Solar panels on a Grade II listed house

[Flyfisher]

We need to reduce our consumption of energy and resources so that there is enough for everyone to have a good enough standard of living, and not to measure that standard of living on the type of car we drive, the size of our house, the number of holidays or the size of our tv screen.

And who decides what is 'enough' for everyone or a 'good enough' standard of living?

 

[Flyfisher]

No, I don't think, beyond a certain basic level, that the more cash you have equates with a higher 'standard of living'. That's only in material terms.

But 'standard of living' is not just material things. You have chosen to spend a portion of your wealth on a house with, to you, a wonderful view. It's cash that has given you that view. Cash can also give you more free time and more freedom to do what you want with it, surely one of the biggest 'luxuries' anyone can have?

 

[Nemesis]

I don't really have a 'wonderful view'... and I don't have much cash either... but I do have time, which I manage to fill. It's not always a luxury having vast tracts of time.

 

[Flyfisher]

I don't really have a 'wonderful view'...

My apologies, I must have misinterpreted your earlier post . . .

I feel my quality of life will be reduced by all the beautiful unspoilt countryside around me being covered in massive windfarms.

It's not always a luxury having vast tracts of time.

There we must disagree. What could be better than being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want?

 

[skier-hughes]

I don't really have a 'wonderful view'...

My apologies, I must have misinterpreted your earlier post . . .

I feel my quality of life will be reduced by all the beautiful unspoilt countryside around me being covered in massive windfarms.

It's not always a luxury having vast tracts of time.

There we must disagree. What could be better than being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want?

Somebody you love to do it with?

 

[Nemesis]

I have a nice enough view, apart from the fact some of it consists of a Grade I Building at Risk... the windfarms are going to spring up in some of my favourite spots however. And having time doesn't always mean you can do exactly as you please or would wish. That's a fallacy.

 

[Flyfisher]

Somebody you love to do it with?

Good point, although I presume it would be preferable to be rich and lonely, rather than poor and lonely.

But we're getting into the sorts of specific exceptions and personal preferences that I've already acknowledged will always exist. But I would still argue that, on average, as a general rule, standard of living is proportional to available cash and energy consumption. Thus, as the world's population strives to increase its standard of living, so the energy demands increase.

 

[Flyfisher]

I have a nice enough view

Make your mind up :roll: :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

Not wonderful.

It's OK. There are better. There are worse.

Standard of living... it's not an easy thing to define. No matter how much cash I had, there are some things I would not buy/would not do.

I like this view.

 

[Flyfisher]

Not wonderful.

It's OK. There are better. There are worse.

OK, glad we finally got that sorted out. Saves worrying about world poverty and global warming.

Standard of living... it's not an easy thing to define. No matter how much cash I had, there are some things I would not buy/would not do.

But that would be your choice, and the very fact that you'd have that choice would contribute to your standard of living. There are billions of people with very few choices in their lives - and I bet their carbon footprints are all very low.

 

[Nemesis]

I do worry about both of those, actually. But not sure what my view (which you assumed was wonderful on very little evidence) or how much time I have has to do with either, apart from the fact I try to tread fairly lightly on the planet, and a home cinema isn't high on my personal agenda.

'Standard of living is proportional to available cash and energy consumption.'

No - the more you consume doesn't always equate to a higher standard of living, in my terms at least.

I like this view also:

 

[Flyfisher]

'Standard of living is proportional to available cash and energy consumption.'

No - the more you consume doesn't always equate to a higher standard of living, in my terms at least.

What's the point in selectively quoting what I wrote just so you can refute a point specific to you, when I had already acknowledged there will be exceptions and made it clear I was taking a much wider view? I'm sure there are multi-millionnaires out there living the life of a hermit, but what does that prove?

If you don't agree that on average, as a general rule, standard of living is proportional to available cash and energy consumption, then just say so, but please at least quote me accurately.

 

[Nemesis]

Er - I think that anyone reading this thread could simply read what you said. It's not as though I was selectively quoting from something they couldn't.

I'll go and switch on lights and heating in rooms I'm not sitting in, then maybe I will think that my standard of living has increased.

 

[Flyfisher]

As you wish, but I think such disingenuousness means this has run its course.

 

[NT]

I know money gets spent on irrelevant things, but it also gets spent on important stuff like medical facilities, medical research, computers, implementing safety and so on. The less money youve got, the less options and opportunities you have.

Strange to see how many fritter it away on trivia.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

I didn't think it going anyhwere very much anyhow, but it was simply a reference not a total quote, without any intention to mislead.

If anyone still reading this was mislead, hands up now...

 

[Nemesis]

'Strange to see how many fritter it away on trivia.'

Isn't it?

(I'll switch off the lights now...)

 

[Penners]

I like this view also:

Yes - lovely. Except what b*gger built that dirty great wall across the pretty hillside?

Some sort of youth employment project, I suppose. Typical.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh, don't worry, in Tynedale historic listed walls* are allowed to be demolished and rebuilt in a different place and design to make them prettier (and to allow building work to happen... in the conservation area... and trees felled...) so I have asked the local authority what it proposes to make this one a little less bleak and more attractive.

Any suggestions on a postcard please...

(*There is to be a letter in tomorrow's Groan on the subject I understand...)

 

[Penners]

in Tynedale historic listed walls* are allowed to be demolished and rebuilt in a different place

How about China. They're quite big on walls, I believe.