Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Another Green lie from the BBC - LED lamps this time

Yes BB, take care on your bicycle - riding it is probably by far the most dangerous thing that you do. Hope you don't have aluminium handlebars - they are a big cause of cyclist injuries.

Nov 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Hi Retired Dave, your link was informative. I'd not seen Pointman before. My concern is that the article makes it seem likely that I am at very real danger from my bulbs, but I've lived with CFLs and tubes for years with no obvious ill effect.

I got the impression that the electronic fog referred to was of electric fields, rather than physical particles, but maybe I misunderstood.

Of course I understand that it is the compulsion that people dislike; I would probably feel equally peeved if I didn't already have a house full of CFLs. On not having mercury in your house, I would be very surprised at that. Your LCD screen for a start, your button batteries, old thermometers, old equipment in general... And hopefully you don't have amalgam fillings.

On cycling, I too prefer to stay off-road - but off-road tends to be where I fall off!


Geronimo:

1. Poor countries are more likely to get with the plan if they see rich countries doing so.
2. You omitted energy efficiency from your list which is strange for a thread about energy efficient lighting. Apart from nuclear, which I consider necessary, almost all energy comes ultimately from solar. Solar seems feasible to me in the US and other places with hot deserts (eg Desertec).
3. There are many strains on economies, but if we can support paying several million people to do nothing, or paying billions for a few weeks of prancing around in the sun/rain, I would guess we can also support investing in clean-tech.
4. Social effects are exaggerated.
Banning incandescents fits in with the efficiency point that you omitted.
Painting environmentalists as hair-shit loonies is no doubt great fun - enjoy yourself. Malaria and DDT are rather off-topic for this thread. Your raising them does give me another perspective on your reliability as a commentator though...

Nov 9, 2012 at 7:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

BB. So you're analysis boils down to the "poor" countries will roll back there development if they see the rich countries doing it. Do you have evidence for that! No? I thought not. And energy efficiencies will take up the shortfall/energy price rises. These are the two pillars of a green energy policy, I'll grant you, but I had hoped to persuade you that it was a tad more complicated than the greens think. Fail on my part.

I raised the topic of DDT and malaria as an example of green policies, which was the topic, and a perfect example of how their policies do not take human suffering into considerstion. From your flippant response i take it you don't give a damn that 2000 kids a day are dying because of green policies so long as you can come on this blog and make smart-arsed, fact free comments. Shame on you. I won't be engaging with you in the future, my attempts at educating you are over.

Nov 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

So I've been diagnosed by BH's own Doc Martin as having Asperger's Syndrome and now I'm implicated in the mass slaughter of the innocents through malaria...

Attacking me on the basis of malaria deaths is like me accusing you friends of fossil fuel of personal responsibility for coal mining deaths, or oil platform deaths or deaths from lung disease caused by pollution etc.

Note that to educate someone requires that you know more than your subject and is normally associated with giving a fair and balanced explanation of the issues involved. Attempting to indoctrinate someone with your own biased perspective requires no such balance.

Nov 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

whatever.....you are not interesting....you have nothing to say...and Stalin is no longer alive, because you have not noticed that fact. You are free to be free rather than a twat aka fellow traveller

Nov 12, 2012 at 12:39 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Bitty, once again you have plumbed the depths of lower-middle trollery. In case anyone should have residual belief in your good faith:

"1. Poor countries are more likely to get with the plan if they see rich countries doing so." The only plan that poor countries want to get with is how to be rich as well. Please explain how people who burn dung for power will be inspired by windmills in rich countries that have fridges and dishwashers and TVs. In your own time. When you're ready. While you're at it, you could explain why the first things people in poor countries do when they get a quid is ... oh, never mind.

"2. You omitted energy efficiency from your list which is strange for a thread about energy efficient lighting. Apart from nuclear, which I consider necessary, almost all energy comes ultimately from solar. Solar seems feasible to me in the US and other places with hot deserts (eg Desertec)"

I look forward to your explanation of how Desertec, an insolvent money-sink in another continent, has anything to do with lighting the homes or communities of BH readers. Here's a hint, going to the second part of your assertion - almost no-one lives in hot deserts.

"3. There are many strains on economies, but if we can support paying several million people to do nothing, or paying billions for a few weeks of prancing around in the sun/rain, I would guess we can also support investing in clean-tech."

So stupid it deserves no further comment.

"4. Social effects are exaggerated.
Banning incandescents fits in with the efficiency point that you omitted.
Painting environmentalists as hair-shit loonies is no doubt great fun - enjoy yourself. Malaria and DDT are rather off-topic for this thread. Your raising them does give me another perspective on your reliability as a commentator though..."

You just don't get it. Efficiency is embraced, if it is truly efficient. State mandated 'efficiency' is an oxymoron. If something is truly efficient, the State doesn't have to do a thing.

While some commenters here continue to engage with you as though you are a serious person with genuine concerns, I will continue to treat you like the barely competent troll that you are. 99% of the time, I will ignore you. If bored or grumpy, I will eviscerate your content-free assertions.

Nov 12, 2012 at 1:06 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Johanna, you really shouldn't get so agitated.

1. Poor countries will do nothing if they see the rich world doing nothing. Logically then the possibility of them doing something can only increase. They might still do too little, but what I said is clearly true - they are more likely to do something.

2. Desertec is a new concept and will hopefully develop. It is a long term development - it won't happen over night. As regards nobody living in deserts, well duh! Nobody lives in forrests but that is where the wood comes from; nobody lives underground but that is where the coal, oil and gas come from. Nobody living in deserts is an advantage not a problem.

3. Paying people to do nothing or paying 9 billion for the olympics are both stupid. Agreed.

4. Efficiency is embraced, if it is truly efficient. State mandated 'efficiency' is an oxymoron. If something is truly efficient, the State doesn't have to do a thing. Really? How well would a typical builder insulate a new house if the government didn't regulate heating efficiency (ie. insulation standards)? In general, leaving it to the market doesn't work because the market does not bear the costs of inefficiency and the public are unaware of the costs.

So much for evisceration. The only thing you are likely to eviscerate this year is your Christmas turkey, shortly before it goes into the oven. Bon appétit!

Nov 12, 2012 at 7:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

I see the childish adolescent state funded unemployed troll is still trying to wreck the threads.

Nov 13, 2012 at 6:35 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

Guys don't bother with BB he'll resort to insults whenever he can. The guy is a Troll nothing more nothing less.

Nov 15, 2012 at 6:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

SandyS, where have I insulted anyone on this thread? I have been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome and implicated in the deaths of millions, but I have not insulted anyone. RKS on the other hand rarely does anything else.

Nov 16, 2012 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

When I can be bothered to waste my time on them my ONLY line of response to pathetic trolls is to either starve them by completely ignoring them or making public my utter contempt for them. I NEVER argue with them regarding the contents of their petty disruptive and argumentative posts.

Nov 16, 2012 at 6:17 PM | Registered CommenterRKS