In article , AWM
reeserve.co.uk writes


Don't confuse global warming with the greehouse effect, they are related but
not to the extent most people think.

What is their relationship?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , AWM
eeserve.co.uk writes

Seems to me that guy in Iraq made quite a big contribution to greenhouse
gasss when burn't the oil wells.

We live quite close to huge oil refineries where smoke stack burn-offs
are a regular feature. Do they make a similar contribution?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

Victoria Clare wrote in message 8.205...
"anton" wrote in
:

Then given that renewable costs about 5% more (with
regional variations) and your
original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is
equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating
might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm
guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas
heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable.


All sounds very low for a house. Are you talking about a flat?

Well, my gas bill is actually closer the 250 mark but then I live in a
3-bed end of terrace with a boiler 20 years old, and many people live
in terraced or bungalow (though whether that applies to this ng I
don't know). Flats are certainly a lot less - I lived in a flat I
think it was 100 pounds a year - and that was a top-floor flat with a
British Gas contract I wasn't allowed to change! My electric bill is
160.

I'm not saying I'm positive it should cost less than 100 pounds
particularly, the point is it's not a very big chunk of anyone's
income.

170 quid to heat the house for a year? Or even 256 pa? If only...
I pay just under 100 quid a month for our Calor gas (heating and water
only). If electric is that much cheaper - where do I sign???

If that's not a kind of central heating then I expect it could indeed
work out very expensive - either that or you've got a very big house.



Warwick Dumas

www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe

"If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway."
- the late Joe Strummer

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ...
"Warwick Michael Dumas" wrote in message
om...
Mike wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes

He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international
terrorists were causing global warming.
--

Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly.
Which
will be you and me typing these messages in, for example.

Not me though. Unless I count as using fossil fuels by using up
calories which I got by eating food which was delivered to a
supermarket by a lorry ...

Of course it counts. I also presume you use electricity and or gas? And
manufactured products?

I think I'd get a bit chilly if I said I'm only going to use heating
when I'm typing a message!

'anyone who uses fossil fuels'.

It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels
add to Global Warming. Right?

Well that depends whether you think it's their fault they used fossil
fuels. An awful lot of people could decide to use an awful lot less,
but the fact remains that many things are quite hard for an individual
to avoid if s/he wishes to have a "normal" economic and home life.

Indeed. We could go back to the middle ages and possibly avoid GW (I say
possibly as that is by no means certain) but that would seem to be worse
than the potential consequences of GW.

But as long as we rely on individuals acting by themselves, it looks
very like that is the kind of choice we are facing. I think it's clear
that none of the options is good enough - so what we need is
coordination, responsible action by governments.

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an
individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and
should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income. Short air journeys are pretty unnecessary and iirc,
each flight is about as pollutive as a year of car use by all the
passengers - I don't think anyone's got an excuse for that.

I like going on holiday. Thats one excuse.

I'm talking about the kind of journey people can make perfectly well
by train or ferry, sometimes at the cost of less than a day.
Edinburgh, Paris, Madrid, Berlin(?), Rome(?). And sadly enough, some
people apparently actually do London-Birmingham.

So certainly there is scope for some improvement by individual
responsibility - I didn't want to make the former statement without
this caveat.

As it happens I don't think that because you happen to feel like it is
much excuse for an Atlantic air crossing either, but that wasn't the
point.


Warwick Dumas

www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe

"If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway."
- the late Joe Strummer

Martin Brown wrote in message ...
Warwick Michael Dumas wrote:

"anton" wrote in message ...
Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message
. ..

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an
individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and
should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income.
(sic)

Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home
and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100?

I'm assuming you wait until at least your boiler's knackered, so
there's not much opportunity cost involved in the one-off expenses of
making the switch to decent electric heating. Then given that
renewable costs about 5% more (with regional variations) and your
original electric bill might have been 200 pounds, the statement is
equivalent to saying that (the actual bills for) electric heating
might cost you about 86 pounds more than gas. So it looks like I'm
guessing that electric is about 50% more expensive, if someone's gas
heating bill might be of the order of 170. Hmm, sounds reasonable.

How do you know that the electricity you are buying is really from genuine renewable resources ?

It's a medium-sized, well-known and respected firm which only trades
in renewable electricity.

There are plenty of unscrupulous energy companies about that will happily take an extra £100 per year
off you and give you a little certificate to salve your green conscience.

There is actually a legal requirement for electricity companies to
make 5% renewable energy. They then charge people extra saying "we'll
produce one-for-one renewable electricity as you use it", not
mentioning that they're doing nothing different from just fulfilling
their legal requirements.

Using electricity for space
heating in any way shape or form is incredibly wasteful. Even with the gain from heat pumps it still
isn't remotely efficient.

It's about 3 times less efficient than gas to produce, because of the
pylon power loss I think. But you can't get renewable gas.

It was briefly just about plausible in the mid 60's "white heat of technology" nuclear power will be
too cheap to meter pipe dream era - but it proved to be a bulky, messy and unprofitable business.

Combined heat and power systems where the electricity is generated and the waste low grade heat is used
to heat water and nearby buildings is reasonable. But using electricity to generate bulk heating is
*not* environmentally friendly even if it was produced by renewable means.

I think it's reasonable to assume that something more-or-less without
an environmental impact is environmentally friendly. I agree that
using a method which involves producing extra energy can seem
counter-intuitive. Solar cells don't, but for a lot of people solar
cells aren't a practical addition to their property - they cost 3000
and round here I wouldn't get that back.

If you are really serious about renewable carbon neutral heating have a wood burning stove and cut your
own wood.

You'd also have to grow your own wood where it wouldn't have grown
anyway, or it would surely be far worse for the environment than gas.


Warwick Dumas

www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe

"If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway."
- the late Joe Strummer

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ...
"Carol Russell" wrote in message
...

"Tumbleweed" wrote in
message ...

"Carol Russell" wrote in
message
...

I still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told
us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui
oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood
Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out
of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke
on our own refuse.

--
Anton



At least one prediction is that in a warming of the north pole, the
meting ice cools the north Atlantic, this stops the gulf stream from
coming to Europe ( a significant factor ). Hence a warmer world
could
mean a European ice age!!!

Arthur

And oft repeated, except its a poor prediction because the Gulf Stream
isnt
responsible for more than about 2 degrees of our winter warth. Most of
it is
because the prevailing winds come across a relatively warm ocean.

--
Tumbleweed

I thought 2 degrees would make a big difference. And if the prevailing
winds come across a colder ocean!!

Art

Well, if the temperature rises 2 degrees due to GW, then it will put us back
to the status quo.

Hmm! Interesting possibility. On balance I still think I'll emigrate
in 5 or 10 years though - you can get a bigger garden other places.


Warwick Dumas

www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe

"If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway."
- the late Joe Strummer

(Warwick Michael Dumas) wrote in
m:

170 quid to heat the house for a year? Or even 256 pa? If only...
I pay just under 100 quid a month for our Calor gas (heating and water
only). If electric is that much cheaper - where do I sign???

If that's not a kind of central heating then I expect it could indeed
work out very expensive - either that or you've got a very big house.


Calor gas heating is gas that comes by truck for those of us not lucky
enough to live within piping distance of a gas main. So it's gas central
heating, but with delivery costs. It's also a largish house with no cavity
wall insulation and only partial double glazing (I am working on these!).

Other people round here use solid fuel or oil-burners: these are cheaper
but the fumes affect me badly. I shall look into electric heating though!

Victoria

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , AWM
eeserve.co.uk writes

Seems to me that guy in Iraq made quite a big contribution to greenhouse
gasss when burn't the oil wells.

We live quite close to huge oil refineries where smoke stack burn-offs
are a regular feature. Do they make a similar contribution?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

The gas flares aren't good ecologically but are an unavoidable part of
refinning and are nothing like as bad as the massive uncontrolled burning of
the arabian spiked heavy crude that occurred when the oil wells were
torched.
Going back about 30 years refinnerys used to flare off gas 24 hours a day, a
big refinnery such as the long disapeared Isle of Grain would have 2 or 3
big flares burning, the light from them was so bright that at midnight you
could read a newspaper by them.

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , AWM
reeserve.co.uk writes


Don't confuse global warming with the greehouse effect, they are related
but
not to the extent most people think.

What is their relationship?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.


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

"AWM" wrote in message
...

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , AWM
reeserve.co.uk writes


Don't confuse global warming with the greehouse effect, they are
related
but
not to the extent most people think.

What is their relationship?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.


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. 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.

Hmmm, I thought it looked more and more certain that burning of fossil fuels
was contributing significantly (lets say 30% at least and upwards) to the
recent (say the past 50 years) worth of temp rise. CO2 has risen
significantly over the past 100 years (is it 50% or more, I dont recall) and
nearly all of that is from human use.

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


Well, one mans 'reasonable use' is anothers 'squander', but who would you
propose we save it for? It's unlikely anyone will want the stuff in 50 years
time anyway. But even if they did, what makes their potential requirement
worth more than my or your immediate one? Or my real need now, more than
their trivial one in the future? How do I know if I save it now, that my
grandkids wont squander it, according to my definition of squander?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)

"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:

^ "Alan Gould" wrote in message
^ ...

^ In article , AWM
^ reeserve.co.uk writes

^ Don't confuse global warming with the greehouse effect, they are related
^ but not to the extent most people think.

^ What is their relationship?

^ 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. 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.

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

Ha; fat chance.

Andy

--
sparge at globalnet point co point uk

"All Sheddi are behind the times;
it's one of their most endearing features"
Helen Deborah Vecht, uk.rec.sheddizen

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

"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:

^ "Alan Gould" wrote in message
^ ...

^ In article , AWM

^ reeserve.co.uk writes

^ Don't confuse global warming with the greehouse effect, they are
related
^ but not to the extent most people think.

^ What is their relationship?

^ 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.

The earths climate always has varied, 4 centuries ago the Thames used freeze
over regularly,

..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.

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)

CFC is both an ozone destroyer and a greenhouse gas


^ 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? Trouble is, whinge as most

What about plastics and chemicals , the modern world depends electronics
which need plastics to work.

people do about the cost of motoring, it's still way too low to
reflect just how valuable a resource fossil fuel is. 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. Restore air
travel and private road travel to the status of true luxury
commodities.

Ha; fat chance.

Andy

--
sparge at globalnet point co point uk

"All Sheddi are behind the times;
it's one of their most endearing features"
Helen Deborah Vecht, uk.rec.sheddizen

(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:

^ "Alan Gould" wrote in message
^ ...

^ In article , AWM
^ reeserve.co.uk writes

^ Don't confuse global warming with the greehouse effect, they are related
^ but not to the extent most people think.

^ What is their relationship?

^ 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. 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.

Hmm, yeah, I knew that at some point... I think yet again it's
liable to be a matter of scientific debate anyway though.

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)

That's right. But isn't the greenhouse effect enhanced by diminution
of the ozone (more waves coming in in the first place)? Some other
important regulations of the EU concerned not CFCs but industrial
gases containing sulphur and lead iirc.

^ 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? 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. 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.

It's so time we threatened to declare war on George Dubya Bush. The
trouble is that air fuel can't be taxed even in one continent, never
mind one country, because it would give the other countries an
advantage in attracting flights. If America cooperated with us though
it would be a matter of formalities to tax it like car petrol is taxed
now. That alone would almost certainly do the job of putting off most
of the unnecessary traffic, because the inefficiency happens to be so
very great.

And the next best thing would be for the price of
petrol for domestic consumption to go through the roof. Restore air
travel and private road travel to the status of true luxury
commodities.

Ha; fat chance.

It depends. I think once it starts to be just the rich left in little
havens of relative environmental quality, it'll be the poor who will
have to undergo inconvenience so that those havens for the rich, the
remains of the environment, are kept going. The opposite way round
from today. Then sustainability may actually happen, since obviously
it's the rich that are always in charge. Just the inconvenience for
the poor of sustainability may well be dramatic, vying with
environmental degradation to be the main cause of their misery; in
contrast to it just being a matter of applying common sense, as
sustainability is for the affluent and their leaders today.

It might find an equilibrium. Or indeed, it might not. But I expect
that's the way it'll go. All just tough luck for a creature that
always preferred to carve a bigger slice than to bake a bigger cake.
Shame for the rest of nature.


Warwick Dumas

www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe

"If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway."
- the late Joe Strummer

"Andy Spragg" wrote in message
...
"AWM" pushed briefly to the front of
snip ^ 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. 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.

Rainforest is not a net remover of CO2. If you exclude our burning it down,
its neutral.


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? 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.

Its value is what it sells for, plus a lot of tax.

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

So you're in favour of putting millions of people out of work, especially in
the 3rd world where it would hit very hard? Go ask the people of Bali who
are now on the breadline if they are in favour of a reduction in tourism.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)