Now, as Aunty asked...

Gotta love those 'we're listening' types at Newsnight, with their ironically titled (my message was rejected 'as I am not allowed to post comments' any more, it seems): Send a message to the TV industry

"Be as rude as you like, but no obscenities please or we won't be able to put your comment up."

No problem. I'll just pop down and catch some on my kids' TV shows:)

Meanwhile, back to answering the question, though some posters have already served up some beauts... which will be consummately ignored....

So here's one. Stop asking for opinions and then not paying a blind bit of notice to them. Stop taking serious, considered critiques and showing them only the contempt a dawn slot on Newswatch - with a sniffy producer/editor who could care less as he/she knows they are immune from consequence - can deliver.

And while everything in life needs a measure, can the BBC at least stop using the acquisition of ratings as the way in which 'executives' are rewarded? That way they might just try and actually serve the people and deliver quality programming as opposed to just trying to climb the corporate ladder as high as they can before bailing to land a nice cushy number elsewhere (or, better yet, promoted up or sideways internally after a cock-up).

Try reporting the news rather than making it (up).

Share with us the truth. We can handle it. It doesn't need to be 'enhanced'. Editing should be to make a story as clear as possible; not steer an agenda.

Finally, please remember that while it is the people who help make the brand, the brand makes the person. So stop being so damn lazy as to claim some individuals are not replaceable and hence lead to the obscene levels of pay that celebrity can create.

The exposure of the BBC is a gateway to riches enough already without using the licence fee to boost the salaries even more. I want my money used responsibly and accountably, with due humility and gratitude to the awesome privilege and career opportunity it represents to be in such a job.

Treat those who are forced to pay to watch as clientele to respect, inform and entertain, not some cash cow to support a nifty, gold-plated, privileged exclusive club lifestyle.

ps:

Find a better, more helpful and less arrogant way to help me post than getting this waaaaay too often, and having to use 'other methods':

Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
You are not allowed to post comments.
Return to the original entry

ADDENDUM;

I have now tried two other computers with no success at avoiding this message.

The SOBs really don't make it easy, do they? Or improve their own sorry reputations. For all the good it will do me, I have written to them on one of their 'we're here to respond' forms:

What, exactly, is this [reply] meant to mean? And how, exactly, is it meant to help resolve what may be a technological glitch but simply comes across as gross censorship?

Guardian - Give TV bosses a piece of your mind - do the guys working in the London media scene actually do any work, or just occupy these posts to snipe at each other?

Guardian - BBC scandals stoking crisis of distrust, say Paxman and Marr
Guardian - After the trust has gone - executives reflect on a turbulent year for TV
Guardian - The BBC has squandered trust. But we will win it back - If he says so, Same people. Same system.

Merton rule is/not to be abolished

Please feel free to delete 'is' or 'not' - whichever you find appropriate!

According to this article from yesterday's Guardian Unlimited central government is planning to torpedo the Merton rule; a rule under which local councils sign up to an agreement whereby 10% of all energy requirements on any new development will be met by using renewables.

"housing minister Yvette Cooper, who last year wanted all local authorities to adopt a Merton rule, will soon publish a new draft planning policy statement which outlines the abolition of the rule."

So it appears that our government is reverting to a regressive mode yet again.

But ........ today's Daily Mail reports an entirely different perspective.

"Contrary to fears expressed by some environmentalists, Ms Cooper will not be abolishing the Merton Rule"

"A spokesman for the Department of Communities and Local Government denied the planning guidance would ditch the Merton approach."

Now I know that the media always want to portray their stories as the most up-to-date and correct, but here there are two entirely poles-apart comments on the same subject.

OK, so which one represents the truth and which is a load of porkies? Or is it all intended to add to the plethora of obfuscation? I give up! I really don't know who to believe now!

ADDENDUM from Junkk Male

Recycling Waste World - Lib Dems slam plans to abolish Merton Rule
Guardian - Don't scrap green housing rule, urge campaigners

Gone. And probably forgotten.

Well, I'm back.

But I must take the chance to thank co-poster Dave (and other respondents) for keeping the blog-flame (alt.energy sourced hydrogen as fuel, of course) burning.

So much has happened. So much is happening. So much yet to happen. But I think maybe it's best to simply start anew (as soon as I have cleared the e and snail post mountain that needs dealing with) rather than trying any major historical catch-ups. It's not like I was keeping up too well real-time, without trying to deal with archives as well.

It's still worth looking back a few as it needed me to get back to authorise a few replies from the control panel, and there have been some good ones, thank you.

Also, one that is a real hoot.

Catch you later.

Nuclear will produce as much CO2 as fossil fuel plants

This argument, as we have pointed out many times already on this very blog, will run and run.

In an admittedly fairly lengthy video clip from E&ENews On-Point show, Nuclear Policy Research Institute founder Helen Caldicott discusses her new book, and makes a claim that as uranium ore gets scarcer then the equivalent CO2 output of a nuclear plant will increase and eventually equate to the CO2 output of a fossil fuel plant.

At one point she claims that "the nuclear industry lies"! She also claims that terrorists could very easily cause a nuclear plant meltdown!

So what many of us viewed as a stop-gap technology is perhaps as nasty at CO2 emission as fossil fuel power plants?

Now I'm confused even more!

When the best choice is less choice?

The title is taken from an interview with Jonathan Porritt - full detail from NewConsumer.com.

As ever with Porritt, the article is well worth a read, making lots of very salient points on our full blown consumerism and how we may have to change our ways.

"But the truth is that in the rich world very large numbers of us need to get used to consuming less. That’s just inevitable, we will either have to do so because our carbon budgets won’t be big enough to sustain our patterns of consumption – and everything has a carbon price tag attached to it – or because more and more people will recognise that that’s part of the responsibility of living on a shared earth – we have to make the limited resources available to all, not just the lucky ones living in rich countries like ours."

Anybody want to argue with that?

Never let it be said .....

..... that we don't put both sides of the argument.

This from the International Herald Tribune presents counter arguments to the level of zealousy that some believers in anthropogenic climate change have climbed.

It has quite a hefty dig at Sharon Begley, whose article we featured on this very blog recently.

"Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation."

Valid points both, but I would point out in response that empirically measured scientific data, and not just scientific consensus or hypothesis alone, has already largely concluded that man made global warming is almost certainly a reality.

Maybe the argument will never really be over until millions start dying of flooding and starvation. And, of course, by then, perhaps it may well be way too late?
_______________
And according to this from the Salt Lake Tribune, because I worry about climate change and the impact that it may have on my children and grandchildren, then I'm a "global warming fundamentalist" who is "pushing planet worship on us in a manner that would make a jihadist proud"!

This from another using the NASA data correction argument - data which only applies to the central USA (downgrading some years average temperatures by 0.03 degrees C) - he conveniently ignores the fact that the data (and any extrapolation from it) is still perfectly correct for the rest of the planet. (As explained in The Times - 16/8)

I've been called some things in my time, but never a jihadist!

And, just for the sake of argument - here, from SanDiego.com, is some scientific data about Lake Tahoe - especially for those who won't believe that there is any actual empirically measured scientific data.

Recycle your sex toys?

This certainly made me smile, an article about a 'rabbit amnesty' (no, not the cuddly white tailed bunny version!) from 24dash.com.

Better than going to landfill I suppose!

ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Just got my latest issue of The Ecologist. And guess what... there it was! And no reason why not. Hey. we noticed, and shared, it as soon as we stopped giggling. But it does show the mentality all who publish have, and what's going to get exposure ('oh, missus) first these days!

Green Tax On Air Travel?

It must be the season for surveys and public polls.

It would seem that a green tax on flights will probably be applied to all your flights before too long. Oft talked about and partly fudged already, but not genuinely implemented, probably because it has always been regarded as a vote loser, this from today's Indy suggests that public perceptions have changed to such an extent that almost half those polled are now "in favour of a tax on air travel to try to curb harmful the CO2 emissions that cause global warming."

Let's just hope that if (or perhaps when) it is implemented in one form or another that:-

a) It is implemented in a sensible and logical, understandable manner.
b) It isn't a typical bodge job.
c) The monies raised are actually used to help against global warming.

Well ...... its not too much to ask .... is it?
_______________

Meanwhile, on the other side of the big pond, the US FAA is planning to double or triple air traffic capacity by 2025. This from In These Times asks a very pertinent question - "is it [The FAA] giving concerns about aviation’s effects on climate change the attention they deserve?"

Given the political clout of the US aviation industry, I think I can hazard a good guess at what the answer is. Can you?

Climate Change Perceptions Study

Today has seen the publication of a study of people's perceptions of climate change in the NW of England. The study from the Northwest Climate Change Partnership (NWCCP) highlights the differences with which which people regard climate change and it's causes.

For instance:- "56.3 per cent are personally concerned about climate change" So the other 43.7% apparently just don't give a fig?

Yet only "20% of people are doing nothing to address climate change" ... so the numbers just don't add up.

It all just shows that, as Peter has commented many times before, the answers that you get from surveys don't necessarily reflect the actions that people actually take.

The good news, however, is that "68.8 per cent believe that they are doing something to help slow down climate change but are aware that there is more that they could do".

I find that number quite encouraging ...... well, providing it is a genuine reflection of what people actually meant rather than what they answered.

A Proactive Council That's Getting Things Right

Its not often that I find myself commending a local council initiative, but this one is really worth a mention. This from the Society Of Procurement Officers highlights a scheme introduced by the London borough of Richmond whereby the first 1,000 residents who install cavity wall or loft insulation will be given a £100 rebate on their council tax bill. Even when that particular pot is empty, anyone else will still receive £50 from British Gas.

A typical cost for installing cavity wall insulation in a three bedroomed semi is ~ £250 and for loft insulation ~£275. OK, the rebate's not earth shattering, but its a start, and, as they say, every little helps. And I commend the Richmond councilors for pushing this through.

What a shame that central government doesn't appear to be able to learn something from the initiatives driven by their more local brethren.
_____________

And while central government prevaricates (see 'Coming clean on going green' below), the local councils forge ahead. Now more than 130 local councils have signed up to the Nottingham declaration - as reported in the Plymouth Herald.

Coming clean on going green?

Well, it would seem that our esteemed government has once again shot itself through both bollo ..... errrm, feet. This from The Guardian highlights a leaked internal briefing memo in which they admit that the UK has absolutely no chance of meeting it's 'renewables' targets.

Uncle Tony signed up to the EU target of 20% of energy from 'renewables' by 2020 under a blaze of publicity and a great deal of self congratulatory crowing. Now it appears that we will be lucky to even meet 5% by 2020!

"It said that Britain had achieved 'little so far' on wind, solar or hydroelectric sources of power, and even getting to 9% from the current level of 2% would be 'challenging'. On current policies, renewables would only account for 5% of Britain's overall energy mix by 2020."

And worse, the re-badged DTI (have this lot never read Gaius Petronius?) advised "lobbying EU member states to agree that the target could be interpreted more flexibly by including investment in solar farms in north Africa, or by counting nuclear energy as 'renewable'."

And there's a section in the briefing memo that "asks ministers to examine 'what options there are for statistical interpretations of the target that would make it easier to achieve'."
Good lord! That's an instruction to feel free to make up numbers and tell lies any time you need to!

In summary, it looks now as if the target was an unachievable sham, and while the publicity made our ex-leader look good at the time, the real truth is that our current leadership team are simply looking for ways to prevaricate their way out of the mess by dissembling, skull-duggery, statistical manipulation and even downright cheating.

It's all too reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned - perhaps they could have entitled the piece - 'Coming clean on going Brown'? And of course no-one will get sacked, side-lined, punished or admonished at all, whilst still maintaining their gold plated pensions and salaries; it will all be smoothed over with more bull.

Arse covering, spin and blame deflection seem to be the only things our wonderful government are any good at all, under whatever leader!

The EC might be showing its teeth, but our lot appear to be simply passing lies through theirs!
___________________

More on this story from View London.
"Officials at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform would not comment on the document". Well, there's a surprise!

Ooooh look! We now have an official response from the PMS. See Downing Street Says.
Hmmm, they argued their way out of that one well didn't they?
___________________
Addendum:
Today's Guardian (14/8) has another interesting article from George Monbiot, who can always be relied upon to stir up the angst and ire of the masses. He points out, quite correctly, that back in March this year he questioned the government's 20% target. To be fair to Monbiot, he hardly crows about this at all (just an in passing 'lying bastards'), as the main thrust of his piece is the apparent contradiction that the media portrays whereby an editorial on one page exhorts us to become greener, whilst advertising alongside is for 4x4's and exotic travel holidays. Definitely well worth a read.

Addendum 2:
Well, it seems that the EC is still confident that the UK will meet its 20% emissions reduction target. See this from the International Local Government Association.
Given the chicanery and statistical manipulation that is going on I rather feel that that confidence is spectacularly misplaced!

The EC shows its teeth over vehicle CO2 emissions!

The EC industry commissioner seems to be taking a tough line with the European motor manufacturers.

The EC has been talking about limiting new vehicle CO2 emissions for what seems like years now, and is still nowhere near implementing any enforceable legislation. However, this article from Auto Industry suggests that the let out clause that all the motor manufacturers in Europe assumed that they would be able to use once legislation came in is not going to be available to them.

Essentially, most of the motor manufacturers thought that they would be able to buy their way out of their environmental responsibility for any models they produced with excessive CO2 emissions, (a type of offsetting?), but this looks like it will no longer be a future option for them.

Its rare for me to say this, but, for once, a big up to the EC. (If they carry it through!)

Met Office Prediction - Heatwaves

The latest UK meteorological office weather predictions provide an interesting set of long term 'forecasts', although I think I prefer the term predictions. This from The Guardian provides a concise summary.

"Powerful computer simulations used to create the world's first global warming forecast suggests temperature rises will stall in the next two years, before rising sharply at the end of the decade."

So the prediction for the next few years is that temperature increases will plateau at current levels until 2009/2010; something to do with natural shifts in climate canceling out the global warming caused by greenhouse gases. After that though, we are in for steadily climbing temperatures, increasingly warmer summers and increasingly heavy rainfall periods.

"From 2010, they warn, every year has at least a 50% chance of exceeding the record year of 1998 when average global temperatures reached 14.54C."

Weather forecasting is an inexact science, and they often cannot even get it right a few days ahead, so many may question the accuracy of their powerful computer simulations. But if they are correct, then perhaps now is the time to stock up on sunscreen, brollies and sandbags?

There's a fuller article with perhaps better explanation on the National Geographic News site.

Hmmmm, even the Daily Mail has picked up on this story.
___________________

Meanwhile, in a rather worrying move, Ol' Golden Brown seems to have downgraded the status of the cabinet committee on climate change - see this article from EDIE. And we all thought that he considered climate change a 'major challenge to mankind'!
___________________

"One giant leap backward for life on Earth"

Further to the post on the potential riches hidden on the sea bed under the arctic ice cap comes a second article, this time from the LA Times, which provides another set of alarming information.

Apparently, geologists believe that something like 25% of the planet's as yet undiscovered oil and gas may lie under the arctic ice, so its no real surprise that the Russian two miles deep flag planting stunt took place last week. And now "Norway, Canada and Denmark (through its possession of Greenland) are all using the continental-shelf argument to claim the Arctic seabed as an extension of their own sovereign territories".

OK, not specifically alarming in its own right, though the geo-political arguments that will ensue as these and other major world powers start to argue about just how to divvy up the arctic's riches are the sort of thing that has caused major conflict throughout human history. No, this worry concerns something else that is locked up under the ice, and in the permafrost in the surrounding continental land masses.

"While governments and oil giants are hoping the melting ice will allow them access to the world's last treasure trove of oil and gas, climatologists are deeply worried about something else buried under the ice that, if unearthed, could wreak havoc on the biosphere, with dire consequences for human life."

The big worry is the release of CO2 and, more importantly, methane, which scientists have long known to be the most potent of the greenhouse gases, as organic matter locked up in the permafrost and on the seabed decays when warming occurs. I'll let these quotes from the article make the key points.


" ... researchers warned of a tipping point sometime within this century, when the release of methane could create an uncontrollable feedback effect, dramatically warming the atmosphere, which would in turn warm the land, lakes and seabed, further melting the permafrost and releasing more methane. Once that threshold is reached, there will be nothing humans can do. Scientists suspect that similar events have occurred in the ancient past, between glacial periods."

"A global tragedy of monumental proportions is unfolding at the top of the world, and the human race is all but oblivious to what's happening. "

I've always found some human behaviour very strange, and this is no exception. Here we have climatologists warning of an atmospheric methane injection tipping point that may cause runaway global warming; yet all the various governments appear to worry about is how to grab as much of the arctic's potential resources as possible.

It was ever thus.

So does it eat cheese?

Every now and again along comes a gadget that makes you think 'what a great idea'. This is one such, from Product-Reviews.Net, a solar powered wireless computer mouse.

However, most computer mice are in heaviest use during the daytime, and it does need direct sunlight to gain sufficient charge; so perhaps the only solution might be to buy two and alternate their use, using mouse 1 whilst mouse 2 is on charge on the windowsill? (Clever bit of marketing or what?)

Don't leave it charging while the cat's about though!

The Truth About Denial

I recommend an eye-opening article from Sharon Begley in Newsweek Science & Technology which attempts to show just how much effort Big Oil and its friends and cohorts have put into supporting the 'climate change isn't man made' club.

"the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion."

"There was an extraordinary campaign by the denial machine to find and hire scientists to sow dissent and make it appear that the research community was deeply divided"

The article describes a good deal of the politics and chicanery that has gone on at top level in the US; including how several attempts to pass legislation on CO2 emissions have been strangled etc. All in all, well worth a few minutes perusal.

"It's enough to make you wish that climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is."

Quite!

Addendum: 7/8/2007

According to this article from Canada.Com, the media isn't helping too much either. It would seem that the US and Canadian media have quite a strong tendency to tone down any climate change article in comparison with their brethren in Europe.
I just loved this example - "the New York times ran an article noting that 'global warming is an unequivocal fact likely to make summers hotter and winters warmer for the next few centuries, with potentially dire consequences for the ecosystem' -- then spent the next 17 paragraphs discussing the likely effect on groundhogs."

Gone, but not forgetting

There is something rather sad that on this, the first day of my annual (well, first in 5 years) holiday, here I am logging on to see what's what on the blog!

Already a rich seam of commentary from the new papers I am reading, but my wife says that I can keep the cuttings but can forget more than a few minutes a day online to do more than check emails.

But I may just sneak a few in.

Yet another international conference

Today's announcement that Dubbya has invited a host of the planet's leaders to a september climate conference may well be seen by many as a signal that the USA is finally getting involved.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Me, I'll reserve judgment for now until I hear something genuinely concrete coming from the US Pols. Perhaps I shouldn't be overtly cynical, but surely the time for talking is over and its now the time for actually doing something about it?

Oh well, at least they now seem to be saying that they will support something if it is mandated by the UN.

Meanwhile, Lake Superior appears to be slowly going down a hidden plughole somewhere, as this from Yahoo News explains.

Some blame global warming, some blame a lack of rain (errrrm, wasn't that one of the things that global warming was predicted to do, as in alter weather and precipitation patterns?), others blame hidden water extraction to other states.

Whatever the real underlying reason, it does seem to be a major cause for concern. Worse still, [with my Friday afternoon smiling head on], this is the really shocking bit!, some of the pleasure boaters can no longer dock at many of the lake's moorings! Bless.

Addendum:
It looks as if there is now a growing consensus within the UN too. This from BusinessWire says that more than 100 countries speaking at the UN General Assembly have "signaled strong support for negotiations on a new international deal to tackle global warming."

Good stuff, a growing global consensus is what is desperately needed.

Oh. That's soured it a little for me - they're all having a two week jolly to Bali to discuss it.

There's gold under them there bergs!

It has not taken very long for some to realise that as global warming takes hold, and the Arctic ice disappears, there is a huge gamut of potentially useful resources that will become accessible for exploitation.

An article from Economist.com signals the starting gun for the race for the Arctic's available riches; as they headline it - The Gold Rush Under The Ice.

Amongst others, at stake are potentially huge mineral, oil and gas resources.

"They may include 10 billion tonnes of oil and gas deposits, tin, manganese, gold, nickel, lead, platinum and diamonds, plus fish and perhaps even lucrative freight routes. Exploiting them will be technically tricky, and is probably decades away. But as the ice melts, the row is hotting up about who owns what’s underneath it."

Although it may yet be a few decades yet before these resources become feasibly accessible, our Soviet friends are already attempting a massive geo-political annexation of an enormous portion of the Arctic area.

I wonder just how long it will be before the world's super powers get together to divvy up this untouched region amongst themselves?

Resource greed seems to have become the primary driving factor for mankind. And, not for the first time, I feel ashamed at being a member of our resource ravenous human race.
____________________

And the next islands going under are?

First to start disappearing under the sea were the islands of Tuvalu, now it looks like the next in line are the Torres Straits islands where rising sea levels are threatening to eradicate centuries old communities.

This report from the Australian Daily Telegraph provides another graphic example of what we will probably be seeing increasingly more of over the next few decades.

"Roads have been swallowed whole, buildings washed out, graveyards swamped and houses flooded in six of the most vulnerable low-lying island communities."

Try telling the people of the Torres Straits and Tuvalu islands that global warming and rising sea level is a load of bull!

Addendum:
Literally within a few days of this post a report comes out that predicts the projected rises in sea level are being seriously under-estimated. See this from the Free Internet Press for details.
It looks to me like the list of disappearing islands might be growing too fast to keep up with in a couple of decades time. Oh well, perhaps governments around the planet will actually start to act once the water's lapping around their feet.