Picking up on two points from earlier in this discussion. Motorbikes are fun but I get better mpg with 4 people in my 307 than one man on his motorbike. I think a shortage of potable water may be a world problem before a shortage of fossil fuels is. World gas resources are vast and new sources are being found all the time.
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 13/10/2009 at 09:00
|
Does your 307 run on gas?
Many people refer to those who accept climate change as 'doomsayers' - I think this is very untrue. I believe we are influencing the climate, but I also believe that if we can all accept this then we can do something about it. I even think this could be good for the UK, why not spend some money on research to develop new technologies that we can then sell to the rest of the world?
The snail said live for today for tomorrow we die.
Very true, tomorrow I may die, but my children will live. Whats so wrong with making sure that either some oil is left for them, or that we have developed new technologies for them to use?
|
No my car doesn't run on gas but I am sure that some the research that you rightly suggest might/could come up with a way of coverting gas to a suitable liquid fuel for I/C engines
|
Global warming is a proven fact, borne out by the following formula
RG+GT=GW
RW:Research grants that need to be renewed each year, and lets face it scientists are much more likely to have our money thrown at them if they have this spectacular little theory to play with
GT:Green taxes, the chancellor thought he'd died and gone to heaven when this godsend arrives, and anyone who disagrees is a right wing facist who hates little orphans
GW:Global warming
|
The global warming thing doesn't quite add up.
OK, the science says that pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere would tend to increase the greenhouse effect.
Also, between 1975 and 2000 there was a remarkable correlation between the rise in annual average global air temperature and the rise in man-made CO2 emissions.
Since about 2000, that correlation has become less close.
So, it's possible that growing CO2 emissions might have caused global temperatures to rise a tiny amount. But the rise could have equally well been entirely natural, and similar to what has happened many times over the last few thousand years.
But what is not in dispute is that finite fossil fuels are being used up at an ever increasing rate, so whether or not we believe in human-induced climate change, the measures introduced to counteract it would also help us smooth the inevitable transition to the post fossil-fuel age.
|
Furthermore, as we pass peak oil and peak gas, globally, the amount of CO2 emissions will begin to decline anyway, so even if we are causing global warming, we won't be able to keep it up for more trhan a two or three decades.
I would call myself environmentally minded and I'm interested in renewable energy, new energy-saving vehicle technology etc. And yet, despite having known about the theory of global warming since my chemistry teacher explained it to us around about 1972, I still feel uncomfortable about the leaps people have made to claim conclusive proof that we're causing climate change.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 13/10/2009 at 21:19
|
I quote from a previous post of mine on this subject
"the official figures are that temp in 1880 was 14 degrees plus or minus 0.7degrees. Since then temps have risen by 0.6 degrees - in other words, within the error range of the original temp used as the basis for all this "global warming" stuff.
One of the basic questions to ask is "Has any global warming actually taken place since 1880 - the year on which we base all our figures?"
The truth is that no-one is really sure whether "global warming " exists - let alone whether it justifies a whole new tax regime on cars.
In addition
""road transport is responsible for roughly 0.02% of the "greenhouse effect" so if you removed every form of road transport from the earth's surface it would reduce the greenhouse effect by 0.02%"
Lastly, global temps have risen since 1880, CO2 levels have also risen, but historically (and by historically I don't just mean a hundred years or so but over millions of years) it has been shown that CO2 rises in response to increased temperatures and is not a cause of increased temps - so please stop spending billions on (not?) reducing CO2 emissions and especially stop penalising motorists because their cars chuck out some CO2.
By all means encourage people to reduce their consumption of scarce resources but cut the carp re global warming
|
Some views from RL about half way down this link:
tinyurl.com/ygeglhj
generally spell out what a large proportion of the population feels about "global warming" and the fanatics it attracts.
As I've pointed out before, most of our coldest winters and warmest summers occurred long before the arrival of the wide use of cars, planes and public transport.
Edited by Stuartli on 13/10/2009 at 22:37
|
It's a beastly con to screw more taxes from the citizenry!
Edited by malteser on 14/10/2009 at 09:55
|
|
it has been shown that CO2 rises in response to increased temperatures and is not a cause of increased temps -
I have never seen the "Green" response to this very important research. I too was shocked when I read it. I believe the research was peer reviewed and very credible.
Interestingly, I just spoke with an old school friend who is making a very tidy living as a freelance Corporate Social Responsibility Consultant, advising big corporates how to be more ethical and environmentally friendly. He worked in the Social Policy division (yes, really) of a big FTSE500 company for 10 years, and has now gone freelance. Although his work covers all manner of good stuff such as helping big corporates work with their local communities, donate to charities and so on, over 50% of his work involves environmental policies and CO2 reduction plans. He is one example of the gravy train that's grown up around this issue. I bear him no ill will, he's a mate and he's making a living, but for heaven's sake, how useful is this stuff, really?
Government taxation of fuel and motoring in general is just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended). There are too many jobs and too much cash at stake for this issue to go away. It will only get worse.
|
I sort of look at scientists getting 'green' funding much like Nelson Piquet - when the paycheques stopped rolling in, the truth will emerge.
When dealing with government and global arrangements, one has to apply a healthy dose of cynicism.
Id far rather we poured billions into maintaining the rainforest and planting more trees as opposed to taxes collected in the name of changing peoples buying/car use habits ( which dont much work anyway ) which are not really spent on the enviroment. I would happily pay a 'tree' tax, speaking as the owner of two Redwoods, one of the natural wonders of the plant world :-)
|
Stu is spot on! Climate Change has developed to the extent that most people either believe in it or are told that they should and anyone who who puts their hand up and asks a sensible question is shouted down by the people who are triyng to sell us triple glazing, solar panels and other related junk. 60 years payback on solar panels! Not for me thanks, at age 70! I don't buy annual subscritions for anything these days, in case I don't get full value from them!
|
The root of global warming, if you subscribe to the idea it's man-made, has to be uncontrolled population expansion. You can reduce the per-head output of carbon emmissions by half, but if you triple the population there's still going to be a huge increase. This population increase also explains road/rail/air congestion, deforestation, and the extinction of species.
At what point do we say the planet is full, when there's no fish, no trees left? Soylent Green anyone?
|
uncontrolled population expansion.
IIRC that's Sir David Attenborough's main concern.
|
|
if we hadn,t spent the last 40 years listening to the anti nuclear lobby we could now be humming away on sweet clean no carbon nuclear power 100%, unfortunatly we now have to fight the arabs for the oil for the next 40 years
|
|
Thick snow today where I live. Three weeks ago I was sitting in the garden in shorts and flip flops. Started garaging the car again at night and using the heated seats.
|
Thick snow today where I live. Three weeks ago I was sitting in the garden in shorts and flip flops. Started garaging the car again at night and using the heated seats.
You big girl's blouse.
In Newcastle that's how people dress when it is snowing.
|
"In Newcastle that's how people dress when it is snowing"
Quite right too! I'm a bit like that, I don't really like having my arms covered, it makes me nervous.
One would have imagined that the Poles would be some of the sturdiest people when it comes to enduring cold weather. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've never seen such pansies - they make Southerners look "hard". They will be wearing scarfs, hats and quilted coats in weather that you or I would be wearing a t-shirt. I'm not exaggerating either, it has always been a huge bone of contention between me and my Polish wife and family about how we dress the kids. She'll have them suffering in winter clothes in 20 degrees of sunshine, whereas I (and the kids) prefer to wear as little as possible for as long as possible. The neighbours comment all the time and I enjoy playing up to it. It also irritates the teachers and parents when we turn up at school without coats. Somebody leaned out of a bus window the other week and shouted at me to dress my kids properly.
|
|
You'll find these attitudes if you drive (motoring link) anywhere roughly east of the Oder-Niesse line, west of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, and north of Athens. If your coat doesn't cover your buttocks in temperatures below 20 deg C, you'll become infertile you know.
|
>>..you'll become infertile you know.>>
So that's the explanation...:-(
|
@ Doug_r1
And what are you advocating? Some sort of "final solution" to overpopulation - sounds like you might run into some opposition :-)
Seriously, I've read that the best route to population control is educating women and alleviating poverty. This leads directly to massively increased use of contraceptives, leading to smaller families and a more sustainable planet. Pity about the nutty Christian charities funded from the US that only support abstinence and abhorr contraceptive use as sacreligious
The alternative is that though some of the kids in these large developing world families sadly die, enough make it to adulthood, where they've got no prospects, education and not enough food. So they then migrate to places like the UK where there are prospects and food. Or they get really angry when they see our lifestyles on satellite TV, and are easy prey for extremist groups.
So bringing people in Africa out of poverty is not just charity and some feel-good factor, there's a great argument around self-interest too.
|
@ Armitage Shanks {p}
Agreed, there is an incredibly vocal minority at either end of the argument.
There is also an intrinsic problem with human nature - all people (even me!) are much more likely to give credibility to an opinion or statistic that reinforces their world view, rather than challenging it - i.e. dogma is a big problem for both deniers and doomsayers.
Agree with your general opinion on solar PV. Waste of time in the UK until some radical technologies that are still in university labs become mass production items (10 years at least).
Triple glazing is also not worth it in UK, as the real problem are older houses that lack cavity walls and the general p1ss-poor thermal performance of even quite modern houses in the UK. Scandinavia cracked it decades ago, and if we had their building codes then most people's gas bills would be well under half what they currently are.
|
|
|
|
@Armitage Shanks {p}
Err you can already buy vehicles that run on compressed natural gas CNG, just not in the UK. Both Fiat and Volkswagen sell vehicles, and in Germany, for instance, E.ON Ruhrgas has a network of filling stations for natural gas - Ruhrgas had a stand at the Frankfurt motor show. However, at the moment it's a bit of robbing Peter to pay Paul for climate change & energy security. You're simply swapping one CO2 intensive fuel from dodgy parts of the world for another.
Where CNG does have a good role is in things like urban buses and delivery vehicles - the engines are quieter than diesel and have fewer emissions like NOx & particulates, hence no need for EGR and particulate filters to give much improved urban air quality.
That being said, if you can get a vehicle, you can get a home filling station for about a few thousand pounds, and this fuel is about 1/3 the price of petrol so might make sense for a high mileage driver and committed (legal) tax avoider.
|
>>Agreed, there is an incredibly vocal minority at either end of the argument.>>
The most vocal minority are the man-is-causing-global-warming brigade, they have taken the moral high ground and put massive resources in to countering what they call "sceptics", accordingly it makes it very difficult for anyone with even a balanced view, yet alone contrary evidence, to make themselves heard without the risk of being denounced as a crackpot.
|
|
Global warming is something made up by 'interested parties' (ie politicians, big business etc) for their own dubious ends. Full stop.
|
|
|
The most vocal minority are the man-is-causing-global-warming brigade they have taken the moral high ground and put massive resources in to countering what they call "sceptics" accordingly it makes it very difficult for anyone with even a balanced view yet alone contrary evidence to make themselves heard without the risk of being denounced as a crackpot.
I couldn't agree more cheddar, but these shouters don't speak for everyone on that side of the argument.
I had dinner last night with an old friend who is an environmentalist and a climate change "believer" (it's astonishing we get on so well, but we do). Yet, she is also willing to discuss and listen to views which challenge her own. That is a fundamental quality which is sadly lacking in many of the climate change fanatics who have hijacked the mainstream debate.
We had quite an in depth discussion over a few cold lagers, and came to the conclusion that the science is far over the heads of about 95% of the population (us included), and that there are far better reasons to reduce reliance on, and consumption of fossil fuels than this. She still has a hatred of Big Oil, and thinks they are skewing things in their favour, I countered with the gravy train climate change "industry" on the other side and the excuse for green taxes.
I just wish such a balanced, calm discussion could be had in the mainstream public consciousness. It does tend to degenerate very quickly into name calling and emotional blackmail.
Perhaps cold lager and a nice vegetarian meal is the way forward..... ;-) Or just some mutual respect between the two sides.
Cheers
DP
|
|
I'd also suggest that there is also an equally vocal minority who take great delight in making as much noise as possible decrying the "man is causing it" brigade... They are just as bad, and as vocal, as those mentioned...
|
|
|
|
>>Agreed there is an incredibly vocal minority at either end of the argument.>> The most vocal minority are the man-is-causing-global-warming brigade they have taken the moral high ground and put massive resources in to countering what they call "sceptics" accordingly it makes it very difficult for anyone with even a balanced view yet alone contrary evidence to make themselves heard without the risk of being denounced as a crackpot.
In the USA, it was the other way around until quite recently. If there is an imbalance now, it's because of where the consensus of scientific opinion now is. I'm not going to try and change your mind on that. My personal opinion is that a people are still sceptical about the need for action because (i) they mistrusts politicians - understandably, (ii) they mistrust scientists - and given the way science mishandled things like MMR, BSE etc... I can understand that and (iii) if they accept it, then they are also accepting the need for radical change too the UK energy system (including transport) and most people are scared of what this might mean - because they think it implies a reduction in standard of living compared to today. However, it's possible that the reverse will be true.
In the end though, it doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. The policies of all 3 parties are pretty much aligned, so energy and other markets are being regulated and restructured to deliver the 2020 and 2050 outcomes (that's one of the beauties of being in government). The only disagreements are about the roles of different energy technologies, and the policies that are required to get the rate of change required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
