chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
For well-to-do white people they are.
For well-to-do White people most places are utopia in all honesty.
For well-to-do white people they are.
I've visited Vienna a good few times. Always thought we should have bombed its ass a bit more in WW2. ( ) Its like fash-statue heaven. Vikings with swords, Odin, men in chariots, sunwheels. Felt like any second they were going to round me up. Good techno scene mind.
Oh I don't know.For well-to-do white people they are.
it wouldn't be cheap to make them 'sort of okay' - not to the extent needed. Especially when you consider how so many would need drastic remodelling in order to accommodate the kind of households who are currently homeless. It's not just a question of improving heating efficiency etc, it is the fact that there are simply too few homes for our needs. Half a million comes close to how many new homes are needed, but still doesn't quite cover everything.Not snarking here and you'll probably just say GIYF. I totally understand the need for passiv houses and if we are building new ones they are absolutely what we should build. But how does the carbon balance sheet look when we are demolishing houses that can cheaply be made sort-of OK vs new build? I'd like to see some figures on this, otherwise it can look like nice contracts.
I've visited Vienna a good few times. Always thought we should have bombed its ass a bit more in WW2. ( ) Its like fash-statue heaven. Vikings with swords, Odin, men in chariots, sunwheels. Felt like any second they were going to round me up. Good techno scene mind.
For well-to-do White people most places are utopia in all honesty.
I never knew the old Vienna before the war with its Strauss music, its glamour and easy charm. Constantinople suited me better.I've visited Vienna a good few times. Always thought we should have bombed its ass a bit more in WW2. ( ) Its like fash-statue heaven. Vikings with swords, Odin, men in chariots, sunwheels. Felt like any second they were going to round me up. Good techno scene mind.
The ability to think on your feet in a tight corner is what differentiates a front line politician from the rest of us political anoraks. But I like Natalie Bennett on a personal level and I didn't feel the schadenfreude that I did with Cameron flailing with Pink News when asked why his party is in coalition with homophobic nutjobs in the EP. There's always the Boris option when you frequently can't answer a question; bluster out some noises, make an unfunny joke and say something in Latin. Just think what a 'character' Natalie could become.
Yes see your point, would the people at the top that are watched by millions on the telly if would be more accurate? Anyway there's no way I could think of a quick plausible answer to every subject going and I take my hat off to anyone who can, its a rare skill. I know its not very fashionable to praise the skills of politicians who are of course corrupt, useless and evil. Whereas we're all brilliant.Is that really the front line? It seems very very distant from the vast majority of everyday life, which is what politicians tell us they are trying to make better.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Cuts of at least £20m to local services look certain to be agreed tomorrow as a tiny minority of ‘rogue’ Green councillors have overturned the party’s anti-austerity position ahead of a meeting to decide Brighton Council’s budget for the next year.
The twin-pronged attack on the party’s ‘anti-cuts’ position was agreed at a ‘crisis’ meeting last night.
First, the party’s national council ruled the original position didn’t apply ~ citing a technical argument about the number of people at the meeting ~ overturning an earlier ruling by local party bosses.
Second, a motion seeking the party’s support for a budget that would see some £20m of cuts next year was presented to the 90 or so party members present.
With the ‘proxy votes’ of people not even there, the motion carried ~ and now the city’s 20 Green Party councillors have been told to vote for the cuts budget after all.
Brighton Green reverse anti-cuts vote? I fin this quite hard to follow but seems to the gist of it.
the alternative is to not vote green.
So, what is the point of voting Green?, I've been having doubts about them, new councillors here could not be described as 'left wing', but what is the alternative?
Even if that is the case, there is the small matter of compulsorily purchasing millions of houses from people living in settled communities who do not want to leave. Even if there was enough money to do so, history suggests such forced resettlements do not work out well for those evicted against their will.The second part of your question is truly awful, the supposition being that people wouldn't like to live in a house that costs nothing (or close to nothing) to heat each winter. Wouldn't you like to live in a house with zero heating costs?
Your actual question, I am thinking of carbon / climate change more than general pollution concerns. My understanding is that it's very difficult to retro-fit a single skin house in such a way that would get it anywhere near being a passiv house. External insulation can get you close to a cavity wall house but even that's not great compared to what can be done, especially on terraced housing where the whole terrace would need to be done together - extremely difficult if there's not a single owner of that terrace - at least if you are rebuilding you can compulsory purchase order houses if needs be. There's a carbon/energy/pollution cost to retro-fitting the houses which you also need to factor in. That's a calculation to be made but over a long enough time frame (which may not be very long at all, I don't know if anyone has tried to calculate this or not) the new house will definitely use less energy and less carbon - just no idea how long it'd take for the relative extra carbon costs of rebuilding rather than renovating until you've made that back.
Even if that is the case, there is the small matter of compulsorily purchasing millions of houses from people living in settled communities who do not want to leave. Even if there was enough money to do so, history suggests such forced resettlements do not work out well for those evicted against their will.
It is worth repeating, construction is a horribly polluting industry.
Perhaps some of the Green Party members on the boards could tell us what they think of this. They all seemed to have vanished.Brighton Green reverse anti-cuts vote? I find this quite hard to follow but seems to the gist of it.
just to point out that zero carbon should never be seen as being the only important factor - sustainability should place as much emphasis on the community element of things as it does on the environmental element.Yeah, I can't disagree with that, and I don't know what the best solution would be, unless you could work out a way to do a (more or less) like for like replacement of homes so people would move for a shortish period and then have a right to return if they wanted to. I don't think there'd be anything ideal here, but I think it's going to be necessary for us to replace that housing stock in order to have a zero-carbon economy. Unless you could build homes individually (which I doubt) in which case you could set about purchasing all those empty houses and replacing them and putting them back in use. Probably daydreaming there though, and it'd be more expensive and less time efficient to do for sure, if it was even possible at all.
just a collection of individuals who happen to live there, but without the roots for them to really give a shit about the place.
Brighton Green reverse anti-cuts vote? I find this quite hard to follow but seems to the gist of it.