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? 

Bad Laws...

For years, Sweeney has run the accounts to track the jet use of public figures and measure their carbon footprints. Sweeney’s coverage, which uses publicly available data from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and broadcast signals from aircrafts, has been widely praised and earned the 21-year-old a Forbes 30 under 30 nod.

And can't the slebs do anything about someone exposing their hypocrisy? Well, no. Not if it's public information.

Oh, hang on! 

Swift’s lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter to Jack Sweeney, a University of Central Florida student who runs several social media accounts tracking the private jet use of Swift and other public figures, the Washington Post first reported this week.

So...how? 

...Swift’s attorneys from the Washington-based law firm Venable accused Sweeney of engaging in “stalking and harassing behavior” over his tracking of Swift’s jet activity.

*sighs* 

No, I Think You'll Find It's The General Public's Buying Power...

The “gigantic” power of the meat and dairy industries in the EU and US is blocking the development of the greener alternatives needed to tackle the climate crisis, a study has found.

...they don't want your meat alternatives or your vegan food that's not as healthy and twice as expensive.

Cutting meat consumption in rich nations is vital to tackling the climate crisis. Livestock production causes 15% of all global greenhouse emissions.

And India and China's fossil fuel industry? And their livestock industry? How much is that? 

The researchers also highlighted restrictive labelling rules. Terms such as “milk” and “cheese” have been banned since 2017 in the EU for most alternative milk and dairy products.

A US proposal would prohibit the sale of alternative meats unless the product label included the word “imitation”.

Remember when scientists demanded accuracy in labelling? I do... 

“It’s not a level playing field at all at the moment,” Lambin said. “The new sector needs to be given its chance to expand and gain efficiency. After that, consumers will judge whether they like it or not...”

Well, going purely on the regular appearance of these foodstuffs in the 'yellow sticker' shelf of all my local supermarkets, they've already judged. 

It's Time These Climate Scientists Slept With The Fishes...

Keeping a tank of tropical fish could...

Be a rewarding hobby? Provide a means of relaxation at the end of a long working day? 

...contribute as much greenhouse gas as driving thousands of miles in a car or a motorbike, a study has found.

*sighs* Who the hell bothers to work this out? And why aren't they building my flying car, already? 

The carbon footprint and environmental impacts of keeping pet fish has been calculated for the first time by Cardiff University's Water Research Institute.

Oh. Wales. That figures. 

Dr Perry added: 'Ornamental fishkeeping can be a more environmentally conscious pet choice than owning an average sized dog or cat, which are likely to produce considerably more emissions through their consumption of meat.

Better forget the piranha then! 

'However, the environmental impacts of fishkeeping can also be substantial depending on aquarium size, how it is run and even what country it is in.

'There are still improvements that can be made to ensure the environmental sustainability of the hobby.'

I suspect that's not really uppermost in most aquarist's minds, Prof... 

'The environmental impact from the energy needs of keeping fish will improve as national energy grids start to decarbonize, but reducing the environmental impact of high water consumption will not come easily and will require ingenuity at the level of the individual.'

They like to get you coming and going, don't they? 

'These are important considerations as we face a climate emergency linked with our demands for energy, as well as water insecurity linked with our demands for water.'

If we were facing such a thing, it might possibly be, yes. But we aren't. And we're tired of your increasing hysteria in trying to persuade us of it... 

'It's All The Fault Of Climate Change!' Pt 1798541

High temperatures and air pollution has previously been linked to aggression in humans, monkeys, rats and mice.

Now a study spanning 10 years has found the phenomenon also applies to man's best friend.

Wha..? Where did you get this from, Ambush? 

Well, Reader...

A teenager and two adults were rushed to hospital after a dog attack inside a home. The incident took place in the early hours of the morning of June 23 in a property in Leverington, Cambridgeshire.

Dangerous dog officers were called to the home just after 3am, finding three people involved injured at the scene.

Emergency services remained at the scene through the early hours and into the morning with a cordon placed around the house.

An investigation is also currently ongoing into the incident, reports Cambridgeshire Live.

Yup, 'climate change', I'm sure that's the cause.  

Cow Wars!

Almost 20 years ago, hundreds of furious New Zealand farmers jumped into their tractors, farm bikes and trucks and ploughed up Wellington’s main street towards parliament to kick up a stink against the so-called “fart tax” – a levy on livestock methane gases, proposed by the then-Labour government to reduce emissions.

A cow named Energy was led up the building’s granite steps and left an unwelcome mess in her wake. In doing so, she provided the opposition movement with a powerful, if indelicate, visual metaphor: rural New Zealand was ready for a mudslinging match with the capital.

Just months later, the government abandoned the tax.

That was then. And the government bided its time: 

But last month – 19 years after Energy’s memorable performance – the current Labour-government proposed a not-too-dissimilar plan to the ill-fated “fart tax”, with a crucial difference: it had been broadly created by farmers themselves. 

All the farmers? Well, maybe not: 

“As everyone knows, the farming lobby is one of the strongest,” says Dr Adrian Macey, an adjunct professor in climate change research at Victoria University of Wellington and senior associate at the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies. But there is growing division within the sector, he says – those who are “ready to be part of the solution”, and those who feel “very oppressed by not only climate change measures but all government regulation”.

Who can blame them? 

Macey says the plan could pave the way for other countries to follow suit. “[New Zealand] is probably the first country to set a hard target on agricultural methane and the first country to put a levy on it,” he said. “We’re showing world leadership on what you can do with the sector – no one has gone there before us.”

Don't mind if we all just sit back and watch to see what happens, then, Adrian? 

Sound Like The Same Old Story To Me, Bri...

National Geographic says storytelling “helps us to find order in things that have happened to us and make sense of the events of a random world”, and that studies suggest “the more compelling the story, the more empathetic people become in real life.” According to the BBC, “storytelling is a form of cognitive play that hones our minds, allowing us to simulate the world around us and imagine different strategies, particularly in social situations … brain scans have shown that reading or hearing stories activates various areas of the cortex that are known to be involved in social and emotional processing …”

Wow, Bri, since you're an author, that must be a good thing to hear, right? 

Oh, wait, this is the 'Guardian'! What was I thinking? 

The problem is that some of the most urgent and lethal challenges our society is facing are too giant and unwieldy to fit into the little patterns our human minds are used to making.

*sighs* OK, go on, give us an example... 

Our present pandemic response policies suggest some people don’t get to be “heroes” on a “journey”, and many traditional western storytelling conventions aren’t up to the task of understanding a climate emergency that defies any sort of conflict-resolution arc.

*yawns* Boy, some stories do get old real quick...

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? 

The New Puritanism...

Looks remarkably like the old one, doesn't it?

How the media communicates about climate breakdown reflects and shapes how societies engage with the issue. Behind every picture that makes it into the news is a person mirroring and perpetuating how society thinks about climate breakdown.

That it's not always a terrible, terrible thing that we must expend precious resources on trying to change? 

Our new research, led by the University of Exeter...

Another uttely pointless bit of 'research' that could be axed if only we had a truly conservative government... 

...highlights a distinct problem with how the European media visually represents news of extreme heat.

I hate heatwaves personally. But some people love them. Go figure! 

News media can picture heatwave visuals differently, though. The Dutch outlet Algemeen Dagblad produced visual stories of the reality of living with extreme heat. When they pictured a young family, they weren’t queueing for an ice-cream on a benign sunny day, but at home in front of a fan, looking visibly uncomfortable.

Could be me! 

We want to be clear that this isn’t a call to the media to redact all images of people enjoying the beach on a hot day...

But you would if you thought you could get away with it, wouldn't you? 

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... 

There's Nothing New Under The Sun...

Parents have long chastised children with the threat of withholding dessert unless the dinner plate is licked clean.

Now, however, it seems they will have to go one further and eat the crockery too before they can tuck into pudding - as a British company have launched a range of edible spoons, cups, plates and bowls. The tableware is made from wheat bran, similar to breakfast bran flakes, and is designed to hold hot or cold food.

It is, of course, the brainshild of an 'eco-company': 

The plates are likely to cost more than the average picnic lunch, however, with a pack of ten large bran plates costing £7.99.

Stroodles has been making eco-straws made from pasta since 2019 and is now expanding its range to cover the full dining experience.

Sounds familiar, and I can't think wh...

Ah!  

We're going backwards. So why is this considered 'progressive'?

Over To You, Grant...

Seven of London's Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) are to be scrapped after they were found to increase local congestion and caused 'no material change in air quality'.

Ealing Council studied nine LTNs following outcry from residents, who gathered in their thousands outside the town hall in April to demand they be axed.

So, sometimes the local council listens. But surely the effects of these wretched things were well-known before they were put in? Who'd be so stupid as to imag...

Oh...

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps previously announced the scheme - which plans for 200 LTNs across the country - is to receive hundreds of millions of pounds as part of the Government's so-called 'green transport revolution', which hopes to reduce car use by encouraging walking and cycling.

*sigh* 

The damning report challenges the Government's repeated claims that LTNs are a popular idea among the public.

It seems all their claims hold as much water as a sieve when you look at them closely, doesn't it? 

Bin Wars Looming...

Councillors have warned that people 'will go mad' if the government proceeds with plans to force homes to have seven bins each.

If only they would. Mostly, they'll just grumble and send letters to the local paper... 

It follows the government unveiling plans to standardise waste collection across England, with separate bins for dry recyclables – glass, metal, plastic, paper and card - in addition to bins for garden waste, food waste and non-recyclables.

This is the sort of plan that can only be conceived by people who live in huge, sprawling detatched houses with plenty of room for all these receptacles. Ot who have other people to worry about this sort of thing for them. 

Stockport Labour councillor Roy Driver said that aside from storage, an issue with most bin collections is 'street clutter'.

He continued: 'Blind people struggle to get past, as well as people with mobility problems and women with buggies. If we have more bins this problem will be exacerbated.'

Pshaw! Who cares about people, we've got a planet to save..! But are we doing that badly?

A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said last month: 'We are going further and faster to recycle more of our waste to protect the environment.’

Oh! 

'Less than 10 per cent of household waste is now going to landfill and the amount of food waste being recycled is up by over 40 per cent since 2015.’

So...what's the issue? 

‘But we must do more, and through our major reforms of kerbside collections we will boost recycling levels and step up our war on plastic pollution – while our proposed weekly food waste collections will maximise recycling and stop the build-up of smelly waste around homes.’

So while these extra vehicles are trundling round the streets pumping out the diesel fumes they claim are ruining our quality of life, and the hotter summers they keep telling us we'll have due to climate change are heating up the stinking food waste bins, do any of these geniuses stop to wonder just what we're saving the planet for..? 

"You Stand Accused Of Heresy. How Do You Plead?"

'Guilty'.

The BBC has removed an educational page laying out the “benefits” of climate change after a furious online reaction.

BBC Bitesize, its website for schoolchildren, claimed warmer temperatures “could lead to healthier outdoor lifestyles” and that a benefit of climate change could mean easier access to oil in Alaska and Siberia.

And...isn't that a possibility? Should we ignore it. 

Other apparent benefits highlighted by the BBC included the ability to one day grow more crops in Siberia, new shipping routes created by melting ice, and more tourist destinations.

Also true. But we can't, apparently, handle the truth. Says who? 

After a backlash from climate experts and campaigners, including the Guardian writer George Monbiot, the page, aimed at year 10 students, was amended to only include the negative impacts of climate change.

Ah. The usual suspects. 

The exam board Eduqas said the information was not taken from its curriculum, adding: “Within our GCSE geography specifications, we examine the consequences of climate change and its respective impact on our planet.

“As part of our courses, we also ask students to explore opposing attitudes to climate change. However, we do not advocate a positive viewpoint on this topic.”

What are you doing advocating any viewpoint? Why not just lay out the facts and let people think for themselves? 

Scotland’s exam board recently came under fire from the Scottish Green party for teaching the “positives” of climate change.

The Scottish Qualifications Authority geography course gave benefits of climate change such as “increased tourism to more northerly latitudes” and “improved crop yields”.

The political party said it was “deeply inappropriate” for the SQA to specify the pros and cons should be given equal consideration.

Clearly, across the border, they are made of sterner stuff: 

The SQA responded: “Analysing and evaluating a variety of views is essential to critical thinking.”

Which we must discourage, lest people indulge in wrongthink. 

Newsflash: You Just Did...

“I know one thing that we found in our analysis is that 60% of our emissions come from … residential heating and passenger vehicles,” said David Ismay, Massachusetts, undersecretary for climate change, during a virtual meeting with the Vermont Climate Council.

“Let me say that again: 60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person on your street, the senior on fixed-income. Right now, there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at and turn the screws on and now break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will.”

A rare flash of the real iron fist in the velvet glove there.  

But Ismay also admitted his remarks would not be popular. “I can’t even say that publicly,” Ismay said.

Unfortunately, as you know by now, you just did. Very publicly. 

That prediction seemingly came to fruition when the state’s Republican Gov. Charlie Baker got wind of the statements, which he insisted “no one who works in our administration should ever say or think.”

You can certainly stop them from saying it - or at least, make sure there are consequences when caught - but I don't think you're going to get very far trying to stop them thinking it...