Eeyore wrote:

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
The genuinely sad thing is that most allegedly 'green' ideas for
alternative energy actually have a net negative impact when compared with a
more
measured scientific approach of equivalent cost. It's the classic story of
the road
to hell being paved with good intentions.
Ann Coulter wrote a marvelous article some time ago about all the new
mfg plants, mining, plastics, and transport costs of the new green tech
being implemented. What a nightmare!

Talking of which, are you familiar with the 'fallout' from the EU's demand for
lead-free electronics

Apparently no-one considered the impact of the additional tin mining. Mostly tin
mining isn't in the EU as it happens so they simply exported some new
environmental problems. Oh, except there weren't actually any 'environmental
problems' from leaded solder to begin with ! Well, actually let's say that
no-one (in the Comission) considered very much actually other than making a
supposedly 'green' statement. It's accepted that 'lead-free' will reduce the
reliability of electronics and hence its useful lifetime (which is rather
un-green to my way of thinking) but apparently that's OK as long an illusion of
'green-ness' is achieved.

And the next cracking joke is this one !

As the demand for green 'carbon neutral' bio-fuel increases, palm oil production
in Asia is being increased. To do this they BURN OFF more of their rainforest !
Carbon-neutral my ass !

So, a green political whim in Europe results in wholesale rainforest
destruction. BRILLIANT !

Yup.

Governementst should refrain from working out how to save energy:
Instead they should concentrate o making CO2 production an extremely
expensive option worldwide, and let the market sort out what happens next.

If the tax on home fuel and gas and on industrial fuel was te same as
that on road fuel, no one would accept a house that was anything else
than insulated to the sort of standard you might see in central Canada.



Graham