Saving The Planet, Or Pleasing Your Customers?

Tesco appear to be taking the former option:

While the new policy does not yet apply to all Tesco locations, employees and shoppers took to the store's Reddit page to call out the "sneaky charge being imposed".

One user said: "So, was in Tesco today, got some swimming clothes for the kids and my wife got a dress."Went through the scan as you shop and paid, went to get the tags taken off and was told it’s 10p for a clothes hanger.

"Now I work at this store, and I’ve never heard of this. I’ve also never seen anything around the store or around the clothes section.

"So either someone is trying to earn some extra dosh or it’s a sneaky charge being imposed on customers. Has anyone else had this?"

I shopped in Tesco at the weekend and obviously my local isn't in the trial, but you know what I DID see? A box where you can donate unwanted hangers for recycling. 

One person responded: "Tesco charging 10p if you want to keep their hangers now! Next there will be an entrance fee."

Please don't give them ideas!  

However, some agreed with the new rule with one user writing: "It’s a trial. They are trying to discourage people from taking hangers as they usually just get chucked anyway.

"If Tesco can keep them they can reuse them and therefore don’t have to produce more. Little planet-saving steps."

Then what's wrong with the box for you to leave them in? 

Tesco said only a small number of stores are taking part in the trial with the brand yet to announce how many more locations will implement this idea.

They'd be mad to, it's only going to alienate customers. What the hell is wrong with retail owners these days? 

Forget Sovereignty, Remember Gaia!

Once upon a time Britain would have sent a gunboat up the Yangtze River. That would teach those Chinese a lesson. To hear some MPs talk about Beijing’s espionage activities, you would think gunboats were already on their way.

Except we don't have any that work anymore. And even if we did, we'd not have anyonr with the balls to use them.  

Rishi Sunak was quick to the fray. “We’ve been very clear that the situation now is that China is behaving in an increasingly assertive way abroad, authoritarian at home, and it represents an epoch-defining challenge, and also the greatest state-based threat to our economic security,” he said. “So, it’s right that we take measures to protect ourselves, which is what we are doing.” That was clear. It was also ridiculous.

Oh? Is the threat not real? What other reason could you have for being so sanguine about a foreign power's attempt to subvert our country's sovreignty? 

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, who is said to have been targeted alongside other parliamentarians in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, was also blunt. China is not just a challenge to us, he said. It must be framed as a threat. “As they grow in power and potency, we are shrinking before them,” he said.

Seems real to me! So why would a red-blooded Englishman not feel the need to imitate the action of the tiger, stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood...?  

Today the world’s relations with China are in one area crucial. That country is responsible for more than a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and rising. Britain is now actively participating in China’s proposed “greening” of its BRI programme, which is largely about infrastructure. Given that a third of all greenhouse gas emissions are from construction – a fact still ignored by British planning policy – this collaboration with China is central to fighting the climate crisis.

Oh. Of course. The modern beta male's response when faced with a threat. A drawn-out whine of 'But..but global warming!'. 

... a sense of proportion remains the hardest but most necessary quality to maintain in international relations. We are told daily that global heating is the greatest threat now facing the world. Unless that applies only before lunch, then it should surely lie at the centre of all relations with China.

We'd have trouble facing up to China if it came to a shooting war, Simon. What chance do you think we'd stand against that huge ball of hydrogen in the firmament?  

Not So Much A ‘Radical Flank’, Chris…

...as urban terrorists who are unhinged about global warning nonsense. Just the sort of people you want knowing your address.

Packham, 62, defended the right of environmental activists to target the homes of MPs, as long as their action was “peaceful and non-violent”.

Because that always happens, right, Chris? 

“I think that we need a portfolio of protests, basically, because we need a radical flank and Just Stop Oil are seen by many as that radical flank,” he told Times Radio on Monday.“They are the people who in some people’s minds go a step too far. And that might be, you know, standing outside an MP’s house. But the fact is that they are motivated, as I am, by a manifest fear for the health of our future.

“The science tells us we have to act. These people are frightened for my future, for your future, for the future of any children they might have. They need to draw attention to this issue.”

By destroying public art and preventing the emergency services reaching people in need? Well, I suppose it makes as much sense as urging people to buy their eggs from Cambodia rather than Britain... 

Packham added that Just Stop Oil “want a rapid just energy transition away from fossil fuels to a healthy, renewable energy system and they need to get that message across, and they’re desperate to do so. So I would support a breadth of protest.”

Which is something they don't appear to have. So, can we see you forgoing your cosy BBC sinecure and glueing your hand to the pavement in future? 

“That doesn’t mean that you and I need to go and stand outside MPs houses. I’m taking a legal approach, a perfectly democratic one, which is available to me as a citizen of the UK. But yes, we’re on the same sheet.”

Let's hope you end up in the same cell too then. 

The More I Hear From Her, The More I Like Her...

Kemi Badenoch has suggested electric vehicle mandates could hamper investment in Britain and lead to job losses, in a sign that another of the government’s green pledges is in doubt.

Don't just suggest it, though, Kemi. State it. Because it's true. 

The zero-emissions vehicle mandate is part of a series of rules to phase out petrol and diesel engine cars in an attempt to reach the government’s legal target of making the UK a net zero carbon emitter by 2050. The UK ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars is due in 2030.

However, there are widespread concerns over whether Britain has adequate infrastructure and capacity for the growth of electric vehicles.

And who says that? Some petrolhead determined not to give up his polluting vehi...

Oh. 

Last weekend, the prime minister ordered a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs). It is unknown whether the plan is to seek the removal of all LTNs, even those that have been in place for long periods, or only those installed since 2020 when Boris Johnson’s government provided £200m for more to be created.

It doesn't really matter what his plan is. We all know what it is. Not enough.

And if he doesn't realise that soon, he'll find someone else doing his job instead...  

Imagine Letting A 'Guardian' Sourpuss Tell You What To Spend Your Money On...

So says Hannah Fearn, according to her 'Guardian' bio, a freelancer writer and reporter specialising in social affairs. And doesn't her picture do her column justice?

Fifteen years ago, it was the wood burner: an unnecessary middle-class indulgence that, despite causing untold environmental damage, started popping up in homes across the country. They became symbolic of a certain affluence that allows a privileged few to live in optimum comfort at all times. Now there’s a new kid on the block: the portable air-conditioning unit.

Oh, horrors! People might be able to keep cool! This will never do! 

At between £300 and £1,000 a pop, they’re not cheap – but they certainly make three or four weeks of good UK weather each year easier to handle.

Great! Right? No. Of course not. 

At what cost?

You just told us, love. Between £300-1000.  

This week National Grid readied another coal-fired power station to cope with the extra demand placed on the energy networks by offices and homes switching on air-conditioning units.

Well, maybe it's me, but isn't that a good thing? A company reacting to demand from its customers? Planning ahead? 

Well, Reader, not in Ms PursedLips' world, it's not...  

Just as wood burners are being phased out by law as we start to fully understand the damage they do to climate and also lung health, we now need to consider a ban on some air-conditioning units – particularly when used at the mildest of warm temperatures.

Yes, of course, a ban is the first - and often only - thing these NuPuritans reach for.  

When it’s 26C outside, the average British home simply doesn’t need air-conditioning. It might feel nicer, but making you a little more comfortable isn’t the government’s job.

Really? So we can start dismantling the panoply of 'hate crime' legislation then? And all those proposals for limiting freedom of speech on the Web?

Oh, that wasn't what you meant? *shrugs* Can't put that genie back in the bottle, can we? 

It Would Be Interesting To Overlay This Map With The One About Putin's Nuclear Threat On The Capital...

...and see which one would do the most damage!

I fear it might not be the one showing the fallout from a nuclear strike...

London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) could be extended towards the Surrey border as efforts are made to reduce pollution and congestion in the city. Drivers of the most polluting vehicles could face a charge if they travel on part of the A3 or into Kingston, Richmond, Sutton and Croydon under the proposed expansion.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has asked Transport for London to consult on plans to expand the ULEZ for 2023. At the moment any vehicle that does not meet the European emission requirements must pay £12.50 per day to travel through any part of the designated ULEZ area.

£12.50 every time you take your car off the drive to go to Tesco. When does this madness ever stop? 

No Government Ever Institutes 'Joined Up Policies'...

...and this one is no exception:

The committee's chairman, Darren Jones, said replacing gas boilers, the major source of pollution from homes, was "a huge task and we are not making near enough progress". The report urges the government to do more to explain to the public the changes they will be facing, including the potential costs and benefits.

Maybe the public has seen the potential costs and decided they don't outweigh the benefits? If that's the case, then nothing the government will do will work... 

Mr Jones said the government should also replace the failed Green Homes Grant – the scheme providing financial support for people to insulate their homes.

“Ministers can’t simply leave this to the market – the government should tackle the cost of heating our homes in the round and bring forward joined-up policies that address these issues together,” he said.

When a government wonk claims that something 'can't be left to the market', hold on tight to your wallet; it means they are pushing something they know people don't want and won't accept. 

“For most people, your boiler is probably the most environmentally damaging thing that you own,” said Nesta's Andrew Sissons.

And people won't care, so long as the alternative is worse.  

'Choice' Is Exactly What They Don't Want Anyone To Have...

...and if this isn't rejected, that's exactly what they will continue to push on everyone.

Green Party councillor Ian Middleton, put forward a motion to make sure all Oxfordshire County Council meetings are "entirely plant-based", and it was passed on Tuesday's full council meeting.

Nor was that his only demand: 

The motion also called for targeted education in schools on dietary health, food growing, preparation and waste avoidance and for the county school meals service to make fully plant-based menus available to schools that ask for them.

Because we all know schools have successfully taught all children to read, write and add up and are just twiddling their thumbs? 

However, Conservative councillor David Bartholomew feels the motion is "unacceptable" and says that veganism should be a choice.

In the normal world, it is.  

It will now be considered by the council cabinet before implementation.

And I've little hope that the 

Speaking after the meeting Mr Middleton said:"No one is taking away free choice, these changes will only affect those who wish to avail themselves of food provided by the council. What members do outside the council walls is their own affair."

But that's how these things always start, isn't it?  Impacting one small - often despised - group of people, before they move on to everyone.  

But you can't argue with fanaticism:

Mr Middleton said: "These are not choices we're making for ourselves, but for future generations. This is a very minor change that sends a powerful message to the people we represent that we take tackling climate change seriously and are prepared to play our part as community leaders".

Enjoy your taxpayer-funded food, but I'll make my own choices with my own money. And looking at the vegan offerings always adorning the supermarket 'buy it now at reduced price before we bin it' so does everyone else...