The economy and the Green argument

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

IMHO there are two separate things:

1. The Watermelon/Green movement. A bunch of left wing extremists that basically want to force people to live in a particular way.
2. The Thatcherite environmental movement which believes that we hold the planet on a lifetime repairing lease (as Lady T once said). There is a moral and economic imperative to pass on the planet at the very least in the state in which it was found.

I am a very firm believer in #2. The Tragedy of the Commons means that we will need some legislation, almost certainly agreed internationally, to ensure that we hold up our part of the bargain.

If you haven't come across him before, you may find this guy an interesting read. I have attended one of his lectures and it was very thought provoking. If he fitted in a box, it would definitely be box 2.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0462099121/

I should also mention that his work is not without criticism, but that's the case with the whole climate science debate, wherever one stands on it. Worth understanding what the objections are though.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

If you haven't come across him before, you may find this guy an interesting read. I have attended one of his lectures and it was very thought provoking. If he fitted in a box, it would definitely be box 2.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0462099121/

I should also mention that his work is not without criticism, but that's the case with the whole climate science debate, wherever one stands on it. Worth understanding what the objections are though.

I have come across this gentleman before. He's very interesting although I have my doubts about some of the things he says.

CLAPTON

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sadly still rising, and quite fast. But at least it looks like we are starting to turn the ship ....... slowly. Long, long way to go though, but not nearly as hard as it would be if the economics weren't shifting also.

So is it good news, not exactly, but it's certainly reduced bad news.

Mart.

nothing is being turned round

all we have achieved is to spend huge sums of money on unscientific nonsense and done further damage to the planet.

the useless wind technology is simply a gravy chain for international companies and already rich UK landlords at a high price to the UK consumers

The move to diesel has increased pollution and killed thousands of children and vulnerable people

the biofuels targets have overall increased CO2 emissions, further damaged the rain forest and destroyed the economy of the indigenous people

our solar panel policy has simply subsidised rich middle class people and made the poor to pay the price.


All done in the name of green policies by idiots that don't understand the technology or the science involved

MFW_ASAP

kabayiri wrote: »

Putting a few solar panels on our roof or a windmill in the back garden is not solving anything.

I agree with this statement, to the point that it annoys me that the Green and Ethical board is drowning in solar FiT discussions - something that is decidedly unethical.

Insulation is the way to go. External or internal wall insulation, acoustic and thermal rockwool in the floor/ceiling voids and masses of loft insulation combined with low energy appliances. Conservation before generation.

The Greens might have some bonkers policies, but the one where they insist all new builds approach passive house (heating free) levels of insulation is actually a good one IMHO.

Generali

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I agree with this statement, to the point that it annoys me that the Green and Ethical board is drowning in solar FiT discussions - something that is decidedly unethical.

Insulation is the way to go. External or internal wall insulation, acoustic and thermal rockwool in the floor/ceiling voids and masses of loft insulation combined with low energy appliances. Conservation before generation.

The Greens might have some bonkers policies, but the one where they insist all new builds approach passive house (heating free) levels of insulation is actually a good one IMHO.

I agree. Tinkering around the edges seems unlikely to resolve things.

Perhaps the way to go is to encourage the consumption of the virtual ahead of the physical. Remove VAT on streamed films and music for example.

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I agree with this statement, to the point that it annoys me that the Green and Ethical board is drowning in solar FiT discussions - something that is decidedly unethical.

Insulation is the way to go. External or internal wall insulation, acoustic and thermal rockwool in the floor/ceiling voids and masses of loft insulation combined with low energy appliances. Conservation before generation.

The Greens might have some bonkers policies, but the one where they insist all new builds approach passive house (heating free) levels of insulation is actually a good one IMHO.

it clearly makes sense to reduce consumption as a primary target.

Good insulation is an essential ingredient but that needs to be introduced along with good ventilation.
Insulation without ventilation simply leads to mold, unhealthy living conditions and property damage.

At the moment good ventilation systems haven't been developed at a reasonable price so as always, the issue is simply not mentioned.

Science first, solutions second.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

nothing is being turned round

all we have achieved is to spend huge sums of money on unscientific nonsense and done further damage to the planet.

the useless wind technology is simply a gravy chain for international companies and already rich UK landlords at a high price to the UK consumers

The move to diesel has increased pollution and killed thousands of children and vulnerable people

the biofuels targets have overall increased CO2 emissions, further damaged the rain forest and destroyed the economy of the indigenous people

our solar panel policy has simply subsidised rich middle class people and made the poor to pay the price.


All done in the name of green policies by idiots that don't understand the technology or the science involved

I broadly agree but I would note that the Americans seem to have mastered affordable onshore windpower but since fossil fuels are so cheap there, its still more expensive than $20 a ton coal. Also googles project makani might take wind energy down in cost to even match $20 coal


!!!!!! the Europeans can't get to similar prices I don't know. The Americans seem to be building and installing at below half the cost of the UK

cells

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I agree with this statement, to the point that it annoys me that the Green and Ethical board is drowning in solar FiT discussions - something that is decidedly unethical.

Insulation is the way to go. External or internal wall insulation, acoustic and thermal rockwool in the floor/ceiling voids and masses of loft insulation combined with low energy appliances. Conservation before generation.

The Greens might have some bonkers policies, but the one where they insist all new builds approach passive house (heating free) levels of insulation is actually a good one IMHO.

If it can be done in an affordable and healthy way then fine but if it needlessly pushes up prices well above benefits then its not a good idea

like how some watermelons think heat pumps are a good idea when the reality of them in the UK would be a gross waste of resources

cells

Generali wrote: »

I agree. Tinkering around the edges seems unlikely to resolve things.

Perhaps the way to go is to encourage the consumption of the virtual ahead of the physical. Remove VAT on streamed films and music for example.

Whats closest to the truth is that nothings broken and you don't need to fix what isn't broken. Fossil fuels have by far been a good for humanity and the world. Coal saved the forests. Oil saved the whales. NatGas saved the grannies

And the honest answer is there is no answer to stopping or reducing* with at best not growing worldwide useage if there is a large push for renewable nuclear wind




*to below year 2000 usage

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

it clearly makes sense to reduce consumption as a primary target.

Good insulation is an essential ingredient but that needs to be introduced along with good ventilation.
Insulation without ventilation simply leads to mold, unhealthy living conditions and property damage.

At the moment good ventilation systems haven't been developed at a reasonable price so as always, the issue is simply not mentioned.

Science first, solutions second.

It would be much better if energy cost so little that there was no need to reduce usage.

It might take a hundred years but we will get there.