Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

I find it hard to reconcile these two stories:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/60259/Blackout-Britain-warning

Britain is “quite simply running out of power” and blackouts are almost inevitable within the next few years.

But, when we try to build them we get this:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/09/ecoterrorism-vi.html (This is a via link - I couldn't stomach posting the Greenpeace link)

In the first link you'll read that Mr Dunsford [Campbell Dunford of the respected Renewable Energy Foundation ] says: "worse was to come: “Certainly we’re going to be heading to eight or nine million in fuel poverty.

“The people who are vulnerable are old people and the single mums. They rely on power."

Meanwhile, in the second link, you'll read the Greenpeace quote: "To recap on how important this verdict is: the defendants campaigners were accused of causing £30,000 of criminal damage to Kingsnorth smokestack from painting. The defence was that they had 'lawful excuse' - because they were acting to protect property around the world "in immediate need of protection" from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal. "

I feel we are living in a Monty Python sketch, not the real world anymore.    

[Kevin Wood]

That's the luxury of single issue politics. The books don't have to balance. It's also why organisations like Greenpeace have zero crediibility and are an irrelevance these days, IMHO.

Kevin

[Martin_1962]

Simply we shut them down when worn out not when EU tells us to!

[Kevin Wood]

Makes me glad I've got a freshly rebuilt diesel generator in the garden shed at any rate. Maybe one of my many ebay projects will come in handy when the lights go out.

Kevin

[jimmas]

Absolutely crazy , this country is just about on it's knees now, were to next, I feel for the next generation as well as the current.

[DaveyDavey]

I find it hard to reconcile these two stories:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/60259/Blackout-Britain-warning

Britain is “quite simply running out of power” and blackouts are almost inevitable within the next few years.

But, when we try to build them we get this:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/09/ecoterrorism-vi.html (This is a via link - I couldn't stomach posting the Greenpeace link)

In the first link you'll read that Mr Dunsford [Campbell Dunford of the respected Renewable Energy Foundation ] says: "worse was to come: “Certainly we’re going to be heading to eight or nine million in fuel poverty.

“The people who are vulnerable are old people and the single mums. They rely on power."

Meanwhile, in the second link, you'll read the Greenpeace quote: "To recap on how important this verdict is: the defendants campaigners were accused of causing £30,000 of criminal damage to Kingsnorth smokestack from painting. The defence was that they had 'lawful excuse' - because they were acting to protect property around the world "in immediate need of protection" from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal. "

I feel we are living in a Monty Python sketch, not the real world anymore.    

Funniest thing I have read all week!!  

[Kevin Wood]

I find it hard to reconcile these two stories:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/60259/Blackout-Britain-warning

Britain is “quite simply running out of power” and blackouts are almost inevitable within the next few years.

But, when we try to build them we get this:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/09/ecoterrorism-vi.html (This is a via link - I couldn't stomach posting the Greenpeace link)

In the first link you'll read that Mr Dunsford [Campbell Dunford of the respected Renewable Energy Foundation ] says: "worse was to come: “Certainly we’re going to be heading to eight or nine million in fuel poverty.

“The people who are vulnerable are old people and the single mums. They rely on power."

Meanwhile, in the second link, you'll read the Greenpeace quote: "To recap on how important this verdict is: the defendants campaigners were accused of causing £30,000 of criminal damage to Kingsnorth smokestack from painting. The defence was that they had 'lawful excuse' - because they were acting to protect property around the world "in immediate need of protection" from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal. "

I feel we are living in a Monty Python sketch, not the real world anymore.    

Funniest thing I have read all week!!  

Don't worry. A big cartoon boot will descend from the sky and put us all out of our misery soon.

Kevin

[Varche]

I happen to quite admire organisations like Greenpeace. Without them the world would look like parts of Eastern Europe,India and China with corrupt non accountable governments doing what they like in the interests of competing with other countries or just plain developing.

How can our UK government claim to be green and yet allow filthy polluting coal power stations? Either we are or we aren't. If we are not then lets build more and use the resultant competitive edge.

There can't be many people who agree with Japan still taking whales out of the sea on the pretext of scientific research. Without organisations like Greenpeace they would, along with other countries, have fished them to extinction.

Anyway it is all spin just to soften everyone up for Saudi funded nuclear power stations in Britain.  

varche

[jereboam]

What's truly worrying about the Greenpeace vandalism verdict is that the jury appears to have expressed political sentiments.  

I was under the impression that they were supposed to restrict themselves to the facts presented in court.  And I also thought that they were under oath not to discuss the case with anybody outside the jury room.

It's the second controversial jury decision this week - the alleged airline terrorists were aquitted as well.

[Kevin Wood]

What's truly worrying about the Greenpeace vandalism verdict is that the jury appears to have expressed political sentiments.  

I was under the impression that they were supposed to restrict themselves to the facts presented in court.  And I also thought that they were under oath not to discuss the case with anybody outside the jury room.

It's the second controversial jury decision this week - the alleged airline terrorists were aquitted as well.

The jury is there to determine guilt based on the facts presented. They have turned round and said "guilty as charged, but we'll ignore the law because it's a good cause (IMHO)". They should have been out of the court at that point, and a retrial started with a fresh lot.

It is a worrying precedent. Where will it stop?

Will terrorists now be able to attack animal testing establishments with impunity?

Will passers-by be able to vandalise any car with a V6 badge on it - on environmental grounds?

I don't like it at all.

Kevin