WITH government support, says 快猫短视频, many companies would be
prepared to set up distribution networks for vehicle fuels derived from plant residues
(23 September, p 3).
I asked energy minister Helen Liddell if the government was likely to back such an idea.
Liddell said at the moment the government doesn鈥檛 provide any specific
incentives for biofuels used in road transport. 鈥淥ur focus to date has been
primarily the promotion of biofuels in the electricity supply industry through,
for instance, the introduction of our 10 per cent renewable energy target.鈥�
Renewable sources of energy in the road transport sector are an important way of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on finite fossil fuels, she said.
鈥淲e are keeping under review the potential for biofuels in this sector.鈥�
Biodiesel, however, is one biofuel that could quickly reach the market, added
the minister. In Europe, it is usually produced from oilseed rape, and will work
without modifying existing diesel engines. However, it is twice as expensive to
produce as conventional diesel, and Britain can only produce small quantities
because arable land available for cultivating oilseed rape is limited.
Unfortunately the greenhouse gas emissions from biodiesel, especially nitrous
oxide, can be high because oilseed rape needs large quantities of fertilisers.
Thus biodiesel is not a cost-effective way of abating climate change.
Advertisement
Fuel cells, on the other hand, offer potentially significant environmental
benefits, said Liddell. They are inherently more efficient than the internal
combustion engine. The electricity produced from fuel cells can be fed directly
to power vehicles. Most major car manufacturers have significant research and
development programmes focusing on fuel cells, and some aim to introduce
vehicles running on fuel cells by 2005, Liddell added.
In the light of the failed meeting of ministers at The Hague in November, the
fuel-cell route must now be looked into more seriously than ever before.
JUST when you thought they were gone for good, imprudent e-mails can come
back to haunt you鈥攁nd unless the law is changed, these ghosts of e-mails
past might even cost you your job, claimed a recent news item
(快猫短视频, 28 October, p 18).
I asked Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, for his view.
Straw said that the new Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) does
not, as is often thought, make it easier for an organisation to get hold of its
employees鈥� computer material, for example e-mails. The Act puts in place a
statutory framework governing the interception and monitoring of employees鈥�
communications for lawful business practice. This includes e-mails. RIPA,
together with the Human Rights Act 1998, provide a level of protection
unprecedented in British law.
He went on to say some people suggest that once you press the delete key,
computer data should cease to exist in the eyes of the law鈥攁fter a certain
period. It is proposed there should be a statute of limitations (say six months)
on deleted e-mails being admissible as evidence in court. However, it cannot be
right for serious criminals to evade prosecution or conviction simply because,
for example, vital incriminating evidence found on a computer is more than six
months old. 鈥淭here is no doubt that the Internet is throwing up new legal and
legislative challenges,鈥� said Straw.
You bet it is, say I.
