Posts Tagged ‘10:10’

Oh dear ! Science in the service of totalitarianism

October 7, 2010

Fred Pearce in the New Scientist is at it again!

The world badly needs an independent carbon police to check the figures and catch the carbon frauds.

Can science deliver?

 

Carbon police?

 

Verifying national emissions requires both “bottom-up” independent oversight of the inventories, and better “top-down” monitoring of the atmosphere, says Matthias Jonas of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenberg, Austria.

A new climate treaty will also need carbon sniffers in tropical forests, especially in countries that sign up to a part of the deal called REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). REDD would offer cash to countries that conserve their forests so they can soak up atmospheric CO2. This means knowing how much carbon is actually being absorbed by the forests. In August, a study of Peruvian forests by Greg Asner of Stanford University, California, found existing estimates of carbon stored and released could be out by as much as 50 per cent.

Enough said!

The Carbon Police mean business. Trees and plants not absorbing their required amount of carbon dioxide will be punished severely.

10:10

The 10:10 No Pressure video

October 3, 2010

Hopefully my last post about this vulgar piece of film.

The 10:10 campaign site seems to have been abandoned. The comments are entirely unmoderated and overwhelmingly critical – and some quite abusive.

After the initial mealy-mouthed apology posted on their web-site, there is utter silence from the perpetrators of this fiasco (Richard Curtis and Franny, Lizzie, Eugenie and the whole 10:10 team)

The only damage control that would now work is for the campaign to shut down.

New – and much cleverer variations of the original video –¬†are now multiplying and being posted on YouTube.

Remarkably the original video is still available at The Guardian.

The Guardian’s initial endorsement of the video by its 10:10 partners and its subsequent silence about the reaction is deafening.


%d bloggers like this: