Panorama: Go green or else!

Mark said:

Hi

Did anyone see this? I only saw the opening few minutes (will download
it later) but it seemed to be based around telling people that they'll
have to "go green" one day and that from then their lives will be
miserable with no car and no cheap foreign holidays. The show followed
a family who had been forced to live under these conditions for a
year. The presenter, Jeremy Vine (someone who massively irritates me
at the best of times), was his usual antagonistic self: "I don't like
being told what to do so instead I drove my massive car around and
flew off to the Canaries with my family". [censored].

Perhaps the show didn't live up to its initial impressions (I hope it
didn't) but it struck me as a fairly effective way of turning people
off the idea of perhaps living a bit more modestly. I'm no tree-
hugging swampy but I think it's fairly obvious to anyone with a bit of
sense that we can't sustain current lifestyles indefinitely.

Mark

I'm rather looking forward to Channel 4 on Thursday, for a bit of balance.

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark said:

Hi

Did anyone see this? I only saw the opening few minutes (will download
it later) but it seemed to be based around telling people that they'll
have to "go green" one day and that from then their lives will be
miserable with no car and no cheap foreign holidays. The show followed
a family who had been forced to live under these conditions for a
year. The presenter, Jeremy Vine (someone who massively irritates me
at the best of times), was his usual antagonistic self: "I don't like
being told what to do so instead I drove my massive car around and
flew off to the Canaries with my family". [censored].

Perhaps the show didn't live up to its initial impressions (I hope it
didn't) but it struck me as a fairly effective way of turning people
off the idea of perhaps living a bit more modestly. I'm no tree-
hugging swampy but I think it's fairly obvious to anyone with a bit of
sense that we can't sustain current lifestyles indefinitely.

Mark

I'm rather looking forward to Channel 4 on Thursday, for a bit of balance.

Might be worth a watch. I expect Prof Bill Gray to be on there somewhere.

Al C-F said:

Mark said:

Did anyone see this? I only saw the opening few minutes (will download
it later) but it seemed to be based around telling people that they'll
have to "go green" one day and that from then their lives will be
miserable with no car and no cheap foreign holidays.
[snip]

I'm rather looking forward to Channel 4 on Thursday, for a bit of balance.

Indeed.

It turns out Vine only introduced Panorama and the family didn't die
without a car.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6413195.stm

Mark

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Mark) said:

The presenter, Jeremy Vine (someone who massively irritates me
at the best of times), was his usual antagonistic self: "I don't like
being told what to do so instead I drove my massive car around and
flew off to the Canaries with my family". [censored].

Jeremy Vine, who introduced the programme, said no such thing, and the
reporter, who did fly off to the Canaries with his family, didn't quite
put it that way either.

The rest of your comments pretty much match that pattern of
misrepresentation.

Mark said:

I think it's fairly obvious to anyone with a bit of
sense that we can't sustain current lifestyles indefinitely.

I agree, it should be obvious but there are plenty of intelligent
people (and countless others) out there who cannot see it at all. It is
literally inconceivable to them, in the literal sense of the word.
Thanks to wannabe celeb distractions, glittering trinkets and other
shallow distractions almost everyone in the country has been hoodwinked
into this dreamlike state.

Tony B

(Terry) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Mark) said:

The presenter, Jeremy Vine (someone who massively irritates me
at the best of times), was his usual antagonistic self: "I don't like
being told what to do so instead I drove my massive car around and
flew off to the Canaries with my family". [censored].

Jeremy Vine, who introduced the programme, said no such thing, and the
reporter, who did fly off to the Canaries with his family, didn't quite
put it that way either.

You're quite right. My mistake. Next time I will watch then speak. It
just happened that last night I caught the beginning of the programme
as I left to do something else. I posted to u.r.c, wondering what the
outcome of the show was as some (or possibly many) of its readers are
carless by choice and possibly more interested in the subject matter
on the whole. I'll admit that my dislike of Jeremy Vine swayed my
initial opinion.

Quoted message said:

The rest of your comments pretty much match that pattern of
misrepresentation.

I did state that I had only seen the first few minutes of the show and
that I hoped it wouldn't turn out to demonstrate how inconvenient and
dull a more restrained lifestyle would be. I'm glad to see that this
wasn't the case.

Mark

Mark said:

Indeed.

It turns out Vine only introduced Panorama and the family didn't die
without a car.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6413195.stm

Thanks for the link.

An interesting article, although some of the savings seemed rather
unconvincing. 50 pounds per year as a reward for extra insulation and
turning the thermostat down doesn't seem worthwhile from a purely financial
standpoint.

A 2000 pounds per year saving giving up the car also bordering on not being
worth it. Bear in mind that there must be an associated increase in
alternative transport costs unless everything you need/want to do is in
walking distance. Add to the monetary savings, the improvements in health
and lifestyle and that might just tip the balance for some people. I might
add, I don't have a car myself.

I'm not sure that there is a culture of people nipping off to another
country when they don't really need to. Foreign travel might be an
improving experience for a lot of people. Again, I should add that I've
never been abroad, although I would like to, one day.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amhs/ - alt.music.home-studio

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Mark) said:

I did state that I had only seen the first few minutes of the show

You did, and your response is admirable.

Quoted message said:

that I hoped it wouldn't turn out to demonstrate how inconvenient and
dull a more restrained lifestyle would be. I'm glad to see that this
wasn't the case.

In under 30 minutes it covered a lot in a mostly positive and honest
way. Reporter and family found foreign holidays hard to forego, young
kids find loss of car hard at first, and so forth. It did show dad and
kids on bicycles (briefly) with comment to the effect that they were all
cycling now. Also talked about hiw it was easier to give up car in big
city with lots of public transport. Wife even walked to nearby hospital
for birth of third kid. In the end they gave their car to friend with
agreement they could use it for holidays. It was quite positive on the
whole but didn't gloss over the negatives either.

killermike said:

I'm not sure that there is a culture of people nipping off to another
country when they don't really need to. Foreign travel might be an
improving experience for a lot of people. Again, I should add that I've
never been abroad, although I would like to, one day.

You don't need to fly to experience foreign travel. I've had 2 ski
trips this spring, one by coach and one by train. Last year's holiday
was by boat. You might have a great holiday by jetting and and out of
a resort, but for an "improving experience" you'll do better
travelling more slowly overland.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony B
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Mark said:

I think it's fairly obvious to anyone with a bit of
sense that we can't sustain current lifestyles indefinitely.

I agree, it should be obvious but there are plenty of intelligent
people (and countless others) out there who cannot see it at all. It is
literally inconceivable to them, in the literal sense of the word.
Thanks to wannabe celeb distractions, glittering trinkets and other
shallow distractions almost everyone in the country has been hoodwinked
into this dreamlike state.

Talking about hoodwinked, did anyone see last night's Dispatches on C4?

http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatches/article.jsp?id=1366

(this only provides a brief summary of the 60 minute programme)

According to presenter George Monbiot (whose eyes bulged alarmingly at
times, and who commendably was shown riding a bike and taking the train)
our environmental policies aren't worth the paper they're written on as
they're largely voluntary and mandatory ones are never enforced.
--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 06:11:14 +0000

Tony B said:

Mark said:

I think it's fairly obvious to anyone with a bit of
sense that we can't sustain current lifestyles indefinitely.

FSVO "we".

Quoted message said:

I agree, it should be obvious but there are plenty of intelligent
people (and countless others) out there who cannot see it at all.

It's a numbers game. The underlying problem is far too many
humans on Earth, brought about by modern medicine keeping
them alive against nature, without a corresponding drop in
the birth rate.

The flip side is that if 95%+ of the population of Earth ceased
to exist, the remainder could live a rich lifestyle indefinitely.

And Dubya closed international inspections to his bio-weapons labs
several years back. And the rest of the world refuses genetically
modified crops, providing the ideal means to distribute an antidote
that'll reach his own population only.

--
not me guv

POHB said:

killermike said:

I'm not sure that there is a culture of people nipping off to another
country when they don't really need to. Foreign travel might be an
improving experience for a lot of people. Again, I should add that I've
never been abroad, although I would like to, one day.

You don't need to fly to experience foreign travel. I've had 2 ski
trips this spring, one by coach and one by train. Last year's holiday
was by boat. You might have a great holiday by jetting and and out of
a resort, but for an "improving experience" you'll do better
travelling more slowly overland.

Which can often be far more expensive and require a greater commitment of
time. I'm sure that these new cheap flights have made foreign travel
accessable to people who wouldn't have been able to do it before.

Personally, I would want to work the bike into any such travel plans both as
a cost saving measure and for the fun of travelling by bike. To some people
time is more valuable than money. I'm someone for whom money is usually
more valuable than time.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amhs/ - alt.music.home-studio

killermike said:

Quoted message said:

You don't need to fly to experience foreign travel. I've had 2 ski
trips this spring, one by coach and one by train. Last year's holiday
was by boat. You might have a great holiday by jetting and and out of
a resort, but for an "improving experience" you'll do better
travelling more slowly overland.

Which can often be far more expensive and require a greater commitment of
time.

Travelling on a sleeper train/coach can solve the time problem.

The fact that the train/coach often turns out significantly more expensive
is pretty ridiculous though.

Anthony

Anthony Jones said:

Travelling on a sleeper train/coach can solve the time problem.

The fact that the train/coach often turns out significantly more expensive
is pretty ridiculous though.

The Scotrail sleeper to Euston advertises as from £19. However, any
time I've actually needed to get down to the Smoke the /actual/ price
for me when I need it is always well into 3 figures :-(

I tend to take the plane by default now. Costs a bit more than a cheap
train ticket (but not a full price one), but I can walk to the airport
at this end, London City is more accessible to my folks' home than any
of the London termini and it takes under 90 minutes to get there.

From a green standpoint I would like to take the train but it's /soooo/
much bloody hassle and time and often ludicrously expensive. I started
flying when the railways were Shut For Rebuilding a few years back after
the Hatfield crash, and it was a sufficiently positive experience that
I've carried on.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

Talking about hoodwinked, did anyone see last night's Dispatches on C4?

http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatches/article.jsp?id=1366

(this only provides a brief summary of the 60 minute programme)

According to presenter George Monbiot (whose eyes bulged alarmingly at
times, and who commendably was shown riding a bike and taking the train)
our environmental policies aren't worth the paper they're written on as
they're largely voluntary and mandatory ones are never enforced.

Yes, it was a good programme. Monbiot always gives pause for thought. Nice
to see him on a Brommie in the city and on a road bike out in smaller town.

Den 2007-03-06 10:51:47 skrev Nick Kew <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It's a numbers game. The underlying problem is far too many
humans on Earth,

No, the problem (or the opportunity) is what those humans do. What if
people in rich countries decide to halve their car driving and meat eating
over five years, and switch to low-energy bulbs. That would hugely
increase the number of people Earth can sustain, and it wouldn't be very
hard.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Den 2007-03-06 10:51:47 skrev Nick Kew <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It's a numbers game. The underlying problem is far too many
humans on Earth,

No, the problem (or the opportunity) is what those humans do.

Both. "Fewer people" and "less consumption per person" both provide
possible solutions to the problem. A bit of both wouldn't hurt.

I would have got my tubes tied anyway but it doesn't hurt that it's
environmentally friendly. :-)
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Olethros, March - a weekend.

On 06 Mar 2007 14:19:22 +0000 (GMT)

David Damerell said:

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Den 2007-03-06 10:51:47 skrev Nick Kew <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It's a numbers game. The underlying problem is far too many
humans on Earth,

No, the problem (or the opportunity) is what those humans do.

Both. "Fewer people" and "less consumption per person" both provide
possible solutions to the problem. A bit of both wouldn't hurt.

Sufficiently fewer people solves the problem. Or would, if we could
get there without devastation on the way.

Less consumption per person is a Good Thing, but in the longer term
it can only ever be a partial solution.

Quoted message said:

I would have got my tubes tied anyway but it doesn't hurt that it's
environmentally friendly. :-)

There are things we can realistically do on a personal level.
It's a shame there are so many stupid/bogus obstacles in the way.

Like, why roads are provided (at public expense) to every house,
but broadband not only can't be guaranteed: they won't even
confirm or deny availability when you inquire about a house
you're interested in. I can't even insure against moving to
somewhere and finding I can't get it. Bah, humbug:-(

--
not me guv

Den 2007-03-06 15:19:22 skrev David Damerell
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Den 2007-03-06 10:51:47 skrev Nick Kew <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It's a numbers game. The underlying problem is far too many
humans on Earth,

No, the problem (or the opportunity) is what those humans do.

Both. "Fewer people" and "less consumption per person" both provide
possible solutions to the problem.

It depends on what you consume. Taking the TGV from Paris to Marseille at
320 km/h takes 9,6 kilo-equivalents of petrol per passenger. A car takes
28,8 and 32,2 for airplane. So the train is as green as three people in a
car, and much faster, item 14:
http://recherche.sncf.com/uk/dossiers/energetique/quizz12.html

So it's not so much *how much* you consume, as *what* you consume.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies