Vote GREEN.

None of us here is going to solve the global problem by running 35 year old rustbuckets up and down the country. At the end of the day we are all selfish hypocrites but at least we are not politicians.

 

You're right. We should all scrap our vans, go out and buy new cars and jet off to Australia for our holidays instead.

 

I think Optimus Prime sums us up well.

ronhide: Why are we fighting to save the humans? They're a primitive and violent race.
Optimus Prime: Were we so different? They're a young species. They have much to learn. But I've seen goodness in them. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings. You all know there's only one way to end this war: we must destroy the Cube. If all else fails, I will unite it with the spark in my chest.
Ratchet: That's suicide! The Cube is raw power, it could destroy you both!
Optimus Prime: A necessary sacrifice to bring peace to this planet. We cannot let the humans pay for our mistakes. It's been an honor serving with you all.

 

Good idea - sell the cars and come back with rust free bays!

 

Yours runs?

 

This is the Green Party Deputy Leader, can't wait for him to be on Question Time, maybe he'll stand in for Natalie during the TV Debates if she has another brain fade (I suspect the Green Policies on Recreational Drugs might be in play there BTW), in any event, have a good listen to this chap, he might win your vote for the Greens...

 

Yes!




And so does my bus!

 

I didn't edit - I just copied and pasted.

 

where from, the daily mail? there's loads missing! how about:

TR314 The Green Party would introduce no new restrictions on the use of historic vehicles and would impose safety and pollution standards appropriate to the age of the vehicle.

 

It never occurred to me that anyone would want to read all the drivel in full, but it comes from here;

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/tr.html

I'm not sure about TR314, there aren't currently any 'imposed' - "safety and pollution standards appropriate to the age of the vehicle".
Although I'm sure it will help, presumably to create employment for someone to create the wording and the method of imposition, which will doubtless not be another comedy DVLA hoop for me to have to jump through at regular intervals.

Anyhoo, I'm off to discuss it with my sustainability and legacy people.
As folk on here know, I won't be voting and living as I do, here in my subterranean burrow powered exclusively by wind, rain & sun power
and sustaining my meagre existence feasting exclusively on passing wildlife and roots it won't make a difference to me who gets voted in,
Or even what policies are dreamt up by the Whitehall idiots.
Even my bay runs on manure and my interweb is powered intermittently by clockwork dw...

 

The big elephant in the corner that no one talks about is
We are having to many kids, the population is rising at a unsustainable rate

 

So, when the people in poor countries are rich enough to start worrying about pollution rather than earning enough to feed their kids, they too will demand change and there will be a big clean up, just like here. Being green is a rich man's game.

Then there's the difference between sensible green issues like pollution control and recycling (why do we insist on chucking stuff into landfill that we have already paid to process once) and the loony stuff like no fracking anywhere near anybody (so we have to rely on the Russians for energy ), don't build new roads to bypass congested towns in case a badger or newt gets disturbed etc. Green issues are so often used as a nimby smokescreen for "I live somewhere nice because I'm well off and I don't want any of that nasty industrial stuff necessary to sustain my cushy existence anywhere within sight / earshot)".

Finally, as with many things in the past, we'll think of something. Engineers will sort it out in the end, not politicians, and their efforts will be driven by the profit motive (i.e. nasty capitalism) as they always have been. Looking forward and not back is the answer, we (will) have the technology.

 

So you selected the policies you thought were of interest and skipped out the rest. How's that different to editing them?

MOT requirements?

The only way countries like China are going to "clean up" is if we stop buying their products and sending them our waste. We're all responsible. If they get rich enough then they'll be buying huge amounts of crap like us and the problem will be worse.

I hope you're right. Until that happens the only paractical "answer" to reducing our CO2 output is more nuclear power plants. Ours are being built by the French and the Chinese, hopefully they won't fail catastrophically like Japanese ones.

 

@tommygoldy are you @vanorak s brother

 

The Japanese power plants failed under 10 metres of water. I suspect most people's seaside power plants would fail ..

I still fear the day when they say - if its tax free you can drive it max 1000 miles a year only to and from recognised classic car events, or to be allowed to drive further it has to pass Euro 2005 or whatever emissions..

And you should see the chaos where there are office developments where minimal car parking was installed to encourage people to use public transport. Only the buses cant get there because every square inch of road space is jammed with parked cars. And the bus only lanes have been abandoned because the roads could not cope. Like Whiteley Village in Hampshire.

 

A good reason to vote Green then: "no new restrictions on the use of historic vehicles"

As for seaside power plants, where else are you going to run the "waste pipe" out to?

 

Oh, and...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...of-fukushimastyle-flood-disaster-9200494.html

In fact, according to a government study 12 of Britain's 19 civil nuclear sites are at risk of flooding. Oh well. Should be alright.

 

the claimed projected costs of Nuclear power generation are woefully inaccurate....everyone in the industry knows this, but they continue trot out the same mythical BS....much in the same way that building new roads reduces congestion...or common rail diesels produce less harmful exhaust emissions (certain emissions are reduced, ie those stipulated by the EU, whilst others, notably particulates and NOx, in themselves considerably more dangerous, are much higher)
The pro nuclear lobby argue the case against true renewables on the grounds of prohibitive costs.....maybe this has more to do with the fact that they receive massive hidden subsidies from the taxpayer, while renewable energy research operates on a shoestring:


The UK Government has agreed a minimum price of £92.50 a megawatt hour from a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in the west of England from 2023 – roughly double the existing price of electricity in Britain. The price will rise with inflation and runs for 35 years, a deal unprecedented in the energy sector, and not available to renewable energies like wind and solar. The guarantee will continue for all future nuclear stations.

The Government has gone further, guaranteeing loans for construction, and providing insurance and compensation payments if policies change for any reason. It claims that the deal will save £75 a year on the average consumer’s bill if electricity prices rise by 2023, as it forecasts. If they do not, then consumers will be paying far more for their electricity than they would otherwise.

As we all know, government forecasts are always accurate....

Follow the money....you'll find that certain 'upstanding members' of our government are already being bankrolled to ensure this will happen

 

For those old enough to remember:

The Thatcher government was not able to sell the nuclear power stations when it privatised the rest of the electricity supply industry. The taxpayer was left to pick up the tab for the cost of decommissioning and disposing of the waste, and the bill is £72bn and rising...

food for thought

if you're interested, there's a great report here