(Original post by Alofleicester)
I wouldn't say that actions to cut down our impact on the environment are useless ****, but hey ho.
I quite like it, reservations as to the nuclear power bit (much the same reasons that came up when it was discussed a couple of months back) but other than that, it looks like a good proposal.
If you can prove that it will be useful and productive (ie not useless), I'd agree (possibly - I still think this is just a bill that will increase costs for the consumer, which hits the poorest the hardest) but I've yet to be convinced. Putting public money into renewable energy is, in the UK, utterly unsustainable and, at a time when we have very little money, opting to choose the most expensive and least efficient form of energy supply is, frankly, an insult to those that are adversely affected by the cuts that could otherwise have been spared without this extra burden on the taxpayer. This whole thing isn't in isolation.
I think government investment in green energy and recylcing etc in this country has limited value unless we force other countries such as the US into more 'green' measures. However, i have seen local gov investment in recylcing work in my own local area so i'll think this over for a bit, as I believe it could be as effective on a national scale as it has been here.
Nuclear isn't ideal, but it's the best way to ensure that we have enough energy available while reducing our emissions, so I'm not really opposed to that part of the bill. I don't really know much about biomass, so I won't comment on that. "Green Bill" seems rather an odd name for this bill, seeing as nuclear isn't particularly "green" (in the sense it isn't bad for the environment) but hey ho.
As others have said, it does seem rather odd having central government fund recycling while fining local government for not meeting recycling targets. I'm not opposed to such a bill, it just needs improved a bit, but that's why we have readings.