maybe the last person to leave this country could turn the lights off?
that should help the greens
|
Oldman, this is the conclusion of the Stern recommendations: spend 1% of world GDP to be 20% richer than we will otherwise be.
Remind me what your solution to this is.
|
|
|
|
"plus the destruction of forests to grow more feed and pastures for the livestock that are the major culprits"
Destruction of forests?
Percentage of Earth wooded in 1950 - 29%
Percentage of Earth wooded in 2000 - 30%
Odd that this is a seldom-mentioned fact. Note use of word "FACT".
V
|
My mistake - percentage of Earth wooded in 2000 is 31%, not 30%.
V
|
in reply to both posts by vin above:
Percentage of Earth wooded in 2000 - 30% Odd that this is a seldom-mentioned fact. Note use of word "FACT".
followed two minutes later by another "fact"
>> My mistake - percentage of Earth wooded in 2000 is 31%, not 30%.
contradicting the first "fact".
need i say more. so much for "facts".
the world is getting warmer, the west is getting obese.
the solution is : put on your shorts, socks, and sandals. get out of your car or 4x4, start walking and stop eating beef. solve the obesity and carbon emissions problems in one.
we are doomed, doomed, doomed.
|
followed two minutes later by another "fact"
My mistake - percentage of Earth wooded in 2000 is 31%, not 30%.
contradicting the first "fact". need i say more. so much for "facts".
Dalglish,
A typing error and lack of an edit button leads you to disregard facts.
Once again, as usual when you get involved in an argument, you have descended to farce once your emotional outbursts are contradicted by facts. Troll off.
V
|
... you have descended to farce once your emotional outbursts are contradicted by facts. Troll off. ..
>>
vin - as i said, need i say more; except that i am impressed by your mastery of facts.
p.s. note - physchology has a description of people who resort to personal abuse in "discussions" or quoting "facts". so i will let you discover that fact for yourself.
|
|
|
|
"plus the destruction of forests to grow more feed and pastures for the livestock that are the major culprits" Destruction of forests? Percentage of Earth wooded in 1950 - 29% Percentage of Earth wooded in 2000 - 30% Odd that this is a seldom-mentioned fact. Note use of word "FACT".
That's because it isn't a fact. See www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator4.htm
|
"That's because it isn't a fact."
Where, in the link that you posted, is there anything to contradict the facts I stated?
Percentage of Earth wooded in 1950 - 29%
Percentage of Earth wooded in 2000 - 31% (with apologies to Dalglish)
Which of those facts there are you arguing with, please, Cliff?
V
|
Both. Just one quotation says it all:
"The World Resources Institute estimates that about 40 percent of the world's intact forests will be gone within 10-20 years, if not sooner, considering current deforestation rates. "
I haven't done an exhaustive study of the facts, I merely did a quick Google search and the first hit came up witha site that appears to be showing a decline in the quantity of the earth's forests. Of course you can argue over the meaning of "forest" as opposed to "wooded", and the website may be totally rubbish for all I know.
But anyone who has seen pictures of the smog over Indonesia or the vast areas of barren lanscape created in Brazil will be getting just a little concerned that there might be some cause for concern here.
|
"The World Resources Institute estimates that about 40 percent of the world's intact forests will be gone within 10-20 years, if not sooner, considering current deforestation rates. "
Wow. I wonder if the Earth Resources Institute is an independent body, or whether they need to justify their funding?
Also, I stated facts. You quote their opinion.
V
|
|
|
|
Whilst the Government has been preaching energy saving to us, Gov't departments used 11% more fuel in 2004...
www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/re...m
don't do as I do.. perhaps some civil servants should get on their bikes?
madf
|
|
|
There are facts and the truth... 2% reduction stated here
www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator4.htm
madf
|
I'll cite my sources when I get back from the office...
Actually, on second thoughts, I won't bother. When it comes to green issues, why let the facts get in the way of a good subjective emotion-fest?
The problem is, it's people who don't bother to look for the facts that are driving public opinion. It's a lack of facts that leads to the claptrap that people spout in order to penalise motorists. The greens give you a pile of lies built on lies (one little example is "the world is losing its forests", when we have more than in 1950) to justify anything they want. Their aim is to make you feel guilty about the way you lead your life so they can have a say in how you lead it.
Motoring is just the thin end of the wedge. Let them win their battle of emotion versus reason and they will move on to try to control the rest of your lives.
V
|
"Actually, on second thoughts, I won't bother. When it comes to green issues, why let the facts get in the way of a good subjective emotion-fest?"
Over the last five years, the world suffered a net loss of some 37 million hectares (91 million acres) of forest, according to data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. This number reflects the felling of 64.4 million hectares of trees and the planting or natural regeneration of 27.8 million hectares of new forest. Each year the world loses some 7.3 million hectares of forest, an area the size of Panama. Due to extensive reforestation, this net forest shrinkage has slowed slightly from the 8.9 million hectares lost annually in the 1990s. While this is encouraging, it obscures the sobering fact that gross deforestation has not declined significantly since 2000."
www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Forest/2006.htm
Lots of references - UN no less...
Of course if you can't be bothered it says only one thing....
Good thing we don't use wood burning stoves in steam powered cars or the forests woudl disappear even quicker...
madf
|
a pile of lies built on lies (one little example is "the world is losing its forests", when we have more than in 1950)
madf and cliff pope - thanks for your efforts to quote reliable sources to support my lies and opinion and lies and views and lies on the loss of forests and more lies.
i had meant to refer to tropical forests in particular, but i am quite happy to let it st and as a reference to the world's total forest cover). however, i believe there is no point in continuing a discussion once personal insults and accusations of "emotional outbursts " are bandied about .
so once again thanks for your backing.
now back to the original motoring point of the thread .....
|
|
|
|
I suspect you are extracting your facts from the ideas published by Bjorn Lomberg, who controversially argues that amongs other things, the world is not being deforested, in fact the reverse.
Take a look at www.lomborg-errors.dk/chapter10.htm for a start.
The only certain fact is that there are too many facts. You can prove anything if you take some selective figures and then play around with some flawed statistics, as Lomborg has been accused of doing. Pouncing on the results you like the most and then calling them FACTS and everyone else's mere opinions does not actually add any evidence for anything. It's a futile debate. You cite a report from the institute of XYZ saying one thing, and I produce a paper by professor A.N. Other saying the opposite.
As a matter of fact I agree with you about the way the greens are trying to manipulate the debate, and of course politicians are now trying to muscle in for their own devious aims. And I don't think taxing anything has ever pursuaded people to change their behaviour for the common good, merely encourage them to find a way round it.
|
What I seriously and I mean SERIOUSLY object to is :
1.The Government has known from well informed sources for at least 5 years something must be doen, and signed Kyoto and set targets for Government departments.
BUT
Effectively NONE of the Government's own targets for its OWN usage have been met.
Now it proposes to tax us... whilst it has consistently failed to take its own medicine.. weasel words such as "increses due to staff expansion" etc.
IF I saw a REAL attempt to save energy - and a VISIBLE one - I would be more heartened ... but it's a case of "do what I say" NOT "lead by example".
Lets think
two Jags drives 100 metres to save his wife's hair style
Mrs Beckett drives a 4x4.
Government expands Heathrow plans on 40% expansion of airtravel.
Government funds A300 airliner (a white elephant)
Government encourages new house building on flood plains (where water can be stored) and encourages destruction of Victorian houses and new build.
I see no coherent and joined up thinking - just a reaction to pressures...
The Laws of Unintended Consequences will occur with Green Taxes.. the unforseen impacts will have some unforseen side effects.. like taxing uneconomic use of say old cars or refrigerators as "fuel inefficient" thus encouraging more disposals of old and buying of new....
madf
|
Good post, madf (actually, quite a few good posts on this thread)
1) In particular, I too am highly sceptical about the green credentials of government - a lot of it seems to be about being seen to be green, rather than actually doing it. Buildings are kept warmer than they really need to be. Our local high school is a prime example.
2) The whole issue of "encouraing more disposals of old and buying of new".
Would truly green taxes mean that those who run older cars pay lower vehicle excise duty - say with lower rates coming in at 10, 15, and 20 years?
|
|
|
|
To give this a motoring theme until normal hostilities resume....
Human behaviour can be modified to prevent us doing harm to ourselves eg seat belts - where the law was the main tool to effect change and drink driving where the law and education and social pariah status have had a combined effect.
I find it risible when people respond with sneering comments about "the greens" and "tree-huggers" to a 700 page report from the chief economist of the World Bank who defines climate change as a massive market failure with economic impacts equivalent to WWII and presents options in terms of the business case for spending 1% of GDP now to protect 20% loss of GDP in the future.
It's a business argument - not the greens out to spoil your fun.
The US, China and the other industrialised nations will only respond by creating global economic mechanisms to control emissions that in turn will protect their economies from failure and chaos that follows (think of 30s Germany and any other country where formerly stable economies have stalled to be replaced by ones led by the nutters)
We are already engaged in an economic war in Iraq to keep oil prices stable - the cost of which runs into billions. Now you can have more expensive petrol if we allow the Middle East to go up in flames or we pick up the tab through Defence budgets, not to say huge loss of human life in either scenario.
|
Nsar,please explain on what exactly,will this 1% of global gdp be spent and what level of extra taxation, for example on a gallon of petol/diesel ,will be needed to get the job done.
Also tell me how will you quantify and measure the results .
Given our governments record on stealth taxes i.e robbing pension funds,dipping into the lottery "good causes "
etc,etc,do you REALLY think they will achieve anything ?
|
Madf "Government funds A300 airliner (a white elephant)" It is the A380 and they didn't fund all of it and it is'nt an elephant - it is a whale!
|
madf writes
"Government funds A300 airliner (white elephant)"
---------------------------------------------------------
I think you mean the A380 super jumbo because the A300 is one of Airbus' older planes.
The A380 may turn out to be a "white elephant" as you say. But the important point is that, as aircraft go, the A380 is a green plane. It carries more passengers than any other plane on both medium and long distance route. And therefore the A380's fuel consumption per seat is the lowest of any airliner.
Surely if we want to avoid building more runways we will need to have fewer flights. But each flight will need to carry more passengers. And this is where the A380 comes in.
|
>>Nsar,please explain on what exactly,will this 1% of global gdp be spent and what level of extra taxation, for example on a gallon of petol/diesel ,will be needed to get the job done.
Also tell me how will you quantify and measure the results <<
Yes, that 700 pages will take me just a jiffy to digest in full and just a few minutes more to consult with the major oil companies on their price elasticity models.
The proposals for a global reporting system I reckon I'll have knocked out while I'm waiting for the kettle to boil (but only with a cupful in there mind you...)
If you feel that you could do the job quicker then please don't let me stand in your way.
|
I'll take that as " I don't know "
No shame in that because I don't believe anybody does.
I certainly cant tell you because I'm just a thick,stupid peasant.............
until voting time,that is !
|
I don't think anyone could provide answers to the precise questions you have asked which is not to say that answers don't exist and certainly not to say that it shouldn't be done.
The key to the Stern report is that it quantifies the immense cost of doing nothing. If you can accept that, we have a benchmark to start from instead of everyone running round with their own interpretation of the situation.
|
But don't you think that in asking us to pay more,the answers to those questions and more should be given to us as a matter of course,otherwise it,s a license to just extract more and more with no end in sight.
Unless,and I believe it is,that is the aim all along !
Mushroom theory.
|
Global Warming - Yes or No
September was already a record-breaking month - and the average temperature over the last two months put together is 14.95°C.
The Met Office said that would place this year as the warmest for its September/October figures.
The warmest before this was in 1949, when the average was 14.36°C.
Average up 0.6 degs in 57 years - Not proven I'd say!
|
How warm was the planet when dinosaurs ruled the world ?
Jokes about politicians not allowed.
|
Global Warming - Yes or No September was already a record-breaking month - and the average temperature over the last two months put together is 14.95°C. The Met Office said that would place this year as the warmest for its September/October figures. The warmest before this was in 1949, when the average was 14.36°C. Average up 0.6 degs in 57 years - Not proven I'd say!
But I suspect average September/October temperatures 2001-06 will be higher than than 1944-49. There will always be exceptional years (1959, 1976), the worry is that most of the warm springs and autumns have been since 1980.
|
Average up 0.6 degs in 57 years - Not proven I'd say!
in reply to armitage :
one or two or three years of abnormal temperatures prove nothing, and you have to look at the long term trends..
see data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
from that data, you can deduce that
every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992
the ten hottest years on record occured in the last 15
every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976
the 20 hottest years on record occured in the last 25
every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956
every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917
now the scientific consensus seems to be that these warming trends are due to global warming caused by a combination of pollution and deforestation. there are the anti-brigade who do not believe any of it. however, the important thing is that the three major political parties in the uk have bought in to this theory and are committed to making motorists in the uk pay for it. ( according to bbc 10 o'clock news tonight, apparently australia and the usa are going to do nothing unless china and india take action too. )
i blame it all on democracy and capitalism and free-markets and the end of the cold-war - the world was a better place when
1. india was stuck in its closed markets with a population deprived of the wonders of the western world,
2. the eastern european communist block population weere deprtived of the joys of driving hummers and ferraris and range-rover-sports. (they were quite happy riding their donkeys with just the relatively few "rich" people who could afford to drive ladas or trabants).
3. the chinese were happy pedalling along on thier bicycles.
the rot started with the dismantling of the berlin wall. i blame it all on margaret thatcher and ronald reagan and gorabachev.
|
The sun has been stronger than ever these past 10 years. Plus reducing pollution has changed cloud cover. There was an article in the new scientist recently suggesting 75% of the observed climate change was down to cosmic rays - these affect cloud formations. I also read recently that using ice to measure previous co2 levels isn't reliable as co2 leeches out of it over time thus giving the impression that levels are much higher than they were. They're all guestimates as no-one can analyse the air and say for certain where each molecule of co2 measured comes from. They all look the same. I'd suggest the reason atmospheric co2 is rising is due to the sun; plants need more co2 when the sun is stronger ergo the world provides it. There is an experiment going on at the moment to look at this. If it is proven then I suspect the greenies will accuse whoever carried out the experiment of being in the pay of oil companies rather than admit they could be totally wrong.
The greens hate Lomberg because he was one of them and decided to apply decent statistical principles and examine their claims. They don't like it as they are on their own socialist agenda. They want control not freedom and hitting the motorist is easy as the car is the ultimate symbol of freedom. The deforestation stats mean nothing as the forest coverage is not expressed in terms of square miles & density. Without a graph of the trend over a few hundred years saying one year there was more this than another is also meaningless. Pick your base year carefully and you can say anything. Lies, damned lies & statistics is an excellent book about the very subject. Any statistic with 'up to' means 'we don't know' any with a wide range ie 10-20% this or that also means they're guessing. If they can't come out with an absolute figure and be reasonably accurate then they don't know what they're talking about.
Every few decades people are either worrying about a new ice age or a new hot period. Oddly enough the degree to which they're on about the northern hemisphere is going to cool because of the gulf stream reducing is remarkable similar to the claimed warming over the same period ie sweet fa is going to happen. To the casual observer it would seem the gulf stream is nothing more than a thermostat which is doing its job rather well.
In dust to dust calculations the hummer is in fact more environmentally friendly than the toyota prius. Unfortunately the greens only use such calculations when it benefits them. When it shows them to be wrong they rubbish them. The majority of energy use is out of building and maintaining a vehicle over its lifetime. Some 1 litre buzz box that only lasts 80k is a total waste of energy compared to a 2 litre car which will easily do 250k. Maintenance intervals, reliability and cost of accident repair also add into the equation.
What we should be concerned about is making sure people have clean water, food and the world population is reduced. Diverting the wasted money out of the pointless Kyoto protocol would do more to this end as would a jolly good plague.
teabelly
|
"September was already a record-breaking month - and the average temperature over the last two months put together is 14.95°C."
How short are our memories - I seem to remember that this spring was the coldest for years - I know I was planting tomatoes, beans and sweet corn at least a month later than usual. Late June early July was good (OK, very hot) - Easter was cold, Whit was cold and August wasn't that great - cold northerly winds and very cool evenings for the most part.
"Average up 0.6 degs in 57 years - Not proven I'd say!"
--
Phil
|
This subject has come to the fore at just the right time for Tony and his cronies.
The war in Iraq was taking the headlines again together with the closure of hospital beds and others Government disasters.
Suddenly he is a new man, stating this is the biggest crisis during his leadership although it was weapons of mass destruction arriving here by Iraqi missiles in minutes not that long ago.
Being an old cynic I believe it is media manipulation again which political parties are masters at. After his failure to save Africa he now embarks on a new crusade to see out his remaining time with a legacy of ?I was the man who began the fight to save the whole world. Beat that one Gordon???
|
"now the scientific consensus seems to be that these warming trends are due to global warming caused by a combination of pollution and deforestation. there are the anti-brigade who do not believe any of it. however, the important thing is that the three major political parties in the uk have bought in to this theory and are committed to making motorists in the uk pay for it. ( according to bbc 10 o'clock news tonight, apparently australia and the usa are going to do nothing unless china and india take action too. )"
So why are just motorists going to pay and in what way will the collected money be spent to reduce CO2 emissions? If it is like road tax the government will hive off 80% of it to meet budget shortfalls elsewhere and the motorist will be stitched up as usual. It is going to take years and years to actually make cars and aero engines reduce their emissions. I can see no point in a sudden and draconian blitz on motorists when there is no policy statement as to what the money will be used for. All this legalised robbery could start in next year's budget SFAIK
|
.... So why are just motorists going to pay and in what way will the collected money be spent to reduce CO2 emissions? ...
i mentioned just motorists, only as this forum is for motoring issues. factories and airlines will be penalised too, i presume. (and the manufacturing and jobs then displaced to the non-taxed locations such as china, obviously).
i guess we will have to wait and see how they decide to tax motorists and other polluters in the uk. as to how they will spend the money - it seems the idea is to bribe the "poor" third world nations such as brazil not to cut down their forests and to use more bioethanol (and save the petrol for us in the west), and bribe newly industrialized nations such as china and india to use our cash to clean up their dirty cars and factories.
(maybe more details in tomorrows papers).
|
Actually AS I watched boy Cameron being interviewed this morning for ten minutes on this subject and he didnt actually say anything. His answers were classic politicians waffle.
Yes its a very serious problem..Its something we have been urging the Government to do for years...The interviewer tried very hard to get a straight answer as to what he would do but it was always deflected away. Yes we will look at taxing air traffic, make more use of fuel efficient cars...wind power ...wave power...nothing will escape his scrutiny but he will have to investigate every option before specific policy will be decided. And it all depends on the next opinion polls. (No he didnt actually say that).
|
We need to give David C and the Conservatives time to work their policies out. The media are forever demanding a quick fix: if they provide it they will only be pilloried and accused of U-turns if it has to be changed as time goes on. They need policies for 2009-10, i.e. when they have a chance of being in government, not for now.
Tony Blair was is ths same posirtion in the mid-nineties, and was much more electable for taking time to work out the right polices for the time of the next election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
