DeMascus

Malcom Bruce thinks we shouldn't worry about it, because everyone does this and the SNP. https://soundcloud.com/spectator1828/malcolm-bruce-lots-of-people-in-public-life-tell-lies Someone should remind these people that they are talking to the public.

I have been absent for some years from Shetlink, but I have dusted off my old account to post in my capacity as a committee member of Transition Shetland. We have been in contact with Ghufar throughout the process, he has been nothing but supportive of our plans for the glasshouse - what he said regarding this in the above post is fully in line with our understanding of the situation. The discrepancy between the valuation conducted on our behalf and what Ghufar is willing to accept for the property is only one aspect of our decision to stop pushing forward with the project. The valuation, because of a lack of comparable sites, was conducted using a reductive method, the low valuation was due to the apparent non-profitability of the site if used in it's current state. When proposing alternative development plans, the valuation would be different. This is a lesson for future projects when attempting to balance funding and costs, especially when the benefit will be overwhelmingly social. In our research we received a strong public support for the glassshouse project, but this failed to materialise into active support when we needed people to come on board. We are a small group and saw our role as initiators, testing the project's feasibility and providing ongoing support to a new group of people which would have taken on it's practical development. If this group had come forward we would have persevered in our efforts to find a way to purchase the building. This would be a challenge, but we are confident this would be possible, and we would have loved to continue this project. As to the proposal to boycott a local business, we would seriously ask that this idea be dropped. At Transition we wholeheartedly support local merchants, producers and businesses, because it is our belief that building a resilient local economy a key in tackling the challenges we all currently face. We are completely against the use of the unfortunate state of this project to advocate a behaviour that is not in line with this aim. We had always known this was an ambitious project, and we always understood that it may not have the outcomes that we desired. But it has resulted in a feasibility study and business plan containing research that can be used for future projects, and was a good learning process. At the very least, we tried, and hopefully generated greater awareness in the local community of the massive challenges facing all of us in the form of climate change and peak oil, as well as some idea as to what we may be able to do about them. We have placed all our results on our website http://transitionshetland.org.uk.

I really didn't mean to cause any offense with the questions regarding access to electricity, and apologise from me to your colleges if they took it as being condesending because it really wasn't intentional. Currently it is estimated that 2.4 billion people don't have access to modern fuel products and 1.6 billion, about 25%, of the worlds population have no access to electricity. I had recently read these figures and balancing these against what you said it just didn't ring true. That is why asked the questions regarding access to electricity. My questioning of your statement is quite different from the type of personal insult that you directed at me. Which essentially made little effort to address the questions, and more to belittle my position. I understand from your post that you do have a lot of valuable experience and I'm sure most people here you like to hear it, but you have to be careful with the way you discuss subjects, because it will only detract from the knowledge you have. I don't particularly care for an apology, and I am going to stop now.

The law of conservation of energy states: Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.

Eugene Hutz! http://youtube.com/watch?v=9H-5OM1GJSY

Can you please supply some sources for your arguments because it is becoming very difficult to believe some of them for example; a lot more people in the third world are getting food poisoning because they can't afford a fridge to refrigerate their food in, and this is because of the ban on CFCs! This is a new one on me, how many people in the third world have fridges or ever did, and how many even have electricity? Also per capita petroleum production peaked in 1979{1}, I understand you work in the industry, but please explain why oil companies would underestimate the amount of oil they have? Necessity may well be the mother of invention, but with the possibility of a world war for control of natural resources and irreparable damage to the worlds ecosystem, that could end up in the death of a large proportion of the population; I'd rather not get that close to necessity.

^ It actually reminded me of a quote from Jung:

I trust science to be scientific.

So you really are an environmentalist at heart, I agree that you shouldn't take anything that any organisation says without some measure for critical analysis. I also think that there wouldn't be this level of discussion or awareness regarding environmental issues if it wasn't for the green lobby. I actually think we agree on the important issues. If anyone doesn't form arguments based on reasoned study and depends on emotive issues it shouldn't really be tolerated, and this is something both sides can be accused of. If you want to build your case you should try and quote/reference some sources giving examples of what you are describing. I cant remember where it came from, but to paraphrase a quote that could be apt.

I am still dubious about the billions figure sheepshagger, and I am aware of the goings on in charities having worked for some, but I agree with droilker that they have an important role to play that I would encourage them to do, I have found my view of the problems we face are even worse then their predictions. As for aid it is a quite a different thing from environmental charities, and I agree with the abuses going on with regard to aid distribution, aid can de a disaterous thing to give to country because of the effect it has on local food production. True, there can never be true objectivity, but I would rather listen to a scientist who is working for an organisation who's mandate is social or environmental as apposed to market share and bottom line. droliker you can still change the wording of the poll if you wish (I think you edit the original post?) Does anyone here perceive having oil shortages in their lifetime? Have you done anything to cope with it if it happens?

I use Linux and my license fee is going to MS to build a price of software I can't use. Grrrr... No, IPlayer should not be encouraged.

OK I picked a few of the largest off the top of my head, these are their incomes from their annual reports: [*:70ac40bd5e]£5.8m - UK Soil association [*:70ac40bd5e]£182m - WWF [*:70ac40bd5e]£88m - RSPB [*:70ac40bd5e]£5.1m - Friends of the Earth [*:70ac40bd5e]£85.5m - Greenpeace international These are large figures if you want to buy a house but they don't really come near the billions that you predicted, and when you see that BP spends £4,405m on refining and marketing alone plus the weight they have because of the major part they play in the economy of this country, it makes it very difficult to draw a comparison. PS: Thank you for showing us that environmental has 'mental' in it, it also has an 'n' before the 'm', and the mental doesn't need to be capitalised unless you have run out of reasoned arguments!

Being funded by an environmental groups who's aims are to study the effect our interaction has on the environment of the planet is quite different then being funded by a corporate group who's aims are to increase market share and acquire wealth for investors. Charities are by their involvement in our current economic system forced to act in certain ways, but I would be dubious about the billions figure, if it is calculable at all, and the main purpose of the organisation gives it a fair about more objectivity than its corporate sponsored brother.

well we all seem do be in agreement that shrink wrapped neeps must be stopped, I have a tote bag that i got a few years ago that can fit in my pocket, it stops use of plastic bags. I agree with the idea of leaving plastic wrapping at the supermarket, haven't done it yet, but the more I think about it "every little helps" hehe. But I do think this problem has a deeper cause, that may not be as easily identifiable as walking out of supermarkets with double plastic wrapped food. My own view is the effect that our current system of economics where every actor is designated as a wealth maximiser beyond all else, is one of the most divisive forces in the modern world, and the idea has no real social benefit but is not challenged my government or academia precisely because the people who fit into this category generally control the wealth of the world, surprise surprise! I remember seeing a speech by chomsky where he was asked who was to blame by a group of academics and he preceeded to point around the room, you, you, you... Look at everything that science and technology has done and it is quite amazing, which is generally the main retort i find, and it is true. There is a but though what we are doing is borrowing from the future, we have been using oil as fast and as loose as possible and it has become integral to every part of out lives, we are dependent on it, - we are the nation, Amy Winehouse, and we don't really have a problem - The catch is in essence oil is an asset, it doesn't grow, or if it does it isn't in large enough quantities to be viable, why isn't it viewed as an asset. Argh, I can never seem to get any type of coherent explanation on this subject, I appoligise for any confusion caused, it is probably because there are so many things at work that are at odds. once you move one aspect the rest have to change to adept to a new model. but we are in sore need of a new model, remember inequality is on the rise in the world, that is note enough, we are doing something very wrong. There was an interesting article in the FT:

Long Live Bill Hicks.