Climate change. Can't live with it. Can't turn on the box without it.
I have long given up with the arguments about the various shades of CC, but remain very interested in how it gets played out, especially when it gets to the man in the Clapham omnibus.
Ca,me across a link to this from a loooong time ago.
The Battle for Influence
Might be worth a listen to. Never know.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Bear e-cessities?
Artic Tale
Last thing I read was a pretty credibel notion tha polar bears were not doing too bad, climatically, but the main threat was oil exploartion and/or man's incursion into their territories. Please do not let this be another open goal for the optimists.
I know they are cute and cuddly (well, except the tearing limb from limb thing), but I question if these guys are really the best icon for action.
Just asking as not sure, but might a pretty big threat to Seela surviving be Nanu's mum?
I know what the intention behind this is, but just hope that the actuality doesn't play second fiddle to promoting the message.
Last time I saw a polar bear used was a Curry's ad for an LCD TV.
Last thing I read was a pretty credibel notion tha polar bears were not doing too bad, climatically, but the main threat was oil exploartion and/or man's incursion into their territories. Please do not let this be another open goal for the optimists.
I know they are cute and cuddly (well, except the tearing limb from limb thing), but I question if these guys are really the best icon for action.
Just asking as not sure, but might a pretty big threat to Seela surviving be Nanu's mum?
I know what the intention behind this is, but just hope that the actuality doesn't play second fiddle to promoting the message.
Last time I saw a polar bear used was a Curry's ad for an LCD TV.
Brown lighting
It's what I think you get when you mix red and green. it's the colour of fudge. Nuclear plan puts Brown's green image in spotlight
And again I find myself with some small sympathy for the dilemma he faces. Well, as far as being between a rock and a hard place, but that's why he is in the job he coveted. Frankly I'd have more respect if he just turned round and said 'Look, you can't have it all, I'm going this way' rather than trying to be all things to all people but ending up a nothing to no one.
And yes, I heard him 'Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right."' And nowt there says anything of substance.
I leave the conclusion to one of his own MPs: "The tragedy of Gordon Brown is the only big decisions he appears capable of taking are the wrong ones."
'No nuclear power station has ever been built without substantial subsidies'
What would I give for a simp.. well at least clear chart outlining the ROI and enviROI of the various energy options we are being presented with.
Be it ring-fencing us with windmills, sticking a nuke in the back-garden or firing up a coal-fired without a CO2 scrubber I'd just like to see where the money is coming from, who it is going to, for what and for how long to deliver what to my socket.
And then I'd like to see what the consequences to my kids' futures are of these from the minute a spade goes into the ground (or, more like, more gets blown on pre-consultancy than the project) to the moment they are decommissioned, including all maintenance consequences.
It surely should not be that hard?
Guardian - Which would you rather subsidise? - in the world of some media I rather have a sense of wishing something to be, rather than reporting on what is.
And another - Don't make us nuke - some media are now rather devalued by being a tad exclusive in their discussions, I fear. I'd say they were preaching to a converted flock, but having read some thread replies maybe not.
What is obvious is that the Guardian quoting BBC links and vice versa is not making for a great debate, or very credible these days as any kind of objective justification.
And again I find myself with some small sympathy for the dilemma he faces. Well, as far as being between a rock and a hard place, but that's why he is in the job he coveted. Frankly I'd have more respect if he just turned round and said 'Look, you can't have it all, I'm going this way' rather than trying to be all things to all people but ending up a nothing to no one.
And yes, I heard him 'Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right."' And nowt there says anything of substance.
I leave the conclusion to one of his own MPs: "The tragedy of Gordon Brown is the only big decisions he appears capable of taking are the wrong ones."
'No nuclear power station has ever been built without substantial subsidies'
What would I give for a simp.. well at least clear chart outlining the ROI and enviROI of the various energy options we are being presented with.
Be it ring-fencing us with windmills, sticking a nuke in the back-garden or firing up a coal-fired without a CO2 scrubber I'd just like to see where the money is coming from, who it is going to, for what and for how long to deliver what to my socket.
And then I'd like to see what the consequences to my kids' futures are of these from the minute a spade goes into the ground (or, more like, more gets blown on pre-consultancy than the project) to the moment they are decommissioned, including all maintenance consequences.
It surely should not be that hard?
Guardian - Which would you rather subsidise? - in the world of some media I rather have a sense of wishing something to be, rather than reporting on what is.
And another - Don't make us nuke - some media are now rather devalued by being a tad exclusive in their discussions, I fear. I'd say they were preaching to a converted flock, but having read some thread replies maybe not.
What is obvious is that the Guardian quoting BBC links and vice versa is not making for a great debate, or very credible these days as any kind of objective justification.
To serve and protect?
One comment that has cause to make me pause is that by being all online and all, I am promoting lots of emissions on the energy consequences of all the IT involved.
Being a website and a blog it would be tricky not to run most of what I have, but here's a possible mitigation to share: http://www.googlenrg.com/info.php
NOW HERE'S A MAJOR CAUTION!
The source that sent this to me is usually very good, but there is something about the use of English in the intro that has me cautious, above and beyond any invitation to cut and paste stuff in and around computers.
So I have done nothing yet, and written to Google direct to check.
I'd suggest that you wait with me until I get a reply and update this post.
I want this to be true, and it looks good, but sadly this is a nasty old world and people will use green for just about any odd notion of self-advancement there is.
Being a website and a blog it would be tricky not to run most of what I have, but here's a possible mitigation to share: http://www.googlenrg.com/info.php
NOW HERE'S A MAJOR CAUTION!
The source that sent this to me is usually very good, but there is something about the use of English in the intro that has me cautious, above and beyond any invitation to cut and paste stuff in and around computers.
So I have done nothing yet, and written to Google direct to check.
I'd suggest that you wait with me until I get a reply and update this post.
I want this to be true, and it looks good, but sadly this is a nasty old world and people will use green for just about any odd notion of self-advancement there is.
A river runs through it
I like to find positives, and I am a fan of hydro, so this is a good share: Hydro tunnel makes breakthrough
Also nice to see a 'will' when it comes to power claims. Sadly some other alt. eng. projects seem to have a few coulds 'n caveats attached
Also nice to see a 'will' when it comes to power claims. Sadly some other alt. eng. projects seem to have a few coulds 'n caveats attached
Speaking of rubbish
I noticed this headline: Soldiers bulldoze Naples rubbish
And hence the story. So far, so P-EU.
What intrigued me more, in terms of the nature of news gathering, was this at the end:
Are you in Naples? Have you been affected by the rubbish collection crisis? Use the form below to send us your stories, some of which may be published.
You can send pictures and video to: yourpics@bbc.co.uk or to send via mobile please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100.
I'm all for citizen journalism, but just wondered what checks and balances existed on this, or indeed any other comments or footage that comes in and ends up on a major news site. Do they verify?
Seems like an invitation to create something if one is so minded to sway a story.
And hence the story. So far, so P-EU.
What intrigued me more, in terms of the nature of news gathering, was this at the end:
Are you in Naples? Have you been affected by the rubbish collection crisis? Use the form below to send us your stories, some of which may be published.
You can send pictures and video to: yourpics@bbc.co.uk or to send via mobile please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100.
I'm all for citizen journalism, but just wondered what checks and balances existed on this, or indeed any other comments or footage that comes in and ends up on a major news site. Do they verify?
Seems like an invitation to create something if one is so minded to sway a story.
Over my head
Great. To the pointless, time-consuming (ok, that's the point) barrages on climate change, as a consumer in no man's land I can add government and corporates on energy: NPower blames Government targets for price hike
I'm not so sure I am that concerned on 'blame', but surely we can easily be told just where the actual numbers are derived from and come to our own conclusions?
I'm not so sure I am that concerned on 'blame', but surely we can easily be told just where the actual numbers are derived from and come to our own conclusions?
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Lead by donkeys, informed by sheep
I just watched the Andrew Marr show, with his guest the PM.
About as sorry an example of the state of governance and the media as I could imagine. A load of waffle that told me nothing. But what did surprise was another clear (after the Newsnight/Milliband exchange) example where two sets of major persons claimed totally different things... and I remain clueless as to the truth.
Here's something that this viewer DOES want to know and the country maybe want to understand (I don't pretend to speak for it, as I wish many others equally unable to know would not).
Please advise when all the 'facts' that Andrew and the Prime Minister have shared today with the viewing public have been clarified. They cannot both be right, so one or other must be very, very wrong and/or misinformed.
And, if so, how and why.
Otherwise there ceases to be any point to such interviews.
ADDENDUM :
Mine did not for some reason find favour. Here are a few which did.
About as sorry an example of the state of governance and the media as I could imagine. A load of waffle that told me nothing. But what did surprise was another clear (after the Newsnight/Milliband exchange) example where two sets of major persons claimed totally different things... and I remain clueless as to the truth.
Here's something that this viewer DOES want to know and the country maybe want to understand (I don't pretend to speak for it, as I wish many others equally unable to know would not).
Please advise when all the 'facts' that Andrew and the Prime Minister have shared today with the viewing public have been clarified. They cannot both be right, so one or other must be very, very wrong and/or misinformed.
And, if so, how and why.
Otherwise there ceases to be any point to such interviews.
ADDENDUM :
Mine did not for some reason find favour. Here are a few which did.
To err is human, to fudge... define, naturally
I found this... disconcerting: 'Natural' will remain undefined, says FDA
One might indeed wonder why such 'a lack of a uniform approach to the term has resulted in inconsistent product claims, consumer confusion, and even lawsuits against food companies accused of misleading consumers'.
Or, if of a cynical bent, maybe not.
Guardian - Board stiffs - Meanwhile, this side of the pond.
One might indeed wonder why such 'a lack of a uniform approach to the term has resulted in inconsistent product claims, consumer confusion, and even lawsuits against food companies accused of misleading consumers'.
Or, if of a cynical bent, maybe not.
Guardian - Board stiffs - Meanwhile, this side of the pond.
Tilting windmills
Home wind turbines dealt a blow
I take no pleasure in this. But it does at least maybe encourage greater commitment to assessing enviROIs before endorsing any 'Green is good no matter what ' nonsense, especially from subsidising bodies and the media. I'll leave commerce out of it as most are, and have always been in it for one thing, and caveat emptor.
The problem comes with perceptions. I'd say the notion that at least they remind folk of the need to save is a stretch, especially as less charitable, climate positive media and commenters will pounce on this and use it to further undermine sincere attempts by labelling those who do care and get taken in as rather naive and misguided. Which, frankly, many seem to have been.
Why was this research not available much sooner, and better known? And has there been no objective official guide for the start?
I take no pleasure in this. But it does at least maybe encourage greater commitment to assessing enviROIs before endorsing any 'Green is good no matter what ' nonsense, especially from subsidising bodies and the media. I'll leave commerce out of it as most are, and have always been in it for one thing, and caveat emptor.
The problem comes with perceptions. I'd say the notion that at least they remind folk of the need to save is a stretch, especially as less charitable, climate positive media and commenters will pounce on this and use it to further undermine sincere attempts by labelling those who do care and get taken in as rather naive and misguided. Which, frankly, many seem to have been.
Why was this research not available much sooner, and better known? And has there been no objective official guide for the start?
On the other hand, Jeremy Clarkson might not like it
The £1,290 car delights Indians but horrifies the green lobby
Beyond the poor taste humour of the headline, there is a rather serious back story to this.
Frankly it was/is inevitable. Just economic growth and market forces at work. Can't be denied.
And while I'm sure the green lobby can be relied upon to be horrified, I'm a might more interested in how the global political leadership sees such things developing.
Beyond the poor taste humour of the headline, there is a rather serious back story to this.
Frankly it was/is inevitable. Just economic growth and market forces at work. Can't be denied.
And while I'm sure the green lobby can be relied upon to be horrified, I'm a might more interested in how the global political leadership sees such things developing.
Top of the world?
My views on what makes one, and hence validates one being called a hero are well documented. Along with the media that perpetuate the trend: 50 people who could save the planet
It's a list. And like any list as good as the people who draw it up, their subjective views and their agendas.
To critique is to lay one open to all manner of criticism in return. Anything that encourages those who try to do better by the planet and reward them with praise has to be worthwhile.
But having looked through I can only say how very few I would call either heroes or indeed those who 'could save the planet'.
The sheer preponderance of those who already greet each other in the green VIP room year on year is breathtaking. But in there are a few who are for sure inspirational (my preferred term) and may even be influential in driving a genuine enviROI+ forward by DOING (my preferred result). And I'm glad at least to have been introduced to a few more in this regard who I was not aware of.
As to the rest? Well, the 'debate' 'raging' in the blog between all 12 who have so far posted in one of the country's more significant daily papers (albeit enjoying a tenth the circulation of some others) is telling. If a little sad.
It's a list. And like any list as good as the people who draw it up, their subjective views and their agendas.
To critique is to lay one open to all manner of criticism in return. Anything that encourages those who try to do better by the planet and reward them with praise has to be worthwhile.
But having looked through I can only say how very few I would call either heroes or indeed those who 'could save the planet'.
The sheer preponderance of those who already greet each other in the green VIP room year on year is breathtaking. But in there are a few who are for sure inspirational (my preferred term) and may even be influential in driving a genuine enviROI+ forward by DOING (my preferred result). And I'm glad at least to have been introduced to a few more in this regard who I was not aware of.
As to the rest? Well, the 'debate' 'raging' in the blog between all 12 who have so far posted in one of the country's more significant daily papers (albeit enjoying a tenth the circulation of some others) is telling. If a little sad.
Friday, January 04, 2008
CATEGORY - BAN-ZAI!
Had to be started:
Guardian - The quad squad - My fav so far:
Worldwide, every single year, a number of people greater than zero are killed or seriously injured in newspaper-related accidents.
The solution is clear.
Ban newspapers.
Guardian - The quad squad - My fav so far:
Worldwide, every single year, a number of people greater than zero are killed or seriously injured in newspaper-related accidents.
The solution is clear.
Ban newspapers.
Why am I not surprised?
Government set for another missed target.
Now that's something that doesn't happen very often, isn't it?
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Depends what you mean by 'often', I guess. This took a few hours: Suffolk puts "aspirational" 60% recycling target on ice
Now that's something that doesn't happen very often, isn't it?
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Depends what you mean by 'often', I guess. This took a few hours: Suffolk puts "aspirational" 60% recycling target on ice
You can see where this might lead
And hence I do no more than share... Scientists find hot spot on Saturn's chilly pole
But, is it art?
This in Treehugger: Stockholm's Feeling...Pale Green
This from me:
I may be missing something here, but in the great environmental awareness scheme of things, how does 'emblazoning with massive mood lighting' work, exactly, enviROI-wise?
How is this different to chiding anyone with a massive outdoor Xmas display (which, if one is serious, and Grinch-accusation immune, a fair point)?
Maybe we shoudl get 747's to do coloured contrails and call it art?
This from me:
I may be missing something here, but in the great environmental awareness scheme of things, how does 'emblazoning with massive mood lighting' work, exactly, enviROI-wise?
How is this different to chiding anyone with a massive outdoor Xmas display (which, if one is serious, and Grinch-accusation immune, a fair point)?
Maybe we shoudl get 747's to do coloured contrails and call it art?
Not the message intended?
I too, have followed the one laptop per child cause quite carefully (from my laptop), so when I came across this it was of interest: Intel says bye to One Laptop
Sadly, or maybe I should say fortunately, where once the BBC weighing into a clear example of corporate abuse would have had me onside, I now find myself wondering about the full... accurate... story (a few avenues raised already in the thread replies). Nice one, guys.
Anyway, another thing popped into my head as I read:
'Yes, it is truly awful when a corporation says one thing but does another.
Just wondering why, with climate change and all, the BBC felt the need for two technology correspondents (you can never have enough of those to promote endless new consumer must-have juice gobblers) to go to the same far flung outpost?
Speaking of which, I hope Las Vegas is nice this time of year, too.'
I can see it now: 'Ah... but this is different. This is our job.' And no irony plugging the latest i-Tat in the same segment as the blonde and bouffant scold us on our wasteful ways.
Reuters - Intel drops out of One Laptop Per Child program
Sadly, or maybe I should say fortunately, where once the BBC weighing into a clear example of corporate abuse would have had me onside, I now find myself wondering about the full... accurate... story (a few avenues raised already in the thread replies). Nice one, guys.
Anyway, another thing popped into my head as I read:
'Yes, it is truly awful when a corporation says one thing but does another.
Just wondering why, with climate change and all, the BBC felt the need for two technology correspondents (you can never have enough of those to promote endless new consumer must-have juice gobblers) to go to the same far flung outpost?
Speaking of which, I hope Las Vegas is nice this time of year, too.'
I can see it now: 'Ah... but this is different. This is our job.' And no irony plugging the latest i-Tat in the same segment as the blonde and bouffant scold us on our wasteful ways.
Reuters - Intel drops out of One Laptop Per Child program
Accolades on toast
At least between a snake and a ladder you can eat the snake (tastes like chicken:). Sadly, I remain unsure of the relative nutritional values of a swing and/or a roundabout.
Anyhoo, while it does not (yet) put food on the table), the mail has brought another accolade, this time from FMCG Magazine's 'Best of 2007'.
What is also worthy of note is that the headline feature in this annual round up of all that is great and good in the world of what we consume is by the Director of Sustainability and Competitiveness of the Food and Drinks Federation.
His first line on the vision of the industry for 2008: 'Making a real difference for the environment'.
Ready when they are.
Who, or what, pays?
The last few blogs have cited examples from the morning Indy trawl on matters environmental.
But I have decided to write about one which I had honestly ignored as peripheral, but now realise is a worthy metaphor for the whole environment vs. economic growth debate.
And that's factory farming.
In the effective front page visual style for which the paper is often justly lauded, one is confronted by the space a chicken gets to exist within until converted into ingredients.
And it ain't pretty.
Yet, as the floor high stack of trays in my basement testifies (yes, I do keep 'em all, and in four years they mount up - one day I'll find a use for them), despite being told this before has not made a whopping difference, in this household at least.
Why? Well as meat eaters we do like variety (and I doubt most other choices exist through much better lives), but mainly it's down to money. As stated, I can feed a family of five for £2.50. Ethics kinda go out the window.
What would stop us? I can only think of a few reasons. There's health, and these dasy it seems there's always a bit of research that the guv'mint can whip out for the BBC to print any time we need to be steered away from something. But it's always short term. And memories are short.
Next up is money. The more expensive it gets, the less we'll consume. Market forces forcing the market to shrink? Possible, but not so hot for supermarket profit or political popularity. Skiing in Verbier or Goujons for Sunday lunch? Hmnn.
Or you could just ban it.
Like I say, not a bad metaphor. I guess we'll just live with the odd front page in the Indy then. And the guilt.
But I have decided to write about one which I had honestly ignored as peripheral, but now realise is a worthy metaphor for the whole environment vs. economic growth debate.
And that's factory farming.
In the effective front page visual style for which the paper is often justly lauded, one is confronted by the space a chicken gets to exist within until converted into ingredients.
And it ain't pretty.
Yet, as the floor high stack of trays in my basement testifies (yes, I do keep 'em all, and in four years they mount up - one day I'll find a use for them), despite being told this before has not made a whopping difference, in this household at least.
Why? Well as meat eaters we do like variety (and I doubt most other choices exist through much better lives), but mainly it's down to money. As stated, I can feed a family of five for £2.50. Ethics kinda go out the window.
What would stop us? I can only think of a few reasons. There's health, and these dasy it seems there's always a bit of research that the guv'mint can whip out for the BBC to print any time we need to be steered away from something. But it's always short term. And memories are short.
Next up is money. The more expensive it gets, the less we'll consume. Market forces forcing the market to shrink? Possible, but not so hot for supermarket profit or political popularity. Skiing in Verbier or Goujons for Sunday lunch? Hmnn.
Or you could just ban it.
Like I say, not a bad metaphor. I guess we'll just live with the odd front page in the Indy then. And the guilt.
A tale of two 'e's
Here's something you won't read too often on these pages: I feel sorry for the PM.And not just him, but any politician these days.
The reason is that screen grab from my daily Indy.
Because those two sequential headlines epitomise the rock and hard place that anyone in power faces, especially and ironically when it comes to... power: economy vs. environment.
Ignoring any enviROi considerations/arguments for the moment, just look at those in terms of stark political choices.
No one said/says it's going to be easy, but one things for sure... I don't feel too keen on trying to warm my home on endless supplies of the Brown stuff: fudge.
ADDENDUM - thank heavens I put in that caveat about the envROI! As I was posting this Dave is posting the same thing with a much more focused view on the detail.
Unlike many arguments, and I see Dave and I maybe diverging, at least on a pragmatic basis, when it comes to the realities vs. ideals for such as nuclear in the future, the lack of carbon capture in the design seems plain bonkers.
Indy - A test of the Government's environmental credentials
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)