My recollection of recent arguments about global warming was the that UK contributed just two per cent of the overall worldwide figure - on that basis even 20 per cent of the UK total said to be caused by vehicles, if actually true, is still a tiny percentage. So whatever New Labour attempts to achieve will have little, or no, effect on the results.
It's the States, China and India that need to be doing something serious.
I'll have a look for Richard Littlejohn's recent and, probably, more realistic analysis of the subject later...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
if the UK contributes just over 2% of the total polution...then we ARE producing too much...
there are just over 200 countries in the world, so the average would be 1/2 % per country..
and we are 4 times that amount???????
the fact is that our cars actually produce little of this polution, so we should be tackling the bigger polluters 1st
we need a proper debate about ALL of it,, and not just blame/tax the car drivers
--
sometimes a little bit too much opinion....but its only because i care !!!
|
Upon seeing stunorthants post I had the same respone storme. The problem with issues of global importance is that everyone will think what use is it that I cut down on my CO2 emitions. If everyone acted like this they would say I am only 1 out of about 6bn people thus produce only 0.000000166% of the worlds CO2, the other 99.99999833% of the world should be making dramatic changes, since I alone am not contibuting anything.
The shows the problem, EVERYONE thinks they don't make a diffrence. I think even America, India or China would take CO2 emitions more serrously if they were responsible for 100% of them. As it even America is only contributes 20-40% of the total greenhouse gas output. This problem could be applied to country X. Country X produces 10% of global emitions and wants a radical action plan so global emitions fall by 20% in the next decade. However it knows if it takes unilateral action and reduces it's CO2 emitions by 20% the global total will fall only by 2%. Thus county X gives up trying.
What we need in this instance is a global government to solve this problem. We need everyone and every country to see what they can do working together rather than taking ourselves as induviduals unable to make a diffrence. Organisations like the UN are called for here and should be given extended powers to intervene in other countries affairs. Unfortunatly looking at the UK experiance with the EU we are neither ready or willing to have some supernational body dictate how we live. And so we lament how the other 99.99999833% of people live!
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
|
|
China are going to be building one coal power station a week for the next two years. I think I read somewhere just one of those power stations would give the equivalent of the entire UK yearly CO2 transport output in a matter of weeks.
Give the chinese decent renewable energy solutions to remove a couple of power stations and it would do the world far more good.
The answer lies in the greater use of biofuels. A box to convert any fuel injected car to use bioethanol/petrol in any ratio is a few hundred quid. I think anyone that fits one should be exempt from all congestion charging and have a vastly reduced rate of VED for using biofuels. Anyone with an older car should also be offered grants as they're often run by the poorest sections of society. Taxing them out of their car and onto the dole queue isn't going to help in the long term.
The technology is already out there. Funny how it is so hard to get the fuel! Once everyone is using it the outrageous and obscene motoring taxes aren't justifiable. This is the only reason HMG is banging on about road pricing - the green argument is rendered useless when the fuel is environmentally friendly and sustainable so the great british public will tell them where to stick their high taxes.
teabelly
|
There is no satisfactory answer. British Sugar are going to make bioethanol using 3 million tonnes of UK surplus wheat - someone else in the world goes hungry.
If we are to stop filling the world with carbon dioxide then we have to stop burning fossile fuels. To cater for increaing expectations of thirld-world countries and for increases in population we need 8000 new nuclear power stations to be bulit over the next 50 years. This is neary two a day. The global problem is HUGE and a pro-car lobby will solve nothing.
I speak as a car nut, and not part of the green lobby.
|
"filling the world with carbon dioxide"
We have a way to go yet, currently CO2 "has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution)"
Also "26.5%-28% of contemporary warming is attributable to atmospheric carbon dioxide, so, of the IPCC's estimated 0.6 ± 0.2 °C that would be 6/10 x 28/100 = ~0.17 ± ~0.06 °C."
So even though "The global problem is HUGE and a pro-car lobby will solve nothing." getting rid of every car on the planet will also solve nothing.
--
Phil
|
"IPCC's estimated 0.6 ± 0.2 °C"
Forgot to say that that is "global warming since 1880" according to IPCC the most "pro-Global Warming" organisation there is. So, an increase of 0.6°C since 1880, - at that rate I'm not going to be enjoying the temps they did in the Middle ages in England, nor are my children, but I suppose my grandchildren might, by the end of their lives, just about be able to grow the odd grape without it being killed by frost in the winter. In 300 years it might be as warm in England as it was in the 1500s. Reckon I need to go and and drive my car around so I can enjoy a warm old age (except it will make no difference whatsoever how much I drive my car.)
"I speak as a nut"
--
Phil
|
It's the Gulf Stream (or potential lack of) that is the problem for the UK, if it really is switching off then we are in a bit of trouble. I don't know if it will switch off, but I'm intent on using as many molecules of hydrocarbons as I can in the meantime. I've recently been lusting after 1968 Mustangs in Highland Green, now one of those must drink the stuff.
I've told my kids to be prepared to travel :-0
|
|
|
philW I like cars too. But I think before you prove that so called greenhouse gases will lead to global warming you need to prove that they don't. There is strong evidence that CO2 will raise the temperature, but when is you evidence that is make no diffrence.
You bemoan about the slow heating of the earth saying that it is consistent within historic boundaries, but who is to say that with man made greenhouse gases the heating will not occure faster, and thus exceed rate that nature can adapt to it? Prove this and I will have not argument. Beter say than sorry should be a moto for anyone intrested about the environment.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
"Better safe than sorry should be a motto for anyone intrested about the environment"
mk,
I admire your altruism, but I will be brutally honest. I am of fairly advanced years, about to retire in a couple of years and if anyone thinks that I will modify my driving habts, sacrifice my holidays(by car) in Europe, turn down my central heating until I am shivering of an evening, cut down on my glasses of wine on the ground that it may reduce the CO2 emissions of the trucks bringing it from Europe etc, etc for the sake of an unproven, disputed theory, so that it "saves the planet" for 3, 4 or 5 generations hence, they are sadly mistaken. In 20 years or so (maybe long before), I will be feeding the worms, and in 100 years no-one will even know or care that I existed (of my great grandparents, who, 100 years ago were much younger than I am now, I know the name of one - John James W who had an over-inflated opinion of his own importance and had his portrait painted, and I have inherited the painting). You may say it's a very arrogant and uncaring attitude - I prefer to think of it as very modest - whatever I do will not have the slightest influence on the future of the planet. And my children? Yep, they'll be around in another 50 years, maybe even 100 I hope, and if the world's temp keeps rising at the current rate the ave temp will have risen by about another 0.6 deg C - I doubt they will even notice, and maybe, if there is a hell, I will be watching down (or up) on them complaining about a carp summer, how mild the winter was - or perhaps by then they will again be worried as to whether "another" ice age is on the way (we are still in an ice age by the way - but a warm inter-glacial stage)
Perhaps I should be more worreid by whether we will all be wiped out in a "nuclear winter" - remember that? and what you would do in the 4 minute's warning we would get, AIDs (that will wipe out 1/3rd of worlds pop, SARs (where did that go?), bird flu? weapons of mass destruction?, what about that volcano thing in the Canaries that would collapse into the sea and flood all areas lower than 300 ft above sea level? How about the super-volcano under Yellowstone? How about all the hurricanes last year - result of global warming - so where were they this year?
So, sod, global warming, acid rain (shouldn't all the forests in W Europe be dead by now?) and the rest - it's my life and I'll do what I want to do - much as the politicians try to tax my life out of existence - sorry about the rant. I'm now switching computer off (not to stand-by) but will leave the landing light on all night in case I want to go to the loo in the night without plumetting to my death in the dark. Oh, and central heating programmed to come on at 6-45 so I am nice and warm when I get up at 7 to drive to work at 8.
Regards
--
Phil
|
Can't be bothered editing out all the swearwords when deletion is so much quicker - DD
|
Did you actually read it you moron!!!
You probably don't understand that though - do you thicko?
8< SNIP
Oh I understand alright.
I understand that I should never argue with an idiot because they will drag you down to their own level, then beat you with experience.
Shame you didn't take the time to email me and discuss being moderated in a calm and rational manner, rather than resort to personal abuse in the forum. Alas though....
You are the weakest link - Goodbye.
DD.
|
|
|
|
>>There is no satisfactory answer. British Sugar are going to make bioethanol using 3 million >>tonnes of UK surplus wheat - someone else in the world goes hungry.
Aretas it may intrest you to know that the poorest people in world will benfit from an increase in food prices.
I base this belieive on studies conducted in Thailand or Vietnam. It is true that the poor spend more of their income (and labour) trying to get enough food. However their income is based on selling food stuffs. In these studies the price of basic staple food rose substantially. The effects were the poor rural regions where the incidence of poverty is highest benifited.
Take this example. A farmer spends 80% of his income on food, but his income is made entirely up of selling food and food prices rise by 100%. The farmer thus spends about 80% more, but his income has risen by 100%. I have not read any of these studies myself, but I do know their conclusion is that as the price of rice rose poor rural peasents benifited, this is may interpretation of why. Prehapps it is wrong, if so I await for enlightenment.
Your argumrent that big corprations using food for fuel don't make sense sing my analysis. British Sugar must be raising the price of wheat in your example - and that is why you think it will hurt the starving, my analysis says the poorest will produce the wheat and the rise in it's price will help them and thus prevent hunger.
I know my view is strange. The problem of food security today is not the amount of food produced but how the food is distributed. To think of biofuel using food is bad you need to concentrate on the distribution system, not its end use. Biofuel can help reduce starvation, even if at first glance it does not make sense.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
Amen PhilW! :-)
That is exactly how I feel!
Blue
|
|
Great post Phil.
|
|
PhilW - one of the best posts I've read on this site so far. Brilliant!
|
|
|
Me too, I couldn't give a crap about the current generation, why on earth would I give a crap about future generations?
|
Me too, I couldn't give a crap about the current generation, why on earth would I give a crap about future generations?
>>
and even if anyone of us does or did, there is crap all that we can do to reverse the global warming ( whatever its cause, if it exists, etc.etc.) in time to help us or future generations. it is all so futile for a tiny player like britain to try and do anything about global matters, but nevertheless we like to take the world's pain and the world's best sado-masochists.
we are doomed, doomed, doomed. so enjoy motoring while we still can, make the best of what we have.
|
Ice caps on mars are also melting. Large forest fires dump more CO2 into the atmosphere than most man made sources. I doubt if there is any difference between either types of molecules so how do scientists know exactly where CO2 is from? They can't sample the air and go these molecules are from transport, these are from construction, this one is from Mr Jones driving to the shops. It is all conjecture and guess work.
There was also an interesting article in the Times Higher Education supplement about how academics are villified if their research criticises government policy which explains why anything that criticises this green hot air is attacked.
teabelly
|
PhilW sums it up for me, too. Best piece I've read on this global warming nonsence.
--
|
|
IF CO2 was the problem as a small country we probably don't pollute much anyway compared with Asia and the U.S, i saw somewhere words to the effect if we didn't produce CO2 for a whole year China would use up our allowance in 3 months. TAX THEM !, oh we can't so it makes no difference. Lets tax the motorist again is easier, methane from cows probably produce more methane thats harmfull than car !, Maybe we should tax the goverment for all the hot air they produce and methane with all the B/S they come out with !!!
|
It's all hypocrisy and political incompetence exacerbated by the main Opposition Party who could not oppose a steamroller coming to mow them down..
Lets see. We want to reduce the impact of global warming. OK.
But the UK on its own can do little.
Meanwhile sea levels are rising (Thames barrier having to be used more often) and increased flooding.
So DEFRA cuts spending on sea protection and anti flooding measures..
Logical? Of course... :-((
Is there a clear vision? Nope. Just tax and spend - on things which contribute zero to the overall wellbeing .
Next they will be taxing LPG... generates CO2:-)
madf
|
>>No one yet seems to have mentioned the potential effect of road charging on inflation.
Our current government has kept to its promise of not raising income tax (IIRC the only promise kept). The only trouble is that is has been spending more than it needs to and the population can realistically afford. Who is shouting out that public services are improving or that they need them? Those in public service. The civil service empire has expanded greatly since 1997. Unfortunately we are all being forced to pay.
Gordon Brown has done a wonderful job of disguising his tax increases. He raided private pensions. He has brought more people into paying income tax by not raising thresholds. Most people who move house now have to pay stamp duty. He has raised excise duties all round, including fuel. Road Fund Licence has changed from a car tax to a vehicle emissions tax, that will tax the polluters. Etc., etc., etc. Yet still he cannot balance the books.
One glimmer of hope on the horizon has been how succesful speed cameras are at raising funds. These should be about road safety, but virtually everyone now realises this is only of secondary importance to raising money. Motorists have glumly accepted a fine and points on a licence, yet accidents with fatal consequences still occur too frequently. So speed control has not fully worked, despite this automated speed control machinery is still being installed everywhere.
Let us now consider the rise in traffic problems. It must be due to an increase in cars on the road. But surely the number of lorries has also increased. We now transport more goods by road and over longer distances than ever before, why is this? There is no other cost effective and flexible system that can match it. More people drive to work than ever before. Why? Planning policy has been that living and working should be seperated. With moving home costing so much, it makes economic sense to drive a bit further if you move jobs or the business relocates to a more suitable area. Over this same time funding on road improvements has been slowed to almost nothing, planning barriers have been added; speed control areas have been extended; traffic has beeen slowed by speed humps; parking has been limited or reduced; pedestrians, cyclists and public transport have been prioritised with cycle and bus lanes, and traffic light sequencing; road maintenance has been at a minimum. All of these factors will increase congestion to some degree.
Ah, now we have congestion we must try and reduce this. How can we do this? We must persuade more people to use public transport. We increased parking charges, reduced the number of parking places in towns and cities, and increased the number of enforcers. Oh, that did not work. Lets think again, lets have a congestion zone in central London. It will cost a lot to put in, but will be self funding and raise a bit of cash as well. Oh, £5 per day is not enough, lets raise it to £8. The west side of London seems congested with all those Chelsea tractors, so lets include them as well. What? You want to park outside your house with that 4x4? You own 2 of them, no we think it would be better if you only had one, I know we will just charge you a bit more.
Reducing congestion is still not working. Lets make people pay to use roads at peak times, this will reduce congestion and make a bit on the side as well. We have the technology, well almost, that will do the job. How much does it cost? Who cares as the motorist will pay for it as it will be self funding. Lets get a report to check we are right. Our civil servants will write it and have a public figure across the front, then everybody will believe it as truly needed.
The situation is now that drivers are beginning to be seen as a cash cow, yet our economy needs a good flexible transport system. There are about 30 million drivers, and I think it is getting to the stage where the straw is finally going to break the camels back. It nearly happened wioth the fuel strike, it could happen again in the near future.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
