NOTE October Unofficial CHANGE OF VENUE

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:25:06 GMT, SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:

> I can't see why waste cooking oil shouldn't be used. It's carbon
> neutral, and whilst it won't solve the demand issue WRT fuel oils,
> it must help.

Quite agree and there are some small scale commercial plants around
about to produce bio-diesel from that source but HMG in its infinite
wisdom plonks almost as much duty on it as they do on dino-diesel.
Which means that it's not worth people traveling very far to get it or
producers to scale up production due to "lack of demand" if it was
10p/l cheaper there would be a demand...

They really need to put some serious effort into properly promoting
sustainable and viable carbon neutral or renewable energy sources,
along with proper energy conservation. They only pay lip service to
this at the moment.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On or around Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:25:06 GMT, SpamTrapSeeSig
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>In article <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> writes
>>On or around Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:44:50 +0100, "Graham G" <[email protected]>
>>enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>>What irritates me is that the technology exists for biodiesel from oil seed
>>>rape and the like, which would give farmers a valuable income in the tough
>>>climate we are in, and be more environmentally sound, yet the government
>>>won't give the investment or incentives to oil companies to do it.
>>
>>There's a basic flaw in that one, though, sadly - not enough crop-growing
>>land. You can substitute a small percentage of fossil fuel with bio...
>>Also, Oilseed rape is not in fact the most rewarding crop to get oil from,
>>according to a list I saw somewhere.
>
>Diesels were designed originally for peanut oil.
>
>I can't see why waste cooking oil shouldn't be used. It's carbon
>neutral, and whilst it won't solve the demand issue WRT fuel oils, it
>must help.

ah, now, waste oil, yes. good idea - dispose of the waste at the same time.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
0123456789112345678921234567893123456789412345678951234567896123456789712345
1 weebl: What's this? | in recognition of the fun that is weebl and bob
2 bob: it a SigRuler! | check out the weebl and bob archive:
3 weebl: How Handy! | http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/archives.php

>>What irritates me is that the technology exists for biodiesel from oil
>>seed
>>rape and the like, which would give farmers a valuable income in the tough
>>climate we are in, and be more environmentally sound, yet the government
>>won't give the investment or incentives to oil companies to do it.
>
> There's a basic flaw in that one, though, sadly - not enough crop-growing
> land. You can substitute a small percentage of fossil fuel with bio...
> Also, Oilseed rape is not in fact the most rewarding crop to get oil from,
> according to a list I saw somewhere.
>
> But even growing the more effective oil crops, there ain't enough land -
> you'd end up competing with food-growing area.

Of course I accept that, however as a farmers son an living in the farming
community I am well aware of the fact that UK food crops are becoming less
and less marketable. Other countries with lowere labour rates, land costs
and lower transport costs are able to produce it much cheaper than the
British farmer. This trend is likely to continue since many large countries
such as Russia have yet to reach their full potential. I read somewhere that
if Russia ever meats its potential, it could supply enough food for most of
the developed world, that is a scary prospect as far as farming in the UK is
concerned. The consumer in this country unfortunately values price over
patriotism or quality in many cases (not all), this has lead to the
continual driving down of prices by supermarkets. I'm sure you have seen the
ads on tv as I have, price cuts here and there, they have to come from
somewhere. Many consumers will say I would like to buy british, but end up
buying the cheapest. Due to inherant factors such as land prices, british
food will never be cheap. This is where biofuels could come in, whilst I
accept that there isn't enough area to keep everyone going, I would argue
that some reduction in fossel fuel usage is better than none. The income
generated from crops would really help the farming community aswell as the
assosiated industries. Farmers may only be 1.5% of the population, but if
you take the assosiated industries that are affected by the downturn in
income then it could be as high as 20%.

As far as oil seed rape, you are right, there are better crops, but I
couldn't think of which ones they were )

>> I can't see why waste cooking oil shouldn't be used. It's carbon
>> neutral, and whilst it won't solve the demand issue WRT fuel oils,
>> it must help.
>
> Quite agree and there are some small scale commercial plants around
> about to produce bio-diesel from that source but HMG in its infinite
> wisdom plonks almost as much duty on it as they do on dino-diesel.
> Which means that it's not worth people traveling very far to get it or
> producers to scale up production due to "lack of demand" if it was
> 10p/l cheaper there would be a demand...
>
> They really need to put some serious effort into properly promoting
> sustainable and viable carbon neutral or renewable energy sources,
> along with proper energy conservation. They only pay lip service to
> this at the moment.

Here here

In message <[email protected]>
"Graham G" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >>What irritates me is that the technology exists for biodiesel from oil
> >>seed
> >>rape and the like, which would give farmers a valuable income in the tough
> >>climate we are in, and be more environmentally sound, yet the government
> >>won't give the investment or incentives to oil companies to do it.
> >
> > There's a basic flaw in that one, though, sadly - not enough crop-growing
> > land. You can substitute a small percentage of fossil fuel with bio...
> > Also, Oilseed rape is not in fact the most rewarding crop to get oil from,
> > according to a list I saw somewhere.
> >
> > But even growing the more effective oil crops, there ain't enough land -
> > you'd end up competing with food-growing area.
>
> Of course I accept that, however as a farmers son an living in the farming
> community I am well aware of the fact that UK food crops are becoming less
> and less marketable. Other countries with lowere labour rates, land costs
> and lower transport costs are able to produce it much cheaper than the
> British farmer. This trend is likely to continue since many large countries
> such as Russia have yet to reach their full potential. I read somewhere that
> if Russia ever meats its potential, it could supply enough food for most of
> the developed world, that is a scary prospect as far as farming in the UK is
> concerned. The consumer in this country unfortunately values price over
> patriotism or quality in many cases (not all), this has lead to the
> continual driving down of prices by supermarkets. I'm sure you have seen the
> ads on tv as I have, price cuts here and there, they have to come from
> somewhere. Many consumers will say I would like to buy british, but end up
> buying the cheapest. Due to inherant factors such as land prices, british
> food will never be cheap. This is where biofuels could come in, whilst I
> accept that there isn't enough area to keep everyone going, I would argue
> that some reduction in fossel fuel usage is better than none. The income
> generated from crops would really help the farming community aswell as the
> assosiated industries. Farmers may only be 1.5% of the population, but if
> you take the assosiated industries that are affected by the downturn in
> income then it could be as high as 20%.
>
> As far as oil seed rape, you are right, there are better crops, but I
> couldn't think of which ones they were )
>
>

I think you've partly missed the point being made - even the companies
producing bio fuels acknowedge there is not enough (useable) land on
the planet to produce enough bio fuels to meet current fuel demand,
hence boi can only help with, not solve, the problem.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay

"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5e8a9bb84d%[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Graham G" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >>What irritates me is that the technology exists for biodiesel from oil
>> >>seed
>> >>rape and the like, which would give farmers a valuable income in the
>> >>tough
>> >>climate we are in, and be more environmentally sound, yet the
>> >>government
>> >>won't give the investment or incentives to oil companies to do it.
>> >
>> > There's a basic flaw in that one, though, sadly - not enough
>> > crop-growing
>> > land. You can substitute a small percentage of fossil fuel with bio...
>> > Also, Oilseed rape is not in fact the most rewarding crop to get oil
>> > from,
>> > according to a list I saw somewhere.
>> >
>> > But even growing the more effective oil crops, there ain't enough
>> > land -
>> > you'd end up competing with food-growing area.
>>
>> Of course I accept that, however as a farmers son an living in the
>> farming
>> community I am well aware of the fact that UK food crops are becoming
>> less
>> and less marketable. Other countries with lowere labour rates, land costs
>> and lower transport costs are able to produce it much cheaper than the
>> British farmer. This trend is likely to continue since many large
>> countries
>> such as Russia have yet to reach their full potential. I read somewhere
>> that
>> if Russia ever meats its potential, it could supply enough food for most
>> of
>> the developed world, that is a scary prospect as far as farming in the UK
>> is
>> concerned. The consumer in this country unfortunately values price over
>> patriotism or quality in many cases (not all), this has lead to the
>> continual driving down of prices by supermarkets. I'm sure you have seen
>> the
>> ads on tv as I have, price cuts here and there, they have to come from
>> somewhere. Many consumers will say I would like to buy british, but end
>> up
>> buying the cheapest. Due to inherant factors such as land prices, british
>> food will never be cheap.


This is where biofuels could come in, whilst I
>> accept that there isn't enough area to keep everyone going, I would argue
>> that some reduction in fossel fuel usage is better than none.

> I think you've partly missed the point being made - even the companies
> producing bio fuels acknowedge there is not enough (useable) land on
> the planet to produce enough bio fuels to meet current fuel demand,
> hence boi can only help with, not solve, the problem.
>
> Richard

Ahem! ;o)

The income
>> generated from crops would really help the farming community aswell as
>> the
>> assosiated industries. Farmers may only be 1.5% of the population, but if
>> you take the assosiated industries that are affected by the downturn in
>> income then it could be as high as 20%.
>>
>> As far as oil seed rape, you are right, there are better crops, but I
>> couldn't think of which ones they were )
>>
>>
>
> --
> www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
> Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
> Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
> Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay

In article <[email protected]>, Graham G <[email protected]>
writes
>>>What irritates me is that the technology exists for biodiesel from oil
>>>seed
>>>rape and the like, which would give farmers a valuable income in the tough
>>>climate we are in, and be more environmentally sound, yet the government
>>>won't give the investment or incentives to oil companies to do it.
>>
>> There's a basic flaw in that one, though, sadly - not enough crop-growing
>> land. You can substitute a small percentage of fossil fuel with bio...
>> Also, Oilseed rape is not in fact the most rewarding crop to get oil from,
>> according to a list I saw somewhere.
>>
>> But even growing the more effective oil crops, there ain't enough land -
>> you'd end up competing with food-growing area.
>
>Of course I accept that, however as a farmers son an living in the farming
>community I am well aware of the fact that UK food crops are becoming less
>and less marketable. Other countries with lowere labour rates, land costs
>and lower transport costs are able to produce it much cheaper than the
>British farmer.

Rubbish. That's only true if you accept the obscenity of the CAP.

Put British agriculture on a level playing field with the rest, and
transport costs alone would decide the matter.

Does anyone else think that Perrier and Evian should be given official
permission to lie about the contents of their bottles, i.e. use, say,
Welsh tap water, just so that their huge pollution output through
transport is reduced? I wince inside every time I see one of their
'products' on a restaurant table. The whole bottled water thing is
barking.

Regards,

Simonm.

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:55:50 GMT, SpamTrapSeeSig
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I wince inside every time I see one of their
>'products' on a restaurant table. The whole bottled water thing is
>barking.

I think Delboy had the right idea...

Actually, Charlotte always makes me take a couple of large water
containers wherever we go, filled from the tap here as she doesn't
like non-Yorkshire water!

So, a couple of bottles of Olde Sheffield Tappe anyone?
Very cheap at only 3 quid a bottle...


--
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one
of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being
increasingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
In memory of Brian {Hamilton Kelly} who logged off 15th September 2005

In article <[email protected]>, Mother <"@
{mother} @"@101fc.net> writes
>On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:55:50 GMT, SpamTrapSeeSig
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I wince inside every time I see one of their
>>'products' on a restaurant table. The whole bottled water thing is
>>barking.
>
>I think Delboy had the right idea...
>
>Actually, Charlotte always makes me take a couple of large water
>containers wherever we go, filled from the tap here as she doesn't
>like non-Yorkshire water!
>
>So, a couple of bottles of Olde Sheffield Tappe anyone?
>Very cheap at only 3 quid a bottle...

Quite. Like round here, high in carbonates so really good for you...

Regards,

Simonm.

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

In article <[email protected]>, Steve
<[email protected]> writes
>SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>> It's worse - catalytic convertors have quite nasty chemicals in them,
>>and even more so once they've come to the end of their useful life
>>(they concentrate trace chemicals, or so I'm led to believe).
>
>They contain platinum, which lots of people are VERY keen to re-cycle.
>There can't be much left in way of waste chemicals at the end of their
>lives, because they are catalytic converters, so they do their job on
>the stuff passing through, without being used themselves.

In theory yes. in practice, the sintered ceramic onto which the catalyst
is put (by evaporation, IIRC) breaks up, and traps particulates. Also,
because of the urban cycle, the whole thing rarely operates properly,
trapping sulphur compounds, and finally the process of catalysis itself
breaks down the platinum surface. I think it does take part in the
reaction but is given off as a by-product in the same state as it
started, but that's chemically, not physically. My guess is that most of
it is ejected up the exhaust pipe by the end of the box's lifespan.

Regards,

Simonm.

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

On or around Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:30:37 +0100, "Graham G" <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>>>What irritates me is that the technology exists for biodiesel from oil
>>>seed
>>>rape and the like, which would give farmers a valuable income in the tough
>>>climate we are in, and be more environmentally sound, yet the government
>>>won't give the investment or incentives to oil companies to do it.
>>
>> There's a basic flaw in that one, though, sadly - not enough crop-growing
>> land. You can substitute a small percentage of fossil fuel with bio...
>> Also, Oilseed rape is not in fact the most rewarding crop to get oil from,
>> according to a list I saw somewhere.
>>
>> But even growing the more effective oil crops, there ain't enough land -
>> you'd end up competing with food-growing area.
>
>Due to inherant factors such as land prices, british
>food will never be cheap. This is where biofuels could come in, whilst I
>accept that there isn't enough area to keep everyone going, I would argue
>that some reduction in fossel fuel usage is better than none. The income
>generated from crops would really help the farming community aswell as the
>assosiated industries. Farmers may only be 1.5% of the population, but if
>you take the assosiated industries that are affected by the downturn in
>income then it could be as high as 20%.

good points, well made. And yes, of course, any reduction in fossil fuel
usage is good.

What we really need, though, is a radical and comprehensive rethink of the
way we operate - the concept of "goign to work" is, in a huge number of
jobs, redundant. The dream of working from home, first mooted a good few
years ago, is now a realisable thing: if I for example were a secretary, I
could do all the typing of documents etc. sitting here where I am now. My
boss could communicate with me by phone, ditto customers, I could send
documents for approval to my boss and then deliver them automatically to the
recipient, where they never actually need to be printed on paper at all
unless needed for archive purposes. Digital PGP or similar signatures could
easily be employed and could be kept reasonably secure.

Now obviously, not all jobs can operate like that: manufacturing industry
(inasmuch as it's hands-on these days) still has to have people in the
works. But a huge amount of business could be transacted without moving
people and mass around all day long.

>
>As far as oil seed rape, you are right, there are better crops, but I
>couldn't think of which ones they were )
>

me neither. I could google for it, but ICBA...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".

In message <[email protected]>
SpamTrapSeeSig <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Steve
> <[email protected]> writes
> >SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
> >> It's worse - catalytic convertors have quite nasty chemicals in them,
> >>and even more so once they've come to the end of their useful life
> >>(they concentrate trace chemicals, or so I'm led to believe).
> >
> >They contain platinum, which lots of people are VERY keen to re-cycle.
> >There can't be much left in way of waste chemicals at the end of their
> >lives, because they are catalytic converters, so they do their job on
> >the stuff passing through, without being used themselves.
>
> In theory yes. in practice, the sintered ceramic onto which the catalyst
> is put (by evaporation, IIRC) breaks up, and traps particulates. Also,
> because of the urban cycle, the whole thing rarely operates properly,
> trapping sulphur compounds, and finally the process of catalysis itself
> breaks down the platinum surface. I think it does take part in the
> reaction but is given off as a by-product in the same state as it
> started, but that's chemically, not physically. My guess is that most of
> it is ejected up the exhaust pipe by the end of the box's lifespan.
>
> Regards,
>
> Simonm.
>

There have been a couple of campanies offering £10 for used CATs
recently, so they presumably think recycling is worth it. But for
a tenner, it's not worth taking them off, storing them, loading them
etc. unless you are a scrap yard.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Boycott the Yorkshire Dales - No Play, No Pay

beamendsltd wrote:

> There have been a couple of campanies offering £10 for used CATs
> recently, so they presumably think recycling is worth it. But for
> a tenner, it's not worth taking them off, storing them, loading them
> etc. unless you are a scrap yard.

What they want is the ceramic matrix. Bash the cat with a big hammer,
shake the bits out into a bucket, and fill it up over time. Hell, you
could torch the box open, then poke the matrix out with a screwdriver.

Then try Johnson-Matthey metals- they may well give you a great price on
recovery.

Steve

In article <82e8bfb84d%[email protected]>, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> writes
>In message <[email protected]>
> SpamTrapSeeSig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Steve
>> <[email protected]> writes
>> >SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>> >> It's worse - catalytic convertors have quite nasty chemicals in them,
>> >>and even more so once they've come to the end of their useful life
>> >>(they concentrate trace chemicals, or so I'm led to believe).
>> >
>> >They contain platinum, which lots of people are VERY keen to re-cycle.
>> >There can't be much left in way of waste chemicals at the end of their
>> >lives, because they are catalytic converters, so they do their job on
>> >the stuff passing through, without being used themselves.
>>
>> In theory yes. in practice, the sintered ceramic onto which the catalyst
>> is put (by evaporation, IIRC) breaks up, and traps particulates. Also,
>> because of the urban cycle, the whole thing rarely operates properly,
>> trapping sulphur compounds, and finally the process of catalysis itself
>> breaks down the platinum surface. I think it does take part in the
>> reaction but is given off as a by-product in the same state as it
>> started, but that's chemically, not physically. My guess is that most of
>> it is ejected up the exhaust pipe by the end of the box's lifespan.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Simonm.
>>
>
>There have been a couple of campanies offering £10 for used CATs
>recently, so they presumably think recycling is worth it. But for
>a tenner, it's not worth taking them off, storing them, loading them
>etc. unless you are a scrap yard.
<thinks>
Given the nature of the chemistry, it may be possible to flush them
through, but I can't imagine otherwise how you'd recover the platinum
cost-effectively.

Must Google when I've got more time...

Regards,

Simonm.

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

"SpamTrapSeeSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Graham G <[email protected]>
> writes
>>>>What irritates me is that the technology exists for biodiesel from oil
>>>>seed
>>>>rape and the like, which would give farmers a valuable income in the
>>>>tough
>>>>climate we are in, and be more environmentally sound, yet the government
>>>>won't give the investment or incentives to oil companies to do it.
>>>
>>> There's a basic flaw in that one, though, sadly - not enough
>>> crop-growing
>>> land. You can substitute a small percentage of fossil fuel with bio...
>>> Also, Oilseed rape is not in fact the most rewarding crop to get oil
>>> from,
>>> according to a list I saw somewhere.
>>>
>>> But even growing the more effective oil crops, there ain't enough land -
>>> you'd end up competing with food-growing area.
>>
>>Of course I accept that, however as a farmers son an living in the farming
>>community I am well aware of the fact that UK food crops are becoming less
>>and less marketable. Other countries with lowere labour rates, land costs
>>and lower transport costs are able to produce it much cheaper than the
>>British farmer.
>
> Rubbish. That's only true if you accept the obscenity of the CAP.
>
> Put British agriculture on a level playing field with the rest, and
> transport costs alone would decide the matter.

You obviously live a sheltered life. CAP and the arable area aid payment
will be done away with by 2015. They are being reduced on a sliding scale.
The playing field is never level. The US subsidise their farmers, as do
Canada. France invests vast sums into theirs, they have different laws about
redundancy, Russia gives tax relief for machinery purchase, I could go on.
Transport has a bearing on the costs of production but when in poland the
average wage is less than a quarter of ours, their fuel has less tax, their
land is two thirds of the price, they have more of it, tell me how the
british farmer can compete with that. Its pure economics and has bugger all
to do with CAP. All said and done every other european country recieves
support to a similar level and we cannot compete.

My best friend is a dairy farmer, or was. He has just sold up because he was
producing at 16ppl (below UK average) and recieved 18ppl. The final straw
was his only employee asking for a pay rise to 6.50 an hour. I suggest my
friend you study European and world agricultural policy as well as world
economics in as much detail as I have before you pass comment on things that
you do not fully understand.

>>>>What irritates me is that the technology exists for biodiesel from oil
>>>>seed
>>>>rape and the like, which would give farmers a valuable income in the
>>>>tough
>>>>climate we are in, and be more environmentally sound, yet the government
>>>>won't give the investment or incentives to oil companies to do it.
>>>
>>> There's a basic flaw in that one, though, sadly - not enough
>>> crop-growing
>>> land. You can substitute a small percentage of fossil fuel with bio...
>>> Also, Oilseed rape is not in fact the most rewarding crop to get oil
>>> from,
>>> according to a list I saw somewhere.
>>>
>>> But even growing the more effective oil crops, there ain't enough land -
>>> you'd end up competing with food-growing area.
>>
>>Due to inherant factors such as land prices, british
>>food will never be cheap. This is where biofuels could come in, whilst I
>>accept that there isn't enough area to keep everyone going, I would argue
>>that some reduction in fossel fuel usage is better than none. The income
>>generated from crops would really help the farming community aswell as the
>>assosiated industries. Farmers may only be 1.5% of the population, but if
>>you take the assosiated industries that are affected by the downturn in
>>income then it could be as high as 20%.
>
> good points, well made. And yes, of course, any reduction in fossil fuel
> usage is good.
>
> What we really need, though, is a radical and comprehensive rethink of the
> way we operate - the concept of "goign to work" is, in a huge number of
> jobs, redundant. The dream of working from home, first mooted a good few
> years ago, is now a realisable thing: if I for example were a secretary, I
> could do all the typing of documents etc. sitting here where I am now. My
> boss could communicate with me by phone, ditto customers, I could send
> documents for approval to my boss and then deliver them automatically to
> the
> recipient, where they never actually need to be printed on paper at all
> unless needed for archive purposes. Digital PGP or similar signatures
> could
> easily be employed and could be kept reasonably secure.

Quite agree. I often think that people should share their journeis more too,
I used to know somone who drove to work every day from near me, everyday he
would catch up with another colligue and follow them into work, yet neither
party would consider sharing the car, silly.

> Now obviously, not all jobs can operate like that: manufacturing industry
> (inasmuch as it's hands-on these days) still has to have people in the
> works. But a huge amount of business could be transacted without moving
> people and mass around all day long.
>
>>
>>As far as oil seed rape, you are right, there are better crops, but I
>>couldn't think of which ones they were )
>>
>
> me neither. I could google for it, but ICBA...

me neither )

<snip previous rant>

just read that through, could be taken the wrong way, no offense is
intended. Just get very hot under the collar on that subject. Have been told
by the ill informed all my life that farmers are the scurge of society and
that its all because of CAP. In fact at school I was regularly beaten up for
being a farmers son, cos the childs parents told them that farmers are rich
horrible people, I wasn't the only farmers son who suffered that way either.
In fact I know one farmers lad who for years pretended he had nothing to do
with farmers. I know what the reality is and have to live with it every day
and I can tell you if people knew just what went on behind the scenes. Few
would understand why british farmers bother to carry on, and they would be
justified to think that. I used to work an average of a 70hour week on farms
for £5/hr, need more money then work harder, and thats how farmers are (my
personal record was 437 hours in a month). There is no logic really, its a
way of life and thats what many people fail to grasp. I will be the first to
agree with anyone who says they complain too much and cry wolf. Historically
they have and as a result have lost any public support they might once have
had. Now in the current climate they really do need support. To put numbers
on it, in my sales area when I started I had 800 customers, in the last year
that has dropped by approx 80, and still falling.

You could argue that this is market forces and streamlining and I would
agree, however the trend is changing. We are starting to see big farming
businesses selling up (2000 acres plus), and in noticable numbers. Few of
these are being sold whole, most are broken up into small blocks and are
being bought by business owners who want a bit of the country life. The
reason for this is that at £3500 acre farming on it doesn't stack up,
believe me I've done the sums. The net result is that land is going out of
production, or farming opperations are reaching vast scales (I know a chap
farming 15000 acres now). this is going to have an effect on the quality and
variety of produce that shoppers expect from British produce. Its a slippery
slope, although don't think I'm all doom and gloom cos I believe there will
be farming out the other side of it, but it will be very different to what
you see now.

Rant over

Off for a lie down

graham

In article <[email protected]>, Graham G <[email protected]>
writes
> I suggest my
>friend you study European and world agricultural policy as well as world
>economics in as much detail as I have before you pass comment on things that
>you do not fully understand.

I suggest you don't waste ages attacking something you didn't read
carefully in the first place.

And, for the record, I've studied Economics at degree level, and you are
referring largely to distorting subsidies and taxes, not a level playing
field.


Regards,

Simonm.

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

"SpamTrapSeeSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Graham G <[email protected]>
> writes
>> I suggest my
>>friend you study European and world agricultural policy as well as world
>>economics in as much detail as I have before you pass comment on things
>>that
>>you do not fully understand.
>
> I suggest you don't waste ages attacking something you didn't read
> carefully in the first place.
>
> And, for the record, I've studied Economics at degree level, and you are
> referring largely to distorting subsidies and taxes, not a level playing
> field.

For the record I've studied a degree in Agricultural mangaement and policy,
so I think I'm as qualified to discuss the subject.

Ok I'm prepared to stand corrected if you can more fully explain your
statement. See as I read it it can be taken in a number of ways both good
and bad. If I took it the wrong way then I appologise. However, I strongly
disagree with your argument over a level playing field, define level? If you
mean no subsidies then I'm affraid transport although having a bearing and I
cannot deny that, would not be the decider. I think there are many other
factors that should be taken into account. But for starters lets take your
example of transport; we pay more than most countries so we cannot compete.
Now wages, farm wages are higher in this country than many so we cannot
compete. Now land prices, they are some of the highest in the world so we
cannot compete. Now rents, we pay more per acre than many other european
countries so we cannot compete. etc etc etc

In article <[email protected]>, Graham G <[email protected]>
writes
>Now in the current climate they really do need support.

I'd be the first to agree with you. I grew up in a farming community
(although our family didn't farm), and I've _never_ thought of farmers
as work-shy. I had school friends who'd get off the school bus in the
evening and go straight to fetch the herd for milking, before
schoolwork.

>You could argue that this is market forces and streamlining

Not really. It hasn't been an open market in the UK since the War. The
problem is that governments love to interfere by subsidy and taxation,
and like any command economy (essentially what farming is nowadays) over
time it becomes governmental micro-management.

>The net result is that land is going out of
>production, or farming opperations are reaching vast scales (I know a chap
>farming 15000 acres now).

It's frightening. I don't need to tell you the impact on rural
communities, obviously. The question is whether we want it to be so. I
happen to think not, but we live in a democracy. The tragedy is that
most urbanites really don't care (this NG is likely to be
unrepresentative!), and that includes the government.

>this is going to have an effect on the quality and
>variety of produce that shoppers expect from British produce. Its a slippery
>slope, although don't think I'm all doom and gloom cos I believe there will
>be farming out the other side of it, but it will be very different to what
>you see now.

I quite agree. But it doesn't have to be like this. Anecdotally, I met a
NZ couple on holiday in Devon a couple of years back, retired farmers.
They couldn't believe how tough it was for UK farmers. NZ (they said!)
hasn't had any sort of intervention for some while and business is
booming. They were very jealous of Devonian soil and growing conditions,
and of the proximity of the farms to the consumers, which in comparison
to NZ is understandable!

I also know someone who's daughter drives a milk tanker across from
France - essentially hauling water across the Channel. It's lunatic
economics, however you look at it and goes to prove that the CAP (and
the rest of the EU) is a political project, not an economic one...

(_my_ rant over!)


Regards,

Simonm.

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/