Taking the Global Local

"Oz" <Oz.DeleteThis@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:sthUzXALrOxFFwg$@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Howard Neil <hneil.DeleteThis@REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> writes
>>Jim Webster wrote:
>>
>>> Given that the Thames will probably flood London in the next twenty five
>>> years, (the Thames Barrier is getting less and less useful against a new
>>> predicted extreme event) and at some point they are going to find the
>>> London
>>> Underground filled with river water, why are government still investing
>>> in
>>> London, rather than starting the long slow process of quietly moving
>>> everyone out?
>>
>>No, please leave them there. :-)
>
> Quite!
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
>

Did you HAVE to crosspost this rubbish to all these unrelated newsgroups?
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Andy Cap" <Andy_Cap DeleteThis @nosuch.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l1p9s2t16617gkg9mukctebsqm84039jov@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:01:45 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> <jim DeleteThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>While I can see that things are changing, I will believe that the
>>politicians are doing more than spout hot air when I see them doing
>>serious
>>and meaningful things
>>Given that the Thames will probably flood London in the next twenty five
>>years, (the Thames Barrier is getting less and less useful against a new
>>predicted extreme event) and at some point they are going to find the
>>London
>>Underground filled with river water, why are government still investing in
>>London, rather than starting the long slow process of quietly moving
>>everyone out?
>>
>>Jim Webster
>>
>
> Not to mention today's further news that scientists are closer than ever
> to
> conquering ageing ! Added to that incalculable increase in population, if
> the
> third world want anything approaching the standard of living of the west,
> the
> planet is doomed.
>
> Make hay whilst the sun shines ! ;-)
>
> Andy

Did you HAVE to crosspost this rubbish to all these unrelated newsgroups?
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oz" <Oz.TakeThisOut@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:ht+XDgA3rOxFFwhP@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Andy Cap <Andy_Cap.TakeThisOut@nosuch.co.uk> writes
>>Not to mention today's further news that scientists are closer than ever
>>to
>>conquering ageing ! Added to that incalculable increase in population, if
>>the
>>third world want anything approaching the standard of living of the west,
>>the
>>planet is doomed.
>>
>>Make hay whilst the sun shines ! ;-)
>
> No, no, please don't, we need a population REDUCTION!!
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
>

Did you HAVE to crosspost this rubbish to all these unrelated newsgroups?
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oz" <Oz.TakeThisOut@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:qNOVLIA1qOxFFwDN@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Jim Webster <jim.TakeThisOut@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>>Given that the Thames will probably flood London in the next twenty five
>>years, (the Thames Barrier is getting less and less useful against a new
>>predicted extreme event) and at some point they are going to find the
>>London
>>Underground filled with river water, why are government still investing in
>>London, rather than starting the long slow process of quietly moving
>>everyone out?
>
> discussed this with her, herself over lunch today.
>
> We both cam to the conclusion that if holland can afford to keep the
> north sea out of a bunch of low-value polders then London can afford to
> keep it out of london.
>
> If a few windmills is all it takes ....
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
>

Did you HAVE to crosspost this rubbish to all these unrelated newsgroups?
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:05:11 +0000, Oz <Oz.DeleteThis@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote:


>>Make hay whilst the sun shines ! ;-)
>
>No, no, please don't, we need a population REDUCTION!!

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. That is the ONLY thing that will save the planet and make life
bearable, so why aren't the politicians talking about it instead of pratting
about over carrier bags?

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Andy Cap" <Andy_Cap RemoveThis @nosuch.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l1p9s2t16617gkg9mukctebsqm84039jov@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:01:45 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> <jim RemoveThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>While I can see that things are changing, I will believe that the
>>politicians are doing more than spout hot air when I see them doing
>>serious
>>and meaningful things
>>Given that the Thames will probably flood London in the next twenty five
>>years, (the Thames Barrier is getting less and less useful against a new
>>predicted extreme event) and at some point they are going to find the
>>London
>>Underground filled with river water, why are government still investing in
>>London, rather than starting the long slow process of quietly moving
>>everyone out?
>>
>>Jim Webster
>>
>
> Not to mention today's further news that scientists are closer than ever
> to
> conquering ageing ! Added to that incalculable increase in population, if
> the
> third world want anything approaching the standard of living of the west,
> the
> planet is doomed.
>
> Make hay whilst the sun shines ! ;-)

ah but if they don't age, they'll be able to work longer hours in the Thames
valley rice paddies ;-)

Jim Webster
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oz" <Oz RemoveThis @farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:qNOVLIA1qOxFFwDN@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Jim Webster <jim RemoveThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>>Given that the Thames will probably flood London in the next twenty five
>>years, (the Thames Barrier is getting less and less useful against a new
>>predicted extreme event) and at some point they are going to find the
>>London
>>Underground filled with river water, why are government still investing in
>>London, rather than starting the long slow process of quietly moving
>>everyone out?
>
> discussed this with her, herself over lunch today.
>
> We both cam to the conclusion that if holland can afford to keep the
> north sea out of a bunch of low-value polders then London can afford to
> keep it out of london.
>
> If a few windmills is all it takes ....

but the Dutch may be more competent than our lot, at least they admit there
is an issue!

Jim Webster
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"'Mike'" <3d&6d.DeleteThis@woolies.com> wrote in message
news:LYKdnUVXq6uGQlnYnZ2dnUVZ8qOinZ2d@bt.com...
> "Jim Webster" <jim.DeleteThis@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:52k4ocF1p1v3rU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>> I think there is a balance here.
>> Yes, there is a lot of unthinking hype
>>
>> But do we need all those blasted carrier bags?
>>
>> Jim Webster
>>
>
> No, neither do we need a lot of the packaging we are presented with. We
> reuse our carrier bags even though the supermarket we use does not push
> the 'recycle' theme and then use them in the pedal bins and waste paper
> baskets.
>
> I raised the question about buying greeting cards and being presented with
> a bag to put it in. World War III broke out because of the security and
> shoplifting heads were raised.
>
> I ask again, do we need so much packaging? I bought some ink cartridges
> the other day, the stack of packaging was higher than the stack of
> cartridges when unpacked :-(( Would it not be better for the tree hugging
> save the worlders to tackle this subject before lecturing on the
> newsgroups? Or are 'they' "do as I say not as I do"?
>
> Mike

I suspect that some problems aren't sexy enough to grab attention, and
others are too close so you don't see them.
I suspect that a lot of thinking people are now questioning carrier bags. I
know I went into a shop on Tuesday and the assistant said "Do you want a
bag", in the tone of voice that indicated she didn't think one was called
for. I commented that she could defend me when the store detectives started
beating me up, at which she smiled, I put the stuff in my pockets and left,
bagless.
So you can meet intelligent life out there

Jim Webster
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Robert Seago" <rjseago.TakeThisOut@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4eaf81734crjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> Are you a scintist who has some other reasons to believe the assertions
> you make Mike?
>
> --

No I am not a scientist, but I have been around long enough to see other
'scare' stories time and time again.

This one will go with a 'Well things do change in nature and we have been
spared' and then another one will come along :-((

Sorry, I have been involved in newspaper stories and know how the headlines
are written. Keep an eye on your local newspaper and see what I mean if my
article gets printed ;-)) Yes I use their tactics as well :-))

Mike

--
...........................................................
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Pete <(.¿.)>" <farmingfacts.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:neo9s2to0puqhvbkujvhnmvir6lnbr98e5@4ax.com...
> Some of us are moving to Wales. Any nice boozers around there?

You'll be the only troll in the village.
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:55:24 -0000, "Brian" <brian.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Pete <(.¿.)>" <farmingfacts.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:neo9s2to0puqhvbkujvhnmvir6lnbr98e5@4ax.com...
>> Some of us are moving to Wales. Any nice boozers around there?
>
>You'll be the only troll in the village.
>

Don't they like competition then?
--









Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oz" <Oz DeleteThis @farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:sthUzXALrOxFFwg$@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Howard Neil <hneil DeleteThis @REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> writes
>>Jim Webster wrote:
>>
>>> Given that the Thames will probably flood London in the next twenty five
>>> years, (the Thames Barrier is getting less and less useful against a new
>>> predicted extreme event) and at some point they are going to find the
>>> London
>>> Underground filled with river water, why are government still investing
>>> in
>>> London, rather than starting the long slow process of quietly moving
>>> everyone out?
>>
>>No, please leave them there. :-)
>
> Quite!

Actually it would be interesting to work backwards to see what sort of
population we could have.

Assuming that we can currently support 60 million people using current
agricultural technology, going organic should be more sustainable, but at
probably 75% of the yield. We'd be properly organic, and recycle sewage
sludge, perhaps after methane generation, so I think 75% is not a bad guess.
So we have a population of 45 million, but of course we need to produce
energy as well.
So if we move, say, 15million out of the major cities, especially the low
lying ones, and make them peasant small holders (obviously not on the arable
land because that will be needed to provide the bulk of the food and energy
crops for those who are still working full time, medical staff and energy
distribution technicans etc.) These smallholders could get plots on the
edges of the national parks, but also in those areas that would otherwise be
abandoned. You could hand over a suburban street to one family, they could
cultivate the gardens, and the houses they could quarry for building
materials and salvage that they could sell. This you could do for those
urban areas on the flood plain, in that the few remaining people could live
upstairs.

So you would have a population of 15-20 million subsistance peasantry, who
wouldn't be connected to any sewage system (as they would be recycling it
anyway) and they would be discouraged from travelling, and their energy
useage would probably be limited to a bit of electricity, perhaps their own
solar and windpower. heating they could grow their own fuel, and also
salvage some.
You'd have an urban population of perhaps 15-20 million providing essential
services, medical, technical etc. They would probably have a live style
similar to now, but with strict rules about waste collection and what you
could and couldn't dispose into the sewer. Some areas might go back to
septic tanks or even earth closets. Again travel would be discouraged and
you'd move industry and employment back in amongst the houses.
You'd probably have a further 10-15million who would be back to being farm
labourers, doing manual labour to replace the machinery except where it is
really needed. So they would be doing the ditching, hedging, walling etc,
probably all the orchard work, weeding and similar, harvest would almost
certainly be done with machinery still. They could have a small plot to grow
their own veg etc and might keep their own fowl but I would suggest they
would need a break from work and should be on a better ration than normally
found in an urban setting.

Jim Webster
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

Jim Webster <jim RemoveThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>
>Assuming that we can currently support 60 million people using current
>agricultural technology, going organic should be more sustainable, but at
>probably 75% of the yield. We'd be properly organic, and recycle sewage
>sludge, perhaps after methane generation, so I think 75% is not a bad guess.
>So we have a population of 45 million, but of course we need to produce
>energy as well.

That's probably a tad optimistic.
30m maybe.

>So if we move, say, 15million out of the major cities, especially the low
>lying ones, and make them peasant small holders (obviously not on the arable
>land because that will be needed to provide the bulk of the food and energy
>crops for those who are still working full time, medical staff and energy
>distribution technicans etc.) These smallholders could get plots on the
>edges of the national parks, but also in those areas that would otherwise be
>abandoned. You could hand over a suburban street to one family, they could
>cultivate the gardens, and the houses they could quarry for building
>materials and salvage that they could sell. This you could do for those
>urban areas on the flood plain, in that the few remaining people could live
>upstairs.

Oh, neat, I like it!

>So you would have a population of 15-20 million subsistance peasantry, who
>wouldn't be connected to any sewage system (as they would be recycling it
>anyway) and they would be discouraged from travelling, and their energy
>useage would probably be limited to a bit of electricity, perhaps their own
>solar and windpower. heating they could grow their own fuel, and also
>salvage some.

Great!

>You'd have an urban population of perhaps 15-20 million providing essential
>services, medical, technical etc. They would probably have a live style
>similar to now,

Well, less heating and entertainment and longer hours and less comfort
but, but ....

>but with strict rules about waste collection and what you
>could and couldn't dispose into the sewer. Some areas might go back to
>septic tanks or even earth closets. Again travel would be discouraged and
>you'd move industry and employment back in amongst the houses.

Yes...

>You'd probably have a further 10-15million who would be back to being farm
>labourers, doing manual labour to replace the machinery except where it is
>really needed. So they would be doing the ditching, hedging, walling etc,
>probably all the orchard work, weeding and similar, harvest would almost
>certainly be done with machinery still.

You are spot on!

Note they still provide the luxury items.
An apple, say ...

>They could have a small plot to grow
>their own veg etc and might keep their own fowl but I would suggest they
>would need a break from work and should be on a better ration than normally
>found in an urban setting.

Not really, but healthier.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local