Energy Saving on Standby ..How good are your boxes?

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:19:22 +0000, Ian Rawlings
wrote:
Life would be so much
simpler if it was simpler

I'm going to quote that repeatedly.

Bill

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:46:27 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:
At my former place of employment, based on an old college site
augmented and modified over the years, a walk from one side to the
other would take you through about half a dozen different climate
zones, nearly all of them inhospitable to human life. In one part
there'd be people with coats on shivering under an uninsulated roof
while being roasted on one side by portable electric fires, and
another part would be sweltering with windows open to lose heat from
ancient cast iron radiators that couldn't be turned off. Nobody seemed
to have thought about coordinating any of this, and I have good reason
to believe it is typical of many workplaces. A few TVs in standby in
homes must pale into insignificance compared with the energy thrown
away by companies that make the managers' offices comfortable and then
look no further.

This reveals one of the great inconsistencies of the government's
environmental stance. Since electricity use causes CO2 emissions, tax on
electricity should, by any logical reckoning, be at a similar level to tax
on motor fuel. Of course, they aren't going to do that, because there would
be uproar. Motorists, however, are a large constituency, but not quite large
enough to matter sufficiently in electoral terms. The people who pay fuel
tax indirectly (all of us) don't realise that the price of goods and
services is affected as much as it is.

I do feel however that we are far too ready to waste money on transport.
I've just completed a quotation for work in Worcester, which is a long way
from here. I don't want the work, but I'm quoting to a good customer who
does want it, and wants us on board. If he is successful we will all be
merrily driving innumerable times between here and Worcester. I'm sure that
there are people in Worcester who could do the job. Likewise, I often
encounter contractors near here who hail from 200 miles away. The
availability of good road transport links is, in this sense, misused.

Bill

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:52:28 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"stevo" wrote in message
...
....
Are you suggesting that Britain should just think "****-it" and sod
everyone else?

That isn't a bad philosophy, actually. It's one followed by many nations, to
their great advantage. Think of the French. But no, I'm suggesting that we
don't allow ourselves to be taken for a ride.

Sod-it is already gov. policy but only if you're an airport. A control
freak in London wants 60% reduction but admits it'll end up 20% due
to LHR and LCY which are beyond his control. This unbalanced
distribution of pain is of course also gov policy as witnessed in a
different area with pensions. And obTV: who pays for digital cutover.
--
Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke
So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"stevo" wrote in message
...
When I was a kid we used to have to walk because there was no option.

Less obesity in those days I would imagine.

So you believe that we should all walk everywhere as the best way to lose
weight? The cost to the economy of all the wasted time would be
horrendous.
Isn't that a lot of the problem, the Brits have become obsessed with time
making money
Economies are always in trouble, it should be people that matter

How about eating better quality food and having better health education?
That's only possible if we keep up our wealth, which is only possible if
we avoid ****ing all our money away on loooony environmental measures.

Funny then that according to US Gov stats that the French have 1/3 of our
poverty level, but with about double the unemployment
Could it be something to do with them having a high instead of low wage
economy

Steve Terry

Bill Wright wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:46:27 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:
At my former place of employment, based on an old college site
augmented and modified over the years, a walk from one side to the
other would take you through about half a dozen different climate
zones, nearly all of them inhospitable to human life. In one part
there'd be people with coats on shivering under an uninsulated roof
while being roasted on one side by portable electric fires, and
another part would be sweltering with windows open to lose heat from
ancient cast iron radiators that couldn't be turned off. Nobody seemed
to have thought about coordinating any of this, and I have good reason
to believe it is typical of many workplaces. A few TVs in standby in
homes must pale into insignificance compared with the energy thrown
away by companies that make the managers' offices comfortable and then
look no further.

This reveals one of the great inconsistencies of the government's
environmental stance. Since electricity use causes CO2 emissions, tax on
electricity should, by any logical reckoning, be at a similar level to tax
on motor fuel.

Only by the logical reckoning of an utter idiot. Bill you are really
steeping to low depths of lies and distortion here.



Of course, they aren't going to do that, because there would
be uproar. Motorists, however, are a large constituency, but not quite large
enough to matter sufficiently in electoral terms. The people who pay fuel
tax indirectly (all of us) don't realise that the price of goods and
services is affected as much as it is.


There are people that drive cars and then there are "motorists", the
latter has ****ty lives and feel the need to blame their inadequacies on
someone else - be it governments, immigrants or environmentalists.


I do feel however that we are far too ready to waste money on transport.
I've just completed a quotation for work in Worcester, which is a long way
from here. I don't want the work, but I'm quoting to a good customer who
does want it, and wants us on board. If he is successful we will all be
merrily driving innumerable times between here and Worcester. I'm sure that
there are people in Worcester who could do the job. Likewise, I often
encounter contractors near here who hail from 200 miles away. The
availability of good road transport links is, in this sense, misused.


See even you can see where it is going wrong. Okay, you deny global
warming as a problem, it is pretty much you and Bill Cheney these days.

Even those that did deny it are accepting it. Their revisionism means
that they now just claim it will not be that big a problem.

Same with CFCs, same with smog same with lead in petrol. Those at the
back who are either slow on the uptake or just like you - do not give a
flying **** about anyone else - eventually do catch up.

Colum Mylod wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:52:28 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

"stevo" wrote in message
...
...
Are you suggesting that Britain should just think "****-it" and sod
everyone else?
That isn't a bad philosophy, actually. It's one followed by many nations, to
their great advantage. Think of the French. But no, I'm suggesting that we
don't allow ourselves to be taken for a ride.

Sod-it is already gov. policy but only if you're an airport. A control
freak in London wants 60% reduction but admits it'll end up 20% due
to LHR and LCY which are beyond his control. This unbalanced
distribution of pain is of course also gov policy as witnessed in a
different area with pensions. And obTV: who pays for digital cutover.

Are you trying to say that is also you viewpoint but don't want to come
out and say so?

Are you are ashamed to admit you only give a **** about yourself.

"stevo" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
This reveals one of the great inconsistencies of the government's
environmental stance. Since electricity use causes CO2 emissions, tax on
electricity should, by any logical reckoning, be at a similar level to
tax on motor fuel.

Only by the logical reckoning of an utter idiot. Bill you are really
steeping to low depths of lies and distortion here.

Could you refute my argument logically? Personal abuse might make you feel
better, but it doesn't fool anyone you know. This isn't a nursery, where
throwing your dummy out gets attention and sympathy. What I said above is a
valid argument. It might be impractical for political reasons, as I say
below, but it is worthy of discussion.


Of course, they aren't going to do that, because there would be uproar.
Motorists, however, are a large constituency, but not quite large enough
to matter sufficiently in electoral terms. The people who pay fuel tax
indirectly (all of us) don't realise that the price of goods and services
is affected as much as it is.


There are people that drive cars and then there are "motorists", the
latter has ****ty lives and feel the need to blame their inadequacies on
someone else - be it governments, immigrants or environmentalists.
That's a sweeping generalisation, and it can be quickly demolished. I think
we could class the protagonists in 'Top Gear' (and thousands of similar
people) as 'motorists'. Now whether we agree with their value system or not,
your assertion that they lead ****ty lives is unsupportable. I think if you
compare the lifestyle of that sort of person with your own lifestyle you
might have to reassign the epithet '****ty' to your own way of life. I
somehow sense that you are not a massively successful person. You posts have
the aura of the dingy flat.

Bill

"stevo" wrote in message
...
Are you are ashamed to admit you only give a **** about yourself.

Let's examine your suggestion that those of us opposed to road pricing are
acting selfishly.

My main concern about road pricing is that it is not a progressive tax. It
will hit the poorer motorists and have no effect on the rich. It will mean
that the poor will have their travel options restricted. They will be less
inclined to get jobs in areas where the charges are higher, so the job
market will be distorted. In other words, there will be more people looking
for work in the low charge areas, so wages will drop in those areas.

Personally I don't give a flying **** about road charging. Virtually every
mile I drive is charged out, so it won't affect me. My leasure motoring is
done entirely in rural areas and the annual mileage is low, so if they
reduce road tax I'll be better off.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:
"stevo" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
This reveals one of the great inconsistencies of the government's
environmental stance. Since electricity use causes CO2 emissions, tax on
electricity should, by any logical reckoning, be at a similar level to
tax on motor fuel.
Only by the logical reckoning of an utter idiot. Bill you are really
steeping to low depths of lies and distortion here.

Could you refute my argument logically? Personal abuse might make you feel
better, but it doesn't fool anyone you know. This isn't a nursery, where
throwing your dummy out gets attention and sympathy. What I said above is a
valid argument. It might be impractical for political reasons, as I say
below, but it is worthy of discussion.

It was not a valid argument, it began on a falsehood.

Tax on fuel is not solely there for environmental reasons, it never has
been. You begin with the erroneous belief that it does.

You never offered any argument, you just stated a position.

Of course, they aren't going to do that, because there would be uproar.
Motorists, however, are a large constituency, but not quite large enough
to matter sufficiently in electoral terms. The people who pay fuel tax
indirectly (all of us) don't realise that the price of goods and services
is affected as much as it is.


There are people that drive cars and then there are "motorists", the
latter has ****ty lives and feel the need to blame their inadequacies on
someone else - be it governments, immigrants or environmentalists.
That's a sweeping generalisation, and it can be quickly demolished. I think
we could class the protagonists in 'Top Gear' (and thousands of similar
people) as 'motorists'. Now whether we agree with their value system or not,
your assertion that they lead ****ty lives is unsupportable. I think if you
compare the lifestyle of that sort of person with your own lifestyle you
might have to reassign the epithet '****ty' to your own way of life. I
somehow sense that you are not a massively successful person. You posts have
the aura of the dingy flat.

People that define themselves "motorists" are agenda ridden. For most
people that car is a mode of transport not something that defines them.
So they are not a large constituency, they are a minority, they try to
claim that everyone that uses a car is part of their constituency - such
dishonest tactics should make their voices ignored, sadly they still
won't shut up.

I suggest Bill you forget the attempt and judging people's lifestyles
from posts on the internet countering your attempts at social comment,
remember it is you that began the insults and false assumptions with
your massively incorrect

"The green extremists want to reduce our standard of living to satisfy
their pseudo-religious puritan urges. It fits in with their
anti-capitalist leftist philosophy. To them environmentalism is a nice
convenient justification for their unsocial obsessions. "

You embrassed yourself when it was pointed out that advocates of
legistlation controlling CFCs, lead in petrol and the clean air act were
once designated as extremists too.

You have attempted to link how requests to save water from the water
companies are related to environmentalism when it is the capitalist that
are making these requests - you couldn't have got it more wrong if you
tried.

Bill, for someone that has the cheek to bemoan the lack of arguments,
you should be embarassed, every point offered to you is ignored, every
claim you make is not backed up by argument - if you tried you would
realise how wrong you were - even some of your paying customers you
insult on here would realise that no doubt.





Bill

Bill Wright wrote:
"stevo" wrote in message
...
Are you are ashamed to admit you only give a **** about yourself.

Let's examine your suggestion that those of us opposed to road pricing are
acting selfishly.

My main concern about road pricing is that it is not a progressive tax. It
will hit the poorer motorists and have no effect on the rich. It will mean
that the poor will have their travel options restricted. They will be less
inclined to get jobs in areas where the charges are higher, so the job
market will be distorted. In other words, there will be more people looking
for work in the low charge areas, so wages will drop in those areas.

A couple of flaws in that argument. The fact the charges will not be
static, if traffic moves to other routes causing congestion there and
aleviatates congestion elsewhere then that charges will change to
reflect that. Secondly, it assumes that people are so determined to sit
in their own cars they would not consider sharing or other means to keep
the same job and habitation.

However, if your concern is a lack of progressive tax, perhaps you
should prefer road-pricing to a flat rate percentage on fuel. This is
fairer for people that have to drive to their work place due to location
of their work place or their hours worked - i.e. factor that affect the
viability of using public transport. I don't know, but I presume the
rate-per-mile will depend on the size of your car too.




Personally I don't give a flying **** about road charging. Virtually every
mile I drive is charged out, so it won't affect me. My leasure motoring is
done entirely in rural areas and the annual mileage is low, so if they
reduce road tax I'll be better off.

They'll reduce the fuel-tax I understand. Perhaps you can re-assess your
opposition in the light of that.