Just out of interest:
Approximately how many tons of Co2 does an average car, doing an average mileage produce per year?
How many cars are on the road?
How many tons of Co2 does the average cow, ahem, emit each year?
Approximately how many cows are there in the fields of the UK?
Thanks in advance,
Barchettaman
|
Well an average modern car emits about 150g/km, so if it covers 12000 miles (19200 km), we're looking at 2880000g/yr. That's about 2.9 tonnes of the stuff. So for simplicity's sake a car emits 3 tonnes of CO2 per year.
A cow, however, emits methane (CH4) which has a greater impact on global warming than CO2. And it emits huge quantities of it. But of course, you can't tax a cow for passing wind, but you can tax a motorist, so guess who foots the bill for emitting greenhouse gases! ;-)
|
|
>>>Approximately how many cows are there in the fields of the UK?
There will be alot fewer soon what with foot and mouth, blue tongue and the supermarkets.
|
i knew a cow once pat it was
did you know cows were intelligent? well they are outstanding in their field
my own opinion is govts will bring up any old cowpat to tell us about greenhouse emmissions,my greenhouse has a window so its ok
|
In the hope of hastening this thread's re-relegation, I quote once again the poem by the charming lady poet, to be read in a northern accent:
In a field near 'Uddersfield
There lived a cow who would not yield.
The reason why she would not yield?
She did not like her udders feeled.
|
And of course, don't forget that 97% of emitted CO2 is natural, about 10% of the remainder is down to transport (all types). So obviously, the average car is responsible for global warming. Oh, and by the way, it's not just the average car, it's the average British car, so that's why you are paying extra tax, extra parking charges ('cos when cars are parked that's when they emit the most CO2), and extra congestion charges ( because gas-guzzlers cause more congestion and therefore emit more CO2 because of the of the congestion they cause because on average they are so much longer than an average car)
I'm sure you all agree with these logical arguments, and will stump up the extra tax/charges because all the extra tax/charges you pay go towards subsidising things like wind farms which do so much to reduce CO2 emissions and will hence save the world.
Anyone noticed how "Global warming" was the in phrase during our lovely warm April but during the miserable summer it became "climate change".
Anyone noticed how after Katrina we were getting warnings of increased hurricanes? Well apart from the subsequent 2 years when there were hardly any.
Anyone noticed how the Sahel area of Africa has complained for about 10 years of no rain and this year it rains and it's a tragedy? It's the rainy season chaps.
Cynical? Moi?
--
Phil
|
Yes, I think we should tax a volcano every time it erupts. If it were to pay as much per tonne of CO2 emitted as a motorist does, nobody would ever need to work again. As for bovine emissions, the expression "cash cow" would take on a whole new meaning ;-)
|
humans emit a tiny fraction when you consider everything even though our c02 emissions have increased 9x in the last 30years - its still small.
As you say in comparison to plants, animals, volcanoes and the ocean. Our planet is under a bit more pressure with the increase as the oceans ability to absorb is VERY slow thousands of years in fact. Temperature changes can actually cause the sea to emit more CO2; if you have ever seen al gores spiel on climate change he would have shown the correlation graph between temperature and co2. What he failed to point out is that even though there is a definite correlation, the co2 emissions rose hundreds of years AFTER the temperature increased.
Solar winds, cosmic rays, star activity all have their part in how our planet is heated and cloud formations over the oceans bouncing solar radiation back into space cooling the earth. Its all interconnected and balances itself.
Put it this way some of the latest figures recorded show the oceans as emitting 90 gigatonnes of co2, humans emit 6 gigatonnes, although this may have increased slightly. Problem is unlike the oceans and plants humans do not absorb, so there is an increased pressure. Humans are an inconvenienced but certainly not the cause.
imho
p.s.
how many green stealth taxes are we subjected to ;)
oh and what will happen to our "amazing" country when the oil runs out
|
|
|
I think I raised the main topic in this thread a while back. The central question is why cars are made scapegoats for global warming whilst other activities that have more of an influence on global warming actually get subsidies???
Why are we paying 2/3 of the price of petrol in tax when most other activities creating greenhouse gases remain untaxed? The environment is not the central concern of politicians when they talk about global warming, rather votes are. Unfortunatly the average voter whilst agreeing with the need to reduce CO2 emitions has not a clue where they come from and thus car owners end up being victimised.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
All interesting stuff - thanks for the answers so far. It all helps next time this ´argument´ comes up in the pub.
|
|
2bh whilst i disagree with the theories about global warming and the causes i think it is right to have higher petrol prices.
The oil is running out whether you believe it or not. Governments like ours have been ignoring this fact for the past 20 years and through the industrial revolution. Govs. are interested in building the economy and creating successful industry and trade; majority based on fossil fuel.
By increasing the tax on fuel they are making people think twice about what they use their cars for. If like America fuel was so cheap we would use our cars to go to the shop instead of walking or we basically didn't have to worry about the price of petrol because it was so cheap we would overuse fuel. On mass we would waste so much oil it would run out much quicker. This ties in with the higher taxes on heavier polluting cars. Less of them on the roads or used less = less oil required.
They need time to develop renewable energy, if oil was cheap we would milk it dry. If the oil runs out our economy, industry and trade collapses. That really IS NOT a good thing to happen.
Global warming is purely a smoke screen to spoon feed us an attractive hook to cover up the real issues.
|
And another point to link in gov's with this argument....
You just have to look at the divide in countries we are actively interested in signing up to the Kyoto Protocol.
Us for 1, france... all nuclear, spain, italy, canda etc
Then you have the countries which are sparking up with industry and trade
Indian, China and America. All absent from this UN agreement, too interested in developing industry and trade or trying to strengthen their economy.
|
Barch man
A good source of info (IMHO) is
www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
--
Phil
|
Thanks for the junk science link. Fascinating stuff (which also debunked what I thought I knew about greenhouses!)
I'll keep this item in mind, the next time I get cornered by a tree-hugger:
"Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%"
|
|
|
|
"majority based on fossil fuel"
That's an understatement. Without oil and gas, we'd be back in the Stone Age, assuming there was anyone left after the global punch-up that would precede it, once it became apparent that supply would not meet demand.
|
|
OldskoOl
I will not claim that the market itself will create a smooth transition to a non-fossil fuel economy, and thus we should tax oil before it runs out.
I do however think if oil is running out we should be taxing oil and not just petrol.
But I am perhapps the oposite of you. - I think there is a possiblibly that man could change global temperatures, but I don't think oil is running out. It could even be aurgured that historically the 'high' oil price is not that high after taking into account inflation. I further my augument by saying that as economies develop they become less energy intensive per unit of GDP. Taking this all into account we spend a histrically low proportion of our income on fossil fuels - why should this trend be reversed? A good book to read is Paul Eulich's book - 'The Population Bomb'. People have been worrying about this phonenon since mathusus time, and as yet the influence of technology and - perhapps perverse - human preferences mean we continue to get richer on a per capita basis.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
"I don't think oil is running out"
Wow!
|
|
|
Good points........ on which we disagree.
Bring this post nearer to the spirit of the OP, why do you only concentrate on car use?
If you belive that fossil fuels are running out taxes on petrol will not be effective in changing that. We should be imposing taxes on industry to make firms produce everything in a more engergy efficent way. This would raise the price of goods that are engergy intensive to produce and provide incentives for new techniques to be used.
I would go as far as imposing taxes on household consumption (for example heating oil tax), but then you run into the problem of the poorest in society not being able to heat their homes.
What I am driving at is petrol and diesel used in cars is ludicrisly over taxed in relation to other forms of engergy we use. Why tax petrol and not airline fuel or fuel for industry etc?
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
|
|
|
bellboy and lud , have you two been watching the two ronnies recently? you would make a good double act, keep up the good work (thats the technical side i mean)
|
|
|
|
Approximately how many tons of Co2 does an average car doing an average mileage produce per year? How many cars are on the road?
Cars produce 62.8m tonnes year of CO2, against 696.5 million tonnes total carbon
goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-517943_ITM
How many tons of Co2 does the average cow ahem emit each year?
90kg methane/year
www.dexcel.co.nz/data/usr/Woodward.pdf
Equivalent to 1,890kg co2
Based on 9,000 miles per annum avg = 14,500km, that's equivalent to an average person driving a 130g CO2/km car, e.g., the Renault Laguna 1.5 dCi
Approximately how many cows are there in the fields of the UK?
10 million Some of which are young
So let's call it 15million tonnes
|
It seems a shame that all that methane is going to waste. Isn't there some way of collecting it and using it as fuel, eg in cars?
Perhaps a simple bag, adaptor nozzle and separator, then when it's full, swap it for an empty bag and plug the full one into a special socket on the car.
|
Just out of curiosity, has anyone proved that cutting CO2 emissions will have any effect on the current global climate situation?
--
L\'escargot.
|
They have and they don't!
Inasmuch as you can prove a speculative negative...
|
|
Just out of curiosity has anyone proved that cutting CO2 emissions will have any effect on the current global climate situation?
The short answer is no.
The vast majority of research says that CO2 emissions will cause the climate to change. I take it that some research finds no link - and so the attitude of there being no provable link is correct.
In the same vein I would also be interested to know if anyone has proved there is no link between CO2 emitions and climate.
I take the view that even when there is no provable link, the research suggests that there is a link, and thus we risk changing the planet through CO2 emitions. Why take that risk?
Greenhouse gases should be guilty until proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
"The vast majority of research says that CO2 emissions will cause the climate to change"
But change is what the climate is always doing - as in the Mediaeval Warm Period, which was well before any industrialisation, and not forgetting the Ice Age a few thousand years earlier. Since CO2 contributes less than 10% towards the greenhouse effect, it seem unlikely that reducing our current emissions would have a detectable effect, anyway.
The earth's temperature is a difficult thing to measure. Best estimates seem to be that it has warmed up by 0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C since 1880, but unfortunately this is less than the error margin on our ability to take it, so 'global warming' is mere speculation until you've got something accurate to measure it with.
As for CO2, it is a necessary compound that is part of a biological cycle that helps control its concentration. For instance, commercial greenhouses are pumped full of the stuff to encourage plants to grow, where it gets quickly absorbed.
The trouble with 'climate change' is that it has become a bandwagon, providing cash-strapped universities with research grants, commercial hucksters with an excuse to sell more home improvements/electric bikes/snake oil, and the government with more tax revenue. Good work chaps - trebles all round!
|
My point exactly, no single body of research can prove CO2 emitions will change the climate, indeed there are good reasons such as those you outlined to suppose it won't.
However there are other auguments that suggest CO2 emitions will change the climate.
In the face of inconclusive reseach it would surely be an act of stupidity not to err on the side of caution?
Or is it that you feel the reseach is conclusive that CO2 emitions will not cause the climate to change and/or it is all down to special intrest groups indoctrinating us?
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
"act of stupidity"
I'm usually in favour of the precautionary principle, but in this case the caution is based on a factor with less than 10% influence and is further based on incomplete computer models that predict everything from cooling to thermal runaway!
The climate will change, because it always does, but the contribution of CO2 has been wildly exaggerated, presumably for political reasons.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
(H. L. Mencken)
Also see:
www.open2.net/truthwillout/globalwarming/global_st...m
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Flunkster.
|
Hello barchettaman.
There is further information available from the Met Office. I consider them to be a trustworthy and honest source of information.
www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/2.html#q2.5
www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/i...l
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
All this talk of cows makes me wonder how much CO2 and methane humans emit. How much CO2 do I breath out when I cycle the 4 miles into the city? The way I feel, probably more than the car produces! And should there be a methane tax on spicy food?
|
"methane tax on spicy food"
Or as Neddy Seagoon put it, "no more curried eggs for him"...
|
I look forward to swimming in the sea where London is..
At the rate of Greenland glaciers and the North Pole ice shelf are melting - much faster than ANY forecasts- it will be about 2010.. so I will not be alive...
And that's irrelevant cos the biomass/fiofuel industries coupled with increased world demands for food means starvation anyway...See food prices..
madf
|
Playing with nature could be counter-productive. Perhaps global warming is just an addition to nature's existing ways (i.e in addition to disease, pestilence, famine etc) of trying to correct the global over-population problem.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
And should there be a methane tax on spicy food?
Surely if they were to put a methane tax on food it'd be things like cauliflour and baked beans.
Incidentally, apparently kangaroos are much more environmentally friendly than cows, because they exist on the same diet yet produce no methane. However, Corn Flakes wouldn't be the same with kangaroo milk on them ;-)
|
And what pray, does the human popn. do with the vast wealth it has when 'high CO2 activities' are taxed/controlled/moderated?
It's a simple logical contradiction - when we become more 'efficient' with CO2 production, i.e. we get more work or production per CO2 molecule produced, we will just produce more, but more efficiently.
How does this help? Well it doesn't. It allows mankind a fortnight instead of the predicted long weekend. That tenure's limiting timescale is more to do with ecological sustainability than highly speculative & untestable hypotheses about variations in climate. As has been pointed out by many - life of some kind survives all but the most apocolyptic conditions.
The real question, imho, is when the ultimate environmental breakdown wil happen, not if. We might amuse ourselves in the meantime by predicting how & when forms of bacteria will evolve into more complex life forms. Period.
Luckily, I won't be around then. All those who imagine their offspring will carry forth their genes to time immerorial are sadly deluded.
On the other hand, I've a nice day out planned for tomorrow - I'll be exploring Edward 1's castle at Conwy, while my car is being serviced.
|
|
|
I can't answer Singer-G's question, but, just for something to pass the time, I did a bit of Googling on human respiration. A couch-potato who does nothing puts out 187 kg/yr of carbon-dioxide. This can go up by as much as 6 times if they are exercise types, go for a walk, mow the lawn, etc. As there are 6.5 billion humans on the planet, and not all of us are couch potatoes, .............
This takes no account of the methane that we break from either end !!
The base problem in my view is that there are just too many people.
In the matter of cows, this is dead serious, not a joke - scientists here in New Zealand are, under Government instruction, investigating the genetic engineering of cows and sheep to lower their production of methane !!!!! When you see a sheep in its Darth Vader mask, you do have to wonder.
|
...scientists here in New Zealand are under Government instruction investigating the genetic engineering of cows and sheep
I think that's where my thing about kangaroos came from - they're trying to work out what allows the native animals in that corner of the world to eat grass all day long and not pass wind. There was talk of trying to make cows work in the same way! Maybe they should tax milk and beef products?! ;-)
|
Greg
I've a feeling that bovines belch methane. [That's possibly the reason that smoking never really caught on with them...]
|
" i think it is right to have higher petrol prices. "
Even if we agree with you, it does not reduce essential work related travel and it will probably increase air travel as air fuel is not taxed.
I am one of the obvious minority here who accepts science rather than conspiracy theories, but the whole think is a mess. They increase tax on fuel, and the tax is just used to pay expensive consultants, who were hired because Brown said he would reduce the number of less expensive civil servants. So he moves the payroll costs to a different account. And then there is carbon offsetting. We can pay to offset carbon. But lots of these schemes are fraudulent or unproven. What a mess.
I think we can all agree that cars are an easy target, and that there are other more polluting things in this country and this world. But will they tax them? No. Greenies hate motorists.
They would do better to reduce food miles, reduce air freight, improve low pollution transport methods for commercial goods etc. But they won't.
|
"They would do better to reduce food miles, reduce air freight, improve low pollution transport methods for commercial goods etc."
i.e support British farmers..
In reality they would also do better to encourage homeowners to invest in self production of electricity and sell the surplus back to the Grid at an economic price and reduce th number of power stations and the 65% loss of pwer heating up wires sending it over the Grid.
But this requires change. And thinking.
Politicians hate change: someone loses.
And politicians don't do thinking: their heads hurt..
If they don't get British agricultural outputs up soon, in 10 years time when wheat prices have trebled, we will not be able to afford beef . or chicken..Lamb is OK: it's grass fed... The EC has just withdrawn its setaside policy cos stocks don't exist.
But taxing people is better than thinking.
And far thinking does not win votes.
Better to spend the money on wars and complaining about Burma...
The Chinese are busy buying up all the energy sources they can acquire. they know at their current rate of increase of energy usage, world oil demand will double in 20 years. It will not happen: output will not keep up. So they are making sure they get their share.
Of course the Amercians have vast oil sand and shale reserves... the only trouble is the CO2 output required to produce oil will make all promises on global warming extinct..
madf
|
"the only trouble is the CO2 output required to produce oil will make all promises on global warming extinct.."
But the good news is that increasing the CO2 has little effect anyway! A 1.4% increase in humidity (water vapour) has the same greenhouse effect as doubling the CO2...
I'm not in favour of profligate energy consumption, but that's more to do with conserving resources than global warming which, if it's happening, is outside our control anyway.
|
|
|
I've a feeling that bovines belch methane.
I stand corrected. Their breath must be pretty bad if they belch a gas more commonly associated with flatulence amongst humans... however according to QI tonight it's the termites responsible for global warming, as they somehow manage to produce more methane than cows.
|
|
|
|
|