MPs overturn a great British tradition: don't queue jump

Michael White
Thursday October 11, 2007

Guardian

Most MPs were horribly embarrassed yesterday to discover that an edict had been issued overnight telling all 10,000 people who work in parliament that "prior access to services throughout the parliamentary estate" must be given to MPs. In theory, that means that the Hon Member for Pomp and Circumstance can ignore that great national institution, the queue, and barge to the front for tea, lunch, postage stamps or photocopying, the travel office or the lift. They have always had that right in the taxi queue and sometimes even exercised it.

Being representatives, MPs are pretty representative, so there are a few pompous queue-jumpers in the ranks, as there always are. But, by and large, the Westminster village is a fairly democratic place. MPs know they depend on the staff - from the cleaners and electricians to the sergeant-at-arms (a retired general called Peter Grant Peterkin) and the catering supremo, Sue Harrison, who could have become a field marshal. The pair signed yesterday's memo. MPs also know the staff all have votes and friends with votes.

Former Labour cabinet minister Hilary Armstrong called the memo "nonsense". "Pompous nonsense," said a Lib Dem, David Heath. "Priority only matters when there's a vote on and some chap is trying to load a consignment of toilet rolls on to a lift." "It's unenforceable," said Michael Fabricant, a Tory. There aren't many major bottlenecks anyway: at the post office; the Portcullis House cafe, where a sign saying "Priority Access to MPs" went up next to the chicken hamburger and the steamed fish menu; at the Strangers' Bar when a big match is on TV.

So who is to blame for the latest assault on a hallowed British institution? The speaker, Michael Martin, who can be prickly, signed off on it. But the initiative comes from the cross-party administration committee, which manages in-house matters and is chaired by Labour's Frank Doran. The gossip is that the idea came from a Tory MP on the committee who felt members weren't getting sufficient priority. Other MPs went along with it, as committees do. It is meant to be discretionary, which is what happens anyway. In the tea queue yesterday I turned to a hapless youth and said: "You go first. You may be an MP."

The seven most annoying things about the future

No self-driving cars, no virtual-reality PCs. For all the promise of futuristic technology, it ends up entering our lives as a series of annoyances: spam, impossible-to-open plastic packaging, those pagers you hold while waiting for your table at Applebee's. Laptop users invade our cafes. Cell phone rings interrupt our conversations. And the future will just make it worse.

1. Cell phones on planes: Airbus just got approved to enable onboard cell phone use in Europe. Though plane crews can enable a voice-off mode, don't bet on that being enforced during flights as airlines try to offer more convenience to business passengers. Imagine being stuck for seven hours with one half of a conversation. You'll want to grab the thing out of your neighbor's hand and flush it down the tiny airplane toilet.

2. Animated billboards: American cities are increasingly asked to legislate electronic billboards. Des Moines just decided that billboards can change images every eight seconds. The state of Arkansas set the same limit three weeks ago when it approved electronic billboards. (California may soon affirm the right to erect electronic billboards.) Expect advertising firms to push for lower minimums as the public gets used to the flashier advertising. If supporters can argue that the signs haven't caused accidents, it'll be harder to fight them with complaints of mere annoyance.

3. Aggressive in-car GPS: Triple-digit growth in GPS navigation units (over 3 million could be sold this year) means a huge number of drivers are dealing with the little gadgets that usually help them find their way -- but occasionally cause accidents and often just bug the hell out of them. Every time a GPS-using driver takes an unprogrammed exit from the highway to gas up, the navigation system recalibrates and announces the changes in that ubiquitous female voice. It'll sound eerily like this.

4. Camera-wearing freaks: Sure, the Justin.tv lifestream network now hosts streams from a dozen cameras, most attached to or pointing at one exhibitionist asshat (me, for example). But the real freaks to worry about are the camera-phone carriers that rapper Mike Skinner lamented in his latest album ("How the hell am I supposed to be able to do a line in front of complete strangers when I know they've all got cameras?"). Still-shot cameras are already standard-issue on phones, and mid-range phones now come with video cameras. Every digital camera takes thirty-second videos, and proper camcorders are pocket-sized and under 500 bucks. So if you don't want to end up on YouTube where a million children and losers will say "omg that was gay," just don't do anything stupid for the rest of your life, mmkay?

5. Even more iPods: Not to be a downer, but isn't it a bit depressing when everyone walks around with earphones in? iPods aren't just for rich folks, now that they cost as little as 80 bucks. Last Christmas put Apple over 20 million iPods sold in Q4. (Half that many were sold the quarter after -- the iPod's third-best quarter ever.) And who's buying them? The trendy cute members of the opposite sex that you wanted to talk to on the train. Or, of course, the annoying prick blocking your way in the mall.

6. Traffic cameras: Despite fights from driver advocacy groups, red-light cameras are still on the rise, and several states may reverse their bans on speed-violation cameras. Better wireless technology means quicker processing and more efficient systems that will replace traffic cops (who know that hey, you really tried to obey that light) with unmerciful computers. Will you bother going to court to fight the tickets, or will you just pay up?

7. Energy-saving wonks: Thanks liberals, for getting everyone riled up about energy consumption without any proper knowledge of the metrics. Under the inevitable Democratic regime to come, expect climate change to replace the war on terror as America's biggest fear. Also expect the public to get it just as wrong.

Just remember this: A full 17% of the nation's energy consumption -- including industrial, transportation, commercial and residential uses -- is from gasoline use. Another 6% is from diesel fuel. Replacing a daily car trip by biking or walking does more than all the unplugging of little electronic device chargers you learned about on some eager efficiency blog.

While a third of U.S. energy consumption is industrial and another 28% is used in transportation, everyone will focus on What They Can Do to curb the 21% of consumption that happens in their homes. Most likely they'll try unplugging their phone chargers and putting their computers to sleep as they've been told. But only 5% of home energy use comes from electronics. How many people will clean their fridge coils (refrigeration: 8%) or seal doorways and windows (space heating: 32%)?

Nick Douglas writes for Valleywag, Bad Idea a Day, and Look Shiny. He's annoyed.

 

http%3A%2F%2Fvalleywag.com%2Ftech%2Fmodern-and-awkward%2Fthe-seven-most-annoying-things-about-the-future-270430.php#5807266234325611508

 

 

 

 

La bufala del biodiesel

 

Il carburante estratto dalla colza sembra inquinare di più di quello tradizionale. Interessi forti sostengono una bufala affascinante e pericolosa.

[ZEUS News - www.zeusnews.it - 03-05-2007]

Una piantagione di colza

Tra le vittime dell'allucinazione collettiva chiamata biodiesel non ci sarebbero solo i creduloni che travasano nel serbatoio della propria auto l'olio di colza comprato alla Lidl, ma probabilmente tutti i cittadini del globo.

È il risultato di uno studio di una società di consulenza internazionale, che ha valutato l'impatto totale del biocarburante derivato dalla colza, dalla coltivazione alla combustione, mostrando che, tutto sommato, è meglio usare il buon vecchio petrolio.

Zeus News aveva già smascherato la bufala dell'olio comprato al supermercato, marcando comunque la differenza tra il prodotto alimentare tal quale, e il suo derivato industriale, privato della glicerina, considerato comunque roba seria.

Certo, inquina le città, puzza di fritto, costa il doppio rispetto al concorrente petrolifero, non ce ne sarà mai abbastanza per soddisfare i bisogni energetici, ma almeno si credeva che il bilancio carbonico fosse in pareggio. Vale a dire che la CO₂ assorbita dalla pianta durante la produzione del seme, bilanciasse quella prodotta dalla combustione.

Mettiamoci il cuore in pace: l'impatto del biodiesel sui gas serra sembra essere superiore a quello del gasolio di mister Bush e di mister Moratti. Lo rivela Chemistry & Industry, periodico della Società dell'industria chimica (Sci), nota organizzazione sita a Londra.

Pare che la colza, principale materia prima dei bio-carburanti, nel suo ciclo vitale emetta alcuni gas definiti come CO₂/equivalenti, principalmente N₂O (protossido di azoto), a causa dei quali ogni Km percorso con una vettura a biofuel contribuirà al riscaldamento globale ben più di un Km alimentato a combustibili fossili.

Dal punto di vista politico/economico ci aspettiamo un terremoto, visto che giganti come UE e USA hanno puntato parecchio su questo tipo di risorsa. Ma molti esperti non si stupiscono di questi risultati, e anzi tirano un sospiro di sollievo.

"Ancor prima dell'eco-sostenibilità", dice Andrea Tronchin, agronomo militante di Via Campesina, "la nostra organizzazione contesta fermamente la socio-sostenibilità dei carburanti agro-industriali (perchè questo è il loro vero nome). Ancor prima di diventare una reale alternativa ai combustibili fossili, hanno fatto lievitare il prezzo del mais, alimento di base di molte popolazioni, aumentando miseria e fame in molte regioni."

Ancora una volta si sfruttano i paesi meno industrializzati per estrarre da loro ciò che serve al nostro sviluppo, senza cercare nel nostro territorio le risorse fisiche e umane per raggiungere una nostra reale autosufficienza (o sovranità, come la chiama Tronchin) sulle risorse energetiche.

"I combustibili generati dalle piante spingono verso una competizione per le risorse alimentari tra uomini e macchine", sostiene George Mombiot, attivista di Transition Towns sul Guardian. "Una competizione che entrambi sono destinati a perdere". La monocoltura con cui si produce il biodiesel è un serio attentato alla biodiversità, almeno quanto lo sono gli OGM dei nostri amici della Monsanto.

Mombiot suggerisce una pausa di riflessione, di almeno cinque anni, durante i quali attuare una moratoria di tutti gli obiettivi di produzione e degli incentivi per i bio-carburanti. Ma probabilmente gli interessi dell'agro-industria spingeranno i nostri politici dalla parte opposta.

(L'articolo è stato modificato dalla sua pubblicazione)

 

Michele Bottari - Quelli di Zeus