Systemic Collapse: The Basics

[elbows]

I have to say that this climate-skepticism-by-stealth is perhaps the most unexpected and fascinating behaviour to have been exposed by this conversation. It's all the more insidious for its victims being unaware of it - I'm prepared to accept that Free Spirit is sincere when he claims to be concerned.

Bollocks. Not content with congratulating yourself for what you believe has been a good defence of your extreme stance and misuse of reports and graphs, you have convinced yourself that the reason you were attacked was because of some new stealthy form of clime change denial, and that you are well placed to comment on this in a realistic way. Even if there was a real phenomenon here, you are a bit too close to the action to look at it from all the appropriate angles.

Im sure you won't be surprised to learn that I don't think there is such a phenomenon at work. Instead what we are seeing is the fact that there is a spectrum of beliefs regarding climate change, other environmental woe, fuel & other resource woe. Over the last decade the denial end of the spectrum has lost credibility and despite its continued influence, its now subject to ridicule, its on the back foot, it has less random foot soldiers prepared to argue its case out of ignorance or a deep desire to believe that things can carry on much as before. Some still exist in places like u75, but they very seldom post on threads like these anymore.

That leaves the people on the non-denial end of the spectrum, where it seems we can argue amongst ourselves about why our own particular location on the spectrum makes the most sense, any why everyone else is wrong. I have no problem with your decision to locate yourself somewhere on the extreme end of things, but what I and others seem to have a problem with is your desire to pretend that you are not on the extremes, and that the mainstream middle-ground of this still woeful side of the spectrum is in alignment with your stance. It isn't, your predictions and expectations regarding pace and scale of collapse are certainly a possibility, but they are not set in stone, and continued attempts to portray them as certainties distracts us from more practical concerns.

Now in order for the world to do all that it can to cope with what is happening on both he climate and energy front, it would certainly be useful if there was a much greater sense of impetus and a willingness to give up a variety of unsustainable activities as soon as possible, not wait until the last possible second. However I am far from convinced that making the loudest and scariest noises possible, based on a vision that we are well doomed even if we try hard, is the way to bring global sanity and action on these fronts. Indeed from a psychological perspective it is quite possibly better to leave alive some belief that we can cope somehow, people do not have to realise the full horror and bow down before the absolute worst-case scenarios with grim acceptance of doom in order to take useful action now and in the years ahead. You'll be able to find a small percentage of people who are ready to embrace the worst-case scenarios and use the knowledge rationally and productively, but increasingly these people have already been found, they are already converts. Reaching the next set of people does not seem to me to be achievable by simply turning up the volume. Events and realities will have to speak to these people, in the manner of prolonged downturns and a crisis of confidence in the system, or from a series of sharp shocks.

 

[Falcon]

Over the last decade the denial end of the spectrum has lost credibility and despite its continued influence, its now subject to ridicule, its on the back foot, it has less random foot soldiers prepared to argue its case out of ignorance or a deep desire to believe that things can carry on much as before.

This is an astonishingly naive viewpoint that takes my breath away. Why - exactly - do you think the UK government is in the process of shelving its renewables aspirations in favour of fracking - a process with a carbon footprint 20% higher than coal - and nuclear. Bad luck? No - the hydrocarbon, aviation and car lobby are spending an unbelievable amount of money on a highly effective denialist agenda. The denialists have gone quiet (from your perspective) because they are going about it in an entirely different way.

I have no problem with your decision to locate yourself somewhere on the extreme end of things, but what I and others seem to have a problem with is your desire to pretend that you are not on the extremes, and that the mainstream middle-ground of this still woeful side of the spectrum is in alignment with your stance.

I don't really know what "extreme" means, in this context.

I'll hazard a guess at the sense you are using "extreme", though, based on your chat about the pyschology of getting people to do stuff (noting that the current adherence to your policy is having the notable effect of getting people to consume more). There are two possibilities: "extreme" might mean "low physical probability". It might mean "low political probability". I think you are using it in the latter sense: my views are "extreme" because they are not consistent with what is currently believed to be the limit of political achievability.

I'll state the obvious: the laws of physics really don't give a stuff about what you believe is politically achievable. Given how dysfunctional the global political economy is, an "extreme" political view is probably a necessary (if not sufficient) sign that you are on the right track.

Physically, the authorities I quote are the IEA, NASA, NOAA, and the UN. My references are taken from peer reviewed, academic journals. The position I have stated here is not mine - it is the reported position of some of the most influential institutions and climate scientists. The political implications may be extreme, but the physics is not even extreme - the 350 ppm threshold is considered the maximum we should tolerate. Meanwhile, "extreme" is a relative term that is measured in relation to some norm. If the major institutions don't constitute the norm, then what does?

Meanwhile, your earnest appeal to "not turn up the volume" would be a lot more convincing if you could show ANY evidence that it has anything other than a counterproductive effect.

 

[elbows]

Physically, the authorities I quote are the IEA, NASA, NOAA, and the UN. My references are taken from peer reviewed, academic journals. The position I have stated here is not mine - it is the reported position of some of the most influential institutions and climate scientists. The political implications may be extreme, but the physics is not even extreme - the 350 ppm threshold is considered the maximum we should tolerate. Meanwhile, "extreme" is a relative term that is measured in relation to some norm. If the major institutions don't constitute the norm, then what does?

Liar. Your misrepresentation of data and quotes from such sources has been noted on several occasions recently. You won't acknowledge this but Im sure its been noted by people that bother to read the thread.

Note that I am not accusing you of misrepresenting everything, there is still plenty you say that I agree with, but your failure to acknowledge the extremes which I have attempted to describe in much detail over many posts means I am clearly wasting my time in continuing this aspect of the discussion.

I have presented you with examples of your inappropriate turning up of the volume, most notably your absolutely laughable misuse of the term exponential. That you refuse to discuss that one in a sensible way, despite already being presented with the evidence you complain you haven't received, is enough for me not to bother trying again.

Personally I would far rather the 'common wisdom' about these matters was more advanced than it is today, that people were more concerned and ready to do radical stuff, including a radical change to the entire concept of consumption. If that were the case we'd be a bit more likely to do more, although all the powerful forces that prevent this from happening would still be there. However even if/when we reach that point, I still believe you will be considered to be on the extreme end of the argument,still out on a limb. That will continue until the day the sky falls in, if such a day ever comes.

Do you have any plans to discuss the interesting transition movement stuff you mentioned you were involved with? Are there any other dimensions to your contribution to this stuff or are you far too satisfied with your role as hype-merchant and data misuser?

 

[elbows]

Also when I talk about the psychology of this stuff, I don't mean to suggest that this factor is always in the driving seat.

Regardless of however you or I or anybody else chooses to describe this stuff right now, we have entered a period where we get to see whether the current economic system can be propped up in times of either slow and expensive, or no growth at all of energy inputs. Likely one of the original reasons I started moaning at you was because you like to talk as if decline in these inputs is already well underway, and you didn't like me talking about a plateau much at all.

Well actually I was interested in plateau because its not clear to me whether the current system can survive even at the plateau stage, never mind what lurks beyond it. We are probably going to get to find out, and looking at the financial crisis so far there are plenty of reasons to think that much could collapse before much significant energy decline has actually taken place. Its not 100% given in my mind because there is still the chance of a temporary gas/alternative oil sources glut that will help them prop things up for a while, or perhaps various nations can survive in a prolonged Japan-like low/no growth phase. It will be very interesting to find out.

So rather than wishing us even further along the doom curve than we already are, I think there is already plenty worth discussing with where we are already and the systemic consequences. And I find the most extreme scenarios for collapse actually get in the way of that picture, quite significantly at times. There is no point trying to get a picture of rapid and wide reaching collapse into peoples heads if the reality they face actually turns out to be a much more prolonged and bumpy affair, with plenty of partial collapse and potentially years of soul-searching in limbo, rather than straight to hell. And when we are in the middle of limbo, thats a time when ideas and psychology and momentum will really matter, and despite having been tantalisingly close for years now, it just dent feel to me like we are quite there yet. Might be just round the next corner, might be further away than the serious nature of the issues might encourage some of us to think.

 

[panpete]

For those who are interested in an aternative out come to peak oil, this vid is in three parts.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value=""><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

PS , sorry about the extra text, I dunno how to embed a video properly

 

[Falcon]

I have presented you with examples of your inappropriate turning up of the volume, most notably your absolutely laughable misuse of the term exponential.

You simply haven't been able to grasp the basic idea that exponential growth is incompatible with finite systems. You have what is called the "cowboy" mental paradigm (in systems theory, we differentiate between "cowboy" and "spaceship" paradigms). That causes you to believe that there is some kind of exponential growth which isn't extreme, and that therefore to draw attention to the extremity of exponential growth in a finite system is "turning up the volume". Your ignorance is excusable - your lack of curiosity is not.

That you refuse to discuss that one in a sensible way, despite already being presented with the evidence you complain you haven't received, is enough for me not to bother trying again.

I took quite considerable care to reply to you demonstrating the structural source of exponential growth in population, and the improbability that technological improvement would yield absolute decoupling of energy demand (and therefore emissions). It was met with the shattering silence and lack of curiosity with which you handle anything you disagree with and for which you have no answer.

And, as you demonstrate, in your style of debate, any attempt to move on is interpreted as having conceded the point, which then gets recycled by you days later as "you got your arse handed to you on point X" - It isn't really possible to discuss anything more interesting with such people.

 

[Falcon]

For those who are interested in an aternative out come to peak oil, this vid is in three parts.

As far as I can make out, this is propaganda material from the biofuel lobby. Having lavished attention (correctly) on how power, transport, manufacturing and food supply and distribution chains are dependent oil, it rather overlooks the problem that so is the biofuel manufacturing process (and solar, and wind)!

But interesting material - this will be the first time that many people will be exposed to their dependence on oil. And, of course, the thought experiment "what if oil vanished tomorrow" actually isn't. The safe limit is 350. We are at 390 and on track to exceed 450. The only reason we act as if oil didn't vanish last night is because we are all climate change deniers now.

 

[elbows]

As promised some days ago I am done with your slippery bullshit for now. Its a joke to say that I failed to grasp the idea that exponential growth is incompatible with finite systems - my beef with you was your utter misuse of the term exponential, your complete failure to discuss how the rate of growth factors into this stuff, and the fact that the resources and consumption you referred to did not produce graphs with exponential growth curves of the type you described. This was pointed out to you by others too, but you are very resilient to such criticisms.

And so we find ourselves in a situation where we both retreat to 'this sort of person isn't worth discussing such matters with'. So be it, I see no way round this at the moment, and so I give up. Don't know what you think you've proven to anyone, and I had a lot more fun sculpting a petrol pump nozzle in zbrush last night so Im looking forward to redirecting my limited resources elsewhere for a bit.

 

[free spirit]

I have to say that this climate-skepticism-by-stealth is perhaps the most unexpected and fascinating behaviour to have been exposed by this conversation.

You must be seriously losing the plot if you've found yourself calling me a climate sceptic.

I'm definitely a Falcon sceptic, but that's a very different thing.

 

[panpete]

I confess I haven't read all of this thread, but after watching a bit of the documentary on the history of oil, I wondered this.

When the use of oil skyrocketed, and infrastructure was being built around the use of oil (roads etc etc), as crude oil is a finite resource, didn't anyone back then, cotton on to the fact that there would be big problems once that oil ran out?

 

[free spirit]

I confess I haven't read all of this thread, but after watching a bit of the documentary on the history of oil, I wondered this.

When the use of oil skyrocketed, and infrastructure was being built around the use of oil (roads etc etc), as crude oil is a finite resource, didn't anyone back then, cotton on to the fact that there would be big problems once that oil ran out?

Yes, some did, but the way you pose the question nicely illustrates a major part of the problem, in that it's not the point at which the oil runs out that's the real problem, it's the point at which supply can no longer meet demand. That point occurs a long time before the oil actually runs out, but back then the question being posed was mostly the question you just posed, and the answer would have been estimates of the oil not running out until the middle or end of this century at the earliest, which is a hell of a long time in politician terms.

 

[elbows]

The easy assumption that enables exploitation of finite substances regardless of eventual depletion is that 'some alternative will come along by then'. Well in this case science has done some pretty fancy things in recent decades but nothing that is better than oil in terms of scaleability, cost, etc. If there were such an easy alternative to oil that capitalism and technology would love as much if not more than oil then we would have transitioned to it already. Instead we see a lot of trickier alternatives that have various economic, technical or scaleability downsides compared to oil. Some of these become more attractive as oil gets pricier and harder to come by, but its still going to be a struggle to say the least.

 

[Dr Jon]

I confess I haven't read all of this thread, but after watching a bit of the documentary on the history of oil, I wondered this.

When the use of oil skyrocketed, and infrastructure was being built around the use of oil (roads etc etc), as crude oil is a finite resource, didn't anyone back then, cotton on to the fact that there would be big problems once that oil ran out?

Yes, as FS has said above. There was also the widespread belief that we'd soon be living in a nuclear-powered utopia, where robots did all the work and electricity was too cheap to meter. Other cornucopian delusions still persist.

 

[panpete]

Yes, some did, but the way you pose the question nicely illustrates a major part of the problem, in that it's not the point at which the oil runs out that's the real problem, it's the point at which supply can no longer meet demand. That point occurs a long time before the oil actually runs out, but back then the question being posed was mostly the question you just posed, and the answer would have been estimates of the oil not running out until the middle or end of this century at the earliest, which is a hell of a long time in politician terms.

Yes, the point at which supply can no longer meet demand describes the problem better.
It is a hell of a long time in politicans terms, but I am still suprised that they did not think of the great problems it would have caused the then future generations, (maybe ours, or the next)

 

[panpete]

The easy assumption that enables exploitation of finite substances regardless of eventual depletion is that 'some alternative will come along by then'. Well in this case science has done some pretty fancy things in recent decades but nothing that is better than oil in terms of scaleability, cost, etc. If there were such an easy alternative to oil that capitalism and technology would love as much if not more than oil then we would have transitioned to it already. Instead we see a lot of trickier alternatives that have various economic, technical or scaleability downsides compared to oil. Some of these become more attractive as oil gets pricier and harder to come by, but its still going to be a struggle to say the least.

It is going to be a struggle to say the least.
I have only just started to learn about peak oil.
I watched a few documentary, and fiction documentaries.
I suspect that there is loads of propeganda and money to be made even when producing alternatives.

On one of the documentaries, it gave the scenario that after years of struggle and deaths, there were not so many cars on the road and of those that were, they were electrically driven.
People had got used to a different way of living, i.e. producing their own food, using abandoned buidings to make agriculture, i.e. planting their own food. Supermarkets were a thing of the past.
And the air was cleaner.
Who knows what the future holds, maybe someone will discover that elusive alternative to oil.

I believe that everything in nature serves a purpose, i.e. even dung is recycled into chemicals plants feed on etc.
I know oil was caused by intense burning of old fossils but don't know what it's purpose in nature is.
I also don't know if we have caused any damage below the surface of the earth by repeatedly extracting it over more than a century.

Whatever the future scenario, you can bet that there will be fat cats wanting to get rich out of it.

All a big mystery, but I'm keen to learn facts.

 

[yield]

I watched all three parts and I think it was a little optimisic. It didn't dwell on the abandonment of some cities and general collapse.The idea that the USA can return to some form of selfsufficent agarian barter economy is idealist.

As others have said after peak production it'll tail off not stop abruptly. There were some other bizarre predictions in the documentary with Bolivia becoming a super power because of its lithium deposits. If the facts are correct its more likely to be the target of some resource war.

 

[panpete]

I watched all three parts and I think it was a little optimisic. It didn't dwell on the abandonment of some cities and general collapse.The idea that the USA can return to some form of selfsufficent agarian barter economy is idealist.

As others have said after peak production it'll tail off not stop abruptly. There were some other bizarre predictions in the documentary with Bolivia becoming a super power because of its lithium deposits. If the facts are correct its more likely to be the target of some resource war.

Yeah, I, too doubted if it would end that way, and like you say, it didn't dwell on the damage it caused, maybe we were to assume it had, I dunno.
I think it was just offering a scenario, but it could even have been propeganda of some sort, who knows?

We've known such a long time that oil is finite, and I don't exactly know what has been done about it and whether it's corrupt or not.

 

[yield]

Yeah, I, too doubted if it would end that way, and like you say, it didn't dwell on the damage it caused, maybe we were to assume it had, I dunno.

I think it was just offering a scenario, but it could even have been propeganda of some sort, who knows?

Worst case scenarios. It is all a bit Keep Calm and Carry On though.

Aftermath (TV series)

Aftermath is a four-part 2010 series created by History Television Canadian station. It also aired in the United States on the National Geographic Channel. It was produced by Cream Productions.

It consists of a series of "experiments" looking at what would happen if planetary conditions changed drastically, within our lifetime. It is a follow-up to the TV special Aftermath: Population Zero

1.1 When the Earth Stops Spinning
1.2 World Without Oil
1.3 Red Giant
1.4 Population Overload

We've known such a long time that oil is finite, and I don't exactly know what has been done about it and whether it's corrupt or not.

Of course the systems and processes are corrupt. It's capitalism.

Prompted by falcon recommending Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's work I just found this on youtube. Started watching it and it looks pretty good, though I'm not clued up enough about the environment to know whether he's got that part right.

I think the one SpineyNorman linked to is the most interesting so far.

 

[rover07]

All our energy needs can easily be replaced by current solar power technology. Thats ALL oil/gas/coal/nuclear.

http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

The Saharan Desert is 9,064,958 square kilometers, or 18 times the total required area to fuel the world.

By another measure, “the unpopulated area of the Sahara desert is over 9 million km², which if covered with solar panels would provide 630 terawatts total power. The Earth’s current energy consumption rate is around 13.5 TW at any given moment (including oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric).” This measure arrives at a multiplier of 46 times the area needed and shows that my numbers are very conservative.

 

[SpineyNorman]

And how much fossil fuel would be needed to construct the vast array of solar panels required?

 

[rover07]

Solar is currently at 5-1 energy use, i.e. 5 times as much power is created as is used to produce it, the same as oil.

Therefore the same amount of fossil fuel is required as is needed to replace current infrastructure.

As increasing numbers of solar arrays and electric vehicles are manufactured fossil fuel use will decrease.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Really? Be interested in seeing your calculations, especially as the fossil fuel infrastructure is already there and so requires only maintenance and the odd addition when new sources are found.

And what about the other rare minerals required for solar panels? Do we have enough of those?

 

[rover07]

“Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE),”

Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12xTN)

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

 

[rover07]

Energy used in production of solar panels.

http://zeroemissionproject.com/blog...gy-to-be-manufactured-than-what-they-generate

 

[free spirit]

The same as is currently required to build fossil fuel infrastructure.

unfortunately I doubt that's accurate. There are 2 major problems with it

1 - The energy return on energy invested (eroei) for solar PV is something like 6-12 at the moment, vs around 40 as the average for oil, though it's probably better than for shale oil, so you'd need to invest approximately 4-5 times as much energy in to solar for the same energy return as from oil.

2 - The fossil fuel infrastructure took a century or so to be developed to this stage. Other than hydro, renewables have really only been developing seriously for the last 20 years, so will need to do some serious catching up over coming years and decades, which means significantly more energy will be need to be invested into renewables per year than is currently being used in building and maintaining the fossil fuel infrastructure.

This is the crux of my disagreement with falcon on this thread really, in that if we did as he suggested and immediately cut fossil fuel consumption by 80%, then there is no possible way that we could have the energy available that we needed to build this new renewables based infrastructure, and energy efficiency measures, so it'd basically mean the end of civilisation as we know it.

My take on it is that it's worth taking the gamble and using that energy to build the renewables infrastructure to maintain humanity in something approaching current average standards of living or better, while acknowledging that there is a significant risk that using the extra fossil fuels to get us to that stage could result in dangerous levels of climate change, but also that this is still relatively unlikely as long as we do as much as we practically can to keep greenhouse gas concentrations as low as possible. I also believe it's better to risk significant levels of climate change 100 years down the line that humanity would have that time to adapt to rather than the overnight loss of 80% of the fossil fuels that the world currently is very reliant upon.

Reading between the lines with Falcons posts on this and other threads, I think he's concluded that it's not even possible for us to build this renewables powered future, and come to the conclusion that we may as well accept this and do what's necessary now to definitely prevent any possibility of dangerous levels of climate change, even if that has a devastating impact now. I disagree with this analysis of the position, but acknowledge the size of the task ahead and that there is a potential we won't succeed and that this also increases the risk that the level of climate change we end up with as a result could also pose serious problems vs the immediate 80% cut in fossil fuel consumption falcon proposes.

 

[panpete]

Worst case scenarios. It is all a bit Keep Calm and Carry On though.

Aftermath (TV series)



Of course the systems and processes are corrupt. It's capitalism.

I think the one SpineyNorman linked to is the most interesting so far.

Thanks. Will save that and watch it.

 

[duncanlaw]

Transition Town Brixton showed this film in November to a full house with the director answering questions. It is very good on the problem but as with the Inconvenient Truth, apart from it's excellent humour and visuals, leaves you really without many solutions.

The Transition movement of which TTB was an early adopter recognises that the world will change fast and soon and that it is better to design that change than be surprised by it. We start by imagining a world that has successfully transitioned to a better low energy future, back-cast to the present to come up with a plan of how to get there and then start to make it happen. We have the Brixton Pound - localisation in action, Brixton Energy, community owned renewable generation, the Remakery, Brixton's Re-use Centre and many other groups and projects. If you want some hope and positivity get down to TTB's OPEN DAY this Saturday at the Transition Centre, 6-8 Robsart St, SW9 0DJ, and get stuck in to growing your own future. We will also be showing In Transition 2.0 the movie of what is happening in TRansition around the globe - the fastest growing movement for grass-roots people led positive change on the planet.Details, links, a trailer, all at http://eepurl.com/lfhZT

If we can produce solutions that are demonstrably better than the profit-led ponsi scheme rat-race that we currently buy into - that have more of the things that matter, time with family and friends, good quality local food, connection and rootedness, then maybe 6.5 going on 9 billion people may choose to rethink the way we do everything and the politicians will come tagging along behind as they always do. Let's remake the Common Sense. Let's reach for a tipping point in consciousness by being the change we want to see and that will change the centre of gravity from nonesense towards sense.

Hope to see many of you on Saturday. Tell/bring your friends.

 

[Dr Jon]

Welcome to the Asylum

We Are All One

 

[elbows]

Incoming message from William Hague that reminded me of some issues touched upon earlier in this (or a very similar) thread.

"I believe we should reframe our response to climate change as an imperative for growth rather than merely being a way of being green or meeting environmental commitments," says Hague. "The low carbon economy is at the leading edge of a structural shift now taking place globally … we need to stay abreast of this, given our need for an export-led recovery and for inward investment in modern infrastructure and advanced manufacturing."

Hague cites the successes of the coalition government's green investment bank, electricity market reform and the green deal, but urges a "stronger political emphasis" on the sector. "We could get more mileage from this without additional commitment of expenditure or fiscal risk," adds the letter, which was written in March but only emerged on Tuesday.

As well as helping the UK's economy, "greater emphasis in our core narrative on low carbon growth" would help the UK's "commercial diplomacy" with countries interested in investing in and trading with the UK, and in its role in international climate negotiations

"We will not secure a binding agreement in 2015 unless the idea of low carbon growth becomes dominant across the major economies before then," says Hague. "We can leverage this. But our diplomacy will only succeed if it is rooted in our own domestic narrative."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/15/william-hague-green-economy-letter


As you might imagine my fascination with how peak oil blends in with other economic, political & systemic stuff causes me to scratch my chin with interest at these words in particular, especially as they were not for public consumption. I will try to resist the temptation to read too much into them since I could easily get carried away with using them to support a theory or two I have floated in the past. But on the other hand given the way that peak oils relationship with several other calamities and agendas appears to be something of an elephant in the room when it comes to mainstream narrative of whats going on, perhaps it would be appropriate to turn up the volume on these sorts of nuggets.

Perhaps if we hadn't spent so many years PRing and TVing ourselves to mushville, especially when it comes to language and cynicism, phrases like 'low carbon growth' would actually be big beasts staggering round the landscape, their shadows looming large over all, rather than mostly masquerading as vague and ineffectual muesli marketing farts that are taken to represent nothing more than some elite political whimsy of brief longevity.

 

[free spirit]

Hague cites the successes of the coalition government's green investment bank, electricity market reform and the green deal, but urges a "stronger political emphasis" on the sector

er what?

the green investment bank hasn't done anything that I'm aware of yet, the green deal isn't scheuled to start until the autumn, and is mired in confusion and complexity, and I've no idea what this electricity market reform is that he speaks of.

he could have picked the solar PV market as an example, other than it being a Labour project, and the tories having made a right mess of managing the scheme.