大象传媒

does the earth have a long term future? When the sun becomes a giant the earth will vapourise. Ok its a long way off but it does show there is a limit to the destiny of mankind unless sci fi style we move to another planet [not everyone would be able to go and some would have to be left behind to fry?]

a virus is not logical. it replicates until it kills its host. mankind is behaving like a virus. who is to say the destiny is not to kill the host? or be wiped out like the dinosaurs?

as a physicist explained to me there is no shortage of energy but the forces of inertia are such that people won't do anything unless they have to and so we get apocalyptic stories to scare people into doing things.

When the right solution comes about people will take it up naturally like the ipod or broadband etc. People were not terrified or taxed into using the ipod or the mobile phone?

Well done, you showed how small changes can make a difference.

Namaste

Al

This is ativism gone mad. There is nothing ethical about sacrifing a modern lifestyle. There is so much evidence to show CO2 is not responsible for warming that the 大象传媒's motivations have to be questioned. As more and more scientists become climate change deniers, the 大象传媒 and politicians will have a lot to answer for. Let's just hope they don't destroy industrial 'civilisation' first.

Good idea Dicky,

I'd say we could actually expand your reasoning to more walks of life. Perhaps obese people who have bad diets should wait for a range of low fat and weight loss foods they really like, or for some form of exercise that really suits them. I'm sure it wont become too late for anyone.

It really is just like ipods and broadband, they came along just in time to save earth from a manmade problem threatening to kill our planet.

And of course scientists are always telling us about destiny, so that works.

I think I am the modern equivalent of what the 80's called, Bi-Curious, Carbon-Footprint speaking. It's gradually beginning to appear on my (narrow) radar. I am one of those types that simply will not be lectured to. But I am beginning to find myself turning up the radio when this subject comes up; I'm reading this in newspapers and even contemplating my carbon footprint in the dead of night. I rather think I'd like to be Ethical Man... but does it mean I have to become an Eco Warrior?

This demonstrates that an individual's carbon-footprint can be significantly reduced with only a few simple lifestyle changes. And that you could save money by doing so!

Climate change is inarguably a real issue, and is happening right now - perhaps it's not blantant enough yet for some but it will and is certainly effecting us all.

Can we afford to rely upon the good nature a minority? If everybody in Britain were to make such a commitment, what would be the direct impact then?

It seems that pricing transport and goods according to their relative imprint is the most realistic way to bring the rest of us into line; the extra income could be used to educate and clean up the mess we've already made. Unless some 'magical' technology is discovered and then universally adopted to save us, it seems almost inevitable. In the mean-time, it's everyday people like 'ethical-man' that are leading the way.

Bravo! !

Well done Justin and your long-suffering family. Particularly impressive result as your family grew during the year - and I know it's hard with lots of small kids! Your programme was six months ahead of the rest of us and (i hope / think) we're joining in across the country. With a similar aged family we have decided to keep the car but ditch the flights. We have more fun here, save money and don't have the stress of packing and travelling through the night. Growing veg is fun too! As ethical woman I have a hemp handbag so I am now a full-on eco warrior. Generally, I've found that the lazier you are and the less you decorate / shop, the more we protect our planet...

The world is going mad. Every day, several times a day in fact I am being bombarded by this new CO2 religion, and frankly I don't believe a word of it. Man's arrogance that we are making a difference is laughable. I am afraid I am an atheist as far as this is concerned. Complete waste of time.

how can small changes make a difference? swopping your light bulbs is gonna 'save the rain-forest', is it?! are the polar ice caps gonna re-grow from one guy taking the bus?!

this is just headline grabbin, it doesn't do nothing for what the real issues are. Flying man! they should outlaw it, or else make it so expensice no-one could do unless it were like proper important. Get your priorities straight, yeah? The world is falling apart and your going to america for some wedding?

how many whales is your little holiday gonna kill, huh?

This is my first encounter with the 'Ethical Man' project, and so I apologise if what I say has been addressed before. It strikes me, however, that in a sense you've been doing what a lot of other people have been doing less publicly, and perhaps more extremely, mainly focussed on cutting personal carbon emissions.

This is certainly laudable, but is this alone 'ethical'? Surely the 'ethical' life should be more difficult, more complex than that - what of the debates surrounding social responsibility, clone towns and ever-shrinking public space, fair trade, transnational corporate practices, supporting local and independent producers, agri-business, even vegetarianism? A naive-sounding list, perhaps, but unquestionably 'real' ethical dilemmas; whereas if one believes scientists' predictions or even the Stern report, environmental concerns are a matter of pragmatism rather than idealism.

Much as I think any gesture towards a more considered life is very welcome indeed, limiting this to the environmental means excluding the social, political, economic and other spheres of human activity to which ethical standards should, arguably, be applied.

I appreciate that this argument may sound intellectual, abstractly academic - and being a student, perhaps that's what I am - but without wanting to sound preachy, it's important in real terms that while we're in a mood for action, we avoid selling ourselves short. If we think 'we are all ethical men and women now' simply because we choose different lightbulbs and make compost, we're massively underestimating our problems.

Good on yer. I've thoroughly enjoyed what was an intelligent, curious, though-provoking and yet also humourous analysis of what sort of changes in behaviour are required to address climate change and wider environmental challenges.

Well done the 大象传媒.

I'd echo Alex Clarke's point. I'm all for green initiatives and have recently really got into growing my own veg - no air miles! However, 'ethical' has to be more encompassing. What about the millions of people still kept in slavery due to people's desire for cheap clothing? Fair trade is another issue, and the list could go on.

Environmentalist is a fantastic fad that people have latched onto but we need more media attention on ethics in general...

The belief that behaving ethically involves sacrifice has always been the most prominent characteristic of the world's major religions. The recent public interest in environmentalism is merely a case of new religion replacing old, with a different list of things to sacrifice, and inevitably, a new list of heretics to burn at the stake.

How can small changes make a difference?

What a stupid question! Ask any one who works in a team, ask an ant who requires 10 others to help it carry a leaf, ask a woodworm if it can demolish a house singlehandedly, ask a soldier in an army fighting a battle if he is happy for each person to decide not to fight with him (note 'each person' not 'everyone'). Each person makes a difference - if there were no parts there could be no whole. This is surely logical, not arrogant.

The responses of Mr Davies and Mr Howkins reflect the selfish attitude of many in this country that, by denying all responsibility for climate change attempt to excuse the extravagant and careless lifestyle we are leading.

Ethics is the science of morality - of right and wrong. Among the many definitions in the dictionary for the word 'wrong' are included 'damage or harm', 'to cause injury to', 'to spoil', 'to disadvantage'. I suppose that it is a matter of opinion whether being 'green' or choosing to damage our world, spoil our environment for future generations or disadvantaging our descendants is anything to do with being ethical.

I would commend anyone who is prepared to change their lifestyle - even without much sacrifice - for the good of the world and others. Particularly if it convinces others to do likewise. Go 'ethical man'!

Well done Justin! It doesn't matter how many Chinese power stations are pumping out carbon or how many people in the world are not doing what you've done. As with many other issues (e.g. stop littering on the streets), at least you've done YOUR part (and I'm doing mine). If everyone thinks that "Mr so and so next door isn't doing this, so why should I? Who cares!?", then we won't only be pumping more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, we'll also start to see litter piling up on the streets.

* Alex Clarke wrote:

What does being 'green' have to do with being 'ethical'?

I have to Agree I think that the wrong Name has been used perhaps it should be called "The Environmental Man?"
though the experiment itself was a valid one to show what individuals can do it to help, with simple things like turning things off stand by and switching off lights.

"And China building a few more coal fired power stations blows your "ethics" out of the water."

No no no no no... Mate.. The truth is - 15 seconds of work of China power stations blows clown's family achievements over the year...

And no - this is not a religion. It just mass hysteria.

P.S. do the maths. If we all stop flying and driving and will keep our houses at 17C in winters 'katastrophe' will happen just few days later than if we will do what we do now - live.

Being ethical is as much about the environment as it is about our general attitudes and behaviour towards each other.

Choosing to respect freedom of speech, say, or the right to security/ self-defense, property ownership, etc are all issues of ethics.
If this is true, doesn't it follow that ethics now have to include a respect for the environment? We all share and use it, and we're all, in some way, responsible for it.

To be 'ethical', or morally correct perhaps, is to try and protect everybody's right to a clean and stable environment.

I think the whole programme is worthy, if sometimes a little poorly represented. I can't be bothered to debate about whether the use of the word 'ethical' was correct (who cares? you're just splitting hairs).

The point is, folk don't think enough about the waste of resource and energy they accomplish every day. A household fills a binliner with useless packaging and god knows what else every single day without even considering that they've done so. Or what it may have cost in energy and pollution, and what a waste that energy use was, let alone what happens to that rubbish after disposal. Or the fact that their cars not only cost energy to run, the cost a huge amount of energy to BUILD etc. etc. I could go on and on.

The point is, people just don't think about it, they just don't consider, don't want to consider that idiotic consumerism and 'modern life' is a poor way of using our resources, simply so that industry (and workers and consumers), can 'get on'. It's sad that the advances made by the human race amount to this. We need to learn to think differently, and at least this programme is making the effort.

As opposed to the Simon Bates (above)of this world, who are happy to respond to any nonsense that it's 'not true', or it's 'all a sham', because it means they don't have to rock their lazy little boat. When water becomes scarcer, food stocks dwindle and energy reserves finally deplete so that the world becomes a much harsher and dangerous place, are you going to blame the government, or big business for it all, or yourself? YOU are the ones expending the energy, buying the products, nobody else. Think about it.

For those interested in some real science (not the Al Gore type) try Singer & Avery's book, Unstoppable
Global Warming. Like many concerned scientists they show that CO2 follows climate change and doesn't cause it. Recent and distant trends are discussed. Corrolations between solar cyles and the earth's temperate are shown to fit the data much better than CO2 ever could. This resource points to hundreds of others PHd 'climate deniers'. Man is not responsible for global warming. Shame because warming would improve more lives than it would harm.

Man is not responsible for global warming. What man is responsible for is pollution. The fasts and figures from the polar ice caps show us that there is an 800YEAR difference in the rise of the Earths temperature and C02 in the atmosphere. The graph quite clearly shows that the increase of the Earths atmosphere leads to the increase in C02. Therefore it is not man that is responsible for global warming.

Man is just another animal and as we are too numerous many of us will die as we exaust and drain our world. Natures like that, hard but fair!

I would like to agree with Simon Bates. I am disturbed by the one sided coverage of the global warming by the media in general and the 大象传媒 in particular. That any dissenting voices in the scientific community are quickly set upon by a ever growing climate change lobby is even more disturbing.

The human extinction movement covered on tonight's programme was equally chilling. I often wonder if this is the true agenda of some. For us it's a debate we can join and leave as we like. This agenda will keep the developing world in a state of poverty if it could. Where are the wind/solar powered factories, hospitals etc. This is life or death for many people around the world. Lets have more science please and less rhetoric from politicians.

A totalitarian regime 鈥� eg. a communist state 鈥� pollutes because there's no feedback from the citizen; a 'mixed economy' 鈥� the current Western model 鈥� pollutes because there is central and local corruption; a pure capitalist economy 鈥� not yet tried 鈥� would not pollute because in a truly free market everything has a value, nothing is wasted.

I think some people have missed the point slightly on this subject. There's no need to argue semantics, and I also don't see anywhere in the project where the 大象传媒 (or Ethical Man) have even contemplated suggesting that this is the solution to any of the problems.

Just because it's not going to save the planet within a week doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile concept to think about, and I'm sure most of us wouldn't mind saving some money on their electricity bills if that's the only thing they choose to take from it.

Myself, I think there's still a little too much hype, from both sides, and will continue to sit on the fence for the time being regarding the wider issues, although energy efficient lightbulbs, and cycling to lectures rather than driving benefit me directly and so have to be good ideas?

A totalitarian regime 鈥� eg. a communist state 鈥� pollutes because there's no feedback from the citizen; a 'mixed economy' 鈥� the current Western model 鈥� pollutes because there is central and local corruption; a pure capitalist economy 鈥� not yet tried 鈥� would not pollute because in a truly free market everything has a value, nothing is wasted.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us where the the high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from, Simon? It's not from volcanic activity, like most half-baked arguments put forward when denying. Human activity puts out over 100 times more CO2 than vulcanism annually, as shown in studies of the Pinatubo eruption and others. That's just one bit of 'real science'.

For others it's worth looking at RealClimate.org, and those guys have no truck with any sensationalism or bad science when it comes to climate change (neither do I), and they don't seem to think too well of Messrs Avery & Singer. Nor do I think they'd appreciate the idea that climate change is acceptable because it would "improve more lives than it would harm". That's not a clever statement Simon. Many scientists' positions both for and against are that we don't know what climate change might do to us, however it is caused. Not something we should be hoping for.

All the flights in the world added up in year account to 2% of all carbon emissions.
That's smaller than the carbon footprint of Beijing.

An equal to the entire UK's annual carbon emissions.

Puts our own efforts in perspective.

One can talk about whether it is ethically correct or pragmatic...

Ethically, yes it is correct, for even if it is "possible" that climate change is not down to us, it still "possible" that it is. Furthermore, it cannot be said that emitting CO2 gases would do any good for the enviroment in any case and as it is a planet that has helped and sustained us, we have a responsibility to do it as little damage as we can.

Pragmatically, one person said that "its going to only slow the inevitable",this isn't the way one should look at climate change. Yes, it will only slow what is to happen if nothing else is done, yet isn't it true that if we do this and climate change is slowed, then we have much more of a possibility to find some way of stopping the problem intermittantly?

Sorry, I want to go on with industrial civilization; in fact, I'm ready to fight to do so...

Go away Justin, fed up with you milking this for your own self promotion.

dear ethical man
we will be sad to see you go. But as you slowly compost yourself into the ground be proud of what you have done in highlighting the issues and choices we all have to face early on in this new century.

You may be pleased to hear that we carry your mantle forward in the demise of Ethics Girls, a new cooperative that is starting this year. Our vision is that with positive choices in our daily habits we can pull together and make a difference to both the planet and peoples lives throughout the world.

I am pleased to read that the previous commentors are not only concerned about green issues but also question how ethical concerns fit in with this. As someone who has worked in Fairtrade for over 10 years I think it is vital that the term 'ethical' is all encompassing in its meaning. Its about how we relate to each other and how we respect each other. These issues are all complex, and many times there seems to be no obvious right or wrong answer. But this shouldnt mean that we give up at the first hurdle. People can argue about the existence of climate change till the cows come home but you cant ignore the fact that we have a finite amount of energy supplies and that landfill is a very short term solution plus a booming population.

Working together seems to me the way forward & hence Ethics Girls will be a cooperative.

A final note of thanks to Ethical Man as we have used the root of your name. We gestated over a few pints of cider during the world cup and in thinking of a name, we started with yours and moved it on slightly.

If only Ethical Man was still alive! as I am sure we would have been the best of friends!!

Andy asks where the CO2 is coming from? Well Andy, it's by-product of all successful carbon-based life forms. A healthy planet means more healthy and voluminous life, generating lots more CO2 (which is, of course, plant food). It's predictable and common sense that the warmth from the current warming cycle has led to more CO2 because more things are growing. If the planet were dying, this would not be true. Note the warming came first as demonstrated by many reliable sources (such as 'The Great Global Warming Swindle').

It's also important to note that throughout human history, and especially in the last few centuries, mankind has been migrating to warmer climates, not colder ones. That鈥檚 what free rational people do; they follow the better climates. You want it warmer, move south. You want it colder, move north. And look: no subsidies, no legislation, no macroeconomists, no Ph.d's, no taxes and no politicians needed.

The media has joined in the conspiracy to scare people by showing shrinking ice-sheets (a natural annual occurrence); pictures of drought laden fields (as if pre-industrial civilisation never had drought!). A picture is not an argument! Come on guys, you need to use a bit of critical thought here and not believe everything the politicians and Ex-Marxist Ph'ds want you to believe.

How about a few numbers which the global warmists conveniently do not mention? 96% of CO2 comes from natural sources with 4% being manmade. 2% of the manmade portion is attributable to the UK and this equates to just 0.08% of total CO2 generation. Cars account for about 15% of the latter which equates to just 0.012% of the total world generation. I don`t think even removing all cars from the road would make an awful lot of difference!

Carbon dioxide is a tasteless, odourless, non toxic gas essential to all life on earth.

Dry air consists of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and the remainder is mainly the inert gas, argon. CO2 accounts for 0.038% and methane 0.000175%

The largest "greenhouse" gas is water vapour put by some scientists at up to 96% of all greenhouse gases.

For lots of good info, look at www.globalwarminghysteria.com.

Let`s get real; the theory of manmade global warming is the biggest political scam ever perpetrated on the western world.

Are we to believe that the climate never changed in the past until industrialisation came into being?

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" H L Mencken

Al Gore is an(ex) politician.......

Rowland Pantling et al., no matter what you say, putting garbage in your garden is no good and we鈥檝e been doing it for centuries now. Time to clean up and keep the World in order. Let's hope it鈥檚 not too late already.

To all of you who believe all the hype about "global warming", I suggest that you spend 拢12.99 on the DVDs of the best television science series the 大象传媒 has ever produced - "Earth Story" presented by biologist Aubrey Manning (particularly part 6 'Ice Age'), it really does put climate change history into its geological perspective in a way that no other programme ever has, or will.
As for you, Justin, you have a very, very long way to go before you come anywhere near to being really good to the our planet.

Well done 大象传媒... one year on and we finally face the music.

Global warming is a zit on the face of the planet... just a symptom of the real problem.

Read my lips...

"Its Population Stupid" and no one will face it!

Please explain why its ok to murder the planet with uncontrolled reproduction but a sin not to have a green light bulb?

Lets at least discuss it!

thx

gbj

I doubt that any of the climate change deniers posting on here have the relevant qualifications or experience to carry out, or even interpret the findings of the climate scientists. 2,500 of those scientists have just put together a report putting the probability of man's significant influence at 90% or higher. That is the reality, and picking out the usual canards, logical fallacies and straw-man arguments isn't going to make their findings any less right.

After occasional reading and seeing a part of the Newsnight programme I am still at a loss as to understand the conflation of the concepts "ethical" and "climate change". There appears to be an implicit statement that someone who doesn't priortise climate change is somehow not living ethically.

I, for one, strongly object to this rather spurious link.

Can we see more of Bee? She deserves her own show. At the very least she should get a slot on Newsnight.

Can we see more of Bee? She deserves her own show. At the very least she should get a slot on Newsnight.

Might it be that politicians reckon that by telling you to switch off light bulbs, empty your boot etc you'll save money *and* the planet, and that the former at least might encourage you thank the ones with least stuppid suggestions at the ballot box?

If they said "OK you numbskulls who didn't get 5 x A-Cs, get shelf-stacking it's the 'the snip' for you, and you smarter girls, your qualifications have earned you a set of house keys, a pick of boyfriend at university, but you have to spend the next four years having babies and making home for your new partner whilst he's studying, your country needs you".

("Oh and you freeloaders across the channel and beyond - we're full - go away!")

might send the wrong electoral messages?

Instead, we get this sort of thing:

Throughout the OECD there's concern about *falling* demand for unskilled labour, yet we have unprecedented levels of unskilled immigration and fecundity in groups which can only drag down the culture/economy which lured them here in the first place.

I have followed your reports with interest, and now that I have moved to the continent, I am building a house which will be fossil-fuel free. It uses a heat pump and green electricity to generate heat around the house and heat the water. It also is superinsulated and self-venting so heat in the 'used' air is extracted before it's released, further helping insulation. This is just above standard build in the part of Germany where I'll live. Why don't all European Countries have this as norm for new builds one could ask.

Either way, I'll be the one laughing all the way to the bank when EU governments start taxing CO2 as and when they realise they won't get the reductions they signed up to with 'good will' only.

A note for the cognoscenti: In the Guardian article cited above, it should be Michael Shayer not David. Presumably the author was thinking of that controversial ex-spook Shayler?

As to the alleged decline in *our* kids' ability over the past 30 years or so, Shayer probably didn't factor in the very dramatic changes to our ethnic demographics (especially in our inner ciy areas) between the 1970s and today in his research.

Yet another sad illustration of how political correctness drives allegedly well educated researchers to not know what they're talking about?

We're *all* ethical men and women now?

A note for the cognoscenti: In the Guardian article cited above (#49),
it should be Michael Shayer not David (presumably the author was
thinking of that controversial ex-spook Shayler?).

As to the alleged decline in *our* kids' ability over the past 30 years
or so referred to by Willetts, Shayer *probably* didn't factor in the very dramatic changes to our ethnic demographics in his research.

Apart from encouraging others to focus on ethical reproduction and child poverty/welfare, perhaps the above can be taken as yet another sad illustration of the adverse consequences of political correctness contributing to folk not knowing what they're talking about?

There are two strings to national dysgenesis: one is unbalanced fecundity as a function of cognitive ability differentials, the other is uncontrolled unskilled immigration. We appear to be blighted by both.

An illustration of the ethical men and women comprising the western culture which lures eager entrepreneurs and workers to these shores? If anyone didn't witness what Sir Alan Sugar said to this ethical woman in last night's episode, here's a taste of it.

Meanwhile, the politically correct talk of a "clash of civilisations" and wonder why a) some disaffected young male Muslims go on jihad, and b) why our crime rate keeps climbing. Accoridng to Home Office research, 1 in 3 UK males have a conviction for an indictable offence by their 40s - and they're just the ones who got caught.

We're all ethical men and women now? I doubt that sort of behaviour will get one a K or P today. Seems it might even get one fired....

In the whole year not one mention of the technologies available to absorb and re-lock away carbon and other greenhouse gases has been mentioned, in fact no one seems to be thinking of how technologies could be used to solve or reduce the impact of industrial activities. The cost of global warming should not be borne by the people nor should our western lifestyle be see as bad or un-ethical. We are not to blame for our fore-fathers "mistakes" if thats what you think of industrialization.

It is possible to use chemical processes in the upper atmosphere at low costs and high efficiency to eliminate the problem completely!

What is all this really about? Is someone trying to cause a global market crash? If we were all to stop consuming, manufacturing and traveling the global economies would definitely have to slow down and therefore resources would become more scare and expensive and a complete crash of our economies would be inevitable.

The solution is TECHNOLOGY like all our problems have been since THE DAWN OF TIME and our INTELLIGENCE, God give INGENUITY...

So who is behind this conspiracy? The Rich who have profiteered from INDUSTRIALIZATION don't want the rest of the world to develop anymore other than to be consumers of their Goods and technologies.

I do think that all countries should bring in population controls before the global populations as a whole becomes unsustainable in any case.

SO STOP BASHING OURSELVES FOR LIVING AND GET ON WITH THE JOB OF SAVING THE PLANET PRO ACTIVELY IE BY REMOVING THE PROBLEM GASES FROM THE ATMOSPHERE, WE HAVE THE KNOW HOW AND THE TECHNOLOGY.

In the discussion about what we can do about Global Warming, some commentators are dismissive about carbon offsets and imply that those are a cop-out. However, offsets are often a better way to combat global climate change than ostensive modifications at one鈥檚 home.

A few days ago the 大象传媒 news mentioned that the pay-back at a UK city home of a wind turbine is 35 years and of a thermal solar panel some 15 years, while loft insulation pays back in 18 months. A photovoltaic solar panel would also pay back in 25 years plus.

If a home owner would spend his/her money buying carbon offsets instead of making an uneconomic domestic investment, the resulting carbon saving measures at a more attractive location could have a multiple impact. Clearly, it makes more sense to install a wind turbine where the wind blows (Scotland, Atlantic coast of Spain, mid-west USA plains) and solar panels where the sun shines reliably (central Australia, Sahara) rather than in a Northern European city. Still the German government subsidizes PV solar installations on a massive scale.

Offset companies give disclosure on how they spend the money they receive and, clearly, need to become more transparent and give more choice but they are better able to maximise the bang-for-the-buck (here global tonnes of CO2 saved per 拢 spent). If the carbon trading markets become more effective and truly global, it would be quite simple to read off how much CO2 can be saved for the money that one is prepared to spend as an individual. The problem in practice will be that this doesn鈥檛 yield the home owner any browny points from friends and neighbours.

But what is more important, to do something about climate change or to show off?

We should look for policy proposals that will make this more practical. Personal carbon allowances and effective global carbon trading should play a role. What is clearly less wise is to subsidize particular measures and thus distort the effective allocation of resources.

Its in the picture above: too many people! Stop breeding.

In response to post 45# "Climate Change Denier's", what a childish and negative phrase to use.

What about inserting 'someone with a different opinion'?, using negative words to attack someone smacks of extremist behaviour in the person making such comments.

If you don't agree with people then I suggest that you use a structured and transparant argument, your veiled attack on some of these posts are the exact opposite of this blogs 'Ethical' roots.

Back to the blog, Justin I found the entire exercise brilliant, I have implemented some of the ideas and had to give up on some others !.

I will not give up on flying as I am still sceptical that Humans really are responsible for most of the worlds ill's blamed on them, however, I will strive to be 'green' whenever possible, and if that is at least a small victory for green policies then well done.

With regards to the issue of the tax loophole for non-residents, while it is true many wealthy non-residents of the UK may take advantage, it might also hurt residents who are not particularly wealthy, by introducing double-taxation.

It is quite possible that non-residents may already be paying tax on their wealth in the country where this is being held. In many cases this is the situation of those who are working abroad but who are not necessarily wealthy. The example of Canada was mentioned, but what was not mentioned is that Canadians working abroad may be required to pay tax to the Canadian government even if they have paid tax locally if there is no tax treaty or such treaty does not make provisions (even though Canadians in such situations may not have access to most government services in Canada). In other cases, Canadians may be required to pay the balance between the tax paid locally and that which would be paid in Canada, although, once again not necessarily having the benefits of most Canadian government services.

In my experience, as a Canadian having lived in the UK and currently having left employment to pursue doctoral studies in Japan, the closure of this loophole would probably actually hurt less well off people more than the wealthy, who, as mentioned, could easily leave the country.

Fascinating experiment/trial with many positive points for people who wish to follow a more eco-friendly lifestyle.
However, the overwhelming impression for me was that of a family who were struggling for 12 months to fit into a world that simply does not accept such an environmental switch-over.
Personally, the main point it highlighted was that neither the GB economy nor the western world's could cope with too many people adopting this way of life. Consumerism, materialism call it what you will, drives mankind on. Nothing in this experiment would persuade the great majority to give up this for the far from convincing eco-gains. That is not to say we could not all take up some parts of this experiment, but, 24,000,000 on bicycles... Come on! Be realistic.
Afterall, as this family's entire "eco-footprint" was radically altered so an average of 15,000 Chinese people per day went in the opposite direction & attained their target of a 'western' way of life.... a motor car!

Just goes to demonstrate the ludicrous nature of the ecochondriacs - who claim we will all have to cut our carbon footprints by 60% using nothing more than pedal cycles, composting and high efficiency light bulbs. Clearly some serious and realistic alternatives are needed. Bio-fuel for cars. Electricity from nuclear, hydro-electric or tidal barrage. Waste disposal via clean, modern combined heat and power incinerators. We need new, non-fossil, energy sources not unsustainable organic wigwam 'solutions.'

I thought 'ethics' was all about philosophical concepts such as good versus evil, etc.

Now, from your programme I learn it has more to do with peeing in one's back garden rather than in the loo, and, presumably, trifles such as lying, cheating, stealing and killing have nothing to do with following an ethical lifestyle.

I auppose we ahould all be applauding such developments in semantics.

Sustainable, environmentally friendly energy.. Why is the sea not used as an energy source? Constant and powerful, surely this could be utilised. Perhaps the oil industries' would be wise to think of this in the long term (ie. past the end of their lives)????

I think that most of us are ethical in our attitude to helping the environment in our own small ways,but I object to being brow beaten with the 'green' stick.
In the words of Nostradamus "They will change their red and black to green".
I see green issues being used progressively as control tools.

I think that most of us have ethical attitudes towards helping the environment in our own small ways, but I object to being browbeaten with a 'green' stick. I fear that green issues are progressively being used as control tools,bringing to mind a quote from Nostradamus, "They will change their red and black to green".

The whole fallacy relating to the Carbon Dioxide atmospheric warming obsession has gone on long enough. Apart from the insignificance of any radiative forcing compared to other effects quantified by any knowledgeable physicists, the science quoted by politicians is exceedingly poor. The Diatoms in the oceans and Bicarbonate ions they release account for a much greater proportion of the world's Carbon budget than the world's industries. These process Carbon Dioxide and sequest it on the ocean floor far more safely than an industrial pump. The apocalyptic NGO nonsense isn't even what the IPCC agree with, they have a 'basket' of greenhouse gases, Carbon Dioxide only being one of these. Nitrous Oxide, Methane, Sulphur TetraChloride are among the others. Since the Kyoto agreement, the UK hasn't reduced CO2 emissions at all since 1990. The reductions have all been in the other 5 compounds. And to top it off, figures are never quoted for the years prior to 1990. What were the Carbon emission figures for the 60's, 70,s and 80's ? How much Texan oil was squandered by cowboys in musclecars in the 70's ? Yes, there is a sense of loss compared to what the baby boomer generation have had and consumed. The important generation is the forthcoming one, the selfish one is on the way out. Ethics have always played second place to individual needs and desires.
The problems with all this well meaning false science is that it fails to address the real problems. Fake solutions will inevitably result. We cannot sustainably fly everywhere with biofuels. Fossil fuels will run out with consumption at such a large rate, and unless the international community places greater value on what they offer the world, they will seemingly magically disappear, as if they were not important anyway. The EU's attempt to replace aviation fuel with biofuels is inferior to a transport system that provides a decent, convenient, rapid continental rail system. Since the 60's Beeching Acts, Britain has always had poor investment in public transport in favour of the car, leading to congested cities and the addiction to the oil consuming car for every trip to the office. We can't expect to demolish the rainforest to grow biofuels and enslave the rest of the world to grow our fuels. Destroying the rainforest would affect the climate, it's in the title, 'rain', the climate it creates. Hence destroying them leads to 'climate change' of some sort. Besides the added water vapour that causes greater radiative forcing of the foliated tropics, the humidity generates rain to support agriculture elsewhere in the world. Desertification is only the effect of defoliation, nothing to do with temperature, just humans getting rid of all the trees with chainsaws. And Sulphur is the real villain of the atmosphere. Tropospheric particulates creating regions of atmospheric pressure that differ more prominently relative to the stratosphere, making weather systems more intense. And China can do something about this. The bourgeous Shanghai communist elites can afford to mitigate Sulphur emissions from industries in Shanghai. China cannot feasibly avoid a Clean Air Act, in the same way that any other developed industrialised country has done. They can't simply be told not to do what our visionary ancestors did for us by telling them off for emitting the same Carbon Dioxide that we do. They are developing much as former countries have, The Hoover Dam was large, and I cannot see why the Three Gorges Dam will be any different. I just hope that China develops to value the individual, and to open its market up to capitalist investment, so that everyone can benefit, not just the communist fascists in the hot seat. And now the socialists are trying to tell us off for using 100 Watt lightbulbs. How does this compare to the 50 kiloWatt (60 bhp, typical of a small 1.3 litre hatchback car) combustion engines (yes, that's 500 times as much) and the even more energy consuming jet engines in planes ? Miniscule is my rudimentary mathematical analytic conclusion, of a scale 3 magnitudes apart. The evils of a stock market where anyone can share the benefits are there for anyone are better than the evils of fascism. People do things for money, it's what makes the world go round. Taxes must justify themselves in a democratic society to provide benefits. Scrutiny will develop concepts, with critical merit, identify flaws, and propose improvement. People need educating on the most effective ways of reducing energy usage. Not by having liberties removed and being forced by socialist politicians to live a prosaic existence in a state commune.

It annoys me that people talk about CO2 emmissions. I've watched those documentaries on channel 4 which say it's rubbish, and I've decided to keep an open mind. It might do or it might not.

BUT! A few years ago (and I'm only 16) it was about acid rain damaging trees, it was about the effects of quarrying, it was about landfills being full to the brim. It was also about asthma and lung cancer! Furthermore, energy efficiency will save us money in the long run. You can't see taste or smell CO2,(at the levels they are at) and if scientists can't agree then don't bother listening to it, but let's remember things that have been solidly unrefutably been proven.

Cutting CO2 is becoming a religion, and a bad one, it's focusing us on something unproven- let's leave our moral issues based on science to something conclusive please.

I really enjoyed Newsnight's Ethical Man series and think it did a lot of good. However, what happens if someone who is at heart and home ethical environmentally, is forced (through economic necessity) to work in a job which he/she knows is devastating for the environment? Will Job Centres in the future allow Job Seekers to refuse a job if they believe it to go against their principles? Ethical Man might have found it difficult at times living up to the constraint of his job, but what about those who despair inwardly because their jobs are 'bad' for our planet?

#29 "A totalitarian regime 鈥� eg. a communist state 鈥� pollutes because there's no feedback from the citizen; a 'mixed economy' 鈥� the current Western model 鈥� pollutes because there is central and local corruption; a pure capitalist economy 鈥� not yet tried 鈥� would not pollute because in a truly free market everything has a value, nothing is wasted."
1. There's no such thing as a "communist state". You mean a socialist state.
2. A truly socialist state is not totalitarian, production is controlled by the workers.
3. Therefore there is feedback from the citizen.
4. A western mixed economy pollutes mainly because of firms' efforts, not the government's.
5. A truly free market economy would pollute, this is market failure and government intervention is needed to prevent it.

Justin

I looked at the breakdown off your carbon footprint and noticed you have an unusually high figures for recreation consequences. If you chose a bike and a tent this would have massively slashed this figure.

Also you household purchases figure. Whilst you might have subscribed to recycling and composting; did you follow the most fundimental points of ethical man; that of reducing and avoiding consuming, and reusing/ repairing/ buying 2nd products rather than new, and minimising packaging. ie a truly Zero Waste life?

Everyone seems to miss the point.

We need less people.

Stop having babies, stop going on about the miracle of childbirth, start accepting that if you seriously want to tackle the environment issue... there needs to be less of us.

And no, to anybody who felt the urge to ask, the human race isn't in any danger of dying out if we don't breed like rabbits, you can relax, we're alright for the next 5 dozen generations I would say.

attention: ethical man.

its all to do with economics pal.
i used to walk around in M&S boots but the costing came out at 20P per mile (拢45 a pair and they did about 220 miles before the sole cracked).

i can fly home to bulawayo for 5P a mile and still get robbed.

when i drove a ford fiasco 25 years ago i calculated that the seat-mile operating cost of a 747 was HALF that of the ford fiasco.

i wrote to M&S and told them about the above and they kindly sent me a voucher for 拢35 and said they had informed their buyer of the facts (i didnt get more boots by the way).