tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647126962862750972.post8224872586132694932..comments2008-05-02T13:14:03.064+01:00editorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16583840936211658312noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647126962862750972.post-77607753495699938322008-05-02T13:14:00.000+01:002008-05-02T13:14:00.000+01:00Donald, you falsely pitch adverts for products of 'unfettered consumption' as party political broadcasts. <BR/><BR/>This is symptomatic of the environmental movement which views checkout activity as political engagement. (And yet it complains about consumer society.)<BR/><BR/>The choice is false because we can have our interest in burgers aroused by an advert, but we can simultaneously be aware of the claims made by environmentalists about the effect of industrial meat farming on the world. It is only in the environmentalist's nasty and narrow view of humanity are our base impulses the same as our intellectual engagement with the world, hence it’s preoccupation with consumption. <BR/><BR/>Nobody can avoid the global warming message because it is ubiquitous. Worse yet, while we are given the option of buying burgers, environmentalism is rammed down our throats whether or not we want it... <BR/><BR/>You may believe that 44% is an impressive figure. But when you bear in mind that ~100% of the political establishment are behind the environmentalist project to some degree, what we see is a huge disparity not just a in representative sense, but also a huge failure to convince the public to engage. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that environmentalists seem to believe that the 'message not getting through' reflects badly on the public. In fact, it says more about the environmental movement’s contempt for the public. It also reflects badly on the political establishment that the only way it can find to connect with the public is through images of catastrophe and Armageddon. <BR/><BR/>44% is a generous figure. As an article in today's Independent puts it "More than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll."Editorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05223181330778875775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647126962862750972.post-85903771859199897042008-05-01T16:55:00.000+01:002008-05-01T16:55:00.000+01:00Just remind me what the advertising budget is for unfettered consumption, or do you think the advertisers are wasting their time and everyone spends their time reading newspaper articles?<BR/><BR/>I'd say that 44% of the UK population thinking they need to do something is quite impressive, and certainly not "nobody's really that interested".<BR/><BR/>No need to overegg the pudding!Donaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17773261795664461554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647126962862750972.post-51762405370955783842008-04-30T15:57:00.000+01:002008-04-30T15:57:00.000+01:00They will switch to taxing the equipment required to extract the energy. Put up a windmill? You'll need a license, freely available for a small annual fee. Solar panels will require a zoning variance, for a small annual fee.<BR/><BR/>The creative minds of beurocrats will always find a way to extract their salaries from the people they "serve."John Nicklinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15466423012662670782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647126962862750972.post-16696600220902066762008-04-30T04:25:00.000+01:002008-04-30T04:25:00.000+01:00The problem is once we get electricity from the sun, how are they going to tax us? Our whole society is built on scarcity. The providers twist the nozzle and let the drips come out at many dollars per swig.<BR/><BR/>Now we may end up with energy by the boatload...practically free!john a. bailohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01856116708814148994noreply@blogger.com