M25 Eco Protests

It won't make a great deal of difference in the great scheme of things. Then the impact on the environment from doing all these works- manufacturing, transport, installation- will probably offset any good the scheme does, and how long do these a holes think it will take to complete the task? , the legislation will be kicked around like a football for years, probably decades, and by then we will most probably have other issues which some other bunch of terrorists will be protesting about.
 
Sponsored Links
Now draw a sector in there to show what the savings might be for say

loft insulation (I'm guessing many already have it)
Double glazing, ditto
Cavity wall insulation ( I have solid walls,,...)
Exterior wall insulation (possibly not practical? )
Underfloor (difficult but possible in some cases

And a cost and CO2 benefit analysis for each , please. Has anyone seen referenced figures??
Then compare with other possibilities.


Interior insulation does sometimes lead to condensation within walls, where air leaking past the insulation meets the cold wall.


So starting 10.9%
What percentage is caaancil?
17% in 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_Kingdom

So we have 1.8%
How much of that can we save? I thnk 20% would be optimistic,
that's 0.36%.
There's Rail on the chart ot 0.4%, for comparison.

Maybe I'd campaign to stop crop burning (3.5%)
and hit Fugitive Emissions (5.8%)
and fine people for not wearing a woolly in the winter
first.

One would need to add back the pollution from production of materials though, + risks from CFC's or whatever, too.

OK that's a WORLD chart, ours is probably more compelling for houses, and
insulation is unquestionably a GOOD THING, which is why it IS being done, https://www.government-grants.co.uk/home-insulation-grants/...

but come on, get out of the road you self centered self important .......
Insulating homes improves quality of life, but generally has little effect on carbon emissions. In fact it can make things worse in many cases.

Jevons Paradox tells us that the more efficient we make something, the more energy we consume in the long run.

This can play out in a number of ways:
Insulate the houses, and people have their heating on warmer, so they use about the same amount of gas
Insulate homes, and they use less gas, thus saving money. Now they spend that money on other things (eg. stuff made in China, or a holiday abroad...)
Insulate homes, and they use less gas, thus saving money. Now more people can afford to use heating, so gas use increases. (This is how LEDs have lead to more energy used in lighting worldwide).
Insulate homes, and they use less gas, thus saving money. And the macro economic effect of people saving money on heating means that the economy gets a boost, as they are spending on other things, but also the cost of installing the improvements are good for the economy. So we emit more carbon.
Insulate homes, and they use less gas, thus saving money. People put the money into the bank to save it - and the bank lends the money to someone else, which results in a boost to the economy, and more carbon emissions.

One way to get around this is carbon taxes.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
If it is blocking an ambulance or an organ being delivered, then yes, a threat to someone's life.
So what you are saying is that if I'm stuck in a traffic jam, I can set fire to the idiot that ran out of fuel, just in case it causes an emergency vehicle (completely unconnected to me) to find another route?

There was me thinking that flame thrower thing was to deter an attack on the owner of the flamer.
 
So what you are saying is that if I'm stuck in a traffic jam, I can set fire to the idiot that ran out of fuel, just in case it causes an emergency vehicle (completely unconnected to me) to find another route?

There was me thinking that flame thrower thing was to deter an attack on the owner of the flamer.

:confused:o_O:confused:o_O :rolleyes:
 
You might not like Richard Madeley, you might not watch Good Morning Britain or whatever it's called. But I saw a clip on YT of today's show (not sure if allowed to post links here so won't) of him interviewing, or attempting to interview, a woman from Insulate Britain. Richard advised the interview would be conducted in a calm manner.

He largely seemed to stick to that as did his co-host ... she didn't. He wasn't 'asking the right questions' apparently. If you can be ar5ed, look it up, makes for quite interesting viewing on a number of levels.
Was it this one?
 
Are you being sarcastic, or just a tool ?
They were both incidents of assault as far as I am concerned, esp the woman using a 2+ tonne SUV to purposefully intimidate and possibly injure someone she does not agree with.
 
So what you are saying is that if I'm stuck in a traffic jam, I can set fire to the idiot that ran out of fuel, just in case it causes an emergency vehicle (completely unconnected to me) to find another route?
A broken down vehicle is not an act of terrorism, it can be moved easily, and quickly usually. Normal people seeing something blocking the route of an ambulance will try and move the obstruction, but try moving these terrorist and plod will probably do you.
 
They were both incidents of assault as far as I am concerned, esp the woman using a 2+ tonne SUV to purposefully intimidate and possibly injure someone she does not agree with.
Correct. Thugs like hate think it's ok to set these people on fire just in case an ambulance needs to find another route. Sick b'stard.
 
People like these m25 protestors are quite prepared to see people snuff it or suffer in an ambulance or car en route to hospital

people like Noseall support it

sick bar. Steward
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top