1) It depends on the journey. Trains between big cities are great. They have the infrastructure at each end to get you from A to B. Trains and buses in towns and villages are usually counter-productive.
More over, public transport is often impractical and the actual carbon cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure surrounding it is very high. It would work wonders if the whole system was geared up to use public transport but it isn't.
2) Nuclear power is great and should have been used years ago, but the environmentalists didn't like it. What do they want? Moreover, back in the real world, nuclear power stations take 10 years or so to commission and have a whole host of other problems including, obviously, waste. You can't just change to more energy efficient sources without considering the costs.
3) The topic was recycling in general. If you think recycling is replacing production you're sorely mistaken. Recycling has nothing to do with "saving the planet" and reducing CO2 and everything to do with propping up dwindling resources and companies being given government subsidies to recycle.
4) I didn't say driving slower wouldn't help, I said the energy efficiency of cars would go from crap to slightly less crap. The internal combustion engine is hugely inefficient. If you think driving slower (or 5 miles / day less) is sound government policy in the face of what they claim to be a global catastrophe, then you really need to re-examine the issue.
What really highlights the hypocrisy in this debate is the whole concept of carbon credits. Are we supposed to be cutting carbon emissions or are we supposed to be trading the right to emit?
|
|