VBS offers airtime incentive to socially beneficial advertisers
Sort of an ee-BOGOF? (Enviro/Electronic)
Now all I need is the £ to match the other one.
Worth a go.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
CATEGORY - FISHING
Another day, another category:
fishonline.org - The Marine Conservation Society, Britain's biggest marine charity, has a list of fish to eat and fish to avoid
fishonline.org - The Marine Conservation Society, Britain's biggest marine charity, has a list of fish to eat and fish to avoid
Fishing in the stocks
I raised this in a recent blog and as it's mentioned in more detail here think it's worth sharing: How do we balance conservation with the interests of the fishing industry?
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why it is beyond the ken of those in charge not to figure out a cost-effective, practical and fair way to police this issue to the satisfaction of the conservationist whilst avoiding such grotesque WASTE!!!! '...between 40 and 60 per cent of fish caught each year is thrown over the side.'
Actually, hold that thought. I can figure out why it is beyond their ken. It's tricky. They don't do tricky any more.
Meanwhile, in the spirit of proactivity: The Marine Conservation Society, Britain's biggest marine charity, has a list of fish to eat and fish to avoid on its website – fishonline.org. Waitrose and Marks & Spencer top its list of supermarkets for sustainable fish.
BBC - Fish dumping 'will ruin industry'
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why it is beyond the ken of those in charge not to figure out a cost-effective, practical and fair way to police this issue to the satisfaction of the conservationist whilst avoiding such grotesque WASTE!!!! '...between 40 and 60 per cent of fish caught each year is thrown over the side.'
Actually, hold that thought. I can figure out why it is beyond their ken. It's tricky. They don't do tricky any more.
Meanwhile, in the spirit of proactivity: The Marine Conservation Society, Britain's biggest marine charity, has a list of fish to eat and fish to avoid on its website – fishonline.org. Waitrose and Marks & Spencer top its list of supermarkets for sustainable fish.
BBC - Fish dumping 'will ruin industry'
Running on empty
I get a lot of things from BBC Breakfast News, but seldom epiphanies.
It happened during a morning catalogue of failures, but three in short order struck me.
1. The HM Customs & Revenue cock up.
2. A story on failures in the NHS, with a couple seeking/getting compo for their kid's poor, ultimately fatal, treatment. They get money for their loss (not quite sure how this benefits them, or indeed susbsequent families, but there we go. I'd want justice, not cash). Where from? And how are those responsible for the mess prevented from repeating them?
3. The summit on 'binge drinking' whereby the government (indeed Mr. 'key issues' Brown) is requiring the drinks industry to 'deal' with the issue. They may be complicit through woeful ethics and morals, but it's all still legal, the rules of which are set by whom?
It is now clear to me that we are in a situation where everyone is responsible, with all the benefits such positions confer, but no one is accountable. This is as true of much in the private sector as public, but in the latter it has become truly endemic. Government. Local Authority. Health Service. Quango. BBC.
And those outside the system are cursed to continually pick up the tab for those within it. Why do I pay for the fine for a failure that has impacted upon me?
From Northern Rock to hospital cock-ups to Treasury melt-downs to you name it, the one thing that has gone stratospheric, is the amount of money institutions (and their failed managements) shell out to 'deal' with the failings of individuals within them.
So it's not just the screw-ups, it's the screw-ups who oversee them too.
We need to ask why. And who. And hold all of them to account.
Speaking of which, I think I now see the reasons behind the various urgencies for various stellar government operatives to move into a new slot. I have a vision of a Looney Tunes cartoon with fizzing packages marked 'my last 10 years' being handed from Blair to Brown and Brown to Darling (and...)
ADDENDUM:
Actually, I was wondering if any of the techno-whizzes out there could do a quick Google/cache/whatever so we could have a list of just how many times a government munchkin has gone on air or in print over the last few months to say 'we must learn from these mistakes', with the rictus grin of one with no intention of doing so.
Better yet, with a wee tally besides to show just how many they patently haven't 'learned from', and the consequences (or not) to those who have suffered from this double-speak, compared (career/£/pension-wise) with those who still gain by getting away with it.
Sorry, I'm grumpy.*
*Two conversations , so far, (one with SKY, one with Halifax) that went in circles as they called me today but wanted first, for data protection reasons, to confirm my details. In light of events, I told them to tell me what they had on me and I would confirm or not. But no, they needed me to tell them. Nice one Nu-Lab! Now nothing can get done... official.
Newsnight
Daily Mash - You gotta laugh, 'else you'll cry
Guardian - The sheer gormlessness of Discgate theatens Labour's claim to power
Indy - Lost in the post: the personal details of 25 million people - a few questions.
Me, I just wonder how the whole salary/pension thing works out once the dust settles.
ADDENDUM: And this, Mr. Darling, is why it matters to me:
HSBC Security Precaution
Dear Valued Customer,
For your security, we have temporarily prevented access to your online banking.
HSBC safeguard your account when there is a possibility that someone other than you is logging on. You may be getting this message because you are logging on from a different location or device.If this is the case, your access may be restored when you revalidate your logon details.Please click on Get Started button below to continue to the verification process
Get Started
N.B (Failure to validate your logon details correctly might lead to online access suspension)
I don't have an HSBC account. It took 'em less than 24hrs to get going on the disarray this situation has created.
BBC - A yawning gap
It happened during a morning catalogue of failures, but three in short order struck me.
1. The HM Customs & Revenue cock up.
2. A story on failures in the NHS, with a couple seeking/getting compo for their kid's poor, ultimately fatal, treatment. They get money for their loss (not quite sure how this benefits them, or indeed susbsequent families, but there we go. I'd want justice, not cash). Where from? And how are those responsible for the mess prevented from repeating them?
3. The summit on 'binge drinking' whereby the government (indeed Mr. 'key issues' Brown) is requiring the drinks industry to 'deal' with the issue. They may be complicit through woeful ethics and morals, but it's all still legal, the rules of which are set by whom?
It is now clear to me that we are in a situation where everyone is responsible, with all the benefits such positions confer, but no one is accountable. This is as true of much in the private sector as public, but in the latter it has become truly endemic. Government. Local Authority. Health Service. Quango. BBC.
And those outside the system are cursed to continually pick up the tab for those within it. Why do I pay for the fine for a failure that has impacted upon me?
From Northern Rock to hospital cock-ups to Treasury melt-downs to you name it, the one thing that has gone stratospheric, is the amount of money institutions (and their failed managements) shell out to 'deal' with the failings of individuals within them.
So it's not just the screw-ups, it's the screw-ups who oversee them too.
We need to ask why. And who. And hold all of them to account.
Speaking of which, I think I now see the reasons behind the various urgencies for various stellar government operatives to move into a new slot. I have a vision of a Looney Tunes cartoon with fizzing packages marked 'my last 10 years' being handed from Blair to Brown and Brown to Darling (and...)
ADDENDUM:
Actually, I was wondering if any of the techno-whizzes out there could do a quick Google/cache/whatever so we could have a list of just how many times a government munchkin has gone on air or in print over the last few months to say 'we must learn from these mistakes', with the rictus grin of one with no intention of doing so.
Better yet, with a wee tally besides to show just how many they patently haven't 'learned from', and the consequences (or not) to those who have suffered from this double-speak, compared (career/£/pension-wise) with those who still gain by getting away with it.
Sorry, I'm grumpy.*
*Two conversations , so far, (one with SKY, one with Halifax) that went in circles as they called me today but wanted first, for data protection reasons, to confirm my details. In light of events, I told them to tell me what they had on me and I would confirm or not. But no, they needed me to tell them. Nice one Nu-Lab! Now nothing can get done... official.
Newsnight
Daily Mash - You gotta laugh, 'else you'll cry
Guardian - The sheer gormlessness of Discgate theatens Labour's claim to power
Indy - Lost in the post: the personal details of 25 million people - a few questions.
Me, I just wonder how the whole salary/pension thing works out once the dust settles.
ADDENDUM: And this, Mr. Darling, is why it matters to me:
HSBC Security Precaution
Dear Valued Customer,
For your security, we have temporarily prevented access to your online banking.
HSBC safeguard your account when there is a possibility that someone other than you is logging on. You may be getting this message because you are logging on from a different location or device.If this is the case, your access may be restored when you revalidate your logon details.Please click on Get Started button below to continue to the verification process
Get Started
N.B (Failure to validate your logon details correctly might lead to online access suspension)
I don't have an HSBC account. It took 'em less than 24hrs to get going on the disarray this situation has created.
BBC - A yawning gap
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
No ifs, No buts.
I think that was the strap line for the benefit fraud advertlet that I saw recently on TV.
Shame that HM Revenue and Customs can't seem to look after their own computer records properly. So Paul Gray, chairman of HM Revenue and Customs, has resigned over this disaster. They managed to lose the personal data of some 25 million people! Have they never heard of backup? The responsibility, and accountability, for this rests at ministerial level.
So, coming on top of the revelations about just how much government (i.e. read, our) money has been used to prop up Northern Rock ........ No if, No buts, Darling; just resign.
But that would require accountability, which does not seem to be a term that exists in the realm of pols nowadays.
Shame that HM Revenue and Customs can't seem to look after their own computer records properly. So Paul Gray, chairman of HM Revenue and Customs, has resigned over this disaster. They managed to lose the personal data of some 25 million people! Have they never heard of backup? The responsibility, and accountability, for this rests at ministerial level.
So, coming on top of the revelations about just how much government (i.e. read, our) money has been used to prop up Northern Rock ........ No if, No buts, Darling; just resign.
But that would require accountability, which does not seem to be a term that exists in the realm of pols nowadays.
These guys run on air!
I somehow missed this a few weeks back, but it's still worth sharing. We've all heard of ill fated attempts to create vehicles that run on compressed air, it's something that engineers have tried to do since the 19th century. Well, as reported in the International Herald Tribune, the time of the compressed air (and/or compressed air / petrol or electric hybrid) vehicle, may be nearer than anyone ever realised.
"One prototype, which looks like a big version of a Smart car, can top 68 miles an hour and, at lower speeds, travel up to 120 miles without refueling. Plug the car into an outlet, and the engine, in compressor mode, will refill the tank in four hours."
"The Scuderi Group, in West Springfield, Massachusetts, has a hybrid engine design that compresses air and burns petroleum fuel in separate cylinders and uses some compressed air to extend the petroleum engine."
It sounds like an awfully cheaper technology than any Hydrogen or fuel cell vehicle. It will be interesting to see what future developments bring.
"One prototype, which looks like a big version of a Smart car, can top 68 miles an hour and, at lower speeds, travel up to 120 miles without refueling. Plug the car into an outlet, and the engine, in compressor mode, will refill the tank in four hours."
"The Scuderi Group, in West Springfield, Massachusetts, has a hybrid engine design that compresses air and burns petroleum fuel in separate cylinders and uses some compressed air to extend the petroleum engine."
It sounds like an awfully cheaper technology than any Hydrogen or fuel cell vehicle. It will be interesting to see what future developments bring.
Observation points
Funny how the same thing can get seen very differently, depending on where it is viewed from.
As some may know, I no longer contribute to 'BBC is Biased' because of their moderation policy, which is every bit as selective as the entity they purport to critique, but I do lurk a lot, as snippets of value and even well-considered notions do still get shared.
However, bearing in mind my attention on last night's BBC Newsnight, and the general 'IPCC-(no) evil, speak (no) evil and hear (no) evil' from all sides since Friday, I found a few things of interest:
'Newsnight reached new depths last night in its coverage of Brown's lunatic 'climate change' (higher tax, Soviet-style) measures.
The set-up was that a Greenpeace fanatic was allowed to lambast a colourless government spokesmen for ten minutes on the theme that the measures were not enough. Not an alternative view in sight. To his shame, Paxman aided and abetted the attack, and 'science' reporter Susan Watts has clearly become the harridan cheerleader for Beeboid climate change fascism. '
Slightly before this, we have:
Another vomit inducing lickfest by bunny hugging Richard Black (BBC Environment correspondent)... [let's just say he's not a fan of several folk].
Or...
Yet more garbage from Brown and lapped up... [actually , a few fair points]
Or...
Yep, Friends of the Earth are no longer an independent organisation. As the 'eureferendum' blog [no link, so I don't know if it is true, which I certainly didn't know 'til now] pointed out, they are more than 50% taxpayer funded, and basically a govt/EU dept. It is disgraceful that the Beeb still treats them as independent, and simply allows all their claims to pass unchallenged.
And...
The BBC'2 "expert" on the enfironment (yes that man with a degree in English) Roger Harrabin was spouting the Nu Labour bile... [Questions were asked]
I could go on. 'They' certainly are. And on. And on. At the moment it's back on a 'tis/t'isnt't MM/MWCC slugfest of absolutes... which as all who read this will know, I just love so much. Not.
What I do find interesting, and hence the reason for quoting here, is how one small microcosm of blogdom wants it all, all ways. I'm not defending the BBC at all here, as many comments are pretty bang on on its woeful role in all this. But mix in the government, activist groups (such as FoE, whose status - although as yet unconfirmed - was news to me... and not optimal to make them as credible as voices of 'balance' in debates) and media such as the Indy, Daily Mail, Guardian CiF, etc, and is it any wonder it's all such a mess?
All it shows to me is that you can never reply on one source, for opinion to be sure, but also fact. Some, such as activist groups and media extremes you expect it from. But our national medium and those we pay and rely upon to navigate our course.... sad.
As some may know, I no longer contribute to 'BBC is Biased' because of their moderation policy, which is every bit as selective as the entity they purport to critique, but I do lurk a lot, as snippets of value and even well-considered notions do still get shared.
However, bearing in mind my attention on last night's BBC Newsnight, and the general 'IPCC-(no) evil, speak (no) evil and hear (no) evil' from all sides since Friday, I found a few things of interest:
'Newsnight reached new depths last night in its coverage of Brown's lunatic 'climate change' (higher tax, Soviet-style) measures.
The set-up was that a Greenpeace fanatic was allowed to lambast a colourless government spokesmen for ten minutes on the theme that the measures were not enough. Not an alternative view in sight. To his shame, Paxman aided and abetted the attack, and 'science' reporter Susan Watts has clearly become the harridan cheerleader for Beeboid climate change fascism. '
Slightly before this, we have:
Another vomit inducing lickfest by bunny hugging Richard Black (BBC Environment correspondent)... [let's just say he's not a fan of several folk].
Or...
Yet more garbage from Brown and lapped up... [actually , a few fair points]
Or...
Yep, Friends of the Earth are no longer an independent organisation. As the 'eureferendum' blog [no link, so I don't know if it is true, which I certainly didn't know 'til now] pointed out, they are more than 50% taxpayer funded, and basically a govt/EU dept. It is disgraceful that the Beeb still treats them as independent, and simply allows all their claims to pass unchallenged.
And...
The BBC'2 "expert" on the enfironment (yes that man with a degree in English) Roger Harrabin was spouting the Nu Labour bile... [Questions were asked]
I could go on. 'They' certainly are. And on. And on. At the moment it's back on a 'tis/t'isnt't MM/MWCC slugfest of absolutes... which as all who read this will know, I just love so much. Not.
What I do find interesting, and hence the reason for quoting here, is how one small microcosm of blogdom wants it all, all ways. I'm not defending the BBC at all here, as many comments are pretty bang on on its woeful role in all this. But mix in the government, activist groups (such as FoE, whose status - although as yet unconfirmed - was news to me... and not optimal to make them as credible as voices of 'balance' in debates) and media such as the Indy, Daily Mail, Guardian CiF, etc, and is it any wonder it's all such a mess?
All it shows to me is that you can never reply on one source, for opinion to be sure, but also fact. Some, such as activist groups and media extremes you expect it from. But our national medium and those we pay and rely upon to navigate our course.... sad.
Coundown to Brussels
In one week I head for Belgium to try and 'sell' the RE:tie.
This piece in a trade journal caught my eye, and prompted a reply:
Are trade shows relevant?
Oh, lordy... I hope so! I just one week, I step into a hall in Brussels (I doubt 'Caps & Closures' will seduce many bar the more committed, or keen, but if you or yours are there please say hi) having blown a small fortune on an entry pass, Eurostar (thanks to all the French strikers) and a nice 2* bijou pension quite near the Marriot (I hope), on the odd notion that if I need to meet (to market my eco-related packaging innovation to) those who deal in Caps & Closures... then this is where I need to be to do it in one efficient shot. But... what will it be? A dozen booths staffed by juniors there to sell and not to deal? Seminars with potentially useful speakers who will vanish as soon as they leave the stage? Me sitting next but one (I will say hi to the guy right next to me at the events and in the canteen, but glad-handing every person smacks of desperation) to the Marketing/Packaging/CSR Director of Tescos and not knowing it? And lots of huddled groups of industry insiders who all know each other and are there more to catch up and play golf than find out new stuff? Fingers crossed... none of the above. And, as you say, I will get to meet the guy(s) who are keen to steal a march on the future. But it does cost, and prohibitively so to those trying to visit. And it is only today, with one week to go, that the organisers have released the site to facilitate serious networking. Not much time when I am also trying to coordinate my mobile pitch. I wish it were easier... and cheaper, but nothing ventured...
THIS is what I am talking about
Checking back on my recent posts to Newsnight, I find this more than interesting submission:
Germany has made progress on renewables, but it's not all jam. According to the article, gearboxes which were supposed to last 20 years have been failing in large numbers. There have also been other failures, including rotor blades flying off.
Now whilst the financial cost and percentage of generated power is often quoted, what never is quoted is the whole reason why these things exist in the first place - CO2. If these devices are failing and having to be replaced or repaired frequently, how much extra carbon does that generate and how does it affect the amount they save - in short - are they saving the planet or just another business opportunity?
It also leads to the question, if the UK rushes into more and more renewable before the technologies are mature, are we going to find costs rising on projects just as the Germans have?
Perhaps Newsnight should do a report on the reality of the German experience.
Spiegel Online - The Dangers of Wind Power
No one is saying we don't look around, or try, all manner of worthy solutions. But get the green-tinted glasses off! All we hear is what these things 'can' do at full tilt, 24/7. But as this shows, there are all manner of other considerations (it focuses on safety, but reliability is obviously bound in) that may mean they are not quite the solutions being claimed... especially on enviROI!
Germany has made progress on renewables, but it's not all jam. According to the article, gearboxes which were supposed to last 20 years have been failing in large numbers. There have also been other failures, including rotor blades flying off.
Now whilst the financial cost and percentage of generated power is often quoted, what never is quoted is the whole reason why these things exist in the first place - CO2. If these devices are failing and having to be replaced or repaired frequently, how much extra carbon does that generate and how does it affect the amount they save - in short - are they saving the planet or just another business opportunity?
It also leads to the question, if the UK rushes into more and more renewable before the technologies are mature, are we going to find costs rising on projects just as the Germans have?
Perhaps Newsnight should do a report on the reality of the German experience.
Spiegel Online - The Dangers of Wind Power
No one is saying we don't look around, or try, all manner of worthy solutions. But get the green-tinted glasses off! All we hear is what these things 'can' do at full tilt, 24/7. But as this shows, there are all manner of other considerations (it focuses on safety, but reliability is obviously bound in) that may mean they are not quite the solutions being claimed... especially on enviROI!
Too little, too late
Well, that's the Telegraph's take on Ol' Golden's key speech on the environment.
"the way he squared the circle was to give us rhetoric and a lot of targets pitched into the future, into someone else's term of office."
"it was extremely hard to see that what Mr Brown was proposing bore any relationship to Churchill's 'action this day'. It was more like 'action by 2020'. Targets for renewables, cars and incineration with energy recovery all tripped off his tongue - aimed at a decade or so hence."
"we have learnt to be wary of targets. We recognise obfuscation when we see it. And the only environmental slogan that will be believed is: 'Action in my term of office.' There was none yesterday."
Quite! I couldn't have put it better myself.
Oh, and I just loved the thought of Milliband and Brown looking for ideas to steal off the Tories.
The Times - seem to think it was all about sealing the fate of the plastic carrier bag.
As do those at The Indy. No, I'm being unfair, in its leading article it does take a serious look at the content of his speech. "The sad truth is that on the really big issues, Britain is taking a lead only in the production of hot air rather than in its reduction."
The Guardian - it's 'new and recycled pledges'. And "just like Blair - Brown was short on new policy."
"the way he squared the circle was to give us rhetoric and a lot of targets pitched into the future, into someone else's term of office."
"it was extremely hard to see that what Mr Brown was proposing bore any relationship to Churchill's 'action this day'. It was more like 'action by 2020'. Targets for renewables, cars and incineration with energy recovery all tripped off his tongue - aimed at a decade or so hence."
"we have learnt to be wary of targets. We recognise obfuscation when we see it. And the only environmental slogan that will be believed is: 'Action in my term of office.' There was none yesterday."
Quite! I couldn't have put it better myself.
Oh, and I just loved the thought of Milliband and Brown looking for ideas to steal off the Tories.
The Times - seem to think it was all about sealing the fate of the plastic carrier bag.
As do those at The Indy. No, I'm being unfair, in its leading article it does take a serious look at the content of his speech. "The sad truth is that on the really big issues, Britain is taking a lead only in the production of hot air rather than in its reduction."
The Guardian - it's 'new and recycled pledges'. And "just like Blair - Brown was short on new policy."
Monday, November 19, 2007
And as I sign off...
This from the BBC Newsnight 'teaser': 'And we hope an Environment Minister and the director of Greenpeace will go head to head on this story.'
Other than stumbling a bit over 'an' Environment Minister (how many of the sods are there?), that Newsnight still thinks one of their classic twofers - between a stonewalling 'the word of the Gord; and it is good' pol and an activist - will get the majority of the population stuck in the middle any further ahead in understanding where we are and what we need to do that's best for the future, pretty much sums up just how far down the pan the planet really is headed.
Next we'll be getting travel tips from the hugely qualified 'team' (how many, Freedom of Information request-wise, are going?) packing their factor 15 for the Bali joll... er... trip. Doubtless once there they will hook up round the pool with the aforementioned pols(s) and activist directors to figure how best to tell the rest of us what not to do and what will cost us.
New brooms all round, please.
ADDENDUM - Just watched it.
Well good golly; did that go just as I expected, predicted... and feared.
A defensive pol who got the short straw and with non hiding place, in a snit. An equally defensive media supremo on a high horse. And, actually, the guy from Greenpeace... the activist... about the only voice of calm, if not reason.
That said, we were treated to screeds of data. Targets, mainly. Missed ones even more mainly. Unachievable ones to follow, but who cares as they can be fiddled later or it won't matter to the guys who set them, as they'll have retired on the full golden well before it comes home to roost.
Was I any the wiser as a member of public, a parent... a voter... as to who had a grip on this and, more importantly, what was expected of all - government, business, media, public - and how we were going to rally around and resolve what some say is a crisis... or is it not really? We were talking second slot here. With two guys I'd never heard of as guests. In a piece on the UK's efforts to avoid global meltdown. Or not.
About the only concrete things that vaguely sunk in was some waffle about renewables, but again these were just a bunch of figures that meant nothing to me. So we catch up with Germany and end up with x% offshore, solar, tidal and whatnot by 20yy? But what's the ROI? What's the enviROI? We already are seeing vast amounts being poured into green holes by countless departments and quangos staffed by legions of salaried, pensioned paper-pushers, mainly on 'awareness' that seems to have achieved diddly squat. I must now have about a dozen ways to hand to calculate my carbon footprint, when they could have simply handed the money blown on all this to me to stick more loft insulation up to actually reduce it by a huge domestic %. Or sort out the trains. And I'm sorry, from woefully mis-informed plastic bagwagons to well-lobbied offshore projects, I simply do not trust any of this current sorry cabal of interest groups to tell me what's best for my kids, much less actually bite the bullet and get down and dirty to actually do it. Especially if there's the slightest chance that a well-feathered political nest, career or bottom line can get supported first, first-class from Valencia to Bali via Westminster. Offset of course. Just because these things LOOK green and we're told they are doesn't actually make them any better at reducing CO2, especially in the timeframes I'm hearing. Heck, some may meet a target, boost a rating, score a contribution or fund a conference pass... yet make things worse, climatically.
We are TOLD on Friday that the world is facing a climatic disaster. By Saturday few in the media have much to say about it; fewer still on Sunday. Tonight this is the best we can do, after a bit of a hoo-haa over a bank. That's what gets the ratings, so that's where the media will go. The Minister will go with the votes, and they go where the economy goes, so until he can bail it's just a matter of getting away for as long as possible with 'we need all this stuff because of the economic demands of the electorate' while saying lots 'will/may/could/ be done'. So after 1o years of 'looking at', we'll need to settle of a load more navel gazing until... er... the next load.
I respect the sincerity of activist groups such as Greenpeace, but it really is also way too easy to sit and snipe from a comfy, well-funded 'anti'-position, and ignore other, equally basic realities. Such as growing populations and increased demands on a finite planet to support ever more aspirational, competitive individuals upon it. Addressing these does not play well with the core support, and hence only selected parts of the narrative , the easy ones that play well in Islington, seem to get highlighted. But I certainly endorse spiking the pathetic official charade I heard: claiming carbon capture commitments whilst obviously having no such intention as evidenced by certain projects already committed to. Again, I repeat, after 10 years to get sorted, much less underway. What have they been doing the last decade?
No, it's not that simple. But if it is serious (and I have to believe it is), then for all the rest of us to take it seriously we need those who claim to be taking a lead to show it's serious. And some imagination. Sorry... to date, no one and nothing that's been trotted out so far seems to have floated many folks' boats very successfully, even pretty PR picture ones like the WWF effort opening the piece. So even the current crop of more incentive-based, proactive, well-directed, cost-effective and positive efforts (such as they are) are not getting through. At all. It's all fluff and bluster and scare and guilt and levy and fine. And no result.
What a shambolic performance. By the whole sorry lot. My poor kids.
We need doers; not talkers. And quick.
I have just written to BBC Breakfast news:
The day after Mr. Brown's climate speech, in which there are but a few lines on air travel, and we get... plastic bags.
If we are to get serious on this issue, I'd like to see our national broadcaster get its priorities straight.
What is the actual contribution/impact of this plastic product vs. almost any other?
And I am not even convinced that the ban calls, at least in the current from, are much more than misguided, headlines-friendly knee-jerks.
Is the Irish experience a total success as claimed? Are biodegradables the solution as advised, at least in the blanket manner portrayed?
I am not so sure.
And the thoughts of a grocery magazine editor and a 'NetMummy' (the choice of sofa twofer) hardly the considered, expert, objective views I feel like relying upon to help me decide.
Back to Newsnight:
We need less trivial TV, and a lot more like the fish stocks 'waste' topic that is both substantive and worth addressing, especially during yet another 'awareness' (are you? It's called Love Food. Hate Waste. Full colour ads in the Sunday supps) campaign exhorting the consumer not to waste food.
All I can retain is a 'me-not-EUcrat' smiling benignly and saying 'the principle is clear, but the problem is the detail'. The Devil is laughing that it is the latter that now dominates thinking. We can no longer see the deforestation for the bio-crops.
BBC - Brown tackles the home front - an interesting, er...
ANALYSIS
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Key opening line: 'A smiling Gordon Brown set out his environmental vision in London
Gordon Brown might have made it into a list of the world's sexiest men earlier this year...'
'He did the big picture stuff on UN climate negotiations and global projections for fossil fuel burning.' Did he.. really?
'But he homed in on the small ...' and, some would (well, I would) say are plain distractions from the bigger picture... and failings at top level. Abetted by such as this tripe.
'Advisors will dispense wisdom on saving energy and water, microgeneration, and green travel.' More bloody paid. pensioned talkers, taking money from DOING!!!!
If Green Homes is able to stimulate take-up of microgeneration technologies such as domestic wind turbines, ground source heat pumps and biomass co-generation units, it could put take Britain somewhere towards the third EU target, on renewable energy.' Read that though and wonder.
'The costs and the dearth of suppliers mean the take-up of these technologies is unlikely to be huge.' Is that the reason?
'So meeting the renewable energy target is still going to mean construction on a vast scale of wind and tidal turbines, solar arrays, biomass burners and so on.' How about reducing CO2... the enviROI.
Mr Brown did not neglect these areas.
...Mr Brown is aiming for...
The Severn Barrage is up for serious discussion, and planning reforms should make for easier and faster passage of all feasible renewable proposals.
... government policy would be "examined for its impact on carbon emissions"
'The prime minister's speech has generally been well received by the environment and development organisations....' these being?
'Mr Brown's speech has now pushed their plain sibling to the front of the stage, and we shall see if five million small green shoots can together make a rainbow-bright future.' I guessing this guys a shoo-in for the front of the plane to Bali with the minister!
In-credible!
Other than stumbling a bit over 'an' Environment Minister (how many of the sods are there?), that Newsnight still thinks one of their classic twofers - between a stonewalling 'the word of the Gord; and it is good' pol and an activist - will get the majority of the population stuck in the middle any further ahead in understanding where we are and what we need to do that's best for the future, pretty much sums up just how far down the pan the planet really is headed.
Next we'll be getting travel tips from the hugely qualified 'team' (how many, Freedom of Information request-wise, are going?) packing their factor 15 for the Bali joll... er... trip. Doubtless once there they will hook up round the pool with the aforementioned pols(s) and activist directors to figure how best to tell the rest of us what not to do and what will cost us.
New brooms all round, please.
ADDENDUM - Just watched it.
Well good golly; did that go just as I expected, predicted... and feared.
A defensive pol who got the short straw and with non hiding place, in a snit. An equally defensive media supremo on a high horse. And, actually, the guy from Greenpeace... the activist... about the only voice of calm, if not reason.
That said, we were treated to screeds of data. Targets, mainly. Missed ones even more mainly. Unachievable ones to follow, but who cares as they can be fiddled later or it won't matter to the guys who set them, as they'll have retired on the full golden well before it comes home to roost.
Was I any the wiser as a member of public, a parent... a voter... as to who had a grip on this and, more importantly, what was expected of all - government, business, media, public - and how we were going to rally around and resolve what some say is a crisis... or is it not really? We were talking second slot here. With two guys I'd never heard of as guests. In a piece on the UK's efforts to avoid global meltdown. Or not.
About the only concrete things that vaguely sunk in was some waffle about renewables, but again these were just a bunch of figures that meant nothing to me. So we catch up with Germany and end up with x% offshore, solar, tidal and whatnot by 20yy? But what's the ROI? What's the enviROI? We already are seeing vast amounts being poured into green holes by countless departments and quangos staffed by legions of salaried, pensioned paper-pushers, mainly on 'awareness' that seems to have achieved diddly squat. I must now have about a dozen ways to hand to calculate my carbon footprint, when they could have simply handed the money blown on all this to me to stick more loft insulation up to actually reduce it by a huge domestic %. Or sort out the trains. And I'm sorry, from woefully mis-informed plastic bagwagons to well-lobbied offshore projects, I simply do not trust any of this current sorry cabal of interest groups to tell me what's best for my kids, much less actually bite the bullet and get down and dirty to actually do it. Especially if there's the slightest chance that a well-feathered political nest, career or bottom line can get supported first, first-class from Valencia to Bali via Westminster. Offset of course. Just because these things LOOK green and we're told they are doesn't actually make them any better at reducing CO2, especially in the timeframes I'm hearing. Heck, some may meet a target, boost a rating, score a contribution or fund a conference pass... yet make things worse, climatically.
We are TOLD on Friday that the world is facing a climatic disaster. By Saturday few in the media have much to say about it; fewer still on Sunday. Tonight this is the best we can do, after a bit of a hoo-haa over a bank. That's what gets the ratings, so that's where the media will go. The Minister will go with the votes, and they go where the economy goes, so until he can bail it's just a matter of getting away for as long as possible with 'we need all this stuff because of the economic demands of the electorate' while saying lots 'will/may/could/ be done'. So after 1o years of 'looking at', we'll need to settle of a load more navel gazing until... er... the next load.
I respect the sincerity of activist groups such as Greenpeace, but it really is also way too easy to sit and snipe from a comfy, well-funded 'anti'-position, and ignore other, equally basic realities. Such as growing populations and increased demands on a finite planet to support ever more aspirational, competitive individuals upon it. Addressing these does not play well with the core support, and hence only selected parts of the narrative , the easy ones that play well in Islington, seem to get highlighted. But I certainly endorse spiking the pathetic official charade I heard: claiming carbon capture commitments whilst obviously having no such intention as evidenced by certain projects already committed to. Again, I repeat, after 10 years to get sorted, much less underway. What have they been doing the last decade?
No, it's not that simple. But if it is serious (and I have to believe it is), then for all the rest of us to take it seriously we need those who claim to be taking a lead to show it's serious. And some imagination. Sorry... to date, no one and nothing that's been trotted out so far seems to have floated many folks' boats very successfully, even pretty PR picture ones like the WWF effort opening the piece. So even the current crop of more incentive-based, proactive, well-directed, cost-effective and positive efforts (such as they are) are not getting through. At all. It's all fluff and bluster and scare and guilt and levy and fine. And no result.
What a shambolic performance. By the whole sorry lot. My poor kids.
We need doers; not talkers. And quick.
I have just written to BBC Breakfast news:
The day after Mr. Brown's climate speech, in which there are but a few lines on air travel, and we get... plastic bags.
If we are to get serious on this issue, I'd like to see our national broadcaster get its priorities straight.
What is the actual contribution/impact of this plastic product vs. almost any other?
And I am not even convinced that the ban calls, at least in the current from, are much more than misguided, headlines-friendly knee-jerks.
Is the Irish experience a total success as claimed? Are biodegradables the solution as advised, at least in the blanket manner portrayed?
I am not so sure.
And the thoughts of a grocery magazine editor and a 'NetMummy' (the choice of sofa twofer) hardly the considered, expert, objective views I feel like relying upon to help me decide.
Back to Newsnight:
We need less trivial TV, and a lot more like the fish stocks 'waste' topic that is both substantive and worth addressing, especially during yet another 'awareness' (are you? It's called Love Food. Hate Waste. Full colour ads in the Sunday supps) campaign exhorting the consumer not to waste food.
All I can retain is a 'me-not-EUcrat' smiling benignly and saying 'the principle is clear, but the problem is the detail'. The Devil is laughing that it is the latter that now dominates thinking. We can no longer see the deforestation for the bio-crops.
BBC - Brown tackles the home front - an interesting, er...
ANALYSIS
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Key opening line: 'A smiling Gordon Brown set out his environmental vision in London
Gordon Brown might have made it into a list of the world's sexiest men earlier this year...'
'He did the big picture stuff on UN climate negotiations and global projections for fossil fuel burning.' Did he.. really?
'But he homed in on the small ...' and, some would (well, I would) say are plain distractions from the bigger picture... and failings at top level. Abetted by such as this tripe.
'Advisors will dispense wisdom on saving energy and water, microgeneration, and green travel.' More bloody paid. pensioned talkers, taking money from DOING!!!!
If Green Homes is able to stimulate take-up of microgeneration technologies such as domestic wind turbines, ground source heat pumps and biomass co-generation units, it could put take Britain somewhere towards the third EU target, on renewable energy.' Read that though and wonder.
'The costs and the dearth of suppliers mean the take-up of these technologies is unlikely to be huge.' Is that the reason?
'So meeting the renewable energy target is still going to mean construction on a vast scale of wind and tidal turbines, solar arrays, biomass burners and so on.' How about reducing CO2... the enviROI.
Mr Brown did not neglect these areas.
...Mr Brown is aiming for...
The Severn Barrage is up for serious discussion, and planning reforms should make for easier and faster passage of all feasible renewable proposals.
... government policy would be "examined for its impact on carbon emissions"
'The prime minister's speech has generally been well received by the environment and development organisations....' these being?
'Mr Brown's speech has now pushed their plain sibling to the front of the stage, and we shall see if five million small green shoots can together make a rainbow-bright future.' I guessing this guys a shoo-in for the front of the plane to Bali with the minister!
In-credible!
A cross between Nixon & Mr. Bean
We don't often feature non-enviro posts on Junkk, but I'm allowing myself a slight diversion into the world of pure (sic) politics.
That post title is the excoriating description of our PM, Ol' Golden, by the Daily Express.
"Only five months into his Premiership Brown shows all the signs of becoming a unique creation: the gruff, unbalanced mediocrity of 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon mixed with the comic absurdity of Mr Bean. No wonder so many Britons seem desperate to leave the country."
I have to confess that I hadn't realised that his ratings had fallen as far in the polls as they suggest. Though to be fair, Ol' Golden's been that quiet of late, I'd almost forgotten he was our PM.
Oh, just for fun, here's the Daily Mail's take on our "constipated" and "dysfunctional" government.
That post title is the excoriating description of our PM, Ol' Golden, by the Daily Express.
"Only five months into his Premiership Brown shows all the signs of becoming a unique creation: the gruff, unbalanced mediocrity of 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon mixed with the comic absurdity of Mr Bean. No wonder so many Britons seem desperate to leave the country."
I have to confess that I hadn't realised that his ratings had fallen as far in the polls as they suggest. Though to be fair, Ol' Golden's been that quiet of late, I'd almost forgotten he was our PM.
Oh, just for fun, here's the Daily Mail's take on our "constipated" and "dysfunctional" government.
Another way to get rid of CO2?
On top of all the weird and wonderful mechanisms already proposed, here's the next idea from Science Daily, slurping. This method suggests getting the oceans to slurp up the excess CO2 by removing Hydrochloric acid from sea-water by electrolysis; thereby increasing its alkalinity, which means it can absorb more CO2. They reckon 700 special treatment plants worldwide could offset all CO2 emissions.
It sounds sort of feasible, but surely reducing our emissions, whilst at least trying to halt our population growth, would be more straightforward? We need to tackle the cause, not the consequences.
It sounds sort of feasible, but surely reducing our emissions, whilst at least trying to halt our population growth, would be more straightforward? We need to tackle the cause, not the consequences.
The problem: as clear as day...to night
As I watch the BBC 'environmental' 'correspondent' faithfully relate Mr. Brown's pearls of wisdom (apparently, he's going to make it easier to ban plastic bags as a point worthy of note!!), check this.I just got it from a very dear, and talented, relative the other side of the world, who gives credibility to 'senior surfer' in all its accolades. She finds awesome stuff and sends it on!
It's from a PowerPoint of views from a space mission. Let me know if you'd like me to send it on. My only caveat is the provenance is unverified, so it's unclear whether anything has been 'enhanced'. I'd say it looks about right, though.
Or... maybe I can post it here??? IT-vestigator hat on.
"Hubris clobbered by nemesis"
A fascinating piece on Science Fiction and climate change from Brian Aldiss in today's Guardian.
He argues that our planet's dire state "makes the imaginative leaps of dystopian SF writers redundant".
He argues that our planet's dire state "makes the imaginative leaps of dystopian SF writers redundant".
A world dying
That's the first part of a headline to an article in the Independent yesterday about how the warming planet threatens a huge number of the earth's species with extinction. Can we unite to save it? ..... That's the rest of the header. A good question to which I don't know the answer, but given the general lack of interest that the media has shown in the IPCC's latest outputs which is telling us to act now or else, I guess it will go unanswered anyway.
Now one of the supposed guaranteed methods of saving the earth from an untimely end is carbon sequestration, whereby CO2 is captured and pumped down into the earth in vast quantities. I'd always assumed that this was a safe and secure mechanism, but having read this from the Environment News Service, I'm not quite so sure now.
And to cap it all, we have Ol' Golden yet again being highly visible at talking the talk, but doing sweet Fanny Adams, as reported by Capital Radio. He seems excellent at big announcements and useless on action. "we must show leadership and take the first and largest responsibility". OK, if you are listening Gordon, if you really mean that, you could start by taking some of the £29.3 billion you have already pilfered in green taxes and using it to provide better insulation in the millions of UK houses that are inadequately covered at the moment - that could be a massive saving in CO2 emissions for a minor capital outlay. And while you're at that you could also stop providing real disincentives for renewables.
Fat chance!
Blogpost extension:
Hey! Perhaps Ol' Golden WAS listening - "the Prime Minister added that all houses would have to be zero-carbon by 2016, and that the Government would also give five million more homes discounted or free loft or cavity wall insulation". As reported in TimesOnline this very afternoon!
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male, with a few highlights)
BBC - Brown to outline climate targets
High targets have been set for Britain's cut in emissions
Gordon Brown is due to give his first major speech on the environment, raising the prospect of tougher domestic targets on carbon emissions.
He will say action on climate change is urgent, but that new green industries could create thousands of jobs.
The prime minister is also expected to say that developed countries must lead the way in cutting carbon emissions.
Planned legislation sets a tough target of cutting Britain's emissions by 60% by 2050.
But Mr Brown believes there may be a case for going even further and may commit to what could be as much as a doubling of the targets to produce renewable energy by 2020.
It is understood he has been persuaded by the Department of the Environment's arguments that Britain must meet European obligations on wind, wave and solar power.
Mr Brown's spokesman said: "The prime minister is setting out his views on major issues in a comprehensive way."
BBC political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg said the prime minister would echo recent remarks that climate change is real and urgent.
Climate change will be discussed at a forthcoming summit of Commonwealth leaders, just ahead of a UN meeting in Indonesia where a new global deal on emissions will be considered.
Inspiring stuff, no?
No. As you've so rightly highlighted, it's all talk, might, could, expected to, considered, and yet more bloody targets! (Dave)
ADDENDUM 2 - Japan eyes demographic time bomb
ADDENDUM 3 (Dave) - And may we introduce yet another government sponsored quango, this time under the wing of the Energy Savings Trust. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you .... drum roll ....... the Green Homes Service. Ta da! Nice little budget though.
Now one of the supposed guaranteed methods of saving the earth from an untimely end is carbon sequestration, whereby CO2 is captured and pumped down into the earth in vast quantities. I'd always assumed that this was a safe and secure mechanism, but having read this from the Environment News Service, I'm not quite so sure now.
And to cap it all, we have Ol' Golden yet again being highly visible at talking the talk, but doing sweet Fanny Adams, as reported by Capital Radio. He seems excellent at big announcements and useless on action. "we must show leadership and take the first and largest responsibility". OK, if you are listening Gordon, if you really mean that, you could start by taking some of the £29.3 billion you have already pilfered in green taxes and using it to provide better insulation in the millions of UK houses that are inadequately covered at the moment - that could be a massive saving in CO2 emissions for a minor capital outlay. And while you're at that you could also stop providing real disincentives for renewables.
Fat chance!
Blogpost extension:
Hey! Perhaps Ol' Golden WAS listening - "the Prime Minister added that all houses would have to be zero-carbon by 2016, and that the Government would also give five million more homes discounted or free loft or cavity wall insulation". As reported in TimesOnline this very afternoon!
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male, with a few highlights)
BBC - Brown to outline climate targets
High targets have been set for Britain's cut in emissions
Gordon Brown is due to give his first major speech on the environment, raising the prospect of tougher domestic targets on carbon emissions.
He will say action on climate change is urgent, but that new green industries could create thousands of jobs.
The prime minister is also expected to say that developed countries must lead the way in cutting carbon emissions.
Planned legislation sets a tough target of cutting Britain's emissions by 60% by 2050.
But Mr Brown believes there may be a case for going even further and may commit to what could be as much as a doubling of the targets to produce renewable energy by 2020.
It is understood he has been persuaded by the Department of the Environment's arguments that Britain must meet European obligations on wind, wave and solar power.
Mr Brown's spokesman said: "The prime minister is setting out his views on major issues in a comprehensive way."
BBC political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg said the prime minister would echo recent remarks that climate change is real and urgent.
Climate change will be discussed at a forthcoming summit of Commonwealth leaders, just ahead of a UN meeting in Indonesia where a new global deal on emissions will be considered.
Inspiring stuff, no?
No. As you've so rightly highlighted, it's all talk, might, could, expected to, considered, and yet more bloody targets! (Dave)
ADDENDUM 2 - Japan eyes demographic time bomb
ADDENDUM 3 (Dave) - And may we introduce yet another government sponsored quango, this time under the wing of the Energy Savings Trust. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you .... drum roll ....... the Green Homes Service. Ta da! Nice little budget though.
Responsibiity 'du jour'
See that first picture? That was on a Range Rover ad a wee while ago. Actually, in the Sunday Times when they were doing a 'special' on climate change. I think I may even have commented upon it (can't seem to find it via my tags).
See the second? Same vehicle. Same paper. And, actually, run twice, in two sections. And this on the weekend after that IPCC report.
Thing is, try as I might, I can't for the life of me find that same responsibility claim. There's one about driving responsibility off road. Nothing about 'going', Co2 wise.
Now it surely can't be that the offset was just for the edition in question, so why would they not run it in all subsequent ads I wonder?
It's November; it's extraordinary'
So say the blonde and the bouffant on BBC breakfast this am, about the fact that there was snow last night. I merely ask...'is it?'. If so that is worthy of note in the MWCC issue. If not, it sets up the BBC for a fall.
Because the segue for this piece was Declan and the 'low carbon family' now car sharing. Seems that, having for no good reason taken two cars to drive side by side daily, they now have realised they can go in one.
I was moved to write:
'Car sharing is... can be a great thing in carbon mitigation.
However, I have just watched you and the 'family' agree that busses are none too effective, even when prevalent, at 'fitting in' with the family schedule.
How many people, even within the same family, can leave or, much more pertinently, ensure they return at the same period within the same location and/or timing?
I think you portray an idealistic scenario in this piece.
Perhaps some thought needs to be given to coordinating better such sharing (Midlands Today has just announced dedicated lanes for sharers, so there are incentives) ways to DO this by way of public service campaigning/information.'
I am now, of course, inspired to list these as our national broadcaster is not that worried about such things, though I bet their excellent online site is littered with advice... point at them guys! We need information, not propaganda (though the cause of bus travel took a knock).
And I'll also raise the small notion I have created that needs some help (time and money) to get off the ground. It will not address daily commutes (though it can in complement to others), but it will be a big step on 'one-offs').
Because the segue for this piece was Declan and the 'low carbon family' now car sharing. Seems that, having for no good reason taken two cars to drive side by side daily, they now have realised they can go in one.
I was moved to write:
'Car sharing is... can be a great thing in carbon mitigation.
However, I have just watched you and the 'family' agree that busses are none too effective, even when prevalent, at 'fitting in' with the family schedule.
How many people, even within the same family, can leave or, much more pertinently, ensure they return at the same period within the same location and/or timing?
I think you portray an idealistic scenario in this piece.
Perhaps some thought needs to be given to coordinating better such sharing (Midlands Today has just announced dedicated lanes for sharers, so there are incentives) ways to DO this by way of public service campaigning/information.'
I am now, of course, inspired to list these as our national broadcaster is not that worried about such things, though I bet their excellent online site is littered with advice... point at them guys! We need information, not propaganda (though the cause of bus travel took a knock).
And I'll also raise the small notion I have created that needs some help (time and money) to get off the ground. It will not address daily commutes (though it can in complement to others), but it will be a big step on 'one-offs').
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Less is more?
No one said it would be easy. Tackling the fossil fuel juggernaut
'So here, as Australians say, is "the big ask"' Also I had thought, what the FoE has been 'saying' for a while too, surely?
Personally, I think we need a lot fewer folk telling us (and blowing bazillions down a green hole) what to do, and a lot more working on actual tangibly THINGS to help fewer emissions go up and away.
And while no one denies the media has a role to play, I think they need to get their own house in order right away by way of example. Report Bali for sure, but not like some blooming celeb pop concert, with a row of talking heads for each programme demographic. Get one, decent, informed, trusted correspondent, and then let them cover it all... in depth.
'So here, as Australians say, is "the big ask"' Also I had thought, what the FoE has been 'saying' for a while too, surely?
Personally, I think we need a lot fewer folk telling us (and blowing bazillions down a green hole) what to do, and a lot more working on actual tangibly THINGS to help fewer emissions go up and away.
And while no one denies the media has a role to play, I think they need to get their own house in order right away by way of example. Report Bali for sure, but not like some blooming celeb pop concert, with a row of talking heads for each programme demographic. Get one, decent, informed, trusted correspondent, and then let them cover it all... in depth.
Ruthless is as Ruth doesn't
Just watched the Andrew Marr Show (why isn't it just Sunday Morning?) with our Transport Secretary.
Usually not the most tenacious or probing of interviewers, Mr. Marr tried (though failed) valiantly to get her to answer a single question on the odd disconnect on what her boss (and various colleagues) say about climate change and how to cure it, and what is going on.
My favourite was his pointed question (and her wishy-washy non answer) about carbon trading with our EU partners.
Seems the plan is that we fly more and more and some Czech farmer doesn't, and then does something to make up. That'll work.
Usually not the most tenacious or probing of interviewers, Mr. Marr tried (though failed) valiantly to get her to answer a single question on the odd disconnect on what her boss (and various colleagues) say about climate change and how to cure it, and what is going on.
My favourite was his pointed question (and her wishy-washy non answer) about carbon trading with our EU partners.
Seems the plan is that we fly more and more and some Czech farmer doesn't, and then does something to make up. That'll work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)