Thanks. I have been a "lurker" for a long time but haven't felt the "need" to post. It seems to me that most discussion on this subject could be compared to some form of "trench warfare" where there is never any real change in position but a lot of venom (hmmm mixed metaphors) flung around. Good question. The thought had occurred to me. I've not noticed this government having too much of a problem increasing revenue even before the "green" issue became popular. I see a great synergy in the policies; reduce travel by car to - reduce congestion, reduce pollution of all types (no judgment made on C02 in this regard), reduce obesity (assuming more people walk/cycle), reduce dependence on imported energy, individuals save money... All good things... To me the "no regrets" policy could be read as an attempt to gain what freedoms "big business" have always wanted from the government by using climate change as an excuse. And you thought you were cynical... I thought I could "embrace and extend" your analogy to my own ends... Apologies for that, however I think as extended its quite good, though I do say so myself. Perhaps they could reduce the cost of treaties if they started using video conferencing rather than jetting round the world (which surely can't help emissions). :unsure: I'm not great on all these things but if we "capture" all of the carbon stored underground and release it into the atmosphere, and assuming that CO2 is a GHG then would the global temperature not end up be similar to that when Britain was a tropical rainforest? My point is that one of the proposed methods of reducing CO2 emission is to sequester it in mines, however that is where it has already been sequestered.