Huguenot

Numbers numbers numbers.... When TLS was in his heyday (1950) and everyone was nice, there were only 2.5bn people in the world to be fed and entertained. In 2000 there were 6bn, and now there's around 6.75bn. Numbers numbers numbers....

Apologies for the name calling - I believe I was merely flipping back the 'religion' coin that had been tossed in my own direction ;-). I felt it was reasonable to draw parallels to clarify my point. I can see your point MM - however recent history demonstrates the feedback loops can't work left to their own devices. As you highlighted, the credit crunch was a case in point, as was North Sea and Grand Banks fishing. Human communications channels are too fogged with confidence issues, misdirection, politics and criminality to allow them to work. In the case of the credit crunch we had the Ostrich Effect, and in the Grand Banks we had fisherman blaming short supply on over-aggressive government quotas and easily supported racial issues. People simply didn't believe the scientists until it was too late. Some fishermen still don't!!! We are in exactly the same cycle now. Despite overwhelming belief within the scientific community, there are those who deliberately fog the issue, there are those who stand to gain in the short term from the status quo, and there are those politicians who prefer to follow than to lead. Scientific solutions take 20 years or more to develop, significantly longer than it take people to suddenly wake up to no gas - as they did in several ex-socialist republics this Christmas. The idea with 'gesture' politics is to raise the consciousness of the body public against the individuals that would rape and pillage our environment in their own short-term interests, and to increase investment in research before it's too late. Politicians require votes, and votes need public conviction. Gesture politics? More like empowerment.

I wonder if the lack of checkout staff is because no-one's applying for the job or because they're saving cash? I wouldn't like to work on a checkout and get a rep for card cloning or whatever insults we chuck at these people next? If it is because no-one's applying, you could hardly blame Sainsbury for installing the machines.

Each section's about something different - the home page has a content guide. It's an opinion forum, not a library or encyclopedia. In that sense every comment is coloured by the views and perspective of the correspondents. All correspondents are welcome regardless of their location, race, gender or political leanings. The forum itself doesn't have a view on anything other than legal & administrative issues and reasonable consideration for social sensibilities. This means that if a correspondent makes accusations that break the law, or of a personal nature, or if they demonstrate antisocial tendencies or are rude then they may fall foul of the inclusive approach the forum has. I should add that suggesting that retail outlets engage in illegal activity or have health and safety issues would potentially be libellous if either party felt it had affected their custom. Guests often have a concerns with this,as they may struggle to differentiate their own opinions from fair comment. As a well read local forum the EDF needs to be more sensitive to this than most. I know many guests who comment on how welcoming the forum is, and I've no doubt that the administrators take great pride in the gentle application of their skills. Hence from a strict interpretation, the views of any correspondent may be propoganda (if that's what you ask?), but the forum itself is not - other than I guess the East Dulwich nature of certain sections. If you're worried about something you could always PM the Admin directly. (Edited for clarity)

Apparently HSBC will by turning the lights off also - so will be worth watching Canary Wharf to see if they're true to their word. They could probably do with the cash. Here in Singapore they're turning off the Merlion, which isn't particularly impressive at the best of times. Hmmm.

Hot off the press PeckhamRose... Nelson?s Column, the Coca Cola signs in Piccadilly Circus, the National Gallery, National Theatre, Hayward Gallery, V&A museum, GLA buildings, and the revolving London Eye will be dimming for the hour. As you can see, it doesn't seem to include the Square Mile, but I wonder how many lights they'll have on at the weekend anyway? I guess we have to be reasonable about security lighting - but I don't think this is a technical challenge, more about awareness?

So if everyone jumps off a cliff will you do that too? ::o

It's not as hard work as we think... The first real target has to be the 'energy gap' - the difference between what the UK consumes compared with generation. It's expected to be 20% in the next 5/6 years. It's bad news, as energy providers (e.g. the Middle East / Russia) have us over a barrel (as it were), and this is one of the major sources of international conflict. They use it as negotiation leverage over all sorts of nasty issues like human rights abuse. Reduce the reliance, and we increase our bargaining power. Average energy consumption in the UK is measured in KiloWattHours. The average UK household annually uses 18,000 of that in Gas, and 3,300 in Electricity (take this to be a 3 bed ED semi for arguments sake). If you're using much more than that you need to target insulation and consumption (e.g. loft cladding, double glazing, lights off not in use, turn TV off at plug). Try and get it down by 20%? Second target is source: renewables cost 20% more than fossil fuels. Don't target your supplier based on lowest price (otherwise you just get fossil), but upon price of renewable energy vs. fossil, and the share of supplies coming from renewables. Be prepared to pay 10 quid a month more for renewables. It's only a couple of pints after all. Next target is transport: next time it's a 50:50 call, just go public or by Shank's pony. Really. Don't buy a second car, get Streetcar and share the footprint for construction. Finally is lifestyle: just buy seasonal local veg, apples instead of oranges. Do that, and in 4/5 years your bills will be less, society will be happier, and you'll have a greener world.

;-) I love the redundancy of the climate skeptic argument... "I know we've been crapping on our own doorstep for centuries now, but unless you can tell me exactly what the shite weighs then I shall simply continue as usual "BTW, can anyone tells me why my cat's dead and my children don't like me?"

There's an irony in climate change deniers comparing the environmentalist movement to religious zealots. Show me a room of climate skeptics, and I'll show you a room of creationists and free marketers. All three belief systems involve the abdication of responsibility to one god or other: Natural Cycles, the Almighty, the Free Market. These Gods are relentless and work in mysterious ways. All three systems involve ridiculously elaborate arguments based on technicalities, and an impoverishment of self-determination. It's an approach based on fear: if I accept that in my choices I have an impact on the future that befalls us, then I would also have to take responsibility if things go wrong. Woah! It's the guilt they're so scared of. To refuse to do anything about what is without doubt the most well supported scientific agreement in humanity's history - that we are responsible for the detrimental change in our environment - is to say that we should allow HBOS to fail to teach us a lesson about the Free Market. No matter that millions would starve. Deniers don't care about the pain and the misery this would cause because they crave it. Deniers, Free Marketers and Creationists are the flagellants of the 21st century: whipping themselves into a frenzy because absolution can only be found through suffering. To actually do something about it is to much like real hard work.

Although interestingly, by truncating the word, the original meaning is lost. 'Morph' means form or shape as a noun, not a verb. It's only in conjuction with 'meta' (which means change) as in 'metamorphosis' that it means change shape, or transition.

Can you imagine this conversation? The bank are willing to lend me 120% of the value of my house, but THE GOVERNEMENT WON'T LET ME. B@STARDS. HOW DARE THEY LEGISLATE. I KNOW MY VALUE THE GOVERNMENT KNOW F*CK ALL... That's ridiculous bullshit.

and yea the mint-men did reflect as they cupped their gonads that they only printed the fake money because the townspeople were hammering at their door demanding it and threatening them with eviction if they didn't and they dids't consider it somewhat hypocritical that the same tosspots who were mutlitating them for imaginary cash were the same buggers taking 120% mortgages out and as the flames licked higher they wondered why the w@nkers that are oh so clever now didn't have the same view when they were buying 46 inch flatscreen TVs every month that were twice their salary...

Hmmmm... Gimme this death threat logic again?

I had a terrible time wi' t'interweb dating (long in the past now you understand). Everyone was so jaded. I've never come across such a miserable bunch of people in the real world. I felt I was being judged against an invisible set of questions.

I'm not sure you could say that the roots of the Conservative party were financially liberal. Within years of forming the party your 'grassroots' backbenchers along with the Whigs rebelled against the repeal of the corn laws because they favoured protetionism. As for social liberalism, the Conservatives only agreed tentatively with the Reform Act, which only allowed 1 in 5 men to vote, and no women. It also split the party. Whatever the debate, this is hardly evidence of consistent roots in either social or financial liberalism. That was the end of your lot for decades.

S'pore northlondoner. I should of course take you to task on "it's just ain't practical", there's plety of alternatives, they just ain't convenient. My rhetoric belies my amicable persona, no chance of a heart attack here ;-) Little by little is a valid strategy, and the wallpaper effect a real risk. I read a couple of pages from Malcolm Gladwell's 'Outliers' the other day, and it touched on the fact that social norms are the principle cause of most airline crashes. Most problems aren't catastrophic, but often understated by co-pilots or engineers using ambivalent language when communicating the problem. "Can you allocate us a runway as a priority, as we're running short on fuel" Big deal, every airplane is running short on fuel on approach, it saves costs. This 'plane crashed. The UK is suffering a terminal low fuel issue: economically, environmentally and its global status. The language is ambivalent.

:))

Cross post.

Oh bollards :'( I was being genuine. I'm afraid that I was slapdash with my own education, and to my eternal shame could never be fecked to work even the bare minimum. I'm full of admiration for your work, and wish I could have done it. I only try and make up for it by reading popular science mags now. Hoist by my own petard I guess, but I'm sorry you thought I was being flippant.

I'm in awe.

Okay, point taken. I was being more than a little disparaging. I've been a bit grumpy for over a week now, reviewing recent posting history.

Bah, Quids, now I think that you can't take opposing views sensibly either!

I don't but it looks like some kind of Water Margin rip off?

Me neither, aspirin's from tree bark after all. Having said that, tiger willy isn't going to make you strong.