Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 18:28:51 GMT
The technology is advancing in leaps and bounds ... however it is a fact that warranties for flexible panels tend to be 1 to 2 years whereas for rigid panels it is entirely possible to get 20 years. If I proceed with any kind of solar it will be to enhance our boating experience. I am MUCH younger than, for example Telemachus as I won't be 64 until the end of October ... but realistically I guess we may have much less than ten years boating left ... therefore I'll not be gaining anything from a twenty year warranty Maybe so - but some youngsters might when you sell your boat... If global warming continues your retirement/old peoples home might have to float too so don't count the chickens yet!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 18:35:14 GMT
The answer to the whole global warning problem is to consume less overall. Everyone keeps concentrating on how to continue having the luxury lifestyles people have become accustomed to.
Talk about the wrong end of the stick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 18:41:09 GMT
The answer to the whole global warning problem is to consume less overall. Everyone keeps concentrating on how to continue having the luxury lifestyles people have become accustomed to. Talk about the wrong end of the stick. That would be a solution but given human nature wouldn't it be better to aim to stop further increases in consumption and make consumption more environmentally friendly.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Sept 15, 2020 18:46:15 GMT
The answer to the whole global warning problem is to consume less overall. Everyone keeps concentrating on how to continue having the luxury lifestyles people have become accustomed to. Talk about the wrong end of the stick. Indeed, this is it. Nobody will face up to it though. No government would put policies in place to enable this, it would be political suicide. Youngsters, despite being more aware of environmental issues have a greater desire to consume than any previous generation. It amounts to heresy to even suggest that economic growth should end. It's inconceivable. And so, the effort is all placed on mitigation of the effects of further growth. Pissing into a strong wind, with reduced waterworks ability due to age, is a suitable analogy. It's all a bit silly, people are no happier now than when they had very little.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Sept 15, 2020 18:50:56 GMT
The answer to the whole global warning problem is to consume less overall. Everyone keeps concentrating on how to continue having the luxury lifestyles people have become accustomed to. Talk about the wrong end of the stick. That would be a solution but given human nature wouldn't it be better to aim to stop further increases in consumption and make consumption more environmentally friendly. No.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 18:52:40 GMT
That would be a solution but given human nature wouldn't it be better to aim to stop further increases in consumption and make consumption more environmentally friendly. No. Succinct answer.
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Sept 15, 2020 18:53:28 GMT
It must be Tuesday ....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 19:03:21 GMT
The technology is advancing in leaps and bounds ... however it is a fact that warranties for flexible panels tend to be 1 to 2 years whereas for rigid panels it is entirely possible to get 20 years. If I proceed with any kind of solar it will be to enhance our boating experience. I am MUCH younger than, for example Telemachus as I won't be 64 until the end of October ... but realistically I guess we may have much less than ten years boating left ... therefore I'll not be gaining anything from a twenty year warranty Maybe so - but some youngsters might when you sell your boat... If global warming continues your retirement/old peoples home might have to float too so don't count the chickens yet! I've been the proud 'caretaker' of my boat for 15 years ... we didn't buy it as an investment but to live on. We'll pass it on for someone else to enjoy, priced for a quick sale ... it owes us nothing. I just hope it's not for a few more years Rog
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Sept 15, 2020 19:05:35 GMT
It's not enough, there needs to be a positive winding down of pointless consumption. No you can't have a new toaster because the old doesn't match your new kitchen, which you can't have either. And no, you can't have a new car every year or two WTF is that all about? Of course the economy would be screwed, those excedingly rich folk would have to give it up. Top down is the only way.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Sept 15, 2020 19:21:03 GMT
It's not enough, there needs to be a positive winding down of pointless consumption. No you can't have a new toaster because the old doesn't match your new kitchen, which you can't have either. And no, you can't have a new car every year or two WTF is that all about? Of course the economy would be screwed, those excedingly rich folk would have to give it up. Top down is the only way. This would be a massive step, impossible for people to swallow. I suggest baby steps. First; increase interest rates to deter borrowing and implement tighter borrowing criteria. Simultaneously increase rates for savings. Next: introduce punitive taxes on truly luxury goods and services. This would include large cars, and air travel. Next: forbid the building of any new roads or airports. Existing ones would be maintained. Introduce incentives for the repair of consumer goods. For example, the government could supply vouchers giving 50% off the cost of repairing t.v.'s, white goods etc. Similar to the 'eat out to help out scheme'. Next, introduce significant tariffs on all imports, with the exception of food. Things that are now made in China could be made in Britain again. Houses built larger than a size suitable for a good life to carry a punitive tax. And so on. A series of fiscal and monetary steps that would dampen down consumer spending without throwing the poor under the financial bus.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Sept 15, 2020 19:38:46 GMT
It's not enough, there needs to be a positive winding down of pointless consumption. No you can't have a new toaster because the old doesn't match your new kitchen, which you can't have either. And no, you can't have a new car every year or two WTF is that all about? Of course the economy would be screwed, those excedingly rich folk would have to give it up. Top down is the only way. This would be a massive step, impossible for people to swallow. I suggest baby steps. First; increase interest rates to deter borrowing and implement tighter borrowing criteria. Simultaneously increase rates for savings. Next: introduce punitive taxes on truly luxury goods and services. This would include large cars, and air travel. Next: forbid the building of any new roads or airports. Existing ones would be maintained. Introduce incentives for the repair of consumer goods. For example, the government could supply vouchers giving 50% off the cost of repairing t.v.'s, white goods etc. Similar to the 'eat out to help out scheme'. Next, introduce significant tariffs on all imports, with the exception of food. Things that are now made in China could be made in Britain again. Houses built larger than a size suitable for a good life to carry a punitive tax. And so on. A series of fiscal and monetary steps that would dampen down consumer spending without throwing the poor under the financial bus. That sounds like you approve of buying your way out of responsibility, just more expensive, so the poor pay the price in terms of what they have to give up. Anyhow, the human race is doomed eventually so it doesn't really matter and it's never been possible to stop this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 19:45:26 GMT
I suppose one way to sort it out would be to try to get a fatal disease to kill off half of the world's population. That would be good as disease usually involves killing the weaker specimens who will be no good when the end game comes anyway.
Kill all unhealthy humans and kill all animals. Insects can stay they are quite handy.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Sept 15, 2020 19:47:22 GMT
This would be a massive step, impossible for people to swallow. I suggest baby steps. First; increase interest rates to deter borrowing and implement tighter borrowing criteria. Simultaneously increase rates for savings. Next: introduce punitive taxes on truly luxury goods and services. This would include large cars, and air travel. Next: forbid the building of any new roads or airports. Existing ones would be maintained. Introduce incentives for the repair of consumer goods. For example, the government could supply vouchers giving 50% off the cost of repairing t.v.'s, white goods etc. Similar to the 'eat out to help out scheme'. Next, introduce significant tariffs on all imports, with the exception of food. Things that are now made in China could be made in Britain again. Houses built larger than a size suitable for a good life to carry a punitive tax. And so on. A series of fiscal and monetary steps that would dampen down consumer spending without throwing the poor under the financial bus. That sounds like you approve of buying your way out of responsibility, just more expensive, so the poor pay the price in terms of what they have to give up. Anyhow, the human race is doomed eventually so it doesn't really matter and it's never been possible to stop this. Not really, it would be the truly polluting, non essential, expensive things that would carry high levels of purchase tax. Essentials, that everyone needs, could be taxed lower than they currently are. I do agree that we are doomed though, people will never accept not being able/ afford to consume.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 20:00:01 GMT
There is a theory that the earth, rather like a fishing pond, can sustain a limited amount of life.
A given size of pond can only sustain 'x' number of larger fish or 'x' number of smaller fish ... given the variable of food, light, oxygen etc.
The number in total weight of fish is finite.
It is said that the earth can also only sustain a given number ... and that nature will regulate the number to ensure sustainability.
It is a massive conceit to believe we ... that is man ... is in control.
I'm happy to be able to pay my gas and electric bills, and to leave the clever folk to worry about 'the big questions'.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by patty on Sept 16, 2020 6:16:21 GMT
I'll just plod on Rog with my life as it is..I'm fairly content most of the time... None are 100% happy 100% of the time..thats unsustainable.
|
|