A very convenient Truth ?
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 11 August 2009
A very convenient Truth ?
Global big-business is riding on the “environmental band-wagon” (IMHO, of course)
I have just got back form a few weeks in Alaska, BC, Alberta and the Yukon. Seen many glaciers, snowfields, wild animals and forest fires. Enjoyed back-packing in the pristine wilderness of the Rockies and added to the Carbon footprint by flying over the mountains and glaciers to get to different golf courses whilst enjoying the aerial sights along the way.
Spoke to several Park Rangers and environmentalists who all bang on about preserving the ecology and preventing global warming. And in general, I can sort of empathise with their passion.
However………..
When I asked each one to describe, in relation to global warming
The problem
The cause
Their aim (of those who are concerned about global warming)
The probability of success in achieving their aim
……not one could accurately define their aim or describe what was actually needed to achieve their aim. And none were at all convincing in supplying evidence of the cause(s) of the problem of global warming.
No doubt this forum will be able to provide the necessary clarity and vision to overcome the scepticism of people like me.
As someone commented. What is the difference between a developer and an environmentalist? – The environmentalist already has his house in the woods!
Cheers
Don
Global big-business is riding on the “environmental band-wagon” (IMHO, of course)
I have just got back form a few weeks in Alaska, BC, Alberta and the Yukon. Seen many glaciers, snowfields, wild animals and forest fires. Enjoyed back-packing in the pristine wilderness of the Rockies and added to the Carbon footprint by flying over the mountains and glaciers to get to different golf courses whilst enjoying the aerial sights along the way.
Spoke to several Park Rangers and environmentalists who all bang on about preserving the ecology and preventing global warming. And in general, I can sort of empathise with their passion.
However………..
When I asked each one to describe, in relation to global warming
The problem
The cause
Their aim (of those who are concerned about global warming)
The probability of success in achieving their aim
……not one could accurately define their aim or describe what was actually needed to achieve their aim. And none were at all convincing in supplying evidence of the cause(s) of the problem of global warming.
No doubt this forum will be able to provide the necessary clarity and vision to overcome the scepticism of people like me.
As someone commented. What is the difference between a developer and an environmentalist? – The environmentalist already has his house in the woods!
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 12 September 2009 by Stephen Tate
mmm...just read this lot...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis
Posted on: 12 September 2009 by u5227470736789439
Does it echo what I have written?
ATB from George
ATB from George
Posted on: 12 September 2009 by Stephen Tate
Yes it does.
Cheers, steve
Cheers, steve
Posted on: 12 September 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Steve,
Don't get despondent. Enjoy life and keep your chin up. Play fair, and the reckoning will be fine.
Dobranoc, George
Don't get despondent. Enjoy life and keep your chin up. Play fair, and the reckoning will be fine.
Dobranoc, George
Posted on: 13 September 2009 by girlfriend in a coma
quote:I've been told by others that Britain's food supplychain is rather frail.
Don is right:
We haven’t had rationing in Britain since the banana ban was lifted in 1954. But could it make a comeback? The good news, from Britain’s first food security assessment, is that with domestic production and European imports supplying over three-quarters of consumption, our food supply is “very resilient to supply interruptions”. But not everything is safe. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has flagged seven vulnerable commodities. Top of the list are soya, cane sugar and tea. We get through more than £100m worth of each of these every year in the UK. But in each case, at least 75% of the amount we consume comes from outside the EU. Worse, the majority arrives through a single port – Liverpool for soya, London for sugar cane and Felixstowe for tea. In the event of a terrorist attack or an outbreak of war in a producing nation, we could see rationing return. “Time for a national soya bunker?”
I read this at prospectmagazine.co.uk.
Craig
Posted on: 13 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
Heard a brief report a few days back about a chap who was planning to drive around the world in a contraption powered by used burger fat (and used chip fat). slight delay in departure due to leak (or Leek ??) in fuel tank !!!
Are these guys for real? what sort of message are they sending out ?
Same goes for bio-fuel - even though I think the UK gov requires 5% to be added to all our supplies - short-sighted/daft/criminal IMHO or do you think its what we need to overcome global warming and ensure sustainability of scarce resources?
Cheers
Don
Are these guys for real? what sort of message are they sending out ?
Same goes for bio-fuel - even though I think the UK gov requires 5% to be added to all our supplies - short-sighted/daft/criminal IMHO or do you think its what we need to overcome global warming and ensure sustainability of scarce resources?
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 13 September 2009 by Mat Cork
It's a tough call. I've really got no great interest in using oil frugally...when resources run out, they run out. What worries me is the consequences of using fossil fuels on the global climate.
I wonder what the CO2 emissions of this alternative fuels are? If they're lower than fossil fuels...great. If not, apart from a more frugal use of this resource, I'm not interested too much.
I wonder what the CO2 emissions of this alternative fuels are? If they're lower than fossil fuels...great. If not, apart from a more frugal use of this resource, I'm not interested too much.
Posted on: 13 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
Traditional oil is derived from long-time-dead biological matter
Biofuels are derived from living, or recently-dead biological matter
Given their histories and the fact that most biological material has a high carbon content, I imagine that both fuels generate similar compounds, including CO2, and in similar amounts.
I consider the bigger question is whether, in the not-too-distant future, we grow crops to eat or to power our cars/planes. I hope the scientists come up with something to replace fossil oil, and PDQ
Cheers
Don
Biofuels are derived from living, or recently-dead biological matter
Given their histories and the fact that most biological material has a high carbon content, I imagine that both fuels generate similar compounds, including CO2, and in similar amounts.
I consider the bigger question is whether, in the not-too-distant future, we grow crops to eat or to power our cars/planes. I hope the scientists come up with something to replace fossil oil, and PDQ
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 13 September 2009 by Derry
Started to read a book "Global Warmind and other bollocks", which depite its title does not dimiss global warming out of hand, but it does make a point that climate change due to CO2 is a theory not a fact and has yet to be validated. It also questions what data is used to support the theory and how it is interpreted.
Over 30,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition which calls for a better scientific approach to the collection and analysis of data.
Over 30,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition which calls for a better scientific approach to the collection and analysis of data.
Posted on: 13 September 2009 by Mat Cork
I understand the difference between the two Don, but my question is what is the relative CO2 output, it may be similar, it may not.
I really can't see scientists (of which I guess I'm one) coming up with an alternative any time too soon. The water's have been royally muddied regarding the effects of anthropogenic climate change...and we're now starting to see the eco-backlash. Environmental issues are, extremely sadly, falling off, rather than on...the agenda.
We're losing our coral reefs, millions of folk in low lying coastal communities are at threat, famine on a colossal scale looms, natural disasters from floods and storms, political instability which ensures - and yet the media has convinced Joe Public that it's all tosh, and is happy to promote obscenities like high performance SUVs etc as lifestyle essentials.
We're expecting our first child, and it's heartbreaking that she'll never see many of the natural wonders which we have.
I really can't see scientists (of which I guess I'm one) coming up with an alternative any time too soon. The water's have been royally muddied regarding the effects of anthropogenic climate change...and we're now starting to see the eco-backlash. Environmental issues are, extremely sadly, falling off, rather than on...the agenda.
We're losing our coral reefs, millions of folk in low lying coastal communities are at threat, famine on a colossal scale looms, natural disasters from floods and storms, political instability which ensures - and yet the media has convinced Joe Public that it's all tosh, and is happy to promote obscenities like high performance SUVs etc as lifestyle essentials.
We're expecting our first child, and it's heartbreaking that she'll never see many of the natural wonders which we have.
Posted on: 13 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:I understand the difference between the two Don, but my question is what is the relative CO2 output, it may be similar, it may not.
Taking into account the release of CO2 during production and delivery, as well as during end-use, biofuels release 13% CO2 than fossil-oil derived fuel, when both are used in cars. (BBC web-site)
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 13 September 2009 by BigH47
13% more or 13% less CO2 released?
Posted on: 14 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
biofuels release 13% less CO2 than fossil-oil derived fuel.
Well spotted that man!
Cheers
Don
Well spotted that man!
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 14 September 2009 by Mat Cork
So biofuels, on a simple level...sound preferable.
The message, you'd hope though, would be - stop driving round in tacky/naff vehicles, use your car less and try to live more sustainably.
The message, you'd hope though, would be - stop driving round in tacky/naff vehicles, use your car less and try to live more sustainably.
Posted on: 14 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
13% is pissing in the wind
Not the life-saving breakthrough of ingenuity that we need.
Cheers
Don
Not the life-saving breakthrough of ingenuity that we need.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 14 September 2009 by fixedwheel
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
biofuels release 13% less CO2 than fossil-oil derived fuel.
And how much CO2 do they use in the production of the bio-fuel, including the fertiliser, land preparation and harvesting, and extraction of fuel?
Still a good idea?
John
Posted on: 14 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:And how much CO2 do they use in the production of the bio-fuel, including the fertiliser, land preparation and harvesting, and extraction of fuel?
That's included in the figures that generate the 13% reduction. (according to the BBC wesite)
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 14 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
Biofuels is a typical short-sighted diversion IMHO
There is a bigger picture to be seen - hence my initial post and my response on Page 3 promted by Jim
Cheers
Don
There is a bigger picture to be seen - hence my initial post and my response on Page 3 promted by Jim
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 14 September 2009 by Mat Cork
I'm all for somat better Don, but in the interim 13% is not to be sniffed at.
The big breakthrough would of course be folk starting to behave sensibly...but it's a huge ask.
The big breakthrough would of course be folk starting to behave sensibly...but it's a huge ask.
Posted on: 15 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
Mat, I disagree..........
The 13% is a "ripple" on the wave of variation.
My S Class does about 25 mpg. The E Class estate does about 30 mpg, but my wife's C Class deisel does about 70 mpg. This latter is more than just a ripple.
But generating nuclear power electricity to run a "proper" electric car (they don't exist yet) could be a real "step-change".
In this (rather insipid) example, the 13% benefit from biofuels is a DANGEROUS distraction from the real, twin needs of climate change and resource sustainability.
It (mis)leads society into a stupid, false sense of achievement, and a reluctance to deal with the bigger picture.
And big-business and politicians are making a financial killing and taking the piss all the time.
IMHO, of course.
Cheers
Don
The 13% is a "ripple" on the wave of variation.
My S Class does about 25 mpg. The E Class estate does about 30 mpg, but my wife's C Class deisel does about 70 mpg. This latter is more than just a ripple.
But generating nuclear power electricity to run a "proper" electric car (they don't exist yet) could be a real "step-change".
In this (rather insipid) example, the 13% benefit from biofuels is a DANGEROUS distraction from the real, twin needs of climate change and resource sustainability.
It (mis)leads society into a stupid, false sense of achievement, and a reluctance to deal with the bigger picture.
And big-business and politicians are making a financial killing and taking the piss all the time.
IMHO, of course.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 15 September 2009 by Mat Cork
Not sure we disagree Don...what you say makes sense. I've just spent 20 years working in conservation, and I'm extremely sceptical about the general public every waking up. So if we could get them reducing their CO2 by 13% then I'd see that as significant.
I agree though, to make a difference we need a major change in folks behavior - I'd love to see it.
I agree though, to make a difference we need a major change in folks behavior - I'd love to see it.
Posted on: 15 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:we need a major change in folks behavior - I'd love to see it.
this normally happens in one of two ways
1) the government provides a tax incentive (nuclear power at 1p per magawatt = tax rebate, coalfired power at 100p per milliwatt = tax hike).......i'd love to see it.
2) somebody with a need for a scarce resorts to violence = war..........."i'd love to see it" isn't on my agenda, but it's a real possibility.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 16 September 2009 by Mat Cork
I'm not a knee jerk anti-nuclear power person Don, but uranium mining is a worry, as is the proliferation of nuclear technology in countries which would need to go nuclear to make a difference.
The UK is a ripple in the context, would you trust the Indian, Indonesian and Chinese government to run a safe programme?
The UK is a ripple in the context, would you trust the Indian, Indonesian and Chinese government to run a safe programme?
Posted on: 16 September 2009 by BigH47
quote:somebody with a need for a scarce resorts to violence = war..........."i'd love to SEE it" isn't on my agenda, but it's a real possibility.
I think you have your tenses crossed
Posted on: 16 September 2009 by girlfriend in a coma
quote:The 13% is a "ripple" on the wave of variation.
I don't agree Don. It is a step in the right direction, but of course the full impact of biofuels must be taken into account. IMO the biggest danger we face is governments procrastinating until it's too late to take effective action. Another danger is that if the "it's not a complete solution / it's too difficult / it's too expensive / it's too late" point of view is given undue weight, we risk metaphorically (& for many literally) finding ourselves up to our necks in it. Decisive action must be taken, & given time to be effective.
IMO the two most effective strategies to reduce all forms of pollution are to minimise consumption & maximise efficiency. Not popular with governments, but they are in the pockets of big business so not surprising.
If anyone doubts human activity is having a significant effect on climate I recommend reading this article - '9/11 study: Air traffic affects climate'. No prizes for anyone suggesting we save the ice caps by keeping all aircraft airborne as much as possible!
Regards - Craig