I understood that the ozone layer being destroyed by CFCs problem had been sorted out, and that the holes were now contracting. But it now seems that ozone has yet another trick up its sleeve, this time to do with accelerating global temperatures. Full article is on the RSC - Chemistry World.
"Ozone was already known to have a significant direct greenhouse gas (GHG) action. But the new effect is an indirect one, resulting from the toxic effect of high ozone levels on land plants."
Apparently, ozone in the lower atmosphere directly affects the way that plants absorb CO2, reducing the land carbon sink capability.
"Land plants absorb CO2 through pores in their leaves called stomata. When atmospheric ozone levels reach about 40ppm - already reached in many parts of the world - these stomata contract, reducing the plants' CO2 uptake. Moreover, ozone levels are expected to reach 70ppm in many parts of the world by the year 2100. This will suppress the land carbon sink, push up the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2, and boost the greenhouse effect"
This "could boost average world temperatures by a further 0.5-1.25°C - compared with the 2-5°C that will result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2."
This appears to suggest that things could get even worse than predicted; but no doubt there will be some counter argument that suggests that this is all a load of guff too!
Is it just one more straw on the camel's back to worry about?
ADDENDUM 1 (from Junkk Male):
Real Climate: Ozone impacts on climate change
The Ecologist: Rising ozone levels could stunt plant growth
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Claiming neutrality
I happened across this bit of ad-world navel gazing: Green meanz beanz and couldn't resist a few thoughts...
Well the water cooler vote should be interesting!
Hijacked??? The green agenda seems to have been kidnapped, the hostages killed immediately and then a never ending series of ever more outrageous videos pumped out to substantiate even more outrageous ransom demands.
Ok. Make that a qualified yes.
You are right to be suspicious. And Mr. Whitehouse has every reason to be outraged.
However, I would advocate some caution in how the discomfort 'we' are feeling gets manifested, especially as the core key to making a difference in the fight to mitigate man (PC-alert! Person...) made factors in creating negative climate change (For what it's worth I'm one of those who is not sure, but I simply hate waste and, in any case, for my kids' sake I figure it's better to be safe than sorry. So if the majority of climate experts say it's big and needs addressing now, I figure saying 'Are you sure?' will be a poor legacy. Make a great headstone, though: 'Yup. I guess they were right about global warming after all!. Sorry')
And almost everyone is playing silly b*ggers with the agenda for various selfish, self-promoting reasons, and not just most politicians. Though they are pretty top of a stinking pile. As with the recent floods. A bunch of Chicken Little's pointing at the sky and blaming climate change (which for sure may not have helped much) for creating an 'unprecedented situation that could not be predicted', when it wasn't and it was, respectively.
Which all gets the average Joe's trust factor on the first train straight back to Clarksonville.
You are so right that almost everything is twiddling about at the wrong end of the supply chain, throwing the onus on poorly informed, woefully supported and ill-equipped consumers to deal with all manner of things that is really nothing to do with them. If it's legal to manufacture and sell, why on earth does it end up with the punter to deal with the consequences of a 4x4 purchase, a bottle of Evian (those seeking to ban those two not living in a flood zone I'd hazard) or the packaging of a box of chox?
And I'm afraid that you have rather hit the nail with 'employ lots of people'. How many bazillions are being spent on government departments and unaccountable quangos to assess, research, monitor, and otherwise fiddle about with all this? And with comms budgets squandering amounts that could fund soooo many actual, tangible, plants, initiatives and programmes to really DO something and make a real difference. How many more TVCs pointing at Flash-enabled sites to 'raise' awareness of things people patently can't engage with even if they can be bothered. Forget my favourite measure of all things 'eco', the enviROI... what about simple ROIs? I've seen public websites getting excited at monthly hits in the tens of thousands. My granny's blog gets more than that! And if my agency had ever toddled along to a client and tried to make out 'improved awareness' that hadn't even made double digits was a success having blown several millions (and ignoring massive complementary PR), I'd be shown the door. Who accounts for all this waste of resource?
I'm sure hordes of boxes are being ticked as we speak, but are my kids' futures being protected here? Or a bunch of folks' pensions' plans and bonus structures?
I applaud any corporate who is getting on board and actually doing something here and now that's real and going to make a difference. But I dread the total horse manure that we will also end up being fed in A&P as a consequence. One more car ad with a leaf sticking out of its exhaust and I'm buying a Hummer. And as for going carbon neutral... great. Do it. Just don't shove it down my throat in such a crass way. The definition hasn't even been properly established yet. What's it mean? Are they reducing output? Simply being more efficient? Or trading a carbon credit to make more stuff elsewhere? Is it simply going to help the books internally, or will it a) help the consumer and b) the planet in any way? How many 'green ads' are getting booted out by the ASA at the moment to a tabloid fanfare? Think of the damage to consumer trust and the credibility of brands... and the genuine message.
As co-inhabitants of this planet of course 'we' should take responsibility for green becoming more about wealth generation than the planet.
But I'll leave you with a thought. Maybe, just maybe, with a bit of creativity, a dash of honesty and a smidge of ethics, some things can be done that not only help the planet, but also could lead to genuine marketing opportunities too. And if you'll allow a plug I'll mention in closing one that's dear to my heart that's doing all it can in this regard: Junkk.com
ps: Not all that's green can be viewed in black and white. That avocado? It may well be it's mostly marketing. But food waste accounts for waaaay more than packaging, so which would your prefer? A pile of bruised veg in the dumpster, or a bit of protection to help it through the distribution chain to Mr & Mrs Fussy-Yuppy? And in any case, do they even grow here? Yowser! Food miles! Carbon labels! Another debate for another time....
Well the water cooler vote should be interesting!
Hijacked??? The green agenda seems to have been kidnapped, the hostages killed immediately and then a never ending series of ever more outrageous videos pumped out to substantiate even more outrageous ransom demands.
Ok. Make that a qualified yes.
You are right to be suspicious. And Mr. Whitehouse has every reason to be outraged.
However, I would advocate some caution in how the discomfort 'we' are feeling gets manifested, especially as the core key to making a difference in the fight to mitigate man (PC-alert! Person...) made factors in creating negative climate change (For what it's worth I'm one of those who is not sure, but I simply hate waste and, in any case, for my kids' sake I figure it's better to be safe than sorry. So if the majority of climate experts say it's big and needs addressing now, I figure saying 'Are you sure?' will be a poor legacy. Make a great headstone, though: 'Yup. I guess they were right about global warming after all!. Sorry')
And almost everyone is playing silly b*ggers with the agenda for various selfish, self-promoting reasons, and not just most politicians. Though they are pretty top of a stinking pile. As with the recent floods. A bunch of Chicken Little's pointing at the sky and blaming climate change (which for sure may not have helped much) for creating an 'unprecedented situation that could not be predicted', when it wasn't and it was, respectively.
Which all gets the average Joe's trust factor on the first train straight back to Clarksonville.
You are so right that almost everything is twiddling about at the wrong end of the supply chain, throwing the onus on poorly informed, woefully supported and ill-equipped consumers to deal with all manner of things that is really nothing to do with them. If it's legal to manufacture and sell, why on earth does it end up with the punter to deal with the consequences of a 4x4 purchase, a bottle of Evian (those seeking to ban those two not living in a flood zone I'd hazard) or the packaging of a box of chox?
And I'm afraid that you have rather hit the nail with 'employ lots of people'. How many bazillions are being spent on government departments and unaccountable quangos to assess, research, monitor, and otherwise fiddle about with all this? And with comms budgets squandering amounts that could fund soooo many actual, tangible, plants, initiatives and programmes to really DO something and make a real difference. How many more TVCs pointing at Flash-enabled sites to 'raise' awareness of things people patently can't engage with even if they can be bothered. Forget my favourite measure of all things 'eco', the enviROI... what about simple ROIs? I've seen public websites getting excited at monthly hits in the tens of thousands. My granny's blog gets more than that! And if my agency had ever toddled along to a client and tried to make out 'improved awareness' that hadn't even made double digits was a success having blown several millions (and ignoring massive complementary PR), I'd be shown the door. Who accounts for all this waste of resource?
I'm sure hordes of boxes are being ticked as we speak, but are my kids' futures being protected here? Or a bunch of folks' pensions' plans and bonus structures?
I applaud any corporate who is getting on board and actually doing something here and now that's real and going to make a difference. But I dread the total horse manure that we will also end up being fed in A&P as a consequence. One more car ad with a leaf sticking out of its exhaust and I'm buying a Hummer. And as for going carbon neutral... great. Do it. Just don't shove it down my throat in such a crass way. The definition hasn't even been properly established yet. What's it mean? Are they reducing output? Simply being more efficient? Or trading a carbon credit to make more stuff elsewhere? Is it simply going to help the books internally, or will it a) help the consumer and b) the planet in any way? How many 'green ads' are getting booted out by the ASA at the moment to a tabloid fanfare? Think of the damage to consumer trust and the credibility of brands... and the genuine message.
As co-inhabitants of this planet of course 'we' should take responsibility for green becoming more about wealth generation than the planet.
But I'll leave you with a thought. Maybe, just maybe, with a bit of creativity, a dash of honesty and a smidge of ethics, some things can be done that not only help the planet, but also could lead to genuine marketing opportunities too. And if you'll allow a plug I'll mention in closing one that's dear to my heart that's doing all it can in this regard: Junkk.com
ps: Not all that's green can be viewed in black and white. That avocado? It may well be it's mostly marketing. But food waste accounts for waaaay more than packaging, so which would your prefer? A pile of bruised veg in the dumpster, or a bit of protection to help it through the distribution chain to Mr & Mrs Fussy-Yuppy? And in any case, do they even grow here? Yowser! Food miles! Carbon labels! Another debate for another time....
MPs to investigate if biofuels are truly sustainable
Why do I dread finding items like this from EnvironmentTimes?
Because of that first little acronym - 'MP'.
After months of investigation no doubt they'll come up with some half cocked conclusions that miss out most of the salient points and ignore loads of the key information and evidence.
"Concerns have also been raised about food security, as a large agricultural shift to fuel production might dramatically increase food prices"
'Concerns'? Its already happening - the evidence is out there for all to see! (See the post on 'Agflation' below).
At least they're asking for input - let's just hope that they accept it, review it, consider it and take it into account! Unfortunately, many parliamentary committees seem to have a tendency to do none of the above very well.
Oh well ...... at least they are actually looking at biofuels now; after all, it's something that just might turn out to be very important in the future of this planet.
Let's hope they include in their deliberations things like ethanol production from a dairy by-product as reported via AutoBlogGreen today.
Because of that first little acronym - 'MP'.
After months of investigation no doubt they'll come up with some half cocked conclusions that miss out most of the salient points and ignore loads of the key information and evidence.
"Concerns have also been raised about food security, as a large agricultural shift to fuel production might dramatically increase food prices"
'Concerns'? Its already happening - the evidence is out there for all to see! (See the post on 'Agflation' below).
At least they're asking for input - let's just hope that they accept it, review it, consider it and take it into account! Unfortunately, many parliamentary committees seem to have a tendency to do none of the above very well.
Oh well ...... at least they are actually looking at biofuels now; after all, it's something that just might turn out to be very important in the future of this planet.
Let's hope they include in their deliberations things like ethanol production from a dairy by-product as reported via AutoBlogGreen today.
Agflation!
You've already got it, it's already affecting you and you just don't know it! But just what is agflation then?
Well, you've actually heard it described on this very blog on several posts from Peter over the last few months - he just didn't know, like me, that there was a term for it.
"Global corn stocks have fallen to their lowest levels since modern records began as ethanol plants consume an ever-growing share of output".
"The price of wheat has flown up by 53% since March last year to £130 a tonne"
And this is all before the impacts that our rather wet summer will have on local food prices here in the UK.
Crop and foodstuff prices may start to track the price of crude oil? Ridiculous? Well, read this from The Business and figure it for yourself!
I think I'll pop along and put my name down for an allotment tonight!
Well, you've actually heard it described on this very blog on several posts from Peter over the last few months - he just didn't know, like me, that there was a term for it.
"Global corn stocks have fallen to their lowest levels since modern records began as ethanol plants consume an ever-growing share of output".
"The price of wheat has flown up by 53% since March last year to £130 a tonne"
And this is all before the impacts that our rather wet summer will have on local food prices here in the UK.
Crop and foodstuff prices may start to track the price of crude oil? Ridiculous? Well, read this from The Business and figure it for yourself!
I think I'll pop along and put my name down for an allotment tonight!
Nuclear waste not a problem?
I always find this sort of article fascinating. From The Guardian Comment, the writer suggests that the development of additional nuclear power capability is crucial in the fight against global warming. OK ........ I think I can follow the basic logic of that argument.
But, and its a BIG but, we get the same old argument about how to dispose of, store, throw away the inevitable nasty stuff that's left over.
"When we need to deal with the leftovers, we'll have the technology."
Errrrm, go on, prove it to me then. And while you're at it, just what is the EnviROI of storing stuff for decades while scientists play around with ideas on how to dispose of it properly, pray?
Although I still believe that nuclear will inevitably have to be part of the mix in terms of future power generation, I'm sorry, but that sort of argument about disposal of the horrendous waste that spent nuclear fuel represents is just not acceptable.
The article suggests several disposal methods that are in the research stage including some that actually make the waste safe (or, at least, a lot safer), but most of these ideas have been around for some 40+ years now, and yet there is still no safe way of dealing with the spent fuel.
The article is entitled: -
"Nuclear waste is hardly a worry when the climate change threat is so urgent"
Sorry, but even measured against the worry that climate change induces in many of us, it IS a major worry to anyone concerned about the environment of this little lump of planetary rock.
ADDENDUM - Junkk Male to CiF site
I must share the compliment offered to what has mostly been a civilised and highly informative series of exchanges.
Just one thing.
If we are to squirt the stuff elsewhere rather than doing without or dealing with it (a human trait), can we wait until the tehcnological solutions that have so far resulted in our current extra-orbital attempts scrape to a slighly more reassuring succcess rate.
Oh, and please make it over someone else's head, not in a jet-stream, etc.
Ta very much.
But, and its a BIG but, we get the same old argument about how to dispose of, store, throw away the inevitable nasty stuff that's left over.
"When we need to deal with the leftovers, we'll have the technology."
Errrrm, go on, prove it to me then. And while you're at it, just what is the EnviROI of storing stuff for decades while scientists play around with ideas on how to dispose of it properly, pray?
Although I still believe that nuclear will inevitably have to be part of the mix in terms of future power generation, I'm sorry, but that sort of argument about disposal of the horrendous waste that spent nuclear fuel represents is just not acceptable.
The article suggests several disposal methods that are in the research stage including some that actually make the waste safe (or, at least, a lot safer), but most of these ideas have been around for some 40+ years now, and yet there is still no safe way of dealing with the spent fuel.
The article is entitled: -
"Nuclear waste is hardly a worry when the climate change threat is so urgent"
Sorry, but even measured against the worry that climate change induces in many of us, it IS a major worry to anyone concerned about the environment of this little lump of planetary rock.
ADDENDUM - Junkk Male to CiF site
I must share the compliment offered to what has mostly been a civilised and highly informative series of exchanges.
Just one thing.
If we are to squirt the stuff elsewhere rather than doing without or dealing with it (a human trait), can we wait until the tehcnological solutions that have so far resulted in our current extra-orbital attempts scrape to a slighly more reassuring succcess rate.
Oh, and please make it over someone else's head, not in a jet-stream, etc.
Ta very much.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Any Old Plastic
Let's end the day with a picture.I was passing a local coffee shop t'other day, which happened to be bin collections.
And there, on the pile, were these crates. I asked them if I could have them, and as they get charged for disposal they were more than happy.
And I now have a supply of nice plastic stacable trays for my growing Junkk collection.
Now, if only there was a way to connect such opportunities around the place. Oo, oo, I know.... JunkkYard!
Looks green. May be green. By by golly...
Some of the world’s leading technology brands are failing to convince consumers of their green credentials - Freelance UK
Seems they are sceptical about the ethical statements made by sellers.
So, in response to this issue, some of the biggest names in the technology sector are actively engaged in 'eco-proofing' their business operations, which does seem to have at its heart a bit more than puff, but the name hardly inspires one to think they are thinking that positively. It smacks, as always, of defensive measures.
Report author Added Value is holding a next Branding for Good Summit called “Green:2.0 - Avoid the Greenwash” in November. Oooo, another summit! Ok, so I'd like to go, too. I think though, just to be different, I'm going to call mine a 'get-together', or 'bit of a chat'.
More information is available at: www.added-value.com
Seems they are sceptical about the ethical statements made by sellers.
So, in response to this issue, some of the biggest names in the technology sector are actively engaged in 'eco-proofing' their business operations, which does seem to have at its heart a bit more than puff, but the name hardly inspires one to think they are thinking that positively. It smacks, as always, of defensive measures.
Report author Added Value is holding a next Branding for Good Summit called “Green:2.0 - Avoid the Greenwash” in November. Oooo, another summit! Ok, so I'd like to go, too. I think though, just to be different, I'm going to call mine a 'get-together', or 'bit of a chat'.
More information is available at: www.added-value.com
I could do with some of that, couldn't I?
I was catching up on some tearsheets and came across A Life in the Day of the UK Wikipedia 'run-person', reading it with oddly mixed feelings.
Of course I'm jealous, because to have such passion and commitment 'as an unpaid volunteer' would certainly ease the burden a tad. Of course I do have a few (and growing) loyal folk who chip in, and it is much appreciated. But her level of input is... beyond the call.
If a little scary.
'Two years ago we had almost no income; this year our budget will hit $6m. We receive donations but we need more money to pay for servers, among other things – we have 500 servers now. Advertising is out of the question: it’s a moral issue for us. So we’re seeking sponsorship from private companies, who could give us shares, and we’re going to ask the EU for subsidies.'
So advertising is immoral, but sponsorship from private companies isn't. Hmnn. Plus if I got a grant from the EU it would need to be without strings, but I certainly won't say no if they are up for that.
As for: "It’s possible one day I’ll be more proud of Wikipedia than of the kids", I'll always be proud of Junkk.com and the legacy it may leave my kids, but it will never come close to them in my heart; as they are flesh and blood and already showing me what the future can be.
I guess that's the difference between us. That, and when I find the money, I'll gladly share it with anyone who helps make the site better.
Sadly, I find too many charities, not-for-profits and volunteer groups to be stocked with people waaaay to scary to deal with.
Of course I'm jealous, because to have such passion and commitment 'as an unpaid volunteer' would certainly ease the burden a tad. Of course I do have a few (and growing) loyal folk who chip in, and it is much appreciated. But her level of input is... beyond the call.
If a little scary.
'Two years ago we had almost no income; this year our budget will hit $6m. We receive donations but we need more money to pay for servers, among other things – we have 500 servers now. Advertising is out of the question: it’s a moral issue for us. So we’re seeking sponsorship from private companies, who could give us shares, and we’re going to ask the EU for subsidies.'
So advertising is immoral, but sponsorship from private companies isn't. Hmnn. Plus if I got a grant from the EU it would need to be without strings, but I certainly won't say no if they are up for that.
As for: "It’s possible one day I’ll be more proud of Wikipedia than of the kids", I'll always be proud of Junkk.com and the legacy it may leave my kids, but it will never come close to them in my heart; as they are flesh and blood and already showing me what the future can be.
I guess that's the difference between us. That, and when I find the money, I'll gladly share it with anyone who helps make the site better.
Sadly, I find too many charities, not-for-profits and volunteer groups to be stocked with people waaaay to scary to deal with.
The 'R' Word
It's waaay up there with 'population', only seems to get bandied about a lot more: Polluting minds
I think I can just about see what you are trying to say. But sadly, it's hard to agree with much of the reasoning.
For a start, I await an adequate definition of 'racism' in any of the contexts it gets so wilfully misused all the time. I actually celebrate many of the differences that exist between races, cultures, etc, but as it is only ever levelled in the negative, I just wonder at what point one is to be censored (where free speech is allowed, natch) from identifying, much less commenting upon, a culture difference. Especially if it is bent on mutually assured self-destruction.
You surely cannot be trying to say that, having arrived at a point where climate change is accepted as most likely being accelerated by the vast amounts of gunk that ever more affluent consumers pour in the air through having the cash to buy ever more 'stuff', no one can question whether one sixth of the world's population may need to get on board with the notion of restraint a tad.
Ok, so the 'rest' of us are pretty darn woeful, especially a certain continent to the left, but at least there are existing and ever-developing mechanisms of restraint that are enshrined in their governance, and which the people can use the power of the vote to enact. Along with the freedom to mention some nasty facts to those whose careers extend to the end of a political term as opposed to when they shuffle off to join their ancestors.
Meanwhile, the guy behind you telling you to stump up for the bullet is...?
I think I can just about see what you are trying to say. But sadly, it's hard to agree with much of the reasoning.
For a start, I await an adequate definition of 'racism' in any of the contexts it gets so wilfully misused all the time. I actually celebrate many of the differences that exist between races, cultures, etc, but as it is only ever levelled in the negative, I just wonder at what point one is to be censored (where free speech is allowed, natch) from identifying, much less commenting upon, a culture difference. Especially if it is bent on mutually assured self-destruction.
You surely cannot be trying to say that, having arrived at a point where climate change is accepted as most likely being accelerated by the vast amounts of gunk that ever more affluent consumers pour in the air through having the cash to buy ever more 'stuff', no one can question whether one sixth of the world's population may need to get on board with the notion of restraint a tad.
Ok, so the 'rest' of us are pretty darn woeful, especially a certain continent to the left, but at least there are existing and ever-developing mechanisms of restraint that are enshrined in their governance, and which the people can use the power of the vote to enact. Along with the freedom to mention some nasty facts to those whose careers extend to the end of a political term as opposed to when they shuffle off to join their ancestors.
Meanwhile, the guy behind you telling you to stump up for the bullet is...?
The Know People
This looks like a good thing for bad times: Turn to Google Maps for flood updates
As does this.
What does not, is this: '... a useful point to wonder whether information on flooding that is already collated by various arms of government should be made more freely available to members of the public. After all, it was only a couple of weeks ago that property site OnOneMap, which uses Google Maps as its engine, got into a battle over the flood data it was offering browsers. Because the mapping data showing flood risk is owned by the Environment Agency, they were forced to remove it.'
Just so's I get this straight...
There is public information, paid for by the public, that can be of help (or made to be) to the public, and it's ring-fenced 'not for the public's benefit' by quango turf defences?
As does this.
What does not, is this: '... a useful point to wonder whether information on flooding that is already collated by various arms of government should be made more freely available to members of the public. After all, it was only a couple of weeks ago that property site OnOneMap, which uses Google Maps as its engine, got into a battle over the flood data it was offering browsers. Because the mapping data showing flood risk is owned by the Environment Agency, they were forced to remove it.'
Just so's I get this straight...
There is public information, paid for by the public, that can be of help (or made to be) to the public, and it's ring-fenced 'not for the public's benefit' by quango turf defences?
Well, at least they were honest:(
We get a lot of surveys. And there is usually a disconnect between what folk say, what they really think, and actually do. So this is... interesting: Consumers reject "green" taxes
When it comes to social behaviour, we are a little less prone to the truth, if the discrepancy between those who say they recycle and those who actually do is to be reconciled.
But when it comes to cold, hard cash, well, the people have spoken.... at least to a guy flogging insurance policies.
I just wonder how many resent paying more tax (well, D'uh), but in terms of green don't see how paying it actually ends up helping the planet with the gold-plated shower we have in charge of things these days.
Meanwhile...
BBC - Teenagers support 'green' schools - as opposed to...?
When it comes to social behaviour, we are a little less prone to the truth, if the discrepancy between those who say they recycle and those who actually do is to be reconciled.
But when it comes to cold, hard cash, well, the people have spoken.... at least to a guy flogging insurance policies.
I just wonder how many resent paying more tax (well, D'uh), but in terms of green don't see how paying it actually ends up helping the planet with the gold-plated shower we have in charge of things these days.
Meanwhile...
BBC - Teenagers support 'green' schools - as opposed to...?
First they came for the 4x4s, and I did...
With all due deference to the seriousness of Pastor Neimoller's words, it looks like next in line for a bit of high priority trendy liberal media angst is... patio heaters!
And for once I am quiet happy to be on the side of good... er... green. At least, so long as it's basically letting all and sundry who think they're nifty that, on balance, they are not perhaps the greatest contribution to global warmin... er... climate change. In fact I was livid when the Ideal Home stuck my stand during their 'Environmental Theme' next to one selling the blooming things.
So we have the usual perky BBC blonde bouncing around post flood duty asking some outdoorsy types 'what they think'.
My favourite was the girl who said they were required because 'we need to experience the outdoors'. Sweet. Then there was the pub landlord who reckoned they stopped people flying to Spain. And the pub chain CEO who was dead against them and had commissioned much PR to get the BBC to advertise him.. er... them... er the good works they are doing. Plus fresh prawns at £6.99 and a bottle of Chilean red thrown in...:)
Seems this is the unintended consequence of the new anti-smoking laws; all the smokers don't like to be chilly when they are outside, so need the exterior brought up to speed temperature wise, along with the rest of the planet, it seems. Actually I never found out what the carbon cost of a fag was. Must check.
It has coincided with a minor debate I was/am having on an eco-blog (members only, don'tchaknow) following a post asking what was the best way to heat outdoors. Sadly my idea of either buying woolly jumpers from the local charity shop, or commissioning the knitting circle to whip up branded shawls (think of the PR!) was not favoured.
I am currently having an exchange with a guy who is telling me underfloor heating is radiant and only heats the person and not the air, which I'm having trouble grasping.
So to a long and growing list we can now add patio heaters. I just hope Dave's Humveee terrorists don't get wind of it or they'll be flying over to blow them up.
Meanwhile, the forests get cut down, the oil shale is being strip mined, etc, etc. Oh, and the floods were soooo yesterday.
BBC - 'Dump patio heater wear a jumper' - I'm sure they don't mean dump it. Just don't use it anymore. JunkkYard - hatstand?
Indy - Hot Air - How do you 'secretly own' one? And 'environment hypocrisy is a new concept?
Indy - Enemy of the planet: The ethics of consumption
Guardian - Not in my back yard
I think there are few that can disagree that the things are hard to justify on any count, but especially in an era when unnecessary man, er, person made emissions are figured to be accelerating climate change.
I, for one, was livid that my (eco) stand (of about 6 out of 700) at the supposed Enviro-themed Ideal Home Show a few years ago was positioned next to one flogging the things by the score.
But...
In the great scheme of things, I would dearly love to have some kind of understandable comparative table that shows where the areas of greatest enviROIs are. There will of course be those of a communal nature (governmental, local authority and corporate), and then individual.
Such as patio heaters, 4x4s, budget airlines and Evian bottles will fall under the latter (noting that two of those might have been missed somewhat in certain areas lately had they been fully banned as advocated by some).
Whilst recognising every little thing adds up, matters and makes a difference, I am more than interested in where these iconic examples of activist and selective action chattering class ire actually rate against, say, home insulation.
With such information to hand perhaps we can more effectively prioritise the big hits that will make a real difference first, and sweat the small stuff later.
Especially as the shrill nanny nature of most efforts I am seeing so far seem almost inevitably destined to create a backlash from those who are less likely to chain themselves to the local pub's heater whilst sipping a nice chilled Chilean Chablis. And are the ones who really need to be brought onside.
But I guess it sells a few more papers and fills a slot at the end of the news stirring the pot.
And for once I am quiet happy to be on the side of good... er... green. At least, so long as it's basically letting all and sundry who think they're nifty that, on balance, they are not perhaps the greatest contribution to global warmin... er... climate change. In fact I was livid when the Ideal Home stuck my stand during their 'Environmental Theme' next to one selling the blooming things.
So we have the usual perky BBC blonde bouncing around post flood duty asking some outdoorsy types 'what they think'.
My favourite was the girl who said they were required because 'we need to experience the outdoors'. Sweet. Then there was the pub landlord who reckoned they stopped people flying to Spain. And the pub chain CEO who was dead against them and had commissioned much PR to get the BBC to advertise him.. er... them... er the good works they are doing. Plus fresh prawns at £6.99 and a bottle of Chilean red thrown in...:)
Seems this is the unintended consequence of the new anti-smoking laws; all the smokers don't like to be chilly when they are outside, so need the exterior brought up to speed temperature wise, along with the rest of the planet, it seems. Actually I never found out what the carbon cost of a fag was. Must check.
It has coincided with a minor debate I was/am having on an eco-blog (members only, don'tchaknow) following a post asking what was the best way to heat outdoors. Sadly my idea of either buying woolly jumpers from the local charity shop, or commissioning the knitting circle to whip up branded shawls (think of the PR!) was not favoured.
I am currently having an exchange with a guy who is telling me underfloor heating is radiant and only heats the person and not the air, which I'm having trouble grasping.
So to a long and growing list we can now add patio heaters. I just hope Dave's Humveee terrorists don't get wind of it or they'll be flying over to blow them up.
Meanwhile, the forests get cut down, the oil shale is being strip mined, etc, etc. Oh, and the floods were soooo yesterday.
BBC - 'Dump patio heater wear a jumper' - I'm sure they don't mean dump it. Just don't use it anymore. JunkkYard - hatstand?
Indy - Hot Air - How do you 'secretly own' one? And 'environment hypocrisy is a new concept?
Indy - Enemy of the planet: The ethics of consumption
Guardian - Not in my back yard
I think there are few that can disagree that the things are hard to justify on any count, but especially in an era when unnecessary man, er, person made emissions are figured to be accelerating climate change.
I, for one, was livid that my (eco) stand (of about 6 out of 700) at the supposed Enviro-themed Ideal Home Show a few years ago was positioned next to one flogging the things by the score.
But...
In the great scheme of things, I would dearly love to have some kind of understandable comparative table that shows where the areas of greatest enviROIs are. There will of course be those of a communal nature (governmental, local authority and corporate), and then individual.
Such as patio heaters, 4x4s, budget airlines and Evian bottles will fall under the latter (noting that two of those might have been missed somewhat in certain areas lately had they been fully banned as advocated by some).
Whilst recognising every little thing adds up, matters and makes a difference, I am more than interested in where these iconic examples of activist and selective action chattering class ire actually rate against, say, home insulation.
With such information to hand perhaps we can more effectively prioritise the big hits that will make a real difference first, and sweat the small stuff later.
Especially as the shrill nanny nature of most efforts I am seeing so far seem almost inevitably destined to create a backlash from those who are less likely to chain themselves to the local pub's heater whilst sipping a nice chilled Chilean Chablis. And are the ones who really need to be brought onside.
But I guess it sells a few more papers and fills a slot at the end of the news stirring the pot.
Ask, and you will... er... um...
A bit more water-borne fun & games with Newsnight
I prefer to 'watch' the PC feed the next day, but as seems to happen every so often it is pointing elsewhere. So it is hard to comment in detail.
And as I am also getting a pop-up when I do (on my PC, requiring me to log on from another) which says rather baldly, and unhelpfully, 'you are not allowed to comment' (er, why?) it gets even trickier.
So may I express a frustration with such posting efforts that when very pertinent questions do get asked, they almost inevitably do not get answered.
How about an on-air follow-up when it is obviously warranted and you have some nifty one-liners to pose?
I am still trying to understand how these floods are described by all levels of government from Dear Leader down as 'without precedent' and 'unable to predict', when I keep hearing that they have happened before (on Newsnight) and were predicted (Guardian Front Page).
Who doesn't know their facts, or is simply enhancing the truth?
I prefer to 'watch' the PC feed the next day, but as seems to happen every so often it is pointing elsewhere. So it is hard to comment in detail.
And as I am also getting a pop-up when I do (on my PC, requiring me to log on from another) which says rather baldly, and unhelpfully, 'you are not allowed to comment' (er, why?) it gets even trickier.
So may I express a frustration with such posting efforts that when very pertinent questions do get asked, they almost inevitably do not get answered.
How about an on-air follow-up when it is obviously warranted and you have some nifty one-liners to pose?
I am still trying to understand how these floods are described by all levels of government from Dear Leader down as 'without precedent' and 'unable to predict', when I keep hearing that they have happened before (on Newsnight) and were predicted (Guardian Front Page).
Who doesn't know their facts, or is simply enhancing the truth?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
32.78m AOD
That is the height, in metres, that the lowest corner of my house at damp course level is 'Above Ordnance Datum'.
I know this because a few years ago some chappies were at the end of the road doing hard hat/high-vis jackety-type things with levels, and I asked them to give me that measurement.
I figured it would come in handy one day.
Hopefully it still will. I am a great believer in prevention being better than cure, so rather than mopping out the utility room and having a fight with the loss adjuster, I would like to try and make my house as flood proof as possible, against the chance that this 'one in a hundred year event' might happen again next month.
Thing is, I am not off to the best of starts.
The best the Environment Agency floodline could come up with was the offer of a sandbag. Now I am sure they are better than nothing, but I have a few grander plans in mind. Slotted posts with neoprene sleeves to accommodate tapered slats, for one. Quick to erect. Easy to store. With luck, using the best of Junkk.com. Already I have sealed the (now defunct) dryer outlet with a nifty sweet can lid that slid over a treat.
But to figure out what's for the best I need to know what height to make them. And this is proving an effort. I can't seem to get any sense out of anyone so far on what 'might' happen. Which makes planning tricky.
All I have managed so far is to get on a list that sends an email to tell me I'm about to be flooded if I'm in. And a text if I'm out. And as to the brook alongside that is copping the run-off from the new housing estate on the hillside farmland, that's not included as it is another department.
Spiffy.
ADDENDUM - You want some fun? Try getting a definition for Ordnance Datum, much less what it is in your vicinity.
The best I have, so far, is:
chart datum Set reference point on charts for water depth in relation to tides. On metric charts for which the UK Hydrographic Office is the charting authority, chart datum is a level as close as possible to Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), the lowest predictable tide under average meteorological conditions (from Ministry of Defence, 1987). This is not the same as Ordnance Datum, the fixed reference point for heights and contours shown on Ordnance Survey maps, which is based on mean sea level (MSL) as recorded at Newlyn (Cornwall) over a seven-year period from 1915 to 1921.
ADDENDUM 2 -
Having signed up to them, I just had an automated mobile call and email to tell me to 'stand down'. So that seemed to work, at least.
Sadly this is not going to help me with the fact that the continued high levels seem to have opened a breech between the brook and my cellar such that the pumps are now working 24/7. I fear I need to get tanking. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££:(
Telegraph - Bogged down with bureaucracy
I know this because a few years ago some chappies were at the end of the road doing hard hat/high-vis jackety-type things with levels, and I asked them to give me that measurement.
I figured it would come in handy one day.
Hopefully it still will. I am a great believer in prevention being better than cure, so rather than mopping out the utility room and having a fight with the loss adjuster, I would like to try and make my house as flood proof as possible, against the chance that this 'one in a hundred year event' might happen again next month.
Thing is, I am not off to the best of starts.
The best the Environment Agency floodline could come up with was the offer of a sandbag. Now I am sure they are better than nothing, but I have a few grander plans in mind. Slotted posts with neoprene sleeves to accommodate tapered slats, for one. Quick to erect. Easy to store. With luck, using the best of Junkk.com. Already I have sealed the (now defunct) dryer outlet with a nifty sweet can lid that slid over a treat.
But to figure out what's for the best I need to know what height to make them. And this is proving an effort. I can't seem to get any sense out of anyone so far on what 'might' happen. Which makes planning tricky.
All I have managed so far is to get on a list that sends an email to tell me I'm about to be flooded if I'm in. And a text if I'm out. And as to the brook alongside that is copping the run-off from the new housing estate on the hillside farmland, that's not included as it is another department.
Spiffy.
ADDENDUM - You want some fun? Try getting a definition for Ordnance Datum, much less what it is in your vicinity.
The best I have, so far, is:
chart datum Set reference point on charts for water depth in relation to tides. On metric charts for which the UK Hydrographic Office is the charting authority, chart datum is a level as close as possible to Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), the lowest predictable tide under average meteorological conditions (from Ministry of Defence, 1987). This is not the same as Ordnance Datum, the fixed reference point for heights and contours shown on Ordnance Survey maps, which is based on mean sea level (MSL) as recorded at Newlyn (Cornwall) over a seven-year period from 1915 to 1921.
ADDENDUM 2 -
Having signed up to them, I just had an automated mobile call and email to tell me to 'stand down'. So that seemed to work, at least.
Sadly this is not going to help me with the fact that the continued high levels seem to have opened a breech between the brook and my cellar such that the pumps are now working 24/7. I fear I need to get tanking. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££:(
Telegraph - Bogged down with bureaucracy
My pride and joy Hummer - What a bummer!
An interesting article from last Friday's Belfast Telegraph reporting on an act of eco-vandalism that has divided the USA into two factions.
A poor ( intentional ironic pun ) chap has had his Hummer severely beaten up by a gang of eco-warriors who caused $12,000 worth of damage to his pride and joy.
The really odd thing is that although polls in the US show that more and more Americans are becoming environmentally aware, the hardest thing for them to give up is their gas-guzzlers. As the New York Post put it - “We buy gas guzzlers, but we vote for gas sipping.”
And, yes, you've guessed it, the sale of Hummers is still on the way up - "in June, according to the latest figures from General Motors, the world’s largest car manufacturer, Hummer sales were up by 11 per cent."
I bet Arnie's glad his runs on Hydrogen! Mind you, imagine the bang if they managed to split the fuel tank on his with a baseball bat!
A poor ( intentional ironic pun ) chap has had his Hummer severely beaten up by a gang of eco-warriors who caused $12,000 worth of damage to his pride and joy.
The really odd thing is that although polls in the US show that more and more Americans are becoming environmentally aware, the hardest thing for them to give up is their gas-guzzlers. As the New York Post put it - “We buy gas guzzlers, but we vote for gas sipping.”
And, yes, you've guessed it, the sale of Hummers is still on the way up - "in June, according to the latest figures from General Motors, the world’s largest car manufacturer, Hummer sales were up by 11 per cent."
I bet Arnie's glad his runs on Hydrogen! Mind you, imagine the bang if they managed to split the fuel tank on his with a baseball bat!
The funny side of things
There is always a humorous side to everything, and Matt of The Telegraph inevitably manages to produce a cartoon that sums things up in a way that can make everyone smile.
Genius is a rare thing, but Matt has it in spades.
I predict a riot
Oh, dear. This if this is the best we can do I'd advise buying bigger wellies - Newsnight Floods
Unpredicted power cuts. Something without precedent I am sure at the BBC. It must be climate change. Lessons must be learned. Debates will be had. But, for now, let's move on.
First up, let me just say how bang on - 'watching TV without electricity. LOL' - almost all the comments have been so far, and forgive me for rehashing any, but there is much to rake over.
'Without precedent'. So says Dear Leader and his gang. Well, is/was it, or not? Especially if, as advised, 1903 was the wettest on record and 1947 & 1956 were a tad damp, too. And what has happened 'was no different' to 1968 in the West Midlands or 1912 in East Anglia.
Which rather makes a mockery of 'Acts of God' along with 'No one could have predicted'.
Surely to [that same invoked entity] this was entirely predictable, and should have been anticipated. And as we are getting hit with climate change awareness communications (via PR and massively-funded ad campaigns of questionable value) daily, might we not suppose that in a joined up government a projection may have been made from such historical data, a few factors such as increased population, consequent building, drainage and run off bolted on, to arrive at the notion that, at some stage, it was going to happen again, and maybe even a bit worse?
I have never heard such woeful backsliding, and backside covering so far (with a prediction of more totally precedented examples to come).
If Mr. Brown's solution so far is to swim in and promise a bit more money to make up for what he was part of removing in the past, I'd say the only bounce from any location near water he'd see if he called an election was out! How long are we going to be treated to an erasing of any complicity in the last decade, when all those responsible for what is happening now were part of the obvious failures in policy and action (with all due, obligatory, praise to those at the sharp... er, wet... end of the public service delivery systems who actually have to mop up their bosses' foul-ups) that has brought us to this point?
And if... when this money arrives, forget the Environment Agency two Labour MPs so virulently trashed various for 'rubbish systems' on this very point (this would be the same Agency a Minister of Government subsequently has very confidence in? How disjointed is that!?), how can we trust this shambolic bunch to utilise any more cash any more effectively than they have already? We have the evidence of our own pruny toes to show what they are capable of at a strategic level. The only defensive systems I see deployed so far are career-covering words. As Baroness Young said: 'there is no accounting'. Quite.
I'm not quite sure how many Ministers of Mud (Ok, the environment) we deserve, but Mr. Phil 'No Point Trying' Woolas was an inspired choice of spokesperson to help us through this. 'Not the time for lessons learned', just as all around are trying to bail themselves out by rehashing this rather tired mantra enough times in the hope it will all soon pass over. And speaking of tired mantras, there is, apparently, 'a big debate to be had'. Well we're having it now matey, and the likes of you are looking pretty poor in the showing so far.
Was he really saying that as it was going to be really bad the lack of doing anything in some places was excusable. With a system that is claimed to be totally 'fluid' (excuse the pun) from one hour to the next, you don't even try? And big up to the commenter who noted he doesn't seem to have grasped the Thames Barrier's actual function. Funny if not tragic. It sure doesn't fill me with much confidence in the competence being brought to bear so far.
And Newsnight, why, oh why do you persist with the 'twofer' bookend debate style. Actually the flood victim lady was at least quite well-informed and confident, but for an issue this massive she's all we get to go head to head with a Minister backed by a bazillion assistants and briefings (not that it did him much good)?
And as a tax, local rate and licence fee payer with the River Wye looking to do the same thing one day, and wishing to prevent a lot more than I can cure or see excluded on insurance, why did we not get an answer to the question of DEFRA's Flood Resistance Grants? I would like, no... need... no... demand to know!
Along with why we are not spending money wisely on tangible preventative measures as opposed to p*ssing it all away on more and more quangos and ad campaigns to make 'us' aware on our carbon footprints. I'm pretty sure some were quite relieved that 4x4s and bottled water (last week was it that Newsnight jumped on that trivial bandwagon?) were still available at the moment, and a bit more concerned about the much bigger carbon footprint pictures that might be responsible for such massive natural phenomena.
So let's not just look to the skies to explain what has happened on the ground here. I'm afraid what I am seeing and hearing is indeed caused by man (PC-alert: men and women), but mostly all living in one small village in Westminster.
I was more than interested in the Climate Change discussion (no so much a debate as they were really agreeing with each other) between Meteorologist of 30 years' experience Philip Eden, and environmentalist of, er, no obvious fixed qualification, George Monbiot. An interesting pairing.
I'd have loved to have seen Mr. Eden across the table from Mr. Brown or Woolas to hear them deal with the fact that there was indeed plenty of precedent, and all this could be and indeed has been predicted. Maybe even mitigated?
In fact this should be the end of the story, along with their over-spun careers. But no, one can say almost anything outright wrong and get away with it pretty easily these days.
Especially in the current media climate where there is an attention span... of oh, that's all we have time for. Meanwhile, in other news... I for one would like to return to the hundreds more concerned with Jeremy's tie. Not.
I'll leave the final words to the only qualified scientist I heard all night: 'If this is what happens within our current limits of experience, what is going to happen in the future?' I'm just not sure if he was talking about the weather, or the guys tasked to help us address its consequences.
Unpredicted power cuts. Something without precedent I am sure at the BBC. It must be climate change. Lessons must be learned. Debates will be had. But, for now, let's move on.
First up, let me just say how bang on - 'watching TV without electricity. LOL' - almost all the comments have been so far, and forgive me for rehashing any, but there is much to rake over.
'Without precedent'. So says Dear Leader and his gang. Well, is/was it, or not? Especially if, as advised, 1903 was the wettest on record and 1947 & 1956 were a tad damp, too. And what has happened 'was no different' to 1968 in the West Midlands or 1912 in East Anglia.
Which rather makes a mockery of 'Acts of God' along with 'No one could have predicted'.
Surely to [that same invoked entity] this was entirely predictable, and should have been anticipated. And as we are getting hit with climate change awareness communications (via PR and massively-funded ad campaigns of questionable value) daily, might we not suppose that in a joined up government a projection may have been made from such historical data, a few factors such as increased population, consequent building, drainage and run off bolted on, to arrive at the notion that, at some stage, it was going to happen again, and maybe even a bit worse?
I have never heard such woeful backsliding, and backside covering so far (with a prediction of more totally precedented examples to come).
If Mr. Brown's solution so far is to swim in and promise a bit more money to make up for what he was part of removing in the past, I'd say the only bounce from any location near water he'd see if he called an election was out! How long are we going to be treated to an erasing of any complicity in the last decade, when all those responsible for what is happening now were part of the obvious failures in policy and action (with all due, obligatory, praise to those at the sharp... er, wet... end of the public service delivery systems who actually have to mop up their bosses' foul-ups) that has brought us to this point?
And if... when this money arrives, forget the Environment Agency two Labour MPs so virulently trashed various for 'rubbish systems' on this very point (this would be the same Agency a Minister of Government subsequently has very confidence in? How disjointed is that!?), how can we trust this shambolic bunch to utilise any more cash any more effectively than they have already? We have the evidence of our own pruny toes to show what they are capable of at a strategic level. The only defensive systems I see deployed so far are career-covering words. As Baroness Young said: 'there is no accounting'. Quite.
I'm not quite sure how many Ministers of Mud (Ok, the environment) we deserve, but Mr. Phil 'No Point Trying' Woolas was an inspired choice of spokesperson to help us through this. 'Not the time for lessons learned', just as all around are trying to bail themselves out by rehashing this rather tired mantra enough times in the hope it will all soon pass over. And speaking of tired mantras, there is, apparently, 'a big debate to be had'. Well we're having it now matey, and the likes of you are looking pretty poor in the showing so far.
Was he really saying that as it was going to be really bad the lack of doing anything in some places was excusable. With a system that is claimed to be totally 'fluid' (excuse the pun) from one hour to the next, you don't even try? And big up to the commenter who noted he doesn't seem to have grasped the Thames Barrier's actual function. Funny if not tragic. It sure doesn't fill me with much confidence in the competence being brought to bear so far.
And Newsnight, why, oh why do you persist with the 'twofer' bookend debate style. Actually the flood victim lady was at least quite well-informed and confident, but for an issue this massive she's all we get to go head to head with a Minister backed by a bazillion assistants and briefings (not that it did him much good)?
And as a tax, local rate and licence fee payer with the River Wye looking to do the same thing one day, and wishing to prevent a lot more than I can cure or see excluded on insurance, why did we not get an answer to the question of DEFRA's Flood Resistance Grants? I would like, no... need... no... demand to know!
Along with why we are not spending money wisely on tangible preventative measures as opposed to p*ssing it all away on more and more quangos and ad campaigns to make 'us' aware on our carbon footprints. I'm pretty sure some were quite relieved that 4x4s and bottled water (last week was it that Newsnight jumped on that trivial bandwagon?) were still available at the moment, and a bit more concerned about the much bigger carbon footprint pictures that might be responsible for such massive natural phenomena.
So let's not just look to the skies to explain what has happened on the ground here. I'm afraid what I am seeing and hearing is indeed caused by man (PC-alert: men and women), but mostly all living in one small village in Westminster.
I was more than interested in the Climate Change discussion (no so much a debate as they were really agreeing with each other) between Meteorologist of 30 years' experience Philip Eden, and environmentalist of, er, no obvious fixed qualification, George Monbiot. An interesting pairing.
I'd have loved to have seen Mr. Eden across the table from Mr. Brown or Woolas to hear them deal with the fact that there was indeed plenty of precedent, and all this could be and indeed has been predicted. Maybe even mitigated?
In fact this should be the end of the story, along with their over-spun careers. But no, one can say almost anything outright wrong and get away with it pretty easily these days.
Especially in the current media climate where there is an attention span... of oh, that's all we have time for. Meanwhile, in other news... I for one would like to return to the hundreds more concerned with Jeremy's tie. Not.
I'll leave the final words to the only qualified scientist I heard all night: 'If this is what happens within our current limits of experience, what is going to happen in the future?' I'm just not sure if he was talking about the weather, or the guys tasked to help us address its consequences.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Boogey me... er... atmospheric phenomena
Get used to 'em: Floods force many to face climate change reality
While there is a (pretty valid) school of thought that 'we' need a pretty big 'something' by way of a climatic kick in the pants, I do wonder if pinning everything on 'climate change' isn't going to get to be a common, and convenient, catch-all, and hence lose its effect PDQ.
I don't know for sure, but at the moment I'm guessing that these floods could equally force a few to face the facts of overpopulation, woeful political priorities, disastrous land management practices and even that most awful of all: stuff happens.
Sitting in my room on July trying to figure which water borne menace will get me first - the river coming up or the rain down/sideways - it's hard not to get the feeling that this is all a tad 'odd'. But then it is not, it seems, without historical precedent. Any hence if nature is just doing its funky thing, then all the billion £ claims are more a matter of how many of us there are now, where we were told/allowed to stick our homes, and fill 'em with expensive kit for insurers to try and get out of paying for.
So when I see such as this: "...mechanism may well explain an observed rise in flash floods in Europe over the last decade.." I worry a bit. Especially with the all too wonderful 'may'.
At least this is definitive: '... parts of China have seen the heaviest rainfall since records began,' though I have expressed caution on 'toll' figures bearing in mind our race's spread over the planet. The Boxing Day tsunami killed a lot more than Krakatoa because in those days Swedish tourists were not skinny-bathing in Phuket, and half of India hadn't cut down the mangrove swaps to get a sea view.
I'm no statistician, so I'll go with this: 'This year's UK floods were an event statistical models say should happen once only every 30 to 50 years, Mehlhorn says: the floods in 2000 were a 25-30 years event. Two such events in only seven years are not statistically impossible, but they are unlikely. Other countries have seen similar increases in such disasters.' But again I think it too easy to just say that it's down to what is dropping from the skies and not a lot to do with what it is all dropping on.
And, frankly, one (while critical) is in the future, while the other is now. So while both need addressing, let it be for the right reasons, and not to get a lot of pretty key questions off a load of folk who should be tasked to explain themselves. Because if we don't have the right folk, with the right abilities, and the right motivations in charge of the future... we're screwed.
And that IS scary.
While there is a (pretty valid) school of thought that 'we' need a pretty big 'something' by way of a climatic kick in the pants, I do wonder if pinning everything on 'climate change' isn't going to get to be a common, and convenient, catch-all, and hence lose its effect PDQ.
I don't know for sure, but at the moment I'm guessing that these floods could equally force a few to face the facts of overpopulation, woeful political priorities, disastrous land management practices and even that most awful of all: stuff happens.
Sitting in my room on July trying to figure which water borne menace will get me first - the river coming up or the rain down/sideways - it's hard not to get the feeling that this is all a tad 'odd'. But then it is not, it seems, without historical precedent. Any hence if nature is just doing its funky thing, then all the billion £ claims are more a matter of how many of us there are now, where we were told/allowed to stick our homes, and fill 'em with expensive kit for insurers to try and get out of paying for.
So when I see such as this: "...mechanism may well explain an observed rise in flash floods in Europe over the last decade.." I worry a bit. Especially with the all too wonderful 'may'.
At least this is definitive: '... parts of China have seen the heaviest rainfall since records began,' though I have expressed caution on 'toll' figures bearing in mind our race's spread over the planet. The Boxing Day tsunami killed a lot more than Krakatoa because in those days Swedish tourists were not skinny-bathing in Phuket, and half of India hadn't cut down the mangrove swaps to get a sea view.
I'm no statistician, so I'll go with this: 'This year's UK floods were an event statistical models say should happen once only every 30 to 50 years, Mehlhorn says: the floods in 2000 were a 25-30 years event. Two such events in only seven years are not statistically impossible, but they are unlikely. Other countries have seen similar increases in such disasters.' But again I think it too easy to just say that it's down to what is dropping from the skies and not a lot to do with what it is all dropping on.
And, frankly, one (while critical) is in the future, while the other is now. So while both need addressing, let it be for the right reasons, and not to get a lot of pretty key questions off a load of folk who should be tasked to explain themselves. Because if we don't have the right folk, with the right abilities, and the right motivations in charge of the future... we're screwed.
And that IS scary.
Floods and tears
I think this whole deal deserves a dedicated page. Let's start off with this from the Green Party:
Greens condemn government response to flooding
FLOODING CHAOS IS JUST A TASTER OF WHAT IS TO COME
Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall today condemned the
government's management of floods in the UK:
"The chaos caused by flooding over the last few weeks is just a tiny
taster of what climate change will mean in the future. Climate
change will lead to more extreme weather rather than simply warming
Britain.
"It's as if Evesham has been hit by Hurrican Katrina and Gordon Brown
is showing all the signs of leadership of his climate change denying
ally George Bush
"Government failure to prepare for the flooding is matched by
government failure to tackle the causes of climate change. On the
one hand the government is encouraging the building of new houses on
flood plains, on the other it is expanding Heathrow and our motorway
network.
"We need to cut CO2 by 90 per cent in the next few decades.
"At present Britain is neither cutting greenhouse gases nor
prepaparing to deal with the consequences of climate change. It is
like a Doctor would will neither prevent nor attempt to cure an illness.
"We must stop building on flood plains, invest in flood protection
but above all, cut back on the expansion of roads, airports and new
fossil fuel power stations.
Hard to argue with most of that. Written in a hurry, looks like!
More to come, I'm sure.
Reuters - Thousands without water after floods in England
Indy - A 21st century catastrophe - '...a disaster caused by 21st-century weather. This weather is different from anything that has gone before.' I don't know, so I merely ask: is this the case? I merely note the meteorologist's opinion on Newsnight in an associated blog post. The rest is worth reading though, but I must confess to being confused now.
Indy - Ministers under fire as experts warn of worse to come - And when it does, I am sure it will be unpredicted... again. How is that we can't even get the financial numbers straight?
Indy - Get used to floods - actually quite rational
Guardian - Ministers warned three years ago over flood defence failings - All together now, 'Oh no we weren't!'. "Oh yes you were!" It's a bad pantomime.
Guardian - Going under - some explanations
BBC - Floods: At-a-glance - If your feet are wet it's too late
BBC - Claims over floods to 'top £2bn' - And I think the wrong folk end up paying
BBC - Humans 'affect global rainfall' - I'm pretty sure we affect a lot more than that!
Indy - Amid this latest apocalypse, the prophets of doom are all peddling their own agendas - But I'm guessing most will have no blooming clue what they are on about if this is a sample.
Indy - Drought, growth and a changing climate
Indy Letters - Some interesting views
Times - Shocking news: Britain’s a wet country - 65 posts! 66 now:
It's a pity this has become an is/isn't climate change issue.
But then that's probably fine by those in power and heading up various quangos who have been saying that it's all 'unprecedented' when it isn't, and 'couldn't be predicted' when it was.
So while this diversionary argument - though a key one, globally - rages, those who should be held to account for why the water that fell (for whatever reason) ended up in a suburban semi's living room. And why my insurance rates go up to compensate.
It's not just the planet that ends up paying for such ineptitude.
ADDENDUM - actually it's an archive I just got round to:
Times - Labour plans flood defence cuts as Britain flounders in the deluge - I'm guessing not, now. A fun read, this way round.
Times - If this is a national disaster, I’m a tomato
I suppose it's open to a semantic debate as to how bad it needs to get before we hit 'disaster' as an acceptable term, but as the discussion is what one sees in the media I was just looking at your own paper from earlier this month: Labour plans flood defence cuts as Britain flounders in the deluge And then I was trying to reconcile this with 'The Government has proved itself calmly competent. ... the pragmatic, unhysterical approach of the new Prime Minister has suited the country well. No soundbites; no grimaces; no posturing.' as the words from this same person and his calmly competent acolytes are still ringing in my ears: 'This is unprecedented... there was no way to predict it'. When, of course, it isn't and it wasn't'.
Remind me, and those currently not in theri comfy sitting room, is a tomato a over-ripe fruit or a tastless vegetable?
The Ecologist - High Tide
You're quite right. 'We' do tend to be moving towards a blame culture, don't we?
But then again, I think that refers to the trend of not holding ourselves accountable for things we pretty much do to, or bring upon ourselves.
There are still quite a few instances where 'we' are required to play ball and/or pay a bunch of folk an awful lot of money to make things run smoothly and safely.
So when something is immediately pointed anywhere but where it should be by a cabinet of Chicken Littles and their chattering class supporters, especially solely skywards, as 'an Act of God (well, that plus anthrowhatsit climate change)' that 'is without precedent (not according to the meteorologist with 30 years' experience I saw on Newsnight) ' and 'could not have been predicted (not according to the front page I read in the Guardian)' I'm afraid I do start to wonder who is doing what for the money, and whether they are doing it effectively or even competently.
Especially when the water I am more worried about is not coming up from the river but down from paved over farmland or drainage systems that cannot cope through poor planing or maintenance.
Of course 'we' are not in control. Thanks to our ever-increasing spread across this planet there is a ton of stuff, which yes, does happen, and there will doubtless be tons more. But we try and prepare, mitigate and, if all else fails, cope.
If those tasked to do it screw up, and then try and blame the boogey man, I'm sorry, that's not finger pointing, asking why is just an absolutely necessary demand for accountability.
And to try and redirect the appropriate questions from some very key areas and people means that history, and nature, will just repeat itself. Which will not serve future generations very well.
And yes, weren't the fireman super? But might it not be better to keep them for the fires and get in place guys who might do their jobs well enough that these noble souls are not called out to pluck grannies from floodplain-located housing estates it would be 'unrealistic' not to build?
Just a thought.
Greens condemn government response to flooding
FLOODING CHAOS IS JUST A TASTER OF WHAT IS TO COME
Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall today condemned the
government's management of floods in the UK:
"The chaos caused by flooding over the last few weeks is just a tiny
taster of what climate change will mean in the future. Climate
change will lead to more extreme weather rather than simply warming
Britain.
"It's as if Evesham has been hit by Hurrican Katrina and Gordon Brown
is showing all the signs of leadership of his climate change denying
ally George Bush
"Government failure to prepare for the flooding is matched by
government failure to tackle the causes of climate change. On the
one hand the government is encouraging the building of new houses on
flood plains, on the other it is expanding Heathrow and our motorway
network.
"We need to cut CO2 by 90 per cent in the next few decades.
"At present Britain is neither cutting greenhouse gases nor
prepaparing to deal with the consequences of climate change. It is
like a Doctor would will neither prevent nor attempt to cure an illness.
"We must stop building on flood plains, invest in flood protection
but above all, cut back on the expansion of roads, airports and new
fossil fuel power stations.
Hard to argue with most of that. Written in a hurry, looks like!
More to come, I'm sure.
Reuters - Thousands without water after floods in England
Indy - A 21st century catastrophe - '...a disaster caused by 21st-century weather. This weather is different from anything that has gone before.' I don't know, so I merely ask: is this the case? I merely note the meteorologist's opinion on Newsnight in an associated blog post. The rest is worth reading though, but I must confess to being confused now.
Indy - Ministers under fire as experts warn of worse to come - And when it does, I am sure it will be unpredicted... again. How is that we can't even get the financial numbers straight?
Indy - Get used to floods - actually quite rational
Guardian - Ministers warned three years ago over flood defence failings - All together now, 'Oh no we weren't!'. "Oh yes you were!" It's a bad pantomime.
Guardian - Going under - some explanations
BBC - Floods: At-a-glance - If your feet are wet it's too late
BBC - Claims over floods to 'top £2bn' - And I think the wrong folk end up paying
BBC - Humans 'affect global rainfall' - I'm pretty sure we affect a lot more than that!
Indy - Amid this latest apocalypse, the prophets of doom are all peddling their own agendas - But I'm guessing most will have no blooming clue what they are on about if this is a sample.
Indy - Drought, growth and a changing climate
Indy Letters - Some interesting views
Times - Shocking news: Britain’s a wet country - 65 posts! 66 now:
It's a pity this has become an is/isn't climate change issue.
But then that's probably fine by those in power and heading up various quangos who have been saying that it's all 'unprecedented' when it isn't, and 'couldn't be predicted' when it was.
So while this diversionary argument - though a key one, globally - rages, those who should be held to account for why the water that fell (for whatever reason) ended up in a suburban semi's living room. And why my insurance rates go up to compensate.
It's not just the planet that ends up paying for such ineptitude.
ADDENDUM - actually it's an archive I just got round to:
Times - Labour plans flood defence cuts as Britain flounders in the deluge - I'm guessing not, now. A fun read, this way round.
Times - If this is a national disaster, I’m a tomato
I suppose it's open to a semantic debate as to how bad it needs to get before we hit 'disaster' as an acceptable term, but as the discussion is what one sees in the media I was just looking at your own paper from earlier this month: Labour plans flood defence cuts as Britain flounders in the deluge And then I was trying to reconcile this with 'The Government has proved itself calmly competent. ... the pragmatic, unhysterical approach of the new Prime Minister has suited the country well. No soundbites; no grimaces; no posturing.' as the words from this same person and his calmly competent acolytes are still ringing in my ears: 'This is unprecedented... there was no way to predict it'. When, of course, it isn't and it wasn't'.
Remind me, and those currently not in theri comfy sitting room, is a tomato a over-ripe fruit or a tastless vegetable?
The Ecologist - High Tide
You're quite right. 'We' do tend to be moving towards a blame culture, don't we?
But then again, I think that refers to the trend of not holding ourselves accountable for things we pretty much do to, or bring upon ourselves.
There are still quite a few instances where 'we' are required to play ball and/or pay a bunch of folk an awful lot of money to make things run smoothly and safely.
So when something is immediately pointed anywhere but where it should be by a cabinet of Chicken Littles and their chattering class supporters, especially solely skywards, as 'an Act of God (well, that plus anthrowhatsit climate change)' that 'is without precedent (not according to the meteorologist with 30 years' experience I saw on Newsnight) ' and 'could not have been predicted (not according to the front page I read in the Guardian)' I'm afraid I do start to wonder who is doing what for the money, and whether they are doing it effectively or even competently.
Especially when the water I am more worried about is not coming up from the river but down from paved over farmland or drainage systems that cannot cope through poor planing or maintenance.
Of course 'we' are not in control. Thanks to our ever-increasing spread across this planet there is a ton of stuff, which yes, does happen, and there will doubtless be tons more. But we try and prepare, mitigate and, if all else fails, cope.
If those tasked to do it screw up, and then try and blame the boogey man, I'm sorry, that's not finger pointing, asking why is just an absolutely necessary demand for accountability.
And to try and redirect the appropriate questions from some very key areas and people means that history, and nature, will just repeat itself. Which will not serve future generations very well.
And yes, weren't the fireman super? But might it not be better to keep them for the fires and get in place guys who might do their jobs well enough that these noble souls are not called out to pluck grannies from floodplain-located housing estates it would be 'unrealistic' not to build?
Just a thought.
Putting the cart before the horse?
At least this little piece from The Beeb may provide some with a smile on a dismal, damp, and for many, flooded Monday morning.
I noted with an ironic smile the name of the horse and an even bigger smile when I noted the name of the first passenger. I hope that Clarkson's a strong horse!
Thing is, a horse and cart during London's rush hour is probably just about as fast as a car anyway. I wonder if they'll be exempt from Ken's congestion charge?
As for helping the environment, well, it's probably nothing but a minuscule drop in the floods really.
I noted with an ironic smile the name of the horse and an even bigger smile when I noted the name of the first passenger. I hope that Clarkson's a strong horse!
Thing is, a horse and cart during London's rush hour is probably just about as fast as a car anyway. I wonder if they'll be exempt from Ken's congestion charge?
As for helping the environment, well, it's probably nothing but a minuscule drop in the floods really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)