From: Doug on
On 2 Apr, 20:26, ash <ash.fil...(a)googlemail.com> 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:
>
> > > 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.
>
I know its a lot but still not as much as it would be if I was eating
meat and dairy. Of course it has been shown that as much as 75% of our
food is wasted anyway, between field and table, so that is important
also.
>
> 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 ?
>
It makes a difference to me.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%.
From: ash on
On 3 Apr, 08:12, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
> On 2 Apr, 20:26, ash <ash.fil...(a)googlemail.com> 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:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> I know its a lot but still not as much as it would be if I was eating
> meat and dairy. Of course it has been shown that as much as 75% of our
> food is wasted anyway, between field and table, so that is important
> also.
>
I think you like all the good intentioned large city dwelling non self
sufficient consumers are kidding yourself if you think you live an eco
friendly lifestyle by leaving the meat and dairy alone. I watched a
program on food sources a couple of weeks ago and single tomato grown
in a dutch greenhouse takes a 1/3rd of a pint of crude oil to
manufacture. Fresh ready cut pineapple is only fresh because it is
prepped and flown from Africa every day. The fresh fruit and veg
production and supply which brings us this stuff all year around is
very un eco friendly.

> > 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 ?
>
> It makes a difference to me.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%.

There are many things I could do which make me feel good, but not
actually really make any tangible difference. I question the value of
this gesture by anyone when they are not prepared to look at the whole
picture. Honestly, apart from making yourself feel better, what sort
of difference to climate change do you think your own efforts or those
of all the other people who live the way you do in the UK because the
numbers joining the planets population each year (80 Million) is more
than the entire population of the UK (60 million).

Make your own choices by all means and be happy that you live your
life in this way, but it makes naff all difference to the grand
picture, and doesn't put you onto the moral high ground above those
who consciously don't try to be 'sustainable'

The only good reason to live a truly sustainable lifestyle is that the
cost of consumption is only going to rise - you still can't take it
with you to the grave though ;o)