On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:45:35 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
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 rich country because of
self centeredness and half baked political ideals.

I didn't say that at all.

You DID!

I Know what I said..... You created the conclusion.


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

Soemtimes. In other situations it is not.

I am not opposed to energy saving
in a sensible way at all.

Well what are you on about then?

I explained that quite clearly in the material that you snipped.




- 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

I see no measures to improve the efficiency of vehicles.

That does indirectly since manufacturers design cars to meet income
tax and road tax cost breakpoints.




the legislation

Car makers can easily be legislated. House building can be easily
legislated. Boier are to be 86% in ayears time - legislation.


Appliances can be easily. New house building can be to a point.
Additions and changes to existing properties are much harder to
control via legislation unless you plan to employ a whole load of
eco-inspectors going door to door with power of entry.

I don't somehow see that going down too well.


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.

There isn't as we are choking ourselves and running out of fossil fuel.

Everything is relative. Economic measures will have an impact on
that far more quickly than can be achieved by mountains of legislation
that is unenforcable.




Try
and get a conservatory company to install heating in.

No need, it's an easy DIY job.

Poinless comment.

So why did you make it?



They are supposed to be unheated
rooms.

Says who?

The regs.

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

Go to the council and ask about conservatories and heating in them.

No. You tell me where, in law, or even in Approved Documents (which
remember are a guideline on *one* or a few ways to do things and do
not have force of law) this is stated.



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.

I repeat: "A glass box cannot be well insulated no matter how hard you try."

That depends on your definition of "well". Personally I prefer to
see out and to be able to breathe fresh air when I want - not to sit
in a hermetically sealed box.


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,

I do think, or want, to be in charge of others lives. I don't other
people's lives effecting me, and us, and the future generations.


More confused meander....


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl