A mix of good and bad news from Gordon the Gopher's left hand man. The story below should be good news. On the surface of it, Mr Burnham has stated that Hospital Car Parking charges should end. This is a cause to celebrate. The flip side of this is that behind the headline grabbing story, nothing has changed now. The consultation that he's proposing will not be over until after, or at, the time of the next election, so any legislation that would follow, is actually doubtful given a potential change in government. The cynic in me says that this is a last throw of the dice to garner some pre-election support.
The reality is, that if the true desire was there, certain charges could be abolished very quickly, and further measures could be taken later, if deemed necessary. Oncology patients, in-patients, paediatric patients, seem easy groups to decide on to waive any charges. But as any patient or carer will tell you, there are other costs that need to be considered too. But I guess this would be a start. So far the Government is all talk, and no action. A little similar to my last entry on 084 telephone numbers where much is promised, but not yet delivered.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8433395.stm
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
The Power of the Internet!
Proof that Internet campaigning can work. Hot on the heels of Rage Against The Machine's success in preventing the Cowell combine harvester from reaping yet another Christmas number one, I bring you a more practical application of Internet power.
Those who know me will know that I've got a bee in my bonnet about non-geographic telephone numbers, and have been banging on about it for yonks. So I bring you, fresh from my in-box, a communication from Gordon the Gopher himself detailing the government's plans to outlaw these.
I draw your attention to: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page21836
So when you next go to your GP Surgery, ask the Practice Manager about their telephone number and point out this link, then stand back and enjoy the look on this face. Happy New Year!
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
The Copenhagen Environment Summit
What a missed opportunity. Not because there was no legally binding agreement but because the focus is on the wrong issues. However, I will start this entry with a cheap, but none-the-less valid point. Whilst we are all being told to reduce our carbon output, what on earth was the carbon footprint of flying hundreds of politicians and their entourages to Denmark? Has no-one heard of video-conferencing? I think our elder statemen need to lead by example.
A study of the Earth's geological history tells us that temperature fluctuations are nothing new. Even the pace of temperature change does have parallels too. History also shows us that methane, not carbon, is the really dangerous greenhouse gas. Extinction Level Events that have been triggered by meteor impacts or volcanic erruptions have released methane into the atmosphere, raising the temperature quickly.
More recent studies also show that the effects of pollution on the atmosphere are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. So conversely this is mitigating the effects of global warming. Not that I am suggesting we continue to pollute of course.
There are massive amounts of methane in the sea. A small shift in temperature would see some of this methane released into the atmosphere, with disasterous consequences.
We need to focus on controlling both methane and carbon dioxide. The biggest source of land based methane is cattle. So here we need to think about developing cattle feed that reduces methane. We need to think about reducing our meat consumption. A practical way to do this is to think about population control. It's controversial but necessary. There are only a finite amount of resources to go round. Population growth is out of control.
We have a natural way of dealing with carbon dioxide, trees. We must stop the deforrestation of the planet, and locally, our urban sprawl.
This is where I believe the politicians should have been concentrating. But this is too big an issue for national governments, we need a global supra-national organisation to manage and monitor our planet, before it's too late. Climate change is inevitable, how we deal with it, is not.
A study of the Earth's geological history tells us that temperature fluctuations are nothing new. Even the pace of temperature change does have parallels too. History also shows us that methane, not carbon, is the really dangerous greenhouse gas. Extinction Level Events that have been triggered by meteor impacts or volcanic erruptions have released methane into the atmosphere, raising the temperature quickly.
More recent studies also show that the effects of pollution on the atmosphere are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. So conversely this is mitigating the effects of global warming. Not that I am suggesting we continue to pollute of course.
There are massive amounts of methane in the sea. A small shift in temperature would see some of this methane released into the atmosphere, with disasterous consequences.
We need to focus on controlling both methane and carbon dioxide. The biggest source of land based methane is cattle. So here we need to think about developing cattle feed that reduces methane. We need to think about reducing our meat consumption. A practical way to do this is to think about population control. It's controversial but necessary. There are only a finite amount of resources to go round. Population growth is out of control.
We have a natural way of dealing with carbon dioxide, trees. We must stop the deforrestation of the planet, and locally, our urban sprawl.
This is where I believe the politicians should have been concentrating. But this is too big an issue for national governments, we need a global supra-national organisation to manage and monitor our planet, before it's too late. Climate change is inevitable, how we deal with it, is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
