Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Nuclear vs wind
Log In to post a reply

64 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 11:26
You're dead right - drastically reducing demand is the only solution to the energy crisis.

Unfortunately, people consuming less means less economic growth, and eventually economic contraction. And economic growth is what they prize far above sustainability, justice or sense.

As Blair has said;

"The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem."

And, more chillingly;

"if we put forward, as a solution to climate change, something which involves drastic cuts in growth or standards of living, it matters not how justified it is, it simply won't be agreed to."

Think about that, 'it matters not how justified it is'.

The government want a large, profitable for big business solution, so they're backing nukes.

Reducing consumption and switching to renewable sources is the only sustainable way forward. Using renewables doesn't necessarily mean other grand ideas like wind farms, but micro-generation where people have small wind turbines, solar panels and whatnot directly on their house so they don't lose any power in the distance between generation and transmission.

Reducing consumption doesn't just mean switching things off, it can also take the form of efficiency measures. In opposition, Labour promised they'd reduce VAT on energy conservation materials. We pay 5% VAT on fuel but 17.5% on insulation, thermostats, etc; effectively, we have a tax regime that encourages energy use and penalises conservation.

Once in power, they maintained the promise for a yearor two, Gordon Brown even declaring it in his pre-budget speech in 1998 as something he was about to deliver.

They've still not done it. Not enough consumption in conservation.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index