Cutting greenwash is empty posturing anyway but it clearly indicates a
lack of commitment to carbon reduction on the part of the government
and sends a clear message to all motorists, "Keep on polluting
regardless!"

"Britain is trying to weaken European proposals to make governments
and companies cut their carbon emissions by 2020 to tackle global
warming, the Guardian has learned. Leaked documents show Britain wants
Brussels to offset more domestic carbon savings through investment in
clean projects in the developing world.

The move would let firms and countries import more carbon credits to
count against their pollution targets. It would allow Europe to make
less effort to cut its pollution, while keeping it on course to meet
an ambitious target of reducing carbon emissions by 20%% by 2020.

The government's own calculations show the proposed change would allow
Europe to emit an extra billion tonnes of CO2 from 2013-2020.

The move was condemned last night by environment campaigners, who
accused the UK of trying to undermine efforts to get European industry
to reduce emissions..."

More:

Doug riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

No, that's not the message it gives - and it's nothing _whatsoever_ to do
with "motorists".

Good.

If a reduction of x tons can be made at a cost of £y here and £y/2 there,
why on earth SHOULDN'T the more cost-effective option be taken?

Since CO2's effect on the climate is, we are repeatedly told, global
rather than local, why is this a problem?

On 18 Sep, 07:38, Doug riseup.net> wrote:

You have said countless times that greenwash is a load of meaningless
hype, so why are you so worried it is being cut, surely for you that
can only be a good thing, or have you been talking out your arse as
usual?

"NotMe" googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:b40fe2b2-4956-44e7-b498-a761ad51bf16@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Now you've confused him.
Doug will now be holding his head while running round in little circles
shouting "fuck fuck fuckity fuck" for the rest of the morning.

"Gizmo." precisionreplicas.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Is there a URL for a webcam?

On 18 Sep, 07:38, Doug riseup.net> wrote:

So let me get this straight. You don't think the government should be
cutting something you think has no effect, because to do so will have
an effect. You really haven't thought this one through, have you
Gollum?

I see no mention of motorists in the article. It is only you with
your fixation on something you are no longer able to do who thinks it
is about motorists, Gollum.

On Sep 18, 8:47 am, "Gizmo." precisionreplicas.com> wrote:

Doug riseup.net> wrote:

Why are you objecting to the government proposing a scheme whioch would
ensure a steady supply of money from rich countries to poor countries?

On 18 Sep, 08:20, NotMe googlemail.com> wrote:

Rather than being cut, greenwash should be eliminated while being
recognised as such. Instead we have this elaborate charade on the part
of the government and the EU which is giving a green light to
polluters.

On 18 Sep, 10:02, %%ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

People and corporations should not be allowed to pay their way out of
causing harm to people and the planet. Most of these measures in
developing countries would happen anyway.

What is stopping government giving aid to poor countries with no
strings attached?