Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 24
By johnm
#1693304
100poundburger wrote:Did anyone see the newspaper story recently regarding the pollution ( atmospheric and into the sea) that is generated by large ships...the figures quoted
were unbelievable...why do the environmentalists not seem to be interested in this...


Some are, but most only go after the fashionable things that actively involve consumers. There is some sense in this because if individuals begin to control their impact that has widespread implications. We should be able to rely on governments to support that as well as address the less obvious issues that science shows up.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1693344
mo0g wrote:There was me thinking the impending environmental catastrophe was not related to CO2 (for which our government is already a long way down the road to getting us carbon neutral)? That's all very noughties zeitgeist when Brown gave us all massive incentives to buy diesel cars. The villains today are N20 and methane, are they not?


Depends. If you think the world is going to end in 20 years then the problem is CO2, and a little bit of local pollution is small fry in comparison.

If you think that what will happen is just a few more storms, a few people on the coast having to move, etc, and it's not worth killing a few thousand people with extra air pollution then you concentrate on the latter.

All this while edging towards eliminating both of course.

As for boats and things, there was a huge campaign a couple of years ago for us all to buy locally. I think this faded away when everyone realised that 90% of what we buy is made in the far east and unavailable more locally.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1693348
Paul_Sengupta wrote:I think this faded away when everyone realised that 90% of what we buy is made in the far east and unavailable more locally.

Now then, if we all moved to the far east so we could by locally would the carbon footprint of immigrating be greater than the footprint of transporting our goods? :D

It's all getting a bit silly to me, there's no point in unnecessarily polluting our planet, that's akin to sh*!?)g on one's doorstep. However there appears to be a risk of getting carried away with ourselves and causing unnecessary inconvenience/hardship now for little future gain.

After all it will ALL end sometime. :shock: :lol:
User avatar
By mo0g
#1693357
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
mo0g wrote:There was me thinking the impending environmental catastrophe was not related to CO2 (for which our government is already a long way down the road to getting us carbon neutral)? That's all very noughties zeitgeist when Brown gave us all massive incentives to buy diesel cars. The villains today are N20 and methane, are they not?


Depends. If you think the world is going to end in 20 years then the problem is CO2, and a little bit of local pollution is small fry in comparison.

If you think that what will happen is just a few more storms, a few people on the coast having to move, etc, and it's not worth killing a few thousand people with extra air pollution then you concentrate on the latter.

All this while edging towards eliminating both of course.

As for boats and things, there was a huge campaign a couple of years ago for us all to buy locally. I think this faded away when everyone realised that 90% of what we buy is made in the far east and unavailable more locally.


I'm not sure I understand, I thought the threat of extinction was related to greenhouse gases? N2O and methane are both greenhouse gases. In 2017 the % of greenhouse gas emissions was 82% CO2, 10% Methane and 6% N2O.

That would make it seem CO2 was still the main problem, except that methane is approx 32x more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and N2O is approx 280x more effective.

As I said, the idea that greenhouse gas problem = CO2 is all very noughties.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1693361
Indeed, but the focus on diesel cars and oxides of nitrogen isn't to do with global warming, it's to do with local pollution and respiratory diseases. This is why it's a city centre issue rather than a global problem.

There's still a focus on methane and eating less red meat...
User avatar
By PaulB
#1693365
I saw something yesterday that suggested that rather than a few people doing a lot, we need millions making small changes. It's not just greenhouse gases but plastics too. (Did you see the news item yesterday about a plastic bag been found at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the world's deepest sea?)

Is there a site where you can work out your own carbon foot print and easily see what personal changes would do to it?

Interesting pie chart about proportions of Greenhouse gases here (albeit US data)

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overvi ... ouse-gases

and their relative "potencies" (for want of a better word) - the phrase is "Global warming Potential" (GWP)

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/unders ... potentials

CO2 is 1,
CH4 is 28-36 over 100yrs
N2O is 265-298 over 10 years
User avatar
By kanga
#1697104
Pete L wrote:Surprised they haven't thought about it for the Trump visit.


<idle musing> .. I wonder if the Presidential cars ('Beasts') meet the requirements of London's Ultra Low Emission Zone .. :wink:

[But IIRC the US Embassy is the only diplomatic mission in London which refuses to pay the Congestion Charge on its official and its staff's and their families' private vehicles, claiming the charge is a 'tax' from which diplomats are exempt not a 'fee for service' from which they are not ..]

</>
User avatar
By PaulB
#1697106
Do some of the African states refuse also.... Nigeria springs to mind?
By Robin500
#1697109
I bet they are in meltdown about the Champions league final in Madrid tonight and the environmental impact this 1 match will be having.

An estimated 60k people from the UK travelling there, and with the extra flights laid on, 9k flights departed the UK yesterday alone. Those are the beeb’s figures.
User avatar
By OCB
#1697930
Robin500 wrote:I bet they are in meltdown about the Champions league final in Madrid tonight and the environmental impact this 1 match will be having.

An estimated 60k people from the UK travelling there, and with the extra flights laid on, 9k flights departed the UK yesterday alone. Those are the beeb’s figures.


It’s been a mildly documented, but mainly ignored fact of modern life that “travelling sports” is an environment disaster. It’s not something I’ve ever done, or expect to do - but given that 6th of June is a coupe of days away, I prefer we send 10s of thousands to places that not long ago were on target lists, then on history papers.

“Peace through superior travel power” might not be the most eco friendly option, but I’d prefer that to most of the alternatives.
By MarkOlding
#1698417
Ahh but when you get to where you going its all eco friendly gravity that's needed - plus a bit of electricity to get you up in the first place.

Without crossing to the Neverendum thread, I found this interesting - "Brexit no impact on skiers' intentions but non skiers less confident."

Do you think its due to people who travel to Europe regularly realise that they are normal people after all......
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 24