Global Warming Is Good

This blog is moth-balled!

2007-09-26T13:54:00.001+01:00

For the time being I am going to post all entries on the main focalplane blog. A sort of KISS thing which will essentially destroy my "hub and spokes" concept.

Different Points of View

2007-08-21T14:19:00.000+01:00

I have lifted the following two letters from today's Daily Telegraph. I trust they won't mind. If they do, they'll be removed.

Meantime, consider the diversity of opinion between an expert, Philip Stott and a protester (and, to be cruel, NIMBY). They sum up the problem with the climate change debate. Cold facts versus warm fuzzy feelings.

Sir - Last week rain fell not only on the rag-bag of climate-change activists camped outside Heathrow, it also poured on the whole global-warming parade.

First, new research indicates that our climate may be only one third as sensitive to C02 as has been assumed.

Secondly, corrected temperature figures for America from Nasa indicate that the hottest year in the 20th century was 1934, not in the 1990s.

Thirdly, recent satellite figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demonstrate no mean global warming since 1998. Indeed, the curve has flattened to below 1998 levels.

And finally, our British weather continues to contradict all predictions.

When will our politicians, especially David Cameron, recognise that carbon claptrap, not global warming, is the danger for our economic future?

Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography in the University of London, Gravesend, Kent

Sir - Camping at the "Camp for Climate Action" over the past six days has been surreal but exhilarating. Lying in a tent at sunset, next to my daughter, and watching the planes - so beautiful, and yet so destructive - land and take off has been especially disturbing.

We know from the latest science (Hansen et al, "Climate Change and Trace Gases", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, May 18) that "recent greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of control".

If we continue along our current path we risk triggering a situation "out of humanity's control, such that devastating sea-level rise will inevitably occur". Indeed, the impact would "probably exceed" that which occurred 3.5 million years ago, when temperatures increased by no more than three degrees above today's levels, but sea levels rose by some 25 metres.

Control of greenhouse gases must, therefore, "play a critical role in preserving a planet resembling the one in which civilisation developed".

By permitting a third runway at Heathrow - and the dramatic rise in carbon dioxide emissions that will inevitably accompany it - the Government is effectively committing itself to the destruction of the world as we know it.

Gabriel Carlyle, Heathrow, Middlesex

An interesting thread

2007-08-16T21:13:00.001+01:00

Here.

Climate Change errors "not significant"

2007-08-16T17:15:00.000+01:00

So a climate change sceptic points out a significant error in data management and the believers dismiss his argument as "making a fuss over nothing".

That's interesting because any error in science cannot be insignificant, not only to the immediate result but also to the ongoing methodology being used.

Ten Year Models

2007-08-09T21:25:00.000+01:00

I am sorry, but this is simply going in the wrong direction. Being pleased that they have designed a model that works over ten years instead of 100 years is missing the point. Clearly there are no geologists on the team!

Even the Greens don't want bio-fuels!

2007-08-06T12:18:00.000+01:00

This PDF leaflet from the "Network for Climate Change Action" rather neatly jumps across the debate lines.

Too bad that most of their other downloadable pdfs are firmly rooted in the doom and gloom scenario that we will end the planet in as little as 10 years.

I look forward to meeting some of them at Heathrow in ten days time when they camp outside the airport to protest cheap flights for the masses.

Public Perception of Bio-fuels

2007-08-06T10:37:00.000+01:00

According to the NFU, the UK public answered a survey on Bio-fuel Crops as follows:

Question: Should farmers grow crops to provide bio-fuels?

Agree Strongly: 19%
Agree: 41%
Neither Agree or Disagree: 34%
Disagree: 5%
Disagree Strongly 1%

Public opinion is clearly skewed in favor of bio-fuels. I wonder if the answers would be the same if the question had been:

Question: Should farmers grow bio-fuel crops at the expense of self-sufficiency in food production?

The Biofuel Economy

2007-08-04T16:26:00.000+01:00

This heart rending article from the BBC gives the side of the story the "greens" don't want to know about. Driven by nonsensical European policies, Dayak tribesmen are losing their land to avaricious palm oil plantations.

Back in Europe, biofuel plantings are reducing the land available for self-sufficient food crops, forcing more and more foreign imports.

What to do? Boycott biofuel products.

A Bumper Sticker

2007-08-03T21:48:00.000+01:00

Bumper Stickers are rare in the UK, common in the USA. Here is my GWIG design:

The Climate is Changing: Adapt or Become Extinct.

Brown Blames "Climate Change" for flooding

2007-07-23T14:12:00.000+01:00

It's so easy for the politicians to deflect criticism for ill-preparedness when global warming is waiting in the wings to be used to explain their short-comings.

"We must now all do our bit to combat climate change"

Phooey. How about doing something to help the poor people flooded out of their homes?

Oh yes, Gordon Brown has promised to "study the problem". Gawd help us. We need more than studies.

Accuweather.com

2007-07-18T17:43:00.000+01:00

I know, it's almost two months since the last post. Well, we moved house and, anyway, the climate continues to change whether I post or not!

But here is an excellent weather forecasting blog from Joe Bastardi of accuweather.com. It looks as though the link will change with time, so, having given full credit to the man, here is what he has to say about the present climate situation. It makes for interesting reading.

INNNNCOMMMMMMMINNNNNNNGGGGG!!!!!!!

It's been a warm summer so far across Europe and that is par for the course given the warm cycle of the AMO that is occurring. The amount of rain across the north has been something that has made news headlines, specifically in England. But there is a reason for that... the atmosphere is fighting back, in other words this cycle of warming is starting to get countered, as it always has been in these warm cycles and it always will be. The question on this day of "live earth" is whether the counter is something that will ignore the sins of man like it always had, or have become the power we think we are that can change what is infinite compared to us. I am fascinated by the whole debate here, for it crosses all sorts of lines.. scientific, political, economical, moral and spiritual.

What fascinates me most is that the leading spokesmen for the human induced sides have very little long term weather background. You can have all the degrees in climatology you want, but how long have you studied and loved the weather. The actual nuts and bolts of what happened when the details of periods of weather and the change in the course of the weather, which is all the climate is. There is one person I am convinced that has the WEATHER background, not the background in anthropology or politics or chemistry or math or physics that evolved into the weather, but the WEATHER, who over the years in my association with him has led me to believe that yes, man could have some affect and that is our own Jim Andrews here at AccuWeather.com. You see, I would love to debate most of the spokespeople I have seen that are arguing that we are the cause, for they don't know what I know, but Jim does and that would be an interesting debate. In fact, we talk about it all the time. However, Jim knows all that I know too, so he sees my points. If I get a climate scientist with a background in anthropology or chemistry or physics, what they do know penalizes them, because they see things through their backgrounds. In other words, the climate is causing the changes in what they see, not the idea that the changes may be occurring because of some other process (evolution). A bug shows up someplace where its never been before and its because the climate is changing. Well, a) Climate always changes and b) Maybe the bug is getting tougher so it can live there. But it then comes back to man messing around and causing everything to go haywire.

Lets take this summer of global warming being blamed for everything from floods to drought. Guess what, there have always been floods, there has always been drought. The idea that the Earth is Eden and that the climate should be perfect everywhere is trying to be something bigger than what we are. But the fact there is so much rain going on in places that we see it, all near bodies of water, is another sign of the reversal that nature has planned starting to develop. In the case of Europe, it's because the water in the warm cycle of the AMO is very warm. But guess what, the upper levels aren't and in fact have been cooler than normal over northwestern Europe all summer. So it creates a warmer, more moist lower level relative to averages, but with it cooler in the upper levels, a pattern much more conducive to heavy rain near and north of the main jet axis. The same thing has been going on in India. The warmth of the low to midlevels and the pulling north of the monsoonal jet a bit stronger than normal, because of the heating of the high ground of Asia has resulted in more rain there. The Alps in Europe in times like this are a giant vacuum, pulling air toward them. So, if it's warmer and more moist northwest of there, guess what happens, that air is pulled toward them. In the south and east of Europe, the action of the Alps being heated is pulling air from the southwest toward the Alps, so Italy and Greece are warm. Guess what happens to that air once it comes over the Alps and turns east and north. Bingo, big time warmth over much of eastern and northeastern Europe. But if it was a rout, in other words no fight back, it would just be warm all the time, instead we do see the ebb and flow of the pattern, though it is biased warm. Why? THE OCEAN WEST OF US, THE ATLANTIC IS WARM!!!! ITS SUPPOSED TO BE BECAUSE WE ARE BACK IN THE 30S, 40S, 50S AGAIN.

Now there is another twist, which of course, if you are looking to discover the missing link, you sometimes will not see the log your own eye while searching for the speck in another. To me the most obvious culprit is the sun. It is stronger then it has ever been over a longer term, and the last cycle of the warm AMO it was not as strong as it has been in this. Now, which is easier to warm up, a body or water or a mass of land? Well if you have ever been to the ocean, you know it's slow to warm and slow to cool, but the deserts, well you get my point. Now here is the next question. Which is easier to warm from below, dense air or dry air. Well now lets think about that. Why is it so hot on Mars when the sun is out, and so cold at night? Why is the average temperature change where it's dry here on earth, (day to night variance) greater then where its not? Because the air is less dense. So with a stronger sun than normal, which would heat up more and have a bigger feedback on the warm side during the summer? The mountains. Hence the reasons glaciers are on the INCREASE in the Himalayas's more precipitation because its warmer. They are twice as high as the Alps or Rockies, which warm up. So the oceans are warmer because of the cycle we are in, the continents warm more since most of the land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere and the warm AMO means a colder equatorial Pacific, but warmer in the northern Pacific. Surround land with warm water and increase the amount of radiation and guess what happens. You are seeing it. This is not much different from the 30s through 50s, (example: the Asian subcontinent where winter chill last year and the rain this year were near the records set in the 30s), but there is a twist, the sun is stronger and one does not need that big an increase to cause extra reaction to a blackbody, which is what the earth is.

However, there is another twist. The CO2, which is probably because of the warming, not the cause of the warming, is greater, but guess what is much less now??? The amount of Sulfuric compounds in the air. This means that the air is clearer and more radiation can do its job. This of course would really have an affect on the high ground since a brighter sun would mean more heating there in the summer.

Now this seems like a viscous cycle with no way out. Except that there is a way out, though be careful for what you wish for. The sun, like all things in nature, is cyclical. There are 11 year sunspot cycles, but there is also a much longer term cycle that we have reached a peak in now and that fits almost glove in hand with the measured temperature of the earth and the CO2 pulses. The danger here is that if the natural fight back of the earth, which all things equal would lead to a leveling off and temporary reversal of the warming occurred as the sun started its lessening process, it could launch the earth into a mini ice age again. One of the theories of that has to do with the amount of incoming solar radiation, but its like a double whammy here, the earth naturally fighting back and then the thing its fighting back from suddenly no longer being there. It's almost like being in a penalty situation in a hockey game, where not only are 2 people forced to sit, but they are your two stars.

Has anyone gone back and looked at the SOI during the last period of warming. Interesting, for though we did not have reputable measurements of the ocean then (another problem I have, comparing data today with yesterday and assuming we would not be measuring even wilder things then when the weather was wild. For Europeans the storm that preceded the D-DAY invasion should be an example of what the weather is capable of even in the summer season, and that was back in the 40s!) It was very tough to get an El Nino going. Now why is that? Well if we notice now the El Nino's that are occurring are weak-ish and don't last long, the last one was classic with people screaming it would go to the '97-'98 levels and then it fell apart. The fact is without a reason (volcanic activity in the tropics) to get these things cranking up, it is very tough to sustain them. The reason is because of the weather over the Asian subcontinent and the melting of the northern ice cap FROM BELOW because of the warming of the North Atlantic. That releases fresh cold water to the bottom of the Atlantic, which comes under the warmer water as it flows south and around South America, then turns north up the South American coast and then west out into the equatorial Pacific. Has anyone noticed how cold the waters have gotten relative to averages off South Africa and South America. In any case when the Pacific is in its cold cycle of the PDO, the Atlantic is in its warm cycle and the results are what we see now. The lack of the warm Pacific then leads to feedback that starts to turn things around also. This is known as the thermohaline cycle and is part and parcel of the climate and has been since South America separated from Antarctica and the Panama closed the Pacific from the Atlantic.

Now here is what I want you to think about. 1) How many of the front people for the humans are to blame crowd for everything that goes wrong know about this, and if they do, why don't they acknowledge it. You know what is interesting. If you only talk to people that agree with you, then you don't know something else exists. So what happens is, for some, the debate is over because they refuse to listen to anyone that may be bringing up other points. 2) My views on this are driven by weather and the pursuit of the truth here. As far as the earth goes. I look at it as a garden we have been given. There are compelling reasons that have nothing to do with the blame game now for taking the best care of that garden, some of them having to do with issues of our way of life surviving because we have to figure out other ways to advance without reliance on things that can be taken away by other people. As far as worrying about what we are doing to nature, I think that nature, if it was personified would laugh at some of our visions of grandeur that we have about ourselves. We are tenants, not the owners of the earth, the earth owns us!

So on this day of live earth, here is a lively little piece of prose (some may say its a piece of something else) that may help you understand the euro weather picture in terms of the picture and perhaps expose you to a canvas you may not have seen before.

thanks for reading, ciao for now ***

UK Energy Policy - the Key points and Counter-Points

2007-05-24T14:37:00.000+01:00

The BBC has assembled a brief summary of the Government's latest paper on energy policy. Here I add (in italics) my counter-points where appropriate:

Mr Darling said the government had reached a preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to allow energy companies to invest in nuclear power. Preliminary? Plenty of weasel room there for a sea change in policy!

He said the government would consult further, in a process which will run until October, before making the final decision. More of the above. . .

He said the government wanted low-carbon sources of energy and would do everything it could to encourage renewables. But Mr Darling added they alone would not be enough to minimise the "cost and risks". Because renewables are not reliable, does he actually mean the costs and risks associated with that unreliability? Probably not.

The government would consult on the "significant role" new nuclear power stations could play in cutting emissions and diversifying power supplies. Again, enough weasel language here to stall the anti-nuclear lobby into thinking they actually will have a say.

Mr Darling said it would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, and construct and operate new nuclear plants. There were also important issues to consider, including waste. New Labour's way of saying, someone else can carry the can should things go wrong.

The amount of electricity from renewable energy will triple to 15% by the year 2015, he told MPs as he published the Energy White Paper. But the back up generating capability will have to be increased to compensate for potential black outs, he didn't mention.

Mr Darling said a decision was required this year because new nuclear stations took a long time to build. Duh!

New electricity meters will come with a real-time displays showing energy use from 2008 and there will be a short term offer of free displays from energy suppliers for households to 2010. Short term? Oh, yes, just like the short-lived subsidy on energy saving lightbulbs while they were being made mandatory in new homes. Oh, such political BS!

The government says it expects everyone to have a smart meter within 10 years. And they expect we will continually monitor them, hidden as they are under the stairs or wherever.

A mandatory carbon trading scheme for large organisations such as banks, supermarkets and central government departments. The new Carbon Reduction Commitment "will be a cost-effective scheme that will save over a million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020". But will it save money? If not, it is the consumer who will pay.

More support for wind, wave, tidal and other emerging technologies. Support?

Legislation to allow storage of natural gas under the seabed and the "unloading of liquefied natural gas at sea. Out of sight, out of mind?

Mr Darling said the government was in talks with a "half a dozen" companies about Carbon Capture and Storage technology. He said it would "take time" to set up a CCS system but Britain was at the "forefront" of developing such technology. The use of quotation marks here signifies that neither the Government nor the BBC actually means any of this to be factually true.

White Paper gives more details on competition to build the first CCS plant to be up and running by 2014. By which time the plant will be under water due to sea level rise?

£20m for public procurement of low carbon vehicles and extra £235m for green transport research. Peanuts. But come to think of it, why not use peanut oil?

He said he had changed his mind on nuclear power, saying "I used to be sceptical" but had been persuaded by the need to cut carbon emissions as "nuclear is low carbon". It was also needed as Britain was running out of oil and gas, he said. Convenient changes of mind here.

He said he was reluctant to say "let's abandon nuclear" because Carbon Capture and Storage "may never work" or be available. But he also said the first CCS plant should be up and running by 2014!

He said tidal power was "in its infancy" but the government wanted to encourage its development. The Morecombe Bay Barrage was already in the planning stage in 1968 and will be a 40 year old concept next year. Some infant!

He said there had not been enough research done on the benefits of reducing carbon emissions using tidal power, with all the emphasis placed on the negative impact on the immediate environment on the River Severn and other areas where wave power could be harnessed. An honest assessment. Wow!

He said "there is a lot coal still available to me mined" in the UK but he could not force energy suppliers to buy it instead of imported coal. Strange in that the population is being forced into using other forms of energy supply.

He said he wanted to "encourage" the extraction of UK coal where it was economically and environmentally viable. Sorry, mate, few miners left who know how to mine coal underground, which means all UK coal will likely be from opencast sites, potentially environmentally unviable.

So there it is, and I have not even tried to be cynical. Wake up, wake up to the new post petroleum era of black outs.

Seen at the Re-cycling Center

2007-05-23T02:54:00.000+01:00

Honestly! A man drives into the re-cycling center and empties a shoe box of cardboard into the huge skip marked "CARD". A shoe box! Such is the politics of re-cycling.

Gazumping and Climate Change

2007-05-23T02:45:00.000+01:00

Yes, there is a connection - read about it here if you like, but at the end of the report you will probably not be much the wiser unless your name is Ruth Kelly.

The Home Information Pack (HIP) was touted ten years ago as the ideal remedy to stop "gazumping". Now it is the way forward in the fight against global warming, supposedly insuring that home buyers know just how energy efficient the property of their dreams may be.

Whatever you may think about the HIP concept, the change of the UK Government's tack towards implementing what is yet another financial burden on home ownership is nothing short of hypocritical.

(As an aside, the once socialist Labour Party states that large houses are less energy efficient than small houses. This is basically not true if the large house is simply a larger form of the same shape as a smaller house. Heat loss from a warm body (i.e. house) is dependant upon the ratio of its surface area to its volume. Small children and toy dogs both run the risk of hypothermia before their larger counterparts simply because the body mass is small compared to the surface area. The same applies to heat loss from buildings. End of lesson in basic science for politicians.)

Hungry for Numbers

2007-05-18T06:09:00.000+01:00

So, the oceans are not acting as they are predicted to. The implications of this are none too clear and there may even be an interesting corollary to be made regarding CO2 concentrations and sunspot activity, so I bring to your attention this comment:

"We have been way behind the modellers, who are hungry for numbers. But now we are starting to catch up because of the new tools and instruments available."

Once again, climate change science stands accused of putting the cart before the horse - and by one of its collaborators, not one of its detractors.

Is the IPCC Doing Harm to Science?

2007-05-08T16:53:00.000+01:00

There is an excellent article with this title in Speigel Online. It tries to be objective and pulls it off, raising more questions than answers, which is close to the norm in scientific debate.

In short, the emotionalization of climate change is seen to be a collaboration between vested scientists and politicians, with neither group fully understanding the other's modus operandi. I recommend the entire article.

Energy "Saving" Lightbulbs

2007-05-08T14:51:00.000+01:00

The UK Government seems hell bent on introducing the Home Information Package very soon. A part of this basically useless piece of government interference in the free market place is that "experts" will assess the environmental value of the property and any energy saving light bulbs and fittings will be rated.

The UK is basically a cold country. We heat our homes and very few have air-conditioning. So if the home is well insulated, any heat generated in the building will be a welcome addition. In fact, any additional heat will reduce the need to have the central heating on, thus saving oil, gas or electricity.

Old-fashioned light bulbs give of light and heat. Energy efficient light bulbs only give off light and then with certain limitations. On the face of it, this seems good, but if we were to add up all the heat sources in a home:

Central heating + lighting + oven + hob + stereo + TV + hair dryer + computer + add-your-additional-items-here

Then it can be seen that any additional heat merely reduces the central heating requirement. The system's thermostat will switch off more often if there are other appliances switched on.

So if and when the Government trained inspector assesses your home, remember this post!

Climate Change "can be tackled"

2007-05-04T09:33:00.000+01:00

This the the BBC's headline today reporting from the latest IPCC junket in Bangkok (oh, the carbon footprint of it all).

Putting phrases in "quotes" has a significant new meaning these days - signifying that what is "said" isn't really meant to be taken as "totally" true. And this is basically what the IPPC, via the BBC, is telling us.

Note also the comment about renewable energy - Renewable energy generally has a positive impact on energy security, employment and air quality. Generally? What does "that" mean!

The message being received is basically a sound one - save energy and we can all benefit - clothed in the guile of a terrible outcome if we don't. Otherwise known as the politics of climate change.

Let's wrangle!

2007-05-03T20:34:00.000+01:00

Ah! The politics of climate change. Worth a good few first class seats on flights to Bangkok. Oops, more carbon footprints for the hairshirts to offset.

"450, 550, 650 ppm CO2

You haven't a clue!

Then just when you think you do -

Along comes Pinatubu!"

My god, poetry comes to "Global Warming is Good". Maybe I should stop while I'm ahead? (that should generate a few comments!)

Global Warming isn't Good. . . .

2007-05-02T14:12:00.000+01:00

. . . it's great!

Modbury and the plastic bag

2007-05-01T09:22:00.000+01:00

The small town of Modbury in the South Hams of Devon has come up with an interesting ban - on plastic bags.

This makes for interesting reading. It also shows how cuckoo some people have become. A few facts for the people of Modbury:

Plastic bags take up very, very little space in landfills. Analysis of landfills after they have been filled and compacted shows that plastic occupies a very small part of the bulk of the fill. Therefore, if plastic bags are used, their impact on the size and need for landfills is marginal.

Ah, yes, but plastic isn't biodegradable, you, the gentle people of Modbury, posit to support your argument.

Well, I'm sorry to deflate your plastic bag but there is such a thing as a biodegradable plastic bag. Here is an example:

Mountain Equipment Coop.

Note their comment about paper bags:

"At first glance, paper bags seem to be the solution: they're made from a renewable resource, and they're biodegradable and recyclable. But paper bags consume many times more energy to create and transport than plastic bags. Manufacturing paper also puts out a considerable amount of air pollution and consumes a lot of water. In addition, paper bags are not as durable as plastic in wet weather"

Blair on rubbish collection

2007-05-01T09:18:00.000+01:00

The man who is "shortly" to leave office has doubts on fortnightly trash collection.

It is interesting that the entire concept of cutting down on trash collection frequency is in order to promote recycling. This is so much bulls**t. Trash collection frequency should be determined by more important issues, such as public health, risk of increased fly-tipping, etc.

The only better way to cut down on waste is to generate less of it in the first place.

Refuse Collection Frequency

2007-04-25T07:56:00.000+01:00

How often should refuse (trash) be collected? Good question. I suppose it depends what the refuse consists of. The only way to find out is to examine it, something few people would want to do*. But one thing is clear, if the climate continues to change in an upward direction, bins are going to get hotter, not just because they are excellent absorbers of heat from the sun, but because their contents are increasingly prone to fermentation, decay and rot.

Today's society is geared to throwing things away - scraps of meals, babies' diapirs, packaging - all of which has to be put somewhere. The expense of doing this has driven many local governments in the UK to reduce the frequency of refuse collection to once every two weeks. And now we read a a study which shows that people recycle more when the period between collections is extended. This study misses the point completely. Without writing a thesis on the subject, here are the high points:

1. Two weeks is a long time in a hot summer - bins get very hot and high. This is a health issue, not one for the climate change experts. Rats should not be encouraged. In hot climates the collections can be daily and this is for good reason.

2. If governments are sincere about this problem, then they should be finding ways to reduce the amount of packaging.

3. Everyone should be encouraged to install either a composter, or a waste disposal unit if composting is out of the question.

*There have been studies into what people put into trash cans - the US Drug Enforcement Agency does it all the time, as do identity thieves. But the best example I know of was the study undertaken for the "Don't Mess with Texas" litter campaign. The researchers examined highway trash and were able to recommend where the State should place advertisements to persuade people not to mess with Texas - a favorite was the country radio station with Willie Nelson hired as the spokesman. No more beer cans out the window! Well, a few less, anyways.

On Political Manifestos

2007-04-25T06:59:00.000+01:00

So the BBC commissions an expert to examine the Welsh political parties' election manifestos and he finds them lacking. Why on Earth should we be surprised by this non-news event!

Politicians are introducing draconian rules based on "saving the planet" when and where it suits them, not because they necessarily believe in their aims. To some extent, this is all window dressing, so they can be seen to be concerned. The truth is, of course, that election manifestos are written to get votes - what happens afterwards is anyone's guess. As to those draconian rules, invariably they are seen to be tax revenue measures, hitting the populace in the under belly they have previously softened up for the purpose of making us all feel so very guilty about "the planet".

On Biodiesel

2007-04-23T13:59:00.000+01:00

This is a useful article that poses the question "if biodiesel is so good why aren't we getting the whole story?

I have to admit that driving past bright yellow fields of rapeseed can certainly brighten a dull morning but couldn't, shouldn't the land be used to grow food crops, particularly in a country that imports food? I mean, what about the transport costs of bringing food in from faraway places when much more of it could be grown here?

There are also vexing questions (rarely brought up) about the negative effects of biodiesel. Is it all right if your engine won't last so long? Of course it isn't, so why aren't we thinking about the extra cost (to us and the environment) of having to replace that engine before its time?