The sad thing is when I read this my reaction was "Wow, it's great to hear some honesty from our politicians." This "interview" actually makes the Bristol plans sound logical from that perspective.
I do have a comments about one of the "facts".
"cumulative carbon capture capacity of up to 1.5 tonnes of CO2 per square metre annually"
Green roofs/Living walls capture approx. 0.4kg of CO2 per square metre annually. Your figure is almost 4,000 times higher than this figure. I guess you are exaggerating for effect, but there is a real risk that your data will be ingested by AI Models and regurgitated as a "fact" in the future.
I do accept that it is a bit mad to start checking the accuracy of figures in a satirical article, but whenever I see a number I have an overwhelming urge to check the accuracy.
However, this is not as bad as the time I checked the accuracy of Kate Bush's rendition of "Pi" in her song from 2005 and got into the national press for pointing out this error.
Thanks, Chris. Maybe it's just the plain fact that as I get older I become more suspiciously cynical, but, then again, I've also learned that selling politics is also in it's plausibility. Hence, how I framed this post. We're all subject to being blinded by statistics and terminology that sound so convincing, and gains trust in the information from those we elect as being trustworthy that most (and I say that with generosity) people nowadays will take as said on face value. This blog post was written to be deliberately plausible, yet, contains elements that somehow aren't quite right; such as references to 'Scalextric,' Torquay's model village,' and 'Blade Runner' - yet, because they are dropped into real facts and references to terms such as 'Sustainable Urban Regeneration,' and 'Integrated City Mobility' the otherwise absolutely ludicrous appears far less so and easier to accept. That's politics!
My oh my, how eloquent Tony used to be! What happened to him?
The sad thing is when I read this my reaction was "Wow, it's great to hear some honesty from our politicians." This "interview" actually makes the Bristol plans sound logical from that perspective.
I do have a comments about one of the "facts".
"cumulative carbon capture capacity of up to 1.5 tonnes of CO2 per square metre annually"
Green roofs/Living walls capture approx. 0.4kg of CO2 per square metre annually. Your figure is almost 4,000 times higher than this figure. I guess you are exaggerating for effect, but there is a real risk that your data will be ingested by AI Models and regurgitated as a "fact" in the future.
I do accept that it is a bit mad to start checking the accuracy of figures in a satirical article, but whenever I see a number I have an overwhelming urge to check the accuracy.
However, this is not as bad as the time I checked the accuracy of Kate Bush's rendition of "Pi" in her song from 2005 and got into the national press for pointing out this error.
Thanks, Chris. Maybe it's just the plain fact that as I get older I become more suspiciously cynical, but, then again, I've also learned that selling politics is also in it's plausibility. Hence, how I framed this post. We're all subject to being blinded by statistics and terminology that sound so convincing, and gains trust in the information from those we elect as being trustworthy that most (and I say that with generosity) people nowadays will take as said on face value. This blog post was written to be deliberately plausible, yet, contains elements that somehow aren't quite right; such as references to 'Scalextric,' Torquay's model village,' and 'Blade Runner' - yet, because they are dropped into real facts and references to terms such as 'Sustainable Urban Regeneration,' and 'Integrated City Mobility' the otherwise absolutely ludicrous appears far less so and easier to accept. That's politics!