In that case why are wood chip burners considered an acceptable environmental way of producing energy?
They are a
more environmentally acceptable way of producing energy than, say, coal-burners. Trees absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide while growing and release it back to the atmosphere when burnt, so the net effect is zero increase of atmospheric CO2. Burning coal on the other hand releases carbon that has been out of the atmospheric carbon-cycle for millions of years, so the net effect is an increase in atmospheric CO2. In addition, the extraction of coal is in itself an environmentally damaging process, as it takes a lot of energy (i.e. fuel) to get the coal from the ground to your stove.
Just love the use of big corporations as way of perpetuating the man made climate change sham, it boils down to anti capitalism and a way to stop third world countries using their own natural resources just like the developed world did. Keeping the poor, poor!
It's no sham! Yes, politically, it could be seen as anti-capitalist, but there is not doubt quite extensive lobbying of Governments by industries that would be harmed by any regulations to combat climate change. Similarly, the argument from developing nations that the developed nations already made themselves rich by exploiting the environment is very real, and to be honest, it's a very good point. What's the answer? I don't know, but it is certainly not "carry on as you are".
Warming and cooling temps are the norm on earth it's called weather
But give some charts to a politician or a tree hugger and they will tell you more tax on oil co2 etc then dismantle all coal power stations will make things better and save the world
I would rather have a bit of smog than live next door to a nuclear reactor
What a load of bollocks
Warm days and cold days, yes, that is called weather. But climate is something entirely different, and has immense impact on the current balance of many, many things, globally. Although it might seem ridiculous to think that any of these things is important (after all, we can live in Greenland and we can live in the Sahara, so an increase in global temperatures of 2C makes no difference, right?), it is the balance of these many natural cycles and environments that have allowed human civilisation to develop in the way it has. As I said in an earlier post, our planet will survive (you could say that the Earth couldn't care less what we do), and humans will almost certainly be able to adapt to a radically different planet, but it is foolish to think that we will be able to carry on living in the way we do now if climate continues to change at the rate it has been doing, and the long-term costs of sorting this out once it happens will make the current economic proposals seem a drop in the ever-increasing oceans!
And smog is nothing to do with it - that's pollution, not climate change.
