"PJ" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message
...


If we seriously want to reduce CO2 emissions, which it is far from proven
will help, it would be far more effective to help third world countries
achieve the same reductions we have made over the past decades. However,
that is not a very visible way of doing it and therefore is not going to
get a UK politician many votes.

How is reducing the CO2 output of the third world going to be done?
They don't have the same industries, etc. that we have, they don't heat
their houses much, they don't cook much and they don't have cars.
Changing one 100W lamp for a CF will probably save more CO2 than killing
off a third world inhabitant.

If you actually believe CO2 is a problem then you are going to have to
contribute.
I will contribute where it saves me money as I don't think CO2 is the
cause of global warming, there is no evidence that CO2 has an effect
AFAICS.

What is a concern is things like the destruction of the tropical forests
which are a buffer and a large buffer is better than a small one.
I thought that kelp in the oceans absorbed more CO2 than the rain forests.

Its a buffer for water/energy.
It helps to stop massive swings in the weather.
CO2 isn't going to effect the weather much.


The programme mentioned that some scientists benefit from global warming
funding but the biggest losers, if the ideas in the programme were
accepted, would be the carbon offset companies.