You can help Porsche in its fight

[hawk20]

Wow, it sounds like there are a bunch of Queen Sloane, Henry Conway's pals here of '@°#/ off we're rich' fame.
Thank goodness for the sane ones standing up to all this selfish twaddle.
.

Isn't this just a classic example of class hatred and envy.

 

[Dieselman]

carbon cycle proportion of carbon dixoide contributed by mankind 3.4% (IPCC)
UK contribution to global emissions 2% (DEFRA)
Proportion of this due to cars = 16% (DEFRA again)
So cars in the UK are responsible for 16% of 2% of 3.4% of 0.039% which is precisely bugger all. Globally - just take out the 2% and it increases from bugger all to naff all.
If you go further, and consider the devil's chariot (the 4x4) then as these make up 8% of UK car sales (SMMT) then they are responsible for 8% of 16% of 2% of 3.4% of 0.039% which is the square root of bugger all !

Looking at your figures another way.

There are 194 recognised Countries/States in the World with a population of 6.2Bn people.

That means that if all the countries had the same average pollution they would emit 0.5% each. We emit 2% of the World Co2 pollution so 4 times our allowance by Country.

If you look at the figure per head of population then our average value should be 0.094% of the World's Co2 emissions, which is 21.5 times lower than our actual emission value.
Remember this is an average figure, some parts of the World have figures way below the average.

What would your proposal be to lower the Co2 emissions per head of population by a factor of 21 times.?

The world leaders have accepted a mandate to reduce Co2 output so it makes sense to start with the high emiting countries.

 

[Dieselman]

Isn't this just a classic example of class hatred and envy.

No. Isn't each Council now under a EU mandate to reduce Co2 emissions.?

If people started acting instead of procrastinating we wouldn't need the draconian measures being imposed.

(that comment doesn't refer to you Hawk20)

 

[Dieselman]

Sorry, but global warming still hasn't even been proven to be caused by man at all.

And until the level is reduced and the effect observed it never will be as you know. It hasn't been proven to be natural either.

However it has been generally accepted within the scientific and World Leader communities as being a man made problem.

 

[RoseTattoo]

Isn't this just a classic example of class hatred and envy.

You are absolutely correct. All of this talk about what people want to do to Ken L., mention of people form sink estates and so on is disgraceful Hooray Henry Twaddle. Thank you for your support.
Note none of the people objecting to this charge seem to object to a 25 pound per day parking charge in London.
However a letter in today's FT pointed out that Porsche owners, wishing to show off their exclusivity should be pleased that this charge will give them greater exclusivity to show off their wealth.

 

[hawk20]

No. Isn't each Council now under a EU mandate to reduce Co2 emissions.?

If people started acting instead of procrastinating we wouldn't need the draconian measures being imposed.

(that comment doesn't refer to you Hawk20)

But Dieselman, so sensible normally, cannot we all try to grasp that Ken's own experts say what he is plannning will not reduce emissions or congestion. It is in the TfL report. And in one of my earlier postings. The relatively small number of band G cars that will disappear will be replaced by a relatively large number of Band A and B cars, paying no charge, but congesting the roads, causing jams, and more pollution from cars of all sizes in those jams.

And however much people like to twist Alfie's figures he is right that nothing we do on this small island with only 1% of the world's population, is going to make a blind bit of difference unless China, India, the US, Japan and China all make mega moves and the whole world acts to stop population doubling every 40 years.

 

[prprandall51]

.... All of this talk about what people want to do to Ken L., mention of people form sink estates and so on is disgraceful Hooray Henry Twaddle. ....

So will you take up the challenge I laid down of articulating why this charge is reasonable and fair?

 

[Sp!ke]

Looking at your figures another way.

There are 194 recognised Countries/States in the World with a population of 6.2Bn people.

That means that if all the countries had the same average pollution they would emit 0.5% each. We emit 2% of the World Co2 pollution so 4 times our allowance by Country.

If you look at the figure per head of population then our average value should be 0.094% of the World's Co2 emissions, which is 21.5 times lower than our actual emission value.
Remember this is an average figure, some parts of the World have figures way below the average.

What would your proposal be to lower the Co2 emissions per head of population by a factor of 21 times.?

The world leaders have accepted a mandate to reduce Co2 output so it makes sense to start with the high emiting countries.

Talk about fiddling with figures... Your comparing apples with oranges. Of course an overpopulated developed country will have higher energy requirements that a sparse less developed one. Equally a country like ours with a relatively cold climate will use more energy.

Use more, emit more.

...and it is not generally accepted by scientists that global warming is caused by man at all, there's many well respected scientists that say the exact opposite. Theres one very respected russian scientist whose warning of serious climate change in the other direction in 30 years time.

Meanwhile, the words leaders in forcasting (the met office) can't predict more than a week ahead.

The world is still a massive place and we occupy a very small percentage of it. Most is empty of any evidence of man at all. It has also been through many a climate change before now. To put these changes down to man is pure speculation. Look around, there's less pollution now than at any point since the industrial revolution.

 

[Alfie]

And until the level is reduced and the effect observed it never will be as you know. It hasn't been proven to be natural either.

However it has been generally accepted within the scientific and World Leader communities as being a man made problem.

So what about the massive impact that rotting vegetation has and the almost infinite by comparison contribution of the volcanoes? These are not man made.

 

[Mr E]

Talk about fiddling with figures... Your comparing apples with oranges. Of course an overpopulated developed country will have higher energy requirements that a sparse less developed one. Equally a country like ours with a relatively cold climate will use more energy.

Does have some validity - but there has to be some kind of baseline.

Use more, emit more.

That's neither acceptable or responsible. What gives us the right to take that stance?

So it's acceptable to dump my rubbish in your garden because I produce more? Of course not. Surely it's incumbant on us to learn how to change and adapt rather than take the "blow the rest, I got here first and it's mine to do with how I please" approach.

...and it is not generally accepted by scientists that global warming is caused by man at all, there's many well respected scientists that say the exact opposite. Theres one very respected russion scientist whose warning of serious climate change in the other direction in 30 years time.

Almost correct - the consensus of opinion among those that know what they are talking about (i.e. are qualified in their field) is that man is playing some role in climate warming. It's the extent of change that's in general debate.

That man is pumping CO2 (the major "warming" gas) is not in question - the capacity of oceans and remaining vegetation to absorb CO2 is known, and that is less than man produces, hence the excess resides in the atmosphere. So for every 100 beers cans I chuck in your garden you , to illustrate the point, have capacity to remove only 99. Therefore the amount of litter increases. CO2 takes about 100 years to break down, cans take a long time to rust away too.

Meanwhile, the words leaders in forcasting (the met office) can't predict more than a week ahead.

Weather and climate are two separate things - and you would be surprised at the level of accuracy achieved in predicating large scale chaotic models at very small levels of granularity the MetO are able to achieve...

The world is still a massive place and we occupy a very small percentage of it. Most is empty of any evidence of man at all. It has also been through many a climate change before now. To put these changes down to man is pure speculation. Look around, there's less pollution now than at any point since the industrial revolution.

Depends at the pollutant you look at - certainly for visible pollutants we've done well in the UK in reducing levels. Our levels of CO2, Methane and other similar pollutants continues to rise.

So to continue the illustration, I've topped chucking beer cans and by doing so you can clear-up the back-log. But me and my mates having taken to p-ing in it instead. You can't see it, and it acts as a pollutant in a different way with different effects does that make it any better.

It's a very simple question - forget the politics, forget the misleading numbers - would you rather I stopped chucking cans into your garden? Of course you would.

So what is wrong in wanting to enjoy a cleaner environment?

 

[hawk20]

It's a very simple question - forget the politics, forget the misleading numbers - would you rather I stopped chucking cans into your garden? Of course you would.

So what is wrong in wanting to enjoy a cleaner environment?

What is wrong is that you use a ludicrous example. Chucking beer-cans in his garden does clear, measurable and obvious harm to him which could be stopped at liitle cost to you.

By contrast the world CO2 argument is not clear, not agreed, not indisputably measurable and certainly not easy to stop at little cost.

Huge costs are involved in lowering CO2 despite a world population that is doubling every 40 years. And any benefits are by no means clear or agreed.

AND what you are ignoring is that Ken is proposing that you stop throwing a few larger beercans in his garden; but instead throw a lot more smaller ones instead. Which Ken's own experts say will amount to at least as much pollution in the garden as there was before Ken introduced his flawed new policy.

 

[Sp!ke]

Well actually, I don't mind him or his mates chucking beer cans into my garden as now instead of having a single weekly rubbish collection, I have almost daily recycling collections for various types of stuff.

What does annoy me though is that I have to spend more time and more money on fuel everyday because I and thousands of others are stuck behind some form of dust/recycling cart deliberately blocking the roads with impunity during morning rush hour(s). If you calculated the extra emissions produced from all the commuters caught up in this everyday, I'm not entirely sure that the environmental cost of all this recycling is better than landfill. If a proper dust to dust comparison was made including all the knock ons, I recon it might be a pretty close call.

 

[Mr E]

What is wrong is that you use a ludicrous example. Chucking beer-cans in his garden does clear, measurable and obvious harm to him which could be stopped at liitle cost to you.

By contrast the world CO2 argument is not clear, not agreed, not indisputably measurable and certainly not easy to stop at little cost.

Huge costs are involved in lowering CO2 despite a world population that is doubling every 40 years. And any benefits are by no means clear or agreed.

AND what you are ignoring is that Ken is proposing that you stop throwing a few larger beercans in his garden; but instead throw a lot more smaller ones instead. Which Ken's own experts say will amount to at least as much pollution in the garden as there was before Ken introduced his flawed new policy.

What's wrong is that this is an example of the attitudes involved - not a comparison between beer cans and CO2.

What bit of the CO2 argument is not agreed? Please post the peer-reviewed papers that say that CO2 is not increasing in the atmosphere, that man produces more CO2 that the planet can sink each year, that there is not a link between increased CO2 levels and a warming climate.

Benefits are clear - I'm not going to do your research.

My note was not about Ken's proposal - I've already stated before that it isn't the right approach. The post is about the "why bother, I'm rich and can afford it" approach.

I don't think I have to state my position again on this subject - but what is wrong with trying to lead a less polluting life?

 

[hawk20]

I don't think I have to state my position again on this subject - but what is wrong with trying to lead a less polluting life?

Nothing I do it myself. But I am not trying to impose harsh measures, sometimes retrospective on other people, in a vain attempt to save the world from an enemy we haven't properly defined or identified. Is it not true, as posted on other threads, that there has been no global warming since 1998? A whole decade when the average temp of the world has not risen despite all the extra CO2.

Don't core samples of the earth show that 8,000 of the last 10,000 years were warmer than we are now.

Didn't your pool of scientists tell us we were going into a new ice age only about 20 years ago? Wasn't it called Global Cooling then?

 

[jeremytaylor]

The main point I am trying to make is that the election in May is the appropriate avenue to express disapproval of policies, not judicial reviews instigated by interested parties.

The thing is, tens of thousands of people affected by this proposal, including you and me, will have no say as we live outside London and have no vote. Never mind all the businesses in London who will be affected but similarly have no vote ...

 

[Sp!ke]

But the key to the debate here is the fact that the new emission tax/congestion charge (whatever it is called now) isn't going to address this problem. It may in fact make it worse.

All this is is a another stealth tax, thinly disguised amongst green issues.

What we really should be concentrating on is making sure the world does absorb all of our CO2 output and not just use it as an excuse to get more money out of the softer targets for no gain other than financial.

Rather make sure there is no more deforestation of green forest - perhaps look at irrigation of other areas to actually increase the worlds green forests and devote time and money into producing the right kind of algae for our seas to make sure the balance is right.

Taxing people does not fix anything.

 

[hawk20]

Originally Posted by Dave Lewis
"The main point I am trying to make is that the election in May is the appropriate avenue to express disapproval of policies, not judicial reviews instigated by interested parties."

Companies no longer have a vote despite paying large amounts in tax.

The democratically elected govts of Britain provided a process for people and companies to have the right to ask for Judicial Review of certain decisions. It is therefore perfectly appropriate for Porsche to make use of that process if they wish.

 

[Alfie]

Use more, emit more.

That's neither acceptable or responsible. What gives us the right to take that stance?

I think you have missed Sp!ke's point. He is stating that if you use more, you will emit more. He wasn't saying we should, just stating what happens if you do.

 

[recycled]

I think ken is fighting back

http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/car_news_article.aspx?cp-documentid=7630992

 

[hawk20]

I think ken is fighting back

http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/car_news_article.aspx?cp-documentid=7630992

Is there no limit to how far this man will carry on his vendetta??