One thing that takes so little power I couldn’t even measure it: standby on my (digital) TV. So the lesson is: ignore everything Mr. Brown says because he’s talking out of his butt.

The complexity of CO2-e emissions is vast. So complex that no New Labour GOSPLAN can possibly assess what is the right thing to do in all cases. The way to reduce CO2-e emissions is to apply a carbon levy at the “pinch points” of oil imports and coal extraction in order to price in the costs of emissions, and then let the market work out how best to react.

We need more vigorous opposition on green taxes and George Osborne should be concerntrating on ending excess spending on QUANGO’s , government procurement , civil servants , Whitehall consultants and the tax credit scandal while raising the basic personal allowance . Giving wealthy married couples £20 a week off their income tax while levying more ‘ green taxes ‘ that hit the least well off the most is unfair and will not work . Higher fuel duties and APD hikes have not cut car & plane usage – does the Tory high command have to copy the Lib Dems at all times ?

To say public spending is too high , the lower paid pay too much tax and that the scientific evidence proof for man causing climate change ( meaning that we need high ‘ green taxes ‘) is shaky is an understatement !

A time of economic difficulty is a time of retrenchment, a time when we have to look for savings because expenditure is rising and income might be squeezed or even under threat of reduction. This is when fixed systemic costs show their true colours. The more fixed costs you build into a system the less room there is for retrenchment.

The government seems keen on the EU’s nutty carbon credits scheme which necessarily involves a carbon credits bureaucracy. That bureaucracy must remain in place for so long as the scheme operates and it costs money – additional money because it does not replace existing bureaucracy it is an extra layer. The cost of fuel to the customer must increase because the previous elements of price remain (the cost at source of the oil/gas, the cost of transporting it, the cost of supplying it and the existing tax) but a new element must be added. It is bad enough making essential fuel more expensive by increasing tax, it is inexcusable to do so in a way that creates a permanent additional cost so that other taxes cannot be reduced by the full amount raised through the new levy.

They think they rule us not govern us. They should lead by example as any good manager does.

I just cannot wait for the next election to see how much they lose by. Britain has always been at heart a conservative country.

This is all nonsense. Global temperature is falling, if CO2 has any measurable effect on temperature, for which there is no actual evidence, then that will be beneficial. The influence of CO2 on plant growth is certainly beneficial.

This is what the 31,000 scientists signatories to the Oregon Petition say. A fact which is wholly censored by such pushers of the non-existent “scientific consensus” as the BBC decide not to report.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

To me, as an average Joe homeowner, I think we would be more successful if we involved individual home owners in reducing their home’s consumption of non-renewable resources in ways that did not (A) force them to change their current or create new habits and (B) did not reduce their current levels of comfort and (iii) saved them money in the near term.

Start with a home energy audit so the home owner can learn more about home energy conservation in general and what they can do to their specific home. We had one done last fall and learned a treamendous amount in both respects, so much so that we wrote about the energy audit report we received on our home web page (in the ECOENERGY area). Have government encourage home energu audits. Have government provide grants in one form or another to reduce the cost of installing more energy efficient devices. Create more energy conservation courses as part of the pimary and secondary school curriculums so tomorrow’s home owners already know what they can do and so they can educate their parents.

There are a lot of possibilities out there for all aspects of energy consumption. Let’s always keep in minid the little guy.

Dan
DailyHomeRenoTips.com

However, the Carbon Emmissions issue is based on a fallacy. We should understand that CO2 in the armosphere is a RESULT of global warming NOT THE CAUSE. If you go back to the Ice Cores from Greenland they show over the last couple of millenia that the average temperature leads the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere – not lags it. Sources: IPCC, “An Inconvenient Truth”, Channel 4 et al. So why are we taxing Carbon Emmissions when we are taxing only the symptom?

As to car vs train vs plane, what I would love to see is a full “CO2 emitted per passenger mile” calculation.

That would include, for trains, the coke burned to make the rails that have to be replaced every 5 to 10 years, the coal/gas burned to light up the stations and to power the trains (or diesel, where appropriate) and so on.

And for cars or buses, we’d have to include the CO2 emitted while roads are being built and maintained.

And for planes, what you have to remember is that a disproportionate amount of fuel is used for taxiing, taking off and landing. Once the plane is up there, they are pretty good in terms of fuel-per-passenger-mile.

I would not be surprised if all forms of travel came out much the same (problem being it’s all wide-margin-of-error stuff), except for buses in urban areas being far more efficient than cars in urban areas.