Posted by David Hansen on October 16, 2007, 8:21 am
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:10:11 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
I have yet to see a publication by say Friends of the Earth on
energy which does not say that one must first reduce energy
consumption by things like insulation and only then consider
"alternative" methods of generation.
Your point is moot.
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
Posted by Eeyore on October 16, 2007, 11:44 am
David Hansen wrote:
It's highly relevant to the wider issue of building expensive alternative energy
generation when half our homes aren't insulated to the the latest standards.
The money should be spent on *giving* us the insulation for free or at notional
Posted by Jim on October 16, 2007, 10:19 pm
The money shouldn't be spent by the govt. It should be spent by the
people who want whatever it is; alt. energy, or more insulation. Otherwise,
you have a Nanny State.
Posted by Eeyore on October 17, 2007, 5:49 am
Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I regret
that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.
Yes, it seems a little 'nannying' may be in order.
Posted by Andy Hall on October 17, 2007, 6:37 am
On 2007-10-17 06:49:05 +0100, Eeyore
There is virtually *never* a legitimate reason for state nannying -
certainly not with this. If the case is compelling, then people will
implement. This is an indication that it is not.