Actually, the point is if you buy into climate change you then have to buy
into subsidising the technology that delivers the goods.
Of course if you feel its just normal for the world to get warmer and there
is sod all we can do about it, then burn down some forests.

The problem has always been one of degree, and that is not a pun. What I
mean is that throughout its life the Earth has warmed and cooled creating
and destroying species and habitats all the while, yet even if what we are
doing is a small part of what might be inevitable, do we really morally have
the right to make it worse than it need be, bring down major problems on
our heads years before we need to tackle them?
That is the way I look at it. I may not be around in 2049 or whatever, but
people still will be and surely we owe them something?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-11-07, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
After serious thinking The Natural Philosopher wrote :
http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/sta-ca...-solar/1287152

Without extra subsidies, solar is dead.

"STA chief executive Paul Barwell said: "Solar beautifully answers the
energy trilemma of tackling climate change, security and affordability,
but it is being cut out of the market and prevented from competing on a
level playing field with other technologies."

Doesn't removing subsidies actually make it into a level playing?

Yes, but Greenies don't want a level playing field.


--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 19th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.