Keith (Dorset) wrote:
I reckon I've been pretty much in touch with the natural world all my life,
and I'm certain that global warming, from whatever cause, is hitting hard,
and importantly, very much faster than many researchers anticipated.

Yes, by 10 years too early! 10 years!! Do you realise? And don't say
'whatever cause'. You know why!! We must stop CO2 emmissions
completely. Everyone is responsible. Cheap flights to France, spain
etc. should be banned. Cheap plastic crap imports from China for our
Pound Stretchers shops should be all banned. All supermarket should
stop providing plastic bags. The car industry should be halted. We
should stop all imports from South America (now the biggest beef
provider in Europe as the country cut down trees, 'the world's lungs'
for pastures) and all imports from China. We should demand not to see
asparagus from Peru nor cabbages from Poland in our local shops. Stop
buying these products and local farmers will then have an outlet,
again. Demand decent, clean and affordable public transport. Share your
car with others. Take a boat or train but stop flying! Don't buy
imports but local to UK clothing/shoes. Don't use chemicals, none
whatesoever, in your garden and at home. Buy organic produce only. By
ethical goods, knowing that the extra 10p you spend on a produce will
help the producer carry on producing organically. Buy your produce
locally .... and keep an eye on that big glacier above England. When
that melts, we're going to get really cold again.

It doesn't take a degree in climateology for anyone with their eyes open to
realise what real problems we'll all face in the very near future.

We are facing them now or we wouldn't be talking about them. Ecology
and environmentalism was in the 60s called a hoax to sink the large
manufactures of plastic, cloth, cars and anything relaying on fossil
fuel.

So the suited, townie politicians better soon get their priorities right:
forget about foreign holidays and fancy 'upmarket' cars... and get back to
the real world - now.

Just look at Bush versus Gore, 48% v 49% of the votes at the american
elections. How can you ask for priorities when something like this
happens? It's up to every single individual to make a change, a small
one every month. You don't need to talk about it, just do it and others
will follow. Too many people think that they, by themselves, won't make
a difference. That is not true. I think you would score pretty high in
your energy use footprint Keith! You even think your neighbours could
do something about it. Why don't you talk to them?! Already, I can
remember the first time I used a low energy bulb - look around you now,
everybody uses them!

(rant over.. aah, that's better)

Go ahead Keith, it's good to talk )

La Puce wrote:
Yes, by 10 years too early! 10 years!! Do you realise? And don't say
'whatever cause'. You know why!! We must stop CO2 emmissions
completely.

that would be difficult cuting down is possible but not stopped
completely

Everyone is responsible. Cheap flights to France, spain

Yup true but do we walk there?

Demand decent, clean and affordable public transport

yeah right on

.. Share your
car with others.

too right but what does yer double decker red bus drive on?? let me
guess honey, biodegradeable fuel, right?

In article ,
Martin writes:
| On 18 Jan 2007 06:12:09 -0800, "La Puce" wrote:
|
| Yes, by 10 years too early! 10 years!! Do you realise? And don't say
| 'whatever cause'. You know why!! We must stop CO2 emmissions
| completely. Everyone is responsible. Cheap flights to France, spain
| etc. should be banned.
|
| Rubbish! That would have near zero effect.
| If every plane in the world was scrapped it would reduce carbon misprisions by
| a bit over 1%

And have an effect comparable to reducing the emissions by several (perhaps
many) times as much. In the case of aircraft, it is not just the emount
of carbon dioxide, but other chemicals as well, and the fact that both are
injected directly high in the atmosphere.

| Use nuclear energy to generate electricity.

Perhaps. With the current bunch of bureaucrats in charge of safety,
especially long-term safety, I am not convinced.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Use nuclear energy to generate electricity.

Perhaps. With the current bunch of bureaucrats in charge of safety,
especially long-term safety, I am not convinced.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The French use nuclear energy Nick and I don't see any problems with
long term safety. IMHO, nuclear energy has to be the way forward.

Judith at home

On 18/1/07 17:41, in article
, "The Minister"
wrote:

La Puce wrote:
Yes, by 10 years too early! 10 years!! Do you realise? And don't say
'whatever cause'. You know why!! We must stop CO2 emmissions
completely.

that would be difficult cuting down is possible but not stopped
completely

Everyone is responsible. Cheap flights to France, spain

Yup true but do we walk there?

Demand decent, clean and affordable public transport

yeah right on

. Share your
car with others.

too right but what does yer double decker red bus drive on?? let me
guess honey, biodegradeable fuel, right?

Hasn't Brown slapped a tax on biodiesel, or did I dream that?

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

Martin wrote:
Rubbish! That would have near zero effect.
If every plane in the world was scrapped it would reduce carbon misprisions by
a bit over 1%

Noooo. If you take a trip to autralia by plane, you would have used as
much energy as you would use your house for a year. I think you need to
get in touch with your ... chi ;o)

Use nuclear energy to generate electricity.

Perhaps. But sadly the waste problem is still a massive problem. I'm
not sure how long we'll be able to dump in our oceans ...

Sacha wrote:
Hasn't Brown slapped a tax on biodiesel, or did I dream that?

Yes, a bad dream. You must have been upside down. Brown reduced the tax
on biodiesel. Hooray!

In article om,
" writes:
|
| | Use nuclear energy to generate electricity.
|
| Perhaps. With the current bunch of bureaucrats in charge of safety,
| especially long-term safety, I am not convinced.
|
| The French use nuclear energy Nick and I don't see any problems with
| long term safety. IMHO, nuclear energy has to be the way forward.

Ah. For the biosphere, I agree that there is little danger, though
the same cannot be said for the risks to humans. In that context, I
suggest that you find out a little more about the problems of waste
and decommissioning, even ignoring the risks of accident or war.

Large quantities of radioactive isotopes of bioactive elements with
half-lives from decades to many millennia are not funny.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On 18 Jan 2007 06:12:09 -0800, "La Puce" wrote:


Keith (Dorset) wrote:
I reckon I've been pretty much in touch with the natural world all my
life,
and I'm certain that global warming, from whatever cause, is hitting
hard,
and importantly, very much faster than many researchers anticipated.

Yes, by 10 years too early! 10 years!! Do you realise? And don't say
'whatever cause'. You know why!! We must stop CO2 emmissions
completely. Everyone is responsible. Cheap flights to France, spain
etc. should be banned.

Rubbish! That would have near zero effect.
If every plane in the world was scrapped it would reduce carbon
misprisions by
a bit over 1%

And if every car in the world was scrapped, it would reduce the emissions by
about the same amount.

Use nuclear energy to generate electricity.

Yes.

Alan

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article om,
" writes:
|
| | Use nuclear energy to generate electricity.
|
| Perhaps. With the current bunch of bureaucrats in charge of safety,
| especially long-term safety, I am not convinced.
|
| The French use nuclear energy Nick and I don't see any problems with
| long term safety. IMHO, nuclear energy has to be the way forward.

Ah. For the biosphere, I agree that there is little danger, though
the same cannot be said for the risks to humans. In that context, I
suggest that you find out a little more about the problems of waste
and decommissioning, even ignoring the risks of accident or war.

But the problem is, that most nuclear stations have breeder reactors, if
they used reactors which used the radioactive energy there would be no
waste!

Alan

Nick Maclaren wrote:
Ah. For the biosphere, I agree that there is little danger, though
the same cannot be said for the risks to humans. In that context, I
suggest that you find out a little more about the problems of waste
and decommissioning, even ignoring the risks of accident or war.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick, I know you are at Cambridge and I am sure you know the topic
well, but my husband Edward was at Oxford and Edward's first degree is
in nuclear physics and he talks to me, often on waste and
decommissioning. I am happy with the way the French are ealing with
matters, for the moment.

Regards

Judith at home

"Martin" wrote

Use nuclear energy to generate electricity.
Martin

With you on that one Martin :~)
Jenny

In article ,
"Alan Holmes" writes:
|
| But the problem is, that most nuclear stations have breeder reactors, if
| they used reactors which used the radioactive energy there would be no
| waste!

That is not so, though it would help a great deal. It would enable the
reuse of much of the plutonium, which is a doubleplus ungood element.
But it would not resolve the problem of dealing with the contaminated
material, some of which contains an ungodly cocktail of nucleotides.
Far too many of the claims of how things could be done assume no problems
and no errors.

While I agree that they do these things better in France, they still
have a serious problem with waste management. My original remark
referred to the bureaucrats responsible for Three Mile Island, Calder
Hall / Windscale / Sellafield and so on. The problem is also NOT
primarily one of nuclear physics, as the bioactive properties are
more important (e.g. who gives a damn about uranium, but see above
about plutonium.)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 18/1/07 18:35, in article
,
" wrote:


Nick Maclaren wrote:
Ah. For the biosphere, I agree that there is little danger, though
the same cannot be said for the risks to humans. In that context, I
suggest that you find out a little more about the problems of waste
and decommissioning, even ignoring the risks of accident or war.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick, I know you are at Cambridge and I am sure you know the topic
well, but my husband Edward was at Oxford and Edward's first degree is
in nuclear physics and he talks to me, often on waste and
decommissioning. I am happy with the way the French are ealing with
matters, for the moment.

Regards

Judith at home

While it makes me nervous because of its sheer power, I'm not sure we have a
choice that is realistic, do we? Wind farms etc. are all well and good in
concept but to produce *enough* for the whole country, not isolated pockets?
I doubt it.
We went to look round Cap de la Hague once and were given trout for lunch.
Someone in our party remarked that they'd been goldfish that morning. ;-)
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

In article ,
Sacha writes:
|
| While it makes me nervous because of its sheer power, I'm not sure we have a
| choice that is realistic, do we? Wind farms etc. are all well and good in
| concept but to produce *enough* for the whole country, not isolated pockets?
| I doubt it.

In the UK, yes, actually. But whether the environmental damage would be
acceptable is another matter. The one technology that is essentially
useless for the UK is solar power - solar heating is feasible, though,
at least in summer.

| We went to look round Cap de la Hague once and were given trout for lunch.
| Someone in our party remarked that they'd been goldfish that morning. ;-)

Well, you know what they say about swimming off Lancashire? You
positively glow afterwards ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.