http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JUKJFOVZUARXRQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/03/01/do0102.xml

I think the title says it all "All those Scientists".  All those thousands of intelligent, highly educated people, experts in their fields, who have spent billions of hours examining the data, testing theories and extrapolating alternatives might, just possibly, not be absolutely 100% correct in their predictions.  So we should do nothing and hope they’re not right.

The question should be, what’s so wrong with reducing carbon dioxide output?  What’s being called for is an increase in efficiency and a reduction in reliance on limited resources.  It’s a winning combination for everyone and a great way to alleviate poverty.  Even without global warming this should be the aim of every person on the planet.  Or do the deniers not want to see poorer people leapfrog ahead of them into the future?

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2023403,00.html
Wood pellet stoves may not have the romance of a log fire or solid fuel stove (my parents just got a Rayburn, which I haven’t seen yet, but they’re surrounded by a near free supply of downed trees and off cuts), but they could be as near to carbon neutral as an energy solution gets.

A few thoughts-

How are the factories making these pellets powered?  If they can close the circle and have a combined heat and power system on site powered by some of the pellets produced that will be brilliant.

The fuel will never be entirely carbon neutral until the chainsaws are powered by ethanol and every vehicle used runs on biodiesel.  But that’s being picky, it’s still a hell of a lot closer than anything else, and they could always plant excess trees to offset production costs.

How clean do these stoves burn?  A lot of Britain is now smoke-free zone, which has to hinder the uptake of solid fuel.  I imagine as they become more efficient the stoves create less smoke.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/ethicalliving/story/0,,2023839,00.html
Do Green campaigners have to be absolutely pure?  The question arises from the fuss caused by snide naysayers who are attacking Al Gore’s lifestyle to turn attention away from his message.

By all accounts Gore and his family have gone beyond carbon neutral.  No matter how much energy his mansions consume he’s planting the trees or making the investments to write that off and then spending a bit more.  Of course, the antis know this but don’t bother to mention it because that would destroy their argument.

It’s time for Gore to slap solar panels and windmills on his properties and ask what the rumour mongers are doing to reduce their carbon footprints.