c4countdown

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I suggest the book "Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air", by David MacKay ...
Best of all, you can read it for free at withouthotair.com. And it's quite funny.

I've downloaded it and printed it off. Probably won't get time to read it though.

I downloaded it and started printing it, thinking it would make good combustible material for the fire, but frustratingly the printer ran out of ink halfway through.

Nevertheless, I hope you still switched the printer off afterwards.

I don't have a view.

Are wind farms a good thing? You'd think it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with an objective measurement of tangible cost and benefits over their lifetime, even if you then had to weigh them against intangibles such as impact on scenery, but all you get is people who think they look nice and people who don't, and people who've already decided one way or the other quoting research that supports their point of view.

How far is it worth driving to recycle a bottle? I've heard of people so keen they drive thirty miles with a few bits of plastic in the boot. Obviously they're misguided at least, but where do you draw the line? The only answer you'll ever get is that you shouldn't make a special journey. Is that genuine? If so, the benefit must be greater than the cost of the extra petrol you consume because of the extra weight, but once you get to Tescos you mustn't drive to the bins at the far end of the car park, you have to carry the bottle over.

Suppose I walk to the newsagent every day instead of using the car. I'm not looking to lose weight, so I'm going to eat more. Every calorie I burn up in exercise will take ten calories to produce the additional food. Then you have to factor in a proportion of the methane produced by the cow that produces the leather for the shoes I wear out. Better to use the rather more efficient car?

Give me some advice based on all the evidence, that I can't find holes in. Then I'll have a view.

We could do with some global warming up here. It's like a nuclear winter for the next 4 months.

Martin Bishop wrote:solar panels wasting energy

Well they're pretty inefficient at the moment, and it's entirely feasible that manufacturing uses more energy than they provide, certainly in the short term.

Martin Bishop wrote:water vapour being the main greenhouse gas

I didn't think that was ever in dispute.

Martin Bishop wrote:global temperatures are no longer rising

This is what we call "weather". There's more to the global system than long-term climate change, there are short and medium-term fluctuations such as El Niño, the Southern (?) Atlantic Oscillation, the Gulf Stream and various other atmospheric and less-understood ocean current-related phenomena. Also, we're in one of the quietest periods of solar activity that there's been for quite a while, although it's too early to say whether we're entering a period that could compare with the Maunder Minimum, which from memory I believe correlated closely with the little ice age of the 18th century.

I think the real purpose of our being encouraged to recycle, unplug things, walk more, etc., is preparation for an otherwise difficult future, not the short-term benefits per se. The powers-that-be understand that we need to leave the unsustainable, wasteful, throw-away society behind and move instead into one where we value and appreciate our dwindling resources and would feel thoroughly ashamed to waste them. This requires a considerable cultural paradigm shift, which doesn't happen overnight. The necessary changes in the way we go about our daily lives must become part of our psyche and thus form our new view of 'normality'. It'll be another generation or two before we consider it wholly absurd to use a car for a trip to the local shop, but, once we do, we'll cope much better than if we carry on regardless and just wait for it all to go tits-up.

I have a theory about paper recycling which I can never get anyone to agree with, but I can't get anyone to explain what's logically wrong.

Theory - paper recycling is not just a waste of effort, it's counter productive. 2 reasons:

1. If someone in Sweden has a huge forest and is making money by selling the trees to make paper, he'll want to plant more trees and make more money. Wheras if too much paper gets recycled, he makes less money and tries to find something else to do with his land instead.

2. The atmosphere has too much carbon dioxide, caused by digging fossil fuels out of the ground and burning them. There's only a finite amount of carbon in the world, so if we filled these holes with paper, we'd surely reduce the amount of carbon available to turn into CO2? A similar sort of scheme, but nmuch easier, than these "CO2 burying" schemes that the government seems to like?

Any economists or scientists on board?

David Roe wrote:Any economists or scientists on board?

Not me, but common sense would seem to provide some relevant responses:

David Roe wrote:If someone in Sweden has a huge forest and is making money by selling the trees to make paper, he'll want to plant more trees and make more money. Wheras [sic] if too much paper gets recycled, he makes less money and tries to find something else to do with his land instead.

You would need to factor in the cost of transporting the wood (or the paper made from it) from Sweden to England, say, and also take into consideration the fact that it costs much more to make paper from trees than from waste paper. However, if we used more wood (and thus less concrete) in building, your Swedish guy could continue his business.

David Roe wrote:... if we filled these holes with paper ...

Until it decomposes and releases its CO2 through the ground.

David Roe wrote:I have a theory about paper recycling which I can never get anyone to agree with, but I can't get anyone to explain what's logically wrong.

Theory - paper recycling is not just a waste of effort, it's counter productive. 2 reasons:

1. If someone in Sweden has a huge forest and is making money by selling the trees to make paper, he'll want to plant more trees and make more money. Wheras if too much paper gets recycled, he makes less money and tries to find something else to do with his land instead.

2. The atmosphere has too much carbon dioxide, caused by digging fossil fuels out of the ground and burning them. There's only a finite amount of carbon in the world, so if we filled these holes with paper, we'd surely reduce the amount of carbon available to turn into CO2? A similar sort of scheme, but nmuch easier, than these "CO2 burying" schemes that the government seems to like?

Any economists or scientists on board?

Burying biomass is one of the many ideas under consideration for mitigation schemes - the scientists got there already

They were more thinking of wood than paper though...

David Roe wrote: 1. If someone in Sweden has a huge forest and is making money by selling the trees to make paper, he'll want to plant more trees and make more money.

The problem is that such businesses are extremely short-termist. A similar situation existed with the hunting of elephants to almost-extinction, which is obviously is not in the interests of anyone who wants to run a shooting safari. See Tragedy of the commons.

Biofuels are great!

Okay, maybe not.

^
Excellent

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I suggest the book "Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air", by David MacKay ...
Best of all, you can read it for free at withouthotair.com. And it's quite funny.

I've downloaded it and printed it off. Probably won't get time to read it though.

I downloaded it and started printing it, thinking it would make good combustible material for the fire, but frustratingly the printer ran out of ink halfway through.

I downloaded it and started to print it then it run out of ink then I dropped toner on the floor and walked through it and made a mess on the new cream carpet
Not happy with my carbon footprint

Meakin - you're on a roll. (also defined as an open sandwich)

At the start of the second World war, Lord Beaverbrook was made Minister of production. (I think I've remembered correctly). He appealed for aluminium household goods because we needed to build Spitfires. All over the land, house Wives emptied their cupboards of saucepans etc, which resulted in thousands of tons of aluminium stock piles. Beaverbrook was asked if his appeal solved the problem for building Spitfires. He replied "not really, we didn't need it,we were already stuffed with enough aluminium. What we needed to do, was to instill in the minds of the population, a sense of urgency into the war effort, and it worked." I kid you not, the Government was quite willing to rob the people with their propaganda.

Is the same thing happening today, with their threats of Global warming caused by Mrs Jenkins turning the gas on to make a cup of tea. Was it my fault that Global warming commenced when the last ice age started to melt along the equator and has been melting back ever since, and that was before mass populations. I have noticed that things that I must do to prevent Global warning, does not apply to the Government or the ruling classes. (I couldn't avoid that cliche, but I know my place). I personally ignore all propaganda about Global warning, but live normally without waste, and that is only to save myself money. So there!

Probably a coincidence.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Probably a coincidence.

I think I know what you are saying Charlie, but I wasn't denying Global warming, and I fear for the future for our future Generations. My complaint is that I'm being blamed for it by using a 100w light bulb instead of a 60w, thereby destroying life on Earth as we know it. And this while the U.S.A. is going full blast with their industry, ignoring Global warming. The last I heard was that they refused to sign up with the European agreement against Global warning. I stand corrected if they've signed up since then. Then India, where most of our patriotic manufacturers have located their factories, where cheap labour and higher profits are guaranteed. I don't think that air pollution is high on their priorities. Then China, where in the industrial Cities, every pedestrian, cyclist, car and lorry driver wore a mask, because the industrial smog was so thick. I assume that a lot of other countries do the same. So I join in. I don't bother to save the Planet by turning down the heating thermostat. We are warm day and night, and because ours eyes are growing dim, we like plenty of light. Incidentally, I wanted to buy a masonry drill. I stipulated one not made in China, because I've already got plenty of those. Every one with the bit worn away before I'd drilled deep enough. I found one made in Germany. Perfect. It's such a pity that I can't find one made in dear old England.

George Jenkins wrote:Incidentally, I wanted to buy a masonry drill. I stipulated one not made in China, because I've already got plenty of those. Every one with the bit worn away before I'd drilled deep enough. I found one made in Germany. Perfect. It's such a pity that I can't find one made in dear old England.

One for the What gets your goat(down)? topic, maybe.

Alec Rivers wrote:

George Jenkins wrote:Incidentally, I wanted to buy a masonry drill. I stipulated one not made in China, because I've already got plenty of those. Every one with the bit worn away before I'd drilled deep enough. I found one made in Germany. Perfect. It's such a pity that I can't find one made in dear old England.

One for the What gets your goat(down)? topic, maybe.

You're right Alec, I've missed having a good rant about Chinese junk flooding our shops, and killing us at the same time with their pollution.

George Jenkins wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:

George Jenkins wrote:Incidentally, I wanted to buy a masonry drill. I stipulated one not made in China, because I've already got plenty of those. Every one with the bit worn away before I'd drilled deep enough. I found one made in Germany. Perfect. It's such a pity that I can't find one made in dear old England.

One for the What gets your goat(down)? topic, maybe.

You're right Alec, I've missed having a good rant about Chinese junk flooding our shops, and killing us at the same time with their pollution.

I read somewhere that large container ships full of said junk arrive at English ports before Xmas, then leave after Xmas full of the resultant plastic waste which they dump in their landfills (because that's cheaper for us). This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Alec Rivers wrote:I read somewhere that large container ships full of said junk arrive at English ports before Xmas, then leave after Xmas full of the resultant plastic waste which they dump in their landfills (because that's cheaper for us). This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Nice story Alec, but I doubt very much whether there's any truth in it, mainly because the containers of Xmas tat really need to be in the country well before December. The big distributors tend to have everything landed by the previous April or May (end of July at the very latest) to give themselves a chance of selling the stuff on.

JimBentley wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:I read somewhere that large container ships full of said junk arrive at English ports before Xmas, then leave after Xmas full of the resultant plastic waste which they dump in their landfills (because that's cheaper for us). This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Nice story Alec, but I doubt very much whether there's any truth in it, mainly because the containers of Xmas tat really need to be in the country well before December. The big distributors tend to have everything landed by the previous April or May (end of July at the very latest) to give themselves a chance of selling the stuff on.

Timescale was incorrect, but the practice definitely happens.

JimBentley wrote:the containers of Xmas tat really need to be in the country well before December

Reminds me of a hand-scrawled sign I saw outside a Leamington newsagent's this week: "DISCOUNT XMAS CARDS BY NOEL TATT".