Wansworth
Well-Known Member
...they will respond by saying as you have very little manufacturing and are mainly a service industry country of course you can reduce your gases
How can I be greener this winter?
- Thread starter TheSmithster
- Start date
Dockhead
Well-Known Member
Take out the diesel and buy a sculling oar. Get rid of the propane system and cook on biomass -- peat pellets.
But if you consider the whole carbon life cycle of a saily boat, the diesel is not the worst culprit. The worst cuprit is -- you. Everyday you eat x kg of food which requires y tonnes of carbon emissions to produce. It's a little better if you forgo meat, and eat only beans and other legumes. On the other hand, it's better still if you just kill yourself and let your useless body go back to the land . . . That would be about as green as you could get . . .
But if you consider the whole carbon life cycle of a saily boat, the diesel is not the worst culprit. The worst cuprit is -- you. Everyday you eat x kg of food which requires y tonnes of carbon emissions to produce. It's a little better if you forgo meat, and eat only beans and other legumes. On the other hand, it's better still if you just kill yourself and let your useless body go back to the land . . . That would be about as green as you could get . . .
pmagowan
Well-Known Member
Very much depends on what you mean by 'green'. For instance if you blow up the planet there is no problem with greenhouse gases. Mars is completely natural and also has no problems with greenhouse gases. Since deciding on the earths preferential state is entirely subjective and humans are the only things able to make subjective arguments it would be counterintuitive to destroy the thing you are trying to protect. You end up with the idea of culling humans to reduce co2 because humans prefer the status quo with regards to climate but then they also prefer not being culled. Doesn't get you very far.
i think it is a far better idea to hoist the sail and bask in your relative self sufficiency up until you arrive at a port with good beer on tap.
William_H
Well-Known Member
"Going Green" all that thas been said is correct. However the Elephant in the Room is population explosion. It is of course not just actual population increase but the fact that the present population want the standard of living we have so will inevitably increase their ecological harm per head to reach our own. It is hard to argue with their wishes.
However back to OP question He obviously wants to feel more "Green". As said I can't see his petrol guzzling outboard as a problem. All he has to do is use it less or just go slower to reduce fuel consumption. Then much more important will be his winter heating needs. Insulation will be a major winner here as well as heating a smaller area and reducing thermostat temp. Almsot universally we all waste resources with our car. Smaller car drive less seems to be the answer. Just be careful that you don't waste resorces by buying a different (new) car meaning yours or another will be unnecessarily scrapped.
Hang in their, I am not sorry that I won't see the earth as it will be in the future say 50 years or more. olewill
However back to OP question He obviously wants to feel more "Green". As said I can't see his petrol guzzling outboard as a problem. All he has to do is use it less or just go slower to reduce fuel consumption. Then much more important will be his winter heating needs. Insulation will be a major winner here as well as heating a smaller area and reducing thermostat temp. Almsot universally we all waste resources with our car. Smaller car drive less seems to be the answer. Just be careful that you don't waste resorces by buying a different (new) car meaning yours or another will be unnecessarily scrapped.
Hang in their, I am not sorry that I won't see the earth as it will be in the future say 50 years or more. olewill
LuckyMcDugghan
New Member
This thread is great! In terms of energy, I found my heater was the main cause. The idea of using less heating and wearing more layers is a great alternative, but I only found I could last so long. I tried a more eco-friendly woodburning stove. I saved a lot more on my energy bill whilst keeping green. However, I stay in a canal boat over the christmas period, so I'm really thinking of your motor home. The stove was great and if you're willing to adjust your spending to something expensive but long lasting then I suggest you research woodburning stoves. The one I purchased was a Morso Squirrel 1430. There's a list of the different stoves here http://www.jonesboatchandlery.co.uk/morso-stoves/ but I think you should do your research on them before purchasing to find out which is the best one. If you don't mind stocking the fuels then you should have no problem!
Hydrozoan
Well-Known Member
Yes, I understand why you say that - and feel much the same. Having grandchildren, the eldest of whom who will be getting fairly close to my current age at that time, it's a real concern. The answers for us in the developed world must at base surely be to consume less - less energy, less travel, less meat, etc. etc. (But I'm all too aware of the inconsistencies in my own views and lifestyle.)
So I would say to the OP: Follow the Money. We often don't know the overall environmental impacts of our various activities, but won't start off badly IMHO if we look at the relevant running costs and prioritise our concerns accordingly. Not foolproof of course, but it should help to avoid focusing on environmental trivialities whilst ignoring the big impacts (and help to save money, too).
By keep on believing the stuff so called enviromentalists claim to be true, they couldnt be farther from it.
MarcJ
Well-Known Member
The government will pay you to install a pellet or log boiler in your home - I work for a company that installs biomass boilers. I'm not sure if you can get the domestic Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) for a holiday home, it would probably have to be metered to qualify. There's more info on that here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/domestic-renewable-heat-incentive/about-domestic-renewable-heat-incentive
If you'd like any more info about boilers send me a pm!
If you'd like any more info about boilers send me a pm!
Concerto
Well-Known Member
If we continue to try reducing our small CO2 contibution compared to China, India and other developing countries, then we shall have virtually no effect. However if we can persuade them to start cleaning up their industries, then massive improvements will result. We have shown the way forward, but they do not need to get close to our levels before we see major improvements. It may be that penalties in the form or import duties will be imposed on poluting nations to make them change their ways. Eventually the pressure from their manufacturers will force changes.
Billows
Well-Known Member
No there will never again be as many children in the world as there is now.As countries develop the birthrate drops dramatically.The problem will be if everyone in the world consumes resources as the same rate as say Americans.
Danbury
Well-Known Member
Indeed... you mean like the way China consumes more and more ? That's why Brazillian rain forests are being depleted... to make charcoal to make steel for China.
Interesting thing is... the birthrate in the UK is going up ??
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rth-rate-leaps-by-18-in-a-decade-9107483.html
sailorman
Well-Known Member
From your link
(And not in any way pointing fingers)
Polish women were the most likely foreign-born mothers to give birth in England and Wales overall, producing 20,500 babies in 2011. However, the number of babies each had, on average, was 2.13 - lower than the average for foreign-born mothers living in England and Wales.
rbmatthews
Well-Known Member
Currently, our per capita emissions are 8.5 tCO2e/head whereas China's are 7.2 tCO2e/head. To stop dangerous climate change, per capita emissions globally have to drop to around 3 tCO2e/head. We all have a long way to go, and everyone has to play their part, not just the Chinese and Indians. Also don't forget that we have outsourced a lot of our emissions - lots of goods that we consume here are made in China, and count towards their emissions and not ours. The picture would change quite drastically if consumption-based accounting was used. It's complex.
pmagowan
Well-Known Member
The problem is that, as demonstrated by this thread, people are quite happy to live their high 'carbon' lifestyles in this country while blaming the developing nations simply because there are more people there. For us our high carbon lifestyles are a choice, for many in the world it is a necessity. It is quite possible for us to live low carbon lives without reducing consumption (which is unlikely to happen) through technological advancements. Since we, in the rich world, have already benefited from our poluting industrial past and remain the biggest per capita polluters then it is up to us to fund the development of these technologies. They can then be provided to the rest of the world to help them to avoid the pollution that development normally brings. I don't think it is reasonable for us to sit back on our laurels and blame everyone else for doing what we did, and benefited from, without giving them a viable alternative option.
