- Everyone’s been recommending it to me, and it is indeed well worth a listen if you’ve got half an hour – Robert Peston’s radio series The Price of Inequality.
- When we renovated our house I debated taking up the downstairs floorboards and insulating underneath, and decided it was too much work. Now I discover I can get a robot to do it instead.
- The Ecologist points out that Lord Ridley, one of Britain’s most outspoken climate sceptics, is responsible for about 1% of the country’s carbon emissions.
- Have you seen the anti-divestment, pro fossil fuels video from the Environmental Policy Alliance?
The Earthbound Report 
Hmm, playing the man not the ball on Lord Ridley. What an nasty insinuating little article.
Since you make money writing about climate change it could be implied you are biased and swayed by financial gain in what you write.
Once you get into the dirt you can hardly complain when those on the other side question the integrity of your champions.
I wish I made money writing about climate change.
I didn’t realise that Ridley had such extensive coal mining interests. Seems pretty relevant to me, and I don’t think it’s ‘getting into the dirt’ to say so.
The whole tone is that he is hiding how much he makes and that his commercial interests colour his writing.
It is a nasty and low form of debate to question your opponent’s motives. It is an attempt to delegitimate and demonise your opponent rather than deal with their points. Rather too common in Green politics and a sign of weakness.
I do think it reflects baldly you linked to this without distancing yourself from the ad hominem attacks.
I didn’t think the article was ‘nasty’ in tone, but obviously that’s subjective.
And I do think it matters that we know what people’s interests are. Since our politicians register their interests, that doesn’t seem to be a controversial or idealistic notion.
Great listening to The Price of Inequality but also made a little more infuriating and gut-wrenching while being in South Sudan – on part of the local people in a global sense and also the similarity of cavernous income distribution through Govt/NGOs/UN and those that have access and those that don’t.
Yes, the focus is very much on domestic inequality. I can imagine the contrast with South Sudan is stark to the point of being obscene.