Some good Green news from New Zealand: http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz/. Supposed to be paying attention to a seminar just now though, so can’t add much comment.

The Economist this week carries an article on the Green New Deal (UN version, not ours) under the title “Green, easy and wrong”. Its argument is thus: the green new deal sounds wonderful in principle, a way of solving the two most pressing problems we now face, in an attractive, and easy to explain package; but in reality, the new deal is flawed in its reliance on decision-makers (politicians) to be able to make decisions. This isn’t a scepticism over whether the policy would be adopted by anyone, rather a scepticism over the judgement of politicians over what clean technologies to provide subsidies for the development of. The article goes on to cite the unfortunate mistake that was made over bio-ethanol in the US, and apparently photo-voltaic solar technology in Germany.

My problem with the article is twofold. First, it doesn’t offer any form of solution to the problem it raises. It is all very well to say that subsidies don’t work, but to then go on to say that “a demonstration of leadership would help burnish ‘Brand America’”. Where is that leadership to come from if there is a rejection of promoting clean technologies that are often initially unable to compete with established (and subsidised) ‘dirty technology’? Second, while I agree that we collectively made a huge mistake over biofuels (a mistake which hasn’t been realised by many of the public yet), that doesn’t mean that we should never entrust decisions over which technologies to support to decision-makers again. Instead of shutting down our promotion of environmentally sustainable tech., we should learn from our mistakes, and ensure that we make better decisions in future. The world is packed with scientists and policy experts who can help with this process.

So, sorry Economist, but your article seems to be contradictory and, from my view, wrong. I suppose that, at the very least, you accept that climate change is happening now, and something needs to be done.

I have an immature mind, so when I read advertising blurb for BAE Systems that says “We currently work with a network of over 7,000 British companies who provide everything from the paper clips our employees use to the specialist components for the Type 45 destroyer…”, I have a wonderful image in my mind of a factory that produces weapons-grade paperclips.

Just a musing as I flick through the Economist on Eurostar. It’ll come with no surprise that I read the title of the film “Burn After Reading” as referring to the English town (is this film some sort of hatchet-job on the town?), not the verb for consuming information from a written document.

“Flurry” is a good word to describe the process of the election results. Most of last night was spent waiting for projections, then when they eventually came, they came bundled together. Well there have been a flurry of motions in the Scottish Parliament offering congratulations to Obama today, and similar from world leaders and politicians, with Gordon Brown and David Cameron ‘fighting’ over how much they congratulate him.

The President of Kenya has even declared tomorrow a national holiday, and Russia has…

Ok, perhaps Russia is the exception. It’s moved Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, to ‘counter the threat’ from the US missiles that will be stationed across eastern Europe. It would be interesting to see if Obama carries on with the defence shield.

I was just looking at the results of the various Ballot Measures that were also voted on, in particular, gay marriage. The Arizona and Florida electorates have voted to ban gay marriage, and Arkansasians (what does one call people from Arkansas?) to ban un-married couples from adopting.

The rather well-publicised ‘Prop. 8′ in California hasn’t been called yet, but ‘yes’ is on 52%, and ‘no’ is on 48% according to CNN. Not sure what that means, and I don’t really have the mental capacity to work it out just now, but it doesn’t sound good. Correct me if I’m wrong (please, do correct me).

Note to self: don’t arrange morning meetings the day after a US Presidential election. I’m not fully awake yet, but I’m certainly happy that I got out of bed and into a world that is slightly better branded than it was yesterday morning.

I’ll try to offer a more coherent post later on after I’ve had some more sleep and/or coffee.

The first states have been called by the BBC, results are above, and I’m going to try to blog the rest of the night on this post.

(All times are GMT)

00h16: BBC is at a loss for what to report. Interview with David Brent offers fascinating insight into the US electoral process.

00h29: 1 minute until next set of polls close.

00h33: Fox has called West Virginia for McCain, BBC refusing to call yet.

00h50: 10 minutes ’til the next set of polls close. What hope is there for some results?

00h54: South Carolina called for McCain.

01h00: Pennsylvania called for Obama.

01h01: New Hampshire and Illinois also called for Obama. Also Massachusetts, Delaware and D.C.

01h04: A flurry of results there, and Connecticut also called for Obama.

01h22: So Obama only needs 167 more electoral college votes to win.

01h25: Reports of African American voter turnout around 97%. If this election is remembered for anything, it will be the spirit participation it inspired in voters.

01h30: Arkansas and Alabama called for McCain.

01h37: Why is BBC News calling one more electoral college vote for Obama than its “affiliate”, ABC News?

01h44: Fox and NBC have called Georgia for McCain, again BBC refusing to call just yet.

01h49: Twitter seems to have momentarily collapsed, but is back up and running again.

01h56: The BBC News coverage of the results seems to be a little bit amateurish in its presentation.

02h00: And another flurry of projected results coming in.

02h05: David Dimbleby is finding it just as hard to keep up with the speed of results and BBC graphics as me.

02h14: This night has been nothing, nothing, nothing, flurry of results, nothing nothing nothing, flurry of votes.

02h25: Obama has just been projected to take Ohio.

02h27: 75 more electoral college votes needed for Obama to win.

02h30: Oprah is in “full vibrational mode”

02h39: Obama predicted to take New Mexico.

02h51: Iowa has 8 pigs for every voter, so I am informed by David Dimbleby.

02h57: Jason Calacanis predicting an Obama win will boost the stock market tomorrow.

03h02: More results in, mind addled by too many states. Obama still holding a good lead, but it looks tight in Indiana and Virginia.

03h20: Probably going to hold on ’til half-past, then go home and get some sleep.

03h25: Apparently no new results at half-past, so I’ll take this opportunity to sign off and go home.

I thought I’d join in with the general theme of the BBC News coverage of the election just now and post something just for the sake of it. I’ve arrived at the ‘election party’, and am ready for the results to come through.

If only something would happen…