Paying for blatant propoganda. Drive 5 miles less per day.
Discussion
Admit to not having checked through every thread on climate change(?) to see if anyone has commented on this but just want to get my ire off my chest!
Just watching some satellite channel and saw an advert presumably paid for by HM Govt from our taxes that tells us we should now try to drive 5 miles less per day to cut our CO2 emissions - which apparently represent our biggest contribution to this monster!
Said advert had no hint of equivocation - just presented things as if MMGW and CO2 = disaster are a straight fact. I am irate. Why do we have to put up with the charlatans and zealots continuing to lie and to fleece us over this? I am now about to e-mail my MP and cc it to the PM's office, Cameron and the dept. It'll do no good I'm sure but at least I can register my disgust.
It's getting to the point where my 4 year olds are starting to spontaneously talk quite persuasively about how they want to pay for a Polar Bear et al to have a better life because we are making the earth warmer and the ice will melt etc. - all because of what they had taken in from the constant adverts from said liars + the WWF on the kids channels on Sky.
We've never discussed them and thought they'd just not notice but suddenly out it comes - fully formed arguments put into them by the propagandists.
Just watching some satellite channel and saw an advert presumably paid for by HM Govt from our taxes that tells us we should now try to drive 5 miles less per day to cut our CO2 emissions - which apparently represent our biggest contribution to this monster!
Said advert had no hint of equivocation - just presented things as if MMGW and CO2 = disaster are a straight fact. I am irate. Why do we have to put up with the charlatans and zealots continuing to lie and to fleece us over this? I am now about to e-mail my MP and cc it to the PM's office, Cameron and the dept. It'll do no good I'm sure but at least I can register my disgust.
It's getting to the point where my 4 year olds are starting to spontaneously talk quite persuasively about how they want to pay for a Polar Bear et al to have a better life because we are making the earth warmer and the ice will melt etc. - all because of what they had taken in from the constant adverts from said liars + the WWF on the kids channels on Sky.
We've never discussed them and thought they'd just not notice but suddenly out it comes - fully formed arguments put into them by the propagandists.
Edited by Lost_BMW on Friday 18th December 13:08
I couldn’t agree more. How may adverts are there now telling us to sponsor a bear or offset our carbon.
Where did this carbon thing come from all of a sudden? I remember when it was “greenhouse gasses” & global warming, not “climate change” One expects that if you put out a fire with a c02 extinguisher theses days you have to plant a whole cops in offsetting!
In my mind they are going about it completely the wrong way. The should be ads telling you how to save money as well as the planet. My gas bill I see, a polar bear on a small block of ice thousands of miles away I don’t.. I know the ads exist I just wish they spent more than £1 on them and gave some proper information.
Here’s an idea stop trying it guilt us, tax us, or legislate us into submission and give us what we want money saving advice!
Where did this carbon thing come from all of a sudden? I remember when it was “greenhouse gasses” & global warming, not “climate change” One expects that if you put out a fire with a c02 extinguisher theses days you have to plant a whole cops in offsetting!
In my mind they are going about it completely the wrong way. The should be ads telling you how to save money as well as the planet. My gas bill I see, a polar bear on a small block of ice thousands of miles away I don’t.. I know the ads exist I just wish they spent more than £1 on them and gave some proper information.
Here’s an idea stop trying it guilt us, tax us, or legislate us into submission and give us what we want money saving advice!
Does the whole thing not remind anyone else of the Emperor's new clothes?
There's a lot of people buying into it who can't see the clothes.
There's a lot of people buying into it who can't see the clothes.
Lost_BMW said:
It's getting to the point where my 4 year olds are starting to spontaneously, talk quite persuasively about how they want to pay for a Polar Bear et al to have a better life because we are making the earth warmer and the ice will melt etc. - all because of what they had taken in from the constant adverts from said liars + the WWF on the kids channels on Sky.
Perhaps you should ask them what would happen if you decided to drive to Granny and Grandpa's house but stop 5 miles short? When they come to the inevitable conclusion that that would be stupid, you can then ask them if they think the people on the TV are clever or stupid.I very rarely go out in my car and drive for no apparent reason (it does happen, but not often), the pleasure I derive from driving to work on the shocking roads we have hardly induces me to drive 5 miles further than I need to. IMO they are thick prats spouting eco nonsense backed up by dodgy calculations that have no bearing in the real world, I'm sure that if everyone did drive 5 miles less then ergo less carbon would be emitted, but how likely/possible is this?
As I posted on Wednesday in another thread...
Balmoral Green said:
There are so many threads, I didn't know where to put this, and didn't want to start another.
I caught something on R4 today, and they were talking about the carbon footprint of milk, and apparently there is a low carbon milk that has a footprint of 800g per litre, normal milk is much higher.
Now, the carbon trust adverts tell us that the car is the single biggest contributor to our 'personal' CO2 emissions, but we know that is not true, our homes are, followed by what we eat, and so on.
Anyway, I just worked out the BG family milk consumption, and compared it with Mrs BG's Fiat Panda. It turns out that the Panda has a carbon footprint 2.5 times greater the milk we drink. OK, so the car is higher, but that's just comparing it with one single thing, milk.
The car is only contributing two and a half times more than our milk consumption. If I worked it out including just a couple of other minor food basket items as well, it would be clear that the car would be trivial compared to the impact of a mid week top up shopping basket.
Yet what gets a hammering? The car. I don't see any carbon trust adverts asking us to cut down on milk, 1 litre less?
I caught something on R4 today, and they were talking about the carbon footprint of milk, and apparently there is a low carbon milk that has a footprint of 800g per litre, normal milk is much higher.
Now, the carbon trust adverts tell us that the car is the single biggest contributor to our 'personal' CO2 emissions, but we know that is not true, our homes are, followed by what we eat, and so on.
Anyway, I just worked out the BG family milk consumption, and compared it with Mrs BG's Fiat Panda. It turns out that the Panda has a carbon footprint 2.5 times greater the milk we drink. OK, so the car is higher, but that's just comparing it with one single thing, milk.
The car is only contributing two and a half times more than our milk consumption. If I worked it out including just a couple of other minor food basket items as well, it would be clear that the car would be trivial compared to the impact of a mid week top up shopping basket.
Yet what gets a hammering? The car. I don't see any carbon trust adverts asking us to cut down on milk, 1 litre less?
turbobloke said:
Number of full UK car driving licence holders 32 million
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/...
9000 miles annual average mileage:
http://www.lowcarbonlife.net/default.asp?page=37
Therefore a good estimate of total UK car miles is 288 billion
5 miles less per week per full car licence holder gives a reduction of 45,000 miles per week or
2,340,000 miles per year.
This is 2.34 million or 0.00234 billion miles.
The percentage change is 0.0008%
You multiplied 5 miles per week by 9,000. That's wrong, should be 5x 32million.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/...
9000 miles annual average mileage:
http://www.lowcarbonlife.net/default.asp?page=37
Therefore a good estimate of total UK car miles is 288 billion
5 miles less per week per full car licence holder gives a reduction of 45,000 miles per week or
2,340,000 miles per year.
This is 2.34 million or 0.00234 billion miles.
The percentage change is 0.0008%
It's a 3% reduction.
Easy way to check is 5x52=260 vs. 9,000 average for each driver = 2.9%.
turbobloke said:
This wasn't on the back of a fag paclet but the next best thing so maybe somebody could check it through.
Number of full UK car driving licence holders 32 million
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/...
9000 miles annual average mileage:
http://www.lowcarbonlife.net/default.asp?page=37
Therefore a good estimate of total UK car miles is 288 billion
5 miles less per week per full car licence holder gives a reduction of 45,000 miles per week or 2,340,000 miles per year.
This is 2.34 million or 0.00234 billion miles.
The percentage change is 0.0008%
GLOBALLY
The annual human perturbation to cycled carbon dioxide is 3.4% (IPCC 2001)
The UK contribution to global annual carbon dioxide emissions is 2% (DEFRA)
The proportion of UK emissions due to cars is ca. 16% (DEFRA and other sources)
The total contribution to total global carbon dioxide emissions from UK car drivers is therefore 16% of 2% of 3.4% which is 0.01%
If everybody in the UK with a full car driving licence reduced their weekly mileage by five miles this 0.01% contribution would be reduced by 0.0008%
According to Mr A Blair as Prime Minister, if all UK emissions stopped overnight, what would happen?
“If Britain shut down our emissions entirely, i.e. we closed down the country – not the legacy I want – the growth in China’s emissions would make up the difference in just two years.”
[Prime Minister, Tony Blair, speaking at Davos World Economic Forum, January 2007]
730 days to negate the 2% of global emissions due to the UK
With a change of 0.0008% in 16% of that 2% this means economic growth in China would offset the saving of every UK licence holder driving 5 miles less a week all year in about 0.001 days which is 0.022 hours or 1.35 minutes or 80 seconds.
"Together we can make a difference"
but check it please as it was a quick blast through the numbers
Excellent! Could you send a copy of this to Milliband and Darling?Number of full UK car driving licence holders 32 million
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/...
9000 miles annual average mileage:
http://www.lowcarbonlife.net/default.asp?page=37
Therefore a good estimate of total UK car miles is 288 billion
5 miles less per week per full car licence holder gives a reduction of 45,000 miles per week or 2,340,000 miles per year.
This is 2.34 million or 0.00234 billion miles.
The percentage change is 0.0008%
GLOBALLY
The annual human perturbation to cycled carbon dioxide is 3.4% (IPCC 2001)
The UK contribution to global annual carbon dioxide emissions is 2% (DEFRA)
The proportion of UK emissions due to cars is ca. 16% (DEFRA and other sources)
The total contribution to total global carbon dioxide emissions from UK car drivers is therefore 16% of 2% of 3.4% which is 0.01%
If everybody in the UK with a full car driving licence reduced their weekly mileage by five miles this 0.01% contribution would be reduced by 0.0008%
According to Mr A Blair as Prime Minister, if all UK emissions stopped overnight, what would happen?
“If Britain shut down our emissions entirely, i.e. we closed down the country – not the legacy I want – the growth in China’s emissions would make up the difference in just two years.”
[Prime Minister, Tony Blair, speaking at Davos World Economic Forum, January 2007]
730 days to negate the 2% of global emissions due to the UK
With a change of 0.0008% in 16% of that 2% this means economic growth in China would offset the saving of every UK licence holder driving 5 miles less a week all year in about 0.001 days which is 0.022 hours or 1.35 minutes or 80 seconds.
"Together we can make a difference"
but check it please as it was a quick blast through the numbers
HTF can they justify some of the crap they are spending our money on when the maths shows the potential effects will be so stupidly insignificant?
Scam? No, shame . . course not!
MKnight702 said:
Lost_BMW said:
It's getting to the point where my 4 year olds are starting to spontaneously, talk quite persuasively about how they want to pay for a Polar Bear et al to have a better life because we are making the earth warmer and the ice will melt etc. - all because of what they had taken in from the constant adverts from said liars + the WWF on the kids channels on Sky.
Perhaps you should ask them what would happen if you decided to drive to Granny and Grandpa's house but stop 5 miles short? When they come to the inevitable conclusion that that would be stupid, you can then ask them if they think the people on the TV are clever or stupid.I very rarely go out in my car and drive for no apparent reason (it does happen, but not often), the pleasure I derive from driving to work on the shocking roads we have hardly induces me to drive 5 miles further than I need to. IMO they are thick prats spouting eco nonsense backed up by dodgy calculations that have no bearing in the real world, I'm sure that if everyone did drive 5 miles less then ergo less carbon would be emitted, but how likely/possible is this?
I can't really stop 5 miles short of each of place I visit for work given how little time I often have to get between appointments. So, only conclusion I can make is that on my all too rare pleasure jaunts I need (to do my bit and given how many work related miles I drive) to stop c.225 miles earlier per jolly.
A pain that as now I'll have to plan really long journeys just to get to the stopping off point. Is hitchhiking safer now a days?
If they do let me off with the flat rate tax of 5 per day then I think I'll stick to a 25 mile Saturday only drive. If I use the AA to get the car back can I offset? Mileage credits anyone?
At the top and tail of the calculation I said:
This wasn't on the back of a fag packet but the next best thing so maybe somebody could check it through...as it was a quick blast through the numbers
walm said:
You boobed TB
Thanks for the cross-check. So this is it, anything else please shout out as I'lls end it over to various people and places:Number of full UK car driving licence holders 32 million
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/...
9000 miles annual average mileage:
http://www.lowcarbonlife.net/default.asp?page=37
Therefore a good estimate of total UK car miles is 288 billion
5 miles less per week per full car licence holder gives a reduction of 5 x 52 miles per year for each of 32 million licence holders.
This is 8.3 billion miles.
The percentage change is 2.7%
GLOBALLY
The annual human perturbation to cycled carbon dioxide is 3.4% (IPCC 2001)
The UK contribution to global annual carbon dioxide emissions is 2% (DEFRA)
The proportion of UK emissions due to cars is ca. 16% (DEFRA and other sources)
The total contribution to total global carbon dioxide emissions from UK car drivers is therefore 16% of 2% of 3.4% which is 0.01%
If everybody in the UK with a full car driving licence reduced their weekly mileage by five miles this 0.01% contribution would be reduced by 2.7%
According to Mr A Blair as Prime Minister, if all UK emissions stopped overnight, what would happen?
“If Britain shut down our emissions entirely, i.e. we closed down the country – not the legacy I want – the growth in China’s emissions would make up the difference in just two years.”
[Prime Minister, Tony Blair, speaking at Davos World Economic Forum, January 2007]
730 days to negate the 2% of global emissions due to the UK
With a change of 2.7% in 16% of that 2% this means economic growth in China would offset the saving of every UK licence holder driving 5 miles less a week all year in about 3 days.
"Together we can make a difference"
It's still worth a roffle.
Engineer1 said:
Don't forget that it's drive 5 miles less a week so in week 1 I drive 100 miles, week 2 95, week 3 90, week 4 85 etc untill by week 19 i am driving 5 miles, week 20 I am stuck at home and in week 21 I must drive -5 miles...
Those -5 miles per week will be credited to your Citizens Carbon Offset Credit Trust (a new quango which will require 1,000,000 new civil servants). Congratulations.Engineer1 said:
Don't forget that it's drive 5 miles less a week so in week 1 I drive 100 miles, week 2 95, week 3 90, week 4 85 etc untill by week 19 i am driving 5 miles, week 20 I am stuck at home and in week 21 I must drive -5 miles...
Fair point. Before that due to the bill for Gordon's loopy steering, each of us owed a Chinaman a Veyron - now it's a Veyron with 31 weeks @ 5 miles of free petrol courtesy of a daft ad 
Then again with all those horses and the number of gallons to the mile those things get a pony should cover it
turbobloke said:
anything else please shout out as I'lls end it over to various people and places:
This is 8.3 billion miles.
The percentage change is 2.7%
I think the percentage change is 2.9%This is 8.3 billion miles.
The percentage change is 2.7%
Also, you could point out the £690 million that would be lost in fuel tax revenue.
(8.3 billion miles @ 30 mpg = 276 million gallons of fuel @ £2.50 tax per gallon)
What cuts have been made to compensate for this revenue loss?
Btw, yhm.
deeps said:
turbobloke said:
anything else please shout out as I'lls end it over to various people and places:
This is 8.3 billion miles.
The percentage change is 2.7%
I think the percentage change is 2.9%This is 8.3 billion miles.
The percentage change is 2.7%
Also, you could point out the £690 million that would be lost in fuel tax revenue.
(8.3 billion miles @ 30 mpg = 276 million gallons of fuel @ £2.50 tax per gallon)
What cuts have been made to compensate for this revenue loss?
Btw, yhm.
OK re PM will take a look now.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff