Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!
Discussion
CamMoreRon said:
Why should this even be a question I have to answer?
1 - I'm not in charge of dictating the world's power consumption.
2 - Neither is the UK government.
What China and India do is ultimately up to them, and we can only offer guidance via diplomacy. Obviously there is a big problem, as they are developing so rapidly and need to increase power generation to suit this, so it is a complex issue.
How do we heat our homes without gas? Well.. obviously we can't turn the gas off overnight and expect everyone to be warm. There has to be a push to insulate people's homes (which there is) and a similar push to build new homes with highly efficient insulation (which there also is) and to implement Green technology (such as ground / air heat exchange and solar heating) in place of gas heating (which there also is, but generally this is done on self-built or renovated property and therefore not on the required scale). Many people have successfully achieved this, so it is absolutely by no means impossible.
Why should humans bother to look after the planet, when all previous species haven't?
Well.. we are the first species to be aware of the effect of our actions on the natural world. If we are to sit back with our mouths open and shovel resources in to our fat stomachs without a care, based on the (ridiculous) idea that we could be wiped out any day by a comet or asteroid, well that is an incredibly ignorant / lazy / selfish way of thinking.
We successfully (ish) landed a probe on a comet earlier this year, and we track a vast number of large celestial objects with great accuracy. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that it would be impossible to prevent a disaster of this type.
We do not OWN the planet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to ensure our impact on it is as positive as possible. It really is an incredibly delusion to think that we are entitled to bleed it dry while we have the chance.
Why didn't you save yourself a heap of typing and simply say "I have no credible answer"??1 - I'm not in charge of dictating the world's power consumption.
2 - Neither is the UK government.
What China and India do is ultimately up to them, and we can only offer guidance via diplomacy. Obviously there is a big problem, as they are developing so rapidly and need to increase power generation to suit this, so it is a complex issue.
How do we heat our homes without gas? Well.. obviously we can't turn the gas off overnight and expect everyone to be warm. There has to be a push to insulate people's homes (which there is) and a similar push to build new homes with highly efficient insulation (which there also is) and to implement Green technology (such as ground / air heat exchange and solar heating) in place of gas heating (which there also is, but generally this is done on self-built or renovated property and therefore not on the required scale). Many people have successfully achieved this, so it is absolutely by no means impossible.
Why should humans bother to look after the planet, when all previous species haven't?
Well.. we are the first species to be aware of the effect of our actions on the natural world. If we are to sit back with our mouths open and shovel resources in to our fat stomachs without a care, based on the (ridiculous) idea that we could be wiped out any day by a comet or asteroid, well that is an incredibly ignorant / lazy / selfish way of thinking.
We successfully (ish) landed a probe on a comet earlier this year, and we track a vast number of large celestial objects with great accuracy. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that it would be impossible to prevent a disaster of this type.
We do not OWN the planet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to ensure our impact on it is as positive as possible. It really is an incredibly delusion to think that we are entitled to bleed it dry while we have the chance.
CamMoreRon said:
the (ridiculous) idea that we could be wiped out any day by a comet or asteroid,
Far from ridiculous, perfectly plausible. Not very likely on any given day, true, but it could feck you up pretty badly if you got unlucky.CamMoreRon said:
We successfully (ish) landed a probe on a comet earlier this year, and we track a vast number of large celestial objects with great accuracy. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that it would be impossible to prevent a disaster of this type.
You really haven't researched this have you? Currently we have only the most sketchy ideas about what we could do about a potential impactor even if it were well tracked and we had several years notice. A fresh comet from the Oort cloud might only give us months notice and would be going very, very fast when it hit.It isn't all that uncommon for us to have close encounters with potentially nasty stuff that we haven't spotted before a couple of weeks of closest pass.
gazza285 said:
Pulled by a filthy Diesel engine I hope.
No.Pulled by a euro-compliant diesel-electric built in the US from recycled steel.
Except the one that caused havoc for Hull to Manchester/Liverpool commuters this morning creating around 5 hours of delays (at £46 per minute TDA / penalties).
Oops...
CamMoreRon said:
The green subsidies we have now are hated by accountancy types, because they cannot see past the money being invested, but this is a critical step in weaning ourselves off reliance on fossil fuels. If you can't understand why that must be important then you should have a good think about how sustainable the current paradigm of "burning stuff" might be.
May I ask you a direct question on your personal and conflicting views?From you posts I have learned two facts.
fact 1: You seem to think we need to take more money off the middle and upper classes and give it to the poor.
Fact 2: Now as the above quoted paragraph states you believe in green subsidies.
This hurts the poor those in council homes and blocks of flats pay these expensive subsidies on their heating bills in order for richer people to have solar panels and cheaper bills.
This is obviously in conflict with each other so I wondered which one is your preference. Subsidies going from the poor to the rich or going from the rich to the poor.
CamMoreRon said:
BGARK said:
BGARK said:
CamMoreRon said:
Are you aware of another place human beings can go to in the event that we irreparably damage this planet? No. You aren't.
I asked earlier but was ignored, what are you doing about China & India?1 - I'm not in charge of dictating the world's power consumption.
2 - Neither is the UK government.
What China and India do is ultimately up to them, and we can only offer guidance via diplomacy. Obviously there is a big problem, as they are developing so rapidly and need to increase power generation to suit this, so it is a complex issue.
How do we heat our homes without gas? Well.. obviously we can't turn the gas off overnight and expect everyone to be warm. There has to be a push to insulate people's homes (which there is) and a similar push to build new homes with highly efficient insulation (which there also is) and to implement Green technology (such as ground / air heat exchange and solar heating) in place of gas heating (which there also is, but generally this is done on self-built or renovated property and therefore not on the required scale). Many people have successfully achieved this, so it is absolutely by no means impossible.
Why should humans bother to look after the planet, when all previous species haven't?
Well.. we are the first species to be aware of the effect of our actions on the natural world. If we are to sit back with our mouths open and shovel resources in to our fat stomachs without a care, based on the (ridiculous) idea that we could be wiped out any day by a comet or asteroid, well that is an incredibly ignorant / lazy / selfish way of thinking.
We successfully (ish) landed a probe on a comet earlier this year, and we track a vast number of large celestial objects with great accuracy. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that it would be impossible to prevent a disaster of this type.
We do not OWN the planet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to ensure our impact on it is as positive as possible. It really is an incredible delusion to think that we are entitled to bleed it dry while we have the chance.
Perhaps you are like a bully that is going round to neighbours on your street and forcing them to turn off their heating or pay you more, half then freeze to death or become poorer and poorer.
Whilst you are bullying your neighbours a few streets a way they are burning 100m high piles of car tyres but you think that's ok because its out of your line of sight.
legzr1 said:
In a fair society, taking extra taxation from someone earning £millions to better the lives of those earning £low thousands makes a deal of sense to me.
Most of the Green policies make less sense.
I don't get them either as the only people they hurt are the poor. It wont stop an arab filling his aventador up, but somebody going to work for minimum wage will certainly notice.Most of the Green policies make less sense.
BGARK said:
Eh?
Perhaps you are like a bully that is going round to neighbours on your street and forcing them to turn off their heating or pay you more, half then freeze to death or become poorer and poorer.
Whilst you are bullying your neighbours a few streets a way they are burning 100m high piles of car tyres but you think that's ok because its out of your line of sight.
Here's an obscure thought - what position would we have been in if the energy production in this country had been kept 'in house' rather than sold, allowing government to structure pricing (perhaps introducing a tier system where those able to pay more do so and vice versa)?Perhaps you are like a bully that is going round to neighbours on your street and forcing them to turn off their heating or pay you more, half then freeze to death or become poorer and poorer.
Whilst you are bullying your neighbours a few streets a way they are burning 100m high piles of car tyres but you think that's ok because its out of your line of sight.
Just a thought rather than damning Tory policy
legzr1 said:
gazza285 said:
Pulled by a filthy Diesel engine I hope.
No.Pulled by a euro-compliant diesel-electric built in the US( ? US...North America I believe ) from recycled steel.
Except the one that caused havoc for Hull to Manchester/Liverpool commuters this morning creating around 5 hours of delays (at £46 per minute TDA / penalties).
Oops...
What group of clueless decision makers believed this Nation could both survive and thrive with its Industrial spine surgically removed thus undermining the lifeblood of the dreaded Unions which also played their part?
For me, this image I captured about twenty years ago shows a North American Built Class 66 purchased and imported over here at huge expense hauling a dedicated UK Company Freight Train. Any idea the contents of that train's wagons?
Give you a small clue. The corporate colour scheme of the now extinct company is a dead giveaway ...
Good old UK. Excelling at getting far too many things quite simply wrong.
Still, who needs Industry? The banks, key and button pressing document shufflers in the City will suffice and ensure our Nation's continued well being. We CAN survive with an indigenous Industrial Spine.
Yeah ... right. The evidence is all around us. Who needs to actually make stuff? We can consume ourselves to continued prosperity. Can't we?
CamMoreRon said:
turbobloke said:
Personal angle empty rhetoric is all you have to offer. The numbers have been posted in this and other threads, covering all the points you fail to bluff on, and more, including excess winter deaths in the elderly and the result of taking power generation down to Green levels of idiocy.
Selective use of information is all you have to offer.Check and mate. Mate.
CamMoreRon said:
turbobloke said:
Personal angle empty rhetoric is all you have to offer. The numbers have been posted in this and other threads, covering all the points you fail to bluff on, and more, including excess winter deaths in the elderly and the result of taking power generation down to Green levels of idiocy.
Selective use of information is all you have to offer.Check and mate. Mate.
CamMoreRon said:
Axionknight said:
Scuffers said:
so, keep on being a pedantic tosser to avoid answering the question.
good going...
Speaking of that, I still don't know what a TMW is, good going...
I did ask though.and the 850Twh is not made up, it's the UK's gas consumption for 2013.
no worries though, we can replace it all with pixie dust from the sky fairies
MGJohn said:
Providing lots of fine jobs and much needed work for the North American Railway Rolling Stock Builders whilst our former Industry factories turning out similar and other product lie derelict or now covered in high density housing.
What group of clueless decision makers believed this Nation could both survive and thrive with its Industrial spine surgically removed thus undermining the lifeblood of the dreaded Unions which also played their part?
For me, this image I captured about twenty years ago shows a North American Built Class 66 purchased and imported over here at huge expense hauling a dedicated UK Company Freight Train. Any idea the contents of that train's wagons?
Give you a small clue. The corporate colour scheme of the now extinct company is a dead giveaway ...
Good old UK. Excelling at getting far too many things quite simply wrong.
Still, who needs Industry? The banks, key and button pressing document shufflers in the City will suffice and ensure our Nation's continued well being. We CAN survive with an indigenous Industrial Spine.
Yeah ... right. The evidence is all around us. Who needs to actually make stuff? We can consume ourselves to continued prosperity. Can't we?
Whilst I agree with the tone of your post there's a few things that need sorting out.What group of clueless decision makers believed this Nation could both survive and thrive with its Industrial spine surgically removed thus undermining the lifeblood of the dreaded Unions which also played their part?
For me, this image I captured about twenty years ago shows a North American Built Class 66 purchased and imported over here at huge expense hauling a dedicated UK Company Freight Train. Any idea the contents of that train's wagons?
Give you a small clue. The corporate colour scheme of the now extinct company is a dead giveaway ...
Good old UK. Excelling at getting far too many things quite simply wrong.
Still, who needs Industry? The banks, key and button pressing document shufflers in the City will suffice and ensure our Nation's continued well being. We CAN survive with an indigenous Industrial Spine.
Yeah ... right. The evidence is all around us. Who needs to actually make stuff? We can consume ourselves to continued prosperity. Can't we?
EWS was a UK based FOC owned by a North American/ Canadian company and came from the ashes of Loadhaul/RES etc (still publically owned at the time but being run as a private entity in readiness for the great 'sell off').
Exciting times for those in the industry with enormous changes in culture (and a trebling of wages inside three years for frontline staff! - that sweetened to pill for many...).
I was lucky enough to meet the 'main man' on a couple of occasions - a real visionary with vast experience worldwide - Ed Burkhart.
Unfortunately, he lost his position in a boardroom coo whilst on holiday - such is the way of business stateside
He beat the Germans first time round.
He wasn't there second time round and now we have DBS in charge.
Those wagons look like 'continentals' - carrying British steel slab and coil to Europe - those were the days
As to the class 66 - as I'm sure you're aware, reliability, cost of,purchase and cost of running made them an easy purchase for a North American company new to Europe with an empire to build.
Naturally, home politics and pricing would have a massive bearing on purchase choices too.
But, and it pains me to say this - which UK company could have completed an order for 250 euro-compliant locomotives within budget at anywhere near the cost?
Still, the consolation was the order for HTA multi-product wagons which were designed, built and tested in York (U.K.
) - thousands of the things were made are still doing great service.Unfortunately, 'profit' went first to North America and now to a (publically ran!!) German operation.
The plant is mothballed now but some skilled workers made a few bob for a couple of years.
Scuffers said:
and the 850Twh is not made up, it's the UK's gas consumption for 2013.
no worries though, we can replace it all with pixie dust from the sky fairies
That figure doesn't give a true indication though does it?no worries though, we can replace it all with pixie dust from the sky fairies
In 2013 Gas prices were pretty low (with effects from the Russia/Kiev lark making things more unpredictable of course)that why so much was used.
Burning of coal and biomass went the other way.
This year (and most years previous to 2013) coal and biomass is cheap, gas isn't so the figures should normalise.
The fire at Didcot B won't be helping gas burning either.
I'm not suggesting you cherry-picked 2013 figures to prove a point btw - I'm guessing they're the latest up to date figures available
Thorodin said:
MGJohn said:
The answer, contraception. Worldwide individually self-imposed sustainable breeding limits with advice and education guidelines to establish that. Ever more massive and growing already massive populations aspiring for more and prepared to go and get it. How long before those already taking a bigger share have concerns about that continuing? Could simply be a matter of time before those increasing pressures result in the worst forms of short term decision making and folks, irrespective of any religious or political stances, start throwing bombs about. Ever bigger and ever hotter bombs to maintain their share or quest for more.
(My selective edit)I quote your post to try to refresh the thread following puerile and sterile and extremely ill mannered name calling of lengthy antagonistic warfare on here. Thought it was more adult, to be honest.
A major flaw in the issue of world wide contraception is that in many underdeveloped countries children are seen as essential to survival. From agriculture, community and the horrible use as marriage tools, having many children is deliberate rather than inevitable or accidental. It's not just a matter of limiting births, rather a radical change of culture. No chance, I fear.
crankedup said:
Just reading a few pages of this thread and your post popped up about China and India. China has some of the most polluted cities in the world, thanks to their massive industrialisation of recent decades. Their continuing use of coal fired power is now biting where it hurts, their very late realisation that they cannot continue present power production methods or working methods has dawned upon them, apparently.
We are asked to believe that the Chinese will shift away from coal fired power production is preposterous. Hope may come to hand through further development of clean coal technology?
The Chinese are spending $100m+ a year researching molten salt reactors; they aim to have a salt cooled reactor up and running by 2020 and a full MSR five years after that. The Indians are spending less but are researching in similar directions. The US and the UK are effectively twiddling thumbs and watching from the stands, although there is academic interchange with the Chinese academy of sciences who are running the show. We are asked to believe that the Chinese will shift away from coal fired power production is preposterous. Hope may come to hand through further development of clean coal technology?
legzr1 said:
That figure doesn't give a true indication though does it?
I'm not suggesting you cherry-picked 2013 figures to prove a point btw - I'm guessing they're the latest up to date figures available
indication of what?I'm not suggesting you cherry-picked 2013 figures to prove a point btw - I'm guessing they're the latest up to date figures available
it is what it is?
as for 2013, yes last figure avaliable, (from here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
(according to that, 2013 was 1% lower than 2012)
And scare resident greenie has failed to justify anything but was promoting heat pumps...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19511637
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Grimsby-area-res...
That went well!
This is what happens when stupid people force their rhetoric on poor people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19511637
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Grimsby-area-res...
That went well!
This is what happens when stupid people force their rhetoric on poor people.
Edited by Scuffers on Tuesday 16th December 19:22
legzr1 said:
That figure doesn't give a true indication though does it?
In 2013 Gas prices were pretty low (with effects from the Russia/Kiev lark making things more unpredictable of course)that why so much was used.
Burning of coal and biomass went the other way.
It's a pretty good indication. High but not ridiculously so.In 2013 Gas prices were pretty low (with effects from the Russia/Kiev lark making things more unpredictable of course)that why so much was used.
Burning of coal and biomass went the other way.
We use a lot of gas.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff