Climate Change/Global Warming

[Scottie]

Call it what you want.

Do you believe we are not helping with the cars that we drive and our every day lifestyle.

or

are you in the camp of it's a natural process that the earth goes through.

[The Dogfather]

I was a sceptic but I do now think we are having an effect, that said we are all knackered anyway as China and India will continue to create CO2 at an alarming rate.

Rather than spending money on 'slowing' the greenhouse effect we should be moving people out of areas at risk of flooding, building reservoirs for droughts in the south and changing building regs to make buildings stronger as well get more storms.

London as a capital city is doomed

[N12 JLK]

I agree with Vidal, we are being taxed to the hill due to global warming and the main contributors are the Chinese and the Indian's. I say get a cooper S JCW and enjoy your short life, we are all buggered and I'm not gonna change things with ma Eco shopping bag.
Think of all those lovely nuclear weapons that are in bunkers in the eastern block rusting away which could go off at any minute, bye bye lovely Eco friendly car hello crispy skin.

[duncan]

I find it funny that someone with kids says stuff it, and live for now.
That's the sort of attitude I have!

But, how are we being taxed to the hilt with Green taxes?

There's no road charging in Scotland, and we've seen tolls removed from bridges.

Fuel duty is hardly a Green Tax - we've seen fuel tax rises long before global warming was a story.

Global warming is, in my opinion, helped along by mankind, and we should be looking for real solutions. Not like the cheap publicity stunts that Branson made with his bio-fuel 747 last week.

This country lags way behind places like Scandanavia and Germany for Green issues, and we should be looking more to them, than India for how we should be conducting business.

[The Dogfather]

This country lags way behind places like Scandanavia and Germany for Green issues, and we should be looking more to them, than India for how we should be conducting business.

Per captita head both China and India produce less CO2 than Germany and all of the Scandinavian countries. Also only Sweden produce less than the UK, Germany produces the same and Finland and Norway produce more CO2.

However both India and China have population in excess of 1 billion each. As these countries develop their demand for energy will see their CO2 per captia increase. Basic mathematics will tell you that our contribution would be like a fart in a aircraft hanger.

[The Dogfather]

I saw this on a weather site and I had to post this up. This is a typical article published on the subject of Climate Change: -

snowdonia-shows-signs-of-global-warming (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2007/11/21/snowdonia-shows-signs-of-global-warming-55578-20137434/)

What seems to escaped the attention of the official and the reporter is that Snowdon is nearly always snow free and has been since the end of the ice age. It's only 3500ft, near the sea and in the UK not one of the fecking Himalayas . If it had snow on it all year round there would be a Welsh Skiing industry.

People are so misinformed about climate change its unreal. Take the Kyoto agreement, what a crock, for all that's worth we might as well try to stop a speeding HGV with a tooth pick. The sooner we realise this the sooner we take action to live with the consequences of the use of fossil fuels.

[Gismo]

For me it's inevitable, the things i do will not change the way the global weather changes.
Until all countries are on a level par for emissions then why should one country be allowed to do what it pleases whilst others clamp down on it.
It is a global thing after all ;)

There is no doubt that mankind is assisting the weather change, but, nature is also taking it's own course.

If there is no green tax on us then why did the aviation duties increase inline with the green statement

[duncan]

Basic mathematics will tell you that our contribution would be like a fart in a aircraft hanger.

Then lets just give up on everything then. :confused:

Sorry, the defeatest attitude is wrong. You can't preach to China and India if you're not making any effort in your own country. That's just plain hypocrasy.

[duncan]

If there is no green tax on us then why did the aviation duties increase inline with the green statement

I never said there was no shuch thing as green taxes - just we're not taxed to the hilt on them.

However, as Avaiation fuel currently has no/very low tax on it, then it has very little "green" taxes applied.

Tax at the same level as land based transport pays, and you'd maybe have a case to say that we're being taxed heavily.

[Gismo]

Tax at the same level as land based transport pays, and you'd maybe have a case to say that we're being taxed heavily.I didn't say we were taxed heavily, just that the airlines were hit with higher taxes inline with green statements.
Which statement i don't know, but i know i had to pay extra for a holiday i had already booked due to the increase

[Big Gordy]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh........we'r e all gonna die:eek::rolleyes::D

[AndyP & Lenore]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh........we'r e all gonna die:eek::rolleyes::D

Aye. End of. Eventually anyway. Whether we freeze to death, bake to death in 120 o C, or drown in a tsunami, frankly I think we have very little control over it all.

I'm with VB. We should be investing more in saving as many as we can, rather than running about spending billions trying to stop an ice age which can't be stopped.:D

The saying should be amended - "Time and tide (and global climate change) wait for no man.":rolleyes:

A.

[The Dogfather]

Sorry, the defeatest attitude is wrong. You can't preach to China and India if you're not making any effort in your own country. That's just plain hypocrasy.

Defeatist would be rolling over an dying, what I'm proposing is fighting the battles you can win. There's no point in preaching to India and China they won't listen, they have a big enough problem with poverty to care about climate change.

[duncan]

Nah, thats an over-reaction. No-one's rolling over and dying in the UK thanks to climate change. In the 3rd world on the other hand...

Where would we fight the battles then? Flood areas? Hmm, thats a given - we shouldn't be building there in the first place.

Build reservoirs in the south? Is there enough land space available? Better to fix the pipes that are leaking first.

Change building regs. Well, that'll do pretty much zero. Its the freak conditions that are damaging buildings. In typhoon zones, they still get damage after all.

[The Dogfather]

As they develop China and India will need more energy, both have large amounts of fossil fuels and as they are so cheap this is what they'll use. China has already said our (the west) use of fossil fuels over the last 100 years is what has caused CC. To criticise them would be very hypocritical.

So rather than spending millions on renewable energy research perhaps this money should be used on flood defences and relocation of at risk communities.

[duncan]

I'm not disagreeing with you on the fact we should do something to stop the effects of Climate Change.

However, I'd rather we did something to reduce our carbon emissions as well.
After all, if we reduce our fossil fuel use now, it'll last for longer.

I still can't see past how Public Transport is run in mainland europe.
Its run, at a loss, for the benefit of the public. Unlike Short-term UK PLC where we run it for shareholders.

Disposal of waste is something we can learn from abroad, again, greater re-use equals less use of resources.

Its all part and parcel of the same issue, and you can't have 1 without the other.

[Scottie]

Why should I be taxed to hell for choosing a car that I want to drive. The governments are jumping onto the green bandwagon so they can tax us. CO2 emmsisons from humans have an irrelevent impact on the world, so why tax us that way. I would have far more respect for a government who taxed you on the actual mass of the car, as the hevier the car, the more it wears down a road surface. Whether it does that at 3mpg or 100mpg is irrelevent. Fuel is far too heavily taxed and in the age of China and India industrialising, we should be upping our consumption to remain dominent in the market place. Our big corporations need to remain competitive, so hindering them with eco geek regulation legislation is daft. Economic prowess comes at a price, either pay it, or be overtaken by the East. In 100 years, our generation will be laughed at for preaching this pseudo green crap as we will have stunted our economic progress, the financial well being of our citizens, for what? Something that has no effect on our planet at all?

Global warming and climate change, this one isn't our doing. Not to be confused with Localised air pollution which is a different topic to climate change, yes London is bad, but thats not CO2, but a range of nitrous oxides, and ozone, which do NOT play a part of the climate change model.

I would never say that we can't harm the planet (far from it, Hiroshima anyone) also with an A Bomb we could wipe ourselves out tomorrow.

Anyway moving on let me asks where were the gas guzzlers when the dinosaurs died, was it the Range Rover or the X5 that killed the dodo?, or was it the Ford Galaxy that caused the ice age.
MT ST Helens when it errupted will have produced more CO2 than 100 years worth of cars. Was that year 5c warmer than any other. Not that I recall.

The planet has seen far worse than a 3% rise in CO2, which co-incidentally is essential to life. One could argue that CO2 will help tree's grow. No CO2, no photosytheses, therefore no plants. In this context a crude scientific argument could be put forward to actively increase CO2 emmisons.

Are we that arrogant a species that we actually think we can control our own climates, or are we just ignorant.

Without CO2 photosythesis couldn't happen. Thats a core chemical reaction of life.

[duncan]

Why should I be taxed to hell for choosing a car that I want to drive.

Why should I pay tax to subsidise other peoples kids? Its the same argument.

Why?
Its called life's not fair, and the sooner people get used to it, the better.

[The Dogfather]

Not sure why you think overseas countries have the panacea to our environmental issues, IMO they are as bad if not worse than us when it comes to the environment; e.g. Scandinavian CO2 emissions. Also lets not muddy the waters with discussions about public transport, UK PLC and reuse/recycling as those issues are peripheral in the CC debate. To reverse/halt CC we must stop the production of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane.

Here's why that won't happen and why we are screwed: -

Under our control
* The internet, Broadband, PCs and Moore's Law.
* Big Oil (Exxon etc) and the good ol' US of A
* Greater prosperity in Eastern Europe and Russia
* The development of China and India as industrial nations and the resultant wealth and demand for power hungry products
* Demand for more housing
* Demand for beef and milk (cow farts)
* Cheap flights

Out of our control (natural forces)
* Methyl Hydrates (trigger point)
* The destruction of rainforests (trigger point)
* The defrosting of the tundra and the destruction of high latitude forests (trigger point)
* Oceans warming and gases being released

Now if you can address each and everyone of these with a realistic solution, within the next 20 years then you might stand a chance. If not buy a house on a hill.

[The Dogfather]

Simple changes in Building regs would reduce the damage caused by storms. A simple but small demonstration in that would be if everyone had plastic sealed roofs rather than slate ones then the damaged caused by falling slates would go overnight. Yes, we can't prevent every bit of damage from a direct hit from a hurricane but we can reduce it.

[The Dogfather]

The government tax big cars because its popular with the majority and it seems as though they are doing something about the environment. However its effect is minimal.

[duncan]

Also lets not muddy the waters with discussions about public transport

Why not? Transport is a huge issue as to CC, and prolonging the amount of fossil fuels we have.



UK PLC and reuse/recycling as those issues are peripheral in the CC debate.

Not when the energy needed to recycle are massivly less than making new. Steel for example, uses 70% less fuel to recycle than create new.

[duncan]

Simple changes in Building regs would reduce the damage caused by storms. A simple but small demonstration in that would be if everyone had plastic sealed roofs rather than slate ones then the damaged caused by falling slates would go overnight. Yes, we can't prevent every bit of damage from a direct hit from a hurricane but we can reduce it.

Thats's only in new build. There's plenty of buildings that are here now, that will last for 100+ years.

And plastic is a use of more fossil fuels. It would be more like if they had solar panels on the roof.

[The Dogfather]

Then lets just give up on everything then. :confused:

Sorry, the defeatest attitude is wrong. You can't preach to China and India if you're not making any effort in your own country. That's just plain hypocrasy.


Why should I be taxed to hell for choosing a car that I want to drive. The governments are jumping onto the green bandwagon so they can tax us. CO2 emmsisons from humans have an irrelevent impact on the world, so why tax us that way. I would have far more respect for a government who taxed you on the actual mass of the car, as the hevier the car, the more it wears down a road surface. Whether it does that at 3mpg or 100mpg is irrelevent. Fuel is far too heavily taxed and in the age of China and India industrialising, we should be upping our consumption to remain dominent in the market place. Our big corporations need to remain competitive, so hindering them with eco geek regulation legislation is daft. Economic prowess comes at a price, either pay it, or be overtaken by the East. In 100 years, our generation will be laughed at for preaching this pseudo green crap as we will have stunted our economic progress, the financial well being of our citizens, for what? Something that has no effect on our planet at all?

Global warming and climate change, this one isn't our doing. Not to be confused with Localised air pollution which is a different topic to climate change, yes London is bad, but thats not CO2, but a range of nitrous oxides, and ozone, which do NOT play a part of the climate change model.

I would never say that we can't harm the planet (far from it, Hiroshima anyone) also with an A Bomb we could wipe ourselves out tomorrow.

Anyway moving on let me asks where were the gas guzzlers when the dinosaurs died, was it the Range Rover or the X5 that killed the dodo?, or was it the Ford Galaxy that caused the ice age.
MT ST Helens when it errupted will have produced more CO2 than 100 years worth of cars. Was that year 5c warmer than any other. Not that I recall.

The planet has seen far worse than a 3% rise in CO2, which co-incidentally is essential to life. One could argue that CO2 will help tree's grow. No CO2, no photosytheses, therefore no plants. In this context a crude scientific argument could be put forward to actively increase CO2 emmisons.

Are we that arrogant a species that we actually think we can control our own climates, or are we just ignorant.

Without CO2 photosythesis couldn't happen. Thats a core chemical reaction of life.

Fi, no offence but scientifically this is rubbish.

[The Dogfather]

Thats's only in new build. There's plenty of buildings that are here now, that will last for 100+ years.

And plastic is a use of more fossil fuels. It would be more like if they had solar panels on the roof.

Yes, but this use of fossil fuels doesn't release CO2 or CH4, especially if it was recycled from X5 bumpers ;)

Who says this stuff can't be retro fitted?

[duncan]

Yes, but this use of fossil fuels doesn't release CO2 or CH4, especially if it was recycled from X5 bumpers ;)

Who says this stuff can't be retro fitted?

Indeed, but with, what, 40 Million current households in the UK, thats a lot of replacing for little gain.

[Scottie]

Fi, no offence but scientifically this is rubbish.

which part.:p

[The Dogfather]

Indeed, but with, what, 40 Million current households in the UK, thats a lot of replacing for little gain.

Actually according to the ONS there's only 25 million, obviously not everyone would need to be replaced only the at risk ones. I was only using this as an example of what could be changed to reduce the damage caused by storms.

[The Dogfather]

which part.:p

Pretty much all of it TBH. Sorry.

For example: -

At Mount St Helens the maximum measured emission rate was 2.2X10^7 kg per day. The total amount of gas released during non-eruptive periods from the beginning of July to the end of October was 9.1X10^8 kg . I do not have an estimate for the volume of CO2 released during the Plinian eruptions. As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.
Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii Steve Mattox, University of North Dakota

Source of Information:
Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and Bornhorst, T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman, P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p. 3-15.

[duncan]

Actually according to the ONS there's only 25 million, obviously not everyone would need to be replaced only the at risk ones. I was only using this as an example of what could be changed to reduce the damage caused by storms.

OK, 25 million then.

Still a waste of time, money, and resources.

[N12 JLK]

Im moving to the top of a hill

[The Dogfather]

OK, 25 million then.

Still a waste of time, money, and resources.

Based on your opinion but like I said just an example, but this is just sidetrack to the main issue; stopping CC.

Any thoughts on the reasons why we're not just wasting our time and money on reducing the UK CO2 emissions, in counter to the list above?

Just remembered, even if we stopped all CO2 production the earth would continue to heat up for a further 10 years.

[The Dogfather]

Im moving to the top of a hill

We live a 850ft, OK its windy but we don't have to worry about the cars floating down the street :D

[duncan]

Based on your opinion but like I said just an example, but this is just sidetrack to the main issue; stopping CC.

Well, of course its only my opinion. I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise!


Any thoughts on the reasons why we're not just wasting our time and money on reducing the UK CO2 emissions, in counter to the list above?

As I've said before, we can't influence anyone if we're not doing anything ourselves.

Do you have any evidence to say what we're doing is a waste of time? And don't just say what the UK does, is a drop in the ocean, thats a cop out.

[duncan]

Just remembered, even if we stopped all CO2 production the earth would continue to heat up for a further 10 years.

Is that a reputable source, or just something you found on the Google?

[The Dogfather]

Well, of course its only my opinion. I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise!

As I've said before, we can't influence anyone if we're not doing anything ourselves.

Do you have any evidence to say what we're doing is a waste of time? And don't just say what the UK does, is a drop in the ocean, thats a cop out.

I was just saying that I didn't agree with your opinion.

Well take Kyoto, if every country signed up and met their targets all that would happen is we would delay the warming by 10 years. So the good folk of Norfolk get another ten years before they either grow gills or move. I think the global cost of meeting Kyoto is measured in trillions. Quite a lot of money for a delaying tactic.

Influencing other people doesn't even come into it, I'm not giving up my car, computer, TV, fridge, cars etc. and most people in this country won't either. In a similar vein the Chinese and Indians won't stop wanting heating and electric lights either. So how do you intend to reduce CO2 production?

I got it lets all ban 4x4s, use buses and trains, turn the heating down by 1C. Like I said, a fart in a aircraft hanger.

[duncan]

I was just saying that I didn't agree with your opinion.

Well take Kyoto, if every country signed up and met their targets all that would happen is we would delay the warming by 10 years. So the good folk of Norfolk get another ten years before they either grow gills or move. I think the global cost of meeting Kyoto is measured in trillions. Quite a lot of money for a delaying tactic.

Influencing other people doesn't even come into it, I'm not giving up my car, computer, TV, fridge, cars etc. and most people in this country won't either. In a similar vein the Chinese and Indians won't stop wanting heating and electric lights either. So how do you intend to reduce CO2 production?

I got it lets all ban 4x4s, use buses and trains, turn the heating down by 1C. Like I said, a fart in a aircraft hanger.

As I said, the cop out answer. What we do won't make a difference :rolleyes:

CC is a complex issue, and, I take what a guy on a car forum says with a pinch of salt. Unless of course, you have provided your own research, and are an expert in the subject.

[The Dogfather]

Is that a reputable source, or just something you found on the Google?

Its based on the amount of time it would take for the current CO2 level to return to previous levels by natural means, e.g. oceanic absorption and photosynthesis. I've been reading up about this subject for over 10 years and in that time I've read so many articles I can't remember which one it was. I tend to ignore stuff unless its from a proper research organisation though.

However, you can choose to ignore it if you wish. There's still the other points I've raised. ;) :p

[monkimagic]

Wow, there is some really ignorant views expressed, I have considered what I should write in response as privately I feel strongly that we should consider our fossil useage and re-use what we can but I dont think I will bother.

What I will do is address my own Carbon footprint as I see fit and I will hope those that come after me will inherit something, what I will not allow to happen is that they ask me ..... "Why, when you knew it was failing did you not do what was within your reason to do, and make simple changes?" and I will not reply " because I did not give a ****! This was my choice and I was too damned ignorant and selfish to be bothered.

[duncan]

Its based on the amount of time it would take for the current CO2 level to return to previous levels by natural means, e.g. oceanic absorption and photosynthesis. I've been reading up about this subject for over 10 years and in that time I've read so many articles I can't remember which one it was. I tend to ignore stuff unless its from a proper research organisation though.

However, you can choose to ignore it if you wish. There's still the other points I've raised. ;) :p

But your main point seems to be lets carry on as normal, and just build our way out of it. Not an answer. In my opinion.

And as for reading about stuff, that doesn't make you an expert.

[duncan]

Wow, there is some really ignorant views expressed, I have considered what I should write in response as privately I feel strongly that we should consider our fossil useage and re-use what we can but I dont think I will bother.

What I will do is address my own Carbon footprint as I see fit and I will hope those that come after me will inherit something, what I will not allow to happen is that they ask me ..... "Why, when you knew it was failing did you not do what was within your reason to do, and make simple changes?" and I will not reply " because I did not give a ****! This was my choice and I was too damned ignorant and selfish to be bothered.

Totally agree with that :)

[monkimagic]

so do I ;)

[The Dogfather]

As I said, the cop out answer. What we do won't make a difference :rolleyes:

CC is a complex issue, and, I take what a guy on a car forum says with a pinch of salt. Unless of course, you have provided your own research, and are an expert in the subject.

Do some research yourself, check what I've said, then draw your own conclusions. I'm no expert but I'm well informed on this subject courtesy of spending 5 years working with environmentalists (oil and gas).

I've come to my own conclusions based on what I've learnt. However, I'm always willing to reconsider my position, I did about two years ago, previously I thought CC was a natural occurrence.

Don't take this the wrong way but you need to read a book called the "Skeptical environmentalist" by Bjørn Lomborg. I'm not saying he's right but he's got a different perspective that's worth considering.

[duncan]

I don't take it the wrong way, but from what you've posted tonight, in my opinion, your way is not the way forward.

You said you didnt want to muddy the issue with Public Transport etc, yet CC, and the use of Fossil Fuels are interlinked, in my opinion, and from the stories I've read, and seen.

[The Dogfather]

What I will do is address my own Carbon footprint as I see fit and I will hope those that come after me will inherit something, what I will not allow to happen is that they ask me ..... "Why, when you knew it was failing did you not do what was within your reason to do, and make simple changes?" and I will not reply " because I did not give a ****! This was my choice and I was too damned ignorant and selfish to be bothered.

I do care about the legacy we leave, but the damage has already been done or is out of our control. Simple changes won't fix it now, only drastic changes across the globe. We should plan for the worse because that is what we're going to get.

By all means reduce your carbon footprint if it makes you feel better, but it won't make the slightest bit of difference.

This is something I can talk all day about, quite a little hobby of mine

Take trains, are they solar powered? Fusion? Biofueled?

No, electricity from 75% fossil and diesel right? Didn't topgear prove that they produced as much CO2 as car per person, OK they aren't New Scientist but surely someone would have loved to prove them wrong. Never happened though. Buses, not many hydrogen ones though is there and even if there was how do you produce the H2, electricity (75% fossil).

We need energy, at the moment our options are Renewable (unreliable and expensive), Fossil Fuels and Nuclear. All of which damage the environment in one way or another.

BTW, how are people reducing their carbon footprint? Have you both swapped your MINI's for diesels? Or even the newer models? Is your bike a hybrid?

Looks like Scottie Coop is the greenest out of the lot us

Only jesting BTW.

[BJN]

My small contribution to help save the planet.. not buying anything made in China, until they get slapped with huge import duties.

Getting fed up of supposedly premium brands, getting stuff made cheaply in China but still charging top dollar.

Been a nightmare trying to get new trainers though, but my quest continues.

As for global warming, errr anyone for evolution, as the climate changes we will evolve to cope. Just look what happened as the plates of the earth moved to different extremes of climate.

Or can't the government think of ways of taxing evolution

[Gismo]

I've got a question :D VB and Duncan, your discussions have been entertaining and informative, but, to quote yourself Duncan, if VB is not an expert ;) are you? or is it just your opinions, just wanting to check :D cause if you say we shouldn't listen to VB then why should we listen to you :) am wondering where you got your info from

[duncan]

Fair point, BS, I'm far from an expert, and i'm only voicing my opinion.

I also like playing devils advocate, so I'm happy to argue black is white for the sake of it. :)

[The Dogfather]

And I'd argue with a signpost ;)

I used to run an environmental trade association and I would often discuss this particular issue with the membership. If the treehuggers are saying we're screwed, and quite a lot were, then there's not a lot of hope.

The film Evan Almighty was actually a public information film for the people of Norfolk.