Sustainable development

Supersize fun

This is great. A website drawing attention to McDonald's in the US, who are giving out free Hummers with their Happy Meals. Gas-guzzling monsters from a company that already has its work cut out demonstrating its environmental credentials.

Anyway, the site allows you to create your own McDonald's sign, like this:

My first attempt. Many better ones on the site itself. Vote for your favourite.

Hat tip: Boing-boing

 
10.9.06 22:18


Steorn update

A good skeptical article on Steorn's claims can be found on ZDNet, which includes the following great quote:

"in the utter absence of any testable data, the chances of it being a significant scientific achievement are closer to absolute zero than the contents of Lord Kelvin's freezer compartment"
23.8.06 13:52


Free energy?

Readers of The Economist may have spotted Steorn’s advert, making the modest claim to have overturned the fundamental principles of thermodynamics. The Irish firm asserts that it has invented “a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy”.

What to make of this? Some have suggested it’s a big hoax, designed to demonstrate the power of marketing, or the gullibility of consumers and scientists. That’s hard to believe. But so is free, clean and constant energy.

If the firm really does have something to show for its claims, it would be a fundamental leap, not only in our understanding of elementary physics, but also in addressing the environmental challenges we increasingly face. And I can’t help feeling that we just don’t deserve to shirk our environmental responsibilities so easily.

 

 
22.8.06 16:58


Great minds. . .

Deadbrain makes a similar, more light-hearted, point about terrorism and carbon emissions. 
11.8.06 17:49


Is terror the answer to climate change?

There has been an interesting irony to the news this week regarding air travel.

On Monday, the Commons Environment Audit Committee published their report on Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport. While it rightly praised the Government for a number of inititatives (such as being the first in Europe to introduce a vehicle tax based on carbon dioxide emission levels), it was scathing about progresss on air travel. Air travel is the fastest-growing source of carbon emissions, and is particularly damaging given the altitude at which the gases are deposited.

For the Government, however, air travel is a sacred cow. Its reaction to the Committee's suggestion of raising air travel tax - that it would hit the poorest passengers - was particularly lame. On that basis, the Government presumably plans to scrap the flat tax on car fuel. I can't see Gordon going for that one.

Then, on Thursday, suspected terrorists made an impact that environmentalists can only dream of. By planning an attack on airlines, they have unwittingly cut dramatically the UK's air transport emissions.

It is not clear yet whether the current security scare will mean a tougher regime at airports in the long term. But it would certainly be ironic if security was the cause of reduced air travel, rather than the need to protect the environment.

Seriously, the Government has a creditable (but by no means perfect) track record on climate change policy. The fact that David Cameron has had to respond in this area suggests that the Government is having some success. It also indicates that it is rising up the public's agenda.

The Government should be looking to maintain the high ground by doing much more. The absence of any movement on air transport emissions damages its environmental credentials and looks increasingly ludicrous.

No one is suggesting that it will be easy - unilateral action would be economically damaging - and it's unlikely to be a vote-winner. But on this one, the Government has a duty to consider the well-being of future generations.
11.8.06 09:53