Andy Spragg wrote in message ...
"AWM" pushed briefly to the front of
the queue on Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:39:23 +0000 (UTC), and nailed this to
the shed door:

^ Greenhouse gas from fossil fuel use contributes to global warming but by
how
^ much is the big question, these days most sources seem to say it is only
a
^ very small part of the overall picture. Most greenhouse gas comes from
^ natural sources, forrest fires, volcanos and the normal biological
processes
^ on the planet.

Ah. Apart from the fact that you omit the equally important issue of
where greenhouse gas goes /to/ (how much is present being a balance
between addition and removal), the trouble with that particular
psychological comfort blanket is that, given that "most sources" also
seem to say that global warming is a reality, it's only plausible if
the overall picture of "natural sources, forest fires, volcanos and
the normal biological processes on the planet" has changed
significantly.

Wrong. You assume that the earth has existed in a steady
state, whereas ice ages, little ice ages, and warming and
cooling have happened on all sorts of cycles since way
before man started his first camp fire.

The only component in this picture that I can think of
that has changed significantly is the amount of rainforest coverage -
a net remover of CO2. But I confess have no idea as to the magnitude
of the consequent decrease in potential for removal of CO2.


But you also have no idea of the innate variability of the
earth's climates.

The really dangerous man made contribution was the CFC gas we
^ put in fridges, fire extingishers and packing foams that is a time bomb
^ that is still ticking away even though we have almost stopped using CFCs.

I had always been under the impression that CFCs were ozone destroyers
first and foremost (because of the catalytic nature of the process),
and that any greenhouse properties were relatively unimportant because
of the relatively small volume in the atmosphere? (relative to CO2, I
mean)

^ The big reason for cutting down on fossil fuel burning is that they are a
^ valuable resource that we shouldn't squander.

Well, ye..es - but their value resides solely in the fact that we can
burn them to produce energy, doesn't it?

Not solely, no. A fair amount of fossil fuels are used as
chemical industry feedstocks.

Trouble is, whinge as most
people do about the cost of motoring, it's still way too low to
reflect just how valuable a resource fossil fuel is.

Nonsense. If you want things to reflect your opinion
of "just how valuable a resource fossil fuel is", then you've
got to start with the untaxed (or lightly taxed) fossil fuel that's
used for aviation fuel, heating, and the electricity generation
that's powering your contribution to debate on urg. When
you've succeeded in convincing your fellow countrymen
that all of these things should have taxation applied that
triples or quadruples their price to the end user, then you
will be able to talk about motoring & fossil fuels.

And that's here
in Europe, where the cost is high relative to e.g. the USA. I think
the best thing that could happen to the Western world would be for the
cost of aircraft fuel to go through the roof- which is where it should
have been all along. And the next best thing would be for the price of
petrol for domestic consumption to go through the roof.

It has. Haven't you noticed?

Restore air travel and private road travel to the status of
true luxury commodities.

Fine. You've just condemned the whole country to going
back to a peasant economy, as a modern flexible economy
is utterly dependent on private road travel. Tell you what-
you go back to life being 'nasty, brutish & short', and I'll
think about it for a decade or three before joining you.

--
Anton