I'm rather proud of thast headline, inspired by this: Home front
To which I wrote this, direct to author and on blog:
"The question then arises: "is there any carbon offsetting to be had", is a good one, as that seems to be the point to any useful reduction measure.
And from all your useful discussions and valuable research for the article... is there?
Or at least a lead on someone who can advise us, factually and/or objectively? I find it hard to believe in this computerised age there is not a model that can easily assess domestic and work usage patterns to derive a pretty good answer, and in a lot less than three years.
Otherwise this bill is a waste, if not an exercise in futility, like so many headline* (if not vote) -catching 'green' issues (potentially good or bad on the various ROIs one can try to apply) before it.
ps: Thank you, Walt OBrien, for a truly useful new fact (to me at least) that I will now add to our site's archive and campaign for things that actually 'do' something."
* I could have added 'Headline-creating, too', as these things often are only used in the negative to make a quick dig and are then left to be ignored. I, for one, would truly like to know the situation to be able to have a proper view on it.
ADDENDUM: Stuck in a dark age
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.