Posts Tagged news
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
Why Do Some People Seem to Dislike Steve Jobs So Much?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in News on October 7, 2011
With the death of Steve Jobs yesterday, it was surprising to see so many negative comments aimed not only at the man himself, but also questioning the amount of praise heaped on the him. Why is this? What has he done to these people?
The thing I can’t understand is why people appear to begrudge him not only his success, but also fail to see the massive impact that he had, not just in the technology/media sectors, but also in the wider environs of society itself. Admittedly, he didn’t cure cancer (obviously) and Apple wasn’t without its own controversy, but you must be blind to not see how far he pushed the digital revolution and thus the way many of us live our lives today.
Steve Jobs gave us the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad; all of which became outright market leaders and the technology for others to emulate. These integral components are partly responsible for fuelling the digital revolution that we are so privileged to be living through today. Not to mention his role in the creation of Pixar, iTunes, the mouse and the Macintosh computer.
Some people were on facebook and twitter yesterday saying that all we have lost is a man who drove consumerism and just wanted to sell us stuff. Well, duh! Hello? That’s what businessmen do isn’t it? He wasn’t Ghandi or the Dalai Lama – he was out to make money and did so with diamond encrusted cherries on the top. What I find ironic here, though, is that many of these people were using their iPhones to post these messages.
Is this the end of the innovation? I hope not
A concern for me about Steve Job’s death is that we have lost a true visionary; a man who gave us what we wanted before we even knew we wanted it. His audacious decisions to hold back certain features on new products and his meticulous focus on exactly how he wanted things done were not only legendary among the industry, but also helped Apple make more money than the US government.
As far as IT is concerned, Apple’s biggest rival, Microsoft, only seems capable of copying Apple on everything that it does: Windows is still just playing catch-up with MacOS, and the Microsoft stores are exact copies of the Apple store model (with some extra comfy sofas admittedly). While there’s nothing wrong with this, I just hope that Job’s mantle at Apple can be carried forward by his team and we will continue to witness the originality in concept and design we’re now so used to from the Californian company – at least until someone else can step up to the plate and take us further forward.
Don’t get me wrong here; I love Apple products, but only because they work so well (and look so cool). If they are usurped by another company, I am not so much of an Apple loyalist that I won’t go for a better product if they do end up taking their eye off the ball. I just hope the new ideas will continue to flow from somewhere.
Apple is currently the second biggest company in the world, behind only Exxon-Mobile. This would never have been achieved without the charismatic, inventive, forward-looking CEO at their helm. Let’s hope we will continue to witness the levels of innovation we have seen over the last decade and are not entering a dark period of lack of imagination.
RIP Mr Jobs; you will be missed (but not too much I hope).
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Changes to UK Planning Law Sparks Concern For Our Beloved Countryside
Posted by Gareth Eynon in News on August 8, 2011
The National Trust and The Campaign To Protect Rural England (CPRE) are about to come to blows with MPs over proposed changes to the planning law. They both argue that the changes will make it too easy for new developments to go ahead, consequently threatening green belt land.
This developing argument has led to a war of words between the charities, who claim the countryside will suffer as a result of the changes, and the government, who claim this just is a smear campaign by the left.
Of course changes by the government will usually have somebody or other up in arms; but when The National Trust – that most sensible and venerable of British institutions – throws off the gloves, then you know something is truly wrong.
The government reassures us that Green Belt land, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSI) will remain protected. However, this then raises concern about the rest of the country’s green field sties and wildlife habitats that do not benefit from this security.
Part of what concerns The National Trust and CPRE is that our cash-strapped government is putting short-term financial gain ahead of robust countryside protection. It is feared that this will clear the way for more housing estates, power stations, roads and supermarkets. Conversely though, it may also make it easy for developments such as wind farms to get permission – although that will not please everybody.
The National Trust is due to mobilise its 3.6 million members for the first time in its history by asking them to sign a petition against the proposals, which shows how worried they must be about this change to the planning laws.
The reason for the change is to reduce the current planning policy from 1000 pages to 52, thus making the whole planning process more simple and transparent. While this appears to be prudent in principle, the government seems to be getting it wrong, yet again.
CPRE say that this is the biggest change to planning policy since 1947 and will allow local referendums to overrule current protection for rural areas.
As a member of The National Trust I am looking forward to seeing what they will do in regard to this spat with the government. If you too are concerned about this issue please can take action via the CPRE website, or The National Trust website.
You could, of course, sign both petitions, just like I’m going to do right now. Go on: get involved and make a difference.
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…
Photos courtesy of Davidmartyn. Thanks.
Badger Culling Won’t Help Fight Bovine TB: It May Even Make Things Worse
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Agriculture on July 18, 2011
This morning the government is due to announce its decision on the badger cull intended to reduce bovine tuberculosis (bTB). However, new research which has only just been published, shows that culling could not only be a waste of time, money and life, but it could actually make the problem worse.
After I posted links to related stories on Twitter yesterday and saw the response it garnered, I decided to stop the presses at the Review and write this post instead of the one I had originally planned, which was a look at the macrobiotic behaviour of the flu virus cell when exposed to various forms of Nestle chocolate and how that may be employed against the expansion of Tesco.
So, joking aside (yes that was a joke), the issue of badgers causing bTB in herds of cattle is actually very serious, and has been around for many years now. Over the last 10 years, it’s estimated to have cost the British taxpayer around £500 million and caused no end of heartache to the affected farmers.
The problem is that roaming wild badgers can spread bTB to herds of cattle, and farmers organisations claim that killing the badgers will vastly reduce the spread and impact of the disease. Consequently, the UK government is having to make a decision as to whether to let farmers in western England embark on a shooting spree to cull the said badgers.
In 2009, 1 in 10 herds were infected with bTB, resulting in the premature slaughter of 35,000 animals. According to Defra’s chief scientific advisor, shooting badgers that may infect a herd is the most cost effective way of stopping the spread of the disease.
Recent research, however, which has been undertaken over the last 10 years, has found that culling around 11,000 badgers only reduced the number of bTB cases by 12-16%. It also found that badgers who survive the cull are likely to wander over further areas as their social structure is upset. This then has the effect of spreading the disease over an even greater area, a consequence known as the ‘perturbation’ effect.
These new findings are based on the analysis of data from a study by the Department of Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra): The 10-year Randomised Badger Culling Trial. The man behind the trials, Lord Krebs, said “You leave 85% of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers. It doesn’t seem to be an effective way of controlling the disease”.
While the farming community is understandably desperate to find a solution to this problem, they really should take note of this new research and – at worst – delay the forth-coming cull. If the government does grant them permission, they will be given practically free reign to exterminate as many badgers as they can find.
The National Trust is running an experiment over the next four years to see how effective trapping and vaccinating badgers may prove to be. There is also hope an oral vaccine will soon be developed, thus reducing the cost and effort considerably. Unfortunately this method can cost up to 10 times as much as shooting, which also raises the question of the farmers’ motivation for the badger cull; if it’s solely a cost issue, then that’s really sad. Hopefully the government will hold fire (pardon the pun) and see that a solution is on the way and mass extermination of the (often perfectly healthy) badgers is a draconian answer and will prove very unpopular.
The badger trust claims that cattle to cattle transmission is still the main cause of disease spreading to new areas and that the phenomenon of badgers spreading the disease is still not fully understood. They also say, “foxes, squirrels, rats and deer are among wildlife known to suffer from TB. But in 2008 Defra said two research projects had concluded that except for two species of deer the likelihood of other mammals (excluding badgers) being a significant source of infection to cattle was extremely low. It’s worth noting that all six species of deer in the UK suffer from TB”. It’s also worth mentioning that with the pasteurisation process, bTB will not pass to humans through milk.
Many scientists and conservationists, including the esteemed naturalist David Attenborough, argue that finding a vaccination against the disease is the only truly sustainable way to control bTB.
I hate to see animals killed for no good reason and a cull never sat well with me, but I was told by the powers-that-be that it was best for the long-term. This looks like it isn’t the case anymore, so I can’t sit idly by and watch thousands of innocent creatures slaughtered for no good reason. Hence this post.
If the decision does go against the poor old badgers today there is likely to be a legal challenge. If that happens, please spread the word about this new research and help get the decision reversed. 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…
Photo courtesy of The Badger Trust
Yet More Anti-Green Clatter Spills Forth From The Daily Mail
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Dodgy Journalism on July 14, 2011
The Daily Mail - that most beloved of English institutions – has released yet another anti-green article. This one seems designed to get Middle England all fired-up at the indignation of having to adjust the UK’s highly-polluting energy supply so as to protect our children from a future of devastating climate change. How awful!
This article – which, incidentally, was front-page news – is getting all flustered because it claims that families will have to fork out an extra £1000 a year as part of their energy bills in order to fund a switch to green energy and nuclear power.
What a load of rubbish. Nowhere will you find anyone in-the-know who agrees with this figure. It is plucked out of thin air simply to allow the Mail readers their daily 5 minutes of irritation at this cruel, cruel world. Even the Daily Telegraph – another paper that dislikes anything remotely green – only claims an increase in bills of £160 over the next 20 years. (Although, the way things are going, I’m expecting that type of increase on my bill next month).
The Mail’s reporter says that the move is intended to cut emissions to meet UK and EU targets. No. The move is intended to shift the UK toward a future where we can enjoy a clean, secure energy supply without polluting the atmosphere or worrying about Russia turning off the gas. Oh, and apparently it’s also intended “to appease the climate lobby”.
So what is this climate lobby then? Are they the ones who agree that climate change is a threat, or are they the energy companies who stand to make large profits from the upshot of this? Are they wind power advocates or supporters of nuclear power? Hmmm: A nice, clear-cut definition; thanks for that.
I’ll admit, I still don’t know where I stand with regards to nuclear power, but I have to say, it’s nice to see nuclear being mentioned in this article alongside the usual culprit, wind power.
So then, the Mail is getting on its high horse because we’ll all have to pay higher bills as we move away from a fossil fuel-based energy supply. I presume they are referring to these same fossil fuels that are responsible for the numerous, unrelenting price hikes we’ve suffered over last few years? Ok; great idea. Let’s just forget about green energy and stick with what we know shall we? That’ll really keep the costs down.
So where did the Daily Mail get this figure of £1000 per year from? Was it Ofgem? The Carbon Trust? The Department of Energy and Climate Change perhaps? No. It was a bank called UniCredit; well there’s some objective journalism for you.
Another of the sources in this article, Dr Benny Peiser, says, “Britain itself could be sitting on a gas gold mine, which would power homes for decades”. The only ‘gold mine’ I imagine he can be talking about is shale gas, and that’s a very bad idea.
Now, I’m not so naïve as to think we can have a lovely new clean energy system and not have to pay for it. But it really gets-my-goat (in case you hadn’t noticed) when papers like the Mail pull figures from sources that are employed simply to make good headlines.
Finally (and strangely) I would like to finish by saying a big thank you to the Daily Mail. Much as you annoy me with your journalistic tripe; without you I think I may struggle for material to use in my blog. Keep up the bad work and long may our relationship continue. Cheers.
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…
Photos courtesy of Daniel Gilby and npower Renewables (from Renewable UK)
The Sun Will Slow Down Global Warming: Ironic Isn’t It?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change on June 27, 2011
Well, that’s it then; we’re saved. Apparently the sun is decreasing in activity, which means we can forget all about the dangers of climate change and global warming. In fact, if the evidence is correct, we may actually need to increase CO2 emissions, just to stop us all from freezing.
The story of a renewed ice age is nothing new; we have been told this is coming for years now. This particular warning is born of the fact that our sun is about to enter a period of decreased activity; the harbinger of this being an observation by the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) that there has been a reduction in the number of sunspots. The last time this happened was the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and it famously resulted in the River Thames freezing over.
Put in very brief terms these sunspots (not to be confused with the ever-popular sunny spots) are an indicator of solar activity and when they drop, the energy from the sun drops. The trouble we are seeing now is that “when sunspot numbers drop at the end of each 11-year cycle, solar storms die down and all becomes much calmer. This “solar minimum” doesn’t last long. Within a year, the spots and storms begin to build towards a new crescendo, the next solar maximum. What’s special about this latest dip is that the sun is having trouble starting the next solar cycle“.
So then, we’re all doomed: No sun equals no heat, no crops, no daytime TV and no holidays. Yes I’m exaggerating and this isn’t really the case. What is expected to happen is simply a reduction in the amount of solar energy available to us; the inhabitants of planet Earth.
Of course the global media has been all over this story, claiming an end to global warming and the start of a very long winter. I have to say, I can’t blame them. They are simply going on information from the Global Warming Policy Foundation who are warning of major implications for the Earth’s climate. What self-respecting journalist wouldn’t jump all over that? Much as it galls me to say, the Daily Mail actually didn’t sensationalise it as much as they usually do (they must be feeling a little off-colour), but Fox News didn’t disappoint.
There are two problems with the media getting hold of a story like this: The first is that they are only listening to the scientists who corroborate the story they want to hear. There are many scientists out there who don’t actually believe this will have that much of an impact.
The second, and more concerning, problem is that if people believe climate change is no longer a danger, we could be in real trouble. It may be easy to think that one little piece of scientific evidence can’t have that much of an effect, but look at how far the MMR scandal set back vaccinations in this country. Because of this one story being accepted by the media and fed to parents around the country, we witnessed a rise in diseases previously thought to be under control. Proof of this lies in the fact that we have just experienced our worst measles outbreak in 13 years.
I’m not saying that this news is enough to bring the fight against climate change to a screeching halt, but the public are wavering. After climategate, a toothless Copenhagen conference and the coldest winter for years, people are begin to look at the dangers of climate change with a scary degree of sceptisim.
It is widely believed that this data regarding the sun is correct. However, it is also accepted that its impact will be minimal. To put things into context; the Earth’s average tempetature is predicted to rise by between 2ºC and 4ºC . The expected cooling effect of this solar inactivity is about 0.3ºC. Not quite an ice age then.
Now I should really have a pop here at the climate change denialists who have, naturally, jumped all over this as proof that global warming will never happen. However, I have chosen to remain silent because, first of all, my beef is with those denialists who claim global warming is a hoax, and second, no matter what they may claim; they never saw this coming. Even Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network admitted “this is highly unusual and unexpected”. So, if the science and conclusions behind this are correct, then great. Let’s accept this bit of breathing space offered to us and use it to get our energy consumption issues sorted out once and for all.
If you are still worried about the science behind this, then watch this video; it should cheer you up a little: irrefutable evidence presented by one on today’s leading scientific minds, it is not, but it does explain the story in real laymen’s terms. For something with a bit more credibility, watch this…
If, like me, you are concerned about climate change and on voicing this concern you are fully expecting your friends, colleagues and the average Joe in the street to give you both barrels of “what a load of rubbish, the decreasing sunspots will stop global warming dead”, well just sit them down calmly and explain in easy to understand terms that what they may have read in the sensationalist press is a load of nonsense; we are still in trouble and we still have to change our ways.
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…
Photo courtesy of Michal Marcol
