I could not have said it better myself. ;-)
Engineered Barriers and Analysis Branch
Waste Technology Business Unit
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
phone (office):204.753.23.11 xt. 25.92
phone (home): 204.753.84.02
fax (office): 204.753.26.90
From: Jonathan Clarke [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday April 20, 2001 7:01 PM
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; acg
Subject: Re: Kyoto
Your emails always appear on a green screen - Therefore by definition you
are too green. Otherwise your point is quite valid. the amount of energy
wasted in unnecessarily fuel intensive cars is
appalling. However, that said, the main source of greenhouse emissions is
not oil, but coal for base load electricity. the best way we can reduce
greenhouse gas production is to build more nuclear
> "M.B.Roberts" wrote:
> Apart from Foot and Mouth the main environmental topic in our media is
America and George Bush's refusal to honour (or honor if you cant spell) the
> Without claiming moral perfection over here, is not part of our christian
obligation to God and his creation to be better stewards of what he lent us?
> Where better to start than to use less energy?
> Take cars ; our hire car in the USA last summer only did about 20 - 24 mpg
- we had asked for a Camry but got some Oldsmoblie 4WD . When that broke
down we got a Camry which gave nearly 30 .
> In the UK I drive a Ford Contour/Mondeo which gives 35 mpg with similar
driving. It has only marginally less passenger space than our hire cars and
I have driven it similar distances across Europe.
> This alone makes a considerable reduction in gas usage.
> (On performance my 1.8 litre Contour with manual gearbox is better than
either of the American cars)
> Am I being too green?
> Michael Roberts
> P.S. Will American oil prospectors working in Scotland get back at me!!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 20 2001 - 21:31:32 EDT