How we can stop global warming

Discussion in 'Green Business' started by Devvert, Jan 29, 2011.

  1. utilitiessavings

    utilitiessavings UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    79 10
    I have to say it's rather nice to see some educated voices popping up on the 'denier' side of the debate for once. It's so easy to scream "WE NEED TO SAVE THE PLANET!!" to make yourself feel good.

    Obviously as I am in the business of energy I am on neither side of the debate, ahem... but I will say to anyone who wants to learn about 'climate change', to go to and also check out the 35 errors in An Inconvenient Truth - a film made by a politician that shortly after he said the seas would rise by 6 meters, bought a house 10 meters from the shore. :rolleyes:
    Posted: Mar 22, 2011 By: utilitiessavings Member since: Aug 3, 2010
  2. utilitiessavings

    utilitiessavings UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    79 10
    I just want to make sure I don't offend anyone with my first remark in my last post. If you think anthropogenic global warming is real, then no problem.

    I do have a problem with people who have done none of their own research on the subject and just regurgitate the rubbish they read in the papers.
    Posted: Mar 22, 2011 By: utilitiessavings Member since: Aug 3, 2010
  3. utilitiessavings

    utilitiessavings UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    79 10
    If you believe that then you are naive -

    Have a look at that in depth. Won so many awards that site.
    Posted: Mar 22, 2011 By: utilitiessavings Member since: Aug 3, 2010
  4. AdamJ

    AdamJ UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    775 170
    And with the inevitability of the moon circling the earth, more 4x4 craziness arrives:

    So do you also mean mum-favourites like the Renault Scenic, Vauhxall Zafira, various Citroens, Mazda 5, Ford C-Max, etc. as well as their bigger cousins like the S-Max, or just SUVs, despite most 4x4's being no bigger? Personally I'd ban evey car with a child-seat fitted from the road as that all to often that just says "I can't drive very well" to me, but that's just my own pet prejudice :)

    My neighbour has a new Mini and you definitely don't want to go to any public car park with him as he parks as far away from other cars as possible. The problem with getting a car accidentally scratched in a public car park isn't because an SUV is too big, its because most of the public are self-centred ********s who happily shove their doors open into other cars, or walk down the gap between two cars dangling handbags or shopping bags and don't care about scratching someone else's car.

    Rather than just looking to see if they've been green laning in it, maybe check to see if there is a towbar on the back? If you have a big caravan, trailer, etc. and want to reduce the risks when towing then a big SUV is the way to go. Car manufacturer's give somewhat fanciful and inflated safe towing weights, whereas What Car recommend 85% of the car's kerbweight, which rules out a lot of hatchbacks and estates for even mid-sized caravans, not that this stops people towing with them as they usually go on what the handbook says.

    As for the status symbol - really? A Kia Sorento or a Hyundai Santa Fe (two of the biggest selling 4x4s) are a status symbol? They're about as status-like as whipping out your Aldi loyalty card.

    No its not - that's nonsense. A lot of 4x4s are no more expensive to run or repair than many other cars. And anyone who buys a 4x4 just to "be safe" is a numpty idiot who should have their ability to choose their own car taken off them - size is not the ultimate factor in car safety. If its big but built like an iron bar its going to hurt when you crash, whereas if its small and crumples you may walk away.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2011
    Posted: Mar 22, 2011 By: AdamJ Member since: Oct 12, 2007
  5. utilitiessavings

    utilitiessavings UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    79 10
    It's just power on the road - you sit higher up, feel safer, and you can ram other drivers out of the way when you are bigger than them.

    Basically the car equivalent of being a rich bully.
    Posted: Mar 23, 2011 By: utilitiessavings Member since: Aug 3, 2010
  6. vvaannmmaann

    vvaannmmaann UKBF Legend Free Member

    13,109 3,369
    You've been to New Malden then?:)
    Posted: Mar 23, 2011 By: vvaannmmaann Member since: Nov 6, 2007
  7. AdamJ

    AdamJ UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    775 170
    What's price or being rich got to do with it? There is no link whatsoever between 4x4s and being rich or them having a high cost to buy and run.
    Posted: Mar 23, 2011 By: AdamJ Member since: Oct 12, 2007
  8. Digger

    Digger UKBF Regular Free Member

    290 40
    Without checking the figures - but you make a perhaps a valid point about SUV/ 4 X4 towing .
    As surely by taking their holibobs at home, they aren't sitting in a jet churning up the vast amounts of C02 nipping over to DisneyLand USA.

    This phoney war against the SUV is nothing more than envy - IMHO.

    I have kiddy seat in my car - not half as much fun for my baby as I had sliding up and down my dads old Zephyr's leather bench seat.

    Worlds gone soft
    Posted: Mar 24, 2011 By: Digger Member since: Jun 20, 2006
  9. Clement

    Clement UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    65 2
    no fart...............
    Posted: Mar 25, 2011 By: Clement Member since: Mar 17, 2011
  10. Eco-girl

    Eco-girl UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    16 2
    Thank you! Also the ones with the bars on the front don't give pedestrians a chance if they are hit by one. I seem to remember reading somewhere that bumpers were made to be around knee height for a reason?

    By the way, there are very few BIG cars with tow bars on that I've seen - mind you I am in Scotland so there aren't that many caravaners up here either :D too cold! Maybe with climate warming....................????
    Posted: Mar 25, 2011 By: Eco-girl Member since: Feb 13, 2011
  11. Merchant UK

    Merchant UK UKBF Ace Full Member - Verified Business

    2,419 592
    Great Idea,

    I've been trying so hard to get Electricity Banned in the UK as this will use up a lot of CO2, Couple with scrapping all road transport, i feel going back to the 17th century is the definate way to go :D
    Posted: Mar 27, 2011 By: Merchant UK Member since: Aug 15, 2010
  12. Merchant UK

    Merchant UK UKBF Ace Full Member - Verified Business

    2,419 592
    The thing is we can't save the rain forests because its in a different country and i guess an email from me ain't gonna make much difference. The problem is that people in these 3rd world countries hare having a tough time living in the present let alone worrying about the future.

    We should perhaps send come of our Council Inspectors and their fines book to south america and they can fine people for leaving their bin lids opens, all in the name of global warming :D

    This whole issue as gotten so much out of hand with the Government in the UK using the "Green" route to raise taxes and make money, its a wonder people are already getting fed up with the whole idea. Yes i guess deep down in our hearts we want to do something but not at the expense of raising revenue for the government who hardly spend anything on Global Warming because whatever we do in the UK is not even 0.1% of what the whole world could do. So what do we do??

    Wind Turbines cost a whopping 11 million quid each, Mostly paid by the tax payers, so did we get FREE Electric??? I think not, we give these Green grants to EDF who now own the bulk of UK windfarms and charge us the dearest electric in Europe

    And theres talk of putting up more of these non reliable windfarms. Someone is getting VERY RICH here and its not us the consumers. :mad:
    Posted: Mar 28, 2011 By: Merchant UK Member since: Aug 15, 2010
  13. skiesnpies

    skiesnpies UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    71 5
    Turbines are NOT paid for by the tax payer, where did you get that from? The developers fully fund them? And I have seen some for £3-4K :)

    Non reliable? The ones I have had personal involvement in have churned out stacks of electrickery.
    Posted: Mar 28, 2011 By: skiesnpies Member since: Jan 13, 2011
  14. Eco-girl

    Eco-girl UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    16 2
    I believe water turbines are more productive and more reliable - however you can't see them and companies do like to show off how 'green' they are being so tend to prefer the wind ones. I think the small wind turbines are fine for individuals if you want to go down that route but these massive ones are an eyesore :(
    Posted: Apr 1, 2011 By: Eco-girl Member since: Feb 13, 2011
  15. skiesnpies

    skiesnpies UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    71 5
    Small wind turbines can be very uneffective unfortunately - its one of those things where bigger works better.

    The eyesore is really very subjective, they certainly are less intrusive than cooling towers!
    Posted: Apr 1, 2011 By: skiesnpies Member since: Jan 13, 2011
  16. DJL King

    DJL King UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    6 0
    I agree with what wecandobiz says.
    I have done my own straw poll asking people if they know about the CO2 problem (they all have) and then I ask them - so what do you think the percentage of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere? They always look surprised, they had never considered it! This question has been asked of non-science professors, Cambridge undergraduates, aged relatives, yuppies, the man who did the MOT on my car, - you get the picture.
    Answers ranged from 5 to 80% when the answer is 0.04% - so low it's amazing plants can photosynthesise!
    There are many valid reasons to conserve resources but the real villains of global warming are water vapour (not much we can about that!) and methane hydrates in the ocean and under the permafrost. Not forgetting periodic changes in the sun's output! Water vapour has a weaker effect but there is so much of it, methane (according to New Scientist article) is now considered to be 35 times as effective in climate warming than CO2. So don't encourage milk, cheese, or meat production.......
    The pressure for ships to burn clean diesel seems to have gone away since it was realised that the sulphur dioxide generated by their cheapo high sulphur fuel has the opposite effect to carbon dioxide. But that causes acid rain.
    People generally and politicians in particular are so ignorant about science, mathematics and the concept of "base line probability" that they can be easily manipulated by vested interests.
    Control of societies is predicated on anxiety and guilt - real or imagined - generated by well-meaning but ignorant, cynical, or sociopathic zealots. But that's how any religion operates, isn't it?
    One last thing - after they realise the CO2 in the air they breathe is only 0.04%, what percentage is in exhaled breath? Again, crazy answers, but the right one is 4%. 100 times as much. So it should be easy for anyone to work out how far a car can go in a day and generate as much CO2 as you do just by breathing. And I am so old I must qualify as a fossil fuel.
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2011
    Posted: Apr 1, 2011 By: DJL King Member since: Mar 31, 2011
  17. skiesnpies

    skiesnpies UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    71 5
    In the same way as religion fails to point out many realities for its own purposes, the above post fails to mention several important facts and uses odd diversions.

    For example why is the amount of CO2 we breathe out in anyway relevant to the point made? Presumably because it then makes the atmospheric CO2 concentrations look very low and harmless - which is very very flawed logic.

    - CO2 levels are rising incredibly rapidly and not by trivial %'s- this is easily measured and not really disputed by anyone. They are at their highest level for hundreds of thousands of years, and have got to this level in little over 100 years.

    - While concentrations are low in comparison to O2 levels, CO2 is an insulating gas (provable in a school science lab) and increases in concentrations WILL increase temperatures - no doubt about that, the only question is about how much.

    - The idea that because Joe Public think there is a lot of CO2 and in reality there is only 0.04% therefore there isn't a problem is again very very odd logic. It all depends on what that 0.04% does, the quantity doesn't' matter, even if it was 0.00004% - if it causes a problem, it will still cause a problem whatever the public think.

    - While methane IS bad, it is short lived in the atmosphere, CO2 has less of a warming effect but hangs around for a long time so it shouldn't become sidelined by methane - both are bad.

    The idea that water vapour is the real villain ???? We would freeze to death without it??? Life on earth depends on it???

    We live in a delicate balance and of course there are many natural factors involved in our climate - in addition to the ones we add into the mix ourselves. But the existence of natural factors doesn't negate our own impacts, even if our own impacts may appear smaller. By FAR the majority of scientists believe we are dangerously impacting our own climate. By FAR the majority of climate change conspiracy theorists and cranks don't. Myself, I favour science.
    Posted: Apr 1, 2011 By: skiesnpies Member since: Jan 13, 2011
  18. harryhunk

    harryhunk UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1 0
    Global Warming is a dramatically urgent and big problem in present. We don't need to wait for governments to find a solution for this problem. Use eco-friendly products, environmental services, and renewable energy sources to reduce greenhouse emissions that cause Global Warming.
    Posted: Apr 1, 2011 By: harryhunk Member since: Apr 1, 2011
  19. Merchant UK

    Merchant UK UKBF Ace Full Member - Verified Business

    2,419 592
    Its gonna get worst and what do they compare it with?? The 17th century, do they compare it with the time before the industrial revolution?? Its a fact things like CO2 do increase, but so does the depenancy with living in the modern age. if we really wanted to stop Global warming we'd ban air travel, we'd ban containter ships burning "Bunker Fuel"

    Come on get real if we wanted to stop it we could. The fact remains that whilst the governments try and scare us they can keep taxing us.

    Just using recycled copier paper or turning your TV off as opposed to leaving it on standby is not going to make a spot of difference to whats happening in the world if countries like china, india and the US, and Russia have no interest in doing the same.

    Recycled stuff should be cheaper but in the UK its often dearer, so thats a no go ;)
    Posted: Apr 1, 2011 By: Merchant UK Member since: Aug 15, 2010
  20. movietub

    movietub UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    4,859 1,109
    Actually banning air travel would be completely insignificant. However, if we banned all human activities (other than eating) that produced CO2, we would still barely impact global warming. Global warming is not man-made, it's natural. It will naturally kill a lot of people, that's just what happens as planets adjust and alter - big things happen.

    We are still coming out of an ice age - why on earth (literally) would you want to stop the planet warming to it's more comfortable state? Just because it inconveniences our short lived species for a microscopically short period of time?
    Posted: Apr 2, 2011 By: movietub Member since: Nov 6, 2008