Dunno Shaz, summat to do wiv drivin' trains?
This from EnvironmentTimes highlights the lack of awareness amongst teenagers of Engineering as a career.
"Ninety per cent of 14 and 15 year olds know little or nothing about careers in engineering and technology, a study by Europe's largest professional society for engineers, the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), has revealed."
At a time when it looks as if some fairly hefty engineering projects are going to happen along (Severn barrage, expanding the Thames tidal barrier etc.) I find that really disheartening: And its probably a sad reflection of the state of our current education system too.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Conserving Biodiversity
Our government has today published a new approach to conserving the UK's wildlife and habitats. As reported by Government News Network, 'Conserving Biodiversity - the UK approach' sets out a new vision.
"this vision will require a more holistic or ecosystems approach, where we recognise the interconnections between living things, their environment, and the services they provide. Our climate is changing, and it is more vital than ever before that our conservation efforts help our most important wildlife habitats to adapt and increase their chances of survival."
Sounds a little bit vague and woolly on plans and targets. Oh well, let's hope its a little more successful than the Assets Recovery Agency!
"this vision will require a more holistic or ecosystems approach, where we recognise the interconnections between living things, their environment, and the services they provide. Our climate is changing, and it is more vital than ever before that our conservation efforts help our most important wildlife habitats to adapt and increase their chances of survival."
Sounds a little bit vague and woolly on plans and targets. Oh well, let's hope its a little more successful than the Assets Recovery Agency!
Nobel Cause
Gore unlikely peace hero
'...the motivation behind the committee handing the award to Gore and the IPCC, is less about future gazing and more about wanting to make a clear and unequivocal statement ahead of the UN climate change conference in Bali this December'
Studiously trying to avoid any actual comment in any way (the MMGW optimist/pessimist keyboards are being sharpened as a write, I'm sure), I get a bit concerned reading such analysis of such 'awards' if/when it may be seen that they are being used more to send messages and/or plug future events.
That can result in consequences that often cause more problems down the line than they solve.
Guardian - Gore and peace - Unless the the BOFDis are better organised than I give them credit for, bearing in mind this is The Guardian the blog posts tell a tale
Guardian - The truth will out - Trouble with a headline like that is when what comes out isn't true. And while a person's background does not always have any bearing on what they have to say or how they say it, I seem to recall this chap calling the cancellation on Planet Relief 'a right-wing conspiracy when the truth was the BBC sensed no one fancied another Live Earth.
'That's not a game I want to play with my kids. Do you?'
No.
But then again, I'd prefer messengers whose message doesn't immediately leave itself open to the absolutist 'tis/tisn't, all-or-nothing MMCC exchanges that inevitably ensue. See above.
There are a lot of folk DOING a lot more that may not be as sexy as celeb-fuelled 'awareness' talkfests, but might achieve more. And with luck are not over-egging the case to the point a lot of good gets compromised by trivia or, worse, inaccuracies. Or sulking and making wild accusations when the majority of the public show resistance to fondly cherished notions, such as Planet Relief.
And messengers are as important, if not more so, as message these days. Choose them with care.
The headlines reporting this are really as polarised as any discussing the causes of climate change. There's also the small matter of how thew facts of the award get reported. As with teh Oscar, it often seems Mr. Gore alone won it. This from Science Daily is perhaps a more appropriate summary:
Climate Change Research Recognized - In 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
As to whether using Mr. Gore's efforts... and views... were the best way to 'send a message', especially via a Peace prize, and it seems targeted rather unsubtly at the US, remains to be seen.
LA Times - Gore's Nobel win stirs hope — and speculation - It seems odd to see this being projected to a potential presidential effort. Especially like this.
BBC - Indian's surprise at Nobel award - Interesting back story
BBC - Gore says prize must spur action
'...the motivation behind the committee handing the award to Gore and the IPCC, is less about future gazing and more about wanting to make a clear and unequivocal statement ahead of the UN climate change conference in Bali this December'
Studiously trying to avoid any actual comment in any way (the MMGW optimist/pessimist keyboards are being sharpened as a write, I'm sure), I get a bit concerned reading such analysis of such 'awards' if/when it may be seen that they are being used more to send messages and/or plug future events.
That can result in consequences that often cause more problems down the line than they solve.
Guardian - Gore and peace - Unless the the BOFDis are better organised than I give them credit for, bearing in mind this is The Guardian the blog posts tell a tale
Guardian - The truth will out - Trouble with a headline like that is when what comes out isn't true. And while a person's background does not always have any bearing on what they have to say or how they say it, I seem to recall this chap calling the cancellation on Planet Relief 'a right-wing conspiracy when the truth was the BBC sensed no one fancied another Live Earth.
'That's not a game I want to play with my kids. Do you?'
No.
But then again, I'd prefer messengers whose message doesn't immediately leave itself open to the absolutist 'tis/tisn't, all-or-nothing MMCC exchanges that inevitably ensue. See above.
There are a lot of folk DOING a lot more that may not be as sexy as celeb-fuelled 'awareness' talkfests, but might achieve more. And with luck are not over-egging the case to the point a lot of good gets compromised by trivia or, worse, inaccuracies. Or sulking and making wild accusations when the majority of the public show resistance to fondly cherished notions, such as Planet Relief.
And messengers are as important, if not more so, as message these days. Choose them with care.
The headlines reporting this are really as polarised as any discussing the causes of climate change. There's also the small matter of how thew facts of the award get reported. As with teh Oscar, it often seems Mr. Gore alone won it. This from Science Daily is perhaps a more appropriate summary:
Climate Change Research Recognized - In 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
As to whether using Mr. Gore's efforts... and views... were the best way to 'send a message', especially via a Peace prize, and it seems targeted rather unsubtly at the US, remains to be seen.
LA Times - Gore's Nobel win stirs hope — and speculation - It seems odd to see this being projected to a potential presidential effort. Especially like this.
BBC - Indian's surprise at Nobel award - Interesting back story
BBC - Gore says prize must spur action
The lost questions?
I post this for one reason only. We have all struggled to put into terms something to express the maelstrom of argument, debate and counter-debate that ensues whenever climate change / global warming is discussed. The sub-head and first line from this article by Philip Mote on PhysOrg.com just about sums it up perfectly.
"Public discussion over global warming is often caught in a vortex of misinformation perpetuated by extreme forces who say it’s all just a big hoax. This often causes the most relevant scientific questions to get lost."
There's also an interesting little snippet on Kilimanjaro's receding snowline - definitely not global warming - according to Mote.
"Public discussion over global warming is often caught in a vortex of misinformation perpetuated by extreme forces who say it’s all just a big hoax. This often causes the most relevant scientific questions to get lost."
There's also an interesting little snippet on Kilimanjaro's receding snowline - definitely not global warming - according to Mote.
COMPETITION - Ideas for awareness campaign
WHEN: Now
WHAT: FaceBook Group 'Somewhat strident who cares'
WHAT... MORE?: "I have to ask you all a favour. Recently I’ve been feeling increasingly oppressed by the media in general. I am highly aware of these things immediately making me feel shit about myself, to the point where I am spitting with rage. Up to now I’ve not done anything about this for fear of falling into some kinds of ‘always strident, never funny’ category, but I don’t care anymore.
I’m bothered by magazines and adverts in particular, like those cosmetic surgery ads on the tube, or ads for Heat, Grazia, Nuts, Zoo and so on. So basically I’m starting small. If I print up stickers that say things like:
‘By women who hate women. For women who hate themselves’
‘Reading will cause self-hatred’
‘Fake boobs are vile’
‘You are normal. This is not.’
Would you be willing just to carry a few around in your bag and put them on things that you find especially offensive? I’m open to suggestions about what’s on them. I’m also looking into a greener option than stickers, or recycled stickers."
HOW MUCH: Free! But there is actually no prize either, save for having a nifty idea in a good cause... and promoting the cause of reuse in the promoting of causes.
URL: Where I found it. There is a link to a FaceBook thingie, but you have to be a member (which I/Junkk.com am/is already): http://www.brandrepublic.com/Blogs/showpost/0d737814-ebcc-443d-85d3-8854574ba6c1/
COMMENTS: There is actually no prize either, save for having a nifty idea in a good cause... and promoting the cause of reuse in the promoting of causes.
WHAT: FaceBook Group 'Somewhat strident who cares'
WHAT... MORE?: "I have to ask you all a favour. Recently I’ve been feeling increasingly oppressed by the media in general. I am highly aware of these things immediately making me feel shit about myself, to the point where I am spitting with rage. Up to now I’ve not done anything about this for fear of falling into some kinds of ‘always strident, never funny’ category, but I don’t care anymore.
I’m bothered by magazines and adverts in particular, like those cosmetic surgery ads on the tube, or ads for Heat, Grazia, Nuts, Zoo and so on. So basically I’m starting small. If I print up stickers that say things like:
‘By women who hate women. For women who hate themselves’
‘Reading will cause self-hatred’
‘Fake boobs are vile’
‘You are normal. This is not.’
Would you be willing just to carry a few around in your bag and put them on things that you find especially offensive? I’m open to suggestions about what’s on them. I’m also looking into a greener option than stickers, or recycled stickers."
HOW MUCH: Free! But there is actually no prize either, save for having a nifty idea in a good cause... and promoting the cause of reuse in the promoting of causes.
URL: Where I found it. There is a link to a FaceBook thingie, but you have to be a member (which I/Junkk.com am/is already): http://www.brandrepublic.com/Blogs/showpost/0d737814-ebcc-443d-85d3-8854574ba6c1/
COMMENTS: There is actually no prize either, save for having a nifty idea in a good cause... and promoting the cause of reuse in the promoting of causes.
CSI Brussels
No, not another of those crime scene investigation programs from the USA, but the Cement Sustainability Initiative.
Now I knew that cement production generated CO2, what I didn't realise was quite how much. This from The Guardian provides some very interesting data.
"The summit was not called by the aviation industry - that is comparatively clean in comparison. Nor was it made up of car makers, oil companies, shipping firms or any other business that has traditionally drawn the fire of green campaigners."
It turns out that worldwide, the cement industry accounts for more than 5% of all CO2 emissions! And there is no obvious way of cleaning up the process. This is going to cause much heated debate down the line; as cement has become mankind's basic building material.
"There were no climate change protesters waiting to jeer as the chief executives and other senior figures of one of the world's biggest industries gathered on Wednesday."
Now this is out, how long before FoE and its ilk are picketing the cement works and limestone quarries that are dotted all over the UK?
Now I knew that cement production generated CO2, what I didn't realise was quite how much. This from The Guardian provides some very interesting data.
"The summit was not called by the aviation industry - that is comparatively clean in comparison. Nor was it made up of car makers, oil companies, shipping firms or any other business that has traditionally drawn the fire of green campaigners."
It turns out that worldwide, the cement industry accounts for more than 5% of all CO2 emissions! And there is no obvious way of cleaning up the process. This is going to cause much heated debate down the line; as cement has become mankind's basic building material.
"There were no climate change protesters waiting to jeer as the chief executives and other senior figures of one of the world's biggest industries gathered on Wednesday."
Now this is out, how long before FoE and its ilk are picketing the cement works and limestone quarries that are dotted all over the UK?
Criminal Waste
As we're on a roll today as regards public money being p*ssed away when it could help save the planet, here's what I wrote to Newsnight first thing this morning.
Clostridium difficile
The funding of and hence governing of any public service is fast acquiring the levels of farce.
As it stands I remain unclear whether this lady resigned or was dismissed, and hence in either case (though accepting there are differences under the current 'interesting' employment laws) why she would be getting any payment at all escapes me.
That only a case so grotesque as this highlights the protagonists, their actions and the sums from the public purse involved can only lead one to wonder just what else, if marginally less awful, results in any from the public sector - who range from the simply inefficient to the venal - getting swathes of cash for no good reason I can see. Well, other than allowing the clowns who oversee it all to dig their sorry careers out of another hole with other people’s money. Meanwhile a solider mutilated in battle gets grudgingly upgraded to a similar amount to live on for the rest of his life.
And now, today, I turn on the TV to find out that yet another highly trumpeted body (the Crim Combo Crowd) takes 3 times more money to administer than it doles out to those who need it, and not a civil servant's salary and gold-plated pension.
A classic, if sorry metaphor for Blair/Brown's Britain now, whilst the previous 'case' shows just what the effect of 10 years of pouring money without any concept of control can(not) achieve.
Clostridium difficile
The funding of and hence governing of any public service is fast acquiring the levels of farce.
As it stands I remain unclear whether this lady resigned or was dismissed, and hence in either case (though accepting there are differences under the current 'interesting' employment laws) why she would be getting any payment at all escapes me.
That only a case so grotesque as this highlights the protagonists, their actions and the sums from the public purse involved can only lead one to wonder just what else, if marginally less awful, results in any from the public sector - who range from the simply inefficient to the venal - getting swathes of cash for no good reason I can see. Well, other than allowing the clowns who oversee it all to dig their sorry careers out of another hole with other people’s money. Meanwhile a solider mutilated in battle gets grudgingly upgraded to a similar amount to live on for the rest of his life.
And now, today, I turn on the TV to find out that yet another highly trumpeted body (the Crim Combo Crowd) takes 3 times more money to administer than it doles out to those who need it, and not a civil servant's salary and gold-plated pension.
A classic, if sorry metaphor for Blair/Brown's Britain now, whilst the previous 'case' shows just what the effect of 10 years of pouring money without any concept of control can(not) achieve.
This is criminal!
The Assets Recovery Agency was set up in 2003 with a remit to seize the assets of convicted criminals. As reported by The Times today, it has not exactly produced particularly good results.
Having spent over £65 Million in four years, it had recovered, by December last year, some £23 Million in illegally obtained assets.
A return on investment of -£40 Million; now that sounds like it was really well thought out and considered!
Just think about this; at an average cost of £400 per household that's some 100,000 UK houses that could have been fully insulated; substantially saving both energy and CO2 emissions.
What's the betting that no heads will roll, no gold-plated pensions will be put at risk, and that all those in senior positions involved will end up in some alternative cushy number to continue practicing their incompetence? They ought to be put on trial themselves for misappropriation of taxpayers money!
Having spent over £65 Million in four years, it had recovered, by December last year, some £23 Million in illegally obtained assets.
A return on investment of -£40 Million; now that sounds like it was really well thought out and considered!
Just think about this; at an average cost of £400 per household that's some 100,000 UK houses that could have been fully insulated; substantially saving both energy and CO2 emissions.
What's the betting that no heads will roll, no gold-plated pensions will be put at risk, and that all those in senior positions involved will end up in some alternative cushy number to continue practicing their incompetence? They ought to be put on trial themselves for misappropriation of taxpayers money!
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Fancy a change? Or.. a change.. fancy.
It was the title that caught my eye: Blears challenges councils to match Government on Devolution
Seemed quite combative for those tasked to work together to serve us.
But it is worth sharing as there are some green bits (well, one) in there:
Communities Secretary Hazel Blears today unveiled a radical re-engineering of the relationship between the state and local councils and communities bringing Government much closer to local people.
The full-set of Whitehall performance indicators that will come into force for local councils next April are published today. They show the Government has slashed the number from 1200 to just 198 giving councils major new freedoms to direct their focus and resources at the issues local people care about from tackling anti-social behaviour, cracking down on gun culture, stepping up work to improve local education standards and tackling climate change.
In a speech to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (Solace) in Cardiff, Ms Blears also delivered a direct challenge to local government - who have long called for greater freedom - saying they must use this "once in a generation" opportunity to deliver better services and make a positive difference in their local community.
Ms Blears also set out other major new freedoms for local Government including:
* Up to £5billion to be transferred out of ring-fenced budgets - this will allow local councils and communities to shift resources to local priorities such as tackling crime or worklessness.
* Business Rates Supplements - a powerful new tool enabling local authorities to work with business to invest in projects that could not otherwise proceed to promote the long-term economic growth and productivity of their areas.
* From next April there will be no new mandatory targets on councils (apart from the 17 statutory targets for educational attainment and early years). The Government will not prescribe any of the targets in Local Area Agreements (LAAs), but will aim to agree them with local partners as part of the negotiation, and councils will be required to involve local communities in the process.
The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partners: Single Set of National Indicators is published today
What do you reckon?
Seemed quite combative for those tasked to work together to serve us.
But it is worth sharing as there are some green bits (well, one) in there:
Communities Secretary Hazel Blears today unveiled a radical re-engineering of the relationship between the state and local councils and communities bringing Government much closer to local people.
The full-set of Whitehall performance indicators that will come into force for local councils next April are published today. They show the Government has slashed the number from 1200 to just 198 giving councils major new freedoms to direct their focus and resources at the issues local people care about from tackling anti-social behaviour, cracking down on gun culture, stepping up work to improve local education standards and tackling climate change.
In a speech to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (Solace) in Cardiff, Ms Blears also delivered a direct challenge to local government - who have long called for greater freedom - saying they must use this "once in a generation" opportunity to deliver better services and make a positive difference in their local community.
Ms Blears also set out other major new freedoms for local Government including:
* Up to £5billion to be transferred out of ring-fenced budgets - this will allow local councils and communities to shift resources to local priorities such as tackling crime or worklessness.
* Business Rates Supplements - a powerful new tool enabling local authorities to work with business to invest in projects that could not otherwise proceed to promote the long-term economic growth and productivity of their areas.
* From next April there will be no new mandatory targets on councils (apart from the 17 statutory targets for educational attainment and early years). The Government will not prescribe any of the targets in Local Area Agreements (LAAs), but will aim to agree them with local partners as part of the negotiation, and councils will be required to involve local communities in the process.
The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partners: Single Set of National Indicators is published today
What do you reckon?
Going to waste
Sorry, I meant going into waste: Defra to get £4 billion a year by 2010
Preventing it, that is. Not meeting targets, hiring countless measuring monkeys or anything.
Because... all together now... 'we need to act now if we are to avoid dangerous climate change'.
My enviROI+ antennae are twitching!
Preventing it, that is. Not meeting targets, hiring countless measuring monkeys or anything.
Because... all together now... 'we need to act now if we are to avoid dangerous climate change'.
My enviROI+ antennae are twitching!
As Oedipus would say, 'Everything is relative'
This from (DEFRA) - Tougher targets for packaging waste
Always a tad dubious about the suffix 'er', as that sets you off on the trail of 'in comparison to what'? But it's the right direction , I guess.
I'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, 'would be' might infer in the great can/could/might scheme of PR, though. Enjoy:
More packaging would be recovered and recycled under proposals set out in a consultation published by Environment Minister Joan Ruddock today.
New business targets would come into effect in January 2008 to help the UK meet its obligations under the EC Packaging Directive. Higher targets are proposed for 2009 and beyond to increase the level of recovery and recycling.
After 2008 it is at the discretion of Member States to set targets beyond the minimum required by the Packaging Directive and the UK has made clear that its aim is to continue to improve performance on packaging waste because of the environmental benefits this brings.
Joan Ruddock said:
"Since the introduction of the UK Packaging Regulations packaging recycling has improved significantly, from just 27% in 1997 to over 57% last year. But there is much more to be done. Further cuts in packaging waste are an essential part of reducing our reliance on landfill and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"The higher targets can also act as a driver to help design out unnecessary packaging in future."
The EU minimum recycling and recovery targets are 55% and 60% respectively. The Government's preferred option would increase the recycling target to 55.7% in 2008, 56.8% in 2009 and 58.4% in 2010, and the recovery target to 60.6%, 61.8% and 63.4% in the same years.
Recycling packaging reduces CO2 emissions because less energy is used to extract and process recycled materials than virgin ones, particularly materials like aluminium.
As well as the environmental benefits of cutting CO2 emissions and reducing reliance on landfill, the proposals have cost benefits of around £1.1m - the difference between the estimated costs to producers of £7.7m, and carbon savings estimated at £8.8m.
The proposals are consistent with the Government's 'polluter pays' principal, and the aims of the new Waste Strategy for England which was published in May.
The consultation is published here
The target system applies to businesses that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year and with an annual turnover of over £2m. It encourages producers to reduce their packaging levels because this reduces the cost to them of recycling and recovering their waste.
Proposed targets (weeeee!) of the Government's preferred option:
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Paper 67.5% 68.5% 69.5% 70.5% 71.5%
Glass 78.5% 80.0% 81.0% 82% 84%
Aluminium 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 41% 42%
Steel 68.0% 68.5% 69.0% 70% 71%
Plastic 26.0% 27.0% 29.0% 31% 33%
Wood 20.5% 21.0% 22.0% 23% 24%
Recovery 69.0% 70.0% 71.0% 73% 75%
Always a tad dubious about the suffix 'er', as that sets you off on the trail of 'in comparison to what'? But it's the right direction , I guess.
I'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, 'would be' might infer in the great can/could/might scheme of PR, though. Enjoy:
More packaging would be recovered and recycled under proposals set out in a consultation published by Environment Minister Joan Ruddock today.
New business targets would come into effect in January 2008 to help the UK meet its obligations under the EC Packaging Directive. Higher targets are proposed for 2009 and beyond to increase the level of recovery and recycling.
After 2008 it is at the discretion of Member States to set targets beyond the minimum required by the Packaging Directive and the UK has made clear that its aim is to continue to improve performance on packaging waste because of the environmental benefits this brings.
Joan Ruddock said:
"Since the introduction of the UK Packaging Regulations packaging recycling has improved significantly, from just 27% in 1997 to over 57% last year. But there is much more to be done. Further cuts in packaging waste are an essential part of reducing our reliance on landfill and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"The higher targets can also act as a driver to help design out unnecessary packaging in future."
The EU minimum recycling and recovery targets are 55% and 60% respectively. The Government's preferred option would increase the recycling target to 55.7% in 2008, 56.8% in 2009 and 58.4% in 2010, and the recovery target to 60.6%, 61.8% and 63.4% in the same years.
Recycling packaging reduces CO2 emissions because less energy is used to extract and process recycled materials than virgin ones, particularly materials like aluminium.
As well as the environmental benefits of cutting CO2 emissions and reducing reliance on landfill, the proposals have cost benefits of around £1.1m - the difference between the estimated costs to producers of £7.7m, and carbon savings estimated at £8.8m.
The proposals are consistent with the Government's 'polluter pays' principal, and the aims of the new Waste Strategy for England which was published in May.
The consultation is published here
The target system applies to businesses that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year and with an annual turnover of over £2m. It encourages producers to reduce their packaging levels because this reduces the cost to them of recycling and recovering their waste.
Proposed targets (weeeee!) of the Government's preferred option:
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Paper 67.5% 68.5% 69.5% 70.5% 71.5%
Glass 78.5% 80.0% 81.0% 82% 84%
Aluminium 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 41% 42%
Steel 68.0% 68.5% 69.0% 70% 71%
Plastic 26.0% 27.0% 29.0% 31% 33%
Wood 20.5% 21.0% 22.0% 23% 24%
Recovery 69.0% 70.0% 71.0% 73% 75%
Laugh, I could have...
Fox's Glacier Mints 'carbon footprint'
Nice to see the funny side being aired. I'm sure Al Gore* would approve!
But the way things might be headed, Fox might just soon be able to walk up* there by pushing the sand all around into a ramp:)
*Peppy having drowned on his 60 mile swim.
Nice to see the funny side being aired. I'm sure Al Gore* would approve!
But the way things might be headed, Fox might just soon be able to walk up* there by pushing the sand all around into a ramp:)
*Peppy having drowned on his 60 mile swim.
It will ride up with wear
I noted this: Tesco measures carbon footprint of own products
Well, 30 of them, anyway. As a test. And being part of a project to assess and develop a carbon labelling standard. I guess it's a start. So long as it goes somewhere soon.
I didn't even know we had a Climate Change Minister, but I can see why she gets the big bucks.
To her stunning insights here I might add that having measured them, there is getting them across in a meaningful way to the poor consumer. Cue another initiative.
The project will provide information on how the standard, called the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, can be applied in a cost-effective, simple way.
I wonder when? I'm assuming that number at the end is not the date.
Well, 30 of them, anyway. As a test. And being part of a project to assess and develop a carbon labelling standard. I guess it's a start. So long as it goes somewhere soon.
I didn't even know we had a Climate Change Minister, but I can see why she gets the big bucks.
To her stunning insights here I might add that having measured them, there is getting them across in a meaningful way to the poor consumer. Cue another initiative.
The project will provide information on how the standard, called the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, can be applied in a cost-effective, simple way.
I wonder when? I'm assuming that number at the end is not the date.
So, do YOU feel like doing what THEY say?
MPs question government 'savings'
We could always fine them, but then who pays the bill... oh.
Gaurdian - Sir John Bourn, guardian of the public purse. In three years he's run up bills of £365k on travel and £27k on meals. Then there's opera, grand prix, polo ...
He scratches their backs? They scratch...?
We could always fine them, but then who pays the bill... oh.
Gaurdian - Sir John Bourn, guardian of the public purse. In three years he's run up bills of £365k on travel and £27k on meals. Then there's opera, grand prix, polo ...
He scratches their backs? They scratch...?
Maybe we will see some trees not for the wood
I need a good news fix: “Zero" Amazon Deforestation Possible by 2015, Brazilian NGOs say
Mind, there is that word... 'possible'.
Mind, there is that word... 'possible'.
Spinning yarns. Telling tales.
The e-blogosphere, from Newsnight to BBC is Biased, is humming a tad on this: Inconvenient verdict delivered on Gore's climate change film
As stated before, I can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The thing is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo di Caprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available.
Bearing in mind this is the Indy I find this rather telling: 'But, in a somewhat more damaging move, the judge forensically examined the documentary's "one-sided" case and found "nine scientific errors" in its content.'
But this is where I get annoyed, not with the 'deniers', but those who keep handing them easy ways to cast doubts: 'Yesterday's ruling will no doubt be greeted with glee among climate-change deniers.' I am seeing it in every post out there. And the other stuff, the actual worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no/] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue. '
I just want to know what we know, and no more and no less, and be guided as best I can to do what is best for my kids' futures. The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides'.
BBC - Gore climate film's 'nine errors'
'... this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.' Ya think?
Guardian - Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
Newsnight - Wednesday, 10 October, 2007
Having now watched this, I wish politicians of all hues (and a few media types, though JP was a noble exception in referring to 'us', I believe, as 'they', which I presume to be a separate breed of human to those who haunt studios) would resist from telling me what I think when I haven't been asked. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has the rest of the country in any meaningful way.
It makes it very hard to stay objective on what IS happening and gets DONE, and resist reacting and seeking the exact opposite just as payback for the presumption.
Which brings me to the world being consumed in a ball of fire by next Tuesday. Or... not.
The eco-blogosphere is humming a bit on this.
And I really can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The piece (as noted) is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo diCaprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available. So what the government was/is doing punting it out anyway escapes me.
Where I do get annoyed in this is with those who keep handing climate optimists easy ways to cast doubts. I am seeing it in every post out there. While the other stuff, the actual for real worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no?] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue', as I read by way of a comeback in the paper. It's always extremes.
So we get a guy up against JP, whose job it is to seek weaknesses in argument and tear them apart, and I am left with ' 'bits' of it were... um... wrong, but not wrong'? Do what? On this basis what else could get the green ('scuse pun) light to be aired at school, so long as it comes with a teacher's disclaimer training manual. I know how that is going to go down having run it by my own kids; 'Er, dad, what are you on about???'. I want them educated in more than box-ticking.
And, as an aside, I was not aware that 'we' 'know' that climate change IS man-made. I am passionately committed to practical (a lot in that), effective (even more there) reduction and/or mitigation on an urgent basis, but just on a slightly different one that I, personally, 'believe', which is 'man' and our activities sure may not be helping much.
And if the MMCC absolute does get disproved (which in some other ways I pray it does, though my business plan might need changing a tad once the party starts) or even just further chipped away, it sets back the entreaties of the less dogmatic advocates. Cry wolf, anyone?
Like greenwashing ads, why push the claim to the point that it is shown to be hyped, or worse false, and undo all the other good the brand has been building? I know it can seem so urgent to some (me inc.) that any means necessary can be tempting to take to get the message out, but not if this is the result.
I can only speak personally to say I just want to know what 'we' know now - no more and no less, with all caveats - and to be guided as best I can be to do what is best for my kids' futures.
The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides' feeding off this as we speak.
Green cannot be viewed just in black and white.
ADDENDUM
* 33.* Baz wrote:
Thank you for this. As one interested but who cannot face the prospect of wading through mammoth reports I can't complain so much if I rely on those who do if the information I get is 'selective'.
I have been convinced enough by what I have been served up to concede that there is the distinct possibility of Man-worsened Climate Change, and even if this ends up being proven in error there seems no great harm in a cautious approach to our race's activities from now on. In any case, moderation, cutting down/out pollution and prevention of waste are no bad things to practice simply in financial terms.
Semantically, do I read this as saying it's a given that climate change in human-induced? You obviously did. I could see it more as looking at 'whether', which seems valid.
That said, I have heard the BBC's main enviro spokespersons/experts (whose qualifications are?) refer to the 'fact' that climate change is caused by man. Is it?
Because then there is also such as this: "the risk is the public might misunderstand what campaigners are saying with what the scientists are actually finding out."
Quite.
As stated before, I can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The thing is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo di Caprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available.
Bearing in mind this is the Indy I find this rather telling: 'But, in a somewhat more damaging move, the judge forensically examined the documentary's "one-sided" case and found "nine scientific errors" in its content.'
But this is where I get annoyed, not with the 'deniers', but those who keep handing them easy ways to cast doubts: 'Yesterday's ruling will no doubt be greeted with glee among climate-change deniers.' I am seeing it in every post out there. And the other stuff, the actual worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no/] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue. '
I just want to know what we know, and no more and no less, and be guided as best I can to do what is best for my kids' futures. The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides'.
BBC - Gore climate film's 'nine errors'
'... this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.' Ya think?
Guardian - Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
Newsnight - Wednesday, 10 October, 2007
Having now watched this, I wish politicians of all hues (and a few media types, though JP was a noble exception in referring to 'us', I believe, as 'they', which I presume to be a separate breed of human to those who haunt studios) would resist from telling me what I think when I haven't been asked. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has the rest of the country in any meaningful way.
It makes it very hard to stay objective on what IS happening and gets DONE, and resist reacting and seeking the exact opposite just as payback for the presumption.
Which brings me to the world being consumed in a ball of fire by next Tuesday. Or... not.
The eco-blogosphere is humming a bit on this.
And I really can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The piece (as noted) is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo diCaprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available. So what the government was/is doing punting it out anyway escapes me.
Where I do get annoyed in this is with those who keep handing climate optimists easy ways to cast doubts. I am seeing it in every post out there. While the other stuff, the actual for real worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no?] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue', as I read by way of a comeback in the paper. It's always extremes.
So we get a guy up against JP, whose job it is to seek weaknesses in argument and tear them apart, and I am left with ' 'bits' of it were... um... wrong, but not wrong'? Do what? On this basis what else could get the green ('scuse pun) light to be aired at school, so long as it comes with a teacher's disclaimer training manual. I know how that is going to go down having run it by my own kids; 'Er, dad, what are you on about???'. I want them educated in more than box-ticking.
And, as an aside, I was not aware that 'we' 'know' that climate change IS man-made. I am passionately committed to practical (a lot in that), effective (even more there) reduction and/or mitigation on an urgent basis, but just on a slightly different one that I, personally, 'believe', which is 'man' and our activities sure may not be helping much.
And if the MMCC absolute does get disproved (which in some other ways I pray it does, though my business plan might need changing a tad once the party starts) or even just further chipped away, it sets back the entreaties of the less dogmatic advocates. Cry wolf, anyone?
Like greenwashing ads, why push the claim to the point that it is shown to be hyped, or worse false, and undo all the other good the brand has been building? I know it can seem so urgent to some (me inc.) that any means necessary can be tempting to take to get the message out, but not if this is the result.
I can only speak personally to say I just want to know what 'we' know now - no more and no less, with all caveats - and to be guided as best I can be to do what is best for my kids' futures.
The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides' feeding off this as we speak.
Green cannot be viewed just in black and white.
ADDENDUM
* 33.* Baz wrote:
Thank you for this. As one interested but who cannot face the prospect of wading through mammoth reports I can't complain so much if I rely on those who do if the information I get is 'selective'.
I have been convinced enough by what I have been served up to concede that there is the distinct possibility of Man-worsened Climate Change, and even if this ends up being proven in error there seems no great harm in a cautious approach to our race's activities from now on. In any case, moderation, cutting down/out pollution and prevention of waste are no bad things to practice simply in financial terms.
Semantically, do I read this as saying it's a given that climate change in human-induced? You obviously did. I could see it more as looking at 'whether', which seems valid.
That said, I have heard the BBC's main enviro spokespersons/experts (whose qualifications are?) refer to the 'fact' that climate change is caused by man. Is it?
Because then there is also such as this: "the risk is the public might misunderstand what campaigners are saying with what the scientists are actually finding out."
Quite.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
I saw three ships a belchin' forth...
Anything that starts with 'New research suggests..' gets my eyebrow well primed, but I do wonder if this is another biggie we are ignoring in favour of trivia: Shipping pollution 'far more damaging than flying'
BBC - Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'
BBC - Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'
Why 'greens' don't want to solve climate change
An interesting and well structured piece from Spiked which argues that environmentalists are against major technological solutions to climate change as it robs them of their raison d'etre.
Well worth a read.
Well worth a read.
Don't call us. And we won't call you.
Inspiring stuff: EVEN GORDON GETS CONFUSED ABOUT TPS!
I am intrigued by big businesses who are on/hide behind TPS.
It rather begs the question as to how they find out anything new.
Having been challenged by a mentor to call (I really, really... don't like cold calling) a major fmcg Marketing Director up to get a chance to pitch my green eco-packaging invention, my first attempt was Trace on reception 'Hoodisayscallin'?" and through to Mrs. Miggins on her IBM Selectric: 'Does he KNOW you?'. To my answer that no, he did not, but I was pretty sure he and his company would like to be aware of a green innovation that made money and saved the planet, she shrieked 'But we're on TPS - I am reporting you!' I quake as I write.
And that was just me going via their website.
Ahhh... doing business in Brown's not very green and very unpleasant land.
I am intrigued by big businesses who are on/hide behind TPS.
It rather begs the question as to how they find out anything new.
Having been challenged by a mentor to call (I really, really... don't like cold calling) a major fmcg Marketing Director up to get a chance to pitch my green eco-packaging invention, my first attempt was Trace on reception 'Hoodisayscallin'?" and through to Mrs. Miggins on her IBM Selectric: 'Does he KNOW you?'. To my answer that no, he did not, but I was pretty sure he and his company would like to be aware of a green innovation that made money and saved the planet, she shrieked 'But we're on TPS - I am reporting you!' I quake as I write.
And that was just me going via their website.
Ahhh... doing business in Brown's not very green and very unpleasant land.
Worked for me
EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS IS THE WRONG STRATEGY
I ran my agency on one simple service principle: promise slightly lower than you know you can deliver... and then, when you do, exceed it by as much as you can.
Never failed.
I ran my agency on one simple service principle: promise slightly lower than you know you can deliver... and then, when you do, exceed it by as much as you can.
Never failed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)