An environmental watchdog (surely une charité fausse) wants us to rent rather than buy household items including clothes and shoes. Barking mad and totally impracticable for all manner of reasons I shall not go into mainly because more and more keep occurring to me and I’ve got to burn leaves and junk in the garden today - yes household junk because that’s what happens when they empty your bin fortnightly for Green reasons. It’s also a certain date.
Anyway, isn’t this “problem” already addressed by charity shops, eBay, car-boot sales, wedding hire firms, giving stuff away etc.. Or in the cited example of tools, borrowing stuff from friends and neighbours? The woman behind this report says she only has one evening dress* so maybe she is lacking in friends and neighbours to borrow a step-ladder from. She doesn’t seem a very sociable sort - possibly because she bores people comatose on the subject of “eco-sustainability” at cocktail parties.
It’s also sinister. How long before these rental places come under effective Greenie governmental controls and your renting is rationed via a smart card? How long before Green Cops can enter your home and remove for “redistribution” what they deem to be excess property.
Of course there is also the fact that property rights are the basis of a civil society but we’ll skip over that as too bloody obvious to need further comment.
Any of you read Umberto Eco’s Name of the Rose? Well, I ain’t (it’s a right door-stop) but I’ve seen the movie and it’s set during a big medieval theological conference on the ticklishly important question of whether Christ owned his own clothes. There was of course the practical issue for the good doctors of the Church as to the precedent this set for their own lavish robes but we’ll leave that aside. My point is such theological issues now seem absurdly quaint and indeed a risible use for the assembled intellectual horsepower. That is how I feel about so much Green “debate”. It’s so bizarre as to resemble medieval theology. They really can’t deny it’s a religion and they are the high priests now can they?
Now, according to this report if targets are met on the renting-front the UK can reduce it’s carbon-footprint by 2%. The last I heard the UK produces 2% of the world’s CO2. That’s a global drop in emissions of 0.0004%. Well, that will surely save the Planet! I have a better idea. Let’s all go to Brighton Beach and form a bucket chain to bail-out the rising seas!
Theology? It’s verging on demonology.
*One more than me, the climate criminal! It should be taken from her immediately and converted into re-useable shopping bags.
NickM “They really can’t deny it’s a religion and they are the high priests now can they?”
No, they can’t.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
Courtesy of Perry at Samizdata where I’m sure you will have picked it up anyway. Look forward to your take on it, Nick (if you haven’t immolated yourself on the bonfire in despair). I particularly like the bit where the bloke says that “nothing should stand in the way of” whatever it is that he wants to achieve. Unfortunately I’m an apostate, so I’ll be hiding under the stairs for the forseeable future.
Cheers
Maz
Yeah saw that Maz.
On the same page how about this…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
But the bugger isn’t as he claims “doing business” he’s screwing it out of the tax-payer.
Once a politico, always a politico.
Then there’s this Guardian article in which Fat Al decides that trying to persuade people with science isn’t working so he’s switched, (back), to preaching the ’spiritual’ reasons to
pay him lot’s of moneyfight climate change. (via Tim Blair who also explores Al’s reaction to news that CO2 isn’t quite the demon it’s supposed to be.)Surely there’s some grizzly old Sheriff somewhere in the States with the balls to arrest Gore on some old county law banning itinerant snake-oil salesmen and holy-rollers. And a Judge man enough to lock him up. (I didn’t get much sleep last night since I had a 24hr BP monitor on so I’m catching up on my dreaming.)
I read Eco’s book “The name of the rose”. It is absolutely brilliant, and as good as the film (if you can compare media.)
Paragraphs are in Latin or Hebrew without translation, but such is the quality of the writing that you read them anyway even if you don’t understand fully.
I recommend it, and the theological debate is indeed there too, much more elaborate.
Eco’s book “Foucault’s pendulum” is slightly related, in that a writer gets an idea that he’s discovered a hidden truth about the Templars (I think) a la Dan Brown.
It’s disproved - the document is a shopping list - but - the crusial point - the believers carry right on believing. Religions can be based on misunderstandings - which is why we who follow one have to be incredibly humble and cautious about claims.
At least, that was my take on the book.
Alas, they were ruled unconstitutional. It seems that there’s a First-Amendment right to roll up into unsuspecting towns and give speeches about how ‘what you folks really need is a boy’s band! That’s right, a boy’s band!’
Good afternoon, I’d like to rent a pair of underpants please.
A Pound a day? Very reasonable!
Wash them? No thanks. I’m a prevert. I like skidmarks…
2% of 2% is 0.04%
I think the thing on this one is to let the pollies and greenies show us the way, when they fully dispose of their wardrobes we can consider the possibility that we might assess the suitability of us following suit (no pun intended). Then, on second thoughts, do we really want the greenies to set the tone on fashion down at our local “First in, Best Dressed”, they’ve got as much dress sense as any other sense they possess.