So. What really "oils", as it where, the global economy?
Which single commodity, if it suddenly ran out tomorrow would cause the whole global economic system to collapse?
Which commodity is so precious that the world's most powerful country feels the need to station troops and even to go to war in the geographical area where it is most abundant?
The burning of which commodity is causing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase by 3 parts per million per year leading to an increasingly unpredictable and hostile weather patterns, dangerous chemical change to the worlds oceans and increased sea levels?
Yes. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you oil.
If we do not end our dependence on oil in the next generation by the middle of this century we could be living in a world ravaged by war, famine and economic depression. Really, seriously, we are facing a massive problem - not just that oil is being depleted - we are so close to peak oil (the point at which the amount of oil being produced is at it's greatest after which production can only fall) that we may even have passed it. The markets are close to an all time high oil price and analysts are even talking about a $100 barrel. The economic effects of a $100 barrel of oil are enormous - we could be talking another Great Depression!
But this is also coming at the same time that the planet is sending us none too polite messages that it isn't happy - the weather has changed - record high temperatures in Europe in 2004 - a record Hurricane season last year - drought in Africa etc etc. All because of oil.
So I see no choice but to end the dependence as quickly as possible - we have to move to renewable energy and we have to move their fast, microgeneration - large scale offshore windfarms, small scale hydro electricity, photovoltaic roofs, urban windfarms, Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants burning biomass, tidal barrages, biodiesel and fuel cell cars. The technology is there already and coupled with energy efficiency measures we can do it.
Write to your MP/Representative/Local Councillor - tell them you want to see change. Give them the example of Woking council - http://www.woking.gov.uk/environment/Greeninitiatives - if they can do it why can't others. Sweden has set out a task to become oil free by 2020 - why can't others! http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1705315,00.html
Me - I'm going to trade in my petrol car and buy a diesel model that runs on biodiesel. I have already set my heating lower and I make sure the TV/video/hifi etc are all switched off at the mains.
What else can you do - Buy 'A' rated appliances, have cavity wall and roof insulation fitted (you can often get grants to help). Buy your produce from a local farmers market (write to your supermarket and tell them you want more local produce), sign up with a renewable energy firm (ecotricity or good energy are the best) - look into getting a solar water heater installed on your roof - replace your gas boiler with a condensing boiler - better still get rid of your gas boiler and look into space heating using a ground source heat pump.
There is plenty you can do. We really don't have much time - if we fail to act now we are screwing the world for future generations - do we want to go down as the people who recognised the problem and failed to do nothing about it?
As Winston Churchill said: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened," - let's not hurry off!
Full Version: The price we pay
Big fuss about nothing.Its one of those remarkable coincidences that experts estimate oil reserves will last for about six more decades. Experts also estimate that the world would have perfected 100% fuel/power replacements for oil and fossil fuels in about six decades time.
Symmetry in motion.
Symmetry in motion.
Which experts KLF?
Oh no you don't, barmyrob. It is YOU who must explain who these so-called experts are.
I am guessing they are the ordinary experts on the street or maybe it's The Sun's white van man?
It's not just me - I had no idea about Rob Newman's History of Oil which I just watched on More 4. It was excellent.
Newman wrota an article in teh guardian the other day - I reprint it here.
Seriously - this is the ONLY issue that really matters right now - if we don't take heed we are fucked.
Newman wrota an article in teh guardian the other day - I reprint it here.
Seriously - this is the ONLY issue that really matters right now - if we don't take heed we are fucked.
QUOTE
It's capitalism or a habitable planet - you can't have both
Our economic system is unsustainable by its very nature. The only response to climate chaos and peak oil is major social change
Robert Newman
Thursday February 2, 2006
The Guardian
There is no meaningful response to climate change without massive social change. A cap on this and a quota on the other won't do it. Tinker at the edges as we may, we cannot sustain earth's life-support systems within the present economic system.
Capitalism is not sustainable by its very nature. It is predicated on infinitely expanding markets, faster consumption and bigger production in a finite planet. And yet this ideological model remains the central organising principle of our lives, and as long as it continues to be so it will automatically undo (with its invisible hand) every single green initiative anybody cares to come up with.
Much discussion of energy, with never a word about power, leads to the fallacy of a low-impact, green capitalism somehow put at the service of environmentalism. In reality, power concentrates around wealth. Private ownership of trade and industry means that the decisive political force in the world is private power. The corporation will outflank every puny law and regulation that seeks to constrain its profitability. It therefore stands in the way of the functioning democracy needed to tackle climate change. Only by breaking up corporate power and bringing it under social control will we be able to overcome the global environmental crisis.
On these pages we have been called on to admire capital's ability to take robust action while governments dither. All hail Wal-Mart for imposing a 20% reduction in its own carbon emissions. But the point is that supermarkets are over. We cannot have such long supply lines between us and our food. Not any more. The very model of the supermarket is unsustainable, what with the packaging, food miles and destruction of British farming. Small, independent suppliers, processors and retailers or community-owned shops selling locally produced food provide a social glue and reduce carbon emissions. The same is true of food co-ops such as Manchester's bulk-distribution scheme serving former "food deserts".
All hail BP and Shell for having got beyond petroleum to become non-profit eco-networks supplying green energy. But fail to cheer the Fortune 500 corporations that will save us all and ecologists are denounced as anti-business. Many career environmentalists fear that an anti-capitalist position is what's alienating the mainstream from their irresistible arguments. But is it not more likely that people are stunned into inaction by the bizarre discrepancy between how extreme the crisis described and how insipid the solutions proposed? Go on a march to the House of Commons. Write a letter to your MP. And what system does your MP hold with? Name one that isn't pro-capitalist. Oh, all right then, smartarse. But name five.
We are caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of climate change and peak oil. Once we pass the planetary oil production spike (when oil begins rapidly to deplete and demand outstrips supply), there will be less and less net energy available to humankind. Petroleum geologists reckon we will pass the world oil spike sometime between 2006 and 2010. It will take, argues peak-oil expert Richard Heinberg, a second world war effort if many of us are to come through this epoch. Not least because modern agribusiness puts hundreds of calories of fossil-fuel energy into the fields for each calorie of food energy produced.
Catch-22, of course, is that the very worst fate that could befall our species is the discovery of huge new reserves of oil, or even the burning into the sky of all the oil that's already known about, because the climate chaos that would unleash would make the mere collapse of industrial society a sideshow bagatelle. Therefore, since we've got to make the switch from oil anyway, why not do it now?
Solutions need to come from people themselves. But once set up, local autonomous groups need to be supported by technology transfers from state to community level. Otherwise it's too expensive to get solar panels on your roof, let alone set up a local energy grid. Far from utopian, this has a precedent: back in the 1920s the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Battersea had their own electricity-generating grid for their residents. So long as energy corporations exist, however, they will fight tooth and nail to stop whole postal districts seceding from the national grid. Nor will the banks and the CBI be neutral bystanders, happy to observe the inroads participatory democracy makes in reducing carbon emissions, or a trade union striking for carbon quotas.
There are many organisational projects we can learn from. The Just Transition Alliance, for example, was set up by black and Latino groups in the US working with labour unions to negotiate alliances between "frontline workers and fenceline communities", that is to say between union members who work in polluting industries and stand to lose their jobs if the plant is shut down, and those who live next to the same plant and stand to lose their health if it's not.
We have to start planning seriously not just a system of personal carbon rationing but at what limit to set our national carbon ration. Given a fixed UK carbon allowance, what do we spend it on? What kinds of infrastructure do we wish to build, retool or demolish? What kinds of organisational structures will work as climate change makes pretty much all communities more or less "fenceline" and almost all jobs more or less "frontline"? (Most of our carbon emissions come when we're at work).
To get from here to there we must talk about climate chaos in terms of what needs to be done for the survival of the species rather than where the debate is at now or what people are likely to countenance tomorrow morning.
If we are all still in denial about the radical changes coming - and all of us still are - there are sound geological reasons for our denial. We have lived in an era of cheap, abundant energy. There never has and never will again be consumption like we have known. The petroleum interval, this one-off historical blip, this freakish bonanza, has led us to believe that the impossible is possible, that people in northern industrial cities can have suntans in winter and eat apples in summer. But much as the petroleum bubble has got us out of the habit of accepting the existence of zero-sum physical realities, it's wise to remember that they never went away. You can either have capitalism or a habitable planet. One or the other, not both.
Our economic system is unsustainable by its very nature. The only response to climate chaos and peak oil is major social change
Robert Newman
Thursday February 2, 2006
The Guardian
There is no meaningful response to climate change without massive social change. A cap on this and a quota on the other won't do it. Tinker at the edges as we may, we cannot sustain earth's life-support systems within the present economic system.
Capitalism is not sustainable by its very nature. It is predicated on infinitely expanding markets, faster consumption and bigger production in a finite planet. And yet this ideological model remains the central organising principle of our lives, and as long as it continues to be so it will automatically undo (with its invisible hand) every single green initiative anybody cares to come up with.
Much discussion of energy, with never a word about power, leads to the fallacy of a low-impact, green capitalism somehow put at the service of environmentalism. In reality, power concentrates around wealth. Private ownership of trade and industry means that the decisive political force in the world is private power. The corporation will outflank every puny law and regulation that seeks to constrain its profitability. It therefore stands in the way of the functioning democracy needed to tackle climate change. Only by breaking up corporate power and bringing it under social control will we be able to overcome the global environmental crisis.
On these pages we have been called on to admire capital's ability to take robust action while governments dither. All hail Wal-Mart for imposing a 20% reduction in its own carbon emissions. But the point is that supermarkets are over. We cannot have such long supply lines between us and our food. Not any more. The very model of the supermarket is unsustainable, what with the packaging, food miles and destruction of British farming. Small, independent suppliers, processors and retailers or community-owned shops selling locally produced food provide a social glue and reduce carbon emissions. The same is true of food co-ops such as Manchester's bulk-distribution scheme serving former "food deserts".
All hail BP and Shell for having got beyond petroleum to become non-profit eco-networks supplying green energy. But fail to cheer the Fortune 500 corporations that will save us all and ecologists are denounced as anti-business. Many career environmentalists fear that an anti-capitalist position is what's alienating the mainstream from their irresistible arguments. But is it not more likely that people are stunned into inaction by the bizarre discrepancy between how extreme the crisis described and how insipid the solutions proposed? Go on a march to the House of Commons. Write a letter to your MP. And what system does your MP hold with? Name one that isn't pro-capitalist. Oh, all right then, smartarse. But name five.
We are caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of climate change and peak oil. Once we pass the planetary oil production spike (when oil begins rapidly to deplete and demand outstrips supply), there will be less and less net energy available to humankind. Petroleum geologists reckon we will pass the world oil spike sometime between 2006 and 2010. It will take, argues peak-oil expert Richard Heinberg, a second world war effort if many of us are to come through this epoch. Not least because modern agribusiness puts hundreds of calories of fossil-fuel energy into the fields for each calorie of food energy produced.
Catch-22, of course, is that the very worst fate that could befall our species is the discovery of huge new reserves of oil, or even the burning into the sky of all the oil that's already known about, because the climate chaos that would unleash would make the mere collapse of industrial society a sideshow bagatelle. Therefore, since we've got to make the switch from oil anyway, why not do it now?
Solutions need to come from people themselves. But once set up, local autonomous groups need to be supported by technology transfers from state to community level. Otherwise it's too expensive to get solar panels on your roof, let alone set up a local energy grid. Far from utopian, this has a precedent: back in the 1920s the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Battersea had their own electricity-generating grid for their residents. So long as energy corporations exist, however, they will fight tooth and nail to stop whole postal districts seceding from the national grid. Nor will the banks and the CBI be neutral bystanders, happy to observe the inroads participatory democracy makes in reducing carbon emissions, or a trade union striking for carbon quotas.
There are many organisational projects we can learn from. The Just Transition Alliance, for example, was set up by black and Latino groups in the US working with labour unions to negotiate alliances between "frontline workers and fenceline communities", that is to say between union members who work in polluting industries and stand to lose their jobs if the plant is shut down, and those who live next to the same plant and stand to lose their health if it's not.
We have to start planning seriously not just a system of personal carbon rationing but at what limit to set our national carbon ration. Given a fixed UK carbon allowance, what do we spend it on? What kinds of infrastructure do we wish to build, retool or demolish? What kinds of organisational structures will work as climate change makes pretty much all communities more or less "fenceline" and almost all jobs more or less "frontline"? (Most of our carbon emissions come when we're at work).
To get from here to there we must talk about climate chaos in terms of what needs to be done for the survival of the species rather than where the debate is at now or what people are likely to countenance tomorrow morning.
If we are all still in denial about the radical changes coming - and all of us still are - there are sound geological reasons for our denial. We have lived in an era of cheap, abundant energy. There never has and never will again be consumption like we have known. The petroleum interval, this one-off historical blip, this freakish bonanza, has led us to believe that the impossible is possible, that people in northern industrial cities can have suntans in winter and eat apples in summer. But much as the petroleum bubble has got us out of the habit of accepting the existence of zero-sum physical realities, it's wise to remember that they never went away. You can either have capitalism or a habitable planet. One or the other, not both.
He's been gigging this stuff for a while now, great show even if it does take most audiences a while to keep up with him - I can't believe I missed the show on More4 - don't suppose you taped it?
Rob is one of my hero's, I just so wish I hadn't acted like such a pillock at the last gig before X-mas.
<shudders>
Rob is one of my hero's, I just so wish I hadn't acted like such a pillock at the last gig before X-mas.
<shudders>
QUOTE(Sarah lady @ Apr 13 2006, 10:42 AM) 
He's been gigging this stuff for a while now, great show even if it does take most audiences a while to keep up with him - I can't believe I missed the show on More4 - don't suppose you taped it?
Rob is one of my hero's, I just so wish I hadn't acted like such a pillock at the last gig before X-mas.
<shudders>
More 4 stuff is usually repeated.
I think there is a story you need to tell us SL!
We are listening...
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Apr 12 2006, 12:05 PM)
Me - I'm going to trade in my petrol car and buy a diesel model that runs on biodiesel. I have already set my heating lower and I make sure the TV/video/hifi etc are all switched off at the mains.
Panic over everyone, barmyrob is going to do next to near fuck all.
QUOTE(moster @ Apr 13 2006, 09:50 PM)
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Apr 12 2006, 12:05 PM)
Me - I'm going to trade in my petrol car and buy a diesel model that runs on biodiesel. I have already set my heating lower and I make sure the TV/video/hifi etc are all switched off at the mains.
Panic over everyone, barmyrob is going to do next to near fuck all.
fuck off
Every person who migrants from the third world/developing world,into Western Europe will use far more energy (and as a result more fossil fuel) than they would have used before.
So Barmy,If you're lucky,your token energy saving may equate to few weeks power usage of a newly arrived migrant.
You're right Moster,its a drop in the ocean.Or p*ssing in the wind as i like to call it.
People like Barmy can feel a warm glow that they are helping, whilst basically not making one iota of difference to the situation (or more importantly, not cramping their lifestyle to much),as the world becomes more and more industrialised,especially places like China and Asia.
So Barmy,If you're lucky,your token energy saving may equate to few weeks power usage of a newly arrived migrant.
You're right Moster,its a drop in the ocean.Or p*ssing in the wind as i like to call it.
People like Barmy can feel a warm glow that they are helping, whilst basically not making one iota of difference to the situation (or more importantly, not cramping their lifestyle to much),as the world becomes more and more industrialised,especially places like China and Asia.
I thought the post by moster was perfectly reasonable.
It surely is OK to take the P a bit when it comes to peoples individual ideas or solutions to these issues of personal consumption.
Every time I do the washing up around my sisters house, she tells me off for throwing empty tins in the bin.
They should be washed out and put in the recycle box according to her.
I can't be bothered. And having driven dustcarts for Croydon, Wandsworth, and Mole Valley (in Surrey) councils, including a recycle box route in Croydon, where often back at the depot, everything got mixed in together anyway, I wonder what difference any of that effort makes. (On a global scale).
Maybe it would have been better not to buy that tin of sweetcorn.
It surely is OK to take the P a bit when it comes to peoples individual ideas or solutions to these issues of personal consumption.
Every time I do the washing up around my sisters house, she tells me off for throwing empty tins in the bin.
They should be washed out and put in the recycle box according to her.
I can't be bothered. And having driven dustcarts for Croydon, Wandsworth, and Mole Valley (in Surrey) councils, including a recycle box route in Croydon, where often back at the depot, everything got mixed in together anyway, I wonder what difference any of that effort makes. (On a global scale).
Maybe it would have been better not to buy that tin of sweetcorn.
The change has to come at the corporate level or it will be meaningless. But to (typically) mock the contribution of the individual is (typically) stupid and kind of mean.
I try and try and try and try to waste less paper in my household. Then I go to work and watch the "recycle" bins fill to heaping night after night, wasting more in a half shift than I use all year. Why am I wasting my time? Do I recycle to feel better? Yes, I do. But it's individual awareness that will ultimately spur corporate change. Moster and KLF can joke away, at least Barm is conscious of his impact.
I try and try and try and try to waste less paper in my household. Then I go to work and watch the "recycle" bins fill to heaping night after night, wasting more in a half shift than I use all year. Why am I wasting my time? Do I recycle to feel better? Yes, I do. But it's individual awareness that will ultimately spur corporate change. Moster and KLF can joke away, at least Barm is conscious of his impact.
who said i was joking?
QUOTE(the klf @ Apr 14 2006, 11:11 AM)
Every person who migrants from the third world/developing world,into Western Europe will use far more energy (and as a result more fossil fuel) than they would have used before.
So Barmy,If you're lucky,your token energy saving may equate to few weeks power usage of a newly arrived migrant.
You're right Moster,its a drop in the ocean.Or p*ssing in the wind as i like to call it.
People like Barmy can feel a warm glow that they are helping, whilst basically not making one iota of difference to the situation (or more importantly, not cramping their lifestyle to much),as the world becomes more and more industrialised,especially places like China and Asia.
Oh for fucks sake klf wake up and smell the coffee. You really are pathetic. The has nothing to do with migration - indeed you contradict yourself by pointing out that China and India are becoming large energy users. I fucking hate the way people try and blame the third world for a first world problem - we created this mess - we have to clear it up.
I can assure you I feel no warm glow - I'm just pointing out that we are fucked - what little I do personally is just a drop of piss in the ocean - that is why I proselytise: that is what we can do as individuals.
This has to be done on many different levels - we have no choice but to give up using fossil fuels - all of us. It takes government action - yes (I have already given you the example of Sweden who aim to end reliance on oil by 2020), it does require corporate action - but corporations only act when governments or consumers ask them to. So there are things we can do as individuals and be less profligate with energy is one of them - signing up to a green electricity supplier for one, making sure your house is well insulated is a second, buy low energy lightbulbs - it isn't difficult and you can campaign - write to your MP, your councillor, supermarket etc.
You keep your head well and truly up your arse KLF. I'm sure you must look better that way.
QUOTE(damon @ Apr 14 2006, 04:08 PM)
I thought the post by moster was perfectly reasonable.
It surely is OK to take the P a bit when it comes to peoples individual ideas or solutions to these issues of personal consumption.
Every time I do the washing up around my sisters house, she tells me off for throwing empty tins in the bin.
They should be washed out and put in the recycle box according to her.
I can't be bothered. And having driven dustcarts for Croydon, Wandsworth, and Mole Valley (in Surrey) councils, including a recycle box route in Croydon, where often back at the depot, everything got mixed in together anyway, I wonder what difference any of that effort makes. (On a global scale).
Maybe it would have been better not to buy that tin of sweetcorn.
It isn't about personal consumption it is about burning oil - it is a global problem and it is one that will kick us well and truly up the arse any time soon.
Simple economics - there is a finite amount of oil. There is increasing demand for oil. The supply of oil is at maximum capacity and from this point it can only fall (there is no mass investment by oil companies because it would be a waste of money - they have found all the oil we are going to find.) The price of oil has tripled in the last 3 years - analysts confidently expect it to reach $100 a barrel. This is well above the highest it has ever reached (in 1971 & 1980) and could very easily lead to a massive economic downturn, probably a depression.
What i'm saying is,that even if everyone in Britain purchased energy efficient lightbulbs and insulation,and recycled ...etc..etc...etc. It won't make the slightest difference,because the energy used by developing counties,especially India,china and the far east,will rise at a far higher rate.So for evey 1% of energy we are saving per day.Someone else around the world is using 20% more that day.In china currently,a new power station is opened every three days.The power one of them uses in a week,will probably be more than we could save by using energy efficint lightbulbs for hundreds of years.
Look. The only way the world will stop the increased use of fossils fules ,is when they run out,or are about to run out.We must put our efforts now in trying to create and encourage new forms of power and energy.We have about 50-60 years to come up with new and viable forms of power and fuel.Lets put our energy into that, rather than some futile token gesture about saving 0.0000000000000000000001 of the world daily energy consumption by buying a low wattage lightbulb.Better to use the money on funding alternative energy programs and alternative energy organisations,or to write to your MP urging policies that encourage alternative fuel schemes in big business and around the world.
Look. The only way the world will stop the increased use of fossils fules ,is when they run out,or are about to run out.We must put our efforts now in trying to create and encourage new forms of power and energy.We have about 50-60 years to come up with new and viable forms of power and fuel.Lets put our energy into that, rather than some futile token gesture about saving 0.0000000000000000000001 of the world daily energy consumption by buying a low wattage lightbulb.Better to use the money on funding alternative energy programs and alternative energy organisations,or to write to your MP urging policies that encourage alternative fuel schemes in big business and around the world.
QUOTE(the klf @ Apr 16 2006, 10:39 AM)
What i'm saying is,that even if everyone in Britain purchased energy efficient lightbulbs and insulation,and recycled ...etc..etc...etc. It won't make the slightest difference,because the energy used by developing counties,especially India,china and the far east,will rise at a far higher rate.So for evey 1% of energy we are saving per day.Someone else around the world is using 20% more that day.In china currently,a new power station is opened every three days.The power one of them uses in a week,will probably be more than we could save by using energy efficint lightbulbs for hundreds of years.
Listen. I'm not saying that developing countries shouldn't be more energy efficient - of course they should. But I see it as a pathetic excuse to do nothing yourself. For christssake if you change all your lightbulbs to energy efficient ones you will SAVE yourself money!!!!
QUOTE(the klf @ Apr 16 2006, 10:39 AM)
Look. The only way the world will stop the increased use of fossils fules ,is when they run out,or are about to run out.We must put our efforts now in trying to create and encourage new forms of power and energy.We have about 50-60 years to come up with new and viable forms of power and fuel.Lets put our energy into that, rather than some futile token gesture about saving 0.0000000000000000000001 of the world daily energy consumption by buying a low wattage lightbulb.Better to use the money on funding alternative energy programs and alternative energy organisations,or to write to your MP urging policies that encourage alternative fuel schemes in big business and around the world.
Apart from the fact that you really have no idea of economics and don't understand how dwindling supplies are already leading to massive energy cost inflation, you are missing a fundamental point. WE HAVE ALREADY PUT TOO MUCH CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
We don't have 60 years - we are actually already TOO LATE - we are at the point of mananging climate change now - it is already happening and will have massive repercussions for years to come. We have to do it NOW and the technology is ALREADY THERE. It is tried and tested and proven - all it needs is the investment.
And what is wrong with energy efficiency anyway - it makes sense both ecologically and economically - a school or hospital that is energy efficient will cost less to run leaving more money for books or medicine. Energy efficiency makes a huge difference - if we can reduce our demand by 20-30% it means we can reach targets for meeting our energy needs from renewables more quickly!
BTW If you want to know what your ecological footprint is - go to http://ecofoot.org/
QUOTE
For christssake if you change all your lightbulbs to energy efficient ones you will SAVE yourself money!!!!
Look at the price of standard lightbulbs in Tescos.They cost next to nothing.So saving on the cost of the bulb verses its lifespan is vertually nil.The only saving is that energy efficient lightbulbs use less power.A few pence a week if your lucky.For me the ridiculously miminal saving of a few pence, is not work the sacrifice of having a heaver, uglier bulb with a light output that has regulary been discribed a dead & cold, compared to the illumiation of a stanard bulb.
QUOTE(the klf @ Apr 16 2006, 11:46 AM)
QUOTE
For christssake if you change all your lightbulbs to energy efficient ones you will SAVE yourself money!!!!
Look at the price of standard lightbulbs in Tescos.They cost next to nothing.So saving on the cost of the bulb verses its lifespan is vertually nil.The only saving is that energy efficient lightbulbs use less power.A few pence a week if your lucky.For me the ridiculously miminal saving of a few pence, is not work the sacrifice of having a heaver, uglier bulb with a light output that has regulary been discribed a dead & cold, compared to the illumiation of a stanard bulb.
As ever you are talking complete and utter shite. But why would I expect anything else but wilful ignorance!
I will try and keep the maths simple for you.
Using one energy saving 12W light bulb replacing an old fashioned edison designed 60W light bulb for an average of four hours a day will save you £7 a year (at 10p/KWh it would cost you £8.76 a year to run a standard lightbulb and £1.75 to run an energy saver.) It may have escaped your notice but the price of electricity is going up at the moment as well so these savings increase exponentially.
You can pick up energy saving bulbs for about a £1 each - they are doing 3 for £2.99 in Robert Dyas at the moment. You could change your whole house for not much more than a tenner and save yourself £200+ over the three year life of the bulbs.
And as for ugly bulbs and poor light - you are talking about the early bulbs - there are all sorts now - you can get halogen, spotlights, candle lights, standard bulb shapes etc these days and even the more expensive ones will save you money over their lifetimes.
You are running out of excuses KLF.
So we can save a few quid,to have inferior lighting (no matter what you say about improvements in the technology),but do you really believe that changing to these bulbs will have any effect on the worlds greenhouse gas immitions or the burning of fossils fuels.
QUOTE(the klf @ Apr 16 2006, 12:50 PM)
So we can save a few quid,to have inferior lighting (no matter what you say about improvements in the technology),but do you really believe that changing to these bulbs will have any effect on the worlds greenhouse gas immitions or the burning of fossils fuels.
Yes.
There are 20 million households in the UK. If the government made low energy bulbs compulsory (which they should btw) then the energy used in domestic lighting would drop by 80%.
Lighting makes up a huge chunk of domestic power supply - one 100W light bulb used for four hours a day consumes 146 kWh of electrical energy per year.
20 million homes - what would you say 200 million lightbulbs? Let's be conservative and say the average wattage is 50W and the average daily use is 4 hours. How much energy would we save annually?
One 50W lightbulb uses 73 kWh per year of energy. So 200 million lightbulbs would consume 14600 million kWh of electrical energy each year.
A coal-fired plant produces 910g/kWH and a gas fired plant 360g/kWH. The energy mix in the UK is currently 33% coal, 39% gas 21% nuclear and 4% renewable.
So the CO2 saving of electricity that would be produced by coal is... 14600mil * 0.33 = 4818mil kWh * 910 = 4,384,380 tonnes of CO2.
From gas it would be (14600*0.38)*360= 1,734,480 tonnes of CO2.
So an extremely conservative estimate of the CO2 reductions of the government making energy efficient light bulbs compulsory would be 6,118,860 tonnes of CO2 per year. That is over 1% of the UK's annual emissions - just from changing our domestic lightbulbs.
So yes KLF - changing your lightbulbs does make a difference.
Who has 10 bulbs on for four hours each day???? 
Probably five bulbs.With one or two on for three to four hours,and another couple used intermitently for a combined total of less than an hour each.
So i would say a combined light total of probaly 8-10 hours in the winter.5-7 hours in the summer .Its certainly nowhere near 40 combined hours a day.
How much energy does your computer use a day? maybe the government should limit us all to two hours a day.How much energy do our freezers use??? Maybe the government should ban frozen food.
Even by your optamistic figures, with us all using energy efficient bulbs.That would save 1% in Co2 emissions.Chinas emissions will go up 8% in that same year,India's will go up 5 %.Hundreds of other countries Co2 emissions will go as well.It P*ssing in the wind,admit it.Accept the fact that things will not change until fossils fuel supplies run out or reduce .At least that will happen in a few decades and Co2 emissions will then improve dramatically.Instead of wasting billions just scratching the surface of the current problem, that we will never solve.We should be focusing our efforts and resources on developing new fuels and way of producing enviromently friendly power.
Probably five bulbs.With one or two on for three to four hours,and another couple used intermitently for a combined total of less than an hour each.
So i would say a combined light total of probaly 8-10 hours in the winter.5-7 hours in the summer .Its certainly nowhere near 40 combined hours a day.
How much energy does your computer use a day? maybe the government should limit us all to two hours a day.How much energy do our freezers use??? Maybe the government should ban frozen food.
Even by your optamistic figures, with us all using energy efficient bulbs.That would save 1% in Co2 emissions.Chinas emissions will go up 8% in that same year,India's will go up 5 %.Hundreds of other countries Co2 emissions will go as well.It P*ssing in the wind,admit it.Accept the fact that things will not change until fossils fuel supplies run out or reduce .At least that will happen in a few decades and Co2 emissions will then improve dramatically.Instead of wasting billions just scratching the surface of the current problem, that we will never solve.We should be focusing our efforts and resources on developing new fuels and way of producing enviromently friendly power.
QUOTE(the klf @ Apr 16 2006, 02:21 PM)
Who has 10 bulbs on for four hours each day????
Probably five bulbs.With one or two on for three to four hours,and another couple used intermitently for a combined total of less than an hour each.
So i would say a combined light total of probaly 8-10 hours in the winter.5-7 hours in the summer .Its certainly nowhere near 40 combined hours a day.
How much energy does your computer use a day? maybe the government should limit us all to two hours a day.How much energy do our freezers use??? Maybe the government should ban frozen food.
Most people I know have at least 4-5 bulbs just in their living rooms, let alone all the spots and under cupboard lights in the kitchens. I very much doubt your are using only 8-10 bulb hours per day in the winter KLF unless you are living in a one light one room house.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have a computer or a freezer, although I do believe that the government should tax appliances and consumer goods that are energy inefficient. I'm saying you should run them efficiently and you should help to fund renewable electrical generation by buying electricity from companies that only supply electricity generated from renewable means - that is the power we all have as consumers.
If you armed with knowledge about energy efficiency and refuse to do anything about it then that makes you a selfish wanker.
So you're basically saying you are happy to do a bit of token energy saving as long as it doesn't cramp your lifestyle too much?
I'd have more respect,if you used candles and bus pass (things that might acually impinge on your capitalist-funded comfy life),rather than token gestures such as swopping to a different lightbulb or to an eco-diesel car.If it makes you feel like you are helping CO2 emissions and not contibuting to increases in CO2 emissions,you carry on.
Also,its alright for financially stable ,middle-class surburbians to endorse adding taxes to things like electirical equipment.The fact that it would hurt the least well off the most,doesn't seem to bother them.
I'd have more respect,if you used candles and bus pass (things that might acually impinge on your capitalist-funded comfy life),rather than token gestures such as swopping to a different lightbulb or to an eco-diesel car.If it makes you feel like you are helping CO2 emissions and not contibuting to increases in CO2 emissions,you carry on.
Also,its alright for financially stable ,middle-class surburbians to endorse adding taxes to things like electirical equipment.The fact that it would hurt the least well off the most,doesn't seem to bother them.
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Apr 13 2006, 09:19 PM)
QUOTE(Sarah lady @ Apr 13 2006, 10:42 AM)
He's been gigging this stuff for a while now, great show even if it does take most audiences a while to keep up with him - I can't believe I missed the show on More4 - don't suppose you taped it?
Rob is one of my hero's, I just so wish I hadn't acted like such a pillock at the last gig before X-mas.
<shudders>
More 4 stuff is usually repeated.
I think there is a story you need to tell us SL!
We are listening...
You were right and they did repeat it last night. It was good to see that show again but having seen it 4 times previously (I worked on the tour), I knew it word for word. Interesting to see how they made it more "telly friendly".
X-mas gig - note to self, don't get drunk and then nag someone else to have a drink forgetting that they're a recovering alcoholic... <shudders> again...
QUOTE(the klf @ Apr 16 2006, 03:09 PM)
So you're basically saying you are happy to do a bit of token energy saving as long as it doesn't cramp your lifestyle too much?
I'd have more respect,if you used candles and bus pass (things that might acually impinge on your capitalist-funded comfy life),rather than token gestures such as swopping to a different lightbulb or to an eco-diesel car.If it makes you feel like you are helping CO2 emissions and not contibuting to increases in CO2 emissions,you carry on.
Also,its alright for financially stable ,middle-class surburbians to endorse adding taxes to things like electirical equipment.The fact that it would hurt the least well off the most,doesn't seem to bother them.
You really are a total and utter twat KLF. You carry on burying your head in the sand. It is twatish attitudes based on nothing but ignorance and greed despite all the facts that has caused and continues to cause the problems.
When you can't afford to buy the petrol for your car or to heat your house you will be the first to go crying about how something should have been done about this ages ago. Well fuck you and all your sort - I will quite happily say "I told you so - now fuck off and die."
You might not give a shit but I do. A product's price should reflect it's energy use in construction and use - something which markets fail to do - governments should be doing it for the market. Trying to whinge about the effect it will have on the poor is an excuse for inaction. Indeed buying a 'A' rated appliance for example, like the light bulbs is actually much cheaper when you add in the costs of using the item.
I'm not advocating a return to the Stone Age - I'm not saying that anyone should be using candles instead of lighting (I doubt they are more efficient than light bulbs anyway when you take into consideration all the energy required to manufacture and distribute them) - I'm saying we need to manage NOW an effective and quick route to end our reliance on fossil fuels.
If we don't the market will do it for us and I can assure you that the effect of the increase in the cost of fossil fuel energy will huge. When you lose your job and your house price and pension collapse in the global crash don't go running and complaining about it - it's your own selfish fucking fault.
I do care passionately about the enviroment.Thats why i would have taken action years ago to stop the increased use and reliance on fossil fuels. I would have reduced mass migration from low fuel consuming continents into the high fuel consuming West.I would have had placed much more emphasis on manafacturing in places where fuel consumption and emissions could be better monitored,controlled and reduced.I would have placed big tax insentives on manafacturers to reduce co2 output and find alternative power sources.I would have encouraged home grown products and strengthened the infrastucture of our own industry and manafacturing. I would certainly not have allowed a situation to develop which has seen places like China and Asia produce most of our electronic and plastic products.In allowing China's and Asia's manafacturing infrastucture to grow to such a massive degree,we have encouraged this vast increase in their power and fossil fuel needs. I would be willing to pay more for products if they were manafactured in Britain by people on decent wages and working in decent conditions, rather than by the intense labour and ultra low waged workers .If we were making more products for ourselves we could have a lot stricter control on emissions and power consumption, that these other countires have.
Regarding not being able to afford Petrol.How hollow does that sound,when you and i know full well that 78% of the cost of petrol in Britain is TAX. If this government reduced tax on petrol by 10% ,we would be back to last decades prices,even allowing for increased crude oil prices.Eco-taxes are such a convenient way for this government to fleece the public.
Yes, we should have acted differently in the past.We could have reduced and controlled our emissions a lot better.We have been sortsighted.BUT to start buying energy efficient lightbulbs,and loft insulation at this stage of the game,really is P*ssing in the wind and shutting the stable door after the horse is bolted.
We should be honest and say.Yes, we are producing far to much co2 and using far to much fiossil fuel, but realistically the way the world is set up now on this capalist and free market rollercoarter,we have no chance of freezing our outputs let alone reducing them,or saving oil reserves, without massive economic consequences. Result...i ain't gonna happen. So lets make sure that we put our energy in advancing eco-friendly alternatives and have viable alternatives in place for when the inevitable happees and reserves run-out in 50 years. You should be happy that oil reserves are being exhausted. It means that emissions will be cut dramatically in a few decades, because we can't burn what we don't have.All that oil will be burned.Does it matter if it takes 50 yaers,(or 60 yearsrs if all the world buys energy efficient lightbulbs)?It will still be the same amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Regarding not being able to afford Petrol.How hollow does that sound,when you and i know full well that 78% of the cost of petrol in Britain is TAX. If this government reduced tax on petrol by 10% ,we would be back to last decades prices,even allowing for increased crude oil prices.Eco-taxes are such a convenient way for this government to fleece the public.
Yes, we should have acted differently in the past.We could have reduced and controlled our emissions a lot better.We have been sortsighted.BUT to start buying energy efficient lightbulbs,and loft insulation at this stage of the game,really is P*ssing in the wind and shutting the stable door after the horse is bolted.
We should be honest and say.Yes, we are producing far to much co2 and using far to much fiossil fuel, but realistically the way the world is set up now on this capalist and free market rollercoarter,we have no chance of freezing our outputs let alone reducing them,or saving oil reserves, without massive economic consequences. Result...i ain't gonna happen. So lets make sure that we put our energy in advancing eco-friendly alternatives and have viable alternatives in place for when the inevitable happees and reserves run-out in 50 years. You should be happy that oil reserves are being exhausted. It means that emissions will be cut dramatically in a few decades, because we can't burn what we don't have.All that oil will be burned.Does it matter if it takes 50 yaers,(or 60 yearsrs if all the world buys energy efficient lightbulbs)?It will still be the same amount of pollution going into the atmosphere.
Yes lets's blame the chinkys.
OK - so what are you going to do about it KLF? Huh? Sweet FA - that's what - you don't give a shit about the environment. If you did you'd actually act - it is already possible to source many of your goods and services locally. Do you? No - you just fucking moan about how the government taxes petrol (the cost of motoring now, incidentally is much LESS than it was in 1979 btw).
Your answer is to let the market deal with it but buddy it's the market that has got us into this mess.
And let me say this one more time for the hard of hearing:
BURNING THE REST OF THE OIL, GAS AND COAL WE HAVE WILL BRING ABOUT UNTOLD ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE, POVERTY AND WAR ON A SCALE WHICH WILL MAKE WORLD WAR'S ONE AND TWO LOOK LIKE PLAYGROUND BRAWLS. CAPEESH?
Our only hope is to end our energy profligacy NOW and invest heavily in renewables. Waiting until the oil runs out IS NOT AN OPTION!
OK - so what are you going to do about it KLF? Huh? Sweet FA - that's what - you don't give a shit about the environment. If you did you'd actually act - it is already possible to source many of your goods and services locally. Do you? No - you just fucking moan about how the government taxes petrol (the cost of motoring now, incidentally is much LESS than it was in 1979 btw).
Your answer is to let the market deal with it but buddy it's the market that has got us into this mess.
And let me say this one more time for the hard of hearing:
BURNING THE REST OF THE OIL, GAS AND COAL WE HAVE WILL BRING ABOUT UNTOLD ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE, POVERTY AND WAR ON A SCALE WHICH WILL MAKE WORLD WAR'S ONE AND TWO LOOK LIKE PLAYGROUND BRAWLS. CAPEESH?
Our only hope is to end our energy profligacy NOW and invest heavily in renewables. Waiting until the oil runs out IS NOT AN OPTION!
But it doesn't matter what we do with OUR energy profligacy. We and the world have already created a situation that we cannot stop.Britain could end its energy use tommorow.We could all live in mud huts around a wood fire from tomorrow, and the oil rserves would still be depleted in 60 years.
We have burned fossil fuels for thousand so years,and the world (rightly or wrongly) relies on it more than ever now (because an alternative is not in place yet).Do you really think the world manafacturing giants are going to leave the last bit of oil alone? The only way to make them do that ,is to offer them a viable alternative.If you can work towards doing that in the next few decades,that will be a lot more productive than dreaming we can stop people useing the last of the oil reserves.
Even if the whole world changed it outlook and put in place policies that reduced comsumption by a miraculous 10%.It would not only cost industry around the world billions and billions of dollars to do,it would only delay the inevitable.As i said before, it would take us 60 years to run out of fossil fuel ,instead of 50 years.The same amount would still be realesed into the atmpsohere,but over a slightly longer period.
The quicker the oil runs out, the quicker the world will have to strive for an alternative,and the quicker emissions with the dramatically cut.
We have burned fossil fuels for thousand so years,and the world (rightly or wrongly) relies on it more than ever now (because an alternative is not in place yet).Do you really think the world manafacturing giants are going to leave the last bit of oil alone? The only way to make them do that ,is to offer them a viable alternative.If you can work towards doing that in the next few decades,that will be a lot more productive than dreaming we can stop people useing the last of the oil reserves.
Even if the whole world changed it outlook and put in place policies that reduced comsumption by a miraculous 10%.It would not only cost industry around the world billions and billions of dollars to do,it would only delay the inevitable.As i said before, it would take us 60 years to run out of fossil fuel ,instead of 50 years.The same amount would still be realesed into the atmpsohere,but over a slightly longer period.
The quicker the oil runs out, the quicker the world will have to strive for an alternative,and the quicker emissions with the dramatically cut.
Yes it does matter - if we use less energy we produce fewer greenhouse gases - and i'm not just talking about the UK - I'm talking about the whole world - and we'll need fewer replacement renewable energy production facilities if we have lower energy usage - it makes so much sense - what can you not see about it. Energy efficiency even makes economic sense!
You keep talking about burning the rest of the oil - MY POINT FOR GOD KNOWS HOW MANY TIMES IS THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO BURN THAT OIL - THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ARE UNTHINKABLE - WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!!
The alternatives are there already - we have great wind generating technology - and the UK has 40% of Europe's (not the UK - Europe) potential wind energy - we could sell it to others and make money out of it - offshore windfarms are less unsightly and have much better and regular wind - we have massive capacity. We can mix that with microgeneration - every new house that John Prescott wants to build could have solar panels built on the roofs. We could build biomass heat and power plants - small scale for local communities - they are extremely efficient. Tidal barriers, small scale hydroelectic generation, the list goes on and the technology is there already. It's not rocket science - all that is missing is the will.
How much more viable do you want me to make it? Sweden aims to be oil independent by 2020. Why doesn't the whole of Europe do the same - we can share the technology with the rest of the world - to be honest the rising oil price is the biggest hope we have - OPEC have known for years that if the price of oil goes through the roof then alternatives will fill the gap - they want the price of oil to be lower but are pumping at full capacity and are unable to plug the gap.
We have become dependent on oil and we have allowed the oil industry to run the most powerful country in the world. It has to stop.
You keep talking about burning the rest of the oil - MY POINT FOR GOD KNOWS HOW MANY TIMES IS THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO BURN THAT OIL - THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ARE UNTHINKABLE - WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!!
The alternatives are there already - we have great wind generating technology - and the UK has 40% of Europe's (not the UK - Europe) potential wind energy - we could sell it to others and make money out of it - offshore windfarms are less unsightly and have much better and regular wind - we have massive capacity. We can mix that with microgeneration - every new house that John Prescott wants to build could have solar panels built on the roofs. We could build biomass heat and power plants - small scale for local communities - they are extremely efficient. Tidal barriers, small scale hydroelectic generation, the list goes on and the technology is there already. It's not rocket science - all that is missing is the will.
How much more viable do you want me to make it? Sweden aims to be oil independent by 2020. Why doesn't the whole of Europe do the same - we can share the technology with the rest of the world - to be honest the rising oil price is the biggest hope we have - OPEC have known for years that if the price of oil goes through the roof then alternatives will fill the gap - they want the price of oil to be lower but are pumping at full capacity and are unable to plug the gap.
We have become dependent on oil and we have allowed the oil industry to run the most powerful country in the world. It has to stop.
As long as oil is avalable ,it will be used.Even if Europe and America abandoned fossil fuels.The other half of the world will just use the reserves anyway.We have burnt vast amonts of fossil fuels for many centuries.I don't accept your doomday senario,if we continue to do the same for another 50 years.
Regarding wind farms.They do not produce anywhere near enough power to run a decent sized country.Even if you add in all the other things like solar power,Hydrodams etc.It is just scratching the service.You could desicrate the entire british countryside with these massive turbines and it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to power the county.China would just pump out the equivilent co2's to what we have saved anyway.Hydrogen is definately the way to go with regard to cars and other road vehicles.
In Germany.They have the have biult the largest concentration of wind farms in the world. How many of their powwer stations have closed down since this scheme started.Thats right, none.
My advice is to let the oil reserves run down.The quicker that happens the quicker we must look for an alternative,and the quicker we will see dramatic and significant reductions.Spend your money on funding alternative energy schemes and pressure groups ,rather than buying fancy lights.
Regarding wind farms.They do not produce anywhere near enough power to run a decent sized country.Even if you add in all the other things like solar power,Hydrodams etc.It is just scratching the service.You could desicrate the entire british countryside with these massive turbines and it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to power the county.China would just pump out the equivilent co2's to what we have saved anyway.Hydrogen is definately the way to go with regard to cars and other road vehicles.
In Germany.They have the have biult the largest concentration of wind farms in the world. How many of their powwer stations have closed down since this scheme started.Thats right, none.
My advice is to let the oil reserves run down.The quicker that happens the quicker we must look for an alternative,and the quicker we will see dramatic and significant reductions.Spend your money on funding alternative energy schemes and pressure groups ,rather than buying fancy lights.
QUOTE(the klf @ Apr 16 2006, 09:50 PM)
As long as oil is avalable ,it will be used.Even if Europe and America abandoned fossil fuels.The other half of the world will just use the reserves anyway.We have burnt vast amonts of fossil fuels for many centuries.I don't accept your doomday senario,if we continue to do the same for another 50 years.
Regarding wind farms.They do not produce anywhere near enough power to run a decent sized country.Even if you add in all the other things like solar power,Hydrodams etc.It is just scratching the service.You could desicrate the entire british countryside with these massive turbines and it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to power the county.China would just pump out the equivilent co2's to what we have saved anyway.Hydrogen is definately the way to go with regard to cars and other road vehicles.
In Germany.They have the have biult the largest concentration of wind farms in the world. How many of their powwer stations have closed down since this scheme started.Thats right, none.
My advice is to let the oil reserves run down.The quicker that happens the quicker we must look for an alternative,and the quicker we will see dramatic and significant reductions.Spend your money on funding alternative energy schemes and pressure groups ,rather than buying fancy lights.
You are totally wrong. What do you not understand about the role the burning of fossil fuels has on climate change and the role supply plays in markets?
And how do you harvest Hydrogen KLF?
oil hits all time high - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4917566.stm
Perhaps we can harness the energy that flows majestically from the oil industry's mighty Golden Parachutes
Can see the problem but is blind to the solution - clean coal technology - my arse!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4921032.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4921032.stm
QUOTE
Rising energy costs are crippling industry and threatening thousands of jobs, a union leader has warned.
Derek Simpson, general secretary of Amicus, will tell a conference in Edinburgh that the UK Government must come up with a clear energy policy.
Derek Simpson, general secretary of Amicus, will tell a conference in Edinburgh that the UK Government must come up with a clear energy policy.
I missed this first time round - well done dissident - seriously - this is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.
http://www.billybragg.co.uk/forums/index.p...wtopic=2946&hl=
Peak oil - we are fucked ladies and gentlemen. Sit up, take notice and do something.
http://www.billybragg.co.uk/forums/index.p...wtopic=2946&hl=
Peak oil - we are fucked ladies and gentlemen. Sit up, take notice and do something.
i'm officially enlightened.
everyone needs to read the article by jim bliss, he knows the score.
and the "wolf at the door" website has certainly opened my eyes to one or two things.
everyone needs to read the article by jim bliss, he knows the score.
and the "wolf at the door" website has certainly opened my eyes to one or two things.
1 liter: 1.48 euro, or 1 english pound.
THAT's the price of oil today.
THAT's the price of oil today.
QUOTE(Leontien @ Apr 20 2006, 07:35 AM)
1 liter: 1.48 euro, or 1 english pound.
THAT's the price of oil today.
good!
QUOTE(the klf @ Apr 16 2006, 09:50 PM)
My advice is to let the oil reserves run down.The quicker that happens the quicker we must look for an alternative,and the quicker we will see dramatic and significant reductions.
The quicker that happens the quicker we must start burying the millions of people that will die when the uninformed petrol and oil heads start to massacre those around them to keep the numbers of oil consumers low... Oh, shit, they've already started...
Cast your mind back to the terrible images from Dafur, and now update those pictures to include the Danube, Saine, Thames, The Yorkshire Dales... That's the scale of human tradgedy that IS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN THE OIL RUNS OUT.
It isn't going to happen in forty or fifty years time - many countries have already passed their peak oil production. When was the last time you heard anything of the North Sea Oil fields on TV? We're importing more and more gas...
But this is how the CIA see the UK. Notice the very alarming error under the section entitled "Environment - current issues:"
Anyone who isn't shitting their pants and trying to get people to wake up the impending , unbelievable nightmare that is about to roll out across the world is insane. As Scotty said:
THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS
Edited to add these points and thoughts...
QUOTE
"A person is seen as psychotic when they cease being able to function and maintain their existence within the society in which they find themselves. Similarly, a society can be seen as psychotic when it ceases being able to function and maintain it's existence within the physical environment in which it finds itself. So long as we had access to an ever-increasing pool of energy, our society remained sane. We can't rely on that any more. The rules have changed (or rather, we're finally about to learn them properly) and the denial demonstrated by the optimists is soon to be revealed as the psychosis it truly is."
A clear and insightful appraisal, IMHO. It also remindes me of Rapa Nui...
I kinda fall between the extremes of the argument here, I am happy to use low energy lightbulbs, compost my waste etc and I put three bags of rubbish out for the binmen today, I'll get a waterbut when we get the guttering done and will happily get a cleaner/greener car when the time comes etc.
But I do agree that its far too easy for the middle class liberal to lecture others about the environment (and other issues) safe in the knowledge that they can more easily make the right decision on things like organic food etc.
I would love to buy expensive posh nosh but my budget mostly stretches to a rather large amount of economy/value ranges.
Anyway it's the better off who fly more and have the bigger cars isn't it?
I am an opptomist and expect humanity to do the right thing just in the nick of time.
Can anyone tell me some cheap ways to do my bit?
But I do agree that its far too easy for the middle class liberal to lecture others about the environment (and other issues) safe in the knowledge that they can more easily make the right decision on things like organic food etc.
I would love to buy expensive posh nosh but my budget mostly stretches to a rather large amount of economy/value ranges.
Anyway it's the better off who fly more and have the bigger cars isn't it?
I am an opptomist and expect humanity to do the right thing just in the nick of time.
Can anyone tell me some cheap ways to do my bit?
I meant to type three bags of recycled rubbish ( I have to take the glass by car! seperately!)
Rob, you seem a reasonable bloke and not very barmy really but back in the Price of Gas post you never answered the point about punishing pensioners that Graham made or mine about living on a limited budget generally.
Rob, you seem a reasonable bloke and not very barmy really but back in the Price of Gas post you never answered the point about punishing pensioners that Graham made or mine about living on a limited budget generally.
And build lots of lovely new nuclear powerstations too eh rob 
QUOTE(Mick H @ Apr 20 2006, 02:08 PM)
I meant to type three bags of recycled rubbish ( I have to take the glass by car! seperately!)
Rob, you seem a reasonable bloke and not very barmy really but back in the Price of Gas post you never answered the point about punishing pensioners that Graham made or mine about living on a limited budget generally.
Didn't I? You know - I don't see this as a class issue at all. You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. This is an issue which effects everyone, rich, poor, educated, ill-educated, young and old - we are all profligate and we are all set to suffer.
I don't set the price of fuel - the market does. It is moving inexorably upwards. I'm not punishing anybody - the market is punishing all of us for our collective profligacy and short-sightedness.
Does that mean the poor will suffer more? Initially, yes, although the gap between rich and poor will reduce dramatically when our system of global capitalism collapses under the weight of huge oil and gas prices.
It's already happening - the best thing anyone can do both individually and as a society is to reduce dramatically their fuel use, and become energy efficient (I'm all for helping pensioners to insulate their housing which makes far more sense to me than just handing out payments to pay for their fuel)
And we need to look to alternatives (and Jon D in the short term that might mean nuclear - but nuclear is not a long term option - not least because it is a finite energy resource - as the world turns to nuclear power watch the price of Uranium shoot up). If we don't spend the next 10-15 years developing new technology then as I said before, the wars of the 20th century will look like a playground argument in comparison.
Hi Mick,
A former poster (who was driven away by racist attitudes btw) was a part of this movement in the UK.
http://www.downsizer.net/
It takes more work to downsize then to live cheaply, it's true. But once you get going it's easier and easier.
My husband and I have clawed our way into a comfortable middle class in our middle age. But we spent many years struggling, and I hear your concerns. It is very easy for me to buy free-range chickens for instance. It's easier for me to preach to you. But until the market (as Rob correctly points out) makes organic and free range more affordable, we have to at least try. And not beat ourselves up when the comfortable make our proclamations.
A former poster (who was driven away by racist attitudes btw) was a part of this movement in the UK.
http://www.downsizer.net/
It takes more work to downsize then to live cheaply, it's true. But once you get going it's easier and easier.
My husband and I have clawed our way into a comfortable middle class in our middle age. But we spent many years struggling, and I hear your concerns. It is very easy for me to buy free-range chickens for instance. It's easier for me to preach to you. But until the market (as Rob correctly points out) makes organic and free range more affordable, we have to at least try. And not beat ourselves up when the comfortable make our proclamations.
QUOTE(barmyrob @ Apr 13 2006, 09:19 PM)
QUOTE(Sarah lady @ Apr 13 2006, 10:42 AM)
He's been gigging this stuff for a while now, great show even if it does take most audiences a while to keep up with him - I can't believe I missed the show on More4 - don't suppose you taped it?
Rob is one of my hero's, I just so wish I hadn't acted like such a pillock at the last gig before X-mas.
<shudders>
More 4 stuff is usually repeated.
I think there is a story you need to tell us SL!
We are listening...
Twas just on again tother nite
Sorry Rob but enrgy use, efficiency the environment, pollution and the food we eat are very much class issues. Our rulers the multi-nationals and industry in general pay little more than lip service to the environmental lobby because for them as always the important thing is the profit margin.
I read somewhere a while back that one of the oil companies (I can't remember which one) was investing several billion dollars in developing 'greener' and more efficient fuel use. On paper it looked good but that dollar figure represented less than one percent of the company profit and a far larger sum was being spent on exploration / exploitation in Africa!
I agree that as consumers we do have an obligation to be more more energy efficemt and environmentally aware but however much or little we do, our carbon footprint is mouselike compared to the dinasaurs of industry.
Closer to home we have the drought, with water companies imposing hosepipe bans, warning of standpipes, encouraging us to share showers and flush toilets less and setting up hotlines to grass on your neighbours while at the same time they loose millions of gallons of water every minute through damaged pipes that it won't repair or replace because of the cost to the shareholders!
Moving onto Micks point it IS exspensive and often unaffordable for people to go green. Two years ago I purchased the cheapest water butt I could find. It cost over £40. For a family on a low income even now that would represent a sixeable percentage of a weekly food budget.
Also a couple of years ago I went as a parent helper on a school trip to the local recyling plant. Educating young people about land fill and recycling etc feeds into the home. The classroom side of it was very worthwhile and extremely educational even to me. BUT it was nothing more than a marketing tool and no longer has funding.
Unfortunately my abiding memory of that trip and probably that of many of the kids was the tour of the plant. The stench the noise and the long line of conveyor belts manned by low paid mainly immigrant workers sorting OUR rubbish by hand.
From top to bottom it is all about class.
I read somewhere a while back that one of the oil companies (I can't remember which one) was investing several billion dollars in developing 'greener' and more efficient fuel use. On paper it looked good but that dollar figure represented less than one percent of the company profit and a far larger sum was being spent on exploration / exploitation in Africa!
I agree that as consumers we do have an obligation to be more more energy efficemt and environmentally aware but however much or little we do, our carbon footprint is mouselike compared to the dinasaurs of industry.
Closer to home we have the drought, with water companies imposing hosepipe bans, warning of standpipes, encouraging us to share showers and flush toilets less and setting up hotlines to grass on your neighbours while at the same time they loose millions of gallons of water every minute through damaged pipes that it won't repair or replace because of the cost to the shareholders!
Moving onto Micks point it IS exspensive and often unaffordable for people to go green. Two years ago I purchased the cheapest water butt I could find. It cost over £40. For a family on a low income even now that would represent a sixeable percentage of a weekly food budget.
Also a couple of years ago I went as a parent helper on a school trip to the local recyling plant. Educating young people about land fill and recycling etc feeds into the home. The classroom side of it was very worthwhile and extremely educational even to me. BUT it was nothing more than a marketing tool and no longer has funding.
Unfortunately my abiding memory of that trip and probably that of many of the kids was the tour of the plant. The stench the noise and the long line of conveyor belts manned by low paid mainly immigrant workers sorting OUR rubbish by hand.
From top to bottom it is all about class.
I don't honestly believe that "The Capitalists" (pantomime boo) wish to destroy the planet, after all that would endanger their profits!
There's a debate going on and environmentalists should be in the mainstream party which best suits their outlook moving the debate forward and gaining the ear of the bigwigs and bigshots. You would be wasting your time waiting for a Green Party to sweep to power.
Just like you Respect supporters out there it's purists v pragmatists the decisions are made in the middle so it's your choice centre left or centre right.
There's a debate going on and environmentalists should be in the mainstream party which best suits their outlook moving the debate forward and gaining the ear of the bigwigs and bigshots. You would be wasting your time waiting for a Green Party to sweep to power.
Just like you Respect supporters out there it's purists v pragmatists the decisions are made in the middle so it's your choice centre left or centre right.
I'm not at all sure about those domestic wind turbines either...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2136618.html
Not trying to be an anti - energy conservation is IMHO a great idea. those energy saving bulbs are getting cheaper and better all the time - I've got a few and the light quality from some of them isn't disagreeable... however I think those were the ones I bought from IKEA - which means a long drive to pick them up from the out of town megashed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2136618.html
QUOTE
*snip*
However, a study commissioned by Building for a Future, a journal specialising in sustainable construction techniques, has found that rooftop turbines are plagued by technical problems and seldom generate significant amounts of power, especially in towns and cities.
The report finds that a typical rooftop turbine produces no more than a quarter of the average home’s power needs, at best, and that in urban areas this is likely to be more like 10%-15%, because wind blows around towns in turbulent, unpredictable gusts.
In addition, older houses can face serious structural damage from the powerful sideways forces generated as the wind pushes against the turbines. This can be a particular problem if the turbines are mounted on chimneys.
In one paper Nick Martin, a construction expert on green building techniques, warns: “This is not the same thing as fitting a satellite dish. The lateral thrust exerted by these turbines on a Victorian chimney stack in a high wind would be more than sufficient to topple it. The same might be true of the gable ends of many older buildings.”
Martin also warns that the turbulence of winds in towns, due to roofs, chimneys and other obstacles, forces the machines to swing around constantly to “hunt” the wind, meaning the blades keep changing speed.
In his study, he writes: “Turbulence can wreak havoc on a wind machine, rapidly shortening its life and also drastically reducing the energy that is available.”
However, a study commissioned by Building for a Future, a journal specialising in sustainable construction techniques, has found that rooftop turbines are plagued by technical problems and seldom generate significant amounts of power, especially in towns and cities.
The report finds that a typical rooftop turbine produces no more than a quarter of the average home’s power needs, at best, and that in urban areas this is likely to be more like 10%-15%, because wind blows around towns in turbulent, unpredictable gusts.
In addition, older houses can face serious structural damage from the powerful sideways forces generated as the wind pushes against the turbines. This can be a particular problem if the turbines are mounted on chimneys.
In one paper Nick Martin, a construction expert on green building techniques, warns: “This is not the same thing as fitting a satellite dish. The lateral thrust exerted by these turbines on a Victorian chimney stack in a high wind would be more than sufficient to topple it. The same might be true of the gable ends of many older buildings.”
Martin also warns that the turbulence of winds in towns, due to roofs, chimneys and other obstacles, forces the machines to swing around constantly to “hunt” the wind, meaning the blades keep changing speed.
In his study, he writes: “Turbulence can wreak havoc on a wind machine, rapidly shortening its life and also drastically reducing the energy that is available.”
Not trying to be an anti - energy conservation is IMHO a great idea. those energy saving bulbs are getting cheaper and better all the time - I've got a few and the light quality from some of them isn't disagreeable... however I think those were the ones I bought from IKEA - which means a long drive to pick them up from the out of town megashed.
A single average size wind turbine costs £1 million each to manfacture and erect.They are inefficient per pound compared to other forms of power.They only produce a third of power per £ in their estimated lifetime, as the same investment in standard power would.
Make them cheaper and more efficient,place them in industrial areas or 20 miles out to sea,and i would consider them a viable option.At present the cost of producing them ,allied to the cost of their visual impact on the countryside,means that i cannot support them as things currently stand.
They may have a use as part of a combined stratergy in years to come, IF things like efficiency,cost,visual impact , placement,can be sorted out.
Make them cheaper and more efficient,place them in industrial areas or 20 miles out to sea,and i would consider them a viable option.At present the cost of producing them ,allied to the cost of their visual impact on the countryside,means that i cannot support them as things currently stand.
They may have a use as part of a combined stratergy in years to come, IF things like efficiency,cost,visual impact , placement,can be sorted out.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.