The Environment Bandwagon.

[phoenixmystic]

I would also like to see some evidence from you to back up yours. I will present some web reference, I despise them but trying to use documents would cause more problems for me.

"ok..

Originally Posted by phoenixmystic
so when they stop everyone using planes

hmm.."

Ok, I concede on that one, it was an error on my part. I should have worded it better.

"So.. how can you reconcile the two? Aren't you saying that nuclear power is a viable option? If you are, then you're in agreement with the govt., so it seems odd to be using something that the govt is 'good' at while at the same time saying they have no clue."

I did not mention any opinion on nuclear power however, if it is used it will only be a short term problem. As that will also run out as supply is limited http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...rves/ures.html
aside from the actual physical reserves, being a unstable material it also has a half life. In the long term I do not think it is viable, if the government doe take to it and does what ti did with CCGT plants then it will be just substituting one problem for another. In response to nuclear it impossible to say whether the government has a clue or not but if it follows past trends such as building lots of CCGT because from the north sea gas then it still is incapable of learning.


"I still don't see any evidence other than anecdotal stuff here. Think about it logically - most traffic occurs to get people to and from work, in a small band of time. Cumulatively I don't believe the small proportion (based on own personal experience, not anything else - please do feel free to show the evidence that it's actually a large propotion) of people using 4x4's to drop kids of to school is a major part of the problem."

I never said it was a major part, Like I said it was an example of how attitudes need to be changed. Yes the band of time is small but it is still a major contributor and with congestion increasing it will get bigger.

http://www.cts.ucl.ac.uk/tsu/papers/TCPMarApr03.pdf
http://www.inderscience.com/search/i...ry=&ps=10&m=or
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00027/art00202
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/particle/
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics...spublications/

· The 'school run' accounts for a significant proportion of traffic emissions, with 40% of primary and 20% of secondary children driven to school. Taken from, http://education.guardian.co.uk/egwe...940686,00.html.

"Ok, I've looked into it - all my nearby towns have very good recycling facilities. Maybe yours don't, but please present the evidence to back up your statment."

Rural villages in the Uk have no such facilites or collections while a village or samll town may be samll the cumualtive population from them will soon at up. There are also places in larger cities such as London, Coventry and Birmingham that lack local faciltes which specfic areas having no kind of rubbish collection system at all consider:-

Foleshill in Coventry.
Aston in Birmingham.

The above may be out of date however it was in date as of June 2005 survey.

[kalniel]

I would also like to see some evidence from you to back up yours.

I don't believe I presented any statements of absolute fact that would require evidence - the only ones I can think of are the proportion of car travel that was families using 4x4s to drop kids off, and good recycling facilities, both of which I qualified as being my own opinion based on personal observations.

Oh, 'they are fine with expansions to airports' comes from me now living near to Luton Airport, and is based on the documentation I've recieved from campaign groups and the airport itself. I believe the plans for expansions to various airports are fairly factual as reported by various news agencies of good reputation.

I did not mention any opinion on nuclear power however

ok, again I could be misreading what you're saying when you said:

The most currently available safe alternative is nuclear power. ( yes it is and I know what am talking about

if it is used it will only be a short term problem. As that will also run out as supply is limited http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...rves/ures.html

According to that, in the US alone there is 1155 millions pounds of grade a U308, and that's just stuff extractable *cheaply*. If you're willing to pay more or we develop better refinement/exploration, to the level we already have for oil/coal then there really is an almost limitless supply. Rather than explain that in my own words, you could read this article http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html which addresses the 'short term supply' problem better than I could express it.

Personally, I think the real merit in current nuclear technology is that of a tide over only until we further develop fission technologies. They *will* happen, it's just impossible to say when.

I never said it was a major part, Like I said it was an example of how attitudes need to be changed. Yes the band of time is small but it is still a major contributor and with congestion increasing it will get bigger.

I think the 'chelsea tractor' phenomenum is just a fad, and not a large one at that. It's an easy target for tax hikes though

http://www.cts.ucl.ac.uk/tsu/papers/TCPMarApr03.pdf
http://www.inderscience.com/search/i...ry=&ps=10&m=or
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00027/art00202
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/particle/

These are just saying that car transport produces emissions aren't they? I don't think anyone's doubting that.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics...spublications/
· The 'school run' accounts for a significant proportion of traffic emissions, with 40% of primary and 20% of secondary children driven to school. Taken from, http://education.guardian.co.uk/egwe...940686,00.html.

What is 'significant proportion'? You don't give any figures from the first link quoted here, and the second one could be as little as 5% or whatever. Again, I agree that it's something we can, and should, change, but my point was that of perspective. In the worse case scenario from what you've presented the school run could be causing just 5% of our traffic emmisions, and that school run is unlikely to be made up of 100% 4x4s hence it doesn't support your statement all that well

On the other hand I'm not presenting any evidence to say that 4x4s on a school run aren't a major contributor other than personal observation - I'm not saying they're not outside of my local observations, just asking you to show that they are

Rural villages in the Uk have no such facilites or collections while a village or samll town may be samll the cumualtive population from them will soon at up.

I come from a rural village in Derbyshire. They had household collection which as it's per house the cumulative population number has little effect.

There are also places in larger cities such as London, Coventry and Birmingham that lack local faciltes which specfic areas having no kind of rubbish collection system at all consider:-

Foleshill in Coventry.
Aston in Birmingham.

The above may be out of date however it was in date as of June 2005 survey.

*nods* I can't see anything saying whether those places have household collection or not - both councils seem to be pretty keyed into recycling though so I'd be surprised if there wasn't now.

[Byatt]

The great global warming swindle

Some further rebuttal reading, in case anyone is interested:

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?opti...=137&Itemid=83

[phoenixmystic]

In regards to nuclear I accept there are large physical reserves however they could be huge and have centuries of physical material but the half life of the material could possibly render most of it useless before it is used, that of course depends upon the rate of consumption.

The significant proportion comment was not mine and was directly extracted from the source, The transport statistics were an attempt to demonstrate the level of emissions, though i do concede those numbers would be useless to someone who does not have a general idea of the proportion of them to others.

With regards to the villages it would be impossible to say anything that would apply to all as there are always a few exceptions but majority of those villages that do not tend to be around mid England and above what used to be the danland land line.

The 4*4 as I have metioned were an example of the need of an attitude change taking into account what they are used for. They have no need for a 4*4, while those that live on farms may have need of one they are a minority and do not represent the whole group of 4*4 users.

I have checked and Foleshill now has a a bottle bank but that is a far as it goes, I am unable to add anything about Aston, a lot of residents were not very forth coming during the time the research took place.

In regards to fission, I think fusion will have a part to play to. While the fad for fusion has based and the number of researchers are diminishing they is currently an attempt in Europe to build one that will produce a input/output ratio of one. Given the limits of current technology and theories inefficacy is increased by a bigger size to to get that magic one ratio, they are building a huge reactor and accelerator. The fusion part I think is two football stadiums in size? I am not a physicists and no nothing of the field I just come across these thing in things that new scientist publications and bbc radio 4. If some one that knows more and can correct my errors or add detail to this paragraph it would be appreciated.

In those emission articles while focused on the emissions themselves does give a whole figure for total emissions that can be compared to emissions from other sources. In regards to my comment on:-

5% from planes
25% from domestic

I did not read that particular qoute as I heard in on a radio 4 broadcast and I consider that radio station reliable enough to use it as a source. If you go on the website if not too much time has past I think it is possible to download that actual broadcast if you are interested.

[iranu]

If 50 years of human industrialisation is enough to screw the planet then we really didn't have a chance as soon as we crawled out of the sea. If a CO2 level of 1/2 of 1 percent (with humans contributing much less than that 1/2 a percent) is enough to screw the balance then there was never any hope.

The more and more I read about the subject the more and more I think that we will look back in 30-40 years time and laugh at ourselves. It will be like discovering that the earth is round and not flat.

The whole global warming/climate change phenomenon is now a mainstream fanatical religion with large amounts of funding. I can see a time when we have people waving placards in London with "Kill those who insult the science of global warming" scrawled on them.

We have passed the point where science is allowed to do it's job and we are now into the territories of polictics and the greeny left-wingers. This now cloulds (sorry no pun intended) the issue.

I would much rather money be spent on improving the quality of life for people and their environments.

[Byatt]

The more and more I read about the subject the more and more I think that we will look back in 30-40 years time and laugh at ourselves. It will be like discovering that the earth is round and not flat.

Can you share some links, please?

[dangel]

If 50 years of human industrialisation is enough to screw the planet then we really didn't have a chance as soon as we crawled out of the sea. If a CO2 level of 1/2 of 1 percent (with humans contributing much less than that 1/2 a percent) is enough to screw the balance then there was never any hope.

The more and more I read about the subject the more and more I think that we will look back in 30-40 years time and laugh at ourselves. It will be like discovering that the earth is round and not flat.

The whole global warming/climate change phenomenon is now a mainstream fanatical religion with large amounts of funding. I can see a time when we have people waving placards in London with "Kill those who insult the science of global warming" scrawled on them.

We have passed the point where science is allowed to do it's job and we are now into the territories of polictics and the greeny left-wingers. This now cloulds (sorry no pun intended) the issue.

I would much rather money be spent on improving the quality of life for people and their environments.

Very well said and pretty much reflects my own feelings. This is all very much going the way of the animal rights lots - i.e. vitriolic crusades against your fellow man based on seriously flawed belief. I'm all for 'doing my bit' for the planet (and I do) but the application of common sense (i.e. scale/longetivity/overall effect) seems beyond the scope of the 'greens'. Nutters.

[fray_bentos]

I am sure some of you may already know these points but to add to phoenixmystics comments about fusion, ITER (www.iter.org) is being built at Cadarache, France. It will be the worlds largest experimental fusion reactor with the aim to produce a greater level of energy than that input. I *think* the first plasma is meant to be created in 2016, but its a very large international project, second only to the international space station i beleive in terms of funding so will be late!

From this point the intention will be to build DEMO in Japan which should prove the concept of a functioning fusion power plant.

[Colossous]

Does anyone else out there see the irony in the possible raising of taxes to aid the enviroment issues co-inciding with them wanting to spend £XXXXXXXXXXXXXX on replacing nuclear weapons which are surely the one thing everyone agrees on that if set off would relly ruin the enviroment ?

[[GSV]Trig]

If I were the PM I'd just keep the nukes we have, no point replacing them when a nukes a nuke at the end of the day...

[fray_bentos]

I think the point is they will be beyond their design life, hence unreliable and potentially dangerous (obviously they're dangerous anyway, but perhaps in an unintended way). No point having them at all at that point.