So who's reduced their carbon footprint?

It isn't unrealistic. It's is absolutely irrelevant as to which country an individual or businesses resides. I don't cycle and recycle because I live in the UK. I do it because I'm a person living on earth. This is the case for everyone. Why did Dell commit to going carbon neutral? Or BSKYB? Or Tesco? Or URBN Hotels Shanghai?

Tax incentives and marketing, nothing more.
 
Tax incentives and marketing, nothing more.

It's estimated that it will cost £500 million for Tesco to go carbon neutral. There is no way they will recoup that in tax savings. I doubt there is tax incentives for the Shanghai hotel chain since they're located in China. I can't comment on the incentives for the US firms but do you think the US gives decent tax breaks? I'd find it hard to believe given their record.

Your right though, it probably is largely for PR reasons but there is nothing wrong with that. If public pressure or similar is prompting businesses to change then the aim is met. Do you think businesses would change if everyone in the country shared the view in this thread that there is no point in trying. They wouldn't.

Do you think if the entire nation or world demanded that businesses reduce their impact or face losing customers more firms would change. I think they would.

Edit: If everyone is limited to countries, which country is responsible for HSBC?

They have offices in 83 countries around the world and are attempting to go carbon neutral? Who will take the credit for that. The fact is they're a business on earth affecting the climate. I think we should forget which country we're in and consider ourselves as simply humans.

I don't think the environment cares from which country the CO2 comes from.
 
Last edited:
Your right though, it probably is largely for PR reasons but there is nothing wrong with that. If public pressure or similar is prompting businesses to change then the aim is met. Do you think businesses would change if everyone in the country shared the view in this thread that there is no point in trying. They wouldn't.

A lot of us want to change, but in a way that works and not so focused on co2.

How about sorting out power generation, packaging and recycling, water pollution. All much more worthy courses than co2. But Implementing these changes would have the benefit of actually reducing co2, rather than just raising money.

And when they say co2 neutral, they mean giving money to foresting companies, who don't actually plant the trees to offset it and more importantly plantiing them in the wrong areas. Messing up local ecologies and do far more damage.
 
Fair enough, I agree with most of that. Although I disagree that most want to help. Judging by this thread anyway. I hope this is either unrepresentative or people are posting somewhat half-jokingly.

I don't think a lot of the public realise the mavity of the situation. Even I didn't as late as last week. I think the public rely on the Government to do something about it and I don't like that idea.

By people not doing enough they're inviting the government to penalise them. If everyone made a concerted effort to switch things off, walk/cycle a bit more then the Government may not need to introduce heavy taxes on (what seems to be the most likely) motorists.

From my posts it seems I'm probably being overly harsh on individuals. It's businesses that need to make the most effort, not the common man. We can't expect people to give up their car, whatever type it is, when businesses operate without regard to the environment and still rake in billions in revenue.
 
Fair enough, I agree with most of that. Although I disagree that most want to help. Judging by this thread anyway. I hope this is either unrepresentative or people are posting somewhat half-jokingly.
I'm sure everyone wants to live in a cleaner cheaper world. It's just we don't think trying to cut co2 is the solution or justified.

By people not doing enough they're inviting the government to penalise them. If everyone made a concerted effort to switch things off, walk/cycle a bit more then the Government may not need to introduce heavy taxes on (what seems to be the most likely) motorists.
rubbish, that's exactly what the government want you to think. Thats meida influence and most of the population have fallen for it, even though co2 forom cars is next to nothing.

From my posts it seems I'm probably being overly harsh on individuals. It's businesses that need to make the most effort, not the common man. We can't expect people to give up their car, whatever type it is, when businesses operate without regard to the environment and still rake in billions in revenue.

The thing is the government. media and some scientists are attacking cars, even though all transport account for only around 5% co2 in the uk. It's not the problem so it certainly isn't the solution.
 
Exactly. I could leave my car at home and walk 5 miles to Uni. I could then walk home at night past shops, offices and factories with hundreds of computers and lights left on all night.

And then I could think 'Really, just what is the point?'
 
It's not an on and off switch.
Of course not - however, it is likely to be more of an on and off switch than most people realise due to the structure to the current global oil profile. The two aspects are that 48% of current production comes from the set of giant and supergiant fields - these (cumulatively) have been on plateau since the eighties - when they decline, which is happening around about now with the top 3, Cantarell, Burgan and Ghawar all gone now, the global total will fall. No amount of small fields and workovers will replace the losses from these old giants.

The second point is deepwater. Deepwater fields come on very fast to a short peak and then decline equally fast. This is the most economical way to produce when the infrastructure costs are so high. In total, deepwater production is expected to ramp up to 9 to 12 million barrels per day at the beginning of the next decade, after which a annual decline of 10%-15% sets in.

Taken together these impacts suggest a rapid decline post peak rather than a slow one.
 
[TW]Fox;10268037 said:
And then I could think 'Really, just what is the point?'

That's the problem. The UK on their own can't make any noticeable difference to the world's CO2 output.

Unless China and the USA follow suit, we're just wasting our time.
 
Of course not - however, it is likely to be more of an on and off switch than most people realise due to the structure to the current global oil profile. The two aspects are that 48% of current production comes from the set of giant and supergiant fields - these (cumulatively) have been on plateau since the eighties - when they decline, which is happening around about now with the top 3, Cantarell, Burgan and Ghawar all gone now, the global total will fall. No amount of small fields and workovers will replace the losses from these old giants.

The second point is deepwater. Deepwater fields come on very fast to a short peak and then decline equally fast. This is the most economical way to produce when the infrastructure costs are so high. In total, deepwater production is expected to ramp up to 9 to 12 million barrels per day at the beginning of the next decade, after which a annual decline of 10%-15% sets in.

Taken together these impacts suggest a rapid decline post peak rather than a slow one.



rubbish, peak production is a myth, it has nothing to do with capabilities, everything to do with economics. they could ramp up production in the next few years and keep it going, there are still many super fields left, which ahven't been drilled as there below ice.

Increase drilling and refinery and peak production dissapears.
 
rubbish, peak production is a myth, it has nothing to do with capabilities, everything to do with economics. they could ramp up production in the next few years and keep it going, there are still many super fields left, which ahven't been drilled as there below ice.

Increase drilling and refinery and peak production dissapears.

Below ice, there's the killer right there. Oil would have to be in the 100's before anyone even thinks of drilling up here.

I would listen to clv he knows his stuff and explains it well.
 
Roughly for every one single bin bag I put out, all the other households on my street put out four.

Thats about it though at the moment. I tend to think that there are more fundamental issues at hand and much much bigger fish to fry in global terms.
 
Fair enough, I agree with most of that. Although I disagree that most want to help. Judging by this thread anyway. I hope this is either unrepresentative or people are posting somewhat half-jokingly.

I can assure you i am not joking when i say i will be happy to raise my carbon footprint...

Government and Media scaremongering...

I shall endeavour to make up for your reduction on Co2... better get that 6.0L V12 out of the Daimler Double Six instead... and supercharge it... mebbe some nitrous... will easily have me in single figures at normal driving:D
 
Below ice, there's the killer right there. Oil would have to be in the 100's before anyone even thinks of drilling up here.

I would listen to clv he knows his stuff and explains it well.

No it won't we are allready starting to use submerged pumps. although they still require a makeshift rig for drilling, but onces thats done, it totally operates on the sea bed. No reason a under water rig can't be built.
 
Government and Media scaremongering...
How'd you work that out? The science pre-dates the Government and media talking about it. Whether climate change is serious or not does not depend on what the government / media are saying. Look back at what the scientists were saying (without the help or influence of the Government and media) back in the early nineties. The message is the same.
 
Fair enough, I agree with most of that. Although I disagree that most want to help. Judging by this thread anyway. I hope this is either unrepresentative or people are posting somewhat half-jokingly.


This forum isn't representing of the general UK public at all :)
 
How'd you work that out? The science pre-dates the Government and media talking about it. Whether climate change is serious or not does not depend on what the government / media are saying. Look back at what the scientists were saying (without the help or influence of the Government and media) back in the early nineties. The message is the same.


I don't work it out.

It's my opinion.

I'll stick to a great big nasty polluting engine thankyouverymuch... the green stuff stifles my lifestyle... I have enough tax, regulation etc in my life without nutters encouraging the government to add more to it...

If the world goes to hell, well, hey, i was wrong... but it was fun doing it!


have fun in your prius now:D
 
Back
Top Bottom