On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:58:24 GMT, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:50:46 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:
Could you explain though please Andy?
Of course. Simple. Virtually everything that we do has some
environmental impact.
Indeed, and most of us (and I'm hoping to include you here Andy g)
try to do 'our bit' towards the bigger picture?
Absolutely. As do I - for example high efficiency codensing boiler,
long before it became mandatory.
My objection is over a) being compelled and b) being coerced by ill
thought out schemes done to maximise political effect rather than
doing positive and meaningful things.
I was saying that if a car does
say 25 mpg it will do half as many miles and create twice as much
pollution as one that does 50 mpg (all things being equal), the 25 mpg
car will also be consuming our (valuable) oil at twice the rate (so it
will last half as long)?
That's obvious but a very simplistic view.
But valid though? I know it's simplistic but it is the gist of the
issue for many folk (including me in a fairly background sense).
OK. That's your choice, but please don't assume that everybody makes
simple choices or more to the point likes having their choices made
for them.
One reason I believe it's not being rationed
now is because the government earn too much money from taxing it.
Of course. People will insist on voting for governments and policies
requiring a high take and spend of tax.
And we have better options do we (I have little knoledge re Politics
so it was a genuine question)?
Absolutely. Lower taxation, less involvement of government and less
collectivism. It demonstrably doesn't work.
This is self justification. The amount of use doesn't excuse a moral
position.
True, and I'm currently in two minds re scrapping it. However, even
doing that has it's envionmental impact? I have never claimed to be
blame free in any of this, it's all about doing what you can when you
have the choice (isn't it?).
The important thing is having the choice and not having the government
make the choice.
Do you not find 'the Government' *generally* only step in when things
get really bad.
No. They step in when political capital can be made.
Be it folk dying from passive smoking, not wearing
seat belts (saving lives, saving NHS costs) crime, large protest
marches about something, 'driving without due care (because you are on
yer mobile) etc etc?
I'm not trying to 'run your life' Andy, but do you not agree your
(our) actions have an impact on all of us? I have a 15 year old
daughter and I'm seriously concerned what sort of a world will be here
for her(and all of them) when we are long since gone?
Everybody's actions have some degree of impact on everybody else. It
would be better to focus on things that make a significant difference.
Ok, (and that was my que to you earlier) what are these things please?
I already gave good examples in connection with transport to and
through city centres. Remove the "need" by making it attractive not
to go, not by forcing people into smelly tin cans or penalising them
for wanting personal space.
It wasn't really an argument .. just my prediction ;-) 20 years ago
when I refrained from going into smoke filled places I predicted the
end to smoking in public places. It took it's time but it's getting
there. Ok, not for the reasons I hoped (health) but the insurance
implications. Dirty / uneconomic vehicles will be next along with
aircraft fuel. This will only happen of course when the cost of the
consequences outweighs the cost of the useage (in money not
environmental / moral terms).
Of course. That's why it's always better to take a positive look and
come up with a solution that is economically better and/or gives an
incentive to buy into it. This approach generally works.
Because many folk 'resist' the suggestion that something migh be good
for them (and hence all of us) do you think?
Ultimately people vote with their pockets.
The
negative approach of disincenting that which is economically or
conveniently desirable but which has some environmental or other cost
doesn't work because it goes against the natural order of things and
****es people off.
Erm, will **** *some* folk off that's for sure but that's like why we
have speed cameras all over the place .. because some folk don't
believe the limits apply to them so we all suffer (those of us who use
our discresion / experience / skill when to do what speed safely)? If
going faster than the posted limit didn't occur or there were no
(speed related) accidents then it is my belief there would be no
cameras today (at 17 grand a pop or whatever)?
I also use my mobile phone as little as
possible ..
Riiiighht.....
I have word from engineers that have been involved in the testing of
some of these phones and their impact on us healthwise .. let's say
they leave their phones in the car most the time. Again, a prediction
of mine (and I felt this before I heard the above) is that we will
see a direct relationship between mobile phone useage and certian
illnesses in the future.
Possibly, but one doesn't have to hold the radio next to the head.
They told us smoking was 'harmless' at the
beginning .. ;-(
It is at the beginning. The problems come with keeping up the habit.
Personally I have never smoked because I don't see the point. I much
prefer to eat and drink in places without smoke. I suspect that the
trend, even without legislation, will be for more and more places to
be smoke free.
But it's not just the cost is it Andy? You have already said there is
a 'moral position'.
Of course there is. But moral positions never fly unless the
economics work.
Shame though sometimes eh?
Well, when I'm emperor, we can have moral positions......
For
example, what are the 'real issues' please?
In the case of congestion charging, which is where this started, the
real issue is outmoded business culture which insists on putting
people physically in one place and a city centre of all places to do
their work.
Ok, agreed about the effect but can't comment about the buisness model
;-)
snip stuff As cars
have become more fuel efficient the viability (and 'greenness') of
electric vehicles become less tennable (so I don't use it).
All of these points are fine. The point is that people should have
the choice.
But they can't have complete choice / freedom these days can they
Andy, othewise it will be chaos?
The only reason we don't have complete anarchy is there are enough law
abiding citizens to maintain the status quo (just).
I would argue that there is too much in some areas.
Tip that over the
edge and the Police would be overwhelmed.
THey are anyway because emphases are wrong.
I believe the general relaxation in disipline, the dumbing down of
school standards and a total lack of respect is our undoing.
I completely agree with you there. Too much emphasis on spin of
"equal" opportunity rather than encouraging people to make their own
opportunities. Too much emphasis on collectivism rather than
responsible empowerment of the individual.
Without respect for the Police, Teachers, Parents etc, some kids today
(?) are growing up knowing no 'rules' whatsoever, hence the goverment
have to 'interfere' (on behalf of the rest of us) to try to set things
straight?
Well that's what I think anyway ;-)
On that we agree.
All the best ..
T i m
p.s. In years to come, when we are all walking around wearing
breathing masks and with all the fossil fuel being burnt we may well
look back and say "remember when we used to run fuel burning vehicles
and were all breathing the exhaust fumes into our lungs"!
--
..andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|