That's just about the simplest way to sum up the vagaries of our little planet's current weather.
If you are into skiing, then Europe currently has the best snow that its had for some 11 years. Indeed, it wasn't that long back that some were predicting the demise of the majority of the European ski resorts within the next 20 years or so, so December's heavy falls have been the cause of much rejoicing.
But, if you are an ice carver, all roads lead to Harbin, China, at this time of year, where the annual festival of ice is in full swing. The problem is, the ice is errrr ....... melting as fast as they can carve it and the locals have naturally put it down to global warming.
Just goes to show that nothing, climatically speaking, can ever be judged in a uniform manner.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
A lot of things being said at once...
...Here: Clarkson stung after bank prank: Jeremy Clarkson found himself unexpectedly donating to charity
Where do I start?
a) Thanks heavens for folk with wit and a sense of humour
b) That they did it for charity
c) JC can be a plonker but at does at least own up and has the front to say when he's wrong
d) ID theft is real
e) All officialdom (from guv'ment to bans) are lying, cheating, derriere-covering numpties who will spin, hype and hide behind anything to avoid solving a problem first rather than dealing with it.
f) I can't believe he didn't limit his exposure with a dummy account and/or he and the bank stood guard post-publication in case.
g) The excuse given is PATHETIC!!!!!
ADDENDUM:
BEAM ME UP SCOTTIE...CELEBS NEED TO GET THEMSELVES OUT OF HERE!
I missed it too. I found out from the fall out, and have to say that his mea culpa or 'caveat didn't emptor enough' impressed. Probably did more for awareness than a £10M COI campaign.
Now there's a thought. Blow public dosh , or get a better result for free? Hmmn.
Having pondered a while I can't help but thing that those who did see it, and especially the man himself and his bank, seemed very chilled about a few minor advance precautions, such as limiting exposure with a new, not very full account, and a few flags... just in case.
Where do I start?
a) Thanks heavens for folk with wit and a sense of humour
b) That they did it for charity
c) JC can be a plonker but at does at least own up and has the front to say when he's wrong
d) ID theft is real
e) All officialdom (from guv'ment to bans) are lying, cheating, derriere-covering numpties who will spin, hype and hide behind anything to avoid solving a problem first rather than dealing with it.
f) I can't believe he didn't limit his exposure with a dummy account and/or he and the bank stood guard post-publication in case.
g) The excuse given is PATHETIC!!!!!
ADDENDUM:
BEAM ME UP SCOTTIE...CELEBS NEED TO GET THEMSELVES OUT OF HERE!
I missed it too. I found out from the fall out, and have to say that his mea culpa or 'caveat didn't emptor enough' impressed. Probably did more for awareness than a £10M COI campaign.
Now there's a thought. Blow public dosh , or get a better result for free? Hmmn.
Having pondered a while I can't help but thing that those who did see it, and especially the man himself and his bank, seemed very chilled about a few minor advance precautions, such as limiting exposure with a new, not very full account, and a few flags... just in case.
I am Legend?
I refer, of course to the movie, where Will Smith is a sole survivor searching for fellow souls. So this struck a chord: US man saves all his rubbish -- for a year
For what it's worth, I have done roughly (no 'nasties' like scraping kept they go in the compost. And quite a lot of paper and bottles (not all) and cans (not all) in the kerbside collection bins) the same... now for four years. Lucky to have a bigg(ish) country home with a basement and attic and outbuildings. And a tolerant wife. But you'd be amazed how, when you have like-for like stacks, how well things slot into each other to save space. I have a Pot Noodle column that reaches two stories high!
Like Mr. Derfel, this was partly to see what exactly a family does throw out, but mostly to look at reuses for my site.
What is surprising is when one item sparks no notions, a collection of 50 can start the ideas a-buzzing.
For what it's worth, I have done roughly (no 'nasties' like scraping kept they go in the compost. And quite a lot of paper and bottles (not all) and cans (not all) in the kerbside collection bins) the same... now for four years. Lucky to have a bigg(ish) country home with a basement and attic and outbuildings. And a tolerant wife. But you'd be amazed how, when you have like-for like stacks, how well things slot into each other to save space. I have a Pot Noodle column that reaches two stories high!
Like Mr. Derfel, this was partly to see what exactly a family does throw out, but mostly to look at reuses for my site.
What is surprising is when one item sparks no notions, a collection of 50 can start the ideas a-buzzing.
Fit to print?
For a while that title had 'REPLY!!!' added to it. It didn't just refer to this: Are carbon diet books worth the paper they're printed on?
It's a new plan to try and address my rather woeful backlog archive system.
You see, over Xmas I did read a ton of stuff and saved the links meaning to get around to either replying and/or posting them up. But then my computer crashed and all those good intentions and worthy topics got lost as they were lurking in some task bar and not really saved as such.
Hence this is a way, in theory, to tackle something that does seem worthy of comment, not just here but there, too. And when I do, that REPLY!!! do-dad will get deleted and all... will be as it should. Hopefully.
Watch this space, I will be back.
Meantime, feel free to pitch in on either!
And, now, I have:
Good question. And some thoughtful answers already
I run a free website, http://www.junkk.com, predominantly promoting second use, so I am rather sensitive to a) trying one's best to offer solutions whilst not becoming part of the problem, and b) not trying to make too quick a buck out of anything 'green'.
So the points you make are well taken and hard to refute.
Partly through personal purchase and partly through being on some kind of (very welcome) PR list I do get sent quite a few of such tomes, and hence have had the chance to contrast, compare and, when there's time, re:view.
Being simplistic, looking at the stack on my table that I have assembled to try and offer some sensible thoughts on your question, a few basic categories are suggested:
1) Books that tell you stuff
2) Books that show you stuff
3) Books that show and tell you stuff
4) All the above, written from the point of view of what the person has done, other people have done or that 'you', the reader can do.
5) All the above... etc, only more telling you what you should do. I prefer the previous one.
6) Books that make you think. These often have elements from the preceding choices in the mix.
I'm sure there's a bunch more, but at the end of the day really it all boils down to information and/or entertainment.
In the spirit of positivity I don't propose to name any I think bad (it's pretty subjective), but there are some that stand out, at least to me, for their contributions to understanding, changing perceptions, altering behaviours or just being a plain nifty read.
Now, I'm not one to deny anyone the chance at making a buck, and they can often be quite useful, but books of lists don't really do it for me. I have tried popping them in the loo for a 5 minute bit of daily research, but really they are mostly quite boring. And almost inevitably outdated as soon as they are printed. Plus in the internet era I really cannot imagine what I couldn't find just as easily, and for free, online. Like here! A recent exception is Paul Waddington's 'Shades of Green' by virtue of accepting that there are such shades, and it's best to engage on the basis that a volunteer is worth 10 pressed wo/men.
For thought-provoking worthiness, I can look at two and say that they were 'good reads' to get your head around what ‘we’re’ facing, if being pretty darn depressing.
One is Richard Girling's 'Rubbish', and the other (without sucking up too much) is Leo Hickman's 'The Final Call'. The latter exposes the dilemma of anyone who cares about the environment and choosing to work for its betterment, still somehow having to deal with saying (or reporting, and in a cautionary way) one thing and patently doing pretty much what the reader is being told they shouldn’t.
All I know is that, for my forthcoming review (I have promised the publisher for months), there are about 50 bits of paper poking out at points that interested me, told me stuff I didn't know or got my dander up.
As to who else might feel the same, other than committed converts I don't know. It’s a stretch to think many climate 'optimists' would opt to buy it to be persuaded... unless a subsequent review can convince a few it's worth the effort... and cost. Hence the value of what you have invited here.
One thing I do look for is solutions, and preferably ones that as an average person one can engage with. And do so because they are fun, cheap, practical... and work. So why not?
There are more than a few 'how to's' I don't really like because they come across a tad too hair shirt and/or nanny state or finger-wagging. Or are less than useful in pushing certain agendas on a one-sided basis. Two I felt did achieve a nice balance, and were all the more powerful by being via personal experiences, were Penney Pozyer’s companion to her TV series and Janey Lee Grace’s ‘Imperfectly Natural Woman’. Library point noted, though I think having ‘em to hand can’t hurt and they are certainly more worthy on the shelf than many others I have!
And there are others in this vein, but often as you turn one massive (if made from recycled material) page after the next, with three words and one picture, you do get to wondering how much is for show and how much is to really make a genuine difference ‘doing’.
Thank you for the opportunity to ponder these things. Because I have been asked if I might be interested in producing a book of my own in my little area of planetary saving, and the dilemmas above have to date given me pause.
But there's no doubting that, done in the right way for the right reasons, what is in a book can find its way to many useful places and do good when it gets there. And there's the not insignificant factor of the more than useful revenue it can send the way of the authors to help them in their next, hopefully equally knowledge base-enhancing quest. Research does take time and consume funds, so in the spirit of sharing the odd reward can be appreciated. And what better than in the form of driving one up the best-seller lists?
From my limited investigations, in the great scheme of things so long as one is using the appropriate materials and the most effective logistics, such things can surely at least be cut some slack by being better than most and often better than nothing when it comes to finding and setting new readers on what one can only hope to be more inspirational paths.
Hard to measure the enviROI on it all, but if done for the right reasons and written well, they can surely only be forces for the planet’s future good. And often folk don’t have the time or inclination to trawl around, so can be great summaries for those keen to get going.
And, if one thinks about it, the stack of rainforest that is one’s copy of the Sunday paper, or the scores of ‘green’ magazines, pretty much add up to a nice chunk in the doorstep recycling bin eventually. At least by being nicely packaged these books can lurk and maybe promote the odd guest to have a quick peruse and act on what they’ve been inspired by.
It's a new plan to try and address my rather woeful backlog archive system.
You see, over Xmas I did read a ton of stuff and saved the links meaning to get around to either replying and/or posting them up. But then my computer crashed and all those good intentions and worthy topics got lost as they were lurking in some task bar and not really saved as such.
Hence this is a way, in theory, to tackle something that does seem worthy of comment, not just here but there, too. And when I do, that REPLY!!! do-dad will get deleted and all... will be as it should. Hopefully.
Watch this space, I will be back.
Meantime, feel free to pitch in on either!
And, now, I have:
Good question. And some thoughtful answers already
I run a free website, http://www.junkk.com, predominantly promoting second use, so I am rather sensitive to a) trying one's best to offer solutions whilst not becoming part of the problem, and b) not trying to make too quick a buck out of anything 'green'.
So the points you make are well taken and hard to refute.
Partly through personal purchase and partly through being on some kind of (very welcome) PR list I do get sent quite a few of such tomes, and hence have had the chance to contrast, compare and, when there's time, re:view.
Being simplistic, looking at the stack on my table that I have assembled to try and offer some sensible thoughts on your question, a few basic categories are suggested:
1) Books that tell you stuff
2) Books that show you stuff
3) Books that show and tell you stuff
4) All the above, written from the point of view of what the person has done, other people have done or that 'you', the reader can do.
5) All the above... etc, only more telling you what you should do. I prefer the previous one.
6) Books that make you think. These often have elements from the preceding choices in the mix.
I'm sure there's a bunch more, but at the end of the day really it all boils down to information and/or entertainment.
In the spirit of positivity I don't propose to name any I think bad (it's pretty subjective), but there are some that stand out, at least to me, for their contributions to understanding, changing perceptions, altering behaviours or just being a plain nifty read.
Now, I'm not one to deny anyone the chance at making a buck, and they can often be quite useful, but books of lists don't really do it for me. I have tried popping them in the loo for a 5 minute bit of daily research, but really they are mostly quite boring. And almost inevitably outdated as soon as they are printed. Plus in the internet era I really cannot imagine what I couldn't find just as easily, and for free, online. Like here! A recent exception is Paul Waddington's 'Shades of Green' by virtue of accepting that there are such shades, and it's best to engage on the basis that a volunteer is worth 10 pressed wo/men.
For thought-provoking worthiness, I can look at two and say that they were 'good reads' to get your head around what ‘we’re’ facing, if being pretty darn depressing.
One is Richard Girling's 'Rubbish', and the other (without sucking up too much) is Leo Hickman's 'The Final Call'. The latter exposes the dilemma of anyone who cares about the environment and choosing to work for its betterment, still somehow having to deal with saying (or reporting, and in a cautionary way) one thing and patently doing pretty much what the reader is being told they shouldn’t.
All I know is that, for my forthcoming review (I have promised the publisher for months), there are about 50 bits of paper poking out at points that interested me, told me stuff I didn't know or got my dander up.
As to who else might feel the same, other than committed converts I don't know. It’s a stretch to think many climate 'optimists' would opt to buy it to be persuaded... unless a subsequent review can convince a few it's worth the effort... and cost. Hence the value of what you have invited here.
One thing I do look for is solutions, and preferably ones that as an average person one can engage with. And do so because they are fun, cheap, practical... and work. So why not?
There are more than a few 'how to's' I don't really like because they come across a tad too hair shirt and/or nanny state or finger-wagging. Or are less than useful in pushing certain agendas on a one-sided basis. Two I felt did achieve a nice balance, and were all the more powerful by being via personal experiences, were Penney Pozyer’s companion to her TV series and Janey Lee Grace’s ‘Imperfectly Natural Woman’. Library point noted, though I think having ‘em to hand can’t hurt and they are certainly more worthy on the shelf than many others I have!
And there are others in this vein, but often as you turn one massive (if made from recycled material) page after the next, with three words and one picture, you do get to wondering how much is for show and how much is to really make a genuine difference ‘doing’.
Thank you for the opportunity to ponder these things. Because I have been asked if I might be interested in producing a book of my own in my little area of planetary saving, and the dilemmas above have to date given me pause.
But there's no doubting that, done in the right way for the right reasons, what is in a book can find its way to many useful places and do good when it gets there. And there's the not insignificant factor of the more than useful revenue it can send the way of the authors to help them in their next, hopefully equally knowledge base-enhancing quest. Research does take time and consume funds, so in the spirit of sharing the odd reward can be appreciated. And what better than in the form of driving one up the best-seller lists?
From my limited investigations, in the great scheme of things so long as one is using the appropriate materials and the most effective logistics, such things can surely at least be cut some slack by being better than most and often better than nothing when it comes to finding and setting new readers on what one can only hope to be more inspirational paths.
Hard to measure the enviROI on it all, but if done for the right reasons and written well, they can surely only be forces for the planet’s future good. And often folk don’t have the time or inclination to trawl around, so can be great summaries for those keen to get going.
And, if one thinks about it, the stack of rainforest that is one’s copy of the Sunday paper, or the scores of ‘green’ magazines, pretty much add up to a nice chunk in the doorstep recycling bin eventually. At least by being nicely packaged these books can lurk and maybe promote the odd guest to have a quick peruse and act on what they’ve been inspired by.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
A very costly decision
Back in 1999, our then chancellor, Ol' Golden Brown, no less, took the unprecedented decision to unload a large proportion of the UK's gold reserves at a time when the price of gold was at the bottom of the market. Dealers still term that price as the "Brown Bottom". (Full story in The Times).
At the time, there was much concern, and many forecasts that it would cost the UK dear. "The 17 auctions achieved prices for the gold of between $256 and $296 an ounce, with an average of $275." The total loss, back in April this year was estimated at some £2 Billion. (It would have been considerably more had not the Euros purchased with much of the proceeds not appreciated in value.)
Well, the price of gold now stands at a record $872.10 per ounce. That means that our PM is directly responsible for a loss to the UK of some £3 Billion+.
Now if I (or anyone else for that matter) had taken such an appalling decision and lost such an immense amount in business I'd have been sacked on the spot. It just goes to prove that there is no such thing as accountability in politics nowadays.
ADDENDUM - Brown's big hitter - When in the mire, don't whatever happens try and sort it out. Hire a better person to explain why it isn't.
ADDENDUM 2 - Unhappy new year to you all!
At the time, there was much concern, and many forecasts that it would cost the UK dear. "The 17 auctions achieved prices for the gold of between $256 and $296 an ounce, with an average of $275." The total loss, back in April this year was estimated at some £2 Billion. (It would have been considerably more had not the Euros purchased with much of the proceeds not appreciated in value.)
Well, the price of gold now stands at a record $872.10 per ounce. That means that our PM is directly responsible for a loss to the UK of some £3 Billion+.
Now if I (or anyone else for that matter) had taken such an appalling decision and lost such an immense amount in business I'd have been sacked on the spot. It just goes to prove that there is no such thing as accountability in politics nowadays.
ADDENDUM - Brown's big hitter - When in the mire, don't whatever happens try and sort it out. Hire a better person to explain why it isn't.
ADDENDUM 2 - Unhappy new year to you all!
Money well, expended
Fit for purpose?
Are you mad?????
Spending perfectly good money on actual tangibles that get delivered directly to where they can do the most good to the most folk... and, worse, with the notion of reward-based incentives attached taboot!
This is heresy.
What we need is more departments, and initiatives, and announcements and quangos and massive communications budgets with oodles of pre and post research to get the BBC to read out as gospel.
However, fair point on weather, etc. But as a matter of principle a heck of a better way to be thinking than the current 'ban, guilt, accuse and refuse' notions and their jaw-dropping black hole budgets.
This notion applies across every area of our lives too, of course.
Are you mad?????
Spending perfectly good money on actual tangibles that get delivered directly to where they can do the most good to the most folk... and, worse, with the notion of reward-based incentives attached taboot!
This is heresy.
What we need is more departments, and initiatives, and announcements and quangos and massive communications budgets with oodles of pre and post research to get the BBC to read out as gospel.
However, fair point on weather, etc. But as a matter of principle a heck of a better way to be thinking than the current 'ban, guilt, accuse and refuse' notions and their jaw-dropping black hole budgets.
This notion applies across every area of our lives too, of course.
The agricultural albedo effect
We've had the mirrors in space idea, and we have people experimenting with dumping iron filings into the oceans to encourage algal blooms, amongst many other strange geo-engineering ideas.
Now scientists have come up with the shiny plant idea. Let's grow lots of crops with shiny leaves and the albedo effect "could reduce maximum daytime temperatures in agricultural regions by as much as 1.9C".
There's that great word again: 'could'.
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - Great minds...?
Now scientists have come up with the shiny plant idea. Let's grow lots of crops with shiny leaves and the albedo effect "could reduce maximum daytime temperatures in agricultural regions by as much as 1.9C".
There's that great word again: 'could'.
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - Great minds...?
Start as you mean to carry on?
Isn't life grand? Asks Newsnight.
Well, not if this is how they see the future of quality news in the year ahead. I rather expect my national broadcaster to devote its pages to weightier issues than having a snipe about someone else being nasty about them, unless it is to correct a factual inaccuracy.
I thought it was just middle age when I moved from Radio 1 to Radio 2, but mainly it was when the 'new yoof' celeb DJs like Chris Moyles decided the listeners needed less music and more on them and their dissin' spats with equally uninteresting nobodies of but minor relevance through 'working' for other iconic media brands.
I could care less what you lot and anyone else from any ratings obsessed, agenda-driven media extreme think of each other, but as a licence fee payer (I can at least opt not to pay for the Daily Mail) I do care a lot about what you are paid to provide: relevant, objective, intelligent, accurate news.
Hard to see any hint of that here. As no link was provided to the piece in question I have no clue as to what was or was not in it, so the only purpose seems to expose a degree of unhealthy self-obsession and importance at the expense of relevant journalism.
ADDENDUM - Oddly, after three attempts over a few days my post has not made it up. I can only presume it did not fit the BBC or its Editor's standards of... whatever they have standards left of. Even more oddly, on the page counter there are 6 replies listed as being posted. Only three are visible. Omission in many ways is the most pernicious form of censoring of all. What I wrote was critical to be sure, but I'd also say justified. On an open blog to exclude the comment seems... telling. I'll try again in a few more days in case it's one those 'tech errors' that often serve to let the passage of time smooth the view in the rear mirror.
ADDENDUM 2 - Nope. Still nothing. One can only wonder why. Go via here via 4 Jan to see how 6 become 3. Not Newsnight's, the BBC's or the cause of honest and balanced journalism's finest hour.
ADDENDUM 3 - Well, there's a thing. It is now (14:29. Tue 8) up now. And I am sure, with some embarrassment, my whinge that it isn't will follow. Good job I did a page capture a few days ago. Rather oddly (still), my comment is now inserted before that of a chap whose comment was up a few days ago (but probably after mine). What an odd system it is.
Well, not if this is how they see the future of quality news in the year ahead. I rather expect my national broadcaster to devote its pages to weightier issues than having a snipe about someone else being nasty about them, unless it is to correct a factual inaccuracy.
I thought it was just middle age when I moved from Radio 1 to Radio 2, but mainly it was when the 'new yoof' celeb DJs like Chris Moyles decided the listeners needed less music and more on them and their dissin' spats with equally uninteresting nobodies of but minor relevance through 'working' for other iconic media brands.
I could care less what you lot and anyone else from any ratings obsessed, agenda-driven media extreme think of each other, but as a licence fee payer (I can at least opt not to pay for the Daily Mail) I do care a lot about what you are paid to provide: relevant, objective, intelligent, accurate news.
Hard to see any hint of that here. As no link was provided to the piece in question I have no clue as to what was or was not in it, so the only purpose seems to expose a degree of unhealthy self-obsession and importance at the expense of relevant journalism.
ADDENDUM - Oddly, after three attempts over a few days my post has not made it up. I can only presume it did not fit the BBC or its Editor's standards of... whatever they have standards left of. Even more oddly, on the page counter there are 6 replies listed as being posted. Only three are visible. Omission in many ways is the most pernicious form of censoring of all. What I wrote was critical to be sure, but I'd also say justified. On an open blog to exclude the comment seems... telling. I'll try again in a few more days in case it's one those 'tech errors' that often serve to let the passage of time smooth the view in the rear mirror.
ADDENDUM 2 - Nope. Still nothing. One can only wonder why. Go via here via 4 Jan to see how 6 become 3. Not Newsnight's, the BBC's or the cause of honest and balanced journalism's finest hour.
ADDENDUM 3 - Well, there's a thing. It is now (14:29. Tue 8) up now. And I am sure, with some embarrassment, my whinge that it isn't will follow. Good job I did a page capture a few days ago. Rather oddly (still), my comment is now inserted before that of a chap whose comment was up a few days ago (but probably after mine). What an odd system it is.
Answering the call
Gordon Brown calls for single food labelling scheme
What, in the great smoke and mirrors scheme of things, does 'calls for' actually mean, or translate as?
I rather suspect this is yet one more in an exponentially expanding series of politician double speak up there to join 'this is not acceptable (but sod all will be done)', 'we're going to look at this (at arm's length, and then wait until it goes away)' and, my personal favourite 'lessons need to learned (then filed and forgotten)'.
I hate to break it to our Dear Leader, but this horse has already long bolted and this consumer is well beyond contusion. He's already at 'if they don't know or care to sort it out sensibly, why should I bother?'. So, as I am on a mixed metaphorical roll, it will be fun to see how this genie gets popped back in it's bottle.
Especially as, at least from my reading of this article, the additional fun of the already several competing and contradictory carbon/food miles efforts already out and/or proposed to add to the screed on packs seems not to be in this mix. Or at least not mentioned.
I'm betting that after a ton of 'working with', which should keep a load of public servants in pensions and consultants in fees until well after the cows have finished burping methane, the most I predict will be several vastly expensive 'campaigns' instead of any tangibles from several left/right hand quangos, so at least the ad and media world may still benefit.
Just not so sure about the consumer or planet's health, though.
Guardian - Energy firms feel heat from government over surge in prices - I'm sorry, but how 'expressing concern' translates into anyone on the other end 'feeling heat' is a stretch.
What, in the great smoke and mirrors scheme of things, does 'calls for' actually mean, or translate as?
I rather suspect this is yet one more in an exponentially expanding series of politician double speak up there to join 'this is not acceptable (but sod all will be done)', 'we're going to look at this (at arm's length, and then wait until it goes away)' and, my personal favourite 'lessons need to learned (then filed and forgotten)'.
I hate to break it to our Dear Leader, but this horse has already long bolted and this consumer is well beyond contusion. He's already at 'if they don't know or care to sort it out sensibly, why should I bother?'. So, as I am on a mixed metaphorical roll, it will be fun to see how this genie gets popped back in it's bottle.
Especially as, at least from my reading of this article, the additional fun of the already several competing and contradictory carbon/food miles efforts already out and/or proposed to add to the screed on packs seems not to be in this mix. Or at least not mentioned.
I'm betting that after a ton of 'working with', which should keep a load of public servants in pensions and consultants in fees until well after the cows have finished burping methane, the most I predict will be several vastly expensive 'campaigns' instead of any tangibles from several left/right hand quangos, so at least the ad and media world may still benefit.
Just not so sure about the consumer or planet's health, though.
Guardian - Energy firms feel heat from government over surge in prices - I'm sorry, but how 'expressing concern' translates into anyone on the other end 'feeling heat' is a stretch.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Pros and Cons
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)