I’m saying that the actions of a few within the group who may not be abiding by their principles, does not undermine the views of the group.
Then it still makes absolutely no difference to the argument that we should insulate Britain. exactly which bit of their argument do you not agree with. Do you think we should be poorly insulated. Do you think that we should increase emissions?
No, not at all but I think they should get out of the ****ing road. Or, face the wrath of the delayed motorists without police protection.
I think we shouldn't be housing people who arrive here when ex servicemen amongst others are sleeping on the streets. But we can't always have what we want. Then there is the matter of who is going to pay for the things we want. My house is well insulated. I paid for it to be done. How is yours?
Insulting the homes of the elderly and vulnerable is a fine ideal. The argument that it impacts on climate change is weak, as people and buildings need fresh air so will simply open more windows, nullifying the insulation, and it ignores the far greater and more immediate potential for increasing indoor air quality, which adds to the greatest number of environmental deaths.
It's interesting to look at the impact of producing the current insulating material. It's probably a better argument to promote hemp, as that has a multitude of uses and is an eco option if done correctly.
It's a different part of the family so no high, but still falls into the same category through ignorance and the influence of the tobacco, cotton and laterally nylon industry. You can make houses, cars, paper and all sorts out of other stuff out it.
It's in everyone's interest to insulate their own home, grants and subsidies have been available over the years. I am aware of rental properties and that they may fall outside of the above, though steps are been taken so far as rental properties will soon if not already need to have an energy rating score in order to be rented out.
That's the issue with a number of these type of 'protests', as they're 'campaigning' for things that they know are already going to happen anyway, so they can claim a 'success' and move on to another cause. They rarely suggest the optimum solution anyway, and in the process, the conversation is distracted from the main issues. It makes it look as though those behind it don't actually have improving the environment as their actual goal.
What on earth do ex servicemen have to do with insulate Britain? That’s a completely different subject matter. And again, whether my house is insulated or not does not alter the debate even slightly as to whether Britain should be insulating it’s houses better. Again, what part of their position do you disagree with?
So you think insulation is a must but don't think insulating your house is a must? Do you think everyone should stop flying and driving whilst you continue to drive your car to the airport?
The idea that dismissing climate change activism will not result in environmental damage is much more worrying, but not a laughing matter. Forget the methods of insulate Britain - the argument is sound.
I think your missing my point. We need to insulate Britain, full stop. Whether I have done so or not is irrelevant to the debate. If I have, it makes my argument consistent with my actions, but doesn’t alter the business case. If I haven’t, It makes my argument inconsistent with my actions, but doesn’t alter the business case. Asking me if my home is insulated is just trying to find a reason to ignore the argument “he is wrong because he’s a hypocrite”. I have many people who I dislike and don’t like the way then conduct themselves (many in politics) but if they make a good point, it stays a good point no matter who made it.
