Jock's Place - environment - Comments

I didn't blog on this one

Auberius — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:22:17 +0100

I didn't blog on this one (because let's face it, in matters of Lib Dem energy policy I'm something of a heathen) but I quite agree, it's an terrible verdict and one that will invite even more dangerous acts.

Oh - for Bournemouth? On

Jock — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:35:28 +0100

Oh - for Bournemouth? On the basis of the Competition Commission ruling happening today? Of course I'm not going to be at Bournemouth, but I will be at Reading and a motion by Gareth has been submitted (and if not selected - unlikely as I think we only have six on the list - would make a good topical one). The runway three debate has specific regional implications for South East and South Central so makes a good regional conference issue.

But go for it for Bournemouth too if you like!

Worth...

Andrew Duffield — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:31:36 +0100

considering for an urgent/emergency motion?

Lane tax?

Jock — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:06:48 +0100

Did you mean a *land* tax? I dont *think* there is mention of it. Indeed ALTER, the Lib Dem land tax campaign group has more or less agreed that we wont argue too much with LIT on the basis that some form of land tax could be a national tax, replacing a number of other national level taxes.

But if you really did mean *lane* tax you will need, I am afraid, to elaborate what you mean!

LIT

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:06:57 +0100

Doesn't the latest LIB Dem document on LIT include a Lane Tax?

Well, Michaelis's idea is

Jock — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:08:03 +0000

Well, Michaelis's idea is to use the warmth of the ocean, not the direct sunlight, or as well as direct sunlight. I would more imagine as you suggest Andrew that the dirt poor countries of western Saharan Africa in particular - but anywhere with a decent amount of sun - Australia since it has such a crap record on CO2 and energy production - using their sun and sea water to produce hydrogen, at the same time perhaps as "greening the desert" - at least the populated bits of it. Though I also read an idea yesterday I think that someone said you could could add energy (ie from the sun) to CO2 and water to produce not just hydrogen but proper hydrocarbons - methane mostly but most others could be synthesized from that. I like my hydrogen idea better though as then it doesn't also pollute when burned as a fuel like methane would.

Also another idea I noticed the other week was that those countries with swathes of tropical rain forest could be paid for not cutting it down. They are protecting a precious natural resource we all need - why not pay them to keep it at least as much as it pays them to cut it down if it's so important to planetary function.

Six months of darkness!

Jock — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:01:12 +0000

...might be one objection to spending a lot of money doing it at either pole! Though off the top of my head and way out there for sure, maybe there is a use for the poles in electricity generation - could we make use of the earth's own magnetic field to run a generator of some kind? :)

Energy islands

wit and wisdom — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:58:20 +0000

Great ideas, all. I wish we would do more as a country to innovate in this area. Global warming or not, the energy we consume cannot last forever so we must look for alternatives for all sorts of reasons, not least security.

What about solar arrays in the arctic to soak up all the sun which was previously hitting the ice and bouncing back into space? Its closer to Europe and it might just address the old melting icecaps issue as well. The sun rays would be weaker there but it could be beneficial.

We could even include decks for polar bears to use. We could then diversify into polar bear deckchairs and quoits...(sorry this started as a serious suggestion).

Why go to the expense of

Andrew Duffield — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:00:26 +0000

Why go to the expense of building islands I wonder? There's plenty of spare land in the Sahara isn't there? A perfect opportunity for LVT based income generation by North African states I would have thought. And no danger of rising tides due to global warming!

Green Fingers

Paulus — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:52:47 +0000

It is with trepidation that I refer you to my review of Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg aka the Sceptical Environmentalist.

I am unconvinced by environmentalist rhetoric because it smacks of political correctness and I was keen to see what Lomborg had to say.

I interpret his message as "more haste less speed." We don't know enough about the problem to impose a solution that is both expensive and ineffective - namely carbon reduction. We have time to seek better solutions and in the mean to we should spend our resources dealing with problems which can be solved much more cheaply to make life better for people now e.g. malaria and hiv/aids programmes.

The Oxford/bike and fly effect, which you point, to is very apposite. High carbon taxes will make the lives of the poor more wretched. The rich will pay lip service, pay the tax and nothing will be achieved.

Spend much more money on research to find better solutions. For more look here: http://www.thinkhard.org/2007/10/kyoto-hot-air-a.html

I've got my tin hat on.

Green Fingers

Paulus — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:51:57 +0000

It is with trepidation that I refer you to my review of Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg aka the Sceptical Environmentalist.

I am unconvinced by environmentalist rhetoric because it smacks of political correctness and I was keen to see what Lomborg had to say.

Spend much more money on research to find better solutions. For more look here: http://www.thinkhard.org/2007/10/kyoto-hot-air-a.html

I've got my tin hat on.

A good posting Jock - very

Laura King — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:01:19 +0100

A good posting Jock - very little I could disagree with. In fact I can't think of anything!

There might be lots of cyclists in Oxford, but they are cyclists who tend to like to fly a lot and enjoy gourmet food! (not counting all the tourists and London commuters who swell their ranks)

Personally I think greenness won't really kick in until it is admitted that consumerism is the main problem - and what government in its right mind is going to round on consumerism and market forces being allowed to hold sway? We have to face economic seachange in order to address our rampant consumerism when it is so frenziedly and unrelentingly in our faces 24/7, offering new 'must-haves' by the thousand each week.

And the real 'greenness' is about saving and not wasting things rather than actual re-cycling - not such a sexy concept as the new wave of designer jute bags branded with every corporate logo and anything else that can be marketted as 'green' - or rather greener than its creation when people could just use their old shopping bags until worn out and most are too small to be of use anyway!

Heh! I was busy expanding

Jock — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:17:45 +0100

Heh! I was busy expanding my post while you were replying to it! I think I fleshed out some of what you were thinking.

Logically then it must be

Geoffrey Payne — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:01:03 +0100

Logically then it must be despite of the Green party rather than because of it.
Likewise for the Lib Dems, who also have a large share of the vote in Oxford.
It must be the "Tory Twins"; New Labour and the Conservatives.

comment

Jock Coats — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:49:51 +0100

Buggers - didn't they lose the sense a bit? Missed out the sentence about opening it up to competition". Oh well."