I don't get why all houses being built now don't have solar panels on the roof. It'd be a simple and effective way to start producing energy in your own home. Oh wait, I know exactly why! Because there is too much money to be made from powering people's homes, don't want to cut into that with energy efficient, environmentally friendly ideas! No. Screw the planet for a few pennies more.
"Paper walls and tin roofs. That way people will need to spend more on heating and repairs, thus boosting those markets for all our rich chums. Brilliant plan. And the stupid electorate will be none the wiser, they'll probably even vote us in again!" There is currently a huge amount of new houses being built in my town, one of which my aunt is living in and they are so flimsy it's ridiculous. It amazes me that our politicians are so willing to ignore what is now stone cold facts about global warming and the need to do something about it!
In theory homes should be carbon neutral (not exactly true) by 2016. But this date has already been put back at least once. There really is no excuse now for not building efficient housing. Its true it does seem to be in their interests to fund "the big 6" energy companies. They have so much power (excuse the pun) its crazy. They try to make it look like they are coming down hard on them by fining them for not putting in more energy efficient services etc. But its actually cheaper for them to take the fine.
I have never understood how planning permission can be given to new build housing, and particularly housing association housing without them having solar panels on and excellent insulation. This would have the benefits of an immediate reduction in our national carbon footprint, a reduction in the benefits bill as the lower electricity costs will take us less spend and it would provide the solar and insulation industries with guaranteed orders and so should encourage new entrants into the market and make the cost of the panels and insulation lower which would then be a virtuous circle as it would make them economically viable for the rest of us living in older properties. It would also provide jobs for the installers and insualtors. I know it would be an upfront cost for the developers and it would ultimately put a bit on the price of the new houses but I am sure that the likes of Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon would have sufficient clout in a competitive market to get some really good prices from the suppliers and installers. I genuinely don't know what the downside of this would be. If anyone out there can enlighten me I'd be grateful.
Just a bit OT but anyone else encouraged by the new power plant proposed for Norwich being powered by compacted straw. I know it will open us up to all of the obvious jokes but it feels like another step in the right direction. I am proud of my city and I really hope that the Council can continue to develop in a balanced and sustainable manner with the opportunity to improve the infrastructure. I feel really positive about the development of the new science park and the whole area around the UEA feels like it is a huge opportunity for the city to become a real high tech powerhouse into the 21st century. That said it would be nice if at least one of the routes coming into the city from the south wasn't undergoing major road works at the minute! Sorry - was that all a bit positive for this thread?
Probably the same reason there's no cure for cancer yet - pharmaceutical companies make far too much money out of keeping people ticking over with endless pills and treatments to even consider about making one pill that would cure the cancer for good. Where would the money be in that?
The main reason for it not happening is they don't want to upset the 6 big energy companies, who have huge political power or at least influence. Obviously it is not in their interest as they would not be able to sell as much energy. Indeed in Australia the uptake of solar has had a huge impact on the energy companies and their pricing. In terms of developers, the government doesn't want to put them off as they see this as the driver for the economy. The whole planning system is set up very much in favour of developers. Aside from this it would be easy to speculate about the Tories having friends who have a lot invested in energy, property etc but I wont go there. One of my major concerns were we to pull out of the EU would be our attitude towards the environment. Its bad as it is, but the EU does keep it in check. But basically I agree with what you said, it makes perfect sense to the country as a whole. In fact the Stern report a few years back said it would be cheaper for the country in the long run to address the issue. But we live in a world of short term politics so I won't hold my breath.
It genuinely depresses me sometimes that money has become the be all and end all for the majority. People are more interested in having a nice house, a nice car and a couple of holidays a year than hoping for a fairer, more equal society. That's the legacy Thatcher left behind. Individualism and greed.
I don't think it's necessarily for the majority. Less than 37% of voters actually voted Tory, so nearly 2/3 of those that voted don't support that idea - and bear in mind that 37% of those that voted works out as less than 25% of those that can vote. I appreciate that not everyone who voted Tory thinks like that, and some who do but didn't vote Tory, but it gives you a reasonably good idea of those who tend to wholly support capitalist ideals. I find our politics quite scary that a party which won less than 25% of the country's votes can have complete control over Parliament (and I apply that to Lab, SNP etc just as much as the Tories).
Plus the city boy spivs know that when they crash the markets again us suckers will bail them out. Then blame the poor for our debts.
Yet according to those on the right we're the blinkered naive ones?! You've got to laugh, else you'll cry!
The thought of handing over tax payers money to the richest banking corporations in the World is hilarious. Then they have the cheek to tell us that we can't restrict their bonuses or tax them to high or they will bugger off.
...and all the time while this is going on those hideous people at the bottom of the food chain who claim benefits off the state continue to dare to smoke their cigarettes and have some sort of a life. The nerve!!
I imagine after 5 years of Tory leadership we are going to have a huge inequality gap. While that maybe all good for them now it is not sustainable and will hit the rich hard as well. If they want to stay in this country that is. Countless studies show the issues with inequality and its impact on society. You only have to look at issues in some parts of the states to illustrate them. But overall their short term views on everything from economy, health through to energy and the environment should be very concerning. Certainly NOT building for future generations.
I know! Why can't they just accept their place as sheep for corporations to flog their tacky crap to and pawns in politicians plans for power!
I tend to try and temper my cynicism, but it often gets the better of me. I'll give you a run for your money any day of the week Cruyff!
I think this thread has been successful on several levels. To begin with it was ostensibly just to discuss the election but it has achieved more than that. There are clearly several of us on what I might call the "Thinking Left" and conversely a few on the "Uninformed Right". OK that might be divisive to an extent but nevertheless I think that we all know where we stand now politically. Oh and of course JWM has the hat with bells on. Well some things never change!
