Every now and again along comes a gadget that makes you think 'what a great idea'. This is one such, from Product-Reviews.Net, a solar powered wireless computer mouse.
However, most computer mice are in heaviest use during the daytime, and it does need direct sunlight to gain sufficient charge; so perhaps the only solution might be to buy two and alternate their use, using mouse 1 whilst mouse 2 is on charge on the windowsill? (Clever bit of marketing or what?)
Don't leave it charging while the cat's about though!
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Monday, August 06, 2007
The Truth About Denial
I recommend an eye-opening article from Sharon Begley in Newsweek Science & Technology which attempts to show just how much effort Big Oil and its friends and cohorts have put into supporting the 'climate change isn't man made' club.
"the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion."
"There was an extraordinary campaign by the denial machine to find and hire scientists to sow dissent and make it appear that the research community was deeply divided"
The article describes a good deal of the politics and chicanery that has gone on at top level in the US; including how several attempts to pass legislation on CO2 emissions have been strangled etc. All in all, well worth a few minutes perusal.
"It's enough to make you wish that climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is."
Quite!
Addendum: 7/8/2007
According to this article from Canada.Com, the media isn't helping too much either. It would seem that the US and Canadian media have quite a strong tendency to tone down any climate change article in comparison with their brethren in Europe.
I just loved this example - "the New York times ran an article noting that 'global warming is an unequivocal fact likely to make summers hotter and winters warmer for the next few centuries, with potentially dire consequences for the ecosystem' -- then spent the next 17 paragraphs discussing the likely effect on groundhogs."
"the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion."
"There was an extraordinary campaign by the denial machine to find and hire scientists to sow dissent and make it appear that the research community was deeply divided"
The article describes a good deal of the politics and chicanery that has gone on at top level in the US; including how several attempts to pass legislation on CO2 emissions have been strangled etc. All in all, well worth a few minutes perusal.
"It's enough to make you wish that climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is."
Quite!
Addendum: 7/8/2007
According to this article from Canada.Com, the media isn't helping too much either. It would seem that the US and Canadian media have quite a strong tendency to tone down any climate change article in comparison with their brethren in Europe.
I just loved this example - "the New York times ran an article noting that 'global warming is an unequivocal fact likely to make summers hotter and winters warmer for the next few centuries, with potentially dire consequences for the ecosystem' -- then spent the next 17 paragraphs discussing the likely effect on groundhogs."
Gone, but not forgetting
There is something rather sad that on this, the first day of my annual (well, first in 5 years) holiday, here I am logging on to see what's what on the blog!
Already a rich seam of commentary from the new papers I am reading, but my wife says that I can keep the cuttings but can forget more than a few minutes a day online to do more than check emails.
But I may just sneak a few in.
Already a rich seam of commentary from the new papers I am reading, but my wife says that I can keep the cuttings but can forget more than a few minutes a day online to do more than check emails.
But I may just sneak a few in.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Yet another international conference
Today's announcement that Dubbya has invited a host of the planet's leaders to a september climate conference may well be seen by many as a signal that the USA is finally getting involved.
Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Me, I'll reserve judgment for now until I hear something genuinely concrete coming from the US Pols. Perhaps I shouldn't be overtly cynical, but surely the time for talking is over and its now the time for actually doing something about it?
Oh well, at least they now seem to be saying that they will support something if it is mandated by the UN.
Meanwhile, Lake Superior appears to be slowly going down a hidden plughole somewhere, as this from Yahoo News explains.
Some blame global warming, some blame a lack of rain (errrrm, wasn't that one of the things that global warming was predicted to do, as in alter weather and precipitation patterns?), others blame hidden water extraction to other states.
Whatever the real underlying reason, it does seem to be a major cause for concern. Worse still, [with my Friday afternoon smiling head on], this is the really shocking bit!, some of the pleasure boaters can no longer dock at many of the lake's moorings! Bless.
Addendum:
It looks as if there is now a growing consensus within the UN too. This from BusinessWire says that more than 100 countries speaking at the UN General Assembly have "signaled strong support for negotiations on a new international deal to tackle global warming."
Good stuff, a growing global consensus is what is desperately needed.
Oh. That's soured it a little for me - they're all having a two week jolly to Bali to discuss it.
Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Me, I'll reserve judgment for now until I hear something genuinely concrete coming from the US Pols. Perhaps I shouldn't be overtly cynical, but surely the time for talking is over and its now the time for actually doing something about it?
Oh well, at least they now seem to be saying that they will support something if it is mandated by the UN.
Meanwhile, Lake Superior appears to be slowly going down a hidden plughole somewhere, as this from Yahoo News explains.
Some blame global warming, some blame a lack of rain (errrrm, wasn't that one of the things that global warming was predicted to do, as in alter weather and precipitation patterns?), others blame hidden water extraction to other states.
Whatever the real underlying reason, it does seem to be a major cause for concern. Worse still, [with my Friday afternoon smiling head on], this is the really shocking bit!, some of the pleasure boaters can no longer dock at many of the lake's moorings! Bless.
Addendum:
It looks as if there is now a growing consensus within the UN too. This from BusinessWire says that more than 100 countries speaking at the UN General Assembly have "signaled strong support for negotiations on a new international deal to tackle global warming."
Good stuff, a growing global consensus is what is desperately needed.
Oh. That's soured it a little for me - they're all having a two week jolly to Bali to discuss it.
There's gold under them there bergs!
It has not taken very long for some to realise that as global warming takes hold, and the Arctic ice disappears, there is a huge gamut of potentially useful resources that will become accessible for exploitation.
An article from Economist.com signals the starting gun for the race for the Arctic's available riches; as they headline it - The Gold Rush Under The Ice.
Amongst others, at stake are potentially huge mineral, oil and gas resources.
"They may include 10 billion tonnes of oil and gas deposits, tin, manganese, gold, nickel, lead, platinum and diamonds, plus fish and perhaps even lucrative freight routes. Exploiting them will be technically tricky, and is probably decades away. But as the ice melts, the row is hotting up about who owns what’s underneath it."
Although it may yet be a few decades yet before these resources become feasibly accessible, our Soviet friends are already attempting a massive geo-political annexation of an enormous portion of the Arctic area.
I wonder just how long it will be before the world's super powers get together to divvy up this untouched region amongst themselves?
Resource greed seems to have become the primary driving factor for mankind. And, not for the first time, I feel ashamed at being a member of our resource ravenous human race.
____________________
An article from Economist.com signals the starting gun for the race for the Arctic's available riches; as they headline it - The Gold Rush Under The Ice.
Amongst others, at stake are potentially huge mineral, oil and gas resources.
"They may include 10 billion tonnes of oil and gas deposits, tin, manganese, gold, nickel, lead, platinum and diamonds, plus fish and perhaps even lucrative freight routes. Exploiting them will be technically tricky, and is probably decades away. But as the ice melts, the row is hotting up about who owns what’s underneath it."
Although it may yet be a few decades yet before these resources become feasibly accessible, our Soviet friends are already attempting a massive geo-political annexation of an enormous portion of the Arctic area.
I wonder just how long it will be before the world's super powers get together to divvy up this untouched region amongst themselves?
Resource greed seems to have become the primary driving factor for mankind. And, not for the first time, I feel ashamed at being a member of our resource ravenous human race.
____________________
Thursday, August 02, 2007
And the next islands going under are?
First to start disappearing under the sea were the islands of Tuvalu, now it looks like the next in line are the Torres Straits islands where rising sea levels are threatening to eradicate centuries old communities.
This report from the Australian Daily Telegraph provides another graphic example of what we will probably be seeing increasingly more of over the next few decades.
"Roads have been swallowed whole, buildings washed out, graveyards swamped and houses flooded in six of the most vulnerable low-lying island communities."
Try telling the people of the Torres Straits and Tuvalu islands that global warming and rising sea level is a load of bull!
Addendum:
Literally within a few days of this post a report comes out that predicts the projected rises in sea level are being seriously under-estimated. See this from the Free Internet Press for details.
It looks to me like the list of disappearing islands might be growing too fast to keep up with in a couple of decades time. Oh well, perhaps governments around the planet will actually start to act once the water's lapping around their feet.
This report from the Australian Daily Telegraph provides another graphic example of what we will probably be seeing increasingly more of over the next few decades.
"Roads have been swallowed whole, buildings washed out, graveyards swamped and houses flooded in six of the most vulnerable low-lying island communities."
Try telling the people of the Torres Straits and Tuvalu islands that global warming and rising sea level is a load of bull!
Addendum:
Literally within a few days of this post a report comes out that predicts the projected rises in sea level are being seriously under-estimated. See this from the Free Internet Press for details.
It looks to me like the list of disappearing islands might be growing too fast to keep up with in a couple of decades time. Oh well, perhaps governments around the planet will actually start to act once the water's lapping around their feet.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
No We Don't Need Nuclear Power!
Oh yes we do! Oh no we don't!
Remember our much discussed post on nuclear power generation development and the problems of disposing of nuclear waste?
Well, a response from emeritus professor Keith Barnham appears in today's Guardian. He argues that we just don't need nuclear power at all, and proposes that solar, especially, and wind technology, will rapidly make the suggested expansion of nuclear power generation facilities a non-starter.
The usual clutch of comment posters have already been busy, most falling in to diametrically opposing camps, as usual, but there are some very interesting comments, facts (well, some, maybe, and some a bit questionable....ish) and figures quoted.
Interestingly, there are a few posters who, (maybe with some justification?), question the veracity of an author who is a founder of a solar panel development business.
Me? Well, I'm still confused. I still harbor doubts that 'renewables' technology can develop fast enough to fill the gap that carbon based power generation will surely hit in the future. And I still believe that storing nasty nuclear waste for when future generations can dispose of it safely and securely with a workable industrial scale transmutation technology is not really the correct thing to do.
As ever, there seem to be more questions than answers; and more 'facts'(?) flying about than you can shake a stick at. I'm open to persuasion either for or against nuclear, especially as it does seem to offer the most obvious stop-gap solution. But I think I'll stay sitting on the fence for now.
Anybody want to persuade me to drop down one side or the other?
Addendum:
Well, interestingly, despite Italy banning nuclear power station construction years ago, some at The Vatican do seem to be in favour of nuclear power! Plus they intend to become the planet's first carbon neutral sovereign state! See article from USA Today. Pity that it appears that most of this is to be achieved via offsetting.
____________________
Remember our much discussed post on nuclear power generation development and the problems of disposing of nuclear waste?
Well, a response from emeritus professor Keith Barnham appears in today's Guardian. He argues that we just don't need nuclear power at all, and proposes that solar, especially, and wind technology, will rapidly make the suggested expansion of nuclear power generation facilities a non-starter.
The usual clutch of comment posters have already been busy, most falling in to diametrically opposing camps, as usual, but there are some very interesting comments, facts (well, some, maybe, and some a bit questionable....ish) and figures quoted.
Interestingly, there are a few posters who, (maybe with some justification?), question the veracity of an author who is a founder of a solar panel development business.
Me? Well, I'm still confused. I still harbor doubts that 'renewables' technology can develop fast enough to fill the gap that carbon based power generation will surely hit in the future. And I still believe that storing nasty nuclear waste for when future generations can dispose of it safely and securely with a workable industrial scale transmutation technology is not really the correct thing to do.
As ever, there seem to be more questions than answers; and more 'facts'(?) flying about than you can shake a stick at. I'm open to persuasion either for or against nuclear, especially as it does seem to offer the most obvious stop-gap solution. But I think I'll stay sitting on the fence for now.
Anybody want to persuade me to drop down one side or the other?
Addendum:
Well, interestingly, despite Italy banning nuclear power station construction years ago, some at The Vatican do seem to be in favour of nuclear power! Plus they intend to become the planet's first carbon neutral sovereign state! See article from USA Today. Pity that it appears that most of this is to be achieved via offsetting.
____________________
Your tax £ at work
I am grateful to Dave of Solarventi for forwarding this: Recycling body hunts direct agency
This... 'its £40m marketing programme to tackle climate change' is a lot of money. However, in light of what we are facing, large sums are needed to tackle huge issues. But what about the ROI to derive a worthwhile enviROI?
My views on 'not-for-profit' as a model are well known (basically a good way to not make a profit is to blow as much internally as possible - real estate, staff, satellites, trips, conferences, pensions, bonuses, etc), especially when 'backed' (what does that mean?) by the Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).
The aims - to encourage businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle more often, helping to minimise landfill, reduce carbon emissions and improve the environment - are laudable, but I simply question the methods and accountability.
Like the BBC (you hold those near and dear to a higher standard), I actually think a lot of what is being done by some departments is very good indeed, and probably more than worthwhile, but when it comes to comms and marketing, which I do know a bit about, the whole thing gets a lot murkier. And I still think there has to be some conflict in getting bonuses (why are public servants and guys like these, and the Environment Agency, on bonuses simply to do their jobs anyway? And it seems you get them even if you foul up) when they are based on targets and rates that will inevitably increase if your throw enough public money at them with awareness campaigns.
I ask a lot, but do intend to try and find some answers out if I can. But if anyone can help with deriving figures for what we spend vs. what we get back (they must be around surely, as a publicly accountable body?) with this mob, I'd be grateful.
Maybe they are worth every penny. But at the moment, I'm am not feeling the benefits of £40M.
And let's remember the vast number of other such entities getting similar amounts to play with, and which often seem, to me at least, to be overlapping if not actually confusing the issue with different messages all the time.
This... 'its £40m marketing programme to tackle climate change' is a lot of money. However, in light of what we are facing, large sums are needed to tackle huge issues. But what about the ROI to derive a worthwhile enviROI?
My views on 'not-for-profit' as a model are well known (basically a good way to not make a profit is to blow as much internally as possible - real estate, staff, satellites, trips, conferences, pensions, bonuses, etc), especially when 'backed' (what does that mean?) by the Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).
The aims - to encourage businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle more often, helping to minimise landfill, reduce carbon emissions and improve the environment - are laudable, but I simply question the methods and accountability.
Like the BBC (you hold those near and dear to a higher standard), I actually think a lot of what is being done by some departments is very good indeed, and probably more than worthwhile, but when it comes to comms and marketing, which I do know a bit about, the whole thing gets a lot murkier. And I still think there has to be some conflict in getting bonuses (why are public servants and guys like these, and the Environment Agency, on bonuses simply to do their jobs anyway? And it seems you get them even if you foul up) when they are based on targets and rates that will inevitably increase if your throw enough public money at them with awareness campaigns.
I ask a lot, but do intend to try and find some answers out if I can. But if anyone can help with deriving figures for what we spend vs. what we get back (they must be around surely, as a publicly accountable body?) with this mob, I'd be grateful.
Maybe they are worth every penny. But at the moment, I'm am not feeling the benefits of £40M.
And let's remember the vast number of other such entities getting similar amounts to play with, and which often seem, to me at least, to be overlapping if not actually confusing the issue with different messages all the time.
Joined up at the HIPS?
Today sees the Home Information Packs kick in, and the Housing Minister is on BBC Breakfast to explain why they are 'dead good'.
I sent in the following questions which, if asked, the BBC editors will hopefully not 'enhance for greater truth' this time:
1) If this is largely to address environmental impacts and not a social penalty, what is the proportion of 4+ bedroom houses as a % of the total, energy consuming housing market?
2) If older properties are inevitably going to be less 'efficient', is this grading just to enable market force choices, or is there an intention to use this information as a factor in future levies imposed by central and/or local government on the householder?
3) Are issues such as risk of flooding included as this would obviously represent a huge negative in terms of protections and/or clear ups with new builds no matter how eco?
These are, as stated, questions, but they do raise certain issues.
I suspect that the of 4+ housing I am asking for is not that high, and hence one wonders what impact targeting this sector will have on the planet.
Then there is the actual use of this rating system. I can get my head around one on a fridge, but a house? Choosing a white box that keeps things cold is pretty much just down to the op costs... to me at least. But if I fall in love with a property am I really going to reject that stone cottage (on a hill, 'cos the old folks figured that living where it gets wet is daft) and buy that 90's newbuild (on a flood plain, 'cos all that is left) because it is a few ratings lower? I doubt it. And hence one wonders what value this information ultimately has, and to whom?
And speaking of (well alluding to) those who would use green as a stealthy way to tax us without much explanation as to how those taxes get ploughed back, I do finally wonder if other environmental issues such as being built on a flood plain will score badly. Versus the lack of a cavity wall, one can only imagine that digging up the floors of a soaked property and renovating the whole thing will not offer the greatest global enviROI.
But maybe it's more a matter of boxes being ticked and grabbing some quick green dosh?
I just watched (How street cred is she? All bob and yoof speak!!?) and there was a bunch of... nothing. The key questions (just one was asked - nice one, BBC! I have to share this I read on a less than favourable blog as to their abilities: 'Double standards but half the quality') were almost all avoided or 'future mysteries' alluded to without being tasked to actually answer.
Indy - How ministers turned a help into a hindrance - like everything else they touch
Guardian - Home information packs are dealt new blow by lenders - Hmnnn
I sent in the following questions which, if asked, the BBC editors will hopefully not 'enhance for greater truth' this time:
1) If this is largely to address environmental impacts and not a social penalty, what is the proportion of 4+ bedroom houses as a % of the total, energy consuming housing market?
2) If older properties are inevitably going to be less 'efficient', is this grading just to enable market force choices, or is there an intention to use this information as a factor in future levies imposed by central and/or local government on the householder?
3) Are issues such as risk of flooding included as this would obviously represent a huge negative in terms of protections and/or clear ups with new builds no matter how eco?
These are, as stated, questions, but they do raise certain issues.
I suspect that the of 4+ housing I am asking for is not that high, and hence one wonders what impact targeting this sector will have on the planet.
Then there is the actual use of this rating system. I can get my head around one on a fridge, but a house? Choosing a white box that keeps things cold is pretty much just down to the op costs... to me at least. But if I fall in love with a property am I really going to reject that stone cottage (on a hill, 'cos the old folks figured that living where it gets wet is daft) and buy that 90's newbuild (on a flood plain, 'cos all that is left) because it is a few ratings lower? I doubt it. And hence one wonders what value this information ultimately has, and to whom?
And speaking of (well alluding to) those who would use green as a stealthy way to tax us without much explanation as to how those taxes get ploughed back, I do finally wonder if other environmental issues such as being built on a flood plain will score badly. Versus the lack of a cavity wall, one can only imagine that digging up the floors of a soaked property and renovating the whole thing will not offer the greatest global enviROI.
But maybe it's more a matter of boxes being ticked and grabbing some quick green dosh?
I just watched (How street cred is she? All bob and yoof speak!!?) and there was a bunch of... nothing. The key questions (just one was asked - nice one, BBC! I have to share this I read on a less than favourable blog as to their abilities: 'Double standards but half the quality') were almost all avoided or 'future mysteries' alluded to without being tasked to actually answer.
Indy - How ministers turned a help into a hindrance - like everything else they touch
Guardian - Home information packs are dealt new blow by lenders - Hmnnn
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Drive, he didn't say
I could have sworn I had seen, and mentioned, this before, but no harm no foul in doing so again: CO2 car rankings site launched
Can't hurt. Though I'd hazard more will look at the tax than what comes out of the pipe.
Which still means you can drive all day, emitting away, in a 'good' car, and drive a few miles and park but still get slaughtered by buying a 'bad' one. Not quite so sure how the latest Minister for Jams and Sources (of income) arrives at his figures, but I'm sure a full department created them, which means they must be good.
Maybe the best solution is buy a good one and not drive it very far. Or not drive it. Or not buy it at all! Or...
Can't hurt. Though I'd hazard more will look at the tax than what comes out of the pipe.
Which still means you can drive all day, emitting away, in a 'good' car, and drive a few miles and park but still get slaughtered by buying a 'bad' one. Not quite so sure how the latest Minister for Jams and Sources (of income) arrives at his figures, but I'm sure a full department created them, which means they must be good.
Maybe the best solution is buy a good one and not drive it very far. Or not drive it. Or not buy it at all! Or...
Just call me the lean, green love machine
Well, the green bit maybe.
As I look at a stack of worthy press releases that should be properly written up and archived on the main site (lack of holiday support being my reason, if not excuse), I just have to post this here, and now, pretty much as is. And in so doing, give much needed PR and cred to that well known environmental magazine, Nuts. But it's fun, so... um.. oh, nuts. See, I have been seduced to the trivial side already!
MOVE OVER FUNNY MAN, THE GREEN MAN IS THE NEW DATING KING
Key to a modern woman’s (well, 1,500 at least, which is a better sample than most research I've seen on actual issues that matter) heart is saving the planet. Of the personality traits that they found most attractive in men topping the list is showing you care about the environment. Demonstrating you’ve got green credentials and is now the number one quality modern British women seek in a partner.
This change in attitude can in a large part be put down to the recent green- avalanche of star-studded eco events such as Live Earth. Global heart-throbs from George Clooney and Brad Pitt to Justin Timberlake and Johnny Borrell (who?) all now all proudly endorsing the green agenda - meaning that being green is no longer just trendy – it’s down right sexy.
The results set a precedent for legions of UK Green Men who may soon need to trade in their gas guzzling cars for greener bicycles in a bid to impress women. Toppling the classic ‘Good Sense of Humour’- GSOH - for the first time, the research proves once and for all that recycling and growing vegetables in the back garden are no longer the preserve of wellie toting hippies.
Nuts magazine relationship expert (a what?) Louise Prior said: “There’s something sexy about a man who recycles, it shows that he cares about more than just himself and shows he has a sensitive side and thinks about the future. As for some of the other traits, you can’t go wrong with making a woman laugh, but modern women want their men to be caring. It started with the new man back in the 90s, more recently we’ve had the whole Metrosexual phenomena and green man is an extension of that really!”
The top-ten personality traits women find attractive:
Caring about the environment - tick
Good sense of humour - er, have you seen my bank statement?
Confidence - in spades. No really, I think they are the best for digging holes for compost.
Intelligence - moving quickly on.
Well travelled and worldly-wise - that would be 'then', 'cos if we're saving the planet travelling anywhere, much less well, would be a 'no-no', surely? And that makes me wise, hmmn?
Empathy and understanding - I feel your pain... reading this.
Good dress sense / style - Er, we are talking guys who mess around with rubbish here.
Ambition - If wanting to make the planet a better place counts... tick! An Aston Martin would be nice, too. Once they have the hybrid version sorted out.
Knowledge of current affairs - Hilary who? Go on, ask me....
Good with children - I'll ask the boys when they have finished sanding the roof lintels all day.
So OK, laydees, who would like to see my composting bin?
As I look at a stack of worthy press releases that should be properly written up and archived on the main site (lack of holiday support being my reason, if not excuse), I just have to post this here, and now, pretty much as is. And in so doing, give much needed PR and cred to that well known environmental magazine, Nuts. But it's fun, so... um.. oh, nuts. See, I have been seduced to the trivial side already!
MOVE OVER FUNNY MAN, THE GREEN MAN IS THE NEW DATING KING
Key to a modern woman’s (well, 1,500 at least, which is a better sample than most research I've seen on actual issues that matter) heart is saving the planet. Of the personality traits that they found most attractive in men topping the list is showing you care about the environment. Demonstrating you’ve got green credentials and is now the number one quality modern British women seek in a partner.
This change in attitude can in a large part be put down to the recent green- avalanche of star-studded eco events such as Live Earth. Global heart-throbs from George Clooney and Brad Pitt to Justin Timberlake and Johnny Borrell (who?) all now all proudly endorsing the green agenda - meaning that being green is no longer just trendy – it’s down right sexy.
The results set a precedent for legions of UK Green Men who may soon need to trade in their gas guzzling cars for greener bicycles in a bid to impress women. Toppling the classic ‘Good Sense of Humour’- GSOH - for the first time, the research proves once and for all that recycling and growing vegetables in the back garden are no longer the preserve of wellie toting hippies.
Nuts magazine relationship expert (a what?) Louise Prior said: “There’s something sexy about a man who recycles, it shows that he cares about more than just himself and shows he has a sensitive side and thinks about the future. As for some of the other traits, you can’t go wrong with making a woman laugh, but modern women want their men to be caring. It started with the new man back in the 90s, more recently we’ve had the whole Metrosexual phenomena and green man is an extension of that really!”
The top-ten personality traits women find attractive:
Caring about the environment - tick
Good sense of humour - er, have you seen my bank statement?
Confidence - in spades. No really, I think they are the best for digging holes for compost.
Intelligence - moving quickly on.
Well travelled and worldly-wise - that would be 'then', 'cos if we're saving the planet travelling anywhere, much less well, would be a 'no-no', surely? And that makes me wise, hmmn?
Empathy and understanding - I feel your pain... reading this.
Good dress sense / style - Er, we are talking guys who mess around with rubbish here.
Ambition - If wanting to make the planet a better place counts... tick! An Aston Martin would be nice, too. Once they have the hybrid version sorted out.
Knowledge of current affairs - Hilary who? Go on, ask me....
Good with children - I'll ask the boys when they have finished sanding the roof lintels all day.
So OK, laydees, who would like to see my composting bin?
Environmental Audit Committee Report Issued
For anyone with sufficient time on their hands to wade through all 216 pages, including all the oral evidence given, the Seventh Report of Session 2006–07 from the Environmental Audit Committee was published yesterday.
Entitled "Beyond Stern: From the Climate Change Programme Review to the Draft Climate Change Bill", it is a huge tome of information covering every issue you can shake a stick at. Sorry but I personally could not possibly find the time to go through in depth, so a few choice excerpts from a speed read skim are all that I can manage for now.
"Climate change is on a different scale from any other political challenge. Its potential effects could be both physically and economically devastating."
Can't see anyone arguing with that.
"The science linking 550ppmv to 2°C has moved on:
550ppmv CO2 has ~88% chance of exceeding 2°C
450ppmv CO2 has ~70% chance of exceeding 2°C
(% probabilities from Meinshausen, 2007)"
"It is clear to us that the Government will have to introduce more radical policies into its Climate Change Programme very soon if it is to meet even the 2020 target as currently set."
"The Government’s policy towards the UK’s 2050 target is clearly incoherent. The Government remains committed to limiting global warming to a rise of 2oC; but it also acknowledges that, according to recent scientific research, a cut in UK emissions of 60% by 2050 is now very unlikely to be consistent with delivering this goal."
I.e. The targets are NOT going to be met with the current plans.
"We recommend that the Government should admit the uncertainty range of its emissions projections. It should also regularly publish a review of its previous projections, comparing them against outturn data and latest projections, and analyse what it got right, what it got wrong, why it did so, and what lessons it has learned."
So that'll be something radical, a government that might have to admit that it got things wrong! Maybe if there's an X in the month!
All in all it doesn't look too good. Science is refining the temperature predictions and suggesting that less CO2 may well produce the 2C effect, and although the UK's targets were some of the most stringent on the planet, they are already inadequate and woefully behind schedule.
Addendum: 3/8/2008
But, of course, any criticism was bound to be rapidly and effectively deflected by the government. Apparently ignoring the key points made, Hilary Benn in The Guardian, insists that the Climate Change Bill is a world's first, and "ambitious by any standard and consistent with our leading position internationally".
Are the facts that: a) its probably not enough, and b) its way behind schedule already, not considered important?
Entitled "Beyond Stern: From the Climate Change Programme Review to the Draft Climate Change Bill", it is a huge tome of information covering every issue you can shake a stick at. Sorry but I personally could not possibly find the time to go through in depth, so a few choice excerpts from a speed read skim are all that I can manage for now.
"Climate change is on a different scale from any other political challenge. Its potential effects could be both physically and economically devastating."
Can't see anyone arguing with that.
"The science linking 550ppmv to 2°C has moved on:
550ppmv CO2 has ~88% chance of exceeding 2°C
450ppmv CO2 has ~70% chance of exceeding 2°C
(% probabilities from Meinshausen, 2007)"
"It is clear to us that the Government will have to introduce more radical policies into its Climate Change Programme very soon if it is to meet even the 2020 target as currently set."
"The Government’s policy towards the UK’s 2050 target is clearly incoherent. The Government remains committed to limiting global warming to a rise of 2oC; but it also acknowledges that, according to recent scientific research, a cut in UK emissions of 60% by 2050 is now very unlikely to be consistent with delivering this goal."
I.e. The targets are NOT going to be met with the current plans.
"We recommend that the Government should admit the uncertainty range of its emissions projections. It should also regularly publish a review of its previous projections, comparing them against outturn data and latest projections, and analyse what it got right, what it got wrong, why it did so, and what lessons it has learned."
So that'll be something radical, a government that might have to admit that it got things wrong! Maybe if there's an X in the month!
All in all it doesn't look too good. Science is refining the temperature predictions and suggesting that less CO2 may well produce the 2C effect, and although the UK's targets were some of the most stringent on the planet, they are already inadequate and woefully behind schedule.
Addendum: 3/8/2008
But, of course, any criticism was bound to be rapidly and effectively deflected by the government. Apparently ignoring the key points made, Hilary Benn in The Guardian, insists that the Climate Change Bill is a world's first, and "ambitious by any standard and consistent with our leading position internationally".
Are the facts that: a) its probably not enough, and b) its way behind schedule already, not considered important?
It wasn't me, Guv!
From that well-known bastion of eco-awareness, the Guardian, about another, er, bast... newspa.. er... well, anyway, The Sun:
Yet more embarrassment for a TV indie. Production company Renegade Pictures has apologised for fly tipping while filming a documentary... about green living. The Sun reports today that crew members left piles of cardboard on a street in Bath after shooting Fix the World in the city. Producer Paul O'Connor apologised 'unreservedly' for the mishap, telling the paper the crew expected the rubbish to be picked up by binmen. The Sun P16
Couldn't find it on the Sun's woeful website (though they do have a 'green' section, and it's not just naked girls sprayed with broccoli*) to link to, but what a hoot.
And that excuse! Up there with Pete (I was just doing research) Townsend et al.
ADDENDUM - Keeley Hazell's ten green tips - stand (oo, missus) corrected. I was joking.
I wonder if they got away with it? ''Wot, I left them 20 old fridges on the layby 'cos I expected the bin men to pick it up!' Bless.
I am still giggling at the EST 'Do your 20% ad' that had everyone swithcing off their lights in a leafy London subaurd before jumping into a dirty great balck VW Touran to go to the shops. I bet that was the director's car!
Yet more embarrassment for a TV indie. Production company Renegade Pictures has apologised for fly tipping while filming a documentary... about green living. The Sun reports today that crew members left piles of cardboard on a street in Bath after shooting Fix the World in the city. Producer Paul O'Connor apologised 'unreservedly' for the mishap, telling the paper the crew expected the rubbish to be picked up by binmen. The Sun P16
Couldn't find it on the Sun's woeful website (though they do have a 'green' section, and it's not just naked girls sprayed with broccoli*) to link to, but what a hoot.
And that excuse! Up there with Pete (I was just doing research) Townsend et al.
ADDENDUM - Keeley Hazell's ten green tips - stand (oo, missus) corrected. I was joking.
I wonder if they got away with it? ''Wot, I left them 20 old fridges on the layby 'cos I expected the bin men to pick it up!' Bless.
I am still giggling at the EST 'Do your 20% ad' that had everyone swithcing off their lights in a leafy London subaurd before jumping into a dirty great balck VW Touran to go to the shops. I bet that was the director's car!
Meanwhile, what comes down the pipe to your home is...
It's a better than nothing, I guess but I couldn't help but crank a slight eyebrow at this: NPower launches eco-friendly ads
I've always been a bit dubious on nPower since seeing their activities at the Ideal Home Show 'eco' (Ahem, not) theme year, when they were a major sponsor. And Juice has been low on my estimation since seeing a bunch of Greenpeace cardboard stuck on 4x4s at Gloucester train station, sponsored by same.
At least the Guardian has at least put it that 'the energy company says the initiative is the UK's first eco-friendly campaign'. Up there with carbon neutral, I am unsure what the heck that means, or does. Or anything.
Or indeed what the actual enviROI is, as opposed to just winning advertising awards and spinning a green story.
I've always been a bit dubious on nPower since seeing their activities at the Ideal Home Show 'eco' (Ahem, not) theme year, when they were a major sponsor. And Juice has been low on my estimation since seeing a bunch of Greenpeace cardboard stuck on 4x4s at Gloucester train station, sponsored by same.
At least the Guardian has at least put it that 'the energy company says the initiative is the UK's first eco-friendly campaign'. Up there with carbon neutral, I am unsure what the heck that means, or does. Or anything.
Or indeed what the actual enviROI is, as opposed to just winning advertising awards and spinning a green story.
Read all abart it!
Is Thelondonpaper's recycling push enough?
We'll take that as a 'no' then.
On the positive, proactive side, I have to say I prefer the notion of a reward to encourage good behaviour as opposed to a fine or somesuch to penalise bad.
I don't live there so I don't know, but what are the others doing?
But realistically, it's probably going to need to be a mixture of both.
We'll take that as a 'no' then.
On the positive, proactive side, I have to say I prefer the notion of a reward to encourage good behaviour as opposed to a fine or somesuch to penalise bad.
I don't live there so I don't know, but what are the others doing?
But realistically, it's probably going to need to be a mixture of both.
The future of wind power?
These have been talked about for a few years now, but this is the first time I've come across any comments on their potential size and projected efficiency. This article from Gizmag details the design and concept of giant maglev wind turbines. With no friction to overcome, it is claimed that these will prove to be very low maintenance, but more importantly, will be efficient at wind speed as low as 1.5 Metres per second.
The concept projects that a single maglev turbine as big as a block of flats could have an output of almost 1 gigawatt and have an ROI of less than 1 year!
No doubt some will find them objectionable as being ugly, evil, unnecessary or even just a touch of NIMBYism may come into play. But, if the ROI is as low as claimed and running costs are as low as stated then perhaps we can expect to see these appearing on the UK landscape over the next 10 to 20 years.
Hmmm, I wonder if anyone is working on a domestic property scale model?
Putting green in the shade
I recently read this - Who's the greenest of them all? , and decided to pursue it a bit further. The editor has kindly replied.
It kind of highlights what has been mentioned earlier about 'looking' green without actually 'being' it becoming a worrying trend.
It kind of highlights what has been mentioned earlier about 'looking' green without actually 'being' it becoming a worrying trend.
3 into 2 will go
I guess I do have what it takes when it comes to (vast) sums: WRAP Board Extends Its Strategic Skills Base With Appointment Of Three New Non Executive Directors
We look forward to their contribution.
Established as a not-for-profit company in 2000, WRAP is backed by Government funding from Defra and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I wonder if they have a bonus structure like the Environment 'but we promised them huge amounts before it all went pear-shaped on their watch' Agency?
I'm still trying to get to grips with the lack of conflict in interest to using public money to spend on comms budgets, to drive up rates that their measures of success are based on, and then subsequently richly rewarded on a personal basis for meeting such 'targets'.
Since when did not-for profit public service end up with such money-dripping schemes beyond a decent salary for a good job?
We look forward to their contribution.
Established as a not-for-profit company in 2000, WRAP is backed by Government funding from Defra and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I wonder if they have a bonus structure like the Environment 'but we promised them huge amounts before it all went pear-shaped on their watch' Agency?
I'm still trying to get to grips with the lack of conflict in interest to using public money to spend on comms budgets, to drive up rates that their measures of success are based on, and then subsequently richly rewarded on a personal basis for meeting such 'targets'.
Since when did not-for profit public service end up with such money-dripping schemes beyond a decent salary for a good job?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Focus on carbon and miss the point
That's the conclusion of Eamon O'Hara in a thought provoking piece about this week's story for The Green Room.
His general suggestion is that by concentrating almost entirely on reducing carbon emissions, we are missing the underlying cause, which is a direct consequence of our western, unsustainable mode of living.
This, he says, "has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies."
Which is (and I like this analogy) like "relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroine."
"We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability."
I don't think anybody can realistically disagree with that statement. (Well, except perhaps the usual 'anti-brigade' comment posters who have immediately branded him as a hippy!)
It's a well and logically argued article, well worth a read. And as one of the comment posters has pointed out - look what happened to the inhabitants of Easter Island when they had consumed all their available resources; they became extinct!
Human beings tend to have a habit of NOT learning the lessons of history and commonly missing the point. Maybe now is time to take a more over-arching view whilst keeping historical precedents in mind?
________________
His general suggestion is that by concentrating almost entirely on reducing carbon emissions, we are missing the underlying cause, which is a direct consequence of our western, unsustainable mode of living.
This, he says, "has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies."
Which is (and I like this analogy) like "relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroine."
"We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability."
I don't think anybody can realistically disagree with that statement. (Well, except perhaps the usual 'anti-brigade' comment posters who have immediately branded him as a hippy!)
It's a well and logically argued article, well worth a read. And as one of the comment posters has pointed out - look what happened to the inhabitants of Easter Island when they had consumed all their available resources; they became extinct!
Human beings tend to have a habit of NOT learning the lessons of history and commonly missing the point. Maybe now is time to take a more over-arching view whilst keeping historical precedents in mind?
________________
It's not just what you switch off. But what you are now switching on.
This is worth a gander: The Ampere Strikes Back
I am so relieved that we set up Junkk.com to be inspirational as opposed to judgemental. Because there are a lot out there who are telling us what do or simply being snotty that I reckon would fall pretty foul of a few pithy comebacks.
Don't like my bottle or Perrier? Betcha ditched the old TV for flatty as soon as Comet dropped the prices, eh?
And look a DAB radios. This is the direction we are being forced in... by whom?
Pass the remote vicar!
I am so relieved that we set up Junkk.com to be inspirational as opposed to judgemental. Because there are a lot out there who are telling us what do or simply being snotty that I reckon would fall pretty foul of a few pithy comebacks.
Don't like my bottle or Perrier? Betcha ditched the old TV for flatty as soon as Comet dropped the prices, eh?
And look a DAB radios. This is the direction we are being forced in... by whom?
Pass the remote vicar!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)