How not to legislate

[jeffrey]

Civil Behaviour Act 2010
s.1: No person shall smoke in any shared house.
s.2: Every person shall be under a duty to save energy in a residential property.
s.3: This Act may be amended by any Government Minister.

Civil Behaviour (Amendment) Rules 2011
The 2010 Act shall be amended as follows.
In s.1, add words "and, if so doing, shall be fined."
In s.2, add words "but, if failing so to do, may be charged double income tax."
In s.3, delete "Goverment Minister" and substitute "Chief Superintendent of Police".

Civil Behaviour (Amendment) Rules 2012
The 2010 Act shall be amended as follows:
Delete s.1/s.2 and substitute "Any person who smokes drinks or wastes energy in any property shall have ownership of the property (or that person's interest therein) impounded and the property shall thereafter belong to the Government."
In s.3, delete "Chief Superintendent of Police" and substitute "Civil Servant".

[mind the gap]

Dangerously subversive. It is the recommendation of the Ministry of Truth that this individual should be detained for re-education purposes in a place of correction and made to read the Daily Mail until truly sorry.

[jeffrey]

Update: The Times reports that HMG's Advisory Body (Energy Saving Trust) now wants to make it unlawful even to sell or let one's property if it is draughty, poorly-insulated, or less energy-efficient! See http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article6740762.ece

How prescient was I, last August!

[mind the gap]

Update: The Times reports that HMG's Advisory Body (Energy Saving Trust) now wants to make it unlawful even to sell or let one's property if it is draughty, poorly-insulated, or less energy-efficient! See http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article6740762.ece

How prescient was I, last August!

Bloody good idea. If this is what it takes to make some people more energy efficient, so be it. However as someone who doesn't seem to think global warming is affected by human activity (that's the impression you have given on this forum, anyway), you will probably remain unconvinced.

I appreciate that what you are objecting to here is the apparently 'meddlesome' nature of the legislation, but if we take a long view (as we must, and sooner rather than later), it is not unlike the legislation which penalises industries for polluting the environment with toxic effluent. Are you against that, as well? Sometimes individuals have to be encouraged to do things, or penalised if they do not, for the greater good. It's a bit sneaky, I agree, but in this case the means justifies the ends.

Also, not unlike the healthy school meals legislation - it's for the greater good; (a healthier, more aware, less obsese younger generation). However, the customers don't like it, some parents are still shoving burgers & chips through the school railings to their kids in protest - but they start to look very silly and short-sighted, don't they? (As do people who rail against energy efficiency measures, to be honest).

[jeffrey]

Just to clarify, do you equate:
a. prohibiting air pollution other than with HMG approval; and
b. prohibiting everyone from selling/letting own assets other than with HMG approval?
If so, it sounds a dangerously communist/fascist [same thing] attitude to exhibit.

[mind the gap]

Just to clarify, do you equate:
a. prohibiting air pollution other than with HMG approval; and
b. prohibiting everyone from selling/letting own assets other than with HMG approval?
If so, it sounds a dangerously communist/fascist [same thing] attitude to exhibit.

Tell us where you stand on global warming and I will answer your question!

[jeffrey]

OK- deal! I am not yet convinced that GW is a reality. Nor are most scientists. Insufficient evidence, you see.
But, irrespective, even proven GW would not justify an outrageous intrusion into private property rights.

[mind the gap]

OK- deal! I am not yet convinced that GW is a reality. Nor are most scientists. Insufficient evidence, you see.
But, irrespective, even proven GW would not justify an outrageous intrusion into private property rights.

That's illogical. If the worst-case scenario predictions of international scientific bodies including the WHO are correct, then it will be imperative and urgent that people do something about domestic energy efficiency (as well as energy efficiency in the workplace, in manufacturing and in transport). If nothing is done, the impact on people's lives will be serious, possibly irrevocable, and the 'outrageous intrusion into private property rights' (as you rather melodramatically call i!), will be the least of our worries. It will not be enough to rely on people's altruism - most people resist change unless they can see short-term, positive effects - change must be legislated for if it is to happen.

No, I don't 'equate' the right to sell private property without govt interference with the right to pollute the environment - you are being overly literal in that interpretation. But I do think that the quality of life human beings across the globe is more important than the 'rights' of private property owners - and they are not really rights, if we are honest, but privileges we can only afford in the fat times.

I 'll stop there because i know that you are deaf to this argument, which we have had before.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16845&highlight=global+warming&page=5
see #32-43 (you got the science wrong there, too!)

[jta]

Trouble is though, most 'energy saving' dingbats cost far more in energy to produce than they are ever going to save in their useful lives. They are priced accordingly. It's pretty difficult to work out if an energy saving bulb is actually going to save you money in the long term, some of them cost ten times the price of the older types and even when they have had their 8000 hours useful life have to be treated with care because of the polluting substances built into them.

[jeffrey]

Sorry to criticise your new religion, but you seem oblivious to anything which threatens it. Bluster won't work on me or others who think.

[mind the gap]

Sorry to criticise your new religion, but you seem oblivious to anything which threatens it. Bluster won't work on me or others who think.

Don't apologise; a belief that our current rate of consumption of resources is unsustainable is not a religion and you haven't so much criticised it as denied its validity! You seem pretty rattled by it, either way, so I'll take that as a plus.

Religions are about believing things which cannot be demonstrated scientifically. There is a convincing case emerging that the planet is endangered by warming, supported by some pretty eminent scientists (see previous link) supported by the demonstrable facts that the polar ice caps are melting at an unprecedented rate and that average global temperatures are rising. If you choose to deny these established facts, I would be interested to know why; other than that, I know better than to argue with you - it is futile.

It may be that you accept that the planet is warming up at a dangerous rate, but you don't accept that human activity is the cause. Perhaps that is where we disagree. However, would you not agree that flexibility and a willingness to adapt will prove more useful in the long run than taking up entrenched positions?

Either way, it is not 'bluster' and please don't feel that you or 'others who think' (read : others who think as you do?) have the power to 'threaten'. It's a serious debate, but it's not a war. Please do not assume that you have a monoploy on thinking. If you can demonstrate that energy efficiency measures are a waste of time and effort, please go ahead and demonstrate it. I'd be interested to hear your argument that global warming is either (a) a myth or (b) not dangerous or (c) unavoidable whatever we do. (There's probably a (d) too - let's hear it!

If you cannot, then perhaps it is time to re-think, as most thinkers do when confronted by change.

[Rodent1]

I actually agree with MTG - a dangerous rarity- as by her own logic, this may mean that she is wrong:eek:




However, as long you continue to disagree with what I say, Rodent, I remain confident that I am not far from the truth!

[mind the gap]

I actually agree with MTG - a dangerous rarity- as by her own logic, this may mean that she is wrong

Reason, supported by the weight of evidence of climate change, forces me to make an exception on this occasion, Rodent :)

(But there is a limit to my munificence, so don't expect too many favours!).

[jeffrey]

a monoploy on thinking.
Aha, you've seen my cunning mono-ploy.