Sustainable House Day 2010

Today’s Sustainable House Day 2010 [1]. It’s the tenth annual SHD since the first one in 2001. Australia-wide, today a record 270 sustainable houses are open to the public [2]. It’s been said the recent national election swing against the incumbent government reflected disenchantment with its poor performance on global warming [3]. Whilst a comprehensive global warming mitigation plan must include major government intervention, it’s known that individual action, especially regarding energy conservation, can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a major degree [4]. SHD’s website says that each year the average Australian household contributes 13 tonnes of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere (i.e. enough to fill more than 700 balloons every day) whilst using an average of 73,000 buckets of water a year (i.e. enough for around 12 baths a day). The aim of SHD is to show Australians how housing can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and water too, by the use of appropriate design and equipment without compromising comfort and enjoyment. I live in a sustainable house, but it’s not part of SHD 2010. I wasn’t asked and I didn’t volunteer. It’s a privacy thing. Anyway, if you’re in Australia and you’ve nothing better to do today than help save the planet, visit a sustainable house [5]. Admission’s free.

farmdoc's blog post number 361

At the start of every single phone interaction I have with a call centre – be it the tax office, an airline, a utility company, or you name it, I get asked those ‘proof of identity’ questions. They irritate the hell out of me. So sometimes – to the detriment of my best interests, I know – I gratuitously volunteer that my dog’s name’s Pete. I understand there are situations where identity does need to be confirmed, but I get these ridiculous questions even when I seek information not specific to me. So, overall, I think the privacy fetish of recent years is over the top. Well over. So you can imagine my alarm when I came across this link. It’s a photograph of President Obama’s 2009 inauguration, in which you can see in clear focus the face of every single individual in the crowd. You can scan, double left click and zoom to any section of the crowd. After a few seconds the focus adjusts. The photograph was taken with a 1,474 megapixel camera (295 times the standard 5 megapixel camera). So now it’s impossible to attend a public event such as a football game or a political rally, and keep your identity private. In the current age of terrorism maybe this technology's necessary. So why does it make me feel less, and not more, secure, eh George?

farmdoc's blog post number 98

Paparazzi are freelance photographers who aggressively pursue celebrities, seeking candid photographs. That paparazzi exist means there’s a market for their services – which intrude upon the perceived privacy of public figures. Last Thursday Victorian Premier John Brumby berated protesters who were threatening to invade the privacy of himself and his family. When Mr Brumby chose to be a public figure, he gave up his right to privacy: 24/7 x 365. And the families of public figures are themselves public figures. How could they not be? In the year he’s been Premier, Brumby’s made decisions that have affected, pre-occupied, even consumed, some Victorian citizens 24/7 x 365. So should he and his family be permitted to partition their lives into public and private segments? The answer: No. As long as public figures reap the perks of public office, so should they be subjected to their opponents’ dissent provided the dissenters abide by laws which aren’t unfair and unreasonable. Of course the law is an ass – as in the recent British case where a judge – notably sans jury – awarded FIA President Max Mosely £60,000 damages for breach of privacy. I see no difference between the filming of Mosely’s orgy, and the paparazzi photographing some movie star topless in her garden. Covert footage of Mr Justice Eady – the Judge in Mosely’s case – could be interesting.