Britain tries to block green energy laws (The Guardian)

The article is about Britain trying to water down language in new EU legislation. Basically the EU wants to give renewable energy projects priority access to the transmission grid where as the UK government isn't so keen.

Some interesting facts come out of the article though. According to a recent report 9.3 GW of wind power is waiting to be connected to the grid. This seems to be me to be a bit of a crime, get the turbines connected, according to the guardian that is the equivalent of a new generation of nuclear power stations. I know which ones I would rather have.

There is hints in the article that certain industrial lobby groups have put pressure on the government to water down the legislation. The suggestion is that the nuclear power lobby are pushing hard for these new reactors and want to make sure the economic and political justification is not water down.

I wrote previously in 2007 about generating capacity caught up in the planning system for wind power. It would seem that the renewables sector is hobbled continuously by bureacuracy. The government should do the responsible thing and sort things out. If we got everything on the drawing board cleared, built and connected to the grid we could forget about nuclear power and even start looking towards closing some of the dirty coal stations. No need to worry about renewables target by 2020 either as it would be happily smashed.

"I have never ended on an unstressed syllable!" (The Guardian)

Everyone likes a good rant against the system at some point. There are always useless jobsworths who deserve to be put in their place. I often feel like writing snotty emails to people but it really only gets you into trouble. The best thing to do is phone them up, then there is no hard record of the conversation and you can always claim you were misinterpreted.

Or my other little petty thing is to use the phrase , "If you do have any further queries do hesitate to contact me in the future."

Should they spot the missing not you can simply claim it was a typing error. OK so a small rebellion in the great battle against the dumb and unhelpful.

Anyway Giles Coren, restaurant critic for the times is plagued by sub editors who mess around with his submissions changing the context and destroying his perfectly formed prose. On occasion he writes a snotty note to the sub-editors. Some of them are so good that they hvae escaped onto the internet. They are so good you should go read the article but to give you a teaser here are some of the best lines.

"It's not ******* rocket science. It's ******* pre-GCSE scansion. I have written 350 restaurant reviews for The Times and I have never ended on an unstressed syllable. ....."

He signs the email "All the best" which is a nice touch.

"...what do you think you can achieve with that kind of dumb-wittted smart-arsery?"

"never ask me to write something for you. and don't pay me. i'd rather take £400 quid for assassinating a crack whore's only child in a revenge killing for a busted drug deal - my integrity would be less compromised."

The guardian article does note sadly that these are abridged but not subedited - versions of the emails.

In part you can have the same rant about the Grammer-nazi's on the internet, who insist on correct spelling and grammer even though they are no experts. I have posted on them before and still insist that content is far more important than grammer.

Giles Coren, a glass with you my friend.

Channel 4 - A crusade against science (the guardian)

This is an interesting article from the Guardian with three interesting points. Firstly, that a major TV channel can appear biased in its documentary output towards global warming. Secondly, that there is a fine line between a documentary considering all arguments and a rant pursuing only one version as fact. Thirdly, that there is almost no regulation or punishment for a media outlet misleading the public or misrepresenting the facts.

The background of all this is that Ofcom has ruled following complaints on a programme broadcast last year called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Ofcom found that the programme treated two scientists and the IPCC unfairly. Channel 4 have had to give a prime-time apology for the content of the programme. This is the second time Channel 4 have had to apologise for an environmental programme against global warning.

Channel 4 bias on the environment

George Monbiot (Another environmental documentary maker who has worked with Channel 4 in the past) who writes the article identifies a history of bias going back to at least 1990. George identifies a previous documentary called "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" ,which was similar to the global warming swindle programme, as a turning point in the channels output. From then on the output of environmental programmes decreased until 2006. Channel 4 themselves state that since 1990 there have been 5 and a half hours of output supporting the view that global warming is not man made. This says George should be considered against the IPCC stating that there is now a 90% certainty that global warming is caused by man and only 10% uncertainty that it might not be. George states that there is no percentage certainty that it is not caused by man, in fact that there is no reliable evidence showing that man made global warming is not taking place.

I would note that this confidence in the science was not so complete in 1990 but was in 2007. So you may consider that channel 4 may have been justified with the documentary in 1990 provided certain safeguards were in place to suggest that it was not fact and that it was questioning the established view as devils advocate. However in 2007 I would suggest they were seriously misleading the public in their programming. Compare with the change in status of smoking between the middle of last century and now.

Most telling is some of the anecdotes or quotes provided by George Monbiot on the Channel 4 response to such accusations.

"I don't know what's important any more."

- Tim Garden, Director of programmes Channel 4, when asked
why the channel seemed so hostile to the environment.

If the quote is accurate it suggests that Channel 4 has no clear understanding of the issues and what they are broadcasting. Channel 4 has no coherent policy on standards or a peer reviewed authority process to determine the accuracy and reliability of the evidence presented.

The differences between a documentary or rant

There are certain conventions for a documentary and a personal opinion show. A documentary generally has a voice over presenting the facts with views from experts and other clips of supporting evidence. A programme representing a personal opinion generally has the person presenting usually interviewing relevant people again with other relevant clips. A documentary is supposed to present both views before reaching a conclusion, a personal opinion programme would push one view and support that with evidence, it would generally not consider alternative views unless they can be disproved.

This is not a written rule but could be said to be a commonly accepted convention. Therefore creating a personal opinion programme in the style of a documentary could be misleading. This is what Channel 4 allowed from the programme makers for "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

In several programmes over the last 17 years George Monbiot suggests that Channel 4 have made the same mistakes in misrepresenting facts in a claimed environmental documentary.

1. Use of a anonymous and authoritative voice over in the documentary style.
2. Contributors commercial interests not disclosed.
3. Opposing view rarely represented to balance view in areas of uncertain science.
4. Authoritative scientists were edited to appear like cranks where as maverick scientists were edited to strengthen their views and opinion (George states that some authoritative scientists were not even told about the overall tone or stance of the programme).

The examples behind this list are in the article and are well worth reading. The usual suspects are there such as the environmental campaigners funded by oil companies or researchers with inflated positions and qualifications. There are also some unusual claims as well such as the definition of current dates on graphs, in one programme the current date varied from 1970 to 2007.

One of the interesting facts in this case is that the judgment was not based on one page opinion complaints on content. Scientists submitted the first 176 page, peer reviewed submission to Ofcom outlining the main errors and faults of the programme which bear in mind was for a 90 minute programme with adverts. This is a huge 2 pages of report per minute broadcast.

It is clear that Channel 4 have allowed a programme to be broadcast with serious flaws which originate in part from the presentation style.

Ofcom regulation

Ofcom comes across as being almost impotent in forcing broadcasters to give a balanced view. Although they are allowed to regulate news programmes which must be accurate, they are unable to regulate other factual programmes.

In Ofcom's report they stated that they were only able to rule on whether the programme mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence. In a way it is difficult to imagine how any programme on the environment could cause harm or offence. Certainly with 276 complaints such a view would unlikely to be taken.

Indeed this was the opinion of Ofcom, they did have reservations about the way certain facts were represented but there had been no material breach of the regulation code.

Ofcom did find against Channel 4 on grounds of impartiality but interestingly it could only rule on the 20% of the programme that would influence public policy. The 80% of the show questioning global warming could not be judged as it would not change the government stance on the environment.

In other words provided the government has a clear stance on an issue the documentary can be as biased as it likes.

For the two individual scientists and the IPCC, Ofcom found against Channel 4 on the grounds of fairness, stating that these three and their views had been misrepresented.

The penalty of course was an apology in prime time. Sadly the damage had already been done, according to George Monbiot several recent polls have shown that there has been a decline in the number of people that believe global warming is a real phenomenon as a direct response to this programme.

Conclusions

Currently there is little obligation on a broadcaster to check a documentary for bias and accuracy. Basically a dishonest programme maker can represent his or any organisations view as fact. The only boundaries to that is misrepresenting individual / organisations or broadcasting anything that may cause harm or offence.

This has highlighted a greater need for self regulation for media organisations and stronger regulation and punishment when self regulation fails. Ofcom should be able to pass judgment on factually inaccurate and misleading programmes.

The problem remains that Channel 4 have taken a cavalier approach to programme commissioning and the programme makers themselves have questionable journalistic integrity.

Channel 4 is in a position of trust and has a responsibility to check the accuracy and bias of programmes before broadcasting.

The rise of the urban shepherd (The Guardian)

Strangely enough this is not a story about the shepherds having been forced out of the countryside by poverty / global warming, like the foxes becoming urbanised, and herding cats with their shepherds crook and sheep dogs.

Sorry I digressed into a somewhat surrealist landscape there.

Anyway if you cant sleep or just like to tend a flock but never wanted to become a vicar you can now become an urban shepherd.

Brighton having successfully deployed sheep (not in the Worms computer game method) in outlying areas are now bring them into the centre of Brighton. Yes, coming to a park near you is a flock of sheep. Obviously put a hoody on a sheep or a sheepskin coat on a member of the 'youth of today' and it might be difficult to tell them apart. Some but not all would have the same vacant look. They may also be able to converse with each other too.

Apparently this is environmentally friendly as well, sheep are not fuelled by petrol and so will not be affected by the meteoric rise in the oil price.

So if you want to be a shepherd and I certainly would like to be one, you can sign up for a one day introductory course on sheep welfare and then start keeping an eye on your local flock.

There is probably a zen holiday like experience to be had here too. Picture this, a lonely hillside with a shepherds hut, watching and tending the sheep.You could get a lot of thinking done on a hillside with a lot of health benefits.

Tidal power with a twist ( New Scientist)

New Scientist, 5 July 2008 p 40-43

Another week, another New Scientist article about a new renewable technology to generate electricity and maybe contribute to saving the world.

That may sound slightly sarcastic and to some extent it is. Every week I read about a really great technology that I can feel really positive about which could really save the planet. Then the pragmatist in me kicks in and asks if it is really a viable technology and when will it change the world.

This week it is about electromagnetic pumps which is basically the caterpillar drive in reverse as seen in the very great film and book "The Hunt for Red October" by Tom Clancy.

In the caterpillar drive electricity was pumped into the drive which had superconducting magnets and it is then propelled through the water.

With this technology a clever Japanese physicist called Takeda reversed the engine and using tidal power pushed water through to generate electricity. The technology has great potential as a underwater turbine. No moving parts, so little servicing required and can be sited out the way on the sea bed.

Although very positive the technology has a long way to go, the lab prototype has so far only generated a fraction of a watt. So not even enough to light up a very low wattage bulb.

The other interesting part of this article was about the funding for projects such as this one with interesting but unproven potential, potential lets face it to save the world.

Takeda has two assistants and only limited funding from a state ministry, luckily he has been successful in being awarded more funding but it is very much still small scale. As he puts it he can only look at the next small development step.

So funding wise why isn't there the "International Fund for Saving the Planet Through Technology" (IFSPTT - you have to have an acronym). I would support that, it might even be something where I would give £5 a month to.

A charity which gave funding to develop renewable technologies and bring them to market. That would be a worthwhile cause, maybe I should set it up. Of course it wouldn't have to be for new technologies, it could be for revitalising old ones or bring a technology from the design phase through to production. I remember reading years ago about a company that was working on using blimps as slow but cost efficient cargo lifters.

Why should science funding be left to entrepreneurs, academic institutions or government. Why not fund them for the greater good by donations from the public. By the people, for the people, for the planet.

Of course there might already be such a charitable fund, I just haven't heard about it yet. In which case why don't they market themselves more.

Weston Otmoor eco-town

There has been so much about government eco-towns lately and one is unfortunately quite near me.

The whole concept is a bit misleading, the cynical part of me things that the government identified new towns as a possible solution to the housing shortage but realised that a simple 'new town' concept would never be accepted by the general public. That kind of idea is just so 1960's. So anyway bring in the bright spark consultant being paid far too much money who says I know lets make it green, some kind of energy efficient, public transport utopia. If you objected to that kind of thing you must be mad.

Hence just as labour became new labour so new town became eco-town.

Anyway the developer who is really only in it to make money has started off the public relations war. The consultants who drew up the websites and the initial consultation paperwork have so much spin they should work for a washing machine company.

Before we continue I would like to first outline my position on eco-towns. I think the concept of a new town is wrong, we don't need new towns we need to expand and revitalise old towns and villages. If I had to call my concept a reality it would be eco-estates or eco-villages. There are lots of existing towns and villages in prime locations which could be expanded sensitively to improve the local area without overwhelming it.

I agree wholeheartedly with the "eco" concept but I think these develops underestimate the lure of the car. However good the public transport network is people will always use the car, especially in places like Oxfordshire.

Now to deal with the Weston Otmoor design and feasibility.

1. Location

An eco town placed at a major motorway junction. If it really is supposed to encourage you not to drive how is that going to work. You would be 2 minutes drive from the motorway / A34 which would give you the best road connections in the entire of Oxfordshire (even if it would be a slow moving car park). How does this encourage people to use public transport?

The access toll road to the town may encourage people to leave the car at home but it does depend on how high the toll is and whether it outweighs the benefits of taking the car. This will not affect people who commute to London.

On their website the developer happily say that only 6.5% of the land is on green belt which allegedly busts a myth that green fields will be carpeted with concrete. Hmmm, that may be strictly true because over half of the development would be on an airfield which is probably class as industrial land. However the airfield is a grass airfield used for parachute drops, it is not a major international hub and it is a very green field.

The design allows for a nice High street just off the A34. Nice, I think I will be getting into my car and driving to Oxford or Milton Keynes.

2. Transport

One of the big things they are pushing is the tram network with a stop only 300m from your door, although your car will only be 10m from your door and ready to go when you are.

The East West rail link will be rebuilt allowing high speed train access to London, Oxford and Milton Keynes. Again with high speed access you could live their and work in London.

3. Industry

They will be able to attract some industry to the eco town. Probably either office or commercial space or research industries who like the proximity to the university and other research sites in Oxford.

However there is no need for these to be sited here, you could equally and more sustainably build these in several locations around Oxfordshire. There are already new plans to build a business park in Bicester.

4. The Consultation questionnaire.

I think this questionnaire might have loaded questions, even though you can tell I strongly disagree with most details of the eco-town idea it turns out that out of 12 questions I strongly agree with 9 of them. Funny that.

Alternatives:

My concept would be the eco estates or the eco extensions. In terms of location the 15000 houses would be spread round the county. There possibly is scope for a smaller development around Weston-on-the-green. Other developments could be centred around existing small towns and villages. West Oxfordshire is prime for developing especially around the Oxford to Worcester railway line. Other locations could include Bicester, Banbury and Didcot. There would also be scope for major extensions along the east west rail route particularly in the Bicester, Aylesbury and Milton Keynes triangle.

Conclusion

The concept is fairly flawed but not completely without merit in some better locations it may even work.

However to suggest that 35,000 people can be put right next to the best connected road junction in Oxfordshire with access to the capital by rail will turn into a flourishing non car using town is naive. Weston Otmoor will turn into a dormitory town with just as much car use as everywhere else.

How to kick start an economy - the American way.

The US government have decided that the best way to boost the economy is to get the American public to spend more money. The Government has given each household a tax rebate, in many cases worth hundreds of dollars.

The new scientist* reports the findings of two scientists who suggest the plan is unlikely to have much impact. They took 140 students and asked them how they would spend various amounts of money. Students offered a $600 payment said that on average they would spend just $113, however if they received the payment in 12 monthly payments they would spend $420.

Other criticisms can include that the majority of recipients will either save the money or use it to pay off existing debts. Neither actions pumping the money into the economy. The final criticism is of course that it will hurt the government increasing national debt and lowering spending reserves.

All in all probably an inefficient way of spending tax dollars and breathing new life into the economy.

On a personal note I would agree with the findings of the study. If you gave me a lump sum I might pay off some debts or spend half of it on something nice and use the other to pay off debts or save it. If you gave me 12 payments I would not really notice it and just use it to up my general standard of living.

*This has been well publicised in the general media, but I don't have a link at the moment. However as a reference I can give you the New Scientist article which covers the story and Research. The Article "People of America: spend more of your money!" can be found in the 7 June 200 issue on page 15.

Salary converter - convert annual to hourly, weekly, daily or anything

My new site is all done. The salary converter I made ages ago now has its very own home on the internet. SalaryConverter.co.uk

You can convert salary between any of the following annual, monthly, four weekly, daily and hourly.

Very useful for job hunting especially as a temp where everyone quotes different rates.

Prince Caspian - 'The Call' - Regina Spektor

I happened to catch the second Narnia film, Prince Caspian. It was good, some great dialogue, good music and some lovely set piece battles. You can tell it is done by the same team as Lord of the rings. It has very good cinematography, some lovely scenes.

I guess the people who are going to see this are the people that grew up with the books or remembers the tv adaptions etc. Well worth going to see if you liked the first one. I am even looking forward to the next one.

Without ruining any of the plot the end sequence is just perfect. The video below has some well chosen stills but I don't think it gives a great deal away but if you want to watch the film first please do so and feel free to come back.

This song is the final end sequence and titles song, a very haunting melody.

"And then that word grew louder and louder
'Til it was a battle cry"

"No need to say goodbye, you will come back when its over..."