Comments Mike Frew has made

one step forward to get 16 back

...good to see the BBC point out that this commitment was made by everyone at Rio in 1992.On Bush administration, other G8 leaders agree to halve emissions by 2050 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Brilliant, but....

Surely the Cimate Action Project should be the first cab off the rank in endorsing calls for "accuracy over rhetoric".

"We can no longer discuss the State of the Union without assessing the state of the nation's climate"

Thats a nicely rounded call for policy action (or is it seekeing more rhetoric?!) which, unfortunately, misleads.

Sure, my quibble is over semantics; climate should indeed be a cornerstone of the speech. But if Bush is to be accurate and inform action, surely he's best to address national impact on global climate. National emissions have global impact.

For me, using Bush's rhetoric from last year, the statement would better read: "We can no longer discuss the State of the Union without assessing the state of the nation's impact on global climate change." Or would that be asking too much: an admission of global culpability?

Inaccuracy is excusable (maybe!?) for grist readers - we're relatively well informed. But this seeks to influence an address to the nation. Perpetuating a soft national perception of impact does nothing for US citizens propensity to act.

Nor does it shift global perception that the US (generally) is doing SFA in addressing "global climate change"...On Sign a petition to prompt Bush to address climate in his state of the union speech posted 1 year, 10 months ago 3 Responses

Innumeracy rules

bingo!
co2 per ton (tonne) is the obvious measure. surely theres some analysis out there...!
On Lessons on getting the numbers straight posted 2 years, 8 months ago 15 Responses

the price of water

Here, New Zealand has an interesting problem in this regard. Intensive agriculture afforded by massive scale irrigation on formerly arid pastureland. We also have agricultural run-off destroying lowland rivers and lakes - particularly in the picturesque central north island.

Some have suggested pricing water as an answer. Much like pricing carbon in order to efficiently allocate a "comodity" that is (or is hoped to be) scarce. But ask the Bolivians.

This is a very real problem. Of course for Jared Diamond, lack of water has been a reason for collapse in many previous cultures.

Cheers
Mike
On A nice New Yorker piece posted 3 years ago 4 Responses

...stigma

Image is a powerful thing Red Jenny.

In July our good Gristmillers posted about a Greenpeace ad that ridiculed SUV users.

Although the ad is in a UK context, it highlights the power of social stigma (and humour!).

I've posted a few SUV pieces from a New Zealand perspective if you're interested... It seems that over here Hyundai are leading the way with "green" (ahem) motoring.
On And why is it still around? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

calling a paddock a paddock

Here in New Zealand (where cows are seldomly fed in the shed) we have a similar argument bubbling over a "Buy Kiwi Made" campaign promoted by the Green party (in conjunction with the Labour Gov.).

Industry players have excerted pressure in order to have goods made abroad, but designed in NZ and with NZ sourced material included under a "Kiwi Made" labelling system. An iconic NZ company that manufactures in China has been particularly vocal.

Aims of the Kiwi Made program include supporting local manufacturing and reducing our external dependance (as a remote country) in an energy constraned world. So Kiwi Made means just that. Similarly, I'm sure the intentions of a "Grass Fed" label is to inform consumers just that. Like many similar issues, this is one of local sustainability.

It seems that for both NZ and the US the issue has become one where a group of interested industry players (bound to be excluded) rally to have the rules changed in order to protect their positions. Most often their position is one based on "un-sustainable" practices, and a labeling regime that excludes them would tag them as "un-sustainable".

If the punters want "Corn Fed" meat, or indeed "Made abroad" clothing they have a right to buy them. But if its corn fed or made abroad and labelled otherwise its plain misleading.

So, Heidi, stay strong. These are important issues. The average consumer is (and maybe will allways be) unaware of what sits behind the label. Getting rules right from the get-go is crucial.
On A brazen move from an agency shot through with industry players. posted 3 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses