From: Adrian on 1 Apr 2010 02:57 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 1 Apr 2010 03:14 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 1 Apr 2010 03:27 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 1 Apr 2010 03:30 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 1 Apr 2010 03:52
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 |