If you can be wrong on this, and you clearly are, what else can you be wrong about ? Yes, man emits CO2 and that CO2 influences the way our climate reacts, nobody with half a brain would deny this. However the extent to which this is happening and what if anything we should do about it very much open to debate, something the green lobby wishes to shut down. Why has Anthropogenic Global Warming been rebranded several times ? Because it has evolved from science into a political and economic movement.
Why do you think that people who don't accept the whole Climate Change thing don't care about the planet ? On a minor point, the death of the skiing industry was predicted in the 80's, has it happened ? Adapting to climate change, using the earth's natural resources wisely and protecting habitat makes absolute sense. But you can only do that if you are wealthy and that requires energy, which brings us back to the original question, "blackouts or worse". The emphasis on CO2 emissions, and antipathy to nuclear power, is having a negative effect on that question.
Scrap the Climate Change Act to keep the lights on, says Owen Paterson - Telegraph Ah some common sense is emerging.
"The death of the skiing industry"???? But? I don't even. How? *dissolves into inconsolable tears of despair*
we could tax electric cars to pay for new power stations and maybe ukip has the real answer, less people in the country = less demand for power
Yes indeed. Don't expect the government to listen though. Paterson spoke a lot of sense in his previous job as environment secretary and was promptly sacked for it.
Let's simplify.... Name one valid argument in favour of man made greenhouse gasses, and pollution in general?
A major source of the energy we use to drive our modern economy comes from burning hydrocarbons which produces large quantities of the green house gas CO2 (aka plant food) and pollutants such as oxides of sulphur and nitrogen. Without them our world and civilisation would collapse.
That's an argument for the benefits of the mechanisms which create the pollution, not the pollution itself. Obviously if these means can be achieved without the pollution that would be preferable.
Cruachan is a pumped storage facility, it is effectively a big energy store, it doesn't create 'new' energy. It evens out fluctuations in supply and demand being able to be switched on and off quickly to meet surges in demand. Worthwhile and an impressive feat of engineering to increase efficiency within the network, but it isn't a new energy source.
no. but it can be storage for wind,tidal and solar. cost a massive amount to make as you can imagine. took 12years to pay back. not bad.
Every lump of coal we've burnt, every whiff of gas we've ignited, every ounce of petrol we've thrashed and every single drip of oil we've squeezed was once Carbon Dioxide captured by various means from our own atmosphere. Laid down through the geological ages and stored away. Cooling our planet through the epochs. From the inferno it once was. Thats one serious shit load of CO2.
Better make it "Plant a tree plant a tree in 2015" to save the planet. It's almost like they were designed for the job?
