Free Will and Forward Planning

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

There are several problems facing Planet Earth right now, and Government really does need to govern.

When Americans look out across the oil slick in the Gulf of mexico and ask ' How come?', the informed answer that is coming back currently seems to be saying that BP ( British Petroleum or Biggish Pollution , dependent on POV) was in a very pally position with the US Guvvermint. Doing their own safety checks and working to a very watered down version of Safety Regulations, anyway, so I read in the Sunday Times.

British activists like myself have long regarded BP not so much as an ethical oil company, just as one of the least UNethical ones that we have had dealings with.

I sincerely apologise to any Americans out there for any damage this company has done to your economy and environment, and hope you get them to pay full costs on any and all damage done.
I also hope you realise that this is what will continually happen when you allow Big Business to ' regulate itself', 'Free it from red tape', or fall for any other sort of Snake Oil that they regularly try to use and british environmental activists have learned to view with extreme scepticism over the years.

The only way to run any company, especialy an oil one working anywhere near the water, is to have independent experts make the rules and have independent bodies checking that they are fully compliant. Otherwise, you get the mess we currently see along the US Coast rght now.

But, when it comes to individuals, a different dynamic is needed. Corporations oftenn have to be beaten into line with legislation. citizens have votes, and can be led, not driven, we feel.

People accepted that factories were only going to be open for 3 days a week in the days of the Heath government. there was plenty of coal, but poweer workers were on strike and black outs were frequent. so we had a 3 day week.

When it comes to recycling, many 20th century political parties Just Dont Get It. Labour councils have fined people for putting the wrong things in the wrong bags, or putting their bags out too late or too early.

Green councils have adopted the sceme where children bring paper, cardboard and other recyclables to school and sort them there into communal bins with adult assistance. kiids love to get involved, learn about the importance of recycling and nobody gets fined or coerced or sent to Gitmo Bay.

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/recycling_in_schools.htm

Greens see this 'community friendly' approach as the key to all its policies.
The Green Party in England and Wales is allied to, but not controlled by green parties elsewhere, so the Greens in the USA or Canada may differ from us on certain issues, but I would generally expect them to hold the same approach, unless you can show me different.

One of the most controversial schemes that has drawn criticism from some is British Green policy on Planned Parenthood. Again, I would say that some 20th Century political regimes like Communism just Didn't Get It, and thrust enforced sterilisation and single child families upon it's citizens.

British Greens note that when women in the UK were allowed access to contraception, they needed no legislation to compel them to use it. Likewise, when people made a fuss about aerosols damaging the ozone layer, it was not legislation, it was people 'voting with their feet' , or maybe I should say 'their cash' that put CFC cans in the bin and CFC free products on the shelves.

Fair Trade Coffee - its another scheme that Green parties favour, but banning the sale of Nescafe and making it's possession illegal was not possible, or even needed. Public oponion, once informed and mobilised, put Fair Trade products onto the supermarket shelves.

So, no - Greens are not the party of Draconian cutbacks, or compulsory serilisation, ethnic cleansing, or enforced depopulation - whatever anyone on the Right may tell tell you.

Yes, we say that WE have to reduce our consumption levels of oil and other fossil fuels, and that government intervention will be needed. and we as greens will lead from the front.
We propose to do this through raised taxation for big pollutors, and government grants and assistance for those who want to behave in an environmentally responsible fashion.

In practice, this means that -
you will get a government grant if you want to put a solar panel on your roof;

you will pay less purchase tax if you buy a very economic model when you get a new car, or fridge, or any other appliance and information will be a statutary requirement to let the consumer make an informed choice;

you will end up paying more if you choose to buy a gas guzzling, uneconomic model, that has high CO2 emmissions. The pollutter pays, but it's still your choice if you want to pay the price.

That's our platform and if we get elected, we will switch to PR by STV and will claim a public mandate for our policies. It is quite untrue to say that the Greens are not being straight with people, or that we will enforce draconian penalties to implement our policies. That is simply out of touch with Green philosophy.

Comments

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

You proposed it yourself I believe when you proposed rationing at 60% of current oil consumption levels (I believe that was the number, 5 gallons per day down to 3 gallons per day) and yet the article said a mere 5% reduction in oil supplies could end civilization as we know it.

Rationing at the level needed to actually make a difference on either the environmental or availability fronts would cause the economic collapse and warfare that the doomsayer videos warned about.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

That's as silly as claiming oil is going to crash with a giant slurp.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Ok, here is my reasoning:-
I am 54 this year,a nd i have seen some pretty scarey situations.
but that waas long ago, when people behaved different than they do today.

Imagine you switched on the news on Monday morning , and it said that your factory, like every factory in your stae , was only gonna b allowed to open up and make things on Tuesay , Wednesday and thursday, every wekk for the foreseeable future, so that we can save power.

"power workers are on strike, so we are getting power cuts" says a government mnister's voice on the radio. hopsitals will run with Army generators on standby, but any business operation will get 3 days power a week. "

Well, what would you think, what would you do?


the thing is , i grew up in hard times - not as hard as yours, I don't think, bt enough to get me the sense that i was on my own and needed to look after me because no one else did.

When i was working a 3 day week , i was under 20 - most older guys than me had seen a real war - air raids, rationing. it was a picnic to them . Guys like me never got to panicking , our managers, our school teachers, they kept their cool we would therefore be ok.

Now, i have also lived through a fuel strike, about 10-15 yrs later. a lot of folks a bit younger than me about. Tanker drivers are not making deliveries. petrol stations running dry. police on the streets, not riots, but scuffles breaking out, arrests being made because a shop won't open. And this was not a long term situation . No gas for a week or so - but close to anarchy!

more worrying , people getting in cars and queuing. I mean , they just go to the shops, then the local fuel station , and top up the tanks. they keep the tank topped up on any possible chance.Because they are scared.

And this is a short lived crisis, but people are going to bits. we need to get some close calls in - something that will allow people to take a look over the edge , but will not be a permanent feature of their lives. let them get used to the idea that there may be tough times ahead. rationing, slowly introduced and gradually extended will perhaps enable the public psychology to get into the habit of being more self reliant.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Imagine you switched on the news on Monday morning , and it said that your factory, like every factory in your stae , was only gonna b allowed to open up and make things on Tuesay , Wednesday and thursday, every wekk for the foreseeable future, so that we can save power.

You would first get riots. Then you would get 30-40% unemployment. Then more riots. Then a 5-10% minimum die-off. Depending on how long they hold out before giving in to economic reality.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

You would first get riots. Then you would get 30-40% unemployment. Then more riots. Then a 5-10% minimum die-off. Depending on how long they hold out before giving in to economic reality.

you paint a dire picture, I thought you lot were already used to the occasional brown and or black-outs through shoddy infrastructure in areas well known for poor weather?

Hell, 200 years ago, light was provided by candles if one could afford them, have we all gone that soft in just 200 years that we cannot cope with the very basics? No frigging wonder no-one goes camping anymore.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Seriously, you would get crap like that only in semi-civilised areas.
we had exactly the same situation happening in the UK in the 1970s and the population carried on like the wonderful and plucky Brits were are.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

we had exactly the same situation happening in the UK in the 1970s and the population carried on like the wonderful and plucky Brits were are.

Oh the joys of regular meal plans, Porridge with salt for breakfast, sandwiches for dinner and mince 'n' rice for tea. (father unused to not working)

Though to be fair Gerry, I do wonder how well you remember those times, My folks (Normally rule-followers to the extreme) did work more days than were "Allowed", they had to, they'd only just bought their first home, hell my father even got a job on a burger wagon (They were not quite as popular back then, and it's lack of cleanliness resulted in the family becomming non-meat eaters), there's always a way round problems, and yet again prohibition just didn't work.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

well, down our way , it went like this -

I worked for corrugated products - we made them cardboard tubes that light bulbs and flourescent lights strips went in - as well as cardboard boxes for just about everything that went into a box.

The power was off for four days solid, and the factory ran from midnight on tuesday to midnight on thursday. production runs were times so that as one shift went off home , another one walked in and handed over.

we played by the riules in our neck of the woods, but production rose.
Ok, i dunno about street traders and pemises with their own generators - but the big effects were there, shops lit by candles, hospitals with army generators in trucks parked outside.

And we survived.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

And we survived.

Ah, we did, (though I was still in Junior school)

One surely also has to consider the fact back then people's only debts were to the Bank for their home purchase, Everything else was saved for and bought in cash, very few had cars, bus fare for 5 miles was 5 pence and if times were tough one put less coal on the fire (though more rubbish if one could not go fetch timber/deadwood to burn)

Now no-one knows how to turn their heating down to use less gas, almost everyone has a car, shopping is done once per week instead of once per day, and if the electricity gets turned off, It's the Kids who would riot, Hell no TV/Xbax/PS5(Or whatever number they're up to now) hell they'd have to go out on those unsafe streets, and play in playparks like we sufferred when we were young, wow, just think of the new modern ailments that'll come about through contact with the outside world/bugs/trees and other greenery, it ain't worth thinking about, Bring on the Horsemen :)

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Yes, but as you said, everyone knew it was temporary and not to mention the overwhelming majority of the populace at the time had just lived through WW2 and were used to hardships like that.

Today, those who actually experienced real war (even if it was just as a civilian and dealing with shortages) are in their late 70's or older. Even worse however is how much technology and society has changed in the last 50 years. It would be one thing to say "Hey, for the next 6 months you're going to have to make due with 30% of the energy you are used to", it is something else entirely to say "for the rest of your life you are going to have to make due with 30% of the energy you are used to".

There are entire industries which would simply be out of business with the rationing that would be needed, this is especially true in areas dominated by tourism and travel.

People are very good at making due with short term disruptions, however significant and perminant rationing is a separate issue entirely. In fact imposing rationing would be a far worse economic shock than allowing it to develop naturally through the price system as Oil became more scarce because there would be no time to adjust. For example, I was smart enough to buy a home a mere 4 miles (6 Km) from where I work, but several people I work with live more than 10 times that distance. Cut their access to gas by 20% and they would be out of a job for no reason other than they would not be able to get enough gas to get to work at any price and they live too far away to get there by any other means (out in the country where mass transit would actually be less efficient than personal vehicles even). However, if the price of gas rose at 3 times the rate of inflation for the next 20 years as Oil becomes more scarce then they would have time to adjust to the increasing costs and relocate to a home closer to work as their commuting expenses rose.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

so, maybe its time to start saying to people " we all have to cut down 2% this year"
Tow percent is not much, but 3 % the year after - that is 55 in 2 yrs. go another 55 the next year and you have lost 10% already, and doing it gradually - 105 in a year would be horrendous - and don't forget , it is gonna be forever. we have to shift this mindset that floodlit ski ing is doable and desireable, and Ann coulter for one has it.

Rationing , I feel, is going to have to come - and it would be better to start sooner, and do it in small stages, than to start when only big changes will suffice.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

maybe that's how America would go, but you severely underestimate the people of Gret Britain. For this is exactly what happened in England, under the 3 day week. Ted Heath's government would not back down to the power workers union and their excessive demands.

And the power workers walked out on strike. There were blackouts. Troops stood by with generators to run our hospitals, shoppers went to candle lit supermarkets to buy groceries. Factories were only open 3 days a week.

Yet there were no riots. No rise in unemployment. Production actually rose , because firms were watchig the meters and determined to make the most of what little there was.
The magnificent, hardy and plucky Brits stood firm and the strike was over.
And this experience led eventually to Union reform , the end of 'shows of hands' , secondary picketing and the Block Vote. It led eventually to thatcherism , and we went through that as well. in the Falklands war, the british armed forces went halfway round the world, fought a hard campaingn against a numerically superior that was closer to home and had months to dig in and prepare defences. And yet, when they arrived, the british drove the Argentine invaders into the sea in a matter of months. sadly , the Americans went to Veitnam , stayed there for over 10 years, and still lost.

I have seen off three day weeks, and months long miners strikes, and real recessions under Tory governments.
But this was England. I am not sure the Yanks would be as firm as we were, or turn out to be made of the same stuff.
But, you can Google Ted Heath on wiki and see for yourself. We survived a 3 day week in England. Four days without power, for weeks on end.I am not so sure that contemporary Americans could run the same sort of show.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

As rasilio said, that's because they knew it was temporary. There's a big difference there.

And you don't seem to know much about Vietnam, or the Falklands, or you wouldn't have tried to compare them. And you got it wrong too.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

because they knew it was temporary,/i> did they? at the time?
We could have had anarchy breaking out, the complete collapse of law and order.
but, as history shows, e didn't.

What did I get wrong about the Falklands ? Did we lose or something?
I seem to recall Uk forces coming home victorious in a manner completely unlike Americans who had to climb onto the embassy roof to catch the last helicopters out of Veitnam.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You got wrong that it's comparable to Vietnam.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

the only similarity was that it was a war.

But we went in with a clear timetable,
with a clear objective,
to take back what was taken from us,
and actually achieved our objectives.

I am not so much comparing , but contrasting the british way of fighting a war with American attitudes to war as shown in Veitnam, Afghanistan and other places-
no clear timetable,
no clear objectives,
no clear defence of national interests - more in Vietnam than eelsewhere, but still a factor,
and no, we didn't lose the Falklands campaign.

in the war we are fighting at present , it seems to me that Blair involved us to cozy up to Bush - but Blair is no great Statesman. There is no clear exit strategy , no clear way of knowing how, if and when we are winning and will have won the 'war on terror' he has dragged us into.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Which is why they aren't comparable. And you aren't understanding what the problem is with Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. It's not because of American attitudes to war.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

It's not because of American attitudes to war.
So, how come you keep making the same mistakes?

Or put it another way - what do you see the problem as, and why did America lose against the North Vietnamese, in spite of air superiority, artilliery support, higher tech weapons, bigger military budget, and a professional standing army?

ok, I know that the average recruit was a 19 yr old, most likely working class and there because he was drafted. I know he only served two years, so by the time he knew enough about jungle warfar, he was sent back home and replaced by a rookie. i know that the vietnamese said that they would lose 10 to one of the enemy and would still win because they could always recruit more men, whereas the Americans would become reluctant to fight on once the body bags came home in numbers.

But the real reason was that the top brass never took account of all that. they put their faith in hi tech weapons in the hands of homesick young men who just wanted out -
they didn't do enough to raise the troops morale, or have a clear and understood plan - and wondered then why they lost.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

We didn't lose the war militarily. Politicians decided to fight something other than what needed to be fought in order to "win". Whether that was right or not is a different issue. Same thing with Iraq and Afghanistan.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

heh.
i do understand the concept of the 'Phyrric victory', where the cost of winning will actually leave the enemy so weakened that they cannot fight again for quite some time m- but if the Americans didn't win "militarly", in what sense did they succeed invietnam?
What sort of success can we expect in todays wars where the US is involved?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I said didn't lose, not didn't win. The military won every battle it fought, but the war wasn't just about the military. Just like in Iraq, the military won just fine, but the rest of the situation is unwinnable because the politicians are involved.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

I see - things like rules of engagement - that kinda stuff?

In which case , we may be in for a rough time in Iraq. I guess this was the reason that Stormin' Norman didn't topple Saddam, huh?