capnsensible
Well-Known Member
I have, with much the same sort of result.......... Its like people are a bit scared and cover it up with bluster. Or start slanging.
Thank St Greta for saving us
- Thread starter Tomahawk
- Start date
I have, with much the same sort of result.......... Its like people are a bit scared and cover it up with bluster. Or start slanging.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
I have, with much the same sort of result.......... Its like people are a bit scared and cover it up with bluster. Or start slanging.
And the more ignorant they are, the greater the slanting. Many are hoodwinked by denier lies.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Her base demand is an 80% reduction in carbon emissions across the EU by 2030.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
As a matter of interest, how do your guests get to Gibraltar?
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
No idea. Left there nearly three years ago........
Kelpie
Well-Known Member
We all have choices available to us every day that affect our impact on the planet.
Nobody can honestly say their life is devoid of any negative impacts- we all in some way interact with products or people whose existence relies in part on fossil fuels, air miles, or other unsustainable elements. I am writing this on a laptop made of plastics and rare earth metals, shipped to the UK from China, and powered by a mixture of electricity sources some of which would have used fossil fuels.
But this is not an excuse to throw up our hands and abdicate all responsibility. Nor does it make hypocrites of people who choose to lower their impact on the world. Just because nobody can reach zero impact doesn't mean that the little things we can and should do every day are worthless.
So: recycle. Buy a more efficient car, and use it less. Reduce meat consumption. Fly less. Recognise there is a problem, and support efforts being made to address it. And don't pour contempt upon the people who actually give a damn about making this world a better place.
Nobody can honestly say their life is devoid of any negative impacts- we all in some way interact with products or people whose existence relies in part on fossil fuels, air miles, or other unsustainable elements. I am writing this on a laptop made of plastics and rare earth metals, shipped to the UK from China, and powered by a mixture of electricity sources some of which would have used fossil fuels.
But this is not an excuse to throw up our hands and abdicate all responsibility. Nor does it make hypocrites of people who choose to lower their impact on the world. Just because nobody can reach zero impact doesn't mean that the little things we can and should do every day are worthless.
So: recycle. Buy a more efficient car, and use it less. Reduce meat consumption. Fly less. Recognise there is a problem, and support efforts being made to address it. And don't pour contempt upon the people who actually give a damn about making this world a better place.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
OK, then, how do they get to wherever you are?
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Couldn't agree more.
That covers sneering at people over 25 because it's not all as perfect as a teenager might want.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Planes trains and automobiles. Whatever. Its obvious you are after a cheap point, so have it.
If you read my post you would see what I am doing personally to reduce what I use, not the other 6 billion. Now how about you, do you walk places instead of using the car, or take a bus that can do the job of seventy cars? Eat a bit less meat?
Anything?
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Planes trains and automobiles. Whatever. Its obvious you are after a cheap point, so have it.
If you read my post you would see what I am doing personally to reduce what I use, not the other 6 billion.
Very commendable, but only up to a point. There is no point in reducing the small carbon footprint of a service offered to people to need to make a huge footprint to use it. If we were serious about reducing emission, or maybe when we get serious about it, air travel will have to go, and that's going to hit tourist areas very hard.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
I think thats why airframers are putting such a huge design effort into far more efficient aircraft designs, much cleaner and more efficient engines and ultimately electric power. Its all there in the aviation sites if you look.
They recognise the demand will not go away so seeking ways to reduce the effects is a priority with the massive incentive of rising fuel costs.
Plus every one of my guests, school, charter or whatever, get a friendly chatty brief on how we run boats to reduce pollution. No preaching, no long speech. Just a short dit. Every little helps. And the feed back is great. I see most yachties around the oceans now are generally well informed and much more careful than they were even ten years ago. Tops.
WayneS
Well-Known Member
There is only 1 way to solve this issue, and that is to halt the planets population growth, reduce it would be even better.
No amount of changes to the way we act or consume will be a long term saviour of the planet or environment.
The >1% growth rate of the planet's population means that there are around 100M new mouths to feed every year, 100M more cars on the road per year etc etc.
In the past Mother Nature was able to deal with our misdemeanours, but she is becoming overwhelmed
No amount of changes to the way we act or consume will be a long term saviour of the planet or environment.
The >1% growth rate of the planet's population means that there are around 100M new mouths to feed every year, 100M more cars on the road per year etc etc.
In the past Mother Nature was able to deal with our misdemeanours, but she is becoming overwhelmed
Achosenman
Well-Known Member
The climate lobby don't want to hear that. It's the single most effective method of reducing MMGW.
oldmanofthehills
Well-Known Member
Air traffic may be more efficient fuel wise than cars and buses in moving large numbers of people long distances. Until electric or fuel cell ground transport can be devised with original source from renewable energy, that is likely to remain true.
Currently the carbon footprint of agriculture is globally much greater than transport. However planting trees and otherwise reducing our carbon footprint is worth it, and maybe just maybe in the trade off the benefits of airtravel to humanity are more worth preserving than the consumerist drive to new cars or TVs every year.
Currently the carbon footprint of agriculture is globally much greater than transport. However planting trees and otherwise reducing our carbon footprint is worth it, and maybe just maybe in the trade off the benefits of airtravel to humanity are more worth preserving than the consumerist drive to new cars or TVs every year.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. Planes aren't, in practice, quite as bad as most people think. Per seat they are a lot worse than trains or cars, but since the average budget airliner is 85% full while the average train is 50% full and the average car is just over 25% full, the effective difference is not very great. There is an interesting paper from Lancaster University on this, comparing emissions for travel between London and Edinburgh.
Of course there probably does have to come a time when "making trains as carbon-efficient as airliners" is not much of a goal. The greenest journey is the one you don't make, as they say.
Seriously, that sounds great. And I agree - there is much less of the gung-ho "I'll do what I want and to hell with the environment" than there used to be ... though the attitude persists, as shown by a few posters in the red diesel thread who seem personally outraged that the environmental impact of marine diesels should even be studied.
photodog
Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthor
And how do you propose to tackle that??
This is the ultimate expression of reductio ad absurdium argument put forth be the angry gammons who want to find a way of managing their cognitive dissonance surrounding their lifestyle and the now inescapable facts that this is killing the planet.
Why should I do anything...?? Look, they are doing something worse!!!
You fix what you can.
You start with the easy things.
Then, when you’ve done everything you can, you tackle the hard things.
Doing nothing when you know you could, Makes you worse than those you point to. It makes you a hypocrite.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
As per previous post, that's a problem with a known solution. Educate - and liberate - women.
The areas with rapidly growing populations are, by and large, relatively low emitters. India, for example, emits around 1/10 as much carbon per head as the US. Population growth causes its own problems, but it's the low birth rate developed countries which need to act on carbon use.
Air travel is only good because planes tend to run full, but you're right - ground transport needs to be vastly improved. Also, we need more nuclear power stations. And on-topic Flettner rotors.
Achosenman
Well-Known Member
The US is probably the most polluting society in the World per head. Hardly a fair comparison.
WayneS
Well-Known Member
One of the problems we face is that it is possible to prove Anything with science, just be selective with your data or evidence.
Both sides of the lobby have shot themselves in the foot many times with crazy predictions, misreporting, blatant lies and misrepresentatiuon of the facts. Its a bit like Brexit now, there is a yawn factor creeping in where people cannot be bothered any more.
Another point to bear in mind is that the sceientific community need funding. The more expreme their predictions, the more chance that they will receive funding.
One of the most emotive things that I have watched which tugged at the hearts of the world some years ago were some Pacific islanders showing the world how their Island was been gobbled up by rising sea levels. Some of their houses were 2m below sea level now. Well, the last time I looked at the mean high water mark in Portsmouth it was about the same place as it has been for hunderds of years and as far as I know, water levels itself out, so could it possibly be the land mass that was sinking instead? But lets not let facts get in the way of a good story hey.
Both sides of the lobby have shot themselves in the foot many times with crazy predictions, misreporting, blatant lies and misrepresentatiuon of the facts. Its a bit like Brexit now, there is a yawn factor creeping in where people cannot be bothered any more.
Another point to bear in mind is that the sceientific community need funding. The more expreme their predictions, the more chance that they will receive funding.
One of the most emotive things that I have watched which tugged at the hearts of the world some years ago were some Pacific islanders showing the world how their Island was been gobbled up by rising sea levels. Some of their houses were 2m below sea level now. Well, the last time I looked at the mean high water mark in Portsmouth it was about the same place as it has been for hunderds of years and as far as I know, water levels itself out, so could it possibly be the land mass that was sinking instead? But lets not let facts get in the way of a good story hey.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Only 50% worse than Germany and about the same as Australia.