Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


Sorry to say not eveyone agrees with green bollox. You appear to have
swallowed it whole.

As I have said before the green house effect and CO2 being a greenhouse
gas are both established fact. That you are prepared to go on denying
such facts makes you a laughing stock but doesn't alter the said facts.


Look, there is no disagreement.

1/. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2/. CO2 levels are rising.
3/. The earth is warming.

What are the two basic bones of contention are what, if any, impact
man's activities have, and what, if anything we can do about it.

Now teh denier argument seems to be

- a lot of eco bollox is bollox. So far no disagreement.
- because its bollox, climate change is bollox (strongluy disagree)
- even if it isn't, and climate change is happening, because its not
necessarily man made, we *shouldn't* do anything ability it. And cant do
anything about it. This I find extraordinary. Doe sman made CO2 have
absolutely NO effect? can the deniers prove that?

Hmm.

BUT the final point is, that at a sane political level (which is not
always the case) the question really boils down, as does most pragmatic
thinking, into:

"Which is cheaper, to cut carbon now, or deal with the consequences later?"

That to me is the crucial question, and I am not sure I have an answer.

So much depends on how much of the warming us due to CO2, how many
positive feedback mechanisms like methane release are involved, wnd
whether we are talking about 2 degrees or 6, 2 is OK, 6 is civilisation
shattering.

What is of course perfectly clear is that the best way to save carbon is
not to burn fuel. Eco lightbulbs do **** all. Especially when 27% of
electricity is carbon neutral (nuclear + biofuel/waste incineration)
Simply cutting down the shopping trips to one a week saves far more. Not
flying abroad for a holiday nets you ten years of CFL lightbulbs., or
more. Think how much fuel this computer cost to get to you from tai
wong. Don't buy a new one. etc.