One for Doug to read all about living carbon free. This one actually 
has real figures in, not fantasy facts, and is not biased in favour of 
anyone. It destroys a great deal of what the green and anti-nuclear 
lobby claim as solutions.

This one I particularly like which fucks up a whole load of Dougs 
arguments..

People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or 
drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have 
no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics; 
it?s insignificant compared to the other things.

Anyway, the article which summarises the book is here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/

And MacKays' book is here:

http://www.withouthotair.com/

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor wrote:
> One for Doug to read all about living carbon free. This one actually
> has real figures in, not fantasy facts, and is not biased in favour of
> anyone. It destroys a great deal of what the green and anti-nuclear
> lobby claim as solutions.
>
> This one I particularly like which fucks up a whole load of Dougs
> arguments..
>
> People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or
> drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have
> no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics;
> it?s insignificant compared to the other things.
>
> Anyway, the article which summarises the book is here:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/

An interesting read. Thanks for posting.

Doug's response will be interesting.

In message , Brimstone 
 writes
>Conor wrote:
>> One for Doug to read all about living carbon free. This one actually
>> has real figures in, not fantasy facts, and is not biased in favour of
>> anyone. It destroys a great deal of what the green and anti-nuclear
>> lobby claim as solutions.
>>
>> This one I particularly like which fucks up a whole load of Dougs
>> arguments..
>>
>> People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or
>> drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have
>> no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics;
>> it?s insignificant compared to the other things.
>>
>> Anyway, the article which summarises the book is here:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
>
>An interesting read. Thanks for posting.
>
>Doug's response will be interesting.

I'm unable to accept any bets that it will contain the word "greenwash".


-- 
Ed Banger

Brimstone wrote:
> Conor wrote:
>> One for Doug to read all about living carbon free. This one actually
>> has real figures in, not fantasy facts, and is not biased in favour of
>> anyone. It destroys a great deal of what the green and anti-nuclear
>> lobby claim as solutions.
>>
>> This one I particularly like which fucks up a whole load of Dougs
>> arguments..
>>
>> People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or
>> drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have
>> no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics;
>> it?s insignificant compared to the other things.
>>
>> Anyway, the article which summarises the book is here:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
> 
> An interesting read. Thanks for posting.
> 
> Doug's response will be interesting. 
> 
> 

Lies, greenwash or silence.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Brimstone wrote:
> Conor wrote:
>> One for Doug to read all about living carbon free. This one actually
>> has real figures in, not fantasy facts, and is not biased in favour of
>> anyone. It destroys a great deal of what the green and anti-nuclear
>> lobby claim as solutions.
>>
>> This one I particularly like which fucks up a whole load of Dougs
>> arguments..
>>
>> People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or
>> drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have
>> no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics;
>> it?s insignificant compared to the other things.
>>
>> Anyway, the article which summarises the book is here:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
> 
> An interesting read. Thanks for posting.
> 
> Doug's response will be interesting. 

Don't hold your breath - not with the intent of saving energy either.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 21 Jun, 11:47, Conor  wrote:
> One for Doug to read all about living carbon free. This one actually
> has real figures in, not fantasy facts, and is not biased in favour of
> anyone. It destroys a great deal of what the green and anti-nuclear
> lobby claim as solutions.
>
> This one I particularly like which fucks up a whole load of Dougs
> arguments..
>
> People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or
> drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have
> no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics;
> it?s insignificant compared to the other things.
>
> Anyway, the article which summarises the book is here:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
>
> And MacKays' book is here:
>
> http://www.withouthotair.com/
>
The basic fallacy here is that one person leaving their TV on standby
is insignificant, it is claimed. However, many millions doing so is
not. If everyone reduced their personal consumption by half, using
simple measures like cutting down on hypermobility for example, it
would make a significant dent in the impending energy crisis and
environmental damage.

--
Carfree Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
and public transport.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:06afb6c6-9eb8-49e1-a263-44edd94d5273@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
> The basic fallacy here is that one person leaving their TV on standby
> is insignificant, it is claimed. However, many millions doing so is
> not.

But the same millions also live in warm houses, and wash their clothes. So 
the power used by TVs on standby is still insignificant.

Doug wrote:
> On 21 Jun, 11:47, Conor  wrote:
>> One for Doug to read all about living carbon free. This one actually
>> has real figures in, not fantasy facts, and is not biased in favour
>> of anyone. It destroys a great deal of what the green and
>> anti-nuclear lobby claim as solutions.
>>
>> This one I particularly like which fucks up a whole load of Dougs
>> arguments..
>>
>> People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or
>> drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have
>> no need to worry about the energy they use to power their
>> electronics; it?s insignificant compared to the other things.
>>
>> Anyway, the article which summarises the book is here:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
>>
>> And MacKays' book is here:
>>
>> http://www.withouthotair.com/
>>
> The basic fallacy here is that one person leaving their TV on standby
> is insignificant, it is claimed. However, many millions doing so is
> not. If everyone reduced their personal consumption by half, using
> simple measures like cutting down on hypermobility for example, it
> would make a significant dent in the impending energy crisis and
> environmental damage.

Exactly the kind of small minded response I was expecting.

Doug  wrote:

> The basic fallacy here is that one person leaving their TV on standby
> is insignificant, it is claimed.

It is insignificant.

> However, many millions doing so is not.

Ah, proof by assertion, again.

> If everyone reduced their personal consumption by half,

How can turning off a TV rather than leaving it on standby cut anyone's
personal consumption of [something unspecified] in half?

> using simple measures like cutting down on hypermobility for example, it
> would make a significant dent in the impending energy crisis and
> environmental damage.

What has that to do with TV sets? Do people regularly travel to work by
television set?

ANd how would eliminating personal travel "make a significant dent in
the impending energy crisis and environmental damage" when personal
travel is responsible for a minority of fuel use? Why is it that
whenever you rant on about the use of fuel, you ignore the majory uses
of fuel and focus on just one, small, sector of human activity?

In message , Brimstone 
 writes
>Doug wrote:
>> On 21 Jun, 11:47, Conor  wrote:
>>> One for Doug to read all about living carbon free. This one actually
>>> has real figures in, not fantasy facts, and is not biased in favour
>>> of anyone. It destroys a great deal of what the green and
>>> anti-nuclear lobby claim as solutions.
>>>
>>> This one I particularly like which fucks up a whole load of Dougs
>>> arguments..
>>>
>>> People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or
>>> drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have
>>> no need to worry about the energy they use to power their
>>> electronics; it?s insignificant compared to the other things.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the article which summarises the book is here:
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
>>>
>>> And MacKays' book is here:
>>>
>>> http://www.withouthotair.com/
>>>
>> The basic fallacy here is that one person leaving their TV on standby
>> is insignificant, it is claimed. However, many millions doing so is
>> not. If everyone reduced their personal consumption by half, using
>> simple measures like cutting down on hypermobility for example, it
>> would make a significant dent in the impending energy crisis and
>> environmental damage.
>
>Exactly the kind of small minded response I was expecting.

Yep, exactly the kind of innumerate response I would expect from Mr 
"0.108 cubic metres = 1.08 litres". <snigger>


-- 
Ed Banger

Doug wrote:
> On 21 Jun, 11:47, Conor  wrote:
> 
>>One for Doug to read all about living carbon free. This one actually
>>has real figures in, not fantasy facts, and is not biased in favour of
>>anyone. It destroys a great deal of what the green and anti-nuclear
>>lobby claim as solutions.
>>
>>This one I particularly like which fucks up a whole load of Dougs
>>arguments..
>>
>>People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or
>>drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have
>>no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics;
>>it?s insignificant compared to the other things.
>>
>>Anyway, the article which summarises the book is here:
>>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
>>
>>And MacKays' book is here:
>>
>>http://www.withouthotair.com/
>>
> 
> The basic fallacy here is that one person leaving their TV on standby
> is insignificant, it is claimed. However, many millions doing so is
> not. If everyone reduced their personal consumption by half, using
> simple measures like cutting down on hypermobility for example, it
> would make a significant dent in the impending energy crisis and
> environmental damage.
> 
> --
> Carfree Cities
> http://www.carfree.com/
> Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
> and public transport.
> 
> 
> 
Yes, but there's another fallacy here.
This is the assumption that turning off the electronics on standby in 
your house stops you from doing all the other energy saving things.  I 
expect most of the arguments in this thread will contain that flaw. 
(unless it all comes down to arguments about who owns how many computers 
or whether they have a driving license) we'll see.
Roger Thorpe

Doug wrote:

> On 21 Jun, 11:47, Conor  wrote:
>> One for Doug to read all about living carbon free. This one actually
>> has real figures in, not fantasy facts, and is not biased in favour of
>> anyone. It destroys a great deal of what the green and anti-nuclear
>> lobby claim as solutions.
>>
>> This one I particularly like which fucks up a whole load of Dougs
>> arguments..
>>
>> People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or
>> drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have
>> no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics;
>> it?s insignificant compared to the other things.
>>
>> Anyway, the article which summarises the book is here:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
>>
>> And MacKays' book is here:
>>
>> http://www.withouthotair.com/
>>
> The basic fallacy here is that one person leaving their TV on standby
> is insignificant, it is claimed. However, many millions doing so is
> not. If everyone reduced their personal consumption by half, using
> simple measures like cutting down on hypermobility for example, it
> would make a significant dent in the impending energy crisis and
> environmental damage.
> 
Yes dear.
Now go play in the traffic.