Archive for February, 2012
More Anti-Green Claptrap From The Daily Mail (but this time I’m onto them)
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Dodgy Journalism on February 27, 2012
I happened upon another anti-green article in the Daily Mail the other day (no surprise there), but what I found to be of real interest was the way the reporter cunningly used information from different sources to pile the pressure on his headline subject and twist the story to make it sound like green policies are responsible for much, much more than they actually are.
I’ve also got to say that this article was all over the place. It pulled figures from everywhere and then assembled them in such a higgledy-piggledy way that it was impossible to really make neither head nor tale of the piece. There’s one thing for certain though: it’s anti-green through and through. Still; at least the reporter didn’t hack anyone’s phone to get the scoop… or did he?
Disclaimer: Can I just say that I am not a Daily Mail reader; I just have friends and family who alert me to articles such as this. Thank you.
The article opens by claiming that green polices add 15% to a typical energy bill. Fair enough; they probably do. However, it then subtly starts to pile on the numbers by first saying that “the combination of green taxes and wholesale price rises” could push prices up by 36%. Note the part that says “…and wholesale price rises”. Next we are told of a hypothetical ‘high-price scenario’ included in a Whitehall paper, which would also then push up the numbers. Finally we are informed that, due to these factors, consumers will need to find an extra £500 a year for energy by 2020. Yep, that’s an extra £500 a year – shock, horror, dismay. At this point the reporter cleverly brings green taxes back to centre stage and works in a biased quote from those renowned experts on green policy The TaxPayers Alliance (?!), and hey presto, this £500 extra on your bill is all down to those nasty old green policies.
The article also says these green taxes will help to fund “wind farms, nuclear power stations, more solar panels and a new pylon network.” Erm, hello? Only two of these are ‘green’ technologies. Idiot.
I will give credit, however (much as it pains me) to the fact that the article makes mention of switching your energy supplier to save money, and also that the story ends with a pro-green policy quote from a Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman.
Nevertheless. What bugs me here is the Mail’s blatant attempt to turn its readers against any kind of green policy. This isn’t the first time they’ve done this either (thank goodness, as they keep me supplied with blog material). Joking aside though, why do they feel so strongly that we should not have to pay anything to safeguard our future?
Also let’s not forget: It’s not only climate change we are trying to combat here. We are also trying to give ourselves some energy security. I mean, do we really want to be beholden to Russia and other even more psychopathic regimes for our gas supplies?
And one last thing: Why does the reporter feel that green taxes are any less legitimate than other taxes? If these taxes from energy were used to fund, say, the police instead, would the Daily Mail still be so angry? (of course it would, what am I saying? It’s the Mail).
Protecting our environment and securing a healthy planet for our future generations is not a triviality; and it’s not going to come cheap. Somebody has to pay, and spreading the burden across the populace seems fair to me. It also seems fair that households who couldn’t care less about energy conservation will pay more towards these green policies because the tax is levied as a proportion of your bill. Ergo, families who do try to conserve energy will pay less. Fair indeed.
These green policies are intended reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to shield us from exactly the type of wholesale prices rises the article mentions. Surely the reporter would agree that this is a good thing to aim for, but how exactly does he propose we pay for it, if not with green taxes?
By all means, alert us to the potential rises that have been forecast, but don’t put them under the headline of “green taxes add 15% to your bill”.
Daily Mail readers aren’t known for their ability (or desire) to read between the lines. So – as the reporter is obviously intending – the reader comes away with the image that green taxes are adding £500 to energy bills, which of course, is absolute nonsense.
GR
For a more in depth (and a little more sensible) look at this very story click here…
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of me, Nostal6ie and Daniel Gilby
I’m Sick of Sick Posts on Facebook
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on February 20, 2012
It seems to me that the tirade of sanctimonious – and sometimes sickening – posts on facebook is getting heavier of late. Not only do these really irritate me, but I also fail to see the point of them.
To give you some examples of what has annoyed me recently, try these:
The first one was a picture of what was obviously a very late aborted baby laying in the hands of a surgeon. Yes a very sad picture, but did I want to come across that while looking through my facebook timeline? No. I bloody well didn’t. The oddest thing about this was that the person who shared it was commenting “this is horrible picture and shouldn’t be on facebook”. Well don’t hit the flippin’ share button then!
The second picture was (yet another) one of these animal cruelty pictures. This time it looked as if a dog had a really nasty injury to its mouth and there was blood everywhere. Thanks for that – just what I wanted to see, especially as my 7-year old was looking over my shoulder.
Apart from the fact that these pictures really annoy me, I also have to ask; do the people posting them, sharing them and making some self-righteous comment about then actually know the provenance of these photos? Do they know where they come from? Was the baby aborted to save the mother, who subsequently then had to suffer the virtual loss of a child? Was the baby aborted because it was already dead? Was this photo picked up from a medical journal or a memo circulated to paediatric surgeons? Is the picture a fake?
In the photo of the dog I noticed that the background didn’t seem to be that of a domestic home, due to the clinical-looking wall and ceiling tiles. Also the dog had a nice big full bowl of food – not a usual practice for animal abusers. Maybe this was an animal hospital and the dog had a wound that had reopened? Maybe the dog had fallen? Who knows? Again, I wonder if the picture is either fake or taken out of context.
What I do know is that people should perhaps engage their brains before they jump on the social bandwagon and start condemning something they actually know diddly squat about.
If you are a person who loves to share these types of picture, think about this: Perhaps these animal abuse photos are actually designed to be circulated around the Internet by the abusers themselves and by re-posting them you may be actually supporting what you think you are condemning. Perhaps the animals are abused for the very reason these photos can be taken. There are sick people out there who do thrive on the instant “fame” such actions can result in: “I put this picture out on facebook and it got shared 100,000 times…” Think about it.
Do these re-posters live by morals that are above the rest of us?
I admit that I will re-post environmental articles that I feel may be of interest to others or that I feel strongly about. But at least I can say that I make every effort that is feasible to live a sustainable life (apart from the amount of travelling I do, but that’s for work and also something I’m trying to change). My point is: these people who are so shocked at pictures of animal cruelty, are they vegetarians? Do they eat organic meat? Do they know where their meat comes from and that the livestock is kept in conditions that do not invoke any suffering? Do they worry about palm oil and the effect that has on wildlife around the world? Maybe some do – but not many.
When I post something up on facebook, I keep it clean and I would definitely not want to shock someone with anything I post. Besides, shock tactics have rarely been proven to work.
Additionally, these pictures are not informing me of something I’m ignorant to. I know late abortions are happening, I know animals are mistreated. I don’t need nasty pictures on facebook to remind me of this.
If all of these photos came with a link to donate to a relevant charity, a petition to lobby the government or some other means of making them relevant and useful, then fair enough. But the majority of them don’t. They are just sad people wallowing in a sad world they feel they must impose on the rest of us.
I could pull a million sick photos off the Internet and circulate them around my social media networks, but why would I want to. Why do others want to?
It reminds me of a video I watched when I was younger that showed people dying in a multitude of different ways. The intro to this video said something like “we have brought you this film because we want you to see the futility of killing”, or some other crap along those lines. What they should have said was, “we bring you this video because you’re sick bastards who enjoy watching others die, but we can’t actually say that, so we have to pretend this is for pious reasons instead”. What a load of nonsense.
If there was no harm in circulating these photos, then fair enough, but many people look at facebook with their kids in the room, or are just looking to connect with friends or find a funny little youtube clip to watch.
I will admit that I am as fascinated by the macabre as the next man and that when a BBC News reporter says, “some of the scenes you about to witness may be disturbing”, I feel even more compelled to watch. But that’s my choice and I get warned beforehand. Having nasty photos sprung on me when I’m just looking for some facebook funnies isn’t… well… funny.
Re-post this is you agree… Blagh!
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better… (and no dodgy photos please)
Why Are We So Behind in the War on Plastic Bags?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Resource Efficiency on February 7, 2012
While the UK may be no eco-angel, it is nonetheless fairly good when it comes to environmental initiatives: a firm governmental backing of renewable energy and domestic recycling programmes are a couple of examples that spring to mind. When it comes to plastic bags, however, we are well behind other countries.
I spend quite a lot of time in the US, and one thing that constantly strikes me on my visits here is how well US businesses have done at lowering the use of plastic bags in their shops. We like to look at America as an environmental bad boy, but when it comes to the environmental plague of plastic bags, we fall far behind them. Of course there are still plastic bags issued in the US, but the majority of shops I have visited recently are giving away paper bags: Walgreen’s, Whole Foods, Crate and Barrel, Victoria’s Secret (ahem) and even Walmart – yes Walmart – have gone down the paper bag route.
In France – another country not really known for its eco-credentials – their biggest supermarket, Carrefour, now charges for plastic bags. So what’s wrong with the British retailers?
If you contact any supermarket about this matter, they will give you their usual spiel about how they are taking the plastic bag issue seriously, doing their bit, blah, blah, blah… What they really mean is they’re paying lip service, but can’t actually be bothered to tackle the problem properly.
Anyway… my reason for this post isn’t simply to have a moan (my usual reason for reaching for the keyboard), but to share a government petition that I think deserves our attention. It reads as follows:
17 billion plastic bags a year are given to British consumers. The average Briton accepts 5 times a weeks. 200 million tonnes of plastic is produced worldwide and 10% ends up in the ocean. When plastic bags get into the ocean they can entangle, suffocate and even kill marine animals. Plastic doesn’t biodegrade, it just breaks up into smaller pieces. The number of plastic bags issued by UK supermarkets in the past year has risen by 333 million. Plastic bags are becoming a big problem and there are better solutions! Instead we should have reusable cotton bags/recyclable paper bags/biodegradable starch based bags. Banish the bags and go with reusable/biodegradable ones instead! If we want to cut the amount of waste sent to landfill this is the big step forward…
These bags are menace to the planet and apart from offering meagre rewards as an incentive, UK supermarkets seem adamant on sticking to their current polices.
Ideally we should all be using reusable bags when we go shopping, but that’s not always possible, and besides, it’s unfair to place the entire obligation for this on the consumer. The retailer also has a duty here.
So assuming there will always be a necessity for retailers to provide bags, the natural alternative is for the traditional polyethylene bags to be replaced with paper ones. Now nobody can argue that the production of paper is without its own environmental impacts; but it’s much better than plastic. It doesn’t use fossil fuels to manufacture, the primary component can be gained from renewable resources and – most importantly – when discarded, the paper will biodegrade, causing far less damage to the natural environment.
So that’s it. If you’re a reader of this blog, you don’t need me to labour on about the perils of polyethylene. All you need to do is go and sign the petition and get the government to put pressure on the retailers. We live in one of the great democracies of the world… let’s use that voter power.
Sign it here. Thanks.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
