SICK of this environmental crap.

Originally posted by slinky09

Originally posted by iforres1

God help us when it snows.

Iain

That was one of the things I laughed about most when I moved south from Yorkshire - why does the SE sieze up with 2' of snow! In the north we just put our wellies on and get on with it [:)].

Oh, that's just tradition slinky!

I loathe the word 'offset' - somehow implying that planting a few trees will somehow remove the same volume of CO2 from the atmosphere that we have generated in our 'carbon footprint' activities.. (another ridiculous new expression).

Let's start calling it an optional carbon TAX.. that may or may not go to a nice charity, which apart from paying its staff and executives good salaries is also to varying degrees trying to make the world a nicer and safer place. Sometimes. Depending on the charity. If you saw the annual accounts of many charities you may re-think who you give money too.

Personally, I like to research, VISIT, and choose which charities I support.

Confucius say:

When many philosophers have given false trail, next one shall be cursed just for speaking.

planting a few trees will somehow remove the same volume of CO2 from the atmosphere

Have trees changed since I studied Biology - do they now not remove CO2 and excrete oxygen?

45.

Anyone interested in climate change should take a look at the fallen Redwood (John Muir Woods I think?). The tree has been sectioned at the base and you can clearly see the growth rings. The rangers have identified points in history right back to the time of Jesus right up to when the tree was cut down by 'vandals' in the last part of the 20th Century. Taking a close look at the growth rings show periods of growth and long periods of no growth. I am no expert on climate change and I realise that our grant maintained research scientists have more access to the meticulously maintained ancient global warming records (Forthsooth it was a hot one today. Mine host had to verrily near remove his hat***), but it could be that climate is constantly changing and has been for quite a while[:?]

*** excerpt kindly reproduced from the acclaimed research book 'Global warming, tis a threat and do we need to stop burning witches? By William ' wonder when we can start getting huge research grants' Turner-Hope AD 1436.

The world has had a good few billion years, I've only got about 85 probably (less if I keep eating too much foie gras). I'm not going to feel guilty about about flying and no matter how bad the decline is I'll be long gone before the world is.

Originally posted by Wolves27
The world has had a good few billion years, I've only got about 85 probably (less if I keep eating too much foie gras). I'm not going to feel guilty about about flying and no matter how bad the decline is I'll be long gone before the world is.

That's the spirit, mate! [y]

GJ

Maybe they'll put a meter on IFE so it can calculate how much energy I've used watching media and how much it's going to cost.

Won't make much money then, having read all the moans and groans about IFE not working.[}:)]

And yes if I get a tin rattled at me it will be sent packing, cheeky w*****s.[V][V]

Originally posted by VS045

planting a few trees will somehow remove the same volume of CO2 from the atmosphere

Have trees changed since I studied Biology - do they now not remove CO2 and excrete oxygen?

45.

[:D] Thank you for helping illustrate the point - yes, photosynthesis utilises CO2.. but plants also 'breathe' and utilise O2 and releasing CO2. Looking at a tree life-cycle over several years sees much of the 'absorbed' CO2 released back into the air. The proportions are complex to work out, but the concept of a forest being a CO2 absorbing 'machine' is flawed. One of the main factors for this is that there are several rate-limiting steps, such as a limit of nitrogen in the soil.

[Ironically, driving cars which release plenty of nitrogen, ultimately allows trees to absorb a bit more CO2, so there is a vaguely interesting pseudo-argument that driving cars is good for CO2 reduction... ]

Hence the concept of taking a flight, then planting fifty trees, is more about making yourself feel good than any science.

Instead of measuring the CO2/O2 balance its simpler to just look at the end result: You start with a lot of short, narrow 'twigs' called saplings and decades later you have a forest of very large trees representing several cubic metres of timber.

This timber has locked in carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere in the form of complex organic molecules. The amount of CO2 is more or less proportional to the total weight of 'timber' in the forest.

Trees grow much more quickly in the early years and slow down towards maturity. So a mature forest continues to absorb CO2 at a small fraction of the rate of a young plantation eventually stabilising at zero.

We put CO2 into the atmosphere by burning wood, coal (prehistoric wood) and oil. Re-generating a forest simply convert some atmospheric CO2 back into wood again (over a fifty year period).

Even if we could somehow regenerate all of the prehistoric forests, this will do nothing for the additional (much greater) volume of CO2 which originates from burning oil and coal.

[HighFlyer]

An even simpler solution. Enforce a population growth restriction (or even, dare i say, enforce a decline). Many of our worldly problems come from too many human beings populating this planet and abusing its limited resources.

Thanks,
Sarah

Personally I am bored with the global warming fear factor,
we have coughed up tax cash to pay for our terrorism fear factor,

I coughed up £80 to pay for my global warming fearfactor

Surely the nuts and politicians can come up with something new to scare the crap out of ordinary working folks and invent a tax for it.

I hear a new cold war might be in the offing, or prehaps we could go back to the eighties and worry about the impending iceage[:?]

Originally posted by HighFlyer
An even simpler solution. Enforce a population growth restriction (or even, dare i say, enforce a decline). Many of our worldly problems come from too many human beings populating this planet and abusing its limited resources.

Thanks,
Sarah

Be interesting to see how you would 'enforce' that solution Sarah. There are some things a tax break just wont accomplish and basic human rights should never be screwed around with as Mr Hitler and Mr Pot to name just two found out a few years back

[Darren Wheeler]

Simple

Get the Catholic Church to reverse it's ban on contraception. If you exclude China (pretty big already) most population growth is occurring in countries where Catholicism is the dominant religion.

[HighFlyer]

My own personal views could be interpreted as quite extreme so for the sake of going OT i wont go into depth here, but from my viewpoint, we either try and control our population growth as we would any animal on this planet that had begun to outgrow its environment or we have to deal with the consequences of our overcrowding, such as further wars and disputes over land, eradication of our natural resources and an increase in the number of illnesses and disease as mother natures only way of trying to control our growth.

Thanks,
Sarah

Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
Simple

Get the Catholic Church to reverse it's ban on contraception. If you exclude China (pretty big already) most population growth is occurring in countries where Catholicism is the dominant religion.

Sorry Darren that simply is not true. Most population growth which could ever have any impact globally sits outside countries who are predominantly catholic in their religious beliefs. Besides, you have to factor in that in many of these cases (Africa esp) the mortality rate is at a much earlier age than that of the so called developed world.

Of course I do agree with you that the Catholic Church should reverse its outdated beliefs on contraception if only to stop the spread of HIV/Aids, but then who said that religions ever made any sense anyway

Jon B

The easiest way to stop pollution: stop mowing your damn lawns. Think about all the fuel we would save if no one on the earth used a lawn mower.

[Decker]

Americans and their powered lawnmowers huh? [;)]

Originally posted by HighFlyer
My own personal views could be interpreted as quite extreme so for the sake of going OT i wont go into depth here, but from my viewpoint, we either try and control our population growth as we would any animal on this planet that had begun to outgrow its environment or we have to deal with the consequences of our overcrowding, such as further wars and disputes over land, eradication of our natural resources and an increase in the number of illnesses and disease as mother natures only way of trying to control our growth.

Thanks,
Sarah

I don't think you're extreme and pretty much hold the same views myself. If global warming is to be such a catastrophe, one thing many people haven't quite got is that earth will survive if a little hotter, but humans won't. I see this as a form of natural selection, whereby nature finds a way to deal with the most difficult / consumptive / abusing / to many of living thing, aka humans.

Seems most of us feel the same - and pretty strongly about stuff too. If this is anything like a true picture of the population as a whole, perhaps we shoukd consider being French for a moment. No, I don't mean shrugging our shoulders and going 'pah', but doing a blockade.... they do it sooo well (and so often)[}:)]

Wow - not been here for what seems like ages. Now I come back and see that we're all pretty much sick of this stuff. I guess my name is a bit of a hint as to where I stand on the carbon debate!

Incidentally, while I've not been around, I've been working on a couple of websites that it appears you may just like.

Try http://www.mardaletimes.com, especially the 'global warming news' and the t-shirt shop.

Also, since it came up, see our new plans to top carbon offset at http://www.childneutral.com

[}:)]

But yes, I can't see any of these 'green' taxes doing anything to improve anyone's life, especially if it turns out that the planet goes through cycles of getting warmer and cooler anyway.

[HighFlyer]

child neutral - i love it! Gaz, as one half of an offsetter couple, do let me know whether we can receive our rewards through air miles or just plain cash? [:D]

Thanks,
Sarah

do let me know whether we can receive our rewards through air miles or just plain cash?

Thats a great idea - I do like the irony of paying in air miles [}:)]

There's so much wrong with this proposal, I don't know where to start.

Firstly, I should say that I do think that changes are required in reducing carbon emissions, increasing recycling etc.

Several months ago I was almost incandescent at the news that a Commons Audit Committee had the temerity to criticise British Airways for not pushing it's carbon offsetting scheme more. As others have pointed out, there has been tax after tax imposed on people for 'environmental purposes' but we all know this money isn't directed this way.

It's like when parking meters were brought in - the assurance was given then that all money raised would go towards the road infrastructure. We now know that in fact it's just being used as a cash cow for councils and the government.

If the Government had announced rises in APD, and said all the money would be ringfenced and go into making an actual difference, then it might have been supported. If it had all gone towards wind farms, solar projects - anything but just going into general coffers it might have been supported.

The Virgin approach is just going to cause Cabin Crew misery. As a passenger I will become angry if pushed about this. It's like paying for petrol after filling up your car and being told 'The petrol company who produced this petrol caused £1bn of environmental damage last year. Would you like to pay towards the damage they caused?'

If Virgin want to make a difference, why don't they put their money where their mouth is like Eurostar and Silverjet? Both operate as carbon neutral. Blaming your customers for the impact of using your product is bad bad news.

Oh sorry, I forgot how big Virgin's mouth can be....

Apologies for the long rant.

David.

I'd just like to put this in here, because I feel like some of the posts are a bit hazy in this regard: although I think all these green taxes are absurd, I am still a staunch believer in Global Warming. I think there are a lot of sensible things we can all do to help the environment that won't cost us much, if anything. I just think all these taxes aren't actually helping anyone, especially the environment.

One side note, all Silverjet tickets include a carbon-offset tax and you can't remove it.