Comments farnishk has made

Guaranteed death in a speech

What a complete twat!

"The growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, so long as technology continues to advance."

Apart from the conditional nature of this comment, continued growth in emissions until 2025 at the current rate will GUARANTEE death to all but a few hardy species on Earth.

The more politicians speak about technology the more virulently anti-technology I get. No solution is effective unless it delivers: technology since the industrial revolution has delivered us to the brink of catastrophe.

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

Sorry Joseph, political fixes don't fix...

"you can't solve either the oil problem or the global warming problem in transportation without mandates like CAFE, renewable or low-carbon fuel standards, and the like."

Joseph, I admire your analytical ability, but the answers are still way ahead of you. Anyone who thinks legislation is going to fix anything assumes (a) that politicians would ever dare to upset their economic masters and (b) that legislation will not be reversed when it starts to hurt.

You are right, the people needed to solve the problem have been around for a long while - they are the people who see through the dreams (lies) of the consumer culture and perceive a world where what matters is keeping our life support system operating. The consumer culture will never give up - there are too many people involved in it who have been drugged by its riches - so it is down to the people who have seen through the lies to convince others that consumption is death.

Next time you see an advert urging you to do something that could possibly damage the environment, reject it loudly - destroy it. It is a wonderfully liberating feeling, and the only way out of the freefall we are in.

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

Nice to see

Tomorrow the bank will carry on as normal - lying to fund the culture of excess - but for one day the truth was told. I hope they get into flyposting too - "Citi : Funding Climate Change" is a nice thing to see. "This Culture : Funding Climate Change" would be even better.

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

What is cash?

Sean

While $$$s matter, then the problem will not go away. This is a hard reality that most people will not accept: if you live comfortably in a culture that depends on money for its existence then of course you would be stupid not to fight it - but then, I don't live comfortably in this culture: I am very uncomfortable with it.

The value that we put on economy is defined by the economy itself, it is self-perpetuating. The system says that the system is good, so it must be good - and don't worry about the little person in the corner saying that the system is lying. Stamp on them! Nothing to see here.

If people think that you can make money and save the planet then people will support that - of course they will. But you can't make money and save the planet - not enough to keep the system running. If everyone refused to buy half of the goods they currently buy, the economy would collapse overnight. But that might save the planet.

See what I mean?

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

More garbage...

"As required by the FAA, about half of the windmills will have a red light on the top. These lights must all flash simultaneously, profoundly affecting the night skies."

1. So don't fly all over the place then. FAA rules are only that tight because there is so much flying going on and the aircraft can't squeeze into safe airspace.

2. Of course, the rest of the biosphere is screaming because they haven't got a nice view. Please put a wind farm near to me, please. I want to see my electricity being generated in a clean way.
   

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

I feel sorry for the USA

Reasons not to live in the USA, part 134.

Hardly any public transport, hardly any cycle lanes, and an ever shrinking length of sidewalks.

Ok, it's not so great here in the UK compared to some European countries, but I can get a bus to my doctor's if I need to, and my doctor's surgery is less than 30 minutes walk away, which is the same for most people in UK towns and cities.

Keith
(One car family, and it stays on the drive 99% of the time)

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

Elected - Nothing Changes

No President will ever be elected in the USA if they threaten the American Dream in any way. I'm not quite sure how hurricanes, droughts, floods and global death quite fit into the American Dream, but I'm going to assume, like so much ealse in this screwed up culture, that they are mutually exclusive.

So Obama, Clinton, Edwards - all about as far left as a viable presidential candidate ever gets (so help me!) - will keep banging on about wealth, efficiency, intensity, growth, and conveniently ignore the raw requirement that we we globally need to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2030. Absolutely impossible in the current system: it will mean changing lifestyles, and politicians meddle with lifestyles at their peril.

Only when we reject the current destroy, produce, consume, discard culture will anything change. This election will change nothing.

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

Difficult subjects

Gang infiltration? Viral messages? Green graffiti? Well these are the kinds of things I'd expect people to be suggesting, but it's really not at all easy - teens are very easily influenced by peers, who in turn are easily influenced by the media and mass commerce. In theory, the only way to influence teens is to take control of the media and the commercial structures that are hell bent on creating more damage, not less; but that ain't gonna happen without a hell of a lot of societal change. However, here are a few other things that I wrote some while back on this very subject:

"Up to a certain age parents wield a great deal of power over their children's opinions, particularly if the opinions of the parent are overtly negative towards an issue, such as race, sexuality or the environment. Knowledge gained at school can be easily countered by parents of young children. This, along with the 'selective pruning' of unused connections that takes place in adolescence, restrict the chances of carrying such school-based knowledge to adulthood as opinions. But, at a certain point, normally between age 9 and 11 in western societies, peer pressure starts to become more important to children, and as they develop into teenagers their opinions are very much a mirror of those of their peers. Could this be the perfect time to formally educate students with both environmental awareness and positive information?"

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

Embodied Carbon

There is a good point made in the article about size: "The USGBC also factors in the overall size of the house. So the bigger a home is, the more points must be earned to score one of the USGBC's four levels of achievement -- certified, silver, gold and platinum. So for mansions, balancing a low-environmental impact with a colossal construction is particularly difficult."

Embodied carbon is a huge issue that is only partly addressed by this, and there are many factors that determine how much energy goes into making the individual components of a building; however, the University of Bath in the UK have created an Inventory of Carbon and Energy which provides a wonderful reference point.

A typical (for the UK) 1,500 square feet detached brick-built house uses about 15,000 bricks. Assuming all other things being equal (transport, electricity generation, ease of material extraction etc.), each brick requires 3MJ of energy, which emits a very approximate 0.2kg of carbon dioxide. A typical house has about 2000 roof tiles. Most tiles used in construction are now concrete mix. Again, assuming all other things being equal, each tile emits 0.6kg of carbon dioxide.

This gives just the roof and the walls an embodied carbon total of over 4 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Now if you build a house 10 times larger, you will need walls with 3.16 times the number of bricks, and a roof with 10 times as many tiles. That gives the 15,000 square feet mansion an embodied carbon score (for walls and roof) of 21.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide - over 5 times as much as a typical house.

It may not be intentionally addressing the embodied carbon in a house, but the USGBC at least seems to be indirectly addressing this major issue.

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

Hydro NOT Carbon Free

Sorry to disappoint you, Eric, but hydroelectricity is not carbon free. Even worse, it may be a big contributor to global warming.

In the first instance, dams kill rivers. A riperian landscape is rich in wildlife diversity, fertile soils and oxygenated water. When you take a river away from a landscape - leaving a tiny apparition of its former self - the land dries, and carbon dioxide is released from the soil. Carbon dioxide is also no longer absorbed by the rich flora that can no longer survive in a dry land. Furthermore, the fertile soils now have to be fertilised if they are to be farmed (note what happened to the Nile valley after the High Aswan Dam was installed). Artificial fertilisers take energy to make, or you can fertilise using belching methane machines (cattle) - your choice.

Secondly, the stagnant environment of the reservoir is a major source of methane (see this article for context). Where biological matter builds up methanogenic bacteria get to work and produce methane, so this alone could offset any energy saving benefits of hydroelectricity.

Hydro may appear to be a source of green energy, but it is just a way of producing large amounts of controllable power on the cheap.

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

Hardly Subtle

To be honest, you'd have to be pretty dumb not to see the obvious contradiction between solar panels and a carwash. The real reason such "green" efforts get the publicity the companies seek is because the media (who are also companies) and the authorities who often have a part in the "greening" are happy to demonstrate that business as usual is possible with a few minor tweaks here and there.

Quite clearly business as usual is what got us into this mess in the first place. I can set up a truly green business : it won't make a profit; it won't consume anything it can't ensure is replaced; it won't pay salaries beyond a living wage; it won't have any investors, or invest in anything, that does not have a similar model. In short, it won't be a business as our current economy recognises it - but it will be green.

The web sites I run do not accept any corporate sponsorship, or provide any promotion for any organisation or group that has dubious sponsors or other behaviours. It's one way I am able to stay true to myself, and to the planet.

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

Wrong Track Guys

Adam and Odo, it is vital to attack weak environmentalism because weak environmentalism is precisely what governments and the more destructive corporations want us to take part in.

It's dead easy to cut your emissions by 10% - I did this weekend by installing another layer of loft insulation in my roof, but then my emissions are pretty small to start with - it's another matter entirely to cut an entire economy's emissions by the necessary 80-90%. That kind of cut requires systemic change, and that is what governments and their buddy corporations are really scared of.

Gar is spot on. Offsets are great if your emissions are already tiny and there is really nothing more you can do. Offsets are a pile of c*** if they allow the system that created this mess to carry on as it is.

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

Ban the word "Prove"

...unless you're a mathematician.

Here's the deal. No blogger, big media journalist, person in the street talking about environmental issues, author - anyone who doesn't want these demonic denial morons to get the upper hand for even a second - should abstain from using the words "prove", "proven", "proof" and any of their derivatives until the climate crisis is over.

For the layperson, there is no such thing as scientific proof - everything is a hypothesis and then possibly a theory, until it has been updated / ruled out.

But, along the lines David has written, you may ask someone to "disprove" something, but only if they've asked you to "prove" it first ;-)

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.orgOn A call for suckers posted 2 years, 3 months ago 3 Responses

Not All The Headlines

Today The (London) Times reported "Heathrow is defeated in its attempt to ban environmental campaigners" and if you read the details of the injunction, and the news on the Climate Camp web site, you will see that the injunction now in place only applies to 3 people out of the many thousands who will be attending.

Furthermore, the injunction only slightly extends existing English trespass laws, and retains the right to protest. I sometimes feel lucky to be British, with a far more liberal right to protest than my colleagues in the USA and even more draconianly controlled authorities.

The real issue here, though, is that the law in all "civilized" nations is heavily skewed in favour of land ownership, property and wealth. A rapist will spend - on average - far less time in jail (if at all) than a tax evader or corporate embezzler. A tree-sitter does not have the right to tree-sit if the ancient forest she is protecting is being destroyed by a logging company acting within the law.

We need to recognised this appalling imbalance in the law and make others aware of it. The law does not protect the planet, it has to be changed, or ignored.

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.orgOn Heathrow owners win climate-camp injunction posted 2 years, 3 months ago 1 Response

Why I Don't Buy It

After two interesting editions bought in 2006, I easily came to the conclusion that the editorial goods of NG were being crushed by the advertising bads. NG is packed full of adverts for gas guzzlers, promotional materials for energy companies, invitations to take exotic holidays - just because the advertisers love to see their wares being plugged in a place where people feel good about themselves just for reading the lovely, fluffy articles.

But let's get this clear - NG is not an environmental journal, it is the scientist's equivalent of pulp fiction for the serious reader. If you want to read good stuff that really tells you what you need to know then there are infinitely better journals, like New Scientist, Nature and Science, and plenty of good blogs around too, which use no paper at all.

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
(an advertising free zone)On Shell and Nat Geo team up to create 5.4 million pieces of trash posted 2 years, 4 months ago 9 Responses

Time Is Money

Have you noticed how all the similar groups got lumped into single 1-2 hour sessions, yet each oil or major energy company got their own special session with Cheney.

E.g.

BIG OIL

Wayne Gibben CONOCO April 12
Alan Huffman CONOCO April 12
Alby Modiano CONOCO April 12
Kevin Brown Sinclair Oil March 21, 2 p.m.
Clint Ensign Sinclair Oil March 21, 2 p.m.
Kathi Wise Sinclair Oil March 21, 2 p.m.
Willie Hensley Alyeska Pipeline Service Company March 7, 9 a.m.
Lindsay Hooper Small Refiners Group March 15, 10 a.m.
Paul Freer Marathon Oil, Conoco, Amerada March 29, 2 p.m.
Rick Shelby AGA Leadership Council March 26
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart Shell Oil April 17, 10 a.m.
Steven Miller Shell Oil April 17, 10 a.m.

DAMN GREENIES!

The Stella Group March 28, 10 a.m.
National Bioenergy Industries Association March 28, 10 a.m.
Jaime Steve American Wind Energy Association March 28, 10 a.m.
Glen Hamer Solar Energy Industry Association March 28, 10 a.m.
Karl Gawell Geothermal Energy Association March 28, 10 a.m.
The Alliance to Save Energy David Nemtzow March 28, 10 a.m.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Howard Geller March 28, 10 a.m.
Environmental Energy Study Institute Beth Bliel March 28, 10 a.m.
Environmental Energy Study Institute Carol Werner March 28, 10 a.m.
American Biomass Association Meagan Smith March 28, 10 a.m.
American Green David Flory March 28, 10 a.m.

Howard Ris Union of Concerned Scientists April 4, 10 a.m.
Alden Meyer Union of Concerned Scientists April 4, 10 a.m.
Elizabeth Thompson Environmental Defense April 4, 10 a.m.
Roger Rufe Center for Marine Conservation April 4, 10 a.m.
Jim Lyon National Wildlife Federation April 4, 10 a.m.
Erich Picha Friends of the Earth April 4, 10 a.m.
Alyssondra Campaigne Natural Resources Defense Counsel April 4, 10 a.m.
Deborah Callahan League of-Conservation Voters April 4, 10 a.m.
Robert Musil Physicians for Social Responsibility April 4, 10 a.m.
Anna Aurilio US Public Interest Research Group April 4, 10 a.m.
Katherine Silverthorne World Wildlife Fund April 4, 10 a.m.
Sandra Sshubert [sic] EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund April 4, 10 a.m.
Robert Dewey Defenders of Wildlife April 4, 10 a.m.
Kevin Curtis National Environmental Trust April 4, 10 a.m.

Can't be giving those representative bodies too much time can we?

A message for anyone considering Whistleblowing. Do it now - you could embarrass a lot of important people and stop bad things happening before they do.

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.orgOn Pretty much what you thought it was posted 2 years, 4 months ago 7 Responses

More Commercial Interests

Lovely idea. Get lots of apiring directors to say good things about saving the planet, and then when the finalists are chosen - well, who do you think will be waiting to make themselves look good. Let's take a look...

Toyota

Toyota are offering a Prius as a prize. But they're not really, because they have a new "Hybrid-Lite" to sell, called the Highlander, and that is what the winner in the USA will get. A car that gets half the mileage of the Prius, because it's a big sedan.

Sony

There are all sorts of consumer gadgets on offer as prizes in the competition. Sony likes a high profile, hence the large branding on their products, and on the competition web site. Fancy a 46" plasma screen? That's good for the planet, isn't it.

T-Mobile

Another commercial sponsor. Another new gadget that needs promoting. Hey! Let's offer it as a prize in a competition to help save the planet.

By the way, Current TV have been kind enough to link straight to the manufacturers' web sites, in case you want some stuff now.

So who is behind this?

Al Gore is the big cheese of The Alliance For Climate Protection, but he surely doesn't have time to micromanage things like this competition. I wonder if the Board of Directors has any influence on the organization's policies:

Theodore Roosevelt IV : Managing Director, Lehman Brothers - one of the largest capital management and financial dealing companies in the world. They don't want the system to change.

Carol M. Browner : Principal, The Albright Group, LLC - A political lobbying firm.

Brent Scowcroft : President, The Scowcroft Group; National Security Advisor to President Gerald R. Ford and President George H.W. Bush - Now here's one guy who has no vested interests at all (joke). He is a military man and apparently coined the term "New World Order". Nice.

Lee Thomas :Retired President and COO, Georgia-Pacific Corp - This is getting really silly now. GP received record fines for environmental damage in the USA while on Lee Thomas' watch, and were one of the pioneers in opening up the Borneo rain forest for industrial deforestation.

Orin S. Kramer :General Partner, Boston Provident, L.P - Another financial firm, another dollar.

Where exactly are the environmental experts, the objective scientists, the people who actually want things to change, on this Board?

Oh yes...

Larry J. Schweiger : President & CEO, National Wildlife Federation - Could be worse, although Larry is a dyed-in-the-wool Live Earth person now. The NWF don't do activism though - you won't find any tree-sitters or eco-warriors on their books - they want change so long as it doesn't spoil anyone's party.

So there you go.

Enter the competition if you like, but don't expect anything to change because of it. And don't say I didn't warn you.

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.orgOn Make a short eco-video about climate change and you could win a Toyota hybrid posted 2 years, 4 months ago 3 Responses

A Letter To Live Earth

I have sent this to the Live Earth organisers, but now realise it should be an open letter:

Dear Live Earth Press Room

I have been very vocal over the last few days about what I think are the chances of Live Earth succeeding, and I would be dishonest if I thought that it would change more than a very few minds for good. I don't know how you measure the success of a set of concerts, but regardless of my predictions, I did state to various journalists that I did wish you all the best in your venture.

That is, until now. I have had the deep misfortune to stumble upon your streaming media site to discover that your key sponsor is one of the most notoriously anti-environmental vehicle manufacturers on Earth. The parent company, GM, was the last auto manufacturer to leave the voracious climate change denying Global Climate Coalition. GM were also a key funder of the anti climate change lobby group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. As for Chevy themselves, the Forbes Top 2007 Gas Guzzlers has Chevrolet's models really cornering the market with vehicles at numbers 4, 6 and 8! This is one company that loves to pollute.

If I want to see a video of a performance I have to see a Chevy banner ad, and watch a 30 second advert saying what a great company they are. And that is meant to be a good demonstration to the millions of Live Earth viewers on how to care for the planet?

It sucks, and you know it. Live Earth has been polluted, and I am more than happy to tell Al Gore this myself.

Yours

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org

I really wish I didn't have to publish this, but corporate intervention must not be left ignored.

Keith
On Again and again posted 2 years, 4 months ago 7 Responses

Nice Idea, Little Effect

One of the first articles I ever wrote (in March 2006) was called Why The Public Won't Change. It could have been written for Live Earth:

"In 40 years, the modern environmental movement has singularly failed to engage the public in having an awareness of environmental issues beyond that which stirs their interest in the short term."

"But what does this demand of the public? A day out in a party atmosphere (would there have been half as many if it had rained?) and some banner waving, with no follow up required and no change in lifestyle demanded....Exactly the same applies to the G8 protests : G8 decided not to change their policies. The public had a nice day. The government didn't feel threatened."

No one watching or attending Live Earth actually has to change anything to enjoy the show. Shortly afterwards you will see a return in attitudes to pre-Live Earth, and the memories will be of the great performance by Razorlight, The Police or whoever.

Don't get me wrong - the web site is excellent, and the aims are valiant - but I think this comment from a member of a band (playing at Live Earth) forum sums up a common view:

"I'm going! I'll be travelling all the way around the world from Scotland to Sydney to see Crowded House return to the city where they ended it all those years ago.

"I was gutted to find out that they are playing in Scotland but I'd already be on the plane heading south. Imagine my delight when I discovered that when I'm in Brisbane, they'd be down the road in Sydney."

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
On Depends how you define green posted 2 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses

It's a Murdoch thing.

Not Rupert, but James, the son of Rupert and CEO of BSkyB in the UK.

About a month ago Sky News ran a whole week of green articles, including a UK carbon counter. A remarkable thing, and a huge change from the skepticism of previous Murdoch incarnations. The Sun, a News International tabloid in the UK also ran a host of articles on global warming recently.

Fatherly concern for his son's worries? Miracles may be happening as we speak...

Keith
www.theearthblog.org
www.greenseniors.org
On Yeah, you heard me posted 2 years, 8 months ago 12 Responses

A little green spin goes a long way.

It must come as a shock to many people that an environmentalist would dare attack someone so obviously with his heart in the right place as Branson but, to misquote an old saying "You can take the man out of the business, but you can't take the business out of the man."

I have been surprised by the negative response to my article "Never Trust A Celebrity Philanthropist" (http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/18106), beca...
http://www.reduce3.orgOn Richard Branson chats about embracing ethanol and slashing airplane emissions posted 2 years, 11 months ago 6 Responses

Fingers In All Pies

It may be difficult for "environmentalists" (such an ethereal word) to cope with, but in the apparently cosy green world which we inhabit there is as much conflict as "outside". Greenpeace think they run the show, even though their efforts in combatting climate change have been parochial and weak of late rather than the massive impact that such a well known and GLOBAL organisation could have with a concerted and focussed campaign. The deep greens fight against the light greens, even though each is connected to a distinctly different part of society - equally valid in terms of getting ideas and gaining ground, but different. And even those "demons" in the oil, coal and chemicals industries that try to change things from inside are reviled by both greens and industrialists as, respectively, frauds and turncoats.

So who is right? Well, in fact all of them are to a certain extent. As long as positive change is being achieved, and I mean change that doesn't come at the expense of other parts of the natural environment, or is simply "greenwash", then it should be supported. Each of us may have our own favoured niche, but we all need to look inwards for a minute and consider whether we are being too insular and that there are other, equally valid ways, of making a difference.

Keith Farnish
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.comOn In working with Wal-Mart, activist Adam Werbach is abandoning his principles posted 3 years, 4 months ago 9 Responses

Deja Vu

You been reading my Blog Bart? Actually "4 Essential Ways To Save The Earth" is just common sense with a few examples - but it includes everything Bart says, which makes him a great thinker in my eyes :-D

As for the shared ownership, Jared Diamond puts it very well, essentially using the example of the "Stationary Bandit", i.e. the landowner, who has to ensure the area has a future to retain his investment, and the "Roving Bandit", i.e. the short-term leaseholder or common user, who has no interest in preserving the Commons.

I really can't argue with Jason on the necessity of ownership, although I would say very strongly that non-private ownership such as genuine rights and responsibilities of collective ownership; nationalisation of a resource; or international ownership, such as that which protects Antarctica; is preferable to private ownership, which has the tendency to concentrate on short-term gains. And this, Jason, is a fundamental argument against neoclassical economics, which assumes you can have infinite growth (profit), dispite the obvious finiteness of our natural resources; I would love to hear an economist argue for the morality of this.

Keith
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.orgOn A challenge to all of those enamored with common property ownership posted 3 years, 4 months ago 20 Responses

Spooky coincidence

I keep seeing things around the world (especially on Gristmill) that I have just written about:

http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/16624

(see the bit about Environmental Awareness)

I really can't stress enough the importance of finding creative ways of engaging the public. A many-pronged attack is needed, using the law, taxes, grants, adverts, education, positive messages and community mobilisation - for without getting the people of the world to move their collective arses (as opposed to sitting back while "everyone else" does something) then it will be goodbye nice planet.

For every bad thing the UN does, there seem to be 10 good things that no-one ever mentions...

Keith Farnish
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.comOn Database of sustainability communication projects posted 3 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Local first

If I lived in the USA then I would be on the horns of a dilemma as controls on pesticide use, GM and hormones are very poor indeed compared to most of Europe. So in the UK, if it's local (basically the whole of the UK, though in some supermarkets they even show the county!) then I am generally happy to buy it. Also, in the UK nothing I eat will have been flown (that only happens to fresh fish, seafood etc), whereas in the USA the aircraft is the default form of coast-to-coast transport.

Seasonality is a big issue with organics as it defines the distance transported, so it's worth looking at your diet and adapting depending on the time of the year. We are eating lots of leafy green veg at the moment and will only go big on salads in the summer - so it's pretty easy for us to get organic and local in one go.

Keith
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.comOn Berry, berry, quite contrary posted 3 years, 5 months ago 6 Responses

On the button...

...and, as always, so very real.

God help us if we leave the Earth to these people - I mean the millions of real ones who are just the same.

Keith Farnish
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.comOn The Onion: Still funny posted 3 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Who can argue?

You can get ones for dimmers - this is big news; just about the only thing that was stopping the nay-sayers from still well, saying "nay" - you can get tiny little ones, you can get ones that come on straight away, you can get them in different colours(!), you can get ones that only need you to change the top bit!!

If you need any more convincing go to http://www.greenshop.co.uk/acatalog/Low_Energy_Light_Bulbs.html (not an ad, just an example from the UK)

Go on! And while you're about it tell everyone else that they have no excuse not to change.

And to everyone in the UK, there's no excuse not to change to an electricity supplier that provides 100% renewable power (don't know if that's the case in the USA / Canada / Rest of Europe - I hope it is).

Keith
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.comOn Umbra on replacing light bulbs posted 3 years, 5 months ago 19 Responses

Have to agree

Three reasons for agreeing with this aesthetic viewpoint on wind turbines:

1. As Mark says, the landscape is always changing, but more importantly, the landscape is merely the subjective perception of space by humans. Wildlife does not give two hoots about what the land looks like it is biodiversity and ecological stability that matters.

2. The aesthetic opposition to wind turbines is very rarely based on a true visual assessment of the impact. In my area (Essex, UK) there is great local opposition to a wind farm planned for a field next to a decommissioned nuclear power station. These are people who chose to live next to nuclear waste but cannot bear the thought of 20-odd turbines in a field. Widespread opposition is, surprise, surprise, funded by the nuclear lobby in the shape of an organisation called Country Guardian. If they were true guardians of the countryside they would also be protesting about coal, oil, nuclear, road building (oh yes, they do, but only when it is to a wind farm) etc. They are not.

3. I like wind turbines. I think they are truly elegant and a powerful symbol of hope.

Should we be cynical?

My immediate reaction - based on experiences of the evil creature that is the CBI (the regulation hating Confederation Of British Industry) is to suggest that this is a reaction to the growing certainty of the damage that will be caused by climate change and its associated increased insurance premiums, operational risk and possible (watch this space!) litigation imposed on companies that failed to respond to early warnings.

Are they also showing an altruistic streak? I very much doubt it. But if the same system that promotes uncapped growth also imposes self-regulation based on risk mitigation, then we may be seeing the limits of capitalism. A sort of "peak oil for industry". My big worry is that this will only be the case for operations in highly industrialised countries; where the opportunities still exist for exploitation without regrets then I cannot see business being willing to regulate itself.

Keith Farnish
http://www.theearthblog.orgOn Across the pond looks like over the rainbow: Business and gov't dealing with climate change together posted 3 years, 5 months ago 14 Responses

A billion dollars worth of incentives

Yet again we see that nothing happens if there is no money in it. What about the stupid idea of using the billion dollars to insulate the roofs and walls of 50 million houses?

Sequestration is only needed when governments and companies are too greedy to see past the "loss leader" of reducing energy consumption.

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
www.reduce3.comOn Sequestration posted 3 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Don't Even Go There

"Clean Coal" is (to use the UK vernacular) a load of cobblers.

A quick link...

http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/15348 (Carbon Storage : An Easy Solution...For Idiots)

In a nutshell, like the pathetic attempts by oil companies to cut their own emissions while encouraging others to spew out more and more CO², the coal generators are going to develop headline coal gas burying plants where they are feasible, and pretend that is making the blindest bit of difference to climate change.

Coal may be the future, but only if the public can be convinced that it is clean - let's make sure that this lie is exposed.

http://www.theearthblog.org Giving The Earth A Future.

You Call It Life?

I have sent this to the CEI, and blogged it, so others can see the absurdity of their idiotic work. Interestingly they have set bounces on their pr@cei.org and info@cei.org addresses where something mentions the ads - they don't like the reaction, do they?

"Of course you call it life - the life that the businesses that fund the CEI depend on. It's called money. Carbon Dioxide makes money.

Imagine if there was no oil. What would you make money out of?

You are scared people, scared of being found out. It's not about caring, is it, it's about growing the profits of your sponsors.

You want people to believe, don't you?

http://streams.cei.org/

Put a person in a room full of carbon dioxide, they die.

But it's life to you, isn't it.

Keith Farnish
http://www.theearthblog.org"

http://www.theearthblog.org Giving The Earth A Future.