The trump executive order has been mistranscribed: the Trump order was 13967, the Biden order revoking it is 14018. The full sources for everything are here:
There is no such thing as a utopia for the simple reason one persons utopia is anothers idea of a dystopia
I made that specific point in the section "THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF UTOPIAS". I even did it IN BLOCK CAPITALS. It is the point of the source book "Black Mass"
There is no such thing as a utopia for the simple reason one persons utopia is anothers idea of a dystopia
I made that specific point in the section "THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF UTOPIAS". I even did it IN BLOCK CAPITALS. It is the point of the source book "Black Mass"
The third para of the "Impossibility of Utopias" section[1] was difficult to write and went thru multiple drafts. I don't believe such an utopia will stay stable but they think so, and my goal was to explain it to you without injecting me overmuch (oo-er!). I put the "While this is the theory, I think history and John Gray would have doubts" sentence in because of that but it's up to you to decide, not me to decide for you.
The third para of the "Impossibility of Utopias" section [1] Namely "...Never forget that utopias are very attractive. This attractiveness enabled twentieth-century autocracies to use them as a moral justification for coercion and atrocities. They used utopian dreams of a better future to hold their society together and rationalize their nightmarish present. Solarpunk sidesteps authoritarianism by embracing progressive politics in sociocracies, accepting difference and handling disagreement via discussion, with extreme localism preventing them going the same way as the soviets. While this is the theory, I think history and John Gray would have doubts. But it does explain why Green parties adopt progressive policies..."
There is no such thing as a utopia for the simple reason one persons utopia is anothers idea of a dystopia
I made that specific point in the section "THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF UTOPIAS". I even did it IN BLOCK CAPITALS. It is the point of the source book "Black Mass"
No you mentioned authoritarianism etc. What you didn't say is that a lot of people would find some peoples utopia a living hell. For example either the green parties utopia or reforms would be something I would describe as hell.
FPT, but since we’re on the Greens, I think we may be reasonably confident, if there is a Green MP, (which there may not be), it won’t be a Scottish one:
The Scottish Greens appear determined to march back to the political fringes where ideological purity smothers pragmatism. If you’re a cosplaying revolutionary from the West End of Glasgow, daydreaming about wandering through Gaza, handling out puberty-blockers to pleading-eyed children, then the Greens are the lads for you.…
Strangely, it is in the interests of both the SNP and its main opponents that Swinney’s government does not fail (unless some scandal of party-destroying proportions should emerge). Neither Anas Sarwar nor Douglas Ross can risk being seen as wreckers for the sake of sport and, if John Swinney maintains his new calm and reasonable persona, it may be difficult for them not to cooperate with him.
As the Scottish Greens shriek themselves into irrelevance, Scotland's future political direction is going to be dictated by those on the centre ground.
There is no such thing as a utopia for the simple reason one persons utopia is anothers idea of a dystopia
I made that specific point in the section "THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF UTOPIAS". I even did it IN BLOCK CAPITALS. It is the point of the source book "Black Mass"
No you mentioned authoritarianism etc. What you didn't say is that a lot of people would find some peoples utopia a living hell. For example either the green parties utopia or reforms would be something I would describe as hell.
You will never get a majority for any one utopia
The second para of the "Impossibility of Utopias" section (in part) "Utopias depend on people agreeing to it, but the one thing you can guarantee is that people won’t agree, and anything they do agree on exists only briefly until somebody changes their mind, usually five seconds later. "
There is no such thing as a utopia for the simple reason one persons utopia is anothers idea of a dystopia
I made that specific point in the section "THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF UTOPIAS". I even did it IN BLOCK CAPITALS. It is the point of the source book "Black Mass"
No you mentioned authoritarianism etc. What you didn't say is that a lot of people would find some peoples utopia a living hell. For example either the green parties utopia or reforms would be something I would describe as hell.
You will never get a majority for any one utopia
"Utopias depend on people agreeing to it, but the one thing you can guarantee is that people won’t agree, and anything they do agree on exists only briefly until somebody changes their mind, usually five seconds later. "
You just need to stick to things that everyone can agree on, like ending poverty. Who could disagree with that?
The third para of the "Impossibility of Utopias" section[1] was difficult to write and went thru multiple drafts. I don't believe such an utopia will stay stable but they think so, and my goal was to explain it to you without injecting me overmuch (oo-er!). I put the "While this is the theory, I think history and John Gray would have doubts" sentence in because of that but it's up to you to decide, not me to decide for you.
The third para of the "Impossibility of Utopias" section [1] Namely "...Never forget that utopias are very attractive. This attractiveness enabled twentieth-century autocracies to use them as a moral justification for coercion and atrocities. They used utopian dreams of a better future to hold their society together and rationalize their nightmarish present. Solarpunk sidesteps authoritarianism by embracing progressive politics in sociocracies, accepting difference and handling disagreement via discussion, with extreme localism preventing them going the same way as the soviets. While this is the theory, I think history and John Gray would have doubts. But it does explain why Green parties adopt progressive policies..."
Which is my point that I was trying to make...maybe we are talking at cross purposes. Any utopia will only be attractive to a minority of the populous. I do not believe you will ever get buy in from more than 50% of the demos for anyone utopia. Can a minority impose their vision of their utopia yes they can for a very short while but the will also spawn a resistance movement. Demolition man plot is a good example of this for instance
If anybody's interested, the "soviets" - lower case - referred to are the workers' councils, which were adopted by the "Soviet Union" - in capitals - and other countries.
Intersecting piece, but I don’t think the ideological promise of an imagined future necessarily guarantees winning a seat in the Commons under FPTP. It is the local campaigns in Brighton and Bristol that will determine that.
With all due respect, the Solarpunk utopia sounds a load of bollocks.
For a start, an awful lot of people like cities - if they're attractive and affordable. There's no real evidence for 3D printing being ubiquitous, cheap, and able to produce everything in a distributed manner, so park that until the fantasy becomes a reality.
On a more limited scale, you could certainly farm economically within cities, given efficient LEDs, and unlimited zero marginal cost power, with today's technology. But that argues just as much for retaining mass urbanisation rather than dispersing it.
If there is a reaction against Green ideas, and they are wiped out and replaced by climate change deniers, instead of Solarpunk we could have an expansion of Steampunk.
With all due respect, the Solarpunk utopia sounds a load of bollocks.
For a start, an awful lot of people like cities - if they're attractive and affordable. There's no real evidence for 3D printing being ubiquitous, cheap, and able to produce everything in a distributed manner, so park that until the fantasy becomes a reality.
On a more limited scale, you could certainly farm economically within cities, given efficient LEDs, and unlimited zero marginal cost power, with today's technology. But that argues just as much for retaining mass urbanisation rather than dispersing it.
"Utopias have two distinct features. They are very attractive and they don’t work.".
My point was not that it would work, and my para on the "Impossibility of Utopias" pointed that out. The point is not the viability of a future utopia in the future, it's the electoral attractiveness of the future utopia now.
There is no such thing as a utopia for the simple reason one persons utopia is anothers idea of a dystopia
I made that specific point in the section "THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF UTOPIAS". I even did it IN BLOCK CAPITALS. It is the point of the source book "Black Mass"
No you mentioned authoritarianism etc. What you didn't say is that a lot of people would find some peoples utopia a living hell. For example either the green parties utopia or reforms would be something I would describe as hell.
You will never get a majority for any one utopia
"Utopias depend on people agreeing to it, but the one thing you can guarantee is that people won’t agree, and anything they do agree on exists only briefly until somebody changes their mind, usually five seconds later. "
You just need to stick to things that everyone can agree on, like ending poverty. Who could disagree with that?
Those employed by the poverty welfare sector.
There's huge number of people employed in problem/deprivation alleviation generally.
If there is a reaction against Green ideas, and they are wiped out and replaced by climate change deniers, instead of Solarpunk we could have an expansion of Steampunk.
What the solarpunks seem to be missing is that renewables promise, at some point in the future, a pretty well unlimited (from a human point of view at least, if not on the Dyson sphere scale) supply of cheap and non polluting energy.
That allows the possibility of a great deal more individual choice, not less. (So long as that power is not owned entirely by an elite.)
So the rest of their manifesto is essentially a waste of space.
If there is a reaction against Green ideas, and they are wiped out and replaced by climate change deniers, instead of Solarpunk we could have an expansion of Steampunk.
That would be a last reactionary gasp, though. If nothing else, the market will eventually see to that.
With all due respect, the Solarpunk utopia sounds a load of bollocks.
For a start, an awful lot of people like cities - if they're attractive and affordable. There's no real evidence for 3D printing being ubiquitous, cheap, and able to produce everything in a distributed manner, so park that until the fantasy becomes a reality.
On a more limited scale, you could certainly farm economically within cities, given efficient LEDs, and unlimited zero marginal cost power, with today's technology. But that argues just as much for retaining mass urbanisation rather than dispersing it.
"Utopias have two distinct features. They are very attractive and they don’t work.".
My point was not that it would work, and my para on the "Impossibility of Utopias" pointed that out. The point is not the viability of a future utopia in the future, it's the electoral attractiveness of the future utopia now.
I just don't think it's very attractive now to many people who actually think about what it means. It's an interesting header, though. I wasn't really aware of the 'manifesto'.
With all due respect, the Solarpunk utopia sounds a load of bollocks.
For a start, an awful lot of people like cities - if they're attractive and affordable. There's no real evidence for 3D printing being ubiquitous, cheap, and able to produce everything in a distributed manner, so park that until the fantasy becomes a reality.
On a more limited scale, you could certainly farm economically within cities, given efficient LEDs, and unlimited zero marginal cost power, with today's technology. But that argues just as much for retaining mass urbanisation rather than dispersing it.
"Utopias have two distinct features. They are very attractive and they don’t work.".
My point was not that it would work, and my para on the "Impossibility of Utopias" pointed that out. The point is not the viability of a future utopia in the future, it's the electoral attractiveness of the future utopia now.
I just don't think it's very attractive now to many people who actually think about what it means. It's an interesting header, though. I wasn't really aware of the 'manifesto'.
Show me a party talking about their utopia and I will show you a bunch of fascists that believe it would be better if we all just did as we were told
With all due respect, the Solarpunk utopia sounds a load of bollocks.
For a start, an awful lot of people like cities - if they're attractive and affordable. There's no real evidence for 3D printing being ubiquitous, cheap, and able to produce everything in a distributed manner, so park that until the fantasy becomes a reality.
On a more limited scale, you could certainly farm economically within cities, given efficient LEDs, and unlimited zero marginal cost power, with today's technology. But that argues just as much for retaining mass urbanisation rather than dispersing it.
"Utopias have two distinct features. They are very attractive and they don’t work.".
My point was not that it would work, and my para on the "Impossibility of Utopias" pointed that out. The point is not the viability of a future utopia in the future, it's the electoral attractiveness of the future utopia now.
Doesn't that depend on the feasibility of the future utopia ?
If its not feasible aren't people going to concentrate on current problems and the electoral attractiveness of solutions that are viable within a realistic timespan ?
FPT, but since we’re on the Greens, I think we may be reasonably confident, if there is a Green MP, (which there may not be), it won’t be a Scottish one:
The Scottish Greens appear determined to march back to the political fringes where ideological purity smothers pragmatism. If you’re a cosplaying revolutionary from the West End of Glasgow, daydreaming about wandering through Gaza, handling out puberty-blockers to pleading-eyed children, then the Greens are the lads for you.…
Strangely, it is in the interests of both the SNP and its main opponents that Swinney’s government does not fail (unless some scandal of party-destroying proportions should emerge). Neither Anas Sarwar nor Douglas Ross can risk being seen as wreckers for the sake of sport and, if John Swinney maintains his new calm and reasonable persona, it may be difficult for them not to cooperate with him.
As the Scottish Greens shriek themselves into irrelevance, Scotland's future political direction is going to be dictated by those on the centre ground.
The Sunday Show on BBC Scotland this morning was reviewing the 25th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament. Among the guests were Robin Harper, the first Green MSP and Rosie Kane of the Scottish Socialist Party. Interesting comments were the number of small parties in early parliaments, the Greens, the SSP and the Senior Citizens Unity Party, as well as highly respected independents, the failure of the committee system since chairs have been from the ruling party, and the replacement of MSPs who wanted to represent their electors with career politicians. Robin Harper was also very critical of the Greens in being a major cause of current divisions.
The comment about career politicians also sums up, to me, a major reason for the lack of inspiring leaders at Westminster.
With all due respect, the Solarpunk utopia sounds a load of bollocks.
For a start, an awful lot of people like cities - if they're attractive and affordable. There's no real evidence for 3D printing being ubiquitous, cheap, and able to produce everything in a distributed manner, so park that until the fantasy becomes a reality.
On a more limited scale, you could certainly farm economically within cities, given efficient LEDs, and unlimited zero marginal cost power, with today's technology. But that argues just as much for retaining mass urbanisation rather than dispersing it.
"Utopias have two distinct features. They are very attractive and they don’t work.".
My point was not that it would work, and my para on the "Impossibility of Utopias" pointed that out. The point is not the viability of a future utopia in the future, it's the electoral attractiveness of the future utopia now.
Doesn't that depend on the feasibility of the future utopia ?
If its not feasible aren't people going to concentrate on current problems and the electoral attractiveness of solutions that are viable within a realistic timespan ?
I don't know if the electoral attractiveness of a utopia depends on it being feasible. It is merely necessary (and "Black Mass" bears this out) that it exists, at least as a dream. Give people a dream and they'll crawl over broken glass to achieve it. Give people a nightmare and they'll throw other people over that glass to avoid it.
I think this (whatever you think of Elphicke), is pretty well the last word on the Tory smear campaign.
‘I hereby announce that I have been hushing up a Tory scandal for the last four years, and by the way I was the actual Secretary of State for Justice at the time’ isn’t quite the gotcha that the Tories seem to think it is. On the contrary, it’s a bigger scandal than the scandal. https://twitter.com/NicholasPegg/status/1789638314783383559
Interesting piece, which reminds me of an idea that popped up again when I saw the complaint about the black roofs in Wales:
For years I have thought that roofs (and possibly walls) in changeable climates should be adaptive, reflective in hot weather, absorbent in cold weather. I am no expert in such things, but I think it possible that such roofs could pay for themselves in the long run.
(The idea seems obvious enough to me to make me think others have thought of it, too, but I can't recall seeing it anywhere before I thought of it.)
Quit a few people who aren't members of the Greens seem to have very fixed ideas on what the party should and shouldn't be doing.
The Greens themselves don't know what the party should and should not be doing. They argued for high-speed rail for decades, and when the HS2 high-speed rail project proves unpopular in the Home Counties, they shifted against it. Ditto seeming to prefer gas over nuclear.
My thought is that the current national Green Party vanishing to be replaced by something more earth-based might help get a green place in Government.
But my emphasis is on green solutions being well delivered by adjusting regulation and guidance rather than micromanaged central diktat.
And I think local Green Councillors are far better than the national party.
And of course, the people inclined to stand for them are likely to be utterly hopeless at micromanagement, and would find it impossible to issue any form of central diktat. They're just not cut out for that sort of single-minded ruthlessness.
But rather than acknowledge that, we get things like their recent London Manifesto, containing 663 pledges (yes, really).
There are some good ideas in there, but many more are variously impossible to implement, outwith the GLA's powers, extremely bad value for money, likely to make the problem worse, completely uncosted, or inherently contradictory.
The idea of whittling that down to, say, 5 key pledges seems to be anathema to them. It's such a pity - green issues are going to continue to be one of the most important topics in our politics for the foreseeable future, but the GPEW seem to actively resist playing more than a minor role.
FPT, but since we’re on the Greens, I think we may be reasonably confident, if there is a Green MP, (which there may not be), it won’t be a Scottish one:
The Scottish Greens appear determined to march back to the political fringes where ideological purity smothers pragmatism. If you’re a cosplaying revolutionary from the West End of Glasgow, daydreaming about wandering through Gaza, handling out puberty-blockers to pleading-eyed children, then the Greens are the lads for you.…
Strangely, it is in the interests of both the SNP and its main opponents that Swinney’s government does not fail (unless some scandal of party-destroying proportions should emerge). Neither Anas Sarwar nor Douglas Ross can risk being seen as wreckers for the sake of sport and, if John Swinney maintains his new calm and reasonable persona, it may be difficult for them not to cooperate with him.
As the Scottish Greens shriek themselves into irrelevance, Scotland's future political direction is going to be dictated by those on the centre ground.
The Sunday Show on BBC Scotland this morning was reviewing the 25th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament. Among the guests were Robin Harper, the first Green MSP and Rosie Kane of the Scottish Socialist Party. Interesting comments were the number of small parties in early parliaments, the Greens, the SSP and the Senior Citizens Unity Party, as well as highly respected independents, the failure of the committee system since chairs have been from the ruling party, and the replacement of MSPs who wanted to represent their electors with career politicians. Robin Harper was also very critical of the Greens in being a major cause of current divisions.
The comment about career politicians also sums up, to me, a major reason for the lack of inspiring leaders at Westminster.
Did Harper say if he thought the Greens support for independence (as opposed to his for the Union) contributed to the current divisions?
There’s definitely a space for a disgruntled old codgers party in Scotland.
FPT, but since we’re on the Greens, I think we may be reasonably confident, if there is a Green MP, (which there may not be), it won’t be a Scottish one:
The Scottish Greens appear determined to march back to the political fringes where ideological purity smothers pragmatism. If you’re a cosplaying revolutionary from the West End of Glasgow, daydreaming about wandering through Gaza, handling out puberty-blockers to pleading-eyed children, then the Greens are the lads for you.…
Strangely, it is in the interests of both the SNP and its main opponents that Swinney’s government does not fail (unless some scandal of party-destroying proportions should emerge). Neither Anas Sarwar nor Douglas Ross can risk being seen as wreckers for the sake of sport and, if John Swinney maintains his new calm and reasonable persona, it may be difficult for them not to cooperate with him.
As the Scottish Greens shriek themselves into irrelevance, Scotland's future political direction is going to be dictated by those on the centre ground.
The challenge to this is vaguely on topic. Forbes is quoted in the ST today saying that good public services, acceptable benefits and net zero all need a growing economy to work.
I think she is right but I note that the Green utopias discussed by @viewcode are based on low growth. Why? The economy is Forbes's part of government (it is surely overdue recognition of the Sturgeon mindset that the economy and finance are almost uniquely separated in the Scottish government). What governments need to do is find ways to get to net zero, or even beyond it until some sort of balance is regained, that are not negative for the economy or peoples' standards of living. Domestically produced renewable energy is an obvious example of this. We reduce our carbon emissions, we reduce our horrendous trade deficit and we create jobs and skills in this country.
Or if we take transport, clean, electrical energy, ideally produced in renewable form, creates an enormous demand for domestic infrastructure improvements, yet more green energy and air that is safe to breathe, even in our cities.
I want a government that works with our objectives in constructive ways to boost our economy whilst reducing our emissions, increasing our tax base so that public services can be properly funded and creating opportunities for our more able to make loads of money whilst paying plenty of tax and employing lots of people.
David Cameron says Britain will continue to sell weapons to the Israeli regime, because ceasing to sell them would "strengthen Hamas". I bet he feels a right fucking charlie. Imagine making a long sequence of choices in your life which brings you to a position like THAT - a PR man for suppliers of weapons for the commission of crimes against humanity. Imagine having been educated so well that you say you must supply killers with weapons because otherwise their victims might resist more.
FPT, but since we’re on the Greens, I think we may be reasonably confident, if there is a Green MP, (which there may not be), it won’t be a Scottish one:
The Scottish Greens appear determined to march back to the political fringes where ideological purity smothers pragmatism. If you’re a cosplaying revolutionary from the West End of Glasgow, daydreaming about wandering through Gaza, handling out puberty-blockers to pleading-eyed children, then the Greens are the lads for you.…
Strangely, it is in the interests of both the SNP and its main opponents that Swinney’s government does not fail (unless some scandal of party-destroying proportions should emerge). Neither Anas Sarwar nor Douglas Ross can risk being seen as wreckers for the sake of sport and, if John Swinney maintains his new calm and reasonable persona, it may be difficult for them not to cooperate with him.
As the Scottish Greens shriek themselves into irrelevance, Scotland's future political direction is going to be dictated by those on the centre ground.
The Sunday Show on BBC Scotland this morning was reviewing the 25th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament. Among the guests were Robin Harper, the first Green MSP and Rosie Kane of the Scottish Socialist Party. Interesting comments were the number of small parties in early parliaments, the Greens, the SSP and the Senior Citizens Unity Party, as well as highly respected independents, the failure of the committee system since chairs have been from the ruling party, and the replacement of MSPs who wanted to represent their electors with career politicians. Robin Harper was also very critical of the Greens in being a major cause of current divisions.
The comment about career politicians also sums up, to me, a major reason for the lack of inspiring leaders at Westminster.
Did Harper say if he thought the Greens support for independence (as opposed to his for the Union) contributed to the current divisions?
There’s definitely a space for a disgruntled old codgers party in Scotland.
I can think of a regular PBer who could head it up.
Angela Rayner is expected to be interviewed under caution by police in the coming weeks over which of her two homes was her main residence.
Greater Manchester Police are understood to have contacted Labour’s deputy leader to arrange an interview at a date and time to be agreed by both. The interview would almost certainly be conducted at a local police station in Manchester and Ms Rayner would be questioned under caution.
Ms Rayner has previously said that she has been looking forward “to sitting down with the appropriate authorities… and draw a line under this matter”, suggesting that she will attend the interview voluntarily, obviating any need to arrest her and the embarrassment that would cause.
A Labour spokesman said: “Angela has been clear that she will cooperate with any investigation. We do not plan to give a running commentary.
“We remain completely confident that Angela has complied with the rules at all times and it’s now appropriate to let the police do their work.”
Greater Manchester Police declined to comment, explaining the force had “no updates to pass on”.
But it is understood that police have written to Ms Rayner’s constituency office in Ashton-under-Lyne to arrange the interview. The police inquiry had been shut down but was reopened after James Daly, the Conservative MP for Bury North, requested its reopening when further information came to light.
Going back to the Eurovision for a bit and the voting figures displayed by RAI at the end of Semi Final 2. It now looks like they were not correct for some of the minor places so it could have been as RAI later said, some partial results.
Israel (leak 1st, actual 1st) Netherlands (leak 2nd, actual 2nd) Switzerland (leak 5th, actual 3rd) Armenia (leak 6th, actual 4th) Greece (leak 7th, actual 5th) Georgia (leak 4th, actual 6th) Albania (leak 3rd, actual 7th) Estonia (leak 12th, actual 8th) Czechia (leak 13th, actual 9th) San Marino (leak 8th, actual 10th)
My working theory on the changes would be that any organised diaspora vote like Israel, Albania, San Marino (San Marino isn't a diaspora, but because SMR doesn't have their own phone system, they can vote in the Italy televote) would get in their votes early as they aren't going to be deliberating over which country to vote for and the partial results might have been from early on. It's possible that Israel's 40%+ that moved the odds so much might have been a more normal 20-25% by the end of voting.
I think this (whatever you think of Elphicke), is pretty well the last word on the Tory smear campaign.
‘I hereby announce that I have been hushing up a Tory scandal for the last four years, and by the way I was the actual Secretary of State for Justice at the time’ isn’t quite the gotcha that the Tories seem to think it is. On the contrary, it’s a bigger scandal than the scandal. https://twitter.com/NicholasPegg/status/1789638314783383559
Starmer, having made this notable and incomprehensible unforced error with Elphicke, could clamber his way back to a result approaching a score draw in a relegation battle where the result leaves both teams in the bottom three with a few games to go. The Tory admission of hushing up her behaviour for years gives him a little foothold.
How on Earth are the Police doing an investigation for an alleged crime where the statute of limitations expired a decade ago? What on Earth can they be "investigating"?
I've listened to about half of it so far; it's great, as usual.
I do wonder what Perun's day job is; I get the impression he's not governmental, but he's definitely in the analyst space. But perhaps it's best for him if we don't know.
Although telling a former partner at CC that a letter before claim is WP is a rookie error.
I can only presume that the firm who wrote the email was not the firm acting for Zahawi in his dealings with HMRC. If they were they deserve everything coming to them.
Interesting piece, which reminds me of an idea that popped up again when I saw the complaint about the black roofs in Wales:
For years I have thought that roofs (and possibly walls) in changeable climates should be adaptive, reflective in hot weather, absorbent in cold weather. I am no expert in such things, but I think it possible that such roofs could pay for themselves in the long run.
(The idea seems obvious enough to me to make me think others have thought of it, too, but I can't recall seeing it anywhere before I thought of it.)
I think the kit to make the roof surface adaptive is perhaps more complex and expensive than the kit to control the house environment.
For a not very exact comparison, if you look for example at smart windows that become sunproof and non-see-through at the touch of a button, you can be looking at up to £1000 per square metre. Even for a stick on film that is similar such as ADS Smartfilm you are at about £300-600 per sqm.
Compare that to a roof of PV solar panels at £50 to £100 per sqm (guestimated) plus the cost of a reversible heat / cool A2A heat pump system, which gives complete control and can be powered from the solar roof when it is hot, and the latter is perhaps the better solution in most cases.
I think this (whatever you think of Elphicke), is pretty well the last word on the Tory smear campaign.
‘I hereby announce that I have been hushing up a Tory scandal for the last four years, and by the way I was the actual Secretary of State for Justice at the time’ isn’t quite the gotcha that the Tories seem to think it is. On the contrary, it’s a bigger scandal than the scandal. https://twitter.com/NicholasPegg/status/1789638314783383559
Starmer, having made this notable and incomprehensible unforced error with Elphicke, could clamber his way back to a result approaching a score draw in a relegation battle where the result leaves both teams in the bottom three with a few games to go. The Tory admission of hushing up her behaviour for years gives him a little foothold.
Or he could even talk to Labour’s elected and re-elected MP in Kent, rather than the carpet bagger “gizza peerage” right wing “seen the light” Tory…
Although telling a former partner at CC that a letter before claim is WP is a rookie error.
I can only presume that the firm who wrote the email was not the firm acting for Zahawi in his dealings with HMRC. If they were they deserve everything coming to them.
The firm in the email TSE pasted is not the firm in the FT article. I don’t know but it’s possible the partner concerned moved from the former to the latter. The reports I’ve seen suggest a prosecution of an individual rather than a firm.
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Green Party policy in the UK - as this article touches on - is fundamentally anti-progress. The utopia it desires is one of fewer people, living simple lives, in harmony with nature.
The fact that nature - as any fleeing wildebeest knows - is not harmonious, doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Technology developing at the most extraordinary rate: as solar panel prices continue to plummet, the future increasingly looks like one where almost every surface will be coated by a light absorbing, electricity emitting sheer.
This means that mankind will not be tethered to fossil fuels (and those who monopolize their production). It means human emissions will collapse.
And it means we'll be able to grow more food than ever before. (Vertical city farms powered by efficient light emitting diodes that only produce light in exactly the wavelengths needed for photosynthesis.) It means that water shortages become mere engineering challenges. Next up will be meat: but we're getting there. We'll be able to grow real meat. It will be indistinguishable from, or perhaps even better than, what comes from farms.
Now, you will accuse me of techno-utopia.
But this is simply the progression of knowledge. We now know how to make photovoltaic cells for 100th of the price we did twenty years ago. Similar progress has been made in batteries and LEDs.
And the progression of knowledge is such that low carbon, is lowest cost.
We will evolve. And we'll evolve around the economic line of least resistance. As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market. And green and green align here.
The enemies of this are two fold: Firstly there are those who traditional livelihoods are challenged (coal miners, cattle ranchers, old car companies). And you see the passing of laws to try and turn the clock back. (See numerous US states with their absurd bans on lab grown meat.) Secondly, there are those who don't really want progress, they want the world to return to a simpler time. (To whit, the Green Party.)
Us techno-utopians don't need a platform. We don't need to stand for election. We don't need to persuade anyone. Because what we propose is happening inexorably, as knowledge advances, and millions - and billions - of people vote with their wallets, choosing every more efficient vehicles, adding solar to their rooves, and buying whatever food tastes best and costs least.
Angela Rayner is expected to be interviewed under caution by police in the coming weeks over which of her two homes was her main residence.
Greater Manchester Police are understood to have contacted Labour’s deputy leader to arrange an interview at a date and time to be agreed by both. The interview would almost certainly be conducted at a local police station in Manchester and Ms Rayner would be questioned under caution.
Ms Rayner has previously said that she has been looking forward “to sitting down with the appropriate authorities… and draw a line under this matter”, suggesting that she will attend the interview voluntarily, obviating any need to arrest her and the embarrassment that would cause.
A Labour spokesman said: “Angela has been clear that she will cooperate with any investigation. We do not plan to give a running commentary.
“We remain completely confident that Angela has complied with the rules at all times and it’s now appropriate to let the police do their work.”
Greater Manchester Police declined to comment, explaining the force had “no updates to pass on”.
But it is understood that police have written to Ms Rayner’s constituency office in Ashton-under-Lyne to arrange the interview. The police inquiry had been shut down but was reopened after James Daly, the Conservative MP for Bury North, requested its reopening when further information came to light.
Starmer's biggest unforced error by miles so far imho.
I'm guessing whoever in his office talked him into this is in serious trouble.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges Can we just be clear. It’s a matter of public record Natalie Elphicke improperly intervened over her husband’s case, traduced her husband’s victims, condemned the prosecution and took £25,000 for her story. And Keir Starmer knew that when he smilingly shook her hand and welcomed her into his party.
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
And by doing so they invoke a backlash, and therefore make it more likely that there will be no change.
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Angela Rayner is expected to be interviewed under caution by police in the coming weeks over which of her two homes was her main residence.
Greater Manchester Police are understood to have contacted Labour’s deputy leader to arrange an interview at a date and time to be agreed by both. The interview would almost certainly be conducted at a local police station in Manchester and Ms Rayner would be questioned under caution.
Ms Rayner has previously said that she has been looking forward “to sitting down with the appropriate authorities… and draw a line under this matter”, suggesting that she will attend the interview voluntarily, obviating any need to arrest her and the embarrassment that would cause.
A Labour spokesman said: “Angela has been clear that she will cooperate with any investigation. We do not plan to give a running commentary.
“We remain completely confident that Angela has complied with the rules at all times and it’s now appropriate to let the police do their work.”
Greater Manchester Police declined to comment, explaining the force had “no updates to pass on”.
But it is understood that police have written to Ms Rayner’s constituency office in Ashton-under-Lyne to arrange the interview. The police inquiry had been shut down but was reopened after James Daly, the Conservative MP for Bury North, requested its reopening when further information came to light.
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
And by doing so they invoke a backlash, and therefore make it more likely that there will be no change.
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Starmer's biggest unforced error by miles so far imho.
I'm guessing whoever in his office talked him into this is in serious trouble.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges Can we just be clear. It’s a matter of public record Natalie Elphicke improperly intervened over her husband’s case, traduced her husband’s victims, condemned the prosecution and took £25,000 for her story. And Keir Starmer knew that when he smilingly shook her hand and welcomed her into his party.
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
And by doing so they invoke a backlash, and therefore make it more likely that there will be no change.
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Good point on the Greens. On Israel less so.
I think Israel's survival is more in doubt today, that at any time in life. I am very fearful for them.
Watermelon is a hackneyed term but it does seem to describe what scant evidence I've seen of the Green policies (mainly from the arch priestess of sanctimony Caroline Lucas).
Now, it's always important to have protest parties to get things on the agenda (witness UKIP and JSO). But these people seem genuinely to want power. That is scary.
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
And by doing so they invoke a backlash, and therefore make it more likely that there will be no change.
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Good point on the Greens. On Israel less so.
I think Israel's survival is more in doubt today, that at any time in life. I am very fearful for them.
We shall see but I don't see a path to its demise. What does it look like.
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
And by doing so they invoke a backlash, and therefore make it more likely that there will be no change.
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Good point on the Greens. On Israel less so.
I think Israel's survival is more in doubt today, that at any time in life. I am very fearful for them.
Not sure about that, the lack of action by Arab states, the empty threat from Iran suggest that Israel are “fine” and in fact might actually end up in a better situation after this, assuming someone can lever out Bibi, as it will be clear to everyone that the talks to improving Israeli-Arab relations are even more vital than ever, a solution to the Palestinian issue will be very desirable for all sides once the extemists on each side are sidelined and your average Israeli is probably going to be very open to any changes that can reduce the influence politically of their own extremists.
It will take a change if gov in Israel but they are a democracy and it will happen.
Watermelon is a hackneyed term but it does seem to describe what scant evidence I've seen of the Green policies (mainly from the arch priestess of sanctimony Caroline Lucas).
Now, it's always important to have protest parties to get things on the agenda (witness UKIP and JSO). But these people seem genuinely to want power. That is scary.
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
And by doing so they invoke a backlash, and therefore make it more likely that there will be no change.
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Good point on the Greens. On Israel less so.
I think Israel's survival is more in doubt today, that at any time in life. I am very fearful for them.
We shall see but I don't see a path to its demise. What does it look like.
Israel pushes Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank out of the area currently controlled by Israel. This causes the fall of governments - like Egypt - that have generally been friendly to Israel. Their replacements are much less friendly to Israel. And when Israel is then attacked, the goodwill in the West, and the desire to support it, no longer exists.
Green Party policy in the UK - as this article touches on - is fundamentally anti-progress. The utopia it desires is one of fewer people, living simple lives, in harmony with nature.
The fact that nature - as any fleeing wildebeest knows - is not harmonious, doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Technology developing at the most extraordinary rate: as solar panel prices continue to plummet, the future increasingly looks like one where almost every surface will be coated by a light absorbing, electricity emitting sheer.
This means that mankind will not be tethered to fossil fuels (and those who monopolize their production). It means human emissions will collapse.
And it means we'll be able to grow more food than ever before. (Vertical city farms powered by efficient light emitting diodes that only produce light in exactly the wavelengths needed for photosynthesis.) It means that water shortages become mere engineering challenges. Next up will be meat: but we're getting there. We'll be able to grow real meat. It will be indistinguishable from, or perhaps even better than, what comes from farms.
Now, you will accuse me of techno-utopia.
But this is simply the progression of knowledge. We now know how to make photovoltaic cells for 100th of the price we did twenty years ago. Similar progress has been made in batteries and LEDs.
And the progression of knowledge is such that low carbon, is lowest cost.
We will evolve. And we'll evolve around the economic line of least resistance. As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market. And green and green align here.
The enemies of this are two fold: Firstly there are those who traditional livelihoods are challenged (coal miners, cattle ranchers, old car companies). And you see the passing of laws to try and turn the clock back. (See numerous US states with their absurd bans on lab grown meat.) Secondly, there are those who don't really want progress, they want the world to return to a simpler time. (To whit, the Green Party.)
Us techno-utopians don't need a platform. We don't need to stand for election. We don't need to persuade anyone. Because what we propose is happening inexorably, as knowledge advances, and millions - and billions - of people vote with their wallets, choosing every more efficient vehicles, adding solar to their rooves, and buying whatever food tastes best and costs least.
Spot on. Sadly nature is not harmonious or nice at all, it's horrible. We, the rich, love nature exactly because we can watch it while keeping well clear of its harsh, wintry, killing reality. More or less all this world utopias fall at this hurdle.
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
And by doing so they invoke a backlash, and therefore make it more likely that there will be no change.
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Good point on the Greens. On Israel less so.
I think Israel's survival is more in doubt today, that at any time in life. I am very fearful for them.
Not sure about that, the lack of action by Arab states, the empty threat from Iran suggest that Israel are “fine” and in fact might actually end up in a better situation after this, assuming someone can lever out Bibi, as it will be clear to everyone that the talks to improving Israeli-Arab relations are even more vital than ever, a solution to the Palestinian issue will be very desirable for all sides once the extemists on each side are sidelined and your average Israeli is probably going to be very open to any changes that can reduce the influence politically of their own extremists.
It will take a change if gov in Israel but they are a democracy and it will happen.
You describe a bit of the cycle where we have been before, and it is no easier now. The difficulty for the most generous imagination is putting even minimal flesh on the bones of the central idea: What would a solution look like which was optimal for good people on all sides and negated the interests of bad people on all sides?
Green Party policy in the UK - as this article touches on - is fundamentally anti-progress. The utopia it desires is one of fewer people, living simple lives, in harmony with nature.
The fact that nature - as any fleeing wildebeest knows - is not harmonious, doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Technology developing at the most extraordinary rate: as solar panel prices continue to plummet, the future increasingly looks like one where almost every surface will be coated by a light absorbing, electricity emitting sheer.
This means that mankind will not be tethered to fossil fuels (and those who monopolize their production). It means human emissions will collapse.
And it means we'll be able to grow more food than ever before. (Vertical city farms powered by efficient light emitting diodes that only produce light in exactly the wavelengths needed for photosynthesis.) It means that water shortages become mere engineering challenges. Next up will be meat: but we're getting there. We'll be able to grow real meat. It will be indistinguishable from, or perhaps even better than, what comes from farms.
Now, you will accuse me of techno-utopia.
But this is simply the progression of knowledge. We now know how to make photovoltaic cells for 100th of the price we did twenty years ago. Similar progress has been made in batteries and LEDs.
And the progression of knowledge is such that low carbon, is lowest cost.
We will evolve. And we'll evolve around the economic line of least resistance. As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market. And green and green align here.
The enemies of this are two fold: Firstly there are those who traditional livelihoods are challenged (coal miners, cattle ranchers, old car companies). And you see the passing of laws to try and turn the clock back. (See numerous US states with their absurd bans on lab grown meat.) Secondly, there are those who don't really want progress, they want the world to return to a simpler time. (To whit, the Green Party.)
Us techno-utopians don't need a platform. We don't need to stand for election. We don't need to persuade anyone. Because what we propose is happening inexorably, as knowledge advances, and millions - and billions - of people vote with their wallets, choosing every more efficient vehicles, adding solar to their rooves, and buying whatever food tastes best and costs least.
Some while ago I did a Masters in Sustainable Development run by Forum for the Future. Despite some notably sensible tutors, there was an overall groupthink that technology couldn't save us. But noone could ever really refute the vision you suggest, and it seems far more likely to come to pass than the hair shirtish of some in the green movement, given what we know about human nature and the challenges of collective action.
I wonder where biodiversity loss fits into your story, though? It feels like the part that's missing from what you have written, and could eg derail the productivity of vertical farms quite radically. Perhaps there's a technical replacement for different biomes but they do seem incredibly complex and full of unpredictable feedback mechanisms. Thoughts?
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
And by doing so they invoke a backlash, and therefore make it more likely that there will be no change.
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Good point on the Greens. On Israel less so.
I think Israel's survival is more in doubt today, that at any time in life. I am very fearful for them.
We shall see but I don't see a path to its demise. What does it look like.
Israel pushes Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank out of the area currently controlled by Israel. This causes the fall of governments - like Egypt - that have generally been friendly to Israel. Their replacements are much less friendly to Israel. And when Israel is then attacked, the goodwill in the West, and the desire to support it, no longer exists.
With the exception of Hamas and Iran there is plenty of cold hard pragmatism in the region. Wasn't one of the causes of the attack in October because of a mooted treaty between Israel and Saudi. Egypt meanwhile has had several flavours of government over the years and a constant has been its relationship with Israel and if you think any new leadership there would attack Israel then you've been on the Leon juice.
What do I think is the solution? A new leadership of the Palestinians which is likewise pragmatic which in turn will create international pressure on Israel to address its activities in the West Bank.
We have seen for decades that Israel tries to play the game and then employs the Millwall approach. That is not too excuse it, rather it is to explain it.
Edit: my question to myself is do the ordinary, decent Palestinians want to co-exist with Israel. I have no idea.
Green Party policy in the UK - as this article touches on - is fundamentally anti-progress. The utopia it desires is one of fewer people, living simple lives, in harmony with nature.
The fact that nature - as any fleeing wildebeest knows - is not harmonious, doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Technology developing at the most extraordinary rate: as solar panel prices continue to plummet, the future increasingly looks like one where almost every surface will be coated by a light absorbing, electricity emitting sheer.
This means that mankind will not be tethered to fossil fuels (and those who monopolize their production). It means human emissions will collapse.
And it means we'll be able to grow more food than ever before. (Vertical city farms powered by efficient light emitting diodes that only produce light in exactly the wavelengths needed for photosynthesis.) It means that water shortages become mere engineering challenges. Next up will be meat: but we're getting there. We'll be able to grow real meat. It will be indistinguishable from, or perhaps even better than, what comes from farms.
Now, you will accuse me of techno-utopia.
But this is simply the progression of knowledge. We now know how to make photovoltaic cells for 100th of the price we did twenty years ago. Similar progress has been made in batteries and LEDs.
And the progression of knowledge is such that low carbon, is lowest cost.
We will evolve. And we'll evolve around the economic line of least resistance. As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market. And green and green align here.
The enemies of this are two fold: Firstly there are those who traditional livelihoods are challenged (coal miners, cattle ranchers, old car companies). And you see the passing of laws to try and turn the clock back. (See numerous US states with their absurd bans on lab grown meat.) Secondly, there are those who don't really want progress, they want the world to return to a simpler time. (To whit, the Green Party.)
Us techno-utopians don't need a platform. We don't need to stand for election. We don't need to persuade anyone. Because what we propose is happening inexorably, as knowledge advances, and millions - and billions - of people vote with their wallets, choosing every more efficient vehicles, adding solar to their rooves, and buying whatever food tastes best and costs least.
Some while ago I did a Masters in Sustainable Development run by Forum for the Future. Despite some notably sensible tutors, there was an overall groupthink that technology couldn't save us. But noone could ever really refute the vision you suggest, and it seems far more likely to come to pass than the hair shirtish of some in the green movement, given what we know about human nature and the challenges of collective action.
I wonder where biodiversity loss fits into your story, though? It feels like the part that's missing from what you have written, and could eg derail the productivity of vertical farms quite radically. Perhaps there's a technical replacement for different biomes but they do seem incredibly complex and full of unpredictable feedback mechanisms. Thoughts?
Technology can make a huge contribution, however it does not always come in early in the Remove, Reduce, Reuse & Recycle spectrum.
An example (and I'm not getting into debates on this today!) 99% of 3 tonne SUVs are not necessary, and should be under "Remove" rather than "look what technology can do now, let's all drive around Surbiton in one".
I think Greenies can be rather monomaniacal, and when something gets out of proportion in a small (eg Homeopathy 15 years ago for GP England, or the banning of Bacon Butties for the Waste Disposal Operatives of Brighton) or large (Trans in GP Scotland, or perhaps the We Can't Build ANY roads WHATSOEVER brigade).
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
And by doing so they invoke a backlash, and therefore make it more likely that there will be no change.
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Good point on the Greens. On Israel less so.
I think Israel's survival is more in doubt today, that at any time in life. I am very fearful for them.
We shall see but I don't see a path to its demise. What does it look like.
Israel pushes Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank out of the area currently controlled by Israel. This causes the fall of governments - like Egypt - that have generally been friendly to Israel. Their replacements are much less friendly to Israel. And when Israel is then attacked, the goodwill in the West, and the desire to support it, no longer exists.
With the exception of Hamas and Iran there is plenty of cold hard pragmatism in the region. Wasn't one of the causes of the attack in October because of a mooted treaty between Israel and Saudi. Egypt meanwhile has had several flavours of government over the years and a constant has been its relationship with Israel and if you think any new leadership there would attack Israel then you've been on the Leon juice.
What do I think is the solution? A new leadership of the Palestinians which is likewise pragmatic which in turn will create international pressure on Israel to address its activities in the West Bank.
We have seen for decades that Israel tries to play the game and then employs the Millwall approach. That is not too excuse it, rather it is to explain it.
Edit: my question to myself is do the ordinary, decent Palestinians want to co-exist with Israel. I have no idea.
There are ordinary decent Palestinians that want to co-exist with Israel just as there are ordinary decent Israelis that want to co-exist with Palestine. I just don't see any evidence that either group are particularly numerous.
Green Party policy in the UK - as this article touches on - is fundamentally anti-progress. The utopia it desires is one of fewer people, living simple lives, in harmony with nature.
The fact that nature - as any fleeing wildebeest knows - is not harmonious, doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Technology developing at the most extraordinary rate: as solar panel prices continue to plummet, the future increasingly looks like one where almost every surface will be coated by a light absorbing, electricity emitting sheer.
This means that mankind will not be tethered to fossil fuels (and those who monopolize their production). It means human emissions will collapse.
And it means we'll be able to grow more food than ever before. (Vertical city farms powered by efficient light emitting diodes that only produce light in exactly the wavelengths needed for photosynthesis.) It means that water shortages become mere engineering challenges. Next up will be meat: but we're getting there. We'll be able to grow real meat. It will be indistinguishable from, or perhaps even better than, what comes from farms.
Now, you will accuse me of techno-utopia.
But this is simply the progression of knowledge. We now know how to make photovoltaic cells for 100th of the price we did twenty years ago. Similar progress has been made in batteries and LEDs.
And the progression of knowledge is such that low carbon, is lowest cost.
We will evolve. And we'll evolve around the economic line of least resistance. As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market. And green and green align here.
The enemies of this are two fold: Firstly there are those who traditional livelihoods are challenged (coal miners, cattle ranchers, old car companies). And you see the passing of laws to try and turn the clock back. (See numerous US states with their absurd bans on lab grown meat.) Secondly, there are those who don't really want progress, they want the world to return to a simpler time. (To whit, the Green Party.)
Us techno-utopians don't need a platform. We don't need to stand for election. We don't need to persuade anyone. Because what we propose is happening inexorably, as knowledge advances, and millions - and billions - of people vote with their wallets, choosing every more efficient vehicles, adding solar to their rooves, and buying whatever food tastes best and costs least.
Some while ago I did a Masters in Sustainable Development run by Forum for the Future. Despite some notably sensible tutors, there was an overall groupthink that technology couldn't save us. But noone could ever really refute the vision you suggest, and it seems far more likely to come to pass than the hair shirtish of some in the green movement, given what we know about human nature and the challenges of collective action.
I wonder where biodiversity loss fits into your story, though? It feels like the part that's missing from what you have written, and could eg derail the productivity of vertical farms quite radically. Perhaps there's a technical replacement for different biomes but they do seem incredibly complex and full of unpredictable feedback mechanisms. Thoughts?
Technology can make a huge contribution, however it does not always come in early in the Remove, Reduce, Reuse & Recycle spectrum.
An example (and I'm not getting into debates on this today!) 99% of 3 tonne SUVs are not necessary, and should be under "Remove" rather than "look what technology can do now, let's all drive around Surbiton in one".
I think Greenies can be rather monomaniacal, and when something gets out of proportion in a small (eg Homeopathy 15 years ago for GP England, or the banning of Bacon Butties for the Waste Disposal Operatives of Brighton) or large (Trans in GP Scotland, or perhaps the We Can't Build ANY roads WHATSOEVER brigade).
missed a bit
Add ... "it can undermine the very valid wider message." at the end.
I think techno-obsession is the same sort of error as anti-techno-obsession. There's a need for both, in balance. This is perhaps a problem with all single-issue causes.
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
And by doing so they invoke a backlash, and therefore make it more likely that there will be no change.
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Good point on the Greens. On Israel less so.
I think Israel's survival is more in doubt today, that at any time in life. I am very fearful for them.
We shall see but I don't see a path to its demise. What does it look like.
Israel pushes Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank out of the area currently controlled by Israel. This causes the fall of governments - like Egypt - that have generally been friendly to Israel. Their replacements are much less friendly to Israel. And when Israel is then attacked, the goodwill in the West, and the desire to support it, no longer exists.
With the exception of Hamas and Iran there is plenty of cold hard pragmatism in the region. Wasn't one of the causes of the attack in October because of a mooted treaty between Israel and Saudi. Egypt meanwhile has had several flavours of government over the years and a constant has been its relationship with Israel and if you think any new leadership there would attack Israel then you've been on the Leon juice.
What do I think is the solution? A new leadership of the Palestinians which is likewise pragmatic which in turn will create international pressure on Israel to address its activities in the West Bank.
We have seen for decades that Israel tries to play the game and then employs the Millwall approach. That is not too excuse it, rather it is to explain it.
Edit: my question to myself is do the ordinary, decent Palestinians want to co-exist with Israel. I have no idea.
There are ordinary decent Palestinians that want to co-exist with Israel just as there are ordinary decent Israelis that want to co-exist with Palestine. I just don't see any evidence that either group are particularly numerous.
Or, more importantly, have any influence or control of the situation.
Green Party policy in the UK - as this article touches on - is fundamentally anti-progress. The utopia it desires is one of fewer people, living simple lives, in harmony with nature.
The fact that nature - as any fleeing wildebeest knows - is not harmonious, doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Technology developing at the most extraordinary rate: as solar panel prices continue to plummet, the future increasingly looks like one where almost every surface will be coated by a light absorbing, electricity emitting sheer.
This means that mankind will not be tethered to fossil fuels (and those who monopolize their production). It means human emissions will collapse.
And it means we'll be able to grow more food than ever before. (Vertical city farms powered by efficient light emitting diodes that only produce light in exactly the wavelengths needed for photosynthesis.) It means that water shortages become mere engineering challenges. Next up will be meat: but we're getting there. We'll be able to grow real meat. It will be indistinguishable from, or perhaps even better than, what comes from farms.
Now, you will accuse me of techno-utopia.
But this is simply the progression of knowledge. We now know how to make photovoltaic cells for 100th of the price we did twenty years ago. Similar progress has been made in batteries and LEDs.
And the progression of knowledge is such that low carbon, is lowest cost.
We will evolve. And we'll evolve around the economic line of least resistance. As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market. And green and green align here.
The enemies of this are two fold: Firstly there are those who traditional livelihoods are challenged (coal miners, cattle ranchers, old car companies). And you see the passing of laws to try and turn the clock back. (See numerous US states with their absurd bans on lab grown meat.) Secondly, there are those who don't really want progress, they want the world to return to a simpler time. (To whit, the Green Party.)
Us techno-utopians don't need a platform. We don't need to stand for election. We don't need to persuade anyone. Because what we propose is happening inexorably, as knowledge advances, and millions - and billions - of people vote with their wallets, choosing every more efficient vehicles, adding solar to their rooves, and buying whatever food tastes best and costs least.
Some while ago I did a Masters in Sustainable Development run by Forum for the Future. Despite some notably sensible tutors, there was an overall groupthink that technology couldn't save us. But noone could ever really refute the vision you suggest, and it seems far more likely to come to pass than the hair shirtish of some in the green movement, given what we know about human nature and the challenges of collective action.
I wonder where biodiversity loss fits into your story, though? It feels like the part that's missing from what you have written, and could eg derail the productivity of vertical farms quite radically. Perhaps there's a technical replacement for different biomes but they do seem incredibly complex and full of unpredictable feedback mechanisms. Thoughts?
My feeling is that the sort of advances that rcs1000 talks about pair nicely with things like rewilding, and should be capable of producing a very significant net biodiversity gain.
Ensuring that that happens is the sort of policy challenge that the Greens should be taking on.
Green Party policy in the UK - as this article touches on - is fundamentally anti-progress. The utopia it desires is one of fewer people, living simple lives, in harmony with nature.
The fact that nature - as any fleeing wildebeest knows - is not harmonious, doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Technology developing at the most extraordinary rate: as solar panel prices continue to plummet, the future increasingly looks like one where almost every surface will be coated by a light absorbing, electricity emitting sheer.
This means that mankind will not be tethered to fossil fuels (and those who monopolize their production). It means human emissions will collapse.
And it means we'll be able to grow more food than ever before. (Vertical city farms powered by efficient light emitting diodes that only produce light in exactly the wavelengths needed for photosynthesis.) It means that water shortages become mere engineering challenges. Next up will be meat: but we're getting there. We'll be able to grow real meat. It will be indistinguishable from, or perhaps even better than, what comes from farms.
Now, you will accuse me of techno-utopia.
But this is simply the progression of knowledge. We now know how to make photovoltaic cells for 100th of the price we did twenty years ago. Similar progress has been made in batteries and LEDs.
And the progression of knowledge is such that low carbon, is lowest cost.
We will evolve. And we'll evolve around the economic line of least resistance. As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market. And green and green align here.
The enemies of this are two fold: Firstly there are those who traditional livelihoods are challenged (coal miners, cattle ranchers, old car companies). And you see the passing of laws to try and turn the clock back. (See numerous US states with their absurd bans on lab grown meat.) Secondly, there are those who don't really want progress, they want the world to return to a simpler time. (To whit, the Green Party.)
Us techno-utopians don't need a platform. We don't need to stand for election. We don't need to persuade anyone. Because what we propose is happening inexorably, as knowledge advances, and millions - and billions - of people vote with their wallets, choosing every more efficient vehicles, adding solar to their rooves, and buying whatever food tastes best and costs least.
Some while ago I did a Masters in Sustainable Development run by Forum for the Future. Despite some notably sensible tutors, there was an overall groupthink that technology couldn't save us. But noone could ever really refute the vision you suggest, and it seems far more likely to come to pass than the hair shirtish of some in the green movement, given what we know about human nature and the challenges of collective action.
I wonder where biodiversity loss fits into your story, though? It feels like the part that's missing from what you have written, and could eg derail the productivity of vertical farms quite radically. Perhaps there's a technical replacement for different biomes but they do seem incredibly complex and full of unpredictable feedback mechanisms. Thoughts?
Technology can make a huge contribution, however it does not always come in early in the Remove, Reduce, Reuse & Recycle spectrum.
An example (and I'm not getting into debates on this today!) 99% of 3 tonne SUVs are not necessary, and should be under "Remove" rather than "look what technology can do now, let's all drive around Surbiton in one".
I think Greenies can be rather monomaniacal, and when something gets out of proportion in a small (eg Homeopathy 15 years ago for GP England, or the banning of Bacon Butties for the Waste Disposal Operatives of Brighton) or large (Trans in GP Scotland, or perhaps the We Can't Build ANY roads WHATSOEVER brigade).
missed a bit
Add ... "it can undermine the very valid wider message." at the end.
I think techno-obsession is the same sort of error as anti-techno-obsession. There's a need for both, in balance. This is perhaps a problem with all single-issue causes.
I disagree. Technology is our best and and arguably only chance of avoiding a serious catastrophe. And we need to employ it with Manhattan level focus. We need to find ways of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans. We need to adapt to the inevitable changes.
My guess is that within the next 5-10 years we are going to hit a change point. Whether it’s the release of CO2 from the oceans, the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet or the release of global warming gases by the Siberian tundra there is going to be a step change with huge consequences.
Susan Hall defends her campaign by stating the obvious:
Nationally, Labour is polling 30 points ahead of the Conservatives. In London, Sadiq Khan won thanks to his Green and Lib Dem friends lending him their votes. By taking home 33 per cent of the vote in London, I outperformed the party, and by taking 44 per cent, even with the votes from the Greens and Lib Dems, he grossly underperformed.
She's a bit cheeky to use that 30% Yougov that's just come in as a benchmark, but the fact is she has outperformed the Tories national poll share by a considerable margin, and in London.
Green Party policy in the UK - as this article touches on - is fundamentally anti-progress. The utopia it desires is one of fewer people, living simple lives, in harmony with nature.
The fact that nature - as any fleeing wildebeest knows - is not harmonious, doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Technology developing at the most extraordinary rate: as solar panel prices continue to plummet, the future increasingly looks like one where almost every surface will be coated by a light absorbing, electricity emitting sheer.
This means that mankind will not be tethered to fossil fuels (and those who monopolize their production). It means human emissions will collapse.
And it means we'll be able to grow more food than ever before. (Vertical city farms powered by efficient light emitting diodes that only produce light in exactly the wavelengths needed for photosynthesis.) It means that water shortages become mere engineering challenges. Next up will be meat: but we're getting there. We'll be able to grow real meat. It will be indistinguishable from, or perhaps even better than, what comes from farms.
Now, you will accuse me of techno-utopia.
But this is simply the progression of knowledge. We now know how to make photovoltaic cells for 100th of the price we did twenty years ago. Similar progress has been made in batteries and LEDs.
And the progression of knowledge is such that low carbon, is lowest cost.
We will evolve. And we'll evolve around the economic line of least resistance. As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market. And green and green align here.
The enemies of this are two fold: Firstly there are those who traditional livelihoods are challenged (coal miners, cattle ranchers, old car companies). And you see the passing of laws to try and turn the clock back. (See numerous US states with their absurd bans on lab grown meat.) Secondly, there are those who don't really want progress, they want the world to return to a simpler time. (To whit, the Green Party.)
Us techno-utopians don't need a platform. We don't need to stand for election. We don't need to persuade anyone. Because what we propose is happening inexorably, as knowledge advances, and millions - and billions - of people vote with their wallets, choosing every more efficient vehicles, adding solar to their rooves, and buying whatever food tastes best and costs least.
Some while ago I did a Masters in Sustainable Development run by Forum for the Future. Despite some notably sensible tutors, there was an overall groupthink that technology couldn't save us. But noone could ever really refute the vision you suggest, and it seems far more likely to come to pass than the hair shirtish of some in the green movement, given what we know about human nature and the challenges of collective action.
I wonder where biodiversity loss fits into your story, though? It feels like the part that's missing from what you have written, and could eg derail the productivity of vertical farms quite radically. Perhaps there's a technical replacement for different biomes but they do seem incredibly complex and full of unpredictable feedback mechanisms. Thoughts?
Technology can make a huge contribution, however it does not always come in early in the Remove, Reduce, Reuse & Recycle spectrum.
An example (and I'm not getting into debates on this today!) 99% of 3 tonne SUVs are not necessary, and should be under "Remove" rather than "look what technology can do now, let's all drive around Surbiton in one".
I think Greenies can be rather monomaniacal, and when something gets out of proportion in a small (eg Homeopathy 15 years ago for GP England, or the banning of Bacon Butties for the Waste Disposal Operatives of Brighton) or large (Trans in GP Scotland, or perhaps the We Can't Build ANY roads WHATSOEVER brigade).
missed a bit
Add ... "it can undermine the very valid wider message." at the end.
I think techno-obsession is the same sort of error as anti-techno-obsession. There's a need for both, in balance. This is perhaps a problem with all single-issue causes.
It's not quite the same thing, though.
One is represented by a political party which seeks to impose their solution; the other is represented across the political spectrum, and encompasses those who advocate for large scale government intervention as well as hardline libertarians.
Would love to hear how emissions can be cut by at least 50% in the next 66 months (by 2030) without a major- socio-economic shock that slashes economic activity
This MUST happen to have any chance of sidestepping dangerous, all-pervasive, climate breakdown
Susan Hall defends her campaign by stating the obvious:
Nationally, Labour is polling 30 points ahead of the Conservatives. In London, Sadiq Khan won thanks to his Green and Lib Dem friends lending him their votes. By taking home 33 per cent of the vote in London, I outperformed the party, and by taking 44 per cent, even with the votes from the Greens and Lib Dems, he grossly underperformed.
She's a bit cheeky to use that 30% Yougov that's just come in as a benchmark, but the fact is she has outperformed the Tories national poll share by a considerable margin, and in London.
Terrible expectation management by CCHQ and the usual suspects on TwittX (and, to a far lesser extent, on here) made a reasonably creditable performance by Hall look like an unexpectedly heavy defeat.
Green Party policy in the UK - as this article touches on - is fundamentally anti-progress. The utopia it desires is one of fewer people, living simple lives, in harmony with nature.
The fact that nature - as any fleeing wildebeest knows - is not harmonious, doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Technology developing at the most extraordinary rate: as solar panel prices continue to plummet, the future increasingly looks like one where almost every surface will be coated by a light absorbing, electricity emitting sheer.
This means that mankind will not be tethered to fossil fuels (and those who monopolize their production). It means human emissions will collapse.
And it means we'll be able to grow more food than ever before. (Vertical city farms powered by efficient light emitting diodes that only produce light in exactly the wavelengths needed for photosynthesis.) It means that water shortages become mere engineering challenges. Next up will be meat: but we're getting there. We'll be able to grow real meat. It will be indistinguishable from, or perhaps even better than, what comes from farms.
Now, you will accuse me of techno-utopia.
But this is simply the progression of knowledge. We now know how to make photovoltaic cells for 100th of the price we did twenty years ago. Similar progress has been made in batteries and LEDs.
And the progression of knowledge is such that low carbon, is lowest cost.
We will evolve. And we'll evolve around the economic line of least resistance. As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market. And green and green align here.
The enemies of this are two fold: Firstly there are those who traditional livelihoods are challenged (coal miners, cattle ranchers, old car companies). And you see the passing of laws to try and turn the clock back. (See numerous US states with their absurd bans on lab grown meat.) Secondly, there are those who don't really want progress, they want the world to return to a simpler time. (To whit, the Green Party.)
Us techno-utopians don't need a platform. We don't need to stand for election. We don't need to persuade anyone. Because what we propose is happening inexorably, as knowledge advances, and millions - and billions - of people vote with their wallets, choosing every more efficient vehicles, adding solar to their rooves, and buying whatever food tastes best and costs least.
Some while ago I did a Masters in Sustainable Development run by Forum for the Future. Despite some notably sensible tutors, there was an overall groupthink that technology couldn't save us. But noone could ever really refute the vision you suggest, and it seems far more likely to come to pass than the hair shirtish of some in the green movement, given what we know about human nature and the challenges of collective action.
I wonder where biodiversity loss fits into your story, though? It feels like the part that's missing from what you have written, and could eg derail the productivity of vertical farms quite radically. Perhaps there's a technical replacement for different biomes but they do seem incredibly complex and full of unpredictable feedback mechanisms. Thoughts?
Reversing biodiversity loss is at least compatible with it.
Technology promises the prospect of economically growing crops in desert areas as well as cities; it could if we chose massively reduce the need for agricultural land for staple crops.
That's going to be a political choice, not a technological one.
I think the whole green ethos is pretty much accepted by most of our politicians across the political divide. It was the Tories after all who committed to net zero by 2050. The green movmement has won. It is now how we get there.
The true green movement is really, and this ties into something RCS was saying or driving at, anti growth. De Growth is an idea that is currently very fringe. I recall a green councillor in the lakes interviewed on the local news saying she didn’t want an expansion of vehicle charging points as that would still encourage visitors and she saw that as a part of the problem. The world could be about to become a much larger place.
Capitalism has embraced it as it wants to carry on as is once it hits net zero. Hence the embrace of the green agenda by corporations and the main parties.
Would love to hear how emissions can be cut by at least 50% in the next 66 months (by 2030) without a major- socio-economic shock that slashes economic activity
This MUST happen to have any chance of sidestepping dangerous, all-pervasive, climate breakdown
This states the unstateable problem succinctly. If the science is right, then what is needed for catastrophe is already in place. Even cutting emissions by 50% by 2030 (or whenever) makes no difference except for delaying the outcome by a few years. Emissions are like inflation. Reducing inflation still means rising prices. Reducing emissions still means rising CO2. Only a scheme of mass scale global level removal of CO2 would change things. Whether this is possible I don't know. But nothing else will do it at all, if the science is right. People are working on it, eg:
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
And by doing so they invoke a backlash, and therefore make it more likely that there will be no change.
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Good point on the Greens. On Israel less so.
I think Israel's survival is more in doubt today, that at any time in life. I am very fearful for them.
We shall see but I don't see a path to its demise. What does it look like.
Israel pushes Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank out of the area currently controlled by Israel. This causes the fall of governments - like Egypt - that have generally been friendly to Israel. Their replacements are much less friendly to Israel. And when Israel is then attacked, the goodwill in the West, and the desire to support it, no longer exists.
I think the biggest threat to the existence of Israel is the loss of support from secular and Liberal Jews, both in the diaspora and in Israel. The increasing dominance of Israeli society by the ultraorthodox is the seed of the destruction of the state.
Would love to hear how emissions can be cut by at least 50% in the next 66 months (by 2030) without a major- socio-economic shock that slashes economic activity
This MUST happen to have any chance of sidestepping dangerous, all-pervasive, climate breakdown
This states the unstateable problem succinctly. If the science is right, then what is needed for catastrophe is already in place. Even cutting emissions by 50% by 2030 (or whenever) makes no difference except for delaying the outcome by a few years. Emissions are like inflation. Reducing inflation still means rising prices. Reducing emissions still means rising CO2. Only a scheme of mass scale global level removal of CO2 would change things. Whether this is possible I don't know. But nothing else will do it at all, if the science is right. People are working on it, eg:
To me, the whole concept of solarpunk as described above is dystopian not because it would require authoritarianism to enforce, but because it might develop out of (and certainly would develop into) a monoculture. A thousand distributed villages, all of them the same. A kind of sci-fi feudalism, where you are tied to the land you live, not by restrictions on movement, but because there is nowhere to go, and nothing to see, and everything is the same.
It feels somewhat like a 'utopia' at face values but where do all the non-conforming people go? Many of us leave the village or small conurbation we grow up in because we don't fit in there, and seek other, like minded rebels, misfits and oddballs to get into trouble with.
Solarpunk isn't dystopian because it requires the threat of violence to enforce the concept, it's dystopian because, as Viewcode points out, utopias only work where people agree. And that means a kind of bland conformity where everybody broadly thinks the same and acts the same out of social pressure rather than the threat of violence - nonconforming types tend to leave. Anyone who has lived in a 'village' or even 'two horse town' dynamic knows what I mean. In a solarpunk world, where do the nonconformists go?
Comments
SOURCES
* [0] “Dear Alice: decommodified”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9U6tqrpeT8. This is an edited version of the infamous “Chobani Dear Alice” yoghurt advert, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS-sJQkr0H4
* [1] See “A Solarpunk Manifesto – ReDes”, author ?, credited to “The Solarpunk Community”, see https://www.re-des.org/es/a-Solarpunk-manifesto/
* [2] “SolarPunk Cities: Our Last Hope?”, by DamiLee, YouTube, Nov 4, 2023, 19mins, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVlBmdvIC6s
* [3] “James Burke on The End of Scarcity”, by James Burke, BBC Sounds, 26 Dec 2017, 28mins, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b09jvfc4 or https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09jvfc4
* [4] “Why We Need More Than Solarpunk”, by Our Changing Climate, YouTube, Apr 7, 2023, 22mins, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fxbDhoYlh8
* [5] “Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia” by John Gray, Published 2007. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mass:_Apocalyptic_Religion_and_the_Death_of_Utopia, also https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/360648.Black_Mass, also https://www.waterstones.com/book/black-mass/john-gray/9780141025988 . ISBN: 9780141025988.
* [6] Executive Order 13967 of December 18 2020 (Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture), President DJ Trump, see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13967, later revoked by Executive Order 14018 of February 24, 2021, President JR Biden, see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14018 . Another source is here: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-beautiful-federal-civic-architecture/
The third para of the "Impossibility of Utopias" section
[1] Namely "...Never forget that utopias are very attractive. This attractiveness enabled twentieth-century autocracies to use them as a moral justification for coercion and atrocities. They used utopian dreams of a better future to hold their society together and rationalize their nightmarish present. Solarpunk sidesteps authoritarianism by embracing progressive politics in sociocracies, accepting difference and handling disagreement via discussion, with extreme localism preventing them going the same way as the soviets. While this is the theory, I think history and John Gray would have doubts. But it does explain why Green parties adopt progressive policies..."
You will never get a majority for any one utopia
"Utopias depend on people agreeing to it, but the one thing you can guarantee is that people won’t agree, and anything they do agree on exists only briefly until somebody changes their mind, usually five seconds later. "
But my emphasis is on green solutions being well delivered by adjusting regulation and guidance rather than micromanaged central diktat.
And I think local Green Councillors are far better than the national party.
For a start, an awful lot of people like cities - if they're attractive and affordable.
There's no real evidence for 3D printing being ubiquitous, cheap, and able to produce everything in a distributed manner, so park that until the fantasy becomes a reality.
On a more limited scale, you could certainly farm economically within cities, given efficient LEDs, and unlimited zero marginal cost power, with today's technology. But that argues just as much for retaining mass urbanisation rather than dispersing it.
A Step-By-Step Guide On How To Build The Best New Affordable Housing In America
A Manifesto to change the way we live and build
https://ourbuiltenvironment.substack.com/p/a-step-by-step-guide-on-how-to-build
My point was not that it would work, and my para on the "Impossibility of Utopias" pointed that out. The point is not the viability of a future utopia in the future, it's the electoral attractiveness of the future utopia now.
There's huge number of people employed in problem/deprivation alleviation generally.
That allows the possibility of a great deal more individual choice, not less. (So long as that power is not owned entirely by an elite.)
So the rest of their manifesto is essentially a waste of space.
An interesting read.
If nothing else, the market will eventually see to that.
It's an interesting header, though. I wasn't really aware of the 'manifesto'.
If its not feasible aren't people going to concentrate on current problems and the electoral attractiveness of solutions that are viable within a realistic timespan ?
The comment about career politicians also sums up, to me, a major reason for the lack of inspiring leaders at Westminster.
‘I hereby announce that I have been hushing up a Tory scandal for the last four years, and by the way I was the actual Secretary of State for Justice at the time’ isn’t quite the gotcha that the Tories seem to think it is. On the contrary, it’s a bigger scandal than the scandal.
https://twitter.com/NicholasPegg/status/1789638314783383559
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiGDvM14Kwg
For years I have thought that roofs (and possibly walls) in changeable climates should be adaptive, reflective in hot weather, absorbent in cold weather. I am no expert in such things, but I think it possible that such roofs could pay for themselves in the long run.
(The idea seems obvious enough to me to make me think others have thought of it, too, but I can't recall seeing it anywhere before I thought of it.)
"Turtle Tanks, "Cope Cages" & Modified Vehicles in Ukraine - Purpose, Evolution & Effectiveness"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhfGspOIg24
But rather than acknowledge that, we get things like their recent London Manifesto, containing 663 pledges (yes, really).
There are some good ideas in there, but many more are variously impossible to implement, outwith the GLA's powers, extremely bad value for money, likely to make the problem worse, completely uncosted, or inherently contradictory.
The idea of whittling that down to, say, 5 key pledges seems to be anathema to them. It's such a pity - green issues are going to continue to be one of the most important topics in our politics for the foreseeable future, but the GPEW seem to actively resist playing more than a minor role.
There’s definitely a space for a disgruntled old codgers party in Scotland.
I think she is right but I note that the Green utopias discussed by @viewcode are based on low growth. Why?
The economy is Forbes's part of government (it is surely overdue recognition of the Sturgeon mindset that the economy and finance are almost uniquely separated in the Scottish government). What governments need to do is find ways to get to net zero, or even beyond it until some sort of balance is regained, that are not negative for the economy or peoples' standards of living. Domestically produced renewable energy is an obvious example of this. We reduce our carbon emissions, we reduce our horrendous trade deficit and we create jobs and skills in this country.
Or if we take transport, clean, electrical energy, ideally produced in renewable form, creates an enormous demand for domestic infrastructure improvements, yet more green energy and air that is safe to breathe, even in our cities.
I want a government that works with our objectives in constructive ways to boost our economy whilst reducing our emissions, increasing our tax base so that public services can be properly funded and creating opportunities for our more able to make loads of money whilst paying plenty of tax and employing lots of people.
Green Utopias? Meh, not for me.
Angela Rayner is expected to be interviewed under caution by police in the coming weeks over which of her two homes was her main residence.
Greater Manchester Police are understood to have contacted Labour’s deputy leader to arrange an interview at a date and time to be agreed by both. The interview would almost certainly be conducted at a local police station in Manchester and Ms Rayner would be questioned under caution.
Ms Rayner has previously said that she has been looking forward “to sitting down with the appropriate authorities… and draw a line under this matter”, suggesting that she will attend the interview voluntarily, obviating any need to arrest her and the embarrassment that would cause.
A Labour spokesman said: “Angela has been clear that she will cooperate with any investigation. We do not plan to give a running commentary.
“We remain completely confident that Angela has complied with the rules at all times and it’s now appropriate to let the police do their work.”
Greater Manchester Police declined to comment, explaining the force had “no updates to pass on”.
But it is understood that police have written to Ms Rayner’s constituency office in Ashton-under-Lyne to arrange the interview. The police inquiry had been shut down but was reopened after James Daly, the Conservative MP for Bury North, requested its reopening when further information came to light.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/12/labour-angela-rayner-interview-under-caution-council-tax/
In an interview with @bbclaurak, Nadhim Zahawi says that "on reflection, maybe he should have been clearer" that he was under investigation from HMRC.
He was pretty clear there was no investigation when he paid lawyers to send me legal threats:
https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1789600650696761479/photo/1
Israel (leak 1st, actual 1st)
Netherlands (leak 2nd, actual 2nd)
Switzerland (leak 5th, actual 3rd)
Armenia (leak 6th, actual 4th)
Greece (leak 7th, actual 5th)
Georgia (leak 4th, actual 6th)
Albania (leak 3rd, actual 7th)
Estonia (leak 12th, actual 8th)
Czechia (leak 13th, actual 9th)
San Marino (leak 8th, actual 10th)
My working theory on the changes would be that any organised diaspora vote like Israel, Albania, San Marino (San Marino isn't a diaspora, but because SMR doesn't have their own phone system, they can vote in the Italy televote) would get in their votes early as they aren't going to be deliberating over which country to vote for and the partial results might have been from early on. It's possible that Israel's 40%+ that moved the odds so much might have been a more normal 20-25% by the end of voting.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4778964/#Comment_4778964
https://www.ft.com/content/aa538de1-525d-4d12-b64a-b0b8e05ce0a7
Although telling a former partner at CC that a letter before claim is WP is a rookie error.
I do wonder what Perun's day job is; I get the impression he's not governmental, but he's definitely in the analyst space. But perhaps it's best for him if we don't know.
For a not very exact comparison, if you look for example at smart windows that become sunproof and non-see-through at the touch of a button, you can be looking at up to £1000 per square metre. Even for a stick on film that is similar such as ADS Smartfilm you are at about £300-600 per sqm.
Compare that to a roof of PV solar panels at £50 to £100 per sqm (guestimated) plus the cost of a reversible heat / cool A2A heat pump system, which gives complete control and can be powered from the solar roof when it is hot, and the latter is perhaps the better solution in most cases.
One thing though. You don't mention that a driver towards this utopia is fear. Many Green voters are literally terrified of what we are doing to the climate, calling it an 'emergency' and so on. Radical action is needed etc etc.
Fear drives their vote partly.
Green Party policy in the UK - as this article touches on - is fundamentally anti-progress. The utopia it desires is one of fewer people, living simple lives, in harmony with nature.
The fact that nature - as any fleeing wildebeest knows - is not harmonious, doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Technology developing at the most extraordinary rate: as solar panel prices continue to plummet, the future increasingly looks like one where almost every surface will be coated by a light absorbing, electricity emitting sheer.
This means that mankind will not be tethered to fossil fuels (and those who monopolize their production). It means human emissions will collapse.
And it means we'll be able to grow more food than ever before. (Vertical city farms powered by efficient light emitting diodes that only produce light in exactly the wavelengths needed for photosynthesis.) It means that water shortages become mere engineering challenges. Next up will be meat: but we're getting there. We'll be able to grow real meat. It will be indistinguishable from, or perhaps even better than, what comes from farms.
Now, you will accuse me of techno-utopia.
But this is simply the progression of knowledge. We now know how to make photovoltaic cells for 100th of the price we did twenty years ago. Similar progress has been made in batteries and LEDs.
And the progression of knowledge is such that low carbon, is lowest cost.
We will evolve. And we'll evolve around the economic line of least resistance. As Mrs Thatcher said, you can't buck the market. And green and green align here.
The enemies of this are two fold: Firstly there are those who traditional livelihoods are challenged (coal miners, cattle ranchers, old car companies). And you see the passing of laws to try and turn the clock back. (See numerous US states with their absurd bans on lab grown meat.) Secondly, there are those who don't really want progress, they want the world to return to a simpler time. (To whit, the Green Party.)
Us techno-utopians don't need a platform. We don't need to stand for election. We don't need to persuade anyone. Because what we propose is happening inexorably, as knowledge advances, and millions - and billions - of people vote with their wallets, choosing every more efficient vehicles, adding solar to their rooves, and buying whatever food tastes best and costs least.
I'm guessing whoever in his office talked him into this is in serious trouble.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
Can we just be clear. It’s a matter of public record Natalie Elphicke improperly intervened over her husband’s case, traduced her husband’s victims, condemned the prosecution and took £25,000 for her story. And Keir Starmer knew that when he smilingly shook her hand and welcomed her into his party.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1789689783645515881
It reminds me somewhat of Israel. Their acting out of fear makes their extinction more, rather than less, likely.
Now, it's always important to have protest parties to get things on the agenda (witness UKIP and JSO). But these people seem genuinely to want power. That is scary.
It will take a change if gov in Israel but they are a democracy and it will happen.
I wonder where biodiversity loss fits into your story, though? It feels like the part that's missing from what you have written, and could eg derail the productivity of vertical farms quite radically. Perhaps there's a technical replacement for different biomes but they do seem incredibly complex and full of unpredictable feedback mechanisms. Thoughts?
What do I think is the solution? A new leadership of the Palestinians which is likewise pragmatic which in turn will create international pressure on Israel to address its activities in the West Bank.
We have seen for decades that Israel tries to play the game and then employs the Millwall approach. That is not too excuse it, rather it is to explain it.
Edit: my question to myself is do the ordinary, decent Palestinians want to co-exist with Israel. I have no idea.
An example (and I'm not getting into debates on this today!) 99% of 3 tonne SUVs are not necessary, and should be under "Remove" rather than "look what technology can do now, let's all drive around Surbiton in one".
I think Greenies can be rather monomaniacal, and when something gets out of proportion in a small (eg Homeopathy 15 years ago for GP England, or the banning of Bacon Butties for the Waste Disposal Operatives of Brighton) or large (Trans in GP Scotland, or perhaps the We Can't Build ANY roads WHATSOEVER brigade).
Add ... "it can undermine the very valid wider message." at the end.
I think techno-obsession is the same sort of error as anti-techno-obsession. There's a need for both, in balance. This is perhaps a problem with all single-issue causes.
Ensuring that that happens is the sort of policy challenge that the Greens should be taking on.
My guess is that within the next 5-10 years we are going to hit a change point. Whether it’s the release of CO2 from the oceans, the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet or the release of global warming gases by the Siberian tundra there is going to be a step change with huge consequences.
We need to act and act now.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-im-proud-of-my-mayoral-campaign/
She's a bit cheeky to use that 30% Yougov that's just come in as a benchmark, but the fact is she has outperformed the Tories national poll share by a considerable margin, and in London.
One is represented by a political party which seeks to impose their solution; the other is represented across the political spectrum, and encompasses those who advocate for large scale government intervention as well as hardline libertarians.
But probably not.
Cat thy selves on thy knees and worship the one true diesel cycle. Before thoust carried off to the hell of Fairbanks or of Morse.
Bill McGuire
@ProfBillMcGuire
·
1h
Turning things around
Would love to hear how emissions can be cut by at least 50% in the next 66 months (by 2030) without a major- socio-economic shock that slashes economic activity
This MUST happen to have any chance of sidestepping dangerous, all-pervasive, climate breakdown
https://twitter.com/ProfBillMcGuire/status/1789693539493835187
Technology promises the prospect of economically growing crops in desert areas as well as cities; it could if we chose massively reduce the need for agricultural land for staple crops.
That's going to be a political choice, not a technological one.
The true green movement is really, and this ties into something RCS was saying or driving at, anti growth. De Growth is an idea that is currently very fringe. I recall a green councillor in the lakes interviewed on the local news saying she didn’t want an expansion of vehicle charging points as that would still encourage visitors and she saw that as a part of the problem. The world could be about to become a much larger place.
Capitalism has embraced it as it wants to carry on as is once it hits net zero. Hence the embrace of the green agenda by corporations and the main parties.
God knows where this goes.
https://climeworks.com/
It would have been far preferable had we started to massively subsidise renewables a couple of decades earlier, but we've nowhere to go but from here.
To me, the whole concept of solarpunk as described above is dystopian not because it would require authoritarianism to enforce, but because it might develop out of (and certainly would develop into) a monoculture. A thousand distributed villages, all of them the same. A kind of sci-fi feudalism, where you are tied to the land you live, not by restrictions on movement, but because there is nowhere to go, and nothing to see, and everything is the same.
It feels somewhat like a 'utopia' at face values but where do all the non-conforming people go? Many of us leave the village or small conurbation we grow up in because we don't fit in there, and seek other, like minded rebels, misfits and oddballs to get into trouble with.
Solarpunk isn't dystopian because it requires the threat of violence to enforce the concept, it's dystopian because, as Viewcode points out, utopias only work where people agree. And that means a kind of bland conformity where everybody broadly thinks the same and acts the same out of social pressure rather than the threat of violence - nonconforming types tend to leave. Anyone who has lived in a 'village' or even 'two horse town' dynamic knows what I mean. In a solarpunk world, where do the nonconformists go?
I'll leave you with Denis Leary's Demolition Man speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy5tI03OPdI