Print 81 comment(s) - last by lewisc.. on Oct 8 at 4:27 PM

David Cameron promotes a switch to "green" energy sources
High-powered personal computers and other electronics under close scrutiny for the UK's carbon dioxide crunch

The United Kingdom has a problem. Although it signed the Kyoto Protocol proposed by the United Nations, it -- like every other nation country which did -- has been wholly unable to meet treaty commitments, and has actually been increasing CO2 emissions faster than the non-signatories like the United States.

Embarrassing ... but what to do about it? Pass more laws, of course.

To that end, a new plan is recommending sweeping new changes to force residents to reduce electricity consumption. Tops on the list? A ban on new sales of plasma televisions. Surprisingly enough, the plan comes not from the Labour or Liberal Democratic parties, but from a group organized by Conservative Party Leader David Cameron.

While plasma TVs are especially singled out, the plan also targets all items that use over an arbitrary level of electricity, including high-performance personal computers and some household appliances. Additionally, the report recommends banning the "standby" functionality on consumer electronics, which allows them to be quickly turned on by remote control. Some 2% of the island nation's electric usage is thought to be due to standby equipment power draws.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has already announced his ambition to eliminate the stand-by function on all appliances sold in the country, claiming it was part of British responsibility to "protect the environment."

Critics of the plan claim it will simply create a "grey market", where those with money will continue to be able to purchase banned items at higher prices.  But former Environment Secretary and plan chairman John Gummer says, "The imperative of global warming demands that we change [our approach] utterly - not just governments, but businesses, groups and individuals."

Even with the plan implemented, the United Kingdom is not expected to meet Kyoto Protocol commitments.  No word yet on what next will hit the ban list.

Comments     Threshold


RE: A long time ago
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 3:32:19 PM , Rating: 3
All the pieces will be in place if the Democrats win the presidential election in '08. Congress is ready now. The public is brainwashed about global warming and the "sins" of the Bush Administration. 9/11 is but a distant memory for most Americans. The pendulum could swing back pretty far. Heaven help us.

RE: A long time ago
By Keeir on 9/10/2007 3:43:35 PM , Rating: 2

Not really on topic, but something I found rather interesting just a few days ago as an example of the treatment of global warming by main stream media

To paraphrase, a CNN reporter attributes a 2x deaths by lightning in China (2006 to 2007) to "global warming".

RE: A long time ago
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 4:14:53 PM , Rating: 5
That is a really interesting article if you read it closely. It comingles global warming with the news of a sharp rise in lightning strikes, but it never directly ties them together. All it does is jump back and forth between talking about global warming and lightning strikes. The reader is left with the impression the two are stongly related, even though the article never clearly states this.

Modern propaganda at its finest - great work Reuters and CNN!

RE: A long time ago
By Scorpion on 9/11/2007 10:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
They learn from the best at it, the conservatives.

Unfortunately what the problem is there are so many feeble minds who are incapable of reading an interesting scientific observation, that in fact does not link the two together. It merely is a notice of the observation. Why are your brains so feeble that since they are both in the article together, they therefore MUST be linked, otherwise this is no news!

The problem is there are so many psuedo scientists who don't even know what science. If I release a news report on how an industry shift in the chemical makeup of tires coincides with a rise in blowouts, that does not mean that they are causaly related. It says "Hey, this might need some attention"

Feeble minds.

RE: A long time ago
By dever on 9/12/2007 2:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
The question was not "why are reader's linking them together?", the question was "why is CNN placing them together?" You're right, this should not be news. Why then does there seem to be a motivation to make it news?

RE: A long time ago
By Keeir on 9/13/2007 3:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
There is a significant flaw with your analogy.

The article in CNN/Rueters says this

"Lightning has killed 499 people in China so far this year, nearly 200 more than in the same period last year, and the country's top meteorologist blamed recent extreme weather on global warming."

This statement is written to imply that the China's top meteorologist says global warming is leading to increased lightening deaths (specifically in relation to this data point, see later discussion). Or has it become standard practice to discuss two unconnected ideas in a single sentence?

The CNN article could have and SHOULD have been written similar to such

"Lightning has killed 499 people in China so far this year, nearly 200 more than in the same period last year. The country's top meteorologist blames poor education of rural workers. A potential increase in extreme weather caused by global warming is also a concern."

Why is that the way it SHOULD have been written? Because here is the Xinhua article:

Notice, there is NO mention of the increase extreme weather increased by global warming. But the note that 79% of death were directly attributable to people working in open fields and lack of adequate shelter.

Again the CNN/Rueters version of this story is truely showing a great deal of bias and assumption on part of the author and editors.

"The problem is there are so many psuedo scientists who don't even know what science. "

Yes, that is the problem, and they are writing the articles for most major news organizations.

I usually find Xinhua/Chinese news sources to offer a more balanced and objective reporting of global warming

for example this article

Yes, it assumes global warming is occuring, but it also deals fairly with potential outcomes. IE, could be good or bad, we just don't have enough data. I fear from my own observations, the same article in CNN/BCC/etc would explain how wars were caused by lack of food (skipping over the studys conclusion that periods of global cooling were responsible). Global warming will create lack of food (somehow). Global warming will cause the overthrow of civilization and modern governments! With some selective inclusion of the scientists actual remarks and all contributing scientist would appear to agree with this assesment.

Its a dark day when Media coming out of state-controlled outlets is of (apparently) higer journalistic quality than those that typically run on the pinicle of "Free-Press" news organizations.

RE: A long time ago
By Ringold on 9/10/2007 4:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
If I doubted Congress had any restraint in its hard-left proclivities before they evaporated today as the most staunch liberals in congress try to either back-pedal, cast doubt over Petraeus' credibility, or simply outright ignore both his and the ambassador's warnings regarding premature drawn-downs. Have yet to hear from the leadership but Reid clearly had his mind up even before the last election, facts on the ground or future dangers be damned.

Not sure heaven could help us, but having a President after 08 with a veto pen to keep an errant Congress from getting too radical would definitely help, and grid-lock in DC would be a boon to the economy.

RE: A long time ago
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 4:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, Petraeus' testimony before Congress is a waste of time - it's clear that many lawmakers have already made up their minds, and so they exhibit a "don't confuse me with the facts" type of mentality.

