Carbon Footprint!!!!!!!!!

[Cable]

I read recently in a sciencey mag that they've discovered that multiple planets in the solar system including Mars have all had an increase in temperature similar to that of Earth, what a coincidence. There are things at work that are a lot bigger than we are... probably called the sun.

[colsoop]

Michael Crichtons arguments are based on the same research that is posted up by the scientific community and like all who take on the research he draws his own conclusions as do you and i

Thats where the problem lies data can be manipulated any way you see fit.

 

One question, why is it that those who speak out against the global climate change concerns are normally retired professors ?

they no longer have to get grants to carry out thewir research ansd such can be honest about what they have found out.

 

I didn't use the book as an example of his personal views but the theme of the book large environmental organisations with huge budgets constantly bombarding their own brand of green at the masses with more money for litigation etc the use of words that have no meaning and are used to cause concern and confusion that was all it is a similar theme to what is happening now.

[Tannhauser]

I'm pretty sure he is a scientist though, who's turned to fiction writing. Like Jeffrey Deaver, who used to be a criminal investigator of some description, and now writes crime novels.

 

I'm not saying that he hasn't got any technical expertise. However, as soon as you change trades to writing blockbusters, the agenda is set by what makes an interesting read; he has no obligation to present an unbiased case.

 

Having said that, I think he is a bit of a climate change contrarian and probably believes in the case he's proposing in his book.

[Tannhauser]

 

One question, why is it that those who speak out against the global climate change concerns are normally retired professors ?

they no longer have to get grants to carry out thewir research ansd such can be honest about what they have found out.

 

 

OK, I'll address your question

 

This is essentially a conspiracy theory. Any scientist who dares to speak 'the truth' has his funding removed. It's an argument that's unfortunately used by every researcher who has a crackpot idea. For example, homeopaths claim that 'the truth' (that homeopathy works, which it patently doesn't) is either ignored (through lack of funding) or actively suppressed e.g. by 'the government' or 'the drug companies'.

 

I'm not saying that those who deny anthropogenic climate change are crackpots, just that - sad to say - it's become a standard defence in our conspiracy-crazy culture. If the evidence isn't there -well, someone must be hushing it up.

 

I guess there's a grain of truth inasmuch as: if you're a professor dispensing grants, and you are convinced by the climate change arguments (as most are), you're less likely to give money out to a researcher who is still pursuing arguments that everyone else left behind years ago. But that's quite diferent from saying that research is being suppressed.

 

Some of the anti-climate change group are retired and I agree that this means they don't have to toe a party line. But often, the people on these lists are also just not up to speed on research or lack the credentials to comment effectively on the data.

 

I think it's highly ironic that the anti climate change groups are now crying 'conspiracy', given that (a) mainstream scientific opinion was toned down by various governments for years and (b) contrarian research was directly funded by the energy companies. Both are well-documented (for example, the former is detailed in here)

[colsoop]

That link is an interesting read thanks for that.

 

I have no problem at all with change, extra roof insulation energy efficient light bulbs and living a cleaner more efficient lifetyle but for a better environment and living conditions for me and those around me not because the government and the green lobby are telling me i am going to be swamped by the sea or melted by the sun etc

Perhaps it is the way it is being persued as if it is life or death is what is stopping me from feeling as if it is a threat.

When i see large organisations making lots of money from the green issues and the government introducing taxes on the back of it i feel sceptical about the perceived level of danger. (granted somebody will always make money from any situation that occurs)

 

When i see a new cause i often think of it this way:

 

scientist publishes findings >

findings are picked up by the media, media dramatises findings looks for patterns related to this area and repeats them as if they are new and different>

public become aware of the issue >

Government adopts issue as own appoints a minsiter in charge of issue and then asks how can we best use this issue for our own agenda >

 

This will run and run and i hope with all the money being pumped in to the research for and against somebody can come up with something conclusive based on real world data and not computer models.

[Tannhauser]

scientist publishes findings >

findings are picked up by the media, media dramatises findings looks for patterns related to this area and repeats them as if they are new and different>

public become aware of the issue >

Government adopts issue as own appoints a minsiter in charge of issue and then asks how can we best use this issue for our own agenda >

 

To an extent, I agree with this: governemnts do back up their policies with spurious science.

 

A classic example is Bowlby's work on child development in the 1940s. His theory was that an infant's separation from its Mum would cause long-term damage. The government used this to get women out of the workforce. This helped address male unemployment as thousands of servicemen were demobbed.

 

The difference here is that this is not one 'expert', or even a small group making a big noise (like the Ice Age theorists). This is literally thousands of scientists worldwide - so the process is driven by them, not political pressure.

 

One of the things that I find worrisome is that scientists are by training extremely cautious in their speculations. So they always use langauge like "it seems likely that" or "there is some evidence" or "the balance of evidence suggests". The media may be alarmist, but scientists tend to be a fairly unexcitable, clinical bunch. So when most of them start saying flat out- as they have about climate change - "this is very serious", I think it would be foolish in the extreme not to listen.

[Angarak]

I read recently in a sciencey mag that they've discovered that multiple planets in the solar system including Mars have all had an increase in temperature similar to that of Earth, what a coincidence....

 

Christ, don't let the Government know about that or else they'll blame us UK motorists and impose more 'environmental' taxes on us in order to fund a scientific team to reduce global warming throughout the solar system!

[tbourner]

It's traffic lights I tell ya, that'll solve at least 10% of the vehicle pollution in this country!!

[Kip]

WELCOME TO A LABOUR GOVERNMENT - Spend, spend, spend and TAX, TAX, TAX.

And anyone who subscribes to the "mans global warming effect" is brain washed - look back through time and, hey presto as if by magic one finds climate change and we were'nt even around back then so how does that work then? - Dinosaur Farts??

[Tannhauser]

And anyone who subscribes to the "mans global warming effect" is brain washed - look back through time and, hey presto as if by magic one finds climate change and we were'nt even around back then so how does that work then? - Dinosaur Farts??

 

It's usually referred to as 'anthropogenic climate change' (or 'anthropogenic global warming').

 

I subscribe to it and therefore must be brainwashed, no doubt through reading the output of all those government lackeys.

 

It's nice to see that, in common with some others on the thread. you are a firm proponent of recycling. You've taken a rubbish old argument, easily rebutted, and recycled it into a highly amusing rhetorical question.

[Gazboy]

I subscribe to it and therefore must be brainwashed, no doubt through reading the output of all those government lackeys.

 

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting global warming/climate change is not happening, what a lot of people do have an issue with is the emphasis being put on private car use and bugger all else. If cars were banned from UK roads from tomorrow it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

 

Our government have jumped on the environment agenda purely to make money, it's a cash cow for them and they are milking it hard. It's not like you can patch up the ozone with fifty pound notes. They claim the money is a deterrent to change your ways but petrol now costs more than twice what it did when I passed my test yet I still do not use public transport as it is not a viable alternative to my cars in any way shape or form.

[Cable]

It's usually referred to as 'anthropogenic climate change' (or 'anthropogenic global warming').

 

I subscribe to it and therefore must be brainwashed, no doubt through reading the output of all those government lackeys.

 

It's nice to see that, in common with some others on the thread. you are a firm proponent of recycling. You've taken a rubbish old argument, easily rebutted, and recycled it into a highly amusing rhetorical question.

 

Are those crazy little industrialist martians and their uneconimcal flying saucers causing their 'global warming' too?

[Tannhauser]

I don't think anyone is suggesting global warming/climate change is not happening, what a lot of people do have an issue with is the emphasis being put on private car use and bugger all else. If cars were banned from UK roads from tomorrow it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

 

I don't think that you're right about the emphasis on drivers, but I don't know. I do know that I'm likely to be aware of 'green taxation' if it hits my air travel or petrol bill or road tax directly. But that doesn't mean that taxes elsewhere aren't occurring. I do think aviation is an area that's getting off scot-free, especially air-freight.

 

If cars were banned, of course it would make a difference to UK emissions. The transport sector is just over 20% of carbon emissions and has gone up from 109 to 120 million tonnes a year (1990 to 2005), whereas overall emissions for the UK have fallen in the same period.

 

You could make more of a case that UK cars make such a small global contribution that it's not worth bothering with, and this is the case more commonly argued. The total UK transport sector would be around 0.4% of global carbon emissions. However, there are two problems with this line of reasoning:

 

1. It's a tu quoque error in reasoning. If we agree that putting excess carbon into the air is 'wrong', then whether or not other people do it too is irrelevant to some extent. By analogy, if I throw a fag packet out of my window, is it any justification to point out that 100 people are also throwing theirs out? Not really, I'm still littering.

 

2. Western governments have to provide the lead for the rest of the world. If the UK and US are seen to do nothing, there's no incentive for the future economic giants like China to get on board. So the UK has a disproportionate amount of influence.

 

In a similar way, policy in California (5th largest economic unit in the world) has a huge influence elsewhere.

 

They claim the money is a deterrent to change your ways but petrol now costs more than twice what it did when I passed my test yet I still do not use public transport as it is not a viable alternative to my cars in any way shape or form.

 

But we're discussing this on a performance car site, so neither of us is necessarily representative of the general public. We're likely to cling onto gas-guzzlers until it's really impossible to do otherwise. For others, fuel economy is a bigger issue, so the taxation might change car buying behaviour, at least.

[Tannhauser]

Are those crazy little industrialist martians and their uneconimcal flying saucers causing their 'global warming' too?

 

Oh, the irony. The 'global warming on Mars' is based on observations of polar ice receding. So contrarians take this as evidence of global warming on Mars, despite many rejecting the same evidence on Earth.

 

Anyway, that aside. The Martian climate shows substantial variations from year to year. Dust storms cause occlusion to huge areas, for example. The ice cap recession is based on measurements taken over 2001-5, so it's not a long enough period to posit a general warming. The data actually shows a general cooling since the 1970s.

 

I think earlier, you mentioned other planets. The only other planet I've heard claims about is Pluto. Which is just silly. Pluto has an orbit of 200 years-ish, so we won't even have accurate data for one of its years, right? It's like trying to gauge whether the Earth is warming up by comparing Summer and Winter temperatures for one year.

 

Any second now someone will mention that "increased solar output" chestnut.

[Dragonlady]

 

What have I started, interesting debate though.

 

Ian

[Gazboy]

I don't think that you're right about the emphasis on drivers, but I don't know. I do know that I'm likely to be aware of 'green taxation' if it hits my air travel or petrol bill or road tax directly. But that doesn't mean that taxes elsewhere aren't occurring. I do think aviation is an area that's getting off scot-free, especially air-freight.

 

If cars were banned, of course it would make a difference to UK emissions. The transport sector is just over 20% of carbon emissions and has gone up from 109 to 120 million tonnes a year (1990 to 2005), whereas overall emissions for the UK have fallen in the same period.

 

You could make more of a case that UK cars make such a small global contribution that it's not worth bothering with, and this is the case more commonly argued. The total UK transport sector would be around 0.4% of global carbon emissions. However, there are two problems with this line of reasoning:

 

1. It's a tu quoque error in reasoning. If we agree that putting excess carbon into the air is 'wrong', then whether or not other people do it too is irrelevant to some extent. By analogy, if I throw a fag packet out of my window, is it any justification to point out that 100 people are also throwing theirs out? Not really, I'm still littering.

 

2. Western governments have to provide the lead for the rest of the world. If the UK and US are seen to do nothing, there's no incentive for the future economic giants like China to get on board. So the UK has a disproportionate amount of influence.

 

In a similar way, policy in California (5th largest economic unit in the world) has a huge influence elsewhere.

 

 

 

But we're discussing this on a performance car site, so neither of us is necessarily representative of the general public. We're likely to cling onto gas-guzzlers until it's really impossible to do otherwise. For others, fuel economy is a bigger issue, so the taxation might change car buying behaviour, at least.

 

 

The anti-air agenda is a new thing, no noise had been made until two years ago about air travel and the environment, before that any protestations were aimed at flight paths and airport expansion. There is talk of an enviro-tax on air tickets but Boeing & Airbus along with smaller plane makers are not being hounded like car manufacturers- France wants an EU wide 120g/km average emmisions output for all manufactorers- the Germans are fighting that because theymake hardly any cars at all that are under 120g/km never mind as an average quotiant. There is no anti-shipping protesters urging the shipping industry to clean up either.

 

The new tax bands aimed at 'chelsea tractors' is another anti car idea when you look at the number of cars affected (£400 a year for a 225g/km+ car) and the Kengestion zone plus his outragous proposal to toll the bollocks off anyone inside the M25 with a £25 a day green emmissions tax.

 

Cars do not make up all transport so you cannot account 20% of UK emmisions to them. You have to account for road haulage, air & sea travel and rail.

 

It doesn't matter if petrol is £5.00 a litre I will still have to use my car to commute as there is no alternative, it doesn't matter if theis is an enthusiast performance car site, if the alternatives are not there, or inadequete then no amount of taxation will make people change until it's completely unaffordable to travel to work- perhaps the consumer downturn the gov/BoE are shitting themselves with is people tightening their belts because the cost of motoring has risen in the last couple of months- I don't know about you but around here petrol is 10% more expensive than it was in the summer. My car for commuting is a 1300cc 150g/km econobox so my views could be said as a general public perception.

[Tannhauser]

The anti-air agenda is a new thing, no noise had been made until two years ago about air travel and the environment, before that any protestations were aimed at flight paths and airport expansion. There is talk of an enviro-tax on air tickets but Boeing & Airbus along with smaller plane makers are not being hounded like car manufacturers- France wants an EU wide 120g/km average emmisions output for all manufactorers- the Germans are fighting that because theymake hardly any cars at all that are under 120g/km never mind as an average quotiant. There is no anti-shipping protesters urging the shipping industry to clean up either.

 

I know that there has not been pressure on air travel and it's a massive hole in the government plans. Air travel is the fastest growing emission sector and the emissions on a kg by kg basis have a greater effect due to the altitude they're emitted at.

 

I don't know anything about the shipping contribution, but I would assume that it's a massively more efficient way to transport materials, since keeping things in the air requires such a colossal amount of energy, so maybe it's not a priority for that reason.

 

Cars do not make up all transport so you cannot account 20% of UK emmisions to them. You have to account for road haulage, air & sea travel and rail.

 

I'm aware of that and I wasn't trying to imply that cars represent the whole 20% - in fact, I was kind of alluding to this in the next bit I was addressing - i.e. if the whole UK transport sector is only 0.4% of total emissions, then why bother regulating the UK motorist?

 

However, it's still not true to say that 'taking all the cars off the road wouldn't make any difference'.

 

It doesn't matter if petrol is £5.00 a litre I will still have to use my car to commute as there is no alternative, it doesn't matter if theis is an enthusiast performance car site, if the alternatives are not there, or inadequete then no amount of taxation will make people change until it's completely unaffordable to travel to work- .........- My car for commuting is a 1300cc 150g/km econobox so my views could be said as a general public perception.

 

OK, so for you and many, many other people - including me -there's no viable alternative but their car to get into work. Like you, I would still go by car if it was £5 a litre. Having said that, I also take the car to the gym to save myself a 5 minute walk - I'm lazy and fuel is cheap enough for me to do so. So there may be many millions of journeys each day that could be changed through increased prices.

 

It may be that the age of the commuter is coming to an end. For all of history, people have had to work pretty much on the doorstep of where they lived. We've had maybe 50 years of very rapid mass transport and fuel that's ridiculously cheap (compared to income). Perhaps it's the start of another shift back.

 

I love my car as much as anyone, but really, moving 1000-2000kg of metal in order to transport a, say, 70kg person is pretty inefficient. Either for reasons of pollution or fuel shortage, it's not sustainable in the long run.

[AJI]

the one thing that is constantly missed in all these arguments is that CO2 does not drive climate change.

Therefore the reasons behind all these 'carbon footprint' taxes is complete bollox.

 

There is not one piece of evidence out there in the scientific community that shows that CO2 from human emissions has anything to do with changing the earth's climate.

Numerous scientists have mentioned that humans couldn't change the earth's climate even if we tried.

 

There are lots of trends shown in graphs that show the earth's temp rising and falling over the past hundreds of years (in line with the same temp. fluctuations from the sun).... but nothing that shows the human effect.

 

Water vapour for example is THE BIGGEST greenhouse gas by a massive margin over CO2..... why isn't there a tax on boiling kettles for coffee ???

 

I'm guessing its only a matter of time before they [the governments of the world] devise a plan for taxing natural water usage.