The Pain of Plane is Hard to Explain

Actually it's not hard. All those who have elected themselves to speak on our behalves are plane bonkers: Plane Speaking

'I use these commentary pieces and the replies they provoke (often popping in a few of my own to spice the pot) as one would pan for gold. Sadly, I am having to sift through more and more dross to gain any nuggets of use, as the debate seems to have been hijacked by those from extremely entrenched positions (fair enough, if tedious) who are using this space more to try and knock literary spots off each other, and/or make dubious political points at the expense of reasoned debate (not so fair enough).

From those invited to comment, I'd like to have a sense that the medium is seeking those with some expertise, a fair case and the ability to make it. But what I'm seeing more of (across all media) is the ratings/readers-driven wheeze of getting one extreme to pop in their 2p-worth, and then let loose the hounds from both sides and lick up the blood-money from the crowd that gathers.

So it seems we have a naughties 'loadsamunny' live now, pay-later lad telling greenies they are all kill-joys and, if there is global warming it’s too late/not our fault/not worth worrying about, making the point by slagging off an obviously passionate, but rather unrepresentative (I too find prayer meetings on runways a tad OTT, though on reflection did blog at the time of the Greenpeace/Land Rover chain-ganging that it would be ironic if all the luvvies found their weekend ski-trips halted by disgruntled car workers) and didactic enviro-activist. However his response seems to be to get down from a self-created moral high ground (recently vacated by most of our political estsablishment and even some high profile green elites when practicality met self-interest - conferences to speak at; books to sell. Examples to no longer set. Hypocrisy accusations to fend off) into the gutter to simply trade class, who is backing whom, and new/old money insults with few facts or helpful opinion.

I long ago gave up on Radio 1 when such as Chris Moyles and Sara Cox thought I was more interested in who had dissed whom in The Sun or at the Ivy last night rather than the music. Plus I got older (if not wiser).

Now it's taking place in the environmental world too.

I am trying to run a family and ensure that what we do now works for them, AND can sustain a future for their families.

For that I need reasoned debate, information, solutions or, in the absence of the latter, honesty enough to say we don't know (and to err on my more the green sympathies, the acceptance of the notion that if we don't, maybe siding on caution wouldn't hurt) everything and that it would be way better to get on and do worthwhile things rather than talk, or worse divide and rule out anything by getting into camps, and denying opposing views with abuse and swapping tirades.

There is a vast, disenfranchised majority out there who I reckon is finding this all very unhelpful, which is putting them off engaging. Sadly this serves the deniers more than those of us who would seek to engage positively and pragmatically. For instance, frankly, having had several summers in the UK, I’m up for a bit of sun, sand and sea I can get more than a toe into. Now, how about those train fares to somewhere the kids won't get chundered on by a £50k+ hen-nighter who can't afford BA, or WAG off her LearJet with a travel and showbiz journalist in tow....'

I could have had some sympathy with what this guy is trying to do, if not the way he's trying to do it. His defence here shows him no better than the rest, and IMHO, hurting the cause of getting to rational solutions.

P-EU!

Something* is rotten in this land of.... and it stinks of hypocrisy The Stavros Solution

Our Dear Leader here is bad enough (one comment on the blog about 'stopping driving my Range Rover' when he stops flying), but now it's our unelected variety weighing here.

I don't think it's necessary to have a 4x4 in Chelsea. But I do think 4x4s are a necessary product (try pulling a cow out of a wet field with a Prius, or taking on the Taliban with a G-Wiz), and in any case what, again , is the % they contribute vs. MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS!!!!

Plus the already staked them vs. us camps this has created, fueled by the rampant D2AID2AIS (don't do as I do; do as I say) of the opportunistic numbskulls trying to force it through.

Nil points.

*Thanks to Dave of Solarventi for the forward

For whom the wind blows

It may be worth getting in touch with this chap: We're not anti-wind farms - but they should be offshore

"With this issue, I am thirsting for facts, or at least well-informed opinion based on expert and, one presumes, honestly-interpreted knowledge. No one in their right mind would hide the truth just for short-term personal or professional gain, surely.

Thanks to Mr. Constable, I (may) have:

“The Renewables Obligation (RO... costs nearly £1bn a year” (Fact?).

“It fails to distinguish between the relative merits of different renewables, [and] has encouraged underperforming onshore wind turbines in low-wind areas (some less than 10% effective)” (Opinion/Fact?).

“Though of little engineering value, such plants attract speculators because they require smaller capital investment. The result has been to starve high-merit technologies of funding” (Opinion/Fact?).

“The DTI is currently undertaking a major revision to offer more subsidies per unit generated to offshore wind, biomass and tidal technologies. MPs and councillors from all parties are opposing obviously inappropriate applications for onshore wind” (I assume a Fact?).

“Offshore wind... can also provide nearly twice as much electrical energy per unit of capacity as onshore wind” (Fact? Though I wonder about the initial capital costs and hence ROI financially and environmentally)

“Britain's green electricity targets are for the energy produced, not the capacity” (Fact?).

“Large quantities of wind capacity in low-wind regions would generate very little energy, and the targets will still be missed” (Fact?)

Against which, I so far have:

"Dunford's REF has sensible-sounding ideas about renewables. But I am not sure what motivates them promote these." - (A fact and a... question?)

“Yes, let's point fingers at others and make them change their lifestyles. We can sit and watch (and of course, critique)” – (Er, OK)

“... the objection isn't against wind farms per se, just ones that are economically viable. It's HUGELY more expensive to build them offshore, far more so than the added gain in use from the extra wind out there.” (Opinion, but a well taken point. However, when it comes to the viability, economically and environmentally, if they are not turning because the wind isn’t blowing there, what are the relative values of land-based vs. offshore? I need facts!!!)"

Bovicide, he wrote

Boris Johnson is many things. He is an MP, a skilled orator and even more potent scribe. He is also a celebrity, so what he says matters, and in this day and age more than people who know what they are talking about. If he did not have the image he has, and will never shake, I think he would be taken very seriously. Like Jeremy Clarkson, he is intelligent, well-informed and knows how to put a case. And with humour, making it all the more easy to read and be swayed by. As he does here: If you want to be green – kill a cow

I just feel some challenge, and balance, is in order, and perhaps better than the usual extremes that get attracted... and printed.

"Suitably disconcerted by, amongst other things, Stern the Mighty (though his recent performance against an almost diffident Paxo was so squirmingly unconvincing even I felt like ordering a Humvee on the spot), with typical if worryingly disarming humour you have raised some interesting points.

I know these are columns and blogs, and hence should be taken with a pinch of salt factually, but in the spirit if trying to come to some kind of objective informed notions between the polar opposites that inevitably get attracted (I just looked, and inside this pink-skinned eco-worrier there is indeed red, the not of the political persuasion), I'd be grateful to have a bit more by way of substantiation on the following:

"So I dialled up the eco-websites and ... the whole thing turns out to be a complete nonsense."

Along with this:

"Far from soaking up your share of CO2, most trees in non-tropical areas are thought to trap heat and thereby increase global warming."

I'd really like to know. For what it's worth I am very dubious about any Carb-con dis-credited trading schemes put forward by the EU, Tony 'Don't Do As I Do', his mate at the Treasury and all those in the City who have joined with them in some short-term (in political and financial terms) Devil's pact to part us from our cash to fund their pension plan.

I must say I am truly intrigued with Simon's post about pre-Kyoto Chinese construct-to-destruct activity. That smacks of being entirely too possible in this meeting targets vs. making real achievements world we live in... for now."

It ain't what you say. It's where you say it.

I was going to bolt this on to the blog earlier about the hoo-haa coverage following Dear Leader's 'I'm not going to stop flying, but you should' inspirational post-holiday, pre-lecture circuit speech. But I think it deserves its own post.

Newsnight weighed in last night, and I've just watched it online ( a very fine facility I must say).

First up we had the 'we're all doomed' with a junior reporter who was allowed as far as Kew, with suitable irony about the planes flying overhead noted, along with a comment about complaints made that they could have sited it better (in 18whenever.. ha-ha!).

Then we had big-gun Jezza being very polite (I thought) to Lord Stern, who even so managed to look very uncomfortable AND say nothing, despite the guy who commissioned him shooting most of what he'd come up with recently down in flames (a few mixed flying metaphors in there, sorry).

Then we had a senior reporter, Roger Harrabin, do a very interesting Tomorrow's World-styly (it's coming back... yaaaay!) report on inventions to get rid of, reusee and all round make more of our re:sources. Solar ovens in India. PVs in California. Gas storage in Algeria. Eco-architecture in Watford. Cloud sprays in Scotland.

And some good points were made. One being - and I support the Governemnt bod saying it, and who was none too keen on funding the guy who came up with a notion that was on the latter basis: 'it's better to cut not mask'.

But....

I recently saw a BBC 'ad' that was making the claim that Aunty had more folk on the ground in more places than anyone.

So why, in heaven's name, was it necessary to fly Mr. H (and crew?) to India, and Algeria (at least, that I could see) to stand next to a bit of kit for 30 seconds' worth of vox-pop?

I know it's all in the name of entertainment, but really, didn't this just shoot the earlier pieces in the foot a bit?

How Un-PC can I be?

As I stare at the screen of my Mac, as we are setting examples this is not comforting reading: Greenpeace slams Apple’s lack of ‘green’ credentials

But then as I look across at the Windows effort we have and think of this 'Dell unveils 'plant a tree for me', and I feel... better. Shame it's in the US and I can't raise a peep from the UK PR guys.

Also, is slamming a fir in the firmament really doing much? I have my doubts. It has a slight whiff of something green, and it ain't pine essence.

DMlemma for the pols, too

The other day I got a leaflet through my door from the Lib Dems.

As it was in Pol-speek and Am-design I didn't even bother reading or looking at it much, as there were pictures of the MP doing nothing but gurn in front of a thing. But I must now seek it out in the bin.

Because of this: LibDem 'breaks party waste policy'

I may, once, have gone on a list, but it would have had an e-mail if given the option. Now how how do I find out?

As they said on Rowan & Martin's Laugh-in... 'Interesting, but..'

Oh, B*gnor!

A rich seam:

Indy - Blair tries to offset fury over flights policy
An open letter to the prime minister
Newsdesk notes for Tuesday January 9
Blair flies in to a flood of protest
Blair, Monday: I'm not offsetting carbon. Blair, yesterday: Er, I've had a rethink
The top 10 political hypocrites

I replied to one:

'I pop what I write here on my blog on http://www.junkk.com (always worth pitching a mention), so even though no one is going to ever wade through 100+ posts (I have to say I gave up halfway) to read it, it's worth doing anyway.

Most of all I see here the hypocrisy mantra being chanted, both at TB and GM, in almost equal measure.

Fair enough, actually. Speaking personally, I doubt I'll be flying much over the next few years, mainly because I have too much to do here and can't afford it anyway. That would make me a fairly good example setter, should I take it upon myself to tell other folk what to do, or worse try and scold them for not doing what I say (if not do). For obvious reasons, I try no to.

But I have to say, as an ordinary Joe, if the government and eco-media* can't lead by example, it's hard to see why anyone else should.

As to the rest, as my 10-year-olds now seem to have appreciated: 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Or, for that matter, secure the future.

*I merely note, but still find it a tad ironic, that in the blog headed 'Blair flies in to a flood of protest' http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1986570,00.html, there seems to be a lovely (in rotation) ad for a Guardian travel promo, and I don't think the beach is at Bognor.'

Not so full of beans

This is not, on the face of it, anything to do with Junkk's area, but as it does encapsulate a political and management culture in this country that certainly exists with matters environmental, I feel it's worth including.

I watched a very depressing programme, where a biz guru tried to fix the NHS. It was partly depressing that such a flip notion was taken seriously by so many (he managed a few turnarounds... nothing like a full film crew to swing that! Try mano-a-mano to a dude that is gold-plated and unfireable) in the pursuit of ratings, but mainly because in amonst the nonsense and editing a lot was laid bare. And it wasn't pretty.

A guru close to despair

I felt the urge to pitch in:

‘Daily Mail reader would know what to conclude from the programme.’
‘For the Guardian reader, it's harder. ‘

I am in a quandary: how to react? I read both. And the Times. And the Indy. Often the Sun, Mirror, too. Not because I enjoy them particularly, and especially not because I feel I will be informed objectively by any of them.

But there is the slim hope that, as with blogs such as this and the replies they garner, I may acquire enough information to make a reasoned judgement on an issue.

Of course, like most, in this case I also have personal experience to fall back on as well. And I dread taking my Mum to hospital today as a consequence (case in point: two posters in the waiting room. One says 'Help us by asking a friend or relative to bring you'. The other says 'Priority is given to those using hospital transport'). If there was an alternative I'd use it.

I come from the private sector. All I know is that if what you can earn is based on fewer and fewer people who provide a function the 'customer' pays for, the solution is not, at best, piling on a huge % more to 'manage' or ‘administer’ them, or at worst cut them back to fund ever more managers/administrators.

If you lose the bean makers and stop making beans, there is nothing left to count... or report on... or meet targets with.

And then they will stop voting for you as well.'

Nice pack. Shame about what's in it.

An archive clipping, but topical.

I actually cut it out because of the nifty packs on show, a few of which already grace our site.

But sadly, it seems those in the UK are less up-front about the pipe-clogger contents when compared to our US cousins.

Still, it all tastes nice and we can make stuff out of them. Ashes conatiners?

Shame if your bin caught fire, squire

As we're on the topic (see last post) of self-interest, I note this: Councils want to charge you for rubbish

Way-hey! This can only serve any initiative designed to help you put less in your bin, like a certain reuse .com I could mention. Junkk.com.

But, as per the last post again, I hope they have figured out the difference between penalty and incentive is by then.

There's also the small matter of how this will all be measured, charged and policed, but I reckon we're about due for some further breaches of justice by now, combined with the mass hiring of several more layers of Big Brother index-linked, gold-plated bloodsucking.

Airbor(n)e

There's so much flying (pun intended) around on this topic it's hard to know how to keep up.

I started on it a wee while ago, but I think a new post is in order, this time devoted to the guy in charge:

BBC - Blair defends long-haul holidays
Guardian - Carry on flying, says Blair - science will save the planet
Indy - Blair says no politician would ban cheap flights
Telegraph - I'll recycle but I won't give up my long-haul holidays, says Blair

First up, he's right (shock horror): no pol is going to try and ban cheap hols. Therein lies a problem. I don't think anyone is saying that, but something erring on curbing the gasses is needed, and if they only way to get there is in gassy plane...

However, that's as far as I'll cut him some slack.

This is a guy who, as of next year, needs/wants to fly around the world on speaking tours to try and cover the mortgage back home. As many (have to) do. As to the family getting in a snit if they can't build their sandcastles at least 8,000 miles away, well... many of us don't have the option in the first place.

But at least he'll be popping the duty-free rum bottles in the right bin to compensate.

Michael O'Leary and the airlines must be wetting themselves laughing.

Unlike the quoted 'enviro-groups', I'm a bit more than disappointed. This governement is not joined up, or a mob that leads or even feels the need to lead by example. And for that alone they should be made example of come the next election. Please God I can find someone to vote for by then.

ps: I'm not sure if it's telling, but when he says taxing people more is a way to incentivise them I see a bit of a flaw in reasoning. I'm hoping he meant that you encourage with reward and disincentivise with penalties. But they way his government is going I think it's not confusion but policy.

We're often so busy talking we don't stop to listen

With the comment 'Your Kalahari bushman ... (well, Kenyan anyway) has made it into the news this morning.', Dave of Solarventi has sent this in:

How richest fuel global warming - but poorest suffer most from it

'Nuff said?

And the vegetables, Ma'am?

Anyone remember Spitting Image's most famous put down of a government where no one moved unless the boss said so?

David Miliband's declaration that large numbers of voters buy organic food as a 'lifestyle' choice is a significant self-inflicted injury.

"Planes, trains... and aubergines!

When something like this is announced, I immediately look for the agenda behind the back-story.

But for once I am damned if I can find it... yet. Doubtless it will soon become clear once the first punt has seeded, settled in and had a chance to die down.

One thing is for sure, different aspects of government, and the talking heads at the top/in charge (if that's what they are), don't seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet at present, especially across the eco-enviro spectrum."

A silly question deserves a SUPERB answer!

'If you spend more than four hours a day travelling to work, have you got a life?'

"Well, yes. Whether it is the life you want, is another matter.

Some... most of us to not have a choice in the matter.

I write this lucky enough, for now, to work from home. I dread the occasions when I have to travel, no matter the slight benefits of having a few hours to read guilt-free if I'm on the train, or listening to the radio en route, more guiltily, if I am car-borne trading."

I of course refer to that last play on words: car-borne trading. Genius (immodestly). You heard it here first.

On your Marx, get set... stop.

I don't think I am a communist. I rather like the idea of being comfortably off (though am having a bit of an epiphany as to how much one really needs if we are to survive as a species - loads of dosh really means loads of desire to blow it on stuff, travel, etc, otherwise one's mattress really is going to bulk up) and get a cold shudder when I see anything with 'not for profit' on it.

However, two pieces in one of my Sunday's had me looking up 'first against the wall when the revolution comes' in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Blowing the bonus

Buddy, can you spare a billion?

I don't have a problem with wealth as such, so long as it is honestly, morally and ethically earned/gained (which rather removes most inherited varieties, at the top end at least, anyway), but I certainly do with any wasteful, obscene misuse of it.

And I really do not like it being pandered to by those who seek to bask in a few moments of being close to it by offering exposure to those with such shallow lives they can't think of anything better to do with their financial good fortune.

Let's never let a silly thing like facts get in the way of a good debate

I keep saying the guy is a genius, so I hope he'll forgive me showing why every so often, especially if I post his URL.

Anyone reading this blog of late will note that I am getting a little frustrated with a load of folk who should know better, and paid a lot more, who go very quiet when I, and others, ask questions requiring a simple, factual answer.

Now I know why.

Parapet. Head. Stick. Over. Ouch. The Sequel.

Well, it is Monday: Flight from reality

'This has been covered elsewhere (including this online resource) quite extensively, and indicates a hot (well, warm, at least globally) topic.

The arguments and comments seem to be falling pretty well as expected, and predicted - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/parapet-head-stick-over-ouch.html

I thank the few here who have posted without rancour but with a legitimate concern to know more to act responsibly, or asked some legitimate questions which I do hope will be answered by those who claim to know (better).

I fear those we could have hoped to cool the pot so we may all sup from it are principally concerned with stirring it whilst fanning the flames."

ADDENDUM:

A view from a Green MEP, currently en rouet to the pokey, apparently (for her views & actions) on Trident: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2811

Who cares about the Ashes?

One I thank Dave of Solarventi for passing on: 'Dustbin' UK tops landfill table

Parapet. Head. Stick. Over. Ouch.

It's that kind of day: Guardian

"For some reason I don't often get approved for the Telegraph, but I'd like to share what I wrote to them today - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/martin-in-middle.html - as it's happening here, too.

I am not an eco-Nazi. Nor am I a oil-funded climate-denier. I am just a bloke (one who is trying to raise his kids now AND ensure they have a future) trying to figure this all out to do what's best.

And I am certainly not feeling too well served by government, eco-groups, business, NGOs and even the media. All have an agenda (staying/getting elected, getting funding, getting grants to bestow and ratings/readership respectively) that serves, it seems to me, the environment they claim to serve pretty low on the totem.

I agreed with Mr. Leary in my blog a few days ago. That doesn't make me his lackey. I was simply agreeing with his point that retro-actively back-dating taxes was not on. But before he pops a cork and buys another new 737, I'm afraid there's not much else I can offer him in support. Or a lot of others in favour of ever more, ever-more efficient, ever-more offset and carbonally-traded travel: I really rather think we need to not only slow down, but actually even think about travelling less.

However, if the guys in charge of effecting this equitably, fairly and rationally are those in government (or those in governments worldwide), we have a few slight problem to overcome first.

Trust being first. Faith in abilities next. A sense of vision beyond the next sound-bite or election...

Make that more than a few."