Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:41:11 -0000 Mary Fisher wrote :
I suggest that you are antagonistic without knowing the facts. It's
just an opinion and I still don't un derstand it - but I don't need
to.

I am interested in hard facts: I write SAP Rating software. Yes, of
course there are ethical firms selling systems, equally there have
been more than a few media reports of high pressure salesman making
totally untrue claims as to what people will save. The plain fact is
that for most people, if you heat your hot water by gas, the economics
of a professionally installed system do not make sense. It's about a
feelgood factor, being seen to do some, whereas if you want to save
the planet, paying to have an old person's loft insulated would make
more sense.

I am more an more coming round to that way of thinking too. The more
actual real sums I do, the less most of all the more popular greeny
******** makes any kind of sense.
For this country, there are only two viable ways to get carbon
emmissions down to what I feel are sfae levels.,

Crash the population to about 30% of what it is today, and go back to a
17th century pre-industrial lifestyle.

Or build nuclear power stations and go to an 'all electric' society.

Nothing else is remotely feasible to achieve the sorts of reductions we
seem to need.

Everything else is just paddling in the shallows of the problem.

The greeny ******** relies on te fact that Nu Laber has been in power so
long, that no one can actually DO sums anymore, and its really gone out
of fashion to use mathematics and reason and logic to solve problems.
Religion has take its place instead, trust in ideology, slash the tyres
of a 4WD and you Will Be Saved.