From: Adrian on
Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Yes but surely if CO2 emissions are discouraged so will be the other
> pollutants that usually accompany it

Which ignores the fact that "pollutants" are not that simple. It's
relatively straightforward to adjust combustion so that CO2 is reduced,
but other emissions are increased.
From: Doug on
On 1 Apr, 07:57, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > Yes but surely if CO2 emissions are discouraged so will be the other
> > pollutants that usually accompany it
>
> Which ignores the fact that "pollutants" are not that simple. It's
> relatively straightforward to adjust combustion so that CO2 is reduced,
> but other emissions are increased.
>
All the more reason not to release the emissions in the first place.
Motorists here talk about moving to allegedly lower emission cars but
if instead they halved their car use they would reduce their emissions
by much more.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
From: Adrian on
Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Motorists here talk about moving to allegedly lower emission cars but if
> instead they halved their car use they would reduce their emissions by
> much more.

Oh, g'wan. I know you want to. You haven't for ages.

SAY "FRIVOLOUS HYPERMOBILITY"! PLEASE! I love it when you say that...
From: Peter Keller on
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:23:15 -0700, Doug wrote:

>>
>> I believe in reducing pollutants.  I do not believe in filling up the
>> pockets of corrupt "CO2 sinks"  I also think that it is not justified
>> to put CO2 at the top of our concerns when H2O has the biggest effect
>> on climate.
>>
> We don't influence H2O do we?

Exactly

Peter
From: Derek C on
On 1 Apr, 08:14, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
> On 1 Apr, 07:57, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> > > Yes but surely if CO2 emissions are discouraged so will be the other
> > > pollutants that usually accompany it
>
> > Which ignores the fact that "pollutants" are not that simple. It's
> > relatively straightforward to adjust combustion so that CO2 is reduced,
> > but other emissions are increased.
>
> All the more reason not to release the emissions in the first place.
> Motorists here talk about moving to allegedly lower emission cars but
> if instead they halved their car use they would reduce their emissions
> by much more.
>
I found that my latest diesel engined car has a slightly worse fuel
consumption, and therefore consumes more fossil fuel, than the
previous one, despite having a very similar engine. I made some
enquires and found out that this is because the engine is now set up
to run cooler to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides. This reduces the
thermodynamic efficiency of the engine.

On the subject of carbon offsetting, trees and plants remove Carbon
Dioxide (CO2) from the air by
photosynthesis and lock it up as wood and other plant materials.
Later
on you can use the wood as a building material which locks up the
carbon for a further period.

The other plant material such as leaves and roots can be eaten by
animals and humans. Unfortunately they will convert most of this back
into CO2, especially vegetarian/vegan cyclists who breathe out more
CO2 and other noxious gases than most!


Derek C