Re: UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!

[Morris Dovey]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
|| Eeyore wrote:
||| The Natural Philosopher wrote:
||
|||| But essentially what has to happen at government level is simple:
|||| just tax oil. More and more, Until its usage is under control.
|||| You can use the revenues to fund all sorts of useful stuff.
|||
||| Not going to happen in the USA is it ?
||
|| Good guess.
|
| Don't be so sure.
| First of all with an oilman in the seat of power, no. not yet.

Actually, I _am_ sure (not certain, but very confident it's so). I
think that Americans are willing to spend on solutions. Most are even
willing to spend perspiration on solutions. At the same time, fewer
and fewer Americans are willing to trust that anything promoted by
government is likely to be a 'solution' to any problem.

| Not until they work out that swingeing margins on more expensive
| fuel make just as much profit.

I don't think profit is as much a problem for most Americans as is the
perception of unfair/unjust business practice. No one likes to feel
that they've been taken unfair advantage of and Americans are no
different from anyone else in this regard.

| However is ultimately a PR thing: Hence Al Gore. If the thought gets
| stuck in the voters brain that paying $10 a gallon of gas is the
| way to stop their towns being devastated by storms, it might well
| be the that gets someone elected.

I don't think it'll play that way. I think that most towns would be
more devastated by $10/gal gas than by occasional storm damage. In
this area even tornados don't normally destroy entire communities the
way that kind of fuel cost would.

| And anyway OPEC and Bushanomics* is doing it for them. Except the
| money doesn't end up in the govt, it ends up in Q'ran toting islamic
| fundamentalists pockets instead.

Actually, Exxon /et al/ haven't done badly either. The fact of the
matter is that a lot of money is going to end up in the pockets of
whoever owns/produces the fuel, regardless of their particular belief
system.

 

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:28:09 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall


Greenwash is objectionable, which is why it is criticised by groups
like Friends of the Earth.

A questionable organisation if ever there was one.

See for example their criticism of the
greenwash claims of most "green" electricity suppliers.

However, that does not mean that everything which some claim to be
greenwash is in fact greenwash.

That may be true. The problem is that it only takes a few rotten
apples in the barrel. The whole spectrum of this is not interesting
enough to most people to make them feel inclined to investigate the
detail, and sort the wheat from the chaff. The remainder are
influenced by sensationalism and open to exploitation by charlatans
whether it be for their money or their hearts and minds.

For example there are some green
electricity suppliers whose claims are verifiable.

I am sure, but how many people have time or inclination to waste on
this? I haven't looked at the market reports lately but would
suspect that this would come a distant third after price and service.

 

[Eeyore]

How hve I reduced my energy usage?

<snip>

I run open fires that burn wood I cut from my land. Every little helps.

OPEN fires are are phenomenal waste of energy. About 90% of the heat goes
straight up the chimney. A proper stove such as I have will fix that.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Suddenly, when a two year old car is 1/3rd the price of a new one, we
wouldn't be changing em every two years..we would FIX them.

I'm not aware of ANYONE not fixing their cars because their value hasn't dropped
enough !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Don't be so sure.
First of all with an oilman in the seat of power, no. not yet.

Not until they work out that swingeing margins on more expensive fuel
make just as much profit.

However is ultimately a PR thing: Hence Al Gore. If the thought gets
stuck in the voters brain that paying $10 a gallon of gas is the way to
stop their towns being devastated by storms, it might well be the that
gets someone elected.

Ah ! The wonderful smell of dumbing down.


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

So basically the answer to gun crime is to fore everyone to walk around
in armour plate that can stand a .45 at 2 yards range?

I think you should promote this sort of logic. It might catch on.

In the UK we have something crazy like about 1/400 th the number of gun deaths/murders
in the USA ? Why ? At least largely because gun ownership isn't either widespread,
routine or encouraged by a gun lobby.

There has been a recent trend towards increasing (illegal) gun ownership in certain
criminal groups and that's been causing a worrying increase in deaths.

Draw your own conclusions. Guns don't make you safe. And where legal guns exist it's
that much easier for illegal ownership too.

Graham

 

[Doctor Drivel]

A questionable organisation if ever there was one.

Far too many land owners give them money.

 

[Andy Hall]

Far too many land owners give them money.

Well, quite.

 

[Arnold Walker]

Don't be so sure.
First of all with an oilman in the seat of power, no. not yet.

Not until they work out that swingeing margins on more expensive fuel make
just as much profit.

However is ultimately a PR thing: Hence Al Gore. If the thought gets stuck
in the voters brain that paying $10 a gallon of gas is the way to stop
their towns being devastated by storms, it might well be the that gets
someone elected.

One fault with your logic ....Gore is an oilman ,too.
And if why didn't he use all these really good ideas when he was VP.
I mean he had two terms to try and didn't .....
Helped Clinton cut the miltary in half ....
Drain the miltary oil reserves.....
Help put the economy in a tail spin....which Bushanomics recovered from.
Incouraged Hillary care to insurance the entire country enjoy the of
blessing
VA system type care health care and service.
Any many more great achievements.
Trade agreements with a country with more lead recalls than I remember
....hell they should add "with lead" to the label made in China.
Another trade with agreement with Mexico that would have most taxpayers
wondering, what was he thinking when he did that.

And anyway OPEC and Bushanomics* is doing it for them. Except the money
doesn't end up in the govt, it ends up in Q'ran toting islamic
fundamentalists pockets instead.

Of it course it happening during wasn't during Clinton's two terms.....

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Of it course it happening during wasn't during Clinton's two terms.....

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You can always tell a Bush supporter by the inability to construct a
comprehensible sentence.

Bush: The man who made stupidity cool.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

OPEN fires are are phenomenal waste of energy. About 90% of the heat goes
straight up the chimney. A proper stove such as I have will fix that.

hats teh upper part of the house, those chimbleys.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

I'm not aware of ANYONE not fixing their cars because their value hasn't dropped
enough !

Really? you must live in a different world.

Loads of people trade in relatively new cars because its actually better
than paying to even get them serviced.

It was standard company policy in at least one place I worked.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

(d) we're socially advanced[1] enough to act responsibly and ameriorate
the effects of our actions

And how would that be ?

By:
- conserving those resources which are obviously in most limited supply
(such as fossil fuels, which are in vastly shorter supply than
solar-derived energy such as solar, wind and wave; and geothermal)
- avoiding polluting our (children's) environment with substances which
cause/contribute to global warming or are toxic to life and difficult or
impossible to clean up.

At a more socially advanced level we could tackle some of the consequences
of our past and present behaviour such as helping restore communities and
environments which have been degraded by exploitation.

Yep Nuke Birmingham and start over.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

I can not see a large tax increase on gas. It just won't happen. Even Al
Gore couldn't do it.

Not yet, but t will de fact happen anyway as you point out..

It's amazing how little Americans care about the value of the dollar.
Not even to the point of realizing that much of oils rise has been due
to the dollars fall.

Indeed, and the very real danger that the dollar will cease to be the de
facto unit fr international transactions. That ll be a huge loss to the
USA, since in a sense they prnt all the dollars, and take a cut n the
dollar transactions.

If China unlinks the Yuan remnimbi from the dollar...by bye cheap
chinese imports, hello cheap USA produced stuff.

This is a consumption driven economy and no amout of good sense will
change that. Who is even talking about the Hubbert Peak?

But a rapidly rising energy price and huge inflation will.

If you cannot afford a new car, you will run the old one. It's that simple.

Oddly, it is the insurance companies that will drive global warming
investments. Those guys are no longer sitting on the sidelines, their
business is dependant on either alleviating the risk or charging a whole
lot more for it.

Indeed. They make their livings out of common sense and analysing
statistics.

There's a lot on the plate for the next president. All the issues that
George W Bush made worse.

Yup. The man who made stupidity kewl.

Borrow and spend..sooner or alter is payback time.

Today, it looks sooner.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Draw your own conclusions. Guns don't make you safe. And where legal guns exist it's
that much easier for illegal ownership too.

There's an old saying here that "guns make a polite society".

It all depends on who carries the guns. If nice people carry the guns,
it makes society safer. If thugs carry guns, it makes society more
dangerous.

We have this stupid politically correct view that everyone has the
same rights. If we don't want convicted felons to carry guns, then we
foolishly take away everyone's right to carry guns. That punishes the
good people in order to punish the bad. Phooey on that. Everyone
should have the right to bear arms until he proves that he is not
worthy of that right. We do have the right to discriminate against
thugs and outlaws.
-

Bob

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

There's an old saying here that "guns make a polite society".

It all depends on who carries the guns. If nice people carry the guns,
it makes society safer. If thugs carry guns, it makes society more
dangerous.

We have this stupid politically correct view that everyone has the
same rights. If we don't want convicted felons to carry guns, then we
foolishly take away everyone's right to carry guns. That punishes the
good people in order to punish the bad. Phooey on that. Everyone
should have the right to bear arms until he proves that he is not
worthy of that right. We do have the right to discriminate against
thugs and outlaws.
-

Its solved here by making handguns totally illegal - though that is a
shame, as single chamber target guns would be OK..and rifles and
shotguns only available to those who can demonstrate they need them for
hunting.

Automatic weapons of all types are totally illegal.

This makes it easy. No one can claim they need a gun for self defence as
no one can legally use one against them. Anyone caught possessing a
handgun is de facto criminal. Likewise automatic weapons.

Sadly ammunition is not so well regulated. Its harder to make ammo than
it is to make a gun to use it. Especially if you start from a semi
functional repro gun.

Peol;e who use guns here, are subject to yearly visits to teh police to
renew licenses, and somne very strict guidelines in their use. Breach of
those means no license and firearms confiscated. One of the chief
conditions is lockable gun cabinets. Ad no weapons to be carried in cars
except out of reach.

Ok this is a small island, and anyine banging off a gun at anyy pojt
above teh horizon is likley to have a good chance of hittng DSOMEONE. So
it makes a bit of sense.

The USA though - far too casual. There is no excuse for allowing
citizens to carry anti-personnel weapons without license or limitation.

If the right to bear arms was limited to rifles only, and shotguns,
things would be a lot safer.

 

[Huge]

Bob Adkins wrote:

Its solved here
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha

by making handguns totally illegal

Wrong. You can still get a Section 7 FAC if you can prove need.

- though that is a

shame, as single chamber target guns would be OK..and rifles and
shotguns only available to those who can demonstrate they need them for
hunting.

Wrong. There is no requirement to prove 'need'.

Automatic weapons of all types are totally illegal.

As they have been in the USA since the 1950s.

This makes it easy. No one can claim they need a gun for self defence as
no one can legally use one against them.

Apart from the Sinn Fein politicians who have Section 7 licenses and routinely
carry guns for self defence.

Peol;e who use guns here, are subject to yearly visits to teh police to
renew licenses,

Wrong.

If you're going to pontificate about guns, I suggest you get your facts right.

 

[Doctor Drivel]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:36:29 +0100 someone who may be "Doctor


Ah, proof by assertion.


Do they really? If I remember I will ask the next time I am in the
Friends of the Earth Scotland office. I suspect that they will be
mildly amused by this assertion.

I recall that Jonathan Porrit came under fire from Kevin Cahill who wrote
Who Owns Britain. They said that the UK is short of agricultural land. We
"pay" farmers "not" to grow crops.

Like many of these green organisations, they have been highjacked by large
land owners who have a different agenda to saving the planet. Like keeping
people out of the countryside and retaining their lucrative acres.

 

[Eeyore]

There's an old saying here that "guns make a polite society".

It all depends on who carries the guns. If nice people carry the guns,
it makes society safer. If thugs carry guns, it makes society more
dangerous.

We have this stupid politically correct view that everyone has the
same rights. If we don't want convicted felons to carry guns, then we
foolishly take away everyone's right to carry guns. That punishes the
good people in order to punish the bad. Phooey on that. Everyone
should have the right to bear arms until he proves that he is not
worthy of that right. We do have the right to discriminate against
thugs and outlaws.

The obsession with the 'right to bear arms' is a truly weird American thing.

No matter how 'nice' people may appear to be, gun ownership leads to gun crime.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Its solved here by making handguns totally illegal - though that is a
shame, as single chamber target guns would be OK..and rifles and
shotguns only available to those who can demonstrate they need them for
hunting.

Automatic weapons of all types are totally illegal.

This makes it easy. No one can claim they need a gun for self defence as
no one can legally use one against them. Anyone caught possessing a
handgun is de facto criminal. Likewise automatic weapons.

Sadly ammunition is not so well regulated. Its harder to make ammo than
it is to make a gun to use it. Especially if you start from a semi
functional repro gun.

Peol;e who use guns here, are subject to yearly visits to teh police to
renew licenses, and somne very strict guidelines in their use. Breach of
those means no license and firearms confiscated. One of the chief
conditions is lockable gun cabinets. Ad no weapons to be carried in cars
except out of reach.

Ok this is a small island, and anyine banging off a gun at anyy pojt
above teh horizon is likley to have a good chance of hittng DSOMEONE. So
it makes a bit of sense.

The USA though - far too casual. There is no excuse for allowing
citizens to carry anti-personnel weapons without license or limitation.

If the right to bear arms was limited to rifles only, and shotguns,
things would be a lot safer.

Sounds entirely rational to me. It is indeed the handguns that are the problem and there
can be no valid reason for those as anything other than an anti-person weapon.

Graham