Reason for buying a second home?

[Flyfisher]

But if it's not farming to physically sustain the city hoards it's providing a recreational playground to sustain them spiritually. Right to roam - pah!

 

[skier-hughes]

and in order to roam they need a car to get them there, better to fill them with turbines, serves two purposes, gves green energy and keeps city dwellers where they belong :lol:

 

[piper]

On the point about wind farms, isn't it hard to argue against the benefits on the basis of visual impact? Certainly, they have an undeniable impact but isn't that the cost of continuing to lead energy-intensive lives without destroying the planet? How many people will actually be affected if (for example) North Lewis was covered in wind turbines compared to the 60 million that would (hopefully) benefit.

It's hard enough to get most people concerned about 10-year old children working in chinese factories to make the shoes and clothes they wear, so why expect them to be concerned about windmills in a place they'll never visit?

'Out of site, out of mind' is entirely understandable when you've got to worry about paying the mortgage each month. None of this is going to be easy.

Well yes, I agree it's very hard to argue, but isn't there a need for unique and fragile landscapes, and the local culture of places like that of Lewis to be left reasonably alone, or at least to change gradually with smaller and more locally developed initiatives? As for people never visiting, they have a right if they want to, and would then discover what makes such places precious. When and if the wind farm is built, it will be too late. Carry your argument to its logical conclusion, and any underpopulated part of the planet is free to be industrialised and built over if it will benefit the majority of the population. What about using the amazon rainforest for biofuel? hardly any of the world's population go there. A very large number of smaller, varied and local green energy production facilities is surely a better way to go than giving over several hundred square miles of one of the UK's most unique landscapes. Among Scottish islands, the wave energy generator on the coast of Islay has minimal impact, and could be replicated in numerous places around the coast. Not that I'm particularly NIMBY - for example, I'd be quite supportive of a tidal barrage across Morecambe Bay, even though I live very close.

 

[Flyfisher]

Well yes, I agree it's very hard to argue, but isn't there a need for unique and fragile landscapes, and the local culture of places like that of Lewis to be left reasonably alone, or at least to change gradually with smaller and more locally developed initiatives?

There might be a 'need' for all those things, but there is also a 'need' to support the ever-increasing population. I'm not really arguing against your sentiment as I share them myself, but I despair that the 'needs' of the ever-growing population will inevitably outweigh habitat and amenity issues.

Carry your argument to its logical conclusion, and any underpopulated part of the planet is free to be industrialised and built over if it will benefit the majority of the population.

I know, frightening isn't it, but it's exactly what's happening all over the world.

What about using the amazon rainforest for biofuel? hardly any of the world's population go there.

If there's any of it left once it's all been cut down for wood.

A very large number of smaller, varied and local green energy production facilities is surely a better way to go than giving over several hundred square miles of one of the UK's most unique landscapes.

Wind turbines dotted all over the countryside instead of concentrated in one, windy, place? I suppose it would 'spread the pain' but imagine dealing with all those planning complaints and inquiries. Nothing would ever get done.

Human nature and over-population is the problem. Altruism is a fine virtue but doesn't work very well on a large scale. We are amazingly privileged to enjoy the rich lifestyle we all lead in 'the west', but it's not sustainable (at least not with our current technologies) and the rest of the world understandably wants to live the same rich lifestyle. Who are we to tell the Brazilians not to exploit their Amazon rainforest resources? Who are we to tell the Chinese that it's not good for the planet to be commissioning a new coal-fired power station every week? There are 6 billion people on the planet (and rising fast) who want to live like us - why wouldn't they and why shouldn't they?

Environmental causes are not new (I remember joining FoE in the early 70s) and they've undoubtedly won many worthy battles over the years but, given the way things seem to continually deteriorate, I'm afraid I can't see much sign of the overall war being won.

Apologies for the doom and gloom; I'm in that sort of mood today. No doubt there'll be some unbridled optimism along shortly :wink:

 

[piper]

Flyfisher. You are, alas, right.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh he sure is. . We are all doomed. doomed I say.

Of course we should fight these battles. There may have to be compromises, but we have to fight all the same.

Otherwise there won't be much of a world left to inhabit, will there?

And some places are simply not suitable to be ruined by large scale windfarms. They aren't the long term answer really.

 

[piper]

Of course we should fight these battles. There may have to be compromises, but we have to fight all the same.

Otherwise there won't be much of a world left to inhabit, will there?

And some places are simply not suitable to be ruined by large scale windfarms. They aren't the long term answer really.

Nemesis. You are, of course, right too.

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree with Nemesis that these battles should be fought and I acknowledged that many have been won.

But I detect no trend over the last 40 years that suggests that all these battles are having the desired effect. At best, they are slowing down the decline, at worst they are a waste of time or maybe a sort of opiate for the masses to soften the worry of the impending doom. Going down fighting is a very noble sentiment, but it's still going down in the end.

As for the windfarm thing, I don't understand . . .

And some places are simply not suitable to be ruined by large scale windfarms. They aren't the long term answer really.

. . . what decides a 'suitable place' to be ruined by a wind farm? I seriously doubt that anyone wants to build a wind farm just to ruin a place, so if it's not suitable for a wind farm, why would anyone want to build one? And if it is a suitable place, well I'm afraid it's going to be up for grabs for the benefit of all those people who want to maintain their energy-rich lifestyle. Power for 55m people or some spoilt views and a small population of upset islanders? It's not a pleasant thought, but I suggest it's a reality that has to be dealt with.

But if windfarms are not the answer, what are the alternatives? It's no good just being anti-everything - 'No to terminal 5', No to Stansted expansion', no to this, no to that - the best way to fight such things is to come up with a better alternative; not one that a relatively few passionate and dedicated people think is better, but one that the majority of the population think is better. Only then will there be a chance of actually changing things rather than merely delaying them.

 

[Nemesis]

I honestly haven't the time to debate all this here - I have real conservation battles to fight, in the real world! Arguing the toss on PPUK will change nothing, arguing where it matters and there are people who are in power might. So my time to argue here is limited really.

I am not going down at all - but fighting none the less. Stanstead - well, people could stop flying as much... cheap flights at weekends? We managed without not so long ago.

Wind 'farms' - at the moment a temporary solution, and I think that had cash been put into other renewables which aren't so damaging it may have been better. And we are still being terribly profligate with the resources we have.

It isn't just one small remote island - it's everywhere, especially in the north - Northumberland and Cumbria have many in the pipeline, if permission is given. The fact is there is cash in it, so for some greed is taking over and being wrapped up in green credentials.

I actually care that there are unspoiled parts of the country, I care that there are places where people can regain their humanity.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm not having a go at you personally Nemesis, but if you can't justify your arguments on PPUK how can you do it in the 'real world'?

As for the Stansted campaign, come on, arguing that people could stop flying as much because they managed without it not so long ago is a ridiculous denial of reality. You'll have to do much better than that!

The genie is out of the bottle and people clearly want to fly, just like they want to drive cars. Telling them they shouldn't isn't going to persuade them otherwise. Besides, they probably already know they shouldn't be doing these things but they are like smokers who can't give up even though they know the health risks. Modern life is an addiction and the vast majority of people are hooked on it and enjoying it - and that's the battle we have to fight in order to really make a difference.

Wind farms - what are the other renewables that aren't so damaging? I'm sure you're right about there being cash in it all and greed playing a big part, but surely that just proves that wind power is economically viable, which is a good thing isn't it? If there was something better available wouldn't that be exploited instead?

As for all the plans in the pipeline being especially in the north, could this just be an accident of geography? As I said, it's obvious that the most suitable places (i.e. windy and high) will be the first to be exploited. Again, suggest some better alternatives - all I hear is no, no, no.

 

[bower1]

Power for 55m people or some spoilt views and a small population of upset islanders? It's not a pleasant thought, but I suggest it's a reality that has to be dealt with.

I agree with you that this is the current situation, but lets say it was decided by the 'other' 250 million people in europe that a small island (i.e. Britain) may as well have all the power generation for the rest of europe, in the form of Nuclear, because it is safest as it is furthest away from everyone else, therefore 'most economical'.

Wouldn't go down very well would it. But if the majority get to decide!

 

[arl]

and in order to roam they need a car to get them there, better to fill them with turbines, serves two purposes, gves green energy and keeps city dwellers where they belong :lol:

some of us city folk have just switched to biodiesel and so far are very pleased with the results. the only down side is the slight odour of fried food that fills the car. I seem to find myself craving chips alot more these days!

so you may well smell us as we come roaming through your countryside Skier Hughes :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

As I said - I really haven't the time, or indeed the inclination, to argue here. It will change nothing, whereas arguing where it matters will.

And I do. Sometimes it does make a difference.

But raising issues may give people some time to pause for thought, not everyone is blinkered and self centred - some try to tread a little more lightly on the planet.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Since the birth of civilisation the countryside has always existed to support towns and cities. People in towns make the things and provide many of the services that contribute to the standard of living of those in the countryside. If it were not for town and citydwellers country people would be subsistence farmers or serfs living in abject poverty.

We all need to pull our weight. My point is that many citydwellers cannot easily produce their own renewables even if they want to (if you live in a high rise flat for example) and from an economic point of view it is almost certainly going to be more efficient to do so on a large scale than on a small scale. This points cooperative arragements (eg putting panels on the block of flats for the benefit of all the residents) or quasi industrial large scale production elsewhere.

 

[Nemesis]

Re Stanstead:

Received this morning

'You may have read of the damage caused by last week’s storms at the Gardens of Easton Lodge in this week’s local papers. Six trees were blown down and debris was strewn across the lawns as they were battered by the winds.


While the trees have now been cleared, the gardens’ owners Brian and Diana Creasey are now faced with the daunting task of clearing twigs and small branches from the lawns over the next week before they open for the annual display of snowdrops on Friday 2nd February.



If you are able to spare an hour or more to volunteer you help with this light but time-consuming work, your support would be very much appreciated. All you need to do is turn up at any time between 9am-4pm on Monday 29 January to Thursday 1st February and volunteer your services. Wellies or boots and gloves are recommended.



If you’d like further information, call 01371 876979 – otherwise simply turn up when you can. You never know, you might even get a sneak preview of the snowdrops in bloom!



Like many other historic sites in the Uttlesford area, the Grade 2 listed Gardens of Easton Lodge are under significant threat from BAA’s expansion plans for Stansted Airport. The noise and pollution impacts of an additional runway and related road links for an enlarged airport whose scale is envisaged to be larger than Heathrow today would devastate not only an historic and tranquil site of national significance but also a long-established haven for local wildlife.



The Gardens of Easton Lodge are in Little Easton, nr Great Dunmow, signposted from the B184 - follow the brown heritage signs.



The Campaign Team

Stop Stansted Expansion

01279 870558

info@stopstanstedexpansion.com

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com



Have you contributed to SSE’s Public Inquiry Fundraising Appeal yet?

See http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/appeal.html for details.'


I pass it on, for anyone interested in seeing the destruction envisaged then further info is on the SSE site.

 

[bower1]

Since the birth of civilisation the countryside has always existed to support towns and cities. People in towns make the things and provide many of the services that contribute to the standard of living of those in the countryside. If it were not for town and citydwellers country people would be subsistence farmers or serfs living in abject poverty.

A rather simplistic view of history, but has some truth in it. Until the mid 1800s most people lived in poverty in the countryside because the landowners could keep it that way. But I do agree that everybody's standard of living has improved because of the modern way of life. I find it hard to believe that 9 people used to live in my 2 bedroom Cottage!

 

[Flyfisher]

Power for 55m people or some spoilt views and a small population of upset islanders? It's not a pleasant thought, but I suggest it's a reality that has to be dealt with.

I agree with you that this is the current situation, but lets say it was decided by the 'other' 250 million people in europe that a small island (i.e. Britain) may as well have all the power generation for the rest of europe, in the form of Nuclear, because it is safest as it is furthest away from everyone else, therefore 'most economical'.

Wouldn't go down very well would it. But if the majority get to decide!

. . . or let's say 1/6th of the world's population decide that they are going to build a new coal-fired power station every week and almost three new nuclear power stations every year for the next 40 years ? How popular would that be? Oh, it's already happening.

It's relatively easy for us in the west to reduce our energy consumption without significantly affecting our lifestyle because we lead such energy-profligate lives in the first place.

China and India together make up nearly 40% of the world's population and are expanding their energy usage like there's no tomorrow (sorry, bad pun ). The USA is currently the biggest energy consumer but it has less than 5% of the worlds population - imagine China and India having the same per capita consumption - it's what they are aiming for!!

It puts our preoccupation with low-energy light bulbs into perspective doesn't it?

Population and the planet

40 new nuclear plants in 15 years

China is world's 2nd biggest energy consumer

A power station every week

world's largest polluter

 

[Flyfisher]

As I said - I really haven't the time, or indeed the inclination, to argue here. It will change nothing, whereas arguing where it matters will.

That's the same cop-out you have previously accused me of - 'I can't make a difference so I'm not going to bother to try' :wink:

But raising issues may give people some time to pause for thought, not everyone is blinkered and self centred - some try to tread a little more lightly on the planet.

I think I do my bit to raise issues and give people pause for thought. Being blinkered is a two-way street and treading a little more lightly is fine but it's not a solution - indeed, it could be argued to be worse than useless because it makes people complacent in their belief that they are helping whereas it might be better to scare them into some really effective actions.

But I agree that we're going over old ground now. Anyway, I have some potentially unsafe electrics to deal with, you have some more buildings to save, so let's get back to burying our heads in daily life and forget about the end of civilisation as we know it :wink:

 

[biffvernon]

It's relatively easy for us in the west to reduce our energy consumption without significantly affecting our lifestyle because we lead such energy-profligate lives in the first place.

China and India together make up nearly 40% of the world's population and are expanding their energy usage like there's no tomorrow

Now that we've exported our manufacturing to the east we don't need so much energy. Here. But we do use the energy over there everytime we buy a product that has been mined or manufactured there. We need to recognize and take responsibility for all the energy we use, wherever the actual burning takes place.

 

[skier-hughes]

so you may well smell us as we come roaming through your countryside Skier Hughes :wink:

See you townies no nothing...... With all the manure we have in the countryside we'd never spot a townie because he was smelling of chips :shock: