Mmm - at the risk of coming across as uneccesarily disagreeable, I really have to ask you to look seriously at postwar deaths.
We may have survived the Great War and WW2 collectively, but I am afraid post war deaths have exceeded casualties in all wars - including Iraq.
My Grandparents lived through the Manchester blitz and the coupons... and I think I could safely say neither of them wanted to relive it, or would ever wish it on anyone.
You are referring to timeframes where health and sanitation was extremely poor. Many perished and many children did not survive infancy during postwar periods. My Grandmother was separated from her brother when they entered an orphanage. My grandfather lost 3 children and Grandma lost one child after WW2. That kind of thing resonates with me Martin. Makes me grateful for developments in science, education, health and transport.
Finding a reasonable balance is maybe the goal, if we want to think/see/feel our way out of this one?
Sounding you out!
-
Martin
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:50 am
- Location: Nr Heathfield, East Sussex
- Contact:
the point I am trying to make is that things like flying are a luxury that the earth cannot afford - that simple! 
I alluded to recent hardships for one simple reason - they had just about enough to survive - and survived - we are now drowning in excess, and sinking - can you not see that?
At a stroke, government COULD decimate our emisssions, but won't - perhaps make airlines charge the TRUE cost of air travel, at the moment it's effectively subsidised and encouraged - if a seat to Oz cost £5,000, I have a feeling lots of people would suddenly find those boats very attractive. There you are - one simple measure, it would cost peanuts to implement, at a stroke it would save an enormous amount of emissions - it may be inconvenient, but it's hardly 2ozs of butter a week either! 8)
I alluded to recent hardships for one simple reason - they had just about enough to survive - and survived - we are now drowning in excess, and sinking - can you not see that?
At a stroke, government COULD decimate our emisssions, but won't - perhaps make airlines charge the TRUE cost of air travel, at the moment it's effectively subsidised and encouraged - if a seat to Oz cost £5,000, I have a feeling lots of people would suddenly find those boats very attractive. There you are - one simple measure, it would cost peanuts to implement, at a stroke it would save an enormous amount of emissions - it may be inconvenient, but it's hardly 2ozs of butter a week either! 8)
http://solarwind.org.uk - a small company in Sussex sourcing, supplying, and fitting alternative energy products.
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
-
Boots
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:23 pm
- Location: The Queensland, Australia.
I can see the point you are attempting to make, I just don't agree with it.
Your picture building comes across to me, as exactly the same tactics that the government and marketing companies use to promote development and convince people of a certain way of thinking. It makes me question the 'noise' and look for truth in it.
It could be argued (and has been extensively) that the damage to our oceans and waterways is significantly impacted upon as a result of boat and ship travel. Ship generated waste, treated or untreated, travels throughout the world and contributes to massive pollution. A Carribean study noted each person, each day, travelling on a ship/boat contributed 1kg of burnable waste, Half a kilo of food waste (which messes with our marine cultures massively) and a kilo of glass and tin. That does not include the fuel and oil emissions of motorised crafts while in harbour and at sea. Whack people in the water, and enevitably they mess it up. Water is the lifeblood of life and earth. Diverting people out of the air and into the water, is not a solution.
Your suggestion that we further pad the government you're opposing and the corporate bodies that long for just this kind of leverage is clearly well meaning, but if we permit that to happen, what do you think they will spend those profits on? Eco-loos maybe? The odd windmill? I doubt it.
I have the distinct feeling Martin, that if Avian Flu or another plague of some sort was to suddenly break out in your neighbourhood, you would be hooting and hollering for an appropriate response from your government and international scientists with the solution. Would you be happy then, to wait for the treatment to be sent over on a sailing ship? Or would you prefer we flew it over?
We can denounce progress all we want, but we can't deny it. When we consider those who went before us and strove to develop the machines, medicines, equipment and vehicles, we can recognise and respect the hours spent designing and developing these innovations. If we can build a machine that milks cows, sorts eggs, prints words, and communicates with people on the other side of the world in real time, we can continue to find solutions to our problems as they arise. And problems, like everything else, will continue to develop.
I think you are underestimating us - as evolving human beings.
We need real, workable solutions and I can't see where you have provided one. You have provided diversions, and in my eyes - as I see it -a diversion only ever prolongs the solution.
...Has been a thought provoking discussion though...
Your picture building comes across to me, as exactly the same tactics that the government and marketing companies use to promote development and convince people of a certain way of thinking. It makes me question the 'noise' and look for truth in it.
It could be argued (and has been extensively) that the damage to our oceans and waterways is significantly impacted upon as a result of boat and ship travel. Ship generated waste, treated or untreated, travels throughout the world and contributes to massive pollution. A Carribean study noted each person, each day, travelling on a ship/boat contributed 1kg of burnable waste, Half a kilo of food waste (which messes with our marine cultures massively) and a kilo of glass and tin. That does not include the fuel and oil emissions of motorised crafts while in harbour and at sea. Whack people in the water, and enevitably they mess it up. Water is the lifeblood of life and earth. Diverting people out of the air and into the water, is not a solution.
Your suggestion that we further pad the government you're opposing and the corporate bodies that long for just this kind of leverage is clearly well meaning, but if we permit that to happen, what do you think they will spend those profits on? Eco-loos maybe? The odd windmill? I doubt it.
I have the distinct feeling Martin, that if Avian Flu or another plague of some sort was to suddenly break out in your neighbourhood, you would be hooting and hollering for an appropriate response from your government and international scientists with the solution. Would you be happy then, to wait for the treatment to be sent over on a sailing ship? Or would you prefer we flew it over?
We can denounce progress all we want, but we can't deny it. When we consider those who went before us and strove to develop the machines, medicines, equipment and vehicles, we can recognise and respect the hours spent designing and developing these innovations. If we can build a machine that milks cows, sorts eggs, prints words, and communicates with people on the other side of the world in real time, we can continue to find solutions to our problems as they arise. And problems, like everything else, will continue to develop.
I think you are underestimating us - as evolving human beings.
We need real, workable solutions and I can't see where you have provided one. You have provided diversions, and in my eyes - as I see it -a diversion only ever prolongs the solution.
...Has been a thought provoking discussion though...
-
Martin
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:50 am
- Location: Nr Heathfield, East Sussex
- Contact:
you think I'm emoting, I think you're avoiding the issue! 
We cannot, we must not continue to dump pollutants high in the atmosphere - the antipodes are already suffering an ozone hole because of it - fact!
I once had a charter yacht - while on a run, with sealed effluent tanks, and proper storage, there is no reason why a properly run yacht should emit ANY pollution!
As to government's infallibility in health outbreaks -I just look at the recent foot and mouth debacle - funeral pyres of cattle, closely followed by many farmers who couldn't face seeing generations of family work disappearing up in smoke. I photographed a wedding on Saturday of a great old friend - he writes textbooks on the homoepathic treatment of animals, and informs me that an outbreak can be dealt with simply and effectively with homeopathic remedies, with no need for slaughter whatsoever!!!!!!!
I've got no problem with having things like rescue helicopters, and occasional "compassionate" flights, but to allow the general subsidy of such a technology is unforgiveable!
We cannot, we must not continue to dump pollutants high in the atmosphere - the antipodes are already suffering an ozone hole because of it - fact!
I once had a charter yacht - while on a run, with sealed effluent tanks, and proper storage, there is no reason why a properly run yacht should emit ANY pollution!
As to government's infallibility in health outbreaks -I just look at the recent foot and mouth debacle - funeral pyres of cattle, closely followed by many farmers who couldn't face seeing generations of family work disappearing up in smoke. I photographed a wedding on Saturday of a great old friend - he writes textbooks on the homoepathic treatment of animals, and informs me that an outbreak can be dealt with simply and effectively with homeopathic remedies, with no need for slaughter whatsoever!!!!!!!
I've got no problem with having things like rescue helicopters, and occasional "compassionate" flights, but to allow the general subsidy of such a technology is unforgiveable!
http://solarwind.org.uk - a small company in Sussex sourcing, supplying, and fitting alternative energy products.
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
-
Martin
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:50 am
- Location: Nr Heathfield, East Sussex
- Contact:
ps, I really just cannot understand WHY people have to cling to their "right to fly" - the equation between taking a plane and causing great harm to our beloved planet is very firmly proved!
Like Andy, I took the decision not to fly many years ago - if I can happily cope without flying, why can't you? - I'm very sorry, but I view it as utter shortsighted selfishness! - sort of "bugger the bloody polar bears, I'm going to fly, and if you try to stop me, I'll scream and scream till I'm sick!"
Like Andy, I took the decision not to fly many years ago - if I can happily cope without flying, why can't you? - I'm very sorry, but I view it as utter shortsighted selfishness! - sort of "bugger the bloody polar bears, I'm going to fly, and if you try to stop me, I'll scream and scream till I'm sick!"
http://solarwind.org.uk - a small company in Sussex sourcing, supplying, and fitting alternative energy products.
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
-
Stonehead
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:31 pm
- Location: Scotland
- Contact:
It's a lot more complicated than "fly", "not fly" - even leaving out the political, social and cultural hassles.
Aircraft do have major effects on climate and the ozone layer, as well as using vast amounts of fuel.
However, there are many variables.
Turboprops and turbofans, for example, are much more fuel efficient than turbojets while emitting less pollution.
Night flying has a greater effect on greenhouse gases than daytime flying.
High altitude flight has significantly greater effects on the ozone layer than low-level flights.
Hydrogen is a potential future fuel for aircraft but at heights between 11,000 and 12,000 metres, the effect of water vapour (produced by burning hydrogen) on the greenhouse effect is actually greater than from an equivalent aviation kerosene fuelled plane.
On the plus side, hydrogen has three times the energy of kerosene so you could use one third the fuel of a similar sized conventional aircraft. (It's also not a new technology - the Russians flew hydrogen-fuelled jets back in the 1950s but fossil fuel was a lot more convenient.)
Then there are the resources and energy involved in building aircraft - if you think cars are bad, aircraft are a lot worse. But many aircraft are used for much longer than cars - how many 30-year-old cars are on the road compared with how many 30-year-old aircraft are still in use?
While I don't think it's feasible or wise to turn back the clock too far, I do think we managed fairly well in the 1950s and 1960s when it comes to air travel. I'm not harking back to some fabled golden age, but I do think we've become too accustomed to demanding whatever we want NOW!
Probably the first step to stopping further growth in air travel and then starting some contraction would be to impose the same taxes on aircraft fuel as apply to automotive fuel. You could then curtail night flights to an even greater extent and start banning aircraft that have fuel consumption that's too high.
We'd still have air travel - and probably too much air travel - but it would be a start.
Other bonuses from doing this would be that it would make importing food by air much more expensive, making it more viable for local farmers to compete and also shifting some back to sea travel. (And yes, modern sea travel can be very polluting but this can be tackled too.)
Of course, as we've seen here, you then run into the problems raised by politics, philosophies, culture and societies. However, we have to do something and further delays are only going to make things worse.
Aircraft do have major effects on climate and the ozone layer, as well as using vast amounts of fuel.
However, there are many variables.
Turboprops and turbofans, for example, are much more fuel efficient than turbojets while emitting less pollution.
Night flying has a greater effect on greenhouse gases than daytime flying.
High altitude flight has significantly greater effects on the ozone layer than low-level flights.
Hydrogen is a potential future fuel for aircraft but at heights between 11,000 and 12,000 metres, the effect of water vapour (produced by burning hydrogen) on the greenhouse effect is actually greater than from an equivalent aviation kerosene fuelled plane.
On the plus side, hydrogen has three times the energy of kerosene so you could use one third the fuel of a similar sized conventional aircraft. (It's also not a new technology - the Russians flew hydrogen-fuelled jets back in the 1950s but fossil fuel was a lot more convenient.)
Then there are the resources and energy involved in building aircraft - if you think cars are bad, aircraft are a lot worse. But many aircraft are used for much longer than cars - how many 30-year-old cars are on the road compared with how many 30-year-old aircraft are still in use?
While I don't think it's feasible or wise to turn back the clock too far, I do think we managed fairly well in the 1950s and 1960s when it comes to air travel. I'm not harking back to some fabled golden age, but I do think we've become too accustomed to demanding whatever we want NOW!
Probably the first step to stopping further growth in air travel and then starting some contraction would be to impose the same taxes on aircraft fuel as apply to automotive fuel. You could then curtail night flights to an even greater extent and start banning aircraft that have fuel consumption that's too high.
We'd still have air travel - and probably too much air travel - but it would be a start.
Other bonuses from doing this would be that it would make importing food by air much more expensive, making it more viable for local farmers to compete and also shifting some back to sea travel. (And yes, modern sea travel can be very polluting but this can be tackled too.)
Of course, as we've seen here, you then run into the problems raised by politics, philosophies, culture and societies. However, we have to do something and further delays are only going to make things worse.
-
Boots
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:23 pm
- Location: The Queensland, Australia.
mmm... If I was to resort to your tactics, I would insert an eye rolling smiley here - but instead I will resist.
Please do not make suggestive quotes about what you think I am thinking or saying unless I have expressed them myself. I do not wish to be a part of the pessimistic picture you are painting.
My daughter is studying marine science, and as a result I have spent many hours watching polar bears in captivity. They are the most powerful beasts in water and able to launch their massive body weight to extraordinary and quite unbelievable lengths both in and OUT of the water. Footage of a cub learning to do this and navigate his way out and onto the ice, simply does not evoke the same passionate attachment to the decline of life as we know it, for me. But maybe I didn't have quite the same voice over or music playing in the background when I viewed it...
I also made a decision not to fly some years ago, but that has more to do with a personal promise that before I leave this country again, I should know it well. So until I have explored it to my satisfaction and can stand as a half decent ambassador, then I will continue to adventure here.
I have no particular attachment to planes at all. In fact, the last time I travelled in one was 25 years ago. So I am not defending air travel. I am questioning your rationale. Andy was questioning his decision and wanted to discuss it. You provided a barrage of passionate no fly policies, and I began searching them for truth. I was interested in your reasoning, unfortunatley I didn't find much of it.
I'm no screamer, mate. I couldn't give two hoots how you do or don't travel. That's your business, but if you are going to start preaching about everyone elses choices, that include mine, then I want to know why and whether its valid. To me, it just sounds like cr*p.. kinda like rationing water... we ration water so folks can water their potted flowers and wash their cars during certain hours on certain days, and our wildlife and stock are dying in the paddocks. Just makes no sense to me, but the folks in the cities think it makes perfect sense.
I don't know about your country, but ours has some big expanses. My mate travels over 500kms just to get to work. There is no work locally and land near work is too expensive. If there was a plane available to make that trip, I think he'd probably fly - and truth be known, I'd probably encourage it, because 5 hours on the road after a 12hr night shift has him arriving home looking like death warmed up.
You think you have the blueprints? Like you are in control and anyone that questions you or asks you to consider what you're actually saying is just a naughty and selfish little nobody? Don't come the raw prawn with me woman.
One good kick in the posteria, and you might find you like flying afterall.
Please do not make suggestive quotes about what you think I am thinking or saying unless I have expressed them myself. I do not wish to be a part of the pessimistic picture you are painting.
My daughter is studying marine science, and as a result I have spent many hours watching polar bears in captivity. They are the most powerful beasts in water and able to launch their massive body weight to extraordinary and quite unbelievable lengths both in and OUT of the water. Footage of a cub learning to do this and navigate his way out and onto the ice, simply does not evoke the same passionate attachment to the decline of life as we know it, for me. But maybe I didn't have quite the same voice over or music playing in the background when I viewed it...
I also made a decision not to fly some years ago, but that has more to do with a personal promise that before I leave this country again, I should know it well. So until I have explored it to my satisfaction and can stand as a half decent ambassador, then I will continue to adventure here.
I have no particular attachment to planes at all. In fact, the last time I travelled in one was 25 years ago. So I am not defending air travel. I am questioning your rationale. Andy was questioning his decision and wanted to discuss it. You provided a barrage of passionate no fly policies, and I began searching them for truth. I was interested in your reasoning, unfortunatley I didn't find much of it.
I'm no screamer, mate. I couldn't give two hoots how you do or don't travel. That's your business, but if you are going to start preaching about everyone elses choices, that include mine, then I want to know why and whether its valid. To me, it just sounds like cr*p.. kinda like rationing water... we ration water so folks can water their potted flowers and wash their cars during certain hours on certain days, and our wildlife and stock are dying in the paddocks. Just makes no sense to me, but the folks in the cities think it makes perfect sense.
I don't know about your country, but ours has some big expanses. My mate travels over 500kms just to get to work. There is no work locally and land near work is too expensive. If there was a plane available to make that trip, I think he'd probably fly - and truth be known, I'd probably encourage it, because 5 hours on the road after a 12hr night shift has him arriving home looking like death warmed up.
You think you have the blueprints? Like you are in control and anyone that questions you or asks you to consider what you're actually saying is just a naughty and selfish little nobody? Don't come the raw prawn with me woman.
One good kick in the posteria, and you might find you like flying afterall.
-
Martin
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:50 am
- Location: Nr Heathfield, East Sussex
- Contact:
oh lord here we go!
for a start - "smileys" may look like toys, they actually serve a very useful purpose - when I talk, particularly about something about which I'm passionate, I wave my arms about, and make appropriate facial expressions - as we are half a world apart, and using text, a carefully chosen and placed "smiley" can be used to emphasise a point, or to clarify a potentially ambiguous one! (in life, I would have rolled my eyes to heaven!) 8)
I'm sorry if I've hit a raw nerve here, but you're getting rather bolshie at me because I have reiterated some undisputed truths - they may not suit you, you may not agree with them, but they are truths.
I'm a libertarian with a pagan twist - "do what you will, an it harm none"...... there is no question that using airtravel is bad for the environment - hence you are by doing so hurting the whole of humanity, for all time............no violins, no images - just a fact!
Oh, and by the way, I'm a bloke, - so anytime you wish to try to resort to violence - do come and make my day!
for a start - "smileys" may look like toys, they actually serve a very useful purpose - when I talk, particularly about something about which I'm passionate, I wave my arms about, and make appropriate facial expressions - as we are half a world apart, and using text, a carefully chosen and placed "smiley" can be used to emphasise a point, or to clarify a potentially ambiguous one!
(in life, I would have rolled my eyes to heaven!) 8) I'm sorry if I've hit a raw nerve here, but you're getting rather bolshie at me because I have reiterated some undisputed truths - they may not suit you, you may not agree with them, but they are truths.
I'm a libertarian with a pagan twist - "do what you will, an it harm none"...... there is no question that using airtravel is bad for the environment - hence you are by doing so hurting the whole of humanity, for all time............no violins, no images - just a fact!
Oh, and by the way, I'm a bloke, - so anytime you wish to try to resort to violence - do come and make my day!
Last edited by Martin on Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://solarwind.org.uk - a small company in Sussex sourcing, supplying, and fitting alternative energy products.
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
-
Martin
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:50 am
- Location: Nr Heathfield, East Sussex
- Contact:
my suggestion would be to take a little more water with it next time!
http://solarwind.org.uk - a small company in Sussex sourcing, supplying, and fitting alternative energy products.
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
-
Stonehead
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:31 pm
- Location: Scotland
- Contact:
Facts are indisputable (despite what some lawyers think) but truth is a matter of opinion and perspective. I suspect you both agree on most of the underlying facts, but I think your respective truths differ more than somewhat.Martin wrote:some undisputed truths - they may not suit you, you may not agree with them, but they are truths.
Actually, almost everything people do is bad for the environment. What we can do is reduce the effects of what we do, encourage others to take similar steps or do something in their own way, and be very much aware that whatever we do has consequences somewhere along the line.there is no question that using airtravel is bad for the environment - hence you are by doing so hurting the whole of humanity, for all time............no violins, no images - just a fact!
The real problem is not air travel, or even the greenhouse effect. The real problem is too many people trying to have too much. The world needs fewer people and those people need to be much more moderate in their appetites for everything. How you address that is even more charged than debating reductions in air travel.
Oh please, don't do the scary bloke thing. Go and give someone a hug, it's much more effective!Oh, and by the way, I'm a bloke, with a mercurial temper - the last person who tried physically assaulting me ended up with a broken nose, jaw broken in two places, and lost six teeth - so anytime you wish to try to resort to violence - do come and make my day!
Last edited by Stonehead on Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Martin
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:50 am
- Location: Nr Heathfield, East Sussex
- Contact:
fair comment! - lumme Bruce - I was only trying to speak the lingo!
http://solarwind.org.uk - a small company in Sussex sourcing, supplying, and fitting alternative energy products.
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
-
Boots
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:23 pm
- Location: The Queensland, Australia.
Oh, wandered off to bed... and am still chuckling today. There is no drama here folks. The woman (who knocks out teeth and then stops to count them) and I have just entered into some friendly banter. 
No offence intended or taken.
I have to share this, because it truly had me near wetting myself last night. It was the emoticans that really did me in, and everytime I think of this I start giggling again.
Has anyone ever actually tried doing what Martin was emoting?... ------>
I was too polite to ask last night, but now the ice is broken (and a nose or two)... Martin do you have Tourettes?
Disclaimer: Under no circumstances is the above question to be distorted into any reflection, positive or otherwise, upon those who suffer Tourettes. Tourettes is a genuine neurological and medical condition and affects up to 1 in 100 children. Any sufferers, or family members are encouraged to seek support from professionals.
No offence intended or taken.I have to share this, because it truly had me near wetting myself last night. It was the emoticans that really did me in, and everytime I think of this I start giggling again.
Has anyone ever actually tried doing what Martin was emoting?... ------>
I was too polite to ask last night, but now the ice is broken (and a nose or two)... Martin do you have Tourettes?
Disclaimer: Under no circumstances is the above question to be distorted into any reflection, positive or otherwise, upon those who suffer Tourettes. Tourettes is a genuine neurological and medical condition and affects up to 1 in 100 children. Any sufferers, or family members are encouraged to seek support from professionals.
-
circlecross
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 517
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:44 am
- Location: Sunny Cumbria
Now I'm not going to enter the fly no fly discussion, as there are smaller things that stop the planet prospering on everyday levels.
It is people's attitudes as someone has already mentioned - the "I want it NOW" mentality, which is probably why airlines are lowering costs - consumer demands.
Our local council does a kerbside recycling scheme. They fortnightly collect glass, bottles, paper, and are trialing plastic and card collection in some parts of the city. The other fortnightly collection is a green waste wheelie bin. Weekly collections of rubbish. There are about four houses on my street who put their recycling boxes out, but every house has at least three bin bags to put out. There is an outcry because the council had mused on fortnightly collections of rubbish.
Why should this be a problem? It wouldn't be for me, it might bring me up to one bin bag a fortnight, as I don't have a green cone, so a lot of my toddler's food scraps get put out, but a)people can't be bothered to think about long term effects and b) councils are too scared to enforce laws in a sort of facist way because they want to be voted in again by these slow thinking neanderthals.
I had to explain to one of my charges the other day why we shouldn't just throw things in the bin, but I don't think he was convinced, and I could hear his parent's opinions in his voice "Just put it in the bin - then you don't have to think about it".
I don't think that cut price wind turbines and subsidised green cones will do it, when the majority of working/unemployed class on housing estates don't even use the convenient collections of waste open to them. This is the want it now throw it away culture, brought on by a combination of austerity generation/convenience generation/lazy generation. I may be generalising my generations there.
It is very sad. I myself would love to get wind turbine/solar panels etc but can't afford it until B&Q have their piles of "get it cheap" ones, but i do try and do my bit - recycling, cloth nappies, home cooking, three r's etc. It may be me and three other houses on the street, but I won't give up.
Maybe if like minds continue to lobby MPs, slowly something may happen, but unfortunately, there are a lot of minds out there to change, and I don't think many of them will be using THIS forum, so there is no point fighting amongst ourselves!
Susan
It is people's attitudes as someone has already mentioned - the "I want it NOW" mentality, which is probably why airlines are lowering costs - consumer demands.
Our local council does a kerbside recycling scheme. They fortnightly collect glass, bottles, paper, and are trialing plastic and card collection in some parts of the city. The other fortnightly collection is a green waste wheelie bin. Weekly collections of rubbish. There are about four houses on my street who put their recycling boxes out, but every house has at least three bin bags to put out. There is an outcry because the council had mused on fortnightly collections of rubbish.
Why should this be a problem? It wouldn't be for me, it might bring me up to one bin bag a fortnight, as I don't have a green cone, so a lot of my toddler's food scraps get put out, but a)people can't be bothered to think about long term effects and b) councils are too scared to enforce laws in a sort of facist way because they want to be voted in again by these slow thinking neanderthals.
I had to explain to one of my charges the other day why we shouldn't just throw things in the bin, but I don't think he was convinced, and I could hear his parent's opinions in his voice "Just put it in the bin - then you don't have to think about it".
I don't think that cut price wind turbines and subsidised green cones will do it, when the majority of working/unemployed class on housing estates don't even use the convenient collections of waste open to them. This is the want it now throw it away culture, brought on by a combination of austerity generation/convenience generation/lazy generation. I may be generalising my generations there.
It is very sad. I myself would love to get wind turbine/solar panels etc but can't afford it until B&Q have their piles of "get it cheap" ones, but i do try and do my bit - recycling, cloth nappies, home cooking, three r's etc. It may be me and three other houses on the street, but I won't give up.
Maybe if like minds continue to lobby MPs, slowly something may happen, but unfortunately, there are a lot of minds out there to change, and I don't think many of them will be using THIS forum, so there is no point fighting amongst ourselves!
Susan