hissingsid Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 I am not presuming any such thing, if they rent them out how many years would it take to get the money expended back ? and making 130 houses houses eco friendly is not going to save many polar bears. There is already a grant available to make houses more energy efficient, unfortunately they have not got around to employing people to inspect the properties of the people who have already applied although I am sure a motley crew of civil servants have this in hand. Organising and administering this scheme will no doubt cost fortunes but hey Ho throwing money about is what we excel in. 🥵 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0bserver Posted February 17, 2022 Author Share Posted February 17, 2022 Incidentally, is there a reason why the Climate Change Transformation Board is not listed on the Freedom of Information website? Or is it above scrutiny? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markduc Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 I do wonder if chopping down thousands upon thousands of acres of rain forest has more to do with climate change 42 mill and a few batteries won’t solve anything 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Two-lane said: His words were: "Combustion, engines and mechanisation fueled the Industrial Revolution". There is a comma which is significant. Thank you Two-lane. I didn't check back but remember choosing the word 'combustion' carefully to include steam power. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 @Stu Peters & @0bserver have either of you watched the film "Don't Look Up"? It has received a lot of praise from scientists who state it is a good reflection of how the media and politicians treat their research and warnings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyJoe Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 Can anyone direct me to an explanation of what the £42m is to be spent on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 32 minutes ago, hissingsid said: I am not presuming any such thing, if they rent them out how many years would it take to get the money expended back ? and making 130 houses houses eco friendly is not going to save many polar bears. There is already a grant available to make houses more energy efficient, unfortunately they have not got around to employing people to inspect the properties of the people who have already applied although I am sure a motley crew of civil servants have this in hand. Organising and administering this scheme will no doubt cost fortunes but hey Ho throwing money about is what we excel in. 🥵 So where has it been stated that the intention is to build a hundred or so eco houses that will be rented out. I am not aware that any details have yet been set down as yet, although I have not really looked into so might be wrong, so your posts suggesting how the money is going to spate is just guess work. Most of the things I think should be done that might assist in respect of climate change I think make a lot of sense whether or not man is having effect on climate. It makes sense to me, as I have said, to have more energy efficient property which would help reduce running costs and the rate we use up finite resources. It makes sense to me to turn to renewable resources to again slow the rate we use up finite resources, it makes sense to reduce the level of pollution and rubbish we produce Many years the UK brought in clean air and similar legislation. I just see where we are now as being part of the next step. Various Industries at the time where against it, moaning about the costs to the economy and the Govt where not particularly in favour of bringing in but in hindsight I think it would be very hard to argue against. We can shut our eyes and close our ears and think everything is fine because we are unaffected in our own little world but that does not mean it is not happening. It is fairly disgusting the rubbish we dump and the pollution we pump out into the air and water. I appreciate that some countries are better than others. One country might be poor at controlling C02 emissions but use up very limited other resources as they great at mending, reusing and recycling, or great at not using disposable plastics. I do wonder if many of those now against trying to make such improvements hanker for the good old days when we just pumped raw sewage out into the sea rather than build and run expensive treatment plants. Time marches on and many of us, especially the younger generation who have more to gain, are happy to look forward rather than want to regress to the past 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Two-lane said: His words were: "Combustion, engines and mechanisation fueled the Industrial Revolution". There is a comma which is significant. 11 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: Thank you Two-lane. I didn't check back but remember choosing the word 'combustion' carefully to include steam power. Perhaps you will forgive me for missing that or viewing it as an errant comma given that the same posting includes the statement "I'll all for" which is clearly a typo. What it does not change is the very untruthful statements at the bottom of the posting suggesting that farming yields will increase as a result of CO2 emissions and a warmer climate. That simply is not the reality of climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyJoe Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 Combustion was invented during the period of the industrial revolution but didn't fuel it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 3 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: Perhaps you will forgive me for missing that or viewing it as an errant comma given that the same posting includes the statement "I'll all for" which is clearly a typo. What it does not change is the very untruthful statements at the bottom of the posting suggesting that farming yields will increase as a result of CO2 emissions and a warmer climate. That simply is not the reality of climate change. Probably you should take heart that the majority of the responses to the post are not supportive. To quote one "Very silly post for an MHK, reducing complex issues to throwaway clichés. The type of comments I would expect from a would be shock jock not a serious politician." I do wonder where the poster has been for the last few years if they consider SP to be a "serious politician" as opposed to be somebody who can get a platform for their out of date views whilst picking up an easy £70k a year as an OAP. Yes I appreciate that as an MHK he may be working very hard for local constituents but equally if an MHK chose to they could do very little and in the past many have accused MHKs and MLCs of getting well paid for just an hour or twos appearance in the week in the chamber. Just like teachers apparently only do any work during the times kids are in school Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 12 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said: Combustion was invented during the period of the industrial revolution but didn't fuel it Fire has been probably been around since the birth of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyJoe Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 The first industrial combustion used turps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistercee Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 (edited) Pressed button too quickly!! Edited February 17, 2022 by Mistercee Fingers!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistercee Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 5 hours ago, Banker said: Daphne is happy with her £42m but single parent says lack of help is a death sentence, a bit dramatic but she has valid points https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/lack-of-support-for-single-parents-in-the-budget-is-a-death-sentence/ I gained the impression that the young lady thought that she was receiving £6,400 pa in benefits - the £6,400 is in fact a Single Patent tax allowance which, combined with the Single Person Allowance means that she will earn £20,900 before paying any tax. If the fact that the allowance has not been increased has an impact on her ability to live she must therefore be earning in excess of £21k pa which most people would not regard as the breadline. I do wish Manx Radio would do a simple fact check before giving these people airtime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 1 hour ago, SleepyJoe said: Can anyone direct me to an explanation of what the £42m is to be spent on? Salaries and fees. Which will attract in a similar vein as flies to a bucket of shit. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.