It's half-time - and we're already 3-0 down
Tricky things, dilemmas.
It cannot have escaped most folks' notice that quite an industry has sprung up around the whole planet saving (from itself) thing.
What I am not so sure is that the balance is right between those doing vs. those talking, especially when it comes to the media talking about those doing the talking.
And it's throwing up a small problem. Facts are nice things to hang a headline on. Especially when they have dates attached.
Trouble is, if you are in the business of persuasion (no matter how sincere), once you commit to one you are kinda bound by the consequence.
So all this 'we're all doomed' stuff is causing me a slight problem. Tell it as it is, or as it might be, and risk the rather obvious deleterious consequence of going past a stated point of no return and hence rather logically acknowledging the point that there is... um... no point trying any more.
Or perhaps simply focus more on all sorts of nifty, proactive, incentive-driven, reward-based ways to get people on aboard with doing better by the planet because they want to and feel like it as opposed to scare stories, guilt-trips, fines, nags and all the other stuff that has worked sooooo well to now. Puts a lot of folk in cushy little numbers plugging those notions, from activists to target-driven pols and quangos to carbon-trading suits to....etc, out of business, but I could live with that at a pinch.
Tricky, eh?
The positives are out there. It's just it doesn't make for a good career in media to report them. So most don't. Yet still get paid well for it.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. Farmer Giles
Biofuels 'crime against humanity'
And yes, before you can cry 'rapeseed', the headlines have taken an issue worthy of consideration and elevated it to the level of the Judgement of Nuremberg.
Oo, 'eck. There's a point in there, but golly is this the way to make it?
Glad I didn't opt for the Saab biodiesel now. Actually, opt isn't quite the word. In fact the words 'couldn't afford' are more like it.
Anyway, yesterday the old Volvo was serviced and passed with flying colours. 11 years old, tuned to perfection, tyres at right inflation, etc.
What was interesting was a certificate I got 'for when plod stops me to do an emissions check' (it clears me, and passes the buck to the garage, at least for 6 months). Seems that beyond the MOT, you can get hauled up and have a probe stuck up your pipe. And if you fail... £80 on the spot. Nice that the priorities are again tip top.
And yes, before you can cry 'rapeseed', the headlines have taken an issue worthy of consideration and elevated it to the level of the Judgement of Nuremberg.
Oo, 'eck. There's a point in there, but golly is this the way to make it?
Glad I didn't opt for the Saab biodiesel now. Actually, opt isn't quite the word. In fact the words 'couldn't afford' are more like it.
Anyway, yesterday the old Volvo was serviced and passed with flying colours. 11 years old, tuned to perfection, tyres at right inflation, etc.
What was interesting was a certificate I got 'for when plod stops me to do an emissions check' (it clears me, and passes the buck to the garage, at least for 6 months). Seems that beyond the MOT, you can get hauled up and have a probe stuck up your pipe. And if you fail... £80 on the spot. Nice that the priorities are again tip top.
Maybe when they stop the joyrider with no tax, insurance or MOT they can get 'em on a dodgy tune job. That'll hit 'em where it hurts... their pride.
Indy - Ditto
Indy - Ditto
PROF'S POSER - Paper Cuts
This is one I'd been pondering awhile, and have been tilted to pose following a reader post about recycled book stock.
It certainly should be prefaced with a LiKADaT (little knowledge is a dangerous thing - all together now in a good Italian accent: 'Jus' a likeadat!') tag!
Let's start with the down sides of what I think I know.
Getting virgin paper needs trees. And energy. You have got to cut 'em down, munch 'em up, tidy it all with chemicals and then lay it out and stuff. That means where once there was a tree there isn't any more, and a wadge of CO2 is produced, and a load of water (I think) consumed just to get to the raw stock (we're ignoring logistics of printing and distribution, say, versus a PDF).
Getting recycled paper needs old paper. And energy. And, I believe, quite a few chemicals, too. And for some reason or other, it all costs a lot more, though the gap is closing. But what it doesn't do is consume new trees.
But.... and as I am oft minded to say, it's a big one.... here's my poser: is the former quite as bad as made out, enviROI+wise? Especially in comparison to the latter?
I am set on this trail by the logic, ironically, of offsetting. In simplistic (and now more often than not less practiced) terms it has been sold as good for the planet in the form of planting a tree, which will grow and act as a carbon sink.
So I guess my poser would be whether one could view using virgin paper, so long as it is derived from properly managed forests (and I need to sort out my FSC-certified from my stewardship-thingie. I'm guessing there are as many schemes and logos to confuse as any other e-industry), as logically being an encouragement of good environmental practice? If so, in fact the perverse logic of projection would be that using more paper from such sources is actually even better, as it promotes the planting and tending of forests to full term as opposed to say, a bio-diesel field.
Just how does it compare to recycled which, if one accepts where I am going with the above (which is in the form, at present, of a question I stress!!!) actually seems to be rather stuck in a cycle of energy consumption from collection to reprocessing. And no new trees going up taboot.
I guess ignoring the latter, a key factor in weighing them is the amount of CO2 that gets from raw material (tree vs. waste paper) to new stock. With a few pollutant nasties factored in too, but in another enviROI- tick box, which makes comparison more tricky.
It certainly should be prefaced with a LiKADaT (little knowledge is a dangerous thing - all together now in a good Italian accent: 'Jus' a likeadat!') tag!
Let's start with the down sides of what I think I know.
Getting virgin paper needs trees. And energy. You have got to cut 'em down, munch 'em up, tidy it all with chemicals and then lay it out and stuff. That means where once there was a tree there isn't any more, and a wadge of CO2 is produced, and a load of water (I think) consumed just to get to the raw stock (we're ignoring logistics of printing and distribution, say, versus a PDF).
Getting recycled paper needs old paper. And energy. And, I believe, quite a few chemicals, too. And for some reason or other, it all costs a lot more, though the gap is closing. But what it doesn't do is consume new trees.
But.... and as I am oft minded to say, it's a big one.... here's my poser: is the former quite as bad as made out, enviROI+wise? Especially in comparison to the latter?
I am set on this trail by the logic, ironically, of offsetting. In simplistic (and now more often than not less practiced) terms it has been sold as good for the planet in the form of planting a tree, which will grow and act as a carbon sink.
So I guess my poser would be whether one could view using virgin paper, so long as it is derived from properly managed forests (and I need to sort out my FSC-certified from my stewardship-thingie. I'm guessing there are as many schemes and logos to confuse as any other e-industry), as logically being an encouragement of good environmental practice? If so, in fact the perverse logic of projection would be that using more paper from such sources is actually even better, as it promotes the planting and tending of forests to full term as opposed to say, a bio-diesel field.
Just how does it compare to recycled which, if one accepts where I am going with the above (which is in the form, at present, of a question I stress!!!) actually seems to be rather stuck in a cycle of energy consumption from collection to reprocessing. And no new trees going up taboot.
I guess ignoring the latter, a key factor in weighing them is the amount of CO2 that gets from raw material (tree vs. waste paper) to new stock. With a few pollutant nasties factored in too, but in another enviROI- tick box, which makes comparison more tricky.
Friday, October 26, 2007
For every snake... a ladder
And, this week only, at half price...!But seriously folks, who needs the dubious accolade of an international competition seen by mill... well, a few thousand... and a Prius... when you can be regional Green Champion (I can't quite get on with the 'hero' handle) for FOCUS DIY.
Actually I was being a tad bitter, twisted and sarky there, but in many ways this is here, now, real and does really mean something. For a start, £125 in vouchers (see 'em there in the Squidstand holder I designed and made for the occasion. You may notice I also dragged along and got into shot as much else reused as I could carry!).
So far these shots have made it to Wyenot.com, the local online news of the guy commissioned to take 'em (and who has some nice words, ta very much). But I am hoping that these will radiate out at least to the rest of the patch my 'award' covers.
Watch this space. Or that one. Or...
Now you can cast your votes
for the worst examples of greenwashing and EU lobbying.
I assume that this is a rather tongue in cheek, whilst exposing some of the worst cases to a greater public view.
I assume that this is a rather tongue in cheek, whilst exposing some of the worst cases to a greater public view.
Save the world. A list.
A little while ago some chums and I made a TV commercial for a contest (oddly, in that it was 30" and we cut to that, it is now ":60 to Save the Earth" ecospot). Seems we didn't get into the finals. So now it's free to use, here it is:
As a creative soul, and in the spirit of unsweetened grapes (it's all how you say it these days), here's my purely subjective review (hey, it's what blogs are for, and I've found that playing coy gets you nowhere) of what beat us:
1. Are You Game? – First up. Mentions Al Gore. Twice. Darn, should have thought of that!
2. Change the way you think. – Some nice imagery, I guess.
3. Cheeto and Vinn – OK. Singled-minded and funny. Gets the point across. I’m wishing we’d gone the 60’ option now.
4. Decisions – Again, not bad imagery. But hard to get ‘into’.
5. Gaia's Lament – yeah, well. Whatever.
6. Get Your Green on – And there’s a single out soon, too:)
7. Green – Nice. Yet one of the lowest ratings so far.
8. I Did Nothn' – A good line in there somewhere.
9. Keep it Equal – Nice idea. Neat editting.
10. Lights Out – OK, so it’s campaignable. Worth two in the finals?
11. Perry the Cockroach – Um, pass.
12. Plastic Ocean – Nice, simple idea.
13. Roachie Enviro Contest – If you’re going to use music, it seems it is better if wra... er... rapped.
14. Small Changes – I’m just guessing, but I think going with plastic bags would make one a shoe-in.
15. Small Steps – Sort of cute.
16. Support Good Hot – Energy – Interestingly, only the first that seems to have had some production money on it. The line ain’t worth it.
17. The Bags – OK, and here’s another. I’m sure the COI will buy it.
18. The Little Things – Lists are good, too. With a song.
19. The Sky is Falling – Some more production bucks. Not a bad line. Motivated? Highest rate to date.
20. Think Again – Yeah, well. The money is coming out now. Where from?
21. This is not a test – Yay! Another list!
22. This is the World – Or... don’t cut a tree down that’s already doing its job. Nice production on low budget, though.
23. What Can Regular People Do? – Follow more lists. It works in creative eco ads, anyway.
I still think ours is... was pretty good.
Here's the submission notes:
A simple ad for a simple notion: green IS good, but only if you really think about all aspects very carefully.
Many of us have bought into the notion of offsetting the carbon consequences of our lifestyles. And it is certainly better than nothing, But only so long as the initiative is worthy and well run.
Some schemes still operate on the basis of planting a tree to achieve a balance that will be unlikely to make itself felt for many years, if at all. And time is of the essence, as tipping points are being talked of in terms of decades.
Some of these can of course still be viable and good to support. But, as with all things sold in the name of ‘green’, one needs to always challenge such efforts to justify their environmental value, their envIROI (which is not the same as monetary ROI, as you can make a financial investment in our kids’ future that may not pay back monetarily) before committing hard-earned, and highly useful, funds without thinking, simply to ‘buy-off’ a sense of responsibility for one’s actions.
The facts of deforestation and national emissions of the world’s current greatest greenhouse gas polluter are a matter of public record. The logic of where our priorities should lie in this instance, are our own. There will be hurdles, to be sure, and this is of course a plea more for preservation rather than reduction, but we think it is one worth making, to be considered and, if necessary, sensibly debated.
Other than a bit of time, this ad cost nothing and used no resources... at all. Which is quite an ideal metaphor for the message being conveyed...
IF you think about it!
ps: No trees were harmed in the making of this commercial. But a nice weed didn’t make it. Sorry.
Maybe I should have been nicer about daft celebs and meaningless platitudes. They were the judges after all. Maybe not so daft to see who it was aimed at.
And now... YouTube!
Which reminds me, it's the Green Awards to... night? I entered last year but decided against this ever again having seen who the judges were (for a creative contest - even if it's a people's choice, which I often prefer, there is always pre-selection... and agendas) and what they voted into the finals.
Here's one that may win there (it shows a lady's naught bits, which always helps, if you're being viral.): http://www.green.tv/brazilian
As a creative soul, and in the spirit of unsweetened grapes (it's all how you say it these days), here's my purely subjective review (hey, it's what blogs are for, and I've found that playing coy gets you nowhere) of what beat us:
1. Are You Game? – First up. Mentions Al Gore. Twice. Darn, should have thought of that!
2. Change the way you think. – Some nice imagery, I guess.
3. Cheeto and Vinn – OK. Singled-minded and funny. Gets the point across. I’m wishing we’d gone the 60’ option now.
4. Decisions – Again, not bad imagery. But hard to get ‘into’.
5. Gaia's Lament – yeah, well. Whatever.
6. Get Your Green on – And there’s a single out soon, too:)
7. Green – Nice. Yet one of the lowest ratings so far.
8. I Did Nothn' – A good line in there somewhere.
9. Keep it Equal – Nice idea. Neat editting.
10. Lights Out – OK, so it’s campaignable. Worth two in the finals?
11. Perry the Cockroach – Um, pass.
12. Plastic Ocean – Nice, simple idea.
13. Roachie Enviro Contest – If you’re going to use music, it seems it is better if wra... er... rapped.
14. Small Changes – I’m just guessing, but I think going with plastic bags would make one a shoe-in.
15. Small Steps – Sort of cute.
16. Support Good Hot – Energy – Interestingly, only the first that seems to have had some production money on it. The line ain’t worth it.
17. The Bags – OK, and here’s another. I’m sure the COI will buy it.
18. The Little Things – Lists are good, too. With a song.
19. The Sky is Falling – Some more production bucks. Not a bad line. Motivated? Highest rate to date.
20. Think Again – Yeah, well. The money is coming out now. Where from?
21. This is not a test – Yay! Another list!
22. This is the World – Or... don’t cut a tree down that’s already doing its job. Nice production on low budget, though.
23. What Can Regular People Do? – Follow more lists. It works in creative eco ads, anyway.
I still think ours is... was pretty good.
Here's the submission notes:
A simple ad for a simple notion: green IS good, but only if you really think about all aspects very carefully.
Many of us have bought into the notion of offsetting the carbon consequences of our lifestyles. And it is certainly better than nothing, But only so long as the initiative is worthy and well run.
Some schemes still operate on the basis of planting a tree to achieve a balance that will be unlikely to make itself felt for many years, if at all. And time is of the essence, as tipping points are being talked of in terms of decades.
Some of these can of course still be viable and good to support. But, as with all things sold in the name of ‘green’, one needs to always challenge such efforts to justify their environmental value, their envIROI (which is not the same as monetary ROI, as you can make a financial investment in our kids’ future that may not pay back monetarily) before committing hard-earned, and highly useful, funds without thinking, simply to ‘buy-off’ a sense of responsibility for one’s actions.
The facts of deforestation and national emissions of the world’s current greatest greenhouse gas polluter are a matter of public record. The logic of where our priorities should lie in this instance, are our own. There will be hurdles, to be sure, and this is of course a plea more for preservation rather than reduction, but we think it is one worth making, to be considered and, if necessary, sensibly debated.
Other than a bit of time, this ad cost nothing and used no resources... at all. Which is quite an ideal metaphor for the message being conveyed...
IF you think about it!
ps: No trees were harmed in the making of this commercial. But a nice weed didn’t make it. Sorry.
Maybe I should have been nicer about daft celebs and meaningless platitudes. They were the judges after all. Maybe not so daft to see who it was aimed at.
And now... YouTube!
Which reminds me, it's the Green Awards to... night? I entered last year but decided against this ever again having seen who the judges were (for a creative contest - even if it's a people's choice, which I often prefer, there is always pre-selection... and agendas) and what they voted into the finals.
Here's one that may win there (it shows a lady's naught bits, which always helps, if you're being viral.): http://www.green.tv/brazilian
And maybe they'll deliver to your door in person! By hybrid!
Time for a picture.This little button has been popping up on a few articles I have perused of late in such as the Indy, Guardian, etc.
It's for a hybrid. Which, as we all know, must be better for the planet.
Maybe so; maybe no. And I doubt the brochure will do much other than err on the first.
Thing is, and here's why I write, I can't really find out unless I get the brochure. Excuse me, brochures. And guess what? A PDF download doesn't seem to be an option.
What does that say to you?
The predictability of global warming is ..... uncertain
How much the earth's climate will change as a result of global warming is unpredictable.
Well, tell me something that I didn't know.
This from National Geographic News reports on a new study which looks at the levels of certainty involved in calculating estimated temperature rises as a result of us humans continuing to pump too much CO2 into the atmosphere.
Now, apart from one or two crazy luddites, we all accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we all know that if we continue to pump ever more into the atmosphere then there is going to be an effect. All the scientists and climatologists tell us that this WILL cause a rise in the temperature of the earth's biosphere. What we don't know is just how much temperature rise equates to what level of CO2 there is, hence, at least to some extent, the endless stream of tis/tisn't arguments, and counter arguments that the earth is not doing anything different than it ever has.
The majority of scientists (the consensus?) tell us that temperature rise is bad on a rising scale, a couple of degrees perhaps maybe OK, but too much and we'll all fry, along with most of the other flora and fauna. (Hence recent headlines warning of mass extinctions.)
What we don't know is just what constitutes too much, the models are so complicated and involve so many interrelated variables that no computer model we can currently produce can provide any answer with any degree of certainty. And that's without starting to factor in natural feedback systems and amplification loops, which make it impossible to predict future temperature rises with any degree of accuracy at all.
All in all the 'science' of temperature rise prediction is a huge can of worms, and those of us not endowed with brains the size of a planet simply have to accept what the scientific consensus tells us, that the numbers are uncertain and that they actually don't know, other than the temperature IS going to increase.
Fossil evidence through geological history over 100's of millions of years shows us that in cool times, flora and fauna have multiplied and genera and species diversity has increased rapidly. It also shoes us that in the much warmer periods, many of the planet's life forms disappear, and that in a few, very short, very hot periods, life forms have almost been wiped out entirely (90%+ of all life forms in one catastrophic event alone). [And that's without mentioning what humanity is already doing to our current flora and fauna.]
Now I'm no scientist (well, in comparison to most of the clever people out there researching away on all of this) but that still worries me significantly. We ARE warming the earth, we simply don't know by how much, or if the temperature rise will accelerate due to natural feedback systems. What we DO know, from fossil evidence that more warmth means less life forms, and that excessive warmth means but very few life forms survive.
Now surely that's a compelling case for looking at reducing our CO2 emissions now, rather than risk hitting some sort of temperature acceleration point in a few decades or so? The science of predicting global warming temperature increases may be uncertain, but I'm pretty sure that if we sit and do nothing, then the consequences appear to be rather dire.
Well, tell me something that I didn't know.
This from National Geographic News reports on a new study which looks at the levels of certainty involved in calculating estimated temperature rises as a result of us humans continuing to pump too much CO2 into the atmosphere.
Now, apart from one or two crazy luddites, we all accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we all know that if we continue to pump ever more into the atmosphere then there is going to be an effect. All the scientists and climatologists tell us that this WILL cause a rise in the temperature of the earth's biosphere. What we don't know is just how much temperature rise equates to what level of CO2 there is, hence, at least to some extent, the endless stream of tis/tisn't arguments, and counter arguments that the earth is not doing anything different than it ever has.
The majority of scientists (the consensus?) tell us that temperature rise is bad on a rising scale, a couple of degrees perhaps maybe OK, but too much and we'll all fry, along with most of the other flora and fauna. (Hence recent headlines warning of mass extinctions.)
What we don't know is just what constitutes too much, the models are so complicated and involve so many interrelated variables that no computer model we can currently produce can provide any answer with any degree of certainty. And that's without starting to factor in natural feedback systems and amplification loops, which make it impossible to predict future temperature rises with any degree of accuracy at all.
All in all the 'science' of temperature rise prediction is a huge can of worms, and those of us not endowed with brains the size of a planet simply have to accept what the scientific consensus tells us, that the numbers are uncertain and that they actually don't know, other than the temperature IS going to increase.
Fossil evidence through geological history over 100's of millions of years shows us that in cool times, flora and fauna have multiplied and genera and species diversity has increased rapidly. It also shoes us that in the much warmer periods, many of the planet's life forms disappear, and that in a few, very short, very hot periods, life forms have almost been wiped out entirely (90%+ of all life forms in one catastrophic event alone). [And that's without mentioning what humanity is already doing to our current flora and fauna.]
Now I'm no scientist (well, in comparison to most of the clever people out there researching away on all of this) but that still worries me significantly. We ARE warming the earth, we simply don't know by how much, or if the temperature rise will accelerate due to natural feedback systems. What we DO know, from fossil evidence that more warmth means less life forms, and that excessive warmth means but very few life forms survive.
Now surely that's a compelling case for looking at reducing our CO2 emissions now, rather than risk hitting some sort of temperature acceleration point in a few decades or so? The science of predicting global warming temperature increases may be uncertain, but I'm pretty sure that if we sit and do nothing, then the consequences appear to be rather dire.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The [unspecified Asian country water] torture
This is a rant.
It has to be because I rather fear that what I am ranting about has no possible solution, which simply makes appreciating it simply frustrating.
It has been kicked off by a small straw; a story I just read about our kids being unprepared for life's slings and arrows by everything at school being changed to only allow positives, with no allowance for competition or failure.
Some dipsy headteacher was quoted wittering on about self esteem, when the piece I read made the fair point that being told aged 8 that you are super in all things is a) unlikely to encourage good behaviour at home or out and about, and c) be poor training for when it turns out later that, in all likelihood, they are not. Bummer.
Of course where the real kicker comes is dealing with it all. Not just in the example above but across the whole governance firmament. Short of presiding over institutional murder (through target-obsessed incompetence) of innocents, lower tier individuals paid via the public purse are never going to be moved from their jobs. And if the are, and certainly if senior, they will either be moved sideways to carry on their 'skill sets' elsewhere, or get paid so much that they never need to work again. Or become consultants.
So maybe it has, at least for some, become self-fulfilling. You are super at aged 8 and then isolated from thinking otherwise by any sense of reality or critique through to adulthood and, if you stay in the cocoon of state employment, kept that way on up to early, cosy, index-linked golden pensionhood. The impact on those your efforts get directed at is... irrelevant, as there is no accountability or responsibility, at least on a personal basis (lazy managers will just pay up - using public funds - to cover up) any more.
But as I cannot see even the most effective, public-supported political party undoing all these drip-drip, society-eroding bonkers laws and the extra several hundred thousand civil servants taken on to 'cope' (keeps 'em off the dole figures, I guess. Trouble is they also often feel the need to meddle) with them, I am afraid this must stay a rant.
It has to be because I rather fear that what I am ranting about has no possible solution, which simply makes appreciating it simply frustrating.
It has been kicked off by a small straw; a story I just read about our kids being unprepared for life's slings and arrows by everything at school being changed to only allow positives, with no allowance for competition or failure.
Some dipsy headteacher was quoted wittering on about self esteem, when the piece I read made the fair point that being told aged 8 that you are super in all things is a) unlikely to encourage good behaviour at home or out and about, and c) be poor training for when it turns out later that, in all likelihood, they are not. Bummer.
Of course where the real kicker comes is dealing with it all. Not just in the example above but across the whole governance firmament. Short of presiding over institutional murder (through target-obsessed incompetence) of innocents, lower tier individuals paid via the public purse are never going to be moved from their jobs. And if the are, and certainly if senior, they will either be moved sideways to carry on their 'skill sets' elsewhere, or get paid so much that they never need to work again. Or become consultants.
So maybe it has, at least for some, become self-fulfilling. You are super at aged 8 and then isolated from thinking otherwise by any sense of reality or critique through to adulthood and, if you stay in the cocoon of state employment, kept that way on up to early, cosy, index-linked golden pensionhood. The impact on those your efforts get directed at is... irrelevant, as there is no accountability or responsibility, at least on a personal basis (lazy managers will just pay up - using public funds - to cover up) any more.
But as I cannot see even the most effective, public-supported political party undoing all these drip-drip, society-eroding bonkers laws and the extra several hundred thousand civil servants taken on to 'cope' (keeps 'em off the dole figures, I guess. Trouble is they also often feel the need to meddle) with them, I am afraid this must stay a rant.
Its a different 20%
ADDENDUM - Junkk Male - Dilbert, as always, nails it. Though actually, it is my experience that the most talentless numpties I have ever come across almost always tell you as soon as you meet them how 'they can't stop/help/do anything' because they are so stretched for time. Like the rest of us are not.Well I'm gob-smacked. Further to our previous posts on this very subject (see More Spin), that's the response to a direct question about the 20% from renewables by 2020 according to DowningStreetSays.
That had me rolling around on the floor laughing for 15 minutes.
How do these people have the balls to come out with pathetic spin that's such ..... utter balls!
ADDENDUM - (Junkk Male) - Guardian - Or change 'em!
Watch-dog watched. Snared. And bitten!
Sir John Bourn, Auditor-General.
So who is he? He is currently the head of the government's national audit office, essentially the spending watch-dog, whose role is to ensure that the government doesn't waste taxpayer's money on pointless, ridiculous or frivolous projects. (Not done much of a job really, if you ask my opinion!)
Why the mention? Well, Sir John has today announced (just been on radio 2) that he will resign in January 2008. So what's he done? Well, according to this from The Times, over the last three years he has run up a few bob on his expenses account.
So what's wrong with a civil servant blowing a few bob?
Well, if you are a civil servant, then how about these as examples to try and emulate:-
"Sir John travelled first-class with his wife on 22 occasions, including to San Francisco, Bahamas, Brazil, Lisbon and Venice, costing £76,000."
"164 lunches and dinners since 2004, including meals at the Ritz, Savoy, Dorchester, Wiltons, Mirabelle and Bibendum. The bills, nearly all for two people, vary from £80 to £301."
Do we need to mention "appearing to accept hospitality from companies such as BAE which compromises the independent and professional standing essential to someone in this post."?
Probably not, but racking up a total of £336,000 in expenses on various globe-trotting trips has just got to be taking the p*ss, so to speak, for someone in the role of a spending watch-dog.
As one of the posted comments states - 'he'll probably come out of it all with a big fat pension', and 'completely immoral'. Quite!
£110k+ per year in expenses only - now that's nice work if you can get it!
So who is he? He is currently the head of the government's national audit office, essentially the spending watch-dog, whose role is to ensure that the government doesn't waste taxpayer's money on pointless, ridiculous or frivolous projects. (Not done much of a job really, if you ask my opinion!)
Why the mention? Well, Sir John has today announced (just been on radio 2) that he will resign in January 2008. So what's he done? Well, according to this from The Times, over the last three years he has run up a few bob on his expenses account.
So what's wrong with a civil servant blowing a few bob?
Well, if you are a civil servant, then how about these as examples to try and emulate:-
"Sir John travelled first-class with his wife on 22 occasions, including to San Francisco, Bahamas, Brazil, Lisbon and Venice, costing £76,000."
"164 lunches and dinners since 2004, including meals at the Ritz, Savoy, Dorchester, Wiltons, Mirabelle and Bibendum. The bills, nearly all for two people, vary from £80 to £301."
Do we need to mention "appearing to accept hospitality from companies such as BAE which compromises the independent and professional standing essential to someone in this post."?
Probably not, but racking up a total of £336,000 in expenses on various globe-trotting trips has just got to be taking the p*ss, so to speak, for someone in the role of a spending watch-dog.
As one of the posted comments states - 'he'll probably come out of it all with a big fat pension', and 'completely immoral'. Quite!
£110k+ per year in expenses only - now that's nice work if you can get it!
U-turns. Another way to spin in one place.
Why legislate when you can green market
Thank heavens I see this here as I was sure I had dreamt I heard it on a SKY News slot last night.
I can't seem to locate a dicky bird on the BBC or The Indy, etc.
Maybe they are still pondering the consequences.
I know I am.
Meantime, amen to this: 'They have little understanding of how to market green issues. Until they do, no matter how much they spend, their marketing attempts will be ignored. My advice is to save your money and bin your ads until you really get to grips with it."
It beggars the imagination how much has been blown already on such wasted efforts. And I have very dim views on the ethics of those being rewarded with bonuses based on us recycling more using our money to drive up the rates. It seems a slight conflict of interest to me, at least in the public sector.
As to the ActonCO2 site I agree and disagree. Or rather, t'other way round. It didn't work when I logged on, and most who tried I doubt will go back (web #101 - don't blow your budget sending all to a site that can't handle it). And anything that expects me to sit through that much web designer wet dream is asking for me to get bored and give up. And once there... I find out what my footprint may be? Woo-hoo. How much and how many people to and run this? And others?
My free reuse site junkk.com costs no one a bean in salaries and marketing expenses, and is currently 'run' by one. Yet it keeps winning awards by being fun and offering ideas and rewards for DOING.
Though some manpower help is desperately required and would be appreciated as I really need get back to the day job. Anyone?
Indy - Wasted opportunities
Thank heavens I see this here as I was sure I had dreamt I heard it on a SKY News slot last night.
I can't seem to locate a dicky bird on the BBC or The Indy, etc.
Maybe they are still pondering the consequences.
I know I am.
Meantime, amen to this: 'They have little understanding of how to market green issues. Until they do, no matter how much they spend, their marketing attempts will be ignored. My advice is to save your money and bin your ads until you really get to grips with it."
It beggars the imagination how much has been blown already on such wasted efforts. And I have very dim views on the ethics of those being rewarded with bonuses based on us recycling more using our money to drive up the rates. It seems a slight conflict of interest to me, at least in the public sector.
As to the ActonCO2 site I agree and disagree. Or rather, t'other way round. It didn't work when I logged on, and most who tried I doubt will go back (web #101 - don't blow your budget sending all to a site that can't handle it). And anything that expects me to sit through that much web designer wet dream is asking for me to get bored and give up. And once there... I find out what my footprint may be? Woo-hoo. How much and how many people to and run this? And others?
My free reuse site junkk.com costs no one a bean in salaries and marketing expenses, and is currently 'run' by one. Yet it keeps winning awards by being fun and offering ideas and rewards for DOING.
Though some manpower help is desperately required and would be appreciated as I really need get back to the day job. Anyone?
Indy - Wasted opportunities
Observe... er
Observer editor Roger Alton to step down
Seems a pity, if not a rather sad commentary on the state of our 'independent' media, that a person who seems such a good communicator should be leaving over ideological disputes with the brand's agendas.
Ho hum, I guess I'll just have to take what I read with the same amount of salt as most other 'news' media these days.
Seems a pity, if not a rather sad commentary on the state of our 'independent' media, that a person who seems such a good communicator should be leaving over ideological disputes with the brand's agendas.
Ho hum, I guess I'll just have to take what I read with the same amount of salt as most other 'news' media these days.
Where's there a yoof when you need one!
MySpace and HarperCollins to launch environmental awareness book
I'd say we need to get in there. thing is... can I work the teenie systems required?
MySpace is teaming up with HarperCollins to publish a book on the environment for teenagers. "MySpace/Our Planet: Change Is Possible" will be the first branded book from the online social network.
The book will provide facts, tips and practical suggestions for teens looking to become active promoters of environmental causes. It will be released in March next year in the lead-up to Earth Day on April 22.
MySpace users can submit ideas for the book at www.myspace.com/ourplanet and those who make it in will be credited by their MySpace username and location. Topics will include travel, entertainment, health and money.
The OurPlanet community on MySpace has 130,000 members and is part of the MySpace Impact Channel, which helps connect users to politicians, non-profit and civic organisations.
Guardian - HarperCollins launches ebook imprint
Times - Pop in and print off that rare novel
I'd say we need to get in there. thing is... can I work the teenie systems required?
MySpace is teaming up with HarperCollins to publish a book on the environment for teenagers. "MySpace/Our Planet: Change Is Possible" will be the first branded book from the online social network.
The book will provide facts, tips and practical suggestions for teens looking to become active promoters of environmental causes. It will be released in March next year in the lead-up to Earth Day on April 22.
MySpace users can submit ideas for the book at www.myspace.com/ourplanet and those who make it in will be credited by their MySpace username and location. Topics will include travel, entertainment, health and money.
The OurPlanet community on MySpace has 130,000 members and is part of the MySpace Impact Channel, which helps connect users to politicians, non-profit and civic organisations.
Guardian - HarperCollins launches ebook imprint
Times - Pop in and print off that rare novel
Nice work if you can get it.
No, really.
A wee while ago (and a half-jotted blog post that never happened and now may be too late), I met and chatted with Tim Smit, he of Eden Project.
An awesome speaker on stage, he is somewhat different mano a peon, so I don't think I'll ever be working for him. With, maybe, but even then there are two whopping egos to deal with. Plus his. And don't get me on prima donna traits as well!
Anyway, there are not many jobs I would dearly love to recommend to the right person with the necessary whatevers (especially as the last incumbent - or one from the series - was so darn snotty to me and mine when we tried a hook-up we got really put off the culture), but this is one, from Marketing Week:
Job title
Marketing & Communications Director for The Eden Project
Salary Range
£60000 - 70000 - in Cornwall! What coudl you spend the other 50k on!!!!
Job description
We don't do impossible.
If we did, we wouldn't have turned a former Cornish clay pit into what has been called the '8th wonder of the world'. Since we opened our doors in 2001, we have welcomed over 9 million visitors to our unique experience which is home to the largest conservatory in the world and the tallest rainforest in captivity. Run as an educational charitable trust, we are truly passionate about providing an entertaining day out - we are one of the most visited 'paid for' attractions in the UK - whilst altering people's perceptions about the world around them in a non-preachy, empathetic way.
Reporting into the Managing Director, you will have responsibility for creating and successfully implementing our marketing communications strategy and tactical plans. Whilst appreciating our strong ethical values and charitable status, you will need to ensure that all of our marketing communications allows us to meet our annual visitor targets. It's vitally important that we are continually evolving our offering taking our audience with us and you will be the force behind this. A crucial part of this role will be to provide leadership and inspiration to our team of passionate marketeers.
We need an exceptional individual to take on this unique challenge. The successful candidate will probably come from a leisure/travel, visitor destination, FMCG, Retail, TV or agency background, but experience is only part of the spec. Among your many personal attributes you will have stamina, assertiveness, mountains of self-confidence and be a grounded, easily approachable prima donna free person. You will be intellectually robust and combine your classical marketing experience with natural creativity. All of these characteristics will give you the credibility you will need to make this role a success.
What do you want to say to your grandchildren? I'm glad I did or I wish I had?
If you get the job via this, please think kindly of us:)
I am a tad concerned about what 'reporting into' him might involve. Which may be, on top of my ancientism, may be why my getting paid work is proving so tricky. Ho-hum. One of these adventures I'm on must surely pay big dividends soon!
A wee while ago (and a half-jotted blog post that never happened and now may be too late), I met and chatted with Tim Smit, he of Eden Project.
An awesome speaker on stage, he is somewhat different mano a peon, so I don't think I'll ever be working for him. With, maybe, but even then there are two whopping egos to deal with. Plus his. And don't get me on prima donna traits as well!
Anyway, there are not many jobs I would dearly love to recommend to the right person with the necessary whatevers (especially as the last incumbent - or one from the series - was so darn snotty to me and mine when we tried a hook-up we got really put off the culture), but this is one, from Marketing Week:
Job title
Marketing & Communications Director for The Eden Project
Salary Range
£60000 - 70000 - in Cornwall! What coudl you spend the other 50k on!!!!
Job description
We don't do impossible.
If we did, we wouldn't have turned a former Cornish clay pit into what has been called the '8th wonder of the world'. Since we opened our doors in 2001, we have welcomed over 9 million visitors to our unique experience which is home to the largest conservatory in the world and the tallest rainforest in captivity. Run as an educational charitable trust, we are truly passionate about providing an entertaining day out - we are one of the most visited 'paid for' attractions in the UK - whilst altering people's perceptions about the world around them in a non-preachy, empathetic way.
Reporting into the Managing Director, you will have responsibility for creating and successfully implementing our marketing communications strategy and tactical plans. Whilst appreciating our strong ethical values and charitable status, you will need to ensure that all of our marketing communications allows us to meet our annual visitor targets. It's vitally important that we are continually evolving our offering taking our audience with us and you will be the force behind this. A crucial part of this role will be to provide leadership and inspiration to our team of passionate marketeers.
We need an exceptional individual to take on this unique challenge. The successful candidate will probably come from a leisure/travel, visitor destination, FMCG, Retail, TV or agency background, but experience is only part of the spec. Among your many personal attributes you will have stamina, assertiveness, mountains of self-confidence and be a grounded, easily approachable prima donna free person. You will be intellectually robust and combine your classical marketing experience with natural creativity. All of these characteristics will give you the credibility you will need to make this role a success.
What do you want to say to your grandchildren? I'm glad I did or I wish I had?
If you get the job via this, please think kindly of us:)
I am a tad concerned about what 'reporting into' him might involve. Which may be, on top of my ancientism, may be why my getting paid work is proving so tricky. Ho-hum. One of these adventures I'm on must surely pay big dividends soon!
It ain't what you're trying to do. It's the way you're failing to do it.
I was going to bolt this to another post, but it deserves its own: Scientists say Kyoto protocol is 'outdated failure'
Now I am pretty sure those at either extreme of the the CC divide will spin this (if they refer to it at all - I pretty sure one will) in their usual ways.
But I simply note that it is the means, not the necessity, that is being critiqued.
And, frankly, not before time, with some heft.
We need to sweep away the chancers and the inept who have rushed in to seek green gold, and then discover and support those who can derive actual meaningful enviROIs for the planet from the horribly complex reality that is the global political sphere.
Indy - Sarkozy's green revolution in danger of producing nothing more than hot air - Good start:)
Indy - Is the Kyoto treaty an outdated failure based on the wrong premises? - The Charles Clarke option: 'keep me in charge as my fouling up is experienced fouling up'
Now I am pretty sure those at either extreme of the the CC divide will spin this (if they refer to it at all - I pretty sure one will) in their usual ways.
But I simply note that it is the means, not the necessity, that is being critiqued.
And, frankly, not before time, with some heft.
We need to sweep away the chancers and the inept who have rushed in to seek green gold, and then discover and support those who can derive actual meaningful enviROIs for the planet from the horribly complex reality that is the global political sphere.
Indy - Sarkozy's green revolution in danger of producing nothing more than hot air - Good start:)
Indy - Is the Kyoto treaty an outdated failure based on the wrong premises? - The Charles Clarke option: 'keep me in charge as my fouling up is experienced fouling up'
Going in circles
I report no more than the facts. and invite you to cock your own eyebrow.
On BBC News this morning it is gushed that a new venue has been added to the F1 calendar: my old tramping ground of Singapore.
However, as if running around in circles for hours powered by awesomely tuned internal combustion engines were not enough, it will be held at night.
Apparently, this will require lights that are four times greater in power than a footy stadium.
Maybe they will get in extra generators.
On BBC News this morning it is gushed that a new venue has been added to the F1 calendar: my old tramping ground of Singapore.
However, as if running around in circles for hours powered by awesomely tuned internal combustion engines were not enough, it will be held at night.
Apparently, this will require lights that are four times greater in power than a footy stadium.
Maybe they will get in extra generators.
What's a boy or girl to do?
I bang on a lot about doing here. And will continue to do so.
I have more faith in the benefits of substantive, positive creative activity than an awful lot else waaaaaay too much energy gets expended upon.
But every so often I give pause to ponder the consequences of 'doing'.
No so long ago I debated with myself at length how so much of the human condition that drives one to make stuff might indeed now be what's causing us the problems we are experiencing. There are simply so many of us making so much, the consequences of the processes are having a global effect... possibly.
Makes having a great idea... that needs manufacture... less of a thrill if you are cursed with the thought in the back of your mind that it might just add to the short-term problem. I certainly have a file full of such things. And a few might well feed the family a lot quicker than Junkk.com, I can tell you!
But actually, when it comes to 'doing', at least in this post, I am thinking of the people who don't do that much that's really very 'necessary' or 'useful', and what on earth society would do with them if they are no longer funded (via salaries, etc) to be kept occupied and in chauffeured Priuses or Bali conferences. Tricky.
The pages of government documents and the media and activist websites are full of things to ban. Some worthy of consideration; some vacuous, self-serving rants.
Trouble is, behind almost all is an entire infrastructure of folk who would be, quite simply, out of a job if these things did, in fact' cease to be'.
Take the leisure market. By some estimates, it represents 10% of the world's economy. No more flights would mean 600 million (well, a large % as 'we' returned to our roots. Though the thought of competing with 60M Brits for a campsite slot is not appealing) out of work. And they cannot all become Local government compost advisers or carbon traders.
Woah. Big, connected issues need big, coordinated thinking. Trouble is, I am not seeing any big thinkers on the horizon. At least, any who are not out for No. 1 first and only.
Indy - The ethical dilemma posed by organic food - QED
Guardian- Air-freight food must pass fair trade test to retain organic label in future
Sloppy Science Reporting Alert!
'Air freight by weight can generate 177 times more greenhouse gases than shipping'
What does that mean without any context?
ADDENDUM -
Meanwhile, where the big money is - Olympic consultants cost £1m a week - And they are doing...?
I have more faith in the benefits of substantive, positive creative activity than an awful lot else waaaaaay too much energy gets expended upon.
But every so often I give pause to ponder the consequences of 'doing'.
No so long ago I debated with myself at length how so much of the human condition that drives one to make stuff might indeed now be what's causing us the problems we are experiencing. There are simply so many of us making so much, the consequences of the processes are having a global effect... possibly.
Makes having a great idea... that needs manufacture... less of a thrill if you are cursed with the thought in the back of your mind that it might just add to the short-term problem. I certainly have a file full of such things. And a few might well feed the family a lot quicker than Junkk.com, I can tell you!
But actually, when it comes to 'doing', at least in this post, I am thinking of the people who don't do that much that's really very 'necessary' or 'useful', and what on earth society would do with them if they are no longer funded (via salaries, etc) to be kept occupied and in chauffeured Priuses or Bali conferences. Tricky.
The pages of government documents and the media and activist websites are full of things to ban. Some worthy of consideration; some vacuous, self-serving rants.
Trouble is, behind almost all is an entire infrastructure of folk who would be, quite simply, out of a job if these things did, in fact' cease to be'.
Take the leisure market. By some estimates, it represents 10% of the world's economy. No more flights would mean 600 million (well, a large % as 'we' returned to our roots. Though the thought of competing with 60M Brits for a campsite slot is not appealing) out of work. And they cannot all become Local government compost advisers or carbon traders.
Woah. Big, connected issues need big, coordinated thinking. Trouble is, I am not seeing any big thinkers on the horizon. At least, any who are not out for No. 1 first and only.
Indy - The ethical dilemma posed by organic food - QED
Guardian- Air-freight food must pass fair trade test to retain organic label in future
Sloppy Science Reporting Alert!
'Air freight by weight can generate 177 times more greenhouse gases than shipping'
What does that mean without any context?
ADDENDUM -
Meanwhile, where the big money is - Olympic consultants cost £1m a week - And they are doing...?
Knowing 'why' may be interesting...
... but in the case of shooting yourself in the foot nowhere near as useful as first not doing it.
Sadly I am on a self-imposed ban from commenting (though I'd get moderated anyway) on a site I still monitor for interesting facts and links. And I saw this:
We all know there’s global warming, it’s ‘why’ that needs an answer. Many scientists, based on research by the Danish Space Center, think it’s down to solar wind activity which reduce cloud cover and increase water vapourisation (clouds account for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect). Just ask Al Gore why polar ice caps are melting on Mars and both Mars and Jupiter are warming up at the same rate as Earth or does he believe there are little green men on Mars belching out CO2.
Too many well paid research, media and political jobs depend on scare mongering findings. Politicians use CO2 as a means of extracting more taxes and the BBC obey their masters.
Here’s my take on the maths ....
CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
97% of all CO2 is natural and 3% of CO2 is man made.
Therefore man made CO2 accounts for 0.0012% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The UK is responsible for 2% of the world’s man made CO2.
Therefore the UK’s contribution to the world’s man made CO2 emissions is 0.06%.
Therefore a 10% reduction in the UK CO2 emissions = 10% of 2% of 3% of 0.04%.
This equals 0.0000024% reduction in the world’s total emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Compelling stuff (well, Danish Space Centre vs. IPCC... hmnn). Note that the poster is on board with GW. But what I find interesting, and a little scary, is the absolutism of what I am sure is a decimal-perfect academic linear analysis.
No hint that 3% going to four may be a very bad thing in a sensitive system not in natural control (and I accept, thanks to my own eyebrow twitch, that it's hard to ignore that a Krakatoa or Mt. Pinatubo might further tilt the atmospheric nasties, but we're talking avoidable stuff here).
And speaking of avoidable, there's the age-old UK vs. the rest. The prisoner's dilemma.
I see such posts daily. And often they are fed by the latest rather extreme MMGW-pessimistic claims made by those quite high on the official/media tree I would dearly wish were more cautious, as they simply hand the optimists an easy distraction.
Take the forest fires in California. For start, if one accepts it's getting 'warmer' (is it?) a fire seems a fairly likely thing.
But interestingly all culpability claims that have pointed at 'Man' have indeed played the MMGW card. Why just that, when there is still so much to going on to discredit that notion alone!!!!!? What about all the other factors our expanding populations impose? Like sticking houses in front of fires where they used to burn away with no human contact? Or sucking the water out of every place possible to feed golf courses, etc.
There is a very complex thing at work here, and man most likely is not helping, but neither is simply pointing at the sky and shrieking global warming as you whip out your sustainability consultation fee document or recycling target estimates.
ADDENDUM - On the other hand - Science Daily - Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say - Experts, eh? One minute you have none, and the next minute a bunch come along and say all sorts of conflicting things.
BBC - Hurricanes and global warming - a link?
Sadly I am on a self-imposed ban from commenting (though I'd get moderated anyway) on a site I still monitor for interesting facts and links. And I saw this:
We all know there’s global warming, it’s ‘why’ that needs an answer. Many scientists, based on research by the Danish Space Center, think it’s down to solar wind activity which reduce cloud cover and increase water vapourisation (clouds account for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect). Just ask Al Gore why polar ice caps are melting on Mars and both Mars and Jupiter are warming up at the same rate as Earth or does he believe there are little green men on Mars belching out CO2.
Too many well paid research, media and political jobs depend on scare mongering findings. Politicians use CO2 as a means of extracting more taxes and the BBC obey their masters.
Here’s my take on the maths ....
CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
97% of all CO2 is natural and 3% of CO2 is man made.
Therefore man made CO2 accounts for 0.0012% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The UK is responsible for 2% of the world’s man made CO2.
Therefore the UK’s contribution to the world’s man made CO2 emissions is 0.06%.
Therefore a 10% reduction in the UK CO2 emissions = 10% of 2% of 3% of 0.04%.
This equals 0.0000024% reduction in the world’s total emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Compelling stuff (well, Danish Space Centre vs. IPCC... hmnn). Note that the poster is on board with GW. But what I find interesting, and a little scary, is the absolutism of what I am sure is a decimal-perfect academic linear analysis.
No hint that 3% going to four may be a very bad thing in a sensitive system not in natural control (and I accept, thanks to my own eyebrow twitch, that it's hard to ignore that a Krakatoa or Mt. Pinatubo might further tilt the atmospheric nasties, but we're talking avoidable stuff here).
And speaking of avoidable, there's the age-old UK vs. the rest. The prisoner's dilemma.
I see such posts daily. And often they are fed by the latest rather extreme MMGW-pessimistic claims made by those quite high on the official/media tree I would dearly wish were more cautious, as they simply hand the optimists an easy distraction.
Take the forest fires in California. For start, if one accepts it's getting 'warmer' (is it?) a fire seems a fairly likely thing.
But interestingly all culpability claims that have pointed at 'Man' have indeed played the MMGW card. Why just that, when there is still so much to going on to discredit that notion alone!!!!!? What about all the other factors our expanding populations impose? Like sticking houses in front of fires where they used to burn away with no human contact? Or sucking the water out of every place possible to feed golf courses, etc.
There is a very complex thing at work here, and man most likely is not helping, but neither is simply pointing at the sky and shrieking global warming as you whip out your sustainability consultation fee document or recycling target estimates.
ADDENDUM - On the other hand - Science Daily - Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say - Experts, eh? One minute you have none, and the next minute a bunch come along and say all sorts of conflicting things.
BBC - Hurricanes and global warming - a link?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)