Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
don't tell me you do economics at bath as well?
come and see my band tomorrow night at Bath Spa SU, it's free!
I'm such an opportunist.
No help with your essay sorry.
I'm thinking of an opening paragraph that dissects the question a bit (though by my 3rd year at Uni they really didn't like me doing that. In which case I'd do an abstract.)
then a few paragraphs providing evidence, quotes etc supporting the proposition
then the same but not supporting it
then a balanced paragraph, ideally with some mildly ironic or would-be-witty quote or statement, then a wishy-washy yay or nay at the end.
than that crummy rubbish title and it really p***es me off. I've write loads of stuff about this years ago and this is just like such a small microcosmic bit of a whole approach that it is really not beneficial to examine it with this granuality.
Business and Producers and commerce has always relied on regulation.
because they have the resources to manage government and the regulations.
Witness for how long cigarette companies have never been regulated against.....only individuals.
Goveernment has known for decades about global warming and resource and energy depletion and polution.
Governments primary concern is about continuance of government NOT looking after people or their country (sometimes they might have to look after people or the country)
Since the term of ofice is 5 years, governments will not do anything seriously as a priority, about long term problems, unless the pigeons are likely to come home to roost in their 5 year term.
because governments can easily have successive terms? Several victorious elections in a row isn't unusual, and over a longer period of time, these pigeons are much more likely to roost
I was not being exact about it......I dont think governments DELIBERTELY set out to only look at the next 5 years.......its more by a default that they only concentrate on the next 5 years......their approach being ......"look yes it might be a future problem, but lets just concentrate on getting re-elected and then worry about x, once we've won the next ewlection and when we come to it......anyway who knows it might never happen"
sweep things under the carpet.......store up problems for dealing with on 'a better news day'
Except that there never is a slack time.....oppositional parliamentary dynamics ensure they are always fighting/jostling......what a shame that these slack times cannot be used for all elected mps to steam full speed ahead with solving the countries problems and preparing for OUR future, rather than digging and preparing for the next battle with the opposition.
you could quite easily blame the voting (and indeed non-voting public) for being swayed by issues other than pressing environmental ones? Ignoring these problems to win votes wouldn't be an option if voters cared about them en mass
if the voters are informed and knowledgable and caperble of understanding the world and its various systems without relying on 'official experts'
I have always been ignored for example......it doesnt matter what I say.....(I accept that it is put in an ugly and unreadable manner, and sometimes the logic might be jumbled. but that is also because others are told to only accept a particular form of logic and argument pattern.....its not necessarily right.
The other reason I am ignored (by people who I dont assault with unreadable prose) people who I have been able to explain in words....(Where I am not trying to cover all bases for the large disparate audiance) Is because they ultimately start to feel uncomfortable......because I can begin to make them see, but I can see in their eyes how frightened this makes them feel, because they start to feel a bit mad....because they cant believe that the traditional source of all wisdom (for them) .....official scientists....official financiers....official educationalists might actually be wrong....................I then have to explain that the official ones are fine for understanding the world through the extant system of logic that most people work with....which is the one that 'society' presumes everyone must work in ("we do...why should you be any different?")
but that if one is to understand the wider implications.....true reality (irrespective of of your societies point of view) then you have to look to non official logic and understanding.
Everything that you have been taught within school and university and job works on some principles that chiaroscuro and caviar and cigarettes for instance know and understand very vell and they can actually probably see the boundaries, that this system of logic, that has tightened up any leaks (piecemeal over the centuries since the greeek c;lassical period) is now incapable of detecting any slight flaws that lie in its foundations.
They worked fine for a while.........but when you get to several hundred stories high...slight imperfections in your foundations can have catastrophic implications.......just cos its worked up to now doesnt mean its always going to work.
God thats my other problem, I dont half digress.....mainly because when I strt to say something, i can predict objections that others might come up with and I try to stave them off with what I think is the answer to that objection..............
I suppose I could avoid that byu just doing loads and loads of little posts......the problem is I have to keep going off so I might loose the thread of where the argument is gone.
were the vast majority of politicised people at least are well aware of environmental issues, if not necessarily the specifics.
I don't think a line can really be drawn quite so clearly between politicans, 'official experts' and the public; the former two are of course pooled from the latter.
Any points I could make would invariably lead to a circular argument, but I am a big believer in individual agency and the triumph of will (not, I'd hasten to add, in the same sense Hitler was!) and think it is possible for people to think for themselves, outside of traditional frameworks. Ignorance is still a two way street; perhaps there is an omnipotent superstructure that tells us all how to think, but by the same token don't we en mass simply accept these things without challenge?
And I at least try and read your diatribes and contribute! :D
The voters are not aware of the scale of the problems that lie ahead.
1) government would not want you too
2) they dont want to live with the awful looming realitys (neither does gordon brown et all)
3) The papers also cannot consider anything like that, they would have to become competant and relevant and vituous if they were to realise the import of what is to come.
The public are informed by the papers and other mass media. Whis is dumb and concentrates on total irrelevances and conceits.
Even the education does not attempt to rectify and point out anything useful, because the government controls what the education system does, and the government is limited and controlled by the advesorial nature of party politics which enables papers to dictate the few issues upon which the majority (possibly ignorantly=) chose the government.
ITS CLOSED SYSTEM......education/government/information to the majority/ignorance/petty media/public concerns......at present it cant be broken out of.
Democracies can be great....or they can be very weak and crap if the people that drive it (the majority) are weak and frightened and ignorant and fat and lazy and have not been encouraged to hink for themselves or consider that there are other ways of using logic.
Teachers are mostly sh**.......or is it that they've been beaten in some sort of battle?
I initially expected teachers and lectureres to be cleverer than me, to help me understand,, till I was about 29, I was really really puzzled, because I couldnt make out what wasa wrong wit hthe world, it all made no sense, I thought I actually was mad, I came to realise that i was making the false assumption that others knew better (false humility? humbleness? self hate? who knows)......it all made sense when I realised that it didnt all fit into my minds model because those that I trusted to know more or better than I were actually mostly ignorant of the whole (they had only had limited viewpoints)
Sorry that sounds arrogant......I seriously do think there are cleverer people on DIS than me, I think they ,merely dont realise themselves, their viewpoints might not have been as skewed as mine might have been. I also have the advantage of having lived longer, through more, having seen iterrations of different governments(people we trust?) being crap in sometimes different sometimes the same way.
I've also experianced an older education system and watched with bewilderment how they went from the injustices of the old system completely the other way.........but far far too far, they swung completely (I suppose momentum has something to do with it) (an aside....yes momentum is a concept that can apply to concepts htat do not involve physical mass.....in fact many things can apply to many other things than you realise......'everything is relative'.......human ednaevor was for a large period dissected into disciplines and compartmentalised......Experts are assigned to be the gatekeepers of these compartments.........I like going sideways through knowledge heirarchys (assuming top down conventionality)
and public is much more mutual than most people believe it to be. It would be simplistic to see things purely in terms of the public being mislead or misinformed, or even simply just distracted by irrelevant agendas, as mass media content is often designed to appeal to the public. Like you've alluded to, people generally don't like change and can be easily frightened. Does the media dictate what we think, or do our preferences and fears dictate what the media feels comfortable telling us?
the processes that lead to our preferences and fears is also complex
do you give the can of tennants to the alkie? do you give a slice of cake to the obese? do you give someone enough rope?
Yet the flip side of this is that it would be patronising "Government knows best"
The problem is that we have a mixture of both of these things, but not always in the right areas or to the correct degree.
There did used to be bodies deciding what could be shown on tv....this could have been taken seriously, but it obviously degenerated into a characature of censoring pron and violence and swearing.
It totally abandoned any attempt at keeping up quality (It was a privialge to be able to broadcast to millions after all, not a right)
The regulation eventually went out of the window totally.
Regulation for mortgage lending and credit were also abandoned with gusto in the late 70's, where rather than just relaxing limits slightly on a temporary suck it and see basis, they were kind of thrown out of the window.
Regulation can be good.....it is typified by historically being too constricting, it would have been far more sensible to have just loosen the controls a bit on temporaruy basis's, but there is a tendancy for society to churlishly go too far the other way.
Care needs to be exercised for any environmental regulation, care and knoweldge and expertise.........but also WITH INTEGRITY.
letters after names do not denote integrity (I am using the word integrity with far loftier ideals than is normally applied)
that people in general and as a whole need to change. Slating government and business can be redundant; we are government, we are business. These things are not fabled monsters, independent of us in their creation and functions.
Now if you asked me what we could do, I'd be stumped! You are right in that enviromental policy cannot simply be tacked alongside existing policies and needs to be a fully integrated consideration in virtually everything we do. I'm not one for Marxism or Communism at all, but some how popular consciousness need to be altered so that the individual acquires a sense of responsibilty (rather than blaming government/business) and agency (rather than expecting someone else to act). Christ only knows how this could be achieved!
I cant really go into them here, although I would be more than happy to demonstrate that I understand the dynamics of them were we to meet in person for a pint.
Often they are complex because they also grow from some element of feedback from the effects they initially cause.
And given the oppourtunity, I'd gladly buy you a pint, but perhaps have a less loaded, more fun conversation too :D
It should be incorporated and woven into the whole functioning of our society.
Big business wants to make big money.....all other considerations rescinded.
Only when forced by considerations of public image (marketing) and regulation or penalties will they change.......over the years, capitalism/commerce (unfettered) has evolved into something very arrogant and short sighted and rather inhuman (It dodnt have to be this way)
You now have to recognise that it will be a long hard slog to change it.......any regulation will have to be applied evenly and as fairly/realistivcally as possible.
Regulation should not be set by those in government or business as they have other mandates (to their electorate and the newspapers anf pundits or shareholders)
Instead people who actually care about hte environment should be those setting the regulations, although this shoud be tampered by what will work (Britain cannot apply them worldwide, and we dont want to sink britain completely ahead of all the other countries....it must ba a good example of how it CAN work for others to want to follow similarly)
They have got away for this for a long time, they have continually derided and vilified any people who showed environmental concerns (that might interfere with profit) untill a couple of years ago.
individuals have a bottom line though.....they need food, heat and a place to live. They cannot have that eaten into. (However a lot of our resouce goes on needless things that are 'a privilage' (maybe not compared to everyone else in the 'lucky' west but to the whorld as a whole they are)
holiday flights abroad are not that important.
Sporty cars that can go more than 100mph.......why?
any flash car in fact is needless and in a world where there are limited resources......bannable
every piece of needless plastic crap you buy is mosly useless....ok music and listening to it is good.....music lifts your hearts and spirits
driving a flash motor degrades your heart and spirit making you a meaner person who likes looking down on others
Businesses have shareholders and profits and large executive salaries and bonus's that CAN be eaten into
(OK if its too great then the danger is that British businesses will sink faster than any other......care is needed)
(Also executive pay overall does not amount to too much because there are so few of them.......but it shows willing and enables persuasion for every other aspect of life....that needs to change.....that everyone is making sacrifices......(PS you dont see the parliamentary f***ers doing that often do you,,,,,,they always seem to award themselves double figure percent pay rises)
Who the f*** is doing your education.
Why dont they set useful friggin titles like.
"The Environment :- Come up with a way to avoid the recently aired problem whereby British fishermen are throwing back 80% of their catch (cod) back dead into the sea, (please ensure that you solution will satisfy a) the concerns of the people who inposed the quota b) make it slightly better for the fishermen c) make it achievable d) make it 'look good' to the news reporters and therefore the public"
IF the goveernment made all the essays and dissitations you've got to do relevant then the government could then tap into the whole wealth of intelligent young minds that might be able to think outside the box (governments have a very tight and restrictive box)
PS I have several solutions to this fishy problem.
But my point is why doesnt government use the resources they have?
They are crap and inefficient and jobsworths that is why (mostly)
im an environmental scientist, for a large corporate whore of a company.
i'd say the governments use of regulation through environmental policy is probably the best means of governing industry. if anything, the government has been unable to use legislation properly to apply suitable benchmarks for reducing pollution production.
though its true, that without legislation, industry will work to pollute as much as possible, thats the story for people and money through and through, no different to getting ripped off by a shit gig promoter
the use of environ
government nor business should not be in control of the regulations needed to be introduced.
Also instead of regulations the behaviours necessary should be infused into everything that we do
(any elements of environmentalism were battered out of peoples customry behaviour by 'progress'....remember I'm seeing a longer period of britains behaviour than most of you guys)
Government appears to be unfit and incapable of handling any of the countries affairs, I would suggest that you hand it all over to me.
it sits with the environment agency (an independent quango) and then DTI / DEFRA.
regulations should be set by an independant body, with worthwhile academic thought for the benchmark points by which regulation is made.
....then why is it so expensive to use public transport?
I wont do anything green until my buses are regular and affordable. If the government and corporations dont give a shit, why should I be punished?
labour was in the wilderness for so long becaiuse labour was seen as the 'anti business' party as promoted by the tories.
When the tories were proposing to privatise BR.
The labour part could have easily scuppered the sell off by daying they would immediately renationalise it the moment they had the chance, and would only give minimal compensation for the buy back........this would have made it less likely.
Also utilities........yeah we now have the choice......not who supplies us.....but who prints the bill.
Right OK.........all the awfulness of utilities, transport and supermarket/foodchain could have been managed by government simply if they had applied 'monopoly and mergers' ideas, according to the spirit.
e.g. water supply is a monopoly, and is considered vital, therefore how can this be suitable for privatisation?
ditto electricity. big 4 supermarkets nmust surely be considered to be operating a monopoly (almost even a cartel, where they dictate (on occasions fix) the price to the public and from suppliers sometimes (often by default raher than in cold blood)
One station One track, Several train companies. two timetables at warwick station one at one end of the platform, one at the other end of the platform. Several advice lines and timetable/ticketing edvice sites.....all utterly shite and often inaccurate.....cost ....enourmous.....conditions overcrowded....first class, often empty.......can I sit in first class cos there are no seats in 2nd....NO (with BR you could)
Can I get a discount/refund because there was no seat in 2nd class.....NO travelling 5/6 hours to scotland? hah hope you've got a lot of stamina
hardly anything is direct......it would be easy to understand things if they were straightforward.
I thought the question would be more to do with the idea that business has the ear of government.
You say that the environment agency is an independant quango........please tell me who appointed the members, decision makers of this.........also the amount of influence that they can have can still be bargained with government who might want to influence what emphasis they put on what they say and what actual regulation is enforced.
DTI and DEFRA are certainly controlled by government who are very much influenced by businesses and agro business.
It is very rare that the government creates a truely independant body with regulatory control......remember independant bodies can havce their funding reduced.
What you say is idyllic, im not knocking the idea......its just that it has traditionally not been seen to come to pass as you say.
the appointees are vetted and chosen by politicians or their freinds and close colleagues.
The environment agency is one of the few areas in which I would have liked to have seen 'a celebrity' (remembering the comedy sketches about celebrity governement)
You see, it doesnt matter how many poncey letters an 'appointed expert' has after their name, it doesnt make them trustworthy not to be influenced by 'BIG men'.
Isnt Alistair Darling meant to be a financial expert? isnt the FSA meant to be comprised of financial experts.....if you check out my posts at the time you will see that I was aware of Northern Rock being a much darker hole (and that there are other holes) ...........Either Alistair Darling and the FSA were incompetant, or they lied to you all.
They have done the totally imprudent and unwise thing to have done for the longer term future, they have mereely tried to stave off the truth being revealed to all (or maybe they dont know it)
Aviation fuel has less duty imposed on it.
Aviation fuel exauhst is dumped in a worse place
Aviation travel is more of a luxory than many other travel
Aviation travel is therefore a more expendable luxory.
The government does not atempt to impose taxes to reflect the truer cost (in resource and future pollution clean up) and the wrong attitude it creates in a population.
The government does not attempt to normalise and settle on an integrated efective public transport system.
Train fares can be often more expensive that air flight........
The government doesn not attempt to make rail travel more attractive to use than the car.
The only political thought Ive heard by governement to reduce work car journies is to propose taxing the individual fro the parlking place or road use......why instead dodnt they give incentives to businesses to 'decentralise' or 'actually give breaks to companies that get people working from home.
Why doesnt the government intorduce metrics to give confidence that workers from home are 'working'
Why continue to allow big out of town supermarkets that need internal combustion transportation?
All these answers come down to the idea that businesses have an undue influence on government, business will argue that they will change, but in their own time......so as not to damage their economic position too much, thius is natural, unfortunately I suspect that government and regulatory bodies pay too much heed to business
that governments would take a tougher stance on big business if there was enough call for it amongst the general public, and that there isn't not necessarily as we are all brainwashed by the Media Monster, but because it seems a part of human nature to be selfish and short sighted. The government is the people; they are members of the public, the public elect them. There is no clear distinction between the two.
Similarly, you have to be careful when demonising business; immediate changes would have possible negative consequences not simply on their profit margins, but the workers, consumers and general public. Perhaps governemtn does need a complete overhaul with regards to envrionmental policy being built in to all policy considerations, but can it come at the price of socio-economic chaos?
interesting. in brief.
the labour government's attempt at environmental improvements struggle massively, mostly due to the inherited tory policies.
it was the torys who set the fuel tax escalator, the torys who closed the coal mines (leading to a dominance on gas fuel), the torys who stupidly privatised the rail network into a complete farce, and the torys who privatised the energy companies and the water companies.
uk environmental legislation is totally dictated by the EU.
The Environment Agency is an independent quango, headed by Baronness Young, and relies quite heavily on independent University / Research approach to apply environmental regulation, and to be honest have some very very good methods of approach, however, they are starved of funding to maintain them. I personally, have paid the Environment Agency near on £3million pounds in the last year for the right to operate (not to pollute).
And of course, businesses realise that money can be made from the environment. Contrary to the likes of the daily mail, Windmills are excellent, relatively low cost forms of energy generation, allowing highly efficient land use. It's true they dont generate the same volumes of power, but are seriously underrated, And of course energy companies will invest in windmills as an example, not because they are env friendly, but because they dont have the massive fuel costs of power station and therefore bring higher profits.
the air travel issue however, does highlight the essay title.
your average gas fired power station uses a rolls royce b211 turbine. my employers have roughly 29 such engines in power stations across the uk. all fired on natural gas. and we pay £3million in environmental licences, plus continued maintenance and reporting with a team of 10 people.
easy jet has over 130 boeing 737's, each with 2 such rolls royce engines, each burning kerosene (dirtier fuel), directly into the air.
with no environmental regulation whatsoever (apart from the relative minimial air traffic taxs).
ken livingstones congestion charge is an excellent example of turning the tide to make people travel more greenly at lower supposed cost.
And I'll accept that the Tories did some Very Bad Things in the 80's and these Very Bad Things have had some very long lasting consequences (I'm not a Tory by the way, although various people here seem to think I am!)
The only problem I have with demonising business is that we as consumers often don't realise that we have power and influence and cannot shirk any sense of responsibility so easily.
I'm not entirely convinced by the Congestion Charge yet, but then it hasn't been in operation all that long
failings is unproductive. On the one hand, it's obviously entirely true. But the Tories' failings were just as influenced by the Labour party's failings in the 70's. And you can go on back forever.
(althought I do blame them more)
I did say that labour is worried about being seen as 'anti business' because it made them unelectable. I might have mentioned that the tories pointed this out......which they did........this is not an unfair criticism of the tories, it is a pointing out that the party political process and the desire to win elections makes parties change. This is a proiduct of the party political advesorial method.
Sorry I dont remember particularly having any go at the tories this time.
I think you must be imagining it from another thread I must have done.
I also remember the strikes at british leyland, strikes by well paid workers (relatively very well paid by shop workers and farm workers and other production lines standards) They didnt seem very comradely towards the other more poorly paid people, they just seemed to justify it by the idea of 'smashing the bosses'
They were not that edifying a spectacle.
I do think that the regulations should be applied to everyone, I did say that individuals would have to give up some unecessary excess too, in fact all I did was draw a bottom line for individuals to needing food shelter and heating. Businesses can actually go bust, its not hte end of the world, but as I said I dont want all the businesses to go bust....I want it to be workable.
My coincern is that it is easier for government to apply individual obligations when businesses can have more largesse to break these obligations. because big businesses are powereful, that is not necessarily bad thing its just reality.
Individual activity is often dictated by business activity.........large out of town work places, large out of town food suppliers, this means that many people cannoit just live locally and toddle down the shops, it doesnt matter how much you want to change its a bugger to try to do this, because of the influence that big business has over individuals.
Also consider the instance of 'packaging/rubbish/landfill/bin weighing chips'
The government COULD put the onus on the individual......OR the government could approach M&S Sainsburies aSDA tESCO wAITROSE etc and say......less packaging please. we want to see a 30% reduction in your packaging (applied to uneccessary packaging.....since we're doing it to your competitors too then you needednt worry about loosing out, you will not pass the costs on to the public.
M&S Sainsburies Tescos and Asda etc will then....EASILY be able to influence their suppliers to reduce unecessary packaging.
If this is done then without even talking to individual humans their rubbish is reduced by 30% without them having to do anything.
Which is most effective and easier?
trying to put chips on everyones wheeliebin, causing the public to be cross, and only attaining a certain percentage of the population doing it?
Or approaching a few retailers, applying regulations evenly to them, and possibly givint them the dosh that you would have spent on wheelie bin chips to help them implement the change?
Businesses should be regulated because of the significant impact they have.
Individuals should be subject to such policies in the hope that it would eventually lead some sense of indivudal responsibility and agency
individuals should not be regulated where it would be more appropriate and sensible to regulate busnesses. As I say my concern is that Business has more clout with both Labour and Tory
"The government doesn not attempt to make rail travel more attractive to use than the car."
why should it? it's an impossible task. they should make it far more unpleasant to be a car user and public transport will fill the void
One of my isolated examples perhaps?
I have also mentioned about unecessary travel, that there is a vast amount of it, that centralised places that have to be journeyed to by individuals cause muvch unecessary miles (why cant people work from home?) I do have an integrated plan that ties and matches up, it is modelled in my head, I cant actually geet all my words out fast enough.
But to be specific to your point.
OK selfish individual travel might be more convenient.......I last tried to take the train when I got sent to work in scotland, for 6 weeks I tried.
I remember BR well, you probably dont.
Maybe the government cannot make rail travel more pleasent by intorducing laws, regulations or obligations on the train operators.......but why make it more unpleasent by privatising it. More money (in real terms) was given to the public to the privatised rail network after privatisation (despirte the windfall of selling off prime property) , I imagine that this is now reduced (judging from the prices).
I am a bit incredulous that you think that it is beyond the wit of a government to make rail travel more attractive.
Government made road transport more attractive in the first place Government has to approve large out of town developements remember.
Government closed down many lines.
Government stopped the trams.
Government deregulated bus companies and rail services.
Still its good to see a firm believer in capitalism and its force for ultimate good beavering away within the labour party
far far too much selfishness attached to it. I did kind of imply it within the morass up there.
I think Petrol is way to cheap. i Think its being used too fast. I think oil producers are far too profligate and greedy with the use of their countries resources to satiate more weak flabby western decadence.
However it is pointless to try to hammer individuals after years of saying the car is good, unless you ween em off by at least convincing the public that cars are not good......for a start off ban car adverts, except for the greenest one, when a greener one comes along allow that to be advertised.......simple idea that needs work on it, but why dont the government work on it.
I lived throught 70's and 80's and most of the 90's carless, although I could drive and always had a job, because I thought it wrong.
I also lived for a large period without a fridge and stood up bathed in a bowl, I stopped drinking even. I didnt even need a telly. I was wholesome, but when I was in the normal community (not in a commune or something) I was virtually spat at by 'normal people'
I tried I tried so f***ng hard and I got the third degree by everyone.
I was a nice person who didnt lecture them or anything. Luckily I am not bitter towards humanity because I realised that it was all their systems of dependancy that made them like this.
HENCE my current assertation that to hammer individuals is not hte way to do it without a complete and evenly spread approach, one that shows the individuals that we are all in this together......government business and individuals, to do this you cannot turn the screw on individuals without anabling them to be greener further up the chain......i.e. at big business, or governmental level.
Obviously your idea of government has rid itself of the tiresome burden of 'wondering what to do about transport' or actually having a bigger picture to help shape the country.
The labour government seems to have abandoned the whol idea of governing........like the utilitiy companies we get letters from, they are fast becoming 'printers of bills'
JJ I think that it is a horrible idea that you are advocating governing a country by the mere application of taxes?
the person with the most responsibility is you and I. for instance, energy consumption has gone through the roof in the last 3 decades. people think nothing of leaving every light on in the house, and having 24 hr supermarkets, with stuff left on permanantly. supermarkets use so much energy, they are now subject to climate change levy legislation.
hence the country is beginning to struggle to keep the lights on.
the petrol price is only the beginning, i'd conservatively reckon there to be 10 years oil left, it's beginning to go very very quickly. and then there will be no cars unless the hydrogen car is perfected in time.
and yes, the public transport system cannot provide a decent alternative.
government should be laying out the plans for an emergency future (things will need to change so quickly and so fundementally that it DOES need government planning and activity, it cannot be left to market forced (which tend to follow trends)
A low level state of emergency if you will
It needs for individuals to be more responsible for their own food production and for land to be available for individuals to intensly farm/grow diverse veg. Land was taken from ordinary peoples cultivational uses by THEM (means those in power) It stands to reason that people should be assisted in resuming more agrarian activities.
It needs for people to not need to buy so much stuff.
It means that if people must have more social and individual interaction and involve government and business less in entertainment and travel and food.
It is a very big change that is necessary.
I know fully well where we will have to end up if we are to avoid utter horror.
I cant really go into where we have to go because until people believe and cant avoid the enormity of everything, they will not accept it.
but you'll all think I was a loony
then you will not see any of the pertinance or relevance of them.
Basically your salvation rests in your absolute trust and taking of my word as gospel, without me having to tie myself in knots by explaining myself.
What this country needs right now is a Dictator with absolute power and compassion for all, I know you dont believe me, but you are mistaken.
Give me your autonomy.
but really why? is it loony?
Apparently you instead all trust Gordon and alistair........why? if you dont trust them and havnt given them a mandate, then how is that not dictatorial.
Why would anyone trust a politician they havnt talked to enough to guage their trustworthyness and ability?
can I have a cabinet position?
JJ has forfited his
Restlessboy will be my goebals
Chiaroscuro my Hess
DrNoVocalchords my Himler
Welcome to the future
The Future is bright
Bamos to be made illegal
I agree with creakyknees, although the urge to scribble "TLDR" onto my computer screen every time I attempt to engage in a thread where he features heavily is as ever difficult to suppress. The idea of allowing individuals to make the right choice for themselves is admirable but patently flawed. Regulation is key but will be extremely unpopular on many levels, which is why both Cameron and Brown are skirting the matter.