UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: clm on March 05, 2007, 09:33:33 pm
-
After JB getting on Jims ass and following a C4 prog on "greenwash" its time to own up. what size are your carbon boots?
I have had in my lifetime...
1.5 return flights to italy,
one return flight to central america,
6 return flights to france,
1 return flight to north spain,
i drive about 13k a year in a 1.9 turbo diesel - in which i give a colleague a lift (before that a 1.4 astra, a 1.6 golf, an 850cc mini :thumbsup: and a 1.2 astra)
i have a draughty, poorly insulated, gas heated terrace
i compost my vegatable waste.
i eat meat.
I shop at asda and dont avoid excessive packaging but recycle haphazardly. :shrug:
-
I drive 60 miles each day for work. Then sit on my arse drinking as much beer as I can every night.
I used to smoke 20 fags a day but I've given up for 6 months.
I got on very well with my mother.
-
i get on well with her too ;)
I gather that you too are one of the few who go out round bolton quarries. ive not been for a while. give me a shout if you do.
-
i get on well with her too ;)
That worries me as she's been dead for a few years.....
I do indeed visit The Quarries. When I'm not at work or injured :(
I've not been to Brownstones for a couple of weeks but hopefully that will be rectified soon. PM me. Need a video of you doing Crackhorse for R-man.
[Plaug alert] Click on the BHAU link below and have a look at some Brownstones Eliminates that you've probably done already [end of plug]
-
too fucking big.
I don't fly (twice ever)
On the other hand my commute is a 70 mile round trip, alone (1.9tdi ~ 50mpg)
Got much better at eating local and avoiding supermarkets in the last year, though how good I'd be if I wasn't surrounded by good local ethical shops is a moot point.
Pretty hot on the recycle/compost thang - Bristol CC make it fairly painless.
Not a lot else to confess - if it wasn't for the milage (30k/yr) I'd not be too bad.
Nevertheless there is no fucking way in this world I will ever be moving to Swindon.
-
i walk to work so don't do fuck all mileage in car. do all the paper recyclling etc. and don't eat meat as much as i used to.
However i have flown return to canada 4 times (2 east coast, 2 westwide :-[), return to thailand once, font twice, and once each for milan, dublin, saltzburg, jersey, spain, majorca, minorca, sardinia, 2 internal flights in thailand. And to rub salt into the wounds i fart a lot.
-
Me, I', going straight to hell. I must have flown to the states 10 - 15 times, france a few and ireland less.
I drive >30k per year.
The wife has a fur coat, we both love fox hunting and I have killed at least 12 hippies this year.
Oh I also recyle and try and avoid supermarkts (too many proles)
some of the aboe is true
-
Now maybe you can see the other side of the coin.
Carbon Footprint - Ant or Elephant? (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/carbon.html)
-
nice work uncle! for those that didn't read it all, the bit near the bottom about sanitation, clean water, (+ human rights, social justice...) is what is really important. plus, "i never fly, but i'm not moving to swindon"... people do what is convenient and then justify it. rarely do we live by our principles.
-
nice work uncle! for those that didn't read it all, the bit near the bottom about sanitation, clean water, (+ human rights, social justice...) is what is really important. plus, "i never fly, but i'm not moving to swindon"... people do what is convenient and then justify it. rarely do we live by our principles.
Ouch! I do think about my actions, rather than just doing whats convenient, and I'm not justifying it, CLM asked.
Population control is what is really important.
-
hmmm...
ive flown (return) to egypt twice, turkey, portugal, spain 4 times, paris 4 times, uk 5-6 times, usa 3 times, perhaps something more.
i drive a 2.5 diesel transit van and an old car.
i recycle and try to walk as much as i can, and i try to use heathing as less as i can, but my house is very poorly insulated, with lots of heat loss.
-
Now maybe you can see the other side of the coin.
Carbon Footprint - Ant or Elephant? (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/carbon.html)
Check your sources. junkscience.com is run by Stephen Molloy. He used to work on behalf of Philip Morris and other tobacco companies and was involved in lobbying to deny that there were health risks associated with secondary smoking. As that campaign became an embarassment to his funders and they wound it up he started to concentrate on lobbying on behalf of various oil companies to discredit the growing consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change. Credible source? Hmm.
-
thanks Mark, beat me to it - got distracted on the google trail.
-
for those who'd like some perspective on the junkscience website linked to above, it's written by Steven Milloy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy)
In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported in The New Republic that Milloy, who is presented by Fox News as an independent journalist, was under contract to Philip Morris through the end of 2005.[5] Philip Morris documents showed that Milloy was budgeted hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments while writing for FoxNews.com.[10] In the May/June 2005 issue of Mother Jones, Chris Mooney reported that non-profit organizations operated out of Milloy's home have also received large payments from ExxonMobil during his tenure with Fox News.[29][5]
-
Agree with Duma, the size of the footprint is indeed important but its not going to make much difference against the ever-growing number of feet. That's the real problem politicians seem unwilling to face.
-
Someone (the head of a polar research institute I think) called population size the `cinderella issue' of the Green Lobby too.
I think it's quite interesting, I'm sure I can work it (the optimal number) out. Or work out why I can't work it out.
I have no car, so I'm lording it on the carbon moral high ground.
-
tram to the station, train to work, walk to the office. try to buy local and starting to grow my own, recycle paper, glass and plastic bottles. Turn lights off and most appliances when not in use. Return flights to Suriname, Florida, Iceland, Spain, Paris, Ireland, Cyprus and Denmark. Have an old BMW.
Could be better. Could be worse.
-
not going to make much difference against the ever-growing number of feet. That's the real problem politicians seem unwilling to face.
this is true for developing countries
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2201090.ece
conservative religious bias of american aid programmes are preventing contraception drives
while the lack of education and provision, with particular respect to condoms, are having a "desirous" population effect by ensuring many die from aids, i can't help thinking prevention would be better than "cure"
american agencies are in most cases witholding aid from local healthcare providers if they provide information about abortion as part of their family planning remit.
anyway i digress, back to population size - all the eu countries currently have a birth rate below that needed to keep the population stable - the only way we do that (i.e. if you want some one emptying bins or working in hospital when you are a pensioner) is by allowing immigration - all well and good if we had freedom of movement of people comparable to the freedom of movement of goods and money- which we don't.
both in this country and abroad - birthate is increasing amongst the poorest. cultural views and female infanticide/sex orientated abortions mean that china and india have a massive ratio of men to women.
in this country the penalties a woman suffers in terms of her earnings, career prospect and pension for having a child - mean that those who have a job increasingly postpone it, more and more frequently until too late - meaning the only women churning out sprogs like there's no tomorrow are those already disenfranchised - the long term unemployed. (ok ok sorry middleclass mums and dads - i'm talking general trends here)
we can no more effect the industrial carbon output of china than we can effect the birth rate in africa but we can take responsibility for our own actions - will not having kids save the planet? should we pose this question alongside those to do with car use and recycling?
i think when it comes to kids - people should have the ability to make choices about it - and that means education about and availability of contraception.
-
The Great Global Warming Swindle. Thursday. Channel 4. 9pm.
I just think to have an opinion one must know all the information.
-
So now you 'know all the information', have you formed an opinion?
Have they convinced you we are not in a situation of human-induced climate change?
What about the twin towers, an inside job?
-
ha ha... As if JB. I'm open to learn as much as possible about it. My opinion is that doing something is always going to be better than doing nothing. Whether the difference is small or massive is something I would like to find out about. I'm just not going to believe it because it's on the news, because so often you try to find out the sources and find it's based on sommething totally ludicrous like a case study of 8 people.
-
Need a video of you doing Crackhorse for R-man.
I made no such request. I suspect you are angling for beta... ::)
_______
All this carbon footprint talk worries me. I cycle everywhere, or car-share (go to the peak whenever someone has a space). And yet I made one business related trip to Toronto, which will probably cancel out all my greenliness for the past year or so. Ach!
And yet there are all these amazing places I want to visit, all over the world. Bishop, Hampi, Hueco, Castle Hill, etc. etc. ...not to mention a million non-climbing related places. Maybe in the future I'll avoid taking the plane to go on holiday and restrict my travels to car trips only. If it's true that planes really are that damaging, at least cutting them out of holiday plans is one way to minimise the harm. Anyone else considered doing this? And is it even worthwhile, or am I being misled?
-
Nah. Just thought you'd like a vid of it :kiss2: :lol:
I'm still struggling with Dezertion SD so Horse's Crack is Waaaay down my list
-
carbon tax, great so we all go of and work our butts of burning even more carbon ,to pay for the next holl ,its not as much the individuals carbon footprint ,its the carbon we burn making money so we can burn carbon.Simple the government just keeps our bank accounts topped up weekly , by not burning carbon ,just print money. :goodidea:
-
come again? You think if it's made more expensive to burn carbon we'll burn more because flying to whereever on holiday will be more expensive? :-\
-
nice to see Ben's concerned (https://www.moonclimbing.com/index.php?form_action=moonblog&moonblog_id=196).
-
Not to dampen anyone's enthusiasm for limiting the impact of their carbon footprint, but I can't help being amazed by how sudden all of this has come on. We've known for a long time that flying in a plane is extremely detrimental for the environment. It seems as though the public have become concerned overnight. I also wonder how many people (not neccessarily here) are demonstrating an 'empty' express concern? It has become almost fashionable to lament the state of the environment; in reality, many don't practice what they are preaching. I'm sure the increased media coverage is largely accountable for this, but the facts aren't really new.
In Ben's words: "Flew in to Bergamo airport on a cheap flight. Feel really bad about taken all these cheap flights when global warming seems such a real concern. "
I think that's the major stumbling block for pretty much everyone. Cheap flights have become a socially forbidden fruit, but ultimately we take the bait. A 40 quid return flight to Bergamo or not?
-
It's just the medias latest cause celebre, yes, with a snappy name attached to it. We've known about all this shit ever since the Blue Peter Green Book came out when I was at primary school.
-
Didn't watch it but it was the talk of the water cooler this morning,
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindl
I had to see the school nurse when I was 6 because my arse was disrupting classes so am probably up there with cows and paddy fields.
-
According to the swindle carbon dixoide has nothing to so with the heating up of the world, in fact the complete opposite They claim that the sun is to blame (magnetic pull?)
-
According to the swindle carbon dixoide has nothing to so with the heating up of the world, in fact the complete opposite They claim that the sun is to blame (magnetic pull?)
So we're gradually getting closer to the Sun? Or is the Sun expanding towards us? If that's the case we're all screwed anyway so it doesn't matter what we do.
Cheap flight to Font anyone?
-
We should build one or two of those big sun blockers like out of Who Shot Mr Burns then.
-
Keep bearing in mind the swindle's view is not that held by the great majority of the scientific community working in this field. With any massive media story you get a certain point where everyone knows the basics so the media can only attract more attention with nonsense and conspiracy.
-
I was recently required to write a report for a sustainability module, I found it quite interesting to find out:
‘Some 60% reduction in CO2 emission is required to stabilise the Earth’s ecosystem and climatic changes. The Kyoto agreement in 1997 was to reduce the CO2 emission from the developed world by 5% by 2012! The Portland Cement industry accounts for some 5-8% of the total global emission of CO2.’ 2
This equates to the CO2 emissions of around 330 million vehicles3 (At this time there are only 62 million vehicles currently registered in the USA!4).
I thought that was a worrying statistic..
-
well all of this should make us think , and not for so long eather
-
Wha ever makes you think Science is democratic?
Maybe we can all hold our breath for a bit.
-
Just out of interest, how many people on here (you all seem quite a liberal lot) read The Guardian? I've found it gives a hell of a lot more coverage to this sort of story than other papers. This includes things like ethical living features and what not. It seems these days you've got a source of guilt on every third page.
I'm not saying it's not an important issue. Like some others, I'm just left wondering why there's a sudden saturation of media coverage to a long known about problem.
Maybe when they start sending The Guardian to all those pesky Indian and Chinese power station builders we'll start getting somewhere.
Monbiot for president!
-
I was recently required to write a report for a sustainability module, I found it quite interesting to find out:
‘Some 60% reduction in CO2 emission is required to stabilise the Earth’s ecosystem and climatic changes. The Kyoto agreement in 1997 was to reduce the CO2 emission from the developed world by 5% by 2012! The Portland Cement industry accounts for some 5-8% of the total global emission of CO2.’ 2
This equates to the CO2 emissions of around 330 million vehicles3 (At this time there are only 62 million vehicles currently registered in the USA!4).
I thought that was a worrying statistic..
I know a few PhD climatologists, and it seems that as a subgroup of scientists in general they have trouble agreeing between them what percentage of global warming is due to anthropomorphic effects, so for someone to say that a 60% reduction is required just seems to be another worthless number into a field that is already full of poorly suported statistics.
-
size 11...
(http://www.specialized.com/OA_MEDIA/equip/07ProRoadBlkGroup_l.jpg)
-
I know a few PhD climatologists, and it seems that as a subgroup of scientists in general they have trouble agreeing between them what percentage of global warming is due to anthropomorphic effects, so for someone to say that a 60%
yeah, I dont think thats the only flaw to what the agreement said either...
-
I know a few PhD climatologists, and it seems that as a subgroup of scientists in general they have trouble agreeing between them what percentage of global warming is due to anthropomorphic effects, so for someone to say that a 60% reduction is required just seems to be another worthless number into a field that is already full of poorly suported statistics.
No offence to you personally, but this is just the kind of nonsense that stops folk getting serious about reducing emissions. It gives the impression that because experts can't agree on details they don't agree on the broad issue or its seriousness.
Look at the basics - we are digging carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere. That carbon was removed from the atmosphere over a vastly longer period than we are returning it. Its original removal helped cool the earth and allow ice ages, we are putting it back at 100,000 times the rate it was removed. You don't need to look at a thermometer to know that is going to cause warming.
-
I agree completely JB, I was just trying to illustrate how complex and poorly understood field atmospheric science is, but this doesn't seem to stop newspapers reporting numbers as facts rather than estimates.
-
There's a better thread on UKC about this, good link here if you really want the SCIENCE (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities] more good stuff (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities)
-
I watched that climate swindle programme last week and as an environmental scientist who is aware of lots of different climate change evidence I thought it had an interesting angle. The programme raised the possibility of a different cause of climate warming by suggesting that it was due to sun spot and solar magnetic field activity and that the coincidental rise of carbon dioxide is just that, coincidental.
The data presented showed a closer correlation between sun spot activity and temperature than carbon dioxide has. But, the data sets are limited and the time span of correlation is generally no more than a few hundred years so its not possible to go back over the larger times spans that atmospheric carbon concentrations can, which is millions of years. Interestingly and perhaps crucially, the programme did not deny that climate change is happening, whatever the source. It does pose a questions though, what if it isn't driven by carbon?
I'm not suggesting that everyone stop doing their bit, and I for one will continue to do what I can, but it does raise the spectre of not actually being able to do anything about climate change even if we wanted to. Scary stuff. Its what bugs must feel like.
I did think the whole conspiracy theory about keeping developing nations down economically was a stretching things a little though, as I'm sure if that was the case George W would have jumped on the climate change bandwagon long ago.
-
The SCIENCE link above has a detailed analysis of the programme by climate scientists. The info on the politics of the makers is also interesting.
-
Even if it not the Carbon Emissions that causing climate change, surely any initiatives to reduce pollution at any level are going to be beneficial in the long run? Regardless of the emissions, fossil fuel is a limited resoursce and the sooner dependency on it is reduced, the beter it is for the planet in the long run. Likewise reductions in landfill sites, improvement in public transport, encouragement to use smaller cars etc.
-
35 soon. Don't drive, won't drive. Only two longhaul flights in my life. No property, fuck-all, nothing. That's my footprint, right there.
Knees are fucked from walking so much mind...
We're fucked, it's too late and we're all going to die!
-
35 soon. Don't drive, won't drive. Only two longhaul flights in my life. No property, fuck-all, nothing. That's my footprint, right there.
Knees are fucked from walking so much mind...
We're fucked, it's too late and we're all going to die!
well im 60 only one longish flight ,but i have had longer to fart than you .
-
I think the carbon ass-print of all those nags you shoe may have a more damaging effect that your own ;)
-
I think the carbon ass-print of all those nags you shoe may have a more damaging effect that your own ;)
good one there , :thumbsup: though getting iron red hot shoe making makes horses ,near top of the list ,mile for mile they probely compare with a fighter jet .
-
I haven't read the whole thread so this might be slightly off topic, but this website allows you to offset your carbon footprint by taking donations and putting them towards sutainable energy projects : www.climatecare.co.uk
-
While initiatives like this are good, I don't like them because they allow the wealthy to alleviate their guilt by paying money rather than making changes to their lifestyle.
-
Also they're not regulated. The forestry side of it can exploit labour in the countries where they plant trees. Saying that planting trees seems a sensible course of action.
Don't drive, won't drive.
I presume you never get lifts anywhere either?
-
While initiatives like this are good, I don't like them because they allow the wealthy to alleviate their guilt by paying money rather than making changes to their lifestyle.
I don't really see the relevance of this. As long as the carbon is offset why does it matter that the wealthy can do it without lifestyle changes? The wealthy have lots of lifestyle options not available to those without wealth. I can see why this may be a discussion point on its own but it's not directly relevant to reducing carbon footprints.
-
There are carbon offsetting companies that offset by planting trees in this country (there is a guy in Wales who does so on a small scale), ethically in foreign countries and others who have offsetting arrangements where you pay more but the money is invested in renewable energy projects around the world rather than simply planting trees. It's also worth checking that the offsetting company are actually planting "new" trees with your money and not just taking your money to pay for forestation that was already in progress.
-
I don't really see the relevance of this. As long as the carbon is offset why does it matter that the wealthy can do it without lifestyle changes? The wealthy have lots of lifestyle options not available to those without wealth. I can see why this may be a discussion point on its own but it's not directly relevant to reducing carbon footprints.
Because, as I said before, if if was only CO2 going into the atmosphere. It's reduction of waste, it's reduction of other pollutants entering the atmosphere other than CO2. It's reducing landfill. It's changing attitudes and acknowledging that it's a problem that everyone has to deal with, and throwing money at it is not the correct solution. For all of us.
-
Can someone on here then, maybe tell me (in dollars or kilogrammes of carbon) why we shouldn't build some more nuclear reactors if we make sure they don't blow up?
It seems to me that like with Baguettes and unpasteurised cheese,and sport climbing the frogs have got the right idea with this one.
-
i think nuclear power will probably be necessary to address climate change - but should be used to the absolute minimum.
the cost in environmental terms and dollars of dealing with waste/materials/decommisioning over such massive massive timescales is astronomical - this in a country where we can't even maintain rail tracks!
"if we make sure they don't blow up" in this context becomes a big if.
even if you have no accidents or terrorist attacks - to wind down a site at the end of its life - and to deal with the waste produced safely - for thousands and thousands of years into the future - is a big cost
if you can do it by other more environmentally sound means you should.
-
Because, as I said before, if if was only CO2 going into the atmosphere. It's reduction of waste, it's reduction of other pollutants entering the atmosphere other than CO2. It's reducing landfill. It's changing attitudes and acknowledging that it's a problem that everyone has to deal with, and throwing money at it is not the correct solution. For all of us.
Fair point, but that really has to do with lots of things beside CO2 output, which is all carbon offsetting, and that website, seeks to rectify. It's true that CO2 is only one part of our environmental impact but surely carbon offsetting is better than nothing, even if it's not as good as not making the journey in the first place.
-
Actually this thread, and the news article on 8a.nu about environmentally aware climbing manufacturers got me thinking that the climbing media could help by placing more emphasis on ascents done by locals. It seems hypocritical for 8a.nu to run such an article next to news items praising climbers for flying halfway round the world to establish another 15ft V14 boulder problem.
-
While it would be cool to do so if we can, I don't really give a stuff about all the other environmental issues e.g. saving pandas, limiting a few localised pollutants, not having a few waste dumps in a massive country.
-
Paz, do you really not care about preserving endangered species in general, or just pandas?
-
Because, as I said before, if if was only CO2 going into the atmosphere. It's reduction of waste, it's reduction of other pollutants entering the atmosphere other than CO2. It's reducing landfill. It's changing attitudes and acknowledging that it's a problem that everyone has to deal with, and throwing money at it is not the correct solution. For all of us.
Fair point, but that really has to do with lots of things beside CO2 output, which is all carbon offsetting, and that website, seeks to rectify. It's true that CO2 is only one part of our environmental impact but surely carbon offsetting is better than nothing, even if it's not as good as not making the journey in the first place.
As originally stated, even though strong evdence points towards the fact that climate change is due to CO2 output, what if it is not? I think that all people being made to rethink all aspects of how they live their lives is more important, rather than them being offered a quickfire solution to just one aspect.
-
My Carbon Footprint is very large indeed. All largely down to work travel; mostly advising large oil and gas companies on efficient hyrdocarbon production :-[. European flights at least once a week; 50+ long hauls over the last 2-3 years and that's with trying to utilise as much videoconferencing and telecommuting as possible. That said, I am in a position to influence company policy and trying to get us as near as dammit to carbon neutral.
Bring on the personal market in carbon emmissions with tax incentives - I'll buy Houdini's, Widdops and anyone else leading more low impact lifestyle.
-
I care about preserving humans. <must resist temptation to start thread about cool animals>
-
There are carbon offsetting companies that offset by planting trees in this country (there is a guy in Wales who does so on a small scale), ethically in foreign countries and others who have offsetting arrangements where you pay more but the money is invested in renewable energy projects around the world rather than simply planting trees. It's also worth checking that the offsetting company are actually planting "new" trees with your money and not just taking your money to pay for forestation that was already in progress.
Carbon offsetting by planting trees is nonsense. Fossil fuels come out of the ground where the carbon they contain has been locked up for millions of years. The only way to offset this is to put it back into the ground in a way that is permanent on a geological timescale.
I'm not against planting trees to make folk feel better about flying or driving, god knows the treecover of the world needs all the help it can get, but suggesting it is actually compensating is crazy talk. The best way for folk to reduce their carbon footprint is to live in the most energy efficient manner you can and reduce fossil fuel use as much as possible.
-
That's probably why it's kind of a gimmick. a), I would've thought you want to make sure that the trees aren't going to get cut down again in 40 years time but the companys've probably thought of that and have got a charitable trust or something.
b), it's not a long term solution, if everybody in the world turned round tomorrow and said `I want to offset', then would there really be enough land
(or would it be practical/ cheap enough) for everyone to do it?
c) You can lock carbon into trees, but existing natural forests don't actually filter out much external CO2, if I read a book correctly (I really should check now), but it's all released when they're destroyed. Conservation in this respect is as good as planting new forests.
Offsetting won't make the problem that we're fucking the world up go away, it'll just make the relatively few people who can afford to offset feel better about the damage they've done.
-
The only way to offset this is to put it back into the ground in a way that is permanent on a geological timescale....
Somewhat paradoxically this is one of the projects (large scale CO2 sequestration) that I spend time flying around the world about.
-
Is that the same as what they have started doing up at St Cyrus, using CO2 from the Power Station to substitute for conventional Gas Injection? Didn't know you were involved in that.
-
The only way to offset this is to put it back into the ground in a way that is permanent on a geological timescale....
Somewhat paradoxically this is one of the projects (large scale CO2 sequestration) that I spend time flying around the world about.
Good, good. before I wad you, is the main aim of that to get rid of CO2? Or to repressurise the oil fields to get more oil/ gas out, CO2 being a convenient gas that improves PR?
-
I think the idea is two birds with one stone. Natural Gas or Water is traditionally injected to increase productivity of the wells; so CO2 is being proposed instead. Make of that what you will. There is debate still ongoing regarding costs and alternatives.
If you google "CO2 injection" you will find loads of articles and papers if you want to know more.
-
Yes, that's what I thought. Just be nice to get it from the horse's mouth. I dare say if it had been the unlikely altruism of the former he might have mentioned it along with the flights.
-
Good, good. before I wad you, is the main aim of that to get rid of CO2? Or to repressurise the oil fields to get more oil/ gas out, CO2 being a convenient gas that improves PR?
It's both.... as Chris say's CO2 is often used as a means of pressure maintenance; BUT two of the super-majors are looking into subsurface CO2 Sequestration as a commercial business in it's own right - they have the capability to get hydrocarbons out of the ground so it's a 'simple' case of reversing that chain - there are some quite interesting R&D projects that are looking at complete recovery from auto-engine, back up through the supply chain and into the ground.
I didn't mention it along with the flights as it would have probably looked like a lame attempt at justification.
-
I do wonder about the long term effects of shoving all our waste back into the Earth though; might make for a good episode of Futurama? Or a scenario like the Simpsons one with the garbage being stored underground.
-
I thought the energy costs of liquefying it or pumping it undergroung made it uneconomical.
-
it's more expensive than not doing it, but I think views on what is economical are starting to change, thanks to concessions, subsidies available and the Climate Change Levy.
-
Yeah, I know, and unfair subsidy of nuclear power is a big issue, like why don't they subsidise renewables to the same degree, per watt. I'm guessing that's a question of overall possible power output.
Anyway, I meant isn't it energetically uneconomic - you need to burn just as much carbon as that that you're pumping/ liquefying. I'm sure FD knows.
-
Probably. Not my forte.
As far as I know it is returned in gas form, same as gas used in Gas Injection?
-
You've been slacking on your groening intake SA chris. In futurama they dump all their crap into space, and it comes back as a giant garbage meteorite that threaten's earth's very existence. Fry saves the day by launching an even bigger rocket of garbage at it, dismissing it's likely return with a "tsk who cares, we'll all be long gone by then."
Meanwhile, back on topic. Was it on here that I heard this worrying statistic? - that if every bit of industry, every car, every powerstation and all aviation in the uk was to stop producing co2 tomorrow, within 2 years the expansion of industry in India and China would have made up the shortfall of our cessation of CO2 production. Seems like we're a bit fucked in the face of such an exponential expansion, especially when even the kyoto treaty is generally considered a token gesture to addressing the problem.
I'm not saying we can't make a difference individually, but I think it's only ever going to be a gesture in the face of the rapidly developing industrial east. All a bit disheartening really.
-
You've been slacking on your groening intake SA chris. In futurama they dump all their crap into space, and it comes back as a giant garbage meteorite that threaten's earth's very existence. Fry saves the day by launching an even bigger rocket of garbage at it, dismissing it's likely return with a "tsk who cares, we'll all be long gone by then."
I know the episode to which you refer intimately, was thinking along those lines when I said 'future' episode (even though i don't think they are making any more).
-
Was it on here that I heard this worrying statistic? - that if every bit of industry, every car, every powerstation and all aviation in the uk was to stop producing co2 tomorrow, within 2 years the expansion of industry in India and China would have made up the shortfall of our cessation of CO2 production.
Doesn't mean we should just give up. Throughout history the west has almost always led and the east followed, (gross generalisation I know but...). If we clean up our act first they may follow, if they don't we can encourage them with trade restrictions etc. The important thing is to start.
-
Amen.
Take the holistic approch.
Butterflies flapping wings and hurricanes, and all that.
-
Yeah, I don't disagree at all. Just a sinking feeling that whatever we do is gonna be to little to late. We've known about global warming since the 80s. It's taken 20yrs to start to think seriously about starting to do something... plus I'm a cynical old sod. If something doesn't make economic sense, then generally it doesn't happen. Yay, Capitalism! I think that any hope lies in future scientific developments such as sequestration, genetically improved carbon sucking vacuum trees and mag lev transport.
No more futurama, ya say!? Gutted! Sorry, SA Chris. Re-read previous post. Didn't mean to cast aspersions on your fanhood.
-
Apparently no more new episodes, aye.
Did anyone see this programme? A bit far fetched, but interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6374967.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6374967.stm)