World Meteorological Organization: Carbon Dioxide hits 400ppm, 'Time is running out'

[D.P.]

Strange that the figures don't support that with over half the GHGs coming from industrial sources...your own figures show this.

I would point out also, that my post had Global and US figures.

So the plain facts don't support your position, something you simply cannot wriggle out of.



Last time I looked it was in fact Global Climate Change, not localised climate change...so I think the global figures are somewhat more than meaningless. And again, on investigation, your figures show the opposite to what you are actually stating..for example, UK emissions coming from Cars and Taxis was 13% of all GHGs (58% of the transport sector, not 90%), lower than Business sector and equal to Residential sector and nowhere near the 54% produced by the combined Industrial Sectors.

Your supplied figures show this.

I don't get where your figures come from and your logic is flawed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...enhouse_Gas_Emissions_Provisional_Figures.pdf

Page 10
2013 Co2 emissions for transportation 116.7
2013 co2 total 464.3
116.7/464.3 = 25.13%



http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/energy-and-environment/climatechangefactsheets.pdf
Page 2, RH column
"Road transport emissions (which account for just over 90% of domestic transport GHG emissions) were 2% higher in 2009 than in 1990."

90% comes from Road transportation.



http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
US CO2 emissions :
Transportation: 32%
industry 14%
Electricity: 38%


And no, global GHg emission by source is irrelevant when deciding how the UK should combat climate control. It matters not one iota that China's CO2 output mostly comes from industry or power generation, china isn't the UK. In the UK 25% of CO2 comes from transportation, in the developed world 25-35% of CO2 output comes from transportation, with a vast majority (90%) from road use.

Britain cannot impose rules and regulation on china or India, but they can impose regulations on the UK; citizen and industries. China will have to impose its own regulation. India it's own.

For the UK to reduce its GHG output it has to reduce the CO2 output of all road users, as well as power and industry- but road transportation is more important than industry. That is just a fact from the evidence.

 

[altus]

I see the usual Watermelons are frothing at the mouth treating the elixir of life on earth, CO2, as a pollutant.
Still falling for the scam and wondering why other people have not.
At what point will you question what you have been preached ?
The fabled hockey stick graph is discredited, along with Mr Gore`s film [uk court rules it has to be accompanied with a book of corrections when trying to brainwash school children], along with the CRU lot who happened to of lost their original data, maybe the dog ate it? [you couldn't make it up].
For over half the time that we have been measuring with satellite`s [non adjusted and empirical], global mean temperatures have been flat despite rising CO2 [it has been higher in the past and not caused runaway warming].
Models did not see that coming did they? , they cant even hindcast.
Looks like you are just waiting for another large el nino like 98 or the sun doing you a favour to buy yourselves another few years, meanwhile claim the heat is hiding lol.
The scam is nearing its end as economic reality dawns and exit strategies are drawn up.
The deluded watermelons will just move on to the next made up scary thing, thought up by the great and the good to make money and gain more control over us [my moneys on overpopulation or water shortage].
Pollution is best left to richer economies to deal with, as they always have done , going back to the stone age is not viable and breaking our economy and holding back emerging ones will be bad for the environment.
New forms of energy will emerge because of need, effectiveness and efficiency , not by subsidies given to green investors to distort the market for political reasons[make your friends rich].
Mainstream science is broken, bought by politicians and skewed by vested interests.
In the future this period of science will be looked on as the most recent of the dark ages.
Before anybody calls me out, please don't reply unless you have some non adjusted empirical evidence to show me how high you think the atmosphere is sensitive to CO2.
I do not agree with the" its better than doing nothing brigade" either, just adapt as best we can, do not prolong poverty ,that costs lives.
To worry about climate change is akin to worrying about space collapsing,
there is nothing we can do about it, it changes regardless of us, I can warm the climate more by urinating into the wind more than I can by driving to work.

Fully star your swear words

Gilly

 

[Rroff]

Though I agree somewhat with the first bit I don't really agree with the 2nd bit - I definitely think we can do things to make the climate we live in better.

While I think climate change is real I find a lot of the "science" behind it seems very flawed i.e. the photos used to show certain global changes which turned out to be ~30 hand picked from a set of 200 that showed the pattern they were looking for disgarding any that didn't match the pattern and when NASA released the whole 200 image set it showed that a long term cyclic effect was just as feasible as a progressive worsening.

 

[Amp34]

For those complaining about China and India perhaps you should actually look at the facts...

Aside from the huge effort China is making to reduce its emissions totals, including investing more in renewables than almost any country, forcing factories to reduce theirs with fines and prison sentences and trying to redistribute car usage to name 3. They also manylufacture much of the wests electronics and other consumables yet with all that they use emit half the carbon the UK does per capita.

China 4.9
India 1.4
UK 8.9

That means you are emitting, on average, twice the amount of carbon someone in China is and about 5 times more than someone in India.

Perhaps start to think about how you can reduce your carbon/pollution footprint before calling others out (who coincidentally use less than you). We in the west use far more than people in the east and Africa

Info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

 

[Gilly]

I see the usual Watermelons are frothing at the mouth treating the elixir of life on earth, CO2, as a pollutant.
Still falling for the scam and wondering why other people have not.
At what point will you question what you have been preached ?
The fabled hockey stick graph is discredited, along with Mr Gore`s film [uk court rules it has to be accompanied with a book of corrections when trying to brainwash school children], along with the CRU lot who happened to of lost their original data, maybe the dog ate it? [you couldn't make it up].
For over half the time that we have been measuring with satellite`s [non adjusted and empirical], global mean temperatures have been flat despite rising CO2 [it has been higher in the past and not caused runaway warming].
Models did not see that coming did they? , they cant even hindcast.
Looks like you are just waiting for another large el nino like 98 or the sun doing you a favour to buy yourselves another few years, meanwhile claim the heat is hiding lol.
The scam is nearing its end as economic reality dawns and exit strategies are drawn up.
The deluded watermelons will just move on to the next made up scary thing, thought up by the great and the good to make money and gain more control over us [my moneys on overpopulation or water shortage].
Pollution is best left to richer economies to deal with, as they always have done , going back to the stone age is not viable and breaking our economy and holding back emerging ones will be bad for the environment.
New forms of energy will emerge because of need, effectiveness and efficiency , not by subsidies given to green investors to distort the market for political reasons[make your friends rich].
Mainstream science is broken, bought by politicians and skewed by vested interests.
In the future this period of science will be looked on as the most recent of the dark ages.
Before anybody calls me out, please don't reply unless you have some non adjusted empirical evidence to show me how high you think the atmosphere is sensitive to CO2.
I do not agree with the" its better than doing nothing brigade" either, just adapt as best we can, do not prolong poverty ,that costs lives.
To worry about climate change is akin to worrying about space collapsing,
there is nothing we can do about it, it changes regardless of us, I can warm the climate more by ***** into the wind more than I can by driving to work.

Fully star your swear words

Gilly

Whole post smacks of 'I don't like it so I deny it'.

 

[Castiel]

I don't get where your figures come from and your logic is flawed.

The figures come straight from the links you supplied, you simply are not reading them..therefore it is your logic that is flawed as it's based on assumptions that things like Road Transport is limited to personal private cars when it is not, the links you provided clearly show the breakdowns of these figures and it clearly illustrates the 13% (of total GHG output in the UK...fig1.11 in your statistics) for Cars and Taxis figures I gave. Private Car use accounts for 10% of total GHG UK output (fig 1.12)...which is lower than business, industrial output (which is by far the highest, you seem not to realise that total industrial output includes power generation, commercial transport and various other overlapping statistics directly attributable to industry) and residential output. Again, this is all supported by the very statistics you supplied..you just need to actually read them properly rather than selectively. (And wrongly in many cases, such as total transport isn't 25%, you seem to have rounded that figure up, as the statistics state 20% for all domestic transport inc air, rail and road)

Please read the stuff you post before making assumptions would be the lesson for you today.

And if Britain cannot impose restrictions on China or any other foreign nation therefore global figures are irrelevant, why are you predominantly relying on EPA sources relations to the United States, which we have no control over either...and none of this changes the fact that owning a classic car long term is actually more green than owning a fuel efficient car that you change regularly.

 

[D.P.]

The figures come straight from the links you supplied, you simply are not reading them..therefore it is your logic that is flawed as it's based on assumptions that things like Road Transport is limited to personal private cars when it is not, the links you provided clearly show the breakdowns of these figures and it clearly illustrates the 13% (of total GHG output in the UK...fig1.11 in your statistics) for Cars and Taxis figures I gave. Private Car use accounts for 10% of total GHG UK output (fig 1.12)...which is lower than business, industrial output (which is by far the highest, you seem not to realise that total industrial output includes power generation, commercial transport and various other overlapping statistics directly attributable to industry) and residential output. Again, this is all supported by the very statistics you supplied..you just need to actually read them properly rather than selectively. (And wrongly in many cases, such as total transport isn't 25%, you seem to have rounded that figure up, as the statistics state 20% for all domestic transport inc air, rail and road)

Please read the stuff you post before making assumptions would be the lesson for you today.

And if Britain cannot impose restrictions on China or any other foreign nation therefore global figures are irrelevant, why are you predominantly relying on EPA sources relations to the United States, which we have no control over either...and none of this changes the fact that owning a classic car long term is actually more green than owning a fuel efficient car that you change regularly.

I never said just driving cars, the 90% figure is for all road users, be that trucks, taxis, busses or cars. The 25-35% CO2 by transport is clearly seen on the links I have you, and other links I read but did not post.


I included US EPA figures because they are readily available and are used to show that in rich developed countries where we have the luxury of owning cars CO2 output is much higher for transportation than industry.


You seem to be nit picking through details and denying the obvious facts simply because you can't face the truth that combustion engines create significant and damaging g levels of GHGs and other pollution.

 

[Castiel]

I never said just driving cars, the 90% figure is for all road users, be that trucks, taxis, busses or cars. The 25-35% CO2 by transport is clearly seen on the links I have you, and other links I read but did not post.

All the statistics I used come directly from the links you posted. I did nothing more than read them. The UK Statistics clearly show that your figures are inflated as the actual statistical analysis you posted does not reflect the figures you are quoting.

I included US EPA figures because they are readily available and are used to show that in rich developed countries where we have the luxury of owning cars CO2 output is much higher for transportation than industry.

Again, the figures do not support that private car ownership (or indeed total transport) is greater than the total contribution of Industry, which is what you said..the statistics you posted actually say the opposite, just one aspect of industry (power generation) exceeds transport use for example, not to mention that the 90% figure for road transport you used includes 29% from industrial and commercial sources not including public transport. The EPA figures also do not support the conclusions you are drawing from them.

You seem to be nit picking through details and denying the obvious facts simply because you can't face the truth that combustion engines create significant and damaging g levels of GHGs and other pollution.

You are selectively choosing statistics to support an opposition that the analysis doesn't support. The analysis clearly shows the figures I gave and the flawed interpretation of the ones you say support the position you are keen to advocate.

The obvious fact is that owning a classic car is not reason enough to vilify or judge someone as regards the efficacy of his co2 footprint when compared to other sources and the overall impact he and those like him may have in those comparisons.

I am also not denying that Vehicles produce GHGs, only that your assertions as regards the ownership of a Classic Car are flawed..so you can set that strawman to rest before you fall over it.

 

[D.P.]

You seem to have difficulty understanding the most basic facts:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...enhouse_Gas_Emissions_Provisional_Figures.pdf

Page 10
2013 Co2 emissions for transportation 116.7
2013 co2 total 464.3
116.7/464.3 = 25.13%

Are you denying this simple arithmetic or the figures themselves?
I mentioned CO2, because transportation has a significant CO2 footprint but other GHG emissions from combustion engines are low.


You seem not to be able to understand the key information.
Of the total CO2 released in the UK 25% was from all forms of transportation. 90% of that was from ALL road transportation (including buses, trucks, cars and everything else that uses roads, including some industrial usage). Of the total GHG emissions (CO2 + methane + others), this figure is around 21-22% ( link1 page 10 has the 2012 % breakdowns, in 2013 transportation had a slightly higher output link2 )

OF the CO2 produced, 25% is from transport, of all GHG CO2 from transportation is 20%. The total GHG from transportation is marginally higher at 21%. That 20% figure for CO2 does not mean that transportation is responsible for 20% of all CO2, but 20% of all GHG, the percnatge of CO2 is 25% as shown in the detailed breakdown (link1 page 9).

In 2012, for the total GHG emissions including CO2 and methane, the percentage breakdown is as follows:
Energy: 35%
Transport 21% (but of the CO2 produced, 25% is from transport, of all GHG CO2 form transportation is 20%)
Business 15%
Residential: 13%
Agriculture 10%
Waste management: 4%
Industrial Process : 2%
Public 2%



Importantly, CO2 accounted for 82% of all GHG emissions. Co2 gets the most focus because the atmospheric half-life is in the order of 100 years. methane is an important component but its half life is only 12 years
http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm...d=0&subtop=342&lv=list.listByChapter&r=239797

Therefore if we don't focus on cutting Co2 immediately the problem will be compounded in future generations and take hundreds and hundreds of years to rectify



Lastly you seem to be trying to lump energy production into industrial output to make the emissions from transportation look small, for no other purpose but to support your own ideology that road transportation is harmless.


The facts and figures speak for them selves, quite clearly the UK has to reduce GHG emissions from energy production, transportation, industry and residential usage, and across the whole spectrum. Transportation is a significant part of the equation, which is precisely why the UK, US, EU and most developed countries are taking strong steps to reduce transportation pollution.

As much as people complain at US gas guzzlers the US have introducted very strict fuel economy goals, the CAFE standards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy
by 2017 the average fuel economy for a standard car will need to be 40MPG (US, equivalent to 48MPG UK/imperial gallon)

 

[Castiel]

You seem to have difficulty understanding the most basic facts:

Unfortunately I understand the statistics just fine, which is why I know you are massaging them in order to make them fit your position. For example (table 3 of the statistics you have now supplied) the actual CO2 figures for Transport are 20% and not the 25% you claim, can you not read them? the very table you link to to justify your claims of 25% actually states that Transport produced 20% of the CO2 and 21% of the GHG total.




And unfortunately for your argument Energy Production is an integral part of the industrial contributions, whether you like it or not power plants etc are indeed Industrial in nature, just because an analysis differentiates doesn't mean they are not..if you want to remove them from your argument go ahead, but you must then remove everything relating to Transport that is not directly attributable to private car ownership in order to be consistent...and as your oft repeated figures show, private car ownership only counts for 10% of overall GHG contributions in the UK and Classic Car ownership will undoubtedly only be a fraction of that 10%. Therefore my point that vilifying the Classic Car owner simply because he owns a classic car is both pointless and unfair, particularly as over its lifetime that Classic Car would have been far more environmentally friendly than if their owner(s) has changed their car every 3 years or so for a newer more efficient model (for example a Prius uses the energy equivalent of 1000 gallons of Petrol in its production alone, so it begins with a 45k mile deficit before it even rolls off the forecourt). That is the point I was making, not that all road transport is producing fresh air and will cure the planet as your strawman nonsense would like to imply. You talk about not understanding basic facts when you clearly cannot even understand a basic paragraph.

And like I said, your strawman that I think Transport is harmless is laughable which along with totally ignoring what I actually said and inventing your own argument just underlines the desperate nature of your continued contributions that you have to resort to such just to appear correct. Just to remind you of what I actually said, as you seem to have forgotten, or didn't understand with the part in bold showing you the collective nature of the context rather than your sweeping conjecture:

Somehow I don't think his classic car is the main cause of climate change, or even a big part of it...alarmist nonsense. What his point states is that people in power ignore the real polluters such as the huge chemical factories, mining operations, new coal burning power stations, air travel, deforestation, intensive unsustainable farming and so on, instead focusing on the private individual and his classic car he probably drives once a week...and which has little discernible impact compared to corporate and industrial polluters.

The facts are in the statistics and they say exactly what I have pointed out, without equivocation or bias. Which is more than can be said for your position.

 

[D.P.]

You still don't understand how that table is formed.


Out of all the different GHGs for all sources, CO2 from transportation accounts for 20%




In the table you have highlighted if you add up all the percentages in the CO2 column you don't get 100%, because of all GHG, CO2 accounts for only 82%. Take 82% of the 25% CO2 by transportation gives the 20% figure.

The table is confusing, you mustn't mix up CO2 and total GHG figures. Sadly there is no table of percentages for only CO2, instead they give the raw numbers, I am going to post this one more time:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...enhouse_Gas_Emissions_Provisional_Figures.pdf

Page 10
2013 CO2 emissions for transportation 116.7
2013 CO2 total 464.3
116.7/464.3 = 25.13%


That is an undeniable fact, given in the tables I gave you. Transportation, including industrial transportation, outputs 25% of all of the UK's CO2 emissions. However, this is only 20% of all UK GHG emissions
When considering ONLY CO2 form all sources, transportation accounts for 25%

 

[Castiel]

Out of all the different GHGs for all sources, CO2 from transportation accounts for 20%

Ok, I See where you are coming from, you are referring to CO2 only rather than the GHGs that I have been referring to from the outset (why?)... even if we accept that figure, and totally ignore that Private Car ownership accounts for only 10% of the total output of GHGs (and 13% of CO2), how does that actually alter the fact that Classic Car ownership is in fact better environmentally than buying a new fuel efficient car such as a Prius? and that given the impact of such, that governments should be concentrating on the bigger polluters such as those I mentioned instead of targeting someone who owns a classic car. Given the figures surely the idea would be to encourage people to buy second hand cars rather than new ones given the energy deficits incurred in car production?

Figures I have found show that co2 from All Transport in the UK is 24.3%....

One other thing to mention is that why are Governments encouraging more new car ownership while cutting bus services, increasing train costs, reducing subsidies to bus and rail services, and not investing in the lower CO2 (per passenger) public transport options while encouraging people to give up their old cars in favour of buying new fuel efficient cars which are more environmentally damaging than buying a used car y offering tax breaks and so on. The Government are actually operating the opposite policy to what is actually needed. Again, this supports what I said at the outset about the chap and his old car...we should be thanking him.

 

[Tefal]

For those complaining about China and India perhaps you should actually look at the facts...

Aside from the huge effort China is making to reduce its emissions totals, including investing more in renewables than almost any country, forcing factories to reduce theirs with fines and prison sentences and trying to redistribute car usage to name 3. They also manylufacture much of the wests electronics and other consumables yet with all that they use emit half the carbon the UK does per capita.

China 4.9
India 1.4
UK 8.9

That means you are emitting, on average, twice the amount of carbon someone in China is and about 5 times more than someone in India.

Perhaps start to think about how you can reduce your carbon/pollution footprint before calling others out (who coincidentally use less than you). We in the west use far more than people in the east and Africa

Info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

given the mass dumping of chemicals/waste from factories etc in china and vast pollution in general in India and china

just how re;liable do you think those self reported Co2 figures are?

 

[D.P.]

Ok, I See where you are coming from, you are referring to CO2 only rather than the GHGs that I have been referring to from the outset (why?)... even if we accept that figure, and totally ignore that Private Car ownership accounts for only 10% of the total output of GHGs, how does that actually alter the fact that Classic Car ownership is in fact better environmentally than buying a new fuel efficient car such as a Prius? and that given the impact of such, that governments should be concentrating on the bigger polluters such as those I mentioned instead of targeting someone who owns a classic car. Given the figures surely the idea would be to encourage people to buy second hand cars rather than new ones given the energy deficits incurred in car production?

Figures I have found show that co2 from All Transport in the UK is 24.3%....

One other thing to mention is that why are Governments encouraging more new car ownership while cutting bus services, increasing train costs, reducing subsidies to bus and rail services, and not investing in the lower (per passenger) public transport options while encouraging people to give up their new cars in favour of other modes of travel and/or buying used cars which are more environmentally friendly than buying a newer more efficient car?

I have always been presenting the CO2 figures, you have been chopping and changing to make it seem that transportation is less of an offender.

The reason that CO2 is the main GHG of concern is because CO2 has an atmospheric half life of 100-200 years. Methane has a half life of 8-12, and we pollute much less methane into the atmosphere. Therefore over time methane will relatively quickly be eliminated via natural processes while CO2 will be in the atmosphere for hundreds of years to come.



Now you second point is also wrong:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/aug/17/car-scrap-energy-efficiency

It is on average better for the environment to buy a new Prius than a continuing to run an old car. Obviously it all depends how much you drive, how long the second hand car would last, and relative economies. But it is clear, the CO2 savings from driving a new hybrid car far outweigh the manufacturing emissions after a few years of driving the national average.

Which is exactly why western government have given subsidies and support for such purchases.

And that is only with hybrid cars. Fully Electric cars obviously have a far lower CO2 footprint than even hybrid, especially when green energy can be used to charge them

 

[Castiel]

I have always been presenting the CO2 figures, you have been chopping and changing to make it seem that transportation is less of an offender.

You have been misrepresenting throughout this entire thread, I was referring to Global Greenhouse Emission from the outset...and continue to do so, only refering to CO2 when necessitated by you. You began with stating that co2 production was 25-35% and we have now got to the point where it is barely 25% and nowhere near the 35%...and you have still ignored what I actually said in order to make private car ownership more of an offender than it actually is and ignoing the context of my original post. You also underestimate the impact of other GHGs such as Methane and Nitrous Oxide, given their greater relative impact on Global Warming. (CH4 is 21 times as potent as Co2 and N20 is 300 times as potent, over a 100 year time-scale) Also you claim a half-life for CO2 which the EPA say is poorly defined due to the nature of CO2.

*Carbon dioxide's lifetime is poorly defined because the gas is not destroyed over time, but instead moves among different parts of the ocean–atmosphere–land system. Some of the excess carbon dioxide will be absorbed quickly (for example, by the ocean surface), but some will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, due in part to the very slow process by which carbon is transferred to ocean sediments.

so another misrepresentation.

Now you second point is also wrong:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/aug/17/car-scrap-energy-efficiency

well it seems then that is somewhat arguable as well....

http://www.wired.com/2008/05/the-ultimate-pr/

Given that you would have to drive well over 100,000 miles in a Prius in order to for it to begin to be in a the green so to speak as opposed to a similar class used car (depending on the car of course) I think that the argument for buying a hybrid every three to five years as opposed to owning a classic car is somewhat untenable as you would have to own the Prius at least 7 years before seeing the benefit as opposed to a used conventional car. The benefit is only apparent with equal long term ownership, which is not what I said, so again you misrepresent what I said in order to create an argument.

Also Electric Cars are not a tenable option for most people, as they cannot easily be charged away from home and we also have the energy and production costs associated with that charging to consider, particularly if it is electricity produced by coal power stations as that would make the used car more environmentally friendly.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sc...-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits2.htm

 

[Amp34]

given the mass dumping of chemicals/waste from factories etc in china and vast pollution in general in India and china

just how re;liable do you think those self reported Co2 figures are?

Fairly, considering each of those countries have over a billion people, the vast majority living significantly less carbon intense lives than us.

Yes, there are some nasty factories in China and India. China itself is cracking down significantly on those within its borders, unfortunately they have far more than us due to the size of the country and population (not to mention they manufacture vast amounts for you and me...) so overall production is obviously going to be much higher.

The point still stands that we as individuals in the west produce far more CO2 than people in China, even when factories are factored in, so the idea there is no point in us reducing our consumption (which would incidentally affect the emissions in China....) is a fallacy. Don't recycle or try and reduce your carbon footprint if you want, just don't suggest you've taken a "measured" decision because "it isn't going to make any difference". If we all produced as "much" CO2 per capita as the Chinese or Indians we wouldnt be in this mess in the first place!

Note I haven't mentioned India much as I don't actually know much about their environmental policy. China on the other hand is very pro carbon/pollution reduction and has very strict rules regarding it (admittedly many fairly recently introduced), the biggest problem they have is corruption which makes policing them difficult. Something the government is also taking seriously.

 

[ShakenNstirred]

Lol it's pointless trying to cut back when the majority of the world will continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere anyway, especially developing countries.

^^^^
unless the whole world signs up to reduce it, nothing will change

 

[Eurofighter]

I wouldn't worry about cars, they will be electric in a decade or so.

Electricity generation is something we can tackle, the Government have delayed Nuclear power for so long now that there isn't enough time to build them. They have also allowed Fracking. Power generation in the UK is moving away from coal and towards gas, but really Nuclear is the better solution.

 

[D.P.]

You have been misrepresenting throughout this entire thread, I was referring to Global Greenhouse Emission from the outset...and continue to do so, only refering to CO2 when necessitated by you. You began with stating that co2 production was 25-35% and we have now got to the point where it is barely 25% and nowhere near the 35%...and you have still ignored what I actually said in order to make private car ownership more of an offender than it actually is and ignoing the context of my original post. You also underestimate the impact of other GHGs such as Methane and Nitrous Oxide, given their greater relative impact on Global Warming. (CH4 is 21 times as potent as Co2 and N20 is 300 times as potent, over a 100 year time-scale) Also you claim a half-life for CO2 which the EPA say is poorly defined due to the nature of CO2.



so another misrepresentation.




well it seems then that is somewhat arguable as well....

http://www.wired.com/2008/05/the-ultimate-pr/

Given that you would have to drive well over 100,000 miles in a Prius in order to for it to begin to be in a the green so to speak as opposed to a similar class used car (depending on the car of course) I think that the argument for buying a hybrid every three to five years as opposed to owning a classic car is somewhat untenable as you would have to own the Prius at least 7 years before seeing the benefit as opposed to a used conventional car. The benefit is only apparent with equal long term ownership, which is not what I said, so again you misrepresent what I said in order to create an argument.

Also Electric Cars are not a tenable option for most people, as they cannot easily be charged away from home and we also have the energy and production costs associated with that charging to consider, particularly if it is electricity produced by coal power stations as that would make the used car more environmentally friendly.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sc...-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits2.htm

You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing it is quite sad.
I've proven that Co2 commissions in the UK are sourced 25% form transportation
I have proven that CO2 emissions form transportation in the US is 32%
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html



http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/weiss_otr2020.pdf

75% of the life time carbon footprint of a new car comes form the fuel it uses, and another 19% comes from manufacturing of that fuel to begin with. so 94% of a the lifetime carbon footprint comes from fueling it. 6% is used in manufacturing. If a new car is 6% more fuel efficient then it will save GHG emissions compared to using an old car then there will be a net saving in CO2 output.


And even if you believed the necessary 100K miles requires, which is completely bogus, the hybrid would still have an advantage. The Prius is almost certainly going to drive a 100K, an old car with miles on the clock on average is less likely to last that 100K.

What ultimately maters is the difference in fuel economy and the miles driven. Since on average the CO2 output form a new car production is such a small percentage of the total CO2 output, even modest differences in avergae MPG can make for significant reductions.






But I fully expect you to distort the truth and go hunting for your own evidence to support your agenda

 

[Castiel]

You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing it is quite sad.

I find it ironic to be honest that you feel the need to distort the position I stated in order to avoid the question I asked you. It seems you are fond of being selective in your discussions and that you are cherry picking, slipping between the UK and US datasets and dismissing anything that doesn't comply with your particular bias in order to obfuscate the question itself and that is without even touching on the efficacy of those datasets to begin with. Your post here illustrates that in the way you apply one criteria to the vehicle you are attempting to defend, while applying a different criteria to one you are attempting to discredit while completely ignoring the original point made as regards the emphasis on the individual over the larger contributors. I have used the evidence you supplied for the most part and so your last little comment is also pretty laughable.

In any case, however you wish to present it, you have failed to convince me and if you can't convince little old eco-friendly me there appears no further necessity to continue in your misrepresentation. Enjoy the rest of your evening.