Ah I feel it is time in my water to award another of my prestigious, and internationally renowned, "Prats of The Week" Awards.This week it goes to three groups of environmentalists; the World Development Movement, Platform and People & Planet.
For why?
Well my old muckers, a wee while ago these "guardians" of our planet launched a lawsuit against the Treasury, to force it to ensure that taxpayers' money invested in the Royal Bank of Scotland supports only projects that satisfy minimum green and human rights standards.
Seemingly the planet is in dire danger because the Treasury has breached its own policy to tackle climate change and reduce carbon emissions, by using public funds to bail out RBS.
Aside from the fact that the bailout supported Fred "The Shred's" pension (which may or may not constitute a threat to planet earth), the Greens have got their knickers in a twist over the fact that RBS once marketed itself as "the oil and gas bank" and has long been one of the top lenders to the energy industry.
In the Green eyed view of the world, oil and gas are evil (they conveniently ignore the fact that our entire society is based on oil/gas and their byproducts, such as plastic) and should be replaced with nice clean alternatives such as wind.
I am all for wind, except there are some very powerful middle class lobby groups (I suspect who also claim to be supporters of environmentally caring policies - so long as it is not in their backyard) who are doing a nice hatchet job of blocking wind farms.
Nimbyism is a very middle class trait!
Anyhoo, I digress, the fact remains that this action has as much chance in succeeding as there is of hell freezing over (a little environmental joke there).
All that will happen is that the Treasury will defend themselves (using our money to do so) and the case will drag on an on, producing vast reams of paper (cut from sustainable forests???) and keep a bunch of overpaid Porsche driving lawyers in coke and Bollinger for the next few years.
A spectacular waste of time, effort and resources.
Wrt a viable alternative to oil and gas, may I suggest nuclear?
The World Development Movement, Platform and People & Planet, well deserving "Prats of The Week"!
NB, this site has been written by an author who uses only sustainable booze to fuel himself.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Ah, the 'greens' yet another group of self righteous we know what is best for you twats. The sooner we ignore them and all the other 'rights' groups such as shirt lifters, fluffy ickle bunny cuddlers and religious nutters the better this country will be.
ReplyDeleteYes I too hate the green "water melons".....Green on the outside but, when you look inside them they are reds.
ReplyDeleteNuclear is indeed the way forward sadly, Nanny has already given the rights to build and run our new nuclear power plants to a foreign company owned, in part, by the French Government, whose British interests are managed by, well one of Nanny's top minister's brother.
I am all for sensible green policies such as recycling and cutting down on energy use and waste but, too many people have set themselves up to (a) Dictate how we should live our lives according to their narrow beliefs and (b) make a fortune from the whole scam.
I am also very annoyed that my party's leadership have allowed a wealthy green to "buy" the party's policy decisions, Mr Cameron will not make any speech whatsoever without mentioning climate change.
Dispite the amount of money Nanny has thrown at the myth and dispite the constant message pro climate change from Al-Ja Beeba and Sky, most people are able to see through the con.
Questions for the pro climate change lobby;-
i) At what point in time was our climate fixed?
ii) Why are polar caps on other planets melting at the same rate as our own on Earth if it is all caused by man?
iii) Instead of spending a fortune fighting something that many of us feel is a natural process, why not spend a small amount on adapting for the changes, should those changes happen?
Could it be that, the powers to be are merely pushing us back into the middle ages using climate change as an excuse, in order to prepare us for when we become an Islamic state within Europe?
Tonk, you will be accused of being 'phobic' of er, anything that the greens/liberals/Nu Lab don't approve of.
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming would be just another scare story (as it is in reality) but this time the scum political class have worked out that they can tax us on it - carbon tax/green tax/ etc etc.
They will never let this scare story go as there is money in it for them.
As for the French builing our nuclear plants - another joy of being in the EU as we cannot bid as a nation solely for the contract. Of course, the French won't entertain us buying into their essentail services, but that is fine by our 'government' and its pan European cheer leaders. After all, to stand up for the national interest means you are a little Englander, according to the liberal/socialist political class.
Number 6:
ReplyDeleteOh no the greens/left won't use the term phobic in this context; They have gone for the far more emotive term of denier; This, in their minds, makes people like me that question the new religion of climate change, on par with those bigots that deny the holocaust. Sadly for the lefties, I am of an age that still believes in the old saying; Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
I actually feel that an increase in temperature and warm dry summers with wetter winters could be a good thing....Increased levels of CO2 will help our ability to grow more crops....If the greens/socialists are keen to stop enviromental damage, they need only to stop encouraging people to breed.....Any given area of land can only support a finite number of people.....Experts suggest the UK's population should not exceed 30 million, that would mean a fifty percent reduction from present levels.
I'd prefer it if all Green's weren't tarred with the same brush. I'm a Green and I can assure you all that I'm not red on the inside. My hatred of 'Elf'n'safety and political correctness proves that. And yes, nuclear fission is at the moment the only viable option until the ultimate clean energy dream, nuclear fusion, becomes a reality. However while climate change is the subject of debate what is sure is that air pollution, especially by vehicles, is a serious public health hazard. However that's another baton for somebody to run with.
ReplyDeleteProblem is, the Green movement has been hijacked by the non-scientific and politically opportune.
D,TW:
ReplyDeleteSadly, we are sometimes judged by the company we keep; Many jurisdictions operate a "Guilt by Association" principle.
You make good points; I suspect that most people are green in so much as we want clean air, clean water and a nice clean enviroment with active wildlife etc etc. Most people, in my opinion, also want the benefits of modern life, ie travel, heat, light, refrigeration etc etc. We cannot, nor should not "un-invent these things....We could strive to make them better and less energy intensive.
Most people would adopt a greener choice if one was there to choose; A simple example, if you live in central London you don't really need to own a car as there is an excellent public transport system however, where I live, we have no real alternative to car ownership.
I would like to use goods made from recycled materials however, if you take something like paper, recycled note pads are far dearer than those made from virgin materials.
I feel that it is not governments role to use taxation to change people's habits and to dictate lifestyles. It is also not government's place to use, for example, the criminal justice system as an extension to the HMRC in their use of fines. It is folly to make a move towards bio diesel and to destroy the lungs of the world; the rain forests, to do so....There is nothing green about that policy, just opportunities for people to make money....It is the hypocracy that winds up many people in relation to the green lobby.
Tax breaks should be given to companies to develop greener technology, politicians need to be seen to be green, if the green issue is real for them and not just a way of funding wasteful public expenditure, as loved by Labour. They cannot expect to get away with preaching to the masses about not travelling and then go on many pointless jollies with huge carbon footprints (What an awful expression) themselves...…The days of don’t do as I do, do as I say are long gone….Even I have heard of video conferencing!!
Renewable energy, in the shape of wind and solar, are not reliable enough; the wind does not always blow and, in reality, we are too far north for viable solar power, therefore, even if we did take such a route, we would need conventional power stations on standby, this would make our nice free green energy very expensive, at a time when there is already rising levels of fuel poverty. We are however, an island nation and perhaps, tidal power is the answer, there is much power to be harnessed in our rivers, estuaries and off-shore....The tides are reliable.
I also think that wind farms are an eyesore and worsens the environment, anyone that has seen the wind farms on Tenerife will know what I mean...Ugly!!
Too many politicians, especially Al Gore, have invested too much money to allow the con to stop....People do want to be green but, they also want honesty and it to be done for the right reasons. The leftie greens will also not allow debate, look what happened to Dr David Bellamy and Johnny Ball; both climate change sceptics and both now silenced by Al Ja Beeba.
Most of our modern agriculture is heavily reliant on petro-chemical fertilisers, how will we feed the ever increasing population when that oil runs out? ...Our soil is almost dead due to intensive modern methods. We must reduce the population levels now or face chaos in the future.
BTW, when I was young, being green meant being naive, wet behind the ears, gullible, easily led etc...It seems that many of our respected politicians still think the same in relation to the new religion of climate change.
Tonk said:
ReplyDelete"Most people, in my opinion, also want the benefits of modern life, ie travel, heat, light, refrigeration etc etc. We cannot, nor should not "un-invent these things....We could strive to make them better and less energy intensive."
Yes, there are better ways of doing virtually everything. Take that Great environmental Satan: the car. No heat engine can be more than 30% efficient and modern cars still use the technologically dated and mechanically inefficient reciprocating piston engine. When transmission losses are factored in just 17% of the energy released by burning a scarce and rapidly dwindling resource is actually used to drive the thing along. If we must continue to use infernal combustion engines, why not the mechanically efficient gas turbine or other types of rotary engine?
Tonk said:
"I would like to use goods made from recycled materials however, if you take something like paper, recycled note pads are far dearer than those made from virgin materials."
No reason why they should be. This is down to greedy businesses cashing in on the green bandwagon. Meanwhile it's much better to repair your old, solidly made appliances rather than needlessly throwing away only to replace with Chinese tat.
Tonk said:
"It is folly to make a move towards bio diesel and to destroy the lungs of the world; the rain forests, to do so....There is nothing green about that policy, just opportunities for people to make money....It is the hypocracy that winds up many people in relation to the green lobby."
Couldn't agree more. Biofuels are only green when made from what is otherwise waste material, ie old chip oil and beet residues left over from sugar extraction. Turning over arable land to biofuel production when there are people starving is obscene.
Tonk said:
"
Tax breaks should be given to companies to develop greener technology, politicians need to be seen to be green,"
Here here!!
Tonk said:
"Most of our modern agriculture is heavily reliant on petro-chemical fertilisers, how will we feed the ever increasing population when that oil runs out? ...Our soil is almost dead due to intensive modern methods"
We shouldn't be so squeamish over putting our shit back where it belongs - on the land. That's how Nature intended and it closes the nitrogen cycle. Sewage sludge is treated before land application so health risks are minimal.
Tonk said:
"We must reduce the population levels now or face chaos in the future."
But what politician is going to grasp THAT nettle???
D,TW:
ReplyDeleteIt would appear then, that I too am a green!! We agree on more than we don't.
I personally feel that your reply in relation to the cost of items made from recycled materials sums up the situation perfectly.....Greedy business jumping onboard a political led band wagon!!
I feel annoyed by the constant green/climate change propaganda fed to me by Al-Jabeeba and Sky....This type of unscientific socialist rubbish is more likely to move me further away from enviromental issue rather than closer....It is the hypocracy that surrounds the politically led CC message that grates with me....This is a sad situation because I am fairly close to being a green in so much as I do care about my local enviroment....I source local food that is in season where ever possible and try to avoid supermarket green grocery where ever possible as the clinically grown produce tends to have been put through the flavour extractor before it appears in the shop.....Problem is though, If I feel like this, many others may do too and therefore the constant "Nanny knows best" attitude from the greens and the politicians aboard the said bandwagon may be doing the enviromental message a great deal of harm....After all, the basic green message is commonsense; You don't shit in the bed or the home you wish to live in....That is the naked message of the real green enviromentalists is it not?
I would far prefer to see the basic green message and the politics of the new religion of climate change separated....Most people that I have met support a cleaner enviroment but few believe the CC message.....We should stop fighting CC via the carbon con and concentrate on policies that allow us to adapt to any changes that come along.....That is, afterall, how mankind have survived through the last several thousands of years.
As to which politician will grasp the population reduction nettle, I don't know but, at the end of the day, almost all of our world problems are caused by too many people and their associated needs in to smaller space.
It has been nice chatting with you.
To all the greens and other soo soo concerned citizens about overpopulation - why not make a start in saving the planet by killing yourself or your close family members? Mother Earth will doubtless thank you, and so will people who want to get on with their lives without the tireless hectoring from the 'greens.'
ReplyDeleteAs with all greens of various shades you advocate state control on what we can do with our lives - be it in what we can drive, what we can put in our bins etc etc etc.
Sorry, but you are either a social liberterian (as I am)who believes in freedom of choice (be that to live in an organic yurt, eat mung beans and carbon capture your farts or drive a 4x4 Hummer till the petrol runs out or you are in bed with nanny whatever shade of green/red/blue apron she is wearing
In general terms I support the notion live and let live however, society dictates there sometimes have to be rules and taxation, otherwise we revert to the law of the jungle which would mean we would be safe in our own homes until someone bigger and stronger came along and chucked us out.
ReplyDeleteIn establishing society, people give away an amount of their liberty and self determination in return for certain protections and guarantees from the state. I accept the state interferes too much at the present time however, in a fully libertarian society what happens when one person's freedom to choose restricts another's right to live how they see fit?....What happens when the libertarian wants to over populate the land so that it cannot support the population they have produced?....Should my liberties be restricted (ie my right to life) just inorder to let the libertarian breed? What happens when the libertarian wants to do something that say poisons my land?
Libertarianism is great in theory but, rather like communism etc, it is just that; a theory but, here in the real world........
Ken,
ReplyDeleteI too am all for wind - if it is the last possibility on earth.
For example living 1000 miles from the nearest electrical supply point might just about justify considering a windmill to provide 'free' energy to do stuff. Provided there was no 'free' hydro power as an alternative.
Other than that the entire concept is BS and, as presented for mass consumption, ignores so many difficult questions consistently that it should not be taken seriously. I note that even T. Boone Pickens has decided that it is a non-starter but has decided to build a small part of his original plan for Texas anyway as a face saver. Maybe it also means he can still feel comfortable about tapping up Obama for tax dollars in a year or so.
IF the no carbon footprint mantra (ignoring the 'carbon costs'of concrete and construction which will mostly need to be repeated every 20 years or so) is really so important right now then nuclear is the only way to go. Since Brown sold off Westinghouse for a pittance a few years ago - there's prudent for you - we have to turn to the French. The US will need all the scientists and engineers it can produce whilst recreating its own nuclear knowledge. The rest of Europe will also need the French.
It would make more sense to decamp to the vast emptiness of France and attempt to Anglicise it than to deal with the infrastructure developments needed here to deal with the previous lack of investment combined with the population growth through immigration.
On the other hand if we do nothing people may still leave, will stop arriving (it will not be a pleasant place to be) and all targets for carbon reduction should be met. Plus we will have more individual space even if that is all we have. Or perhaps not, if the place is covered with bloody windmills.
Tonk, that is why I am a social liberterian - in that I fully expect to live my live the way I wish, so long as living in that fashion causes no harm to others.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who trots out driving a car is harmful, or eating meat is harmful due to cow farts is a demented green, which I know you not to be from previous postings.