egafd.com

You have cavity wall insulation, 10" of loft insulation, 'K' glass double glazing, long-life light bulbs........you get the picture? So your utility bills arrive and what do you find? You're saving money. Your neighbour did the same and guess what? Yup he's saving money also. In fact everyone is doing it and saving money.

So what do the utility companies think about that? Let's say the 60 million population +/- are all not spending so much money with them. Let's just say the saving per year is just ?5.00. Well thats ?300 million pounds of lost investment in the infrastructure and shareholder dividend. What will they do? Put the cost of energy up to recoup their losses that's what and then all of a sudden your pocket is no better off.

Your local council wants you to recycle. You have a green bin, one for glass one for drinks cans.......again you know the picture. But all this recycling means more processing, more staff, extra collections......they need more income to do these things, your Council Tax will pay for it. Once again your pocket is hit.

Simple fact - you will pay for going 'green', not the Government, not the big conglomerates. Your pocket.

Yes and create a water shortage and save money by not repairing leaks and get everyone on meters so you can make more money by supplying less water, its called capitalism !laugh!

TBH I guess the companies would have raised prices regardless. Lots of households are still without 'wall insulation' and such.

Though it's harder on our pockets, I prefer it over the USA whereby driving around in a 4x4 & burning as much electricity & gas as you like, are pretty normal, and without hurting your pocket in the slightest.

If you're contributing to a family losing their home in Indonesia -due to rising sea levels- then I don't mind suffering a little. It keeps us humble.Hopefully some of the money we generate will go back into sciences that will create better ways to produce the energy we've come to rely on. (hopefully.....)

Jacques wrote:

> Your local council wants you to recycle. You have a green bin,
> one for glass one for drinks cans.......again you know the
> picture. But all this recycling means more processing, more
> staff, extra collections......they need more income to do these
> things, your Council Tax will pay for it. Once again your
> pocket is hit.
>
> Simple fact - you will pay for going 'green', not the
> Government, not the big conglomerates. Your pocket.

Round here they haven't made extra collections 'just' changed the rubbish collection from weekly to fortnightly.

They have also 'just' made residents put the bins (sorry recycling receptacles) in different locations to be collected and 'just' demand that it is done before a specific time that suits them.

They play the saving the planet to sell it, that we should be grateful and 'just' accept these 'minor inconveniences' BUT all the work done by residents to accommodate their new scheme (work allegedly previously done by the council) should lead to a reduction is council tax but it doesn't.

I don't mind doing my bit of going green but I despise people telling me to do it when they can do a hell of a lot more than I ever could.

randyandy wrote:

>>


Here in Germany, at the beginning of each calendar year you have to buy stickers to put on your bins.

No sticker on your bin - your bin doesn't get emptied.

Naturally, these stickers get more expensive every year.

Except for one year a few years back, when all households got a circular from the council trumpeting the fact that this year (ta-tara-ta-ta-ta-TAAAAA) the price of the sticker was being frozen as a "thank you" for all our efforts in recycling etc. etc. etc.

BUT: The flip-side of the coin was that instead of emptying our bins each week, they were now only going to be emptied every fortnight (in other words 26 times a year instead of 52).

As far as I'm concerned, in real terms that meant that far from freezing the price of emptying the bins, they were in fact doubling it!! Yet another example of politicians (in this case local government) insulting the collective intelligence of the population at large.

The OP has a good point. All this "green" malarkey is one big con - not least because half the time so-called "green" taxes & levies go straight into the bottomless pit of government waste and NOT for the purpose they were intended.

Did I mention supermarket packaging?

You see Tesco's et al love packaging. You see they have targets set by the Government for recycling packaging. Every time they recycle some they get a note detaling the tonnage. Now let's say the target is 5 tonnes and a supermarket recycles 7 tonnnes. What does it do? It does not stop at 5 tonnes for a start oh no(!) It proudly boasts that it exceeded its target and then promptly decides to make even more money by selling the extra notes for 2 tonnes to whomever has not met their target.

Supermarkets love packaging, it makes them money and makes them look environmentally responsible.

Whilst appreciating the sentiments above (I agree that the "green agenda can be confusing, frustrating and sometimes contradictory), please try to see that it's the corporations/certain inefficient bodies who are the problem here......why blame "being green" as costing you more money/inconvenience. In the case of the former, corporations are LEGALLY OBLIGED to make as much money as they can for their shareholders, so why be so surprised when you can point out examples of them ripping us off, whether through "green" cons or otherwise.

People who "go green" etc are often those with a little bit of disposable income, so certain companies, knowing this, often price such products/services accordingly. There are not so "razor-thin margins" for supermarkets etc on such lines. A well-known supermarket makes, on average, just 3.5p profit for every ?1 you spend there; t more on the higher-margin green/fairtrade stuff, cos they know they can get away with it.


I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but think about this...."going green" is a concept, and it's the execution of the concept that's the problem, not the idea itself. Think about this...

Situation 1
"Supermarkets love packaging" and companies/service providers exploit "green" products - so why shop there or with them then? I don't and I am no worse off financially (or otherwise) for it. For example, each week I get a shit-load (the offical measurement unit!) of (organic) vegetables at my local farmer's market for considerably less than it would cost at the "low price" supermarket. How can a corporation with $150 billion of turnover, with a renowned every-day-low-price stategy, charge more than a bloody local, small farmer???? On sheer economics, it's compeltely f*cked up! (I do acknowledge that in the case of local government, the "choice" comes but once every 5 years though....! But that lies more in the mechanics of democracy then anything else, and that's another debate entirely!)

Situation 2
"Gas prices are pushed up", regardless of cavity wall insultation measures etc we all take. Aside from the supply and demand argument (all this oil is but a finite resource, chaps), do you know that you can get 33% government funding to encourage you to "go green" with localised energy production. Even though it seems many don;t realise it, you don't actually need gas to heat you home, heat your water etc. For a relatively small capital outlay (wind turbines, biofuel stoves, solar panels - even heat pumps for the more adventurous), an outlay of a few thousand pounds means you won't need to use those greedy gas companies ever again!. ?2,500 is gonna do it for me. I do appreciate that many people are, and always will be, on very tight budgets, but we can all do what we can - eg switch to a "green" electricty supplier (mine price-matches the local leading supplier). When I hear that the "average" household fuel bills are now well over ?1,000 per annum, the payback period seems a no-brainer!

I could go on, but am starting to bore myself. My arguments/theories are NOT failsafe or water-tight, but then neither are Thame Water's pipes....

Cheers,

alicia_fan_uk


PS - I live in Scotland. We didn't privatise our water up here, and Scottish Water. a public body, is actually run (relatively) well. Not meaning to rub it in, just pointing out that there is no in-built profiteering in what is a fundamental, basic need.

PPS - If you really want to "go green", perhaps we should all download our porn on-line/VOD, so as to save transport/plastic/packaging costs......maybe we could have a "Green Wank Awareness Week" (or two)....sponsored by Strictly Broadband - the worst's more environmentally-friendly porn provider!

alicia_fan_uk wrote:

> Whilst appreciating the sentiments above (I agree that the
> "green agenda can be confusing, frustrating and sometimes
> contradictory), please try to see that it's the
> corporations/certain inefficient bodies who are the problem
> here......why blame "being green" as costing you more
> money/inconvenience.


Simple really it's the "being green" that's being sold.

I've just come on line and the first thing I see is David Cameron goes green or some similar bollocks.

Mr Cameron, apart from the car following him on his bike rides round London, used a helicopter to come up north when Cons won Chorley definately not green in anyway shape or form.

In a way I don't have much of a problem with that, he has to get from A to B but the problem I had was his refusal for photos to be allowed to be taken of said helicopter showing exactly how green he is.

randyandy,

I am as pissed off as you with the whole lies and spin, such as the case you point out. But please try to see the difference between genuine green initiatives and spin/profiteering.

Tesco (on the same day they disclosed massive profit hikes, no less) also did a similar PR stunt saying they were going to design and open a (single) green-friendly store somewhere in England. Even if this does happen, does that means the hundreds of it's other stores can pollute like hell?? It's like applauding a murderer who plans to kill 11 people, but stops at 10.

Again, it's all mis-selling of "being green". I just hope that people are intelligent enough to tell the difference between (i) some pompous twat who thinks that "going green" is all about getting ur pic in the papers on a bicycle (followed around by a gas-guzzling jaguar - arsehole) and (ii) normal, decent people deciding to live in a manner which is ecologically and ethically considerate.

The situation you point out is yet another example of people trying to get the advantages of going "green" (ie good PR/getting into power in this case, rather than increased profits), but not actually doing anything "green" at all. Spin and PR, in other words.

Think of your examplesin another context.......it's akin to me asking people to donate money to an anti-child labour charity I have set up, then using the monies I receive to buy clothes and shoes produced by child labour for profit. OUTCOME: I think it would be very folllish and shortsighted to criticise all moves and initiatives towards alleviating child labour, but I fully expect a torrent of abuse for my actions which cycnically pulled at people's emotions for my own personal gain.

Is this not rather deep for a porn-forum, especially when there's the lovely Alicia Rhodes, Natalie Heck and Anjali being discussed???

alicia_fan_uk

apologies for some horrible spelling and punctuation in my post!