There's much talk of looming energy problems - it's a staple of Nick Drew's blogging and even The Economist has now turned its attention to it. Today I see Brian Gongol has netted a story about battery development and how it could support the energy infrastructure.
But how much could we still do in the way of more efficient use, and non-use, of energy? According to this DTI report based on 2001 stats, the home uses 31% of the nation's energy (see Chart 1.3 on page 9). Chart 1.6 shows that in 2000, space heating accounted for 40% of all non-transport energy consumption.
More woolly pullies?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Law
We've been renting a house and now it's about to be sold; but the purchaser is delaying the exchange of contracts, with good reason:
The house has a fabulous view southwards, across fields and woods to the silver river and the sea beyond. This is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest, so it should be highly protected. However, the field immediately in front is owned by a farmer who wants planning permission to build six houses on it. He's tried several times before, and although he's on the local council himself, he's been turned down each time, so far.
I jest to the owner of our house: "Have you tried dropping a few rare species in the field?"
"There are rare species. The Authority wrote a letter to him saying that they would be conducting a field survey. When he got the letter, he mowed the whole field - right down to the ground. Then he sprayed it all over with weedkiller."
The house has a fabulous view southwards, across fields and woods to the silver river and the sea beyond. This is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest, so it should be highly protected. However, the field immediately in front is owned by a farmer who wants planning permission to build six houses on it. He's tried several times before, and although he's on the local council himself, he's been turned down each time, so far.
I jest to the owner of our house: "Have you tried dropping a few rare species in the field?"
"There are rare species. The Authority wrote a letter to him saying that they would be conducting a field survey. When he got the letter, he mowed the whole field - right down to the ground. Then he sprayed it all over with weedkiller."
Saturday, August 15, 2009
I see a bad moon rising
... sang Creedence Clearwater Revival. And as Panzner points out, inequality and growing poverty are factors that destabilise society.
He reproduces a graph (see below) that shows inequality is now higher than it was just before the Crash of 1929. The line also suggests that the rich do get hurt when the economy goes down - but they still do very well compared to the "ordinaries":
See where the least inequality came? Around 1980 - just when "it was decided" that lending and debt should take off and power a generation-long series of bubbles. Please see below my graph from June, which shows that political conservatives can be far from conservative when it comes to handling the nation's finances:
Friday, August 14, 2009
Market signals
At the hospital shop, a woman puts a £1.15 bottle of mineral water on the counter. The till operator says, "If you buy a Telegraph, the water's free."
"How much is the Telegraph?"
"90p."
"Okay." She rings it up. "Do you want the paper?"
"No."
She folds it and puts it to one side.
Everybody happy.
"How much is the Telegraph?"
"90p."
"Okay." She rings it up. "Do you want the paper?"
"No."
She folds it and puts it to one side.
Everybody happy.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
A gross miscarriage of justice?
The proposed release, on medical and compassionate grounds, of the supposed Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, is controversial and currently leads the TV news agenda here.
It is well known that GP Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the atrocity, attended the trial in the Netherlands and became convinced that Al-Megrahi was innocent of the charge laid against him.
It is also most interesting to read a blog set up two years ago by Robert Black QC FRSE, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh. His blog supports Swire's contention and discusses the way in which the legal case against Al-Megrahi was conducted. The very first post contains this paragraph:
It is my firm view that the crucial incriminating findings made by the judges were unwarranted by the evidence led in court and were in many cases entirely contrary to the weight of that evidence. I am convinced that no Scottish jury, following the instructions traditionally given by judges regarding the assessment of evidence and the meaning and application of the concept of reasonable doubt, would or could have convicted Megrahi. So how did it come about that the three distinguished and experienced judges who concurred in the verdict felt able to convict him?
Black summarises and comments critically on numerous points of evidence and the court's findings in relation to each. He posts again today and says:
The families of Pan Am 103, as victims, deserve justice; they deserve to know the truth. My own dark thought is that any decision made by Mr MacAskill will not really be based on compassion but on political expediency. There seems to be a desire to get Mr Megrahi out of the country and to have the appeal halted at all costs. Perhaps the Crown Office and governments fear what might be revealed as the appeal continues.
Black's blog stat counter shows that he has had only some 33,000 visits since October 2007. Perhaps, reader, you will look at what he has to say and encourage others to do so.
It is well known that GP Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the atrocity, attended the trial in the Netherlands and became convinced that Al-Megrahi was innocent of the charge laid against him.
It is also most interesting to read a blog set up two years ago by Robert Black QC FRSE, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh. His blog supports Swire's contention and discusses the way in which the legal case against Al-Megrahi was conducted. The very first post contains this paragraph:
It is my firm view that the crucial incriminating findings made by the judges were unwarranted by the evidence led in court and were in many cases entirely contrary to the weight of that evidence. I am convinced that no Scottish jury, following the instructions traditionally given by judges regarding the assessment of evidence and the meaning and application of the concept of reasonable doubt, would or could have convicted Megrahi. So how did it come about that the three distinguished and experienced judges who concurred in the verdict felt able to convict him?
Black summarises and comments critically on numerous points of evidence and the court's findings in relation to each. He posts again today and says:
The families of Pan Am 103, as victims, deserve justice; they deserve to know the truth. My own dark thought is that any decision made by Mr MacAskill will not really be based on compassion but on political expediency. There seems to be a desire to get Mr Megrahi out of the country and to have the appeal halted at all costs. Perhaps the Crown Office and governments fear what might be revealed as the appeal continues.
Black's blog stat counter shows that he has had only some 33,000 visits since October 2007. Perhaps, reader, you will look at what he has to say and encourage others to do so.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Liberty: a debating point
We've been arguing liberty vs addiction recently, and my own latest comment is:
Libertarian laissez-faire needs to mean more than simply standing aside and watching the rich and powerful cock it up for everyone. Paradoxically, libertarianism implies some kind of rule-setting and limitation of power.
Does that seem reasonable?
Libertarian laissez-faire needs to mean more than simply standing aside and watching the rich and powerful cock it up for everyone. Paradoxically, libertarianism implies some kind of rule-setting and limitation of power.
Does that seem reasonable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)