Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Any colour you like, so long as it still adds up

A short while ago I was asked to join a political 'team'.

I had to refuse, despite, evidently with age and growing grumpy old man-ness, and a liking for the individual (my views on the representative flaws of our current system being for another time... and blog), as I wish to keep apolitical.

That doesn't however mean that if one outfit does something I like I won't applaud, or when it errs I won't crank an eyebrow.

With this one, both went sky-high; one for green political shenanigans, and the other for reporting of same:

Tory climate bores will eat each other

But I will go along with the frustration at the two tribal extremes we are almost exclusively presented with, Monbiot vs. Delingpole (though actually sort of ‘in concert’ over some energy issues at the mo’ that it might be interesting to get a sensible, unspun thought from any ‘green’ pol on), Guardian vs. Express, Andrew Neil vs. the rest of the BBC, where you are either ‘with’ the notion of AnthroCC totally or ‘with’ the notion that some snow shows GW to be a crock.

I am concerned about where the ‘climate’ is going, but not to the extent of then blindly signing off on any hare-brained, green-daubed scheme with an EU box tick just because it meets a target that may or may not tangibly end up in a GHG reduction, without numbers that add up and feedback systems that ensure proper monitoring.

Beyond the cute choice of picture to illustrate their piece, almost designed to undermine the credibility of any eco-claims, it also seems extraordinary to have pinned so much on the party leader’s credibility in this arena, which is as mixed as he seems confused on many underlying facts.

Not that the other parties are any better. Have any got qualified advisers of proven competence, untainted by affiliations to money, career paths or beliefs that near immediately compromise the value of their input?

And when will any in the media truly serve the middle ground that some concede might exist and be worth addressing to move on sensibly? Surely ratings can’t be that addictive that journalistic integrity almost always defers to agenda?