Little demand for zero carbon buildings?
As with all things green and consumer, there is a basic 3-legged stool upon which anything sits.
First there is 'us', the public who buy. Or don't.
Then there are those who sell to us. Or don't.
And then there is that funny old collection of folk who charge taxes aplenty to fund all manner of officers and heads of and departments and ministries and things to shape what gets bought and/or sold, how it gets bought and sold and often when it gets bought and sold.
So if there is any lack of seriousness in this little balancing act, whilst I can see the very real, selfish and/or greedy reasons for two of them being a little less than proactive (though why building, buying and/or living in a house that costs less to heat, etc in a reasonable lifetime would be a negative escapes me) I'm wondering if we are not remiss in looking more critically at the guys in charge and the track record of their boss, who currently seems to be trying to dig himself out of the current sticky affair by having his chaps big him up for avoiding the 'green trap' the other parties have been suckered into.
ADDENDUM
A day goes by and we get the same thing. This time... pumpkins!
It's bad enough that most of the blasted things are not eaten but carved, rot and then thrown out to rot, but now 'we' find that 'we' are responsible for hot air blowers going 24/7 to turn them from green to orange.
And everyone is pointing at each other. The retailers say the public demand it. The growers say the supermarkets demand it. The media just go tut-tut and the government stays out of it. No change there, then.
Farcical.
No comments:
Post a Comment