Like others around here, I am afraid nuclear has to be part of the mix. But given that the State has to accept the civil liability for nuclear power plants, they shouldn't be operated for profit by private interests. PFI/PPP is a lesser evil.
Possibly you are right. But given the complete lack of planning or thought that has gone into non-fossil fuel futures who could really predict if that's actually true ?
Specifically, I think we need a lot more investment in energy conservation. Housing and building standards have to be changed to reduce energy expenditure, especially domestically. We need more work done in bringing existing housing stock into an energy-deficient 21st century.
That would end Prescot's ticky tacky boxes on the Thames Gateway cos proper building standards would kill that silliness stone-dead.
No more glass office block monstrosities that are expensive to cool in summer and fearsome to heat in winter. It shouldn't matter if it wins awards for architects. Dammit, the nation can't afford such indulgence.
and that's before we even consider electricity generation. keep to the Fen Causeway
And that's the one word I wanted to flag in this post: efficiency. Framing is key to marketing, marketing is everything. Bush almost literally burst his tongue on the word "conservation". It doesn't fly in the dominant spend-spend mentality of today. I don't think you can get away with a plan tagged conservation on top of it.
The message should be: energy efficiency. It's the (kcurie's?) doctrine of two definitions: the one you use to sell the package, and the one you use to talk about with people who know about what you talk about and don't need prodding.
And I also need to do some correcting work on the "glass monstrosities" you seem to revile. There's a good use for them in energy efficiencies.
But enough for now... /off mini-rant
It's the (kcurie's?) doctrine of two definitions: the one you use to sell the package, and the one you use to talk about with people who know about what you talk about and don't need prodding.
Francois in Paris made a very similar point describing how the Republicans operate:
[Barak Obama] completely misses that the debate always happen at two levels, the general public and the base, and the terms are very different. The Republicans understand that very well and have played it for years with the outward message of "compassionate conservatism" or whatever to the general voters and the paranoid discourse to the base, "Christianity under attack" and all that crap.
Perhaps progressives are just too honest, or too idealistic in thinking that the progressive message should be understood by everyone, without diluting the language by catch phrases... Food for thought for someone who always thought that one type of language would be sufficient. Progressive Doublespeak seems needed.
