- Why low-carbon living should be encouraged but not imposed by
- Politics & Energy | 9:27 a.m. | Thu 13 Dec 2007
-
The reason I drive a hybrid car is simple: to avoid London's congestion charge. I simply couldn't stand paying the fucking thing. It drove me nuts. The idea that I could help fight climate change didn't come into it. I've been taxed into helping. And this, of course, it what any form of taxation should do. It should lead to behavioural change.
Technologies such as hybrids cannot, on their own, turn us into a nation of beneficent activists. We go along with things when we understand clearly that they're in our interests, and when the behavioural changes they require have a minimal impact on our lives. For example, the government is getting rid of 150W lightbulbs next year, 60W bulbs in 2011 and so on. Few of us are going to complain about the shift to low-energy alternatives. But nor would we budge voluntarily. These things have to filter through society gradually.
Take organic food, for example. The middle classes say "We want that," so the supermarkets say "We've got to supply that," so poorer people start to find organic food more affordable, and so on. It's an economic motor: sentiment first, understanding second, from understanding comes a business. That's how we move along. But it has to be plausible. Most people won't decide overnight that roof cladding, attic lining and double glazing have suddenly become sexy. People need to be incentivised to move, incrementally, in the right direction.
I'm dead against health-and-safety fascism. It's an intolerable infringement, in my view. If I don't like smoking in a pub, I can leave. But there's no denying it has changed people's behaviour, and probably the health of those around them. The downside is that a lot of people have gone out of business - in Ireland, for example, many rural pubs have been forced to close. By the same token, any government intervention aimed at helping to mitigate climate change has to strike the right balance.
Governments can mandate social behavioural change. It happens all the time. But I don't approve of them interfering in the way people choose to live their lives. Instead, they have to encourage and educate people to make the right choices, and provide them with a clear and easy path to a new lifestyle. They should leave any radical change to society itself, which has always been a far better modifier of personal behaviour.
- 7 comments
Lexus: The hybrid debate blog
What do you think?
Can your choice of car could change the world we live in? What would be the knock on effects of a global switch to hybrid cars? Join the debate
Visit the hybrid debate site
Comments
The discussion regarding nuclear energy will not stop. You will always have strong pro- and strong contra group. In between these 2 groups, there is a big group of "undecided/unfavoured" people (who will probably use most of energy related to the 2 other groups).
In 1986 I was 17 years old. At that time I wore a badge against nuclear energy (you know, the yellow ones...)
At an age of 18 I decided to study engineering and gained a master of science in electromechanics.
Between 2001 and 2006 I worked in a nuclear fuel fabrication plant (MOX) and I was responsible for safeguards and criticality safety. We had the strongest safeguards regime in the world(NPT in non-nuclear weapon state) : we had the best team! But at a certain moment this didn't count: the factory closed in 2006. Safety didn't count, only politics and (of course) financials. But at least now I know a little bit were I'm talking about ...
Of course nuclear materials are dangerous (but what with all the petro-chemicals, drugs?).
I'm now convinced that it is possible - certainly in our western and democratic world - to manage the risks so we can use this energy source to maintain (more independently) our high level of living, and hopefully we will be able to help poor people around the world to improve their lives, and save our environment at the same time.
I strongly believe in our engineers and scientists (in fact, in people in general - including some pop/rock stars-): technologies and waste management will improve, including nuclear. But only if there is a minimum of confidence from a majority of citizens in the technology - including risk awareness. Nevertheless, society needs to safeguard the technologies;governments and NGO's need to control operators with the necessary criticism: Trust, but verify!
I'm afraid that the ultimate solution for energy sources to fulfill our needs does not exist. We have to take risks and decisions...
You see, I'm in the "middle group"; I want to have a solution for my energy needs at a "correct" price. I think the UK government took a wise decision, and I wish them all the best in achieving there goals with the renaissance of nuclear power.
The book "Tsjernobyl" by Igor Kostin in laying on my desk and I started to read it.
I'm very happy to live in developed and democratic world.
More info regarding MOX-technology: http://www.uic.com.au/nip42.htm
let us all start to think about light as a FREE form of energy which is o carbon and totally clean Leon Chandler
There is nothing like a free lunch.
The Sun comes up and goes down for free, but to transform the light into electricity, you have to install some technology. And I'm still thinking of installing a PV-installation at my house. This installation demands a netto investment of +/-12.000€, which I have to pay, and this is NOT for "FREE".
I've had to modify my behaviour. I no longer smoke in a pub! I drive a diesel but use 30% vegetable oil. I have scouted around the use of solar panels, and am more aware of the use of gas, as a direct result of it costing more!! (Jumpers on!!)
I also would drive a hybrid, not the Prius as it reminds me of a 70s cheese dish, but would drive a Lexus.
None of the above has happened through my own choice it has been as a result of measures passed on by the government that be. However the Lexus would be my choice!! I still don't like Mondays Bob!
Bob Geldof's use of the word "f..king" in the opening paragraph, in my view, degrades his whole argument.
And if we are to believe that he wrote this piece himself, perhaps he should go back to school and learn to spell.
"And this, of course, IS what any form of taxation should do. It should lead to behavioural change."
mMZfpr <a href="http://mjqkegwtqlsm.com/">mjqkegwtqlsm</a>, [url=http://atpnoeduazfy.com/]atpnoeduazfy[/url], [link=http://boxokdzvjxmf.com/]boxokdzvjxmf[/link], http://yionitcjnvmj.com/
Your thoughts