Test - April 1st 2011

test

Test - Tuesday 6th July

Test to see if picture comes through!

testing testing six seven ten

hello charlotte...

Testing testing, three four five

Thank goodness for some common sense
You'll notice the new SpaceOasis poll to the right of these posts. One of the things that has baffled me over recent weeks is this split in thinking between saving the economy & saving the environment. The debates have always been about one or the other - how can we kick-start the economy? How can we reduce carbon emissions? Governments have talked about investing in capital projects, preventing runaway unemployment, reducing our reliance on foreign oil. In the next interview, they talk about the need to cut emissions, improve energy efficiency, become self reliant.Yet I've only just found the magic key I've been looking for - someone to link the two and say why don't we kick-start the economy (domestic & global) by doing exactly those things that we need to do to prevent the impacts from climate change irreversably damaging our future.According to the New York Times, "President-elect Barack Obama is arguing that there is no better time than the present to invest heavily in clean energy technologies. Such investment, he says, would confront the threat of unchecked warming, reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil and help revive the American economy."The UK government is proposing capital projects such as road building, but why would this be a good idea when we already know that more roads mean more cars and that more cars mean more emissions, regardless of how fuel-efficient the car is. George Monbiot, in his book Heat, argues for major investment in public transport, especially coaches and trains, as a way to reduce transport emissions. Why don't these two desires marry up - invest heavily in public transport and other "green" initiatives, and kickstart the economy at the same time?I found the NYT article through the BBC news website via a US-based organisation, the Pew Charitable Trusts. Reading through their website, I get a comforting feeling that despite all the gloom & doom and the naysayers, there are some pretty heavyweight people on our side.

testing testing one two three

test...

Thank goodness for some common sense

You'll notice the new SpaceOasis poll to the right of these posts. One of the things that has baffled me over recent weeks is this split in thinking between saving the economy & saving the environment. The debates have always been about one or the other - how can we kick-start the economy? How can we reduce carbon emissions? Governments have talked about investing in capital projects, preventing runaway unemployment, reducing our reliance on foreign oil. In the next interview, they talk about the need to cut emissions, improve energy efficiency, become self reliant.

Yet I've only just found the magic key I've been looking for - someone to link the two and say why don't we kick-start the economy (domestic & global) by doing exactly those things that we need to do to prevent the impacts from climate change irreversably damaging our future.


According to the New York Times, "President-elect Barack Obama is arguing that there is no better time than the present to invest heavily in clean energy technologies. Such investment, he says, would confront the threat of unchecked warming, reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil and help revive the American economy."


The UK government is proposing capital projects such as road building, but why would this be a good idea when we already know that more roads mean more cars and that more cars mean more emissions, regardless of how fuel-efficient the car is. George Monbiot, in his book Heat, argues for major investment in public transport, especially coaches and trains, as a way to reduce transport emissions. Why don't these two desires marry up - invest heavily in public transport and other "green" initiatives, and kickstart the economy at the same time?


I found the NYT article through the BBC news website via a US-based organisation, the Pew Charitable Trusts. Reading through their website, I get a comforting feeling that despite all the gloom & doom and the naysayers, there are some pretty heavyweight people on our side.

There's charity and there's charity...

Walking in to work this morning was a bus-stop advert for a supermarket's charity Christmas cards. Not wishing to gripe or anything but from their 50p box of charity cards, only 10% went to the charity.

Card Aid, the not-for-profit organisation gives 100% of its profits to the charities involved. Indeed, their website also links to the Charities Advisory Trusts annual Scrooge Awards that "awards" the companies with the meanest donation from their "charity" cards.

So remember, if you're still looking to buy your Christmas cards this year, not all charity cards are equal.