Monday, February 18, 2008

Labour government are doing fuck all to encourage adoption of renewable generation technology

This piece in the Guardian today hammers home the extent to which the Labour Government's greenwank hobbles attempts to combat climate change through the development of renewable domestic micro-generation.

This corroborates my own experiences corresponding with my local MP, Alison Seabeck (lab). I fired off an angry letter after reading an awesome piece in the New Statesman:

Madam,

I am writing to ask why your government insists on funding road building schemes when ample evidence exists to demonstrate the insanity of this practice in this modern world. A recent article in The New Statesman supplies detailed arguments against such proposals as well as offering a critique of the New Approach To Appraisal system currently deployed to evaluate the worth of proposed transportation developments to our nation’s transport system. I was wondering if you might provide me with reasons for such examples of misgovernment as the requirement that proposed light rail plans require 25% of funding to be contributed whereas road schemes require only 10%; the arbitrary assignation of a cost of £70 per tonne of extra carbon dioxide likely to result from a proposal and also the reason that any proposals prior to January of this year- eg. The M1 widening scheme- did not have to account for carbon emissions at all; the assumption of a price of $35 for a barrel of oil in 2025- the current cost is in excess of $70 and, in light of the predictions that oil production will peak in the next 10 years, this value is going to go anywhere but down; the bizarre variation in prospective revenue derived from reductions in travel times from transport developments according to different modes of transport- as a regular cyclist and bus user I am offended to have improvements in my journey times valued less than those of car drivers; the counterintuitive system under section 3.5.1[1] of crediting a particular scheme for any increase in fuel consumption it might generate due to the increased tax revenues this entails- regardless of the cost of extra emissions, associated congestion, etc. etc.

I could go on but I think you get the idea. Anyway, answers on the back of a postcard to anyone but me. I despair of producing any change in this plutocracy and intend to desert this country to its fate at the first opportunity so I suppose I couldn’t care less. It’s just that writing to you is a bit like supporting online petitions against human rights abuses in developing countries- you know its never going to affect your own well being but at least you can take comfort in the action of registering your support, however ineffectual it ultimately proves to be. A mere salve to my conscience- if I was more organised and less misanthropic I might be up at Heathrow this coming week fighting the good fight but sadly not.


And the response . . . ?


Dear punkscience

Thank you for your letter. I do understand where you are coming from on the issues you raise.

The Government cannot win. When we cut the road building program we were heavily criticised and when we opted to expand after a long and detailed consultation with the regions concerned we again have clearly upset a number of people. We do need roads, out [sic] economy needs a good infrastructure. Where we need to do work is ensuring that the traffic that commutes on the roads is a lot less polluting, that the number of road journeys is [sic] being minimalised and that the road building and widening schemes are only carried out where a strong case has been made.

A great deal of work has been undertaken by the government and private sector to produce cleaner vehicles and fuel and this work must continue. This government invested heavily in public transport and the increase of use in rail and bus services has been significant. This government have also made it possible for local authorities to introduce a range of measures designed to cut traffic (including congestion charges) which had a signfiicant impact in London.

I note you talk about leaving the UK. I am not convinced necessarily that this is the answer because the UK are world leaders in tackling climate change issues.

Yours sincerely,

Alison Seabeck MP



She is a cockweasel. A filthy, lying cockweasel, no less.

I don't remember many people criticising Labour for halting the road builiding program in 1997. In fact, I'm sure they were broadly praised for it.

3 comments:

  1. "because the UK are world leaders in tackling climate change issues"

    Hahahaha ad infinitum...

    Cockweasel indeed.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.