New Orleans

[thenodrog]

it's no surprise they retain the one-child policy. I've talked to many Chinese about it and most think it's a good thing as there are simply too many people.

348985[/snapback]

Yet in reality the actual population density* trails some way behind this and the Benelux countries.

*'density' being number of people per square mile.

[Eddie]

Well yes, but that will be because China is a massive country with some amazingly rural areas that will be barely populated and still function in the same way that they did hundreds of years ago. The problem comes in the growing urban areas where I'm sure, though it is true I have no actual proof, population density will surpass that of possibly any other region.

[FourLaneBlue]

Yet in reality the actual population density* trails some way behind this and the Benelux countries.

*'density' being number of people per square mile.

349972[/snapback]

Yes but a lot of that is there down to being massive provinces in the west of the country (Xinjian, Inner Mongolia and Tibet) which generally have a population density of little more than half a yak per square mile.

Eddie is correct - The major Chinese cities (and there are loads of over 1 million population) are far more crowded than anything in Britain. Having lived in London, I can assure you that the scale of overcrowding there is nothing compared to the really big Chinese cities, like Shanghai, Guangzhou and Hong Kong. There are so many people there that going far is tiring and walking around can be a hassle. Indian cities are supposed to be even more crowded though.

It's a bit like Britain though...the south east is ridiculously overcrowded yet parts of Scotland, Wales and even parts of Northern England are deserted. The problem the UK faces from immigration is that most people want to live in the richer areas (just like in China, India, anywhere in the world really) meaning that the south east is just becoming one huge, sprawling metropolis which will swallow up all the countryside if the government isn't careful where to build all those new houses they keep telling us we need. Not too sure why neglected urban areas can't be renevated instead more personally. Maybe more problematic than just building on a flat greenfield site but surely of more benefit to the enviroment and local community than having yet more commuters in what was once countryside.

[FourLaneBlue]

Whoops! double post

Edited September 29, 2005 by FourLaneBlue

[dave birch]

On a recent visit to Hong Kong, I was told that Kowloon is the most densely populated place on earth. I couldn't get over the number of Indians trying to sell me a suit or a shirt.

[FourLaneBlue]

Actually I was in Kowloon for a couple of days last month. Everywhere I looked I saw masses of people on the streets and not only was it ridiculously hot but there was a real downpour as well. You can soaked wet just crossing the street in the rainy season. The island of Hong Kong is like that as well, just masses and masses of people with high-rise buildings being the norm.

If this is the future of English cities then they have lot to be hesitant about. The urbanisation of the global population keeps going on at a fast pace and the pollution will get worse and worse. It's unlikely to happen in England really as we like living in the suburbs too much but that brings its own problems. The English countryside is famed the world over but if we aren't careful we will lose a lot of it to make way for more Barret homes and mock-tudor houses.

[blue phil]

Not too sure why neglected urban areas can't be renevated instead more personally. Maybe more problematic than just building on a flat greenfield site but surely of more benefit to the enviroment and local community than having yet more commuters in what was once countryside. 

350135[/snapback]

Has it never occured to you that it is deliberate (but unspoken) Government policy to "urbanise" the greenfield sites ?

We've seen with the fox hunting debacle just how much many labour politicians are still motivated by the class war they began when still students back in the 70's . Prescott is a classic example .........

[FourLaneBlue]

To be honest I thought this policy had begun under the Conservative government so I hadn't thought of it that way. Prescott took the class war a bit too literally by smacking a farmer one, certainly brightened up an otherwise very dull election in 2001.

[colin]

Has it never occured to you that it is deliberate (but unspoken) Government policy to "urbanise" the greenfield sites ? 

350265[/snapback]

Sorry Phil, but your conjecture that there is some kind of secret agenda is just that. A conjecture. Unless of course you have a high placed mole in the ODPM.

There are about 1.6m planning applications made per year in this country. Central Government deals with about 100 of them. There is a Parliamentary statement describing which applications are referred to The First Secretary Of State, it excludes just about everything bar a petrol refinery on top of Sca Fell. The remainder are dealt with by Local Planning Authorities.

I don't suppose that you have ever heard of "Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas", nor the other Planning Policy Statements covering a range of planning issues. Most of which have a history going back about 20 years. They are advice to LPAs.

Not sure why you have dragged fox hunting into this

[blue phil]

It might have escaped your attention Col (easily done at the late hour of your posting , granted ) , that I wasn't talking about the 1.6 mill applications to renovate the garden shed - but to the high policy decisions (made after due consideration of the "advice"* from various bodies of course ) taken by the Deputy PM , Mr John Prescott , as to where the MAJOR building developments over the course of decades are to be constructed .

THIS LINK (and others within) from one of your favourite publications might enlighten you a little .

* Glad you underlined the word "advice" - politicians are notorious for ignoring it in favour of prejudices ...

Edited October 1, 2005 by blue phil

[colin]

You don't really have the faintest idea how the planning system works do you?

If it is

deliberate (but unspoken) Government policy to "urbanise" the greenfield sites

Then how on earth does it make it to a national newspaper?

* Glad you underlined the word "advice" - politicians are notorious for ignoring it in favour of prejudices

That would be Local Authority Councillors. Then they would have to justify their decisions in front of a Public Inquiry. The Inspector would take into account the likes of "Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas" and all the other Planning Policy Statements.

But never mind all that stuff. It's all "unspoken Government policy."

No doubt you think Elvis is alive and feeding eels to the Loch Ness monster.

[Billy Castell]

Has it never occured to you that it is deliberate (but unspoken) Government policy to "urbanise" the greenfield sites ? 

  We've seen with the fox hunting debacle just how much many labour politicians are still motivated by the class war they began when still students back in the 70's . Prescott is a classic example .........

350265[/snapback]

You must be on Pete Doherty's dancing powder if you genuinely think that. Fox hunting was no more than a sop to the Labour left to counter discontent with Top up fees, private schemes in the NHS etc. The part of the Labour Party in power are nowt more than a PC version of Thatcher, and are centre-right. To say that the likes of Blair, Straw and A. N. Other are motivated by 'smashing the Kulaks' is ignoring the policies in many fields since 1997.

People like Jack Straw were quite radical in their youth (as President of the NUS, he organised a sit-in at a teaching college my parents were in), but they have mellowed out and drifted to the right. Or they may have been 'bought' by the latest 'third way' politics, depending on your views.

But then I guess you can't trust anyone who doesn't have a tattoo of Margaret Thatcher or Paul Joseph can you ?.

[blue phil]

I wouldn't trust anyone who feels the need to have a tattoo but that's beside the point ......

Virtually all politicians will compromise to get power and work within the system but I wouldn't say that all their youthful beliefs have been left behind . If Charles Clarke , Straw et al were all commies well into their 20's I find it hard to believe that they came into Gov't without any malice toward the "upper" classes . That's just my belief , of course ....

Blair differs from them all obviously ; he doesn't believe in anything .

[thenodrog]

People like Jack Straw were quite radical in their youth (as President of the NUS, he organised a sit-in at a teaching college my parents were in), but they have mellowed out and drifted to the right.

351095[/snapback]

Increased wisdom appears inevitably linked with the ageing process.

[Scotty]

Increased wisdom appears inevitably linked with the ageing process.

351126[/snapback]

But you're old aren't you?

[thenodrog]

But you're old aren't you?

351184[/snapback]

Fairly old, yes scotty. And it's patently obvious that you are much younger.

[Billy Castell]

I wouldn't trust anyone who feels the need to have a tattoo but that's beside the point ......

  Virtually all politicians will compromise to get power and work within the system but I wouldn't say that all their youthful beliefs have been left behind . If Charles Clarke , Straw et al were all commies well into their 20's I find it hard to believe that they came into Gov't without any malice toward the "upper" classes . That's just my belief , of course ....

  Blair differs from them all obviously ; he doesn't believe in anything .

351113[/snapback]

I actually agree with you when your point is put like that. Maybe they were 'trendy Leftie' types in their youth, and have lost the need to be cool and radical with age. I can't say, as I don't know any of them personally.

Anyway, I have a slight disagreement about you over Blair. I reckon he does have beliefs. He has a belief in the private sector, and is limited by his party as to how far down the road he can go. He also has a belief that he should strive to be a PM as influencial and recognised as Churchill, Atlee, Disraeli or his favourite, Thatcher. He desperately believes in his aim for a place in history. He has little in the way of principles though, as the whole Iraq War dossier farce, and the constant freeloading he and his odious wife indulge in, show.

[philipl]

Sales of SUVs have slumped 43% in the USA last month. Obviously the rise in "gas" prices is drumming some sense into the American consumer.

[Billy Castell]

I bet it is still about 30p per litre over there though. Hopefully the American public will finally cut back on their consumption, just in time for China to consume the resources.

[blue phil]

....and then India as well , Billy . I somehow think that the emerging nations , though , won't face the same criticism from the lefty liberals that the US has to put up with .

[Billy Castell]

I agree. Whilst the USA pollutes, India and China are just as bad. The Kyoto treaty is redundant as these two are not involved.

People are probably annoyed about the USA as it is an established world power, and chooses to ignore attempts to change its ways, whereas China and India are seen as growing powers that need resources to maintain their progress.

[philipl]

280 million Americans consume 25% of the World's energy. 2.8 billion Indians and Chinese together consume a little more than half as much but the disrupotion in the markets has come through their consumption doubling in a few years (from a very low base).

Some interesting statistics on the USA

Edited October 6, 2005 by philipl

[FourLaneBlue]

I agree. Whilst the USA pollutes, India and China are just as bad. The Kyoto treaty is redundant as these two are not involved.

Untrue, both India and China have signed and ratified the Kyoto Treaty.

[Billy Castell]

Oh right, I thought they were deemed exempt from it because they were 'developing' countries. So that leaves the USA as the bad guy then.

[speeeeeeedie]

Petrol in the US is currently around 50p a litre, and has been since late August. The powers that be have been blaming both recent hurricanes saying that they disrupted supply. But this has been happenning for a while and nothing has been done. Brits will no doubt tut that it is still half of what it is there but when prices have doubled in less than a year it puts pressure on everything.

The funny thing is that now US politicians are mounting a campaign to have the average US householder to "save energy" by buying long lasting lightbulbs. It's a bit rich really when the same government officials accept boat loads of cash from oil and motor companies and only recently decided to increase the average mpg of cars built in the US but by a figure lower than what most wanted.

The US is no angel but China and India are the ones to watch as they don't really care at all.