11 Replies to “Chris Packham and the Mail on Sunday”
‘I need your answers by 7pm this evening please’. It was good to see this rude/arrogant person addressed with a courteous response, also wonder if this journalist (do they still have them at The Daily Fail?) is able to answer Mr Packham’s question with equal promptness and courtesy?
Looks like a somewhat clumsy initiative by the newspaper to skewer Chris Packham – or to coax him into self-skewering.
To his credit, he has responded, but he might have been better advised to disregard the request.
By swallowing the bait, maybe he has given them just enough to portray him in an unfavourable light – a sinner rather than a saint.
I won’t buy Sunday’s edition, but I might check it online.
Whether the spin proves to be positive or negative, I don’t suppose Chris will lose any sleep over it.
It will just be water off a smew’s back.
Not that I have any misconceptions about the Daily Mail’s collective intelligence but I’d be interested to see their working out on those figures. I would assume that they understand that if people aren’t on holiday they are generally creating CO2 elsewhere and the final total should be additional CO2 not just the biggest total they can pluck out of thin air. If they’re so concerned about the planet all of a sudden they might also want to think about how much greenhouse gas is created by a newspaper that is largely irrelevant to modern society. Do they consider this climate impact to be acceptable and consistant with the public’s wishes for them to shut up and stop wasting trees on drivel?
Whilst I largely agree with Chris Packham’s comment that its better to encourage lifestyle changes rather than criticise individuals for their conduct, I think it is fair for a journalist to assess whether those individuals in positions of influence who call for others to change their behaviour actually are making an effort to achieve the majority of the changes they themselves are calling for.
Personally, I find it quite hard to listen to the calls for eco responsibility from Prince Charles and his relatives when they own, use and dispose of so much property and possessions, who travel so extensively especially by plane; produce and eat meat, dairy, fish and game, etc; who (through the events they attend and the lifestyles they adopt) encourage profligate lifestyles; who have children; blah, blah, blah ….
I don’t know what the yearly impact is that a person should have in terms of climate change emissions, but, for me, being green is about an individual’s overall impact and the good and kind lifestyles they demonstrate and encourage.
A great example of how to use social media to counter the malign influence of established, mainstream media.
It’s like asymmetric warfare in the battle of ideas.
Hurrah For the Hair Shirts!
Just an observation, it is much easier to adopt options to help save the planet when you are wealthy, I would swap to an electric car tomorrow if I could afford one but my budget is probably only a quarter of what they currently cost.
Poverty/money will be a significant factor in achieving the move to greener fuel, transport and deciding what we eat.
John – that’s true. But everyone can do something.
Falling disposable income will cause a lot of apple carts to fall over
Yes I do agree that certain changes to be more eco you do have to be wealthy that’s why making an effort with other more affordable and realistic ways can be encouraged like less plastic and recycling, eat less meat or go veggie/vegan, and public transport, plant trees or grow veg if u have garden and so on. As chris packham says if we all make the efforts just imagine what a massive difference that makes whatever your income, I am not wealthy but do my best.
The very day of your blog I had an (unsolicited) Daily Mail offer for a cheap cruise. So I’d like to ask Michael (by 7pm today, please):
1. How is the CO2 from the Daily Mail promoted cruise being offset ?
2. Are the Stewards, cooks and cleaners on this cruise ship carrying UK passengers being paid the UK minimum wage ?
I look forward to the Mail’s response
can you tell us what harm firing the North Korea missiles into
the sea causes…..nobody seems to bother
Comments are closed.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptRejectRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
‘I need your answers by 7pm this evening please’. It was good to see this rude/arrogant person addressed with a courteous response, also wonder if this journalist (do they still have them at The Daily Fail?) is able to answer Mr Packham’s question with equal promptness and courtesy?
Looks like a somewhat clumsy initiative by the newspaper to skewer Chris Packham – or to coax him into self-skewering.
To his credit, he has responded, but he might have been better advised to disregard the request.
By swallowing the bait, maybe he has given them just enough to portray him in an unfavourable light – a sinner rather than a saint.
I won’t buy Sunday’s edition, but I might check it online.
Whether the spin proves to be positive or negative, I don’t suppose Chris will lose any sleep over it.
It will just be water off a smew’s back.
Not that I have any misconceptions about the Daily Mail’s collective intelligence but I’d be interested to see their working out on those figures. I would assume that they understand that if people aren’t on holiday they are generally creating CO2 elsewhere and the final total should be additional CO2 not just the biggest total they can pluck out of thin air. If they’re so concerned about the planet all of a sudden they might also want to think about how much greenhouse gas is created by a newspaper that is largely irrelevant to modern society. Do they consider this climate impact to be acceptable and consistant with the public’s wishes for them to shut up and stop wasting trees on drivel?
Whilst I largely agree with Chris Packham’s comment that its better to encourage lifestyle changes rather than criticise individuals for their conduct, I think it is fair for a journalist to assess whether those individuals in positions of influence who call for others to change their behaviour actually are making an effort to achieve the majority of the changes they themselves are calling for.
Personally, I find it quite hard to listen to the calls for eco responsibility from Prince Charles and his relatives when they own, use and dispose of so much property and possessions, who travel so extensively especially by plane; produce and eat meat, dairy, fish and game, etc; who (through the events they attend and the lifestyles they adopt) encourage profligate lifestyles; who have children; blah, blah, blah ….
I don’t know what the yearly impact is that a person should have in terms of climate change emissions, but, for me, being green is about an individual’s overall impact and the good and kind lifestyles they demonstrate and encourage.
A great example of how to use social media to counter the malign influence of established, mainstream media.
It’s like asymmetric warfare in the battle of ideas.
Hurrah For the Hair Shirts!
Just an observation, it is much easier to adopt options to help save the planet when you are wealthy, I would swap to an electric car tomorrow if I could afford one but my budget is probably only a quarter of what they currently cost.
Poverty/money will be a significant factor in achieving the move to greener fuel, transport and deciding what we eat.
John – that’s true. But everyone can do something.
Falling disposable income will cause a lot of apple carts to fall over
Yes I do agree that certain changes to be more eco you do have to be wealthy that’s why making an effort with other more affordable and realistic ways can be encouraged like less plastic and recycling, eat less meat or go veggie/vegan, and public transport, plant trees or grow veg if u have garden and so on. As chris packham says if we all make the efforts just imagine what a massive difference that makes whatever your income, I am not wealthy but do my best.
The very day of your blog I had an (unsolicited) Daily Mail offer for a cheap cruise. So I’d like to ask Michael (by 7pm today, please):
1. How is the CO2 from the Daily Mail promoted cruise being offset ?
2. Are the Stewards, cooks and cleaners on this cruise ship carrying UK passengers being paid the UK minimum wage ?
I look forward to the Mail’s response
can you tell us what harm firing the North Korea missiles into
the sea causes…..nobody seems to bother