Any Old Plastic

Let's end the day with a picture.

I was passing a local coffee shop t'other day, which happened to be bin collections.

And there, on the pile, were these crates. I asked them if I could have them, and as they get charged for disposal they were more than happy.

And I now have a supply of nice plastic stacable trays for my growing Junkk collection.

Now, if only there was a way to connect such opportunities around the place. Oo, oo, I know.... JunkkYard!

Looks green. May be green. By by golly...

Some of the world’s leading technology brands are failing to convince consumers of their green credentials - Freelance UK

Seems they are sceptical about the ethical statements made by sellers.

So, in response to this issue, some of the biggest names in the technology sector are actively engaged in 'eco-proofing' their business operations, which does seem to have at its heart a bit more than puff, but the name hardly inspires one to think they are thinking that positively. It smacks, as always, of defensive measures.

Report author Added Value is holding a next Branding for Good Summit called “Green:2.0 - Avoid the Greenwash” in November. Oooo, another summit! Ok, so I'd like to go, too. I think though, just to be different, I'm going to call mine a 'get-together', or 'bit of a chat'.

More information is available at: www.added-value.com

I could do with some of that, couldn't I?

I was catching up on some tearsheets and came across A Life in the Day of the UK Wikipedia 'run-person', reading it with oddly mixed feelings.

Of course I'm jealous, because to have such passion and commitment 'as an unpaid volunteer' would certainly ease the burden a tad. Of course I do have a few (and growing) loyal folk who chip in, and it is much appreciated. But her level of input is... beyond the call.

If a little scary.

'Two years ago we had almost no income; this year our budget will hit $6m. We receive donations but we need more money to pay for servers, among other things – we have 500 servers now. Advertising is out of the question: it’s a moral issue for us. So we’re seeking sponsorship from private companies, who could give us shares, and we’re going to ask the EU for subsidies.'

So advertising is immoral, but sponsorship from private companies isn't. Hmnn. Plus if I got a grant from the EU it would need to be without strings, but I certainly won't say no if they are up for that.

As for: "It’s possible one day I’ll be more proud of Wikipedia than of the kids", I'll always be proud of Junkk.com and the legacy it may leave my kids, but it will never come close to them in my heart; as they are flesh and blood and already showing me what the future can be.

I guess that's the difference between us. That, and when I find the money, I'll gladly share it with anyone who helps make the site better.

Sadly, I find too many charities, not-for-profits and volunteer groups to be stocked with people waaaay to scary to deal with.

The 'R' Word

It's waaay up there with 'population', only seems to get bandied about a lot more: Polluting minds

I think I can just about see what you are trying to say. But sadly, it's hard to agree with much of the reasoning.

For a start, I await an adequate definition of 'racism' in any of the contexts it gets so wilfully misused all the time. I actually celebrate many of the differences that exist between races, cultures, etc, but as it is only ever levelled in the negative, I just wonder at what point one is to be censored (where free speech is allowed, natch) from identifying, much less commenting upon, a culture difference. Especially if it is bent on mutually assured self-destruction.

You surely cannot be trying to say that, having arrived at a point where climate change is accepted as most likely being accelerated by the vast amounts of gunk that ever more affluent consumers pour in the air through having the cash to buy ever more 'stuff', no one can question whether one sixth of the world's population may need to get on board with the notion of restraint a tad.

Ok, so the 'rest' of us are pretty darn woeful, especially a certain continent to the left, but at least there are existing and ever-developing mechanisms of restraint that are enshrined in their governance, and which the people can use the power of the vote to enact. Along with the freedom to mention some nasty facts to those whose careers extend to the end of a political term as opposed to when they shuffle off to join their ancestors.

Meanwhile, the guy behind you telling you to stump up for the bullet is...?

The Know People

This looks like a good thing for bad times: Turn to Google Maps for flood updates

As does this.

What does not, is this: '... a useful point to wonder whether information on flooding that is already collated by various arms of government should be made more freely available to members of the public. After all, it was only a couple of weeks ago that property site OnOneMap, which uses Google Maps as its engine, got into a battle over the flood data it was offering browsers. Because the mapping data showing flood risk is owned by the Environment Agency, they were forced to remove it.'

Just so's I get this straight...

There is public information, paid for by the public, that can be of help (or made to be) to the public, and it's ring-fenced 'not for the public's benefit' by quango turf defences?

Well, at least they were honest:(

We get a lot of surveys. And there is usually a disconnect between what folk say, what they really think, and actually do. So this is... interesting: Consumers reject "green" taxes

When it comes to social behaviour, we are a little less prone to the truth, if the discrepancy between those who say they recycle and those who actually do is to be reconciled.

But when it comes to cold, hard cash, well, the people have spoken.... at least to a guy flogging insurance policies.

I just wonder how many resent paying more tax (well, D'uh), but in terms of green don't see how paying it actually ends up helping the planet with the gold-plated shower we have in charge of things these days.

Meanwhile...

BBC - Teenagers support 'green' schools - as opposed to...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guardian - Not in my back yard

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

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

But...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A bit more water-borne fun & games with Newsnight

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

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

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

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

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

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

32.78m AOD

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

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

I figured it would come in handy one day.

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

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

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

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

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

Spiffy.

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

The best I have, so far, is:

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

ADDENDUM 2 -

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

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

Telegraph - Bogged down with bureaucracy

My pride and joy Hummer - What a bummer!

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

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

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

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

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

The funny side of things

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

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

I predict a riot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boogey me... er... atmospheric phenomena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that IS scary.

Floods and tears

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ecologist - High Tide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a thought.

Putting the cart before the horse?

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

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

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

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

Independent Assessement?

One of the defining aspects of modern life is convenience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the headings on this topic I scrolled down:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a shower

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping track of business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe becuase it's US-based.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM -

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

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

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