Not living in a tent? They're after you!
Discussion
OK there's no clear message as to what they'll do when you're caught, but take a look at this gem
[quote=Oxford University Environmental Change Institute]3.2 million homes must be demolished over the next 45 years to fulfil Government aspirations for tackling global warming[/quote]
Well at least they've woken up to the fact that, as buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide as transport, [i]not[/i] doing or saying anything would make the intelligent idiot academics, pinko green - or is that mushy brown ;) - pressure groups, true believer disciples and taxophile politicians look even more stupid than they do already. Difficult but possible.
:nuts:
Suggestions on a postcard or tent peg to the OUECI...or PH
[quote=Oxford University Environmental Change Institute]3.2 million homes must be demolished over the next 45 years to fulfil Government aspirations for tackling global warming[/quote]
Well at least they've woken up to the fact that, as buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide as transport, [i]not[/i] doing or saying anything would make the intelligent idiot academics, pinko green - or is that mushy brown ;) - pressure groups, true believer disciples and taxophile politicians look even more stupid than they do already. Difficult but possible.
:nuts:
Suggestions on a postcard or tent peg to the OUECI...or PH
JagLover said:If you're talking about saving owners or tenants money, with the government doing an efficient job organising and bankrolling the replacement housing stock then fine.
It does make some sort of sense. A modern house can be built to be much more energy efficient than an old one.
However we are still knocking at the door of the global loony bin by tolerating politicians and 'the best scientists money can buy' who would have us believe in man-made global warming when the atmosphere is cooling more than heating up, not to mention suggesting that carbon dioxide is a means of 'controlling' climate when carbon dioxide levels are an effect not a cause. Never mind that the true natural causes of climate change are totally beyond our control
By allowing all these assumptions and focusing on pragmatic elements we will encourage more lunacy than you could shake a green at.
I'd much rather live in a drafty Edwardian terrace than a modern building. At least mine has attention to detail, and interesting features, compared to the faceless boxes now being built.
Perhaps they should ban PVCu in favour of wooden windows and doors, that would achieve more for the environment.
Perhaps they should ban PVCu in favour of wooden windows and doors, that would achieve more for the environment.
I wonder what the environmental cost of demolishing and building the replacement home is compared to the saving. I would hazard a guess that, over the lifetime of the house would be negligible. Even more so when compared to the cost of fitting decent insulation and energy saving appliances!!!
Luncay of the highest order.
Luncay of the highest order.
iaint said:
I wonder what the environmental cost of demolishing and building the replacement home is compared to the saving. I would hazard a guess that, over the lifetime of the house would be negligible. Even more so when compared to the cost of fitting decent insulation and energy saving appliances!
Which is the whole problem with targets. Everywhere that targets are introduced, all attention is paid to achieving the target, while common sense and quality go out of the window.
Twincam16 said:
and you can bet your bottom dollar - no parking space for so much as a single Smart.
Thats not entirely true, some planning offices are now putting minimum parking restrictions on developments, to encourage people out of the major cities, and hence spread the wealth generated by the current housing boom. eg some areas of Cheshire/Derbyshire trying to get people to live outside of Manchester.
Regards
Iain
JagLover said:
It does make some sort of sense. A modern house can be built to be much more energy efficient than an old one.
I would be interested to see when the lower heating emissions match the emissions used in construction, the 'payback' period..
Apparently they'd forgotten to include minor things like the resources and fuel used and pollution and other emissions generated in the demolition and reconstruction.
Cement manufacture is one of the biggest fuel users already.
I wonder if they use any of that stuff in building?
turbobloke said:
OK there's no clear message as to what they'll do when you're caught, but take a look at this gem
Oxford University Environmental Change Institute said:
3.2 million homes must be demolished over the next 45 years to fulfil Government aspirations for tackling global warming
Three million, one hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine..........
AaaaaaaaHaaaaa Haaaarrrrrr Ha Harrrrrrrr.........
. As I understand it, areas of tightly packed terraced housing are to be "thinned out" and replanned giving more space to the remaining homes, so maybe it's "not quite" so daft. After all, the compact close living victorian streets with no room for cars or other ammenities of modern life are surely a thing of the past. But this way a supply of cheap housing will still exist but within a better setting.
D Fender said:
It does make some sort of sense. A modern house can be built to be much more energy efficient than an old one.
I would be interested to see when the lower heating emissions match the emissions used in construction, the 'payback' period..
Apparently they'd forgotten to include minor things like the resources and fuel used and pollution and other emissions generated in the demolition and reconstruction.
They usually do.
D Fender said:
Cement manufacture is one of the biggest fuel users already.
I wonder if they use any of that stuff in building?
Indeed. It is a sobering thought to look around an urban landscape and consider how much fuel it would use to heat pretty well every artificial object you see to a fierce yellow-red heat... and reflect that as part of its manufacture it already has been.
chassis 33 said:
and you can bet your bottom dollar - no parking space for so much as a single Smart.
Thats not entirely true, some planning offices are now putting minimum parking restrictions on developments, to encourage people out of the major cities, and hence spread the wealth generated by the current housing boom. eg some areas of Cheshire/Derbyshire trying to get people to live outside of Manchester.
Regards
Iain
You sure about that? I live in Cheshire when I'm at home, and I know the sort of developments you mean. Yes, the offices have a fair few parking spaces, but we're talking about houses.
The houses look like scale models of houses. I used to live in one (in York, but they're the same everywhere) - no distinction between the pavement and the road, squared off speed mountains, and one parking space per house that was so small that my housemate, who owned a Volvo 740, had to fit it diagonally across ours and our neighbours driveways (they didn't have a car). If anyone came to visit in a car, they blocked the road (no pavements - no clear distinction as to where to stick it). The house's electrics were dodgy, suffered power surges constantly, the walls were literally cardboard (rattled when you slammed doors etc) and my bedroom in particular was about the size of a broom cupboard.
And I see housing developments like this being put up everywhere at the behest of the likes of Prescott.
Yes, your workplace will let you park, but the people who built your house won't.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff