On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:47:33 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:34:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

As millions die of hypothermia. My GOD! What warped logic. What self
centeredness.

Not really - just pragmatism.

So millions of people should die of hypothermia in a very country because of
self centeredness and half baked political ideals.

I didn't say that at all.

I was simply making the point that economics is a far more effective
tool than legislation.

I am not opposed to energy saving in a sensible way at all. I am
opposed to ineffective legislation that is simply done for political
positioning and window dressing, having no basis in practicality and
enforceability and which is out of context with other issues and
methods.



In this case, somewhat ineffective
as well. How would you prevent people
from wasting energy by legislation?

- Have housing, new and renovated at
superinsulation levels. Adopt the
German Passiv Solar regs.

Limited applicability to existing housing stock

Will make effect in time. We are short of 4 million homes, if all were
German passiv...

Well they're not.



- Legislate that cars are to be cleaner
and more economic, ridding ourselves
of the 19th century technology we drive around on.

Already being done.

Prey tell. Where?

Road tax based on ecological factors


- Better town planning, preventing over use of cars and more homely and
to
people scale environments.

At the point that public transport is
worthwhile, people will use it.

My God, he can think.

I don't expect public transport to be worthwhile in less than
geological time, however.



You don't need to be that bright to see what can be done to improve
matters
for everyone.

Exactly. But legislation alone won't achieve it.

The private sector has not, so legislation it will have to be.

It is ompletely pointless to legislate if there is no way to enforce
the legislation unless one is simply window dressing.
This is not a public/private sector issue anyway.



People make
decisions primarily based on economic and convenience criteria.

So legislation is needed to make sure what they buy conforms.

There is already more than enough of that. It can easily be
demonstrated that if something is desirable enough, people will find a
way around the legislation.




Have a law against putting heating under
patios or opening windows?

You can't put heating in conservatories.

Yes you can. It's quite easy really.

You are not supposed to.

Who said?


If you build a new conservatory and the building
inspector gets to know there is heating in there you are in trouble.

Rubbish. As far as I am aware, the only requirements as long as the
conservatory is otherwise exempted from building regulations are to
have glass that is conformant with the safety requirements and to have
separate control for any heating. Exemption does require a thermal
separation from the house as though the divide is to the outside.

Try
and get a conservatory company to install heating in.

No need, it's an easy DIY job.




They are supposed to be unheated
rooms.

Says who?

The regs.

Which "regs". Where? Please provide the reference in the
appropriate Statutory Instrument.



Millions do and add to global warming. Many find that 1/3 of their
heating bill is heating a glass uninsulated box at the back of the house.

That depends on location, construction and design.

Has anyone made a conservator that is well insulated? A glass box cannot be
well insulated no matter how hard you try.

That's a matter of degree. One can specify the glazing to a level
equivalent to that of windows in the house - i.e. low emissivity and
gas filled.



This is unacceptable.

That isn't for you to decide.

It is, and many millions more think the same way too.

You may think that you are in charge of other people's lives, but the
notion is delusory.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl