http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding

So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

harry wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding

So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

The best green thing the government could do is stop paying people to
have babies.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
harry wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding

So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

The best green thing the government could do is stop paying people to have
babies.

No, stopping health care for the over 45s would be far more effective. 8-)

dennis@home wrote:


"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
harry wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding


So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

The best green thing the government could do is stop paying people to
have babies.

No, stopping health care for the over 45s would be far more effective. 8-)

In moderation, I wouldn't argue with that. They seen to overlook the
fact, that everyone they save, results in more expenditure down the
line. I do think there should be some regard given to quality of life.
However, my point really was, population growth ! We see the desperate
plight in Pakistan, but no one mentions their population had trebled
within a few decades. It's insane.

dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
harry wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding

So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

The best green thing the government could do is stop paying people
to have babies.

No, stopping health care for the over 45s would be far more
effective. 8-)

And you don't expect to live beyond 45?

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
harry wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding

So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

The best green thing the government could do is stop paying people to
have babies.

No, stopping health care for the over 45s would be far more effective.
8-)

In moderation, I wouldn't argue with that. They seen to overlook the fact,
that everyone they save, results in more expenditure down the line. I do
think there should be some regard given to quality of life.
However, my point really was, population growth ! We see the desperate
plight in Pakistan, but no one mentions their population had trebled
within a few decades. It's insane.

That's because there are too many over 45 year olds living the-)

Cheers
--
Adam

harry wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding

So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

HURRAH!

Yet another overpriced environment rap8ing bit of greenwash bites the dust.

Andy Cap wrote:
harry wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding


So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

The best green thing the government could do is stop paying people to
have babies.

Definitely. And stop all subsid8ies to 'sustainable energy' and simply
put 15% on fossil fuel for EVERYONE.

No exceptions.

And give it back again in income tax reductions.

Definitely. And stop all subsid8ies to 'sustainable energy' and simply put
15% on fossil fuel for EVERYONE.

The Tories did that when they were last in office, they put 17.5% on as VAT
to make it easy to collect , to reduce greenhouse emissions by getting
people to use less. Look where that got us when they lost the election and
let T B liar in.

"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding

So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

This is a one-off mega billion pound project with severe environmental
consequences.

I can't see that taking a (reasoned) decision that it will never be built
proves anything at all about a person green credentials

tim

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
harry wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding

So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

The best green thing the government could do is stop paying people to
have babies.

No, stopping health care for the over 45s would be far more effective.
8-)

In moderation, I wouldn't argue with that. They seen to overlook the fact,
that everyone they save, results in more expenditure down the line. I do
think there should be some regard given to quality of life.
However, my point really was, population growth ! We see the desperate
plight in Pakistan, but no one mentions their population had trebled
within a few decades. It's insane.

What's even more insane is that if you do stick you head above the parapet
and complain, they say that the comment is racist

tim

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
harry wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding

So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

The best green thing the government could do is stop paying people to
have babies.

No, stopping health care for the over 45s would be far more effective. 8-)

Personally, I think that we should stop treatments that don't
(theoretically) return a person to economic activity.

Spending (pro rata) 30,000 pa on drugs to keep someone ill-in-bed for 6
months longer than might otherwise be ill-in-bed is just wasted money
(IMHO).

tim

tim.... wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
harry wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-loses-funding

So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.
The best green thing the government could do is stop paying people to
have babies.
No, stopping health care for the over 45s would be far more effective. 8-)

Personally, I think that we should stop treatments that don't
(theoretically) return a person to economic activity.

Spending (pro rata) 30,000 pa on drugs to keep someone ill-in-bed for 6
months longer than might otherwise be ill-in-bed is just wasted money
(IMHO).


There are signs that this is somewhat done anyway. When my nother in the
near final stages of dementia, broke her arm, they discussed with me
whether or not to pin the break on the grounds that..

- she might not survive the anaesthetic
- she probably wouldn't see much, if any, benefit from it anyway.

Frankly, when she had, some 5 years before, fallen over and broken her
hip, it would have been better if they had NOT popped her in to
intensive care, revived her, diagnosed thyroid condition, dementia, and
imposed on her and her family a miserable 5 years of paranoid terrifying
movement from one care home to another, before she finally forgot how to
eat, and died.

Maybe there were 5 good days in those five years.




tim

In message , Cash
?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.? .?.?.?.?.//.com.invalid
writes
dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
harry wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...n-green-energy
-project-loses-funding

So much for Cameron's greenest government ever.

The best green thing the government could do is stop paying people
to have babies.

No, stopping health care for the over 45s would be far more
effective. 8-)

And you don't expect to live beyond 45?

Not at the speed he drives, no


--
geoff