I know plenty of people who could very easily drive 5 miles less per week, simply by walking for the papers and walking their kids to school.
So maybe its aimed at them.
However it has caught your attention, you have thought about whether you could do it so the advert has, partly, worked.
And of course you don't need to cut short your journey to do less miles. You could car share so only driving every second day as an example.
|
And I could certainly do less miles - could go back to getting the train in/out of work. I did this when the fuel prices rocketed to their high points and I may go back to it as I am getting totally scunnered with Glasgow rush hour traffic!!
And looking out the window, my car already has a fine layer of frost over it so it may well be a brisk walk in the cold air tomorrow (which I love) instead of standing scraping the windows while the engine heats up!
|
I sincerely hope lots of people take heed of this. Far too many of them are clogging up my roads when I want to use them. Makes me quite cross sometimes.....
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
"According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent ? 18 percent ? than transport."
|
|
|
|
Am I a bit late here? >>
Yes, very late.
actonco2.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home/about-us/FAQs..._
4. When was the campaign launched?
Launched in 2007, ACT ON CO2 is a behaviour change campaign that seeks to engage the public on climate change issues and encourage them to take steps to reduce their carbon footprint.
Google "act on co2" and you will see that it is a most multifarious campaign.
It is designed to help Gordon and the Euro-Gang meet their commitment to cripple Britain with their pledge to unilaterally cut emissions by 95%.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/21/europe-...s
"Europe offers to cut emissions 95% by 2050 if deal reached at Copenhagen"
Start walking and cycling, scrap your cars, stop flying, stop importing food, stop heating your homes, stop eating meat, grow your own veg at home or in allotments, turn all council parks and playgrounds in to farms, bathe in cold water, etc. etc. etc., and the world will be saved. NOT.
Edited by jbif on 08/11/2009 at 21:42
|
|
|
I think (perhaps complacently) that I - like you, already avoid unnecessary car journeys so don't need this kind of advertising campaign, however I suspect that many (the majority ?) don't think like this and can possibly only be reached via TV advertising.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the back-roomers, there are many government expenditures which I'd rather not fund (whatever the particular administration, past and future ones included) - in particular the current scrappage scheme irritates me and I suspect the costs of this Act on CO2 advertising campaign pale compared to that ?
Edited by idle_chatterer on 08/11/2009 at 21:59
|
|
|
I think it is sensible to start to limit our co2 output but I am sick of all the preaching by polititians - really interested in raising taxes.
I believe that there were glaciers extending down as far as the Midlands 10 - 15000 years ago in the last ice age did they retreat because of cave man's CO2 ?
|
SFAIK Greenland was so called because it was green when Erik the Red or whoever first sighted it. I also note that it is no longer Global Warming but Climate Change which appears to be an admission that the changes could go either way.
|
>>I also note that it is no longer Global Warming but Climate Change which appears to be an admission that the changes could go either way.<<
Thats called changing what you call it so your data can effectively mean anything and thus not be disproved. You have to prove that Global Warming is happening ( ie by temperatures rising ), whereas Climate Change can be pretty well anything so long as its not identical to previous years, which is unlikely since 'change' in the climate has always been the case.
|
|
|
SFAIK Greenland was so called because it was green when Erik the Red or whoever first sighted it.
Yup. Warm enough for grape vineyards as well.
|
|
|
SFAIK Greenland was so called because it was green when Erik the Red .. >>
See that argument busted here:
www.grist.org/article/greenland-used-to-be-green/
www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-gree...m
|
OUOTE:..."">>I also note that it is no longer Global Warming but Climate Change which appears to be an admission that the changes could go either way.<<""
And over the coming decades we can expect to see more and more weather!!!
|
That reminds me of the TV program 'broken news'
very funny program
The weather man was saying 'Dubai is a bit of a concern as they have had no weather for six months now'
or the other quote 'this strong wind will come in from the west and blow its self out before going in some other direction'
classic !
Edited by diddy1234 on 11/11/2009 at 23:54
|
Not specifically motoring, but, as nobody seems to have said just what actions will achieve how much planet-saving, I looked into it a bit. Taking the IPCC 2007 scenario 2 [ the least inaccurate compared to actual events ], the latest published carbon dioxide concentration rate of rise, [ Mauna Loa readings ] and a mid-range claim for billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum inserted into the atmosphere, it appears that a total shut down of the entire world's carbon economy will save about one degree C per 60 years. That's a lot of cars to take off the roads......
On the other hand, looking at the recent international demand that carbon dioxide concentration be reduced to 350 ppmv, that would take only about 30 years of total shut down for the trees & ocean to catch up. You youngsters had better decide quickly what cars will be classic is 30 years time so that you can get them stored for the day when it is safe to drive again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who cares? It's a bit like a company advertising their product on television. You don't have to buy the product!
|
The fact is, if life on this planet was going to come to an end, or something equally terrible, governments wouldnt be saying drive a bit less - cars would be outlawed, all carbon emissions sources turned off where possible etc, because without a planet, or a species, who would care about politics, economies and life as we know it.
IF it was THAT bad, it would be far more than token gesture politics. But its not - so far green issues have amounted to political posturing with developing nations, higher taxes and new industries built around the idea. Thats not the action of a government or international community that is expecting the end of life as we know it. Hmm.
|
|
CO2 is heavier than air so how on earth can it effect the ozone lare.97% of all man made CO2 actually comes from humans breathing leaving only 3% from everywhere else.
|
97% of all man made CO2 actually comes from humans breathing leaving only 3% from everywhere else <<
tinyurl.com/humanc02
Edited by Lygonos on 13/11/2009 at 11:27
|
Lygonos, please tell me that this is a joke?
Seriously, you need to appreciate the difference between a closed system and one where new elements are introduced.
Humans take oxygen from the atmosphere and respire, producing CO2. Plants take the CO2 and turn it back to O2 by photosynthesis. It's a closed loop, and fairly steady state over a long period of time.
Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that has been locked away from this closed loop for millennia. That changes the base state of the system - a new variable has been introduced.
Overly simplistic, unquestioning thinking that ignores context and the wider picture is the bane of science, and the biggest problem whenever climate change is debated here. I'm not attempting to draw any wider conclusions, but claiming 97% of human CO2 is from respiration is both true and utterly irrelevant to any pertinent discussion regarding atmospheric levels.
|
Gord,
you ignored the context that it wasn't Lygonos that claimed this, he was only quoting!
Cup & lip, etc !
;-)
|
Hmm, perhaps rearrange the following into a sentence:
Hoist. Petard. Own. My. By.
Sorry Lygonos.
|
Erm - I don't understand the slogan. Drive 5 miles less this week. Less than what? 5 miles less than my total mileage last week? (which was actually higher than usual...) 5 miles less than I might otherwise have done? Exactly 5 miles? What about next week? Should I drive 5 miles less again than this week? And the week after that?
OK, walk to the local shops. Don't drive the kids to school if it's only half a mile away. Do yourself and your car a favour at the same time. But 5 miles less this week???
|
|
I do a lot of miles purely for pleasure and I'll not be driving 5 miles less, in fact I think i'll do some more. These green loonies can naff off! The "Act on CO2" ads are a dumbed down disgrace.
|
I'll not be driving 5 miles less in fact I think i'll do some more.
That is the kind of reaction this stuff provokes in me too, 832ark.
When I win the lottery, I'm gonna buy myself a Rolls Royce Olympus turbojet, mount it in a test rig on my land somewhere, and fire it up for no more than the sheer pleasure of it. It would of course double as the world's coolest marshmallow toaster. Maybe the odd jacket spud on a stick in tin foil as well.
All the Back Room will be welcome of course, not only to appreciate the engineering and the noise, but also to revel in the sheer waste of it all! :-)
Edited by DP on 13/11/2009 at 14:34
|
>>When I win the lottery, I'm gonna buy myself a Rolls Royce Olympus turbojet, mount it >in a test rig on my land somewhere, and fire it up for no more than the sheer pleasure of >it. It would of course double as the world's coolest marshmallow toaster. Maybe the odd >jacket spud on a stick in tin foil as well.
>All the Back Room will be welcome of course, not only to appreciate the engineering and >the noise, but also to revel in the sheer waste of it all! :-)
I'll be first in the queue! A guy who my colleage knows has a RR Merlin that he gets out and fires up a couple of times a year - I'm waiting for my invite!
|
There's a RR dealer near Great Dunmow in Essex. Woods I think they're called. They have one on show and apparantly get it out and fire it up at shows so I've been told. Makes an awesome noise.
Want one.
|
|
claiming 97% of human CO2 is from respiration >>
Therefore the CO2 problem is man made.
If the taget reduction in CO2 emissions is 95%, the solution surely has to be to cut the world's human population down by that amount!
;-)
|
|
China has a "one child" policy, so they're doing their bit to reduce CO2 emisions.
|
|
They've relaxed that law I believe so in that case we're all stuffed.
|
|
|
|
|
jbif, I read recently that someone had done just that estimate, and came up with 375,000 per week. I am not sure that even Pol Pot got near that rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
