|
If an aircraft flies across the Atlantic with 300 passengers it emits 10 tons of CO2, or whatever the figure is. If everybody on board pays a dotty 'Green' tax to fly it still emits the same amount of CO2 so it is another Government way to charge us money for doing nothing about the problem, if there even is a problem!
|
"The most likely outcome is there will be a few extra floods"
Personally I don't care if London is flooded, or Holland or Florida or Bangladesh...
madf
|
What is the point of us - you, me, ordinary members of the public recycling cardboard tubes or tiptoeing round the streets trying to save 1 mpg, when other members of the population believe they have a right to fly around in private helicopters.
Wessex helicopters in some cases. Now tell me that is a fuel-efficient way of getting around? What about the greenhouses gases emitted by one of those things.
I know of one individual who flys to golf lessons in a Wessex.
|
doomed, we are all doomed.
britain is not the solution to the problem. as i ahve said time and again in these pages, you can wipe britian off the face of the earth and it will amke zero, zilch, nada, difference to the global climate equation.
just think, india adds 30million to its population every year !
just think, the biggest contributor to greenhous gases is the effect of depletion of rainforest and replacing it with the massive beef industry. beef production ( from the gases given off by cattle) is the worst offender.
i can't be bothered to look up the figures, but the number of cattle on this earth has grown exponentially. the best solution would be "beef quotas" and/or everyone going vegetarian.
cars and vehicles are an infinitely tiny tiny tiny tiny dot in the worldwide greenhouse problem.
just live your life, and enjoy today. for tomorrow brings, who knows or cares ?
|
>>britain is not the solution to the problem
In terms of numerics, you may be right.
But, as a member of the first world we cannot ask developing countries to reduce their environmental impact, or reduce their beef herds, if we are not doing our best, and being seen to do our best to reduce our own damaging activities.
I don't know if there is environmetal catastrophe around the corner, but the supposed consequences are awful enough to warrant avoiding action being considered - this little island is crowded enough already without losing more area if the sea level rises.
Number_Cruncher
|
|
|
just live your life, and enjoy today. for tomorrow brings, who knows or cares ?
Yup yup yup
I will be dead in 20 years. I want to enjoy some home grown mediteranean climate at home in that time thank you, The young RF will live till 2066ish, the UK will not have turned to fagash by then either,
Frankly who gives a rats botty,
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
I give a rats botty, I give a rats botty about hypocrisy and I give a rats botty about future taxation and legislation rather more so than an annual 0.whatever% increase in mean temp.
|
|
|
Dalglish,
That is the first, (and probably only!) time I have ever agreed entirely with one of your posts.
Now we really are doomed!
|
probably the wrong way to tackle this !!!! certainly not pc!
But if a lot of our recent immigrants returned would not our emissions and waste and cost and food needs (cattle) decrease?
Easy to sort then if so ?
|
Global warming is like satanic child abuse or institutionalised racism. If your living depends on it you must go on proving it exists even though you know it doesn't, otherwise you lose your very well paid job.
I've got more important things to worry about. One of the mudflaps is hanging off on the back of the Mondeo, and the screw has rusted solid. Ah well, a few more squirts of WD40 into the athmosphere then.
--
Robin Reliant, formerly known as Tom Shaw
|
One of the mudflaps is hanging off on the back of the Mondeo,
Hooray! A motoring link at long last.
DD.
|
I asked why the university car parking charges have more than doubled since last year, and they claim it's for environmental reasons and to discourage car use.
My backside. It's a money raising scheme, pure and simple and they have the nerve to use the environmental argument to cover it up. If it weren't so late at night I think I'd go sit in the car park and pointlessly rev my 6 cylinder engine just to chuck out a few kilos of CO2 to spite them. :-)
Blue
|
I think people need to actually go and study the evidence for and against climate change before doing a lot of hand waving and generally being dismissive of the whole thing.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Sticking your heads in the sand or claiming it's somebody else?s problem is no help to anyone.
My sons is nearly two years old, he could well be still around until the year 2080 or so. I for one can't just dismiss climate change because it may not be a problem in my lifetime, nor can I just hope it is all wrong and it quietly goes away. I think I owe him more than that.
I love driving and I love cars, but there is still a place to give a damn about what happens to the greater world around us.
Current atmospheric CO2 levels are 380ppm (parts per million). Typically in an interglacial period (such as we are experiencing now), CO2 levels do not exceed 330ppm.
Something is wrong. Positive feedback mechanisms are starting to kick in and shove the CO2 levels rapidly higher. Once we get to 500ppm (China doing very well in helping us get there) then the temperature will rise enough to kill off vast amounts of CO2 absorbing sea algae, resulting in a sudden massive upswing in temperature, causing melting of remaining glaciers and major rises in sea level. All this will result in huge areas of irreplaceable agricultural and urban land being lost across the world. Even on the off chance that scenario is correct, then we really ought to do something about it, shouldn't we?
{Motoring link:} It's time we invested heavily in nuclear power and started building cars that can charge off the grid. A sure fire way of reducing CO2 output. This will help us to get rid of coal and gas fired power stations, also reducing CO2. If this example was followed across the world then we can still hope for a positive outcome. Even if climate change is bunk, I don't see how it could hurt us going down this route. Our reliance on imported coal, gas and oil is bad news for this country. It would be far better economically and from an energy security point of view to go nuclear. Wouldn't you rather depend on small amounts of Uranium imported from Oz, than massive amounts of Oil imported from Iran?
End of rant, think about it guys.
|
probably becuase the downside of the nuclear industry is more frightening than the current power industry?
Right or wrong I prefer co2 emissions that are measurable to burying nuclear waste in time bombs !
The only cure for the co2 emissions from cars (small in scale of the actual problem) is an effective public transport system and less aeroplanes not more !
The car owner is always guilty of every sin in the world; but could you actually live without a car?
i couldn't! Most of the people I know couldnt even get to work, let alone organise food, transport issues of the family etc etc etc.
Their is only 1 cure of co2 emissions and that is less reliance on their need and that is what should be coming from government; not seat belt regs and similar!
|
I agree with Oil Burner: IF we are serious about CO2 emissions, tackle the worst offender: power generation. First.
Then tackle transport..
If we believe in a free choice society, the only way is carrot (reduced taxes for low CO2 emissions ) and stick (huge taxes for big emissions).
And remove obvious and glaring exceptions like air transport/ Tax aviation fuel.
Encourage people to live in cities close to jobs. Renovate old property: less energy used. Reduce the need to travel vast distances.
And Government to offer a clear lead in personal transport choice...
madf
|
the oilburner:
i am one of those who believes that climate change is real and is happening now and is due to a multitude of factors, with carbon being one of the major contributors. i also believe that the world has already gone beyond the tipping point on this issue.
however, as i keep saying: changing motoring or flying habits or going nuclear for electricity, or anything else in the uk has an infinitesimally insignificant impact on the global equation. the uk can be wiped off the map today and it will not have any effect on what happens to the climate of the world. it is a global problem requiring global solutions. { while nuclear may be a very good path to go down in the uk, unfortunately the general public has an irrational fear of it as it is linked in their minds to nuclear bombs. and inaccurate reporting of events such as chenobyl and three-mile-island do not help. )
for a real impact and for any real effect on reducing or reversing the trend is going to take massive humongous global effort and change in global behaviour. just try telling the indians that their population growth (equivalent to adding a whole uk population every two years ! ! ) has to stopped and reversed. just try telling the worl's poorest countries which are mainly catholic and muslim that they must use birth control. just try telling people that destroying forest to convert them to farms - for cattle, soya, palm oil, or whatever is bad for the planet.
it just ain't gonna happen.
i am not being defeatist, just being realistic. the world that you and i will leave behind for our children and grandchildren is going to be a pretty unpleasant place. however, rather than being negative and pessimistic and depressive about these things which nothing you or i can do change one iota, it is far better to live our lives to the full and teach our children to do so. if they aspire to drive a ferrari or a hummer or fly in personal helicopters or whatever, encourage them to try to do so in the most environmentally friendly way that they can.
i feel sure that most human beings who have got beyond their basic food/water/shelter needs want to do their best for planet earth, and do not wilfully seek to damage it.
reply to number-cruncher: there is vast amount of unused land in the uk that will be ideal for populations to relocate to when the south-east gets flooded.
happy motoring, while you still can.
|
I understand what you're saying Dalglish, but if we cannot directly change the whole world, then we should at least set the right example?
I do not agree that Britain makes no difference, we as part of the First world produce far more greenhouse gases than third world countries with populations many times our own. It is our responsibility (as a country) to do the right thing. We can, at least, do that much.
Just to compare:
Britain - population approx 60 million, CO2 pollution estimated to be around 750 million tonnes
India - population approx 1 billion, CO2 pollution estimated to be around 1,000 million tonnes
See: tinyurl.com/zc3ec for world map showing worst culprits
So yes, India is worse than us. But our contribution is hardly insignificant, IMO. The USA is clearly one of the worst, arguably what we say and do will have some effect on them, once our current puppet, er Prime Minister is removed.
The Drax power station alone (the one that was in the news, for "tree-huggers" trying to shut it down), produces more CO2 than the combined total of 103 of the worlds countries. Insignificant? Hardly.
See: tinyurl.com/nv9k8
|
As a footnote, the EU as a whole produces 4,500 million tonnes of CO2 from just 456 million people. 4.5 times the pollution of India from half the number of people.
Even if Britain alone isn't enough to make a difference, surely the EU can? We are an important member of the EU and do get a lot of influence, despite what some daily rags like to suggest...
|
|
|
|
|
