Panorama: Go green or else!

[congokid]

In article <[email protected]>, Erik
Sandblom <[email protected]> writes

>I've met this opinion before. Would George Monbiot "Heat" be a good
>book to learn more about it, or do you have another suggestion?
>I'm optimistic about what could be achieved, given the political will.
>We already have an ambition to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30% to
>2020.

You might be optimistic, but George Monbiot isn't. He doesn't see any
political will to do that, which was what my earlier post in this thread
pointed out.
--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

 

[lab]

>
>>I've met this opinion before. Would George Monbiot "Heat" be a good

'Field notes from a Catastrophe' is an excellant read, although just a
little depressing. 'Power Down' is a more oil based tome.

Elizabeth ???? did Field Notes, can't remeber the other author.

 

[Erik Sandblom]

Den 2007-03-07 15:48:27 skrev congokid <[email protected]>:

> In article <[email protected]>, Erik
> Sandblom <[email protected]> writes
>
>> I've met this opinion before. Would George Monbiot "Heat" be a good
>> book to learn more about it, or do you have another suggestion?
>> I'm optimistic about what could be achieved, given the political will.
>> We already have an ambition to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30% to
>> 2020.
>
> You might be optimistic, but George Monbiot isn't. He doesn't see any
> political will to do that, which was what my earlier post in this thread
> pointed out.


Tomorrow's European Union summit is expected to commit to cutting carbon
emissions by 20% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6425999.stm

There is a further commitment to reduce by 30% if and when other countries
commit to reducing their emissions. I think this is going to happen within
a year or two. China is looking into how much they should and could
reduce, and it will take only one of China, India and USA to join with the
EU -- this will cause the other two to follow, since the argument "nobody
else is doing it" will fall.

This will also expose the silliness of people who drive SUVs etc "because
it's someone else's problem". When the whole world commits to GHG
reductions, it will become everyone's responsibility to contribute. SUV
drivers might become viewed as "welfare queens".

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

 

[Roger Merriman]

Earl Purple <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 7 Mar, 00:47, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > Ambrose Nankivell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Roger Merriman wrote:
snips
> >
> > > > yup i find it intency anoying that at best public transport will get me
> > > > to my folks in wales from hampton in 5 hours, by car its possible to do
> > > > it under 2 1/2 hours but 3 is common. a 5 hour trip is expeptional. too
> > > > many stops and changes saddly.
> >
> > > It certainly doesn't look that convenient for you, but I'd have to point
> > > out that althoughhttp://transportdirect.infoagrees with your 5 hour
> > > time for public transport (of which an hour and 20 minutes is your
> > > getting into central London, 2 and three quarters on the main train
> > > journey, and an hour and a bit getting from the nearest town to where
> > > you say your parents live), it states a 3 hour 8 minute driving time for
> > > the journey, into which you'll have to add a 20 minute break, assuming
> > > you care about not crashing into people.
> >
> > > A
> >
> > the 5 hours is at best and frankly is in dream land. it requires.
> > getting every link, and at the end leaves me with fair walk (it hasn't
> > taken into account the hill if i attaully have any thing to carry. try
> > leaving after work say 7pm as i did, i got here at 9:50pm the earlest by
> > public transport was a 8hr trip leaving midnight and getting there at
> > 8pm.
> >
> > this is to my folks place, futher out from abergavenny, rember out there
> > its not 24/7 buses don't run much past 8pm. nor do they tie into the
> > rail network, so quite often you have to wait a hour for the next one...
> >
> > rember this is journey by car that is almost big fast roads all the way,
> > even on the busy M4 that is the most of it, you mostly are at 70 or so.
> >
> > transportdirect gives the same as my satnav which was 2hrs 50 mins,
> > which oddly was correct they normally both are a good bit out.
> >
> > if its a good run as this was bar a bit of rain as i neared wales, then
> > i don't normally stop, unless tired or need to streach legs or what not.
> >
> > after 3 i do tend to stop, but under no its not normally needed.
> >
> > roger- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Where my idea of an orbital railway (along the M25) would come in
> useful. No need to head into Central London just to the boundary of
> the M25 and then catch your subsequent train after taking the orbital
> route to make the link, which should be frequent enough.
>
a orbital would be a good idea.

> If that would cut say an hour off the travel time it would already
> reduce the 5 hours to 4, making it more tolerable (given that the car
> journey is around 3∏ with the stop).
>
consdering the number of stops, in practice its almost allways more, my
gilfriend did this route for a while. only once did it manage 5hrs and
that was from newport.

rember if the timings are out you can easly miss connection which is
common which could mean adding hours to the journey. certinalyt from
newport both train and bus from aber go once a hour and are not in sync.

ie on a day the trains and buses conspired it could take you nearly 4
hours from newport, 2 1 hour waits, 2 45min journeys.

5hrs is very unlikely 7hs is much more, and it could be much more than
that.

> If you were able to carry your bike on all legs of the journey you
> wouldn't even have a walk at either end. Get a battery-assisted bike
> if the hill is too much for you but it's still a lot greener than
> driving.

its a gourge so these are fairly steep, how well a electic bike would
cope would be intresting.

the choice is travel though multiple trains and stops, with all the
hassel and cost within. or a car which is fairly easy drive, lots of
stops.

as to being greener possibly but rember public transport isn't green its
just less dirty maybe. all fossel fuel.

roger

 

[Danny Colyer]

nafuk wrote:
>>Tips. If it yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down, Saves
>>buckets of water and do it even if you don't have a water meter.

and Erik Sandblom queried:
> Would you say this is a local, regional or global issue?

AIUI water processing requires a fair amount of energy. That energy
will usually be generated from fossil fuels, resulting in greenhouse gas
emissions. For that reason, if no other, I'd say that the use of
drinking quality water for flushing toilets is a global issue.

My missus is for ever complaining about me not flushing the toilet (mind
you, she complains when I wee in the watering can before watering our
vegetables as well).

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Erik Sandblom]

Den 2007-03-07 20:00:06 skrev Danny Colyer <[email protected]>:

> nafuk wrote:
>>> Tips. If it yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down, Saves
>>> buckets of water and do it even if you don't have a water meter.
>
> and Erik Sandblom queried:
>> Would you say this is a local, regional or global issue?
>
> AIUI water processing requires a fair amount of energy. That energy
> will usually be generated from fossil fuels, resulting in greenhouse gas
> emissions. For that reason, if no other, I'd say that the use of
> drinking quality water for flushing toilets is a global issue.
>
> My missus is for ever complaining about me not flushing the toilet


Who cleans the toilet? How much extra cleaning liquid is needed to clean
the toilet due to it not being flushed?

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]>typed


> Who cleans the toilet? How much extra cleaning liquid is needed to clean
> the toilet due to it not being flushed?

Quite. Unflushed toilets collect much more scale and need far more
chemical treatment to clean them. I often flush twice for a brown visit
if it looks like I've partially blocked the outlet.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Danny Colyer]

Erik Sandblom wrote:
>>Who cleans the toilet? How much extra cleaning liquid is needed to clean
>>the toilet due to it not being flushed?

Well I /would/ clean the toilet, but DW always gets there long before it
actually needs doing

That's an interesting question, and not one that I'd considered. My
feeling is that the minimum amount of cleaning fluid required would be
greater, but it probably makes no difference to the amount actually used.

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> Quite. Unflushed toilets collect much more scale and need far more
> chemical treatment to clean them. I often flush twice for a brown visit
> if it looks like I've partially blocked the outlet.

Ahem, I often have to flush two or three times after the first dump of
the day anyway...

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Danny Colyer <[email protected]>typed


> Erik Sandblom wrote:
> >>Who cleans the toilet? How much extra cleaning liquid is needed to clean
> >>the toilet due to it not being flushed?

> Well I /would/ clean the toilet, but DW always gets there long before it
> actually needs doing

> That's an interesting question, and not one that I'd considered. My
> feeling is that the minimum amount of cleaning fluid required would be
> greater, but it probably makes no difference to the amount actually used.

> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> > Quite. Unflushed toilets collect much more scale and need far more
> > chemical treatment to clean them. I often flush twice for a brown visit
> > if it looks like I've partially blocked the outlet.

> Ahem, I often have to flush two or three times after the first dump of
> the day anyway...

Yebbut you don't need to clean a well-flushed loo very often. If you're
having to clean the unflushed bog three times as frequently you might
use at least three times the liquid; more if the line won't shift.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 7, 7:04 am, Nick Kew <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:46:08 +0000
>
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > it will
> > be planned or catastrophic.
>
> The latter. There's no political will for the former.

IIRC a substantial number of developed countries already have a birth
rate below the replacement rate, with population rise/maintenance
entirely due to immigration and still-increasing life expectancy.
Japan's population is on the cusp of a very rapid drop unless there
are substantial policy changes.

Also bear in mind that the stuff that you hear through the media is
generally the most extreme (at all ends of the debate). Reality is
somewhere in the middle.

James

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Erik
Sandblom <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>Den 2007-03-07 20:00:06 skrev Danny Colyer <[email protected]>:

>> nafuk wrote:
>>>> Tips. If it yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down, Saves
>>>> buckets of water and do it even if you don't have a water meter.

>> and Erik Sandblom queried:
>>> Would you say this is a local, regional or global issue?

>> AIUI water processing requires a fair amount of energy. That energy
>>will usually be generated from fossil fuels, resulting in greenhouse
>>gas emissions. For that reason, if no other, I'd say that the use
>>of drinking quality water for flushing toilets is a global issue.

Agreed. But what of the vast energy and materials costs of installing
(esp retro-fitting) a two-source water supply to every house in the UK?

>> My missus is for ever complaining about me not flushing the toilet

Have you explained the reasons to her? Do you (or she) have any
children and hence have a direct reason to care about the future?

>Who cleans the toilet? How much extra cleaning liquid is needed to
>clean the toilet due to it not being flushed?

If one is taking the environmental angle to heart, what cleaning is
necessary? A dirty loo will generally function just as effectively as a
clean one.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email protected]>:
>I've met this opinion before. Would George Monbiot "Heat" be a good book
>to learn more about it, or do you have another suggestion?

I enjoyed Heat, and it's generally coherently argued. He suggests that the
current population is sustainable with all people having equal
allocations of emissions at a level which would imply a 90% reduction
for the UK, and he goes on to illustrate how such a reduction is not as
impossible as it seems but merely extremely challenging.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, March.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Pyromancer
[email protected] says...
<snip>
> If one is taking the environmental angle to heart, what cleaning is
> necessary? A dirty loo will generally function just as effectively as a
> clean one.
>
A limescale-encrusted bowl won't flush as well as a shiny one.

 

[Erik Sandblom]

Den 2007-03-08 00:29:06 skrev Danny Colyer <[email protected]>:

> Erik Sandblom wrote:
>>> Who cleans the toilet? How much extra cleaning liquid is needed to
>>> clean the toilet due to it not being flushed?
>
> Well I /would/ clean the toilet, but DW always gets there long before it
> actually needs doing
>
> That's an interesting question, and not one that I'd considered. My
> feeling is that the minimum amount of cleaning fluid required would be
> greater, but it probably makes no difference to the amount actually used.


My feeling is that you should flush until the bowl has clean water, ie use
it the way it's designed to be used. If you want to save energy or water,
have a look at the toilets they have in airplanes and trains.

I've heard urine-separating toilets could save lots of energy, because the
purification plant would have much less work. These toilets apparently
enjoy some success in very rural areas, where sewage is not readily
available. For some reason the brown and the yellow don't mix well, so
keeping them separate makes it easier to purify.

In general, I try not to second-guess the design of a product. If it's
designed to flush, then flush.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Mar 7, 7:04 am, Nick Kew <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:46:08 +0000
>>
>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > it will
>> > be planned or catastrophic.
>>
>> The latter. There's no political will for the former.
>
> IIRC a substantial number of developed countries already have a birth
> rate below the replacement rate, with population rise/maintenance
> entirely due to immigration and still-increasing life expectancy.
> Japan's population is on the cusp of a very rapid drop unless there
> are substantial policy changes.

This is true. Most of Western Europe now has, and as you say Japan is going
the same way. The reason for the vast explosion in world population in the
last century is that cultures which were used to needing to produce lots
of children simply to ensure one or two would survive have been introduced
to medicine which means that most will. As populations become accustomed
to good healthcare, and particularly as the economic choices available to
women increase, so the birthrate drops.

But not much and not very quickly. The populations of Scotland and Italy
are declining (partly) as a result of lower birth rate. I see this as a
good thing.

But, although I appreciate you know far more about the risks of global
warming than I do, I don't think a few percentage points difference in the
population is going to make much impact; we need a fairly large fall in
population, and that isn't going to happen quickly without social
dislocation on a scale which isn't going to be pleasant.

> Also bear in mind that the stuff that you hear through the media is
> generally the most extreme (at all ends of the debate). Reality is
> somewhere in the middle.

True enough. For example, on Channel 4 tonight:
http://www.channel4.com/science/mic...rming_swindle/index.html?intcmp=homepage_box1

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'Victories are not solutions.'
;; John Hume, Northern Irish politician, on Radio Scotland 1/2/95
;; Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1998; few have deserved it so much

 

[Danny Colyer]

I wrote:
>>>AIUI water processing requires a fair amount of energy. That energy
>>>will usually be generated from fossil fuels, resulting in greenhouse
>>>gas emissions. For that reason, if no other, I'd say that the use
>>>of drinking quality water for flushing toilets is a global issue.

and Pyromancer darkled:
> Agreed. But what of the vast energy and materials costs of installing
> (esp retro-fitting) a two-source water supply to every house in the UK?

I don't believe I suggested such a thing. I can see no justification
for changing a plumbing system that ain't borked. It /may/ be worth
giving consideration to an alternative plumbing system for new houses,
but it probably makes more sense to consider using the various
flush-free toilets that I keep reading about (which, come to think of
it, probably counts as an alternative plumbing system).

I should add that I am no expert on toilet technology.

>>>My missus is for ever complaining about me not flushing the toilet

> Have you explained the reasons to her?

Er, she's my wife. I wouldn't have married a woman who I was either
unwilling or unable to communicate with - we've lived together for 8
years with no major communication breakdowns yet. Of course I've
explained my reasons, and she understands them, just as I understand her
objections. It's an issue on which we disagree. There aren't many of them.

> Do you (or she) have any
> children and hence have a direct reason to care about the future?

I think that's irrelevant, on the basis that I don't actually understand
the kind of anti-social mentality that sees no reason to care about the
future unless it has its own children to worry about. But yes, we have
two, plus 3 nephews, 2 nieces and another niece or nephew due to emerge
any day now.


--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Erik Sandblom <[email protected]> wrote:

> Den 2007-03-06 15:19:22 skrev David Damerell
> <[email protected]>:

> > Both. "Fewer people" and "less consumption per person" both provide
> > possible solutions to the problem.

> It depends on what you consume. Taking the TGV from Paris to Marseille at
> 320 km/h takes 9,6 kilo-equivalents of petrol per passenger. A car takes
> 28,8 and 32,2 for airplane. So the train is as green as three people in a
> car, and much faster, item 14:
> http://recherche.sncf.com/uk/dossiers/energetique/quizz12.html

I know I'm coming late to the party here but would it not be true to say
that the train would use pretty much the same amount of energy if I
travelled on it as if I took the car instead?

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message
<1husxbn.p3ix0l113fwq7N%[email protected]>, Ekul
Namsob ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Erik Sandblom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Den 2007-03-06 15:19:22 skrev David Damerell
>> <[email protected]>:
>
>> > Both. "Fewer people" and "less consumption per person" both provide
>> > possible solutions to the problem.
>
>> It depends on what you consume. Taking the TGV from Paris to Marseille
>> at 320 km/h takes 9,6 kilo-equivalents of petrol per passenger. A car
>> takes 28,8 and 32,2 for airplane. So the train is as green as three
>> people in a car, and much faster, item 14:
>> http://recherche.sncf.com/uk/dossiers/energetique/quizz12.html
>
> I know I'm coming late to the party here but would it not be true to say
> that the train would use pretty much the same amount of energy if I
> travelled on it as if I took the car instead?

By that argument, if you take a car rather than taking a train, all the
energy used by your car is pure waste. Only if the train uses
substantially less energy if you don't take it can there be any
justification for taking the car.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/CS s++: a++ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+>++ W+++ N++ K w--(---)
M- !d- PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++ !DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

 

[Erik Sandblom]

Den 2007-03-11 10:17:35 skrev Simon Brooke <[email protected]>:

> in message
> <1husxbn.p3ix0l113fwq7N%[email protected]>, Ekul
> Namsob ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Erik Sandblom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Den 2007-03-06 15:19:22 skrev David Damerell
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> > Both. "Fewer people" and "less consumption per person" both provide
>>> > possible solutions to the problem.
>>
>>> It depends on what you consume. Taking the TGV from Paris to Marseille
>>> at 320 km/h takes 9,6 kilo-equivalents of petrol per passenger. A car
>>> takes 28,8 and 32,2 for airplane. So the train is as green as three
>>> people in a car, and much faster, item 14:
>>> http://recherche.sncf.com/uk/dossiers/energetique/quizz12.html
>>
>> I know I'm coming late to the party here but would it not be true to say
>> that the train would use pretty much the same amount of energy if I
>> travelled on it as if I took the car instead?
>
> By that argument, if you take a car rather than taking a train, all the
> energy used by your car is pure waste. Only if the train uses
> substantially less energy if you don't take it can there be any
> justification for taking the car.


Plus the idea above assumes that the train operator has no interest in
filling the seats. Upsetting as it may seem, they will actually sell "my"
seat to any simple commoner willing to pay for it ;-)

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

 

[Adam Lea]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message
> <1husxbn.p3ix0l113fwq7N%[email protected]>, Ekul
> Namsob ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Erik Sandblom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Den 2007-03-06 15:19:22 skrev David Damerell
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> > Both. "Fewer people" and "less consumption per person" both provide
>>> > possible solutions to the problem.
>>
>>> It depends on what you consume. Taking the TGV from Paris to Marseille
>>> at 320 km/h takes 9,6 kilo-equivalents of petrol per passenger. A car
>>> takes 28,8 and 32,2 for airplane. So the train is as green as three
>>> people in a car, and much faster, item 14:
>>> http://recherche.sncf.com/uk/dossiers/energetique/quizz12.html
>>
>> I know I'm coming late to the party here but would it not be true to say
>> that the train would use pretty much the same amount of energy if I
>> travelled on it as if I took the car instead?
>
> By that argument, if you take a car rather than taking a train, all the
> energy used by your car is pure waste. Only if the train uses
> substantially less energy if you don't take it can there be any
> justification for taking the car.
>

In other words the train is "going there anyway" so it will be using energy
whether you are on it or not so using the car would just add to the overall
energy consumption.

Why does this theory not apply to aircraft in that it is said to be more
polluting to fly from London to Scotland than it is to drive, despite the
fact that the aircraft is "going there anyway"?