"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 10:55, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 10:10:37 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 09:56, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 07/04/2015 23:50, harryagain wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...s-network/gall
ery/2015/apr/01/over-population-over-consumption-in-pictures?CMP=EMCNEWE
ML6619I2

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

We have a long way to go before reaching the population density of
The
Netherlands, or even Belgium. Some of the most densely populated
countries and territories in the world are Monaco, Gibraltar,
Vatican
City, Bahrain, Malta, Jersey and Guernsey.

That's because we have mountainous regions which are not suitable for
housing.

Dartmoor/Exmoor/Yorkshire moors. These are all vast areas, largely
unpopulated yet, but perfectly habitable.
There are many other large areas that are suitable for building houses
on.

But do we want every square mile of the contry covered in houses ?

Of course not, but there's still plenty of room for many more houses
without taking too much of the green belt.
There also many brownfield sites to be built on.
A heck of a lot of rich landowners need to release the land that they
are sitting on and waiting for a profit. They own lots of land that is
doing nothing.

Define "nothing".

Thieving from fellow electricity users under the guise of a "subsidy".

I invested £14,000. That's not nothing.

Meanwhile, you did nothing.
Also known as idleness.
I expect you have massive debts because you're a socialist.

BTW ****-fer-brains, all electricty production is subsidised.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:


That's because we have mountainous regions which are not suitable for
housing.


We have boundless acres of flat farmland, but that's no reason to let
foreigners come to live on it. I'd rather drive past acres of turnips than
acres of Pakistanis. At least turnips lead quiet inoffensive lives.

+1

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 19:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 17:02, Tim Streater wrote:

What's it like just for England and Wales? Scotland is quite a large
chunk with a small population.

England considered as a separate country would be the 30th most
densely populated territory in the world (413/sq km), the place
currently held by The Netherlands (406/sq km).

Come again? The second part of that sentence makes no sense (or is
incomplete).


The Netherlands is currently the 30th most densely populated country in
the world. if England were to be considered as a separate entity, it would
be 30th and The Netherlands 31st.

Ah yes.
They have lots of muslims there too.

On 09/04/2015 01:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything.

Nope.

The UK's total material requirement in 1970, when records began, was
1,750 million tonnes - 31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730
million tonnes - 27 tonnes per capita.

That's a drop.

So. which is it; we didn't use more in 1970 or the amount we use has
dropped? Both your claims cannot be true.

--
Colin Bignell

On 09/04/2015 07:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/04/15 01:18, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes - 31.3
tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27 tonnes per
capita.


which juts goes top show how little we are now making in terms of ships
and aircraft and how little we are investing in infrastructure...
..and how much lighter software is compared to a tractor..

The total material requirement includes all materials and fuels used in
everything we consume, whether made at home or bought in from abroad.
Other figures suggest that, if we do make something at home, it will
probably use less material than if bought in from places like China.

A major reason for the reduction is an increased use of recycled
materials; estimated to account for about one fifth of materials use in
the UK. There are other, perhaps less obvious, factors, such needing a
lot less paper as a direct result of e-books.

--
Colin Bignell

On 09/04/2015 03:40, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes -
31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27
tonnes per capita.


Yes but things are lighter nowadays.

Not necessarily. The new Routemaster bus weighs 12.45 tons (12.65
tonnes) for up to 87 passengers, compared to 7 tons 7 cwt for the old 64
seater Routemaster; a 24% increase in weight per passenger.

I don't have weights for houses but, with things like extra insulation
requirements, I would be surprised if a 2013 house weighed less than a
comparable one built in 1970. However, the construction industry uses a
lot more recycled materials today, so the total material requirement of
the house has almost certainly reduced.


--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 09/04/2015 03:40, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes -
31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27
tonnes per capita.


Yes but things are lighter nowadays.

Not necessarily. The new Routemaster bus weighs 12.45 tons (12.65
tonnes) for up to 87 passengers, compared to 7 tons 7 cwt for the old 64
seater Routemaster; a 24% increase in weight per passenger.

I don't have weights for houses but, with things like extra insulation
requirements, I would be surprised if a 2013 house weighed less than a
comparable one built in 1970. However, the construction industry uses a
lot more recycled materials today, so the total material requirement of
the house has almost certainly reduced.


Much construction today is timber framed. We've moved into upmarket
garden sheds housing.

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 09/04/2015 07:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/04/15 01:18, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it
isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes - 31.3
tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27 tonnes per
capita.


which juts goes top show how little we are now making in terms of ships
and aircraft and how little we are investing in infrastructure...
..and how much lighter software is compared to a tractor..

The total material requirement includes all materials and fuels used in
everything we consume, whether made at home or bought in from abroad.
Other figures suggest that, if we do make something at home, it will
probably use less material than if bought in from places like China.

A major reason for the reduction is an increased use of recycled
materials; estimated to account for about one fifth of materials use in
the UK. There are other, perhaps less obvious, factors, such needing a
lot less paper as a direct result of e-books.

And a lot more paper as a result of computers!

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 01:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it
isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything.

Nope.

The UK's total material requirement in 1970, when records began, was
1,750 million tonnes - 31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730
million tonnes - 27 tonnes per capita.

That's a drop.

So. which is it; we didn't use more in 1970 or the amount we use has
dropped? Both your claims cannot be true.

YOUR numbers dont substantiate the claim you made about them.

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 03:40, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes -
31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27
tonnes per capita.


Yes but things are lighter nowadays.

Not necessarily. The new Routemaster bus weighs 12.45 tons (12.65 tonnes)
for up to 87 passengers, compared to 7 tons 7 cwt for the old 64 seater
Routemaster; a 24% increase in weight per passenger.

I don't have weights for houses but, with things like extra insulation
requirements, I would be surprised if a 2013 house weighed less than a
comparable one built in 1970.

I wouldnt if less brick/block is used.

However, the construction industry uses a lot more recycled materials
today, so the total material requirement of the house has almost certainly
reduced.

On Thursday, 9 April 2015 09:49:00 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 09/04/2015 07:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/04/15 01:18, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it
isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes - 31.3
tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27 tonnes per
capita.


which juts goes top show how little we are now making in terms of ships
and aircraft and how little we are investing in infrastructure...
..and how much lighter software is compared to a tractor..

The total material requirement includes all materials and fuels used in
everything we consume, whether made at home or bought in from abroad.
Other figures suggest that, if we do make something at home, it will
probably use less material than if bought in from places like China.

A major reason for the reduction is an increased use of recycled
materials; estimated to account for about one fifth of materials use in
the UK. There are other, perhaps less obvious, factors, such needing a
lot less paper as a direct result of e-books.

And a lot more paper as a result of computers!

Not because of computers, because of those that want the paper work.

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 09/04/2015 03:40, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes -
31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27
tonnes per capita.


Yes but things are lighter nowadays.

Not necessarily. The new Routemaster bus weighs 12.45 tons (12.65
tonnes) for up to 87 passengers, compared to 7 tons 7 cwt for the old 64
seater Routemaster; a 24% increase in weight per passenger.

I don't have weights for houses but, with things like extra insulation
requirements, I would be surprised if a 2013 house weighed less than a
comparable one built in 1970. However, the construction industry uses a
lot more recycled materials today, so the total material requirement of
the house has almost certainly reduced.

I was thinking more of consumer goods. Electronics has been mightily
miniaturised. Compare a modern TV with a 1970s one. We used to need two
men to deliver a colour set.

The increasing use of plastics has made a lot of difference as well.
Many products are 'suspiciously light'!

There's been a lot of effort put into making cars and vans lighter.

Bill

On 09/04/2015 13:20, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 09/04/2015 03:40, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes -
31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27
tonnes per capita.


Yes but things are lighter nowadays.

Not necessarily. The new Routemaster bus weighs 12.45 tons (12.65
tonnes) for up to 87 passengers, compared to 7 tons 7 cwt for the old
64 seater Routemaster; a 24% increase in weight per passenger.

I don't have weights for houses but, with things like extra insulation
requirements, I would be surprised if a 2013 house weighed less than a
comparable one built in 1970. However, the construction industry uses
a lot more recycled materials today, so the total material requirement
of the house has almost certainly reduced.

I was thinking more of consumer goods. Electronics has been mightily
miniaturised. Compare a modern TV with a 1970s one. We used to need two
men to deliver a colour set.

The total material requirement covers everything we consume, including
things like the construction industry and the fuel used to power the
manufacturing plants, whether here or in China or elsewhere.

The increasing use of plastics has made a lot of difference as well.
Many products are 'suspiciously light'!

I won't disagree with that.

There's been a lot of effort put into making cars and vans lighter.

Cars in particular have got heavier, as well as wider, due to all the
extra protection they now carry. In 1970 I drove a Triumph 2.5PI saloon,
the estate version of which had a kerbside weight of 1,270kgs. The
estate car I drive today has a kerbside weight of 1,845kgs.


--
Colin Bignell

On 09/04/2015 09:48, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 09/04/2015 03:40, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes -
31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27
tonnes per capita.


Yes but things are lighter nowadays.

Not necessarily. The new Routemaster bus weighs 12.45 tons (12.65
tonnes) for up to 87 passengers, compared to 7 tons 7 cwt for the old 64
seater Routemaster; a 24% increase in weight per passenger.

I don't have weights for houses but, with things like extra insulation
requirements, I would be surprised if a 2013 house weighed less than a
comparable one built in 1970. However, the construction industry uses a
lot more recycled materials today, so the total material requirement of
the house has almost certainly reduced.


Much construction today is timber framed. We've moved into upmarket
garden sheds housing.

Lots of house building going on around here and all of it looks to be of
conventional construction. The timber framed buildings are generally
several centuries old.

--
Colin Bignell

On 09/04/2015 10:44, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 01:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it
isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in
the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything.

Nope.

The UK's total material requirement in 1970, when records began, was
1,750 million tonnes - 31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730
million tonnes - 27 tonnes per capita.

That's a drop.

So. which is it; we didn't use more in 1970 or the amount we use has
dropped? Both your claims cannot be true.

YOUR numbers dont substantiate the claim you made about them.

I stated that we used more materials in 1970 than in 2013, then gave a
figure of 31.3 tonnes per person in 1970 and 27 tonnes per person in
2013. It sounds like you have misread one of my posts again.

--
Colin Bignell

On Thursday, 9 April 2015 13:20:46 UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 09/04/2015 03:40, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes -
31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27
tonnes per capita.


Yes but things are lighter nowadays.

Not necessarily. The new Routemaster bus weighs 12.45 tons (12.65
tonnes) for up to 87 passengers, compared to 7 tons 7 cwt for the old 64
seater Routemaster; a 24% increase in weight per passenger.

I don't have weights for houses but, with things like extra insulation
requirements, I would be surprised if a 2013 house weighed less than a
comparable one built in 1970. However, the construction industry uses a
lot more recycled materials today, so the total material requirement of
the house has almost certainly reduced.

I was thinking more of consumer goods. Electronics has been mightily
miniaturised. Compare a modern TV with a 1970s one. We used to need two
men to deliver a colour set.

Now most peolpe have more TVs than they did in the 1970s.
The TVs of the 70s got repaired too unlike the majority of todays.


The increasing use of plastics has made a lot of difference as well.
Many products are 'suspiciously light'!

not to sure about suspiciously light, the fiorst mobile phoned weight over 4 LBS
is that what an iphone should weight so yuo won;t be suspicious of it. ;-)

remmeber it has a camera, a movie camera, a screen, something almost like a music centre or a getto blaster and can still be held in one hand.


There's been a lot of effort put into making cars and vans lighter.

Bill

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 09:48, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 09/04/2015 03:40, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes -
31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27
tonnes per capita.


Yes but things are lighter nowadays.

Not necessarily. The new Routemaster bus weighs 12.45 tons (12.65
tonnes) for up to 87 passengers, compared to 7 tons 7 cwt for the old 64
seater Routemaster; a 24% increase in weight per passenger.

I don't have weights for houses but, with things like extra insulation
requirements, I would be surprised if a 2013 house weighed less than a
comparable one built in 1970. However, the construction industry uses a
lot more recycled materials today, so the total material requirement of
the house has almost certainly reduced.


Much construction today is timber framed. We've moved into upmarket
garden sheds housing.

Lots of house building going on around here and all of it looks to be of
conventional construction. The timber framed buildings are generally
several centuries old.

That last isn't what showed up on that The House That 100k Pounds Built
series.

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 10:44, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 01:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it
isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social
expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in
the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't
notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything.

Nope.

The UK's total material requirement in 1970, when records began, was
1,750 million tonnes - 31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730
million tonnes - 27 tonnes per capita.

That's a drop.

So. which is it; we didn't use more in 1970 or the amount we use has
dropped? Both your claims cannot be true.

YOUR numbers dont substantiate the claim you made about them.

I stated that we used more materials in 1970 than in 2013, then gave a
figure of 31.3 tonnes per person in 1970 and 27 tonnes per person in 2013.

Yes, and that is clearly a DROP in the tonnes per person.

It sounds like you have misread one of my posts again.

Then you need to get those ears tested, BAD.

On 09/04/2015 21:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 10:44, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 01:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it
isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social
expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in
the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't
notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything.

Nope.

The UK's total material requirement in 1970, when records began, was
1,750 million tonnes - 31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730
million tonnes - 27 tonnes per capita.

That's a drop.

So. which is it; we didn't use more in 1970 or the amount we use has
dropped? Both your claims cannot be true.

YOUR numbers dont substantiate the claim you made about them.

I stated that we used more materials in 1970 than in 2013, then gave a
figure of 31.3 tonnes per person in 1970 and 27 tonnes per person in
2013.

Yes, and that is clearly a DROP in the tonnes per person.

Is it really beyond your understanding that using more in 1970 must
inevitably mean that there had to be a drop in materials used in 2013?

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 21:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 10:44, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 01:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it
isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social
expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in
the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't
notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything.

Nope.

The UK's total material requirement in 1970, when records began, was
1,750 million tonnes - 31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730
million tonnes - 27 tonnes per capita.

That's a drop.

So. which is it; we didn't use more in 1970 or the amount we use has
dropped? Both your claims cannot be true.

YOUR numbers dont substantiate the claim you made about them.

I stated that we used more materials in 1970 than in 2013, then gave a
figure of 31.3 tonnes per person in 1970 and 27 tonnes per person in
2013.

Yes, and that is clearly a DROP in the tonnes per person.

Is it really beyond your understanding that using more in 1970 must
inevitably mean that there had to be a drop in materials used in 2013?

Pity your figures dont show that.

On 09/04/2015 23:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 21:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 10:44, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 01:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it
isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social
expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it
was in
the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along
the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't
notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything.

Nope.

The UK's total material requirement in 1970, when records began,
was
1,750 million tonnes - 31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was
1,730
million tonnes - 27 tonnes per capita.

That's a drop.

So. which is it; we didn't use more in 1970 or the amount we use has
dropped? Both your claims cannot be true.

YOUR numbers dont substantiate the claim you made about them.

I stated that we used more materials in 1970 than in 2013, then gave a
figure of 31.3 tonnes per person in 1970 and 27 tonnes per person in
2013.

Yes, and that is clearly a DROP in the tonnes per person.

Is it really beyond your understanding that using more in 1970 must
inevitably mean that there had to be a drop in materials used in 2013?

Pity your figures dont show that.

You have finally gone completely insane.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 23:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 21:52, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 10:44, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 09/04/2015 01:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says
it
isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social
expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it
was in
the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along
the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't
notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything.

Nope.

The UK's total material requirement in 1970, when records began,
was
1,750 million tonnes - 31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was
1,730
million tonnes - 27 tonnes per capita.

That's a drop.

So. which is it; we didn't use more in 1970 or the amount we use has
dropped? Both your claims cannot be true.

YOUR numbers dont substantiate the claim you made about them.

I stated that we used more materials in 1970 than in 2013, then gave a
figure of 31.3 tonnes per person in 1970 and 27 tonnes per person in
2013.

Yes, and that is clearly a DROP in the tonnes per person.

Is it really beyond your understanding that using more in 1970 must
inevitably mean that there had to be a drop in materials used in 2013?

Pity your figures dont show that.

You have finally gone completely insane.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 09:05:45 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname
here.me.uk wrote:

On 07/04/2015 23:50, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...MCNEWEML6619I2

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

We have a long way to go before reaching the population density of The
Netherlands, or even Belgium. Some of the most densely populated
countries and territories in the world are Monaco, Gibraltar, Vatican
City, Bahrain, Malta, Jersey and Guernsey.

Yet Monaco, except for the Grand Prix weekend, the boat shows the film festival
and one or two other infrequent events is practically deserted. All those flats
with the lights left on 24/7 such that they look permanently occupied for tax
purposes.

Jersey and Guernsey are not particularly busy places either.
--

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 03:41:10 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

Of course Australia has much more space but it's such a **** hole that no one wants to build there is that it.

The quantity of new builds out there, in and around the existing major
population centres is staggering.

I wouldn't call it a **** hole but having lived there for a few years the UK,
away from the major population centres is IMHO a far nicer place to be, but
then again I'm biased as I don't like the heat, humidity, bright sunshine or
deadly snakes, spiders and sharks, but do like rolling countryside, hedges,
moorland, British cheeses, Marmite, haddock and chips, pork pies, runner beans,
English Tea, paddling at the waters edge, proper sausages, dry cured English
bacon, Welsh Lamb, Guinness on draught, McVities digestive biscuits, McVities
hobnobs, British milk, British chocolate, British bread, British tap water,
British computer keyboards, British TV, British radio, M&S underpants, roads
without tolls and British road signs.

--

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 19:24:23 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname
here.me.uk wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).


That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

Well start driving on the correct carriageway then.
--

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 10:10:34 +0100, Bod wrote:


Dartmoor/Exmoor/Yorkshire moors. These are all vast areas, largely
unpopulated yet, but perfectly habitable.

Fence London in, build a few hundred megascrapers and leave the rest of the
country untouched.

--

On 10/04/2015 09:45, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 19:24:23 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname
here.me.uk wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).


That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

Well start driving on the correct carriageway then.


:-)

At the time, the M1 didn't really go anywhere. At the London end, most
people joined it from the M10 while the M45 marked the top end.

This is how I remember motorways from the period:

http://www.francisfrith.com/milton-k...-c1965_m388050

--
Colin Bignell

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 03:41:10 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave

wrote:

Of course Australia has much more space but it's such a **** hole that no
one wants to build there is that it.

The quantity of new builds out there, in and around the existing major
population centres is staggering.

I wouldn't call it a **** hole but having lived there for a few years the
UK,
away from the major population centres is IMHO a far nicer place to be,
but
then again I'm biased as I don't like the heat, humidity, bright sunshine
or
deadly snakes, spiders and sharks, but do like rolling countryside,
hedges,
moorland, British cheeses, Marmite, haddock and chips, pork pies, runner
beans,
English Tea, paddling at the waters edge, proper sausages, dry cured
English
bacon, Welsh Lamb, Guinness on draught, McVities digestive biscuits,
McVities
hobnobs, British milk, British chocolate, British bread, British tap
water,
British computer keyboards, British TV, British radio, M&S underpants,
roads
without tolls and British road signs.

IME you can get most of the above there.
A lot of Oz ilike 1950s Britain. Time warp.

It's a boring place.
Except for the wildlife, there's better of everything nearer to the UK.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 10 April 2015 09:45:36 UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 03:41:10 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave

wrote:

Of course Australia has much more space but it's such a **** hole that no
one wants to build there is that it.

The quantity of new builds out there, in and around the existing major
population centres is staggering.

I wasn't talking about the quality of the build but the place itself.
but why come to london and pay £100 a week for a room like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ectricity.html


Ah. Back to the benefits of immigration are we?

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2015 12:52, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 10 April 2015 09:45:36 UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 03:41:10 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave

wrote:

Of course Australia has much more space but it's such a **** hole that
no one wants to build there is that it.

The quantity of new builds out there, in and around the existing major
population centres is staggering.

I wasn't talking about the quality of the build but the place itself.
but why come to london and pay £100 a week for a room like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ectricity.html






I wouldn't call it a **** hole but having lived there for a few years
the UK,

Theere must be some reason why there'a demand for housing in London, and
as Roger sheep says it's just a soggy little.

island what dopes australia have
away from the major population centres is IMHO a far nicer place to be,
but
then again I'm biased as I don't like the heat, humidity, bright
sunshine or
deadly snakes, spiders and sharks, but do like rolling countryside,
hedges,
moorland, British cheeses, Marmite, haddock and chips, pork pies, runner
beans,
English Tea, paddling at the waters edge, proper sausages, dry cured
English
bacon, Welsh Lamb, Guinness on draught, McVities digestive biscuits,
McVities
hobnobs, British milk, British chocolate, British bread, British tap
water,
British computer keyboards, British TV, British radio, M&S underpants,
roads
without tolls and British road signs.

now that last one is curious what's so special about British road signs ?
I know you can't get decent tea in a lot of foreign places and the beer
in AUS is **** water other than a few decent micro-brewers that is.



The place it self is one of the best places to visit or live on the
planet. The quality of life out there is second to none.


But boring.

On Friday, 10 April 2015 09:45:36 UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 03:41:10 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

Of course Australia has much more space but it's such a **** hole that no one wants to build there is that it.

The quantity of new builds out there, in and around the existing major
population centres is staggering.

I wasn't talking about the quality of the build but the place itself.
but why come to london and pay £100 a week for a room like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ectricity.html






I wouldn't call it a **** hole but having lived there for a few years the UK,

Theere must be some reason why there'a demand for housing in London, and as Roger sheep says it's just a soggy little.

island what dopes australia have
away from the major population centres is IMHO a far nicer place to be, but
then again I'm biased as I don't like the heat, humidity, bright sunshine or
deadly snakes, spiders and sharks, but do like rolling countryside, hedges,
moorland, British cheeses, Marmite, haddock and chips, pork pies, runner beans,
English Tea, paddling at the waters edge, proper sausages, dry cured English
bacon, Welsh Lamb, Guinness on draught, McVities digestive biscuits, McVities
hobnobs, British milk, British chocolate, British bread, British tap water,
British computer keyboards, British TV, British radio, M&S underpants, roads
without tolls and British road signs.

now that last one is curious what's so special about British road signs ?
I know you can't get decent tea in a lot of foreign places and the beer in AUS is **** water other than a few decent micro-brewers that is.

On Friday, 10 April 2015 09:46:03 UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 10:10:34 +0100, Bod wrote:


Dartmoor/Exmoor/Yorkshire moors. These are all vast areas, largely
unpopulated yet, but perfectly habitable.


I wonder why no one wants to live there.

Fence London in, build a few hundred megascrapers and leave the rest of the
country untouched.

That's what they are doing the fence is called the M25
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...-the-rise.html

Planning permission has either been approved, or is pending approval, for no fewer than 236 new high-rise buildings in the middle of London.

Most of these buildings - 189 at the last count - are going to be apartment blocks. They range from a minimum of 20 storeys high, right up to the current permitted maximum of 75 storeys.

On 10/04/2015 12:52, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 10 April 2015 09:45:36 UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 03:41:10 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

Of course Australia has much more space but it's such a **** hole that no one wants to build there is that it.

The quantity of new builds out there, in and around the existing major
population centres is staggering.

I wasn't talking about the quality of the build but the place itself.
but why come to london and pay £100 a week for a room like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ectricity.html






I wouldn't call it a **** hole but having lived there for a few years the UK,

Theere must be some reason why there'a demand for housing in London, and as Roger sheep says it's just a soggy little.

island what dopes australia have
away from the major population centres is IMHO a far nicer place to be, but
then again I'm biased as I don't like the heat, humidity, bright sunshine or
deadly snakes, spiders and sharks, but do like rolling countryside, hedges,
moorland, British cheeses, Marmite, haddock and chips, pork pies, runner beans,
English Tea, paddling at the waters edge, proper sausages, dry cured English
bacon, Welsh Lamb, Guinness on draught, McVities digestive biscuits, McVities
hobnobs, British milk, British chocolate, British bread, British tap water,
British computer keyboards, British TV, British radio, M&S underpants, roads
without tolls and British road signs.

now that last one is curious what's so special about British road signs ?
I know you can't get decent tea in a lot of foreign places and the beer in AUS is **** water other than a few decent micro-brewers that is.



The place it self is one of the best places to visit or live on the
planet. The quality of life out there is second to none.

On Friday, 10 April 2015 13:25:17 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 10/04/2015 12:52, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 10 April 2015 09:45:36 UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 03:41:10 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

Of course Australia has much more space but it's such a **** hole that no one wants to build there is that it.

The quantity of new builds out there, in and around the existing major
population centres is staggering.

I wasn't talking about the quality of the build but the place itself.
but why come to london and pay £100 a week for a room like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ectricity.html






I wouldn't call it a **** hole but having lived there for a few years the UK,

Theere must be some reason why there'a demand for housing in London, and as Roger sheep says it's just a soggy little.

island what dopes australia have
away from the major population centres is IMHO a far nicer place to be, but
then again I'm biased as I don't like the heat, humidity, bright sunshine or
deadly snakes, spiders and sharks, but do like rolling countryside, hedges,
moorland, British cheeses, Marmite, haddock and chips, pork pies, runner beans,
English Tea, paddling at the waters edge, proper sausages, dry cured English
bacon, Welsh Lamb, Guinness on draught, McVities digestive biscuits, McVities
hobnobs, British milk, British chocolate, British bread, British tap water,
British computer keyboards, British TV, British radio, M&S underpants, roads
without tolls and British road signs.

now that last one is curious what's so special about British road signs ?
I know you can't get decent tea in a lot of foreign places and the beer in AUS is **** water other than a few decent micro-brewers that is.



The place it self is one of the best places to visit or live on the
planet. The quality of life out there is second to none.

if you say so, but I don't really believe it. Sure there's some good things
but for a lot of things it's just not that good at all.
If iot was that great more people would live there than there are.
I know of 3 AUS sisters for almost 20 years now and they 2 preferer London one hampshire, they are lucky in that they have dual passports/nationality so they can live in either country. The choose here because of such things as the arts, music, life style, even the weather to some extent.
or you could go to Earls court London and ask there.
Apparently there's 200,000 in London alone so there must be something for them here and I doubt it's the weather.


I often wondered why they don't build larger cities or enlarge the existing ones it's not like there's not enough space, if you can build on a desert in navada why not AUS, same goes with audi dubai.

Of course it's easy to claim almost any country is top of some pole but I certainly remmeber this one being talked about on the radio around xmas time..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...happiness.html

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 08/04/2015 08:34, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote

http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...MCNEWEML6619I2



Even sillier than you usually manage.

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

Not a chance.

Agreed.
Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!

There are those that get past their own front door and do not see the world
through rose tinted binoculars.




There is an election coming up and they want you to vote for BN^W UKIP.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 09:48, Dennis@home wrote:
On 08/04/2015 08:34, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote

http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...MCNEWEML6619I2




Even sillier than you usually manage.

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

Not a chance.

Agreed.
Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!



There is an election coming up and they want you to vote for BN^W UKIP.

UKIP have some excellent policies;

10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and
responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red
lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road courtesy.

10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party
liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate
registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to
cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should
also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle
theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of
cycle parking at
reasonable charges.

10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made
mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP
supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.

10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a
‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety
concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where
the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause
unacceptable delays to traffic

+1

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Bod wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harryagain wrote

http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...MCNEWEML6619I2

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

Not a chance.

Agreed.

Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup

Mainly because there are silly senile old farts like harry.

and uk rec cycling!

Dunno, never read that group.

Don't bother. More ******s such as yourself are not needed.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 11:22:51 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 10:10:37 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 09:56, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 07/04/2015 23:50, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...MCNEWEML6619I2

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

We have a long way to go before reaching the population density of
The
Netherlands, or even Belgium. Some of the most densely populated
countries and territories in the world are Monaco, Gibraltar,
Vatican
City, Bahrain, Malta, Jersey and Guernsey.

That's because we have mountainous regions which are not suitable
for
housing.

Dartmoor/Exmoor/Yorkshire moors. These are all vast areas, largely
unpopulated yet, but perfectly habitable.
There are many other large areas that are suitable for building houses
on.

But do we want every square mile of the contry covered in houses ?

Isn't going to happen.

Even Hong Kong isn't.

You do know that hong Kong isn't a country.

Of course Australia has much more space but it's such a **** hole that no
one wants to build there is that it.

+1

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 11:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 11:22:51 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 10:10:37 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 09:56, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 07/04/2015 23:50, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...MCNEWEML6619I2

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

We have a long way to go before reaching the population density of
The
Netherlands, or even Belgium. Some of the most densely populated
countries and territories in the world are Monaco, Gibraltar,
Vatican
City, Bahrain, Malta, Jersey and Guernsey.

That's because we have mountainous regions which are not suitable for
housing.

Dartmoor/Exmoor/Yorkshire moors. These are all vast areas, largely
unpopulated yet, but perfectly habitable.
There are many other large areas that are suitable for building houses
on.

But do we want every square mile of the contry covered in houses ?

Isn't going to happen.

Even Hong Kong isn't.

You do know that hong Kong isn't a country.

Of course Australia has much more space but it's such a **** hole that no
one wants to build there is that it.


Australian house prices are going through the roof (pun). They are much
saught after.
We have family in NSW and some friends have recently moved from the UK to
Adelaide. They cannot speak highly enough of how friendly and helpful that
the Aussies are.

You have no first hand experience of living in that ********.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2015 12:52, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 10 April 2015 09:45:36 UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 03:41:10 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave

wrote:

Of course Australia has much more space but it's such a **** hole that
no one wants to build there is that it.

The quantity of new builds out there, in and around the existing major
population centres is staggering.

I wasn't talking about the quality of the build but the place itself.
but why come to london and pay £100 a week for a room like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ectricity.html






I wouldn't call it a **** hole but having lived there for a few years
the UK,

Theere must be some reason why there'a demand for housing in London, and
as Roger sheep says it's just a soggy little.

island what dopes australia have
away from the major population centres is IMHO a far nicer place to be,
but
then again I'm biased as I don't like the heat, humidity, bright
sunshine or
deadly snakes, spiders and sharks, but do like rolling countryside,
hedges,
moorland, British cheeses, Marmite, haddock and chips, pork pies, runner
beans,
English Tea, paddling at the waters edge, proper sausages, dry cured
English
bacon, Welsh Lamb, Guinness on draught, McVities digestive biscuits,
McVities
hobnobs, British milk, British chocolate, British bread, British tap
water,
British computer keyboards, British TV, British radio, M&S underpants,
roads
without tolls and British road signs.

now that last one is curious what's so special about British road signs ?
I know you can't get decent tea in a lot of foreign places and the beer
in AUS is **** water other than a few decent micro-brewers that is.



The place it self is one of the best places to visit or live on the
planet. The quality of life out there is second to none.

Spouts the man who has never Even been there.