We seem to be in a new era of catching up with the obvious.
EU fisheries paper catches the drift
More and more people chasing fewer and fewer natural resources.
And it's having a deleterious effect.
Whodathunkit?
Must be a lesson there, as we await a green budget that also 'grows' the economy.
Not sure building more houses to accommodate the accelerating population growth, on what's left of the countryside, is quite the best start.
Remind me, does self-interest kick in before or after snagging votes to stay in power?
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
OK, so it's not been a good Tuesday so far...
I need to vent.
Environmental doublespeak
Only double? Then multiply by the number of languages.
But you can bet that one thing that won't be empty is a few coffers.
Think of the jobs! Think of the subsidies! Think of the lobbyist fees! Think of the conferences!
We are in an era when DOING has now been totally overtaken by looking like you are doing or, worse, talking about looking like you are doing. And, worse still, doing the exact reverse of what you tell others to do.
And, sadly, all the money seems to have been directed that way too to keep the circus rolling.
I'd love to know how many are in, and paid to be in productive climate-related industries, and how many and how much is creamed off to the parasites, who seem awfully good at telling folk what to do, but not so great at setting examples.
Until that is resolved, you won't get much public support behind anything, even sensible stuff, but as resolving such an entrenched, complex, corrupt system is nigh on impossible now, I fear this is just one waste that will keep on draining us, and the planet we live on, dry.
FT - Eco-groups fear an opportunity lost - Not just the EU, and not really as some reports would suggest: 'For instance, Barack Obama, the US president, wants $27bn (€21bn, £19bn) to be spent on new roads, which will raise traffic emissions.'
FT - EU split on carbon capture intensifies - Then again...
Environmental doublespeak
Only double? Then multiply by the number of languages.
But you can bet that one thing that won't be empty is a few coffers.
Think of the jobs! Think of the subsidies! Think of the lobbyist fees! Think of the conferences!
We are in an era when DOING has now been totally overtaken by looking like you are doing or, worse, talking about looking like you are doing. And, worse still, doing the exact reverse of what you tell others to do.
And, sadly, all the money seems to have been directed that way too to keep the circus rolling.
I'd love to know how many are in, and paid to be in productive climate-related industries, and how many and how much is creamed off to the parasites, who seem awfully good at telling folk what to do, but not so great at setting examples.
Until that is resolved, you won't get much public support behind anything, even sensible stuff, but as resolving such an entrenched, complex, corrupt system is nigh on impossible now, I fear this is just one waste that will keep on draining us, and the planet we live on, dry.
FT - Eco-groups fear an opportunity lost - Not just the EU, and not really as some reports would suggest: 'For instance, Barack Obama, the US president, wants $27bn (€21bn, £19bn) to be spent on new roads, which will raise traffic emissions.'
FT - EU split on carbon capture intensifies - Then again...
Thursday, October 09, 2008
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?
Friday, September 05, 2008
Whoops, he said. From his cosy study.
UK's top boffin: Renewables targets were 'a mistake'
"I think there was some degree of confusion at the heads of states meeting dealing with this,"
Fortunately, the poor loves 'confused' by such complex issues will not be likely to suffer the consequences as much as those who have paid them all their lives to get to grips with such things.
Along with, apparently, CEOs of vested interest energy supply companies, etc.
As to my dear old Mum, however...
"I think there was some degree of confusion at the heads of states meeting dealing with this,"
Fortunately, the poor loves 'confused' by such complex issues will not be likely to suffer the consequences as much as those who have paid them all their lives to get to grips with such things.
Along with, apparently, CEOs of vested interest energy supply companies, etc.
As to my dear old Mum, however...
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Careful what you campaign for...
How I became an 'enviro-criminal'
First they came for the plastic bags, but I did not give Sir Stuart his 5p...
At least we can count on the Guardian not to leap on any ban-wagons that may lead to more fines and... oh.
Imagine if they decided travel ads were out, and car mags (like AutoTrader).
First they came for the plastic bags, but I did not give Sir Stuart his 5p...
At least we can count on the Guardian not to leap on any ban-wagons that may lead to more fines and... oh.
Imagine if they decided travel ads were out, and car mags (like AutoTrader).
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Taking the strain. Or is the p*ss?
Agendas to set. Boxes to tick. Targets to meet.
Eurocrats demand police protection from real world
Our policymakers in action. Note the comment about it being set up to look green but probably acting in addition and parallel to still doing something that is not.
Eurocrats demand police protection from real world
Our policymakers in action. Note the comment about it being set up to look green but probably acting in addition and parallel to still doing something that is not.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Know your [insert relevant noun here]
Prey? Enemy? Target? In most forms, not my favourite group.
Can the lobbyists be stopped?
And to know 'em, is to, well, know 'em.
Some interesting replies already. Mine:
A register. That'll do it.
Just like not requiring a DoB on a CV will prevent ageism-related employment practices.
Gotta love the notion that if it's on paper it can't be circumvented in a millisecond in other ways.
Guardian - Confusing politics with science - I was looking for a place to stick this. As the word is used, I guess here'll do. As well as noting the public interest possibly not being served by most 'sides' arguing over our futures. At least a few in the thread see that being 'right' doesn't mean diddly if the public doesn't get on board.
Can the lobbyists be stopped?
And to know 'em, is to, well, know 'em.
Some interesting replies already. Mine:
A register. That'll do it.
Just like not requiring a DoB on a CV will prevent ageism-related employment practices.
Gotta love the notion that if it's on paper it can't be circumvented in a millisecond in other ways.
Guardian - Confusing politics with science - I was looking for a place to stick this. As the word is used, I guess here'll do. As well as noting the public interest possibly not being served by most 'sides' arguing over our futures. At least a few in the thread see that being 'right' doesn't mean diddly if the public doesn't get on board.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Common sense?
Or politically correct madness? I'll leave that up to you, the reader, to decide.
This from the Telegraph highlights a study undertaken by a group of scientists on what may happen if the EU follows through with proposals to ban a number of commonly used herbicides, insecticides and fungicides.
I actually worked on a project directly related to biocides and the amount of time and effort taken up in chemical risk and hazard assessment was simply extraordinary. Plus, as far as I was aware, ALL chemicals used in biocides known to pose ANY sort of toxicity threat were withdrawn from use during the 1970's & 1980's.
"A ban on chemical products used to control disease, pests and weeds would create food shortages, lead to soaring prices and increase Britain's dependence on imports."
"The yields of staples foods such wheat, potatoes and green vegetables would all be severely hit if the majority of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, all of which have been certified as safe and which are commonly used by farmers - are banned."
OK, so reducing the number and amount of chemicals used in agriculture does seem, at first glance, to be a pretty sensible idea. But, and this is the big question, at a time when basic food prices are going through the roof, and we probably need to actually increase yields, a blanket ban that might actually reduce crop yields by between 25% to 50% seems to me to be rather questionable.
Having some friends who have just come back from holiday in Spain and who have pointed out that over there, individual bar owners can decide whether their premises are smoking or no smoking, what's the betting that the UK would be yet again the only member of the EU to take any notice of a ban on the use of biocides anyway?
This from the Telegraph highlights a study undertaken by a group of scientists on what may happen if the EU follows through with proposals to ban a number of commonly used herbicides, insecticides and fungicides.
I actually worked on a project directly related to biocides and the amount of time and effort taken up in chemical risk and hazard assessment was simply extraordinary. Plus, as far as I was aware, ALL chemicals used in biocides known to pose ANY sort of toxicity threat were withdrawn from use during the 1970's & 1980's.
"A ban on chemical products used to control disease, pests and weeds would create food shortages, lead to soaring prices and increase Britain's dependence on imports."
"The yields of staples foods such wheat, potatoes and green vegetables would all be severely hit if the majority of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, all of which have been certified as safe and which are commonly used by farmers - are banned."
OK, so reducing the number and amount of chemicals used in agriculture does seem, at first glance, to be a pretty sensible idea. But, and this is the big question, at a time when basic food prices are going through the roof, and we probably need to actually increase yields, a blanket ban that might actually reduce crop yields by between 25% to 50% seems to me to be rather questionable.
Having some friends who have just come back from holiday in Spain and who have pointed out that over there, individual bar owners can decide whether their premises are smoking or no smoking, what's the betting that the UK would be yet again the only member of the EU to take any notice of a ban on the use of biocides anyway?
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Well I never
Meanwhile, where the Daily Mail may have a point: Dimwits: EU's edict to keep car lights on ALL day will cost drivers £160 a year in wasted fuel
My Volvo is ten years old. The headlamps have burned bright since I bought it. Never really thought about it, but enregy has to coem from somewhere.
Now another e-lemma: 'safety' vs. 'eco'. And the dosh, too!
My Volvo is ten years old. The headlamps have burned bright since I bought it. Never really thought about it, but enregy has to coem from somewhere.
Now another e-lemma: 'safety' vs. 'eco'. And the dosh, too!
Monday, February 11, 2008
Bureaucrats - 200. Rainforests - Nil
And my brain into minus figures, if not near meltdown.What I should be doing is getting cracking on filling this lot out. But all I can think of doing is taking a picture and blogging (yes, I need help. In more ways than one).
You are looking of stacks of up to a dozen pages, from A to O, though with a few letters rating subsets from (i) to (iv), so probably around 30 stacks in all.
It all started so well. I stumbled across some nice folk who liked what I was doing and offered to help with the prototypes of the RE:tie for the show next month. So I went up to Brum to see what they could do and explain what was needed; we communed, and lo... it was good.
And it's all ready to kick off. With precisely a month to go. But... just... a bit of paperwork.
I didn't pay much attention as it was just one Excel document, but when it came time to address it (OK, deadline) it just kept on printing... and printing. No first born required, nor pint of blood, but amounts and levels of data required that go back in the past and project into the future that I can barely grasp the relevance of for this task, yet alone imagine how I will aquire... or complete.... ever.
Even the lovely lady who sent it to me was sympathetic, for she is but an intermediary working for the University and hired just to handle their responsibilities with such paperwork, as demanded from 'above' by... now who is that? A blue square with a circle of golden stars at the bottom of each page (only part-funded by, mind. Lord help me if I get another set from another bunch later!). Layer upon layer of 'EU-what!' to 'help' them 'help' me get a prototype ready.
And I must do it as I have no choice now but to. I am committed.
But sadly, I do not seem to have the luxury of a lovely lady hired for the sole purpose of filling such forms out.
Nope, despite writing that, the monkey is still very much resting full square on my shoulders.
And so, with a heavy everything I must now turn to Form A (i).....
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The THREE E's?
I've been banging on about who the economy vs environment debate has been going for a while. Seems it might be that I need to add another 'E': the EU - EU plans to see our economy blown away
Lord alone knows things need doing, but when I read such as this (and tend to agree), I do wonder about what's being done and by whom... for what enviROI:
'The most prominent proposal is that which will require Britain to build up to 20,000 more wind turbines, including the 7,000 offshore giants announced by the Government before Christmas. To build two turbines a day, nearly as high as the Eiffel Tower, is inconceivable. What is also never explained is their astronomic cost.'
Surely it is for such as our politicians the Carbon Trust to weigh such issues for actually value, not just push anything with a whiff of green no matter what? And especially avoid or 'massage' figures to be dutifully trotted out by a mostly compliant media.
This should not be in blogs or tucked away in minor commentary. This should be brought to the fore and debated openly at the highest levels. It's not just dishonest; it's leading our future down a very mire-filled creek, and blowing our paddle-purchasing potential en route.
Lord alone knows things need doing, but when I read such as this (and tend to agree), I do wonder about what's being done and by whom... for what enviROI:
'The most prominent proposal is that which will require Britain to build up to 20,000 more wind turbines, including the 7,000 offshore giants announced by the Government before Christmas. To build two turbines a day, nearly as high as the Eiffel Tower, is inconceivable. What is also never explained is their astronomic cost.'
Surely it is for such as our politicians the Carbon Trust to weigh such issues for actually value, not just push anything with a whiff of green no matter what? And especially avoid or 'massage' figures to be dutifully trotted out by a mostly compliant media.
This should not be in blogs or tucked away in minor commentary. This should be brought to the fore and debated openly at the highest levels. It's not just dishonest; it's leading our future down a very mire-filled creek, and blowing our paddle-purchasing potential en route.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
NEWS/GO3 PR - EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST
Next up we have News from the Green Party, which gets it in the GO3 category, but might need to be viewed in a possibly partisan light.
For now, my edit contents itself with a few highlights of the release as provided. I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas flying about, but certainly do recall cocking an eyebrow at the difference between setting targets and actual doing stuff.
So, remind me... how long ago was Bali?
EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST, WARNS GREEN EURO-MP AS COMMISSION FINALLY PREPARES TO UNVEIL POLICY PACKAGE
Green MEP for the South East, Caroline Lucas, has called on the EU to
strengthen its resolve on climate change today, as the European Commission
prepares to present its long-awaited proposals on climate and energy
legislation.
Commenting on the proposals to be announced tomorrow, Dr Lucas said: “The EU
must ensure that it maintains ambition on its climate targets, so that this
new package – which already falls short of what is needed – does not prove
to be full of empty promises.
“In the proposals on emissions trading, Member States have committed to a
30% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 – the reduction scientists agree is the
minimum necessary – assuming an international agreement is reached. The most
crucial aspect of the Emissions Trading Scheme for meeting the reductions
target is the emissions cap, which must be based on this 30% reduction
target.
“Sadly, the leaked Commission proposals show that the use of CDM/JI and
other external credits will be permitted towards even the 20% unilateral
target. This is in stark contradiction to the Bali decisions where the EU
recognised that keeping climate change to below 2 degrees requires
reductions at the very least in the range of 25-40% for industrialised
countries by 2020. Thus the EC runs thus the risk of rendering the ETS a
toothless instrument.
“At the Bali climate talks, the international community made a commitment to
achieve a comprehensive post-2012 climate agreement by 2009. If such an
agreement is insufficient to prevent unfair environmental dumping to EU
energy-intensive sectors, a climate levy should be introduced with the
revenue invested in a climate adaptation fund - or a requirement to buy EU
emissions allowances corresponding to imports from those sectors (from
countries without reduction commitments for the corresponding sectors)."
Furthermore, Dr Lucas criticised the short-sightedness of Member States on
the fledgling renewables industry and called for stronger legislation which
puts development of renewables at the core of energy policy.
"Member States have been balking at potential renewables targets for some
time now, but expanding renewables is not some punitive means of achieving
climate goals – it is a key means of reducing our dependence on imported
fossil fuels and creating jobs in Europe.
She continued: "Crucially, the target is based on final consumption, so if
you reduce consumption, the target will be easier to meet. Therefore energy
saving and energy efficiency are central to meeting the target."
On the specific EU target for agro-fuels, Dr Lucas concluded:
"The warning signs have been there from the beginning but there is now a
growing consensus among experts, even within the Commission, that agro-fuels
are not a panacea for our climate and energy problems. Worse than that, this
generation of 'biofuels' risks wreaking serious social and environmental
damage without delivering any real emissions reductions.
“The oft-discussed sustainability criteria are very difficult to enforce
and, based on current drafts, would not guarantee any net emissions
reductions in the short-term.
“The exemption from environmental sustainability criteria until 2013 for
biofuels produced by installations that were in operation in January 2008 is
completely unacceptable, as is the proposal that Member States cannot
determine their own broader sustainability criteria. The 10% target for
biofuels (by 2020) is already an anachronism. Member States must scrap it,
and replace their current biofuels policy with a more sustainable
alternative."
For now, my edit contents itself with a few highlights of the release as provided. I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas flying about, but certainly do recall cocking an eyebrow at the difference between setting targets and actual doing stuff.
So, remind me... how long ago was Bali?
EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST, WARNS GREEN EURO-MP AS COMMISSION FINALLY PREPARES TO UNVEIL POLICY PACKAGE
Green MEP for the South East, Caroline Lucas, has called on the EU to
strengthen its resolve on climate change today, as the European Commission
prepares to present its long-awaited proposals on climate and energy
legislation.
Commenting on the proposals to be announced tomorrow, Dr Lucas said: “The EU
must ensure that it maintains ambition on its climate targets, so that this
new package – which already falls short of what is needed – does not prove
to be full of empty promises.
“In the proposals on emissions trading, Member States have committed to a
30% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 – the reduction scientists agree is the
minimum necessary – assuming an international agreement is reached. The most
crucial aspect of the Emissions Trading Scheme for meeting the reductions
target is the emissions cap, which must be based on this 30% reduction
target.
“Sadly, the leaked Commission proposals show that the use of CDM/JI and
other external credits will be permitted towards even the 20% unilateral
target. This is in stark contradiction to the Bali decisions where the EU
recognised that keeping climate change to below 2 degrees requires
reductions at the very least in the range of 25-40% for industrialised
countries by 2020. Thus the EC runs thus the risk of rendering the ETS a
toothless instrument.
“At the Bali climate talks, the international community made a commitment to
achieve a comprehensive post-2012 climate agreement by 2009. If such an
agreement is insufficient to prevent unfair environmental dumping to EU
energy-intensive sectors, a climate levy should be introduced with the
revenue invested in a climate adaptation fund - or a requirement to buy EU
emissions allowances corresponding to imports from those sectors (from
countries without reduction commitments for the corresponding sectors)."
Furthermore, Dr Lucas criticised the short-sightedness of Member States on
the fledgling renewables industry and called for stronger legislation which
puts development of renewables at the core of energy policy.
"Member States have been balking at potential renewables targets for some
time now, but expanding renewables is not some punitive means of achieving
climate goals – it is a key means of reducing our dependence on imported
fossil fuels and creating jobs in Europe.
She continued: "Crucially, the target is based on final consumption, so if
you reduce consumption, the target will be easier to meet. Therefore energy
saving and energy efficiency are central to meeting the target."
On the specific EU target for agro-fuels, Dr Lucas concluded:
"The warning signs have been there from the beginning but there is now a
growing consensus among experts, even within the Commission, that agro-fuels
are not a panacea for our climate and energy problems. Worse than that, this
generation of 'biofuels' risks wreaking serious social and environmental
damage without delivering any real emissions reductions.
“The oft-discussed sustainability criteria are very difficult to enforce
and, based on current drafts, would not guarantee any net emissions
reductions in the short-term.
“The exemption from environmental sustainability criteria until 2013 for
biofuels produced by installations that were in operation in January 2008 is
completely unacceptable, as is the proposal that Member States cannot
determine their own broader sustainability criteria. The 10% target for
biofuels (by 2020) is already an anachronism. Member States must scrap it,
and replace their current biofuels policy with a more sustainable
alternative."
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Dividing Fools
Now it has been established that everything dark (as in side) green is the fault of the US, I'll be keen to see how things closer to home now get laid elsewhere: Europe divided over targets for cutting car CO2 emissions
I do of course note my favourite word in there: targets.
In the morasses (is that the plural?)that were/are Kyoto and/or Bali, I was starting to sense that aspects of the US environmental position (as distinct from their economic one, which is a very different kettle of tariffs. Though even here it seemed 'optimistic' to expect a dominant economy to hobble itself in comparison to not only business competitors, but military ones as well. You can't build tanks on the cheap unless you are cranking up a weekly coal-fired power station and steel mill) were worth pondering.
For instance, I would have loved more in-depth and agenda-free analysis of their claims that in real terms they had actually achieved cuts whilst the EU had trumpeted setting a bunch of targets that they then had promptly failed to meet (see above, and the UK's awesome record to date).
I know which I prefer on my enviROi basis.
ADDENDUM- The Curse of the Common Moniker
Wading through this I was a bit surprised to see a quote attributed to me that I had not written in yesterday's HYS. Only it wasn't me. Just another with my name. Thank heavens that, in amongst a ton of off-topic, personal-flaming that now scars such forums, this guy was relatively rational. Though what he wrote was not what I did.
Letters - I include this merely because it does offer and interesting spread of views. One that I did appreciate was the point that to make their point on emissions of carbon the Indy chose an image of cooling towers, which only release steam. Which is, of course, a green house 'gas', though one would have preferred them to have made the distinction.
I do of course note my favourite word in there: targets.
In the morasses (is that the plural?)that were/are Kyoto and/or Bali, I was starting to sense that aspects of the US environmental position (as distinct from their economic one, which is a very different kettle of tariffs. Though even here it seemed 'optimistic' to expect a dominant economy to hobble itself in comparison to not only business competitors, but military ones as well. You can't build tanks on the cheap unless you are cranking up a weekly coal-fired power station and steel mill) were worth pondering.
For instance, I would have loved more in-depth and agenda-free analysis of their claims that in real terms they had actually achieved cuts whilst the EU had trumpeted setting a bunch of targets that they then had promptly failed to meet (see above, and the UK's awesome record to date).
I know which I prefer on my enviROi basis.
ADDENDUM- The Curse of the Common Moniker
Wading through this I was a bit surprised to see a quote attributed to me that I had not written in yesterday's HYS. Only it wasn't me. Just another with my name. Thank heavens that, in amongst a ton of off-topic, personal-flaming that now scars such forums, this guy was relatively rational. Though what he wrote was not what I did.
Letters - I include this merely because it does offer and interesting spread of views. One that I did appreciate was the point that to make their point on emissions of carbon the Indy chose an image of cooling towers, which only release steam. Which is, of course, a green house 'gas', though one would have preferred them to have made the distinction.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
One rule for us, another for big business and pols
If you, like I, thought that it was the major European motor manufacturers who had done all the lobbying with the EU about relaxing the proposed limitations on CO2 emissions for new vehicles, then think again.
According to today's Times, our own transport secretary has also been part of the lobbying exercise and is suggesting that the EU relaxes it's "target of 120g/km by 2012, which would require immediate action by the car industry to reduce engine size and the weight of vehicles" and replaces it with a new longer term target of 100g/km by between 2020 & 2025.
In my entire life, if I've been set a target, I've regarded it as a rule to be followed and I have always striven to meet it; but it seems if you are big business or a pol then that same rule doesn't apply.
Just what use are targets if they are continually to be ignored, slipped or amended?
According to today's Times, our own transport secretary has also been part of the lobbying exercise and is suggesting that the EU relaxes it's "target of 120g/km by 2012, which would require immediate action by the car industry to reduce engine size and the weight of vehicles" and replaces it with a new longer term target of 100g/km by between 2020 & 2025.
In my entire life, if I've been set a target, I've regarded it as a rule to be followed and I have always striven to meet it; but it seems if you are big business or a pol then that same rule doesn't apply.
Just what use are targets if they are continually to be ignored, slipped or amended?
Friday, October 19, 2007
Auto industry will get its way
Who said that the European automobile industry has no political clout anymore? This, from Reuters, suggests that at next weeks EU debate, the industry will be given an additional three years to meet the intended targets on CO2 emissions of 125 grams per kilometer, now extended to 2015.
What are targets for if not to be slipped a little?
What are targets for if not to be slipped a little?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Coming clean on going green?
Well, it would seem that our esteemed government has once again shot itself through both bollo ..... errrm, feet. This from The Guardian highlights a leaked internal briefing memo in which they admit that the UK has absolutely no chance of meeting it's 'renewables' targets.
Uncle Tony signed up to the EU target of 20% of energy from 'renewables' by 2020 under a blaze of publicity and a great deal of self congratulatory crowing. Now it appears that we will be lucky to even meet 5% by 2020!
"It said that Britain had achieved 'little so far' on wind, solar or hydroelectric sources of power, and even getting to 9% from the current level of 2% would be 'challenging'. On current policies, renewables would only account for 5% of Britain's overall energy mix by 2020."
And worse, the re-badged DTI (have this lot never read Gaius Petronius?) advised "lobbying EU member states to agree that the target could be interpreted more flexibly by including investment in solar farms in north Africa, or by counting nuclear energy as 'renewable'."
And there's a section in the briefing memo that "asks ministers to examine 'what options there are for statistical interpretations of the target that would make it easier to achieve'."
Good lord! That's an instruction to feel free to make up numbers and tell lies any time you need to!
In summary, it looks now as if the target was an unachievable sham, and while the publicity made our ex-leader look good at the time, the real truth is that our current leadership team are simply looking for ways to prevaricate their way out of the mess by dissembling, skull-duggery, statistical manipulation and even downright cheating.
It's all too reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned - perhaps they could have entitled the piece - 'Coming clean on going Brown'? And of course no-one will get sacked, side-lined, punished or admonished at all, whilst still maintaining their gold plated pensions and salaries; it will all be smoothed over with more bull.
Arse covering, spin and blame deflection seem to be the only things our wonderful government are any good at all, under whatever leader!
The EC might be showing its teeth, but our lot appear to be simply passing lies through theirs!
___________________
More on this story from View London.
"Officials at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform would not comment on the document". Well, there's a surprise!
Ooooh look! We now have an official response from the PMS. See Downing Street Says.
Hmmm, they argued their way out of that one well didn't they?
___________________
Addendum:
Today's Guardian (14/8) has another interesting article from George Monbiot, who can always be relied upon to stir up the angst and ire of the masses. He points out, quite correctly, that back in March this year he questioned the government's 20% target. To be fair to Monbiot, he hardly crows about this at all (just an in passing 'lying bastards'), as the main thrust of his piece is the apparent contradiction that the media portrays whereby an editorial on one page exhorts us to become greener, whilst advertising alongside is for 4x4's and exotic travel holidays. Definitely well worth a read.
Addendum 2:
Well, it seems that the EC is still confident that the UK will meet its 20% emissions reduction target. See this from the International Local Government Association.
Given the chicanery and statistical manipulation that is going on I rather feel that that confidence is spectacularly misplaced!
Uncle Tony signed up to the EU target of 20% of energy from 'renewables' by 2020 under a blaze of publicity and a great deal of self congratulatory crowing. Now it appears that we will be lucky to even meet 5% by 2020!
"It said that Britain had achieved 'little so far' on wind, solar or hydroelectric sources of power, and even getting to 9% from the current level of 2% would be 'challenging'. On current policies, renewables would only account for 5% of Britain's overall energy mix by 2020."
And worse, the re-badged DTI (have this lot never read Gaius Petronius?) advised "lobbying EU member states to agree that the target could be interpreted more flexibly by including investment in solar farms in north Africa, or by counting nuclear energy as 'renewable'."
And there's a section in the briefing memo that "asks ministers to examine 'what options there are for statistical interpretations of the target that would make it easier to achieve'."
Good lord! That's an instruction to feel free to make up numbers and tell lies any time you need to!
In summary, it looks now as if the target was an unachievable sham, and while the publicity made our ex-leader look good at the time, the real truth is that our current leadership team are simply looking for ways to prevaricate their way out of the mess by dissembling, skull-duggery, statistical manipulation and even downright cheating.
It's all too reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned - perhaps they could have entitled the piece - 'Coming clean on going Brown'? And of course no-one will get sacked, side-lined, punished or admonished at all, whilst still maintaining their gold plated pensions and salaries; it will all be smoothed over with more bull.
Arse covering, spin and blame deflection seem to be the only things our wonderful government are any good at all, under whatever leader!
The EC might be showing its teeth, but our lot appear to be simply passing lies through theirs!
___________________
More on this story from View London.
"Officials at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform would not comment on the document". Well, there's a surprise!
Ooooh look! We now have an official response from the PMS. See Downing Street Says.
Hmmm, they argued their way out of that one well didn't they?
___________________
Addendum:
Today's Guardian (14/8) has another interesting article from George Monbiot, who can always be relied upon to stir up the angst and ire of the masses. He points out, quite correctly, that back in March this year he questioned the government's 20% target. To be fair to Monbiot, he hardly crows about this at all (just an in passing 'lying bastards'), as the main thrust of his piece is the apparent contradiction that the media portrays whereby an editorial on one page exhorts us to become greener, whilst advertising alongside is for 4x4's and exotic travel holidays. Definitely well worth a read.
Addendum 2:
Well, it seems that the EC is still confident that the UK will meet its 20% emissions reduction target. See this from the International Local Government Association.
Given the chicanery and statistical manipulation that is going on I rather feel that that confidence is spectacularly misplaced!
Monday, July 16, 2007
Smile, you can afford more stuff
Somewhere in my drafts archive is a piece I am writing about human behaviour and motivations. I can't seem to find it to finish it, but as I just came across this wanted to share as it was a telling complement: BBC - Emissions don't make Europe happy
I have a saying: 'Happiness is solar powered'. It really only was meant for my reaction to a sunny day, but maybe it can resonate further, but hopefully won't get hijacked for any undeserving low-enviROI initiatives.
I have a saying: 'Happiness is solar powered'. It really only was meant for my reaction to a sunny day, but maybe it can resonate further, but hopefully won't get hijacked for any undeserving low-enviROI initiatives.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Nelson Touch..
..a patch from a more jaundiced eye?
Brit's Eye View: U.K. climate politics heating up
It is worth remembering that, like many cultures, there are always a few alternative ways something can get taken, depending on the point you are looking from.
In the UK, it often seems there is what happens in the corridors of power and the surrounding London C-zone (in London the C is for congestion charge, but some may say it could also stand for ‘centric’, the way the city’s young, non-parent, tube, bus and flat-road blessed cyclopaths seem to view things) that takes in the media and urban luvvies.... and the rest of the country.
For sure, the environment is BIG. Certainly in government - we just had another budget where they stuck it to those 4x4s again, which will really make a difference to those in the City earning a bazzillion trading carbon credits when it comes to the annual upgrade to a wind-powered Cayenne, but may make it a bit harder in countryside where folk are still running 30 year old Land Rovers. Remind me again, how much of a car’s carbon is in manufacture?
Glad the EU is agreeing to stuff anyway. Well, the leaders are not agreeing to very much they are asking the rest of us to do, if Mr. Baroso's defence of his Touareg is anything to go by. And our dear leader, and equally dear leader of HM’s Opposition seem to have a small problem with the whole not flying thing if it applies to making THEIR lives nicer, easier and/or more profitable. Like the rest of us were doing it, especially on business, because we just love sucking up the bird flu from row 22.
And as to targets, we have enough for even an NRA Glee Club to go ape over. Hitting them... not so good. But we got ‘em. Squillions! And even more folk to assess, measure, interpret, committee, file, report, fine, explain, excuse, fly to Bali to discuss and all round not do very much but add to the demands on the public purse to keep a load of folk in green-gold until Armageddon.
Now I don’t want to get into a ‘Big Oil denier/Eco-Nazi who said what and is funded by whom’ quote-fest, but I would like to know who the ‘most commentators’ were who welcomed this package. ‘Cos I don’t recall it being quite as all round rosy and unequivocal as that. At least outside the C-zone, and even a few media guys from within that seemed a little less than impressed with how recognition of a need ever seems to turn into effective action.
Yes, stuff needs doing. And to ensure it gets done right, what it is needs to be agreed. Sadly, and it pains me to say this, this does necessitate some KPIs, but here is where think-tanks, government, eco-activists, business, the media, the public and real life may start to diverge.
Me, I just want what’s best for my kids and their kids, so all I really care about is the enviROI, the return that the planet gets on any efforts made to reduce man’s impact upon it (if indeed there is any, or whether it is necessary or not to mitigate a possible natural influence... or not). Been there. Got the blog-flames and a nifty hemp T-shirt that says “Make sure your footprint isn’t a CarbCon one’.
Chancellor Gordon Brown, who MAY be Prime Minister from June unless I have missed something, does have a fondness for decrees. Not so popular with the British public though, such things. And as pointed out, there is theory and there is practice, and who is in office and who is not. Plus who has retired with a nice index-linked, gold-plated pension, and who is mopping up afterwards.
Unless I was only reading subversive underground literature, Enviro Minister David Miliband’s floated ideas on personal carbon allowances were more of the lead balloon variety, being meant for no more than a toe dip and not exactly floated very high at all. And the guns seemed pretty well out for it even with the wee outing it did have.
A bit like those punted by David Cameron, the Conservative leader and, possibly, next leader of the land if the current polls are anything to go by. Both see carbon allowances and trading as a wheeze, and it is easy to see how they would appeal to those with mates in London, and being immune from the consequences of their actions ’because they are busy and important’. Just ask how the old road pricing went down. No problem in London. Not so great where folk have 50 mile round trips daily in the provinces.
I am also unclear as to how the science is getting... any clearer. The IPCC report rated two days in the broadsheets and barely got a mention in the tabloids. A few niche TV media had a stab. Then along came the Channel 4 documentary (mentioned in these pages), and fewer people think climate is an issue than did before. And that wasn’t many. Most think it’s a big con to squeeze taxes in the name of green to prop up runaway public spending and ministerial pensions and pointless campaigns from overfunded comms budgets.
If big companies are getting serious, it’s only because they don’t like the look of the fines coming, or see money in the marketing. Major retailers like Tescos are struggling to explain how a wind-turbine on a trial store’s roof makes up for concreting over most of the country with car parks to sell Spanish strawberries in foam packs. Especially as the former will boost profits anyway. Meanwhile Richard Branson is still spinning how sending billionaires up on a column of greenhouse gasses for their own inter-stellar Kodak moment is offset by his air fleet not yet being on biodiesel. And Stuart Rose of M&S has ordered a hydrogen-powered Beemer which will need a truck to follow it with refills. Bless.
Speaking of which, and competition between political parties, it was Mr. Cameron who rather famously cycled to work with his lunchbox following behind in a hybrid Lexus. But at least his wind turbine went up today. I have posed a question online as to its actual enviROI during its lifespan. While I see no problem with forking out extra cash to save the planet, I do have one with churning out superficial guff that will do no such thing. And the spin vs. action surrounding that inner-city propeller blade makes for a worthy metaphor on what we are facing.
I have long been in favour of allowances, but simply can’t see how they are to be managed. Who gets one tax–free flight? Me? Madonna and Guy? What about every Kalahari bushman and Mekong Delta boat lady who didn’t even know they were part of the global reckoning. Or... aren’t they? Is it just for rich folk to trade with each other? Because if 6 billion get one free flight I’d say Ryan Air shares will go ballistic. And the planet will fry in a fortnight.
There’s debate all right. Maybe it’s me, but from deniers and e-fascists on climate change, to politicians trying to score cheap, non-binding e-points, it all seems pretty ineffective stuff. And if it’s passing me by when I care as much as I do, I think it all needs to get a bit more relevant to the rest of the UK population sooner rather than later.
And on the day we see a bunch more taxes go up in the budget, with little to show for it than more beancounters with clipboards, those who are in power, and those in un-elected Quangos doing very nicely from their profligate, unaccountable spending, would do well to remember the people still have a vote.
At least for now.
Nope, still can't see any ships on the horizon quite yet.
ADDENDUM:
Phew. And I thought no one read... or cared... about Little Britain (now a Virgin Atlantic campaign being run in New York under the guise of 'a local initiative'. Go get 'em, Ricardo!).
Heathrow scramble starts as EU agrees historic 'open skies' deal - http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2383920.ece
'European transport ministers took the historic step of approving an open skies pact to liberalise the transatlantic airline market yesterday, triggering a scramble to launch new services from Heathrow to major US cities' - weeeee, more planes! That will help.
Budget 07: mean not green - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_sauven/2007/03/budget_07_mean_not_green_.html - 'The reintroduction of the fuel escalator was the chancellor's only real concession to the environment lobby.' - so, not so green from HMG's next PM then.
Green groups warn of backlash against Budget - http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2377703.ece - kind of does what it says on the tin
'You can't change world by wearing sandals' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/17/noleary17.xml - Luckily, the heads of EU government feel his pain
I'd go on, but then Mr. cc would mock me for my awesome length, and I am feeling Friday fragile.
It would still be nice to get an answer to my question, though:)
I'd like to understand how this CarbCon trading thing works.
No, really.
Brit's Eye View: U.K. climate politics heating up
It is worth remembering that, like many cultures, there are always a few alternative ways something can get taken, depending on the point you are looking from.
In the UK, it often seems there is what happens in the corridors of power and the surrounding London C-zone (in London the C is for congestion charge, but some may say it could also stand for ‘centric’, the way the city’s young, non-parent, tube, bus and flat-road blessed cyclopaths seem to view things) that takes in the media and urban luvvies.... and the rest of the country.
For sure, the environment is BIG. Certainly in government - we just had another budget where they stuck it to those 4x4s again, which will really make a difference to those in the City earning a bazzillion trading carbon credits when it comes to the annual upgrade to a wind-powered Cayenne, but may make it a bit harder in countryside where folk are still running 30 year old Land Rovers. Remind me again, how much of a car’s carbon is in manufacture?
Glad the EU is agreeing to stuff anyway. Well, the leaders are not agreeing to very much they are asking the rest of us to do, if Mr. Baroso's defence of his Touareg is anything to go by. And our dear leader, and equally dear leader of HM’s Opposition seem to have a small problem with the whole not flying thing if it applies to making THEIR lives nicer, easier and/or more profitable. Like the rest of us were doing it, especially on business, because we just love sucking up the bird flu from row 22.
And as to targets, we have enough for even an NRA Glee Club to go ape over. Hitting them... not so good. But we got ‘em. Squillions! And even more folk to assess, measure, interpret, committee, file, report, fine, explain, excuse, fly to Bali to discuss and all round not do very much but add to the demands on the public purse to keep a load of folk in green-gold until Armageddon.
Now I don’t want to get into a ‘Big Oil denier/Eco-Nazi who said what and is funded by whom’ quote-fest, but I would like to know who the ‘most commentators’ were who welcomed this package. ‘Cos I don’t recall it being quite as all round rosy and unequivocal as that. At least outside the C-zone, and even a few media guys from within that seemed a little less than impressed with how recognition of a need ever seems to turn into effective action.
Yes, stuff needs doing. And to ensure it gets done right, what it is needs to be agreed. Sadly, and it pains me to say this, this does necessitate some KPIs, but here is where think-tanks, government, eco-activists, business, the media, the public and real life may start to diverge.
Me, I just want what’s best for my kids and their kids, so all I really care about is the enviROI, the return that the planet gets on any efforts made to reduce man’s impact upon it (if indeed there is any, or whether it is necessary or not to mitigate a possible natural influence... or not). Been there. Got the blog-flames and a nifty hemp T-shirt that says “Make sure your footprint isn’t a CarbCon one’.
Chancellor Gordon Brown, who MAY be Prime Minister from June unless I have missed something, does have a fondness for decrees. Not so popular with the British public though, such things. And as pointed out, there is theory and there is practice, and who is in office and who is not. Plus who has retired with a nice index-linked, gold-plated pension, and who is mopping up afterwards.
Unless I was only reading subversive underground literature, Enviro Minister David Miliband’s floated ideas on personal carbon allowances were more of the lead balloon variety, being meant for no more than a toe dip and not exactly floated very high at all. And the guns seemed pretty well out for it even with the wee outing it did have.
A bit like those punted by David Cameron, the Conservative leader and, possibly, next leader of the land if the current polls are anything to go by. Both see carbon allowances and trading as a wheeze, and it is easy to see how they would appeal to those with mates in London, and being immune from the consequences of their actions ’because they are busy and important’. Just ask how the old road pricing went down. No problem in London. Not so great where folk have 50 mile round trips daily in the provinces.
I am also unclear as to how the science is getting... any clearer. The IPCC report rated two days in the broadsheets and barely got a mention in the tabloids. A few niche TV media had a stab. Then along came the Channel 4 documentary (mentioned in these pages), and fewer people think climate is an issue than did before. And that wasn’t many. Most think it’s a big con to squeeze taxes in the name of green to prop up runaway public spending and ministerial pensions and pointless campaigns from overfunded comms budgets.
If big companies are getting serious, it’s only because they don’t like the look of the fines coming, or see money in the marketing. Major retailers like Tescos are struggling to explain how a wind-turbine on a trial store’s roof makes up for concreting over most of the country with car parks to sell Spanish strawberries in foam packs. Especially as the former will boost profits anyway. Meanwhile Richard Branson is still spinning how sending billionaires up on a column of greenhouse gasses for their own inter-stellar Kodak moment is offset by his air fleet not yet being on biodiesel. And Stuart Rose of M&S has ordered a hydrogen-powered Beemer which will need a truck to follow it with refills. Bless.
Speaking of which, and competition between political parties, it was Mr. Cameron who rather famously cycled to work with his lunchbox following behind in a hybrid Lexus. But at least his wind turbine went up today. I have posed a question online as to its actual enviROI during its lifespan. While I see no problem with forking out extra cash to save the planet, I do have one with churning out superficial guff that will do no such thing. And the spin vs. action surrounding that inner-city propeller blade makes for a worthy metaphor on what we are facing.
I have long been in favour of allowances, but simply can’t see how they are to be managed. Who gets one tax–free flight? Me? Madonna and Guy? What about every Kalahari bushman and Mekong Delta boat lady who didn’t even know they were part of the global reckoning. Or... aren’t they? Is it just for rich folk to trade with each other? Because if 6 billion get one free flight I’d say Ryan Air shares will go ballistic. And the planet will fry in a fortnight.
There’s debate all right. Maybe it’s me, but from deniers and e-fascists on climate change, to politicians trying to score cheap, non-binding e-points, it all seems pretty ineffective stuff. And if it’s passing me by when I care as much as I do, I think it all needs to get a bit more relevant to the rest of the UK population sooner rather than later.
And on the day we see a bunch more taxes go up in the budget, with little to show for it than more beancounters with clipboards, those who are in power, and those in un-elected Quangos doing very nicely from their profligate, unaccountable spending, would do well to remember the people still have a vote.
At least for now.
Nope, still can't see any ships on the horizon quite yet.
ADDENDUM:
Phew. And I thought no one read... or cared... about Little Britain (now a Virgin Atlantic campaign being run in New York under the guise of 'a local initiative'. Go get 'em, Ricardo!).
Heathrow scramble starts as EU agrees historic 'open skies' deal - http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2383920.ece
'European transport ministers took the historic step of approving an open skies pact to liberalise the transatlantic airline market yesterday, triggering a scramble to launch new services from Heathrow to major US cities' - weeeee, more planes! That will help.
Budget 07: mean not green - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_sauven/2007/03/budget_07_mean_not_green_.html - 'The reintroduction of the fuel escalator was the chancellor's only real concession to the environment lobby.' - so, not so green from HMG's next PM then.
Green groups warn of backlash against Budget - http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2377703.ece - kind of does what it says on the tin
'You can't change world by wearing sandals' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/17/noleary17.xml - Luckily, the heads of EU government feel his pain
I'd go on, but then Mr. cc would mock me for my awesome length, and I am feeling Friday fragile.
It would still be nice to get an answer to my question, though:)
I'd like to understand how this CarbCon trading thing works.
No, really.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Just made for a Pol's Porkie!
‘Do as I say, not as I do’ is Barroso’s green message
Thing is, if you stick yourself on the pedestal of telling folk what to
do, you really need to figure that a) it's not such a bad idea to do it
yourself, and b) try to have been doing it at least a while or c) at
least before so telling, and d)really don't go to near anything that
might smack of 'imposing'.
Failure to do one or indeed all lends you to being labelled
a) hypocrite ( “This is an opportunity for European leaders to match
intentions with deeds, to turn words into actions.”... Bless), b) a total
plonker and c) totally undeserving of your authority, salary and
pension by , well everyone, really.
Including any colleagues whose last vestiges of credibility
and authority you have just evaporated in the eyes of a cynical
world media and utterly frustrated voting, cash-cow-no-longer,
public.
And frankly, whacking a fir in the firmament is not much better if we
are trying to offset the problem within the 10 year window indicated
by the IPCC. While it looks good to ones mates in the City, the things
don't grow that fast and not all schemes even work on a viable
EnviROI basis anyway.
Meanwhile, those figures are interesting. May I ask if they are for
urban use (as favoured by those in power who don't get out much),
an average cycle or for country/motorway travel?
I just ask because from my country home to anywhere with 2 hrs by
Fiat Panda seemed to me a better bet than Prius. It's hard to see how
a higher capacity petrol engine in the latter, lugging a big, unused
battery, would deliver better emissions performance.
And if so, may I presume this is just the first in further attempts to get
all of 'us' to conform to an ideal that works in the corridors of
'power', and really has little to making the world better for our kids.
ps: while toe-rag is not a bad moniker for the beast (I believe used,
with some irony in smoke-black form by a 'Have you cut your 20%?'
TV commercial not so long ago, I do concern myself that the noble
tribespersons may not fancy the spelling used here.
Thing is, if you stick yourself on the pedestal of telling folk what to
do, you really need to figure that a) it's not such a bad idea to do it
yourself, and b) try to have been doing it at least a while or c) at
least before so telling, and d)really don't go to near anything that
might smack of 'imposing'.
Failure to do one or indeed all lends you to being labelled
a) hypocrite ( “This is an opportunity for European leaders to match
intentions with deeds, to turn words into actions.”... Bless), b) a total
plonker and c) totally undeserving of your authority, salary and
pension by , well everyone, really.
Including any colleagues whose last vestiges of credibility
and authority you have just evaporated in the eyes of a cynical
world media and utterly frustrated voting, cash-cow-no-longer,
public.
And frankly, whacking a fir in the firmament is not much better if we
are trying to offset the problem within the 10 year window indicated
by the IPCC. While it looks good to ones mates in the City, the things
don't grow that fast and not all schemes even work on a viable
EnviROI basis anyway.
Meanwhile, those figures are interesting. May I ask if they are for
urban use (as favoured by those in power who don't get out much),
an average cycle or for country/motorway travel?
I just ask because from my country home to anywhere with 2 hrs by
Fiat Panda seemed to me a better bet than Prius. It's hard to see how
a higher capacity petrol engine in the latter, lugging a big, unused
battery, would deliver better emissions performance.
And if so, may I presume this is just the first in further attempts to get
all of 'us' to conform to an ideal that works in the corridors of
'power', and really has little to making the world better for our kids.
ps: while toe-rag is not a bad moniker for the beast (I believe used,
with some irony in smoke-black form by a 'Have you cut your 20%?'
TV commercial not so long ago, I do concern myself that the noble
tribespersons may not fancy the spelling used here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)