Mickie Hill

Interesting old mate. How can we leave Europe now when we have to import electricity under the channel? And loads of other stuff? By commonwealth what i meant was trade: im old enough to remember how this ruined the agreements we had with Oz and the rest, cos the firm I worked  for then exported print machines and the rest to the commonwealth. we sold them cars, fridges and print machines; they sold us meat butter cheese and so on. And all at special customs duty rates. It was part of my work then to handle all the orders: and after heath did his deal with Europe the trade died cos we couldn't compete against the germans for one. As for BNp what about that french bloke Pen?? or something? He shook up the french government surely? Would be the same for BNP or Ukip. But not enough people would vote for them cos loads of dossers would still vote labour; and loads of stuck up nobs would always vote for Dave. And thats the main prob old mate; they swap it between them and are pretty confident to retain power to carry on ruining the country. Thats what we want; a wake up call and pols to smell the coffee; aint gonna come from the poncy geezer Nick Clegg now is it? As for spoiling my voting slip thats like refusing to play rounders cos its a girlies game and sissy, mate! All the bozos who always vote labour or tory will make sure one of em wins, cos a spoiled vote paper isn't counted me old mate; you might as well stay in bed and not bother!    

Been under the cosh old mate: sorry. Easier morning today and Ill be back. Trying to clear everything up for Chrissie.    

Britain cant pull out of Europe now old mates: its far too late. Dear old ted the Hampsteads did for us when he blew away the commonwealth. And why don't you blokes speak your mind? that party you hint at is obviously BNP. Dave the toff cant offer anything different to Labour: except another different firm of cronies sucking up to the trough. And another load of lies and promises he cant keep me old mates! All the rest is bs: like all damned politicians mate. Our prob now is how in hell do we pay back the billions? Sack half the civil servants that's the real way. The politicians have lost site of us; thats the big trouble. ukip and BNP havent a hope in hell of ever becoming a government; as a londoner born and bred i muight well vote for them just instead of all the same old same old and there damned cheek in sending down some geezer (one of there mates) from head office weve never heard of as our candidate! Me and a load of others voting for bnp might just wake the buggers up in there dreamworld they live in!  

Thanks Mr Baypond. Busy old day for me today. Ill have a good butchers tomorrow.

There is a pic of the bloke's motor here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230486/Ex-policeman-French-court-accused-killing-wife-stepdaughter-in-drink-drive-crash.html?ITO=1490 I used to drive one of those a bit: my mates. Big solid old motors. That was doing more than 62 mph to do that much damage; the things mullahd......... And what a load of old toffee about a fault! That car couldnt "suddenly accelerate" that takes time. whats more any really experienced driver would detect that type of fault instantly; and switch off the ignition. surely, with all those kids not properly secured a sensible driver would go very slow. Sorry old mates; sounds like a cocky lunatic to me..

When I said old african mate it was like in old bill, or old boiler (meaning the wife) im a londoner from South of the river and thats how we speak. Anyway werent it David Livingstone he said his african had to come from the stone age to the 20th century in less than 100 years? Thats what i meant. also that the borders dreamt up by the victorians stopped the tribes being nomads? So they stayed in one spot and worked the land un til it was exhausted? so whats this fiction stuff mate? dont get it; you seem to be resaying what i did only with long words.    

I read a really interesting book about this from the old library a few years back. It blamed africa probs on vitorian Brits who carved up the place to suit themselves and set country boundaries with their oppos from france germany and all the others using simple things like rivers. But apparently the old african was used to wandering about for ten thousand odd years once the bit of land he grew his food on was worked out. Nomandic or something? So its all our fault! cos we've made em stay in the same place instead of wandering all over the place as they used to. And also this book reckoned all the aid we give them makes it worse. They've had famines and all that for thousands of years and this kept the popualtion down. Now all these charities are on the old arm for us for dosh it simply makes it worse. Back to work for muggins; weve just had a new job in. Which is neat right before christmas; but as I said to the lads means youve all got a job to come back to when youve finished stuffing your faces with turkey!    

Well, my old mate Mr Baypond hasn't had the time to help me to understand more. Shame really: i was looking forward to some extra info.  

So we're all muppets mate? Except bankers. And everything stated in the media is rubbish? Not a banker by any chance are you mate? As Ive said before I'm an engineer: which means probably im not a total idiot. And I am looking forward to Mr Bayponds kind answers to the other points I made. And by the way mate, cos i'm interested i read a lot on this stuff: and not daily papers cos they are useless. Since you obviously know all the answers perhaps you can explain how my investments can have done so poorly (Just had my isa statement) when the FT index has gained so much since 2003? And as i said, if i had put my dosh in the post office at 5%, then I would have done much better.   .

[quote user="baypond"]Hi Mickie, I'm not a rocket scientist either, nor am I an investment manager. I don't know why the returns on my retirement investments are also so low either, except that the Labour party have taxed dividends which has dramatically eroded long term performance potential for funds invested. I can't make a defence for bankers pay and bonuses. The one honest statement made by politicians is that if they hadn't bailed out the banks, we wouldn't have jobs, and for that we should be grateful. I certainly am. The issue is that banks are still public, and like all companies operate in a competetive environment. Employees are paid on supply and demand. If you are a trader that has a strong track record then that trader has a value to the bank in which it works, and others in the market. However, not all you read in the press is truly representative of what happened. So here are a few things that I get frustrated about. Government decides what is legal and what is not. Government sets out a regulatory framework under which all companies must operate. These include things like health and safety, minimumm wage and things like banking law. Governments want economies to grow so that everyone can have a job, earn some cash, and afford more than just eat. Government loves the good times, because good times means they stay in Government for longer. However, to perpetuate the good times, they encourage/allow poor practice to continue long after it should because to stop them would harm the economy. The sort of things I am talking about are equity withdrawls, self certification, multiples of earnings for mortgages far higher than the 4X allowed when I first got a mortgage. Why did they allow banks to do all this? Because it helped the economy grow. Both the Clinton administration inthe USA and Labour government here encouraged lending on less robust criteria because they felt it was important for everyone to be able to own their own home. So, in a competetive environment, banks looked at more and more complex ways of trying to compete and make money out of lending to less and less creditworthy people. The regulatory environment allowed it, and the banks made a huge mistake in compromising their lending standards. Of the total losses in banks, only about 10% was due to complex derivatives, the vast majority of losses were on mortgages, credit cards, and comercial lending ie the traditional sort of banking far removed from gizzilionaire traders. The number of traders caught up in these complex derivatives (CDOs) was probably about 2% of the trading population. The vast amount of other types of traders continue to contribute to banks repair and profitability. Politicians are really covering up their own failings by pointing the finger solely at bankers.It is great spin. It is Labour policy of spending in the good times, and now having to spend in the bad times that is causing the pain. They complain that bankers are not lending, but complain that it was banks making bad lending decisions that caused the crisis. They complain that Sarkosy is trying to ruin UK banking, but then tell everyone that they are going to make the UK less reliant on the finance sector. Gordon Brown said no more boom and bust, and yet set in place policies that have brought about just that. You know that of the £80 billion or so that UK banks lost in 2009, and that cost UK tax payers so much money, that more than half the loss was on RBS buying ABN (a dutch bank). No traders involved, just one RBSchairman. Politician will have you belive that it was 20,000 greedy bankers that lost this money. What about their mess in dealing with Northern Rock. Regulatory failing again, no greedy bankers, just regulation that allowed a building society to lend 20 year money, and fund it buy borring frombanks on a 1 day at a time basis. Bankers deserve to take their medicine, but I just wish someone would recognise that it is politics that is corrupting the UK, not banks. [/quote] Thanks Mr Baybond but it doesn't really answer all the quesions. Im going to break up your answer in bits:  [quote]I don't know why the returns on my retirement investments are also so low either, except that the Labour party have taxed dividends which has dramatically eroded long term performance potential for funds invested.[/quote] I think that the tax thing is summat of a big excuse! So do these peeps. http://www.opalliance.org.uk/decline.htm#5billion So the process started in Lamonts time then. Do these hedge fund thingies we hear so much about also have tax problems? Don't seem to: and they seem to make bundles. So surely they are cleverer than all the blokes managing our investments and pensions? So personally, as the stock market has gone right again I can only believe its the geezers in charge of our cash are useless at what they do these days! So so much for this rewarding the top talent rubbish then! From interest I asked our company accountant who is a mate too: he tells me this ACT thing wasnt brought in until 1973 (He looked it up for me). So before that all the pension funds were likae everything else. And as I said at the beginning of my thing, the old boys who retired back in the late 60s seemed to hav e good pensions and lived comfortably. So if pensions worked then why don't they work now? I'll tell you what I think: and thats these geezers in the old city use our savings to make bundles and all swan off with huge bonuses  but its our cash value which suffers! [quote]I can't make a defence for bankers pay and bonuses. The one honest statement made by politicians is that if they hadn't bailed out the banks, we wouldn't have jobs, and for that we should be grateful. I certainly am.[/quote] Hang on: Northern Rock werent a big lender to business: neither was rbs; apart from Natwest. Lloyds perhaps. So wouldn't it have been far cheaper and better for the government to have let northern rock go belly up (the shareholders all lost their dough after all anyway). extract Natwest from rbs and save that; and take over Lloyds-TSB? And take over 100% of the bits left after they had been wound up or whatever its called; and poke taxpayers cash into the thing then? And then start lending to business? Im a little businessman; my engineering co can't get much help from the banks Please correct me if Im wrong here: I thought the problem and the credit crunch was caused by banks borrowing bundles from overseas and lending it on dodgy mortgages to peeps who can't afford them? So how could this have meant none of us would have jobs? The people working in the failed banks wouldnt ha ve jobs sure: tough. Everyone else who loses there jobs cos the bosses are idiots doesn't have governemnt riding to their rescue. The foreign lenders would have lost their dough: tough again; thats the risk of lending cash surely? I think the government rode to the rescuse of their mates in the city: we all now owe its said 45 grand each; man woman and kids. What for extactly? [quote] The issue is that banks are still public, and like all companies operate in a competetive environment. Employees are paid on supply and demand. If you are a trader that has a strong track record then that trader has a value to the bank in which it works, and others in the market. However, not all you read in the press is truly representative of what happened. So here are a few things that I get frustrated about.[/quote] What has all this trading to do with our money? Your bank takes your money and pays you nothing: and if you want to borrow some charges you a bundle! I think the banks gambled with our dosh: and they still are. [quote]Government decides what is legal and what is not. Government sets out a regulatory framework under which all companies must operate. These include things like health and safety, minimumm wage and things like banking law. Governments want economies to grow so that everyone can have a job, earn some cash, and afford more than just eat. Government loves the good times, because good times means they stay in Government for longer. However, to perpetuate the good times, they encourage/allow poor practice to continue long after it should because to stop them would harm the economy. The sort of things I am talking about are equity withdrawls, self certification, multiples of earnings for mortgages far higher than the 4X allowed when I first got a mortgage. Why did they allow banks to do all this? Because it helped the economy grow. Both the Clinton administration inthe USA and Labour government here encouraged lending on less robust criteria because they felt it was important for everyone to be able to own their own home. So, in a competetive environment, banks looked at more and more complex ways of trying to compete and make money out of lending to less and less creditworthy people. The regulatory environment allowed it, and the banks made a huge mistake in compromising their lending standards.[/quote] Surely no one held a gun to the banks heads and insisted they lend silly amounts on mortgages did they? This is like all those damned MPs, saying that they did nothing wrong with their expenses cos the regulations allowed it! Like the geezer with the clock tower: heard him on the radio other day: that's exactly what he said too! [quote]Of the total losses in banks, only about 10% was due to complex derivatives, the vast majority of losses were on mortgages, credit cards, and comercial lending ie the traditional sort of banking far removed from gizzilionaire traders. The number of traders caught up in these complex derivatives (CDOs) was probably about 2% of the trading population. The vast amount of other types of traders continue to contribute to banks repair and profitability. [/quote] Whenever I wanted loans for the business, the banks put me through the wringer! Wanted security, my house deeds the works. So what you are really saying is the banks were incompetent! Yet they all earn zillions. And we're told how they must compete for talent and pay bundles. Some talent mate! I could do far better. [quote]Politicians are really covering up their own failings by pointing the finger solely at bankers.It is great spin. It is Labour policy of spending in the good times, and now having to spend in the bad times that is causing the pain. They complain that bankers are not lending, but complain that it was banks making bad lending decisions that caused the crisis. They complain that Sarkosy is trying to ruin UK banking, but then tell everyone that they are going to make the UK less reliant on the finance sector. Gordon Brown said no more boom and bust, and yet set in place policies that have brought about just that. You know that of the £80 billion or so that UK banks lost in 2009, and that cost UK tax payers so much money, that more than half the loss was on RBS buying ABN (a dutch bank). No traders involved, just one RBSchairman. Politician will have you belive that it was 20,000 greedy bankers that lost this money. What about their mess in dealing with Northern Rock. Regulatory failing again, no greedy bankers, just regulation that allowed a building society to lend 20 year money, and fund it buy borring frombanks on a 1 day at a time basis. Bankers deserve to take their medicine, but I just wish someone would recognise that it is politics that is corrupting the UK, not banks.[/quote] The truth as I see it old mate is government and the banks are both equally guilty. All weve heard since Thatcher is how wonderful financial stuff is and how important the city is and how much dosh it makes etc etc etc. Well clearly thats not really so then is it! yes indeed, it makes loads of dosh for such as fred goodwin: but at our cost! And now we all owe 45 grand each. nice.  

[quote user="baypond"]Who funds this 'left leaning' - according to 5LIVE- think tank? I would love to know. I am a banker so maybe I am biased, but please god tell me what politician are worth compared with bankers? How biased is it... It is government that spent during the good times, and have no money for the bad times. The banks have cost a massive £10 billion, but Labour are borrowing an extremely enormous £800+ billion to cover the economic problems. Government of course blames the bankers as they are an easy target (of our own making), but that report is utter tosh. [/quote] Oh goody! A banker. Praps you can explain summat to me Mr Banker. In the 1960s, all the old blokes I used to work with had paid into their pensions (Called it Superanuation or whatever in them days): and when they retired, I kept in topuch with many as I respected them and they were nice blokes. And they all seemed to enjoy a reasonable life and werent huting for cash. And then Thatcher annoucned the big bang or whatever: and then we saw the city grow and grow and all these young geezers were earning bundles and driving Ferraris and Porsches and thousand quid suits and we were told all these new clever things they did had taken away the risks and would make us all well off. And since all this cleverness, our investments are worth doodly squat; our pensions are useless: everyone talks about black holes in pensions; and were told how crucial the city is to Britain: and how much money it earns for the country; and my quid is now worth about one euro and a bit instead of 1.5 euros when we bought our place in France; insurance policies for mortgages left home buyers desperate when they should have paid up their mortgage and had a nice chunk left over. Companies say they can't pay enough into their pensions funds: but the bosses are all earning fortunes and their pay and bonuses have gone up like a guy forks rocket. The stock market is almost back to where it was: yet my isas are worse than if I had put my dough in the post office. And the bankers tell dear old Gordy and darling if he taxes them too hard they'll leave the country, cos they have to pay top dollar for the talent. And despite ruining the country's finances they still demand mega bonuses: for screwing up big time. But it was all going to be so good our worries were over. All this clever rocket science and trading things none of us simple blokes could ever understand. Well, thats what we were told. So simple question: why are our investments so useless then? In March 2003 the FTSE 100 was 3,491: now its around 5,190. Well, by my dodgy arithmetic that's a rise of 48%: so why are all our pensions in such a mess and why are my isas still so useless? But at the same time Goldman Sucks are paying zillions in bonuses cos apparently they've never had it so good. None of this makes any sens to poor old me mate: I'm an engineer, not a rocket scientist! Praps you could most kindly explain? I'm sure loads of others would like to know.  

But the point surely old mate is that even Alexander and the Mongols couldn't tame the Pashtun tribesmen. And I believe it is arrogant idiocy for the US and Britain to think they can! These geezers are so up for a barney, they can't even agree among themselves!  

So you believe Wiki is unbiased then Mate? Good for you. http://www.hnn.us/roundup/entries/107097.html    

"The area's Pashtun tribesman tangled with Alexander the Great in the 4th century, and their archers almost killed him. They held off the Mughal Emperor Babur in the 16th century and fought the British Raj to a standstill in the 19th and 20th. Rudyard Kipling celebrated their ferocity in poems, including one in which a tribesman vowed: " 'Tis war, red war, I'll give you then, war till my sinews fail." In his 1912 memoir Campaigns on the North-West Frontier, British Capt. Hugh Lewis Nevill described the tribesmen in and around the Khyber Pass as "rapacious, untrustworthy and lawless by nature. They are constantly at feud with one another, but are always ready to unite in defense of their independence." Unable to tame the tribesmen, the British pretty much left them alone. So did the Pakistani government after assuming power when independence came to the Indian subcontinent in 1947. " http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-10-01-tribes_N.htm Yousee? Thats one of the main probs: the Pashtun tribesmen recognise no border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. For hundreds of years they have moved backwards and forwards through the mountains of the Khyber Pass.

The Afghanistanian tribes have never been tamed or successfully invaded in point of fact old mates. Despite Britain in the days of the Raj successfully colonising the indian sub continent, they never tamed the wild Afghanistanian tribesmen. And Soviet Russia, despite sending in their SpetzNaz elite troops, they failed too: mainly cos the tribes men are intensely proud, determined and simply vanish into the harsh and unforgiving mountains: which the Afghans know backwards and the invaders don't. When such as Brown spouts forth about "Dying for your country" as yet more young men so sadly have their lives shortened, I tend to almost throw up with despair and anger. Because these lads ar not dying for their country: once again, they are being slaughtered to serve the greedy interests of mainly US oil barons: as they were in Iraq.  

Robin Cooke and Clair Short stood up and were counted: counted right out of the government. I respected both of them for that.  

[quote user="Hoddy"] I would like him to have a long prison sentence and more importantly a massive fine for what he has done. How he can call himself a Christian defeats me. Hoddy[/quote] Agree totally. As I said before, under the headings of the Nuremburg Principles Blair and Bush are clearly war criminls, as they invaded another country on false grounds with no permission from such as UN and caused tens of thousands of deaths by their actions. Conveniently of course, america aint signed up to the jurisdiction of the interntational criminal court: Britain is though. http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/international-law/start/un-nuremberg-principles.htm However both america and UK are signed up to the UN.  

[quote user="Hoddy"]Mickie I thought it was obvious that my list wasn't meant to be exhaustive, I was merely giving examples. I even agreed with Morrissey when he left the stage after someone threw a plastic bottle at him. I don't think anyone should have to accept even minor acts of violence as part of the job. Hoddy[/quote] I did realise that old Mate. I was being naughty on a Monday.  

[quote user="Hoddy"]I can't agree with any of you. Eggs thrown at Prescott and Warsi, shoes at Bush and now someone has thrown a metal object in Berlusconi's face. Much as we might enjoy it just for a while we really can't condone violence against public figures can we ? Hoddy[/quote] But its OK to throw eggs at Nick Griffin? Cos he's a fascist nazi (Short for National Socialist but the thingy edited it out; weird), racist? Sort of selective discrimination? Apparently the geezer who chucked the statue thing at dear old Silvio, was a man with mental problems: he was sane and all the others voters who go along with Berlesconis lies, double dealing, womanising etc are insane probably! [:)]

The scam gets better n better! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8408654.stm Nice loads of dosh for "Climate Change" consultants then. Like, ex EU and member states MPs.  

Seems apparent that the one thing old saddam lacked was a delivery system capable of hitting Europe in "45 minutes". And why and how was British intelligence so poor? Costs the taxpayer enough! Surely after the matter of the big tubes (Was it mattrix Churchill or summat? and Doc Gerry Bull), the intelligence boys would have been watching old saddam from that point on? Just googled it: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm Weve been lied to old mates that's the truth. And what about that poor geezer Dr Kelly: so a doc mate tells me, slitting the old wrists is about the most painful way you can do yourself in. But this bloke Doc Kelly, was supposed to be a world top man on poisons and biological and chemical weapons. Surely, he would have done himself in with some chemical that meant he drifted off to sleep and felt no pain. Don't add up to this old lad from London, Mate!    

Blair in concert with Bush lied. plain and simple fact. Blair's cronies sexed up a dossier to "prove" the risks from WMD: then when this was found to be totally false they said the justification was Moral Cause. The USA and the UK are both leading founding members of UN: they both went again UN decree. So they cannot claim they were acting on UN directions. What they did (As Lord Goldsmith apparently now claims he advised) was illegal. Under the headings of the nuremberg protocols they are war criminals, since they illegally invaded another nation and loads of people lost their lives. Cheney and Rumsfield plotted the Iraq invasion as long ago as 1999: they wanted the oil. Contracts for the reconstruction were awarded to such as Pullman Kellog, Bechtel and Cheney's old outfit Haliburton before Bush had even announced his plans; and before he had been given persmission from congress and the senate. Its all a matter of record. Look which major oil companies have reaped a rich harvest! led by Exxon and the rest. It aint rocket science old mates!

[quote user="Théière"][quote user="Mickie Hill"] Earlier in the year I had a good chat to a friend in France who is a marine biologist and working on the ecology; mainly I gather on reefs and the life around them. She told me how the local government officials and police (Its Indonesia) are destroying the coral reefs, to use for building! They chop it out and grind it up, apparently. [/quote] That's an interesting point Mickie, actually they are all interesting but that part in particular. Another marine biologist with a similar train of thought said to me that the bad side of man's pollution is the destruction of the marine ecosystem, particularly the reefs, algae and plankton. as the world's largest surface is water if the levels of algae and plankton were at the levels of a few years ago the Co2 levels would be much lower as the marine environment photosynthesis Co2 back into the oxygen we humans need. More here. [/quote] Sorry Mate forgot to reply! Yes, its very interesting. My friend has lived there working on this for 20 years or so: not young, she must be knocking 50 and she's a master diver and her team dive the coral reefs smapling water temps, salt levels (Is that called salinity or something?) currents, sea levels and analise the chemicals in the water. She reckons its possible the rising carbon dioxide changes are changing the seawater; possibly. As a scientist shes a neat lass. not arrogant she says "might" all the time which at least is very honest! And at least she is out there at the sharp end not sat on her jacksie in East Anglia in some uni office bumping her gums about it! Ive known about the plankton since I first heard about this years ago: and it stands to reason that if man chops down all the rain forests and poisons the plankton (Tankers are apparently the worst enemy here, when they wash out their tanks) then the atmosphere cannot regenerate properly. All the western banks are guilty of destroying rain forest because they lent loads of dosh to places like brazil in the 1980s and then forced them to chop down forest to graze beef for US hamburgers. And after they have chopped down the rain forest and turned it into grazing after a few years it dies and will be like desert. Then at the same time we keep using more cars and burning more oil and building more roads and big buildings. So we make more pollution: and destroy the things like trees which turn the carbon back into oxygen. Mad totally mad. Sensible balance is what I look for: and actually doing something positive, rather than jetting off to saave the world conferences and poncing about in front of the cameras. And giving my tax money to third world countries where it will simply vanish into some head honchos Swiss bank account!  

[quote user="buelligan"] [quote user="powerdesal"]Buelligan, its much better to actually do all the relevant analysis first, then do the planning properly, then try to do right. You stand much more chance of actually BEING right that way rather than the 'brave Horatio at the bridge' bit. [/quote]  I couldn't agree more PD, BUT sometimes we do not have the luxury of time.  You could give similar advice to someone with a terminal diagnosis; We'll find the cure first - then you should commence showing symptoms...  Surely it is better to take a second (or umpteenth) opinion whilst using every asset we have to cure ourselves? A lot of people seem to be very keen on good science (quite rightly!).  But, when you read their posts, the main thrust of their objections is more to do with politics, fear of being scammed, resentment over paying taxes.   Please consider the issue at the heart of this, not the scoundrels and charlatans queuing to get a slice of the action.  I am sure there are many on this forum who are pursuaded enough to profess a faith or religion (with probably less evidence than there is for climate change).  Would they accept that Christianity was undermined because of the Spanish Inquisition or Allah was not Great because of the London Bombings?  So please think about the central issue here; We have had a possible indication that our actions could be so profoundly damaging our planet that it could become uninhabitable.  Do we want to avoid that possibility? Finally, I really do not want to argue about this.  I just think that each one of us has to consider this matter very, very seriously.  As I said earlier, if those who do not share my concerns are right - GREAT!  But what if they are wrong? [:D][/quote] The problem I have with your fine sentiments (And they are fine im not being sarky!), is that if the Climate Changers ARE right, after all, then none of the present actions are going to have any major effects! We had Land Fill Tax; has this changed landfill? Not much; it just made the cost dearer! Then we had airline tax on flights: have airlines changed their ways? Not a bit! And here we are not dealing with faith like religion: we're dealing with science; well in theory science! On the basis of saving the planet the EU banned pearl bulbs: as from September: and forced us all to gradually use energy saving bulbs: which are useless in point of fact. And further in point of fact, they contain mercury: and have to be disposed of properly or are a serious health hazard. Yet right now, Britain is lit up for Christmas! And stores up and down the land are burning huge amounts of electricity with all their lights. If we are going to save the planet and it is really under threat, then we have to completely change our lives: kill off 75% of the World's over-population and go back to an agricultural existance, where we use a bit of wood to heat our huts and cook our food and we must all grow our own food. No more trucking green beans from Africa out of season. No more freezers. All that is going to happen is all costs will rise: heating, food, transport, so the wealthy will simpl carry on as before but the less well off will again, pick up an unfair sharew of the load. Whats new? Trouble with your concept, for me, Beulligan, is that the reality is we can't change the situation, if the climate changers are correct. We are already past the point of recovery. Carbon capture is probably a false dream: the costs and complications are too enormous. Its having your cake and eating it too. In othewr words simply go on as we are but do something technically clever to reverse the damage. Well, to me that's like a magic fat pill: carry on eating to excess and take a pill to reverse the damage. Oh if life could be that simple! Of course, the answer to obesity is to take more excercise and stop eating too much. And the answer to climate change caused by carbon is to stop causing carbon dioxide: but then how does society replace our fuels? Instantly? If government are going to throw shed loads of dosh around, then why weren't they chucking it into different energy systems years ago? Why arent they right now? Cos they will lose zillions in taxes if we stop using oil thats why!  

[quote user="buelligan"] I understand where you're coming from on this Mickie.  But I'm just one of those people who tends to believe that it's better to try to do right (even if you stand alone) and probably, fail, then it is to give up. [/quote] The road to Hell is paved by good intentions. Sadly, it is too often the way with aid agencies too. Let me pose a question: where and how will all these billions the EU is pledging to help third world countries be spent? Carbon Credits have already been claimed, by "Green" non-existent Indian factories for example! And have been used to "offset" carbon created by Western plants. So, that's worked well then. For the indian ghost factory owner: who has been paid hard cash for a mirage! Earlier in the year I had a good chat to a friend in France who is a marine bioligist and working on the ecology; mainly I gather on reefs and the life around them. She told me how the local government officials and police (Its Indonesia) are destroying the coral reefs, to use for building! They chop it out and grind it up, apparently. Not the poor peasants: the government and their corrupt associates. As Mr or Mrs Quillan has said (or could be miss or ms; sorry) they are churning out cars in India for peanuts. Same in China. I have looked at the concept and background to this rather carefully: my background is engineering not science, however they are rather similar; a thing works or it doesn't in engineering. Same in science. The world has gone through climate changes since forever. No climate change "scientist" has yet explained how and why the medievial warm period contradicts their neat theories! http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropecentral.php http://www.br.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5277396&fSectionId=561&fSetId=662 If we honestly want to really change the way we humans damage the environment, then the changes necessary are so dramatic, the whole Western societies and economies have to change and our way of life destroyed. Personally, as a start (Me being margianlly asthmatic), then I'd settle for better air quality.