Moderator: Peak Moderation
I heard that on the World Service last night http://petairways.com. Dogs deserve to travel in style, but it does make you wonder if we're on the right planetIanG wrote:bbc news just had an item on an airline for pets
either that or I've accidently ingested some acid and I'm with Alice at the tea party.......
It could be done today: it depends upon what you mean by 'average'.The average new car will emit 40% less carbon than now.
Aaargh.Introducing a target to limit UK aviation emissions to below 2005 levels by 2050, despite forecast growth in passenger demand
My emphasis. Does that mean payback for generating hot water via Solar DHW panels?[/quote]The report wrote:• Introducing clean energy cash-back
schemes so that people and businesses will be
paid if they use low carbon sources to generate
heat or electricity.
Had to drill down to find the pun there.In the longer term the UK needs to reduce its dependence on oil for transport but it will still be an important fuel for some time to come and the Government needs to help ensure that the UK has safe and secure supplies of the oil products it requires. The Government’s approach is to maximise the economic exploitation of the UK’s own oil reserves, to work with other countries to ensure a well-functioning global oil market, and to improve UK fuel infrastructure.
And right there is the reason for the US/UK still being in Afganistan. To pave the way for TAPI and secure the future supply of hydrocarbons... I take it what we are doing in Afganistan is 'working with other countries'.to work with other countries to ensure a well-functioning global oil market, and to improve UK fuel infrastructure
[/quote]SunnyJim wrote:My emphasis. Does that mean payback for generating hot water via Solar DHW panels?The report wrote:• Introducing clean energy cash-back
schemes so that people and businesses will be
paid if they use low carbon sources to generate
heat or electricity.
Besides, shouldn't it be 'low CO2' or even 'low CO2 and equivalent'?goslow wrote:yes, what's the definition of a low carbon anything?SunnyJim wrote:Where can I find a goverment definition of a 'low carbon business'?
the poor of this planet are definately low carbon....
Hmmm.... I've just read through the farming section, and it's entirely about climate change and the usual "lower your emissions, you naughty lot" rhetoric. It proposes to do nothing until 2012, when the government will review whether enough has been done voluntarily by the agricultural sector and then decide whether to intervene.SunnyJim wrote:Don't be fooled. This paper isn't about tackling climate change. It is the goverments peak oil mitigation strategy.
All of which would be Good Things, of course, but it might be tricky to demonstrate that such changes would result in a significant and direct drop in CO2 emissions, which may be why it's not included.contadino wrote:There is nothing in there that I could see to encourage the breakup of monoagricultural practices, changes to planning laws, loosening of DEFRA regulations for small (domestic) flocks, or additional help for organic farmers.
In the words of the pillocks that wrote this report, they're all 'enablers.' The farming section (which is the only one that matters in my mind) has no considerations for PO whatsoever. It's all about CC.biffvernon wrote:All of which would be Good Things, of course, but it might be tricky to demonstrate that such changes would result in a significant and direct drop in CO2 emissions, which may be why it's not included.contadino wrote:There is nothing in there that I could see to encourage the breakup of monoagricultural practices, changes to planning laws, loosening of DEFRA regulations for small (domestic) flocks, or additional help for organic farmers.
