Amanda Baillieu --and Jonathan Glancey-- doing their best climate reporting this week.
You remember the dust up about "questioning" global warming, right? In her usual inquisitive tone and poised demeanor, Amanda Baillieu tweets to the editor of Icon magazine, Will Wiles: "We drastically need to cut emissions , , but we haven’t managed to mainstream these yet." is this week's bullshit from Green BC. 
Just so you know, Baillieu and some of her archi-friends are ready to put up quite a fight, at ANY cost, to convince themselves and others that the planet is in no need of architects' help. Sample A: none other than star critic Jonathan Glancey recently said inside (where else?) those hollowed pages of BD: "The really dim thing is that the bridge is being demolished in our zealously “green” age — when almost every architect is holier-than-BD’s editor on this scientifically unresolved issue — at a cost of nearly £500,000, to make way for a swimming pool for De Montfort University."
Something very fucked up is going on in the UK architecture media. All these well-heeled architecture writers being completely blasé about the world reminds me of that scene in The Freshman where the rich pay big money to eat the last of the Komodo dragons. They will take us all down with them. Or I guess we will "adapt"!
14 Comments
They will take us all down with them. Or I guess we will "adapt"!
Please be a little more dramatic? I think the people showing level heads are the folks at BD who dont wantonly throw themselves off the cliff.
Jack. Stop it. Enough of your blather. You've said the same things over and over more than I would have expected.
I don't want people to catch on that I only post these news items so I can bait you.
You keep posting the same news article over and over and then wonder why someone would comment? Are you slow?
easy, kids...
bd has always had a particular eye for the business side of architectural news, always walking that (not so thin) line between architects and developers...I guess the idea of some big cats pushing the editorial line toward the "global warming as an unrisolved issue" is not so unbelievable.
How much money or lobbyists' pressure does it take to convince you to lose your face in public?
and, by the way, even if this morons are CONVINCED of what they say, isn't global warming just one part of the whole pollution/sustainability/emissions issue? what the fuck are we arguing about? wether co2 will or won't increase the earth's temperature by 5 degrees in 50 years? water and ground contaminations together with the shit we breathe will have us all killed anyway, before we can even swim in arizona bay.
The last link is a cracker.
EVEN THE POLAR BEAR ARE GOING MIXED RACE!
The continual posting of pro-greening links is a joke.
Still no post of the link to the leaked emails in the news section which expose global warming figures as being rigged by the top scientists to fit in with the governments agenda!
Oh and this javier chap is even resorting to the old example of the ice caps melting.
Bit of news for you mate, they melt every summer and refreeze every winter.
As usual the photographs are taken during the melting spell to shock the easily led into believing their propaganda.
bigness wrote:
I guess the idea of some big cats pushing the editorial line toward the "global warming as an unrisolved issue" is not so unbelievable.
HOLD ON A SECOND.
The mass media is given billions of pounds worldwide to propagate the global warming theory. Writers are told what to write by their editors.
Writers cannot generally communicate their personal opinion on any important topics.
I am not going to discuss issues of science with you. who's right and who's wrong and who gives a fuck. science is not my job and it's not yours either I suppose.
Pollution goes way beyond global warming, making this whole argument redundant and rather stupid.
EVEN IF global warming was not a fact, there are still plenty of reasons to reduce emissions (gas, licquid or solid).
And being quite the opposite of your average tree hugger, I do find green propaganda rather annoying sometimes, but I understand it needs to be so, in order to generate awareness. on the other hand, I see the other side of the argument (baillieu's side) as rather disturbing, even beyond the message. They sound a bit like child molesters, "come sit on my knees, there is nothing to worry about".
there is a WHOLE LOT to worry about. I don't give a fuck about the polar bears, I just don't want mercury in my fish fingers.
I give a fuck because it is going to change my life (and yours) on a massive scale. When im sitting in a cold house because I cannot afford to heat it. Carbon taxes have taken all my extra cash, there are no jobs, and the rich continue to live in extreme luxery.
Of course pollution should be reduced, but charging the man on the street trillions in carbon taxes and promoting a false argument is not the way to go about it.
bigness, thanks for your take on this topic. I agree - carbon is only one part of an overall massive destruction of planet resources that we need to curb. The bickering about carbon is just one more distraction from a much bigger problem.
zoolander, there won't be jobs/homes etc. for anyone if all the oceans go barren, all the bees die, and all the soil is salty. Overfishing, collapsing monocultures, and desertification are all happening NOW.
Zoolander, your hysteria about carbon taxes is, while rather classist and selfish, also about the fact that indeed we could see green becoming the basis of the next speculative bubble. Nevertheless, in the context of BDs position, that's not exactly relevant to the central problem of dealing creatively as designers and creating a discussion based on actual research around the tensions of the environment. Putting your hand up to block the sun isn't gonna make the sun go away. The point about this unfolding story is that there is scientific proof, which should never be confused with absolute, capital T truth (you are kidding yourself if you think any knowledge is ever complete), and then we have architecture ayatollahs that seem bent on blockading proof in favor of their politics while swaying architects away from actually addressing the issue.
I would love to see Glancey take his position onto the Guardian. He would be wraked over the coals.
LB,
Bees are dying at an alarming rate.
A lot of evidence points to the massive amounts of pesticide and other chemicals sprayed over crops and also GM food as being the primary cause of this problem.
As you know, with no bees pollonation is greatly reduced.
Yet again this problem is not caused by the innocent man on the street (who is always blamed and has to pay the big $$ to correct the fault), but by scientists playing God as usual.
Rid the world of scientists and the world would be a much better place.
In the past 15 years I have seen not progressive steps by science by things gradually getting worse. One example is these new low energy light bulbs which are more harmful to the environment than the old style. The new ones cost 10 times the prices, last no longer and produce a poor quality of light, yet by law I cannont by the old ones.
Another con.
Derek
zoolander, scientists made the internet.
zoolander,
this may be the most asinine statement of the year
Rid the world of scientists and the world would be a much better place
scientists don't make policy. you seem to be confusing science with industry-driven policy.
the new low energy light bulbs are not more harmful than the older ones, if looking at full energy cycle.
even with the miniscule amount of mercury contained within them (which can be recaptured if disposed of properly) AND the amount of mercury released by burning coal to power CFLs, it is still less than 1/2 of the mercury emitted by burning coal to power incandescents. not to mention the significant energy reductions, which result in savings of tens of billions of dollars per year in the u.s. alone.
by law, you can't buy the old ones because there were 1-2% efficient. however, incandescents weren't outlawed, just inefficient ones. there have been a number of breakthroughs in the last few years on efficient incandescents.
what still needs a ton of work, and this can be said for almost every industry, is that the full cycle needs to be looked at. innovative municipalities (e.g. vancouver's zero waste challenge), design for disassembly and buyback programs will make new technology significantly less harmful than the energy wasting incandescents of yesteryear.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.