The meat industry produces more greenhouses gasses than the transportation industry. Also, I'd be careful about labeling people when you don't know what they do with their carbon footprint. Case in point: me.

I drive a Mercedes V8 (convertible, coz it's sunny here usually) and my wife drives a Land Rover LR4. We live in a 3-bed house for just the two of us. That's wasteful on so many levels on the surface. BUT: I bought my car used and have only a short commute (with no public transport option); my wife needs her big car for work, our house is brand new and super energy efficient, we power it with electricity from 100% renewable sources and buy carbon credits in addition to offset the carbon footprint of our cars. We're also vegetarian, further reducing our carbon footprint.

What is truly ironic is that New York is a major oil-producing state and that sea of pumpjacks (nodding donkeys) that you may remember from the opening credits of the original "Dallas" TV show is in California, just outside the city of LA.

Edited by Ray in Houston (20 Sep 2017 11.15pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

You misread what I meant. That wasn't the argument.

Besides from now on you will hopefully be giving my posts a miss.

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Sep 2017 11.40pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Well good for you !! I wan't having a go at you personally although you might think I was. Funny how you live in a republican state with all those resources available to you (so they are doing something right) but like I stated early the way forward is better fuel alternatives like Solar & Batteries. Not everyone eats Mung Beans !!

Pro USA & Israel

Can I 'umbly advise you to follow a chap called Big_Orrin on Twitter (if you're on it). I had the same optimistic outlook as you until quite recently, but he's made me question a lot of my assumptions.

The plunge in renewables prices does look like a real thing and a great source of hope...I will give you that. But its full scaleability is what will be interesting. I hope and pray that you are right.

Reading this guy's Tweets, and digging into them a little myself, I think the batteries thing has serious limitations and problems. I hope I'm wrong and being my usually overly sceptical self.

If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities.

But I don't even keep any gas in my greenhouse!

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

It looks like we have all been hoodwinked over Global Warming and its been a lie from start to finish.
(Long read but very interesting)

By JAMES DELINGPOLE
How scientists got their global warming sums wrong — and created a £1TRILLION-a-year green industry that bullied experts who dared to question the figures
The scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finally come clean. The planet has stubbornly refused to heat up to predicted levels
I’VE just discovered the hardest word in science.
And its Not pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (inflammation of the lungs caused by inhalation of silica dust). Nor palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylethanolamine (a lipid bilayer found in nerve tissue).
No, the actual hardest word — which scientists use so rarely it might as well not exist — is “Sorry”.
Which is a shame because right now the scientists owe us an apology so enormous that I doubt even a bunch of two dozen roses every day for the rest of our lives is quite enough to make amends for the damage they’ve done.
Thanks to their bad advice on climate change our gas and electricity bills have rocketed.
So too have our taxes, our car bills and the cost of flying abroad, our kids have been brainwashed into becoming tofu-munching eco-zealots, our old folk have frozen to death in fuel poverty, our countryside has been blighted with ranks of space-age solar panels and bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes, our rubbish collection service hijacked by hectoring bullies, our cities poisoned with diesel fumes . . .
And all because a tiny bunch of ­scientists got their sums wrong and scared the world silly with a story about catastrophic man-made global warming.
This scare story, we now know, was at best an exaggeration, at worst a ­disgraceful fabrication. But while a handful of reviled and derided sceptics have been saying this for years, it’s only this week that those scientists have fessed up to their mistake.
In a new paper in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience, the scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have finally come clean — the computer models they’ve been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong, the planet has stubbornly refused to heat up anywhere near as much as they’d warned.
The report’s authors say it is now much more likely that the world will meet its CO2 reduction targets agreed at the UN’s Paris summit in 2015. Back then, Professor Michael Grubb of University College London said that the goal — keeping the rise in global temperatures below 1.5C — was so hard that achieving it would be “incompatible with democracy”.
David Bellamy was criticised after he dared to question the figures
Now he says: “When the facts change, I change.” Because it is now clear the impact of CO2 has been overstated, it means less needs to be done to stop “global warming”.
But even here Grubb may be exaggerating the scale of the problem and — assuming the problem is real — man’s ability to deal with it.
According to research by Dr Bjorn Lomborg, former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen, using the UN’s own figures, even if every country in the world sticks to its Paris carbon reduction targets, the result will be, at best, a drop in global temperatures by the end of the century of about one fifth of a degree. All that money, all that effort to — maybe — reduce “global warming” by less than the temperature difference between getting up and ­having breakfast.
One scientist has described the ­implications of the new Nature Geoscience report as “breathtaking”. He’s right. What it effectively does is scotch probably the most damaging ­scientific myth of our age — the notion that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing the planet to warm at such dangerous and ­unprecedented speeds that only massive government intervention can save us.
For a quarter of a century now — it all really got going in 1992 when 172 nations signed up to the Rio Earth Summit — our politicians have believed in and acted on this discredited theory.
In the name of saving the planet, war was declared on carbon dioxide, the benign trace gas which we exhale and which is so good for plant growth it has caused the planet to “green” by an extraordinary 14 per cent in the last 30 years.
This war on CO2 has resulted in a massive global decarbonisation industry worth around $1.5trillion (£1.11trillion) a year. Though it has made a handful of green crony capitalists very rich, it has made most of us much poorer, by forcing us to use expensive “renewables” instead of cheap, abundant fossil fuels.
So if the science behind all this ­nonsense was so dodgy, why did no one complain all these years?
Well, a few of us did. Some — such as Johnny Ball and David Bellamy — were brave TV celebrities, some — Graham Stringer, Peter Lilley, Owen Paterson, Nigel (now Lord) Lawson — were ­outspoken MPs, some were bona fide scientists. But whenever we spoke out, the response was the same — we were bullied, vilified, derided and dismissed as scientifically illiterate loons by a powerful climate alarmist establishment which brooked no dissent.
Unfortunately this alarmist establishment has many powerful media allies. The BBC has a huge roster of eco-activist reporters and science “experts” who believe in man-made global warming, and almost never gives sceptics air time.
Typical of this bias was the way one of its scientist presenters — a Guardian writer called Adam Rutherford — campaigned on Twitter to have Labour MP Graham Stringer “blocked” from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee just because Stringer is a climate change sceptic and a ­trustee of Lord Lawson’s Global ­Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
One irony here is that Stringer, with his chemistry degree, is probably better equipped than Rutherford to understand the ins and outs of climate science.
Another is that the GWPF produced a report three years ago saying pretty much exactly what the supposed climate change experts are only finally ­admitting now — that the computer models are running “too hot”.
It comes as little consolation to those of us who’ve been right all along to say: “I told you so.”
In the name of promoting the global warming myth, free speech has been curtailed, honest science corrupted and vast economic and social damage done. That ­apology is long overdue.

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.