IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: NEWS - Green Deal - Conmen have seen the opportunity
Topic Summary: BBC Radio 4 and BBC Website
Created On: 12 May 2013 07:07 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 12 May 2013 07:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkiemike.
sparkiemike

Posts: 1529
Joined: 24 January 2008

 12 May 2013 07:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6089
Joined: 04 July 2007

On a similar subject I had a call from a woman last week saying that one of her kitchen downlighters had gone off, she tried to get the lamp out but couldn't, also it looked like somthing had been dripping from it. (GU10) When I pulled the fitting out from the ceiling I got what seemed like a never ending stream of polystyerene balls pouring from the hole! I put the fitting back and asked her for a bowl of some sort which she provided, took the lamp out again and filled the bowl, put the lamp back again and then she brought me a bucket, same procedure again so now we had a bowl and a bucket full of the stuff. After it stopped coming out I went and had a look outside and could see where these plonkers had drilled the wall and pumped this stuff in, the joke is that it's a 1930's house that doesn't have cavity walls anyway! It was of course done by a government approved company and didn't cost her anything but I suppose they get paid a good fee by the government, (which we are all paying for)

Dave.
 12 May 2013 09:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5819
Joined: 18 January 2003

Is it a con?
Is it not the case that there is a upfront fee payable to cover the cost of the assessment that has to be paid by someone?
Is this just a lack of understanding and spreading of false information by the press?

Andy
 14 May 2013 11:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



whjohnson

Posts: 704
Joined: 24 January 2009

Four years ago, our MPs voted almost unanimously for by far the most expensive law ever enacted by Parliament. According to the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc), the Climate Change Act will cost us all up to £18 billion every year until 2050. It commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to only a fifth of what they were in 1990.

As we all know, emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels are inseparable from almost every economic activity of our civilisation. We rely on them for some 75 per cent of the electricity needed to provide us with almost all the necessities of life. Without CO2 we would not be able to light and heat our homes, power our computers, get money from cashpoints, buy food from shops. Our transport system would be paralysed.

Hence the mystery: how can we meet that obligation to cut our emissions of CO2 by 80 per cent in just 40 years? After six hours debating this in 2008, 463 MPs of all parties voted for it, only three against. But of the 50 MPs who spoke, not one showed the slightest interest in how the target might be met.

May I therefore ask as many of us as possible to write to our local MPs, asking how we can hope to achieve that four-fifths cut without virtually closing down our economy?

It won't be enough to reply that, by then, we shall be able to generate almost all our electricity from "renewables". However many windmills and solar panels we build, thanks to the vagaries of wind and sun, these could at best provide only a fraction of what is needed. Even if a few nuclear power stations somehow get built by then, they could be only a very partial answer. So how will our economy continue to function? That is what we want our MPs to tell us.

In fact there is another mystery they need to explain. It seems, according to Decc's figures, that we are already miraculously on course to meet our target. In 1990, Britain supposedly emitted 590 million tons of CO2. But by 2011, according to Decc's provisional figures, this had already been slashed to just 456 million, a drop of 23 per cent. The chief explanation Decc offers for this is the switch of many of our power stations, after 1991, from coal to gas, which is less carbon-intensive. But even this by 2007 had only helped us to cut CO2 by 8 per cent. By far the biggest drop - a further 15 per cent, so Decc claims - has been since 2008, when the Act came into force and we went into recession. Nevertheless, Decc would have us believe that in two of those years, 2009 and 2011, emissions fell by 50 and 40 million tons, respectively (though in 2010 they rose by 24 million).

How can our MPs explain such a staggering reduction? It may give the politically convenient impression that the Government is meeting its target but it is, frankly, quite implausible.

The MPs might also be reminded that Britain accounts for 1.6 per cent of the world's man-made CO2 emissions. China's emissions increase by that much each year, and now amount to 25 per cent of the global total. So, finally, can our MPs explain why we should close down most of our economy when this will have so little effect on the supposed global problem?

-------------------------
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
 14 May 2013 12:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11251
Joined: 13 August 2003

how can we meet that obligation to cut our emissions of CO2 by 80 per cent in just 40 years?

Try the Zero Carbon Britain report - http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/ - written by our friends at the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) in Wales (i.e. not politicians!) - it describes one way that such targets could be met (even exceeded). You might well not like some of the details, and there are probably better ways of doing many of the things, but it tries to demonstrate what's physically possible while substantially maintaining our current lifestyles. Unless you can find some pretty massive holes in their logic, the debate then becomes 'how', rather than 'if' it can be done.
- Andy.
 14 May 2013 01:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



unshockable

Posts: 838
Joined: 18 May 2007

I loved my trip to CAT, do I need to pay for the download? Fair enough if I do, it's a great deal of work. On the other side funding is often a closely guarded secret.

Saving energy without the hot air is a counter view but well argued for it. It's a free download pdf. Anyone with a kindle, get a copy.

It is a stunning fact that domestic household electricity usage, for example, is only 4% of the UK's total energy use; I hope I remember that correctly.

simon
 14 May 2013 02:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11251
Joined: 13 August 2003

I loved my trip to CAT, do I need to pay for the download? Fair enough if I do, it's a great deal of work

I'm pretty sure it's a free download (it certainly was a while ago when I downloaded the 1st version) - I'm sure they'd welcome a donation though!
- Andy.
 16 May 2013 05:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11251
Joined: 13 August 2003

do I need to pay for the download? Fair enough if I do, it's a great deal of work.

Ah, now realize that the download link on that site is broken! Try this one: http://www.zerocarbonbritain.o...y/1?download=1%3A2030
- Andy.
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.