Earthy Thoughts

Well, Live Earth has passed, at least the day itself, and it would be difficult to let it do so without some sort of comment.

I think I'll let others mostly do the talking (I'll add links at the bottom as I come across them, hopefully from a good spread) as I had/have no real problem with people giving their time for free (it would be churlish not to - and I find the number of snipes on performance quality a bit graceless, though if you charge for a gig I guess you need to be held for review), or the notion of massive coordinated entertainment as a method of awareness raising. But, as discussed in these pages before, it is more what others - ranging from the media to those they speak to - make of it all and take away from it... now and as the subsequent days pass.

There seem to have been three basic 'camps': those who saw it as a real force for change and/or liked the idea of a party, those who really didn't like any aspect of it at all, and those in the middle, like me, who were/are simply concerned about the ultimate message created by both the medium and the messengers.

I watched sporadically, becoming one of the 2 billion who apparently did so, leaving it late afternoon perhaps before it really 'warmed up' (Can't say the vibe came across as anything like Live Aid). Frankly what I as a viewer took away from it was mostly shaped by what happened during the intervals, and that was out of the hands of the organisers and those taking part. Can't say it was too encouraging. I don't know if it was an attempt at balance, or simply poor selection of talking heads, but to a celebrity-influenced culture (which is surely who the thing was/is mostly targeted at), the rather formulaic articulations of concern, and reasons for it, seemed to be rather outweighed by the sheer number of flip celebs who were dabbling with the notion of doing good by the planet to justify being on screen, but certainly were not going to change how they spend their money. Probably smart, with a tabloid paparazzi ready to catch them stepping out of Wembley into the Cayenne to get back to Islington, but disappointing. Here's hoping that beyond the UK and the BBC, other countries were a bit more 'on message'.

But, as warned, when you play with the celeb media you have to appreciate that you cannot control it. Their priority is what sells, and while they'll go along with anything that brings celebs into the camera frame, especially in large numbers, they also know what else will shift more copies before, during and after. Especially with a readership that does not enjoy the lifestyles of those who have taken it upon themselves to offer advice/opinion on how those of more modest means should conduct theirs.

One message I did hear from the commentary box, and not from the stage as money really is not a problem for this set, was to do what you can simply because it makes financial sense. Came across quite a lot, and I endorse that. So I hope it sunk in. Not so much go green, but go greed.

Sadly, in closing, I also note some others (Sheila Hancock on the Andrew Marr show as I do) who, like me, were left a bit unsure as to what exactly they were to do now. And if that's the case, bearing in mind the objective was 'awareness', one has to wonder what message ended up being served ultimately. But at least, for now, it has at least got a lot of folk talking.

ps: As I write this I watch the opening of the Tour de France, with the cyclists preceded by a Caravan of Sponsor vehicles that throw freebies to the crowds. I guess they missed the pledge. But then it was all so last year, er, week, er, day. And imagine what the country's focus will be later today if one of our favoured sons does well at Silverstone rushing around in circles in a fairly low mpg vehicle just for fun.

Guardian - The artists formerly known as huge carbon footprints - well, the headline kinda sest the tone

Observer - Rockin' all over the world (but just watch your carbon footprint)

The Independent - Live Earth: One big gesture for man, one giant problem for the Earth - with links at end to more, like this: So, Al Gore, what's the one thing we can all do to tackle climate change? Oh, and this, from another page: The Big Spend: The vision thing

The Times - Live Earth fails to pack large-scale punch - An odd, and rather mean thing to focus on, especially for a 'quality'

The Telegraph - Live Earth concerts kick off around the world - Can Live Earth really save the world?

Ho-hum, can I really face the tabloids?

Mirror - LIGHT OF MADGE DAZZLES - I'm sure there is soemthing in there about saving the planet too, but I couldn't find it
Mail - The greatest show on Live Earth rocks Wembley but leaves the world cold - Well, there was an ad for npower 'green' energy. Live Earth is promoting green to save the planet - what planet are they on? - I'm guessing they were not keen.
Express - ONE WORLD, ONE BEAT - All I could find. Not exactly what one would expect following the world's biggest music event.
People - DAY THE EARTH TURNED BLUE! - nothing like getting our priorities straight
News of the World - Green star is an eco disaster - I hate to say I told you so, but there was always the danger the messengers would be vying with the message.

BBC - Live Earth Wembley - the home page link, goes to others.
BBC - Live Earth gigs send eco-warning - interesting, if depressing, to read the comments. At least they are talking, I guess.

On a more positive note - Daily Grist: Live Earth was a smash hit, and more - Not exactly the headline even here, though. And I just heard on the BBC that the concert managed 1/3 of the Diana gig last week. So as smash hits go, maybe you had to be there.

One via Dave, who has kindly noted I may have mentioned this beforehand: Pretty big footprints

So... what was the enviROI?

The Ecologist - Live Earth: a short tragedie And they were there!

Music, Maestros, puh-lese!?

Not the first. Won't be the last: Live Earth in Newsnight

Technical hitch? See that panel? It's what I got when I tried to post this. Seems a tad low on explanation, not to mention unhelpful as to resolutions.

Interesting to ponder the relative number of comments for this issue vs., say, JP's tie. Ho hum.

Anyway, I have just watched the piece and see it as a worthy start point to what will doubtless become a fairly healthy debate about what the individual gets exhorted to do, can do, and does. Plus those who would take it upon themselves to 'help'.

This is TV. So you get powerful imagery and snappy sound bites. I was therefore unsurprised to see scenes of heavy industry and belching smokestacks, with the VO saying something like : 'it's about stopping them doing this... '. Ok, fine, but that ore being smelted goes towards a lot of iPods, CDS and custom 737s. I wonder how many will ponder the irony, or consequences of what they campaign against, as they party away. Or care.

But to offset this we get... planting trees. A bit unfair to select just this Joss Stone quote as I am sure there are... were others, and a bit more considered than hers. Sadly, while there are still some viable offsetting options of this nature, in this member of the public's mind the principle of whacking a fir in the firmament to 'deal' with the last gig, without really worrying what happens thereafter, has been rather discredited thanks to some, rather high-profile, 'offsetbacks'.

For what it's worth, if we are going to think forest, I'd advocate considering this from Newsnight's very own archives a few weeks ago: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/06/i-can-see-forest-and-trees.html

Though over in a flash, and a perhaps a tad over simplistic, the preamble about the 'Chinese' question was still telling. Seems it's for the US to start, and they'll wait, despite their own strategy predictions. Understandable in most ways, but a bit akin to the scene in Blazing Saddles where the black sheriff holds a gun to his own head, only this time the rest of the world's 'heads' attached in line: 'Cut emissions first, or we ALL get it'. Hmmn. 'Rein in your economy (and hence military spending), to allow us to catch up, and we promise we'll stop making dolls, and tanks, as soon as we have the same number of SUVs and a/cs'. Is that gonna happen?

I also don't recall too much by way of the vox pop responders' thoughts on the concert, as such.

Anyway, interesting to see two such well versed (and one presumes, paid) members of the green elite 'industry' in such polite debate. I'd have preferred a few from more challenging viewpoints across the table, with the interviewer being allowed to be more balanced in her critiques, which of necessity seemed to be too much in that role, with the authority her chairperson position confers.

I have to agree totally with the chap from Global Cool, though: the danger is in this being packaged, and hence viewed, as a one-off event. A bit like Ethical Man, where I was very disappointed to see all the year long 'good' in information and awareness rather undercut by it all... stopping. I felt the message left was unfortunate, with an impression that this is something one dabbles in, does a bit of, and then gets back to the real world of rampant consumerism, travel and anything else money can buy in pursuit of the next 'hit', fad or rating.

As stated, these are now ambassadors of, what? Doing 'what I say but not, necessarily, do?' It was accepted that they ''have" to fly around. So, I guess, does Air 'Well, it's not really practical for ME not to' Blair, plus of course all the carbon traders from the City, and ecojournos on book promos, and... er... who is left?

While not simple at all, we can surely accept that most of the problems from CO2 emissions can be pretty much laid at the door of the affluent consuming like stink. And you don't get much more affluent than rock stars. So it's hard to imagine them having all this wonga and not being a teensie bit tempted to blow it all on a few indulgences. And I reckon when they do, a tabloid will be ready and waiting. And while they may have offset their last hat-collection flight by buying half of Africa a solar cooker to prevent the inefficient burning of wood, Mondeo Man (and maybe even Pious Person in a green broadsheet) will be sitting in his tent in a monsoon in the Mendips, reading his Daily Mirror about Huffy Diddly on the beach in the Caribbean on a jet ski. And that may not play so well to the cause.

If they believe in what they are doing, and that it is their celebrity and not so much the music that really matters, if going to walk around the country with a big banner is not going to happen, I'd like to simply ask...why?

And, to be fair to them, has anyone asked? Seems a heck on an idea. Relevant too. As noted, we get an 'awareness' concert pretty much each week now.

Hence Saint Bob's rather colourful views on the actual need for more 'awareness' beyond boosting CD sales resonates, but for perhaps not the right reasons. We have the message. But what of the messengers? Joss and her popping a sapling in? For one night? It has the same effect on me as newspaper supplements on green travel offsetting that issue to show they are on board, yet still sending a correspondent the next week to cover a fur and Ferrari catwalk show in Antarctica to promote a 'see the polar bears before they're gone' competition. Pop your green token in the slot here.

I will be mostly in the garden today, as it is shaping up as a nice one. But I will be dipping in to the show when I can, if I can. I wish it... them... well, but really hope that the tangibles that are inspired from it are as positive as intended, and go a lot further than all I have heard about, which so far seems to be a pledge. I made one a while ago, and got a low energy bulb, which was nice. And useful.

ADDENDUM 1 - 1.30pm. - Just grabbing a bit to eat and watching the initial preparation, as covered by BBC2 (love the helicopter shot, guys, no irony. Unless it's stock footage, which it could be as I think we know what the stadium looks like from the air. If so, apologies). Hmmn. Jonathon Ross. Graham Norton. Jimmy Carr. Some other guy. Maybe the more appropriate guys and gals were out enjoying the sun. By my rough estimate, from this lot it was about 10% what they might be doing/do e-wise, and 90% 'it's a bit of a lark, and I can't wait to hear Madonna's special ditty'. Oh, and to David Shukman's (BBC Enviro Correspondent, who I last saw earlier this week at Venturefest) quip about turning off the TV, oh, how we laughed, as that would mean they were out of jobs. And now we also know JR is not giving up his plasma, as well, he just isn't (I'm guessing the scores of screens in the empty green elite rooms were low energy). So far, I think the message is not being best served by those tasked, on this channel at least, to dish it out, especially as I watch Chris Moyles (well known environmentalist) introduce Genesis, to what looks like a half empty stadium if what's red is an empty seat. What's all that about? Wimbledon? It's Genesis!!! Here's hoping that the artists can compensate in getting a better message across without such media support. Anyway, I'm off back outside to pop the grass clippings in the compost. No, really. I'm afraid, as far as I'm concerned, happiness is solar powered, and not from an amp, no matter how worthy.

BBC - Running Commentary from around the world - plus a bunch of links

Addendum 2 - 4.15pm - Teabreak. Well, at least the stadium seems to have filled up. Just seems weird it wasn't packed from the off. I'm sure it would be for a Cup Final. Maybe a security issue? Crowd seems to be having fun at least. And, at least, I say this totally without tongue in cheek, they had a nice day for it. No interference from the BBC talking heads this time, but so far I haven't heard an artist offer much either. Probably a good thing. Let the fact of being there, and the fun of the music, speak for itself.

Addendum 3 - 6.00pm - Post Chili Peppers break. Cut to Graham Norton in the 'VIP' section. Quite funny, as he didn't seem to feel there were any VIPs, except for those who are green VIPs, and that seemed not to impress him a great deal. Currently watching an actually sensible discussion between JR, Kate Silverton and David Shukman.

There seems to be quite some surprise that a lot of folk are quite happy to admit they are just here to have a good time and that the whole climate thing is ok, too. Some real, and warranted, concern that even more, especially of those writing in, are of the view the science is still being debated. We've discussed this before here, and the issue must be to get what we do know out there, honestly but also with enough oompf to persuade people to accept a change in behaviour is necessary.

Finally (as we are going out tonight), I was more than interested that the BBC pundits, in fact led by David Shukman, felt the 'pledge' was a tad ambitious. I have to say I agree. In know one school of negotiating thought is to aim high but agree a trade lower that is in fact where you want to be. I'm not so sure in this case. If the target looks too unattainable, there may be a danger that people simply don't even try. Baby steps, but lots of incremental ones, may be the order of the day. Anyway, should you choose to engage with them in the way requested, here is that pledge:

1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;

2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"

3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;

4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;

5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;

6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,

7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.

There may be mechanisms, but I have to say that, should I wish to engage with these (and in the main, why on earth wouldn't you?), I am none to sure what exactly to do next. It would be good to ensure that the momentum created is shaped and focused as well as can be. Not sure it is.

I think I'll close this post here. Tomorrow will doubtless offer a lot of material to chew on following the day's events. It will be interesting to see how it gets reported.

Live Earth - 2

Further to the original post [and I am sure what will not be the last] on the subject of Al's music industry supported global warming awareness raising campaign, I spotted something that is a genuinely nice example of publicity for a real home spun, rather than government or quango sponsored, 'let's go green' campaign.

The village of Ashton Hayes (Cheshire) started the UK's first Carbon Neutral Village project back in Jan 2006. Although they have since been publicised across many parts of this planet, a 10 minute eco-documentary film of their project is going to be screened as part of the Live Earth bash, possibly giving them, with a potential audience of 2 billion, the title of the planet's best known 'global village'.

Full story on CheshireOnline.

Big up for Ashton Hayes, and deservedly so.

When it pours, who reigns?

Newsnight has a piece tonight on floods. I thought I'd pre-empt a tad, based on a key comment in their blurb.

'...finding that it's difficult to pin down who out of the agencies and local authorities on the ground is really in charge. '

So the money pours (sorry) in, but no one in government or quango who gets paid (handsomely, to retirement and beyond) to spend it like water (bit of a theme here) can even be identified, much less held to account.

Sums up the way are 'governed' these days pretty well, I'd say.

Ad in£initum

Good question: Will PM Brown cut Labour’s adspend?

Me, the guy with a public service medium: "Gord, I hope not!"

Me, the poor taxpayer: "Gord, I hope so."

Me, the adman/publisher/parent who believes that persuasion is a great thing to invest in... if done well: "Gord. Whatever you do, just make sure the ROI's add up!"

I stand in awe of the sheer amount of guff being funded, by 'us', to persuade 'us' to do stuff. Most makes a lot of sense, though one could argue 'til the cows come home about the ethics of using public money to further certain agendas that may or may not be as in in the public interest as they might.

But where I get very concerned is when the vast amounts splurged seem to be placed with quangos to dispense, and the actual numbers all get a little lost in the wash, along with who is responsible, accountable, etc.

Take my pet area, the environment. We now have literally scores of NGOs, often it seems with overlapping remits, who first of all establish empires of offices, officers and... comms budgets.

Then they blow them. And, speaking personally as a strategist and creative, they blow them on some pretty odd or poor messages.

And even if there is measurement, the measures sometimes don't add up. If I had £20M to spend, I should reckon on a 7% 'increase in awareness', as I think I saw one such quango crow recently, as being pretty average. I only just put down a PR from another, with a vast online budget and lord alone knows how many staff, bigging up a site that has had 7,000 hits! Er... my aunty's has had more.

And then, to add insult to injury, one gets the odd tabloid expose of the sheer number of board members of said quangos whose already multi hundred thou salaries are further boosted by meeting and exceeding targets.

So let me get this straight. Our money is used to punt out endless comms to get us to do more (which may or may not actually help the real issue) to boost rates that help us fork out more in bonuses?

So... let's make that a qualified no to your question.

At least, not until the accountability is improved.

Green Rush

Jumping on the big ‘green’ bandwagon - quite.

We are just at the start of a flood ('scuse the tasteless pun) of 'look how green we are' ads. Most, so far, fill me with dread, simply by the sheer crassness of the message, bolted on top of a usually pretty thin actual initiative.

And it's got me to wondering just how much longer it will... can continue. Because if in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, then if all in the land have gone green, to stand out from the crowd (which, let's face it, is pretty much what A&P is) those in charge of the purse strings may either tire or seek to differentiate. And much as it may seem attractive, I can only see Mutually Assured Greenification as being taken so far.

As one whose philosophy is pretty much predicated on the value of persuasion and seeing good environmental practice as an opportunity to embrace rather than a problem to 'deal with', I nonetheless cannot also help but think what could be DONE to help make this a better planet for future generations with £7.5M, rather than blowing it on a campaign to blow green smoke up various orifices.

No wonder the majority of the consuming public think it's all a bit of a lark.

DEFRA Appoints Heavyweight

In ol' Golden's new team we have a new Environment Minister that we know little about at all, and have so far heard little from at all.

Hoewever, DEFRA appear to have made a significant appointment today. Professor Robert Watson, no less than the one time chair of the IPCC, and currently Chief Scientist and Senior Advisor for Sustainable Development at the World Bank, has been brought in as their new Cheif Scientific Advisor. From the Government News Network.

Let's hope his new role can prove influential in bringing Hilary Benn up to speed in what is surely going to become an increasingly important ministerial position.

Addendum:

I spotted this from BYM News - strange that nobody else seems to have reported Hilary Benn's (aka, in the tabloids now, 'Veggie Benn') comments from the Local Government Associations conference at all.

"Nothing is of greater importance to all of us today than the environment and the future of our planet. As councils and national governments we need to work together with citizens and businesses to provide a clean and green local environment and make sure that we are all tackling climate change and making best use of the world's limited resources. It's a task for all of us, G8 leader and council leader alike, and citizens too. This is the new politics; personal responsibility, not leaving it to others. I am my planet's keeper."

Well, that sounds quite encouraging, Hilary Benn certainly knows how to talk the talk - let's hope he follows up his words with genuine actions.

Houses in order

I'm sorry, I can't let this - In denial - pass unremarked.

Actually a pretty decent article, and the comments in reply will be interesting (not that I can make any, as I seem to have been 'de-listed' as a verified respondent, which is frustrating).

But...

Look at the ad panel at the top. It's for Land Rover. Now I don't have as big an issue as some about 4x4s, but this is about a journey from 3 separate sources in Europe, and I very much doubt most will require four wheel drive.

So who is in denial? The public? Or the media or claim to be promoting good environmental practice whilst unable to resist making a buck or two in any way they can? I have sympathy for such as ourselves, currently subject to an automated system, but this is a major medium well able to decide it can no longer reconcile deeds that do not match words.

At least, if they wish to remain credible in my eyes.

ADDENDUM - I am now back in their good books. Apparently I got 'deleted' from the system because of bouncing emails. Sounds painful.

The delay was worth it, if only for a very interesting insight from a poster about the way the stats were interpreted. Well worth reading to see how what is published can get re-published in a different way entirely.

ADDENDUM 2 - Having been, possibly with reason, ignored for trying to raise the issue of media hypocrisy, I have decided to try a new tack to see if I can tweak a scientist to reply:

Some smart cookies here. So I'll ask a question I asked at the Venturefest in Harwell, with another bunch of very smart cookies (boffin and banker variety) all trying to figure out how to make money from climate change (there didn't seem much doubt it was happening, or that meddling with man's contribution was going to be BIG!).

What about deforestation?

A wee while ago I saw a small piece on Newsnight that had the loss of carbon sink from this as being in excess of the output of CO2 from the US.

Now it seems to me that, if we are worried about timescales and immediate enviROIs, sweating the trivia (plastic bags and 4x4s and even budget flights) pales into insignificance in importance to simply stopping the erosion of a mature, active and operational mitigation system.

Now I know the UK is but an acorn the great 'may contain nuts' collection of intolerances that make up our global Caesar's salad. But surely, with the power and influence of our City and high powered diplomats like Air Blair and David Miliband, we can devote some effort, with some degree of success, in tackling an immediate and real issue as a matter of priority? As opposed to, say, offsetting tomorrow's concert by paying for a fir being whacked in the firmament, hoping it doesn't croak and gets to do its job in a decade. Or trading some family's holiday allowance with a German construction company to help fund the subsidy for them to plant a wind farm that may not be quite as efficient, as often as the press release claims.

Ok, you can now all go back to squabbling over whether anything is happening or not.

Greenism

I'm stumped. I've been it before. I will be again. And I certainly am now. And it is epitomised by this: MEP HITS OUT AT MEDIA OVER CLIMATE CHANGE DOUBT...

... from a press release which I print in full here:

LUCAS LIKENS CLIMATE SCEPTICISM TO HOLOCAUST DENIAL - GREEN MEP Caroline Lucas has hit out at the media after a poll revealed that a majority of people in the UK believe that scientists aren’t agreed about the facts of climate change – or that it is being caused by human activity. According to latest figures by pollsters Ipsos-MORI, some 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change”. Just 22 per cent disagreed. Dr Lucas, who is a member of the European Parliament’s Environment and Climate Change committees, said: “This is very worrying. Politicians will never take the steps necessary to cut emissions unless voters demand that they do so, and they won’t demand it if they remain sceptical about their role in changing the climate in the first place. “The media are, at least in part, to blame: their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening, or that it isn’t manmade, as though there is a serious ongoing scientific debate about this. “But the fact is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: almost every scientist in the world agrees that climate change is happening, that it is being fuelled by human activity, and that our best chance of ameliorating its worst impacts lies in dramatically cutting global greenhouse gas emissions. “By suggesting otherwise the media is, albeit inadvertently, promoting dangerous scepticism about climate change – and undermining our chances of doing anything about it.” Dr Lucas, who was named Politician of the Year in the recent Observer Ethical Awards 2007, likened climate change scepticism to holocaust denial. “The media’s attempt to seem balanced is in fact distorting the public’s understanding of perhaps the most pressing issue facing us all today – and it’s tragic. It doesn’t make any sense: would the media insist on having a holocaust-denier to balance any report about the second word war? Of course not - but by insisting on giving so much airtime to climate change deniers, it is doing exactly the same thing.”

This is yet another, oddly familiar salvo, that can be added to the exchanges noted of late, including some we've had most latterly on these very pages just yesterday.

Here I am, trying to do my best to do what's best for my kids' futures on this planet, and I seem to have found myself in the BOFDi camp.

Let me be clear. I think the evidence for climate change (Global warming is getting pretty discredited as a term , at least to use in public debate, as low temperatures and flash floods are hard to reconcile with the term) is pretty clear. I also believe that, at best, what mankind is doing sure isn't helping. So anything we do... now... in mitigation to slow, halt and reverse the process is a priority, especially as, to this 'live for tomorrow' society, we are talking efforts that equate to turning a supertanker, inasmuch as what we do today won't get noticed - good or bad - for several decades.

But...

I simply cannot go along with the notion that 'green is always good', and in the name of climate change action all manner of statements and/or initiatives can be allowed to go undebated as to validity and value. I guess it is one of the greater failings of the democratic process, especially when time is of the essence.

But while I have great respect for Dr. Lucas, when I see such as this '...their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening...' I have to fall on the side of a much maligned (usually by me) media.

What is she saying? That 'we' shouldn't try to be balanced? There is an inherent arrogance here, that the majority are not to fit to make up their own minds up, and need to have only what is fit to shape them spoonfed by independent sources, such (well, within certain boundaries of credibility) as the media.

If the naysayers are holding sway, why are the majority of people accepting their stances? This is what needs to be addressed, and in ways civilised society is used to and must expect: debate and persuasion.

I simply can't accept you 'rig' it to suit your point of view prevailing, not matter how urgent the need to get moving.

And let's not forget, as noted also on these pages, climate change is also being used as a very convenient tool to excuse, distract from or otherwise promote activities that do still bear scrutiny, along with the agendas of those making the most noise, and with the most to profit from ROI over enviROI, especially if... when... they become the Gods of Green, whose word is taken as gospel with no naysaying permitted.

I'd hate to get to a situation similar to the one often found, for instance with Africa, where legitimate concerns on activities conducted and claims made can be easily deflected by accusations of 'racism'.

Please not let's have 'greenism' being bandied about in the same way.

Wonder if Al has an iPod?

OK, cheap (ish) shot. But in a way it's symptomatic of what 'we' are facing: Gadget boom to drive up energy demand

From Live Earth to events like the one I just attended (review still coming), I am getting more and more convinced that the wrong things are being fussed over by the wrong people for the wrong reasons... possibly to the great glee of those with vested interests in just such things happening (cripes, I'm sounding almost as Conspiracy Theorist as Dave!).

We have all this effort on the consumer end of packaging disposal when so much more can, and should be done at the point it is created. We have vast campaigns on switching off when the things are still being made... and with no easy way to operate as others would require. Flights are to be taxed, yet airports created. Quango after quango created and funded to spend bazillions telling us to do things we either don't 'get', can't do or don't believe, yet meanwhile some truly effective big hits are left ignored.

Not. Joined. Up.

Sometimes you ask the right questions .....

.... but you get the wrong answers ..... sometimes you may get the right answers, but by asking the wrong questions. Sometimes you think you are right, and you are not.

I hate being wrong, I always have; but I hate things that hide the truth, or what potentially may be the truth, whether deliberately, or by silence, even more. So when you come across something that casts an entirely different light on a subject that you've being banging on about, you just have to swallow your pride and share it - whether it is actually right, or wrong, or neither.

Confused? .............. Then allow me to elucidate.

A little while back I posted a few items either on, or that mentioned, the potential geo-political outcomes of global warming - famine, mass migration, wars etc. and about how even the UN was assessing current conflicts such as that in Sudan as being a direct consequence of global warming that has occured already.
See 18th June - Arms dealing - the career of the future?
and 21st June - Today's forecast - heavy wars.

So it was with great interest that I came across this piece on Sudan's oil production activities.

Some very interesting facts appear in this:-

"Sudan only started producing and exporting oil in July 1999, with the completion of an export pipeline that runs from central Sudan to the Red Sea port of Bashair."

"Sudan is now the third largest crude oil producer in Africa." (I knew it had some minor oilfields - but third behind only Nigeria and Angola - in less than a decade!!)

"The Sudanese Energy Ministry estimates total oil reserves at five billion barrels." (Nice little asset to sit on.)

"Sudanese sources estimate that Darfur and Kordofan may be the areas richest in oil in the entire country."

So where is this going? Well, take another look at THAT region name in the last statement again, and then take a look at concession block 6 on the map in the attached link. Block 6 is reckoned to be the most promising as far as future production is concerned (i.e. read - the biggest oilfields).

Block 6 just happens to sit right across a big chunk of the Darfur region.

So the prolonged drought has forced conflict between the farmers and nomadic groups and there is insufficient water to go around?

Excuse me for being ironic - but now I'm beginning to think all is not at is seems, and not as we have been led to believe. Methinks I smell the very strong stench of PetroDollars in the air. And do I detect, perhaps, just a whiff of PetroDollar funded ethnic cleansing in Darfur? Perhaps I'm adding 2 + 2 and making 5, but it has certainly made me think again.

What do our readers think?

And I'm not even going to mention the fact that both the Chinese and the West, including the US (despite current sanctions), have major oil exploration and exploitation activities going on in Sudan, to muddy the mix even more.

Oh, I just did. Sorry.

And sorry for being wrong - well, maybe wrong.

Addendum:

Is there anybody out there who subscribes to The Irish Times who might let us know what the main thrust of this article (5/7/2007) is?
UN hides behind climate change to mask Darfur inaction.

Big Plastic. Big Oil. Big Recycle?

This, going around and coming around from the ever useful Red Ferret: Hawk 10 turns plastic back into oil - seagulls rejoice

What's not to like? Well, here's hoping they don't use the oil so gained to stick in the nearest Prius' fuel hole.

Assuming it's the ultimate in recycling, and unless I have missed a trick, there's the ocean of plastic my local council won't... yet... take, too.

Mind you, as a lot of my site is about turning them into other, equally useful things, do keep back a few. You never know when they may come in handy!

RE:visitation rites

Here I am pondering how posts to old blog topics get archived and notified, and someone has helpfully added to the archive.

I think it best I repost to give it the best chance of being shared properly.

The post in question was Nothing like a good conference , and I am happy to share it again here.

Indeed, having read the link (sadly, finding the time for a 50 minute show is beyond me at the moment, much though it looks well worth the time over lunch or an evening surf) I am even happier, as it also introduces the PSFK site too.

As blogger replies can't, or at least complicates posting HTML links, let me repost the URL here.

As an ex(ish) ad-man, it is interesting to see the next generation struggling to get to grips with the dilemma of promoting rampant capitalism and one's personal duty as a green-aware individual to practice and preach the 'RE's'.

Free infinite energy again!

Well, let's wait and see.

Steorn have been banging on about this magical free energy device for almost two years now, but only a few 'scientists' have been allowed to see and review it. It purports to generate free energy from the interaction of several magnets.

They say they are going to publicly show the device in London today (At The Kinetica Museum, Old Spitalfields - 18:00. Though the Kinetica site, rather confusingly, says it is closed until the 5th July) and are supposed to be showing it on the internet too!

Perhaps if this Orbo gizmo actually works, then maybe they have another contender for the future replacement of Big Oil's current CO2 producing products?

Addendum:

Having found zero news items about this on the morning of the 5/7/2007, I took another look and the public showing has been moved to today. Let's see what tomorrow brings.

Addendum 2:

Now they are having problems with the demo unit, and the display at Kinetica will not open until 6/7/2007 for public viewing of the Orbo free energy technology.

Addendum 3:

Oh dear ...... things aren't going too well. The demonstration has now been cancelled indefinitely due to technical problems caused by excessive heat. See Steorn announcement.

With a track record like the one they are rapidly developing, no-one is going to believe anything they say at all soon!

Live Earth - The Biggest Show On Earth?

Live Earth appears set to break all records in terms of TV viewing figures - see The Guardian. With the broadcasts going live to an estimated 800 million in China alone, they estimate a potential 2 billion people will actually view the Live Earth shows at some stage.

Profits from Live Earth will go to Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. But the entire event has been questioned by Bob Geldof, organiser of Live Aid and Live8. In May he said: "I hope they're a success. But why is he [Gore] actually organising them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect? Everybody's known about that for years. We are all f**king conscious of global warming."

Oh dear, if these numbers turn out to be true, Sir Bob will choke on his guinness!

Junkk Male adds:

Guardian - Public doubts on global warming - This is interesting (and scary) more for the replies. There is either a very well coordinated collection of BOFDis out there (possible) ready to pounce on any such thing in such as the Guardian, or a high level of disenfranchisement (sorry, I think probable) due to how all this is being (mis)handled.

Thing is, there seems to be a woeful effort to accept this latter possibility and work to change it effectively. I'm afraid that sticking with the 'we know better than you and you're an idiot for not accepting what we say' doesn't seem to play too well. And, frankly, I can see why it doesn't.

Be it those paid to wallow in GW/CC from government to academia to even the media, it simply isn't getting through in any meaningful way to those who really matter: the masses.

And if this is the reaction in Guardian PiousVille, just imagine what is going on in Mail MondeoLand. Actually, without wishing to get too 'demographic' (which sounds better than a variety of 'ists' I could be accused of), as I do spend a fair while in Times/Telegraph/BBC territory too, I can pretty much attest that a large chunk of well-educated, highly-paid professionals are not exactly on board either. And it's making me as popular at parties as a poo in the pool.

I'd say those who have self-appointed themselves as 'our' saviours need to have a bit of a rethink, and at least change their tunes a bit. Or find another cause to feed off if they are part of the vast army sucking bazillions out of talking a lot but evidently getting very little DONE.

I'm back, by the way. Wish it was good to be so:)

ADDENDUM 2:

I have now listened to the Al Gore Today interview, which was preceded by a piece about the MORI poll in question.

Interesting. I have to say I was perhaps listening out for it, but what came across a little to strongly in both was, again, this notion that any other opinions are wrong and, more importantly, should not be allowed to exist.

While I am obviously quite convinced that 'something' is deteriorating, and whatever mankind is up to sure isn't helping, I cannot help but feel that being so smug or, worse, arrogant as to deny those who would wish to exercise the right to a contrary opinion, is a poor strategy.

If their arguments are causing doubt, the more important question is to why they still feel that way (are they really so prepared to be the last of their lines, or at least labelled as those who stood by and/or contributed to the end?), and others are inclined to agree. Once this is understood one can work to persuade, using all fair and ethical means possible (especially by example, of which sadly I find many elements of the forthcoming concert, human and otherwise, to be sending at best a mixed message), those who are not acting to start doing so.

There will doubtless be plenty of commentary following the event, and I will be interested to see how it pans out short, medium and long term. But I have to say I will not be one of those signing yet another online 'pledge', if that is deemed to be of great significance. At the Oxford Climate Conference I watched, heard referred to and indeed met a few 'hard-nosed men'... and they don't get moved that easily by such things. What will... I'm working on.

From the Today Blog on this - I'm afraid to say that, as with all the other climate change 'debates', as the extremes dug in and the artillery/entrench war settled in, I tuned out. And I really do care enough to try and stay with it.

ADDENDUM 3:

Gaurdian - Why rock won't save the planet - Well considered in my (JunkkMale) view

My bank's greener than yours!

So just how green is your bank?

An interesting question and one which we might increasingly ask as nearly all of them have jumped onto one of the green bandwagons somewhere along the line.

Following the recent launches of the American Express Red, and the Co-operative Bank charity card, today we have the launch of the 'Green' Barclaycard - story from The Guardian. This promises to donate half of the profits to PURE, a UK charity that invests in low energy projects.

As the authors put it .....

"Many of these initiatives have been greeted with scepticism by critics who accuse the banks of jumping on the climate change bandwagon to get more publicity."

.... Quite! It seems a peculiar way to donate to charity if you ask me!

And on the same day, HSBC appoint Sir Nicholas Stern, author of the government report on climate change, as a 'special advisor'. From TimesOnline.

"His appointment further demonstrates that sustainability issues are at the forefront of HSBC’s agenda.”

OK ...... I think I'm with the general idea so far .....

It [HSBC] said that his role would include "providing direct advice on specific strategic issues in emerging markets where the bank has aspirations to grow its business; advising on the socioeconomic implications of climate change and representing HSBC on these issues; contributing to management development programmes ... and providing advice to major clients of the group who seek to develop sustainable business strategies or other programmes relating to climate change and to economic development issues".

.... A nice, clear, concise remit that means ....... just what, exactly?

ADDENDUM (form Junkk Male):

Mad - Green backs…I mean banks

Or, worse, if not done with genuine intent, long term commitment and tangible follow-through, does it just add to the level of 'green noise' that is already saturating the airwaves, and further contribute to the public tuning out?

My little site gets a press release every few days from some bank or other saying how they have gone carbon neutral, or some supermarket to say they are switching to green energy.

Good on them! But as a consumer, other than meeting a legislative obligation or reducing running costs this impacts me how, exactly?

I have always written back to applaud their moves, but go on to suggest that to get my little online resource to publish their PR it would need to be a tad more tangible in the area of actual savings to planet and said consumer.

In the case of banks, this could take the form of low or at-cost loans to put in insulation. A loss-leader to get custom at a later stage. If they end up saving money on energy, once they go into profit then they may wish to buy into something else that requires finance... hopefully something equally responsible.

Some have moved in that direction, but most, sadly, seem more keen to bank the money and invest more on spun veneer than actual substance.

Which seems quite a waste.

Make fun of the big boys and you end up getting hurt.

Remember the prank pulled by The Yes Men on Big Oil about the spoof product Vivoleum?

Well, it appears that the big boys at Exxon were not amused - it seems that they actually managed (allegedly) to get the ISP to pull The Yes Men site and their email capabilities, for a while at least.
See The Inquirer for details.

Isn't it amazing just how much the school playground pecking order and real world big business are alike? Make too much fun of the big boys and you will usually end up getting hurt.

Today's Top Ten .....

... Predictions. (About Climate Change)

As presented in The Times by the eminent Scientist (maybe?), Zoologist (yes), Climatologist (probably not?) and sometime explorer, Tim Flannery.

Nothing to cause too much dissention in them, was my first thought, but the response comments contain some of the most vitriolic, vehement arguments against AGW that I've ever seen.

"His next job will be as a carnival psychic, clairvoyant, or palm reader. He is well rehearsed in making vague predictions that fit any eventuality."

"Anyone who considers Tim Flannery to be a font of scientific knowledge displays their own ignorance. "

"It is my understanding that Tim Flannery has no scientific credentials. His claims have little or no substance. "

"ten of the most wishy washy unproven and heavily contradicted predictions of all time, I'd say."

"The notion that Man is causing global warming is as ludicrous as a flea floating on his back down a river, with an erection, yelling 'Raise the drawbridge!' "

I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I can't help suspecting that these responses are probably very similar to what the first 'scientists' who claimed the earth was round, as opposed to flat, received. (Generally just before they were put to death as heretics!)

Just a little poser for you - is this the same Tim Flannery who was voted Australian of the year and subsequently much abused by some in government over there?

Let the work of change begin

So ol' Golden's now in charge, and talking about change. The Telegraph.

After ten years of 'fiscal prudence' ensconced in No. 11, during which time ol' Golden has presided over: ...............

- An iniquitous raid on pension funds (including a huge chunk of mine);

- More than 100 increases in various taxes, both direct and indirect;

- The employment of millions of extra 'public servants' (who the rest of us have to pay for, including their gold-plated, index-linked pensions!);

- Council tax that has gone up by more than three times the level of inflation over the decade(with a corresponding reduction in services!);

- The pouring of extra billions into the NHS bottomless hole without any visible improvement;

- The waste of billions on what now appear to be pointless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;

- 'Massaged' inflation figures against which pay deals have been set, so that millions now earn less in real terms than they did ten years ago;

........ I'm afraid that all I have left in my own pocket is ............... change.

What's the betting that the new incumbent of No. 11 finds some novel way of taking that off me too?

BBC - Brown to unveil further changes
BBC - Cabinet faces: Old and new - Hilary Benn for Environment. Let's see.

Think tank says nuclear is not viable option

There are many of us who have always assumed that the nuclear power generation option was the reliable, if not necessarily the most pleasant or desirable, backstop; perhaps giving mankind a few more decades leeway in order to develop more efficient and cost effective renewable energy power generation options.

It looks as if we will have to think again. This report via Reuters suggests that the planet cannot afford it, in terms of cost, logistics, or of security.

" ... if it [nuclear] was to play a significant part in curbing carbon emissions, nuclear power would have to provide one-third of electricity by 2075. That .... meant building four new nuclear plants a month, every month, globally for the next 70 years."

One of the report's conclusions is:- "Unless it can be demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power can make a major contribution to global CO2 mitigation, nuclear power should be taken out of the mix"

Back to the "Arks 'R Us" drawing board then .......