Save the Humans

Jeremy Clarkson on Eco-cars

I cannot understand why the British put up with such awful cars. They judder about on the poorly-maintained local roads, they have very little poke, and they are so small as to be uncomfortable for any more than two people. Drive out onto the M25 and you are treated with the hilarious sight of 10,000 people revving the crap out of their tiny micro-engines as they burn along at 80mph and 5000 rpms.

Even worse are the eco cars. These have all the above problem, but also cost and weigh twice as much as they should. In terms of the precious 'earths' resources' that environmentalists witter on about, they are the equivalent (in battery / Nickel terms) of about 1000 laptops. Very eco-friendly indeed.

Luckily, there is Jeremy Clarkson, who is on to this scam. His review of the Honda Insight 1.3 IMA SE Hybrid is worth reading from start to finish.

On engine noise:

And the sound is worse. The Honda’s petrol engine is a much-shaved,
built-for-economy, low-friction 1.3 that, at full chat, makes a noise worse
than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of
your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is,
you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.

On the environmentalists who drive them:

But let me be clear that hybrid cars are designed solely to milk the guilt
genes of the smug and the foolish. And that pure electric cars, such as the
G-Wiz and the Tesla, don’t work at all because they are just too
inconvenient.

The only hope I have is that there are enough fools and madmen out there who will buy an Insight to look sanctimonious outside the school gates. And that the cash this generates can be used to develop something a bit more constructive.

Looking around I think Mr Clarkson can rest easy. There are absolutely masses of fools and plenty of madmen about. With the decline of knitting and morris dancing, people urgenty need an outlet, and it seems environmentalism is it.

A Fairyland of Packaging Technologies

I thought it might be useful to mention the state of one of the environmentalists' mindless crusades over in the UK.
So far:

• Sainburys - no problem, give you a bag
• Tescos - same
• Waitrose - same
• M&S - same

There are a few other supermarkets to try, but they are a bit of a distance away.

So far I have found two places which refuse to give bags:

• B&Q - a hardware shop, is charging 5p per bag. I had accumulated quite a few things around the store. but left with only what I could carry (3 items)
• M&S motorway stops - these are a relatively new invention, and are basically convenience food places in petrol stations and motorway stops. They charge for bags (not sure how much) but to get around this they give you little bags

The B&Q side is bizarre since hardware stores are one place where you often end up with lots of little bits and pieces. I will not be shopping there again, it is just too much hassle.

The M&S motorway case is even worse. Here you have a store which specialises in convenience food. Everything is packaged in plastic. It is a fairyland of packaging technologies. I dont think there is one item in the store which is not in plastic packaging. Even the fruit. Yet they charge for plastic carrier bags! This is why I describe the plastic bag fetish as mindless. The store which is most obsessed with stuffing everything in plastic containers is the one that charges for plastic bags! But worse, they put everything in little bags so you end up with 3 bags instead of 1! Almost no one leaves there with a carrier bag, but lots of little ones instead. Mindless zombies the lot of them.

Most stores offer 'eco-bags' for sale in prominent positions. Most times they ask if you want a bag rather than just giving you one, unless it is obvious that you need one. Quite a lot of people turn up with these bags or some other arrangement - I would guess a third, but it is early days. I am happy enough with this arrangement and I think most people are. It is a bit obsessive, given that plastic bags are actually of no importance to the planet, but it doesn't really matter. It will blow over.

More important is the pollution from the start-stop nature of UK traffic, but more on that another time.

Mrs Thatcher We Need You

I have only dim memories of Margaret Thatcher. After all I was living in New Zealand at the time. I do remember her alliance with Ronald Ray-Gun (as our fourth form social studies teacher called him) and her rather steely voice. Arriving in the UK in the early 90s her work was done, and Mr Grey-tie had taken over. She was forced out over the council tax I think, but it could have been any number of things. Like Roger Douglas in New Zealand, she made a lot of enemies.

Mrs (now Lady) Thatcher became PM in a country that had lost its way and was spiraling downwards in the grip of failing industry, massive taxes and union muscle. She left a country which had regained its confidence and success.

Lady Thatcher is hated by by the left, not least the unionists and socialists who felt her glare and whose orgy of power and spending was brought to such an unexpected and brutal halt. Even the word Thatcher is enough to get many of these people spitting and changing colour in the face. Just have a read of this article in the Guardian (written by someone who was about 20 when she was elected PM) to get a feel for that. He is trying to be nice.

The result was dramatic, not only in the huge boost to inequality and the income of the well-off, but also in the US-style decline in the share of GDP going to wages and salaries – which fell from a peak of 65% in 1975 to 53% last year – as corporate profits swelled.

(clever how he brings in the words US, profits, corporate and inequality all in one sentence - this is code for "I am talking about something very bad")

Most who lived through the time have respect for what Mrs Thatcher did - here is a comment I found which covers the ground:

This is the lady that saved our country from the dustbin. Hard decisions were made,not all right, but our country was stronger and richer for her efforts. Right now a "forever young" Maggie is what we need to put right a decade or so of waste, mismanagement and failed social engineering suffered by our country by this futile Labour government.

As it is 30 years ago that her government came to power, there is quite a bit of comment in the media.

Boris Johnson (now mayor of London) writes:

She gave people the confidence to buy shares, to start their own businesses, to move on and up in society – and there was more social mobility under Margaret Thatcher than there has been since. She was a liberator, and she gave the Labour party such an intellectual thrashing that they ended up changing their name

and concludes:

Margaret Thatcher will always divide the British people, not least since we are ourselves divided. There is a part of us that will always dislike the acquisitive, appetitive instincts she seemed to espouse, and yet we also recognise that they are essential for economic success. More than any leader since Churchill, she said thought-provoking things about the relationship between the state and the individual. Some of them were unpalatable, some of them were exaggerated. But much of what she said was necessary, and it took a woman to say it.

Acres of newsprint has been expended in looking back on her legacy. Just look at the Google news search today.

But the real point of this post is how desperately Britain needs her today. This place needs a serious re-vamp. Massive amounts of cash seems to just vanish into the government with nothing appearing in return. A London council pays $30k per month (yes per month!) to house a family of 7 who can't afford their own home. Huge petrol taxes appear unable to reduce congestion on the roads and instead signs have been erected to advise of delays. Good schools are full, leaving only the private (and eye-wateringly expensive) option. Councils are as out of control as ever, full of loony money-sinking schemes. Light bulbs are to be banned. Trains are unaffordable. Even the Polish are leaving.

Perhaps the picture is not so bleak as painted in this speech in 1979 because the election:

The report from the Confederation of British Industry is that many firms are being strangled. There is a shortage of materials. They cannot move their own products. Exports are being lost. It says that secondary picketing, picketing of firms not in dispute, is very heavy all over the country. It is particularly affecting such items as packaging materials and sugar and all vital materials necessary if industry is to keep going. Lay-offs known to the CBI are at least 125,000 already, and there are expected to be 1 million by the end of the week. There are telegrams and telexes from many companies saying that their exports are not being allowed through and that they might lose the orders for ever.

There are messages from firms such as Marks and Spencer which last week lost 20 per cent. of its food production, approximately £2 million. Unless secondary pickets are removed this week the estimate is of a 30 per cent. loss. Over last week and this week and this week, unless there is a change, the company says that it will not shift 50 per cent. of its exports.

But it is bleak.

And I'm sorry, but David Cameron (not that I have seen him on TV yet, er actually perhaps I should start watching TV) appears more interested in traipsing around after silly environmentalist causes than laying down the law.

Come back Margaret Thatcher, all is forgiven.

Why Academics Don't Run the World

Professor Ian Spellerberg blathers on in The Press about the urgent need to ban plastic bags. It quite simply amazes me that environmentalists such as the lonely Prof. think that this is in any way a priority. I have commented many times on plastic bags, and no doubt this won't be the last.

If I were to act on the advice of many letters and articles to The Press, I should not be wasting my time writing this article; I should have better things to do than write about plastic shopping bags.

The luxury of being an academic is that you do have better things to do, but can choose not to do them, and someone else pays. If only the real world could be so forgiving! Prof Spellerberg seems to acknowledge his own lunacy but is unable to take the next step and stop it.

The Prof tries to state both sides of the argument:

The arguments supporting plastic shopping bags in New Zealand appear to be the following:

* They are a valuable product of innovative industrial design

Certainly compared to paper bags, handle-less bags, no bags, eco bags (which have many times the material and are generally plastic) and hand bags.

* They are a cost-effective way of carrying purchases

That would explain why our glorious capitalist system has invented them. In fact, being a by-product, the raw material is almost free.

* Customers demand them

Demand is a bit strong. There is 'demand'. Customers 'prefer' them would be better.

* Plastic shopping bags can be put to multiple uses

True. If only they could silence this silly debate.

* Disposal of organic waste from the kitchen is not possible without plastic shopping bags

Have you not heard of a waste disposal unit or a rubbish bin? I don't understand this one.

* By weight and by volume plastic bags amount to a very small part of the material going to landfill

Yes about 0.2%, not even worth thinking about.

* The number of bags contributing to litter is very small

Tiny. A lot of the desire to control plastic bags probably comes from seeing them blowing about in third world countries. They don't do that in New Zealand.

* Not all plastic bags are created equal, as some are biodegradable

Not that it matters, since the bags are made from a by-product which would be burnt / dumped anyway, and 0.2% of a landfill isn't worth worrying about. Might as well make some use out of the material.

* To introduce a ban would be another gain for the "Nanny State"

And its helpful friend, the dopy academic. Let us not forget that the Nanny State aka previous government was run by academics.

But the Prof has missed a few:

1. They are a by-product of petrol production. Polyethylene gas is otherwise just burnt off.
2. They don't kill animals...
3. ...even marine life
4. They are hugely convenient for any number of uses
5. They are frequently re-used until they fall apart / tear
6. It is almost impossible to go camping without them
7. People would otherwise have to buy plastic bags anyway
8. There are lots of higher environmental priorities, such as saving the snails, or is that whales?
9. They promote impulse purchases which are good for the retail sector
10. The allow the sale of otherwise inadequately-packed items. For example wet veges, frozen food and anything else with lots of moisture would otherwise need to be bagged
11. They can be printed on, to advertise the business
12. They can help recycle newspaper (how else to bag them?)
13. They give environmentalists something to winge about
14. You can carry a dozen bags and an awful lot of shopping if you have to
15. Even when filled they are light enough to lift into the boot of your car
16. They can be tied at the top to stop things falling out
17. They fold down to take up almost no space in a drawer
18. They make great bin liners for small rubbish bins (i.e. otherwise you would have to buy plastic bags)
19. They are remarkably strong for their weight, even carrying bottles of wine and milk without tearing
20. They are extremely cheap to transport in bulk

Then the Prof. says:

Looking at the bigger picture, plastic shopping bags are not an issue. We have much more important environmental issues than plastic shopping bags to worry about.

I couldn't agree more.

But then the Prof. contradicts himself and goes off into the weeds. Let's go through these points one by one:

The arguments against plastic shopping bags in New Zealand seem to be as follows:

* They contribute to litter in cities and the countryside

In such as tiny way as to be unmeasurable. In their ability to hold rubbish (e.g. from a picnic in the park) I think on balance they are much more likely to reduce litter.

* Plastic shopping bags are a source of pollution

This is a vague statement. What sort of pollution? In fact they reduce polution by creating a market for poly-ethylene gas which would otherwise just be burnt: THAT would be pollution. So I think this statement is probably just false.

* They cause harm to both terrestrial and aquatic animals

This is rubbish. Perhaps extra-terrestrial animals in the Prof's dreams. In any case, one wonders how a terrestrial or acquatic (that means land / sea for us mortals) animal would come into contact with a plastic bag? Litter? There has been lots of noise about this but anyone who has looked at it has found essentially no effect.

* Their production is an unnecessary waste of petroleum resources

Which would otherwise be burnt. Er, the only word to describe this statement is 'wrong'.

* There are alternatives (durable, long-lasting, environmentally friendly shopping bags)

Which cost a lot more, use a lot more material, are too heavy when filled and are often made of the same material. They get dirty, lost, and don't have many of the advantages described above. If they were a full replacement for plastic bags and better in every way, then we would already be using them exclusively. Just as plastic bags have taken over from paper.

* Banning them would be a gesture of good environmental stewardship

A gesture which would inconvenience 4 million innocent humans for no purpose and no measurable environmental improvement.

* A growing number of retail outlets have agreed to discontinue the provision of plastic shopping bags

While there is consumer choice we non-environmentalists can at least shop elsewhere. In any case this is not a reason to ban plastic bags.

* A growing number of people are using the alternatives

10,000 environmentalists can't be wrong! Global Warmist Unite! This is also not a reason to ban plastic bags.

* A growing number of countries overseas have already banned plastic shopping bags

Mostly Nanny State ones with no respect for individual freedoms. Yet another non-reason.

And there you have it. The lonely Prof's sum total of argument. Once would expect him to then state that we should make even more of them and ban the eco-bags. But, no, the Prof is not VP of the Environment Institute for nothing.

Plastic bags are just one of the many poorly designed, environmentally unfriendly products. Other examples include non-refillable plastic pens, non-reusable plastic fast- food containers, outdoor heaters, leaf blowers, and electric carving knives. Why is it not mandatory for all products to be designed so that their manufacture, use and disposal has minimum impact on the environment?

It probably hasn't occured to this bloke that refillable pens cost more (i.e. consume more resources) that non-refillable, so have their place in the market. Why would anyone want to re-use a smelly old fast food container? How else to heat the patio than with a patio heater? What is wrong with blowing leaves around? My wife swears by her electric carving knife and that was the first purchase when we arrived here and couldn't track down our old one.

People accuse environmentalists of trying to bomb us back into the stone age and they are right.

Minimum impact on the environment mandates minimal functionality. Patio heaters, electric knives and fast food would simply be banned by environmentalists, given half a chance. They have no interest in the benefits and only consider the costs. That is why we call them environmentalists.

Dealing with plastic shopping bags at the end of their life is not addressing the issue. It is simply dealing with a problem caused by poor product design.

Lack of regulation probably doesn't help either.

I think we have already discovered that plastic bags are the best (current) design for the problem, and eco-bags have all sorts of problems in replacing them. In fact the only way it would happen would be if plastic bags were banned. Which oddly enough is what is being proposed. This is simpily forcing everyone to use the second-best solution. Crazy.

So why have I bothered to write this article?

Is that a trick question? Because you are an environmentalists and we all know that environmentalists love wasting newsprint telling us about their mad views.

The reason is simple. The plastic shopping bag debate is an indicator of a much bigger and more serious challenge facing all of us. That is, the unsustainable use of nature and the environment. However, just one small step at a time can do a lot to help reduce the human ecological footprint.

There is no such unsustainable use. Next they will claim that we have to move away from the sun because it is running out of Hydrogen. It is, but at such a slow rate that mankind will be dead and buried long before we have to worry. Likewise we will lose interest in oil as an energy source long before we run out of it.

This business of ecological footprint is similarly nonsence. The best way to reduce your 'footprint' (other than wearing shoes a size too small) is to go back to the third world (where we all were in 1700), eat no meat, walk everywhere and live in a hole. Perhaps environmentalists might consider that human progress is generally focussed in moving in the other direction.

In any case, if plastic bags are an indicator of a serious challenge, why ban the indicator? It is like banning thermometers to combat global warming. Actually, maybe that does have merit...

Therefore, it is very important that New Zealand does ban plastic shopping bags. We can do without them, they are a drain on resources and they do have an impact on nature and the environment.

There is no need to ban these wonderful inventions. We cannot do without them (as people would otherwise have to buy plastic bags), they are produced from a by-product and 'drain resources' less that the alternatives. They have essentially no impact on nature and the environment (what is the difference?). In fact the impact is probably positive.

Say no to plastic shopping bags and show that you care.

Say yes to plastic bags to show that are capable of critical and independent thinking.

It is shocking to think that this person is a highly trained academic employed in a New Zealand public-funded university. How can he hold his head up again after writing such a load of mindless gibberish. It doesn't even meet the basic standard of justifying its arguments.

Must try harder, Nanny State. Go plastic.

What Happened to this Blog?

That is a very good question, but there is also a good answer.

The answer is that nothing has happened, just that it has not received the time and attention it deserves of late. This is largely due to our family's move to the UK in mid-April. However I plan to continue this blog from the UK, and comment on the continuing environmental madness in New Zealand and elsewhere. There is never any shortage of topics, just a shortage of time in which to address them.

I have started writing this post several times, but each time stopped since I didn't feel able to devote the time it needs. This post was finally prompted my a comment (see title). Hopefully I am now in a position to continue! Let's see.

I also plan to comment on the situation in the UK. This is were many of our mad environmentalist policies have come from (as many council and government staff are pommies). So it is interesting to compare and contrast.