Right, time to stop talking and start committing

[Gray-Wolf]

Lets also not fool ourselves into thinking it is 'cheaper' for us to been more 'eco friendly' as, seeing as the utilities are profit making comp.s, then any drop in consumption will just lead to a price hike to maintain the profit margins.........

[Pickles]

Lets also not fool ourselves into thinking it is 'cheaper' for us to been more 'eco friendly' as, seeing as the utilities are profit making comp.s, then any drop in consumption will just lead to a price hike to maintain the profit margins.........

I beg to differ.

A lot of the energy comes from abroad, therefore, the suppliers will not have to purchase so much of it at high prices and can actually make better profit margins by supplying local grown energy. The reason energy prices are as high as they are now is due to demand and storage capabilities.

A saving of say 30% is still a saving of 30% no matter what the prices are.

[The Penguin]

Lets also not fool ourselves into thinking it is 'cheaper' for us to been more 'eco friendly' as, seeing as the utilities are profit making comp.s, then any drop in consumption will just lead to a price hike to maintain the profit margins.........

I beg to differ.

A lot of the energy comes from abroad, therefore, the suppliers will not have to purchase so much of it at high prices and can actually make better profit margins by supplying local grown energy. The reason energy prices are as high as they are now is due to demand and storage capabilities.

A saving of say 30% is still a saving of 30% no matter what the prices are.

I think you may both be right, and wrong.

If the utilities are to make the changes in energy production you seem to be suggesting, they are going to need more cash for investment in infrastructure. This would require profit levels to be at least maintained, probably increased. In a market where energy use is decreasing, the profit margin would be increased, or greatly increased.

[Essan]

By the way, by 2020 what percent of carbon emessions will come from India and China??

I guess by then Indonesia's 10% will have fallen - because they won't have any forest left to chop down All of which of course will mean long term climate change (particularly rainfall distribution) regardless of carbon emissions.

But we voted in our government and we have the power to take our government to task if enough of us act.

How? Blowing up parliament would be fun, but would it really make a difference?

[Stratos Ferric]

You don't work for a council do you? Or local government? "What slogan shall we come up this week"

Anyway, recycling has gone on for years here now. That's it, that's all i do - probably a damn sight more than some of the do-good eco-warriors

You're not a baggage handler are you? Or do you get to drive a truck with yellow flashing lights around the airport?

It did cross my mind when I opened this thread to suggest that we limit the scope of responses to positive intent, alas, that idea drifted off into the ether, and I guess it's in the spirit of free speech to allow nay-sayers to have their say everywhere.

I am, though, reminded of the occasion in my childhood when Blue Peter had to report, sadly, that vandals had been into the newly created garden one night and completely ransacked the place. It's bizarre that well over thirty years later I still find the behaviour of those who seek only to destroy what others have created, even when it does them no harm, just as perplexing. We all know you don't buy in to GW Mondy, but that doesn't mean that you need to disparage the intentions of others who would prefer not to sit idly by, however ill-judged you consider their actions to be. I spend a lot of my professional life advising managers on leaders around their approach to leading and motivating people, and by and large they all needed help, but I don't think I ever met one with the capacity to undermine those around them quite as potently as you seem to. What I don't know is whether you sabbotaging behaviour is knowing and deliberate, or unknowing. Either way, in my opinion, if you can't be additive or constructive I'd suggest you post elsewhere in a thread that is more up for debate than for intention to act. We all know you have no intention of acting; that's your choice, and like many others you will sit back and let others take the strain for you.

[Mondy]

It's ok, SF - i stated yesterday that i've backed away from these type of threads now. I'm thinking you probably didn't see my signature yesterday, whereby it was sloganed along the lines of "Mondy has decided to life ban himself from all environmental discussions from now on"

Clearly, i've rattled you, so it's for the best i don't post on these threads. I guess you'll all be relieved. Bit boring though, i'd have thought, all agreeing with a collective nodding of heads.

So, by all means, carry on..

but I don't think I ever met one with the capacity to undermine those around them quite as potently as you seem to.

If only you met me for real. Most placid, down to earth guy you could meet. It's unlike you to be so wrong Ferric.

I'm not an airport employee in any way, shape or form btw.

[PersianPaladin]

How? Blowing up parliament would be fun, but would it really make a difference?

No; it's called democracy. Direct action should be a last resort (mind you, I think that a government that went to war against Iraq despite a million man march should be ousted!!)

Edited February 21, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Gray-Wolf]

And S.F. people need to understand what's going on and commit from their own concerns.

Dragging along a flock of sheep to build 'confidence' in your position just isn't the way.

Facts convince us, clever arguments may have us checking our sources but we come away stronger each time re investigate and we find our answers remain 'unchanged' so don't worry about those who only strengthen our position and those 'undecideds' will decide (one way or another) in time.

[The Eagle]

...various of us have argued long and stridently about GW / AGW, and one or two of the sceptics have raised the "so what are you doing about it" challenge.

I am going to turn my heating down 1C (though I might give myslef special dispensation on days when it's very cold and windy), and shorten the burn periods, with the aim of reducing my oil consumption by 10%:

I am going to turn more lights out around the house, and turn off equipment that is on stand-by with the aim of cutting my electricity consumption by at least 10%.

AT least once a month I will make a personal journey (where one needs to be made) by public transport.

I will start recycling all my glass, plastics and paper.

I will fit two more energy saving light bulbs.

Good thread. I take it then, since GW has not been proved, you will accept my list.

1. Im going to turn my heating up by 1C with the aim of increasing my fuel consumption by 10% in the interest of keeping my house warm and because I can afford the bill.

2. I think I will leave more lights on around the house especially when I go out. You can never be too careful these days.

3 I will be buying an SUV soon which I fully intend to use instead of the overcrowed, uncomfortable, unfortunate joke that is public transport.

4. Im sick of having to seperate recycables from my other rubbish therefore everything from now on will go into my black bin to go to landfill or better - incineration.

5. I dont like the energy saving lightbulbs - not bright enough - therefore I will replace the 4 I have in my house with more practical standard light bulbs. Maybe about 100 watts each.

When someone proves GW then I will change my ways. I dont see why we should bother until such time.

Oh yes and just on the issue of government tax to force people to change their ways. Anyone here think a government would do that because they care about the environment

Edited February 21, 2007 by Darkman

[HighPressure]

Lets also not fool ourselves into thinking it is 'cheaper' for us to been more 'eco friendly' as, seeing as the utilities are profit making comp.s, then any drop in consumption will just lead to a price hike to maintain the profit margins.........

Actually Utilities is a good place to start, having worked for Thames Water I can tell you that it is one of the biggest users of Electrictiy in the Country yet a third of its product is lost before it ever gets to the customer. The majority of the cost involved is electricity yet no one seems to even mention it, this probably adds up to as much as the whole UK could save in replacing every single lightbulb we are talking megawatts wasted and it does not matter to Ofwat because its not their remit or to the company because the customer pays for all production even that which is lost. TBH sod the turning down the heating by 1oC lets get boys out in the open and lobby and hassle them.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I recall reading earlier in the thread that the efficiency of newer cars will never offset the extra carbon footprint of building new cars; therefore we should not buy new cars (presumably the idea is to shrink the market for new cars so that the producers produce less)

All seems very negative to me, and makes one core assumption, namely that we can't significantly reduce the carbon footprint of building a car. It may also be possible to get around the disposing of old car parts problem by recycling them. I often see assertions like "we can't do X, because that's just the way it is", but as well as being a circular argument, it stops us doing something about a problem that might actually be addressable.

I tend towards the view that we need ALL people to do their bit- the consumer, the producer, the government etc. And on a global scale too. There's far too much "I'm Alright Jack" and "it's another group's fault" going on, this applies as much to producers and authorities as to consumers. If we focus purely on consumers by bringing out a stick the size of Russia we may end up forcing far more human sacrifices than are really necessary in order to cut emissions.

[The Penguin]

I recall reading earlier in the thread that the efficiency of newer cars will never offset the extra carbon footprint of building new cars; therefore we should not buy new cars (presumably the idea is to shrink the market for new cars so that the producers produce less)

All seems very negative to me, and makes one core assumption, namely that we can't significantly reduce the carbon footprint of building a car. It may also be possible to get around the disposing of old car parts problem by recycling them. I often see assertions like "we can't do X, because that's just the way it is", but as well as being a circular argument, it stops us doing something about a problem that might actually be addressable.

Obviously someone has to buy a new car but thereafter as many as possible should take it on as second, third and fourth-hand to maximise the usable life of the vehicle. I don't think it is a question of not being able to build new cars more efficiently, rather reducing the number of new cars being manufactured through multiple and extended ownership.

[Gray-Wolf]

Obviously someone has to buy a new car but thereafter as many as possible should take it on as second, third and fourth-hand to maximise the usable life of the vehicle. I don't think it is a question of not being able to build new cars more efficiently, rather reducing the number of new cars being manufactured through multiple and extended ownership.

or manufacturers making the beggars easier to pull apart at the end of their life ready for recycling....

[The Penguin]

or manufacturers making the beggars easier to pull apart at the end of their life ready for recycling....

Hang on, we British used to be world-leaders in making cars that came apart easily.

[Mr Sleet]

I'm doing all that already Stratos mainly out of concern for my finances. Just in case it was the Sun all along I suggest we each cover our back gardens with Al foil. Belt and braces you understand.

[The Penguin]

. . Just in case it was the Sun all along I suggest we each cover our back gardens with Al foil. Belt and braces you understand.

Excuse me, but that's just silly.

Placing the foil at ground level is all wrong, as the heat will already be within the atmospheric layer being affected by CO2 levels. Reflecting heat back up in to that layer would only make the problem worse.

[Snowly does it]

OK, here's my commitment list

1) I will finish off energy saving the light sources in the house which will be on at need and not for the sake of it.

2) No more standbys

3) Recycling continues

4) More homemade/grown produce, although I generally make my own jams and chutneys, grow my own herbs and occasionally bake bread

5) Commit to more shopping at the local farm shop and avoid supermarkets where possible, buying their eco products when I do go.

6) Keep driving my little car which is cute and not some guzzle-bunny 4x4 which is utterly unecessary unless you live up a hill or in the Highlands/Lake district/Dales.

7) carefully review the environmental proposals of the parties at the next election and if unimpressed, vote Green

[PersianPaladin]

Excuse me, but that's just silly.

Placing the foil at ground level is all wrong, as the heat will already be within the atmospheric layer being affected by CO2 levels. Reflecting heat back up in to that layer would only make the problem worse.

While I always take The Sun's 'suggestions' with a massive pinch of salt and have doubts about the reliability of using aluminium foil for reducing diabatic heating; it is known that increasing surface albedo will help to reduce temperatures in the lower atmosphere. Just look at snow cover over Europe in winter and see how this does wonders for lowering temps. Global warming does not neccessarily equate to just the 200mb-850hpa atmospheric level but also to stratospheric cooling; we need temps in the stratospheric profile to be much more even and less steep than the troposphere and actually warmer than the upper tropospheric level. The interactions between the highest level of the troposphere and stratosphere are complex and involve several feedback mechanisms that operate at the macro and meso-scale in synoptic terms (although some argue that the stratosphere has no interaction with the troposphere at all apart from albedo and CO2\water vapour emission!) Increasing cloud reflectivity and surface reflectivity are just one solution to this; and we will need to think carefully about other measures to BALANCE the implications of this.

Edited February 27, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[disco-barry]

Bloody hell i'm a GW Guru...my dad's tightness pays dividends!

We hardly have the heating on, even in winter!

All our bulbs are weak energy efficient tripe

The bulbs are always turned off anyway as he follows us around like a shadow!

We recycle our waste by either feeding it to the chickens which give us eggs obv. or composting it

We plant trees in our garden aswell as occasionaly chop them down

I catch the train alot at weekends anyway but i do have to drive to work due to poor transport infrastructure around here.

I don't leave anything turned on unless i'm using it(other than clock/alarm) and when i'm away i turn everything off

I don't leave the tap running when brushing my teeth or whatever

My dog's are in a wheel powering the house....no we have solar-panels which heat our water up.

We fill our recycle tubs from the council

And we smash street lamps

Not bad eh?! i won't stop flying or driving to france though and i won't stop going to gigs with millions of watts of power being used.

Thanks, a not bad feeling DB.

[Stratos Ferric]

Excuse me, but that's just silly.

Placing the foil at ground level is all wrong, as the heat will already be within the atmospheric layer being affected by CO2 levels. Reflecting heat back up in to that layer would only make the problem worse.

Probably not actually. The atmosphere is warmed by reradiated long waves, hence why the air doesn't warm suddenly in the morning when the sun rises, and maxima, in fact, tend to occur late oin the day. Incoming radiation is mainly short wave: if reflected it would still be short wave. A cover of aluminium foil would increase albedo in the same way that an ice age does.

It's still a stupid idea though. I remember the episode of Thunderbirds where T2 had to be called out to rescue Lady P from a mountain resort where a mirror, or something like that, had got lodged on a mountain-side following an earthquake and the reflected sunlight was focussed on the village below, making it smoulder. Poor Gerry, he never mastered getting his smoke effects to scale. It might have been T1 that nudged the mirror with its nose cone, or maybe they had pod 4 that day...

[pottyprof]

OK, here's my commitment list

1) I will finish off energy saving the light sources in the house which will be on at need and not for the sake of it.

2) No more standbys

3) Recycling continues

4) More homemade/grown produce, although I generally make my own jams and chutneys, grow my own herbs and occasionally bake bread

5) Commit to more shopping at the local farm shop and avoid supermarkets where possible, buying their eco products when I do go.

6) Keep driving my little car which is cute and not some guzzle-bunny 4x4 which is utterly unecessary unless you live up a hill or in the Highlands/Lake district/Dales.

7) carefully review the environmental proposals of the parties at the next election and if unimpressed, vote Green

I make my own jams and chutneys too.. Want to swap recipes??

Most of your list is what we are already doing... won't be voting green though.. too OTT.. can still swap recipes if you want..

[Upgrade]

there is no way i am gouing to cut down on the amount i fly just because of global warming. i fly up to 30,000 miles a year on holidays which is a lot, but i dont drive a car, i cycle to work, and live in a small modern flat with good insulation and double glazing and efficient bulbs, i recycle, eat organic localish produce, keep the heating turned down.

Am i therefore evil for flying so much? i refuse to believe so. with the money i pay for tickets and the tax i contribute through various means i think that the airline industry and govt should come up with cleaner technology in the first instance.

talk of boycotting air travel, getting the train to greece is simply farcical and of course making it super expensive or having "air mile allowances" for travel by air is just barmy and will serve to make it more elitist , whatever people say. another great step in social mobility for this country.

and never mind that losing Heathrow as a major hub when flying from here is taxed to hell will mean most Brits have to endure the inconvenience currently experienced by other Europeans who come here, of having to fly out of to France or Frankfurt who are just waiting to steal a march, and wait for a plane there for hours to take you on to your fnal destination. No thanks. As usual the rich with their private planes and those who use first class lounges and speeded check in arrangements will be spared the worst inconvenience. no , as usual , it will be Joe Public who are singled out to be trampled on.

once again there is another agenda at work in all this and it isnt climate change. it is political opportunity and the excuse to restrict other people's activities and freedom and a great wheeze for a shed load of tax to prop up our skint economy.

i'm only 32 and i hate being so cynical but when you see the Beeb and the Guardian ramping this "air travel is evil" "lets all feel guilty about it" claptrap in the face of the real facts, i just know there are other motives at work. would be great if we were told what they were but this "stop flying because of CO2 emissions" is the greatest con going right now, even if you buy into the AGW theory (which i do). its just sad people cant see it.

[The Penguin]

Probably not actually. The atmosphere is warmed by reradiated long waves, hence why the air doesn't warm suddenly in the morning when the sun rises, and maxima, in fact, tend to occur late oin the day. Incoming radiation is mainly short wave: if reflected it would still be short wave. A cover of aluminium foil would increase albedo in the same way that an ice age does.

It's still a stupid idea though. I remember the episode of Thunderbirds where T2 had to be called out to rescue Lady P from a mountain resort where a mirror, or something like that, had got lodged on a mountain-side following an earthquake and the reflected sunlight was focussed on the village below, making it smoulder. Poor Gerry, he never mastered getting his smoke effects to scale. It might have been T1 that nudged the mirror with its nose cone, or maybe they had pod 4 that day...

I bow to your superior knowledge yet again Brains, but I think your going a bit far blaming the poor albinos.

[Hiya]

I wonder what it'd be like if we woke up one morning and found that cars had been banned, its either public transport or shank's pony?

If its all to do with carbon dioxide then a drastic measure like that is the only thing that would work in my opinion.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

With much of the British public...probably huge majority calling this weather brilliant and forecasters alike saying things like perfect, ideal, glorious yet it is way out of the norm then there is very likely that folk who believe/think this is linked to AGW will want AGW to continue. How many times has anyone heard folk say as a joke 'spray more CFCs or use more gas guzzlers' when they actually mean it if it leads to weather like this? I hear it all the time. Is it the same all around the NH?

BFTP

Edited April 8, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST