^ Point made but in an unnecessarily cuntish fashion
The stats of volcanism are intriguing, Mount St Helens continues to parp between 50 and 250 tonnes of CO2 into the air every day in it's inactive state, compared with Oregon's 127 tonnes of CO2 per day generated from industry.

However there are other factors in play, like Methane, "a by product of natural low oxygen environments" (ie swamps, intensive rice farming, cattle farming) which is 25x more potent than CO2. Not to mention of course, water vaopur and ozone iself which are all highly effective greenhouse gasses.

However, the poster above misses my point - that instead of addressing issues like overpopulation and destruction of the planets means of removing atmospheric carbon dioxide - you've heard of the carbon cycle? - we're concentrating solely on bludgeoning the motorist to pay for the damage. It's so short sighted it makes me mad, as while we're not investing enough public money in public transport. Moreover, air travel - the fastest growing source of manmade CO2 emission - is allowed to grow unabated.

The fact remains that our sights are centered on one small facet of climate change (which I didn't deny), while trying to make a lot of money out of it.

Anyone else think I'm an idiot for finding that obscene?
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 7 May 2008, 14:43, Reply)