Log in

View Full Version : What would you do?


gforce
2008-04-12, 15:06
Right so for my General studies A level (the most useless A level in history but at my school it is compulsory:rolleyes:) our class has been asked to write a page or two on what we would do were we put in charge of the 'Ministry for the Environment'. Basically what we would do with a budget of a few billion to make this country 'greener'. So here is my view for the UK.


1. Main objective would be to greatly increase micro-generation capacity of energy with in the UK. This would be achieved using greatly improved grants and an ease of the bureaucracy surrounding getting a system installed for both residential and commercial premises. Because of the decline in North Sea gas production (mainly used for heating and electricity generation) prices have risen dramatically making the UK as well as Europe as a whole more dependent on imports from Russia. Hence the main thrust of the micro generation capacity will be in heating, both water and space. The most obvious decision is to use Solar heating systems.

The scheme will mean that in many circumstances solar heating systems could be obtained totally for free. £2 Billion could easily fund upwards of 1 million installations, this is of course subject to supply constraints. This would reduce the gas and/or electricity consumption of a significant number of buildings to almost zero. Prime targets for fitting systems in would be houses of the elderly and the lower paid as well as schools, universities and government buildings. Big grants would also be available for personal photovoltaic, hydro and wind systems.


2. I would stop all growth in the use of biofuels if not reverse the current trend. This is part of a grander scheme to stop as Kunstler puts it ‘the 3000 mile caesar salad’. I would greatly encourage the growth of local food production and consumption. This would encourage local food to be grown not using fossil fuel derived and possibly harmful fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides and then sold at a local level hence avoiding the costs (monetary and environmental) of transportation.

A grow your own campaign could also decrease imports as well as increasing awareness of where our food comes from and what goes into making it. Plans could also stretch into further limits on fishing fleets because of rapidly depleting stocks all around the British Isles.


3. Efficiency. Although efficiency has been greatly improved in households and in businesses there is still room for improvement. Again grants would be available for households and other buildings. Tighter regulation on new buildings would ensure that efficiency standards are improved on new builds of all types. Improvements in existing electricity generating systems (upgrading power stations as well as newer more efficient wind turbines replacing older ones) would also increase production.

Efficiency improvements in cars could help to reduce fuel consumption by a significant amount. Increasing the use of recycled materials – glass, paper and various metals - would decrease the need for growingly expensive and scarce natural resources. Repairing ageing water pipes would also reduce water demand (Thames water alone is leaking an estimated 200 million gallons a day!).


4. Something which really maddens me, stop building houses on floodplains. Only a few weeks ago on the outskirts of my town, the field where 4000 new homes are to be built was under 2 feet of water. And this is not an isolated incident, developments such as the Thames gateway are knowingly being built in areas at risk from heavy flooding.


5. London has one of, if not the best public transport system in the country. However many towns and cities that once had excellent public transit systems are now almost totally dependent on cars and those buses and trains that do remain have extremely unattractive prices. So it would be a good move to set about in big investments into existing as well as new public transport systems. There are of course problems with getting large numbers onto public transport because of the suburbanisation of many towns and cities but these problems can be overcome as they have been in many other European cities and towns. This would reduce pollution and would help ease congestion on Britain’s ridiculously overcrowded roads.


Feel free to comment and/or post what you would do with your country if in a similar situation.

Slave of the Beast
2008-04-13, 08:16
Right so for my General studies A level (the most useless A level in history but at my school it is compulsory:rolleyes:) our class has been asked to write a page or two on what we would do were we put in charge of the 'Ministry for the Environment'. Basically what we would do with a budget of a few billion to make this country 'greener'. So here is my view for the UK.

What is the timescale? How much exactly is the budget? What are the costs of your proposals?

1. Main objective would be to greatly increase micro-generation capacity of energy with in the UK. This would be achieved using greatly improved grants and an ease of the bureaucracy surrounding getting a system installed for both residential and commercial premises. Because of the decline in North Sea gas production (mainly used for heating and electricity generation) prices have risen dramatically making the UK as well as Europe as a whole more dependent on imports from Russia. Hence the main thrust of the micro generation capacity will be in heating, both water and space. The most obvious decision is to use Solar heating systems.

The scheme will mean that in many circumstances solar heating systems could be obtained totally for free. £2 Billion could easily fund upwards of 1 million installations, this is of course subject to supply constraints. This would reduce the gas and/or electricity consumption of a significant number of buildings to almost zero. Prime targets for fitting systems in would be houses of the elderly and the lower paid as well as schools, universities and government buildings. Big grants would also be available for personal photovoltaic, hydro and wind systems.

Why would this be better than creating centralized renewable power generation?

2. I would stop all growth in the use of biofuels if not reverse the current trend. This is part of a grander scheme to stop as Kunstler puts it ‘the 3000 mile caesar salad’. I would greatly encourage the growth of local food production and consumption. This would encourage local food to be grown not using fossil fuel derived and possibly harmful fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides and then sold at a local level hence avoiding the costs (monetary and environmental) of transportation.

Biofuels are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport, in any case this sounds like an awful idea. If people can't use biofuels in their car they'll use the alternatives - fossil fuels!

And I don't see how growing food locally is going to reduce the need for fertilisers and the various -cides. It's not as if plants magically grow faster or become more resistant to bugs and weeds, if they know they're only going to be transported to the local farmers market.

A grow your own campaign could also decrease imports as well as increasing awareness of where our food comes from and what goes into making it. Plans could also stretch into further limits on fishing fleets because of rapidly depleting stocks all around the British Isles.

'Grown your own' worked well back in WWII when the countries sovereignty was under clear and direct threat. 'Doing your bit' made people feel good about themselves for fulfilling their patriotic duty, albeit in a small but important way.

However in todays throw-away ready meal consumer society, I don't see how the abstract threat of climate change is going to persuade Danny-the-chav-from-Slough, to get off his fat arse and grow his own carrots.

3. Efficiency. Although efficiency has been greatly improved in households and in businesses there is still room for improvement. Again grants would be available for households and other buildings. Tighter regulation on new buildings would ensure that efficiency standards are improved on new builds of all types. Improvements in existing electricity generating systems (upgrading power stations as well as newer more efficient wind turbines replacing older ones) would also increase production.

Efficiency improvements in cars could help to reduce fuel consumption by a significant amount. Increasing the use of recycled materials – glass, paper and various metals - would decrease the need for growingly expensive and scarce natural resources. Repairing ageing water pipes would also reduce water demand (Thames water alone is leaking an estimated 200 million gallons a day!).

I come back to my questions about the scope of your budget, as these projects (national power station refit?) would be enourmously expensive.

As for improving cars and water supplies, these are privately owned companies. Are you suggesting fines for for companies who don't meet your green criteria?

4. Something which really maddens me, stop building houses on floodplains. Only a few weeks ago on the outskirts of my town, the field where 4000 new homes are to be built was under 2 feet of water. And this is not an isolated incident, developments such as the Thames gateway are knowingly being built in areas at risk from heavy flooding.

Does DEFRA have a say in this?

Even if it does I'm not sure how not building on floodplains would be any 'greener'. Less retarded, certainly, but not any significantly greener.

5. London has one of, if not the best public transport system in the country. However many towns and cities that once had excellent public transit systems are now almost totally dependent on cars and those buses and trains that do remain have extremely unattractive prices. So it would be a good move to set about in big investments into existing as well as new public transport systems. There are of course problems with getting large numbers onto public transport because of the suburbanisation of many towns and cities but these problems can be overcome as they have been in many other European cities and towns. This would reduce pollution and would help ease congestion on Britain’s ridiculously overcrowded roads.


Feel free to comment and/or post what you would do with your country if in a similar situation.

Surely this is another one for the Department of Transport?

Besides this national project alone would probably swallow up your budget of 'a few billion'.

ArgonPlasma2000
2008-04-14, 08:47
(I'm feeling drowsy with depression and misanthropy.)

I would kill off as many people of lowest intelligence and those who waste the most natural resources on conspicuous consumption as a "few billion" could possibly afford.

Too many people in the world and too many of them refuse to better themselves as a species.

alexgmcm
2008-04-17, 13:20
Haha, general studies sucks.. I don't take it but my friend showed me his mock exam and it was sooo easy.. there was a question where you had to put socialism, facism etc. on a scale of left to right lawl..

Erm, anyways yeah I'd agree mainly with point 5 in that they should renationalise all public transport as it also allows for regeneration of dilapidated areas as more often than not it's poor transport links to jobs etc. that really begin to wreck an area.