The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Do you seriously think reducing western labour rates to a couple of dollars a DAY would help
the poor ?

Yup. If they and everyone else are getting $150 a day anyway to do
nothing.

Tell me who gets $150 a day for doing 'nothing' ?

Not even the ultra-benevolent EU countries pay the unemployed that much. It's more like $24 a day
here.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don't enforce a minimum wage. Remove income tax. And subsidise EVERYONE.
History shows this just hurts the poor.
No, it would actually improve matters.

Instead of cheap labour being in China,it would be right there on your
doorstep.
Do you seriously think reducing western labour rates to a couple of dollars a DAY would help
the poor ?
Yup.

I'm sorry, but you've totally 'lost the plot'.

In the likes of China or India a couple of dollars a day is a liveable wage because of the low
cost of basic goods and services in these highly managed economies. Without those ARTIFICIALLY low
costs, such wages are unsustainable.

Graham

You *artificially lower western costs by subsidising labour. Not taxing it.


It appears you only read the part of what I wrote that confirmed your
prejudices.

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Do you seriously think reducing western labour rates to a couple of dollars a DAY would help
the poor ?
Yup. If they and everyone else are getting $150 a day anyway to do
nothing.

Tell me who gets $150 a day for doing 'nothing' ?

George bush gets a lot more than that. And he does worse than nothing.
he destroys things.



Not even the ultra-benevolent EU countries pay the unemployed that much. It's more like $24 a day
here.

Well the actual level is not as important - it would match to the 'basic
living standard' of the country.

The theory is you keep necessities free of tax, and labour. You tax
consumption of the most socially damaging sort of luxuries, you tax
fossil energy and you tax other scarce resource HARD.

What you are trying to achieve is a mechanism that does no rely on
legislation, but taxation and subsidy, to bend society towards a new
pattern of living.

You don't attempt to second guess what that might be, you merely work to
make things you know are trouble increasingly expensive. Oil. Debt. Raw
materials.

And you relieve tax on what you want to encourage. Work. Savings. Used
manufacturing goods.

Let people then decide how to spend what they have.


Graham

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:59:12 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
And those issues are no worse than e.g. fitting DG windows, or
rewiring. Not hard, juts need redecorating afterwards.

Anything that involves increasing wall thicknesses may have knock-on
effects. If we did as some countries and gave the floor area as part
of the sale particulars for a house the effect would be obvious.

I probably wouldn't buy a property without a SAP report these days
frankly. And would knock off a lot for a poor rating.

The vast majority of people wouldn't. But tax changes will probably
change this before too long.


Just high energy prices.

Saving £300 a year means a property at sort of 7% mortgage rates, is
worth 300/0.07= £4300 more, more or less.

Double energy prices an its worth nearly £10k more.

If domestic heating oil and gas was taxed like road fuel, the shops
would be sold out of insulation in minutes.

My home heating bill would be something like £4500 a year...that would
mean that ANYTHING I did to save a therm or to would be worth paying
serious money for. Solar panels, heat pumps, paying the wife to shut the
windows every time the heating is on..

Bob Adkins wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:23:53 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


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.
-


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.



Bob

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:59:12 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
And those issues are no worse than e.g. fitting DG windows, or
rewiring. Not hard, juts need redecorating afterwards.

Anything that involves increasing wall thicknesses may have knock-on
effects. If we did as some countries and gave the floor area as part
of the sale particulars for a house the effect would be obvious.

I probably wouldn't buy a property without a SAP report these days
frankly. And would knock off a lot for a poor rating.

The vast majority of people wouldn't. But tax changes will probably
change this before too long.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

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

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

A questionable organisation if ever there was one.

Ah, proof by assertion.

Far too many land owners give them money.

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.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:36:29 +0100 someone who may be "Doctor
Drivel" wrote this:-

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

A questionable organisation if ever there was one.

Ah, proof by assertion.

Far too many land owners give them money.

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.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:34:21 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Probably no gov't regulations either !

Maybe Greek regulations are like their law (as was descibed to me) on
motorcycle helmets: they'e compulsory, if you feel like it ;-)


--
John Stumbles

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:57:21 +0100 someone who may be "Doctor
Drivel" wrote this:-

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.

As I said, if I remember I will ask. I imagine it will bring some
mild amusement to those in the office.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Bob Adkins wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:23:53 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

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.

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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Adkins wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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.


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

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

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

A questionable organisation if ever there was one.

Ah, proof by assertion.

Far too many land owners give them money.

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.

Apparently 'set aside' has just been set aside. So no longer. They can now use
the land to grow biofuel perhaps ? Willow makes a good fuel crop AIUI. Shouldn't
need much in the way of cultivation, fertiliser, insecticide and the like.

Graahm

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote
"Doctor Drivel" wrote this:-

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

A questionable organisation if ever there was one.

Ah, proof by assertion.

Far too many land owners give them money.

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.

'Hijacked' simply = democracy in action.

Did these landowners achieve their ends by force or something ?

Graham

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:57:21 +0100 someone who may be "Doctor
Drivel" wrote this:-

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.

As I said, if I remember I will ask. I imagine it will bring some
mild amusement to those in the office.

I recall an email exchange I had with one of their top men once. It was like
talking to the Countryside Alliance, whose prime concern is not Green
matters. These people may actually believe what they are doing is right for
people and nature. The fact is, it is not. All they want to do is keep
people out of the countryside. Naive to say the least.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:20:07 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

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.

You mean like the mercury in CFL's? :-)


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:57:51 +0100 someone who may be "Doctor
Drivel" wrote this:-

I recall an email exchange I had with one of their top men once. It was like
talking to the Countryside Alliance,

Really. I bumped into the "top man" of FoE Scotland not that long
ago and I have worked for some people organising the Countryside
Alliance, though not directly with their Countryside Alliance hats
on. I can tell the difference, even if others can't.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:26:09 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

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.

You mean like the mercury in CFL's? :-)

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jeff wrote:

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.

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.


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..


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.

*seen the dollar valuation recently?


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.

This has escaped much notice:

URL:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...cnchina116.xml
/

Japan and China led a record withdrawl of foreign funds from the United
States in August, heightening fears of a fresh slide in the dollar and a
spike in US bond yields.
# Fears of dollar collapse as Saudis take fright
# China threatens `nuclear option' of dollar sales
# Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: This bear is not capitulating


The US requires $70bn a month in capital inflows to cover its current
account deficit

Data from the US Treasury showed outflows of $163bn (£80bn) from all
forms of US investments. "These numbers are absolutely stunning," said
Marc Ostwald, an economist at Insinger de Beaufort.

Asian investors dumped $52bn worth of US Treasury bonds alone, led by
Japan ($23bn), China ($14.2bn) and Taiwan ($5bn). It is the first time
since 1998 that foreigners have, on balance, sold Treasuries.



But not to worry. If this was serious problem, our president would be
doing something about it! But someone else will buy our debt, those
Iraqis owe us a favor.


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

Which is exactly the policy that is being pursued.


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.

Well that may be true for me, and sales have slowed for US
automakers, but I think consumerism is far from dead. The US economy is
huge and I don't see massive inflation coming. I see danger all around
though. Weak Dollar. Credit Crunch. Housing Bubble. Shifted weather
patterns. Access to energy not secure. Undervalued risk.

Think wimper, not bang.

Jeff

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.

Jeff

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:08:19 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:26:09 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

You mean like the mercury in CFL's? :-)

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

Quite badly if compared with sensible generation methods such as
nuclear.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:08:19 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

I should also mention that incandescent bulbs, contrary to popular
propaganda, will not be taken off the market by the EU Directive
(Wedgie Benn's son doesn't get a say in the matter). What will be
taken off are the cheap incandescent bulbs all of which are long out
of patent and which Osram and Philips can no longer sell at a profit.
Replacing them will be the new greenwashed EU approved not
incandescent (Osram patent) lamp which looks the same as an
incandescent bulb but has a halogen capsule built in and is between
10% and 50% more energy efficient than the bulb it replaces. It also
looks as if its going to cost 10 times as much as a standard
incandescent.

The EU isn't doing to badly out of the short term expedient of
forcing CFL's on everyone either. It is so concerned about energy
saving it sticks a 66% import duty on nearly all imported CFL's.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Anthony Matonak wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
...
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.

Sure, just like knife ownership leads to knife crime and car
ownership leads to running people over with cars.

You can do other things with cars and knives.

There is nothing a handgun is good for except killing people.
That is its primary function. It s NOT a target weapon: that is normally
restricted to specialized .22 caliber guns. It is not a hunting weapon.
It may be a humane killer f you are daily around horses or cattle, but a
captive bolt pistol is safer and more effective.

handgun is essentially a way to kill or severely maim someone at no
more than around 10 meters range.

Any one who carries one (apart from sheer vanity), does so because they
expect, rightly or wrongly, that one day they will kill someone with it.



The reason
why so many people die when someone brings a gun to school
or hijacks a plane is because no one else has a weapon and
they have all been told to sit quietly and not defend themselves.


The reason why someone brings a gun to school is they are a ****ed up
human in a ****ed up society, and handguns are simple to acquire.

In Africa they die of dysentry and starvation. In the USA they get shot.
We are through trying to bring civilisation to the world where its not
wanted.

USA is a busted flush anyway now. It's destroyed everything that made it
worth respecting, and its flat broke, deep in debt, short of oil, and
running out of ideas.

The world doesn't need the USA. We don't care if you have shootouts at
the OK playground as a national pastime. Better than doing it over here.




Anthony

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote
"Doctor Drivel" wrote this:-

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.

As I said, if I remember I will ask. I imagine it will bring some
mild amusement to those in the office.

I recall an email exchange I had with one of their top men once. It was like
talking to the Countryside Alliance, whose prime concern is not Green
matters. These people may actually believe what they are doing is right for
people and nature. The fact is, it is not.

That's merely your opinion. They clearly don't agree.

Graham

Huge wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Bob Adkins wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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.

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.

Sigh.

One word.

Switzerland.

Gun ownership in Switzerland is not as widespread as the gun lobby likes to make out. A lot
of them are militrary rifles too, not handguns.

Sigh !

Graham

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:59:12 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
And those issues are no worse than e.g. fitting DG windows, or
rewiring. Not hard, juts need redecorating afterwards.

Anything that involves increasing wall thicknesses may have knock-on
effects. If we did as some countries and gave the floor area as part
of the sale particulars for a house the effect would be obvious.
Sometimes applies to the floor as well....Korean's invented central heat
upwards of
3000 years ago.You build fireplace or stove on side of the house and run a
honeycomb
chambers in the stucco/concrete house slab to chimmey on the oppose side of
the house.
Radiant heat floor in otherwords.
Like regular chimmeys you need to inspect your floor for cracks that could
leak CO into the house.With pretty much the same kinds of repair as on the
chimneys when they do crack with age .

I probably wouldn't buy a property without a SAP report these days
frankly. And would knock off a lot for a poor rating.

The vast majority of people wouldn't. But tax changes will probably
change this before too long.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Anthony Matonak wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
...
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.

Sure, just like knife ownership leads to knife crime and car
ownership leads to running people over with cars.

Utterly different.

The reason
why so many people die when someone brings a gun to school
or hijacks a plane is because no one else has a weapon and
they have all been told to sit quietly and not defend themselves.

So, you'd have all the schoolkids running around with handguns ?

What do you reckon, one murder a week in the playground, probably over trivia.

IDIOT !

Graham

Peter Parry wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:08:19 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

I should also mention that incandescent bulbs, contrary to popular
propaganda, will not be taken off the market by the EU Directive
(Wedgie Benn's son doesn't get a say in the matter). What will be
taken off are the cheap incandescent bulbs all of which are long out
of patent and which Osram and Philips can no longer sell at a profit.
Replacing them will be the new greenwashed EU approved not
incandescent (Osram patent) lamp which looks the same as an
incandescent bulb but has a halogen capsule built in and is between
10% and 50% more energy efficient than the bulb it replaces. It also
looks as if its going to cost 10 times as much as a standard
incandescent.

You know this for a fact ?

I've been watching this development. Philips call it CHi or somesuch and it
seemed at one point that the proposed EU law would end up banning new enhanced
efficiency lighbulbs even before they made it to market.

Graham

In article ,
Anthony Matonak wrote:
The reason why so many people die when someone brings a gun to school or
hijacks a plane is because no one else has a weapon and they have all
been told to sit quietly and not defend themselves.

So you want to give school kids guns to defend themselves?

Ask your therapist to increase your meds to the point where you are
permantly asleep.

--
*If all is not lost, where the hell is it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:59:12 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
And those issues are no worse than e.g. fitting DG windows, or rewiring.
Not hard, juts need redecorating afterwards.

Anything that involves increasing wall thicknesses may have knock-on
effects. If we did as some countries and gave the floor area as part of
the sale particulars for a house the effect would be obvious.

I probably wouldn't buy a property without a SAP report these days
frankly. And would knock off a lot for a poor rating.

The vast majority of people wouldn't. But tax changes will probably
change this before too long.


Just high energy prices.

Saving £300 a year means a property at sort of 7% mortgage rates, is worth
300/0.07= £4300 more, more or less.

Double energy prices an its worth nearly £10k more.

If domestic heating oil and gas was taxed like road fuel, the shops would
be sold out of insulation in minutes.
Actually they are at a lower rate.......but taxed with tariffs..
And the general public is ready to hang a politian, if the taxes get too
wild
on heating fuel.And did in times past.....a lot faster than in Europe and
other areas
that tolerate conruption with taxes on road and heating fuel.Other wise we
would already
have 6.00to 8.00 a gallon road fuel and 1.00 a KWhr electric rates for the
good of the community.
And almost that high in gas and heating oil......
We are to believe that throwing money to the government will fix anything .
When government is responsible for some of the biggest messes possible.
In their "big brother" help on a problem....
Whether it is energy ,health ,or pensions.......the present is bad ,but
government will
virtually always will show you the way to worse, on thier cause to expand
powers.
Just like you are seeing happening now in congress on "Hilary care round 3".
Or much of anything to do with energy coming out of congress in the last
40years.
It was more about expansion of power than energy,so you made something that
needed to be "fixed" regularly.
Instead of doing it right.....

My home heating bill would be something like £4500 a year...that would
mean that ANYTHING I did to save a therm or to would be worth paying
serious money for. Solar panels, heat pumps, paying the wife to shut the
windows every time the heating is on..




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:19:57 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:08:19 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:26:09 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

You mean like the mercury in CFL's? :-)

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

Quite badly if compared with sensible generation methods such as
nuclear.

To advocate nuclear, which generates highly toxic waste which needs to
be kept out of the biosphere for orders of magnitude longer than the
pyramids have been around, while criticising the Hg in CFLs, is definitely
one for the Mote & Beam department.

--
John Stumbles

The clairvoyants' meeting has been cancelled due to unforseen circumstances.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:19:57 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

Quite badly if compared with sensible generation methods such as
nuclear.

There are no poisonous metals in nuclear electricity generation?
Fascinating.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

John Stumbles wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:19:57 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:08:19 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:26:09 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

You mean like the mercury in CFL's? :-)

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

Quite badly if compared with sensible generation methods such as
nuclear...

This seems off-topic for alt.solar.thermal,
home of "practical uses for t he sun's heat."

Nick

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:19:57 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

Quite badly if compared with sensible generation methods such as
nuclear.

There are no poisonous metals in nuclear electricity generation?
Fascinating.

Please remove this discussion from alt.solar.thermal.

Thanks,

Nick

Eeyore wrote:

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



I draw my own conclusions from the way in which illegal handgun use has
soared since legal handgun ownership was banned.

Andy

John Stumbles wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
Peter Parry wrote this:-

You mean like the mercury in CFL's? :-)

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

Quite badly if compared with sensible generation methods such as
nuclear.

To advocate nuclear, which generates highly toxic waste which needs to
be kept out of the biosphere for orders of magnitude longer than the
pyramids have been around, while criticising the Hg in CFLs, is definitely
one for the Mote & Beam department.

Unless there is a perceived need to reprocess nuclear fuel, keeping it out of
the biosphere is absurdly simple. You just 'contain' it in a safe place !

Reprocessing was originally done in the UK to obtain the plutonium needed for
the bomb, then on a flawed belief that supplies of uranium would run out and
finally (on a profit driven basis) in order to serve an international market of
reactor users who didn't want to deal with such issues themselves.

As a result Britain did indeed become the world's 'nuclear dustbin' but it has
nothing to do with the everyday running requirements of thermal reactors !

Graham

David Hansen wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:19:57 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

Quite badly if compared with sensible generation methods such as
nuclear.

There are no poisonous metals in nuclear electricity generation?

None that anyone ever need be exposed to.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Huge wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Bob Adkins wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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.

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.
The data on concealed weapon laws in all states show the exact opposite.
Why do you think most mass shootings happen in gun free zones like
schools,not police stations and courthouseswith gunpacking guards all
around.That in most legel gun use ,the incident is not reported, because the
merchent was not robbed with shot fired.
N o robbery and no shot equals no case to report.
Why do you think that many of the auti-gunners also have a pocket pistol
like the trial lawyers doing cases for the crimials?
A state votes in a concealed weapon law and the crime rate drops
immediately. Crimials don't want to lose
thier monopoly on weapons on the street.Cops toting guns is bad enorgh for
crime business as it is.When the general
public starts toting guns a crimial might get hurt.So he starts thinking
twice about knocking over that....













Actually shotguns work out better than handguns on home defense.....
It took a little more skill to use my 30/30 pistol in doors than my shotgun
with squirrel shot.
For the squirrels crawling thru the windows or breaking in the car.
But then might be the reason most cops have that scattergun handy ,even with
a pistol on the belt.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:26:19 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

You know this for a fact ?

I've been watching this development. Philips call it CHi or somesuch and it
seemed at one point that the proposed EU law would end up banning new enhanced
efficiency lighbulbs even before they made it to market.

Good coverage in a recent edition of "Lighting". It appears Osram
have been pushing/bribing the EU quite heavily and the new bulbs will
be allowed even at the lower end of the efficiency saving.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 2007-10-18 12:44:05 +0100, Owain said:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
My home heating bill would be something like £4500 a year...that would
mean that ANYTHING I did to save a therm or to would be worth paying
serious money for. Solar panels, heat pumps, paying the wife to shut
the windows every time the heating is on..

Can't you put microswitches on the windows so the heating doesn't work
unless the windows are closed?

Owain

Dreadful idea. This is done in apartment buildings in Germany and I'm
told that typically *all* the heating in an apartment is disabled if
*any* window is opened. Siemens (was Landis and Staefa) even make
control systems to do this properly, but of course it's normally wired
with one switch per apartment for cheapness and so people tend to
disable them, close doors and turn off radiators as appropriate.

Meanwhile in Russian cities with district heating, the common practice
is to turn on the heating on Oct 1st come what may. Multiple
occupancy buildings often don't have much by way of controls so people
use the windows as thermostats until it starts getting cold.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:48:15 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:19:57 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:08:19 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?

Quite badly if compared with sensible generation methods such as
nuclear.

To advocate nuclear, which generates highly toxic waste which needs to
be kept out of the biosphere for orders of magnitude longer than the
pyramids have been around, while criticising the Hg in CFLs, is definitely
one for the Mote & Beam department.

The question concerned the amount of mercury emitted in generating
the electricity. However, like it or not unless there is some
serious depopulation there is not a cat in hells chance of windmills,
CFL's and the like making a significant difference to the worlds
emissions of CO2 in the next 100 years. The only current technology
which might is nuclear and the one which should be attracting money
is fusion not greenwash.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/