Ian Plimer is what many would regard, from looking at his CV, as a very reputable scientist. He has a PhD and as worked in academia since 1991, most recently as Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide.

He recently wrote a book called "Heaven and Earth" that argued against the scientific consensus on climate change.

On the face of it, this should be powerful stuff. But, as I remarked in my previous post, George Monbiot asked a number of questions about the sources for dubious claims in the book.

Do you think, as I do, that any reputable scientist would readily answer such questions?

Instead, the story unfolds as George Monbiot reports on his website (see posts around 14 September 2009).

It is clear that Plimer has to date refused to answer what are reasonable questions. What can the reason for this be? Surely it is reasonable to conclude that to answer the questions would discredit his position. His response, by the way, is bizarre.

Monbiot includes an analysis of the tactics of climate change deniers and publishes correspondence with the Spectator. I think this whole story needs to be publicised as widely as possible.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I tend to alternate between the broadsheet newspapers and have recently noticed an increasing disconnect between them on the reporting of global warming issues. In particular, the Daily Telegraph seems to have a much more sceptical stance than other newspapers. Much of this seems to be led by the articles of its columnist Christopher Booker.

I find it disheartening that there there seems to be little scrutiny of such views. So in this blog I want to start investigating them. I will start with Booker's article on 31 December 2008 headed 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved.

( So was it disproved? )

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has recently sponsored an investigation into minimum income standards. Details can be found here. I thought it would be interesting to review their conclusions for a single working age male, in particular comparing my own annual expenditure against their derived budget.

( My comparison ... )

( My annual update ... )

I've reviewed last year's resolutions by adding comments to this post.

I haven't had much time today to think of resolutions for the forthcoming year. However, I've come up with the following.

(1) Always put on an extra layer of clothing when cold.
The goal here is only to use the central heating as far as necessary.

(2) Always use a timer when running a bath.
I know it's not environmentally friendly to run a bath, but I don't have a shower. I do sometimes wash by attaching a shower hose to the sink taps, but it's not comfortable. I previously bought a timer, but it broke. I have now bought another and am using it.

(3) Turn the oven off five minutes before finishing cooking.
The idea here is that the oven should have enough heat to be able to continue cooking without further gas. If anyone knows if the five minutes can be extended, let me know!

(4) Reduce computer use.
I think I can do little things here such as not turning on the computer in the evening until I've eaten and done the necessary housework.

(5) Eat vegetarian food on average more than once per week.
I managed it exactly once per week during 2007. I want to commit to continue with that and also eat vegetarian food more often (hopefully at least one extra day per fortnight) in 2008.

Tonight Nick Griffin (leader of the British National Party) and David Irving (discredited historian) are speaking at the Oxford Union. Some politicians (such as Conservative MP Julian Lewis and Green Party principal speaker Derek Wall) have condemned the invitation. However, others (such as Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris) are standing up for the rights of Griffin and Irving to state their views.

Wall's views are interesting. I find myself agreeing with him in part - in that it was probably not constructive to have invited them in the first place.

However, I disagree with him when he says "While free speech is important, it does not mean that the Union has a right to give space to far right speakers.". The Union has every right. It is a private society. It has democratically elected a President. The President has the authority to invite speakers (and presumably had this decision not had the support of a majority of other elected office holders it would not have reached this far).

The irony is if those opposed to Griffin and Irving had not protested at all the evening would probably have passed off quietly. The audience of the Oxford Union consists of highly intelligent people. There would have been robust challenge to the views expressed - it is after all a debating society - and I cannot believe that Griffin or Irving would have influenced anyone.

A lot of problems in the world occur because we don't talk enough to each other. I know it is not likely, but is it impossible that one day Griffin or Irving might change or moderate their views? That could only happen if they do engage with intelligent people who can challenge their views. If we don't afford them that opportunity in safe situations like this then they are likely to become more entrenched.

There's a useful reference in the Green Party's Manifesto for a Sustainable Society in the section on Rights and Responsibilities. Agreed party policy is:

RR804: Speakers and Officers of The Green Party will only share platforms with groups who endorse racial, ethnic or national hatred at a public or private meeting where that offers an opportunity to confront and oppose racism.

That seems right and the meeting tonight appears to meet those criteria (substituting 'Other Invited Speakers' for 'Speakers and Officers of The Green Party').

How to test your vocabulary and do something useful at the same time:

Click here

The London Assembly voted today:

"This Assembly calls on the Metropolitan Police Authority to take the necessary steps to bring to an end the debate on the position of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, which is to the detriment of policing in London and bring his appointment to an end, if necessary obtaining the consent of the Home Secretary.

Given the lack of confidence in the Commissioner’s stewardship of the Metropolitan Police Service, this Assembly also calls upon Sir Ian to reconsider his own position and resign."

Am I in a minority for thinking this is extreme? Sir Ian is not like a Cabinet Minister who has a £60K+ p.a. (+ expenses) job as M.P. to fall back on if he resigns. As a career police professional he has nowhere immediately to go if he loses his job.

Surely if the Assembly Members genuinely feel that Ian Blair is the wrong person for the job it would be fairer to call for his demotion?

I am not qualified to comment, but suspect that much of the moves against him are politically motivated, and prefer to trust in Jenny Jones (Green Party AM) who serves on the Metropolitan Police Authority and voted in support of him, arguing as follows.

An alternative Green Party view is expressed by Siân Berry, London Mayoral candidate, here. My feeling on this though is that Siân's argument appears to be against a policy rather than an individual. If that is the only argument put forward then would it not be more appropriate to call primarily for a change in policy rather than a change in individual?

The Green Party is currently balloting its membership on the question as to whether to change its structure to create a post of leader (albeit with much more limited powers than the leaders of other UK political parties). Having considered both sides of the argument, I am against this change. I was preparing to post my reasons for the record. However, I can hardly do better than starting by quoting from this most inspiring article by Jenny Jones and Jonathan Dixon (if you have seen it before, read on for further comments of my own).

( They write ... )

I thought I'd review a couple of carbon footprint calculators that were reviewed in today's Observer newspaper.

WWF Footprint Calculator

This was quick to do and told me my carbon footprint was 9.53 tonnes and my footprint was 2.47 planets. This was split 18% food, 13% travel, 40% home and 29% "stuff". This compares with an earlier calculation of 7.3 tonnes (see a recent post) and a calculation of 13.4 tonnes by the Observer reviewer.

The questions were easy to answer, but they didn't take account of actual energy use in any precise way (e.g. asking for kWH energy use). It felt like the answer would inevitably be broadbrush. It provided four eco-tips:

- Buy more seasonal food
- Walk instead of using other forms of transport
- Turn down the heating in rooms you aren't using
- Avoid over-packaged products

This demonstrates it's not very accurate as I already do the second and third of these to fairly close to the maximum and I do take the first and fourth into account in my purchasing decisions. It suggests my footprint may well be lower than has been calculated. Still, I think this is a good site to look at if you're starting down the path of trying to live more sustainably. From a personal level, it reinforces that even if I am doing better than it calculates I am still living unsustainably.

NEF Calculator

This told me that my house adds 0.82 tonnes, my car adds 0.72 tonnes and I have nothing from flying. It put me at 1.54 tonnes which was well below the current national average, the 2020 target and even the 2050 target. Unlike my earlier review and the WWF it doesn't take account of other items that add to the footprint.

The figures it produced were broadly consistent with my previous calculation. They compared with 8.14 tonnes by the Observer reviewer (who flys, which largely explains the differential).

There is obviously quite an inconsistency here.

In terms of recommendations, the largest ones were:

- fitting a wood pellet boiler for heating and hot water (0.49 tonnes)
- replace my car with a hybrid or electric car (0.51 tonnes or 0.56 tonnes respectively)

I discount the latter because account has to be taken of the carbon footprint of the production of the car, not just the running costs. I think it's probably best for me to stick with my current car for the time being, or at least sell it to someone who is right-sized for it.

Interestingly according to the recommendations cavity wall insulation or extra loft insulation would not do much for my carbon footprint (presumably because my energy use is already low), so perhaps this review has been a useful exercise after all in helping me de-prioritise those actions.

Having considered both sites, I'm inclined to think one of the most effective things I can still do to reduce my footprint is with regards to my choices of food.

My local council (NHDC) are about to introduce alternate weekly collection of waste. Thinking that I already recycled everything that can be recycled, I thought I'd investigate what was left.

For a week I separated out my non-recyclable waste into that which needed to go into the bin immediately (for hygiene reasons) and that which could wait. I washed everything that could be washed and included it in the latter pile.

( I won't go into the details, but ... )

When I hear those words, I think of the current President Bush and the doctrine he so often espouses in his speeches. But what do these words mean?

( Some reflections on recent news stories ... )

I'll start by reviewing how my carbon footprint has changed since last year (using last year's basis of estimation for consistency) and will consider making another post another time if any research prompts me to revise my estimate.

Gas

The new boiler (and perhaps, a warm winter) has done wonders, reducing my energy consumption to 4,500 kwH (for the previous three years it was in the 6000 - 7000 kWH range), down about 30%. My carbon footprint from this source has therefore reduced from 1.14 tonnes to 0.86 tonnes.

Electricity

I claim only a very small footprint from electricity as I use a 100% renewable supplier, but I feel it's still important to try to reduce consumption to increase the capacity for other users. I managed to reduce from about 1,800 kwH to 1,600 kwH. I suspect this may be partly due to me switching from 40 degree to 30 degree laundry washes.

Car Mileage

I drove 1,788 miles between MOT certificates. As this was lower than my estimate of normal usage of 2,000 miles I feel I can claim a reduction in the footprint from 0.56 tonnes to 0.50 tonnes.

Public Transport

I've looked at my expenditure and reckon that I probably travelled about the same distance by public transport as last year. That's worth 0.23 tonnes.

Flights

None, so that reduces from 0.40 tonnes to nil tonnes.

Food and Drink

This was difficult to estimate last year. I think I've made some improvements (for example, going vegetarian one day per week, taking food miles into consideration), but I'm a long way from being perfect. I'll estimate a token small reduction from 0.75 tonnes to 0.72 tonnes without having any way of measuring it.

Clothes and Shoes

Difficult to judge, and I would say I made purchases in line with my long-term behaviour, so the estimated averaged footprint remains constant at 0.30 tonnes.

Car manufacture

For the purposes of this exercise, there is no cause to adjust last year's estimate of an amortised amount of 0.80 tonnes. Only when I get rid of a car (or perhaps make a second-hand trade to a smaller car) can I reduce or eliminate this component of the footprint.

Buildings, furniture and appliances

My footprint would be very low over the past twelve months, but my estimate of 1.00 tonnes was meant to be a time average. For consistency and comparison with last year, I'll stick with it, but think this might be something that might be revised when I reconsider the appropriateness of the estimate.

Recreation and services

Again I suspect my estimate may be too high, but as my behaviour hasn't changed much, I'll continue with last year's estimate of 1.25 tonnes.

Finance and other services

Ditto, continuing with last year's estimate of 0.36 tonnes. Any changes (such as moving to paperless statements with some providers) are likely to have a negligible impact.

Share of public services

This is largely out of my control, and remains constant at 1.28 tonnes. I doubt I have significantly reduced my water consumption as my efforts have not been as strong as I would have liked in this regard.

Offsets

I have not made any payments to offset anything. This is in part because I believe that we can't solve climate change unless we each prioritise reducing our own footprint.

The total result is a footprint of about 7.3 tonnes, down from 8.1 tonnes last year, about a 10% reduction. About half of that was achieved by not flying, which is a one-off reduction. It will be way beyond expectations to achieve a cut of similar size next year. In fact, major changes are required to achieve further significant cuts. For example:

- To achieve a reduction in gas consumption I perhaps need to review the insulation of my house (as well as being frugal and trying to cook less).
- I may struggle to reduce mileage, but (while there is no car club locally) I could trade my car second hand for a more economical (smaller) model.
- If I can reduce my reliance on ready meals then I may perhaps be able to justify a reduction in my footprint from food and drink. However, given my busy life I will need to find time to invest in learning about a wider range of foods and cooking.

Recently I have noticed a problem with Microsoft Outlook - the program has become very slow to respond to typing in an e-mail.

The problem is discussed in this forum and it appears to be a joint Outlook / Spybot problem. For anyone whose primary concern is security and is happy restricting outgoing e-mails to words only, I recommend the following quick fix.

Simply go into Outlook and click Tools ... Options ... Mail Format. Then change 'Compose in this message format:' from HTML to Plain Text.

I would also recommend (even after this problem is fixed) going into Outlook and clicking Tools ... Options ... Preferences ... E-Mail Options and then checking the boxes 'Read all standard mail in plain text' and 'Read all digitially signed mail in plain text'. I understand this is a safer way of reading incoming e-mails, although you lose all the graphics.

This is an issue that usually provokes a public outcry whenever allowances for councillors are reviewed if they increase by more than the rate of inflation (or at least by more than the rate of increase in council tax). I would like to examine this further.

In the district in which I live (North Hertfordshire) there is a recent paper on the subject here.

I won't summarise it here. However, in my view the allowances are not excessive. In my view a councillor must put in an average of about 7.5 hours per week to do just a basic (unimpressive) job. A good councillor needs to put in a lot more. A good North Hertfordshire District councillor who is paid £3,476 per annum is probably putting in over 15 hours per week and for them the pay translates to less than the minimum wage.

This paper documents how much councillors were actually paid in the 2005/06 year. I don't have details of the 2005/06 allowance scale, but it appears that the basic allowance was £2,340. If so, the only councillors who opted to take less than this were Cllr. Burt [Con] £1,800, Cllr. Sal. Jarvis [Lib Dem] £2,191, Cllr. Lunn [Lab] £2,293, Cllr. Mardell [Lab] £2,293, Cllr. Sheard [Lab] £2,293. I don't know the history, but suspect that the slightly sub-normal amounts arise from councillors choosing to rein back the increase in their allowances from previous years in line with inflation or increases in council tax. Only Cllr. Burt looks as though he chose to accept significantly less (Cllr. Hollands [Lib Dem] is missing from the list, although he resigned early on in the civic year so would only have qualified for a small pro-rata amount anyway).

It may be that some councillors who were entitled to additional amounts for additional responsibilities (e.g. portfolio positions or committee chairmanship) opted to take less than their full entitlement. I haven't checked that and this post focuses mainly on the basic allowance.

It seems to me that there are two conflicting arguments. On the one hand many existing councillors aren't motivated to do the job by the money. However, on the other, insufficient pay is probably deterring some people from standing as councillor or putting in the extra hours that would raise the standard of their performance from adequate to good. A constraint is that local government finances are under pressure.

I find it hard to believe that some councillors need the money or that most councillors are motivated to do the job by money.

So my suggestion is that councillor allowances become means-tested based on income. Councillors with a high income would receive a low basic allowance and councillors with a low income would receive a high basic allowance (subject to certain performance criteria e.g. at least attending meetings). The amount paid to each councillor could be kept confidential (subject to examination by an auditor) to protect the privacy of councillors. A report would then be prepared showing how many councillors fell in each allowance band, without personally identifying them.

The total expenditure on councillors could be kept broadly the same as at present, but this would free up more funds for councillors on lower incomes. This would probably eventually result in a more diverse range of councillors. It would also provide an incentive to councillors to go part-time in order to devote more time to council duties.

There might be downsides. A councillor on a low income qualifying for a high allowance could invest part of that allowance to protect their position (e.g. frequent ward newsletters). However, that seems unlikely. If they are prepared to work that hard to do so (and have the skills to do so in an effective way) then it is hard to imagine that they would choose to do that rather than seek other types of employment that would be more remunerative.

If you use a version of Adobe Reader earlier than version 8 you may wish to note the security issue highlighted on the BBC website here and upgrade to version 8 here.

I think I will divide these into resolutions that I will commit to making efforts to achieve and some more aspirational ideas.

( 10 resolutions plus 4 more to try for ... )

I think it is time to review environmental achievements for 2006 and plans for 2007. It will probably be tidier if I cover the latter in a separate post. My main hope for both these posts is that they may provide ideas (or serve as a checklist) for anyone else who wants to improve their lifestyle.

This post is focused on change. I will try to document what I have changed in 2006, and (in a later post) what I plan to try to change in 2007. This post does not cover what I am already good or bad at. For those who want to rate my level of green-ness, there is a post a while back where I attempt to calculate my carbon footprint. Criticisms (based on this or any other knowledge you have about me) are welcome and I will either try to address the criticism or issue a defence of why I still behave as I do.

( So here goes ... )

I understand that David Cameron has called for a snap election if Gordon Brown replaces Tony Blair as leader of the Labour and Prime Minister.

According to a Conservative Party press release, Cameron is quoted as saying "Tony Blair said at the last election he would serve a 'full term', so when he goes, no subsequent Labour prime minister can really in their heart claim to have a mandate. So it would be right actually to hold a general election as soon as is reasonably possible, because the British people thought they were electing Tony Blair. He's off. Someone new is coming. They need a mandate."

( I feel that David Cameron is wrong and his views are of concern. )