One in the eye for polluting climate sceptics.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Doug on 2 Apr 2010 02:11 On 1 Apr, 08:52, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > 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. > How many more times? Carbon in oil has been locked away for millions of years. Wood from trees will eventually decay and release its carbon even if it only takes a much, much shorter time, say 500 years? > > 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! > But meat eaters are responsible for much, much more greenhouse gases, in the form of potent methane, plus wastage of energy. Then also, of course, are their beloved cars. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%.
From: Derek C on 2 Apr 2010 02:53 On 2 Apr, 07:11, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 1 Apr, 08:52, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > > 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. > > How many more times? Carbon in oil has been locked away for millions > of years. Wood from trees will eventually decay and release its carbon > even if it only takes a much, much shorter time, say 500 years? > Doug. Please read up about the Carbon cycle. Plants use CO2 as one of their main foodstuffs. The more of them there are, especially trees which are very large plants, the more CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere. Trees can also help to prevent desertification and provide habitats for many endangered species such as the Orang-otan. Wood from old trees can be burnt as a Carbon neutral fuel and can also be processed into wood alcohol as a liquid fuel for vehicles, as well as being used as a building material. Trees are a good thing for the planet. > > 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! > > But meat eaters are responsible for much, much more greenhouse gases, > in the form of potent methane, plus wastage of energy. Then also, of > course, are their beloved cars. > Humans are omnivores and should eat a mixture of meat, vegetables and fruit to stay healthy. If I may quote Sir Robert Hutchison: Vegetarianism is harmless enough, though it's apt to give a person wind and self-righteousness. > > Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%. > Can you please explain where you got this figure from, and how it is calculated? Derek C
From: Derek Geldard on 2 Apr 2010 07:17 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 23:11:19 -0700 (PDT), Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> 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. >> >How many more times? As far as you are concerned it looks like times without limit. 'Till that day quite soon now that we will all celebrate (*) when you "Hand in your dinner plate". (*) Party, party, party. > Carbon in oil has been locked away for millions >of years. Wood from trees will eventually decay and release its carbon >even if it only takes a much, much shorter time, say 500 years? Trees will die, can't do much about that. It might help if you arrange to get buried underneath one or more (I'll donate a packet of seeds). It *Obviously* goes without saying you have to keep planting new trees to replace those no longer growing, just to "Stand still" >But meat eaters are responsible for much, They don't AFAIK of necessity kill trees. Many more trees are cut down to make coffins. > much more greenhouse gases, >in the form of potent methane, What's "Potent" about it ? If it bothers you better top yourself and stop your farting as a result of eating all that vegetation. > plus wastage of energy. Then also, of >course, are their beloved cars. Derek
From: ash on 2 Apr 2010 15:26 On 2 Apr, 07:11, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 1 Apr, 08:52, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > How many more times? Carbon in oil has been locked away for millions > of years. Wood from trees will eventually decay and release its carbon > even if it only takes a much, much shorter time, say 500 years? > > > 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! > > But meat eaters are responsible for much, much more greenhouse gases, > in the form of potent methane, plus wastage of energy. Then also, of > course, are their beloved cars. > > -- > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%. Have you any idea how much CO2 is produced to put fresh fruit and veg on your table every day Doug ? - you might be in for a shock if you eat anything more than what is grown off an allotment. More importantly, do you honestly think your attempts at mitigating your own footprint size by cutting meat from your diet and cycling everywhere will actually make a difference ?
From: Doug on 3 Apr 2010 03:07
On 2 Apr, 07:53, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > On 2 Apr, 07:11, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > On 1 Apr, 08:52, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > How many more times? Carbon in oil has been locked away for millions > > of years. Wood from trees will eventually decay and release its carbon > > even if it only takes a much, much shorter time, say 500 years? > > Doug. Please read up about the Carbon cycle. > Pot kettle. > > Plants use CO2 as one of > their main foodstuffs. The more of them there are, especially trees > which are very large plants, the more CO2 will be removed from the > atmosphere. Trees can also help to prevent desertification and provide > habitats for many endangered species such as the Orang-otan. Wood from > old trees can be burnt as a Carbon neutral fuel and can also be > processed into wood alcohol as a liquid fuel for vehicles, as well as > being used as a building material. Trees are a good thing for the > planet. > Why do you skeptics always have a problem with timescales? Sure trees are good but they are strictly temporary compared to oil from the ground. In order to offset your oil burning you have to ensure that trees keep on being planted or reproducing for millions of years. Its no good just planting a tree or two and then driving away. > > > > 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! > > > But meat eaters are responsible for much, much more greenhouse gases, > > in the form of potent methane, plus wastage of energy. Then also, of > > course, are their beloved cars. > > Humans are omnivores and should eat a mixture of meat, vegetables and > fruit to stay healthy. > Wrong. You can remain healthy on a vegan diet, as many prove daily. > > If I may quote Sir Robert Hutchison: > Vegetarianism is harmless enough, though it's apt to give a person > wind and self-righteousness. > Typical meat eater! > > > > Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%. > > Can you please explain where you got this figure from, and how it is > calculated? > It used to be at http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/default.asp but that no longer works It has been viewed many times on these newsgroups. Maybe you should try a search? This might help... http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FMAS.php or this http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/Foodmile.pdf "...UK car transport for food shopping accounts for most of the congestion and accident costs. UK HGV transport is the next highest category, with high congestion, accident and infrastructure costs. Sea and air transport appear to have relatively low total social costs, although the air transport social costs are incomplete. However, note that air transport does have high environmental impacts per tonne of food transported..." See chart on page 47 where cars are still the biggest single contributor but at 40% -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%. |