especially as the day before we'd learned that the international search examiner has concluded that the invention is 'novel' and 'not obvious', which is good in IP terms.
Though my IP adviser was upbeat, I must say I walked out the presentation pretty much certain of the result.
There was one question that was asked, and though I know the answer we gave was reasonable I knew it was not the one that was required.
This was to ask why, in light of all the PR and awards, there were no companies or VCs beating a path to my door.
Though not given in such terms, it seemed pretty simple to answer. As of this moment, no companies relevant to the concept have yet been approached, save for the technical folk at closures manufacturers. And this was done more to confirm the practical applicability, and also to seek complementary branding techniques to add sales and marketing value to its obvious raw material and CSR benefits. Both these aims were achieved at the Brussels conference, and frankly as no one thinks much of anything from late November save the best way to Xerox their tushie at the company bash, I saw no point in following even that up 'til the New Year.
And as to VCs, well, it's not an area I have a huge experience with, but other than a few rare instances, I rather think that you go to them. That's just the way it is. Being money folk they know how you keep the upper hand in negotiations, and making the first approach isn't it.
So I had concentrated on looking down the idea and building a solid story behind it using the talents I do have, before considering engaging other talents I know I do not to bring it to those who bring it to market.
Sure I am more than disappointed, and this is doubtless reflected here, but I must say that I am really losing faith in the system that claims to be keen to support the solo creative innovator, but all too often seems more geared to dealing with more traditional enterprises who talk in terms that make the boxes a wee bit easier to tick.
I know RE:tie can make it. And in doing so be an acorn from which so much else in the world of second use design can derive inspiration, so it will be be onward and upward come the New Year.
As one door closes, another opens...
Perhaps she simply doesn't like them?
This is a bit of an odd one, but it has quite amused me. The International Herald Tribune reports on a Swiss lady who has been purloining her neighbour's outside Christmas ornaments.
Now I have no problem with a few fancy Christmas lights etc. But if, like me, she simply detests those unsightly and horrible brightly light inflatable snowmen, reindeer, Father Christmases and elves (and even Homer Simpson's for Gawd's sake) that seem to have proliferated across the UK over the last two or three years (as well as across Switzerland by the sound of it), then I'm happy to admit that I'm fully on her side!!
Now I have no problem with a few fancy Christmas lights etc. But if, like me, she simply detests those unsightly and horrible brightly light inflatable snowmen, reindeer, Father Christmases and elves (and even Homer Simpson's for Gawd's sake) that seem to have proliferated across the UK over the last two or three years (as well as across Switzerland by the sound of it), then I'm happy to admit that I'm fully on her side!!
The Bush giveth and the Bush taketh away
Well, I'm amazed. Despite the doubts expressed by millions of American citizens, Dubya has finally signed a bill which will help to reduce vehicle carbon emissions - see today's Guardian Unlimited.
"The legislation, though limited in scope, represents the biggest fuel efficiency push by the US since the 1970s oil crisis."
Good!
"The new law also contains provisions to increase the use of ethanol as an alternative to petrol."
Errrrmm, not really too good - more corn grown means ever more Nitrogen runoff and will expand the Gulf's 'dead zone', not to mention causing further increases in the price of what is a staple food item. (see full story from Mathaba.Net)
But even more interestingly, on the same day, comes news that the White House, via the EPA, has blocked several States from applying even more vigorous local state laws on auto emissions. This makes zero sense whatsoever!
The Washington Post has a more complete explanation of the EPA's ruling.
"The legislation, though limited in scope, represents the biggest fuel efficiency push by the US since the 1970s oil crisis."
Good!
"The new law also contains provisions to increase the use of ethanol as an alternative to petrol."
Errrrmm, not really too good - more corn grown means ever more Nitrogen runoff and will expand the Gulf's 'dead zone', not to mention causing further increases in the price of what is a staple food item. (see full story from Mathaba.Net)
But even more interestingly, on the same day, comes news that the White House, via the EPA, has blocked several States from applying even more vigorous local state laws on auto emissions. This makes zero sense whatsoever!
The Washington Post has a more complete explanation of the EPA's ruling.
Xmas cheer
Well, it tickled me. A poster on an eco-forum asked the following about 'carbcon ratings':
I notice that the terms ‘carbon positive’ and ‘carbon negative’ are being used to mean the same thing (i.e. net absorption/reduction of CO2). Those using the term ‘carbon negative’ seem to be clear that ‘carbon positive’ is what fossil fuels are...
If we want to create a company that goes better than ‘carbon neutral’, how should we describe it? And does anyone know whether the understanding of these terms varies by geography? (e.g. US vs Europe vs Asia)
I was moved to reply:
How about 'carbon cautious'?
It ticks all the right boxes (a major plus already, at least in the UK/EU), being rather meaningless, pretty vague and in fact can be whatever anyone wishes to take from it.
Certainly an entire new industry and set of government departments could easily be created around it on this basis, especially in complement to all the rest doing roughly the same thing. In fact, one could probably score a nifty grant for it all. Especially to translate it all into Mandarin or Urdu come the next Kyoto/Bali round.
That aside, it may actually be a tad more accurate. At least it could be argued to not make any definitive claims (which in any case are often hard to weigh, at least on a consumer level. I have often cocked an eyebrow at some claims of 'positivity', as most new activities are almost inevitably worse in terms of enviROI (which is what I apply) unless directly creating some purely mitigating result) whilst conveying a truly warm and fuzzy sense of at least wanting to do the right thing.
However, as your question has ably demonstrated, a positive can as easily be a negative. So I look forward to how those better informed will explain it to us all. But then it would seem equally inevitable that it will all rather depend on which measure they have been tasked to endorse.
I notice that the terms ‘carbon positive’ and ‘carbon negative’ are being used to mean the same thing (i.e. net absorption/reduction of CO2). Those using the term ‘carbon negative’ seem to be clear that ‘carbon positive’ is what fossil fuels are...
If we want to create a company that goes better than ‘carbon neutral’, how should we describe it? And does anyone know whether the understanding of these terms varies by geography? (e.g. US vs Europe vs Asia)
I was moved to reply:
How about 'carbon cautious'?
It ticks all the right boxes (a major plus already, at least in the UK/EU), being rather meaningless, pretty vague and in fact can be whatever anyone wishes to take from it.
Certainly an entire new industry and set of government departments could easily be created around it on this basis, especially in complement to all the rest doing roughly the same thing. In fact, one could probably score a nifty grant for it all. Especially to translate it all into Mandarin or Urdu come the next Kyoto/Bali round.
That aside, it may actually be a tad more accurate. At least it could be argued to not make any definitive claims (which in any case are often hard to weigh, at least on a consumer level. I have often cocked an eyebrow at some claims of 'positivity', as most new activities are almost inevitably worse in terms of enviROI (which is what I apply) unless directly creating some purely mitigating result) whilst conveying a truly warm and fuzzy sense of at least wanting to do the right thing.
However, as your question has ably demonstrated, a positive can as easily be a negative. So I look forward to how those better informed will explain it to us all. But then it would seem equally inevitable that it will all rather depend on which measure they have been tasked to endorse.
Government (or an unreasonable facsimile of) by degree
'Insidious' is not a nice word. But by heck it is apt for what seems to be happening these days.
Hardly a BBC bulletin goes by without the latest 'could' being trotted out from those who claim the responsibility of governing us, but who will seek any and all ways to avoid any accountability, from announcement through to consequences.
Hence this 'could' will ooze into an 'is' and end up as a 'has', with little or no challenge from anyone, most especially our lazy media.
Just this morning I sat amazed as just two were dutifully trotted out, with the sofa set primed with just the right balance of warm and fuzzy to ease things in.
First up was the latest on mobile phones. I've blogged on this before. If it's illegal, then fine (and I don't mean that in the fiscal manner, as too much law seems to be revenue targeted than spirit or even letter of the law), I know where I stand. But now there seems to be yet another, and predictably more aggressive, though equally vague set of ways to hold 'us' accountable for something or other at the whim of a police officer, supported by a compliant justice system.
Then there was middle-age drinking. It seems that if you go over a daily 105ml daily, you are a raving alcky bent on self-destruction. Now this would be laughable but for the less than subtle between-lines message read out by a truly frighteningly smooth government spokeslady (she had a sense of humour and so charmingly trotted out her facts that even the already pliant blonde and bouffant felt it rude to do anything else but giggle). And this seems to be that if you can even remotely be deemed to have done something in your history that may or may not be proven to be in any way due to lifestyle choices, then 'they' can decide to opt you out of the health system you have paid into all your life.
There is a sickening predictability to all this, along with inevitability.
And what really gets me is that the vagueness seems only to work one way. By being guilty until proven innocent the doors are opened for institutional abuse at every level and across every branch.
And it all seems dedicated to one simple aim, and that is to divert money away from those who work hard and pay their way (because all those who do not will be exceptions to such rules, though withdrawing votes on the basis of self-harm, poor lifestyle, non-contribution, etc would not seem on the cards) to ensure a ready supply of the dwindling cash resources to ensure this bunch of breeding parasites keep their pay, bonuses (what the heck are a raft of government types on bonuses for?) and pensions.
Sorry, today has not been a much better day than yesterday.
Hardly a BBC bulletin goes by without the latest 'could' being trotted out from those who claim the responsibility of governing us, but who will seek any and all ways to avoid any accountability, from announcement through to consequences.
Hence this 'could' will ooze into an 'is' and end up as a 'has', with little or no challenge from anyone, most especially our lazy media.
Just this morning I sat amazed as just two were dutifully trotted out, with the sofa set primed with just the right balance of warm and fuzzy to ease things in.
First up was the latest on mobile phones. I've blogged on this before. If it's illegal, then fine (and I don't mean that in the fiscal manner, as too much law seems to be revenue targeted than spirit or even letter of the law), I know where I stand. But now there seems to be yet another, and predictably more aggressive, though equally vague set of ways to hold 'us' accountable for something or other at the whim of a police officer, supported by a compliant justice system.
Then there was middle-age drinking. It seems that if you go over a daily 105ml daily, you are a raving alcky bent on self-destruction. Now this would be laughable but for the less than subtle between-lines message read out by a truly frighteningly smooth government spokeslady (she had a sense of humour and so charmingly trotted out her facts that even the already pliant blonde and bouffant felt it rude to do anything else but giggle). And this seems to be that if you can even remotely be deemed to have done something in your history that may or may not be proven to be in any way due to lifestyle choices, then 'they' can decide to opt you out of the health system you have paid into all your life.
There is a sickening predictability to all this, along with inevitability.
And what really gets me is that the vagueness seems only to work one way. By being guilty until proven innocent the doors are opened for institutional abuse at every level and across every branch.
And it all seems dedicated to one simple aim, and that is to divert money away from those who work hard and pay their way (because all those who do not will be exceptions to such rules, though withdrawing votes on the basis of self-harm, poor lifestyle, non-contribution, etc would not seem on the cards) to ensure a ready supply of the dwindling cash resources to ensure this bunch of breeding parasites keep their pay, bonuses (what the heck are a raft of government types on bonuses for?) and pensions.
Sorry, today has not been a much better day than yesterday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)