The Greens

[Colr]

Between this lot, UKIP and the SNP shifting far to the left, we seem to be entering an age of extremes again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11356354/Drugs-brothels-al-Qaeda-and-the-Beyonce-tax-the-Green-Party-plan-for-Britain.html

[marinello59]

If the SNP have shifted to the left then it is only so they can occupy the same centre ground as everybody else. Flag waving nationalism doesn't make you extremely left wing.

[hibsbollah]

What a shoddy attempt at a hatchet job. The fact the telegraph is trying to attack the greens shouldnt come as a surprise.

[RyeSloan]

What a shoddy attempt at a hatchet job. The fact the telegraph is trying to attack the greens shouldnt come as a surprise.

Not the greens I recognise after reading their Scottish literature...and anyway whose to say that the world painted in the article would be so bad ;-)

[lord bunberry]

Between this lot, UKIP and the SNP shifting far to the left, we seem to be entering an age of extremes again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11356354/Drugs-brothels-al-Qaeda-and-the-Beyonce-tax-the-Green-Party-plan-for-Britain.html

I'm really warming to the greens, they will certainly get my second preference at the holyrood election.

[Future17]

Not the greens I recognise after reading their Scottish literature...and anyway whose to say that the world painted in the article would be so bad ;-)

Worth noting that the Green Party in England and Wales are a completely different organisation than the Scottish Greens.

[RyeSloan]

Worth noting that the Green Party in England and Wales are a completely different organisation than the Scottish Greens.

Duly noted ;-)

The Scottish stuff I read seemed reasonably balanced to be honest...maybe they could teach their southern counterparts a thing or two!

[Stranraer]

There's a lot of talk on Twitter about a #GreenSurge I do hope they pick up some more seats in May which is more likely down south by the looks of things.

[Colr]

There's a lot of talk on Twitter about a #GreenSurge I do hope they pick up some more seats in May which is more likely down south by the looks of things.

Most likely at Liberals or maybe Labour expense - which is one reason why Cameron is keen to have them on the tele debate.

[hibsbollah]

Not the greens I recognise after reading their Scottish literature...and anyway whose to say that the world painted in the article would be so bad ;-)

I dunno how serious you're being, but I'll play the ball and not the man here:wink:

The world as seen through a green lens is becoming a lot more attractive to me as I get older and I see how traditional politics and governance has failed us over the years. I love the fact that the Greens are asking the question of why 'growth' as measured by GDP is unquestioningly considered a good thing by traditional parties. Our resources are finite and we need to start taking this reality seriously. The world is not, broadly, a happy place. I'd be happy to see more Green MPs who could possibly lever some good influence over whoever is the largest party at the election.

And if that pisses off the telegraph so much the better:na na:

[lord bunberry]

I dunno how serious you're being, but I'll play the ball and not the man here:wink:

The world as seen through a green lens is becoming a lot more attractive to me as I get older and I see how traditional politics and governance has failed us over the years. I love the fact that the Greens are asking the question of why 'growth' as measured by GDP is unquestioningly considered a good thing by traditional parties. Our resources are finite and we need to start taking this reality seriously. The world is not, broadly, a happy place. I'd be happy to see more Green MPs who could possibly lever some good influence over whoever is the largest party at the election.

And if that pisses off the telegraph so much the better:na na:

:top marks

[RyeSloan]

I dunno how serious you're being, but I'll play the ball and not the man here:wink: The world as seen through a green lens is becoming a lot more attractive to me as I get older and I see how traditional politics and governance has failed us over the years. I love the fact that the Greens are asking the question of why 'growth' as measured by GDP is unquestioningly considered a good thing by traditional parties. Our resources are finite and we need to start taking this reality seriously. The world is not, broadly, a happy place. I'd be happy to see more Green MPs who could possibly lever some good influence over whoever is the largest party at the election. And if that pisses off the telegraph so much the better:na na:

Hee hee I understand your scepticism ;-)

But truly and honestly I went into the Scottish Greens website expecting it to be full of flower power crap (or some of the more bizarre claims from the Torygraph article) but found to my shock and horror that I agreed with a lot of what they said but more importantly the general gist of it.

They didn't seem to be prescribing exactly what would change but suggesting a rather different perspective...the point that you mentioned and one that rang true to me was this silly fascination on GDP. GDP was never designed to be a 'wealth index' and reflects nothing of the sort yet we seem to have ended up in a world where GDP Growth is the holy grail, no matter how that growth is achieved!

So there you have it! You can pick yourself up from the floor now ;-)

[hibsbollah]

Hee hee I understand your scepticism ;-)

But truly and honestly I went into the Scottish Greens website expecting it to be full of flower power crap (or some of the more bizarre claims from the Torygraph article) but found to my shock and horror that I agreed with a lot of what they said but more importantly the general gist of it.

They didn't seem to be prescribing exactly what would change but suggesting a rather different perspective...the point that you mentioned and one that rang true to me was this silly fascination on GDP. GDP was never designed to be a 'wealth index' and reflects nothing of the sort yet we seem to have ended up in a world where GDP Growth is the holy grail, no matter how that growth is achieved!

So there you have it! You can pick yourself up from the floor now ;-)

I always knew you were a damn hippy :greengrin

[Eyrie]

I just had a quick look at the Scottish Greens website and there is no mention of the need to encourage smaller families. Maybe that is too controversial a subject for them, but surely they must recognise that an ever increasing population will consume ever more resources? And that that is a particular problem for a developed country like Scotland where we use far more resources to sustain our lifestyles than are used by those living in the developing world. They also pay lip service to the idea of eradicating world poverty, again without recognising that using international aid to encourage smaller family sizes and better education will have a far bigger impact on living standards than populist claims about reining in multinationals whilst simultaneously helping to preserve the environment.

[lord bunberry]

I just had a quick look at the Scottish Greens website and there is no mention of the need to encourage smaller families. Maybe that is too controversial a subject for them, but surely they must recognise that an ever increasing population will consume ever more resources? And that that is a particular problem for a developed country like Scotland where we use far more resources to sustain our lifestyles than are used by those living in the developing world. They also pay lip service to the idea of eradicating world poverty, again without recognising that using international aid to encourage smaller family sizes and better education will have a far bigger impact on living standards than populist claims about reining in multinationals whilst simultaneously helping to preserve the environment.

Why do you think they are doing as well as they are? I could be wrong but I don't think its all down to their policies on the enviroment. When I read that article in the telegraph I found myself nodding in agreement. At times I feel tired of the current system and while I think that some of their policies are a bit far fetched, I can't help thinking that if the greens were in a coalition it would a step towards a better world.

[Moulin Yarns]

I just had a quick look at the Scottish Greens website and there is no mention of the need to encourage smaller families. Maybe that is too controversial a subject for them, but surely they must recognise that an ever increasing population will consume ever more resources? And that that is a particular problem for a developed country like Scotland where we use far more resources to sustain our lifestyles than are used by those living in the developing world. They also pay lip service to the idea of eradicating world poverty, again without recognising that using international aid to encourage smaller family sizes and better education will have a far bigger impact on living standards than populist claims about reining in multinationals whilst simultaneously helping to preserve the environment.

On the subject of resources, you do realise that the Green Parties advocate renewable energy sources, such as Wind, Solar, Hydro, geothermal. The finite resource that is fossil fuels won't last for ever, and the Green Parties are the only ones that realise that the sooner the world switches energy production to renewables the better.

Can you tell us which party(ies) are advocating smaller families (the chinese model?) or increased renewable energy?

[RyeSloan]

On the subject of resources, you do realise that the Green Parties advocate renewable energy sources, such as Wind, Solar, Hydro, geothermal. The finite resource that is fossil fuels won't last for ever, and the Green Parties are the only ones that realise that the sooner the world switches energy production to renewables the better. Can you tell us which party(ies) are advocating smaller families (the chinese model?) or increased renewable energy?

Hmm renewables is a when not if question though. There will be no switch to renewables if the economics don't make sense and parties like the greens need to save up to that...I'm not for government subsidies (they distort rather than support and cost the tax payer and the bill payer!). I think what I'm saying is it's not just the greens that understand the need to move away from fossil fuel and it's dangerous to suggest that the sooner this is done the better...the cost and implications of doing so are more complicated than that.

As I said earlier I have no problems with the concept of moving to renewables and smaller resource footprints etc but how it's done is the important point. The technology for large scale renewable storage is only now coming available...but rather conversely that currently looks like being mainly lithium based with lithium of course being a natural resource! The holy grail of power but no impact on the planet is a long long way off, there is always some trade off to be had.

Finally oil contains a huge amount of energy compared to its mass (or whatever the technical term is) reducing or removing that reliance is a massive challenge and not one that can be met with a few words in a manifesto.

[Stranraer]

Most likely at Liberals or maybe Labour expense - which is one reason why Cameron is keen to have them on the tele debate.

I actually agree with him but I wouldn't mind a debate with all parties who are represented at Westminster but it would probably need to be a 3 hour long programme. Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, SNP, UKIP, Greens, DUP, Plaid Cymru and who knows maybe Martin McGuinness could go across :)

[heretoday]

I actually agree with him but I wouldn't mind a debate with all parties who are represented at Westminster but it would probably need to be a 3 hour long programme. Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, SNP, UKIP, Greens, DUP, Plaid Cymru and who knows maybe Martin McGuinness could go across :)

I'd like it if there were no TV debates at all but instead a series of programmes on the box explaining the main issues in graphic detail and outlining the different parties' stance on them.

TV debates are just beauty contests where one personality tries to score points off the rest like Question Time. How folk can base their voting intention on that is beyond me.

Let's treat people like adults for a change. It's worth a try.

[s.a.m]

I'd like it if there were no TV debates at all but instead a series of programmes on the box explaining the main issues in graphic detail and outlining the different parties' stance on them.

TV debates are just beauty contests where one personality tries to score points off the rest like Question Time. How folk can base their voting intention on that is beyond me.

Let's treat people like adults for a change. It's worth a try.

Absolutely agree. I find TV debates superficial, unenlightening, and often ugly. Being a skilled debater doesn't mean that your policies are sensible. and being able to eviscerate your opponents with one-liners doesn't necessarily mean that there's aren't. I would like to see more detailed explanation of the different parties' plans and objectives perhaps as you suggest, and perhaps with opportunity for rigorous but non-heated, non-smart-arse questioning. The gladiatorial thing turns me right off though.

[Eyrie]

On the subject of resources, you do realise that the Green Parties advocate renewable energy sources, such as Wind, Solar, Hydro, geothermal. The finite resource that is fossil fuels won't last for ever, and the Green Parties are the only ones that realise that the sooner the world switches energy production to renewables the better.

Can you tell us which party(ies) are advocating smaller families (the chinese model?) or increased renewable energy?
And what about resources for building homes, schools, hospitals and all the associated infrastructure? What about resources for feeding everyone? Or clothing them? Or transporting them? What about water resources, for drinking, sanitation and crops? What about resources for the everyday items that we take for granted but which those in the developing world need to improve their living standards? The planet has finite resources, and the thinner those resources are spread the worse it is for everyone. Imagine how much better conditions could have been if the global population had stabilised at 3.5 billion instead of expanding to over seven billion.

No party is willing to acknowledge the population problem, partly because of the Chinese example (I'm against any enforced policy) but mostly because there is no easy answer. The best that can be achieved is to improve access to contraception (itself controversial in many countries) and to limit benefits to the first two children (which would also be controversial). Education though is key - people need to be aware of the issue and the consequences of large families, whilst being free to have three or four kids if they chose and can afford them. improving women's rights and education will also be a major step in the right direction.

[Hibrandenburg]

Over here the Greens have probably been responsible for more positive changes than any other party in the last 20 years, even though they've never been at the helm as a stand alone party.

I like what they stand for but in Scotland I hope they take a back seat to the SNP at the next election.

[Pretty Boy]

I'd like it if there were no TV debates at all but instead a series of programmes on the box explaining the main issues in graphic detail and outlining the different parties' stance on them.

TV debates are just beauty contests where one personality tries to score points off the rest like Question Time. How folk can base their voting intention on that is beyond me.

Let's treat people like adults for a change. It's worth a try.

You only have to look at the surge in popularity for Nick Clegg after the last TV debates to see how they work.

Man makes a few populist statments in a sincere voice and he's heralded as the saviour of a nation for a few days.

[lord bunberry]

You only have to look at the surge in popularity for Nick Clegg after the last TV debates to see how they work.

Man makes a few populist statments in a sincere voice and he's heralded as the saviour of a nation for a few days.

It was a very brief surge though, the lib dem vote didn't go up at the election

[Stranraer]

It was a very brief surge though, the lib dem vote didn't go up at the election

:agree: I was thinking about that this morning, I think when it comes to polling day the situation will be much the same certainly with Labour and the Tories. I guess there may be a Green surge but it will make little difference come May. I do hope I'm wrong.

[heretoday]

Absolutely agree. I find TV debates superficial, unenlightening, and often ugly. Being a skilled debater doesn't mean that your policies are sensible. and being able to eviscerate your opponents with one-liners doesn't necessarily mean that there's aren't. I would like to see more detailed explanation of the different parties' plans and objectives perhaps as you suggest, and perhaps with opportunity for rigorous but non-heated, non-smart-arse questioning. The gladiatorial thing turns me right off though.

It pains me when I listen to folk talking about "the issues" in pubs etc. The level of ignorance is quite staggering. I think the reason we have had a succession of poor governments is that the bulk of the people don't have a clue about anything and are happy to leave it all to professional politicians.

And we all know how trustworthy and honourable they are.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11369363/The-Green-Party-are-spiteful-malicious-toddlers.html

And so it continues from the telegraph. They're turning into fox news. Quite funny really.

[steakbake]

And what about resources for building homes, schools, hospitals and all the associated infrastructure? What about resources for feeding everyone? Or clothing them? Or transporting them? What about water resources, for drinking, sanitation and crops? What about resources for the everyday items that we take for granted but which those in the developing world need to improve their living standards? The planet has finite resources, and the thinner those resources are spread the worse it is for everyone. Imagine how much better conditions could have been if the global population had stabilised at 3.5 billion instead of expanding to over seven billion.

No party is willing to acknowledge the population problem, partly because of the Chinese example (I'm against any enforced policy) but mostly because there is no easy answer. The best that can be achieved is to improve access to contraception (itself controversial in many countries) and to limit benefits to the first two children (which would also be controversial). Education though is key - people need to be aware of the issue and the consequences of large families, whilst being free to have three or four kids if they chose and can afford them. improving women's rights and education will also be a major step in the right direction.

I think women's rights and education are the most important parts of solving a problem like over-population. Empowerment and so on. When people access education, their perception of their role in life changes. As it does with benefits, working, making good life choices etc.

Improved access to education is fundamental and sound gender policies to ensure equality of opportunity and access make the difference.

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11369363/The-Green-Party-are-spiteful-malicious-toddlers.html

And so it continues from the telegraph. They're turning into fox news. Quite funny really.


OMG, It makes the BBC seem thoroughly moderate :wink:

If the Scottish Green Party was as bad as their English counterparts are being painted they certainly wouldn't have increased membership by more than 400% in the last 4 months.

The Tele is obviously worried for their Westminster puppets because a party that is anti austerity, and pro equality is rising in the polls. Oh, but wait, isn't UKIP the big threat to the Conservatives? Apparently not, because Tele readers agree with a lot of their views.

c'mon the Greens

[hibsbollah]

OMG, It makes the BBC seem thoroughly moderate :wink:

If the Scottish Green Party was as bad as their English counterparts are being painted they certainly wouldn't have increased membership by more than 400% in the last 4 months.

The Tele is obviously worried for their Westminster puppets because a party that is anti austerity, and pro equality is rising in the polls. Oh, but wait, isn't UKIP the big threat to the Conservatives? Apparently not, because Tele readers agree with a lot of their views.

c'mon the Greens

The recent furious greenbashing took me by surprise, I thought the telegraph might have been hoping a strong green showing would hurt the remaining 'left wing' labour vote.

[degenerated]

You only have to look at the surge in popularity for Nick Clegg after the last TV debates to see how they work.

Man makes a few populist statments in a sincere voice and he's heralded as the saviour of a nation for a few days.

doesnt seem to be working for Jim Murphy, though he sounds anything but sincere i suppose.

[ronaldo7]

Greens get a new candidate for WM. RMT union leader to stand against the "Reddish Conservatives".:greengrin

http://www.channel4.com/news/green-lib-dems-ukip-rmt-election-redcar-seat-poll

[lord bunberry]

Greens get a new candidate for WM. RMT union leader to stand against the "Reddish Conservatives".:greengrin

http://www.channel4.com/news/green-lib-dems-ukip-rmt-election-redcar-seat-poll

I wonder if the greens will become the new party of the left. There's lots of disaffected labour voters looking for somewhere to go.

[bawheid]

Greens get a new candidate for WM. RMT union leader to stand against the "Reddish Conservatives".:greengrin

http://www.channel4.com/news/green-lib-dems-ukip-rmt-election-redcar-seat-poll

I see the Labour spokesperson is saying that a vote for the Green Party is a vote for David Cameron.

I had a Labour canvasser at my door on Saturday telling me that my vote for the SNP would be a vote for David Cameron.

That David Cameron is some boy, collecting all these votes despite not actually getting the cross in the box!

The Labour Party are so far behind the curve on where UK politics is at the moment it's scary. Looks like the fear agenda is returning in time for May.

[ronaldo7]

I see the Labour spokesperson is saying that a vote for the Green Party is a vote for David Cameron.

I had a Labour canvasser at my door on Saturday telling me that my vote for the SNP would be a vote for David Cameron.

That David Cameron is some boy, collecting all these votes despite not actually getting the cross in the box!

The Labour Party are so far behind the curve on where UK politics is at the moment it's scary. Looks like the fear agenda is returning in time for May.

:agree: The RedTories have basically said if you vote for anyone but them, it's a vote for David Cameron.

When you have Murphy, McTernan, and McDougall running the branch office the only way for them is fear.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/10/green-party-education-policies-general-election

I like their education policies. No ofsted, no league tables, class size max 20, not compulsory till age 7. Following a nordic model. Mostly England and Wales relevant, but still.

[HiBremian]

Hmm renewables is a when not if question though. There will be no switch to renewables if the economics don't make sense and parties like the greens need to save up to that...I'm not for government subsidies (they distort rather than support and cost the tax payer and the bill payer!). I think what I'm saying is it's not just the greens that understand the need to move away from fossil fuel and it's dangerous to suggest that the sooner this is done the better...the cost and implications of doing so are more complicated than that.

As I said earlier I have no problems with the concept of moving to renewables and smaller resource footprints etc but how it's done is the important point. The technology for large scale renewable storage is only now coming available...but rather conversely that currently looks like being mainly lithium based with lithium of course being a natural resource! The holy grail of power but no impact on the planet is a long long way off, there is always some trade off to be had.

Finally oil contains a huge amount of energy compared to its mass (or whatever the technical term is) reducing or removing that reliance is a massive challenge and not one that can be met with a few words in a manifesto.

Just wanted to pick up on these points about what is "economic" and what is "subsidy". Maybe you're implying that "the market" is somehow free, neutral and positive. I beg to disagree. The market is manipulated by those with the wealth and the power to do so. Add to that their ability to influence politicians and you have a system of "subsidy" that appears to be a "free market". This highly manipulated market in turn drives scientific progress in particular directions, and limits development in others. So the vast amount of public money that went into developing the atom bomb led to nuclear power, which could produce the plutonium required. Meanwhile renewables were ignored for decades. Fossil fuel cars were refined and marginally improved in terms of efficiency as electric car development was deliberately halted in the 60s and 70s. Motorways and dual carriageways were built for said cars, but cycle paths were largely absent. The UK building industry successfully holds back perfectly feasible energy-efficiency standards for new builds. So the photo-voltaic industry loses another potential market.

The Greens are arguing that this kind of support needs to be switched away from the likes of nuclear to renewables. And it does make longer term economic sense, even if the rigged market as currently organised doesn't see it, since most of the costs are upfront. Also, once an industry is supported, you get scientific progress in that area. It's no coincidence that the technology for storing unused renewable energy is developing fastest in Germany.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Just wanted to pick up on these points about what is "economic" and what is "subsidy". Maybe you're implying that "the market" is somehow free, neutral and positive. I beg to disagree. The market is manipulated by those with the wealth and the power to do so. Add to that their ability to influence politicians and you have a system of "subsidy" that appears to be a "free market". This highly manipulated market in turn drives scientific progress in particular directions, and limits development in others. So the vast amount of public money that went into developing the atom bomb led to nuclear power, which could produce the plutonium required. Meanwhile renewables were ignored for decades. Fossil fuel cars were refined and marginally improved in terms of efficiency as electric car development was deliberately halted in the 60s and 70s. Motorways and dual carriageways were built for said cars, but cycle paths were largely absent. The UK building industry successfully holds back perfectly feasible energy-efficiency standards for new builds. So the photo-voltaic industry loses another potential market. The Greens are arguing that this kind of support needs to be switched away from the likes of nuclear to renewables. And it does make longer term economic sense, even if the rigged market as currently organised doesn't see it, since most of the costs are upfront. Also, once an industry is supported, you get scientific progress in that area. It's no coincidence that the technology for storing unused renewable energy is developing fastest in Germany. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good post that I can't really disagree with in its general gist.

However the electric car development in the 60's and 70's wasn't really deliberately halted...the technology (lead acid) simply didn't support the concept. Now that battery tech has developed you see the reemergence of such development..while I have no doubt the wealthy do their best to manipulate markets there is normally an underlying fundamental reason for such things.

Germany is a very interesting case of political interference...while they have a large renewable installed capacity the problems that's has caused (and is causing...check out their increase in COAL generated electricity) have been substantial. A true case of unintended consequences.

Finally I don't see Germany as the lead in lithium storage..they may well be involved but companies like A123 in the US (recently bought by NEC), saft (French), ABB and a whole host of others ( esp. In the US) are busy developing these technologies...so you don't need a huge installed base of renewables to generate (geddit?) investment in the shortage tech..which was my point I suppose.

As I said though I agree that nothing is black and white and I'm not that daft to think here is not manipulation and vested interests at work..I suppose I just see these on both sides of the argument rather than simply believing that green is good and big oil is bad.

Finally

[HiBremian]

Good post that I can't really disagree with in its general gist.

However the electric car development in the 60's and 70's wasn't really deliberately halted...the technology (lead acid) simply didn't support the concept. Now that battery tech has developed you see the reemergence of such development..while I have no doubt the wealthy do their best to manipulate markets there is normally an underlying fundamental reason for such things.

Germany is a very interesting case of political interference...while they have a large renewable installed capacity the problems that's has caused (and is causing...check out their increase in COAL generated electricity) have been substantial. A true case of unintended consequences.

Finally I don't see Germany as the lead in lithium storage..they may well be involved but companies like A123 in the US (recently bought by NEC), saft (French), ABB and a whole host of others ( esp. In the US) are busy developing these technologies...so you don't need a huge installed base of renewables to generate (geddit?) investment in the shortage tech..which was my point I suppose.

As I said though I agree that nothing is black and white and I'm not that daft to think here is not manipulation and vested interests at work..I suppose I just see these on both sides of the argument rather than simply believing that green is good and big oil is bad.

Finally

Thanks for the thoughtful reply SiMar. I agree, it's not all black and white. What I can say is that the issue around coal generated electricity has *cough* generated a significant political movement to try to rein it back again. But just like the nuclear power issue, we are talking major companies fighting to retain their profit base.

Thanks for the heads up re US/French companies involved in storage. I'll have a closer look when I get the chance :wink:

[Stranraer]

I hope the SNP can maintain a 20 point lead up until May but at the same time I'd like to see some Nationalists get behind our pro-independence comrades in the Greens and SSP.

[RyeSloan]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply SiMar. I agree, it's not all black and white. What I can say is that the issue around coal generated electricity has *cough* generated a significant political movement to try to rein it back again. But just like the nuclear power issue, we are talking major companies fighting to retain their profit base. Thanks for the heads up re US/French companies involved in storage. I'll have a closer look when I get the chance :wink:

I see Elon Musk is now proposing a home battery for storing renewable power, that dude sure doesn't hang about for anyone!...it's certainty a fascinating area of development just now and one that will surely transform energy generation and transmission over the next decade or so.

Add to that the huge investment car makers are putting into EV's and the global push to commercialise grid sized renewable storage and you have transformation on a scale not seen since the move away from coal generated gas.

As a small aside for anyone who likes to play global developments like these on the stock market there is a number of exciting prospects in the storage area but personally I'm more excited by the fact all of these solutions need one basic element...lithium. There is surprisingly few players in the lithium mining arena and with demand due to surge it's an area that's ripe for a bit of speculation. A couple of companies on AIM meet that speculative requirement (REM and BCN)...absolutely not a share tip by the way...these babies are volatile and should be handled with extreme caution but none the less are a small window on what will supply the worlds inevitable move to renewable storage and electric cars.

[Hibby Bairn]

Thanks SiMar. I am going to have a look at these two coys. Just out of interest for the time being.