![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThere 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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/10 07:06 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/10 08:51 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/10 09:19 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/10 09:37 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/10 09:50 (UTC)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 :)
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/10 14:25 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/10 23:07 (UTC)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.