"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Everything has a cost, and if a measure has a large cost in terms of the
quality of life and a very small benefit in terms of CO2 reduction, it
might not be worthwhile. We might be able to achieve the same degree of
CO2 reduction by a less painful method.

I agree completely, and it opens up a whole new aspect to the debate. Take,
for instance, the Christmas illuminations in your local town. Or the
Christmas lights they put round the tree in the village green.

Most people would agree that they are beautiful and joyful, and a pleasure
to behold. But they generate CO2, and don't actually do anything very
useful, so from an environmental point of view they should be amongst the
first things to go.

Here in Nottingham, where I live, there is a large water feature in the
central square. It has a number of small fountains, plus other features to
do with the movement of water. I love it and it attracts lots of people who
stand and admire it, or sit nearby eating their lunchtime sandwiches.

But again, it isn't actually useful for anything, and no doubt uses quite a
bit of energy. So, again, from an environmental point of view it ought to
be switched off and paved over.

Museums and art galleries are pretty useless too. Maybe we should shut all
of those. Oh, and cinemas, mustn't forget them. And really, we don't
actually need tellies at all. We could stand around a piano and sing.

My point is that, by following the "don't produce CO2 wastefully or
unnecessarily" agenda single-mindedly, we may well end up with an
appallingly drab and joyless lifestyle. Do we really want to make those
sacrifices?

I'll lay my cards on the table, he I love what my car will do for me.
On-demand, anywhere-to-anywhere, any-time personal mobility is a truly
fabulous benefit of modern living, as far as I'm concerned. The lifestyle
cost to me of doing without it would be enormous.

I would like to see far more consideration being given to the very issue
Bill raises: the "benefits" of energy saving devices such as CFLs also have
associated lifestyle costs (inconveniently slow warm up, much dimmer than it
implies on the box). I wish the debate were more nuanced, such that these
lifestyle costs were properly acknowledged and factored in to the decision
making processes.

If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the point?

SteveT