At least, so it would seem.
I have in the past been, if not a critic, then at the very least a tad dubious about some of the green noises being made around sending a bunch of rich tourists up to space for a Kodak moment atop a column of greenhouse gasses.
Virgin Galactic is one giant leap for the well-heeled
'Incidentally, the carbon dioxide emissions of a passenger on a spaceflight will be roughly 60pc of those of a passenger on a regular London-New York flight, with Galactic working with engine manufacturers Pratt & Whitney towards eventually flying the aircraft on renewable jet fuel.'
Renewable jet fuel? That's a new one on me.
Anyway, see... in fact, it is saving the planet. Says so in the brochu... Telegraph.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Now, who'dathunk?
Recyclers are cashing in on the fortune in your bin
Times - NEW - Local councils find that it's waste not, want not with rubbish
Times - NEW - Rubbish is fast becoming the new gold as cost of raw materials rises
WRAP - NEW - Barriers to recycling at home - Worth bearing the above in mind as you read this
Times - NEW - Local councils find that it's waste not, want not with rubbish
Times - NEW - Rubbish is fast becoming the new gold as cost of raw materials rises
WRAP - NEW - Barriers to recycling at home - Worth bearing the above in mind as you read this
Well, that worked well. Not.
I will not be adding my comment on the original blog. Enough has been said already. But...
On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction
What... as in: 'this is an ex-Dodo. It is no more'?
Now, being that I hope soon to swap 20 degrees for 30 odd and the slim chance of getting a swim in some warm water, and that's double the increase in that headline....
Ah, headlines. I wonder if they get paid by the number on who clicked it. I did. How could I not?
Thing is, while there may be some smart insights into preparedness in there, I could not get past the idiocy of the headline.
Oh... and guess what? There's a book.
Just saw that. I will now be adding my comment.
BBC - NEW - Extinction 'by man not climate' - The Lord giveth... some other bloke slaughter away. So, it seems, by coincidence, that man is again the cause of all possibly natural ills. Subtle.
On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction
What... as in: 'this is an ex-Dodo. It is no more'?
Now, being that I hope soon to swap 20 degrees for 30 odd and the slim chance of getting a swim in some warm water, and that's double the increase in that headline....
Ah, headlines. I wonder if they get paid by the number on who clicked it. I did. How could I not?
Thing is, while there may be some smart insights into preparedness in there, I could not get past the idiocy of the headline.
Oh... and guess what? There's a book.
Just saw that. I will now be adding my comment.
BBC - NEW - Extinction 'by man not climate' - The Lord giveth... some other bloke slaughter away. So, it seems, by coincidence, that man is again the cause of all possibly natural ills. Subtle.
Let's go fly a kite
An, interesting, and potentially exciting notion.
High-Flying Kites Could Produce Enough Energy for a City
However, I have to pose them a question, beyond the safety issue (what goes up...):
What's not to like?
However, I have to wonder about the reliability factors.
Like Charlie Brown, my efforts at getting a kite up, staying up and back down (if it got too gusty) have never been that successful. And certain involved a lot of kidpower on the ground.
So if (as it surely might) the wind drops, what is the proposed procedure to get the generating mechanism back up again?
Greenbang - Kite power takes flight
High-Flying Kites Could Produce Enough Energy for a City
However, I have to pose them a question, beyond the safety issue (what goes up...):
What's not to like?
However, I have to wonder about the reliability factors.
Like Charlie Brown, my efforts at getting a kite up, staying up and back down (if it got too gusty) have never been that successful. And certain involved a lot of kidpower on the ground.
So if (as it surely might) the wind drops, what is the proposed procedure to get the generating mechanism back up again?
Greenbang - Kite power takes flight
Sunday, August 10, 2008
More questions than answers
I was interested in this piece in the Indy: 'To greens, I was worse than a child abuser'
Now it has to be stated upfront that Mr. Durkin, and his doco, were pretty darn fat and loose with some truths, and certainly acted in the best interests of ratings over accuracy and fairness.
However, I am intrigued by a few fair issues/questions raised in this piece, which, whilst erring on 'two wrongs' I was not aware of until now.
'Harrabin had to go on to Newsnight and put some of these obvious points to Gore in person. Big Al squirmed and evaded and, according to Harrabin, later accused him of being a "traitor"'.
'Harrabin wrote a piece admitting he had thought the film was a bit off when he first saw it. Did he indeed? So why didn't he tell the rest of us? What do we pay him for? And how about all those "scientists" who, to their eternal shame, lined up to heap praise on the film?'
As many are asked of our national broadcaster, and the response systems of that august body are 'selective' at best, and none exists on this piece, I guess I may never know.
Plus ca change.
Now it has to be stated upfront that Mr. Durkin, and his doco, were pretty darn fat and loose with some truths, and certainly acted in the best interests of ratings over accuracy and fairness.
However, I am intrigued by a few fair issues/questions raised in this piece, which, whilst erring on 'two wrongs' I was not aware of until now.
'Harrabin had to go on to Newsnight and put some of these obvious points to Gore in person. Big Al squirmed and evaded and, according to Harrabin, later accused him of being a "traitor"'.
'Harrabin wrote a piece admitting he had thought the film was a bit off when he first saw it. Did he indeed? So why didn't he tell the rest of us? What do we pay him for? And how about all those "scientists" who, to their eternal shame, lined up to heap praise on the film?'
As many are asked of our national broadcaster, and the response systems of that august body are 'selective' at best, and none exists on this piece, I guess I may never know.
Plus ca change.
But, it's art!
I remember cranking an eyebrow at this when it first went up.
Not so much for the materials, but the energy required to lift water up and drop it down.
Now it seems there may be another reason to think one's eco-ware artform through a tad better before making one's point (plus laods of PR & wonga):
NYC Waterfall Installations Might be Killing Trees
Hmmn.
I remember when these first went up wondering what was the energy source used to elevate large volumes of water artificially up to drop down.
I asked a similar question of an 'eco-wareness' installation in some Nordic capital that involved lighting all the buildings up in colours to reflect 'moods' as I recall.
Apparently, as it was night, demand was low. So that's OK then.
There's a certain irony that falling water is often used to generate energy.
Not so much for the materials, but the energy required to lift water up and drop it down.
Now it seems there may be another reason to think one's eco-ware artform through a tad better before making one's point (plus laods of PR & wonga):
NYC Waterfall Installations Might be Killing Trees
Hmmn.
I remember when these first went up wondering what was the energy source used to elevate large volumes of water artificially up to drop down.
I asked a similar question of an 'eco-wareness' installation in some Nordic capital that involved lighting all the buildings up in colours to reflect 'moods' as I recall.
Apparently, as it was night, demand was low. So that's OK then.
There's a certain irony that falling water is often used to generate energy.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
A large steak please, and make it Skippy!
An interesting little story from the Telegraph, reporting on a suggestion that farming Kangaroos, rather then sheep and cattle, could markedly reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
Kangaroos apparently have a unique stomach bacteria which means that they produce far less methane than cattle or sheep.
Jeez, just imagine trying to round up a herd of kangaroos!
Kangaroos apparently have a unique stomach bacteria which means that they produce far less methane than cattle or sheep.
Jeez, just imagine trying to round up a herd of kangaroos!
Is over-population the key problem?
I, like Peter, am somewhat of a wuss when it comes to mentioning the 'policy that dare not speak it's name', but this piece, by Paul Valelly of the Indy, definitely warrants a thorough read.
The article contains so many facts and figures that my head is still spinning. The key points to note, however, seem to be that when it comes to population:-
- nothing is simple,
- there are loads of paradoxes,
- religion, and cultural differences, are very important,
- social change does make a huge dent in birth-rates,
- the magic figure is 2.1 births per couple,
- large parts of Europe are well below 2.1
The UK is destined for a declining (and aging) population. Perhaps the article on the report by the BMJ in Science Daily that we mentioned a little while back was not considering all the facts?
My mind has always felt that over-population IS the key problem for our planet as an entity, but after reading this, I'm not too sure, as the implication is that as the world's population gets more educated, and more wealthy, the population, in the main, will naturally decline.
The article contains so many facts and figures that my head is still spinning. The key points to note, however, seem to be that when it comes to population:-
- nothing is simple,
- there are loads of paradoxes,
- religion, and cultural differences, are very important,
- social change does make a huge dent in birth-rates,
- the magic figure is 2.1 births per couple,
- large parts of Europe are well below 2.1
The UK is destined for a declining (and aging) population. Perhaps the article on the report by the BMJ in Science Daily that we mentioned a little while back was not considering all the facts?
My mind has always felt that over-population IS the key problem for our planet as an entity, but after reading this, I'm not too sure, as the implication is that as the world's population gets more educated, and more wealthy, the population, in the main, will naturally decline.
Write on!
Words of warming
Nifty, if a smidge irony-free.
I must rush to print, this online free stuff is killing me (if not as many trees - i know, I know, they are from FSC-certified managed forests and act as a carbon sink).
Nifty, if a smidge irony-free.
I must rush to print, this online free stuff is killing me (if not as many trees - i know, I know, they are from FSC-certified managed forests and act as a carbon sink).
Friday, August 08, 2008
Bad Dragon's breath
Boo hiss.
Peter Hopton, Very PC interview
I have not seen the actual show (gave up watching ages ago, when I got booted in the auditions for seeing clean through the set-up but not being smart enough to hide the fact I was only interested in PR exposure - mind you they can edit any negative stuff that shows them up out).
What I have read is a few reviews by folk who know a bit about VCs, as well as the actual technology, and by all accounts not only are the Dragons a bunch of egoistical bullies (like we hadn't sussed that) dancing to the tune of a ratings-obsessed medium (nice one, BBC) at the expense of quality programming, they, and especially 'byte-me' guru Peter Jones, apparently were not quite as acronymically on top of IT as they thought. And to cover this up (if they knew), the best solution was to but the boot in.
I don't know which is the more sad. The people involved (from these iconic business 'stars' to Evan Davis and the outfits he works for, or the national culture that has given rise to them.
Makes you proud to be a UK-based eco-entrepreneur.
Businesszone - Dragons' Den episode three: Lessons learned
Oh, for heaven's sake.
This is as relevant to business as my Dad getting excited at a 70s Jackie Pallow vs. Mick MacManus wrestling match being 'unfair'.
It is entertainment, pure and simple, successfully aiming at the rules of the Coliseum to get ratings.
The only wonder is that these 'successful' business folk have sold their souls so easily just to be the right side of a very nasty one-sided exchange.
I gave up ages ago when the BBC News trumpeted some eco-effort that 'was the only one that had all 5 Dragon's applauding and wanting to invest', with acres of free national PR to help it along.
Only thing was, despite it all, no one seems to have bothered to ask, or cared, before, during or until much later what the IP was.
Quietly shelved; job done for all parties concerned. Except for any accurate reflection of how business works or how partnerships are forged.
Does anyone serious, seriously think anyone with a great idea and all the numbers is going to accept chump change (that might buy a director for 3 months or a 1/2 page in a tabloid) from some bozo who has not shown any real evidence of what else they can bring to the table bar the support of our national, commercial-free broadcaster?
What's the successful hit rate?
All I can recall is Reggae-reggae sauce, and while big up to the lad who came up with it and played the 'any publicity' card well, I rather suspect major retailers might not have been so keen to offer rack-space without a full crew from Aunty showing lots of logo love and boardroom-level furrowed brows for weeks afterwards.
As that other inspirational titan of the pinstripe suit, Siralun, might say: 'Do us a favour!'
Peter Hopton, Very PC interview
I have not seen the actual show (gave up watching ages ago, when I got booted in the auditions for seeing clean through the set-up but not being smart enough to hide the fact I was only interested in PR exposure - mind you they can edit any negative stuff that shows them up out).
What I have read is a few reviews by folk who know a bit about VCs, as well as the actual technology, and by all accounts not only are the Dragons a bunch of egoistical bullies (like we hadn't sussed that) dancing to the tune of a ratings-obsessed medium (nice one, BBC) at the expense of quality programming, they, and especially 'byte-me' guru Peter Jones, apparently were not quite as acronymically on top of IT as they thought. And to cover this up (if they knew), the best solution was to but the boot in.
I don't know which is the more sad. The people involved (from these iconic business 'stars' to Evan Davis and the outfits he works for, or the national culture that has given rise to them.
Makes you proud to be a UK-based eco-entrepreneur.
Businesszone - Dragons' Den episode three: Lessons learned
Oh, for heaven's sake.
This is as relevant to business as my Dad getting excited at a 70s Jackie Pallow vs. Mick MacManus wrestling match being 'unfair'.
It is entertainment, pure and simple, successfully aiming at the rules of the Coliseum to get ratings.
The only wonder is that these 'successful' business folk have sold their souls so easily just to be the right side of a very nasty one-sided exchange.
I gave up ages ago when the BBC News trumpeted some eco-effort that 'was the only one that had all 5 Dragon's applauding and wanting to invest', with acres of free national PR to help it along.
Only thing was, despite it all, no one seems to have bothered to ask, or cared, before, during or until much later what the IP was.
Quietly shelved; job done for all parties concerned. Except for any accurate reflection of how business works or how partnerships are forged.
Does anyone serious, seriously think anyone with a great idea and all the numbers is going to accept chump change (that might buy a director for 3 months or a 1/2 page in a tabloid) from some bozo who has not shown any real evidence of what else they can bring to the table bar the support of our national, commercial-free broadcaster?
What's the successful hit rate?
All I can recall is Reggae-reggae sauce, and while big up to the lad who came up with it and played the 'any publicity' card well, I rather suspect major retailers might not have been so keen to offer rack-space without a full crew from Aunty showing lots of logo love and boardroom-level furrowed brows for weeks afterwards.
As that other inspirational titan of the pinstripe suit, Siralun, might say: 'Do us a favour!'
I cannot tell a lie: He did it!
Survey: Should outsourced CO2 count?
Love it. 'Outsourced Co2' indeed. You'll be saying they'll be trading it next.
Sorry, almost every survey I am sent/get confronted with leaves me seeking an option usually not there.
'Should an iPod’s pollution be counted as Apple’s or China’s?'
Er... both? That way the company and the country can be held to account for the stuff going into the global atmospheric pot. Anything else would suggest all sorts of neat ways to shunt a problem out of line of sight, not that anyone would dream...
Love it. 'Outsourced Co2' indeed. You'll be saying they'll be trading it next.
Sorry, almost every survey I am sent/get confronted with leaves me seeking an option usually not there.
'Should an iPod’s pollution be counted as Apple’s or China’s?'
Er... both? That way the company and the country can be held to account for the stuff going into the global atmospheric pot. Anything else would suggest all sorts of neat ways to shunt a problem out of line of sight, not that anyone would dream...
Win win?
There have been a few today (except, possibly, the planet*).
Scargill challenging (no hyperbolic headline grabbing there) Monbiot to go into respective rooms full of Co2 and radioactive waste.
And in some sort of luvvie melt-down of the Guardian pages' favourite sons and daughters, Monbiot having a go at Burchill.
I'd rather be a hypocrite than a cynic like Julie Burchill
'Handbags', or should it be 'book launches at dawn''.
I'm just trying to get my understanding of English sorted, especially when it come to matters environmental.
A cynic is, generously, one who might have a questioning attitude expressed in a not altogether 'nice' way, or, at worst , 'suggests a disbelief in the sincerity of human motives':
Which would seem not altogether unreasonable when dealing with, say, 'a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc.', or.... 'that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs'.
Tough call. A person with a cranked eyebrow at all they are supposed to swallow, or one who effectively says one thing but does another.
The planet breathes easier in such company, I am sure.
Where will it end? In tears, I fear. Especially when class is brought in for good measure.
*George Monbiot won the day in tussle with Julie Burchill
Telling. Outside a rather insulated bubble quite far from where I live, I am not sure who 'won' or not, Mr. White, but I rather suspect my kids' futures on this planet were net losers. Hope you all got what you needed from the exchange.
Personally I'd leave environmental commentary to people who do care and actually DO positive stuff than endlessly count debating points. But I thought your contribution to this morning's piece of Dear Leader's fitness to govern regime was cutting edge. Keep up the good work in the BBC studio next door. They do have space to fill, as you say. Mind you, what they choose to fill it with... Might one ask why such a critical debate is booked between two sound bite extremes and not any who may bring rational information and even decently subjective debate to the table. That's rhetorical. All any of you in the media want... need... are addicted to... is ratings. Which is how you are measured and make your money. Mind you, when it comes to the other 'green' that gets sampled as an issue on occasion, what can... do you all spent it on?
Telegraph - Class will matter more, not less -
Gaurdian - NEW - Old King Coal is a brave old soul, but he is talking utter nonsense - I'll post it, but can muster little interest to read or comment on what now seems personality-driven issues. Coming soon: Eco-'celebrity' mudslinging tag team action... the DVD, book and world (while it lasts, but might as well make some serious dosh on the back of its demise) tour!
Dire. Meanwhile, elsewhere, there might be some actually quietly working away on DOING positive, proactive things that might make a difference.
Scargill challenging (no hyperbolic headline grabbing there) Monbiot to go into respective rooms full of Co2 and radioactive waste.
And in some sort of luvvie melt-down of the Guardian pages' favourite sons and daughters, Monbiot having a go at Burchill.
I'd rather be a hypocrite than a cynic like Julie Burchill
'Handbags', or should it be 'book launches at dawn''.
I'm just trying to get my understanding of English sorted, especially when it come to matters environmental.
A cynic is, generously, one who might have a questioning attitude expressed in a not altogether 'nice' way, or, at worst , 'suggests a disbelief in the sincerity of human motives':
Which would seem not altogether unreasonable when dealing with, say, 'a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc.', or.... 'that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs'.
Tough call. A person with a cranked eyebrow at all they are supposed to swallow, or one who effectively says one thing but does another.
The planet breathes easier in such company, I am sure.
Where will it end? In tears, I fear. Especially when class is brought in for good measure.
*George Monbiot won the day in tussle with Julie Burchill
Telling. Outside a rather insulated bubble quite far from where I live, I am not sure who 'won' or not, Mr. White, but I rather suspect my kids' futures on this planet were net losers. Hope you all got what you needed from the exchange.
Personally I'd leave environmental commentary to people who do care and actually DO positive stuff than endlessly count debating points. But I thought your contribution to this morning's piece of Dear Leader's fitness to govern regime was cutting edge. Keep up the good work in the BBC studio next door. They do have space to fill, as you say. Mind you, what they choose to fill it with... Might one ask why such a critical debate is booked between two sound bite extremes and not any who may bring rational information and even decently subjective debate to the table. That's rhetorical. All any of you in the media want... need... are addicted to... is ratings. Which is how you are measured and make your money. Mind you, when it comes to the other 'green' that gets sampled as an issue on occasion, what can... do you all spent it on?
Telegraph - Class will matter more, not less -
Gaurdian - NEW - Old King Coal is a brave old soul, but he is talking utter nonsense - I'll post it, but can muster little interest to read or comment on what now seems personality-driven issues. Coming soon: Eco-'celebrity' mudslinging tag team action... the DVD, book and world (while it lasts, but might as well make some serious dosh on the back of its demise) tour!
Dire. Meanwhile, elsewhere, there might be some actually quietly working away on DOING positive, proactive things that might make a difference.
...OI
Not really worth adding to the Hydrogen category (but it will be linked via Labels), I add this for the glimmer that enviROI and even ROI is getting an airing.
Boris: no more energy for sustainability?
Not by the activists and the media that support them, of course, but the beauty of the blogging system is that casually thrown out rallying cries can now be challenged to support the practicalities behind the headlines.
Boris: no more energy for sustainability?
Not by the activists and the media that support them, of course, but the beauty of the blogging system is that casually thrown out rallying cries can now be challenged to support the practicalities behind the headlines.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Great. Now we've got past how it looks, maybe we can look at what still needs DOING!
Suddenly being green is not cool any more
Not that this has sunk into the thick, superficial skulls of the majority of most media reporters or columnists.
All These Green Taxes And Rules Are Just Witless Nods To Fashion
Not that this has sunk into the thick, superficial skulls of the majority of most media reporters or columnists.
All These Green Taxes And Rules Are Just Witless Nods To Fashion
Sticks and stones... and degrees... and QEDs
I usually steer clear of the whole CC thing, but this caught my attention: Planning for the worst
First up there was the 'planning for' vs. 'avoiding' shift (albeit with an inevitability slant), but also the first line resonated: 'Just like blades, phrases can be blunted by overuse. Talk of avoiding "catastrophic climate change" is so familiar, the words no longer instantly stir up apocalyptic images. '
All, sadly, true. And one must wonder why.
Even more sadly, I tended to skip through the SOSO text in a pretty cursory manner, and then alighted on the comments in reply, of which this was the first: 'I see the climate change 'denier' nutters are on here as usual.'
And so I gave up. QED.
First up there was the 'planning for' vs. 'avoiding' shift (albeit with an inevitability slant), but also the first line resonated: 'Just like blades, phrases can be blunted by overuse. Talk of avoiding "catastrophic climate change" is so familiar, the words no longer instantly stir up apocalyptic images. '
All, sadly, true. And one must wonder why.
Even more sadly, I tended to skip through the SOSO text in a pretty cursory manner, and then alighted on the comments in reply, of which this was the first: 'I see the climate change 'denier' nutters are on here as usual.'
And so I gave up. QED.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
CATEGORY - Flood
I think this deserves its own gig
ARTICLES
Guardian - Chaotic flood defences leave large areas at risk, say MPs - Surprise, surprise. But next time what's the betting we hear 'It's AGW... no one expected this level of...'
BBC - Benn denies flood plan 'chaos' - 'Did too'...'Do not, so muhr...'. Edifying
Indy - Is flooding really as big a risk to Britain now as terrorism?
Times - Thousands more face floods - break out the wellies!
BBC - Insurers agree flood cover deal - Helps a bit
Telegraph - NEW - Flood game shows UK cities under water - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi, though given his reasons I am not so sure I'm that thrilled: 'Given your proximity to a river prone to flooding, I think I should leave this one to you.'
INFORMATION
Environment Agency Floodline - actually quite useful, with email and text warnings
Flood Maps
Flood forum
Floodsim - NEW - a game, though maybe not too much fun for some
Homecheck -
Association of British Insurers -
I'll need to add more when they come in, or collate later. For now, check out the labels below
ARTICLES
Guardian - Chaotic flood defences leave large areas at risk, say MPs - Surprise, surprise. But next time what's the betting we hear 'It's AGW... no one expected this level of...'
BBC - Benn denies flood plan 'chaos' - 'Did too'...'Do not, so muhr...'. Edifying
Indy - Is flooding really as big a risk to Britain now as terrorism?
Times - Thousands more face floods - break out the wellies!
BBC - Insurers agree flood cover deal - Helps a bit
Telegraph - NEW - Flood game shows UK cities under water - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi, though given his reasons I am not so sure I'm that thrilled: 'Given your proximity to a river prone to flooding, I think I should leave this one to you.'
INFORMATION
Environment Agency Floodline - actually quite useful, with email and text warnings
Flood Maps
Flood forum
Floodsim - NEW - a game, though maybe not too much fun for some
Homecheck -
Association of British Insurers -
I'll need to add more when they come in, or collate later. For now, check out the labels below
Aphids versus Computer Models?
Now there have been raging debates about the validity and accuracy (or not) of the complex computer models used to assess climate change possibilities and actualities; but this article from PhysOrg suggests that some of the UK's natural inhabitants, namely Aphids, are much better indicators of just what climate change is actually occurring.
One particular species is now appearing almost four weeks ahead of the 42 year average. The big problem is that these tiny little insects, although invaluable in the food chain for many native species, are a serious threat to many of our food crops. With the possible onset of an EU pesticide ban that could remove a whole raft of the chemical treatments used to protect UK crops, this could (yes, its that word 'could' again) lead to food shortages.
(OK, so the pesticide ban story is from the Daily Mail which actually used the word 'WILL', but you get the point.)
Next bout, Aphids versus Pesticides? Sounds like another interesting dilemma in the offing.
One particular species is now appearing almost four weeks ahead of the 42 year average. The big problem is that these tiny little insects, although invaluable in the food chain for many native species, are a serious threat to many of our food crops. With the possible onset of an EU pesticide ban that could remove a whole raft of the chemical treatments used to protect UK crops, this could (yes, its that word 'could' again) lead to food shortages.
(OK, so the pesticide ban story is from the Daily Mail which actually used the word 'WILL', but you get the point.)
Next bout, Aphids versus Pesticides? Sounds like another interesting dilemma in the offing.
Yet another Government Website ......
..... on, you've guessed it, climate change.
This new section on DEFRA's website is all about 'Adapting to climate change'.
OK, so what does it tell us? Well, at first glance, it would seem very little that any of the other Gov. developed websites devoted to what they are doing (I couldn't resist a little snigger then) about climate change.
All the links appear to be to existing Gov. website sources already devoted to, errrr, climate change. All the usual suspects, 'Office of climate change', 'Energy savings trust', 'UKCIP', 'ActOnCO2', the new climate change bill etc. But very little new.
I can't help pondering that our Gov's entire raison d'etre here is to be seen to be doing something, whilst actually doing, well, very little. ("Yes, minister, we've put online another fantastic website for the public to access loads of information from").
And what was the cost of this latest 'joining up the web-links' site? Not provided. But you would be forgiven for guessing that it has cost at least a few tens of thousands of pounds.
Oh, sorry, it is a Gov. sponsored website extension. So let's make that a few hundreds of thousands of pounds shall we? Plus how many additional civil servants with ring-fenced gold plated pensions to administer?
Well worth it ...... not!
This new section on DEFRA's website is all about 'Adapting to climate change'.
OK, so what does it tell us? Well, at first glance, it would seem very little that any of the other Gov. developed websites devoted to what they are doing (I couldn't resist a little snigger then) about climate change.
All the links appear to be to existing Gov. website sources already devoted to, errrr, climate change. All the usual suspects, 'Office of climate change', 'Energy savings trust', 'UKCIP', 'ActOnCO2', the new climate change bill etc. But very little new.
I can't help pondering that our Gov's entire raison d'etre here is to be seen to be doing something, whilst actually doing, well, very little. ("Yes, minister, we've put online another fantastic website for the public to access loads of information from").
And what was the cost of this latest 'joining up the web-links' site? Not provided. But you would be forgiven for guessing that it has cost at least a few tens of thousands of pounds.
Oh, sorry, it is a Gov. sponsored website extension. So let's make that a few hundreds of thousands of pounds shall we? Plus how many additional civil servants with ring-fenced gold plated pensions to administer?
Well worth it ...... not!
What's your excuse
Blog Traffic Is Getting Bigger and Bigger
Do you write for a blog?
If so................why?
Money. I realised that I read a lot to help stock my site, so it wasn't a stretch to stick links to what I read on my blog and add a comment or two.
People like what I find and/or share, and some even like my comments.
So they visit more. More visitors=more money.
Plus I get invited to things.
Which is neat, 'cos I don't get out much.
The irony is of course, that until I put AdSense or something on here, I am not making a bean. So it must be for love, not money. Go figure.
Do you write for a blog?
If so................why?
Money. I realised that I read a lot to help stock my site, so it wasn't a stretch to stick links to what I read on my blog and add a comment or two.
People like what I find and/or share, and some even like my comments.
So they visit more. More visitors=more money.
Plus I get invited to things.
Which is neat, 'cos I don't get out much.
The irony is of course, that until I put AdSense or something on here, I am not making a bean. So it must be for love, not money. Go figure.
I'm greener than you... I've screwed up more!
How far will the climate campers go?
Hilarious.
If one thing to me defines the state of things 'environmental', it's that whatever happens*, one bunch will be getting the hump and having a go at another bunch and ending up in a bit of snit.
Which is why I tend to prefer and hence favour associations with those who work quietly, effectively, proactively and tangibly in DOING what they can, where they can, whenever they can to make a tangible, positive difference, and inspire engagement in the general public by the power of their example, empathy and commitment.
But I guess protests and bans do get more media and hence feed systems that depend on 'awareness' (even if communications and getting one's point across are not always a strong suit, evidently) rather more effectively.
*Interestingly, I have noticed a rather concerning trend, at least for the principle of free speech and the spirit of debate. And that's on blogs and forums folk being 'accused' (Witch! Burn... well, give 'em a nasty pallor with a CFL light!) of undermining 'the cause' by disagreeing with the group think du jour.
So careful what you wish for. 'And then they came for the lite greens who did not (want, feel like, see the need to, etc) foreswear their all, and there was no one left to speak...'
Addendum - The Mancunian way - see comment 11:16 to 11.25am.
Gaurdian - NEW - Dirty tactics to defend a dirty industry
Gaurdian - NEW - The stakes could not be higher. Everything hinges on stopping coal - Whilst I might agree that coal needs a serious look at in the mix, I have to say I tend these days to stop at most that starts with 'stopping' (if you get my drift).. at least as a call to action in this regard. Kinda sweet that the first para to such pieces now has to start with a mitigating planet-commitment action... 'Sitting in a teepee eating Fairtrade..', '...boarding a train.'. I wonder how it plays with those sitting at work 9-5, 5 (or more) days a week? No matter how important, and valid, the message, the cred of most self-appointed messengers is really going South.
Newsnight - NEW - Climate change - Ta for the tip, Chlo_F:
One other, worthy aspect of the 'green' debate is how it is running past the general/consuming public from many sources, especially those who see themselves as 'guiding lights'.
Rather topical as the subject of communicating with the great unwashed, er, me... has cropped up of course with the VED, too.
Another from the Guardian - on the topic of medium and messengers - worth a gander:
Here
Meanwhile here's another aspect that seems... pertinent:
I do have to wonder how those who may agree that we are in a pickle (but also may not agree with some aspects as outlined by other advocates) might seek the week off from our day jobs were they not funded in some way by more sympathetic employers. Maybe the relevant minister could be asked for her opinions on our rights to do this on the basis that we are looking after a needy planet?
Meanwhile, I shall now for all due balance pop over to the Times**, Telegraph**, and maybe even such as the News of the World*** (circulation what, and to whom, versus the Guardian readership?) to see how all this is playing there:)
Over the past few months the voters who read such tomes seem to have had an influence it would be silly to (try to) ignore (or, worse, dismiss), eh?
**Nothing so far..
***Shudddrs
Newsnight - ADDENDUM - (had to edit a bit... got carried away)
We are, seemingly, facing a global crisis (the single greatest we face I believe, according to a UN head) based on some predictions that point to our growing numbers and what each one of us needs (heat, stuff, travel) and likes (more stuff & more travel), that inevitably lead to the generation of emissions and... consequences (I do note that some views as to man’s relative contribution, or not, have not been included in this particular debate, which is hence taking this as a given, which in turn some might feel a slight omission given the weight public opinion and hence political action that can and should hold sway in such matters, but oh, well).
Thanks to some interesting PR surrounding a protest at a power facility, an aspect of this topic has again come to the fore for a brief flurry under the sun before we worry about JP’s undies again.
In yesterday’s blog preamble, I wondered how all this was playing with the various options we, the public, get our information from.
Well, certainly some mention in such as The Independent and Guardian for print, and on broadcast news the BBC.
However, not a lot I could glean from many other places, including anything much originating from our government. There’s a surprise.
So I turn to a late night news programme in the hope of some objectivity to help me learn the issues, to help me shape an option should I ever be asked to vote sensibly on the directions we take (assuming voting is still in fashion in the near future – I do notice that these days the majority not voting the ‘right’ way can get frowned upon, and to quite extensive coverage in some places, by minority commentators who seem to think, and are often accepted by the bookers who give them airtime, as ‘knowing better’).
And what, or rather who do I find? An ‘environmental activist’ of questionable qualifications (‘Leading’? By what measure and whose agreement?), who seems to have carved a career by writing provocative articles in a very minor broadsheet, who seems to be saying ‘Oh heck, anything but coal.. let’s go nuke, then’. Words, if loose, that are deemed (again, er.. why and by whom) to have sent ripples throughout, well, parts of North London at least.
I’m not sure, but I have this small notion that the issue is not that simple. And spans not just the choices we face on energy, but also economic vs. environmental balances, geo-political considerations, immigration, population and a host of other stuff I really don’t envy those staked with unraveling this Gordian knot (and not Gordon, for sure).
But a group have decided they don’t fancy an aspect, and so we get a ratings punt by a broadcast medium using a media-friendly person’s dubious pontifications as a basis, or more like bedrock for a whole discussion. Does the BBC not have anyone of relevance to add to this critical discussion at the level one would expect from a premier news programme? Or is the speed dial restricted to the half-dozen usual suspects who write for the Guardian and live in the mews next door when not in their country cottage? I have no problem with opinions from all walks, but surely they need to be balanced (and not a blooming classic ‘two/threefer wheeling out extremes from far sides... a nuke industry spokesperson for heaven’s sake, but billed – I need to find from fellow posters - as a ‘former energy minister’. No wonder the whole thing is a farce and trust in media and government is out the window). And can we not get some objective science and engineering FACTS in the mix? Possibly a bit of rational economic pragmatism and/or political realism too?
Beyond the beliefs, not all of us obviously have the financial ability to scoot hither and thither looking for the next ban or protest, so when it comes to how we heat our homes and other factors self interest may guide us. And this is, very possible short-term thinking. So I was stuck by the comment ‘There largely to protest’, that rather sums up how many may come to view these efforts, when rarely is there much by way of viable alternatives presented (though I think I did glean a few halfway sensible tilts towards efficiency gains). ‘Ruining my day’ vs. ‘status quo’. Tough call.
So what’s going to get me, or my kids’ kids first? A C02 (man-caused/worsened or not still a little up in the air, ‘scuse pun) dawn, or a nuclear one (Space 1999 style)?
So far, I have no blooming clue, and nothing sensible to help try and figure it out. Certainly not when it is ignored or treated piecemeal and often in a contradictory manner by the majority of most read (and watched) media, or served up in such a daft fashion by the minority of the rest.
I am not at all keen in playing the person and not the argument, but we really do need more sense of objectivity, and ‘opinion former’s’ backgrounds do become very pertinent... What stance they are taking? Where are they getting their money from? A book deal? A lobby group? Quango target bonus? An activist board salary/pension? The message can often end up being very coloured by the messengers, especially self-proclaimed ones deemed ‘expert’. Is there anyone left who is not in someone’s pocket? Including the media? Jonathan Porritt seemed the only halfway rational person in the whole lot. Maybe he did have alternatives to mitigate the pain of mitigation, but I didn’t catch many.
I see James Lovelock mentioned. As with a few others in this Heat’ed debate, I am afraid the more I see his opinion in an article with ‘his new book is published.. at £16.95 by [coincidental news media publishing arm]’ at the end, the less I feel inclined to read on without a very cranked eyebrow.
Especially when I also read ‘his opinion is that CO2 is far more lethal than compact bunkers of nuclear waste’ not so long after I find he may be one of the first passengers atop a column of greenhouse gasses on the Virgin orbital gawping (rich) tourist shuttle.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-goes-up.html
Maybe this thing is ‘the future’, but if we are talking about emissions now, exhaust smoke on a jolly seems a contradictory, if not smoke and mirrors foundation upon which to base one’s argument.
Do I like the idea of coal (especially without any viable CCS) as proposed? No. But do I like the idea of nuclear much better, especially as many key aspects seem still unresolved... disposal, ROI, enviROI, etc). No, not yet.
But I see how delay can be viewed as frustrating. However the way the issues are portrayed certainly don’t help... well, me at least. ‘The environmental movement is split’ I heard the reporter say, well, challenge at one stage, doubtless for a provocative response. What the heck IS ‘the environmental movement’. It seems a rather odd, artificial construct almost designed to create a ‘them’ vs. others quality that can help nobody, and especially the quality of discussion.
Stop giving sound bite airtime on a hobby horse basis. If it is as serious as has been suggested, treat it seriously and get a decent spread of sensible views who can at least explain where we currently are rationally. It has to be better than the sensationalist spinning that passes for news I see in this arena, and I’m frankly fed up with it.
Gaurdian - NEW - Kingsnorth protester diary: Come to the camp - Working as planned, is it?
Hilarious.
If one thing to me defines the state of things 'environmental', it's that whatever happens*, one bunch will be getting the hump and having a go at another bunch and ending up in a bit of snit.
Which is why I tend to prefer and hence favour associations with those who work quietly, effectively, proactively and tangibly in DOING what they can, where they can, whenever they can to make a tangible, positive difference, and inspire engagement in the general public by the power of their example, empathy and commitment.
But I guess protests and bans do get more media and hence feed systems that depend on 'awareness' (even if communications and getting one's point across are not always a strong suit, evidently) rather more effectively.
*Interestingly, I have noticed a rather concerning trend, at least for the principle of free speech and the spirit of debate. And that's on blogs and forums folk being 'accused' (Witch! Burn... well, give 'em a nasty pallor with a CFL light!) of undermining 'the cause' by disagreeing with the group think du jour.
So careful what you wish for. 'And then they came for the lite greens who did not (want, feel like, see the need to, etc) foreswear their all, and there was no one left to speak...'
Addendum - The Mancunian way - see comment 11:16 to 11.25am.
Gaurdian - NEW - Dirty tactics to defend a dirty industry
Gaurdian - NEW - The stakes could not be higher. Everything hinges on stopping coal - Whilst I might agree that coal needs a serious look at in the mix, I have to say I tend these days to stop at most that starts with 'stopping' (if you get my drift).. at least as a call to action in this regard. Kinda sweet that the first para to such pieces now has to start with a mitigating planet-commitment action... 'Sitting in a teepee eating Fairtrade..', '...boarding a train.'. I wonder how it plays with those sitting at work 9-5, 5 (or more) days a week? No matter how important, and valid, the message, the cred of most self-appointed messengers is really going South.
Newsnight - NEW - Climate change - Ta for the tip, Chlo_F:
One other, worthy aspect of the 'green' debate is how it is running past the general/consuming public from many sources, especially those who see themselves as 'guiding lights'.
Rather topical as the subject of communicating with the great unwashed, er, me... has cropped up of course with the VED, too.
Another from the Guardian - on the topic of medium and messengers - worth a gander:
Here
Meanwhile here's another aspect that seems... pertinent:
I do have to wonder how those who may agree that we are in a pickle (but also may not agree with some aspects as outlined by other advocates) might seek the week off from our day jobs were they not funded in some way by more sympathetic employers. Maybe the relevant minister could be asked for her opinions on our rights to do this on the basis that we are looking after a needy planet?
Meanwhile, I shall now for all due balance pop over to the Times**, Telegraph**, and maybe even such as the News of the World*** (circulation what, and to whom, versus the Guardian readership?) to see how all this is playing there:)
Over the past few months the voters who read such tomes seem to have had an influence it would be silly to (try to) ignore (or, worse, dismiss), eh?
**Nothing so far..
***Shudddrs
Newsnight - ADDENDUM - (had to edit a bit... got carried away)
We are, seemingly, facing a global crisis (the single greatest we face I believe, according to a UN head) based on some predictions that point to our growing numbers and what each one of us needs (heat, stuff, travel) and likes (more stuff & more travel), that inevitably lead to the generation of emissions and... consequences (I do note that some views as to man’s relative contribution, or not, have not been included in this particular debate, which is hence taking this as a given, which in turn some might feel a slight omission given the weight public opinion and hence political action that can and should hold sway in such matters, but oh, well).
Thanks to some interesting PR surrounding a protest at a power facility, an aspect of this topic has again come to the fore for a brief flurry under the sun before we worry about JP’s undies again.
In yesterday’s blog preamble, I wondered how all this was playing with the various options we, the public, get our information from.
Well, certainly some mention in such as The Independent and Guardian for print, and on broadcast news the BBC.
However, not a lot I could glean from many other places, including anything much originating from our government. There’s a surprise.
So I turn to a late night news programme in the hope of some objectivity to help me learn the issues, to help me shape an option should I ever be asked to vote sensibly on the directions we take (assuming voting is still in fashion in the near future – I do notice that these days the majority not voting the ‘right’ way can get frowned upon, and to quite extensive coverage in some places, by minority commentators who seem to think, and are often accepted by the bookers who give them airtime, as ‘knowing better’).
And what, or rather who do I find? An ‘environmental activist’ of questionable qualifications (‘Leading’? By what measure and whose agreement?), who seems to have carved a career by writing provocative articles in a very minor broadsheet, who seems to be saying ‘Oh heck, anything but coal.. let’s go nuke, then’. Words, if loose, that are deemed (again, er.. why and by whom) to have sent ripples throughout, well, parts of North London at least.
I’m not sure, but I have this small notion that the issue is not that simple. And spans not just the choices we face on energy, but also economic vs. environmental balances, geo-political considerations, immigration, population and a host of other stuff I really don’t envy those staked with unraveling this Gordian knot (and not Gordon, for sure).
But a group have decided they don’t fancy an aspect, and so we get a ratings punt by a broadcast medium using a media-friendly person’s dubious pontifications as a basis, or more like bedrock for a whole discussion. Does the BBC not have anyone of relevance to add to this critical discussion at the level one would expect from a premier news programme? Or is the speed dial restricted to the half-dozen usual suspects who write for the Guardian and live in the mews next door when not in their country cottage? I have no problem with opinions from all walks, but surely they need to be balanced (and not a blooming classic ‘two/threefer wheeling out extremes from far sides... a nuke industry spokesperson for heaven’s sake, but billed – I need to find from fellow posters - as a ‘former energy minister’. No wonder the whole thing is a farce and trust in media and government is out the window). And can we not get some objective science and engineering FACTS in the mix? Possibly a bit of rational economic pragmatism and/or political realism too?
Beyond the beliefs, not all of us obviously have the financial ability to scoot hither and thither looking for the next ban or protest, so when it comes to how we heat our homes and other factors self interest may guide us. And this is, very possible short-term thinking. So I was stuck by the comment ‘There largely to protest’, that rather sums up how many may come to view these efforts, when rarely is there much by way of viable alternatives presented (though I think I did glean a few halfway sensible tilts towards efficiency gains). ‘Ruining my day’ vs. ‘status quo’. Tough call.
So what’s going to get me, or my kids’ kids first? A C02 (man-caused/worsened or not still a little up in the air, ‘scuse pun) dawn, or a nuclear one (Space 1999 style)?
So far, I have no blooming clue, and nothing sensible to help try and figure it out. Certainly not when it is ignored or treated piecemeal and often in a contradictory manner by the majority of most read (and watched) media, or served up in such a daft fashion by the minority of the rest.
I am not at all keen in playing the person and not the argument, but we really do need more sense of objectivity, and ‘opinion former’s’ backgrounds do become very pertinent... What stance they are taking? Where are they getting their money from? A book deal? A lobby group? Quango target bonus? An activist board salary/pension? The message can often end up being very coloured by the messengers, especially self-proclaimed ones deemed ‘expert’. Is there anyone left who is not in someone’s pocket? Including the media? Jonathan Porritt seemed the only halfway rational person in the whole lot. Maybe he did have alternatives to mitigate the pain of mitigation, but I didn’t catch many.
I see James Lovelock mentioned. As with a few others in this Heat’ed debate, I am afraid the more I see his opinion in an article with ‘his new book is published.. at £16.95 by [coincidental news media publishing arm]’ at the end, the less I feel inclined to read on without a very cranked eyebrow.
Especially when I also read ‘his opinion is that CO2 is far more lethal than compact bunkers of nuclear waste’ not so long after I find he may be one of the first passengers atop a column of greenhouse gasses on the Virgin orbital gawping (rich) tourist shuttle.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-goes-up.html
Maybe this thing is ‘the future’, but if we are talking about emissions now, exhaust smoke on a jolly seems a contradictory, if not smoke and mirrors foundation upon which to base one’s argument.
Do I like the idea of coal (especially without any viable CCS) as proposed? No. But do I like the idea of nuclear much better, especially as many key aspects seem still unresolved... disposal, ROI, enviROI, etc). No, not yet.
But I see how delay can be viewed as frustrating. However the way the issues are portrayed certainly don’t help... well, me at least. ‘The environmental movement is split’ I heard the reporter say, well, challenge at one stage, doubtless for a provocative response. What the heck IS ‘the environmental movement’. It seems a rather odd, artificial construct almost designed to create a ‘them’ vs. others quality that can help nobody, and especially the quality of discussion.
Stop giving sound bite airtime on a hobby horse basis. If it is as serious as has been suggested, treat it seriously and get a decent spread of sensible views who can at least explain where we currently are rationally. It has to be better than the sensationalist spinning that passes for news I see in this arena, and I’m frankly fed up with it.
Gaurdian - NEW - Kingsnorth protester diary: Come to the camp - Working as planned, is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)