Re: Banding of homes for energy efficiency

In message <4496f0f9$0$9905$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Saunby <msaunby2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
"John Beardmore" <wookie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4pIxQ5rSCalEFwnz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <44950dc2$0$9932$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Saunby
<msaunby2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
"John Beardmore" <wookie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mti2xHX6TRlEFw1p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <4494fe0a$0$9878$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Saunby
<msaunby2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

Seems to me that people should be free to make whatever decisions they
like about what they eat, how they wash, how they get to work etc, but
encouraging a numerate understanding of all these things is good !

Agreed, but building pseudo religions around environmental concerns could
be at least as dangerous as existing god based movements.

Well, I did say "numerate". I'd accept that some things are hard to
quantify, (e.g. value of global commons), and also that some numeric data
is hard to interpret, (e.g. LCA data).

This does leave the door open to the use of questionable "scoring
schemes" at best, and outright prejudice at worst !

Oh no, it could be far worse than that. Some have already made the point
that obsessive environmentalism could destroy entire economies.

Then again, so can obsessive capitalism or obsessive consumerism !


People
could die.

Or never be born, or whatever...


I believe you are anti nuclear -

How quaint...

No - my points have been that

we would be fools to loose the capacity to use nuclear fission

but

we would be fools to depend primarily or exclusively on nuclear
fission.


if that's so is it because
you consider it an expensive,

Well - it seems to be so far. Especially in the Thorp area...


or dangerous, way to generate electricity?

Danger is relative, but my main concern is that it doesn't seem to be something that can be deployed in an equitable way world wide, and proliferation also seems to be a significant risk.


Other concerns include those expressed here -
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/319/
We are fighting the same battle, for the liberation of black people. In the
past that meant taking on old racists and colonialists - now it means
challenging environmentalists too.'

Nothing wrong with challenging them - just important to understand what your arguments mean.

To pick the DDT example, reduced sensitivity to DDT over time is easy enough to demonstrate.

It is certainly true that when you stop using it, some people will die that might not have, but maybe the better question to ask as the law of diminishing returns start to bite, is 'could this money be better spent ?'

In short, is the issue "Western liberals’ handwringing", or genetic adaptation to DDT ?

There will of course be short term benefits to the reintroduction to DDT if it is reintroduced, but is it capable of eradicating malaria in Africa ? Presumably if this had seemed plausible, we wouldn't have stopped using it when we did ?

Or do you subscribe to some other theory ?


Who is right in rural England - those striving to protect the landscape
(anti wind farm) or those striving to protect the climate? How can numbers
address that?

Well, for a kick off they can inform the debate.


People driving large cars (with no load) is obviously daft, but this
hardly renders futile individual attempts to 'live lightly' in terms of
resource use and carbon footprint etc.

If folks can manage to do so without becoming all "holier than thou"
about
it. But can they? Many seem to have lost the plot already.

I don't give a toss if some peoples idea of "living lightly on the earth"
involves dreadlocks and a lack of bathing as long as they are decent
enough people. Similarly, it's good news if industrialists idea of
"living lightly on the earth" involves better balance sheets and input
from the likes of the Carbon Trust.

Sure but if folks in towns destroy the quality of life for those in the
countryside, or vice-versa,

Well - like it or not, there has to be some element of symbiosis.


or bring about increased numbers of deaths
through malaria in another land how people act on their environmental
concerns does matter.

Of course it does. If it didn't, I wouldn't waste my time on it.


Both approaches reduce impact. Neither reduce it enough individually.
Together they don't reduce it enough collectively.

But how does labelling people as "holier than thou" help ? If they are
right, concede their point. If they are wrong, point out the numbers. If
they won't listen, cut your losses, take the piss a bit, and move on !

I find myself in the slightly unconventional position of working with
activists at 'climate camps', the well off middle classes, and with
industry and local authorities. While there individuals who are good at
building bridges, there are many in each of these groups who hold the
other groups in some measure of contempt.

Only natural. Perhaps environmentalism should be put on hold until we've
established which is the one true god(ess).

Depends what you mean by environmentalism.

If it is a pure church of unquestioning obedience to a creed, I'm sure you're right.

If, on the other hand, it's a dynamic process of establishing how best to live on the Earth, in which everybody participates, wittingly or otherwise, I'm sure you're talking out of your bottom.

I tend to subscribe to the second view.


Perceptions along the lines of 'holier than thou', 'obstructive
bureaucrats', 'greedy middle classes' and 'unregulated bread heads'
abound, but it seems to me that is you can be honest with all sectors,
all have much to contribute, and all contributions have value.

Contribute sure, but none of them can yet claim "the truth".

No, but is that the objective ?

I rather suspect that the objective is to show some relative benefit in some aspect, though this will inevitably be complicated by opportunity costs etc in other arenas.


These sectors don't have to like each other, (though there doesn't seem
to much advantage in encouraging discord), but the last thing you need is
a pissing contests about whether its more 'holy' to build a cleaner
incinerator, or seek to eliminate waste for example.

Then do we need strong central leadership

Maybe it can help if it's well informed and capable of dealing with the 'devil in the detail'. On the whole though, it isn't.


or should everything be done at
local level?

I suspect the best outcomes will tend to rely heavily on local knowledge, but that doesn't rule out some benefits due to changes of national context, e.g. building regulations, PPSs, PPGs etc.

Are you familiar with the distinction between purposive and purposeful processes ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
.