Can you be a green petrolhead?
Agree on most. Especially on the size of machine required. A point a few of our green-auto advocates who need 6litre Hummers and 7-series Beemers still miss, even if they stick h2 in 'em to show their eco-cred.
But do cut those poor Americans, especially the teenagers, a wee bit of slack. (Oops, I forgot the host of this blog)
I haven't been there too often, but in many states they can't drink 'til they are 21, in others where there are reasonable, practical public transport systems it's no diff to London (Centre of the Universe), but in some places there's the small matter of most living in a country that is the same distance across as it is from here to Turkey.
Aside from the money, and the logistics and a few other things, if you live in a county where some kids need to travel often scores of miles to get in to school/cinema/etc, it's hard to imagine how else they would do it.
With those Yellow bus jobbies they seem to have the school run better sorted than we do here. As to the rest, if you can re-shoot Bullitt with a Prius...
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Trailer Trash
Green film festival: the best clips
I almost switched off when I saw some odd movie with Ricky Gervais in it.
But then it clicked. Trailer... then Trash.
I was interested in 'Garbage! The revolution starts at home'
Not now.
This is old territory. We are trying to inspire folk and get the majority onside. A 'P-EU' rant is not going to do that, sorry.
If this is one of the best... oh, dear.
FWIW, my family has barely thrown out anything in several years. Thing is, we separate it out and either Green Cone, compost... or reuse (a few things piling up that have us currently stumped).
No stinky. No messy. Much savey. Even a bit of ma£ey.
Maybe I should film it. And then fly, Irony Air, to get my award in Turin.
Bless.
I almost switched off when I saw some odd movie with Ricky Gervais in it.
But then it clicked. Trailer... then Trash.
I was interested in 'Garbage! The revolution starts at home'
Not now.
This is old territory. We are trying to inspire folk and get the majority onside. A 'P-EU' rant is not going to do that, sorry.
If this is one of the best... oh, dear.
FWIW, my family has barely thrown out anything in several years. Thing is, we separate it out and either Green Cone, compost... or reuse (a few things piling up that have us currently stumped).
No stinky. No messy. Much savey. Even a bit of ma£ey.
Maybe I should film it. And then fly, Irony Air, to get my award in Turin.
Bless.
Messages... and messengers
Piers Morgan solves energy crisis
I was driving to a meeting today (Oh, the irony. However, I did stop off at Ledbury to check out how to get to Brum or London in a more eco and possibly cheaper way... IF the train runs) and listening to the Jeremy Vine show.
It was about charity reverting to home.
Usual wind up. In the stir-up corner was Kelvin McKenzie saying 'sod the rest; Brit is best'.
Against him were lined up at least three fragrant ladies who obviously lunch, but also do good works for 'those less fortunate'. They were very much of the view that more aid rather than less was the order of the day. Folk were starving (true), it wasn't their fault (true. Well, at least the starving ones. I keep seeing nice limos when the Pres lobs up) and 'it's all down to global warming'.
Now, on that last one I am still in a jury that is out. However that all of them opened their pitch with 'I have just got back from flying around...', irony-free, to my mind did not help what else they uttered.
Some are just more equally allowed to 'study the situation' than others, I guess.
I was driving to a meeting today (Oh, the irony. However, I did stop off at Ledbury to check out how to get to Brum or London in a more eco and possibly cheaper way... IF the train runs) and listening to the Jeremy Vine show.
It was about charity reverting to home.
Usual wind up. In the stir-up corner was Kelvin McKenzie saying 'sod the rest; Brit is best'.
Against him were lined up at least three fragrant ladies who obviously lunch, but also do good works for 'those less fortunate'. They were very much of the view that more aid rather than less was the order of the day. Folk were starving (true), it wasn't their fault (true. Well, at least the starving ones. I keep seeing nice limos when the Pres lobs up) and 'it's all down to global warming'.
Now, on that last one I am still in a jury that is out. However that all of them opened their pitch with 'I have just got back from flying around...', irony-free, to my mind did not help what else they uttered.
Some are just more equally allowed to 'study the situation' than others, I guess.
Oh, what a state(sperson)
Finding a climate for growth
As to the agreeable (new adjective du jour?:) Mr. Brown, it might be worth looking back and seeing what he has said (or, more likely open-endedly mis- or possibly not spoke) vs. what he has done, on most things but in particular anything to do with my kids' futures on this planet.
As to the awesome thought and authority that has gone in to this... "This is not the time to abandon a climate change agenda which is important for the future... The climate change agenda is part of the solution for many of the problems we face as a world economy"... well, I bet those words stopped all those rowing in their tracks with their substance, depth, detail and insight.
But at least some, somewhere, will be happy. 'We' have yet another, brand new target. Apparently.
Let the lobbyists out of the traps and the subsidies flow!
Telegraph - Ed Miliband promises less hot air
Well, when it comes to assessing talent, everything is relative I suppose. Is there a bar on the shores of the Dead Sea?
Newsnight -
You know what I found most telling about Mr. Miliband (the Even Younger)'s vox pop was his acknowledging that he, and indeed most, involved would not be around in 2050.
For a pol today, that is enough for me to know that a) it ain't going to happen, but b) a lot of folk are going to see target-based careers enhanced and/or making a load of money in the short term looking like they are trying.
Meanwhile, this is another press release that I imagine is already filed.
If we are going to be exposed to this government's latest whirly wheeze, and especially with a ringing stamp of 'You're all doing very well, aren't I' from Young PM Queeg, might we at least have a bit of historical context from the last decade to see how the latest claims might stand up and/or work out.
INdy - Loophole in minister's new emissions target - Rather sets the tone: like "telling everyone you're going on a calorie-controlled diet but not counting cream cakes".
Guardian - Can Ed Miliband deliver?
Guardian - Post-bubble possibility
Guardian - Saving the economy or saving the planet is not an either-or
See, there I was, getting all awed by the massive brainpower and seduced by the compelling skills of persuasion that score one the big bucks in the halls of power, and then I got to this:
"I am confident that we have the bold and challenging leadership we need."
I am sure you are, dear.
Is the Guardian now in the business of posting job applications as well?
At least the posts in reply made the energy consumed reading on worthwhile.
Guardian - Another green dream?
I am continually amazed by the way some manage to divorce 'Britain' from its 'government' - especially in terms of words and deeds carried out in its name - and the 'people' who in theory have given their mandates through 'votes' to others, especially to blow their money in their name via taxes.
Telegraph - Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has his work cut out
Indy - Miliband's blueprint for greener homes - while I was on board with much here, some of the suggestions do fail on my current enviROI measures, and hence rather colour the overall thing with a wash of green.
Guardian - On our present course, the bold new carbon target is worthless
When one's course is set by PM Queeg of the U.S Less 'I feel your pain (well, the pay, perks and pension might help ease it a bit)', cheered on at every repeated Titanic iceberg-ramming by a collection of Westminster Useful Village Idiots already nice and comfy in the few lifeboats, I must say 'worthless' is what first sprang to mind, too.
This is one mutineer ready to sign up on this 'ship in a state'.
Guardian - The greening of Brown
So, if I read the first para right it is basically: 'A distracting chance to just look good to your mates in high places whilst blowing yet more on saying a lot but again doing b-all'.
If his 'towering intellect' hadn't understood and/or got interested until now, then he's a few gigawatts short of a becalmed wind farm.
You damn the man with the faintest of praise.
Indy - Rebels to force climate change Bill concessions
I'd just be happy with a world-class climate my kids can enjoy.
But hey-ho....
Unleash the targets, crank up the bonuses and let the box-ticking commence!
As to the agreeable (new adjective du jour?:) Mr. Brown, it might be worth looking back and seeing what he has said (or, more likely open-endedly mis- or possibly not spoke) vs. what he has done, on most things but in particular anything to do with my kids' futures on this planet.
As to the awesome thought and authority that has gone in to this... "This is not the time to abandon a climate change agenda which is important for the future... The climate change agenda is part of the solution for many of the problems we face as a world economy"... well, I bet those words stopped all those rowing in their tracks with their substance, depth, detail and insight.
But at least some, somewhere, will be happy. 'We' have yet another, brand new target. Apparently.
Let the lobbyists out of the traps and the subsidies flow!
Telegraph - Ed Miliband promises less hot air
Well, when it comes to assessing talent, everything is relative I suppose. Is there a bar on the shores of the Dead Sea?
Newsnight -
You know what I found most telling about Mr. Miliband (the Even Younger)'s vox pop was his acknowledging that he, and indeed most, involved would not be around in 2050.
For a pol today, that is enough for me to know that a) it ain't going to happen, but b) a lot of folk are going to see target-based careers enhanced and/or making a load of money in the short term looking like they are trying.
Meanwhile, this is another press release that I imagine is already filed.
If we are going to be exposed to this government's latest whirly wheeze, and especially with a ringing stamp of 'You're all doing very well, aren't I' from Young PM Queeg, might we at least have a bit of historical context from the last decade to see how the latest claims might stand up and/or work out.
INdy - Loophole in minister's new emissions target - Rather sets the tone: like "telling everyone you're going on a calorie-controlled diet but not counting cream cakes".
Guardian - Can Ed Miliband deliver?
Guardian - Post-bubble possibility
Guardian - Saving the economy or saving the planet is not an either-or
See, there I was, getting all awed by the massive brainpower and seduced by the compelling skills of persuasion that score one the big bucks in the halls of power, and then I got to this:
"I am confident that we have the bold and challenging leadership we need."
I am sure you are, dear.
Is the Guardian now in the business of posting job applications as well?
At least the posts in reply made the energy consumed reading on worthwhile.
Guardian - Another green dream?
I am continually amazed by the way some manage to divorce 'Britain' from its 'government' - especially in terms of words and deeds carried out in its name - and the 'people' who in theory have given their mandates through 'votes' to others, especially to blow their money in their name via taxes.
Telegraph - Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has his work cut out
Indy - Miliband's blueprint for greener homes - while I was on board with much here, some of the suggestions do fail on my current enviROI measures, and hence rather colour the overall thing with a wash of green.
Guardian - On our present course, the bold new carbon target is worthless
When one's course is set by PM Queeg of the U.S Less 'I feel your pain (well, the pay, perks and pension might help ease it a bit)', cheered on at every repeated Titanic iceberg-ramming by a collection of Westminster Useful Village Idiots already nice and comfy in the few lifeboats, I must say 'worthless' is what first sprang to mind, too.
This is one mutineer ready to sign up on this 'ship in a state'.
Guardian - The greening of Brown
So, if I read the first para right it is basically: 'A distracting chance to just look good to your mates in high places whilst blowing yet more on saying a lot but again doing b-all'.
If his 'towering intellect' hadn't understood and/or got interested until now, then he's a few gigawatts short of a becalmed wind farm.
You damn the man with the faintest of praise.
Indy - Rebels to force climate change Bill concessions
I'd just be happy with a world-class climate my kids can enjoy.
But hey-ho....
Unleash the targets, crank up the bonuses and let the box-ticking commence!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Pedal power
I have had cause to be less than impressed with this 'writer' before.
Let by this 'A cab driver's blog has criticised the Public Carriage Office for allowing tourist rickshaws on the capital's streets' I got to:
Against rickshaws
An interestingly economical form of written communication, but we've established before where the 'journalism' aspect figures.
And obviously remuneration is not by the word (at time of writing they were: 'Cabbies are' ... or is it?
Wonder where Ken or, more relevantly I suppose Boris would stand on this eco vs. econo. vs. safety issue.
Guess we'll never know.
Let by this 'A cab driver's blog has criticised the Public Carriage Office for allowing tourist rickshaws on the capital's streets' I got to:
Against rickshaws
An interestingly economical form of written communication, but we've established before where the 'journalism' aspect figures.
And obviously remuneration is not by the word (at time of writing they were: 'Cabbies are' ... or is it?
Wonder where Ken or, more relevantly I suppose Boris would stand on this eco vs. econo. vs. safety issue.
Guess we'll never know.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Go figure
It's a list. In a paper. Of the top 100 enviromentalists.
The IoS Green List: Britain's top 100 environmentalists
If they (who?) say so. Fills a page or two, I guess.
I wonder what the criteria were? Volume? Being in (or luvv'd) in London? Applying mine of achieving better enviROI does come up with a rather different result.
I know more, doing more, within 20 miles of here.
ps: No 99. I think it's a water butt? But, then again, maybe not.
Addendum:
But just when you thought the trendy luvvie media had lost the green plot...
20 great green designs
Some are great. So I am just glad this is not claiming the best. Give 'em time, mind.
The IoS Green List: Britain's top 100 environmentalists
If they (who?) say so. Fills a page or two, I guess.
I wonder what the criteria were? Volume? Being in (or luvv'd) in London? Applying mine of achieving better enviROI does come up with a rather different result.
I know more, doing more, within 20 miles of here.
ps: No 99. I think it's a water butt? But, then again, maybe not.
Addendum:
But just when you thought the trendy luvvie media had lost the green plot...
20 great green designs
Some are great. So I am just glad this is not claiming the best. Give 'em time, mind.
Department Next
Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has his work cut out
Interesting analysis, but the replies are worth a scope.
Interesting analysis, but the replies are worth a scope.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
AWARD - Shell Springboard 2008
WHEN: Friday Nov 7
WHAT: Shell Springboard 2008
WHAT... MORE?: A programme that provides a financial boost to innovative, low carbon business ideas from across the UK. The idea behind the programme is that the business response to climate change should not be all about compliance and cost. There is a huge business opportunity if society is to move from a carbon-constrained world.
The criteria for those businesses which apply are very simple. Applications will be considered if the product or service will lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emmissions, is commercially viable and is innovative.
HOW MUCH: Free
URL: http://www.shellspringboard.org/about/
COMMENTS: Been going a while. We keep entering, too. Like Robert the Bruce's spider... one day! And yes, we do know that they are an oil company. Thing is, we don't go around telling folk what not to do all the time... so whatever gets the dosh to DO good... we'll live with them trying to PR it.
AWARD - Google Project 10 to the power 100
Awards , eh? Famine, then fest. Or, as we are talking numbers: 38 busses.
WHEN: Oct 20th, 2008...soon!
WHAT: Google Project 10 to the power 100
WHAT... MORE?:
Categories:
Community: How can we help connect people, build communities and protect unique cultures?
Opportunity: How can we help people better provide for themselves and their families?
Energy: How can we help move the world toward safe, clean, inexpensive energy?
Environment: How can we help promote a cleaner and more sustainable global ecosystem?
Health: How can we help individuals lead longer, healthier lives?
Education: How can we help more people get more access to better education?
Shelter: How can we help ensure that everyone has a safe place to live?
Everything else: Sometimes the best ideas don't fit into any category at all.
Criteria:
Reach: How many people would this idea affect?
Depth: How deeply are people impacted? How urgent is the need?
Attainability: Can this idea be implemented within a year or two?
Efficiency: How simple and cost-effective is your idea?
Longevity: How long will the idea's impact last?
HOW MUCH: FREE
URL: http://www.project10tothe100.com/index.html
COMMENTS: It really is hard to see a down side. Remember... do no harm! Actually, keeping thinking of ways to do good, better.
WHEN: Oct 20th, 2008...soon!
WHAT: Google Project 10 to the power 100
WHAT... MORE?:
Categories:
Community: How can we help connect people, build communities and protect unique cultures?
Opportunity: How can we help people better provide for themselves and their families?
Energy: How can we help move the world toward safe, clean, inexpensive energy?
Environment: How can we help promote a cleaner and more sustainable global ecosystem?
Health: How can we help individuals lead longer, healthier lives?
Education: How can we help more people get more access to better education?
Shelter: How can we help ensure that everyone has a safe place to live?
Everything else: Sometimes the best ideas don't fit into any category at all.
Criteria:
Reach: How many people would this idea affect?
Depth: How deeply are people impacted? How urgent is the need?
Attainability: Can this idea be implemented within a year or two?
Efficiency: How simple and cost-effective is your idea?
Longevity: How long will the idea's impact last?
HOW MUCH: FREE
URL: http://www.project10tothe100.com/index.html
COMMENTS: It really is hard to see a down side. Remember... do no harm! Actually, keeping thinking of ways to do good, better.
One mighty suck for mankind
Newsnight -
Speaking of sucking...
'Susan Watts reports on a radical new approach designed to stop climate change. Confused?'
As I look out of my window at a lovely autumn taking over from summer (well, what passed for one), I simply ask that whatever man-made effort is made to mitigate (if at all possible and affordable) the power of what man might not be helping much as nature does her thing, I'd still like the climate to change a bit, please.
It's complex, and so easy for us all to get confused, I guess. But while dealing with possibly addressing possibly/probably man-worsened negative climate change is a rallying cry I could get behind, the shorter version used here is about as much use as Global Warming is... was.
Guess we should ask all those chaps I saw on the news recently who are going up to the Antarctic to race about how it's all going. Maybe when they meet the eco-racers driving round the country to see how little fuel they can use?
At least the atmospheric Deep Throat (one mighty suck for mankind) hoover sounds a bit more like DOING than talking, but I do worry about relative %ages near the things. Harking back to my A level sciences, if you suck all the C02 out locally and hence cause an osmotic (or is that fluids?) gradient towards them, won't that monkey around with the natural balances of the various gasses that make up air?
And is that a good thing?
I know it looked nifty (if in reverse) in Total Recall, but it's just that 'we' have not proven over nifty in our meddling with nature before.
Speaking of sucking...
'Susan Watts reports on a radical new approach designed to stop climate change. Confused?'
As I look out of my window at a lovely autumn taking over from summer (well, what passed for one), I simply ask that whatever man-made effort is made to mitigate (if at all possible and affordable) the power of what man might not be helping much as nature does her thing, I'd still like the climate to change a bit, please.
It's complex, and so easy for us all to get confused, I guess. But while dealing with possibly addressing possibly/probably man-worsened negative climate change is a rallying cry I could get behind, the shorter version used here is about as much use as Global Warming is... was.
Guess we should ask all those chaps I saw on the news recently who are going up to the Antarctic to race about how it's all going. Maybe when they meet the eco-racers driving round the country to see how little fuel they can use?
At least the atmospheric Deep Throat (one mighty suck for mankind) hoover sounds a bit more like DOING than talking, but I do worry about relative %ages near the things. Harking back to my A level sciences, if you suck all the C02 out locally and hence cause an osmotic (or is that fluids?) gradient towards them, won't that monkey around with the natural balances of the various gasses that make up air?
And is that a good thing?
I know it looked nifty (if in reverse) in Total Recall, but it's just that 'we' have not proven over nifty in our meddling with nature before.
Hur-di-Hur
It's about economics, but I sensed an interesting aspect...
Iceland would be mad to join the EU
As it cropped up at the end there, though not perhaps as a major point, I got to wondering about Iceland's energy independence.
Bearing in mind that it is, as far as I am aware, quite isolated from the vagaries of this aspect of economic development, is it just that they have been so profligate elsewhere that their commitment to renewables has not helped much?
Iceland would be mad to join the EU
As it cropped up at the end there, though not perhaps as a major point, I got to wondering about Iceland's energy independence.
Bearing in mind that it is, as far as I am aware, quite isolated from the vagaries of this aspect of economic development, is it just that they have been so profligate elsewhere that their commitment to renewables has not helped much?
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Civil exchanges online. A rare pleasure.
I got a reply (well, with a few score others) from a celeb jounro!
The piece in question is below, and I'd popped in a sarky one liner more to keep the author on his toes. He's better than most in the green arena, though can, has, does and will still err on being a bit 'thee and me' in the who's in and who's out of Greeleet VIPdom.
But I did swing to his defence a wee while ago when he came out the the nuclear bunker. Not so much for the nuclear bit, but for his right to speak.
Green shoots of recovery
I was just teasing (some of these posts can come across as a bit worthy), and actually really appreciate the fact that an author here a) reads what they have set in motion and, b) better yet takes the time to reply/engage. Few do. Major kudos.
However....
'marklynas
Oct 08 08, 3:18pm
- Junkketeer - We're talking pretty small beer, just a Shares ISA. Without revealing my entire personal finances, I ain't rich, despite having written a couple of excellent books which everyone on this site really ought to rush off and buy. (there, I have shown there is no better thing than repeated publicity)
- youngpretender - you're quite right, of course. RBS is horrible, and their investments in fossil fuels are indefensible. I'll offload those (small quantity of) shares just as soon as they regain some value...'
I, too, am pondering the penning of a eco-book, with all the recycled, natural-inked, 'just had to fly there to find out how flying there was killing us' pitfalls.
But with this being the Grauniad and all, and there being about 20 articles daily on what to do and, more controversially what NOT to do (or else) du jour, it must surely have occurred that fronting up on investing in a company that invests... etc.. was kind of what a lot of folk get lambasted for/finger-waved at by commentators here all the time. Bit like Mr. Monbiot lobbing up (he didn't I hope) in his new motor for the 'hundreds drive round the UK in cars to show how much fuel we can save by being more careful driving' irony event winner today.
Especially if many seem to figure they'll just have one last, wafer-thin PR-jolly to Antarctica to see.. er ... report on how tourism is killing the polar bears before the ice melts. Or hell freezes over. Or those shares gain enough value so a profit can be made first before any enviro-breast-beating kicks in on a per word basis.
Ain't easy, is it, caring about the future but also trying to be pragmatic? Keep up the good work.
The piece in question is below, and I'd popped in a sarky one liner more to keep the author on his toes. He's better than most in the green arena, though can, has, does and will still err on being a bit 'thee and me' in the who's in and who's out of Greeleet VIPdom.
But I did swing to his defence a wee while ago when he came out the the nuclear bunker. Not so much for the nuclear bit, but for his right to speak.
Green shoots of recovery
I was just teasing (some of these posts can come across as a bit worthy), and actually really appreciate the fact that an author here a) reads what they have set in motion and, b) better yet takes the time to reply/engage. Few do. Major kudos.
However....
'marklynas
Oct 08 08, 3:18pm
- Junkketeer - We're talking pretty small beer, just a Shares ISA. Without revealing my entire personal finances, I ain't rich, despite having written a couple of excellent books which everyone on this site really ought to rush off and buy. (there, I have shown there is no better thing than repeated publicity)
- youngpretender - you're quite right, of course. RBS is horrible, and their investments in fossil fuels are indefensible. I'll offload those (small quantity of) shares just as soon as they regain some value...'
I, too, am pondering the penning of a eco-book, with all the recycled, natural-inked, 'just had to fly there to find out how flying there was killing us' pitfalls.
But with this being the Grauniad and all, and there being about 20 articles daily on what to do and, more controversially what NOT to do (or else) du jour, it must surely have occurred that fronting up on investing in a company that invests... etc.. was kind of what a lot of folk get lambasted for/finger-waved at by commentators here all the time. Bit like Mr. Monbiot lobbing up (he didn't I hope) in his new motor for the 'hundreds drive round the UK in cars to show how much fuel we can save by being more careful driving' irony event winner today.
Especially if many seem to figure they'll just have one last, wafer-thin PR-jolly to Antarctica to see.. er ... report on how tourism is killing the polar bears before the ice melts. Or hell freezes over. Or those shares gain enough value so a profit can be made first before any enviro-breast-beating kicks in on a per word basis.
Ain't easy, is it, caring about the future but also trying to be pragmatic? Keep up the good work.
We have always advocated Gold from Green
A certain retailer decides that you can save green in more ways than one by hooking up with Junkk.com, and...
Poundland escapes high street pounding to post bumper results
Coincidence? Who is to say? But whatever it is, it's a happy one we're thrilled to share:)
If nothing else (and, FWIW, we think there is more... lots more), we seem to be very lucky in, with and for the company we keep.
And you know what Napoleon looked for first in his Generals?
Poundland escapes high street pounding to post bumper results
Coincidence? Who is to say? But whatever it is, it's a happy one we're thrilled to share:)
If nothing else (and, FWIW, we think there is more... lots more), we seem to be very lucky in, with and for the company we keep.
And you know what Napoleon looked for first in his Generals?
AWARD - 2009 ST ANDREWS PRIZE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Another thanks to Martin of EnviroAbility
WHEN: Closing date for entries is 31 October, 2008
WHAT: 2009 ST ANDREWS PRIZE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
WHAT... MORE?: Aimed at helping ordinary people find solutions to environmental problems, the Prize was launched ten years ago and is recognized as a prestigious international initiative, attracting entries from around the world. The Prize is a joint initiative between the University of St Andrews and international energy company ConocoPhillips.
Below is a brief description of the Prize. If you know of anyone who would be interested in applying or an organisation that could see a benefit in hosting a link to the Prize website, please forward.
Are you doing something for the environment? The 2009 St Andrews Prize for the Environment is open to entrants from anywhere in the world. The winner will receive $75,000 USD and two runners-up will each receive $25,000 USD.
The Prize recognises significant contributions to environmental conservation and since its launch in 1998 has attracted entries from more than 50 countries each year on diverse topics including;
sustainable development in the Amazon rainforest
urban regeneration
recycling
health and water issues
renewable energy
Submissions for the annual prize are assessed by a panel of eminent trustees representing science, industry and government with the award going to the project the Trustees consider displays the best combination of good science, economic realism and political acceptability.
HOW MUCH: Looks free. Yay!
URL: http://www.thestandrewsprize.com/
COMMENTS: We figure we're in the a left filed entry on recycling...ish.
Note... it is international. If you win and knock us off, think of who told you:) Heck, if you win in those other categories, still think of us!
WHEN: Closing date for entries is 31 October, 2008
WHAT: 2009 ST ANDREWS PRIZE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
WHAT... MORE?: Aimed at helping ordinary people find solutions to environmental problems, the Prize was launched ten years ago and is recognized as a prestigious international initiative, attracting entries from around the world. The Prize is a joint initiative between the University of St Andrews and international energy company ConocoPhillips.
Below is a brief description of the Prize. If you know of anyone who would be interested in applying or an organisation that could see a benefit in hosting a link to the Prize website, please forward.
Are you doing something for the environment? The 2009 St Andrews Prize for the Environment is open to entrants from anywhere in the world. The winner will receive $75,000 USD and two runners-up will each receive $25,000 USD.
The Prize recognises significant contributions to environmental conservation and since its launch in 1998 has attracted entries from more than 50 countries each year on diverse topics including;
sustainable development in the Amazon rainforest
urban regeneration
recycling
health and water issues
renewable energy
Submissions for the annual prize are assessed by a panel of eminent trustees representing science, industry and government with the award going to the project the Trustees consider displays the best combination of good science, economic realism and political acceptability.
HOW MUCH: Looks free. Yay!
URL: http://www.thestandrewsprize.com/
COMMENTS: We figure we're in the a left filed entry on recycling...ish.
Note... it is international. If you win and knock us off, think of who told you:) Heck, if you win in those other categories, still think of us!
Maybe they don't know what they are?
Nearly half of FTSE-250 companies keep their carbon footprints hidden
Bet they all have awesome CSR reports, though.
Bet they all have awesome CSR reports, though.
IRONY ALERT - Driving misers crazy
It's a tricky one.
Competition throughout history has driven innovation, and innovation in driving is the competition here.
However, I had to crank a slight eyebrow at a piece on the news today about a driving competition that is based on the lightest foot winning.
I would just wish that there had (if there was I missed it) been a slight tilt towards the fact that, whatever the awareness, there are still an awful lot of cars gadding about the country burning fuel. It's better, but to me still erring on F1 trying to allude to eco-status by thinking about bio-fuels.
So far all I have gleaned as a consequence is that a smaller car uses less fuel, plus if you don't accelerate or break hard. Well, D'uh.
I do wonder what box-ticking effort this latest exercise in awareness might really be serving.
Addendum - Just watched the lunch news. The objective is, apparently, 'to use the least fuel'.
I wrote in and asked if, as a local participant (they went past my home), I could claim a prize, as my car used sod all fuel today as I didn't get in it.
Sadly, no reply. But fear not, this is so popular that there are plans for many more. Gaia breathes easier, I am sure.
Addendum 2 - Just watching the BBC Breakfast News about some noble race or other across the Antarctic. I am sure TV show and book to follow.... on BBC Worldwide.
Now, I am all for all these 'higher, faster, stronger' celebrations of the human spirit, but do wonder how the irony alert gets disconnected because some staffers are on to plug the thing.
Were we not being lambasted for how all we are up to is messing up the wildlife in colder climes? And how do all these guys and their teams get there... kayak?
I am still trying to get my head round yesterday's well-publicised 'eco'-race (one of many to come, apparently. Maybe F1 will get in on the act) where hundreds of folk drive around the country to show how little petrol they used. I was the clear winner by not going out at all in my car, and if I did only for something I really needed it for.
Consistency, Aunty, consistency. Next you'll be vying for a slot on Virgin Galactic... oh.
Join Captn. Fishtock's 'Polar Bears need more settees to rest on icebergs' now!
Competition throughout history has driven innovation, and innovation in driving is the competition here.
However, I had to crank a slight eyebrow at a piece on the news today about a driving competition that is based on the lightest foot winning.
I would just wish that there had (if there was I missed it) been a slight tilt towards the fact that, whatever the awareness, there are still an awful lot of cars gadding about the country burning fuel. It's better, but to me still erring on F1 trying to allude to eco-status by thinking about bio-fuels.
So far all I have gleaned as a consequence is that a smaller car uses less fuel, plus if you don't accelerate or break hard. Well, D'uh.
I do wonder what box-ticking effort this latest exercise in awareness might really be serving.
Addendum - Just watched the lunch news. The objective is, apparently, 'to use the least fuel'.
I wrote in and asked if, as a local participant (they went past my home), I could claim a prize, as my car used sod all fuel today as I didn't get in it.
Sadly, no reply. But fear not, this is so popular that there are plans for many more. Gaia breathes easier, I am sure.
Addendum 2 - Just watching the BBC Breakfast News about some noble race or other across the Antarctic. I am sure TV show and book to follow.... on BBC Worldwide.
Now, I am all for all these 'higher, faster, stronger' celebrations of the human spirit, but do wonder how the irony alert gets disconnected because some staffers are on to plug the thing.
Were we not being lambasted for how all we are up to is messing up the wildlife in colder climes? And how do all these guys and their teams get there... kayak?
I am still trying to get my head round yesterday's well-publicised 'eco'-race (one of many to come, apparently. Maybe F1 will get in on the act) where hundreds of folk drive around the country to show how little petrol they used. I was the clear winner by not going out at all in my car, and if I did only for something I really needed it for.
Consistency, Aunty, consistency. Next you'll be vying for a slot on Virgin Galactic... oh.
Join Captn. Fishtock's 'Polar Bears need more settees to rest on icebergs' now!
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
OCO to monitor CO2
Reported on Economist.com, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) [hey, isn't that yet another CO2 molecule?], to be launched in 2009, is going to gather and monitor planetary wide data with the objective of providing a high resolution global map of CO2.
It all sounds highly intriguing and extremely complex, but, hopefully, will provide some much needed genuine empirical data.
Just love the conclusion ...... "Understanding what might happen is essential. Even if we don’t like the answers."
It all sounds highly intriguing and extremely complex, but, hopefully, will provide some much needed genuine empirical data.
Just love the conclusion ...... "Understanding what might happen is essential. Even if we don’t like the answers."
In the midst of all the financial doom and gloom....
... you can always trust the genius that is Matt of the Daily Telegraph to come up with a slant that will make you smile.
Have press card, will travel (to save planet)
BERG BENCHLESS
Now I have just about got used to endless celebs and their camp following 'journalistic' mates raising 'awareness' of climate change in their sweetly ironic way by helicoptering up to a snow-covered place at the first crack of a calving glacier or to see if saying 'boo' to a polar bear will stress it out... a bit more.
Or getting in a boat which, one presumes, uses some form of internal combustion power ('No dear, you can't put your settee on the funnel as that's where the poisonous gasses belch from when Capt'n Fishstocks yells 'Hypocrisy Ho!'). They have gathered that kayaks don't work too well, especially when trying to make a point.
But I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor as I watch my BBC Breakfast News about a couple who used their Tesco ClubCard Miles to buy Business Class flights.
Hey, whatever keeps the ratings up in Sevenoaks, I guess.
However, what got me, immediately, (and, to be fair a few readers, who whose comments were jokily referred to mid-way) was that what made this advertisement for the 'buy more stuff' scheme by a major private retailer a 'good thing' to share was, apparently, the fact that the couple accrued these points by collecting recycling waste.
Now, I really endorse the notion of reward-based eco-schemes (so long as they make sense.. and work) as opposed to the usual fine or hairshirt stuff, but for the love of Gaia could they not have found someone... anyone... who did not negate the whole effect, and hence point in such a crass manner?
Apparently it was offset. Now, I am no expert, but I am pretty sure the carbon gain of recycling some plastic bottles for 12 weeks is probably going to struggle to cope with what pops out the exhaust of a 747.
I wonder if it was the same one that ferried the bouffant and crew to New York for a quick slot on how the news in America is made. Don't they have guys over there to do that?
And now, as I type, It seems that shrimps in some bay up North are vanishing on account of... the salt water being diluted by all the rain.
There was a time when I would have swallowed that hook, line and mayonnaise, but now, without a serious scientist or two elsewhere agreeing, as far as I am concerned this is more likely due to over-fishing due to ever-increasing demands for prawn-cocktails as such the BBC canteen expands with more staff to address the news 'needs' of a growing population.
Times - Honeymoon takes off with recycled Air Miles -
True eco-champions. Where did they honeymoon? Antarctica? Probably not as it's packed with celeb luvvies and media camp followers raising 'awareness'. Besides the 'irony', anyone calculated 60,000 items recycled vs. 2 on Biz Class in Jumbo, Co2-wise? Or doesn't that matter?
BBC - Recycling litter funds honeymoon
ADDENDUM:
Funny who things turn out. I used the above as a mild example of how perceptions matter on a thread about 'International conferences....' (not by me, I might add) which started a long time ago on a, how to say, 'serious' 'list'. Look how it went:
Me:
I have followed the discussions on this thus far with interest.
It is obvious the balance is never going to be easy.
Take today.
A couple is lauded (rightly) in the media for taking advantage of a
pro-active, positive, incentive-driven supermarket scheme (and well
done them) to reduce waste and encourage recycling.
Their reward is 'points', which they choose to redeem for... two
Business Class seats to an exotic location.
Which aspect did my more 'climate optimistic' readers pick up upon?
As the topic did come up, do any experts present have a ballpark of
how 60,000 pieces of mixed recyclate would stack up, carbon-wise,
versus the consequences of their flight?
The issue of offsetting did come up and, though I fear the principle
is more important here, facts on mitigation would still be helpful.
To which I got an 'off list' reply (funny how the list encourages debate) from a person how might actually know:
Gr8 stuff (privately – as i hesitate to make an ‘expert’ pronouncement here!
My guesstimate though – between you and me – is that the 60,000 pieces will be a few 100kg of CO2e
The exotic flight – perhaps as much as 10 tonnes CO2e
So yes – 100 to one against!
To which I replied (off list - I know a lost cause when it presents):
Ta for the guesstimate. Mine was a fair bit higher, but I figured the balance was not that optimal.
I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet on those talking a lot actually doing very little, and racking up a lot of bad enviROI whilst engaging in little more than that which they seek to scold others for doing: earning a living. I don't deny them the opportunity, but do question the multiplicity of standards.
And if those don't play well with my 'hood, then my kids' futures on this planet are not being served well. IMHO:)
I then made a mistake. I added:
At least I didn't get the usual flood of 'How dare you use this list for such things!!!'
Well, yet.
'Yet'... soon came:
All a bit of a no-brainer, I would have though - but obviously not.
Recycling materials is not an excuse for profligate energy use elsewhere. The simple message is that we avoid all energy waste or the game is lost. Flying to exotic locations is, sadly perhaps, a luxury that we can no longer afford. There are a lot of interesting places in Europe, accessible by train at a lower energy cost than a flight to NY and back.
Its not about balance, its about doing things differently. One saving does not justify another case of waste; that's plainly absurd. Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I didn't comment on xx's original email as xx is a colleague and a friend but the plethora of comments deserve a reply. Much of what is achieved at conferences lies in the social interaction that happens between sessions. That's where contacts are made and useful networks established. Video conferencing certainly has a role but it does not replace every aspect of human contact - except amongst the socially challenged. Of course there are unnecessary jollies, conducted every day, but there are also events that require human contact where the nuances of the other delegates can be seen. That is how human communication evolved and it's not going to change any time soon. Events that deal with issues such as climate change, where networks develop that can begin to make more effective change, are sensible uses of travel - and xx did point out that he's not flying. Flying off to exotic locations is, I would have thought, an example of senseless and selfish use of travel.
This is more what I expected.
Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I wonder if he meant mine, ad hominem, or the fact that the BBC shared this story as OK because one offset the other. In which cases maybe the government, its national broadcaster and others who would claim to 'know better' are doing a p*ss poor job, I agree.
And I guess Bali is out in future? Then again, getting UK delegates to the US and vice versa will require a nifty train, too.
However, as these guys want 'my sort' out of the club, it is best not to ask in open forum... er... list.
I do fear I touched a raw nerve.
Plus recalling a few past attempts of mine - to point out that when some folk use 'us' as a separate entity to a 'them', the latter might find themselves less sympathetic to the spirit of 'Don't do as I say...' based solely on a bit of perceived 'green cred' - generating more than a couple of old boys muttering about who should be in the club.
Shame then that they are not open to other views, then. Might explain the results generated at a few conferences (very few; I go on my own dime) I have been at where the public and their daily concerns and perceptions are poorly represented.
Sadly, he was also unable to help with my substantive question either. Funny how one willing and able to do so did... off list.
I now have another acronym: IYANWUYAU 'If you are not with us...'
And sadly, I cam mostly apply it to those who should be courting such as me, not driving us away by being incestuous, arrogant, know-all numpties.
Now I have just about got used to endless celebs and their camp following 'journalistic' mates raising 'awareness' of climate change in their sweetly ironic way by helicoptering up to a snow-covered place at the first crack of a calving glacier or to see if saying 'boo' to a polar bear will stress it out... a bit more.
Or getting in a boat which, one presumes, uses some form of internal combustion power ('No dear, you can't put your settee on the funnel as that's where the poisonous gasses belch from when Capt'n Fishstocks yells 'Hypocrisy Ho!'). They have gathered that kayaks don't work too well, especially when trying to make a point.
But I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor as I watch my BBC Breakfast News about a couple who used their Tesco ClubCard Miles to buy Business Class flights.
Hey, whatever keeps the ratings up in Sevenoaks, I guess.
However, what got me, immediately, (and, to be fair a few readers, who whose comments were jokily referred to mid-way) was that what made this advertisement for the 'buy more stuff' scheme by a major private retailer a 'good thing' to share was, apparently, the fact that the couple accrued these points by collecting recycling waste.
Now, I really endorse the notion of reward-based eco-schemes (so long as they make sense.. and work) as opposed to the usual fine or hairshirt stuff, but for the love of Gaia could they not have found someone... anyone... who did not negate the whole effect, and hence point in such a crass manner?
Apparently it was offset. Now, I am no expert, but I am pretty sure the carbon gain of recycling some plastic bottles for 12 weeks is probably going to struggle to cope with what pops out the exhaust of a 747.
I wonder if it was the same one that ferried the bouffant and crew to New York for a quick slot on how the news in America is made. Don't they have guys over there to do that?
And now, as I type, It seems that shrimps in some bay up North are vanishing on account of... the salt water being diluted by all the rain.
There was a time when I would have swallowed that hook, line and mayonnaise, but now, without a serious scientist or two elsewhere agreeing, as far as I am concerned this is more likely due to over-fishing due to ever-increasing demands for prawn-cocktails as such the BBC canteen expands with more staff to address the news 'needs' of a growing population.
Times - Honeymoon takes off with recycled Air Miles -
True eco-champions. Where did they honeymoon? Antarctica? Probably not as it's packed with celeb luvvies and media camp followers raising 'awareness'. Besides the 'irony', anyone calculated 60,000 items recycled vs. 2 on Biz Class in Jumbo, Co2-wise? Or doesn't that matter?
BBC - Recycling litter funds honeymoon
ADDENDUM:
Funny who things turn out. I used the above as a mild example of how perceptions matter on a thread about 'International conferences....' (not by me, I might add) which started a long time ago on a, how to say, 'serious' 'list'. Look how it went:
Me:
I have followed the discussions on this thus far with interest.
It is obvious the balance is never going to be easy.
Take today.
A couple is lauded (rightly) in the media for taking advantage of a
pro-active, positive, incentive-driven supermarket scheme (and well
done them) to reduce waste and encourage recycling.
Their reward is 'points', which they choose to redeem for... two
Business Class seats to an exotic location.
Which aspect did my more 'climate optimistic' readers pick up upon?
As the topic did come up, do any experts present have a ballpark of
how 60,000 pieces of mixed recyclate would stack up, carbon-wise,
versus the consequences of their flight?
The issue of offsetting did come up and, though I fear the principle
is more important here, facts on mitigation would still be helpful.
To which I got an 'off list' reply (funny how the list encourages debate) from a person how might actually know:
Gr8 stuff (privately – as i hesitate to make an ‘expert’ pronouncement here!
My guesstimate though – between you and me – is that the 60,000 pieces will be a few 100kg of CO2e
The exotic flight – perhaps as much as 10 tonnes CO2e
So yes – 100 to one against!
To which I replied (off list - I know a lost cause when it presents):
Ta for the guesstimate. Mine was a fair bit higher, but I figured the balance was not that optimal.
I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet on those talking a lot actually doing very little, and racking up a lot of bad enviROI whilst engaging in little more than that which they seek to scold others for doing: earning a living. I don't deny them the opportunity, but do question the multiplicity of standards.
And if those don't play well with my 'hood, then my kids' futures on this planet are not being served well. IMHO:)
I then made a mistake. I added:
At least I didn't get the usual flood of 'How dare you use this list for such things!!!'
Well, yet.
'Yet'... soon came:
All a bit of a no-brainer, I would have though - but obviously not.
Recycling materials is not an excuse for profligate energy use elsewhere. The simple message is that we avoid all energy waste or the game is lost. Flying to exotic locations is, sadly perhaps, a luxury that we can no longer afford. There are a lot of interesting places in Europe, accessible by train at a lower energy cost than a flight to NY and back.
Its not about balance, its about doing things differently. One saving does not justify another case of waste; that's plainly absurd. Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I didn't comment on xx's original email as xx is a colleague and a friend but the plethora of comments deserve a reply. Much of what is achieved at conferences lies in the social interaction that happens between sessions. That's where contacts are made and useful networks established. Video conferencing certainly has a role but it does not replace every aspect of human contact - except amongst the socially challenged. Of course there are unnecessary jollies, conducted every day, but there are also events that require human contact where the nuances of the other delegates can be seen. That is how human communication evolved and it's not going to change any time soon. Events that deal with issues such as climate change, where networks develop that can begin to make more effective change, are sensible uses of travel - and xx did point out that he's not flying. Flying off to exotic locations is, I would have thought, an example of senseless and selfish use of travel.
This is more what I expected.
Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I wonder if he meant mine, ad hominem, or the fact that the BBC shared this story as OK because one offset the other. In which cases maybe the government, its national broadcaster and others who would claim to 'know better' are doing a p*ss poor job, I agree.
And I guess Bali is out in future? Then again, getting UK delegates to the US and vice versa will require a nifty train, too.
However, as these guys want 'my sort' out of the club, it is best not to ask in open forum... er... list.
I do fear I touched a raw nerve.
Plus recalling a few past attempts of mine - to point out that when some folk use 'us' as a separate entity to a 'them', the latter might find themselves less sympathetic to the spirit of 'Don't do as I say...' based solely on a bit of perceived 'green cred' - generating more than a couple of old boys muttering about who should be in the club.
Shame then that they are not open to other views, then. Might explain the results generated at a few conferences (very few; I go on my own dime) I have been at where the public and their daily concerns and perceptions are poorly represented.
Sadly, he was also unable to help with my substantive question either. Funny how one willing and able to do so did... off list.
I now have another acronym: IYANWUYAU 'If you are not with us...'
And sadly, I cam mostly apply it to those who should be courting such as me, not driving us away by being incestuous, arrogant, know-all numpties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)