View Full Version : Global Warming...... just a thought!
Is it totally un-pc and completely ignorant to sort of welcome global warmer due to the fact that .... wel hey by February we could be looking at 18'C and no rain???
I don't blame energy consumption for it, I blame time itself.
What caused the ice to melt after the ice age? Did the dinasaurs drive big gas-guzzling suv's??
Screw it, what track days do we have in february!
psychlist
01-Jan-2007, 21:07
What caused the ice to melt after the ice age? Did the dinasaurs drive big gas-guzzling suv's??
No, they just had very bad flatulence, methane being a very "efficient" greenhouse gas :lol:
One problem with Stones thought is the theory that the increased temps will bring greater evaporation from the sea's surface, that moisture has to precipitate somewhere and guess who's usually first in the line of fire :eek: ;)
I don't think it's the rise in temperature that is the problem-it's the rate of change. When we were in Iceland a couple of summers ago we were at a camp at the foot of their major glacier and they had a centre there which explained all about the expansion and contraction of the glacier. The ice field had been much bigger in the 1800's, but much smaller (than it was now) in the 1200's-well there wasn't much in the way of atmospheric polution around then simply because there weren't many people either. The climate on this little planet of ours has continually changed over the milenia-just this time it is happening a bit quick like.
John
um, have you seen what latitude we are at?, its only the Gulf Stream that gives us the mild climate we have and if polar ice melts it'll stop the Gulf Stream, to give you an idea its the same as Quebec or Minsk!!
everton
02-Jan-2007, 10:32
Global warming became much more apparent to me when I first noticed that Foxes Glacier Mints were getting smaller :D
Tonio600
02-Jan-2007, 22:47
Global warming is only good for you if you don't have children, grand-children and generally don't care about things which don't affect yourself right now.
For people who haven't seen Gore's documentary, I strongly recommend them to watch it (An Inconvenient Truth).
888heaven
02-Jan-2007, 23:51
On the news last night 2006 was the hottest year since records began about two hundred years ago thats hardly headline news thousands of years ago we were under 20 odd foot of ice did neanderthal man go into guilt mode and stop building fires.
200 years of records is not very representetive of the millions of years of animals producing methane and CO2,if you want accelerated climate change look at the asteriod that struck the Mexico basin which wiped out the Dinosaurs but the planet survived and remained in o2/co2 balance other wise all life would have been extigiushed.
If CO2 was being produced quicker than plants could synthesize O2 everything would be dead.
No one can really say with 100% accuracy whether this is a natural planetry change or real climate change due to man.
whether or not it is this and every other government will use it as a way to dump even more tax on you.
Theres money to be made in global warming and windfarm companys are the first to cash in on grants to blight the sky line.
They produce very little power compared to the cost of manufacture and work effeciently on very few days with most of them are turned off due to grid capacity.
there an absolute scar on the skylines of cornwall and will destroy the veiws on the Scottish isles whose people do not want them.
On the news last night 2006 was the hottest year since records began about two hundred years ago thats hardly headline news thousands of years ago we were under 20 odd foot of ice did neanderthal man go into guilt mode and stop building fires.
200 years of records is not very representetive of the millions of years of animals producing methane and CO2,if you want accelerated climate change look at the asteriod that struck the Mexico basin which wiped out the Dinosaurs but the planet survived and remained in o2/co2 balance other wise all life would have been extigiushed.
If CO2 was being produced quicker than plants could synthesize O2 everything would be dead.
No one can really say with 100% accuracy whether this is a natural planetry change or real climate change due to man.
whether or not it is this and every other government will use it as a way to dump even more tax on you.
Theres money to be made in global warming and windfarm companys are the first to cash in on grants to blight the sky line.
They produce very little power compared to the cost of manufacture and work effeciently on very few days with most of them are turned off due to grid capacity.
there an absolute scar on the skylines of cornwall and will destroy the veiws on the Scottish isles whose people do not want them.
Are you nuts or what?
its not just CO2 production, it is also the unprecedented deforrestation of the planet which is a significant factor
Tell me exactly what is pretty about pylons stretching out across the landscape, acid rain or leukemia clusters?
Speaking as a Scot tell me what will be left of the Scottish islands when the sea level rises 9m as predicted by some models?
Millions of years ago, there were far fewer people and cows etc were not farmed then as they are now. There is no comparison to be made with planet we have today.
THERE IS NO DOUBT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN UNLESS YOUR NAME IS GEORGE W BUSH! ASK ANY SCIENTIST!
There is as much energy used in the production of a car as it uses in its lifetime, so by that metric wind farms are spectacularly successful. Do you have any idea how much more CO2 is produced in the building of a nuclear power station? Until nuclear fusion comes along wind and wave are the best we have. Incidentally, when the UK government did a study in the early 80s or so as to what was the cheapest/most environemtally friendly way of producing energy, nuclear came out on top. Then once the go ahead for Sizewell B, THORP (Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant) etc had all gone through someone noticed wave power was the best way forward and there was an error in the calcs. The cynics among us might suggest that you cant build nuclear weapons with wave power but you can with nuclear power stations and the lunacy of THORP.
As for taxation,if you pollute you should pay to clean it up. Its not my world or yours. Its everyones, and those who follow us should find it in a decent condition.
Sorry, rant over, but really, the world needs to wake up to how close to disaster it is. As mentioned above, the UKs climate as it is just now is not assured of remaining as it is and is entirely dependant upon the salinity of the Atlantic seawater. Melting ice means no conveyor for the warm air of the tropics which means Moscow comes to London for Winter.
888heaven
03-Jan-2007, 01:00
[As for taxation,if you pollute you should pay to clean it up]
just like I pay road tax and its all used on the roads get real.
psychlist
03-Jan-2007, 07:06
...which means Moscow comes to London for Winter.
Ooh! Will they bring some pretty young Russian Au Pairs :D
Are you nuts or what?
its not just CO2 production, it is also the unprecedented deforrestation of the planet which is a significant factor
Tell me exactly what is pretty about pylons stretching out across the landscape, acid rain or leukemia clusters?
Speaking as a Scot tell me what will be left of the Scottish islands when the sea level rises 9m as predicted by some models?
Millions of years ago, there were far fewer people and cows etc were not farmed then as they are now. There is no comparison to be made with planet we have today.
THERE IS NO DOUBT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN UNLESS YOUR NAME IS GEORGE W BUSH! ASK ANY SCIENTIST!
There is as much energy used in the production of a car as it uses in its lifetime, so by that metric wind farms are spectacularly successful. Do you have any idea how much more CO2 is produced in the building of a nuclear power station? Until nuclear fusion comes along wind and wave are the best we have. Incidentally, when the UK government did a study in the early 80s or so as to what was the cheapest/most environemtally friendly way of producing energy, nuclear came out on top. Then once the go ahead for Sizewell B, THORP (Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant) etc had all gone through someone noticed wave power was the best way forward and there was an error in the calcs. The cynics among us might suggest that you cant build nuclear weapons with wave power but you can with nuclear power stations and the lunacy of THORP.
As for taxation,if you pollute you should pay to clean it up. Its not my world or yours. Its everyones, and those who follow us should find it in a decent condition.
Sorry, rant over, but really, the world needs to wake up to how close to disaster it is. As mentioned above, the UKs climate as it is just now is not assured of remaining as it is and is entirely dependant upon the salinity of the Atlantic seawater. Melting ice means no conveyor for the warm air of the tropics which means Moscow comes to London for Winter.
Hey its healthy to rant!! My problem and I do have children is that even with a major effort on our part (Great Britain) it is just a drop in the ocean... I read that even if all vehicles were banned from UK roads now, within one year China would not only have made up the difference but added 50%!
I tend to think history shows that the earth sorts itself out... i.e overpopulation = disease, global warming = destruction of current civilisation and introduction of new one a few thousand years later. Same with war etc etc..... Im not being negative just taking the veiw that no one with any power is going to do anything about it until its too late and until then I thought I would enjoy the warmer weather and build a deep underground bunker for my children in my spare time....... but now after reading the replies which indicate that this global warming isnt going to provide me and my 1098s with 320 days of perfect riding weather I may become a polititian and do something about it.... I mean you even get to sh*g a cheeky girl as a perk!!
psychlist
03-Jan-2007, 09:00
I tend to think history shows that the earth sorts itself out... i.e overpopulation = disease, global warming = destruction of current civilisation and introduction of new one a few thousand years later. Same with war etc etc..... !!
My Great Grandmother told me it was God's way of keeping man in check ;)
I still prefer the look of the future according to Futurama :D
[As for taxation,if you pollute you should pay to clean it up]
just like I pay road tax and its all used on the roads get real.
Your road tax pays for the UKs road building program and more. But it does not cover the cost of repairing the damage done to the environment through global warming whether that be preventative measures or remedial.
eg the cost of building the Thames barrier in todays money £1.4billion
many scientists believe planting trees will not work effectively in refixing carbon, so other methods are being considered, eg storing it in disused oil reservoirs in the North Sea etc
Or to look at another way. The human cost? 300 people died in flooding in Canvey Island in 1953
As Psychlist says, melting ice caps = a greater surface area of water. Add increased ambient temperatures and effectively youhave more water in the atmosphere . effectively a speeding up of the water cycle and more rain through global warming.
Then we have all the damage done by the other pollutants in fuel. Historically, lead, sulphur etc Someone has to pay for it....
[quote=Stones]I read that even if all vehicles were banned from UK roads now, within one year China would not only have made up the difference but added 50%!
quote]
There are some truely staggering forecasts and statistics out there at the moment. eg China builds one coal fired power station per week. Also many of its open coal fields are left to burn and the pollution produced is about the same as that produced by all the vehicles in the USA.
Global warming is only good for you if you don't have children, grand-children and generally don't care about things which don't affect yourself right now.
For people who haven't seen Gore's documentary, I strongly recommend them to watch it (An Inconvenient Truth).
You are so right. Petrol is going to run out in about 30 years and is going to get even more expensive, which will mean less vehicles on the road. Well I'm 43 so don't mind going electric by the time I'm in my 70's, and I can afford it. I love the warm weather. The warmer the better. Someone pointed out to me a while back that if we carry on like this then the children will inherit the planet in a poor state. Well I don't like kids. They have a poor work ethic and expect everything handed to them on a plate, so why should I care about them.
You can call me self centred and selfish. I'm sure one or too might. But this planet has been heading down this route for a long time. Everyone has known it and done very little about it. I really do believe that this problem has gone past the point of no return. I don't think that any amount of legislation, national or global will fix this. I'm going to live for now. Let's face it. It's what we've all been doing for years which is why we're in this mess. This planet is doomed, so get on your bikes and ride while you can.
You are so right. Petrol is going to run out in about 30 years and is going to get even more expensive, which will mean less vehicles on the road. Well I'm 43 so don't mind going electric by the time I'm in my 70's, and I can afford it. I love the warm weather. The warmer the better. Someone pointed out to me a while back that if we carry on like this then the children will inherit the planet in a poor state. Well I don't like kids. They have a poor work ethic and expect everything handed to them on a plate, so why should I care about them.
You can call me self centred and selfish. I'm sure one or too might. But this planet has been heading down this route for a long time. Everyone has known it and done very little about it. I really do believe that this problem has gone past the point of no return. I don't think that any amount of legislation, national or global will fix this. I'm going to live for now. Let's face it. It's what we've all been doing for years which is why we're in this mess. This planet is doomed, so get on your bikes and ride while you can.
I'm 38, and there was a time when people our age used to fear young whippersnappers coming up behind them on the career path. Must admit having seen what the schools turn out these days, I dont.
Think you may have a point on it being to late though, especialy if China, and the USA dont change
Martini
03-Jan-2007, 10:16
"[QUOTE=749er]Are you nuts or what?
As for taxation,if you pollute you should pay to clean it up. Its not my world or yours. Its everyones, and those who follow us should find it in a decent condition."
Whilst this is a sound theory, it does not work on a global scale.
USA, India and China are terrible polluters but they are not going to be paying pollution tax to Europe.
There is a European anti-pollution (recycling) scheme called WEE (http://www.bsi-global.com/Manufacturing/WEE/Index.xalter) which says that by law anyone making electrical goods must offer a method of retrieving and re-cycling these goods when their life has expired. At no charge.
All well and good, but it has some fundamental flaws: 1) It only applies to Europe 2) Customers will not pay the extra cost this new service will entail 3) The law says European manufacturers must do it, so cheap Asian manufacturers win again.
Until there is some way of ensuring polluters WORLD-WIDE are held to account I don't see any way to counter global warming.
We are not all innocent here in Europe, either. If every country was to use resources at the same rate as Portugal, we would need three planets to support us! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/costingtheearth_20061221.shtml)
psychlist
03-Jan-2007, 10:17
Think you may have a point on it being to late though, especialy if China, and the USA dont change
I blame the Australians myself, coming over here and drinking all our lager then pi55ing on our grass! No wonder there's not enough greenery to get rid of the CO2 :D :roll:
I blame the Australians myself, coming over here and drinking all our lager then pi55ing on our grass! No wonder there's not enough greenery to get rid of the CO2 :D :roll:
What grass?
:confused:
Whilst this is a sound theory, it does not work on a global scale.
USA, India and China are terrible polluters but they are not going to be paying pollution tax to Europe.
There is a European anti-pollution (recycling) scheme called WEE (http://www.bsi-global.com/Manufacturing/WEE/Index.xalter) which says that by law anyone making electrical goods must offer a method of retrieving and re-cycling these goods when their life has expired. At no charge.
All well and good, but it has some fundamental flaws: 1) It only applies to Europe 2) Customers will not pay the extra cost this new service will entail 3) The law says European manufacturers must do it, so cheap Asian manufacturers win again.
Until there is some way of ensuring polluters WORLD-WIDE are held to account I don't see any way to counter global warming.
We are not all innocent here in Europe, either. If every country was to use resources at the same rate as Portugal, we would need three planets to support us! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/costingtheearth_20061221.shtml)
you make a lot of valid points there, but the WEEE directive stipulates that manufacturers must declare on their invoicing all charges which relate to the WEEE directive. This goes on until 2010 or 2012 I think, then the charges still apply but are not shown. So people have to pay the cost of recycling
But Japan is ahead of the EU in recycling and California will be mirroring the WEEE directive so although it wont be a miracle cure, taking a lead does influence.
manufacturers of goods from outwith the EU have to pay also, most likely done through there import arms eg Sony UK So whether you buy a Sony or a Bang and Olufson TV the receipt for either will list the associated WEEE charges.
you are right we are not all innocent, we need to take responsibility for what we do.
Ooh! Will they bring some pretty young Russian Au Pairs :D
you needing warmed up Paulo?
What grass?
:confused:
the grass they dont play cricket on:lol:
There is no doubt that Global Warming is real. Neither is there much doubt that it is a man made phenomenon: the scientific community have pretty much reached consensus about that and most commentators are of the opinion that 2007 is going to be a pivotal year in terms of public recognition of the scientific facts.
So, just recognising that there is a man made problem is a start, but it's not all doom and gloom.
Sweden has a target of being 100% oil free by 2008, and a strategy to achieve it. Think about that, it's only next year! Their plans include technologies that are really simple, like effective insulation to minimise energy usage, as well as grander schemes like hydro-electricity and wind power. There is also some pretty impressive lateral thinking going on in the form of Combined Heat and Power stations where instead of sticking a damn great power station in the middle of nowhere and building big cooling towers to disperse the wasted heat, they build a smaller one on the edge of a town, use the electricity that is produced to power the town and run the coolant through a network of pipes to provide the town with heat as well. Huge efficiency gains there. These CHP stations run on a variety of fuels, but there are ones that burn vegetation and Bio-Fuel. There are also gassification plants that turn wood into gas and bio-fuel, the projections are that they can provide a huge amount of their energy needs through sustainable forestation.
Their plans rely heavily upon bio-fuels such as Ethanol and Bio-Diesel for transportation, and this to me is where the real win-win situation starts to occur.
Firstly in environmental terms, it is carbon neutral. The fuel will only release the same amount of carbon dioxide that the plants it was made from absorbed when they were growing. The time scale is the important thing here, it is only releasing Co2 that was absorbed last year (or thereabouts) rather than releasing Co2 that was absorbed and locked up millions of years ago, so the Co2 balance remains the same. Also, in environmental terms, it is sustainable - need more fuel, then just grow some more. At the moment, the bio-fuel that the Swedes use is not very eco-friendly since it is made from sugar cane grown in Brazil so it's transportation costs and dubious slash and burn agricultural practises make it less than ideal (that's where the gassification of sustainable forestation comes in for the Swedes). However, with a bit of creativity, a huge amount of our fuel could come from bio-sources. Crops such as Sugar Beet, Oilseed Rape and so on are pretty good candidates and we currently have a huge European Wine Lake (despite my best efforts) that can be turned into Ethanol.
In engineering terms, Bio-Diesel is just as efficient as ordinary diesel and you can get more power from Ethanol than you can with petrol - plus the fact that you don't need huge modifications to current internal combustion engines to make it work.
I'm no expert on this, just what I've picked up from various radio programs and articles, however a carbon neutral, sustainable supply of fuel that doesn't need any major change to current engines seems like a win-win to me.
And it doesn't stop there. It may appear just a utopian ideal, but if you imagine a world where our farmers can stop being paid to 'set aside' land and grow enough biomass to make the UK self-sufficient (as Sweden aims to be), where Europe, the Americas and even developing countries like China and India (huge potential to increase sugar cane production by massive ammounts in India) could follow suit, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that huge amounts of the world could be self sufficient in fuel and drastically reduce (if not eliminate) the total reliance on fossil fuels. Environmental utopia.
If you then think about the geo-political effects, it would remove the need for big greedy gas guzzling nations like the US to keep stomping around the world trying to exert economic and military pressure on third world countries to keep their supply of oil flowing. There would not be the need for the US and the West to meddle in Middle Eastern politics in order to maintain platforms of influence. You might like to think that with the need for western dominance removed, without the need for oil, that more political stability or even peace might be achieved.
India and China are fast developing countries who are now competing hard for the worlds energy resources. Between them they comprise one third of the worlds population and their expectations and goals are to reach the same standards of living as they can see in the western world. The world does not have the fossil fuel resources to allow this to happen so if they want to raise their standard of living, we've got to go down. So, without drastic changes to the dynamics of the worlds energy supplies, more conflict is almost inevitable. Chinese and Indian companies are already beating the western fuel companies for oil drilling licenses in places like Khazakstan, so with dwindling supplies of oil, the western powers have got to lower our energy consumption or give up some of our standard of living. We're not going to want to do that, so as competition for these resources gets more fierce, the west has to outbid the East for drilling rights - or fight them for it. That's where the real danger lies without an alternative to fossil fuel.
Oh yes, and how comfortable does everyone in Western Europe feel being a net importer of Russian gas? Belarus has just been told to pay double for their gas or the Russians will cut them off.
Bio-fuel. It won't happen big time until multinationals or countries work out how to make big money from it, but I think it could be the answer to a lot of the worlds environmental and political problems.
Hmmmm...Flower Power. Maybe the old hippies had a point?
the grass they dont play cricket on:lol:
I loves cricket me :D
888heaven
03-Jan-2007, 12:07
Didnt David Attenbrough say that the explosion in human population is a greater threat to the planet than global warming.
I think he said The planet can survive with out humans but we cannot survive without Biodiversity and its space for other living things that will destroy the planet
animals could well adapt to a hotter planet over time but not if weve killed them all off by over populating everylast land mass.
As for the Gulf stream that would'nt be there if it wasnt for the last round of global warming,so we and it are only here because of the last melting of the ice cap which covered most of europe.
As for cows contributing to global warming I think there were far bigger populations of wild animals of this size about before man destroyed them all,
one of the early european settlers in america noted that you could walk from one side of the plains to the other on the backs of Bison thats again before we destroyed them.
man will destroy all land animals before global warming has a chance to kill us,were losing something like 50 species a day to overpopulation and deforestation.
hopefully nature will find a way to overcome this,its tried before
Black death/Flu in 1918/Aids and perhaps Bird Flu at the end of the day were just another life form with so called greater intelligence which most of the time weve used to either kill each other H bomb or animals through greed and pleasure.
perhaps we just dont deserve to be the planets guardians"
psychlist
03-Jan-2007, 12:17
There is no doubt that Global Warming is real. Neither is there much doubt that it is a man made phenomenon: the scientific community have pretty much reached consensus about that and most commentators are of the opinion that 2007 is going to be a pivotal year in terms of public recognition of the scientific facts.
I think there's a vital flaw in the argument here and the WHOLE scientific community are obviously under the influence of about half the worlds population!
It's always the same result, blame MAN! Where is the evidence to simply blame MAN for this so called catastrophe (I don't mind riding in the rain, at least it'll be warm) and why shouldnt women bear as much responsibility :frog:
Jools, I agree with everything that you say. India and China are trying hard to play catch-up and no amount of political pressure is going to stop them. It needs the rest of the world to help them, econimocally and financially. And that is why I am convinced that we will not manage to turn this around. This planet has not been destroyed by mankinds greed, but by human nature. It will take more than a few well-intentioned individuals to make an effort. It needs the entire planet to adhere to a cohesive policy. If just a couple of countries refuse to cooperate, then human nature will kick in. "If they aren't going to play by the rules then why should we?". Individuals will not do what is needed. Governments need to legislate to force citizens to comply. Who is going to vote for a government that is going to lower their standard of living and give help to another country?
I think that we will all figure out what really needs to be done and be prepared to take the consequences when we really have no other choice, but I really do believe that by then it will be too late.
I think that wars are going to be fought over global warming. Coutnries will do what they have to to survive. Resources will run low and countries will take what they can from other countries, all in the name of survival.
You don't see any other animal on this planet thinking about it's species long-term future. They sleep, eat, reproduce and live and die. Did the last dodo think "damn, I'm the last one". I think our time is coming to an end, and it doesn't really matter whether it be by our own hand, or a giant meteorite hitting earth. The outcome will be the same.
Still, I don't let it get me down.
and why shouldnt women bear as much responsibility :frog:
excellent!
dont know if this is true but I got told that the guy who worked out it was a good idea to put lead in petrol then went on to put CFCs in fridges.
Mankind itself is the greatest threat to the planet; as a race we serve no useful purpose - we do not fit into the food chain as other creatures do, we have plundered the planet of it's natural resources, killed-off other inhabitants either directly or indirectly and have generally upset the eco-system.
We already have the most heavily taxed fuel in the western world, if only fuel tax, road tax, VAT on vehicles were spent on the roads, we have the best netowrk in the world.
Around 70% of fuel costs are tax.
Electric vehicles are not the way forward IMHO, where does the electic come from?? that flipping great gas/coal powered station. what do you do with the huge batteries when they come to the end of their life, another environmental time.
It's too easy to bash the internal combustion engine and its fuel but over the years it has been developed into a very efficient technology.
Medium to long term fuel cells are going to be the way forward, it's really gonna hack the tree huggers off when all that trickles out of the exhaust is a bit of H2O.
The science behind most scares is shakey to say the least, it's not that long ago we were all gonna be Dead from Aids or BSE is it? At one time there was school of thought that said a human being could survive if they travelled at more than 20 MPH
Sure the world is warming up but trying to separate cyclical changes, form mans effects is guesswork at best.
Good science is based on experiments that can be done, the results are measurable and consistent.
Planet earth may be akin to an experiment in some views and maybe just one day it's all going to go horribly wrong, but don't discount the ingenuity of the race to fix the problem when we are 100% sure what the cause is rather than the effect.
Ray.
Tonio600
03-Jan-2007, 17:10
You don't see any other animal on this planet thinking about it's species long-term future. They sleep, eat, reproduce and live and die. Did the last dodo think "damn, I'm the last one".
"reproduce" comes with "making sure my children can lead a safe life" doesn't it?
I don't have any children yet, but I'm 100% sure that if one day the girl I love gives me a son or a daughter, I'll spend my life making sure they can be at least as happy on Earth as I've been. Anyway that's how my parents grew me.
I totally disagree with your views Gilps. Have you watched "An Inconvenient Truth"? If not I'd be more than happy to lend it to you if you'd accept to give it a watch (as to anybody who hasn't seen it).
Commuting by train cost me £90 a month. The trains are always late and they stink. But at least I keep my car off the roads. And if in 10 years I feel it's time to give up biking because the situation is getting worse and worse, then I'll do it.
It's not too late.
It's not a fatality.
"reproduce" comes with "making sure my children can lead a safe life" doesn't it?
I don't have any children yet, but I'm 100% sure that if one day the girl I love gives me a son or a daughter, I'll spend my life making sure they can be at least as happy on Earth as I've been. Anyway that's how my parents grew me.
I totally disagree with your views Gilps. Have you watched "An Inconvenient Truth"? If not I'd be more than happy to lend it to you if you'd accept to give it a watch (as to anybody who hasn't seen it).
Commuting by train cost me £90 a month. The trains are always late and they stink. But at least I keep my car off the roads. And if in 10 years I feel it's time to give up biking because the situation is getting worse and worse, then I'll do it.
It's not too late.
It's not a fatality.
Tonio, I admire your sentiments. I chose not to have children but if I had I would have, like you, tried to do my very best for them. I do have step-children but they live with my estranged wife.
I haven't seen that particular film although I have seen several other programs on the subject, some claiming it's all exagerated, and others claiming doom and gloom.
I realise that you are one the many trying to do their bit to help, but I just don't feel that it's enough. There will always be some who are not prepared to make sacrifices. That's my point. I believe that it is human nature and will not change, at least not until it's too late anyway.
I just have a different point of view to you. I believe it is too late to turn it around. I think we are very close to the point of no return and only really drastic action will avert us passing it, and that action isn't being taken. And I'm not talking about taking the train instead of the car. This is far far bigger than that, and the small gestures that we may make on a daily basis are not enough to avert disaster.
I hope that I'm proved wrong, but I firmly believe that this whole planets going to be a very unpleasant place to live in 50 years.
Tonio600
03-Jan-2007, 19:19
I respect your views too mate, and I hope too that you're proved wrong at some point ;)
Anyway, that should make for some interesting discussions until late in the night in the DD paddock :)
Chris Wood
03-Jan-2007, 19:21
Easter Island anyone.
Think globally,act locally.
I'm going to hug my kids and trees.....
Ok guys.. some great points... interesting stuff! After reading all of them I have decided that instead of becoming a polititian I will start by designing a electric motorbike................ now if I put these two wires together..... AAAARRRRHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
ok maybe a water powered one then!
good thread though and a good topic Stones
good thread though and a good topic Stones
yeh, really pleased with responce
Martini
03-Jan-2007, 21:21
excellent!
dont know if this is true but I got told that the guy who worked out it was a good idea to put lead in petrol then went on to put CFCs in fridges.
That's true... Thomas Midgely's yer man.
Guess how he died...... lead poisoning? Nope.
He was a great inventor but contracted polio at the age of 51, which left him severely disabled. He devise an elaborate system of strings and pulleys to lift him from bed. This system was the eventual cause of his death when he was accidentally entangled in the ropes of this device and died of strangulation at the age of 55.
888heaven
04-Jan-2007, 10:13
[Commuting by train cost me £90 a month. The trains are always late and they stink. But at least I keep my car off the roads. And if in 10 years I feel it's time to give up biking because the situation is getting worse and worse, then I'll do it.]
Are trains that fuel effeceint they use huge amounts of fossilfuels even when there empty even if all the trains were stationary the network is still using electricity.
95% of the time there passenger free its only at peek time that the cost/mile equals out in co2 emmisions compared to other forms of transport.
What amazes me is it's like the coversion to a veggy they probably eaten and worn half a dozen cows in their life time and all of a sudden after their conversion everyone else is a murderer its funny weve all been to school got a job raised a family, worked were weve had to not all ways by choice then someone like 749R comes along and your a planet destroyer.
I didnt wake up one morning and say today I'm going to produce as much CO2 as I can to **** the planet.
I live in a Capatalist society like everyone who resides in this country and most choices are made for me whether I like it or not.
I'd rather put my efforts to keeping my local hospital open/getting proper retirement care for my father/not having to worry if my daughter is going to get home safe from a night out/Being able to walk through my town centre without getting your head stoved in.
these are the real tangible issues that effect my life now not some computer analysis that is based on what ever is thrown in to get the figures that they need.
heres one
Police have said that a 100% of drivers caught speeding were doing over a 100 mph big headlines public outrage govern all cars to 70mph la de da.
in the small print number of cars caught speeding 1.
you can make anything sound as bad as you like as long as you manipulate the figures to suit your needs or as good.
unemployment
immigration
hospital waiting times
appointments at the doctors
weapons of mass destruction is a good one where are they, I thought Saddam could unlesh destruction in 10 minutes on us.
All politicians will tell you anything and back it up with stats to do what they want that suits them at the time.
statistics there meaningless your either affected or not,thats the big gamble of life to be in the right place at the right time or in the wrong place and who can tell where that is.
Tonio600
04-Jan-2007, 12:55
[Commuting by train cost me £90 a month. The trains are always late and they stink. But at least I keep my car off the roads. And if in 10 years I feel it's time to give up biking because the situation is getting worse and worse, then I'll do it.]
Are trains that fuel effeceint they use huge amounts of fossilfuels even when there empty even if all the trains were stationary the network is still using electricity.
I'm sure the old British trains must not be very fuel efficient. But I don't think they use more fuel whether I'm on them or not.
95% of the time there passenger free its only at peek time that the cost/mile equals out in co2 emmisions compared to other forms of transport.
I think you missed the point here. I didn't say trains were environnemtaly friendly. To me the ONLY advantage (from an environnemental point of view) to commuting by train is to keep my car off the road. Each day I take a train, I'm not using my car for one hour.
Ask a metrologist what they think of global warming......most will say that global warming is a cyclical event that has been going on since creation, and the rate of warming that we are experiencing has been seen several times in both recent and distant past.
One important thing to understand, and most people are ignorant of this fact (I'm not accusing you of this Jools); Global warming causes CO2 levels to rise, not the other way around as most people believe.
Just my 2p worth....
Flamesuit on.
J
Yes I am still alive.......hurrah.
PS Ruth I still owe you some cash - sorry.
888heaven
04-Jan-2007, 14:39
[QUOTE=Tonio600]I'm sure the old British trains must not be very fuel efficient. But I don't think they use more fuel whether I'm on them or not.
Sorry but thats my point when the trains are empty they may well use similiar consumption but unlike a car when its empty its using no fuel at all and unless you are within walking distance of a station you have to get either a taxi or bus both Co2 producers and here lies the fundamental issue we cannot just sit indoors and die.
Oh DEAR I'am a Heretic and must be burnt at the stake for Breathing out Co2 hold on burning produces
Co2
Oh and when they have those big lets save the planet conventions how do they get there Tardis I think not Gas guzzling planes,and anyway 2Jags is your average Politician and they wont be giving any of their perks up even if they make us and tax us while were doing it.
.
What amazes me is it's like the coversion to a veggy they probably eaten and worn half a dozen cows in their life time and all of a sudden after their conversion everyone else is a murderer its funny weve all been to school got a job raised a family, worked were weve had to not all ways by choice then someone like 749R comes along and your a planet destroyer.
.
I dont believe I have called anyone a planet destroyer. I have pointed out that global warming exists and that most scientists believe it is down to green house gasses created by man.
I have also stated that polluters should take responsibilty and pay to clean it up. I dont mind me or anyone else making a mess as long as individuall or collectively we pay to clean it up. That is only fair for the coming generations.
I challenged opinions on the aesthetics of pylons and sea levels by asking questions.
At no time have I labelled anyone, except by implication George W Bush, a planet destroyer.
888heaven
04-Jan-2007, 16:58
I dont believe I have called anyone a planet destroyer. I have pointed out that global warming exists and that most scientists believe it is down to green house gasses created by man.
I have also stated that polluters should take responsibilty and pay to clean it up. I dont mind me or anyone else making a mess as long as individuall or collectively we pay to clean it up. That is only fair for the coming generations.
I challenged opinions on the aesthetics of pylons and sea levels by asking questions.
At no time have I labelled anyone, except by implication George W Bush, a planet destroyer.
Only kidding 749er no need to throw the toys at me,I was just making a point that newly converted disciples of what ever religion non smoking converts vegetarians etc seem to get on their high horse and start preaching as though they've been champions for the cause for life when in reality it was yesterday.
your point about the scottish isles just didnt add up if the islands are 100%likely to be under water why build a wind farm there its just that sort of twisted logic I cant get my head round, that wind farm will make no negligable impact to the total Co2 emmisions but will destroy a beautifull island you cant justify one lot of vandilism with another.
Tonio600
04-Jan-2007, 17:12
I'm within a walking distance of the stations.
And the bl00dy trains are running anyway, with me or not with me. So my point is that by not using my car, I don't add to the train polution with my car's polution.
Anyway, I've got a train to catch and I'm late already. Time to run :D
Martini
04-Jan-2007, 17:24
I seem to be one few people that actually LIKE the look of wind farms. I work near the Mohne valley (where the Dambusters did their thing) and the hills are covered in wind turbines. They don't detract from the beauty of the valley anymore than the houses and hotels do. IMHO.
Read somewhere that trains are the most environmentally friendly form of transport, but the figures didn't give any indication of how full the train had to be to achieve this. Better per passenger than car or plane.
Shame the UK network is sh17e then isn't it:D Beeching saw to that.
I'd use the train for work if it cost a tenner a week and it set off when I was ready to go!
The car or bike have fixed costs that rack up even if they don't get used for work, so I might as well make some use of them. Maybe thats why pay per mile is gonna finally kill off use of the roads, the (variable) costs are more directly related to how many miles ya do.
At the mo' the fixed stuff like insurance, road tax, MOT, and that great umentionable depreciation make a fuel costs (the variable cost) seem cheap to me??
Well impressed by the Swiss train system, well integrated with air and bus and runs like clockwork.
Two Jags integrated transport policy just didn't happen, another opportunity lost.
Ray.
Only kidding 749er no need to throw the toys at me,I was just making a point that newly converted disciples of what ever religion non smoking converts vegetarians etc seem to get on their high horse and start preaching as though they've been champions for the cause for life when in reality it was yesterday.
your point about the scottish isles just didnt add up if the islands are 100%likely to be under water why build a wind farm there its just that sort of twisted logic I cant get my head round, that wind farm will make no negligable impact to the total Co2 emmisions but will destroy a beautifull island you cant justify one lot of vandilism with another.
sorry if I sound stroppy, got a lot going on just now. The 9m rise is a possibilty, some models predict a rise of 1m, depends who you believe. This is part of the problem. Most people know something is happening and its not good, its a question of how bad might it be and might it be tolerable?
But interestingly there is a debate going on, on one of the western isles just now as to whether a huge wind farm should be built. One side says its a blot on the landscape the other side says the world needs to act and since the island is part of the world it should have the farm, otherwise no more islands. Perhaps the best place is offshore?
I can appreciate where the opposition are coming from, but personally, I am with Martini. I think the are very graceful objects and I think they represent something clean and positive.
psychlist
04-Jan-2007, 17:56
I seem to be one few people that actually LIKE the look of wind farms. I work near the Mohne valley (where the Dambusters did their thing) and the hills are covered in wind turbines. They don't detract from the beauty of the valley anymore than the houses and hotels do. IMHO.
They'd be very good at adding character to the Crouch and Blackwater valleys ;)
Tonio600
04-Jan-2007, 18:35
I can appreciate where the opposition are coming from, but personally, I am with Martini. I think the are very graceful objects and I think they represent something clean and positive.
+1 ...
888heaven
04-Jan-2007, 19:59
Yer a real asthetic addition to countryside and the same people get the hump when Prescot sanctions the building of millions of new homes.
sorry no excuse for blotting any landscape vandalism is vandalism regardless of the benefits.
As for pylons how are they going to get the eletricity off the island and too the grid more blotts.
To achieve the same output the whole of the country would be covered end to end total madness its knee jerk reaction to a problem that ministers have'nt planned for.
I've never had criminal intent but if lived on those islands i'd sabotage as many as i could.
small community crushed by big business at the end of the day,green is not always good.
Athelstan
04-Jan-2007, 20:27
I don't belong to any environmental groups nor am I an eco activist - I also do not have any interests in the rail industry. Now that's clear I'd just like to thank everyone for holding this very good debate - most interesting.
I'd just like to say that the human race is killing the planet and for those with an open mind, ears and eyes will see the truth. The Al Gore docufilm is as good a place as any to start.
As for trains - they are the most fuel efficient way presently of transporting both people and frieght quickly. There are many independent studies out there that consistently validate this.
Now wouldn't it be great for Ducati to become the first bike manufacturer to have a hybrid fuel highly competitive GP race n road sports n touring bike, and, for Ducati to distribute their bike from factory to individual markets by rail.
888heaven
04-Jan-2007, 23:09
From little acorns they say but when councils start prosecuting people for stupid mistakes when recylcing and start charging more money to take away refuse that they already pay towards in the council tax and then start putting cameras at tips and chips in bins its going to total alienate the very people that could make a difference.
All this heavy handyness is going to do is increase resentment and give most people the impression that enviromental issues are just another excuse to raise tax revenues.
2007 will be the year of the flytipper and if we cant get hygenic refuse collection under controll what chance have you with Global warming.
Martini
05-Jan-2007, 12:12
Yer a real asthetic addition to countryside and the same people get the hump when Prescot sanctions the building of millions of new homes.
sorry no excuse for blotting any landscape vandalism is vandalism regardless of the benefits.
As for pylons how are they going to get the eletricity off the island and too the grid more blotts.
To achieve the same output the whole of the country would be covered end to end total madness its knee jerk reaction to a problem that ministers have'nt planned for.
I've never had criminal intent but if lived on those islands i'd sabotage as many as i could.
small community crushed by big business at the end of the day,green is not always good.
And conventional or nuclear power stations are NOT blots on the landscape?
2380
Given a choice, I'd rather look out on a valley dotted with wind turbines than a valley with a bl**dy great coal-fired power station in it!
Wind and wave power generation sited offshore seems to be the current favourite (and by offshore I mean IN THE SEA, similar to oil and gas platforms) as this gives access to the power needed and has less visual impact (higher costs and almost as high environmental impact, tho).
The truth is, until we find a source of power better than electricity we are stuck with electrical power generation in one form or another.
Renewable energy could only ever produce a fraction of our electricity needs, but even 30% of our requirements produced by low-pollution means is better than none.
And if anyone says that wind or wave is non-polluting, they've got that wrong. Both require vast amounts of concrete, steel, plastics, lead and copper and they don't get produced without polluting by-products.
888heaven
05-Jan-2007, 13:54
And conventional or nuclear power stations are NOT blots on the landscape?
2380
Given a choice, I'd rather look out on a valley dotted with wind turbines than a valley with a bl**dy great coal-fired power station in it!
Wind and wave power generation sited offshore seems to be the current favourite (and by offshore I mean IN THE SEA, similar to oil and gas platforms) as this gives access to the power needed and has less visual impact (higher costs and almost as high environmental impact, tho).
The truth is, until we find a source of power better than electricity we are stuck with electrical power generation in one form or another.
Renewable energy could only ever produce a fraction of our electricity needs, but even 30% of our requirements produced by low-pollution means is better than none.
And if anyone says that wind or wave is non-polluting, they've got that wrong. Both require vast amounts of concrete, steel, plastics, lead and copper and they don't get produced without polluting by-products.
Never said that power stations or any other forms of industrial use are not blots.
wind turbines as objects of beauty stick them in the Tate Modern with the pickled animals and piles of bricks then not on natural vistas.
the reasons there are oil rigs in the sea is because of the huge profits outway the collossal start-up costs and maintenance.
wind turbines will not even cover the start-up costs and theres another problem if your supplying 30% you need at least 50% more output to cover for no wind and maintenance which means you could have built Nuclear power stations on existing sites at similair costs.
anyone who thinks that the enviromental impact of building and installing tens of thousands of turbines on land or in the sea is going to cause less damage than any other form of industrail intervention is living in cloud cuckoo land
Why has Nuclear power got such a stigma is it the relationship with Nuclear weapons, I dont know the figures of people killed by these bombs but I,am sure the common car has killed more people in a year and every year.
how many have been killed in Iraq just with common and garden gun I think weve lost all sense of perspective.
pollution is just that "Argh but this is green pollution it doesnt count"
sorry but in my view you will never catch up with demand because of the expansion of the worlds population and 30% of todays consumption will be 5% by tomorrow and the shortfall will eventually have to be filled with something practical and in the short term it will be Nuclear but in the longterm they may find something completely new.
But it wont be wind farms there just a gimick to show everyone that the government are doing something just like sticking fuel tax up for flying.
there is no excuse for saying "But lets just do something" when they do that you get things that go horribly wrong,the dangerous dogs act and the gun laws all show the way it goes when you have a Knee-jerk reaction they dont protect anyone.
And no sorry I dont know the answer but for me its not fields of Turbines
Never said that power stations or any other forms of industrial use are not blots.
wind turbines as objects of beauty stick them in the Tate Modern with the pickled animals and piles of bricks then not on natural vistas.
the reasons there are oil rigs in the sea is because of the huge profits outway the collossal start-up costs and maintenance.
wind turbines will not even cover the start-up costs and theres another problem if your supplying 30% you need at least 50% more output to cover for no wind and maintenance which means you could have built Nuclear power stations on existing sites at similair costs.
anyone who thinks that the enviromental impact of building and installing tens of thousands of turbines on land or in the sea is going to cause less damage than any other form of industrail intervention is living in cloud cuckoo land
Why has Nuclear power got such a stigma is it the relationship with Nuclear weapons, I dont know the figures of people killed by these bombs but I,am sure the common car has killed more people in a year and every year.
how many have been killed in Iraq just with common and garden gun I think weve lost all sense of perspective.
pollution is just that "Argh but this is green pollution it doesnt count"
sorry but in my view you will never catch up with demand because of the expansion of the worlds population and 30% of todays consumption will be 5% by tomorrow and the shortfall will eventually have to be filled with something practical and in the short term it will be Nuclear but in the longterm they may find something completely new.
But it wont be wind farms there just a gimick to show everyone that the government are doing something just like sticking fuel tax up for flying.
there is no excuse for saying "But lets just do something" when they do that you get things that go horribly wrong,the dangerous dogs act and the gun laws all show the way it goes when you have a Knee-jerk reaction they dont protect anyone.
And no sorry I dont know the answer but for me its not fields of Turbines
Am not sure where you get your facts from but from way back when i was studying all this at Uni
Wave power costs 6p/kWh (revised from 9p/kWh)
Nuclear costs 6p/kWh - excludes decommissioning costs
Wind costs 11p/kWh
Hydro- cheap as chips
Fossil fuels are no longer an option
No one knows what it costs to decommission a nuclear power station as no one has done it. They are left as radioactive tombs for thousands of years, unless we do the right thing and deal with them. But it will cost more to decommission than to will to build.
People should be scared of nuclear installations. We built a fast breeder reactor at Dounray. It was an experiment in producing power from a new type of reactor which tool spent nuclear fuel and handily enough turned into plutonium. It didnt work so we built THORP instead. Another idea, so great that no one else in the world has followed suit. The fast breeder was cooled by liquid sodium. Never in the history of man has man succeeded in putting out a fire fueled by liquid sodium. What on earth were we doing? Seriously! No wonder the locals, and the scandanavians were not happy.
Power consumption will decrease. The UK Building Regulations are a legal document. They must be complied with. For the next 50 years they will revised so that the energy performance of buildings improves by 27% every 5 years. The first tranche came in last year. It applies to new build and refurb. Homes are also covered by this. Businesses can take advantage of tax breaks and interest free loans to fund energy efficient technology. I know firms who have had there money back in less than 2 years. Its a great business investment for them. This is an EEC directive and is part of our commitments to Kyoto. If everyone signed up we would be off with our knees up! But you cant influence, say the USA, if you are not excercising good practice yourself.
A wave barrage the length of the western isles could power most of Scotland.
Australia and Denmark generate 20% of their power from wind.
Lastly, ask yourself, how would you feel if they wanted to build a nuclear power station where you lived?
Am not sure where you get your facts from but from way back when i was studying all this at Uni
Wave power costs 6p/kWh (revised from 9p/kWh)
Nuclear costs 6p/kWh - excludes decommissioning costs
Wind costs 11p/kWh
Hydro- cheap as chips
Fossil fuels are no longer an option
No one knows what it costs to decommission a nuclear power station as no one has done it. They are left as radioactive tombs for thousands of years, unless we do the right thing and deal with them. But it will cost more to decommission than to will to build.
People should be scared of nuclear installations. We built a fast breeder reactor at Dounray. It was an experiment in producing power from a new type of reactor which tool spent nuclear fuel and handily enough turned into plutonium. It didnt work so we built THORP instead. Another idea, so great that no one else in the world has followed suit. The fast breeder was cooled by liquid sodium. Never in the history of man has man succeeded in putting out a fire fueled by liquid sodium. What on earth were we doing? Seriously! No wonder the locals, and the scandanavians were not happy.
Power consumption will decrease. The UK Building Regulations are a legal document. They must be complied with. For the next 50 years they will revised so that the energy performance of buildings improves by 27% every 5 years. The first tranche came in last year. It applies to new build and refurb. Homes are also covered by this. Businesses can take advantage of tax breaks and interest free loans to fund energy efficient technology. I know firms who have had there money back in less than 2 years. Its a great business investment for them. This is an EEC directive and is part of our commitments to Kyoto. If everyone signed up we would be off with our knees up! But you cant influence, say the USA, if you are not excercising good practice yourself.
A wave barrage the length of the western isles could power most of Scotland.
Australia and Denmark generate 20% of their power from wind.
Lastly, ask yourself, how would you feel if they wanted to build a nuclear power station where you lived?
Will power consumption really decrease? Maybe it will grow at a lower rate, but actually decrease? I find that one doubtful.. The growth in everything electrical is never-ending, new buildings all have fancy HVAC systems which the older ones don't. I'm not convinced UK power consumption will be reduced, and for the developing world it is only going to rise.
Will power consumption really decrease? Maybe it will grow at a lower rate, but actually decrease? I find that one doubtful.. The growth in everything electrical is never-ending, new buildings all have fancy HVAC systems which the older ones don't. I'm not convinced UK power consumption will be reduced, and for the developing world it is only going to rise.
It will decrease.All manufacturers are looking to reduce the consumtion of their goods, changing from a CRT screen to an LCD screen saves about 90%.
The building design process is a little complicated. But it involves a mathematical model which determines what the consumption of the building would be pre 2006. You then have a target which at the moment has to be 28% lower than the old building design. All elements of the building are included HVAC, Lighting (my field), fenestration, insulation, domestic hot water etc. if your building does not comply it does not get a completion certificate from building control so no one can use it. Buildings must all be metered and will have an energy label assigned to them in the same way cars and fridges etc. So if you are paying X to lease an A rated building and it performs like a C rated building, then I suspect the lawyers will get involved.
But its sfae to say that most of the lighting put into commerial buildings has been absolutely **** in terms of energy efficieny. The technology has always been there to do 100% better in many cases, than has been done in the past. So at least these regs will eliminate the dross from the market place and encourage efficient design
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.