"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Are you saying there is no point in reducing CO2? Got to be all or
nothing?

No, I am suggesting that its unwise to opt for a solution that only has
a limited reduction effect, and once implemented, will make it much
harder to achieve any further reductions - thus taking the option of
"nothing" off the table.

Especially when you consider we already have existing proven technology
that goes straight to "nothing" in one hit.

But "we" don't have such technology.

Yes you do.

We'd have to buy it in.

You already do that with most technology,
particularly with mobile phones and computers
and the renewable power generation.

Nor is the latest technology 'proven' either.

Just as true of the renewables.