Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Whoopee, We're All Gonna Die

Just in case you didn't read the news today (maybe you were watching Michael McIntyre's latest DVD, or singing along to Jedward...) - just to let you know: Remember back in 2007 when the IPCC said that the planet was headed towards catastrophic climate change? They highlighted a range of possible outcomes depending on at-the-time untested variables projecting the impact on the planet of continues CO2 emissions.

Well following some more research (i.e. having tested those variables) it turns out that of the possible scenarios the one we're actually heading for is the worst case scenario - 6C of global temperature rise, large parts of the earth becoming uninhabitable, massive waves of migration towards dwindling resources leading to wars and genocides and ultimately potentially the end of the human race forever.

I think - if we survive - one day our grandchildren will look back on those of us who didn't campaign to stop climate change the way we look back now on ancestors who supported slavery. The future equivalent of shows like Who Do You Think You Are? will see our descendants digging through records deserately hoping to turn up an eco-warrior and quick to stop the cameras rolling if the National Facebook Profile Archive lists your favourite TV shows as Top Gear.

Ultimately though the government needs to take action. And I don't mean by putting out adverts with images of dolphins on and softly worded guilt-trips about recycling. If only those who choose to reduce their footprint then those who don't are placed at an economic advantage, incentivising others to do the same. Nor do I mean by fining people who put two pieces of garden waste into the blue box. I mean by actively funding research - here and overseas - into alternative energy sources, by actually paying for people to have their homes insulted and double-glazed, by removing tax breaks on airline fuel, subsidising public transport, cutting the number of flights that can be made, cracking down on emissions from factories and power plants and making sure that developing countries have the support they need to do the same without compromising progress.

If you didn't already - sign up to Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Plane Stupid and/or some of the other amazing environmental organisations out there today.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Please Make It Stop!

OK I love wildlife documentaries - I like watching the scenery and the amazing animals and learning more about the world. So when I saw a new one on BBC One I thought brilliant and couldn't wait to put it on. But "Wildest Dreams" isn't really a wildlife documentary. It's a reality show in which budding wildlife documentary makers are pitted against each other in a pathetic attempt to create drama and tension and win a job making wildlife documentaries at the BBC.
Seriously I've had it on for ages and I've seen about 2 minutes of footage of wildlife and 30 minutes of people sat around a dessert oasis on camping chairs talking.
Worse still it's hosted by Nick Knowles. Why is he doing more and more stuff? He's really irritating - his idea of humour is cheap and uninteresting gags about the cliched "differences" between men versus women. He claims to do charitable work for anti-bullying charities (such as in the inappropriately-posed photo above - seriously, the two young women he is manhandling are in "act against bullying T-shirts) but then he treats the contestants on the show in a really manipulative and patronising manner.
And what exactly does he know about wildlife documentary-making? Why is he the "expert" dishing out the advice? If they had David Attenborough and Saba Douglas-Hamilton I'd at least think the show had some credibility.
This is STUPID. We do not need more reality shows and we do not need any more of that smarmy man. If we are paying a camera crew to go to Africa, they should film the sweeping savannah and the animals and the devastating impact of climate change, not Nick Knowles talking... Hire someone good and go out and make great wildlife films!

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Tesco-Town?

I did a really fun show last night at the Shelford Feast - a fund-raising festival just outside Cambridge. While I was there I noticed posters all over the place saying "Stop Hanley Grange" and I learnt that Hanley Grange was a planned "eco-town". As an environmentally concerned individual my knee-jerk reaction was to assume it was NIMBY*-ist reactionism. But then I got chatting to a local resident who told me the main reason people object to the eco-town is because the main investorr behind it is ... Tesco.
...yes Tesco, one of the least socially responsible companies in the country. A company that spends a fortune every year avoiding paying tax - for schools and hospitals and services which they and their employees use - through dodgy overseas trading. A company that still sells intensively farmed chicken and eggs despite many major retailers switching to free-range on the back of consumer campaigns. A company that is notorious for forcing smaller family-run businesses off the high streets. Surely it's more than a little obvious that Tesco cannot be trusted with this sort of project. When I hear that environmental groups are being given the chance to manage the development of eco-towns I will be right behind the idea, but for now I agree with the people of Shelford!

*Not In My Back Yard

Friday, June 27, 2008

Consumer Products With Padding

Attention food manufacturers and supermarkets. Just so you know - I've noticed when you pad out your products with cheap ingredients. I know when I pick up a carton of pomegranate 100% juice drink and it turns out to be 50% grape juice that I'm being ripped off. I know grape juice is the cheapest juice on the market. If it wasn't why would there be a never-ending run of clearly press release-driven "news" stories about how good for you grape juice is (note however that that's all purple grape juice, while I'm pretty sure the pomegranate juice is cut with white grape juice)?

I know when I look at a supposedly chicken-based soup and it contains more carrots, potatoes, rice, onions and peas than it does chicken that somebody somewhere thinks I'm stupid enough to base my choice of food on the picture on the front of the tin, rather than the information on the back. And even those ingredients are second only to water. What is the point of selling uncondensed soup?

And on that subject there are adverts on TV at the moment for a fabric softener "now condensed". Surely what they mean is "by the way, that stuff we've been selling you for the last 50 years was mostly water!!".

Isn't it time companies realised that we're not fooled by this stuff any more. Isn't it time these guys cut their advertising budgets and instead spent the money on an internal CSR (corporate responsibility) audit to see how they could be better benefiting consumers, the environment, their employees and the communities they operate in. Then when you've started using better ingredients in a better way, send out a press release about that!

Monday, May 26, 2008

I HATE Jeremy Clarkson

There are some things that just need saying. I HATE Jeremy Clarkson. Phew, now I’ve said it. Maybe it seems harsh of me to single him out from a number of car show presenters and general public personalities. I feel he merits it though and I’ll tell you why:

Clarkson is not just a car show presenter, he’s the car show presenter. He defines the genre. For many years he’s been the driving force behind the way the television-shows-about-cars industry works. When he first worked on Top Gear in 1988 it was a show that mostly reviewed different cars and advised would-be buyers on the advantages and disadvantages of different models. When it was re-modelled in 2002 he was the main presenter.

Now even when the show first started it had a mixture of male and female presenters. The new version has always been 100% male - and for that matter 100% white and British. And the standard of the banter went with it. Cars that Clarkson doesn’t like are referred to as “gay” or “girly” - as though those were insults. Women are standardly referred to as “birds”. The focus of the show shifted from reviewing cars to frivolously taking pointless journeys, racing sports cars against military vehicles and aircraft and sometimes even destroying perfectly roadworthy vehicles.

As the environmental movement raised awareness of the impact carbon emissions had on the climate, the show could have incorporated advice on reducing emissions, on lower emission vehicles and emphasised that high-speed low-efficiency sports cars were the sort of things to be driven occasionally as a treat if you enjoyed that sort of thing. But with Clarkson at the helm of course that didn’t happen. We can only imagine that after all those years of being given privileged access to fancy cars and events he was so far in the pockets of the motor lobby that he couldn’t see the wood for the burnt stumps where once there were trees. Instead he started making insulting remarks about environmentalists. He bragged about breaking speed limits and complained at length about fuel and congestion taxation, which aims to cut emissions.

Now that in itself would be enough reason for some people to hate the man. I am not so quick to use such strong terms. I can sympathise that there is a market for that sort of misogynist, homophobic* planet-murdering prattle and someone was always going to step up to the plate.

The trouble is he isn’t just a (or the) car show presenter any more. He’s gone to great lengths to present himself as a spokesman for the white middle-class male adrift in a sea of political correctness. His website (and I know, I know, it’s a joke…) says “Jeremy Clarkson - Clarkson information, books, DVDs, forum, and news from Britains next prime minister?”. And if that’s just a joke, why have nearly 50,000 people have signed an online petition asking for him to become prime minister? He writes newspaper columns - and they appear in the political pages, not the motoring pages. His books include collections of poltical essays. The style may be “fun” and chatty to read but he’s covering topics like Basque separatism and war in Iraq.

The first article on the Top Gear website is clearly a 100% political piece written by him and titled “CLARKSON: Soon the annual tax bill for a commuter will be £10k”

Firstly that is a straightforward lie. Road tax on even the most polluting vehicles is £400 a year. If your commute goes in to central London (and if so why the hell are you driving!) you’ll pay £8 a day congestion charge (5 days a week, 49 weeks a year = £1960) and if your commute is 50 miles each way (then get the train! or at 8 miles per litre, 65p tax per litre, 5 days a week, 49 weeks a year = £1991) then that’s £4351 a year - less than half the number he is suggesting.

Secondly the whole point of increasing tax on higher emissions vehicles on unnecessary routes is to encourage drivers to switch to other means of travel and lower emission cars. He grumbles the cost of a tax disc on a Lamborghini Gallardo could rise to nearly a thousand pounds. But given the car itself costs £133,000, I think owners can afford it. And given it emits at least 325g of CO2 per kilometer (more than twice that of, for example, a Renault Megane or a Vauxhall Astra) my feeling is great, lets put the tax up even higher. No-one needs to drive a car like that.

Thirdly - and for the sake of my mental health I’m trying to limit myself to only looking at one of his horrible articles - the thing is littered with offensive remarks. The first sentence refers to a woman as “some bird”. He refers to a female politician as “some orange-haired old bat”.

Then he gets on with denying climate change. Now of course he never says it’s not happening, because it is. Instead he says certain events may not be a direct result of it. Sure, sometimes a freak wave gives you wet feet when the tide isn’t actually coming in - but when it’s up to your knees, best to fold up the deck-chairs just in case. People are already dying around the world as a direct result of climate change. There’s no probability about whether or not it’s happening, it is already happening, the uncertainty is how much worse is it going to get.

His conclusion on the cost of taxing so-called “super-cars” is this: “That’s not taxation. That’s rape.”. I won’t even say anything, I think it’s pretty obvious that’s not an appropriate thing to say.

And that’s on his car show website. So it’s not that he’s been “spotted” on his car show and asked to branch out in to politics - he’s actively choosing to use his car show as a platform for his political opinions. And here’s the real rub: It’s working! He’s kind-of accepted on TV as some sort of lovable right-wing not-afraid-to-speak-his-mind pundit. He’s on Have I Got News…, QI, even Who Do You Think You Are? as though he’s an institution that we’re all comfortable with in the UK.

But are we really all comfortable with vicious anti-environmentalism on the basis of lies? With misogyny and homophobia* from someone who is genuinely trying to influence policy-making in the UK? Personally I’d like to present the alternative point of view in a one-off BBC TV special called “Jeremy Clarkson: Who The F*** Does He Think He Is?”

* Actually he’s been pretty racist too, I’ll leave that for now, I think we’ve got enough to be getting on with!

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Orang-Utans Vs Doves?!

Remember how much effort Dove beauty products have been going to to convince us to celebrate our "real" beauty? Here's one thing I think we can all agree is just naturally beautiful ... the Indonesian rainforest (pictured in case you were unsure). So what is Dove doing to celebrate this beauty? That would be it - systematically destroying it to provide palm oil for their "real beauty" products. Greenpeace are on the case and you can join their campaign here. I also suggest - stop buying Dove products (in general ethical beauty products are relatively easy to find, so why not?).

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Johann On Tolerance

Or the lack there of. This is such a bang-on article. Please give it a read. I have one of my own coming out on Islam and Women, watch this space. And while you are on the case you could also take a look at his piece on Al Gore and the "Nine Factual Errors" which Mr Cru and I have been de-bunking at length.

Friday, October 19, 2007

School Film Club Revisited

Since the courts have started ruling on what can and can't be shown in schools* - should someone start a case about this one? There's a lot more questionable science in it than Al Gore has ever come up with, in fact there's pretty much exclusively questionable science in it.

*Brag points for the Cru-blog: some super right-wing idiot site reacted to my post linked above with a feature on me entitled "Portrait of a Complete Moron". They think I have been "brainwashed by Al Gore". Guess the Nobel Prize committee were too then? They must all be "complete morons" too. Mmmm.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Which Planet Is This?

I don't understand. It's not April 1st is it? Well if you've got some money that's just getting in the way and it just seems like such hard work to flush it down the loo - here's a handy alternative.

Let me add the following: ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh and this: ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

What exactly are they proposing Bush would win it for? Services to reduce global warming by killing off hundreds of thousands of CO2-producing poor people in the Middle East? Services to global peace from using up all the dangerous weapons before anybody else can get their hands on them? Services to citizens of aggressive dictatorships for showing them that the promise of modern democracy isn't really worth fighting for?

That said of course Kissinger won it once so I guess they do issue it ironically from time to time...

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Still The Truth, However Inconvenient

As expected the UK court case against An Inconvenient Truth is now being discussed on Fox News as if it totally discredited the film. Meanwhile, according to some unresearched right wing blog I have been "brainwashed by Al Gore". They've really taken the time to understand the issues and have hit hard with an insightful piece calling me a moron. Thanks guys, next time just send flowers. Anyway they claim that I need to go through the points raised by the court case and address them. I would do but as it happens Mr Cru has just done the job for me. Good job.

But here's the real rub. The Fox News people, the right wing bloggers, the Exxon-sponsored think tanks, Stewart Dimmock, all the other global warming nay-sayers have one thing in common:

None of them actually think global warming isn't happening.

Some think it's happening slower than it is. Some think it's happening but that it's not yet 100% clear that it's our fault. The court case argued that some of the evident effects of global warming might also be explainable by other means.

It's like being in a car speeding towards a cliff and going "I think the cliff's only 100 foot high, not 300 foot...", "well I think some of our speed might be down to the angle of the road, not our acceleration". You're still going off the cliff, the rest doesn't matter and the time spent arguing is wasted time that puts people's lives at risk. Time that needs to be spent stopping the car or turning it round.

No-one thinks global warming isn't going to destroy the planet eventually. The focus therefore needs to be on what we can do to cut emissions and recapture carbon. And the focus needs to be on doing those things NOW!

Friday, October 12, 2007

He Won It

The Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore. Now is he going to run for president?

Thursday, October 11, 2007

This Would Be Funny If...

...it wasn't so frightening. Some idiot called Stewart Dimmock has decided schools can't show An Inconvenient Truth to kids because it doesn't present "both sides of the argument". What argument? Anybody with half a brain can see human activity is heating the planet up. The humour though is in this BBC story on the subject, titled "Gore Climate Film's 'Nine Errors'". Scroll down to the bottom and there's a link to another story "Flood Legacy: the devastating effects of this summer's flooding"

The Guerrilla News Network has done the leg-work on this one. What I can't seem to find out though are which of the mega-polluters are paying for his campaign. Anyone got any idea? Both funding groups - Scientific Alliance and Straight Teaching say they accept corporate donations but they don't list major donors. I'd like to know who exactly is paying to set the agenda our kids are taught, and I bet we'd be horrified if we knew.

Speaking of Al Gore though I really hope he gets the Nobel Prize and then decides he will run for US president after all. I suspect the world may genuinely end quite soon if he doesn't...

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Impartiality, My Arse...

The BBC has canceled a planned "Planet Relief" show - raising awareness about global warming because of concerns about impartiality. Grrr. Global warming is a fact, it's happening and it's our fault. You can claim to have doubts about anything "Is grass really green? Or does it refract blue light through a filter?" but the overwhelming weight of scientific research points to global warming. To claim it is a "theory" is to ignore that and suggest to the public that there is some credible doubt about the causes and effects of the greenhouse effect.

Meanwhile sat at the laundromat today I saw a BBC presenter (on the TV, not fishing socks and boxer shorts out of the spinner) boldly state that "military service veterans deserve more care and more facilities". Of course there are specific medical and social problems associated with military service and there may be those who believe that insufficient is being done to deal with them. On the other hand there may be those who believe that killing people in whatever cause is wrong and that special treatment for those who have done so is inappropriate. Either way it is an OPINION, not a "fact". It was given as a fact on the BBC One 6 O'Clock news tonight.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Fact and Fiction

Anyone who has seen Al Gore's fantastic documentary An Inconvenient Truth will be as dismayed as I am to see the supposedly respectable BBC publishing a report from supposedly respectable scientists which claims that "Global climate change is 'very likely' to have a human cause". The link between human activity and climate change is not "very likely", it's "fact". The evidence is overwhelming. To imagine otherwise is like claiming that the pope is "very likely catholic" and bears "very likely" shit in the woods.

Doubt, as generated by phrases sure as "very likely", is the greatest weapon of the pro-polluting lobby. Just like the tobacco lobby used to claim it was just "very likely" that smoking could affect your life expectancy.

On the subject of the latter, I have given up again. Ouch.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Winds of Change

Another thing that happened to me over Christmas is that I saw the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Highly recommended when it comes out over here, fascinating and frightening stuff. Now I can't watch the news without being bombarded by the amount of evidence around for ongoing serious climate change. Here's the latest.