It would be nice to think that George Bush was watching the UKTV History channel last night. Somehow I don't think he was, but when he reads this he'll know what it was all about.
'Meltdown' was a part of a series on climate change. The big question is - given that we know beyond doubt that the planet is heating up, how much can be attributed to natural variations and how much can only be explained by man made effects?
For thousands of years the temperature of the Earth was governed by two main drivers: the solar cycle (i.e. variations in the sun's output) and the amount of volcanic activity which affects the amount of dust in the atmosphere and hence the amount of sunlight that can penetrate. The match between the actual temperature and the predicted temperature is stunning - until you get to the last 150 years. The increase of greenhouse gasses and with it the global temperature has been in liftoff, tracking the course of the industrial revolution and consequent carbon emissions.
Surprisingly one of the big voices in the debate in America putting pressure on the White House Muppet has been Big Energy. Surprising? Yes, until you realise that they own massive infrastructure and they need to be able to plan their businesses. They know that carbon emission caps will be arriving sooner or later, but until they have a regulatory level playing field it is hard for them to know how to invest their shareholders' capital.
Watch this space.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Low Energy
Having just received my latest electricity bill I have some good news to report.
Aided by the fact that Waitrose was selling low energy lightbulbs at 99p we decided to swap out every bulb in the house. The old incandescent bulbs went in the bin and a few friends were persuaded to do the same.
The good news is that the reduction in our first electricity bill since making the switch has more than paid for the new bulbs. Already! Added to that we've made another small step to reducing our carbon footprint.
Not before time: last night was watching one of Attenborough's Planet Earth series about the impact that the disappearing sea ice is having on polar bears. I'm wondering how long it will be before the polar bear becomes a mascot in the campaign for change. Not long I hope. Even George Global Menace Bush may have to take note if he's seen to be against the white furry things - although I wouldn't recommend going anywhere near one unless you want to be eaten.
Now there's a thought!
Aided by the fact that Waitrose was selling low energy lightbulbs at 99p we decided to swap out every bulb in the house. The old incandescent bulbs went in the bin and a few friends were persuaded to do the same.
The good news is that the reduction in our first electricity bill since making the switch has more than paid for the new bulbs. Already! Added to that we've made another small step to reducing our carbon footprint.
Not before time: last night was watching one of Attenborough's Planet Earth series about the impact that the disappearing sea ice is having on polar bears. I'm wondering how long it will be before the polar bear becomes a mascot in the campaign for change. Not long I hope. Even George Global Menace Bush may have to take note if he's seen to be against the white furry things - although I wouldn't recommend going anywhere near one unless you want to be eaten.
Now there's a thought!
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Sliding Doors
I took my children to London last week and we called in at the Tate Modern. It's one of our favourites places to visit down there, but to be honest we were a bit disappointed: like the place had lost its way. The Tate Modern was where I first learned what modern art was all about - taking everyday objects, looking at them in a different way and making a statement or triggering a feeling that you wouldn't normally have.
But then we got to the Sliding Doors. Just like the sliding automatic doors you get as you enter a shop on the high street, but a whole series of them like a corridor. And with mirrors in them instead of glass. What a feeling! Just like in life the doors open, and then they shut again and you see yourself coming the other way. Sometimes a whole seris of them opened together as people walked through and you got a glimpse of the future. Then they shut again and and the future became a mystery once more as you were trapped back in your little cell.
It's not often that a piece of art seems so real and so powerful. And of course we get used to seeing everyday objects used in imaginative ways - so the artist has a hard job on his hands. But this time he hit the spot with me - well done!
But then we got to the Sliding Doors. Just like the sliding automatic doors you get as you enter a shop on the high street, but a whole series of them like a corridor. And with mirrors in them instead of glass. What a feeling! Just like in life the doors open, and then they shut again and you see yourself coming the other way. Sometimes a whole seris of them opened together as people walked through and you got a glimpse of the future. Then they shut again and and the future became a mystery once more as you were trapped back in your little cell.
It's not often that a piece of art seems so real and so powerful. And of course we get used to seeing everyday objects used in imaginative ways - so the artist has a hard job on his hands. But this time he hit the spot with me - well done!
Friday, January 26, 2007
Boom and bust
One of the more depressing attitudes I come across in life is the "Why should we do anything about our carbon emissions when what we produce in the UK is only 2% of the problem. There's no point until America, China and India come on board." This attitude is variously known as narrow mindedness, negativity, lack of vision or plain lack of understanding of how the world works.
We all know - well some of us do - that all change follows a known cycle. The early adopters are small in number but they lead the pack. In time their numbers increase as problems and costs are resolved. Eventually the new way becomes mainstream and it remains only to tidy up the laggards. The aforementioned countries do look as if they are starting to shift their position - but would they have done so if others had not taken the lead? I think not.
Today an old geezer sat next to me in the overpriced cafe at a trade show and started to expound these sorts of attitudes as if he expected to me agree with him. He was keen to let me know that he had breakfast with the governor of the Bank of England and that what this country needed was people who had made their way up from nothing and not smart arses out of university.
What he didn't know was that I also have had breakfast with the governor of the Bank of England. (And on another occasion dinner with Kate Barker of the Monetary Policy Committee - who can only be admired for her intellect, perception and insight - and who has a working class background as well as having excelled in her academic career.) The Governor, however, was keen to tell us what a great job the Bank of England was now doing having stopped the cycle of boom and bust, and that we hadn't had a recession for over a decade.
At this point I got on my hind legs to say that a good old recession once in a while is a good idea because it pushes some of the less efficient companies out of business and clears out the crap.
He had a counter argument of course, but what he didn't know is that I had a list of names up my sleeve. Businesses that Stoke on Trent can do without. I was going to say that if they are reading this they know who they are - but they probably don't because they are too stupid. As of today the list has just increased by one.
We all know - well some of us do - that all change follows a known cycle. The early adopters are small in number but they lead the pack. In time their numbers increase as problems and costs are resolved. Eventually the new way becomes mainstream and it remains only to tidy up the laggards. The aforementioned countries do look as if they are starting to shift their position - but would they have done so if others had not taken the lead? I think not.
Today an old geezer sat next to me in the overpriced cafe at a trade show and started to expound these sorts of attitudes as if he expected to me agree with him. He was keen to let me know that he had breakfast with the governor of the Bank of England and that what this country needed was people who had made their way up from nothing and not smart arses out of university.
What he didn't know was that I also have had breakfast with the governor of the Bank of England. (And on another occasion dinner with Kate Barker of the Monetary Policy Committee - who can only be admired for her intellect, perception and insight - and who has a working class background as well as having excelled in her academic career.) The Governor, however, was keen to tell us what a great job the Bank of England was now doing having stopped the cycle of boom and bust, and that we hadn't had a recession for over a decade.
At this point I got on my hind legs to say that a good old recession once in a while is a good idea because it pushes some of the less efficient companies out of business and clears out the crap.
He had a counter argument of course, but what he didn't know is that I had a list of names up my sleeve. Businesses that Stoke on Trent can do without. I was going to say that if they are reading this they know who they are - but they probably don't because they are too stupid. As of today the list has just increased by one.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The greening of George Bush
The greening of George Bush may seem like an oxymoron. (That means a contradiction in terms, not that Bush is a moron - which he is.)
However, there are some interesting implications of his quest to rid America of its "addition to oil". The first is his plan to invest massively in bio-ethanol production - a vegetable based substitute for gasoline. This may have more to do with creating a market for their grain mountain - and baiting the votes of said farmers than any green credentials. Environmentalists will tell you that bio-ethanol is the wrong alternative fuel to be going for because of the environmental cost of producing it (biodiesel is a much better option). But the United States have very few diesel cars - unlike Europe where around a half of new car registrations are diesels.
So - given a grain mountain, a nation of gasoline driven cars, a bunch of pissed off farmers an over dependency on Iraqi oil (now there's another story), a bunch of vehicle manufacturers who say they are more interested in bio-ethanol than bio-diesel and pressure from the Christian right who are getting huffy about trashing God's planet it does seem like a plan.
But - here's the rub. Biofuels have had very little press in the environmental debate in Europe. Very few people have heard of biodiesel even though it is available right now and will run perfectly well in todays diesel vehicles. The unintended impact of his announcement is that biofuels will get a higher profile. And that in Europe that probably means biodiesel - the feedstock (oilseed rape) grows here very nicely and there is a much higher percentage of diesel vehicles on the road.
The obstacles remain a bunch of sceptical vehicle manufacturers who never do anything until the law forces them to and a mean minded chancellor whose idea of a green budget is to raise taxes on alternative fuels.
None of this changes the undisputable fact that Bush is a global menace and Blair is a smarmy arse-licking, self deluded, twat. But there is hope.
However, there are some interesting implications of his quest to rid America of its "addition to oil". The first is his plan to invest massively in bio-ethanol production - a vegetable based substitute for gasoline. This may have more to do with creating a market for their grain mountain - and baiting the votes of said farmers than any green credentials. Environmentalists will tell you that bio-ethanol is the wrong alternative fuel to be going for because of the environmental cost of producing it (biodiesel is a much better option). But the United States have very few diesel cars - unlike Europe where around a half of new car registrations are diesels.
So - given a grain mountain, a nation of gasoline driven cars, a bunch of pissed off farmers an over dependency on Iraqi oil (now there's another story), a bunch of vehicle manufacturers who say they are more interested in bio-ethanol than bio-diesel and pressure from the Christian right who are getting huffy about trashing God's planet it does seem like a plan.
But - here's the rub. Biofuels have had very little press in the environmental debate in Europe. Very few people have heard of biodiesel even though it is available right now and will run perfectly well in todays diesel vehicles. The unintended impact of his announcement is that biofuels will get a higher profile. And that in Europe that probably means biodiesel - the feedstock (oilseed rape) grows here very nicely and there is a much higher percentage of diesel vehicles on the road.
The obstacles remain a bunch of sceptical vehicle manufacturers who never do anything until the law forces them to and a mean minded chancellor whose idea of a green budget is to raise taxes on alternative fuels.
None of this changes the undisputable fact that Bush is a global menace and Blair is a smarmy arse-licking, self deluded, twat. But there is hope.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
A nation terrorised by dogs
I don't like dogs at the best of times - there are some that I tolerate but that's about it. I do know people for whom a dog is a great support in an otherwise difficult life and I would not want to deny them a friend. But largely it's experience of what they and their owners can be like that hacks me off.
At the lowest level, just having some mut hanging around in the kitchen seems unhygenic to me. But some of the dog behaviour I've come across is terrifying if not downright lethal.
First case: Christmas 2005 I was walking across the park in Leamington with my children and my mother (then 86). A large dog - sort of alsatian size - comes bounding over the grass and jumps up at my mother. A shouting match develops between me and the idiot young woman who refuses to put it on a lead and seems oblivious of the potentialy fatal consequences of an old person being knocked over by an out of control dog. If she's reading this then please get in touch - I haven't finished with you yet you ignorant twat.
Case two: I'm cycling along the canal where I used to live in London and a large dog bounds out of a scrapyard, pushes me off my bike and nips me. The owner: "You're lucky it's not the other one - it's f*cking bigger!" Well thanks, obviously you get your kicks from terrorising innocent passers by. Nice guy.
Case three: my neighbour has - did have - a young sheepdog. Playful and relatively harmless I suppose, but it turned my field into a virtual no-go area. One time I had to rescue my daughter from the middle of the field crying and terrified as it circled round her barking. It would always be out there running around you and barking, getting tangled up in whatever you were doing. How it never ended up on the wrong end of a chainsaw I shall never know. It was an accident waiting to happen, eventually it did. Fortunately it got run over and killed and hasn't been replaced.
I could go on. But my point is, why oh why can't people who own dogs understand the distress and fear that their pets cause to other people? And why is so little done about it? When Princess Anne's terrier attacked and injured a child I still cannot understand why the court did not order it to be put down - still less why she did not have it put down of her own instigation. There is no room in a civilised world for people to have dogs that go around attacking people. Period. I'm told that in animal rescue circles a rescued dog that shows any sort of aggressive temperament is put down immediately - and so it should be for all dogs, and in some cases their owners as well.
At the lowest level, just having some mut hanging around in the kitchen seems unhygenic to me. But some of the dog behaviour I've come across is terrifying if not downright lethal.
First case: Christmas 2005 I was walking across the park in Leamington with my children and my mother (then 86). A large dog - sort of alsatian size - comes bounding over the grass and jumps up at my mother. A shouting match develops between me and the idiot young woman who refuses to put it on a lead and seems oblivious of the potentialy fatal consequences of an old person being knocked over by an out of control dog. If she's reading this then please get in touch - I haven't finished with you yet you ignorant twat.
Case two: I'm cycling along the canal where I used to live in London and a large dog bounds out of a scrapyard, pushes me off my bike and nips me. The owner: "You're lucky it's not the other one - it's f*cking bigger!" Well thanks, obviously you get your kicks from terrorising innocent passers by. Nice guy.
Case three: my neighbour has - did have - a young sheepdog. Playful and relatively harmless I suppose, but it turned my field into a virtual no-go area. One time I had to rescue my daughter from the middle of the field crying and terrified as it circled round her barking. It would always be out there running around you and barking, getting tangled up in whatever you were doing. How it never ended up on the wrong end of a chainsaw I shall never know. It was an accident waiting to happen, eventually it did. Fortunately it got run over and killed and hasn't been replaced.
I could go on. But my point is, why oh why can't people who own dogs understand the distress and fear that their pets cause to other people? And why is so little done about it? When Princess Anne's terrier attacked and injured a child I still cannot understand why the court did not order it to be put down - still less why she did not have it put down of her own instigation. There is no room in a civilised world for people to have dogs that go around attacking people. Period. I'm told that in animal rescue circles a rescued dog that shows any sort of aggressive temperament is put down immediately - and so it should be for all dogs, and in some cases their owners as well.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Late Night Love
One of the factoids that came out at the end of the year - and which did not surprise me - was that married households are now in the minority.
Not surprising? Well considering that human history on this planet goes back around one million years and the Marriage Act only happened around 200 years ago - and that marriage seems to be more about property than love it's surprising that more people haven't smelled a rat before now.
Or perhaps they did - most of old literature seems to be about people forced into unhappy marriages when they would rather have eloped with their lovers.
But listen to Graham Torrington's Late Night Love and you start to wonder if 90% of the population have lost the plot. People ringing in "He/she cheated on me and blah, blah, whahhhh!!" Fill in the blanks and that's most of it covered. Isn't that terrible? No just get used to it, and here's why....
Firstly we've been encouraged to place all our emotional and financial eggs in one basket. It's not realistic nor healthy nor sustainable. Secondly, we humans are primates - and primates generally live in polygamous societies. Why? Because it makes genetic sense to do so - young born in polygamous societies have a better survival rate. And that applies to humans as well as other primates.
What's more - there seems to be a presumption that screwing around is a male preoccupation. Well I've got news for you - every shag requires both a man and a woman - so the numbers must be exactly the same. Not a lot of people seem to have noticed that - perhaps it needs to be pointed out!
So Graham Torrington: next time you're moralising on your radio show about the things that people get up to remember this: the way people behave now is just a continuation of the way they have for the last million years. We evolved that way for good reason and a couple of hundred years of moral code isn't going to change that.
Not surprising? Well considering that human history on this planet goes back around one million years and the Marriage Act only happened around 200 years ago - and that marriage seems to be more about property than love it's surprising that more people haven't smelled a rat before now.
Or perhaps they did - most of old literature seems to be about people forced into unhappy marriages when they would rather have eloped with their lovers.
But listen to Graham Torrington's Late Night Love and you start to wonder if 90% of the population have lost the plot. People ringing in "He/she cheated on me and blah, blah, whahhhh!!" Fill in the blanks and that's most of it covered. Isn't that terrible? No just get used to it, and here's why....
Firstly we've been encouraged to place all our emotional and financial eggs in one basket. It's not realistic nor healthy nor sustainable. Secondly, we humans are primates - and primates generally live in polygamous societies. Why? Because it makes genetic sense to do so - young born in polygamous societies have a better survival rate. And that applies to humans as well as other primates.
What's more - there seems to be a presumption that screwing around is a male preoccupation. Well I've got news for you - every shag requires both a man and a woman - so the numbers must be exactly the same. Not a lot of people seem to have noticed that - perhaps it needs to be pointed out!
So Graham Torrington: next time you're moralising on your radio show about the things that people get up to remember this: the way people behave now is just a continuation of the way they have for the last million years. We evolved that way for good reason and a couple of hundred years of moral code isn't going to change that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
