There was an article in the herald online yesterday about greenpeace’s call for emission reduction, the signon website and about the question wether the government should take action. The Herald also aked readers to submit their comments and opinions. The result was pretty much split into two groups: The ones pro and the ones contra. Interesting to read was the language people submitting contra used: lowest level street abusive language for most of them…. proof of low level education probably.
I can understand if people are upset but we should keep the discussion objective and to the subject. Using accusations and abusive language is certainly not helpful.
My point of view is the following:
You could drive blindly a oneway street the wrong direction with 100km/h. You could be lucky and nothing might happen. But why take the risk?
Doing something where there is a clear chance that it might go wrong is just silly when there are safe alternatives.
The very same thing applies to climate chnage and emissions: Why take the risk to chnage the climate? And even if it does not chnage the climate, why risking respiratory problems, asthma, pollution? Any why pay so much money for fuel just to burn it? You might as well burn some notes on your BBQ.
Why not rather investing the money into reduction features and be on the safe side? With a good concious and healthy.