What should we do about the planet?
24 October 2007, 09:41 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd have to admit, though, that 'doing something to rectify it' covers quite a wide range of actions and consequences.
Take the ozone layer. Whatever the cause, all we were effectively asked to do was use a different kind of deodorant, and maybe have to buy a slightly more expensive fridge. Not really a big deal, then.
As for global thermonuclear war, the simple act of not nuking Russia seems to have put that off at least temporarily, and provided we can manage not to nuke China, Korea or Iraq, things aren't looking too bad on that front either.
Now, take global warming, though. What we're being asked to do here is to stop using energy. Tough call, that one. You see, I don't believe for a moment that changing to a different kind of light bulbs will make one bit of difference. And changing my 40mpg car for a 60mpg car probably won't stave off global meltdown for more than a few minutes either.
Advocates of 'being green' rarely talk about figures - and when they do, they're rarely given as percentages of the total. I've just tried to find out, for example, the proportion of the UK's greenhouse gas output that results from powering domestic lighting - and I've struggled to find a figure.
What I did find, is that electricity generation accounts for about 30% of the UK's total CO2 output, that domestic consumption is about 28% of that, of which most goes to heating - about 20% is used for lighting and appliances. So, that's 20% of 28% of 30%, or 1.7% of total CO2 emissions.
Suppose we assume that light bulbs account for half of that - a generous figure IMHO - that's 0.84%. Which means that ugly bulbs across the whole country might reduce our total CO2 output by around 0.5%.
Pardon me for not going out and buying new bulbs just yet.
Suppose that, for action to be effective, we actually have to cut our energy usage by more like 50% - and ask the USA, India, China and the rest of the rapidly industrialising world really nicely if they could please do the same. Somehow I can't see kids being given that vision of the future to draw as a school project.
Nope. It's easier just to put up taxes.
Take the ozone layer. Whatever the cause, all we were effectively asked to do was use a different kind of deodorant, and maybe have to buy a slightly more expensive fridge. Not really a big deal, then.
As for global thermonuclear war, the simple act of not nuking Russia seems to have put that off at least temporarily, and provided we can manage not to nuke China, Korea or Iraq, things aren't looking too bad on that front either.
Now, take global warming, though. What we're being asked to do here is to stop using energy. Tough call, that one. You see, I don't believe for a moment that changing to a different kind of light bulbs will make one bit of difference. And changing my 40mpg car for a 60mpg car probably won't stave off global meltdown for more than a few minutes either.
Advocates of 'being green' rarely talk about figures - and when they do, they're rarely given as percentages of the total. I've just tried to find out, for example, the proportion of the UK's greenhouse gas output that results from powering domestic lighting - and I've struggled to find a figure.
What I did find, is that electricity generation accounts for about 30% of the UK's total CO2 output, that domestic consumption is about 28% of that, of which most goes to heating - about 20% is used for lighting and appliances. So, that's 20% of 28% of 30%, or 1.7% of total CO2 emissions.
Suppose we assume that light bulbs account for half of that - a generous figure IMHO - that's 0.84%. Which means that ugly bulbs across the whole country might reduce our total CO2 output by around 0.5%.
Pardon me for not going out and buying new bulbs just yet.
Suppose that, for action to be effective, we actually have to cut our energy usage by more like 50% - and ask the USA, India, China and the rest of the rapidly industrialising world really nicely if they could please do the same. Somehow I can't see kids being given that vision of the future to draw as a school project.
Nope. It's easier just to put up taxes.
24 October 2007, 11:14 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
What I did find, is that electricity generation accounts for about 30% of the UK's total CO2 output, that domestic consumption is about 28% of that, of which most goes to heating - about 20% is used for lighting and appliances. So, that's 20% of 28% of 30%, or 1.7% of total CO2 emissions.
Suppose we assume that light bulbs account for half of that - a generous figure IMHO - that's 0.84%. Which means that ugly bulbs across the whole country might reduce our total CO2 output by around 0.5%.
Suppose we assume that light bulbs account for half of that - a generous figure IMHO - that's 0.84%. Which means that ugly bulbs across the whole country might reduce our total CO2 output by around 0.5%.
a) the UK proportion of man-made CO22 emissions is about 2% (I believe) of world-wide man-made CO2 emissions.
b) man-made emissions are between 3% and 4% of total CO2 emissions,
Now do your maths again and you'll see just how miniscule the effects of swapping your light bulbs are *IF* CO2 in the atmosphere is anything like the driver they reckon. And that is another debate!
Dave
25 October 2007, 08:08 AM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: northern ireland
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well then fuzz sell ur scooby and get a bike.
the government will tell u anything to screw more tax out of us, i personally think its a joke. if it was such a big problem then y does gordon brown, get picked up from 10 downing street in a 4 litre jag
i hate the way they go straight for car s on the global warming issue wot about cities with lights on all night in buildings, powerstations the fact that coal is by no means the most efficient way of producing power, y dont they use tidal or wind to produce power, plus look at the size of the uk compared with china or the usa or any of the delevoping countries we ll make no different even if this is true
rant over
the government will tell u anything to screw more tax out of us, i personally think its a joke. if it was such a big problem then y does gordon brown, get picked up from 10 downing street in a 4 litre jag
i hate the way they go straight for car s on the global warming issue wot about cities with lights on all night in buildings, powerstations the fact that coal is by no means the most efficient way of producing power, y dont they use tidal or wind to produce power, plus look at the size of the uk compared with china or the usa or any of the delevoping countries we ll make no different even if this is true
rant over
25 October 2007, 08:59 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a) the UK produces twice as much CO2 emissions as the 'average' country, it having approximately 1% of the total global population.
b) No mention of the CO2 absorbed by nature, which is around 97 - 98% of all CO2 emissions. Which leaves a net increase.
Me, I save energy where I can. What does it cost me? Nothing, except that I don't actually spend so much on energy. When I'm out, all my electrical appliances (bar the fridge) are switched off. That's off, not on standby. The only time I leave anything on standby is when I want to record something on the TV, and even then the TV is off.
25 October 2007, 09:40 AM
#35
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting figures, which tell me that
a) the UK produces twice as much CO2 emissions as the 'average' country, it having approximately 1% of the total global population.
b) No mention of the CO2 absorbed by nature, which is around 97 - 98% of all CO2 emissions. Which leaves a net increase.
Me, I save energy where I can. What does it cost me? Nothing, except that I don't actually spend so much on energy. When I'm out, all my electrical appliances (bar the fridge) are switched off. That's off, not on standby. The only time I leave anything on standby is when I want to record something on the TV, and even then the TV is off.
a) the UK produces twice as much CO2 emissions as the 'average' country, it having approximately 1% of the total global population.
b) No mention of the CO2 absorbed by nature, which is around 97 - 98% of all CO2 emissions. Which leaves a net increase.
Me, I save energy where I can. What does it cost me? Nothing, except that I don't actually spend so much on energy. When I'm out, all my electrical appliances (bar the fridge) are switched off. That's off, not on standby. The only time I leave anything on standby is when I want to record something on the TV, and even then the TV is off.
I recycle and try to be energy efficient simply because it saves me money. I have no consideration for global warming whatsoever, I don't believe we are causing it nor can stop it. If I am doing something which is "bad for the environment" I will only stop doing it if it is good for me.
Global warming, bring it on, it's been one of the nicest Autummns I can remember
Geezer
25 October 2007, 09:45 AM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting figures, which tell me that
a) the UK produces twice as much CO2 emissions as the 'average' country, it having approximately 1% of the total global population.
b) No mention of the CO2 absorbed by nature, which is around 97 - 98% of all CO2 emissions. Which leaves a net increase.
Me, I save energy where I can. What does it cost me? Nothing, except that I don't actually spend so much on energy. When I'm out, all my electrical appliances (bar the fridge) are switched off. That's off, not on standby. The only time I leave anything on standby is when I want to record something on the TV, and even then the TV is off.
a) the UK produces twice as much CO2 emissions as the 'average' country, it having approximately 1% of the total global population.
b) No mention of the CO2 absorbed by nature, which is around 97 - 98% of all CO2 emissions. Which leaves a net increase.
Me, I save energy where I can. What does it cost me? Nothing, except that I don't actually spend so much on energy. When I'm out, all my electrical appliances (bar the fridge) are switched off. That's off, not on standby. The only time I leave anything on standby is when I want to record something on the TV, and even then the TV is off.
As for CO2 absorption, the 97% you mention - is that of ALL CO2 emitted by ANY source? How is it measured? Estimated? Guesstimated?
My quesions aren't meant to catch you out - just to say that ALL this climate *stuff* is *theory* and very bad theory. Based on average worldwide temperatures in part. So how do they measure temperature? How is it averaged over a year? Assuming you know how an average is calculated then how do they *average* temperature readings over a day, a week, a year?? How much of the earths surface is covered by weather stations? How large an area is *assumed* to be covered by each one? What about the areas where there are none?
Satellite measurements - *maybe* they are more acuurate - but they've only been in the air for a few decades. Nowhere near enough to prove/disprove global warming or any other trend.
Just a few questions which, if you dig into a few more details on each one, show that from a common sense perspective the theories on climate change/global warming are just that, with no real facts to back them up. You don't need to know whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas and how much warming so many ppms in the atmosphere will cause - just look at the average temperature measurements and you;ll see that the whole thing is a scam to extract more money from us and keep us under control!
<Bored at work as I've resighned and have a few more weeks to work out first>
Dave
25 October 2007, 10:57 AM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Key difference for me was that with the ozone layer, it was industry who changed their products to CFC free products (possibly as a result of consumer pressure - I dont know)...
With the ludicrous link between climate change and man, the pressure is being put on the consumer, not industry and is therefore nothing more than a pitifully transparent attempt at increased taxation
With the ludicrous link between climate change and man, the pressure is being put on the consumer, not industry and is therefore nothing more than a pitifully transparent attempt at increased taxation
25 October 2007, 11:47 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just checked and at UK Defra | e-Digest Environment Statistics, Climate Change it agrees with the 2% I mentioned. Glad the old memory isn't playing tricks!
As for CO2 absorption, the 97% you mention - is that of ALL CO2 emitted by ANY source? How is it measured? Estimated? Guesstimated?
My quesions aren't meant to catch you out - just to say that ALL this climate *stuff* is *theory* and very bad theory. Based on average worldwide temperatures in part. So how do they measure temperature? How is it averaged over a year? Assuming you know how an average is calculated then how do they *average* temperature readings over a day, a week, a year?? How much of the earths surface is covered by weather stations? How large an area is *assumed* to be covered by each one? What about the areas where there are none?
Satellite measurements - *maybe* they are more acuurate - but they've only been in the air for a few decades. Nowhere near enough to prove/disprove global warming or any other trend.
Just a few questions which, if you dig into a few more details on each one, show that from a common sense perspective the theories on climate change/global warming are just that, with no real facts to back them up. You don't need to know whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas and how much warming so many ppms in the atmosphere will cause - just look at the average temperature measurements and you;ll see that the whole thing is a scam to extract more money from us and keep us under control!
<Bored at work as I've resighned and have a few more weeks to work out first>
Dave
As for CO2 absorption, the 97% you mention - is that of ALL CO2 emitted by ANY source? How is it measured? Estimated? Guesstimated?
My quesions aren't meant to catch you out - just to say that ALL this climate *stuff* is *theory* and very bad theory. Based on average worldwide temperatures in part. So how do they measure temperature? How is it averaged over a year? Assuming you know how an average is calculated then how do they *average* temperature readings over a day, a week, a year?? How much of the earths surface is covered by weather stations? How large an area is *assumed* to be covered by each one? What about the areas where there are none?
Satellite measurements - *maybe* they are more acuurate - but they've only been in the air for a few decades. Nowhere near enough to prove/disprove global warming or any other trend.
Just a few questions which, if you dig into a few more details on each one, show that from a common sense perspective the theories on climate change/global warming are just that, with no real facts to back them up. You don't need to know whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas and how much warming so many ppms in the atmosphere will cause - just look at the average temperature measurements and you;ll see that the whole thing is a scam to extract more money from us and keep us under control!
<Bored at work as I've resighned and have a few more weeks to work out first>
Dave
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory";
Guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory";
Guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
25 October 2007, 12:41 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when does a theory only apply to the natural world?
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
25 October 2007, 12:58 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when does a theory only apply to the natural world?
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>