Living in Cambridgeshire, it is very flat. I am lucky to be living up in what passes for "them thar hills" so I can indulge in long strolls along relatively flat ground with the occasional rolling bits.
Today I decided to walk out from Balsham along to the Fleam Dyke, and then take a right turn back to Balsham along part of the Harcamlow Way. I did have an ulterior method. I wanted to check out the Wadlow Wind Farm that is being built as we speak.
Up to now, I had only seen the turbines from the road whilst commuting. And yet, after today, I realised the sheer scale and size of them makes them appear closer than they really are, this makes them pretty imposing on the landscape.
They are though, aesthetically pleasing to look at. Ive seen worse designs round here. A horrid mobile phone mast on the road leading up to Balsham. A monstrous carbuncle of a hotel on Hills Road in Cambridge.
But as I approached the site, it did lead me to reflect on where we go from here in terms of how we generate the energy needed for future generations, especially as coal and gas is a finite resource. The last thing we need is to be energy dependent on the Middle East. With the Arab Spring still to play out its long term consequences, we could still find ourselves with unsympathetic governments in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other places.
The obvious start would be to legislate for all new developments and re-developments incorporate the latest in home insulation and solar panels on the roof.
This micro-generation would be part of a mix with bigger solar and wind farms and nuclear plants, suitably located, replacing existing coal and gas plants.
(And before you comment on my reference to nuclear plants, I consider nuclear to be a useful, near unlimited power generation facility that would fill in the gaps left by solar and wind power. The question of the waste is another issue.)
I am however, not getting the impression that successive Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change have been brave enough to grasp the mettle. Fine words about Green Bank and investing in infrastructure are all very well but without action, any delay will mean no power plants in place to replace the aging ones and could lead to a very real risk of the lights going out in years ahead.
Pull your finger out and get on with it!
Sunday 17 June 2012
Tuesday 12 June 2012
Marriage as a Credible Institution
So, the Church of England has suggested that the extension of the right to marry to gay couples will undermine the concept of marriage.
Lets have a little history lesson, Henry VIII establised the Church of England to nod through his divorce to Catherine of Aragon and sanction a marriage to Anne Boleyn, his mistress.
Where was the concern about undermining the institution of marriage then?
This is a clear precedent that the control of the validity of any such marriage is at the discretion of the State and that the Church has acquiesced in these political manoeuvrings for nearly 600 years.
Furthermore, the 1949 Marriage Act also defines how the Church of England can hold their ceremonies as well as allowing for Registry Offices to conduct marriages. Gyles Brandeth's private member bill in 1994 extends the right to conduct marriages in other approved locations.
Where was the concern about undermining the institution of marriage then?
It is clear that the State has the preeminent right to define how a marriage is valid. Not the Church. By history, by convention and by practise.
The Church can already lay down its own rules about who can marry in a Church. Henry VIII's Great (many times) Nephew - Charles Philip Arthur Windsor (aka Prince of Wales) faced controversy when marrying Camilla Parker Bowles. Although technically a widower as Diana has died, Camilla's ex-husband was still alive.
There is absolutely no reason whatsover, why the Church cannot set its own rules about who can or cannot get married within its premises.
But I do have to consider. What makes the bigger mockery of marriage?
Britney Spears marrying Jason Alexander which was annuled 55 hours later?
Or two people of the same sex, who love each other very much and want to demonstrate that commitment the same as any other couple.
Lets have a little history lesson, Henry VIII establised the Church of England to nod through his divorce to Catherine of Aragon and sanction a marriage to Anne Boleyn, his mistress.
Where was the concern about undermining the institution of marriage then?
This is a clear precedent that the control of the validity of any such marriage is at the discretion of the State and that the Church has acquiesced in these political manoeuvrings for nearly 600 years.
Furthermore, the 1949 Marriage Act also defines how the Church of England can hold their ceremonies as well as allowing for Registry Offices to conduct marriages. Gyles Brandeth's private member bill in 1994 extends the right to conduct marriages in other approved locations.
Where was the concern about undermining the institution of marriage then?
It is clear that the State has the preeminent right to define how a marriage is valid. Not the Church. By history, by convention and by practise.
The Church can already lay down its own rules about who can marry in a Church. Henry VIII's Great (many times) Nephew - Charles Philip Arthur Windsor (aka Prince of Wales) faced controversy when marrying Camilla Parker Bowles. Although technically a widower as Diana has died, Camilla's ex-husband was still alive.
There is absolutely no reason whatsover, why the Church cannot set its own rules about who can or cannot get married within its premises.
But I do have to consider. What makes the bigger mockery of marriage?
Britney Spears marrying Jason Alexander which was annuled 55 hours later?
Or two people of the same sex, who love each other very much and want to demonstrate that commitment the same as any other couple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)