PeopleQuake
I heard about this interesting book as I was driving along at three in the morning. I’ve just ordered it from Amazon.
Lundy Island
This little island has just been named as Britain’s first Marine Conservation Zone.
Lundy is an island I’ve always known about and is definitely on my list of places to visit. This is because when I was a child for a few years we lived nextdoor to someone, who my father called “The King of Lundy Island”. All I can remember of him is seeing him walking to the station after the house had been sold and a removal van had collected his belongings.
Was this Martin Coles Harman, who styled himself the “King of Lundy Island”, after he’d bought the island in 1924?
I can’t find any reference to him as living in Southgate in North London and he died in Oxted in Surrey, a few years after the mysterious King left.
He seems to have been an interesting man as according to this article in the Age in 1955.
London, June 23 – Mr. Martin Coles Harman, “king” of Lundy Island, in Bristol Channel, the financier who knew wealth, bankruptcy and gaol, sent a message from his grave yesterday to everyone in debt to his estate.
He said in his will “waive and destroy all I.O.U.’s.
His son, John Pennington Harman, was also one of the heroes of Kohima and won a VC in the battle.
A Sensible Approach to Climate Change
You can take what I said about Climate Change Deniers and Fascists with a pinch of salt or tongue in cheek, but in some ways they are part of the problem. Politicians poncing around in Copenhagen are another part. Pictures this morning of Obama coming out of Air Force One just don’t go down well with me, when the conference is all about cutting greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
I hope that Copenhagen completely fails.
Only then, we might get some sense, as those that are worried about the future, will be given another kick to do something positive about it.
Politicians should keep well clear of the free market, as their meddling and well-meaning initiatives at best come to nothing and at worst they distort everything and push us down blind alleys.
But what they should do is nudge not corral us in the right direction.
For instance, every country should raise the price of carbon based fuels, in much the way that Kenneth Clarke did before Prudence removed it to court popularity. It must also be done on a world-wide or at least continent-wide basis. At present aviation fuel is untaxed and this should also be changed as soon as possible.
I don’t think there is much hope for this sensible measure, so that is why anything more savage that might be proposed will always be destined to fail.
It will be innovation by engineers and scientists that gets us out of this mess. And this is something for which no world-wide consensus is required. So if an engineer in Britain or Denmark say, has a brilliant idea, it is in their country’s interest to support it. Think of all those exports and licences.
We have a technological race, where the prize will be immense in monetary terms. It will also be very good for the world. Is that a win-win situation? I do hope so.
Climate Change Fascists
I really get sick of selfish Climate Change Fascists. They feel that they have a right to stop everyone enjoying themselves and curb their lifestyle. Some have an awful lot in common with the Taliban and want us to live back in the Stone Age.
I’ve just been listening to the phone in on BBC Breakfast on Radio 5 and you can just see them sitting there, picking at their lentils, drinking carrot or cabbage juice before they walk or cycle their kids to school.
Climate Change Deniers
I really get sick of selfish Climate Change Deniers. They feel that they have a right to continue to pollute the planet, use up all the resources and generally give two fingers to anybody who wants to curb their lifestyle.
I’ve just been listening to the phone in on BBC Breakfast on Radio 5 and you can just see them sitting there, fat or even worse, smoking their heads off and wheezing as they struggle into their 4×4 to take their fat kids 200 metres to school.
Hot Air in Copenhagen
So today, the big climate change conference starts in Copenhagen. Yawn! Yawn!
I’m cynical anything of any substance will emerge.
Prudence bashes on about how he is at the forefront of reducing our energy use, but this article in the Telegraph says otherwise.
These are two paragraphs from the article.
His former chief scientist Professor Sir David King said he frequently urged Downing Street to spend money on energy saving measures in order to create jobs and cut carbon – but was repeatedly ignored.
And in a separate interview with the Daily Telegraph, the world’s top environmental watchdog Achim Steiner, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), also said the Labour Government failed to “pick the low hanging fruit” of insulating homes and investing in renewable energy.
Typical Prudence, all waffle and bluster, and absolutely no substance. He doesn’t even have any style.
But I’m totally against this sort of junket. It should be done remotely by electronic means, with perhaps two or three important people from each country in Copenhagen to dot i’s and cross t’s.
Global Warming Denial
The junket at Copenhagen is about to start and we’ll get all of those global warming denial stories. Usually, they are from selfish, overweight people, who are addicted to 4x4s, private jets and all other wasteful indulgences.
But before you embrace what they say, read Johann Hari in the Independent. He analyses all of the evidence and comes to the conclusion that global warming is man-made.
These are the last two paragraphs, which if you can’t bother to read the rest, you should read.
So let’s – for the sake of argument – make an extraordinary and unjustified concession to the deniers. Let’s imagine there was only a 50 per cent chance that virtually all the world’s climate scientists are wrong. Would that be a risk worth taking? Are you prepared to take a 50-50 gamble on the habitability of the planet? Is the prospect of getting our energy from the wind and the waves and the sun so terrible that’s not worth it on even these wildly optimistic odds?
Imagine you are about to get on a plane with your family. A huge group of qualified airline mechanics approach you on the tarmac and explain they’ve studied the engine for many years and they’re sure it will crash if you get on board. They show you their previous predictions of plane crashes, which have overwhelmingly been proven right. Then a group of vets, journalists, and plumbers tell they have looked at the diagrams and it’s perfectly obvious to them the plane is safe and that airplane mechanics – all of them, everywhere – are scamming you. Would you get on the plane? That is our choice at Copenhagen.
Now, I’ll add another thought.
Look at the major countries that are lukewarm on climate change; the United States, China and Saudi Arabia. All have a lot to lose if climate change is accepted. America would have to change its lifestyle much more than any other country, China would have to generate its energy in different ways and poor old Saudi would lose all those oil sales. None of these countries have large areas of low-lying land.
On the other hand, a lot of those countries who believe that action should be done on global warning have a lot of land that will soon disappear. They should know!
So just as the fat bloke in his 4×4 is a denier, so are the United States, China and Saudi Arabia. It is just plain selfishness.
Ignorance of Asbestos
There is an article on BBC Breakfast this morning about asbestos. There just seems to be a lot of if we don’t think about it, then it’ll be alright.
But!
Between 1968 and 1972, I worked for ICI. I seemed to remember that they had banned it then and were removing it whenever they had found it. This was some years before bans started to be introduced in the mid-1980s.
So I’m rather surprised that there is still so much of it about.
Are Cars Greener than Buses?
This question is prompted by a post on the BBC Ethical Man’s blog, which asks that question.
The article should be read in full.
But the real problem is that we travel too much.
I’ve worked at home since 1972 and in that time I’ve created two major businesses and several worthwhile (well I think they are) software applications. It doesn’t seemed to have hampered me. So perhaps we need more incentives and technologies like fast broadband to make working at home easier. To get any decent broadband speed, I actually use two phone lines and a special balanced router. But I only get 2Mbs.
Useless!
So would it be better to spend the money on faster broadband for all, rather than transport infrastructure? If for no other reason, it would certainly be popular with a lot of people. I don’t think anybody would object and there would be no need for lengthy and costly public enquiries.
I also live on top of a hill and about three or four kilometres from the nearest pub, post office or shop. I don’t actually cycle to them much, but I should. But most of our large cities are flat and would be very suitable terrain for two wheels. We just need to make sure there are proper cycle paths and adequate places to lock a bicycle.
So perhaps under certain circumstances cars are greener than buses and trains, but in many cases there are better alternatives.
The Anonymous Widower 