Just heard on the news that European beaurocrats want to impose a 130kph speed limit on Germany's autobahn's :thumbdwn: . They have cited that it will help to reduce emissions by a miniscule ammount and therefore 'Save the Planet'!.

Load of ****** if you ask me :(

Spoil sports :thumbdwn:

I'd just like to note, that it has NEVER been proved that CO2 emmisions cause global warming, and an interesting fact, if we all stopped driving NOW and forevermore, it would take China's growing economy just 80 days to negate the effect on CO2 emmisions... proof that the governments taxes on CO2 are just revenue gainers, and do nothing for the enviroment (even if you accept that CO2 causes global warming... which I don't, because I have a brain, and education in the sciences, and research the facts instead of believeing what our lying govenment is telling us)

and those bloddy polar bears were just being lazy b@st@rds... there was solid sea ice less than half the distance away that they are capable of swimming, they were just hitching a ride.......

*rant over.... sorry.

its the bloody Polar Bears hot $h** thats causing the ice to melt !!

END OF!

As long as they don't change the limits before September.

There are not many derestricted autobahns left anyway, most now seem to have either a 120KMH or 130KMH limit, or lower close to cities. Some now also have variable limits ala M25 which are strictly enforced, and seem to be set to 130KMH even in quiet traffic conditions.

Probably a good thing. Compare the accident rates on German roads to that on UK roads...

Most of the unlimited autobahns seem to be to the middle/east of the country. The first 100 miles or so in seemed to be all limited.

I'd just like to note, that it has NEVER been proved that CO2 emmisions cause global warming, and an interesting fact, if we all stopped driving NOW and forevermore, it would take China's growing economy just 80 days to negate the effect on CO2 emmisions... proof that the governments taxes on CO2 are just revenue gainers, and do nothing for the enviroment (even if you accept that CO2 causes global warming... which I don't, because I have a brain, and education in the sciences, and research the facts instead of believeing what our lying govenment is telling us)

and those bloddy polar bears were just being lazy b@st@rds... there was solid sea ice less than half the distance away that they are capable of swimming, they were just hitching a ride.......

*rant over.... sorry.

A man after my own heart!!

There was a programme on last week (Horizon?) that provided irrefutable evidence that global warwing was a natural cycle of the sun's energy and NOT caused by CO2.

Just what I thought all along.

Government taxes on green issues -- B.O.L.L.O.C.K.S.

RANT OVER....for now

There was a programme on last week (Horizon?) that provided irrefutable evidence that global warwing was a natural cycle of the sun's energy and NOT caused by CO2.

Just what I thought all along.

It's not exactly irrefutable, that's the whole point. You've got one group of scientists saying that global warming is caused by man and another group saying it's a natural cycle. You could conveniently choose to believe either viewpoint, depending on your own beliefs and politics.

Dave.

It's not exactly irrefutable, that's the whole point. You've got one group of scientists saying that global warming is caused by man and another group saying it's a natural cycle. You could conveniently choose to believe either viewpoint, depending on your own beliefs and politics.

Dave.

But he's right though :P

It's not exactly irrefutable, that's the whole point. You've got one group of scientists saying that global warming is caused by man and another group saying it's a natural cycle. You could conveniently choose to believe either viewpoint, depending on your own beliefs and politics.

Dave.

Agreed, it's too convenient as a pro-energy user to side with the recent "CO2 is natural" programme but if there are two "professional" camps that are unable to come to a mutual verdict then what hope is there for us lot that really don't have a clue and have everything decided for us by the government?

There's no point in MP's, celebrities, green campaigners, etc getting on board with the carbon footprint debate when so-called scientists aren't able to come to a decision either.

One thing that's for certain (surely!) is that fossil fuels are going to run out. When that happens, what then?!

Fossil fuels will not run out as such, but become more expensive to use and so the alternatives will become viable. To be honest the fact that we're still using oil & coal to power almost everything in 2007 is more testament to the power of the oil companies than the inability to invent and use other forms of energy.

The high speeds on the Autobahns were self-defeating anyway, good for a laugh at first, until you realised it took you longer to get anywhere because you spent half your time refuelling.

I read an interesting article the other day that said Mars is currently undergoing "global climate change" at about the same rate as earth.

That Mars Rover must be chucking out a lot of CO2 !

I read an interesting article the other day that said Mars is currently undergoing "global climate change" at about the same rate as earth.

That Mars Rover must be chucking out a lot of CO2 !

If it's anything like the Rover's I owned it will be

On a more serious note. Climate change is constant, has happened numerous times before. How is anyone to believe the government when they claim it is now man made? There may well be a man made element to it, but frankly as the scientists all disagree with each other, the government has a vested (tax) interest in the procreation of the man made global warming myth, I don't believe any of them.

Warning*** Off Topic***

I agree with the whole tax issue, and that the effects of CO2, and the amount actually created by vehicles is not fully known, and that climate change is part of a natural cycle, even if man has sped the process up.

However, If emissions can be reduced, then they should be. If less fossil fuel can be used, then thats a bonus. CO2 aside, the other crap that industry and vehicles throw out (NOx, SOx, particulates, heavy metals etc) all have direct and proven effects on health (human, plants, wildlife). I agree that taxing drivers to hell and back is not good, considering the time it would take me to get to work on public transport, but emissions legislation, recycling and general efficiency can only be the way forward. I for 1 will be looking into solar and ground loop heating in my next house.

EcoPhil

some good points here... right after I rposted, I went to "general chit-chat" and started a pole and debate.... all you people giving this good input, go and vote and post on there! (as some of you already have..)

on topic anyone?

The thing about this CO2 and global warming lark is that it's actually a tiny minority of scientists who think that human activity isn't responsible. They are, though, getting a disproportionate amount of media attention because their viewpoint is obviously much more popular with the energy-wasteful western world.

Let's face it, even if there were incontrovertible proof that human CO2 emissions were solely responsible for global warming and that the resulting environmental shift would result in the earth being uninhabitable in 20 years people would still find plenty of excuses for not doing anything about it.