RE: Driving the green way?
Discussion
"I remember the fifties (Ok ancient I know) when cars belched out more emissions per engine than now (OK there were fewer)"
Never mind the '50s, wasn't there a period in the '40s that was quite bad for the environment? At best Spitfires did 5mpg for all their aerodynamics, & Coventry burning to the ground must've put a fair bit of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet two of the coldest winters on record were close after the war ('48 & 63 was it?), & the climate was cooling until the mid '70s, when we invented high altitude air travel & package holidays. Ever wondered why CO2 affects the high atmosphere when it's heavier than air?
I have a solution.
If plants are so good at absorbing CO2, & the problem CO2 is high in the atmosphere, the we should be fitting airliners with hanging baskets. Problem solved. I'm surprised no-ones though of it before.
Never mind the '50s, wasn't there a period in the '40s that was quite bad for the environment? At best Spitfires did 5mpg for all their aerodynamics, & Coventry burning to the ground must've put a fair bit of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet two of the coldest winters on record were close after the war ('48 & 63 was it?), & the climate was cooling until the mid '70s, when we invented high altitude air travel & package holidays. Ever wondered why CO2 affects the high atmosphere when it's heavier than air?
I have a solution.
If plants are so good at absorbing CO2, & the problem CO2 is high in the atmosphere, the we should be fitting airliners with hanging baskets. Problem solved. I'm surprised no-ones though of it before.
zebedee said:
Stuff
All well having that POV.
BUT, what else in your day to day life do you do which you take for granted?
Your increased heart rate and respiration walking to the polling station generated more CO2 than simply using a postal vote and dropping the slip off next time you were passing a box. The slip would be delivered with the next convenient existing royal mail drop.
Do you throw away enough to fill a bin every two weeks?
Do you prefer to wear a jumper or turn up the heating more?
What is your thermostat set at? 21deg, 15deg, 10deg?
How many papers do you buy? Even if you recycle it, it is a waste of energy and the intial resource, read news on a PC and save paper! Magazines?
Do you buy leather shoes? That animal generates lots of methane and CO2 during it's life, do you count that output?
Please please PLEASE, add up what you REALLY consume. Cars and road transport are ~ 5-10% of UK CO2 output. We can remove ALL ground based transport and save maybe 10% tops.
OR, we can hit the other 90% by just 11% and have the same effect. Which is easier to achieve? Which will have less impact on the economy? Which is more viable?
Yes cars are an issue generally, but why are the end users the target? Why not hit manufacturers (as we are doing with cars), those who make easter eggs with about 10x more packaging than need be. Plastic bottles when glass could be used, with refill services at supermarkets and a reduction in price.
Banning plastic bags and only providing those long lasting ones. There is NO real need to recycle if you make things that last and can be re-used, and will bio-degreade or recycle very easily when their life is over.
Recycling to me is just a stupid solution to our existing wasteful society. We consume so much and think recycling is "ok". It's not, it costs lots of energy, transportation, re-distribution etc. We should make things that LAST and re-use them.
Nappies are another example, although I realise the costs of using a hotter wash offset the use of cloth nappies to some degree, but we can make electricity in alot of ways, which is greener than using plastics etc which we have to simply dump in landfill!
OUR way of life as a whole needs to change. Hit industry and commerce 10% on CO2 and we cover ALL ground based transport in the UK within that.
Stop focussing on cars as the whole problem, they are for all intents and purposes one of the smallest issues moving forward! They have been innovating in industry for so long (though the new car every 3 years and dust to dust costs appear to be issues (ie, hybrids and "fashionable" car ownership)) with respect to cars we have really good products. Such a the rest of industry and commerce haven't made such huges steps forward!
I drive all I like and as inefficiently as I like, didn't use an aeroplane at all last year, and pay my tax if I drive more heavily!
That said I'm sure alot of what I **bought and consumed** came in on a plane/boat at huge relative energy cost vs locally sourced items (I have little control over that) in lots of pointless flashy packaging...
Dave
fury1630 said:
If plants are so good at absorbing CO2, & the problem CO2 is high in the atmosphere, the we should be fitting airliners with hanging baskets. Problem solved. I'm surprised no-ones though of it before.
Or just build high growth woodland corridors and then fly low super efficient aircraft over them. I'm sure around ~ 300mph (only half as fast) the efficiency tradeoff isn't so bad, it's only slower.
Like you say, plant tree's and offset the bloody CO2 if it's such a worry. I'm sure farmers would love their land to be put to some use where they could make money...
Dave
I am always surprised at how the general public is so easily convinced of what is currently pure conjecture. I work in the university sector and a number of distinguished colleagues in relevant fields of study are less than convinced of the link between CO2 emissions and global warming. They do not deny that the earth is currently becoming warmer, but point to the fact that we are still cooler than the Mediaeval Warm Period - which, obviously, occurred some centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution.
It is interesting that despite there being a sizeable community of scholars who are sceptical of the widely emblazoned claims of the the global warming fraternity, the media provides little coverage of this.
Empirical evidence, as anyone who has studied Popper or Hume will know, can never be said to be necessarily true, and studies that have been published recently on global warming make vast assumptions about an extremely complex system, so forgive me for being sceptical that we are literally accelerating towards our doom.
The growth of the global warming fraternity just illustrates society's need for apocalyptic sects; from the Book of Revelation to the Cold War, the end has always been 'nigh'. Funny that it's never actually happened, isn't it?
It is interesting that despite there being a sizeable community of scholars who are sceptical of the widely emblazoned claims of the the global warming fraternity, the media provides little coverage of this.
Empirical evidence, as anyone who has studied Popper or Hume will know, can never be said to be necessarily true, and studies that have been published recently on global warming make vast assumptions about an extremely complex system, so forgive me for being sceptical that we are literally accelerating towards our doom.
The growth of the global warming fraternity just illustrates society's need for apocalyptic sects; from the Book of Revelation to the Cold War, the end has always been 'nigh'. Funny that it's never actually happened, isn't it?
Mr Whippy said:
zebedee said:
Stuff
OUR way of life as a whole needs to change. Hit industry and commerce 10% on CO2 and we cover ALL ground based transport in the UK within that.
Dave
Totally agree with pretty much everything you say, especially this bit and I wasn't for a moment suggesting cars were the only or even the worse bit, I just don't like it when people try and pretend there isn't a very significant problem that we have to do something about right now and, as your post rightly touches on, every little helps.
jjwprestidge said:
I am always surprised at how the general public is so easily convinced of what is currently pure conjecture. I work in the university sector and a number of distinguished colleagues in relevant fields of study are less than convinced of the link between CO2 emissions and global warming. They do not deny that the earth is currently becoming warmer, but point to the fact that we are still cooler than the Mediaeval Warm Period - which, obviously, occurred some centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution.
It is interesting that despite there being a sizeable community of scholars who are sceptical of the widely emblazoned claims of the the global warming fraternity, the media provides little coverage of this.
Empirical evidence, as anyone who has studied Popper or Hume will know, can never be said to be necessarily true, and studies that have been published recently on global warming make vast assumptions about an extremely complex system, so forgive me for being sceptical that we are literally accelerating towards our doom.
The growth of the global warming fraternity just illustrates society's need for apocalyptic sects; from the Book of Revelation to the Cold War, the end has always been 'nigh'. Funny that it's never actually happened, isn't it?
It is interesting that despite there being a sizeable community of scholars who are sceptical of the widely emblazoned claims of the the global warming fraternity, the media provides little coverage of this.
Empirical evidence, as anyone who has studied Popper or Hume will know, can never be said to be necessarily true, and studies that have been published recently on global warming make vast assumptions about an extremely complex system, so forgive me for being sceptical that we are literally accelerating towards our doom.
The growth of the global warming fraternity just illustrates society's need for apocalyptic sects; from the Book of Revelation to the Cold War, the end has always been 'nigh'. Funny that it's never actually happened, isn't it?
I am no expert in it, but there is a bit in An Inconvenient Truth where they did pretty much say that this point of view is rubbish becausein a peer review, all the top scientists (perhaps more distinguished than the colleagues and scholars you refer to) were actually pretty much in agreement that this is a real problem, but 50% of the media stories were sceptical or were reporting that some top scientists were sceptical, which they weren't.
I just really don't think we can afford to disregard this issue entirely, but at least give it some benefit of doubt, even if it is just turning your engine off when you stop as the lights turn red at that nightmare local crossroads where they stay red for about 4 minutes...
There is no harm in trying to help, there is a very likely chance of harm if we do nothing and I would like my kids to be able to live in a world fairly similar to the one we have now (hoping for better would be far too optimistic!)
zebedee said:
jjwprestidge said:
I am always surprised at how the general public is so easily convinced of what is currently pure conjecture. I work in the university sector and a number of distinguished colleagues in relevant fields of study are less than convinced of the link between CO2 emissions and global warming. They do not deny that the earth is currently becoming warmer, but point to the fact that we are still cooler than the Mediaeval Warm Period - which, obviously, occurred some centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution.
It is interesting that despite there being a sizeable community of scholars who are sceptical of the widely emblazoned claims of the the global warming fraternity, the media provides little coverage of this.
Empirical evidence, as anyone who has studied Popper or Hume will know, can never be said to be necessarily true, and studies that have been published recently on global warming make vast assumptions about an extremely complex system, so forgive me for being sceptical that we are literally accelerating towards our doom.
The growth of the global warming fraternity just illustrates society's need for apocalyptic sects; from the Book of Revelation to the Cold War, the end has always been 'nigh'. Funny that it's never actually happened, isn't it?
It is interesting that despite there being a sizeable community of scholars who are sceptical of the widely emblazoned claims of the the global warming fraternity, the media provides little coverage of this.
Empirical evidence, as anyone who has studied Popper or Hume will know, can never be said to be necessarily true, and studies that have been published recently on global warming make vast assumptions about an extremely complex system, so forgive me for being sceptical that we are literally accelerating towards our doom.
The growth of the global warming fraternity just illustrates society's need for apocalyptic sects; from the Book of Revelation to the Cold War, the end has always been 'nigh'. Funny that it's never actually happened, isn't it?
I am no expert in it, but there is a bit in An Inconvenient Truth where they did pretty much say that this point of view is rubbish becausein a peer review, all the top scientists (perhaps more distinguished than the colleagues and scholars you refer to) were actually pretty much in agreement that this is a real problem, but 50% of the media stories were sceptical or were reporting that some top scientists were sceptical, which they weren't.
I just really don't think we can afford to disregard this issue entirely, but at least give it some benefit of doubt, even if it is just turning your engine off when you stop as the lights turn red at that nightmare local crossroads where they stay red for about 4 minutes...
There is no harm in trying to help, there is a very likely chance of harm if we do nothing and I would like my kids to be able to live in a world fairly similar to the one we have now (hoping for better would be far too optimistic!)
lol at an inconvenient truth.
have a read of this lot...
www.justgofaster.com/Articles/Opinion/tabid/210/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/86/The-Global-Warming-Bollocks.aspx
Fair enough, but remember that An Inconvenient Truth provides something of a partisan viewpoint; I suggest that scientific journals are a far better source for making a rational decision than the production of a less than disinterested party such as Davis Guggenheim.
Al Gore once said:
"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming..."
which pretty much sums up my misgivings about this film, as this is a verifiably false statement, even if only a small minority disagree.
I do not wish to come across as an oil-burning Bush supporter, but these causes du jour, and the credulity of the public in accepting them, do worry me.
Al Gore once said:
"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming..."
which pretty much sums up my misgivings about this film, as this is a verifiably false statement, even if only a small minority disagree.
I do not wish to come across as an oil-burning Bush supporter, but these causes du jour, and the credulity of the public in accepting them, do worry me.
alicrozier said:
Just imagine what global improvements could be made here compared to the UK and for a fraction of the cost...instead of banning our sportscars in the UK, contribute to a fund to improve places like Lagos.
Although the UK is always encouraging the debate to do 'something' - which is good, Mr Ali is spot on, that UK is an insignificant dot compared to the big wide world and driving to the garage to buy some Rizla's is NOT bad.
Save the planet is as stupid as the phrase War against terrorism. The planet will save itself for sure! The yanks need to make Peace with terrorism and we need to build a better world.
Soon, there will be the SAVE THE AUTOMOBILE campaign.
More top tips to make that little contribution:
Slipstream big inter-city buses down the motorway - you can take your foot halfway OFF the accelerator doing this!
Don't stop a RED traffic lights if there is no-one else around!
Drive around in lower gear and higher revs - so many people think low engine speed = low consumption but efficiency is much better at high revs. Drive around town in second gear and you won't even need your brakes.
Put 45psi in your tyres - ruins the braking distance, but less tyre wear better economy!
Plant millions of trees in all that unused ground around motorways!
malaccamax said:
Ah Adam, you are bating us with your IAM press releases. Wouldn't just know it'd prompt a lot of head-butt smileys? Anyway, the IAM has nicked this advice lock stock from the Channel4 4car Drive Greener bit, which was a lot less po-faced.
www.channel4.com/4car/ft/feature/feature/6394/1
www.channel4.com/4car/ft/feature/feature/6394/1
That is a very good article! Set global warming aside for a minute... I drive a V8 which averages around 22mpg, so my wallet will thank me if I can improve my fuel efficiency, and that article actually has some sensible suggestions that aren't just the usual bleeding obvious!.
Way OT but related to the "milk Bottles" mentioned above, if anyone is interested in which is better - reusing a ceramic/glass cup or using a new paper/plastic/polystyrene cup may like to read: www.ilea.org/lcas/hocking1994.html Some other interesting articles on disposable or reusable nappies, and a few about our beloved car too.
And planting trees doesn't solve the problem. Trees lock up CO2 but as soon as they are burned/rot it's released again - and that's what will happen to most of them. Unless we want the entire country covered in trees then it's not a solution. We might get some of the way there if we built all our houses out of wood instead of the outdated and overmaterialed brick/stone montrosities we currently have.
And planting trees doesn't solve the problem. Trees lock up CO2 but as soon as they are burned/rot it's released again - and that's what will happen to most of them. Unless we want the entire country covered in trees then it's not a solution. We might get some of the way there if we built all our houses out of wood instead of the outdated and overmaterialed brick/stone montrosities we currently have.
Edited by Rhod on Tuesday 8th May 13:35
Rhod said:
Way OT but related to the "milk Bottles" mentioned above, if anyone is interested in which is better - reusing a ceramic/glass cup or using a new paper/plastic/polystyrene cup may like to read: www.ilea.org/lcas/hocking1994.html. Some other interesting articles on disposable or reusable nappies, and a few about our beloved car too.
And planting trees doesn't solve the problem. Trees lock up CO2 but as soon as they are burned/rot it's released again - and that's what will happen to most of them. Unless we want the entire country covered in trees then it's not a solution. We might get some of the way there if we built all our houses out of wood instead of the outdated and overmaterialed brick/stone montrosities we currently have.
And planting trees doesn't solve the problem. Trees lock up CO2 but as soon as they are burned/rot it's released again - and that's what will happen to most of them. Unless we want the entire country covered in trees then it's not a solution. We might get some of the way there if we built all our houses out of wood instead of the outdated and overmaterialed brick/stone montrosities we currently have.
Link doesn't work. Can you generalise the point of the material it would show wrt reusing bottles etc?
As for the second part, well surely locking it up is good? Thats all fossil fuels did really.
Yes when it dies/falls down/gets used it's possibly released again, but you then replace the tree with a new one again. You don't just plant a tree, let a forest grow, then burn them all down again. You sustain the new biomass.
I'm sure there would be other benefits of using more wood in the long run, as well as some negative side effects too. But the reality is that they (sustainable forests) would store some CO2... possibly offsetting the extra released by fossil fuels, which is probably also being absorbed by the sea too... slowly...
Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 8th May 13:14
Mr Whippy said:
[ But the reality is that they (sustainable forests) would store some CO2... possibly offsetting the extra released by fossil fuels, which is probably also being absorbed by the sea too... slowly...
Dave
Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 8th May 13:14
Although according to An Inconvenient Truth, the absorption of CO2 by the sea is maing the sea ever more acidic, which is having a knock-on effect on lots of species in the sea.
Whether we are heading for doom or not, I can't see the harm in trying to help the planet a bit, rather than just ignoring it or worse, pretending it isn't a problem, or even worse, pretending it is someone else's problem, like all these pathetic people who can't cope with fortnightly bin collections and are trying to have a go at their councils - yes it took some getting used to, but it is pretty easy once you are used to it, so stop whinging! They are only trying to help themselves! (Granted recycling not directly C02 related, but on a similar environmental point).
zebedee said:
Mr Whippy said:
[ But the reality is that they (sustainable forests) would store some CO2... possibly offsetting the extra released by fossil fuels, which is probably also being absorbed by the sea too... slowly...
Dave
Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 8th May 13:14
Although according to An Inconvenient Truth, the absorption of CO2 by the sea is maing the sea ever more acidic, which is having a knock-on effect on lots of species in the sea.
Whether we are heading for doom or not, I can't see the harm in trying to help the planet a bit, rather than just ignoring it or worse, pretending it isn't a problem, or even worse, pretending it is someone else's problem, like all these pathetic people who can't cope with fortnightly bin collections and are trying to have a go at their councils - yes it took some getting used to, but it is pretty easy once you are used to it, so stop whinging! They are only trying to help themselves! (Granted recycling not directly C02 related, but on a similar environmental point).
Yep, helping the environment out is all well and good, but going excessively far for no real gains, or just victimising specific areas for no apparent reason is bizarre.
I have a loads of ways I think we could help the environment, but for some reason half of what we hear bleated about will probably alter nothing at all.
Hey ho.
As per the acidic seas, surely when you look at the percentages then as a whole we have a small effect, but to focus mainly on 4x4's and cars in general seems to be ignorant to all the other man-made CO2 sources.
Also, how acid has it been in the past. Are natural CO2 forcings doing plenty to help it along already, are we really a BIG problem, or more a little niggle at the side, who will do our best to reduce impact, but not go all stone age man to make 10% of 0.1% difference and have all but a few million people die.
Dave
Rhod said:
Way OT but related to the "milk Bottles" mentioned above, if anyone is interested in which is better - reusing a ceramic/glass cup or using a new paper/plastic/polystyrene cup may like to read: www.ilea.org/lcas/hocking1994.html Some other interesting articles on disposable or reusable nappies, and a few about our beloved car too.
And planting trees doesn't solve the problem. Trees lock up CO2 but as soon as they are burned/rot it's released again - and that's what will happen to most of them. Unless we want the entire country covered in trees then it's not a solution. We might get some of the way there if we built all our houses out of wood instead of the outdated and overmaterialed brick/stone montrosities we currently have.
And planting trees doesn't solve the problem. Trees lock up CO2 but as soon as they are burned/rot it's released again - and that's what will happen to most of them. Unless we want the entire country covered in trees then it's not a solution. We might get some of the way there if we built all our houses out of wood instead of the outdated and overmaterialed brick/stone montrosities we currently have.
Edited by Rhod on Tuesday 8th May 13:35
I was going to say very interesting, but I can't pretend that it is! Although it may suggest that there isn't much in it between the reusable and the throwaway, what about the fact that the throw away cups go in the bin, which is then emptied every day, (there goes a bin bag too, and some bins in our office are only full of plastic cups, nothing else), which are then transported around the country in various vans and lorries and probably end up harming the environment as landfill. Plus 50 uses for a cup? If you drink water, you won't wash your glass any more than once a day and you might have 5 glasses a day? So in 2 weeks, thats 50 uses, so the article isn't really that convincing at all.
That analysis on reuseables is pretty good.
However, the issue I have is that the recycling costs of the foam/paper cups is not used, wheras the recycling costs of the multi-use items are!
I'd like to thing that humans using their brains can re-use their own containers. Things like bags don't need washing, and we have used ours plenty of times now to hopefully have offset any production/recycling costs of the thin crap bags that get two uses at best and make shopping a pain (split easily and can carry about five large items)...
Milk containers, well you can cold rinse even the plastic ones and re-use them without issue. Surely a glass container with a good high pressure low volume cold rinse could be re-used on a per-person basis? Go upto the semi-skimmed "filler" and just fill it up, bung on the lid and put it in the trolley?
Tons of ideas, disposable works when you don't look at the big picture, but throw in recyling and increased demand on limited resources (oil for plastics and energy) then I think making things to really last is ideal, then optimise re-use facility.
Dave
However, the issue I have is that the recycling costs of the foam/paper cups is not used, wheras the recycling costs of the multi-use items are!
I'd like to thing that humans using their brains can re-use their own containers. Things like bags don't need washing, and we have used ours plenty of times now to hopefully have offset any production/recycling costs of the thin crap bags that get two uses at best and make shopping a pain (split easily and can carry about five large items)...
Milk containers, well you can cold rinse even the plastic ones and re-use them without issue. Surely a glass container with a good high pressure low volume cold rinse could be re-used on a per-person basis? Go upto the semi-skimmed "filler" and just fill it up, bung on the lid and put it in the trolley?
Tons of ideas, disposable works when you don't look at the big picture, but throw in recyling and increased demand on limited resources (oil for plastics and energy) then I think making things to really last is ideal, then optimise re-use facility.
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
-edited-sorry !
Milk containers, well you can cold rinse even the plastic ones and re-use them without issue. Surely a glass container with a good high pressure low volume cold rinse could be re-used on a per-person basis? Go upto the semi-skimmed "filler" and just fill it up, bung on the lid and put it in the trolley?
Tons of ideas, disposable works when you don't look at the big picture, but throw in recyling and increased demand on limited resources (oil for plastics and energy) then I think making things to really last is ideal, then optimise re-use facility.
Dave
Milk containers, well you can cold rinse even the plastic ones and re-use them without issue. Surely a glass container with a good high pressure low volume cold rinse could be re-used on a per-person basis? Go upto the semi-skimmed "filler" and just fill it up, bung on the lid and put it in the trolley?
Tons of ideas, disposable works when you don't look at the big picture, but throw in recyling and increased demand on limited resources (oil for plastics and energy) then I think making things to really last is ideal, then optimise re-use facility.
Dave
Good idea. If the likes of Los Tescos, ASDA et al want to be seen to "be green" why can't they introduce some sort of bulk re-fill facility with a "container steriliser" function prior to re-fill ? Indeed we have become too accustomed to the "buy & throw away" mentality that there MUST be many other applications for re-use of packaging.
Also nice to see JJWPrestridge on here with what I think is a little more balanced & educated comment on climate change. How come we don't hear more of such views ?-guess it's not PC to disagree with propaganda
Edited by sprinter885 on Tuesday 8th May 15:46
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff