Because of lobbying and subversive activities of interest groups (large companies), most discussions for or against implementing nuclear power in the UK seem to cloud some indisputable facts. The UK government is currently investigating where to put the proposed ten new nuclear power plants: You might like to let your MP that you don't want it in your area! You can find your MP by entering you post code at http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/
Nuclear power production is NOT CLEAN - it produces waste that is impossible to get rid of with current technology. Don't lets forget what happens when nuclear power stations go wrong (see http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad16.html)
Though the quantity of waste is tiny in volume, we will be left with one big mess that it is IMPOSSIBLE to clean up! Hiding it in a hole in the ground (the currently proposed method of dealing with the highly radioactive waste) is simply delaying the inevitable consequences of major poisoning of the population - it might be our generation that gets it, or it might be our children's children's children's etc. In 1000 years it will be impossible for people to know where conventional power station was sited and it won't much matter: Conversely, if future peoples living in the UK only unearth the sites of nuclear waste we have already created, they will have major problems!
Don't forget that the Irish Sea has already been described as the most radioactively contaminated sea in the world with some "eight million litres of nuclear waste discharged into it each day from selafiled reprocessing plants, contaminating seawater, sediments and marine life. (see http://www1.american.edu/TED/SELLA.HTM and http://www.ecology.at/nni/index.php?p=site&s=243)
Nuclear power production is NOT RENEWABLE - Nuclear power production relies on the sourcing of Uranium, and once the Uranium is gone we will have to find a source of REAL RENEWABLE energy anyway - why delay the inevitable?
Nuclear power production is NOT CHEAP - the UK people will likely pick up the hefty "cleanup bills" associated with "hiding" the highly radioactive waste (out of site out of mind), in the form of very much higher energy bills. Talks have already taken place to incentivise prospective nuclear power companies by offering to dispose of the waste for them (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/07/nuclearpower.alternativeenergy)
For the reasons above Nuclear power production is clearly NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY ! Surely it is more environmentally friendly to pollute in the short term (with coal for example) and seriously work towards a long term goal of real renewable energy. Is it not better to have a wind farm that is a "blot on the landscape" simply because when the turbine is removed theres no real harm done?
How have we ended up with nuclear power on the horizon again when we are presided over by the Labour government that won an election victory promising to rid Britain of nuclear waste?
Because they sold off four of our six large utility companies (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1060811/The-great-nuclear-sell-Our-atomic-power-giant-falls-foreign-hands--youll-pay-price.html) perhaps to gain short term revenue to make their books look good.
Friday, 29 January 2010
Monday, 18 January 2010
Britain hates success - Why Broken Britain
Why did we ever struggle to make something of ourselves?
We started off with nothing, no qualifications, no money, (no family money either)!
Apart from the urge to improve our situation and that of our children, there was an element of pride that we were capable of survival. While our peers were spending all their dole/social security on cigarettes, drinking, clothes etc. we were busy saving our social security for items of computer equipment to start a business and feeding the children on good wholesome food (yes, it is possible on the dole).
We have always saved every month, even if it means that we have less than 2oz of meat in a meal each or put a jumper on instead of the heating, or only have a treat that costs pennies if we could afford it - This may seem extreme to the average British person (in the last thirty years) but its what most of the world does i.e. plan for all eventualities, take responsibility for yourself.
We have indeed improved our situation, we have our own small house ( with a very small mortgage easily payable should we come out of well paid work), we have few clothes or furnishings because we pay for everything cash, no credit (again, in case we come out of work).
We have paid into some saving schemes and pensions (easily payable if we come out of work) that will pay us buttons when (if) we ever can retire. We have rarely been on holidays etc. But we're not complaining, we are happy that we are two independent adults who have managed to provide for ourselves and our children. On occasions we have been on joint salaries of £120,000 apparently we are super rich fat cats. No one would be interested that we slept on the floor on blankets for two years because we couldn't afford a bed or that we still have mainly second hand furniture because we still live within our means.
But what of our children? Well, they did OK in school, but because we lived within our means they never went on the fabulous school trips. Now that we are on very excellent money they have to pay for university, their friends whose parents were "on the sick" or on benefits and who were always boasting about how much money they got for birthdays etc. swaggering about in expensive clothes with expensive presents are now getting assistance to go to further education. Some of them got paid to stay on at school while my children went to minimum wage jobs. How do you explain to a ten year old why we work long hours but their friends unemployed parents don't have to? How does this encourage them to seek gainful employment?
This country sucks, this government does not value pride, self motivation, self help, hard working ambitious people.
This week, I hear of more hair brain government initiatives, more recently giving laptops to "poor" families (Brown has said he will pledge £300m of investment to help poorer families who might not otherwise be able to afford it) and getting more "deprived" kids into top professions, or making people "with money" pay £20,000 on retirement to look after them should they fall ill. All the people I know on benefits (and I know alot) have computers already, they have sky TV etc. It's only the workers who are struggling to make ends meet in this country. Anyone with sense or the means would leave this country.
At this moment in time we fall into the category of "affluent", but we wont even get a full state pension between us when (if we can) retire because we have opted out now and then of national insurance contributions (again, to save money while running a business). This government does not want the people to be independent and the more independent we become the more we are punished by taxes, and our children are penalised as soon as we start to earn enough to live.
The people of Britain need to re adjust their expectations, I saw a program where a woman was complaining about where she lived and how little money she was given on benefits, I don't know how she kept a straight face when all around her were the signs of affluent living, she had a flat screen TV, computer, fancy looking furniture, curtains, gadgets, it was all there! Surely this is the problem with our country, people in employment rightly aspires to have more than someone out of work but the only way a working person can achieve this standard of living is by using credit I also know lots of long term unemployed people (some family, one hasn't had a legitimate job in thirty five years and looking forward to "retirement"), they think we are crackers (they don't complain about their situation but), we have been asked why we bother working, they wouldn't work, they'd have to start off on low wages (like we did) and who knows if they could improve themselves, in the meantime, they'd have to pay their own rent and dental and optician and prescriptions and they'd still be on benefits (child tax and working credit) - income support for rent, school meals, and council tax would reduce or stop too. So theres no advantage in working, but there is a benefit to not working, they will be paid for in retirement - and are tax credits an incentive to work? This is from the horses mouth "not really, you still have to deal with low life petty officials who treat you crap and you feel like your being monitored and it's a worry not being able to afford rent and stuff like that"
Tax on income, tax on savings, tax on purchasing and finally when you die they tax the same money that has already been taxed and deprive your children of it. This is the socialist ideal, not to improve everyone's situation, but to make us all poor! Death taxes serve to make everyone poor.
We are being "groomed" to accept government handouts and encouraged into the benefit system so we can be controlled more easily. Ask yourself why a couple should be encouraged to claim benefits (child tax credits, working tax credits and child minding vouchers) with a joint income of upto £35,000. £35,000 should be enough money to keep an average family! Yet, because of the high level of taxes, it's still hard. Even on twice that money, it's difficult to put a meaningful amount of money away to plan for retirement unless you assume people have constant employment from the age of sixteen on a super wage - but that is not a very typical situation and hasn't ever been! An average family on benefits has an equivalent income of
A couple claiming job seekers allowance will get more than £50 per week, that doesn't sound much does it? Well, thats a disposable income of £5200, on top of that they get their rent paid, add a few children (£1726) and your laughing, free school meals (includes breakfast in some cases), free school uniforms, reduced price access to Broken Britain. To someone who has been in employment the figures seem very low and it might seem difficult to survive on them but, from experience I can tell you that when you don't have all the associated costs of going out to work and you have all the time in the world to dream up ways of making money go further - its plenty. As a single parent (for more than two years) and on benefits, I was allowed to work for a small amount and was able to run a car, send two children to cello and french lessons, eat well and eat out regularly, of course I couldn't put money away long term. The real cost of unemployment, for me anyway, was lack of self esteem and honestly that is waring off!
I don't think think we should take all the money off rich people, that would serve no purpose - what do rich people do with money, well, they spend it, they spend it on employing people and they spend it on buying things, that means more tax revenue. Its very simplistic and appealing to "the hard done by gene" to proliferate this Robin Hood mentality "take from the rich and give to the poor" - Rich people are in a minority and they are mobile, if tax doesn't suit them, they will move - If/when I become rich I will leave Britain. It's better to encourage money earners/spinners to stay. if more people have more money in their pocket, they will create employment for others through spending more and employing more people.
I don't think we should cut benefits particularly. I went on benefits intentionally, long enough to get myself together and get myself trained (I don't mean on a government courses), if I didn't have that assistance I might have ended up unemployed longer or on low wages longer and thats no good. Did you know that many of the long term unemployed don't have to attend a benefits office more than twice a year - we should bring back weekly signing, in the past, the unemployed would be asked to state and sign on a weekly basis that they were looking for work, benefit office officials were obnoxious and this alone would deter many would be skivers It's a laugh to have job seeker professionals, who's purpose is to help unemployed people back to work, they haven't got a clue, they have only ever worked for the government which is not typical of industry as a whole. I know someone who took out redundancy insurance and had to sign on in order to fulfill the claim criteria (they didn't have any entitlement to money) The guy had the potential to earn £1000 per day in the IT industry but the jobseeker employee wanted to send him on an IT awareness course for mature people. Needless to say the insurance company didn't pay out (what a waste of money that was, but thats another story) and the guy was back in employment within three months, no thanks to the government employment agency.
I sat down with a long term unemployed friend to talk them through what they needed to do to start their own business as a sole trader. I'll call him Bob. Bob wanted to explore the possibility of setting up a mobile burger baror something similar with some money he had won, (Bob was never going to turn up at a shop six days a week to stack shelves for the rest of his life but has considered all sorts of other ideas to get out of the benefit system) - we looked at lots of ideas, narrowed it down to a few goers but even though I offered to "do the books" till Bob felt familiar with it, it was too scary having to generate the immediate and regular weekly rent he would have to pay. He would probably be entitled to assistance but (the point was, he wanted to get off benefits) and he didn't want to "upset the apple cart" by messing his landlady around or potentially having to re apply for rent and benefits if all went wrong - not to mention all the red tape we found was associated with these kinds of businesses. Since then he has continued to take benefits, though he doesn't need the money (only the rent) as he lives out of food bins as supplied by large shops. He still has to draw his money every week so as to not appear suspicious
We need to change the tax/work model: People who work should be rewarded by at least being able to PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES instead of being robbed at every turn. That means raising the tax threshold to a living wage and getting rid of expensive (to administrate) tax credits. It should be understood that a lot of people like us (this has been true for many years) change jobs and circumstances frequently and may well be on "affluent" wages one month/year and low wages the next - especially when engaged in the task of bettering themselves. Why are my offspring being taxed, they don't even earn enough to make their own way in the world unless they pool their resources or live off their parents.
The changes in the tax system by the labour party serve to divide and rule: They make people feel bitter about other people having or getting more. They want to get everyone onto benefits (child tax creits and tax credits) so they can dictate how much you take home and what you are doing and soon, what you are buying!
We are in a quandary now, do we just spend all of our savings (that would not last more than a few years without a regular income) have fun now and get assistance later or do we carry on as usual, save money and then dwindle it away when/if we retire on basics and get penalised for it (and taxed again if we take part time jobs).
We started off with nothing, no qualifications, no money, (no family money either)!
Apart from the urge to improve our situation and that of our children, there was an element of pride that we were capable of survival. While our peers were spending all their dole/social security on cigarettes, drinking, clothes etc. we were busy saving our social security for items of computer equipment to start a business and feeding the children on good wholesome food (yes, it is possible on the dole).
We have always saved every month, even if it means that we have less than 2oz of meat in a meal each or put a jumper on instead of the heating, or only have a treat that costs pennies if we could afford it - This may seem extreme to the average British person (in the last thirty years) but its what most of the world does i.e. plan for all eventualities, take responsibility for yourself.
We have indeed improved our situation, we have our own small house ( with a very small mortgage easily payable should we come out of well paid work), we have few clothes or furnishings because we pay for everything cash, no credit (again, in case we come out of work).
We have paid into some saving schemes and pensions (easily payable if we come out of work) that will pay us buttons when (if) we ever can retire. We have rarely been on holidays etc. But we're not complaining, we are happy that we are two independent adults who have managed to provide for ourselves and our children. On occasions we have been on joint salaries of £120,000 apparently we are super rich fat cats. No one would be interested that we slept on the floor on blankets for two years because we couldn't afford a bed or that we still have mainly second hand furniture because we still live within our means.
But what of our children? Well, they did OK in school, but because we lived within our means they never went on the fabulous school trips. Now that we are on very excellent money they have to pay for university, their friends whose parents were "on the sick" or on benefits and who were always boasting about how much money they got for birthdays etc. swaggering about in expensive clothes with expensive presents are now getting assistance to go to further education. Some of them got paid to stay on at school while my children went to minimum wage jobs. How do you explain to a ten year old why we work long hours but their friends unemployed parents don't have to? How does this encourage them to seek gainful employment?
This country sucks, this government does not value pride, self motivation, self help, hard working ambitious people.
This week, I hear of more hair brain government initiatives, more recently giving laptops to "poor" families (Brown has said he will pledge £300m of investment to help poorer families who might not otherwise be able to afford it) and getting more "deprived" kids into top professions, or making people "with money" pay £20,000 on retirement to look after them should they fall ill. All the people I know on benefits (and I know alot) have computers already, they have sky TV etc. It's only the workers who are struggling to make ends meet in this country. Anyone with sense or the means would leave this country.
At this moment in time we fall into the category of "affluent", but we wont even get a full state pension between us when (if we can) retire because we have opted out now and then of national insurance contributions (again, to save money while running a business). This government does not want the people to be independent and the more independent we become the more we are punished by taxes, and our children are penalised as soon as we start to earn enough to live.
The people of Britain need to re adjust their expectations, I saw a program where a woman was complaining about where she lived and how little money she was given on benefits, I don't know how she kept a straight face when all around her were the signs of affluent living, she had a flat screen TV, computer, fancy looking furniture, curtains, gadgets, it was all there! Surely this is the problem with our country, people in employment rightly aspires to have more than someone out of work but the only way a working person can achieve this standard of living is by using credit I also know lots of long term unemployed people (some family, one hasn't had a legitimate job in thirty five years and looking forward to "retirement"), they think we are crackers (they don't complain about their situation but), we have been asked why we bother working, they wouldn't work, they'd have to start off on low wages (like we did) and who knows if they could improve themselves, in the meantime, they'd have to pay their own rent and dental and optician and prescriptions and they'd still be on benefits (child tax and working credit) - income support for rent, school meals, and council tax would reduce or stop too. So theres no advantage in working, but there is a benefit to not working, they will be paid for in retirement - and are tax credits an incentive to work? This is from the horses mouth "not really, you still have to deal with low life petty officials who treat you crap and you feel like your being monitored and it's a worry not being able to afford rent and stuff like that"
Tax on income, tax on savings, tax on purchasing and finally when you die they tax the same money that has already been taxed and deprive your children of it. This is the socialist ideal, not to improve everyone's situation, but to make us all poor! Death taxes serve to make everyone poor.
We are being "groomed" to accept government handouts and encouraged into the benefit system so we can be controlled more easily. Ask yourself why a couple should be encouraged to claim benefits (child tax credits, working tax credits and child minding vouchers) with a joint income of upto £35,000. £35,000 should be enough money to keep an average family! Yet, because of the high level of taxes, it's still hard. Even on twice that money, it's difficult to put a meaningful amount of money away to plan for retirement unless you assume people have constant employment from the age of sixteen on a super wage - but that is not a very typical situation and hasn't ever been! An average family on benefits has an equivalent income of
A couple claiming job seekers allowance will get more than £50 per week, that doesn't sound much does it? Well, thats a disposable income of £5200, on top of that they get their rent paid, add a few children (£1726) and your laughing, free school meals (includes breakfast in some cases), free school uniforms, reduced price access to Broken Britain. To someone who has been in employment the figures seem very low and it might seem difficult to survive on them but, from experience I can tell you that when you don't have all the associated costs of going out to work and you have all the time in the world to dream up ways of making money go further - its plenty. As a single parent (for more than two years) and on benefits, I was allowed to work for a small amount and was able to run a car, send two children to cello and french lessons, eat well and eat out regularly, of course I couldn't put money away long term. The real cost of unemployment, for me anyway, was lack of self esteem and honestly that is waring off!
I don't think think we should take all the money off rich people, that would serve no purpose - what do rich people do with money, well, they spend it, they spend it on employing people and they spend it on buying things, that means more tax revenue. Its very simplistic and appealing to "the hard done by gene" to proliferate this Robin Hood mentality "take from the rich and give to the poor" - Rich people are in a minority and they are mobile, if tax doesn't suit them, they will move - If/when I become rich I will leave Britain. It's better to encourage money earners/spinners to stay. if more people have more money in their pocket, they will create employment for others through spending more and employing more people.
I don't think we should cut benefits particularly. I went on benefits intentionally, long enough to get myself together and get myself trained (I don't mean on a government courses), if I didn't have that assistance I might have ended up unemployed longer or on low wages longer and thats no good. Did you know that many of the long term unemployed don't have to attend a benefits office more than twice a year - we should bring back weekly signing, in the past, the unemployed would be asked to state and sign on a weekly basis that they were looking for work, benefit office officials were obnoxious and this alone would deter many would be skivers It's a laugh to have job seeker professionals, who's purpose is to help unemployed people back to work, they haven't got a clue, they have only ever worked for the government which is not typical of industry as a whole. I know someone who took out redundancy insurance and had to sign on in order to fulfill the claim criteria (they didn't have any entitlement to money) The guy had the potential to earn £1000 per day in the IT industry but the jobseeker employee wanted to send him on an IT awareness course for mature people. Needless to say the insurance company didn't pay out (what a waste of money that was, but thats another story) and the guy was back in employment within three months, no thanks to the government employment agency.
I sat down with a long term unemployed friend to talk them through what they needed to do to start their own business as a sole trader. I'll call him Bob. Bob wanted to explore the possibility of setting up a mobile burger baror something similar with some money he had won, (Bob was never going to turn up at a shop six days a week to stack shelves for the rest of his life but has considered all sorts of other ideas to get out of the benefit system) - we looked at lots of ideas, narrowed it down to a few goers but even though I offered to "do the books" till Bob felt familiar with it, it was too scary having to generate the immediate and regular weekly rent he would have to pay. He would probably be entitled to assistance but (the point was, he wanted to get off benefits) and he didn't want to "upset the apple cart" by messing his landlady around or potentially having to re apply for rent and benefits if all went wrong - not to mention all the red tape we found was associated with these kinds of businesses. Since then he has continued to take benefits, though he doesn't need the money (only the rent) as he lives out of food bins as supplied by large shops. He still has to draw his money every week so as to not appear suspicious
We need to change the tax/work model: People who work should be rewarded by at least being able to PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES instead of being robbed at every turn. That means raising the tax threshold to a living wage and getting rid of expensive (to administrate) tax credits. It should be understood that a lot of people like us (this has been true for many years) change jobs and circumstances frequently and may well be on "affluent" wages one month/year and low wages the next - especially when engaged in the task of bettering themselves. Why are my offspring being taxed, they don't even earn enough to make their own way in the world unless they pool their resources or live off their parents.
The changes in the tax system by the labour party serve to divide and rule: They make people feel bitter about other people having or getting more. They want to get everyone onto benefits (child tax creits and tax credits) so they can dictate how much you take home and what you are doing and soon, what you are buying!
We are in a quandary now, do we just spend all of our savings (that would not last more than a few years without a regular income) have fun now and get assistance later or do we carry on as usual, save money and then dwindle it away when/if we retire on basics and get penalised for it (and taxed again if we take part time jobs).
Britain comments on Mumbai
How embarrassing to watch yet another british celeb talking rubbish (pardon
the pun);
1. The people recycling in Mubai are getting payed for an honest days work -
the alternative is no work and no food - Yes British people wouldn't stoop to
this lowly task but that's partly because British people get too many handouts
from the other British people who ARE willing to work for a living - on the
flip side, there are so many regulations regarding waste and health and safety
that individuals in Britain are not allowed to make a decision to make a
living from "shit" as Mr Mcloud so eloquently put it. Perhaps Mr McCloud
should be less judgemental and respect and admire the work ethic of the people
recycling in Mumbai but we've all gotten a bit above ourselves in this
glorious country.
2 Recycling isn't new, it used to happen in this country, One could visit
dumps and scrap yards (pre health and safety) and pick up what one needed.
Glass bottles were deposit paid and people bought good quality second hand
furniture with money not poor quality new "rubbish" with credit!
3. There would be more recycling here if it hadn't all been sewn up by big
business and local authorities and red tape quotas. It's difficult to find a
scrap merchant that will take your scrap metal now, most have deals with the
local authority who get scrap free of charge from unwitting citizens - thats a
disincentive to recycle.
4. Its not "poor" housing that made the high rise area look bad. If you stop
refuse collection for a few weeks in Britain you wont wait long before it gets
out of hand and come and look in the ditches full of rubbish in my rural area
to see that even people with transport (and good housing) that can get to the
local dump will just dump it - thats people the world over for you! I can show
you many a place (in Britain) where you will find people have simply thrown
their rubbish out the door into their garden or the street and we have
excellent public service. It would be more interesting to see him wander
around some of these places with his film crew!
5. Mr Mcloud seems to have a limited view of the world and is unable to put
things into the context of THIER environment instead of his own cushy one.
I cringed as I watched him insulting the endeavors of these hard working go
getters and at how he sneered at the man who owned the recycling business as
if he (the man) was exploiting the workers not exploiting the situation and
making a good situation out of a bad one. I am fed up with celebs looking down
their noses (unofficially on our behalf) at other nations, as if we are so much
better and Britain is perfect. We don't even build new houses on a large scale
with a life expectancy of more than thirty five years - maybe Mr Mcloud should
stick to his area of expertise (TV celeb moaning melodramatic architect?) more
suited to entertainment than serious reportage and the rest of us concentrate
on our own back yard before damming other countries .
On a personal note, I have always felt that Grand Designs is interesting in
spite of his silly commentary not because of it - I felt I must comment on
this more serious subject.
Finally, is Mr Mcloud not familiar with the word faeces?
Sunday, 10 January 2010
We've run out of money but we haven't stopped spending
Quote ... "The problem with socialism is
you eventually run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher -
The Labour party has run this country into the ground but they still keep spending!
Instead of paying for the endless silly things, like giving teenagers free theatre tickets, and giving "poor people" computers, they should be investing the money to foot the bill for looking after old people etc. i.e. spend on the necessities, we can no longer afford the frills.
The government reflects the attitude of many of its citizens, that its OK to spend spend spend, and borrow, borrow, borrow, instead of planning ahead and putting aside money for hard times - stop spending!
you eventually run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher -
The Labour party has run this country into the ground but they still keep spending!
Instead of paying for the endless silly things, like giving teenagers free theatre tickets, and giving "poor people" computers, they should be investing the money to foot the bill for looking after old people etc. i.e. spend on the necessities, we can no longer afford the frills.
The government reflects the attitude of many of its citizens, that its OK to spend spend spend, and borrow, borrow, borrow, instead of planning ahead and putting aside money for hard times - stop spending!
what ever the weather, we'll weather the weather
Why let global warming distract you from real environmental issues!
We know that:
So, what's changed then? Why the fuss all of a sudden?
Could it be to preserve the status quo - Do the economies that are on the way down (The US and it's side kick UK, and Europe) want to try to hold the emerging economies back (Russia and China).
Additionally, governments can't legislate about what really matters, they would become unpopular with the general population and the measures would stifle economies. If your government legislated to stop you using light and heating, they wouldn't be in power long, would they? Similarly, they would become very unpopular if they stopped companies producing the goods you wanted (not needed)
In the west we seem to think its OK to suddenly tell other countries not to run cars or pollute, when we have been doing just that for generations, without a thought for the consequences. We've made small gestures as long as it didn't cost very much or upset too many people.
We (in the west) can't "fix" global warming, not least because we're not in charge! The only thing we can sensibly do is make sure that we leave the earth in a fit state for the next generation. With that in mind, what can we do? Very simply, we can take control of our own individual impact on the environment: It won't stop global warming (it won't stop other people or countries doing the "wrong" thing) but YOU will leave the earth more habitable than if you do nothing. Don't shirk your responsibility, don't leave it to governments!
Don't use your economic situation as an excuse to do nothing, many small changes to your life style will save you money and make you healthier!
What can YOU do?
Don't use mercury filled flourecent bulbs (the ones that carry government health warnings on the box because mercury is a cumulative toxic metal). These bulbs are not environmentally friendly. I would like to know which government official got paid to get laws passed to stop us using simple safe metal and glass tungsten (bulbs which are easily disposable) in favour of these new health hazards.
don't buy plastic, food in plastic, plastic toys, plastic household gadgets, there are usually alternatives to plastic items. Incidentally, I save a fortune not buying plastic, if there is no alternative to the plastic item, I just don't buy it!
Eat proper food, fresh meat and vegetables are cheaper than processed and packaged foods, they are cheaper to produce and transport too. We don't need meat in the quantities we eat, I make a chicken last three meals (plus some soup) for three adults. Processed food can be full of chemical none food items that are by products of other industries that are put in to make the food cheaper to produce not because they are good for you - learn to cook, it will save you a packet!
Fire alarms; radio active fire alarms that are handed out to the general population with no plan for disposal other than to throw them in the local landfill. There are reasonably priced alternatives which are very popular and widely available in the US if you must have fire alarms. My mother lets the fire men in every two or three years and they coerce her into letting them fit a new fire alarm, as soon as they have gone she throws it in the bin, because "it goes off when shes cooking" - how wasteful is that. She's eighty eight and says she's never needed one before.
Most makeup products; these totally unnecessary products are a hugely responsible for pollution, vast polluting petro chemical industries rely on (mainly women) plastering themselves in oil based products for vanity. This goes for deoderents, soaps, detergents, air fresheners, you don't need them all, you don't need as many as you use. They are mostly cons anyway, why would you want to pollute your air (and everyone else's air) with a bunch of chemicals when you can open a window for some fresh air?
We get told frequently that electricity is too expensive but it's not so expensive that people switch it off ! And, do we really need street lights everywhere. In my area, I hardly see a pedestrian, yet the lights are so numerous they keep me awake at night
We are spoiled and greedy in the UK, is it OK to heat whole houses with central heating in winter and summer when only one or two rooms are in use. My family and I have lived all our lives in unheated houses, it's more healthy too even the ninety year old puts a coat on in doors. Traditional central heating systems use fuel all the time, in the form of pilot lights and timers, consider switching it off through the summer.
Modern housing is hard to heat and the newest houses are said to have a life span of only 35 to 50 years, this has got to be the most un environmental friendly situation. The government encourages and supports the companies responsible for the new housing and pats them on the back with knighthoods. We don't need to build new houses, we need to re use old houses.
I would say buy local and seasonal, but British food is such poor quality and disease ridden, BSE,scrapy, foot and mouth, swine flu etc.
If you want to add to this list, post me!
We know that:
- The temperatures might go up (or down) somewhere.
- The sea might rise (or fall) somewhere.
So, what's changed then? Why the fuss all of a sudden?
Could it be to preserve the status quo - Do the economies that are on the way down (The US and it's side kick UK, and Europe) want to try to hold the emerging economies back (Russia and China).
Additionally, governments can't legislate about what really matters, they would become unpopular with the general population and the measures would stifle economies. If your government legislated to stop you using light and heating, they wouldn't be in power long, would they? Similarly, they would become very unpopular if they stopped companies producing the goods you wanted (not needed)
In the west we seem to think its OK to suddenly tell other countries not to run cars or pollute, when we have been doing just that for generations, without a thought for the consequences. We've made small gestures as long as it didn't cost very much or upset too many people.
We (in the west) can't "fix" global warming, not least because we're not in charge! The only thing we can sensibly do is make sure that we leave the earth in a fit state for the next generation. With that in mind, what can we do? Very simply, we can take control of our own individual impact on the environment: It won't stop global warming (it won't stop other people or countries doing the "wrong" thing) but YOU will leave the earth more habitable than if you do nothing. Don't shirk your responsibility, don't leave it to governments!
Don't use your economic situation as an excuse to do nothing, many small changes to your life style will save you money and make you healthier!
What can YOU do?
Don't use mercury filled flourecent bulbs (the ones that carry government health warnings on the box because mercury is a cumulative toxic metal). These bulbs are not environmentally friendly. I would like to know which government official got paid to get laws passed to stop us using simple safe metal and glass tungsten (bulbs which are easily disposable) in favour of these new health hazards.
don't buy plastic, food in plastic, plastic toys, plastic household gadgets, there are usually alternatives to plastic items. Incidentally, I save a fortune not buying plastic, if there is no alternative to the plastic item, I just don't buy it!
Eat proper food, fresh meat and vegetables are cheaper than processed and packaged foods, they are cheaper to produce and transport too. We don't need meat in the quantities we eat, I make a chicken last three meals (plus some soup) for three adults. Processed food can be full of chemical none food items that are by products of other industries that are put in to make the food cheaper to produce not because they are good for you - learn to cook, it will save you a packet!
Fire alarms; radio active fire alarms that are handed out to the general population with no plan for disposal other than to throw them in the local landfill. There are reasonably priced alternatives which are very popular and widely available in the US if you must have fire alarms. My mother lets the fire men in every two or three years and they coerce her into letting them fit a new fire alarm, as soon as they have gone she throws it in the bin, because "it goes off when shes cooking" - how wasteful is that. She's eighty eight and says she's never needed one before.
Most makeup products; these totally unnecessary products are a hugely responsible for pollution, vast polluting petro chemical industries rely on (mainly women) plastering themselves in oil based products for vanity. This goes for deoderents, soaps, detergents, air fresheners, you don't need them all, you don't need as many as you use. They are mostly cons anyway, why would you want to pollute your air (and everyone else's air) with a bunch of chemicals when you can open a window for some fresh air?
We get told frequently that electricity is too expensive but it's not so expensive that people switch it off ! And, do we really need street lights everywhere. In my area, I hardly see a pedestrian, yet the lights are so numerous they keep me awake at night
We are spoiled and greedy in the UK, is it OK to heat whole houses with central heating in winter and summer when only one or two rooms are in use. My family and I have lived all our lives in unheated houses, it's more healthy too even the ninety year old puts a coat on in doors. Traditional central heating systems use fuel all the time, in the form of pilot lights and timers, consider switching it off through the summer.
Modern housing is hard to heat and the newest houses are said to have a life span of only 35 to 50 years, this has got to be the most un environmental friendly situation. The government encourages and supports the companies responsible for the new housing and pats them on the back with knighthoods. We don't need to build new houses, we need to re use old houses.
I would say buy local and seasonal, but British food is such poor quality and disease ridden, BSE,scrapy, foot and mouth, swine flu etc.
If you want to add to this list, post me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)