Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester

On Jun 30, 10:07 pm, Stimpy <stimpy199...m> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:49:37 +0100, EE507 wrote
>
> > Maybe a regard for the environment is also eccentric?  The
> > inconvenient truth is that cars are responsible for 15% of our CO2
> > emissions.  A perceived 'need' to drive doesn't make it OK!  If you
> > don't care, I would rather you just said so (like Clarkson and, I
> > suspect, the majority of climate change deniers), then we can move
> > on...
>
> I don't give a toss about the environment.  There, now will you stop
> preaching about it?

Possibly. Polson, Tbird?

In message
<2313725a-c3c1-4d59-99cc-9b69cf88dfa9@z72g2000hsb..com>, at
13:49:37 on Mon, 30 Jun 2008, EE507 <ee507.uk> remarked:
> The inconvenient truth is that cars are responsible for 15% of our CO2
>emissions.

Passenger cars and taxis are 12.8%, but I'm becoming daily more
convinced that the contribution from this sector will decrease because
of a combination of the cost of oil, and recession. If you want to play
the CO2 card, I'd be looking elsewhere.

--
Roland Perry

You won't provoke me into saying that I don't care about the
environment - I have done and am probably continuing to do more to
steward the real macro environment than all the tree huggers rolled up
together - I just don't preach about it.

What I don't give a toss about are the adherents to this decades fad,
then the next and so on.

First, thirty years ago it was Nitrogen gases and global cooling, then
in the eighties and nineties it was the Ozone layer and were all going
to die of the Big C

Now its Carbon Dioxide - of which the oceans and nature produce 97% so
mankind produces 3% and Britain produces 2% of that and the car
driver ................ you get my drift.

And do you know - I have no intention of retreating to pre-industrial
revolution standards of living, because I will bet everything that the
tree huggers own, that they won't either.

We are where we are because because of technical advances, and we will
likewise get to where we are going for the same reason, and not
despite them.

So - if you want to stay true to the principles you are espousing -
you walk; you work in a non technical; non power assisted workplace -
if you can find one; you grow your lentils; you make your clothes out
of tree bark; you jump up and down in the winter to keep warm, if not
dry :-

I'll be the one laughing at your futile efforts and using what
mankind's ingenuity has discovered and created not to be in that fetid
condition.

Your remedy?

TBirdFrank wrote:

> You won't provoke me into saying that I don't care about the
> environment - I have done and am probably continuing to do more to
> steward the real macro environment than all the tree huggers rolled up
> together - I just don't preach about it.

That seems to be what you are doing, in your own way, in
this post ;-)

I tend to agree with you about C02, etc, but I do think
that the western world does need to cut down on waste,
including unnecessary use of fuel, and faddy replacement
of things that are perfectly OK or can be repaired. If
global warming scares can achieve some of this, then that's
fine with me.

> And do you know - I have no intention of retreating to pre-industrial
> revolution standards of living,

Would you like or expect to see the people of China, India
and Africa (etc) have something like our current lifestyle?
If so, do you think that is achievable though advances in
technology, or will we all have to cut back our
expectations? If not, why not?

Charlie