If we are really concerned about the climate, the environment,
sustainability etc. etc. shouldn't we start to think about
banning fossil fuel burning vehicles. It would help to do
that e.g. adverts. for cars restricted and warnings that cars
are bad for your health (after all think how many people are
killed each year in car accidents). We have done it with
cigarettes..........how about motor vehicles?

At least we should concentrate on improving those 'people movers' that do it more efficiently.

Well done, Margaret. Someone has finally admitted that none of us know what any of these terms actually mean. Suspect terms include "green" "organic", "Carbon neutral", "environmentally friendly". Its just something to occupy humans for a while. Nobody should be concerned if they don't understand,it will be all forgotten soon only to be replaced by new fears and new catchphrases. Remember the Ozone layer?

Atman said "Remember the Ozone layer?"

yes i do, and i remember the Montreal Protocol where industry & govt admitted after decades of denial that yes cfcs were in fact destroying the atmosphere and needed to be phased out and this is how it was to be done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
It has been overwhelmingly successful, a nice disproof of "Kyoto/+ will never succeed" that you wont read about in The Australian.

--

Thanks Margaret for raising issues of truth in ecolabelling, i wonder do you support such regulation with all the claims of advertising: do cars make you feel free, sexy or excited? How about housing developments creating community? Surely consumers need to know the exact truth in those claims too.

Major progress on ecolabelling will have to lag our basic comprehension of the energy and resource flows that our consumption is made of. For many years research and data collection has been starved by economic rationalists, it'll take time to create the eyes with which to see. Barney Foran for treasurer!

Liam. Actually that's not quite true. It was found that the Ozone layer had an immense amount of seasonal variation when a natural "hole" gets bigger and smaller naturally on a seasonal basis even though CFCs had an effect. There is no strong evidence that the Hole in the Ozone layer actually causes cancers through increase in UV. The press gave up on it because it lost its scare value. People have simply forgotten about it because GW has replaced it in the daily discourse.

Despite this Al Gore continued with the following nonsense:

Vice President Gore's popular book, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, says ozone depletion has become so bad that hunters in Patagonia are finding rabbits blinded by increased ultraviolet. Anglers, Gore reports, are catching blind fish. Other accounts add that Patagonian sheep are going blind.

Any wonder skeptics exist!?

No evidence, Atman? You must be a climate 'sceptic', based purely on your ignorance. Rather than your unevidenced claims, excuse me if i believe the Oz BoM & US EPA instead..
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/about_uv.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/Students_Teachers/ozanim/ozoanim.shtml
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/sc_fact.html
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/effects/effects.html

For extra laughs Atman you should cite Fred Singer, the best known "ozone hole - who cares?" parrot. Its so good that he's found a new racket after all that work on "smoking is good for you" fell flat.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

I was heartened when I began to read your article Margaret. What a miserable little world the eco-friendly gremlins want humanity to live in; a life full of nothing but contemplation of our carbon footprint. Here I thought was someone that understood.
I was disappointed, you merely want to create a new layer in society,eco-cops!