Damn it. I really hate that I can’t fly whenever I want to, but there’s just no way to justify it.
Two degrees of difference: the science that backs the protest

Air travel really is in the front line of the climate change debate. But instead of tackling it we’re planning new airports
It is vitally important that we stabilise global temperature rises below the danger line of 2C – and the aviation industry stands in the way.
Probably the single most polluting thing that you or I will ever do is step on to a plane. Take that tempting return flight to, say, Thailand and you immediately become responsible for about six tons of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere – three times more than is likely to come from any other activity that you do in the year, including driving and heating your house. This is why aviation is the most bitter and divisive issue in environmental politics today.

Good things

I had a really good Sunday (kayaking then a few blissed out hours in the sun (! actual sun!) in the beer garden of the local lezza bar), then a crap Monday morning – visa hassles for Turkey, my porridge exploded, I forgot my Oyster card, the bus was diverted, blah blah blah. So this story in The Age about the power of learning and the benefits of the internet has helped renew my happy Sunday mood.

Armed only with his intelligence, a book on electricity, some plastic piping and found objects, Kamkwamba built his first windmill, which generated enough power to run a light in his room.
His second, larger windmill uses a bicycle to increase efficiency and was able to generate power for his parents’ house and charge car batteries or mobile phones for people in his village.

Hopefully he won’t end up wasting his life on social networking sites like the rest of us.

Encouring news: Young Americans Are Leaning Left, New Poll Finds

From the New York Times: Young Americans Are Leaning Left, New Poll Finds

Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion.

Greenpeace are running at ‘Energy saving [r]evolution – first 7 steps‘ campaign – why not sign up and see how it works for you.
“We need to kick start an energy [r]evolution! By burning fossil fuels for energy, we’re altering our atmosphere – causing climate change. To reverse it, we’ll need to stop burning so much coal and oil. Renewable energy like wind and solar power is part of the answer, but the fastest (and most cost effective) way to reduce our global warming pollution is simply use less energy.”

Guardian: Most British women now expect to have cosmetic surgery in their lifetime. How did the ultimate feminist taboo become just another lifestyle choice?

A practice widely regarded not a decade ago as physically risky, morally doubtful, prohibitively expensive and socially embarrassing has been rebranded as something so innocuous and sensible as to be mundane.

For a large part of the 20th century, patients who wanted cosmetic surgery would generally have been recommended therapy, their desires interpreted as an indication of pathology.

When cosmetic patients talk about their bodies, dissociation is a recurring theme, as though they no longer inhabit their own skin.

By identifying with actresses and models and pop stars – people who really are judged on their looks – women exchange a three-dimensional identity for an image, and life becomes an unending audition, involving all the anxiety and rejection of Pop Idol.

Feminism would once have expected to offer a viable alternative, but its unresolved attitude to beauty has created an ideological vacuum.

For all the rhetoric of “individual choice”, surgery is a symptom of something much larger than the body – of faulty self-identity and celebrity obsession, and the transfer of moral authority from disinterested health professionals to the commercial media.

It’s not a new article – it was published in 2005, but given the BBC articles that suggest breast implants are now uncritcally mainstream, I think it’s timely.

Nestlé ‘bypasses’ baby milk code

“Thirty years after a boycott of Nestlé products was launched to highlight its unethical marketing of baby formula in developing countries, baby formula manufacturers are still failing in their responsibilities towards the world’s poorest mothers and babies, Save the Children claims today.
It says around 1.4 million children die each year of illnesses such as diarrhoea that could have been prevented if they were being breastfed. But – despite the dangers of mixing infant formula with dirty water and using unsterile bottles – food companies continue to use aggressive marketing techniques to keep their share of a multi-million pound market.
Since 1981, baby milk manufacturers have been bound by a World Health Organisation-ratified code which bans direct marketing to mothers and free samples, which can undermine successful breastfeeding. But, the report says, “manufacturers are still flouting the code by heavily promoting manufactured baby milk and food”.
A Guardian investigation in Bangladesh found widespread use of “prescription pads”, where Nestlé reps give health workers tear-off pads, with pictures of their products, for them to pass on to mothers. Nestlé spokesman Robin Tickle said he did not believe the pads equated to promotion of the company’s formula milks. The device was “a safety measure”, to help mothers to be sure the milk they were buying was the right kind for their baby.”
Guardian, Tuesday May 15, 2007
My bold, above. I don’t even particularly like kids, but it’s incredible that a major corporation could have so little respect for humanity. I wonder what the difference between the baby formula market profit and the amount they’d gain back if people could stop boycotting them is.
And a 2003 BBC article for more background on the baby milk marketing code: Baby milk marketing ‘breaks rules’.

A great leap backward…

“Some of the UK’s best-selling chocolate bars, such as Mars and Twix, will no longer be suitable for vegetarians.
Also affecting brands such as Snickers and Maltesers, owner Masterfoods said it had started to use animal product rennet to make its chocolate products.
Masterfoods said the change was due to it switching the sourcing of its ingredients and the admission was a “principled decision” on its part.”
I think the Vegetarian Society got it right:
“At a time when more and more consumers are concerned about the provenance of their food, Masterfoods’ decision to use non-vegetarian whey is a backward step”
BBC