egafd.com

"But, as I already pointed out, fuel tax for cars has been DECREASED under the Rt Hon Sir Anthony Blair MP. This is a fairly major piece of information for you to just ignore, however annoying you may find it (or me!) "

Correction, it's been frozen ever since the fuel protests, not decreased.

"So, you are happy with our oil, but you don't want our politicians. Make up your mind. So what if Blair and Brown et al are Scots - Scotland is part of the UK, and it is a UK government, not an English one. Also, Blair is MP for an English constituency!"

Most of that oil you speak of is in the North Sea in International waters. But on independence Scotland can keep any oil that you have on the mainland or in Scottish waters. We don't need whatever's left. !happy!

So what is the English funded (we mostly funded building it out of English taxes) Scottish Parliament for? If Scotland wants to be married to England and have Scottish MPs in Westminster then you shouldn't that parliament that we funded, should you? Can't have it both ways, a Scottish Parliament and also Scottish MPs down in our Parliament making laws for us, or is it just a one way street?

Blair? Brown? Is that all that you know of who're Scottish in Nu Labour? If you listen every time a Nu Labour MP talks on TV I think you'll find that there's way more than just two. It's the accents and names that give 'em away you know. !wink! If Scotland got the backbone and declared FULL independence instead of leaching off of us I think you'd find Nu Labour would be well and truly gutted of MPs! Then, then we English could have our country back again....*Sigh* Me, an English nationalist? Never! !whistle! *Just making up for all the English bashing I hear from Scots*

"We produce 2% of TOTAL world emissions , but our emissions PER CAPITA are enormous compared to the 700 million Chinese people who survive on $2a day. Think about it, what percentage of total world population is 60 million out of 6 billion? 1%! So we produce double the pollution what one would expect a country of our population to do.The idea is if we, the USA, etc. show a lead, then we have some hope of convincing China and India to follow it."

All I know is what is reported on the BBC, ITV and Ch. 4 news about China, India and the US being the main polluters in the world. If you disagree then you should go and have a rant at them. But more often than not they're the ones who're right 'cause they're the experts for gathering the truth, especially if all of them are playing the same song.

WZR,

I agree totally with you approach of looking at emissions on a per capita basis. You are absolutely right.

However, China has stated very publicly, as has the USA, that they will not allow their economies to be decimated by reducing CO2 emissions. They simply will not.

So, taxing my UK 3 litre fuel guzzling car at ?400 per year, or getting everyone in the UK to change to energy saving light bulbs, or getting cavity wall insulation, in the big scheme of things, is not going to make a blind bit of difference to global warming.

In the big scheme of things this is the reality, as in The Telegraph today (this is paraphrased and not a direct quote, so I guess BGAFD Admin won't have a problem with it):

Angela Mercel, the German Chancellor chaired the G8 summit. She had entered the summit aiming for an agreement to limit the rise in global temperatures to two degrees Celsius, which would require a 50 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. (Please note, that is a 50% reduction from today's levels)

In real terms that means that only several millions of people will die due to global warming by then. That only several million more will be displaced from the places that they live now.

Okay, so, in the UK, let's say we reduce our CO2 emissions by 50%. Domestic use could not achieve that. Industry produces by far the largest part of CO2 emissions in the UK. So, we could easily devastate the UK economy in order to achieve it.

I can put up with paying ?400 road tax next year. No problem. But I could not live in this country and see the economy devastated.

I agree with the individual footprint argument, but, whilst the US and China are not playing their part, why should the UK? No matter how many light bulbs we replace with energy saving ones, the effect will be a drop in the ocean. (Sorry for the pun, but I have had 8 pints of lager).

I'm taking global warming seriously, but anyone who understands the 80:20 rule will also know that taxing air flights and 4x4s in the UK is really not the answer.

I just worry that such huge guilt is being heaped upon us by the media and politicians in this country, that everyone is trying to do what they see as "their bit", but the cumulative effect is negligible.

*Back on Subject*

Yep, this country could cut its own throat several times over and knock ourselves back into the Stone Age (as the eco nuts would have it) and it would still make absolutely NO difference to global warming. All that would happen would be that India, China and the US would fill the polution gap left by us by increasing their pollution. In other words, they couldn't give a blind shit about global warming, especially the Chinese.

Why the hell does it matter at the moment, to be talking of 2% total emissions, and that, 'we won't make any difference'?

That's exactly what everybody else is saying and that's the biggest problem.

In the 'grand scheme of things' me nicking your car, and the police letting me take it, without a fine/court appearance, won't make any difference whatsoever regarding crime statistics in your area, so it's ok then?

Maybe you should take a bunch of bananas off the shelf at your local supermarket next time you pop in. After all, 'in the grand scheme of things', where's the harm?

What's the point in curing that little kid of leukaemia, in the 'grand scheme of things'? Society will get on just fine whether he lives or dies.

I could go on...............

We conserve energy, not just to help the planet (2% or not), but because it's the right thing to do.

Being sensible about it like you are, yeah sure, but to be taxed off the road because the Yanks don't want to give up their Humvees, or 'cause the Chinese don't give a damn and just want to keep on breeding like sheep? Or what about giving up driving because the green fanatics (ie. freaks) miss the good old horse and cart days? Why should we have to keep on taking up all the slack of all these countries, especially the Americans who are too selfish to change their gass guzzling ways? Like I said, to be sensible like you are is one thing, but to cut your throat for everyone else is another thing altogether.

What do you mean by 'cutting your own throat' Mojo?

Do you mean as a nation?

Regardless of global warming........someday the oil's gonna dry up, so those gas guzzlers are gonna be right up shit creek. Learning to drive a nation without relying wholeheartedly on fossil fuels may be more expensive right now, but that experience may be a real advantage one day.....

Our legs have got us by for over a million years..........so when my sister says 'I need my car because it's raining' I just laugh. My little sis forgets that we used to walk 1 1/2 miles to school every day from the age of 7......and 1 1/2 miles back. 90 degree, heat, shower or snow, we did it. Today, her kids 'need' to be driven to school which is only 3/4 of a mile away, if it's raining.

We need to take the lead, and do the right thing.

You don't have to give up your vehicle to save the environment, although the green freaks would like you to think so. Just have all motor vehicles converted to Bio Ethanol just like all vehicles were converted to Unleaded in the 80's. I myself would convert my bike tomorrow if I had the opportunity. And I emphasise the word OPPORTUNITY there, 'cause the government seems to be dragging its heals, and I wonder why?

Bioethanol seems an alternative, as long as countries don't start cutting even more forests down to produce sugar plantations.

I like how you say 'green freaks'.

So anyone who thinks we should use our legs more, to get around is a freak, while someone who uses a man made, mechanical engine to take them everywhere is normal?

The human race were freaks right up until the 20th century!

Love it !laugh!

It's great how drivers think up the most elaborate of stories to tell us that their car won't make a difference, and their car isn't actually that bad!

I need my car! Use my legs? Public transport? How dare you, you freak! !laugh!

No, I call them freaks because they seem to hate all technology and wish to uninvent the wheel. If you come up with a solution involving technology then they soon find fault with it because they hate all technology and wish to put us back to the 18th Century technology wise.