egafd.com

[quote]More pretentious "green" twaddle that won't make one jot of difference to climate change (maybe something like 0.0001 of 0.001% less carbon globally by 2050 or some such trifling amount).[/quote]

Quite true, Eric, although the percentages aren't the issue right now; it's the principle and setting of an example. I'm sorry if I've said this before -I'm sure I have- but lets think up an analogy to show my point:

Why is it wrong for you to go and burgle your neighbour's house tonight, given that your own personal crime will only make 0.000000000000000001% difference to the national crime statistics? I think you'll agree that it doesn't matter what percentage the affect your crime makes for you to judge if your crime is wrong or not. My point is that we need to set a good example to others. Now, I'm not saying these carbon credits are the best way (I don't know enough about them to make a judgement) but the total affect, globally, isn't a good enough excuse to dismiss it.

I agree with all your other points, but would add:

6) Better, cheaper, public transport. Maybe even subsidies on travel fares for minimum wage workers so they see it as a cheaper option than using a car?

Flat_Eric wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
> know that's saying a lot). Whilst the smug twat wants the
> little people to have carbon rationing, he flies round the
> world playing golf and writing about it in his column in the
> Financial Times>>>
>
>
> The one that amused me was Green Dave jetting off to the Arctic
> Circle on a "fact-finding" mission to see how the polar ice is
> allegedly being melted by global warming allegedly caused by
> ..... errrrm ..... people jetting off to places!
>
> Ditto all those political bigwigs and their entourages
> descending on Bali (in big, carbon-belching airliners) from all
> corners of the globe for a "climate conference".
>
> I suppose it didn't occur to anyone to set an example to the
> plebs and hold a video conference instead (the technology
> exists of course, and no need for anyone to jet off anywhere).
>
> - Eric
>
>

I always like the greenies doom-monger God Al Gore lives in a house that has 13x the energy comsumption needed for a family his size. Not too bothered about saving the planet yourself, eh?

Never heard such a load of old bollocks ---- since the last load of old bollocks that the 'gay' left luvvies like to spout.

Just like those junkets that Politicians/Councillors like to attend

The sister city program...say no more

Never heard of video conferencing

But I thought Green Dave riding his bike was sorting it all out for us !shrug!

Steve R wrote:

> Climate change is caused by the sun.
>
> How are they going to legislate against that?

Ban the sun.
It's such a rubbish newspaper anyway.

Deuce Bigolo wrote:

> We could all stop emitting tomorrow and very little would
> change.

Well, if it was all of us a lot would change, provided one defines 'us' widely enough. Having said that, that's not going to happen.

> Its already a runaway train which makes the carbon tax
> nothing more than a revenue raising tool

It is to some extent, but within the whole revenue-raising game one can set priorities, and thus use it in an attempt to change behaviour.

I agree about the runaway train, though I do not mind seeing some efforts by politicians trying to slow that train down. Makes it more likely for people to survive the inevitable crash.

> IMHOWe're already
> being held to ransom with oil.

Not yet. That time will come though - when crude oil costs ?1 a litre before tax, and before refinement... In that sort of region it becomes more economical to produce oil by agricultural means, thing is though: would it be possible to produce that in the required quantities?