Comments on: Global greenery, or greenery in one country?

By: Simon_C

Simon_C — Wed, 30 May 2007 09:51:02 +0000

It seems to me that the only way to move forward on the CO2 problem (if there is a significant problem) is to build more nuclear power stations.

I’ve long held the view that setting up some standard power station designs that can be used royalty free on a world wide basis could bring cheap power where it’s needed in the developing world, while reducing our requirement on Oil in the western world.

You can build as many electric cars as you want, if your electricity is still made from gas and coal, you’ll actually be increasing CO2 output, not reducing it.

By: Stuart Fairney

Stuart Fairney — Mon, 28 May 2007 20:27:49 +0000

JR: Unlike many members of parliament, I have great respect for both your intellect and your honesty. I cannot say the same for Dr Reid. Has he forgotten the basic maths of the current position?

I pay his salary, he does not pay mine. Ergo, he works for me, and answers to me. I do not answer to him, so long as I commit no crimes. His proposals change the fundamental relationship between citizen and state. I have committed no crimes and I will not be asked, nor will I volunteer to prove this.

If he doubts this basic proposition, I invite him to prove it before a dozen of my randomly selected peers. If he cannot do so, beyond reasonable doubt, then he has no case.

I will not live as a serf, cowering before the almighty state. Both my wife and I are professionals, and if New Labour doesn’t want anything from us save for excessive tax and to suspect us of crimes on no evidence? Well, the world is a very, very big place which welcomes honest, skilled, net taxpayers.

We are very, very significant net contributors to the exchequer, not pack animals. And we will not be treated as such.

By: Jorgen

Jorgen — Mon, 28 May 2007 16:35:49 +0000

I agree fully with your kind of greenery. As to CO2, Stuart Fairney is right.

By: Derek Tipp

Derek Tipp — Sun, 27 May 2007 16:42:25 +0000

There are still many questions on the subject of global warming that need to be answered. Unilateral carbon reductions will only damage the competitiveness of the nation involved. As you say it will only shift CO2 production to elsewhere.

By: Stuart Fairney

Stuart Fairney — Sun, 27 May 2007 07:28:51 +0000

JR, is it not reasonable to ask how much CO2 humans produce globally, and what percentage that figure is of the overall annual global total? The answer will surprise you I suspect, and it puts this debate in the proper perspective.

In addition, there is a correlation between temperature increase and CO2, but as any statistician will know, that does not imply causality.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 25 May 2007 19:59:26 +0000

I agree with everything you say. What you put forward is what I believe the majority of people feel-we need to take a common sense approach rather than the one being pushed by some of the more fanatical elements in the green lobby that for some bizarre reason seems to be driving so much just now.

Actual evidence for ‘global warming’ is still very dubious. Unfortunately, largely due to self obsessed sections of the green lobby, a media frenzy and some opportunism by politicians (some more than others!) it is just about impossible to have a real measured debate and proper analysis of the situation. We urgently need to change this and get some perspective and context to this issue or one day we will wake up and realise we have been conned by the green lobby at a high price.