Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Whats what with The wave?
It appears I am invited to take part in a Day Of Action on climate change, including a march in London on Saturday December 5th. And there is an online registration form for party members so we LibDems can all congregate together and make the maximum impact.
Sounds good stuff.
But those of us who live outside London really need to know what time all this kicks off, so we can decide whether we can make the travel arrangements. None of the party publicity I have seen mentions this rather crucial point. Anyone know? And anyone have influence on the publicisers-that-be so that this information is prominently flagged on the party website and in emails?
(Yes yes I can do a Google search on The Wave to get general event timings, but what are the specifics for the Libdem assembly point).
Sounds good stuff.
But those of us who live outside London really need to know what time all this kicks off, so we can decide whether we can make the travel arrangements. None of the party publicity I have seen mentions this rather crucial point. Anyone know? And anyone have influence on the publicisers-that-be so that this information is prominently flagged on the party website and in emails?
(Yes yes I can do a Google search on The Wave to get general event timings, but what are the specifics for the Libdem assembly point).
Labels: climate change
Comments:
Perhaps you could let us know when this global warming we are paying so many billions in extra taxes for kicks off too.
You will certainly be able to say, unless it is all just a fascist scam to scare people.
I await learning.
Post a Comment
You will certainly be able to say, unless it is all just a fascist scam to scare people.
I await learning.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
War on 'War Words'
Why is it that when some somnambulist thinker wants to pretend to be really serious they call for a ‘War on’ something?
War on Terror, War on Drugs, and now according to Prince Chattering, we need to conduct the actions against global warming on a mental war footing.
I suppose he may be recalling US President Jimmy Carter’s attempt to mobilise public support for his April 1977 energy policy as ‘the moral equivalent of War’
Do people use this war rhetoric because it gives their cause the serious glamour of violence? That it shows how really really serious things are…?
Well, for me violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Violence-invoking language and imagery and metaphors help close down thinking, makes people frightened, shut down serious thought about options in a difficult situation. Global warming is a complex of horrendous problems with packages of proposed solutions that have real downsides. We do not need a frightened herd of people acting as in a war. We need the intelligent and questioning participation of as many people as possible, people who realise that things are much too serious to fart about with ‘war words’.
OK Milton did flirt with a war image, but in the Areopagitica he said
Musing, searching, revolving new notions... assenting to the force of reason and convincement... tackling the causes of climatic change calls for these arts of peace.
By the way, if you want to recommend a book that goes into the pros and cons of personal energy efficiency without sinking under the weight of technical expositions or fearful exhortation, try Colin Smith's book 'This Cold House: The Simple Science of Energy Efficiency'. A little gem. Every PPC should read it.
War on Terror, War on Drugs, and now according to Prince Chattering, we need to conduct the actions against global warming on a mental war footing.
I suppose he may be recalling US President Jimmy Carter’s attempt to mobilise public support for his April 1977 energy policy as ‘the moral equivalent of War’
Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.
Do people use this war rhetoric because it gives their cause the serious glamour of violence? That it shows how really really serious things are…?
Well, for me violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Violence-invoking language and imagery and metaphors help close down thinking, makes people frightened, shut down serious thought about options in a difficult situation. Global warming is a complex of horrendous problems with packages of proposed solutions that have real downsides. We do not need a frightened herd of people acting as in a war. We need the intelligent and questioning participation of as many people as possible, people who realise that things are much too serious to fart about with ‘war words’.
OK Milton did flirt with a war image, but in the Areopagitica he said
Behold now this vast city: a city of refuge, the mansion house of liberty, encompassed and surrounded with his protection; the shop of war hath not there more anvils and hammers waking, to fashion out the plates and instruments of armed justice in defence of beleaguered truth, than there be pens and heads there, sitting by their studious lamps, musing, searching, revolving new notions and ideas wherewith to present, as with their homage and their fealty, the approaching Reformation: others as fast reading, trying all things, assenting to the force of reason and convincement.
Musing, searching, revolving new notions... assenting to the force of reason and convincement... tackling the causes of climatic change calls for these arts of peace.
By the way, if you want to recommend a book that goes into the pros and cons of personal energy efficiency without sinking under the weight of technical expositions or fearful exhortation, try Colin Smith's book 'This Cold House: The Simple Science of Energy Efficiency'. A little gem. Every PPC should read it.
Labels: climate change, energy efficiency, rhetoric
Comments:
Post a Comment
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
The proof of the Climate Change policy pudding will be in Milton Keynes
If the UK is to get anywhere near cutting CO2 emissions to the levels outlined in the Queen’s Speech the rest of the UK will need to follow the lead of Milton Keynes. We will know if the Brown Government is serious on this if it stops the introduction of new planning regulations that would gut the local MK initiative.
What Liberal Democrat controlled MK has done since 2005 is to require that all new developments in the New City meet carbon-neutral standards. The MK policy covers all sizes of developments both commercial and housing, and covers energy efficiency and renewable energy supply. Because MK is growing so rapidly this policy is projected to save at least 12,000 tonnes of CO2 emission per year over what it would otherwise be. Larger new developments must pay into a fund aimed at offsetting CO2 emissions from older buildings in the New City.
However there has been a big lobbying effort by developers who don’t like having to meet more stringent local standards –and Whitehall leaks showed that the Government is considering regulation banning MK and other local authorities from carrying through such local initiatives. The aim of any such regulation would be to require local planning authorities accept common bog-standard buildings in any part of the UK.
The latest situation (prior to the Queens speech) is summarised by LD group leader Isobel McCall after receiving a reply to her letter to the Minister asking for clarification (reply received at the end of October, months after her early September letter ):
Now it is possible that the brown Government will make MK standards applicable as a minimum across the UK as part of a national initiative. That would be great. But even if this is so it would be wholly wrong to prevent any particular authority from carrying through an even more stringent policy if the council feels this is right for its own area.
What Liberal Democrat controlled MK has done since 2005 is to require that all new developments in the New City meet carbon-neutral standards. The MK policy covers all sizes of developments both commercial and housing, and covers energy efficiency and renewable energy supply. Because MK is growing so rapidly this policy is projected to save at least 12,000 tonnes of CO2 emission per year over what it would otherwise be. Larger new developments must pay into a fund aimed at offsetting CO2 emissions from older buildings in the New City.
However there has been a big lobbying effort by developers who don’t like having to meet more stringent local standards –and Whitehall leaks showed that the Government is considering regulation banning MK and other local authorities from carrying through such local initiatives. The aim of any such regulation would be to require local planning authorities accept common bog-standard buildings in any part of the UK.
The latest situation (prior to the Queens speech) is summarised by LD group leader Isobel McCall after receiving a reply to her letter to the Minister asking for clarification (reply received at the end of October, months after her early September letter ):
Unfortunately the letter is very confusing and the Minister neither confirms nor denies that we will be able to keep our existing planning rules. It looks as if the massive pressure from Milton Keynes and other areas has delivered at least a partial U-turn, but the devil will be in the detail when the Government's planning policy on climate change is published….. In Milton Keynes we have made a conscious decision to reduce carbon emissions from buildings and we want our
homes to be of the highest environmental standards. Developers locally are working within our tough policies so we are making this work on the ground. We don't want it watered down.
It is rather ironic that it has recently been announced that we have reached the finals of the Green Apple environmental awards for introducing this innovative policy. It was just after that we heard that the policy was under threat from the Government!
Now it is possible that the brown Government will make MK standards applicable as a minimum across the UK as part of a national initiative. That would be great. But even if this is so it would be wholly wrong to prevent any particular authority from carrying through an even more stringent policy if the council feels this is right for its own area.
Labels: climate change, green development, planning
Comments:
Post a Comment
