@linea said:
I have to say, living in Hull, one of the poorest cities in the UK, that that is a very black and white view of the facts. Just because people on lower incomes are less likely to buy as many energy saving bulbs doesn't mean they are any more responsible for climate change.
Facts? What 'facts'? These are the facts! Also, don't you mean less responsible? If the government introduce this legislation, like usual, "the poor will get poorer, and the rich, richer". Okay that's a cliche, but it's true isn't it? I think this is more about debt owed by countries such as Africa than anything else, the western world finding new ways to lift the massive unrepayable debt owed by developing countries? And, I should mention, denying nations such as China and India to an empire of their own- but that is a far wider picture, so I'm not going into that now!
@linea said:
For a start, energy saving light bulbs, seem to be one of the token gestures that our government can endorse, while they make excuses for not tackling massive corporate polluters and energy wasters. If they wanted to make the bulbs affordable, simple, just ban the old style and the manufacturers would have to lower the price. Secondly, most energy saving light bulbs contain mercury, so in the future we have a disposal problem on our hands. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
FWIW, I was being facetious about energy saving lightbulbs. Sure, these bulbs add an advantage because they both save on energy and are cheaper to run, but the technology still isn't there for this type of bulb. They emit a difficult to read in light, and have a long warmup time. Most as well can't be dimmed, and of course, their colour temperature is all wrong, fluorescent is imo, a horrible kind of light- normally showing up as green on photographic film. What I am saying is that change won't happen all at once, it's going to take a while, however those with a larger, more disposable income won't see this- hence the article. We never mention that common lightbulbs emit heat, and that heat also contributes to the overall heat ambience of a well insulated house. If the light source is cold, then that heat will need to be generated by other means- burning wood, or using electricity. Wood fires in built up areas were banned in the 50's (50's?), because of smog. Perhaps it was later than that? I like burning wood, but wouldn't it be better to create power from other sources, such as nuclear? then we could always power our hospitals and offices, the places that use the most heat for inhabitants?
@linea said:
Now about that lesser income thing:
Hull has a long tradition of cycling, 14% of journeys to work are by bike, because of financial necessity and relatively low levels of car ownership, Hull has the 6th highest level of cycling in the UK. source: http://www.tmsconsultancy.co.uk/hull/SaferCycling.doc
I am a keen cyclist, when I am not carrying kids to school (I own a folding bicycle- a great piece of American engineering, made by Dahon), but because of this governments current obsession with SATS and school ratings, I have to travel to TWO different schools, each three miles apart from one another, and in order to keep these 'good SATS' points, OFSTED insist that a passing school has no late children. As as result, I am ordered to arrive on time so delivery on bicycles are completely out of the question (My youngest being at a nursery- the only place we could get without paying a fortune in fees, is at the top of a large hill). So two kids on a bicycle and an adult? No thanks.
@linea said:
Also Hull has a huge demand for allotments because more and more people want to grow their own food - I do this because I enjoy it but I know plenty of people who do it because its the only way they can afford healthy food. I'm very pleased to say that the local McDonalds, which was just opposite a large school, shut down over a year ago due to a lack of custom. source:http://static.hullcc.gov.uk/hullinprint/archive/october2008/mike_met_arthur.php
Having an allotment is a great idea, as long as you are able to maintain its upkeep. My wife and I are both on fairly low incomes, we both work full time to pay the rather high mortgage on this house, while supporting two kids. Running an allotment is back breaking work (I know, as we used to have one). Have you ever considered that? Industrialisation happened, because we couldn't feed a nation. It is a middle class fantasy to think that go back to the old days is a good idea. Do you not realise why we have a better quality of life these days? We have food bought to our tables because of agricultural industrialisation. If you want to spend most of your life growing food, and you have the time to do it, great! But if you don't, then what are you supposed to do? It is wrong to assume that all people can run allotments. BTW, I'm not surprised Muckdonalds has shut down, because their burgers taste like ironed carpet sandwiched between grandma's old soggy slippers. Burger King is a far better choice of hamburger! 
@linea said:
If you can't afford to heat your house 24/7, you put a sweater on. Poorer people, in my experience, whether they consider themselves green or not, know quite a bit about resources and how to save them, probably more than the average 4x4 driver in Chelsea.
"Put a sweater on"? What about the sick? Do you tell them to "put a sweater on"? Try telling my 56 year old sister-in-law, who's in a wheelchair with MS, to "put a sweater on"! I think you'll find that it is only a select few who actually have their heating on 24/7 anyway, and throughout the house. Most people restrict heat to one part of the house, because heating the whole house is prohibitively expensive anyway. The sad truth, is that people die from the cold more than they die from warmth, and are found wearing jumpers (sweaters).
And, what's wrong with having a 4x4? What about an electric or hybrid 4x4? I am 6'5" tall. I don't fit most bicycles or small cars. I'd LOVE a 4x4!! Bring on and share the wealth! I could fit the kids in there, and not have back and neck ache. Do you not think that this forward thinking technology is not a good idea? It takes burning coal to produce a bicycle, and a lot of it too. If you want to cut back on industrialisation, you may as well stop producing bikes, because by this logic, the manufacture of bicycles are no different to cars.
Climate change has been happening for as long as planets have been in orbit around the sun. We need to step forwards, not backwards. You should read what Brunel did for industry. With good engineering, we have made the world a safer and better place to live. The current climate change debate contradicts this, believing that we should return to the 19th century. Do you really want to go back in time? I saw James May (TopGear fame) on "Have I got news for you" on Friday. I'm afraid I agree with James. I don't really give a stuff about climate change. I have a degree in engineering, and I know human beings are quite capable of engineering themselves out of trouble, as they have done for the last umpteen years. I am a designer, and a modernist too. i hope to keep it that way. I'm looking forward to the future! 
),.GV, is a British fave, and I used to smoke on average 4 to 6 roll-ups a day. But when the quit-smoking counselor came around (she came free with our first daughter, and the NHS), she had this CO (carbon monoxide) monitoring device, which said that I was smoking an average of 20 to 25 cigarettes a day. ie, roll-ups, although they taste better, are actually far worse for you when it comes to CO and tar inhalation than regular cigarettes!!! I always assumed that it was the other way around! 
pleeeeez!