According to AutoExpressNews the chancellor is intending to impose a big levy on those who would purchase 'gas-guzzlers', a term which I don't particularly like as it unfortunately hits a large number of people who have little option but to use off-road vehicles, such as farmers.
The source is a supposed leaked Treasury document which outlines a suggested £2000 purchase tax levy, OR, a Vehicle Excise Duty first year increase of £1300, on all vehicles that emit more than 254g/km of CO2 .
"All cars in this category – including the entire Range Rover line-up, all Porsche 911s and most versions of the Mercedes S-Class – would be hit by the proposed £2,000 levy."
Now that's a pretty big stick; but I have to question how much it is intended to ameliorate CO2 emissions as opposed to how much revenue it might generate for the Treasury's coffers? The other point that needs to be made is that anyone who can afford a brand new Range Rover, Porsche 911 or Merc S Class can afford to pay that sort of sum without blinking anyway.
Oh yes, I nearly forgot, the carrot. For those purchasers who buy vehicles that emit less than 100g/km of CO2 there will be a 'rebate' of £2000 (off what? .... the purchase cost, or in ongoing VED reductions?).
OK, that sounds like a nice bit of encouragement to purchase a low emitting vehicle. Unfortunately it leaves you with a choice of either an entirely electric car, such as the G-Wiz, or the one and only current combustion engined vehicle that meets that target, the VW Polo 1.4 TDI BlueMotion.
Sorry, but this is tantamount to a large scale tax grab whilst holding out a minuscule and almost worthless carrot to purchase low CO2 emitting vehicles. What's the betting that as sales of the Bluemotion take off, the Treasury suddenly decides to reduce the 100g/km to something like 80g/km?
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) -
Sorry, it's easier for me to add a link here: CAR INDUSTRY THREATENS AD EXODUS OVER CO2 WARNINGS
I have to agree with you, Dave. At best this seems a silly little (and not very original) piece of political point scoring with no real downside (I doubt most owners to be affected are Labour voters. Not just on money terms, either. Here in the boonies the 4x4foraliving guys are not exactly Brownian in their voting motions!).
And, as you say, who trusts (that word) the carrot?. I still hover on an LPG conversion which is already not good on ROI, but if the tax on the fuel gets nudged up because it proves too popular I'm stuffed!
As to the ad piece above that doesn't make sense, unless they are accepting that such things don't help sales. A silly knee jerk in my view, not that I think popping Co2 labels on will make a blind bit of difference.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Barrages and other obstacles
For a long time I've been following in the local papers a discussion about a proposed Severn Barrage. Now it has hit the big time: Inventive compromise may be the answer to dilemma
Coincidentally the man vs. nature has already sparked a small piece already in another blog, this time from waaaay over in California.
There are a few potent causes fighting here. I am afraid that if 'we' are not prepared to do much/anything about our expanding population's (global and national, no inference on certain points made about on this topic recently ) calls on land and resources, the area will be toast (or a shopping centre) one day anyway. And this does not seem to be a trade-off deal. This is (very broadly) free energy as a substitute for carbon-emitting ones. I don't see the birdies winning.
BBC - New study for Severn energy plan - I have to say the Civ. Eng in me thinks this is waaaay cool. And I can see the enviROI shaping up well. But as to the birds... better this than Prescott's heirs sticking a condo on it?
Indy - Some worthwhile views
Indy - 'Strong case' for Severn barrage
Guardian - Barrage of turbines across the Severn could provide 5% of UK's electricity - Could? How can they not know? All the figures must be available.
Guardian Letters (ta, Dave) - very useful input!
Coincidentally the man vs. nature has already sparked a small piece already in another blog, this time from waaaay over in California.
There are a few potent causes fighting here. I am afraid that if 'we' are not prepared to do much/anything about our expanding population's (global and national, no inference on certain points made about on this topic recently ) calls on land and resources, the area will be toast (or a shopping centre) one day anyway. And this does not seem to be a trade-off deal. This is (very broadly) free energy as a substitute for carbon-emitting ones. I don't see the birdies winning.
BBC - New study for Severn energy plan - I have to say the Civ. Eng in me thinks this is waaaay cool. And I can see the enviROI shaping up well. But as to the birds... better this than Prescott's heirs sticking a condo on it?
Indy - Some worthwhile views
Indy - 'Strong case' for Severn barrage
Guardian - Barrage of turbines across the Severn could provide 5% of UK's electricity - Could? How can they not know? All the figures must be available.
Guardian Letters (ta, Dave) - very useful input!
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Taking on the terminator?
This from Counterpunch takes a big side swipe at Arnie, calling him a hypocrite. I'll leave you the reader to decide whether its a fairly warranted statement.
"Arnold Schwarzenegger's address to the United Nations today about global climate change is one of the most blatant examples of hypocrisy that I've ever witnessed."
"This is greenwashing at its absolute worst!"
"There is no doubt that Schwarzenegger is the worst Governor in California history - and we've had some really bad ones - for fish, water and the environment, in spite of his shallow rhetoric proclaiming his 'leadership' in 'the fight against climate change on a world stage'."
Ooo errrr! I bet Arnie's quaking in his boots!
"Arnold Schwarzenegger's address to the United Nations today about global climate change is one of the most blatant examples of hypocrisy that I've ever witnessed."
"This is greenwashing at its absolute worst!"
"There is no doubt that Schwarzenegger is the worst Governor in California history - and we've had some really bad ones - for fish, water and the environment, in spite of his shallow rhetoric proclaiming his 'leadership' in 'the fight against climate change on a world stage'."
Ooo errrr! I bet Arnie's quaking in his boots!
Should be fun
As readers will appreciate, BBC's Newsnight more often than not stirs me to the blogside.
Usually I am abed when it goes out live, but thanks to the whizzbangery of IT in the naughties, I can catch it at leisure the next day.
This in my in-box from Jeremy Paxman (ADD; now online) makes it an almost must watch, followed, with luck, by a 'must told you so. Well, must have 'been telling you so'.
FROM JEREMY PAXMAN
Miliband was interesting because he was trying to lay out what he called the 'Second Wave' of New Labour Foreign Policy. I'll be asking tonight whether this amounts to anything more than forgetting the First Wave.
Not so much 'Not Flash. Just Gordon', more 'Not Tony. So just who cares what the rest of us were doing for the last 10 years?'.
Lions led by donkeys, springs to mind. I'm guessing the BBC don't feel constrained any more by the 'rearranged edit' fiasco, thank heavens. But will it make a blind bit of difference, I wonder?
At least the Nu-Lab comeback should prove entertaining, if they can be bothered.
Indy - This is the reason people don't care about politics - A theme develops?
Usually I am abed when it goes out live, but thanks to the whizzbangery of IT in the naughties, I can catch it at leisure the next day.
This in my in-box from Jeremy Paxman (ADD; now online) makes it an almost must watch, followed, with luck, by a 'must told you so. Well, must have 'been telling you so'.
FROM JEREMY PAXMAN
Miliband was interesting because he was trying to lay out what he called the 'Second Wave' of New Labour Foreign Policy. I'll be asking tonight whether this amounts to anything more than forgetting the First Wave.
Not so much 'Not Flash. Just Gordon', more 'Not Tony. So just who cares what the rest of us were doing for the last 10 years?'.
Lions led by donkeys, springs to mind. I'm guessing the BBC don't feel constrained any more by the 'rearranged edit' fiasco, thank heavens. But will it make a blind bit of difference, I wonder?
At least the Nu-Lab comeback should prove entertaining, if they can be bothered.
Indy - This is the reason people don't care about politics - A theme develops?
You don't love me? You really don't love me?
According to this - The demand for expert generated content - research showed that less than 1 per cent trusted blogs as a reliable source of information.
Say it ain't so!
Especially when... if... 'This trend is further supported by research into the information sources web users consider trustworthy. The BBC is the UK’s most reliable source of information, according to 58 per cent of people who have faith in Auntie to provide accurate news.
If you say so, Bub.
What did and didn't surprise is that Wikipedia is only trusted by 2 per cent of the people surveyed, and recently had to remove swathes of content found to be written by prejudiced individuals. Unlike....?
Well, you know what I think of research. Until I see who asked what of whom, pinches of salt all round. Where's the Tequila?
Say it ain't so!
Especially when... if... 'This trend is further supported by research into the information sources web users consider trustworthy. The BBC is the UK’s most reliable source of information, according to 58 per cent of people who have faith in Auntie to provide accurate news.
If you say so, Bub.
What did and didn't surprise is that Wikipedia is only trusted by 2 per cent of the people surveyed, and recently had to remove swathes of content found to be written by prejudiced individuals. Unlike....?
Well, you know what I think of research. Until I see who asked what of whom, pinches of salt all round. Where's the Tequila?
Man causing climate change - poll headline claims
Large majorities of people across the world agree that humans are causing global warming, a BBC poll indicates.
Now, as all would know, I have a few views on polls; how they are conducted, what the questions are and then how they get applied. I am no statistician, so I am in no position to comment on detailed methodology, but I can cock an eyebrow at how detail gets turned into a sound-bite.
So I do wish that such significant findings, in all their complexity, hadn't quite been offered up in such a way as to give the contrarians the chance to have a go at a headline like that. It surely should read as the subhead does to avoid any charges of trying to sway opinion. It is powerful enough already.
And I note that it's not that man has made and is making things worse, but indeed has caused it. So that perception now has taken hold, and maybe a good thing. But is it proven yet? I don't know if it is. And if shown to be shaky, does such absolutism help or hinder those trying to ease us back to less wasteful ways, or simply hand a 'get out of any responsibility free card' to those needing little incentive to grab such a thing if the science raises doubts on nature's total exclusion from the deal?
And while representatives from about 150 countries, including 80 heads of state or government, were at the meeting, I note it is noted that US President George W Bush was not present. Instead, he is hosting a meeting of 16 "major emitter" countries in Washington on Thursday and Friday.
Who else world-leading emitter-wise, but not mentioned, was not there I wonder? Talk about serving up a distraction on a plate to those who would challenge the motivations of the commissioners? Just give us the facts, and explain them rationally, guys. We don't need to be lead.
And on a final note, what does the team think the actual move to action will be of those strongly moved to respond with... words?
ADDENDUM - speaking of what happens 'twixt headline and what follows:
Guardian Home - Benn rallies US on emissions targets - Do what? Rather, who what?
But click on that to get - Benn calls on US to adopt binding aims on emissions - That's more like it. Nothing like a good call. As to who will pay any more attention this time...
Apparently, 'Mr Benn made his appeal (is that more or less than a call, or better than a rally?) at a climate change summit at the United Nations headquarters in New York... attended by more than 80 heads of state and government...' but '...President George Bush was not at the meeting.'
Now where have I heard that before? Meanwhile, who else wasn't there? Or, for that matter, who was?
Maybe Mr. Brown was less not there than Mr. Bush. Which makes him 'Green God Gordo' by not being something as bad as he could be. Yeah, that'll work.
Guardian - Has the US stand-off run out of steam?
I've read everywhere from the Guardian to the BBC that George Bush did not attend this, but other than Hillary Benn am having trouble finding out which 'world leaders' actually did. Can anyone help?
If this is the 'single, greatest (etc)..' I'd just like to see which of our global great and good didn't feel there was something more pressing at the 'mo.
Guardian - The new climate change pioneer
As the BBC and the Guardian seem to be linking back and forth I have so far gathered that George Bush isn't there, but other than Mr. Benn am having trouble finding out which other 'world leaders' (Does his boss know?) were. Anyone?
Anyway, big up to NZ for some national initiative on the DOING vs. talking front. Maybe it's the perfect entire country for eco-tourism, once the whole flying thing can be addressed.
Mind you, I do have a certain sympathy with those who try and point out certain comparisons need to be matched with a few realities.
Some Singaporean chums once challenged me to explain why the UK could not be more like their city state in terms of economy, transport, etc. I had to point out that if one put a wall round London it would be a pretty rich place with a public tube and bus system that's... well, it would be a pretty rich place.
At least I managed to note that their thirst for oil per head was also top of the list, too. So being small doesn't automatically make it easier to go green.
ADDENDUM - Having had little that made sense from our media here, I have turned to Google. And roamed a world of headlines, from Thailand's Bangkok Post to some Canadian effort. What was first of all interesting was how many had either taken a lead from the same press release, or had a very similar take on it all. Like, word for word.
At least I now know that a fair number of 'world leaders' were there: France, Germany, Canada at least. Plus Al Gore. I also know, A LOT, that George Bush wasn't. Condi Rice was. What I didn't see was that the Prime Minister of the UK also didn't quite make it, but sent our A team instead. For some reason the Chinese just sending their Foreign Minister was OK, too. No word yet on Putin being there or not, or indeed what the Indian contingent comprised.
One thing's for sure, it didn't come across as the be-all-and-end-all that some media seemed to wish it was, but mainly because of the way it was reported.
Grist - Every Momentum Counts
U.N. hosts one-day climate meeting to spur climate-agreement fever
They usually talk sense.
I loved this though: Gathering momentum for a United Nations climate conference in Bali, - at last I can make it up!
And an answer, of sorts: The conference attracted 150 nations, about 80 of which sent at least their heads of state, making it the best-attended climate meeting in U.N. history among high-level officials
Plus a certain, welcome, pragmatism: 'However, since it's being hosted by the binding-agreement-wary U.S., critics see little coming out of the meeting but voluntary actions and vague technology-sharing agreements. Oh, and probably press releases and goodie bags too'. Darn, I forgot to mention the goodie bags. I wonder if Mr. Benn will have spares?
Now, as all would know, I have a few views on polls; how they are conducted, what the questions are and then how they get applied. I am no statistician, so I am in no position to comment on detailed methodology, but I can cock an eyebrow at how detail gets turned into a sound-bite.
So I do wish that such significant findings, in all their complexity, hadn't quite been offered up in such a way as to give the contrarians the chance to have a go at a headline like that. It surely should read as the subhead does to avoid any charges of trying to sway opinion. It is powerful enough already.
And I note that it's not that man has made and is making things worse, but indeed has caused it. So that perception now has taken hold, and maybe a good thing. But is it proven yet? I don't know if it is. And if shown to be shaky, does such absolutism help or hinder those trying to ease us back to less wasteful ways, or simply hand a 'get out of any responsibility free card' to those needing little incentive to grab such a thing if the science raises doubts on nature's total exclusion from the deal?
And while representatives from about 150 countries, including 80 heads of state or government, were at the meeting, I note it is noted that US President George W Bush was not present. Instead, he is hosting a meeting of 16 "major emitter" countries in Washington on Thursday and Friday.
Who else world-leading emitter-wise, but not mentioned, was not there I wonder? Talk about serving up a distraction on a plate to those who would challenge the motivations of the commissioners? Just give us the facts, and explain them rationally, guys. We don't need to be lead.
And on a final note, what does the team think the actual move to action will be of those strongly moved to respond with... words?
ADDENDUM - speaking of what happens 'twixt headline and what follows:
Guardian Home - Benn rallies US on emissions targets - Do what? Rather, who what?
But click on that to get - Benn calls on US to adopt binding aims on emissions - That's more like it. Nothing like a good call. As to who will pay any more attention this time...
Apparently, 'Mr Benn made his appeal (is that more or less than a call, or better than a rally?) at a climate change summit at the United Nations headquarters in New York... attended by more than 80 heads of state and government...' but '...President George Bush was not at the meeting.'
Now where have I heard that before? Meanwhile, who else wasn't there? Or, for that matter, who was?
Maybe Mr. Brown was less not there than Mr. Bush. Which makes him 'Green God Gordo' by not being something as bad as he could be. Yeah, that'll work.
Guardian - Has the US stand-off run out of steam?
I've read everywhere from the Guardian to the BBC that George Bush did not attend this, but other than Hillary Benn am having trouble finding out which 'world leaders' actually did. Can anyone help?
If this is the 'single, greatest (etc)..' I'd just like to see which of our global great and good didn't feel there was something more pressing at the 'mo.
Guardian - The new climate change pioneer
As the BBC and the Guardian seem to be linking back and forth I have so far gathered that George Bush isn't there, but other than Mr. Benn am having trouble finding out which other 'world leaders' (Does his boss know?) were. Anyone?
Anyway, big up to NZ for some national initiative on the DOING vs. talking front. Maybe it's the perfect entire country for eco-tourism, once the whole flying thing can be addressed.
Mind you, I do have a certain sympathy with those who try and point out certain comparisons need to be matched with a few realities.
Some Singaporean chums once challenged me to explain why the UK could not be more like their city state in terms of economy, transport, etc. I had to point out that if one put a wall round London it would be a pretty rich place with a public tube and bus system that's... well, it would be a pretty rich place.
At least I managed to note that their thirst for oil per head was also top of the list, too. So being small doesn't automatically make it easier to go green.
ADDENDUM - Having had little that made sense from our media here, I have turned to Google. And roamed a world of headlines, from Thailand's Bangkok Post to some Canadian effort. What was first of all interesting was how many had either taken a lead from the same press release, or had a very similar take on it all. Like, word for word.
At least I now know that a fair number of 'world leaders' were there: France, Germany, Canada at least. Plus Al Gore. I also know, A LOT, that George Bush wasn't. Condi Rice was. What I didn't see was that the Prime Minister of the UK also didn't quite make it, but sent our A team instead. For some reason the Chinese just sending their Foreign Minister was OK, too. No word yet on Putin being there or not, or indeed what the Indian contingent comprised.
One thing's for sure, it didn't come across as the be-all-and-end-all that some media seemed to wish it was, but mainly because of the way it was reported.
Grist - Every Momentum Counts
U.N. hosts one-day climate meeting to spur climate-agreement fever
They usually talk sense.
I loved this though: Gathering momentum for a United Nations climate conference in Bali, - at last I can make it up!
And an answer, of sorts: The conference attracted 150 nations, about 80 of which sent at least their heads of state, making it the best-attended climate meeting in U.N. history among high-level officials
Plus a certain, welcome, pragmatism: 'However, since it's being hosted by the binding-agreement-wary U.S., critics see little coming out of the meeting but voluntary actions and vague technology-sharing agreements. Oh, and probably press releases and goodie bags too'. Darn, I forgot to mention the goodie bags. I wonder if Mr. Benn will have spares?
Sometimes non-disclosure can tell you a great deal
In the great global warming debate, there has long been a succession of 'experts' wheeled out to denounce any statement suggesting the climate change is anthropogenic in any way. One of these experts is Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute, who has appeared in dozens of media reports, live talk shows and debates in the USA.
This from PR-Watch.Org reports on how Michaels has withdrawn as a witness from a high profile Vermont court case rather than be forced to disclose his sources of funding.
Surely he hadn't got something to hide, had he?
This from PR-Watch.Org reports on how Michaels has withdrawn as a witness from a high profile Vermont court case rather than be forced to disclose his sources of funding.
Surely he hadn't got something to hide, had he?
Wot 'e sed
Also from the Indy Letters Page, this time from a former Chairperson: More recycling of plastic water bottles
Bearing in mind the Indy and others are trying to ban this method of packaging for this source of fluid, I'll just highlight a few key bits:
Cahal Milmo's article "Bottled drinks companies under pressure to boost recycling rates" (18 September) demonstrated the commitment of soft-drinks and bottled-water companies to deal with the ecological impact of "wasted" plastic bottles, particularly PET (polyethylene terephthalate).
PET plastic is one of the best materials for transporting and retailing soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. Its manufacturing process is ideal for on-site production, with the final bottle being exceptionally strong, flexible and lightweight. It meets the needs of producers and distributors, as well as the consumer, being safe in the home and convenient to carry; and it can be recycled.
What is wrong is that few governments are able to deliver effective recycling systems. The UK's landfill treatment of waste is disastrous. PET has a "long life", which is not good news in a landfill but it can now be recycled to "food grade" standard with more efficiency than glass. Already some UK and European bottled-water brands incorporate recycled PET in their new bottle production. The UK lags behind, largely because our plastics waste is not efficiently "streamed" so there is a shortage of "clean" UK PET waste for recycling. However, now the UK's first PET recycling plant has started operations supply should improve.
Ian Hall
Former Chairman, the Natural Mineral Water Association
Bearing in mind the Indy and others are trying to ban this method of packaging for this source of fluid, I'll just highlight a few key bits:
Cahal Milmo's article "Bottled drinks companies under pressure to boost recycling rates" (18 September) demonstrated the commitment of soft-drinks and bottled-water companies to deal with the ecological impact of "wasted" plastic bottles, particularly PET (polyethylene terephthalate).
PET plastic is one of the best materials for transporting and retailing soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. Its manufacturing process is ideal for on-site production, with the final bottle being exceptionally strong, flexible and lightweight. It meets the needs of producers and distributors, as well as the consumer, being safe in the home and convenient to carry; and it can be recycled.
What is wrong is that few governments are able to deliver effective recycling systems. The UK's landfill treatment of waste is disastrous. PET has a "long life", which is not good news in a landfill but it can now be recycled to "food grade" standard with more efficiency than glass. Already some UK and European bottled-water brands incorporate recycled PET in their new bottle production. The UK lags behind, largely because our plastics waste is not efficiently "streamed" so there is a shortage of "clean" UK PET waste for recycling. However, now the UK's first PET recycling plant has started operations supply should improve.
Ian Hall
Former Chairman, the Natural Mineral Water Association
In the Red
I noticed this in the Indy Letters page: Time is short to avoid a new mass extinction of species
Now I know that I'm easily impressed by titles, so I accord Prof. & Dr. perhaps more than I should, but this makes for interesting reading. I'd never heard of the Red List 'til now.
Read behind the lines of this: if a successor species exists that's able to understand [extinction] at all, as having had a completely new cause: humanity. There'll be an extremely thin layer of rock dividing deeper levels full of diverse fossils from shallower levels with hardly any. The marker layer will contain abundant plastic polymer molecules, radioactive decay products from artificial nuclear fusion, and distinctive concentrations of metals.
I don't know if the author means it this way, but my main take is that are simply too darn many of us. The rest are consequences of that. Nice to see our political leaders have their priorities right, then. Not.
Now I know that I'm easily impressed by titles, so I accord Prof. & Dr. perhaps more than I should, but this makes for interesting reading. I'd never heard of the Red List 'til now.
Read behind the lines of this: if a successor species exists that's able to understand [extinction] at all, as having had a completely new cause: humanity. There'll be an extremely thin layer of rock dividing deeper levels full of diverse fossils from shallower levels with hardly any. The marker layer will contain abundant plastic polymer molecules, radioactive decay products from artificial nuclear fusion, and distinctive concentrations of metals.
I don't know if the author means it this way, but my main take is that are simply too darn many of us. The rest are consequences of that. Nice to see our political leaders have their priorities right, then. Not.
A nice little place in the sun
I clicked on this honestly expecting something else: More shabby delaying tactics
No, not the 'big issue' of will he/won't he?
It starts: All the recent scientific evidence suggests that the process of climate change is occurring at a faster pace than previously predicted.
Meanwhile, our Dear Leader has made, by all accounts 'A good start' (well, ignoring the last 10 years I guess) according to most chattering class media, based on all I can see are a collection of puff-piece 'must do's, must do betters, looking intos and not acceptables - Indy Leader: The Prime Minister's speech was full of stirring conviction but gave little away. Well, D'uh. Maybe saying nothing is getting a bit tired, if still proving effective on some.
Mr. Bush was not the only one indulging in his usual shabby delaying tactics. Or did not turn up to the UN meeting. And while the world's largest economy may refuse to engage honestly with the crisis in an abnegation of leadership of epic and scandalous proportions, it's not the only one.
I really could care less about whether there is an election now or later, and that our leadership and the media that serve them in the Westminster Village can say they care about issues rather than playing silly games, whilst playing the silliest games of all and addressing little but trivia, does make me wonder about the sense of proportion this side of the pond as well.
Green Party - Brown is kicking climate change into the long grass - That will be short, Brown grass at this rate.
Time precludes me from doing much other hunting and gathering (and verifying), so I'll leave it to these guys. I can't say I can argue much.
'...instead of changing the Climate Change Bill , he's chosen to kick it into the long grass by leaving it for the climate change committee when it's eventually established. We don't have time for yet more commissions and reviews, for more political delay.'
"Worse than that, Brown's speech failed to indicate any new, effective policy measures on climate change, which are desperately needed after a decade of inaction and failing policies from his government.'
No, not the 'big issue' of will he/won't he?
It starts: All the recent scientific evidence suggests that the process of climate change is occurring at a faster pace than previously predicted.
Meanwhile, our Dear Leader has made, by all accounts 'A good start' (well, ignoring the last 10 years I guess) according to most chattering class media, based on all I can see are a collection of puff-piece 'must do's, must do betters, looking intos and not acceptables - Indy Leader: The Prime Minister's speech was full of stirring conviction but gave little away. Well, D'uh. Maybe saying nothing is getting a bit tired, if still proving effective on some.
Mr. Bush was not the only one indulging in his usual shabby delaying tactics. Or did not turn up to the UN meeting. And while the world's largest economy may refuse to engage honestly with the crisis in an abnegation of leadership of epic and scandalous proportions, it's not the only one.
I really could care less about whether there is an election now or later, and that our leadership and the media that serve them in the Westminster Village can say they care about issues rather than playing silly games, whilst playing the silliest games of all and addressing little but trivia, does make me wonder about the sense of proportion this side of the pond as well.
Green Party - Brown is kicking climate change into the long grass - That will be short, Brown grass at this rate.
Time precludes me from doing much other hunting and gathering (and verifying), so I'll leave it to these guys. I can't say I can argue much.
'...instead of changing the Climate Change Bill , he's chosen to kick it into the long grass by leaving it for the climate change committee when it's eventually established. We don't have time for yet more commissions and reviews, for more political delay.'
"Worse than that, Brown's speech failed to indicate any new, effective policy measures on climate change, which are desperately needed after a decade of inaction and failing policies from his government.'
Monday, September 24, 2007
Shouldn't do what it says on the tin
Food Flight! The Argument Over Flying Organic Food - Is one of those that in most ways is sad, but in others make you giggle when you shouldn't.
Just how the Soil Association can figure removing an organic label from something airflown defeats me purely as a matter of language. The two are different, and distinct.
But it also shows the knots the various competing nanny-movements are getting themselves into, and dragging us down with them as well.
Especially when I read this: We at TreeHugger would hope that viable alternative jet fuels or solar powered planes or those using zero-emission fuel cell technology would come into play before it comes to that.
Solar powered planes! Today I am having trouble lighting a bulb with a 1sqm array.
Indy - It would be neither fair nor helpful to ban all air freight
I'm not sure '...only one tenth of carbon emissions from food transportation-, and growing is quite the thing to dismiss.
And while I agree that wasting less food would be far more effective I just wonder how? In fact, taking our own family, some of the most vilified packaging initiatives seem to be helping: individual salad or one person portions, as examples.
The rest is fair discussion.
Indy letters - Food air-freighted from Africa
Just how the Soil Association can figure removing an organic label from something airflown defeats me purely as a matter of language. The two are different, and distinct.
But it also shows the knots the various competing nanny-movements are getting themselves into, and dragging us down with them as well.
Especially when I read this: We at TreeHugger would hope that viable alternative jet fuels or solar powered planes or those using zero-emission fuel cell technology would come into play before it comes to that.
Solar powered planes! Today I am having trouble lighting a bulb with a 1sqm array.
Indy - It would be neither fair nor helpful to ban all air freight
I'm not sure '...only one tenth of carbon emissions from food transportation-, and growing is quite the thing to dismiss.
And while I agree that wasting less food would be far more effective I just wonder how? In fact, taking our own family, some of the most vilified packaging initiatives seem to be helping: individual salad or one person portions, as examples.
The rest is fair discussion.
Indy letters - Food air-freighted from Africa
One man's issue of conscience can be another's meal
Having lived in Asia, I have seen first hand how other cultures do their thing. And cope. I have also seen how predominantly Western sensibilities can lob a big ethical spanner in a very complex works: The ‘carbon offset’ child labourers
So when I saw this headline I thought 'Oo, 'eck, here we go again'. 'Better dead so one can feel fine, than fed and spoil the luvvies' bleeding heart wine' was how some viewed the activities of a few liberal groups crashing about the jungle in days of old. It's a tricky one, but to some kids not having a job was worse than having a rotten one.
This piece seems a bit of a stretch, though. Even with my faith in low to no provenance-checked carbon buy-offs so well entrenched.
But I really can't see how 'helping persuade' families to give up labour-saving (and cost sucking) diesel pumps is so awful. I guess it depends on what is meant by 'help persuade'.
Which may be explained (though I doubt soon, here or anywhere) by the Indian experts who have criticised the scheme, saying it forces anyone to do anything. The bit about travellers I'll go with.
But then we get to the Old Ming sells his Jag to prove he's green issue, namely: “It’s not being monitored properly. It’s not reducing emissions. People are selling their diesel pumps to others who are using them.”
That does warrant a look, and frankly outweighs the several awards. And if four reports had identified major benefits, maybe they're all worth looking at in more depth.
So when I saw this headline I thought 'Oo, 'eck, here we go again'. 'Better dead so one can feel fine, than fed and spoil the luvvies' bleeding heart wine' was how some viewed the activities of a few liberal groups crashing about the jungle in days of old. It's a tricky one, but to some kids not having a job was worse than having a rotten one.
This piece seems a bit of a stretch, though. Even with my faith in low to no provenance-checked carbon buy-offs so well entrenched.
But I really can't see how 'helping persuade' families to give up labour-saving (and cost sucking) diesel pumps is so awful. I guess it depends on what is meant by 'help persuade'.
Which may be explained (though I doubt soon, here or anywhere) by the Indian experts who have criticised the scheme, saying it forces anyone to do anything. The bit about travellers I'll go with.
But then we get to the Old Ming sells his Jag to prove he's green issue, namely: “It’s not being monitored properly. It’s not reducing emissions. People are selling their diesel pumps to others who are using them.”
That does warrant a look, and frankly outweighs the several awards. And if four reports had identified major benefits, maybe they're all worth looking at in more depth.
There's what is. There's what might be. And then there's what probably should be.
I have 'do what?!' sensors. And when I read something like this they get put on alert: ‘Fertilising’ oceans with iron may combat climate change
Now I like science along with the next fellow. I also really like things that can help. But when I see something that 'may' work being written up so factually, especially when it's about a short-term mitigation 'solution' of dubious merit that impacts the rest of the planet, I do wonder why it's up there.
It's only later you get to find out that there are some down sides. Mind you, lobbing a ton of car in to get back 100,000 tons of C02 seems like a deal... if it works. Maybe we could set up a ramp at Land's End. Furthest out gets a prize. I know, a trip to the Antarctic!
Meanwhile this, which I saw in passing, seemed more of a worry: Rapeseed biofuel ‘produces more greenhouse gas than oil or petrol’ - then you read the comments. What to believe?
Tinkers those journos, eh?
Now I like science along with the next fellow. I also really like things that can help. But when I see something that 'may' work being written up so factually, especially when it's about a short-term mitigation 'solution' of dubious merit that impacts the rest of the planet, I do wonder why it's up there.
It's only later you get to find out that there are some down sides. Mind you, lobbing a ton of car in to get back 100,000 tons of C02 seems like a deal... if it works. Maybe we could set up a ramp at Land's End. Furthest out gets a prize. I know, a trip to the Antarctic!
Meanwhile this, which I saw in passing, seemed more of a worry: Rapeseed biofuel ‘produces more greenhouse gas than oil or petrol’ - then you read the comments. What to believe?
Tinkers those journos, eh?
The cause now seeking a celeb may be found at...
Speaking of celebs (well some in the big business world seem to be accorded that accolade), I found this an interesting 3rd party view on just what it all achieves: Look at us, doing good
Now, no one can or has arched an eyebrow more and higher than me on who bolts themselves to what with questionable consequences and even worse motivations, but to have a skewering from within ranks was novel.
I even pop in a picture I'd cut out last week while we aware in London with a view to going 'OMG, I must get some of those!'
You have to love this, from one of the best examples: “I do Third World, I’ve been doing Third World since 1994,”
So here's a website for those who want to give in a targeted, intelligent and private way, rather than those who only ever get their chequebook out with their tiara: the Big Give
It will be interesting to see how well it does (I guess by definition we won't see much about from whom), and how much support the parasite industries feel like supporting it either, beyond this piece.
More on Hydrogen
I could not help but note that at the awards on Friday (love saying that) one of the co-winners was Citroen, in a category with a few other big names doing all sorts of eco stuff.
Thing is, I don't think they do much involving anything other than small cars going a long way on existing fuels. Interesting.
Anyways, last week Jeremy Clarkson was waxing lyrical about hydrogen. This week there are some replies. I was surprised, but as one come from a Professor of Engineering, it is worth keeping one's mind open. Especially this:
It takes slightly more energy to produce hydrogen by splitting water (the only means we have of obtaining it), than is produced when the hydrogen is recombined by burning it in an engine.
I wonder if we'll hear more on this. Doubt we'll see Stuart Rose going to Plan C5 too soon, though.
ADDENDUM -
As it is provoking a worthy and fascinating discussion, here's a new one for fun:
BBC - Hydrogen powered bus is showcased
'Depending on how it is produced, hydrogen fuel is a clean, green source of power that can be easily stored.
The bus is powered by a cell which uses hydrogen as it fuel, cutting out the need for non-environmentally friendly fuels, the university said.'
... depending on how it is produced, then? Which means it is...?
This is all valuable research, to be sure, but the fudge on its current eco-friendliness is a thorn in my view that mars the narrative.
Thing is, I don't think they do much involving anything other than small cars going a long way on existing fuels. Interesting.
Anyways, last week Jeremy Clarkson was waxing lyrical about hydrogen. This week there are some replies. I was surprised, but as one come from a Professor of Engineering, it is worth keeping one's mind open. Especially this:
It takes slightly more energy to produce hydrogen by splitting water (the only means we have of obtaining it), than is produced when the hydrogen is recombined by burning it in an engine.
I wonder if we'll hear more on this. Doubt we'll see Stuart Rose going to Plan C5 too soon, though.
ADDENDUM -
As it is provoking a worthy and fascinating discussion, here's a new one for fun:
BBC - Hydrogen powered bus is showcased
'Depending on how it is produced, hydrogen fuel is a clean, green source of power that can be easily stored.
The bus is powered by a cell which uses hydrogen as it fuel, cutting out the need for non-environmentally friendly fuels, the university said.'
... depending on how it is produced, then? Which means it is...?
This is all valuable research, to be sure, but the fudge on its current eco-friendliness is a thorn in my view that mars the narrative.
There are rules, and then there are rules made to break your faith in the system
As I think Transport for London were a co-sponsor of the Awards, Friday was not the night to have a go at them or anything, but I was not best impressed to find that, having arrived (yes, we went by car - try getting back to Ross at night any other way) at 5.30pm and inadvertently passing into the C-zone (and the actual signage being VERY unclear to those not from London who may not be aware of the 'rules'), by obviously having to wait 'ti the next day to pay our fee (the House of Lords not being a major retailer of such things) we'd been stung another £2 (on top of £8) for the privilege. Why? There is no reason I can see other than sheer, naked, greed.
Also, as we are on the not so small matter of legislation and the public it serves, on the news I heard that 'forgetting' who was driving if snapped by a robot is now going to be made an offence. My wife and I swapped several times en route home to stay fresh. We have no clue who was in which seat when. yet we are guilty until we can prove... er, no... we are just guilty. This is madness.
And how many pols in our 'Houses of' are prone to having no recollection of events by way of getting out of them. That is sheer hypocrisy.
Also, as we are on the not so small matter of legislation and the public it serves, on the news I heard that 'forgetting' who was driving if snapped by a robot is now going to be made an offence. My wife and I swapped several times en route home to stay fresh. We have no clue who was in which seat when. yet we are guilty until we can prove... er, no... we are just guilty. This is madness.
And how many pols in our 'Houses of' are prone to having no recollection of events by way of getting out of them. That is sheer hypocrisy.
DEAR LEADER
Putting words in Gordon's mouth - what he does with them is another matter.
Labour 07: A range of opinion-formers and campaigners says what they'd like to see the prime minister address in his conference speech. And you?
Dear Mr. Brown,
As you've had a wee while to figure some stuff out, and do at last seem moved to tackle them, I'd be keen to hear what's the plan with what some (including your predecessor) seem (well, TB has gone off on other fun and games, I guess) to think is a pretty major issue, namely climate change?
Thing is, this neat little collection of 'opinion-formers' (Really? By whose measure?) and campaigners (I guess it depends on who gets asked) above seems to have avoided even mentioning it, as have all bar one (so far) posters.
Is it therefore as a irrelevant in the great scheme of things as this deafening silence would seem to indicate, or simply not too convenient to think about (much less address right now, well, until later) in the scramble for power?
The current lack of motivation on the part of the general public becomes ever more easy to explain in light of such woeful fudging.
My understanding is that doing nothing was/is/won't be an option, and while it may seem a nifty way to hit the high points in the polls by having no stance on anything, at least for now, I'd really appreciate some leadership. Playing coy with 'your' next election is a game to play; playing fast and loose with my kids' futures isn't.
I really am intrigued as to how what some are saying is the greatest threat 'we' face isn't an agenda item. Who knows what I don't?
BBC - World leaders at climate summit - And they would be...?
BBC - Brown refuses to end poll fever -And who has this sickness? Not I!
BBC - Decision not taken? - Ahhhhh, so.
Guardian - Brown urges US to accept carbon limits - Ahhhh, an 'urge'. That'll do it. Meanwhile, if we can get back home a mo'...
If that letter is his most significant statement to date on the matter, one can only imagine what would happened if he was too focused elsewhere to be much bothered.
I am grateful to Adam of CNET (more on them soon) for the link.
Labour 07: A range of opinion-formers and campaigners says what they'd like to see the prime minister address in his conference speech. And you?
Dear Mr. Brown,
As you've had a wee while to figure some stuff out, and do at last seem moved to tackle them, I'd be keen to hear what's the plan with what some (including your predecessor) seem (well, TB has gone off on other fun and games, I guess) to think is a pretty major issue, namely climate change?
Thing is, this neat little collection of 'opinion-formers' (Really? By whose measure?) and campaigners (I guess it depends on who gets asked) above seems to have avoided even mentioning it, as have all bar one (so far) posters.
Is it therefore as a irrelevant in the great scheme of things as this deafening silence would seem to indicate, or simply not too convenient to think about (much less address right now, well, until later) in the scramble for power?
The current lack of motivation on the part of the general public becomes ever more easy to explain in light of such woeful fudging.
My understanding is that doing nothing was/is/won't be an option, and while it may seem a nifty way to hit the high points in the polls by having no stance on anything, at least for now, I'd really appreciate some leadership. Playing coy with 'your' next election is a game to play; playing fast and loose with my kids' futures isn't.
I really am intrigued as to how what some are saying is the greatest threat 'we' face isn't an agenda item. Who knows what I don't?
BBC - World leaders at climate summit - And they would be...?
BBC - Brown refuses to end poll fever -And who has this sickness? Not I!
BBC - Decision not taken? - Ahhhhh, so.
Guardian - Brown urges US to accept carbon limits - Ahhhh, an 'urge'. That'll do it. Meanwhile, if we can get back home a mo'...
If that letter is his most significant statement to date on the matter, one can only imagine what would happened if he was too focused elsewhere to be much bothered.
I am grateful to Adam of CNET (more on them soon) for the link.
The equations of living
Some of these new equations of living are very funny, some quite quirky. Check them out on the mini slide show on the ClimateChangeAction blog. I particularly like the one for Greenwash.
Greenwash = Words divided by Deeds
Greenwash = Words divided by Deeds
Riding the waves
The UK government has granted planning permission for what is being billed as the world's first large scale wave farm. As reported by EDIE, the wave farm, 15 miles off the coast, should generate some 20MegaWatts, thereby providing up to 3% of Cornwall's domestic electricity needs once operational in 2009.
If this works well, perhaps, in another couple of decades or so, we'll see these all around the UK's coast, probably alongside a forest of offshore wind farms.
If this works well, perhaps, in another couple of decades or so, we'll see these all around the UK's coast, probably alongside a forest of offshore wind farms.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
RESULT!
Well... veni, munchie, didn't we... do well!
I have to say one of the more glittering occasions I've have ever attended.
Prior to the awards we had a private tour of the Houses of Lords and Commons, and very interesting it was too! I stood right at the point that our Leader stands (sitting not allowed as the leather can't take too much, and in any case who knows what lurks underneath), and forgot to have my picture taken. Ah well.
That lack of photo archiving is made up for below, and when the 'official' shots arrive we'll blow that trumpet, too. Along with fellow winners such as Citroen and Tesco, so we were in good company.
All, in all, a worthy night out. Thank you EAST Journal.
I have to say one of the more glittering occasions I've have ever attended.
Prior to the awards we had a private tour of the Houses of Lords and Commons, and very interesting it was too! I stood right at the point that our Leader stands (sitting not allowed as the leather can't take too much, and in any case who knows what lurks underneath), and forgot to have my picture taken. Ah well.
That lack of photo archiving is made up for below, and when the 'official' shots arrive we'll blow that trumpet, too. Along with fellow winners such as Citroen and Tesco, so we were in good company.
All, in all, a worthy night out. Thank you EAST Journal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)