What is Digg?84 Comments
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -1/+14"Documents obtained by the Guardian show the UK wants to block attempts to give renewable electricity sources such as wind farms priority access to the national grid."
What a strange thing to do at this point... - MommaLu, on 07/24/2008, -2/+13Governments are the same everywhere. They don't want to change things that put immediate cash into their thieving hands.
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -2/+13Typical politicians. Why am I not surprised?
- donjacko, on 07/24/2008, -1/+12secretly?
i dont think 9 major public consultations (2 of which i attended) is very secret. - mattes5, on 07/25/2008, -2/+12Good for Britain... they are a sovereign country.
- lucy22, on 07/24/2008, -2/+11They are resisting the efforts to go green, because Brown favors nuclear. Does he have some personal finacial stake in this?
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -0/+9What's wrong about nuclear though?
- kinglenster, on 07/25/2008, -2/+11Without trying to sound sensationalist, European idiots like this should keep their noses out of our business for once. We've got one of the best records on carbon emissions and are the driving force for renewables in the EU.
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -1/+9*waits for all of the paranoid Australians to cry about how the rest of the world ignores them*
- SiXiam, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8Fusion isn't here. Fission is.
Both are nuclear. - Meany123, on 07/25/2008, -2/+9"European Regulation"?
Who makes this European Regulation? I'll never understand how people in the UK got suckered into the EU. Seriously, you now let some unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats overrule the will of your Parliament. WTF guys. You should fix that. - Isandunk, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8This is a typical politician... so i'm not sure why people are surprised. I bet when he comes to discuss it, he'll mention about keeping power with Westminster in an attempt to stir up old anti-EU sentiments that stemmed from the potential of loosing the pound. Labour needs a refresh of its leading ministers as soon as possible, if it wants to turn around its fortunes and popularity (or lack of) of late.
I'd also like to say, Green energy and power will not be able to power the majority of our societys and lifestyles. The amount of energy that can be generated from them, the cost involved, the carbon produced in making them, storage problems (of the energy generated) and the reliability of renewables means that in our modern society, there is only one feasible option - a mix of renewables, and nuclear (preferably fusion, when it is perfected). Believe me or not, I am all for any green energy of any kind. Its just this idea that we will be able to sustain our society solely on renewables is mistaken (at this point in time). - gilg, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6I don't think so. British government is simply saying one thing but doing another. All governments do that.
- waydee, on 07/25/2008, -0/+6The UK is and has for some time now been handling its own affairs when it comes to renewable energy, it's not like we're devoid of hydroelectric dams and windfarms in this country. We're also leading the way in tidal development and have plenty of untapped renewable capacity just waiting for development.
I also believe we're perfectly capable of helping the EU meet its 20% goal by 2010. We simply do not want the EU butting in on sovereign business here, we can achieve our own goals while supporting our own existing fossil fuel industries as long as is possible - Brussels has no place in dictating to us what we can and cannot do, especially when we're making strides towards what they want anyway for the good of our own country, Europe and the rest of the world. - BertEatsDirt, on 07/25/2008, -3/+9*waits for all the paranoid americans to whinge about the evil socialist ubergovernment*
- chrisinsocalif, on 07/25/2008, -0/+6To side on the British, you have to factor in the costs and effects of both green and conventional energy. There is a huge push for Green energy which initial costs are huge. So far there is no conclusive proof global warming is man-made, what the true affects of conventional energy have on the planet and costs involved going to a new type energy. In many occasions studies are paid an published for the benefit of the Green products where there is a HUGE market for money to be made. Unless they can convince people that conventional products are harmful, there will be reluctance to change. So far there are tons of articles and propaganda by both sides by many investors and those Gov stating how our influences on the planet are causing HUGE changes in the world, then there are many other articles stating the opposite. So you have to factor in the cost along with many other variables to conclude its beneficial to the public. Yes Green products are the step in the right direction, but at what costs? People are already upset with the oil prices, it is not going to be cheap to convert our energy to GREEN products. How much is the world willing to pay and give up for a concept? There is a lot at stake and how much are people willing to pay out when what we have already does what is needed? We all have to factor everything together.
- whytheam, on 07/25/2008, -2/+7Personally, I congratulate them. Anyone who defies and organization that makes you conform and restrict should be celebrated.
- sk11, on 07/24/2008, -4/+9Gordon must think we're a nation of clueless idiots, just talk about clean renewables, whilst secretly furthering nuclear. Did he think we were too stupid to notice?
In before the nuclear lobby. - di34lot, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5at least we dont have public tv charity drives, or have to choose sky for decent tv.
i've been to the states, and wtf is with all the tv ads?! i'd hapily pay £100/yr just to avoid them!
and as for 'royalty' they have no power, no private life, and very little to do with how things are done in the UK... that's not very royal if you ask me - inactive, on 07/25/2008, -5/+10You go, Britain! Screw the rest of the EU. I hope you guys, being the sovereign nation that
you are, do exactly what is best for your fellow countrymen. You'll always have mine, and many
other Americans' support. Many (most) of us consider you to be our brothers and sisters, including me and mine.
We're made from the same cloth. - inactive, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6Their justifications are poor at best.
- dsmx, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5A throw back to the iron age that stopped unstoppable armies.
- soupr, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Ok, I'm British, but I had to digg you down. Noone really thinks like that anymore.
- Justice101, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5Nuclear is green. Fusion is greener though...
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Face it green energy can't produce ***** all yet compared to coal.gas and nuclear and hydro power. When green can produce as much energy as the four mentioned at a comparable price, then and only then will countries embrace it. No country wants to drive up costs on green energy when it can't produce even 1% of the others can produce. That's why germany is going back to coal and not expanding wind power.
- wellyuk, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Our governments have done such a ***** job of running the country, passing sovereignty onto Europe is probably not a bad idea. They certainly can't do a worse job. And our government will certainly not do what is best for our fellow countrymen. They'll do what lines their pockets quickest and easiest.
- minox, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4I'm not exactly sure how wind farms would cut it for the UK. In terms of acreage it would seem to be impossible to even make a dent in their overall energy needs with wind farms. We can't do it in the US and we have a ton more open acreage. It doesn't really matter anyway, since so many Western European countries just contract their energy out to other countries that have less prohibitive environmental policies.
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4What is this 'sovereign nation' *****? Thanks to 13 years of Tory rule and now 11 years of Labour Dictatorship we're just as ***** as you Americans are!
The Westminster Govt stopped listening to it's people years ago, and doesn't seem inclinced to start again any time soon. - stunner21, on 07/25/2008, -4/+8Good I've had enough of the EU and its ***** policies, Gordon Browns a ***** in his own right but the EU is an even worse kettle of fish nuff said!
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Typical imperialist American. Wants europe to remain divided and weak so he can have a say on how it's run. Upset you had to remove your ICBM's from British soil recently? Awww let me pat your head. there, much better.
- Eyesaw, on 07/24/2008, -5/+8v. interesting!
- smurfsahoy, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3Radioactive waste only really needs to be buried under a few feet of concrete, and no lead. 3 feet of dirt (not concrete) is enough, after all, to protect you from the fallout of a nuclear explosion, which is ridiculously more radioactive than power plant waste. keep it away from unconfined aquifers (duh), and there's no problem at all. It can't "contaminate" anything. All it does is create a little harmless waste heat (not enough to have the tiniest environmental effects) once it's buried.
Nothing has ever happened to my knowledge to fuel in transit. So why is it "dangerous?" They seem to be doing a splendid job. Expensive, maybe, but if power companies still want to build nuclear plants, obviously it's not too expensive.
Same goes for the costs of mining and enriching (economically) - what do you care how much it costs? That's the company's problem. You just have to worry about the cost per kilowatt hour, which is clearly worth it, or they wouldn't want to build the things.
pollution is not good, but is wayyy the hell better than coal plants put out per megawatt.
Next? - evilcaptain, on 07/25/2008, -2/+5Britain has more free thinking individuals than any other country on earth. I love this place.
Ever been here? - meschmie, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3No surprise coming from the guy with the 'V' picture.
Not that I completely disagree with you. - mrigns, on 07/25/2008, -1/+4Actually Germany is the driving force
- Nysul, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2You live in Seattle, you don't know ***** about immigration. Come and live in Arizona. Thankfully due to our employment laws the illegals here are heading over to TX and CA.
- rakous, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2v .generic comment Eyesaw
- waydee, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2bjornski: the system used in the UK to fund public broadcasting is hardly unique, it's used in a large number of developed nations to ensure an impartial national broadcaster.
The BBC while having its flaws its recognised worldwide for being a reliable, impartial and leading provider of news and entertainment - would you prefer the alternative? that is a national broadcaster at the whims of corporate interests and with political bias as you see in the US.
The Royalty have no legislative power and serve as figureheads - you think a country is 'primitive' because it retains its history? we're talking about an old nation built on even older nations here, we're not about to get rid of a piece of our history however useless they may be and however 'primitive' the idea may seem to someone else. The monarchy has very little purpose these days other than as a living piece of history, material for tabloid newspapers and tourism.
Is every country with a monarchy 'primitive'? - we're not the only ones you know... for such a 'primitive' people I'd say we're doing pretty damn well on this side of the Atlantic, wouldn't you?
I'm not a huge fan of them, I'm also Scottish - doesn't make me any less proud of the UK, its history and the massive contribution it has made to the western world as we know it. - elephantstomp, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2I have a single point to make with a couple of sub-parts: Why the *%#@ do these entrenched companies in the present day economies, the as mentioned "traditional energy" or any other large corporation for that matter, fight alternative energy, fight free markets, fight competition, fight ingrained principles and beliefs of the overwhelming majorities of the countries in which they are based? What I mean by this is, they already have the most money, the most resources and therefore should be the most capable to take advantage of the free money governments give out to promote new technology, they easily could stay on top by diversifying. If diversifying is the best way to invest, you know, not putting all of the eggs in one basket, why the *%#@ do these companies only have a single basket, sounds like too much risk to me. So is it because they refuse to invest wisely in their businesses that they feel it necessary to stifle an entire country?
- spyd3rweb, on 07/25/2008, -4/+6Maybe they should have never given up their sovreignty to global government in the first place.
- waydee, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Give examples of this supposed bad treatment of immigrants, the environment and racism?
The UK contributes over 13% of the total EU budget, fair and proportional to the benefit it receives from membership versus our economic strength.
The UK also contributes the largest share of military resources. - bjornski, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2You "started" the US?
Um, if you really want to put it that way, go ahead. But I wouldn't.
And if you were Prime Minister, I think you'd be swinging from a streetlamp with your dictator-like positions right now.
Your toys may not be primitive, but your mind sure is. - inactive, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2The key word here being 'Tries'
...and inevitably fails. Do not resist Europe, your assimilation is inevitable, resistance is futile, sovereignty is irrelevant. It is time to become part of the collective.
Hey it happened to the 13 American colonies it can happen to the countries of Europe. Will take longer because each european country has a unique history and culture. - smurfsahoy, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2The FBI restricts child pornographers, who defy their attempts to enforce the law. Should child pornographers be celebrated?
I don't know anything about the politics of this situation, but to say conformity and restriction are never okay is just plain dumb. Order and government have an obvious and important place in the world. - soupr, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3i love england to bits
- craigp, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2***** incredible. Good to see that cronyism is rife in the UK too... At what point will business see that supporting green technologies is a prudent long-term strategy. This isn't optional *****!
- waydee, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3I do agree that the conservatives capitalise and in a way encourage dislike of the EU in the UK (England especially, if not exclusively) and dread to think what direction this country is going to go shortly with them in power.
I do know what breeds the seeming contempt a lot of people have for the EU though - the terrible bureaucracy of it all... it's a bloody mess. There is the issue of losing sovereignty as well that concerns a lot of Brits, I understand it may look xenophobic to some of our continental neighbours but the same concerns are raised in every country where the public is actually asked how they feel - we all very much like the freedoms offered by the EU, the free trade, the ease of movement, the freedom to live and work wherever you want and the sense of unity it has fostered but the concern is we're all eventually going to be ruled by a central government far from where we live. That is not an appealing prospect and I think is the reason the EU doesn't have the support it seems to think it should have - not only here but across the union.
The Euro will eventually be adopted by the UK as long as we stay in the EU, we're just a traditionally weary and careful nation with a strong sense of sovereignty that aren't quite ready to let go just yet. Have patience.
And to make it clear, i'm a liberal voting pro-EU kind of guy - I just don't fully accept it in its current form and think it needs some drastic reworking to be a true success. - kimondo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2The department involved BERR is supporting the construction of a new generation of dirty coal plants in the UK - so of course John Hutton and BERR will be doing their best to derail attempts to go for renewables.
- waydee, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3The monarchy funds itself, they own a LOT of land and property - they receive very little, if any funding from the public. The Queen pays income and capital gains tax although I do not know how much.
- jbond, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1I can't help thinking that if we had put the capital investment in Nuclear energy in the last 50 years into renewables and energy saving instead we would have solved the problem by now. Particularly in the UK with a strong prevailing wind, the highest tides in the world, and the waves on the end of a large ocean.
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is