I’ve just got back from a few days in Norway; while I was here to vote in the London Mayoral and local elections, I was abroad for the count and spent the next few days trying to catch up with the results. BBC World was perhaps understandably rather more focussed on Zimbabwe than on London. In true Crossbench fashion I was inconsistent in my voting. I voted for Boris as Mayor, largely because Ken seems to have lost his punch and should have dealt with the suspicions of corruption/sleaze surrounding Lee Jaspers and his friends a lot quicker than he did, because of his ludicrously ineffective anti-toff punitive approach to gas guzzlers (no, before anyone asks, I don’t drive a Chelsea tractor) and because of the failure of the extension of the Congestion Charging. (I always thought it was worth a try to see if we could get London’s traffic moving but the initial effect didn’t last and shop trade seems to have gone down). Will Boris be effective? Everyone agrees he’s bright and I value brains in our leaders but whether he can produce effective policies on transport and crime remains to be seen. I hope so. On the other hand I voted Labour for our local City and East London candidate, that is for John Biggs, mainly because I think he’s done a great job, keeps us all informed about what he’s up to and believe he approaches the serious problems of east London in a sensible pragmatic way.
But I must take my friend Lady D’Souza to task for complaining about the BBC news coverage. Of course it’s Very Big News when there is a massive swing in the local elections; the implications for the current Government are obvious. Already I detect a certain twitchiness amongst ministers about policies in my own areas of interest, a slowing down of some less obviously popular policies. Isn’t the news coverage what makes politics fun?
And I must take you to task over taking Lady D’Souza to task. The point of the blogs is to take the establishment media to task when it gets stuck in lazy narratives. Lady D’Souza was quite right–they had long made their point. It is this that not only makes the new media fun but an essential corrective. Look at what is happening in the US primaries: there is not a chance that the junior senator from Illinois could have out-flanked the Clinton machine without exploiting this shift. Take note.
Baroness Murphy’s Isn’t the news coverage what makes politics fun? made me roar with laughter – congratulations. And thanks.
🙂
“..because of his ludicrously ineffective anti-toff punitive approach to gas guzzlers ..”
So what would you do to reduce the ridiculously high carbon footprint of transportation in this country as an alternative then ?? This is just the sort of asinine twaddle which Clive Soley is peddling when he says that tackling climate change and airport expansion are not in conflict with each other.
One of the problems with this blog engine is the lack of blogger feedback in terms of postings. The engine has its problems too which have already been pointed out.
Recently, BBC blogs were being bombarded resulting in much upset with bloggers accusing them of blocking posts when in fact the blog engine was overloaded and no such thing was happening.
They changed the way it was done and things have become much better. One nice thing they have done in terms of e-Democracy is to state when a post has been removed and giving the posters handle. Well-done BBC!
This presents a problem for this blog in that any Peer affiliated to a Commons party might block a posting that might cause their party a problem. They certainly would not be thanked for it.
For ‘slowing down… of less popular policies’ read ‘smell of burning tyres by a learner driver reacting to a signal from the examiner’.
Politics and fun aren’t words you can expect to see in the same sentence too often. But there are moments, including:
.John Redwood NOT singing the Welsh anthem
.Margaret Thatcher dumbstruck by a caller on the sinking of the Belgrano
.Tony Blair dumbstruck by woman asking awkward questions on the NHS
.John Prescott punching a bystander
.Paxman asking Michael Howard the same question, over and over again
.The Terminator caught asking ‘who is this idiot’ when Boris was speaking at the 07 Tory Conference. Still not sure if that was staged.
OK, maybe more toe-curling than funny. But not too many moments when MPs corpse in the Commons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb1rY71zZUk
LoL. Nice one Tiz, Short Sea Shipping…
Must be related to sea area Trafalgar where a certain lieutenant is often to be seen putting a spy-glass to his weakened eye and saying “I sink no ships”?
Dear Bedd Gelert
I just don’t get the carbon footprint twaddle. The only way we are going to make progress on combating the element of climate change which relates to carbon emmissions is by universal international agreement focussed on power production and changing all vehicles and energy using appliances to new kinds of low carbon producing energy sources. The use of fuel cells and other advanced technologies is likely to be far more effective than tinkering with existing technologies. I am very sceptical that many of the headline grabbing green initiatives will do anything for global climate change, although they may do a fair bit for British smugness. Much of the so-called green interventions make little or no impact on the environment. Ken was planning to allow diesel cars free access to the congestion charge, and yet we have a pretty good notion that diesel particulates are likely to be more harmful to human lungs than petrol fumes. We should be (with the US and other rich countries)investing the same kind of billions of dollars that went into space research into the climate change problem, not pretending we are tackling it by substituting cotton bags for plastic, drinking tap water instead of San Pellegrino and blighting our rural landscapes with wind turbines.
Hmm.. Some of your points I would agree with Baroness Murphy, but the fact is that a journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.
I agree there is nothing worse than someone who thinks they are helping the environment by recycling their wine bottles, but does so by driving to a bottle bank 5 miles away in their volvo.
I also agree that there is no such thing as a ‘green car’ and that diesel cars have their problems. But switching to smaller diesel cars instead of huge gas guzzlers is a step in the right direction. Not as good as ditching the car, as I have done, but far better than the ‘if we can’t get the indians and chinese on board we’ll ignore the problem for a few more years…’
Your point about plastic bags misses the point. They alone are not hoovering up huge amounts of oil – and if people stop using them they are often going to substitute that saving by buying large plastic bin bags / liners. But we have to start somewhere if we want to prevent these bags ending up in the intestines of marine mammals. And once people start to get on that bandwagon, they are more likely to make a fuss about excessive packaging, and other ‘non-green’ offerings.
Again your snooty remark about tap water rather suggests you think you are above giving up your San Pellicula or whatever it is called.
Marie Antoinette would be proud of you. The carbon footprint in the transport of this stuff, and out of season vegetables is all part of the problem – and you need to be part of the solution, and I’m rather astonished that intelligent people like you in the Lords are so out of touch with this problem.
Your point about wind turbines is well made – they simply will not give enough energy to make enough of a difference or prevent the need for building new nuclear stations. But I have a funny feeling that this is not your objection – rather another snooty attempt to keep ‘your’ countryside looking the way landowners would like it. There are no ‘easy’ solutions which don’t have any negative connotations.
Will you find similar objections to the hugely necessary Severn Barrage which would produce 7% of our energy, just because some birdies would be affected ?? This is the sort of attitude is preventing really beneficial developments where the positives hugely outweigh the negatives, because people like you simply don’t begin to understand the enormous challenge we face here.
Your approach seems to be that the solution to our environmental problems seems to lie with somebody else, somewhere else doing something different sometime. It does not.
The solution to the environmental problem lies, as with so many of life’s problems, with first looking in the mirror and realising that each and every one of us has to begin to make the change…
I strongly recommend you read Julia Hailes’ book ‘The Green Consumer Guide’, but not until you have read James Lovelock’s excellent and eye-opening book ‘The Revenge of Gaia’, as I simply don’t think from reading your posts you have understood the scale of the problem here.
Dear Bedd Gelert,
Well at least I’ve irritated someone! Better than no reaction at all. I don’t think anyone’s ever called me snooty before …but maybe those were Marie Antoinette’s last words..
It is precisely because the issue of climate change is so important, probably the most important issue we face, although the exact outcome is by no means clear, that it is crucial we invest in evidence based effective initiatives and not kid ourselves that token measures will make a difference.
My objections to wind turbines are largely the same as yours but as someone who grew up in urban Nottingham and am obliged to stay a good part of the week in central London, I value highly access to open country and enjoying the glories of the English countryside (and Welsh when I get there of course). There are wind turbines blighting the view of a medieval church and village near Winterton in Norfolk now, damage to a former beauty spot which will likely never be undone. I do not think I am so very different from many other people in treasuring these places. There must be a good reason why you chose Bedd Gelert for a name, would you countenance the destruction of that beautiful place to produce an iota few carbon emmissions?
As for the Severn Barrage, I’d like to see serious independent evaluation of the likely benefits and the realistic alternatives before committing myself either way. There are so many vested interests in the sustainable energy business. ( and all other energy businesses of course).
While I like the idea that if we all start changing our life styles it will save the planet, I am as sceptical of that working on a voluntary basis as saying that if we were all nice to each other there’d be no wars. If I keep off-setting my carbon footprint by tree planting, do I kid myself it will make a contribution? No, it won’t.
I didn’t know about plastic bags and marine mammals but you’ll be pleased to know I use canvas bags at the supermarket. That’s because they don’t split.
And for the moment, won’t you let me enjoy my San Pellegrino fizzy water? The bubbles taste of Italy to me and that’s good enough reason.
…and we’re off!
Plastic bags: what happened to the cardboard boxes for customer use in supermarkets? Oh yeah, they now have to be separated into clean, not so clean, and the absolutely disgusting to be recycled (aka thrown into landfill). The greengrocer fined for recycling cardboard in a public facility was a business – a big no-no.
Wind Turbines (onshore): so good you have to subsidise them twice. Even the Tories have cottoned onto this scam. See http://www.wind-farm.co.uk/ as an example of them being outed. Curiously, every plan was approved in Co Durham bar one – that was in Trimdon, where T Blair had his constituency house.
Gas-guzzling cars: is it better that I load up my estate car, with a higher plate-load, once, or make three or more separate trips in a Fiat Uno to achieve the same result?
Flood plains: should houses be built on them? Should front gardens be concreted over to provide off-street parking and affect the natural drainage?
I could go on at length but the point I’m making is that there are two sides to this coining. Bedd, I’m not knocking you for doing your bit as you see fit. For all the re-cycling I may do, I know it will end up in my local landfill. The chances are the same is happening in your area.
Consider this: if we use less virgin wood/paper, fewer trees will be replanted so less CO2 will be absorbed. The costs of reclaiming, cleaning, bleaching and reforming used wood products is not cost-effective. Landfill produces methane gas and can be an alternative energy if only the government would invest in its extraction.
This is not about saving the planet because it will outlive humans. As it stands, it is more about new ways of taxation. Now oil has gone way above the $100pb mark, energy innovations will become commercially attractive.
Al Gore is no saviour, he’s out for himself, and I am miffed that his propaganda was originally sanctioned and sent out to schools in the UK (not the USA) as ‘the truth’.
If you really want to lessen your carbon footprint then don’t have kids.
Well, I said I could go on, and I did. And I managed it without using snooty or twaddle.
Baroness Murphy,
I agree that it is important to be circumspect about the environment, and that a few small changes will not, by themselves, attend to the global problem. Carbon trading is a solution, but not the answer, as it is subject to wholesale ‘gaming’ by multi-nationals trading ‘permits’ for pollution they were never going to produce anyway. And since the Kyoto protocol is a/ not being observed and b/ doesn’t include airline emissions it is hardly a perfect solution. Although it is a start.
Taking your point about wind turbines. I agree that they may have an impact on the visual environment in some areas. But the wider view is this – if we simply ignore solutions like wind turbines, new nuclear power stations and a Severn Barrage, mother nature will get her revenge on us anyway.
“You’re ignoring the impact wind turbines will make on cutting carbon emissions – fine, Sunshine, let me have some of Norfolk back…”
“So you’ve funked the decision on the Severn Barrage because some bird spotters got twitchy – okay, but let me hoover up some of the Jurassic Coast for your pains..”
“The blasted Nimbys have stopped you building your nuclear stations inland – fine, let me see how well you cope when I arrange for the flooding of the ones based near the coast..”
I do have some sympathy for your view that technology may have some answers – but I’m afraid your attitude does rather remind me of my own laissez-faire approach to swotting for exams. Whilst I would be lazing in front of the telly I would try not to panic, convincing myself that ‘everything will be be okay – it’s always turned out fine before’. Well, yes, but only because I eventually did panic and did some last minute revision before it was too late. Had I not, and just sat in front of the goggle-box hoping all would be well, things might have gone pear-shaped.
The problem is that we aren’t even utilising the technology we HAVE got, let alone investing in the research into developments yet to be discovered and technology yet to be invented. Why don’t all new homes have solar panels fitted ?? This would be far better than the useless Cameron-esque windmills which generate almost no energy in our inner cities.
And investing in energy-efficient homes has in the past suffered by having poor payback, because energy was too cheap, and didn’t factor in the full environmental cost. Thankfully that is now changing as we head to $200 per barrel for oil, and we are held over the barrel for our supplies of gas – so maybe economics will force us out of our ‘ostrich mentality’ in a way years of campaigning has failed to do.
I am also reminded by your reference of the ‘taste of Italy’ to my years of driving – I found it jolly convenient, and great to go out for a spin, I totally confess – but such luxuries may be harder to justify in terms of their environmental impact. Why not try Brecon Carreg – at least it has to be trucked less distance ? And you could try some cured ham from Wales which is just as tasty as that from Parma, and with fewer food miles as well ??
You mention the reference to Bedd Gelert – this is not geographical, but merely a reminder that the chap who killed his dog, because he thought it had savaged his son, only to find Gelert had actually saved his son from an intruder, jumped to a conclusion before he had found out all the facts..
There is a lesson in there for us all, but it escapes me for the moment..
Lady Tizzy,
I had omitted to respond to your points in my previous post. You make an entirely valid point that in all environmental choices, there are difficulties in deciding what is best for the environment, and that alternatives to plastic bags, such as paper bags, may have drawbacks if they require forest to be cleared to make the paper, and they will then end up in landfill if not recycled.
This does link into Baroness Murphy’s point that many of the ‘green’ things we are encouraged to do are tinkering at the edges. That is certainly a valid point, and I am encouraged that she thinks we should be investing money in technology in the same scale as the investment that took man to the moon.
But where I differ, I’m afraid, is that this approach seems to rest on the assumption that we are ONLY doing the ‘small things’ and that these are acting as substitutions for the larger scales changes, such as getting a global target for carbon emissions. I can see why people think this way, as there is an awful lot of ‘greenwash’ being put out there by large corporations who don’t want to spend much money on the steps to address the problem, but who would like to convince us all that they are taking it seriously.
But the biggest enemy in solving this problem is inertia, and getting people to start changing their lifestyles. If people can be persuaded to start making lots of small changes, my [possibly simplistic and idealistic view] is that this will start to build a momentum to make the larger changes as we go on.
Baroness Murphy is absolutely right to say, as Lady Tizzy suggests, that small steps by Britain will only serve to make us more smug about green issues if it is not done properly and on a global scale.
But the other countries in the world are highly unlikely to get on board if we are refusing to make even small moves in the right direction. And Tiz, whilst I accept your point about increases in the oil price helping to make alternatives more cost effective, the price is not going to become high enough to really reduce our consumption of oil until we really have used most of the reserves up.
And by that time a huge amount of extra carbon will have been released into the atmosphere, and the increase in heating will have been ‘locked-in’ for quite some time ahead. This could well be the defining challenge for the next couple of generations – & ultimately it is people in places like Burma who will be paying the highest price for our inactivity and apathy. Let us hope that noble Lords, who aren’t just looking at things from a ‘next general election’ time span can be persuaded to start debating this issue from a longer term perspective.