Is DG really required??? *LINK*

[Anonymous]

It may keep us a little warmer - but it may not be saving the planet in the way that the Government claims.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1719730,00.html

 

[Anonymous]

Is that supposed to be a link to airline travel issues? Because that is where it seems to lead...

Airline travel is a tricky one... Although the greenhouse effects are undoubtedly large, there is also an argument that the particulate emmisions contribute to "global dimming" which may be slowing the effects of "global warming"...

As the article points out we dont have a lot of alternative to fossil fuel engines for planes so probably the best we can do is try to limit the amount of super-frivolous use of planes (like flying in vegetables at 500mph) in favour of airships and ground based transport... or even ground effect transports...

The expansion of airports like Heathrow does seem ridiculous. People living near Heathrow dont seem to want the extra flights, and people living further away would like more convenient airport choices. Do you know there are NO direct flights from even Manchester to LAX...

Since it seems unlikely that we will cut these kinds of CO2 emmisions significantly in the near future; why arent we putting more effort into research and development into things we can do cleanly (like wavepower) and also into methods of countering global warming artificially, for example Salter's misting ships...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-1734536,00.html

 

[Anonymous]

Yup - it's George Monbiot in today's Guardian.

As he says though - too many don't want to know about reducing the amount of flying they do...


http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com

 

[Anonymous]

Oddly enough - today's Guardian G2 'Good Lives' is about Richard Yemm... hope this link works...



http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=Richard+Yemm

 

[Anonymous]

I though aircraft usually had double glazing.

Here's a pertinent piece from t'lad:


Vital Trivia

 

[Anonymous]

Moanibot is a loony from an upper class background who likes to dictate what others should think.

If George had his way, we'd all be driving Ox-carts.

 

[Anonymous]

well, I don't actually care about his background, some of my bset friends are Upper Middle Class Twits and beyond, we at times need people who are extreme to make us see past the trees and into the woods.

I don't always agree with him but I feel he has much to say which is thought-provoking and pertinent.

 

[Anonymous]

It's interesting how the middle and upper classes are considered fair game for all sorts of verbal abuse, but the lower socio-economic groups seem to be protected species (and please don't get me wrong - I come from a long line of impoverished slum-dwellers).
My children were made miserable by this sort of inverse snobbery, but their tormentors were shielded by a solid wall of pc.

 

[Anonymous]

Have you ever noticed, the only people who say 'Money doesn't make you happy' are the ones with all the money.....

Thats Moanibot. Only he waffles on about the environment, never really considering that perhaps for most people a nice cheap holiday in the sun is something to look forward to. Not a problem for Moanibot though, he doesn't really have to work for a living.

Total hypocrite IMO, anyhow this is going a bit off topic <IMG SRC="http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/discussing/smileys/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="">

 

[Anonymous]

Sure a nice cheap holiday in the sun... without any thought as to the environmental costs.

Sorry, but Ihave a lot of time for people who actually care. And get off their arses to try do something about things that care about.

I'm sure he could simply spend his time swilling champers... but chooses not to.

 

[Anonymous]

The point is that many people don't care about the environmental costs (and I dispute the supposed severity of those costs anyway) because generally they have more to worry about than Moanibot.

I doubt the man is any kind of philanthropist, which kind of puts his position into perspective.....

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I care hugely about environmental costs - and without knowing more about the man I wouldn't care to make sweeping generalisations.

Is the fact that 'most people/many people' are ignorant and selfish about the future of the planet sufficient reason to dismiss concerns? I think not.

 

[Anonymous]

Clearly, there is some concern floating around in academic circles too...

'We are in a really sticky situation and we are running out of time... We are as certain as we can be that by burning fossil fuels we are turning a benign natural phenomenon - the greenhouse effect that makes the earth warm enough for us to inhabit - into a seriously dangerous one by trapping so much heat that sea level rises and the world climate becomes wild and unpredictable.'

The consequences, said Lord Oxburgh, will be considerable economic loss to all, with the greatest impact being felt by the poorest nations that are least able to deal with catastrophes.

'We have to change and, if the change is to be affordable, we have to start now,' he said.

Part of an article in the latest edition of 'Arches', the alumni mag for Newcastle Uni.

More on the above speech and other info can be found here:



http://www.ncl.ac.uk/alumni/news/HSBC.htm