RE: Pollution is bus-generated: ABD
Discussion
nickw said:
Now, for the really tricky one: whomever says that global warming caused by CO2 is "highly debatable" is nuts. Bonkers. Barking. There is evidence to suggest its true. You can never prove it but the conseuqneces of it being true are so devastating, you have to assume they are true because its something we can do something about (in theory). If we are proven wrong then great - no harm done.
grrrrr
Not an expert, but from what I've read and seen on 'Horizon'! There isn't any concrete proof either way. Global warming appears to be a natural phenomenon according to one camp of scientists and hte ozone layer could or could not ber repairing itself depending on who you speak to! It gets crazy when people try to blame a particular source for all the problems. Weren't hairsprays criticised for producing CO2 as well so now we have pump action and CO2 levels are still the same. Who's right and who's wrong?
Well, how long would all the buses and cars in London have to run to equal the pollution caused by a passenger jet? Remember, at altitude, where the air is thinner, the emisssions are far more destructive. I sympathize with London's pollution, but for the entrie world, there's much bigger problems than cars.
There is no proof "set in stone" per se to prove global warming is happening, although many scientists believe it is happening. Science however cannot explain everything, and being at school we have been shown arguments for both sides, with some subjects disproving it and others proving it.
CO2 emmisions on ground level are often taken in by plants and used in photosynthesis, thus releasing oxygen (and so helping us) and it takes bloody ages for CO2 to get from the ground up into the atmosphere (300years I think I was told the other week, because of varying air currents). Planes however release their emmisions very high in the atmosphere, and as the air is thinner there is less obstruction and so the CO2 easily rises up into the atmosphere and "damages" it very quickly. But then how would we survive without planes???
CO2 emmisions on ground level are often taken in by plants and used in photosynthesis, thus releasing oxygen (and so helping us) and it takes bloody ages for CO2 to get from the ground up into the atmosphere (300years I think I was told the other week, because of varying air currents). Planes however release their emmisions very high in the atmosphere, and as the air is thinner there is less obstruction and so the CO2 easily rises up into the atmosphere and "damages" it very quickly. But then how would we survive without planes???
The most ludicrous thing in any debate about emissions is that the government could help the situation by legalising oilseed rape and sunflower-based biodiesel and biopetrol and introducing it to the UKs forecourts. In America, you get CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) being sold at some forecourts. In Brazil, they sell Gasohol, based on sugar cane methanol.
In short, each local agricultural economy can produce fuel as well as food, but its potential is ignored because the government prefer to let cars pollute, then use it as an excuse to control the movements of cars and tax the owners arses off. It also shows how deep in the pockets of the oil companies governments are.
But we have to get these alternative fuels on the market and convert cars to run on them as soon as possible. If not, when oil stocks start to run out, the government will bring the motorists to their knees and legislate all enjoyment and usefulness out of cars. We'll all be in solar-powered MPV-like dronemobiles that run according to their control net and we'll essentially get privately-owned public transport.
And I don't want to see that day.
Also - LPG conversions work wonders on some great classic GT cars. Whereas cars like the Jensen Interceptor were once seen as too thirsty to run with today's petrol prices. LPG has given classic GTs a new breath of life. Now you can have cars once only the elite could afford to run, with repmobile running costs.
And I can't imagine the current government liking that, somehow.
>> Edited by Twincam16 on Tuesday 31st May 20:52
In short, each local agricultural economy can produce fuel as well as food, but its potential is ignored because the government prefer to let cars pollute, then use it as an excuse to control the movements of cars and tax the owners arses off. It also shows how deep in the pockets of the oil companies governments are.
But we have to get these alternative fuels on the market and convert cars to run on them as soon as possible. If not, when oil stocks start to run out, the government will bring the motorists to their knees and legislate all enjoyment and usefulness out of cars. We'll all be in solar-powered MPV-like dronemobiles that run according to their control net and we'll essentially get privately-owned public transport.
And I don't want to see that day.
Also - LPG conversions work wonders on some great classic GT cars. Whereas cars like the Jensen Interceptor were once seen as too thirsty to run with today's petrol prices. LPG has given classic GTs a new breath of life. Now you can have cars once only the elite could afford to run, with repmobile running costs.
And I can't imagine the current government liking that, somehow.
>> Edited by Twincam16 on Tuesday 31st May 20:52
apache said:
Have some of you gone stark staring mad bonkers? Since when has life had a binary answer?? Get this: both cars AND buses are polluters. They pollute differently, but they both pollute.
Now, for the really tricky one: whomever says that global warming caused by CO2 is "highly debatable" is nuts. Bonkers. Barking. There is evidence to suggest its true. You can never prove it but the conseuqneces of it being true are so devastating, you have to assume they are true because its something we can do something about (in theory). If we are proven wrong then great - no harm done.
grrrrr
Really? care to expound? there is plenty of evidence to the contrary too, concentrating on pollution from one source is pretty barmy, especially when you consider the actual amount generated by cars is insignificant compared to natures efforts
1 - 1 = 0
>> Edited by apache on Tuesday 31st May 19:31
I agree but while governments in power continue to allow minority groups of nutters who care about their own selfish space around them to voice there opinion and then use it to drive opinion toward development of more revenue generating ideas you will always read these stabs at single issues but lets face it why is their not more buses with battery power and why not a transfers station that changes heavy good loads on the battery powered delivery vehicles.
nickw said:
If we are proven wrong then great - no harm done.
grrrrr
Speaking of stark raving bonkers...since the Kyoto agreement has gone into effect 2/16/05..it has cost $43 Billion (& counting) with a POTENTIAL temp effect of.... .0004 C. by 2050. Good return on investment..not
What is it about this issue that SO engenders such passions based on flawed computer modeling? If the US were to sign on to this the economic effects would be devastating....I'll side with the wait & see side, before I'm scrapping my cars..& riding..A PARTICULATE SPEWING BUS!
You want nuts?....turning the economies of a few industrialized nations (not the emerging ones) on their heads to stave off the putitive "devasting effects"....to assuage some people's guilt for our lifestyles...is madness
>> Edited by JoeKing on Tuesday 31st May 22:22
nickw said:
Now, for the really tricky one: whomever says that global warming caused by CO2 is "highly debatable" is nuts. Bonkers. Barking. There is evidence to suggest its true. You can never prove it but the conseuqneces of it being true are so devastating, you have to assume they are true because its something we can do something about (in theory). If we are proven wrong then great - no harm done.
grrrrr
But aren't weren't we supposed to be heading for an ice age?
And isn't global warming supposed to actually be beneficial to mankind overall, whereas mankind, or at least, civilization as we know it, couldn't survive an ice age.
So, if it's true about CO2:
Shouldn't we be pumping out as much as we can?!
"If we are proven wrong then great - no harm done."
And as already pointed out, $43 Billion has been wasted on trying to reduce CO2 already.
Think of how many third world children could have had their sight saved with that.
How many babies could have been saved from starvation?
How many families could have had clean water and decent sanitary facilities.
How many hospitals could have been built.
How many nurses trained..........
For some arguments against Global Warming being man made see the attached:
www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Bellamy is well enough known. I don't know the other authors, might work for HumVee for all I know.
www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Bellamy is well enough known. I don't know the other authors, might work for HumVee for all I know.
gofasterrosssco said:
Would I be correct in thinking that in some big cities, a modern petrol engined car will actually put out cleaner air from it's exhaust than it takes in??
Unlikely, the unburnt particulates coming out of a heavily polluting diesel bus engine will not be combusted inside a petrol engine and just come out the other end. I stand to be corrected thou.
But maybe the efficiency of our(not mine specifically) new, clean petrol engines is being harmed by having to breath in the emissions of diesel bus engines???
The air filters should take out the larger particles and then the cats should see to some of the gaseous emissions. May well be true
jensen-healey said:
<a href="www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm">www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm</a>
Blimey, thats good to read. My opinion of DB has rocketed to the same extent that Michael Palin's has dropped.
By the way, I was talking to the regional manager of one of the biggest bus companies the other day, and he said that buses do use some sort of cat to cut emissions, but they reduce the economy to something horrendous. Therefore they are routinely replaced and removed during the MOT test, nice.
>> Edited by britten_mark on Wednesday 1st June 09:41
There are two personal caveats IMO that raise my eyebrows so far as global warming goes:
1. Thousands of years ago, we had an ice age, so if it wasn't for 'global warming' we'd still have the ice age. Just because we've managed to measure the temperature of this planet for a short time we've 'infested' it doesn't mean we're entitled to the exact same conditions for the rest of our existence either - who do we think we are? God?
2. Environmentalists talk about 'man-made' climate change as though we are alien intruders on this planet. We are 'Earth-made'. Everything on this planet - everything we make, burn, fuse, create etc - comes from this planet in some shape or form. To suggest that we are killing the planet is to suggest the planet was designed to kill itself. It's like suggesting everyone's born with AIDS or something.
1. Thousands of years ago, we had an ice age, so if it wasn't for 'global warming' we'd still have the ice age. Just because we've managed to measure the temperature of this planet for a short time we've 'infested' it doesn't mean we're entitled to the exact same conditions for the rest of our existence either - who do we think we are? God?
2. Environmentalists talk about 'man-made' climate change as though we are alien intruders on this planet. We are 'Earth-made'. Everything on this planet - everything we make, burn, fuse, create etc - comes from this planet in some shape or form. To suggest that we are killing the planet is to suggest the planet was designed to kill itself. It's like suggesting everyone's born with AIDS or something.
It seems to me that although diesels in general have moved on leaps and bounds in terms of performance they still chuff out clouds of black stuff. You can sit behind the most new diesel cars in a queue of traffic and you can see and smell it. Are they not subject to the same strict emissions controls that petrol engines are? How do manufacturer still get away being able to sell them? If the combustion process is fundamentally more dirty than surely the restrictions should be tighter to compensate? Despite the torquey drive characteristics and economy I would not drive one because I know how I dislike sitting behind one.
That's the problem with all this legislating. It's all reactive and not pro-active. Someone says that CO2 is bad so everyone rushes off to try and reduce CO2 by buying diesels without thinking about all the negative effects of driving one. Well it's more the governments fault for introducing a CO2 related tax. SO when we find that something else is bad for the environment, everyone will forget about CO2 and start trying to reduce that. A bit like being told that margarine is better for your heart than butter one year and then being told completely the opposite the next. Sorry for long post!!!!
JoeKing said:
Werd...
In the socialist utopia envisioned by the eco-nazi...private transport is a greedy self-indulgence used only by capitalistic swine contrary to the interest of the collective...
To criticize mass-transite is a blasphemous sacrilege...comrade
It seems to me that socialism, in a popular political sense, died in the UK about 1985.
Lots of the same folks who used to run around in the left-wing socialist circles now rant on about eco issues.
Just something else for them to bang their drum about ?
The global warming hysteria would be almost comical if it were not for the fact that eco nuts and some governments are willing to, or want to devastate entire economies for the sake of junk science.
The real issue in this thread is that the air in Central London is one of the worst in Europe. It has nothing to do with CO2, and everything to do with the exhaust emmisions from buses, taxis and delivery vans.
The real issue in this thread is that the air in Central London is one of the worst in Europe. It has nothing to do with CO2, and everything to do with the exhaust emmisions from buses, taxis and delivery vans.
The new ice age argument goes this way: Global warming melts the ice caps. Cold water flowing south disrupts the gulf stream which stops warm air currents flowing north, which freezes the ice caps again, but this time in triplicate. That movie "day after tomorrow" is sort of right, though in reality it would take a couple hundred years (though that's not the only reason I don't care to watch that movie).
top brake said:
gofasterrosssco said:
joephandango said:
Would I be correct in thinking that in some big cities, a modern petrol engined car will actually put out cleaner air from it's exhaust than it takes in??
Unlikely, the unburnt particulates coming out of a heavily polluting diesel bus engine will not be combusted inside a petrol engine and just come out the other end. I stand to be corrected thou.
But maybe the efficiency of our(not mine specifically) new, clean petrol engines is being harmed by having to breath in the emissions of diesel bus engines???
I should imageine that it probably does come out cleaner in a high polution environment like london. Nearly all cars are fitted with a catalitic converter which is designed to remove pollutants. They take in polluted air, add a bid more in the combustion procees. Then this is passed to the cat's. They would clean the compounded pollutants. Would be nice to see this theory check by CLARKSON
this was done in Top Gear a few years ago and the Porsche did emit cleaner air
oops, forgot all about those catalytic converter things.......
stupid me. well i suppose it cant come out any worse!cho said:
Weren't hairsprays criticised for producing CO2 as well so now we have pump action and CO2 levels are still the same. Who's right and who's wrong?
You're getting your chemicals mixed up. Spraycans used to emit CFC's, which destroyed a good chunk of the ozone layer. Different issue.
Twincam16 said:
There are two personal caveats IMO that raise my eyebrows so far as global warming goes:
1. Thousands of years ago, we had an ice age, so if it wasn't for 'global warming' we'd still have the ice age. Just because we've managed to measure the temperature of this planet for a short time we've 'infested' it doesn't mean we're entitled to the exact same conditions for the rest of our existence either - who do we think we are? God?
Absolutely right. We aren't entitled to anything. On the other hand though, we humans are kind of adapted to this rather narrow range of environmental conditions that we have enjoyed for the last few thousand years. It would be kind of nice to keep living in them if we can figure out the secret to keeping them going.
Twincam16 said:
2. Environmentalists talk about 'man-made' climate change as though we are alien intruders on this planet. We are 'Earth-made'. Everything on this planet - everything we make, burn, fuse, create etc - comes from this planet in some shape or form. To suggest that we are killing the planet is to suggest the planet was designed to kill itself. It's like suggesting everyone's born with AIDS or something.
Everything that comes from this planet, including humans, is obviously 'Earth-made'. Most people just don't bother stating the obvious and make the distinction between the various subsets of 'Earth-made' pollution causes by defining those that we are responsible for as 'Man-made'. This does not imply that we are alien or that we are planet killers.
People get the pro-environment issues mixed up with the 'Save the Humans' issues. The way I see it, the Earth has been here for billions of years, and no matter what happens to us or what we do, it will be here for billions more. We could nuke the surface into a glowing parking lot, and the Earth would recover and evolve a new utopia, for whatever evolved to enjoy it.
We live in a delicate balance with nature that is so complex that we don't yet understand all of the pieces to the equation. Perhaps there is an indirect link between the number of sharks and the amount oxygen created by plankton. We just don't know. It's not about preserving plants and animals for the Earth's sake, the Earth will evolve new ones in a new eon if we screw these up. It's about protecting plants and animals and the environment for sake of protecting HUMANS. I rather like living on Earth, and I want my grandkids, and their grandkids to be able to enjoy it too. That's what it’s about.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff