Car-obsessive TV presenter to get Oxford honorary degree 18 May 05

I’ve been around motorbikes and cars for years as an enthusiast. I still earn a living as a second-hand car dealer. I used to watch Clarkson on the TV.

But not any more. Clarkson makes my blood boil. I refuse to watch him as he is easily the worst of all the motoring presenters. He is supercilious and offensive. He’s developed a style which is more about entertainment than anything else and he should not be used as a reference point on any issue.

But he has an appeal. I just hope those who watch his shows and read his columns are just looking for some light relief and are actually laughing at him.

Any academic institution associating themselves with him has been very badly advised – no doubt by some airhead PR type.

They should consider what he did for the image of Levi jeans. As a wearer of Levi’s he was laughed at and Levi’s sales figures took a hit.

Now where’s that petition!

Douglas Coker

Honorary degrees are commonly given out in lieu of money. It is an increasing trend in these resource-limited times.

D

Clarkson is rather old hat now isn’t he? Supernanny et al are the new black and I think they offer a guide to how to deal with showoffs like Jeremy. Avert your gaze and do not give the little beast the oxygen of attention (yes, I know he’s actually very tall but you get the point). Bashing greens has become something of a new career direction for Clarkson, but I think he is rather out of step with the public he thinks he represents. What a shame though that Oxford is so ready to send out all the wrong messages just to get its moment in the ‘celebrity’ limelight.

Although Clarkson wouldn’t get my vote (if I had one), I don’t think it is my business to tell Oxford Brookes University who they give out their honorary degrees to.

But I think we should not be surprised that someone like Clarkson denies Global Warming. It probably gets very close to the his very essence. He is obviously very passionate about cars. It’s the centre of his life. Emotionally, he would like to dismiss any argument against cars & would, instinctively, argue against the notion of Global Warming since it is a threat to cars. (In the opposite corner, Mark has demonstrated the counter position – he has told us he hates cars for similar but opposite reasons; let’s get back to the horse!)

I can’t help feeling (with my amateur psychology) that something similar happened to Bellamy. He loves his countryside; which led to resistance against wind farms (which he thinks is a threat to his view of nature). Since a main argument for wind-farms is to protect us against Global Warming, he dismisses Global Warming (at the cost of his scientifc integrity, in my opinion).

Just for your info…

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=639605

Cheers all. Ian.

And the link to the Sustainable Development Commission’s site for this report page is: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/media/list/wind.html

Their e-bulletin is free and is worth subscribing to

kind regards

Colin

Hi sorry to be only posting the views of the independent newspaper at the moment. However, they realy are bringing important stuff to the attention on joe public. Today they have featured a fantastic piece on the deforestation of the Amazon.

Trust me it really is worth it.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=639814

Laters. Ian.

Thanks for the link.

There is a video report from BBC news on Greenland and the increasing rate of melting which can be accessed at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm#

According to last night’s news bulletin there is another special report on the subject on tonight’s news (hope it doesn’t clash with Derren Brown!)

Interesting article about the world’s premier ice fields putting on weight and gaining in ice sheets. This is an area which makes up 90% of the WORLD’S ICE!!!

Published online: 19 May 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050516-10 East Antarctica puts on weight Mark Peplow

Increased snowfall could slow sea-level rise.

East Antarctica may be piling on the pounds, but glaciers in the west are accelerating into the ocean. Increased snowfall over a large area of Antarctica is thickening the ice sheet and slowing the rise in sea level caused by melting ice.

A satellite survey shows that between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice – enough to reduce the oceans’ rise by 0.12 millimetres per year. The ice sheets that cover Antarctica’s bedrock are several kilometres thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world’s ice. But scientists fear that if they melt in substantial quantities, this will swell the oceans and cause devastation on islands and coastal lands.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that sea level is currently rising at about 1.8 millimetres per year, largely through melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as a result of global warming. But the panel also expected that climate change would trigger an increase in snowfall over the Antarctic continent, as increased evaporation from the oceans puts more moisture into the air.

It is the only large terrestrial ice body that is gaining mass rather than losing it.

Inserted Jimbo Comment>> It’s also 90% of the worlds ice <<

“This is a phenomenal piece of research, but it is what we expected, ” comments David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK. “These effects have been predicted for a long time, it’s just that no one has measured them before.”

Although the results of the satellite survey are in line with the predictions of global-warming models, the thickening of the ice sheet could still be explained by natural weather variability, warns Curt Davis of the University of Missouri, Columbia, a member of the research team. He and his colleagues present their results in the online edition of Science.

The team used data from the European Space Agency’s radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, which measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica’s interior – more than 8.5 million square kilometres, roughly the same size as the United States.

East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimetres per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered. The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica’s total land area – but as its ice is thicker, it carries about 85% of the total ice volume. “It is the only large terrestrial ice body that is gaining mass rather than losing it,” says Davis.

In contrast, smaller West Antarctica showed an overall thinning of 0.9 centimetres per year. “It’s amazing that they can measure such small changes,” says Vaughan.

The thickening of the eastern ice sheet should not be seen as a long-term protection against a rise in sea level, warns Vaughan.

Inserted Jimbo Comment>> Of course we can’t contradict GW <<

Glaciers in West Antarctica are accelerating, releasing more and more icebergs into the sea. And the Antarctic Peninsula, which stretches towards South America, now regularly hits temperatures above 0 °C in the summer, leading to direct melting of the ice there.

What’s more, snowfall over East Antarctica will not continue to increase indefinitely in a warming world, Vaughan adds. Conversely, every extra degree of temperature rise will continue to accelerate glaciers and cause more melting on the western side of Antarctica, swelling the world’s oceans further.

Inserted Jimbo Comment>> assuming temps will continue to rise <<

Scientists have already estimated that Antarctic melting may be responsible for up to a third of the overall sea-level rise. But the instruments on ERS-1 and 2 only work over very flat areas, and tend to lose track of the radar echo over steeper areas around the continent’s coast, so a vital piece of the puzzle is still missing, says Vaughan. And because Antarctica is so vast, it is also impossible to measure snowfall comprehensively on the ground, he adds.

However, the European Space Agency satellite CryoSat, due to be launched later this year, should be able to make very accurate altitude measurements around the coast, providing evidence of exactly how much ice is being lost there. Only when scientists put all these measurements together will the full truth about Antarctica’s ice become clear, says Vaughan.

References Davis C. H., Li Y., McConnell J. R., Frey M. M. & Hanna E. Science, published online. doi:10.1126/science.1110662(2005). | Article |

Am I right in thinking that you posted this in a bit of a rush as it appeared to confirm your prejudices? Read it again and try to do so objectively and not selectively.

I do not know of anyone who claims that global warming means that every part of the planet is firstly, warming and secondly, warming at the same rate. Differential warming is clearly taking place.

Consider this. There is a prospect that the Gulf Stream (Atlantic Drift) may slow down or even stop as a result of melting Arctic ice. This could plunge Britain and parts of western Europe into a weather regime similar to Moscow. That is there would be a change from a temperate climate to a very much colder climate in this part of the world. Would you take this as evidence that global warming is a myth?

It is also probably worth checking on the weather patterns in the Antarctic paying close attention to circulation.

The more you post this sort of stuff the less attention others will pay to you. Engage think part of brain before posting!

For those who’d like to visit news@nature.com here is the full address for the article http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html and if you’d like to see what the British Antarctic Survey have to say go to http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and_Information/Press_Releases/story.php?id=164

Douglas Coker

Jim,

After I did my simple calculations from the earth’s heat imbalance, I realized that increased precipitation would result from GW/CC since this imbalance would invariably have to increase ocean evaporation. Evidence of more precipitation supports GW/CC is taking place.

If the precipitation over Antarctica increases more than it is melting elsewhere then this may be some good news in a negative feedback loop with respect to sea-level.

So, we can all use a little good news to lessen any effects of GW/CC. The climate is complex and maybe we have a few things helping more than hurting.

Good Post,

Dan

What Jim posted does support GW/CC in that increased precipitation would result from it.

I did say that if this occurs over the Antarctic continent that this is a good thing if it counters sea-level rise. I like something that we can say is positive for a change. Maybe I need a morale boost.

However, I may have been premature. Just because an increased ice-sheet helps slow sea-level rise, it does not mean that other changes will not take place which will create great harm.

Your point is very important. Something positive does not mean we still do not have serious problems that can occur if GW/CC continues to get worse.

I do not want to be out of balance here!

Thanks,

Dan

May 20, 2005 Warming Is Blamed for Antarctica’s Weight Gain By KENNETH CHANG

[ ” ]

The eastern half of Antarctica is gaining weight, more than 45 billion tons a year, according to a new scientific study.

Data from satellites bouncing radar signals off the ground show that the surface of eastern Antarctica appears to be slowly growing higher, by about 1.8 centimeters a year, as snow and ice pile up.

The gain in eastern Antarctica snow partly offsets the rise in sea level caused by the melting of ice and snow in other parts of the world. The finding also matches expectations that the earth’s warming temperatures would increase the amount of moisture in the air and lead to greater snowfall over Antarctica.

“It’s been long predicted by climate models,” said Dr. Curt H. Davis, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Missouri and the lead author of a paper that was published on the Web site of the journal Science yesterday. “This is the first observational evidence.” [insert anti-model denialist dogma here -D]

The accumulation occurring across 2.75 million square miles of eastern Antarctica corresponds to a gain of 45 billion tons of water a year or, equivalently, the removal of the top 0.12 millimeter of the world’s oceans.

“This is the only large terrestrial ice body that is likely gaining mass rather than losing it,” Dr. Davis said.

[ ” ]

Best,

D

These posts are appearing in the wrong order – very confusing – mine was a reply to Jimbo.

I think he’s basically misunderstood the article. I accept increased precipitation can result from GW/CC. But countering sea-level rise? 1.8 minus 0.12 is 1.68 by my reckoning.

I live a few miles from the Thames Barrier. Check out how often that’s been used recently.

All the best

Douglas Coker

These posts are appearing in reverse order of posting – very confusing for readers. But glad to see you’ve made the same point as me with your appropriate highlighting.

Douglas Coker

From the BBC a report on the rate at which Greenland’s ice is melting. It is a bit clunky on dial-up – those of you with broadband might be at an advantage. http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_rm_fs.stm?nbram=1&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1

Oh …. and you have to enter greenland in the search box.

Douglas Coker

One was the claim that the Amazon forest, “the lungs of the world”, is critical to our oxygen supply. As I understand it, ocean algae provide about 80% of the oxygen-producing photosynthesis. The Amazon, whose size approximates the size of Europe (according to the story), cannot produce a significant percentage of the other 20%, it is too small.

The second was the rate at which the size of the Amazon is decreasing. According to the story, about 25,000 sq. km of the forest fall each year. At that rate, it will take 164 years to consume the forest completely. The reason given for the clearing of the forest was the planting of additional soybean crops. I would expect that to be a self-limiting activity; the need for additional cattle feed should level out as the world’s population levels off. I suppose that it is possible that they will continue to fell forest in order to plant other crops.

GW is the average warming around the world, so it is possible some places could be cooling, but on the whole the world is warming. Also, there would perhaps be greater snowfall in places, since greater precipitation is expected in a GW world, esp. toward the two poles & when its cold enough that means snow. Greater droughts, however, are predicted toward the equator & middle areas.

There may also be greater & sudden cooling due to global warming, as odd at that may sound – such as that caused by the ocean conveyor slowing or stopping due to freshwater from melting areas causing the ocean to halt the current. The beginnings are already becoming evident in the N. Atlantic.

Scientists have long discussed the possibility that additional ice will accumulate at the poles, especially Antarctica, as the climate warms. The thought process is that as the climate warms, additional water will evaporate from the oceans. Even though the poles will also warm, they will remain far below the freezing point of water, so additional snowfall should occur.

This effect is possible no matter what causes the climate warming, be it carbon dioxide or additional solar input. The problem that I see is that if carbon dioxide is causing the warming, the Poles should be warming faster than the rest of the world. The temperature record at the South Pole shows a steadily decreasing temperature for the past 30 years.

You can see temperature traces for about 10 Antarctic stations at http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#The%20Antarctic%20Scientific%20Bases. Most appear to be steady or decreasing.

I am glad you mentioned this. Not much benefit is it. I should have done the math!

Thanks, Dan

An excellent article on climate change by Ian Jack. Go to http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1487951,00.html to read it and then http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231 for the Global Business Network site where you can confirm provenance of the “Pentagon report”.

BTW does anyone know the link to access the third of Elizabeth Kolpert’s New Yorker pieces? I’ve got parts 1 & 2 and the interview but part 3 is not so accessible which is v frustrating.

Saturday evening found it at http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050509fa_fact3

Douglas Coker

For those who have been following my comments, I have another simple concept to increase fuel efficiency.

In previous posts, I mentioned the idea of decreasing the mass of vehicles and the fact that people choose heavier vehicles partly because of the added protection that mass affords them in a collision. I have written about that the mass inequity on the highways creates a higher risk for lighter vehicles discouraging their use. I suggested that auto insurance companies penalize heavy vehicles for their greater liability to others on the road to discourage their use.

Now, what is one component of safety which if dealt with would boost both fuel efficiency and safety which may allow lighter vehicles to be more viable?

The answer is speed!

Lowering average highway speed would make highways safer and there would be less drag on the vehicles which would boost fuel efficiency.

Simply by lowering the speed limit, a “car culture” could keep their cars and feel safer in lighter ones. If the commute takes too long, then public transportation may become more competitive since the extra time in using it seems for me to be the main obstacle for people choosing between private and public transportation.

Ironically, if reducing speed also reduces traffic congestion from people opting for public transportation, then congestion during peak times may reduce allowing people to reach their destinations faster using private transportation since congestion sometimes makes walking appear faster.

I present this basic obvious idea which would be simple enough to implement and should not be a tremendous sacrifice on people. All ideas are important and once we acquire enough of them and implement them in an appropriate way, then you may see problems start getting resolved.

We once had 70 miles per hour as the normal speed limit years ago in the USA and when we had our energy crises; it was reduced to 55 miles per hour. Since so many more lives were saved each year, the speed limit remained even when oil became more plentiful later.

If the speed limit were reduced from 55 mph (88 km/hr) to 45 mph (72 km/hr), then that reduction in 10 mph (16 km/hr) would only add about 6 minutes to a 25 mi (40 km) car trip during non-congested travel periods.

Is 6 minutes such a big deal if slowing down would encourage more public transportation and enable a private transport system to become more efficient? Is the planet worth it?

OK, 100 miles (160 km) travel with an additional 24 minutes which need not be wasted if one listened to relaxing music or had a conversation using a hands-free mobile phone.

BTW, slower speeds will extend the life of a car by reducing mechanical stress on its many moving parts and save money and extend additional resources from doing that.

This is just another idea in the “master plan” toward solution.

Best Regards,

Dan

I take things at face value until I see reason to think otherwise. I read that these ice fields in the Antarctic are where 90% of the WORLD’S ICE are contained…. 90% of the WORLDS ice… that means that the rest of the world has only 10% of the ice fields… hmmm. Do the math.

If the largest field is GAINING in ice how can the sea level be rising so quickly??? It does not add up! The other 10% of melting fields does not compare with the 90% ice field which is accumulating water mass…. in meters per year… despite the language in the article using terms like “warning” and “warns.”

You’re digging a big hole for yourself. Someone should take your shovel away!

Douglas Coker

Jim,

It was interesting but you did not do the math at all from the relevant numbers which were in your posted article.

Douglas Coker posted the math. It was simple enough.

There is plenty of ice in that 10 percent to add many meters to the sea level and if it melts faster than Antarctica accumulates ice, then the sea level still rises.

Dan

Mark has really done us a favour by alerting us to the Elizabeth Kolbert pieces in the New Yorker. I’ve just read part 3 and she is v good at explaining this Byrd-Hagel stuff. Her section on exposing the nonsense of the “greenhouse-gas intensity” approach is great.

But even more alarming are her revelations about the cavalier way Bush, assisted by Cheney, brush the science on GW/CC aside because it doesn’t fit with their prejudices and world view. With a lead like this no wonder some US citizens struggle to understand the issues.

Douglas Coker

Just to drag all the Brits on this site back to a bit of petrol-head derision, I sat down and watched the the sad old geezer (he’s the same age as me, from the same part of the world and still has the same dress-sense I had when I was 15, so I am not totally unsympathetic) going through his routine with his fawning accolytes on tonight’s ‘Top Gear’.

I have to admit that I have a sneaking admiration for the guy… he really does not give a sht about anyone else, and relishes the controversy. He did champion Isambard Kingdom Brunel in the recent 100 great Britons series and gave a creditable and impassioned performance, for which I give him his due, and anyone who can park an English Electric lightning jet fighter on his front lawn just to pss the neighbours off should get points for innovation, but my first recurring memory is of his ill-fated talking-bigot-head series when he made the mistake of trying to bullsh*t Jonathon Porritt of the Sustainable Development Comission. Jonathan’s effortless exposition on being able to have personal mobility and act as a responsible ecological consumer at the same time “this means holding two ideas in your head at once; go on Jeremy, try it, you can do it!” was wonderful.

Tonight’s TG show, whilst onanistically puerile, was fun nonetheless, since JC took the latest offering from Ford, sorry RangeRover, the gas guzzling RangeRover sport (£59,000 for the 4.2ltr petrol V8) and tried to outrun a Challenger 2 main Battle tank on Salisbury plain.

After several minutes of throwing 2.5 tons of expensive metal around in the mud, whilst being chased by 62 tons of Chobham armour with 120mm main gun and a sophisticated fire management system, the tank’s crew locked-on to the fleeing horsepower junkie and reported ‘Clarkson Destroyed’.

You could almost hear the cheer across the nation.

However: it is possible to be clean, mean and green! two sites for speed freaks, who do not want to sully our principles:

http://www.speedace.info/bluebird_electric_3.htm

a battery-electric land-speed record vehicle, and

http://www.greenmotorsport.com/home.fcm?language=1&subsite=388

250 mph AND zero emissions? there’s a challenge!

kind regards to all, and apologies to our friends over the pond if this sounds like self-indulgent nonsense.

Colin

This may not work but I will try it anyway because our connections with our friends outside the USA are important and why I appreciate this blog so much.

Below, if you copy and go to this link, then you will get short video clips of our NBC network News. I could not isolate the particular story but if you scroll down, you will find this title:

“Gas price backlash?”

If you click play, it will start up and last about a couple minutes. You may get some short adds.

http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?m=News%20-%20Weather&mi=NBC%20News&i=96510777-7aaa-4987-936e-ae241599daaa,342c9274-be84-4f11-a97f-ec42d4390511,7ab6181d-b0a1-46c6-8f2f-19badfa63d97&p=hotVideo_topNews&GT1=6437&rf=http://verizon.msn.com/

You will NOT hear anything about an energy crises, peak oil, etc. You will not find any story of GW/CC in any of these video clips.

Let me know if this works Douglas.

If it does, I would like your impressions of the information or “lack of it” being presented to Americans from your perspective on some of our news clips.

Best Regards,

Dan

Hi Dan,

thanks for the link: it worked fine. I looked at the ‘what if gas prices doubled’ report as well which was quite telling.

Both here and, obvioulsy in the US there is large-scale denial of the problem: Ok more people here may be talking about it, but most people take the view either that it is a threat remote in time or for somewhere else in the world, or that there is nothing they can do personally to change it.

The only thing that gives me any hope at all is the change in the level of reporting and public awareness in the last 6 months, despite the total absence of any environmental issues in the main political parties’ agenadae at our recent election.

Strangely, both you, Lynn and Norbert are correct: we have to keep working with word of mouth, by promoting simple easy-win solutions like low-energy lightbulbs and cycling for health, and reminding people like Jim Johnson, that this is not a vendetta against him, the Republicans or the USA, but is a shared process of change in which we can all save money, get a better quality of life, and waste less of everything through becoming more aware of the consequences of everything we do. Norbert is right in that change is going to have to come about through the enlightened self-interests of major corporates: more efficiency, less waste and less energy equals more retained profit. The politicians will follow when their pay-masters have spotted the advantage, and will no doubt tell us that it was their intention all along to lead us in this direction.

Most important, to my mind, is to do what you can in your own neighbourhood: your Sierra club sounds excellent. Making all kinds of waste reduction a challenge and a fun idea and involving the kids wherever possible is also an excellent way forward.

all the best

Colin

I watch British Sitcoms! I bet they are old ones. Mom likes “Keeping up with Appearances”

BTW, I checked your links and making a sport of racing alternative-fueled vehicles would not be such a bad thing since sport can bring attention to these vehicles.

Kind regards,

Dan

Colin,

I am glad you are here.

Did Norbert really say all that? I may have to go back and reread his comments since I must have missed something.

Waste reduction is a challenge. We have a service that regularly picks up newspaper, plastic, metal, and glass each week.

We still have a penchant for disposable items and we developed a “throw-away convenience” that is a part of our mind set and culture which makes a greater awareness of reducing waste by recycling more difficult.

Thanks again,

Dan

I know you’ve already had confirmation the link works. It took me to the news site but the delivery was very jerky, no doubt because I’m still in the stone age! Dail-up – no broadband, you see!

And of course a few hours results in the “Gas price backlash?” story having been deleted, I think.

But replaced (?) with a piece titled “What if gas prices doubled?”. Couldn’t hear it all clearly but they referred to hybrids, the problem with regressive taxes, the drive less, fly less and consume less message and had a quote from Thomas Friedman (NYT) in which he said gas should be $4 a gallon. He referred to this, I think, as a “wake up call”.

But I read an interview with him on his new book “The World is Flat” and nowhere is GW/CC mentioned. Does anyone have more info on this and what standing does Friedman have?

And a further thought. Are there agencies monitoring GW/CC coverage? I think there must be. We have, relatively speaking, a lot of coverage in the UK but it tends to be with the quality media and not all media outlets are “quality” here.

Douglas Coker

Despite what some may think I do have an open mind regarding the GW info and AGW. The article to me was interesting because it pointed out how much ice is where around the world. I did not know this before.

I was looking at the bigger picture and not caught up in the small (and I believe less than accurate) numbers. I was thinking an area of land which is 90% of something and was accumulating is greater than the 10% left that is losing something.

It also cracks me up to think that people at the IPCC (or where ever) think they can estimate GLOBAL ocean levels to millimeter precision. I don’t buy it. They need to include ranges and include standard errors of measurement.

An good example is the whole earth temps rising .6 degrees celcius argument…. well suppose out of the 1000 years of data that the tree rings yields less than optimum data on temps for say 250 out of the 1000 years.. SO they got 750 years or 75% of the data pretty accurately right?

But lets suppose the other 250 years worth of data they were off by say .01 of a degree. (tree ring data I suspect is not exact) By my calculations .01×250 years makes the difference around 2.5 degrees. That’s a lot more than .6!!

This is a simplistic example but it shows that the accuracy is not an exact number but falls within some range of numbers. The IPCC or whoever, needs to include the range of data numbers when reporting something. This is especially true for GLOBAL types of estimates.

I’m not sure if I’m digging down or just around!

IMHO :)

IMHO. Exactly. There is more opinion in your latest post than analysis. I don’t have time to take you through all the unjustified assertions, unwarranted assumptions, lack of logic and plain straightforward errors.

Please read the initial responses to your earlier post. And I’m not playing your game any more. I’ve got more important things to do.

Douglas Coker

Hi all, Sorry this post really has nothing to do with the above discussions, I’m just after some help or more to the point inspiring ideas. I’m keen to get a little discussion/action group together in my neighborhood to audit the greenhouse gases that our particular lifestyles generate and then to look at ways to reduce them ie getting local car pooling systems going and so on. Just wondering if anyone else has tried to do this sort of thing and what worked and didn’t work. Cheers, Tara

Ireland, North America, England, Scotland …. ?

Douglas Coker

Clarkson free zone. Yesterday’s strike by some BBC employees resulted in a repeat airing of a You and Yours special on motoring. Very good – lots of references to GW and alternative fuels. And no Clarkson!!

50 odd minutes long so if you go to the link to listen again get the ironing board out or tackle that pile of dishes while you listen. Use the whole link here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/youandyours

Douglas Coker

Australia

But he did say that change is more likely to come from enlightened private sector investment. And on this point I agree with him as many companies are starting to realise that if you really think radically about reducing waste and inefficiency, especialy if you are ahead of the competition and the politicians, you can make a bigger profit.

Colin

Whereabouts in Oz, Tara?

and is there something you are particularly interested in: CO2 reduction, renewable energy/energy efficiency, recycling, local natural food, or generally the whole sustainable thing?

kind regards

Colin

Brisbane. Well, I’m interested in sustainability issues in general but right at the moment the moment I’m particularly interested in reducing greenhouse emissions that are generated through food production systems and highly inefficeint local transport. I’m already involved in a project related to the first issue, just starting to get a local community veggie garden underway which we hope will eventually sustain itself, but don’t really know where to start with the second issue. At the moment I walk to work every day and it drives me insane watching most cars zooming past me with only one occupant, and this is in an area close to the city which is really quite well serviced by public transport. I guess one of the first ideas that occurred to me was to investigate whether or not there is the potential to establish a car pooling netowrk in my local area to at least cut down on single occupancy and thus reduce the nunmber of cars out there. It seems vaguely possible that this idea might work where I live because there is a fairly strong and environmentally minded local community association. But before approaching them with this idea I guess I was wondering if anyone else has tried to do this sort of thing and what problems they encountered in the process and so on. Cheers

Sometimes it is best to form a “van pool”. This is usually associated with a particular group of people who work specific hours at the same organization and who also live in nearby neighborhoods.

The owner of the van picks up everyone and they pay him for transportation costs which end up paying for his van!

Another version of this idea would be a person who needs a van for a part-time trade during the day but can utilize the van for the “van-pool” to ferry office workers in the morning and evening.

Best,

Dan

Now I know where you are, I can make some enquiries about any groups or networks that are close to you. I’m glad that you have a community veggie garden going: that’s great: you can also encourage members to do home-composting on their parts of the garden utilising green waste, shredded cardboard, vegetable peelings etc. (ensuring that there is no cooked food, meat or other cross-contamination in there which could allow pathogen transfer: check out your local environmental health regulations on the use of compost). This will reduce landfill and the cost of fertilisers. I have links, through a partner organisation to a group called zero waste international. I will find out about the work they are doing in your part of the world.

Another method of reducing the GHG emissions from food production is to buy as locally as possible: there are a lot of community ‘green box’ schemes springing up in the UK, where several local fruit & veg growers club together, often through a cooperative and distribute a box of mixed organic seasonal fruit & veg to local subsrcibers who pay a fixed , low rate. The food is cheaper to the community and the growers retain more of the sales cost than when selling to supermarket buyers. There are also big side-benefits from better nutrition for children from low-income families. This has been a major topic here in the UK of late, especially around the quality of school meals, and the dramatic improvement in pupil behaviour and achievement when local fresh food is used to replace processed junk full of additives.

Now, community transport. I only have experience of UK groups, but there is a very helpful site:

http://www.carclubs.org.uk/

Which includes lots of resources on how to go about setting one up, running it, finance, insurance, business plans etc. Worth a look. I would think that much of the practice would translate straight to Australia.

Having Googled, there looks to be a car-club in the Sydney area that has been going a while:

http://www.newtowncarshare.info/newsadmin/archive.php

and a commercial one in Melbourne: http://www.goget.com.au/

finally, there appears to be a sustainable development group that covers lots of relevant topics including car-sharing schemes at:

http://www.urbanecology.org.au/topics/carsharing.html

Cylcing, walking and public transport are the other areas and most important of all : integration. People will not switch modes of transport if it is not clean, safe, attractive, and cost-effective. Asking people to wait in areas whihc are dark and threatening or filthy is not on. Trying to plan journeys by different modes when the information on how to do it, times and prices is hard to find or unreliable is another dis-incentive.

What is the level of information provision for this kind of activity in your area?

Getting community groups together is difficult, time consuming, hard work and often a thankless task. The organisation I work for represents over 30,000 voluntary organisations in Wales UK and we offer a wide range of support services. There is an international body, Civicus, which represents the civil society movements in different countries, and I am sure that there may well be something similar in Australia. I will make enquiries.

You might find this link useful for ideas:

http://www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au/building_stronger/enterprise/

that’s enough for now, but I will do some more digging for you. As the governor of the state of California famously said ” Ill be back”!

kind regards

Colin

Thanks, that an enormous amount of information you’ve provided me with. I’ll let you know how I go with it all as I worked my way through it.

Pleased to say Colin that we’re trying to make our garden organic, no chemcial inputs and so on. To make this work there is a small group of keen local gardeners engaged in a weekend permaculture course provided by one of the larger and well established community gardens in brisbane. So we’re hoping to get composting going at the garden site hopefully using unwanted waste from gardener’s homes and from the school where the garden is to be set up (another exciting dimension to the project). As for local organic box schemes, quite a few in our area already doing this. It’s fantastic food and much to my surprise i have found that i personally save quite a bit of money doing this, don’t go to the supermarket often so not as inclined to buy frivolous things.

Thanks again to you both for the info, looks great.

cheers Tara

Back to Clarkson again: yes I am really sorry, I forgot to put the balancing article in for Norbert.

Here it is, from the Student Union (bar) at Oxford Brookes:

http://www.thesu.com/bulletin/YaBB.cgi?board=University;action=display;num=1115822653.

I’m trying to work out the irony angle, I’m sure it must be in there somewhere. Others’ comments about the appropriateness of honorary doctorates ring true: I well remember a popular orchestral conductor in South Wales, (whose name, god bless him, I shall not recount) was an inveterate self-publicist despite being of, shall we say, modest talent. A local University bestowed an honorary doctorate upon him as he was delighted to report in the local press. The Doctorate was in arboriculture. Someone, somewhere had both a keen sense of humour and irreproachable good taste in music!!

kind regards

Colin

the ordering bug and the one where you end up with a name like ‘GW is very terrible’ were closely related and should both be fixed. Anyone whose name has been changed to a message title can change it back by editing themselves, or you can write to me and I’ll fix it.