So who's reduced their carbon footprint?

[NathanE]

No. I pay my road tax (*cough* "carbon" tax) and will get my monies worth.

I rarely holiday abroad so that more than balances it out, probably puts me amongst some of the smaller "footprints" in fact

 

[Jet]

I think it's due to political and funding reasons.

I totally agree on energy security, but we don't achieve that though ineffective taxes.

Unfortunately I don't agree with everyone make s there own co2 foot print. The numbers just don't add up for that. reducing your foot print wont do anything, reducing the uk's footprint to zero, won't do anything. The only way to do something is for the entire world to cut co2 emissions, this isn't going to happen why oil is the easiest and cheapest form of power. China and other emerging markets are critical to reducing co2, how ever you can't acheive that. SO yet again the whole thing is impossible to achieve.

Reducing the UK's footprint may not have an effect on reducing global temperature but it may influence other countries in following our lead. It also means we don't have to rely on oil as much, makes people fitter, etc. There aren't many drawbacks if people voluntarily do it.

The USA are the biggest contributor to climate change and add more CO2 into the atmosphere than China, Japan and a few other countries combined. We may be able to influence the US to do something. The problem is there is no public pressure. You can see how many people in this thread don't realise the mavity of the situation or just don't care.

Without public pressure there is no incentive for some government's to change. If everyone in the world demanded that their government did something about climate change and every individual made an effort to reduce their consumption we would be able to put pressure on business's and governments to change and make a difference.

China and others will be crucial but we don't know what the future holds. We have already successfully persuaded developing countries to not use products containing CFC's and other pollutants. With our technology and know how we might be able to do something on the climate change front.

Besides what's the worst than can happen? Either everyone tries hard and we reduce CO2 levels enough or we try and it happens anyway. At least we tried.

where have they said that? they said we need to. Not how.

There wouldn't be such a furore about the subject if it was considered impossible by scientists.

 

[Dolph]

Two points: the “no point ‘cos of China etc. argument” is absolute rubbish. Every individual person on the planet, on their own, is responsible for their own actions. Just because there happens to be a “political” line drawn around a large bunch of folk over there is totally irrelevant.

You missed a significant part of the "no point" argument. The argument actually goes "I fail to see why purposely putting myself to inconvience and disadvantage makes any sense given the activities of others". It's the same argument that applies to countries too.

Am I going to knowingly and purposely make my life difficult when any benefit the world may see from doing so will be instantly wiped out by the person next to me?

 

[Glaucus]

Reducing the UK's footprint may not have an effect on reducing global temperature but it may influence other countries in following our lead. It also means we don't have to rely on oil as much, makes people fitter, etc. There aren't many drawbacks if people voluntarily do it.

but voluntarily will would still be using oil in 50 years time. Do you have an idea on the cost of replacing oil for are economy. It won't make other countries follow. Do you really think china will decommission power stations that are only just being built know, next year?
Do you think america can afford to replace there power plants with nuclear or renewable energy?

There wouldn't be such a furore about the subject if it was considered impossible by scientists.

Not really, sceintist will claim it's possible as you can theoritcically reduce co2. They don't take into account what is actually possible. Thats where economics and politics comes in.

 

[Overlag]

how many trees have you guys cut down lately???

really, the only people that can be blamed for CO2 output are the govenments of countries cutting the lungs of the earth down...

... keep driving, you will be dead before theres any real issues.

but then that sort of issue is for SC or GD

I refuse to buy into this whole CO2 fad which has gripped the nation. It's a load of tree hugging hippy bullcrap, forced upon us in order to make us willingly accept these so called 'green' taxes. I find the term 'green tax' funny because the people are showing how bloody green (I don't mean environmentally friendly) they are by blindly accepting it.

Bah humbug.

hey, im a tree hugger..... the only reason why is id rather go nuts at them cutting down trees, then those idiots tell us to stop driving.

save a tree = save a car lol

 

[Jet]

but voluntarily will would still be using oil in 50 years time. Do you have an idea on the cost of replacing oil for are economy. It won't make other countries follow. Do you really think china will decommission power stations that are only just being built know, next year?
Do you think america can afford to replace there power plants with nuclear or renewable energy?

I don't think scientists are saying that the world needs to abandon oil based economies within a short period of time. Nor that China aren't allowed to produce more power stations or that the US has to replace all their power plants immediately. It's a gradual process and enough people obviously think it's possible or we wouldn't even be trying.

We may never be able to stop it but any reduction in the speed of climate change gives us enough time to adapt to the changes.

Not really, sceintist will claim it's possible as you can theoritcically reduce co2. They don't take into account what is actually possible. Thats where economics and politics comes in.

What I mean is we wouldn't have the publicity and hundreds of public studies if it was impossible to alter. You don't have to, but I'm going to assume that in light of the current opinion on the subject we have a chance of doing something about it. I don't think anyone can know for sure and science will never be able to categorically show we can.

Secondly, I think scientists will consider whether it's possible. Economics and politics will then have to work with the scientists to find out how to effect that change.

 

[Glaucus]

I don't think scientists are saying that the world needs to abandon oil based economies within a short period of time. Nor that China aren't allowed to produce more power stations or that the US has to replace all their power plants immediately. It's a gradual process and enough people obviously think it's possible or we wouldn't even be trying.

We may never be able to stop it but any reduction in the speed of climate change gives us enough time to adapt to the changes.

That's exactly what there saying, within the next decade. maybe less.

The conference concluded that, at the level of 550 ppm, it was likely that 2°C would be exceeded, based on the projections of more recent climate models. Stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 ppm would only result in a 50% likelihood of limiting global warming to 2°C, and that it would be necessary to achieve stabilisation below 400 ppm to give a relatively high certainty of not exceeding 2°C.[4] The conference also claimed that, if action to reduce emissions is delayed by 20 years, rates of emission reduction may need to be 3 to 7 times greater to meet the same temperature target.

 

[kefkef]

Not on purpose, but buying a Clio dCI for the girlfriend a couple of years ago only for her to then stop driving and me being the lazy toe rag i am meant i am still driving roun din it today. Think it's rated at 110g/km so only £35 a year in tax.

But leading on from that i then got involved with the Carbon Trust through the NHS organisation i work with, means i have to be sort of a carbon champion, hardly travel to meeting as try to do them all by conference call, o recycle pretty much everything i can, energy saving light bulbs, extra insulation in loft, double glazing, replaced kitchen this year so all the devices were bought on energy rating rather than price/make. changed to a green energy supplier. lots more around it, but once you get into it it's quite addictive and it's always nice to see the gas/leccy bills so low!

 

[oweneades]

I actively try and use as little electricity at home (ie turn things off when I don't use them etc) simply because it costs me money to leave them on.

In the car however well my next car will probably be in tax band F so meh, couldn't give a flying fox about co2 output.

(although I do agree with planting more trees because well I like them )

 

[Glaucus]

I actively try and use as little electricity at home (ie turn things off when I don't use them etc) simply because it costs me money to leave them on.

This is why I would love an x10 network. To save electricity, but I've only found plug in devices rather than actually built into the socket.

 

[Jet]

That's exactly what there saying, within the next decade. maybe less.

I think they're saying that action needs to occur within the next 20 years. Not that we have to abandon all CO2 producing instruments in that time. We only have to get it under 400ppm. Granted I don't know what that level means but I don't think we need to stop using oil immediately to get to that figure.


Anyway I'm bored now. Let's agree to disagree

 

[Glaucus]

I think they're saying that action needs to occur within the next 20 years. Not that we have to abandon all CO2 producing instruments in that time. We only have to get it under 400ppm. Granted I don't know what that level means but I don't think we need to stop using oil immediately to get to that figure.


Anyway I'm bored now. Let's agree to disagree

put it this way, to reach that will take a massive drop in co2, not all oil but the majority.

I don't think you should give up, it's all well and good saying we need to do this and do that. But when you start breaking it down and looking at the sheer numbers evolved you soon realise it's a pointless exercise and that it's nothing more than stealth tax.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Reducing the UK's footprint may not have an effect on reducing global temperature but it may influence other countries in following our lead.

So, like I said, sacrificing our economy to make a point.

And YES, clv, China is relevant. It's relevant becuase everything we do is undone by China the very next day by many times.

 

[clv101]

And YES, clv, China is relevant. It's relevant becuase everything we do is undone by China the very next day by many times.

But that doesn't alter the effect we have - a tonne of carbon is a tonne of carbon - irrelevant of what anyone else does.

 

[[TW]Fox]

a tonne of carbon is irrelevent when your neighbour then adds 500 tonne of carbon the very next day.

It's like bailing water from a sinking liner with a small bucket. Technically yes, it helps. 5 litres of water is 5 litres. But looking at the big picture, it's a complete waste of time.

 

[Glaucus]

But that doesn't alter the effect we have - a tonne of carbon is a tonne of carbon - irrelevant of what anyone else does.

well it does, because to reduce co2 costs a lot of money to the uk economy. Are minute efforts arent even going to slow down the ppm increase.

 

[DB_SamX]

o/

I use the train to work instead of the drive. I don't care whether it only makes a tiny difference - it's still a difference which I am happy to make even if it cost me personally a bit more.

And at the office (in fact the whole company), everyone plays their part too to reduce our CO2 footprint.

 

[volospian]

i thought that was a Porsche Turbo in LA smog.....

Well, it was definately said about the Saab 9-3

video link is dead now, but still...

Having said that, we all know TG are very green and certainly like to recycle the same old jokes, so it wouldn't surprise me to hear it again and again

 

[Jet]

put it this way, to reach that will take a massive drop in co2, not all oil but the majority.

I don't think you should give up, it's all well and good saying we need to do this and do that. But when you start breaking it down and looking at the sheer numbers evolved you soon realise it's a pointless exercise and that it's nothing more than stealth tax.

I'm not sure I agree with the Government taxing on this issue anyway. I may want people to do more but I don't know whether it's necessary for the Government to charge £'s in tax.

And this links in with the China issue. I.e. people shouldn't adversely suffer when other countries do nothing. That said, most of the stuff individuals can do won't affect their quality of life.

Fox]So, like I said, sacrificing our economy to make a point.

It depends. Recycling rubbish, re-using stuff, turning lights off, cycling more, doesn't negatively affect our economy at all.

Secondly, if the climate change issue forces us to embrace renewable energy sources earlier this would substantially reduce our reliance on other (sometimes unstable) countries and actually strengthen our economy, especially when the oil starts running out and the world falls apart.

The only thing I disagree with is government intervention that actually does adversely affect lives. Most of the stuff that you can do will enrich your life, not make it worse. A lot of people are lazy though, which is a shame.

 

[Dolph]

It depends. Recycling rubbish, re-using stuff, turning lights off, cycling more, doesn't negatively affect our economy at all.

Recycling rubbish is expensive, especially given that it requires people to sort the rubbish somewhere in the process. Re-using stuff can mean a decrease in spending, which is bad. Cycling can mean less mobility, which is bad...

All those things, if mandated rather than market driven, are a bad thing.