On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:42:30 GMT, "Mark" wrote:


Andy Hall wrote in message

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying it
is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told him
to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

The rest is fluff.


Oh so none of this matters to you or the trendy town people with 4x4
vehicles.
http://www.itv.com/news/climate_355371.html

I didn't say that.

The point is that no amount of media coverage and especially
neighbours telling people how to run their lives will make a
difference if they want to do something.

People should be honest. Drivel's neighbour has his 4x4 for the
reasons I listed above. The story that he fed Drivel was fluff of
the same type as Drivel suggesting a cardboard cut out.
Neither the story nor the suggested solution had any value whatsoever.

We are faced with dishonesty all the way around the climate change
debate with motivations ranging from political to economic to media
hype to scientific bandwagon. Note that I am being very careful here
to include as many of the interested parties that I can think of - I
am not taking sides in any direction because it distorts one of the
key aspects. That is that regardless of whether one believes that
there is a problem or not and the degree of that problem, the most
vociferous arguments in any direction come from people or groups with
an agenda or vested interest.

That alone discredits much of the whole issue in the minds of Joe
Public. It is the reason that Drivel's neighbour finds it necessary
to come up with a lame "justification" for his 4x4. The reality for
the neighbour is the three points I mentioned above and he feels
mildly guilty about it. Does it mean he will sell his 4x4 or get
something else next time? Almost certainly not.

There are two things that would alter the neighbour's behaviour. One
is to legislate specific types of vehicle off of the road. The other
is to apply selective taxation to make them unaffordable and reduce
the numbers.

The government is just as dishonest. A few million here and there
spread among various homeowner energy saving grants is a drop in the
bucket. The motivation isn't to make a big difference, it's to be
able to say qualitatively what has been done at the next world energy
conference and to give those who are in receipt of said grants a feel
good factor and hopefully buy their votes. Had it been genuine it
would have been on a much grander scale and the money wouldn't have
run out with a whisper as it has.

The right approach would be to focus first on those things which will
have the biggest improving effect on the environment once effort
expended and financial investment ae taken into account.

That won't begin to happen in any meaningful way until there is a
greater degree of honesty over the whole issue. It is not to say
that I think that this is a reason to do nothing. Far from it. In
some areas, there is undoubtedly a need for urgent action. However,
we should not kid ourselves or allow ourselves to be kidded into
thinking that all initiatives that are claimed to be in support of the
environment are immediately worth pursuing or have that as the primary
objective.



--

..andy