Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Warwick-Watcher

Co2 Emissions

Recommended Posts

so the UK "must" reduce it's emissions by 80% by 2050, along with the rest of the EU.

I had a look at the UK annual emissions - apaprently 560 million tonnes in 2006.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...igh-442496.html

Now look at what India already produces and how much they expect to increase by over the next 20 years

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a279d6e-97b0-11...144feabdc0.html

So they already produce more than twice as much as the UK and expect to treble their existing amounts by 2031!

That means the UK's 80% reduction, amounting to say 400 million tonnes at 2006 levels, will be overwhelmed by a factor of probably 10 by India over the next 2 decades.

Now how many tonnes of CO2 have those new shitty "dim" light bulbs saved? About 135kg per household per year (according to the Energy Saving Trust). Multiply that by 20 million households gives you 2.7 million tonnes - wow, that's just under 0.7% of what we need to achieve!

This is the key problem - most politicians didn't do maths at uni, preferring to study PPE or History of Art.

Unless we start being honest about the numbers we're spitting in the wind of climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, there isn't a single thing you can do to meet the required reductions.

Lots and lots small things can go a long way though.

Better insulation, lightbulbs, abolishing standby on tv's etc will all help while having minimal impact on lifestyles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, there isn't a single thing you can do to meet the required reductions.

Lots and lots small things can go a long way though.

Better insulation, lightbulbs, abolishing standby on tv's etc will all help while having minimal impact on lifestyles.

Serious investment in renewable energy would fix the problem, and provide energy independence too. Inkering with standby and lighbulbs is not going to cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serious investment in renewable energy would fix the problem, and provide energy independence too. Inkering with standby and lighbulbs is not going to cut it.

Serious investment in renewable energy would not fix anything, and create a new problem of intermittent electricity supply.

There is no problem with CO2 emissions. The science is being corrected all the time, and it appears negative feedbacks dominate meaning that there is an inherent stability in the climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so the UK "must" reduce it's emissions by 80% by 2050, along with the rest of the EU.

I had a look at the UK annual emissions - apaprently 560 million tonnes in 2006.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...igh-442496.html

Now look at what India already produces and how much they expect to increase by over the next 20 years

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a279d6e-97b0-11...144feabdc0.html

So they already produce more than twice as much as the UK and expect to treble their existing amounts by 2031!

That means the UK's 80% reduction, amounting to say 400 million tonnes at 2006 levels, will be overwhelmed by a factor of probably 10 by India over the next 2 decades.

Now how many tonnes of CO2 have those new shitty "dim" light bulbs saved? About 135kg per household per year (according to the Energy Saving Trust). Multiply that by 20 million households gives you 2.7 million tonnes - wow, that's just under 0.7% of what we need to achieve!

This is the key problem - most politicians didn't do maths at uni, preferring to study PPE or History of Art.

Unless we start being honest about the numbers we're spitting in the wind of climate change.

That is a dam stupid way of looking at things.

You need to consider the energy use per population not per country.

Eidt to add:

We can and probably will meet that target mostly due to using less which will likely be imposed upon us.

Edited by cells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serious investment in renewable energy would not fix anything, and create a new problem of intermittent electricity supply.

There is no problem with CO2 emissions. The science is being corrected all the time, and it appears negative feedbacks dominate meaning that there is an inherent stability in the climate.

The only real alternative for the time being is nuclear and hydro to take up the capacity shortfall of fossil fuels.

I think politicians and scientists behind the scenes have realised how stupid they were and now know they cannot hope to be fossil free so they will instead “capture and store†the terrorist CO2 molecules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a dam stupid way of looking at things.

You need to consider the energy use per population not per country.

Eidt to add:

We can and probably will meet that target mostly due to using less which will likely be imposed upon us.

Not surprisingly I disagree. The issue (if it even is one) is the total CO2 emitted, not how much per head of population. If this really is an issue we simply cannot afford to let the population grow to 9 billion, with ever increasing consumption of the world's resources, notably fossil fuels.

I describe myself as a pessimistic realist as I simply don't believe that any meaningful change in fuel consumption will happen in my lifetime (unless the cost of recovery of coal, oil and gas becomes too expensive).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serious investment in renewable energy would fix the problem, and provide energy independence too. Inkering with standby and lighbulbs is not going to cut it.

This is important and should be the basis of the governments energy strategy (or lack of) going forward, not a theory on global warming climate change.

Edited by bingobob777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is important and should be the basis of the governments energy strategy (or lack of) going forward, not a theory on global warming climate change.

Why is that important?

We are not self sufficient in a lot of things including food. Why is energy more important than food? Or chemicals? Or machinery or….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not surprisingly I disagree. The issue (if it even is one) is the total CO2 emitted, not how much per head of population. If this really is an issue we simply cannot afford to let the population grow to 9 billion, with ever increasing consumption of the world's resources, notably fossil fuels.

I describe myself as a pessimistic realist as I simply don't believe that any meaningful change in fuel consumption will happen in my lifetime (unless the cost of recovery of coal, oil and gas becomes too expensive).

Yes but blaming china or India for your inaction is stupid.

Your blaming two and a half billion people who use less than the 750 million of Europe and America.

Anyway, I see the future as Europeans using 50kWh fossil fuels a day or even 25kWh a day as the big saving. Most of this will be from less consumption and some will be nuclear and renewable etc.

China and India will not let their populations reach a European level of about 100kWh a day. I think they will end up at about 30kWh a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, there isn't a single thing you can do to meet the required reductions.

Lots and lots small things can go a long way though.

Better insulation, lightbulbs, abolishing standby on tv's etc will all help while having minimal impact on lifestyles.

Yes you can: have no credible energy policy and let the LCPD close the stations in 2015 (more likely 2011) and let everyone sit in the dark :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so the UK "must" reduce it's emissions by 80% by 2050, along with the rest of the EU.

I had a look at the UK annual emissions - apaprently 560 million tonnes in 2006.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...igh-442496.html

Now look at what India already produces and how much they expect to increase by over the next 20 years

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a279d6e-97b0-11...144feabdc0.html

So they already produce more than twice as much as the UK and expect to treble their existing amounts by 2031!

That means the UK's 80% reduction, amounting to say 400 million tonnes at 2006 levels, will be overwhelmed by a factor of probably 10 by India over the next 2 decades.

Now how many tonnes of CO2 have those new shitty "dim" light bulbs saved? About 135kg per household per year (according to the Energy Saving Trust). Multiply that by 20 million households gives you 2.7 million tonnes - wow, that's just under 0.7% of what we need to achieve!

This is the key problem - most politicians didn't do maths at uni, preferring to study PPE or History of Art.

Unless we start being honest about the numbers we're spitting in the wind of climate change.

Yeah, some of us think man made global warming is a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is that important?

We are not self sufficient in a lot of things including food. Why is energy more important than food? Or chemicals? Or machinery or….

Food is as important as energy, it is energy.

Cut off the supply of energy or food - how long before serious problems arise?

Cut of the supply of playstations and louis Vuitton handbags - how long before problems arise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but blaming china or India for your inaction is stupid.

Your blaming two and a half billion people who use less than the 750 million of Europe and America.

Anyway, I see the future as Europeans using 50kWh fossil fuels a day or even 25kWh a day as the big saving. Most of this will be from less consumption and some will be nuclear and renewable etc.

China and India will not let their populations reach a European level of about 100kWh a day. I think they will end up at about 30kWh a day.

I'm not blaming them, just showing that the UK could cease to exist and CO2 emissions would not materially decrease, in fact they are going to materially increase as the global population gets richer on average.

I agree everyone has to share the efforts. Perhaps the tw@s in charge of the UK could stop letting people into this country, deter the long term unemployed from having kids, and build some nuclear power stations ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Food is as important as energy, it is energy.

Cut off the supply of energy or food - how long before serious problems arise?

Cut of the supply of playstations and louis Vuitton handbags - how long before problems arise?

I don’t know, a person can live without food for a month but how long can a kid go without a play station? 12 hours? 24 hours?

This security of supply stuff is ******** to be honest. What else are the exporters going to do other than sell their coal/oil/gas.

If security of supply is the main concern then build nuclear and coal and stockpile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only real alternative for the time being is nuclear and hydro to take up the capacity shortfall of fossil fuels.

I think politicians and scientists behind the scenes have realised how stupid they were and now know they cannot hope to be fossil free so they will instead “capture and store†the terrorist CO2 molecules.

Storing CO2 is such a good idea

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageplanet/01vol...1/indexmid.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t know, a person can live without food for a month but how long can a kid go without a play station? 12 hours? 24 hours?

This security of supply stuff is ******** to be honest. What else are the exporters going to do other than sell their coal/oil/gas.

If security of supply is the main concern then build nuclear and coal and stockpile.

Exactly. Aim to be energy and food self sufficient and the country could cope with most other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Food is as important as energy, it is energy.

Cut off the supply of energy or food - how long before serious problems arise?

Cut of the supply of playstations and louis Vuitton handbags - how long before problems arise?

It'd be chaos in my house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So funny.

so the UK "must" reduce it's emissions by 80% by 2050, along with the rest of the EU.

I had a look at the UK annual emissions - apaprently 560 million tonnes in 2006.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...igh-442496.html

Now look at what India already produces and how much they expect to increase by over the next 20 years

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a279d6e-97b0-11...144feabdc0.html

So they already produce more than twice as much as the UK and expect to treble their existing amounts by 2031!

That means the UK's 80% reduction, amounting to say 400 million tonnes at 2006 levels, will be overwhelmed by a factor of probably 10 by India over the next 2 decades.

Now how many tonnes of CO2 have those new shitty "dim" light bulbs saved? About 135kg per household per year (according to the Energy Saving Trust). Multiply that by 20 million households gives you 2.7 million tonnes - wow, that's just under 0.7% of what we need to achieve!

This is the key problem - most politicians didn't do maths at uni, preferring to study PPE or History of Art.

Unless we start being honest about the numbers we're spitting in the wind of climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/1/1688.htm

Top German scientists in onslaught on global warming fraud! Around the world, the truth is slowly leaking out, despite big media's shameful conspiracy to conceal it.

The MM will never come out and debunk it, they have too much stake in it. More likely they'll do what they did after Y2K and quietly forget it. Anyone re-raising it as a fraud will be told that they science was always speculastive and that many useful precautions were taken.

And by then they'll have moved onto the next manipulative story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/1/1688.htm

Top German scientists in onslaught on global warming fraud! Around the world, the truth is slowly leaking out, despite big media's shameful conspiracy to conceal it.

Yeah, those poor, impoverished and helpless multinational oil and coal companies are like, so utterly defenseless and unable to get their message across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. Aim to be energy and food self sufficient and the country could cope with most other things.

I agree 100% with this, and would support many initiatives if this was the stated objective. It's the MMGW lie that I can't swallow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the MMGW lie that I can't swallow.

What amount of evidence would it take to get you to change your mind on this? Indeed, is there ANY amount of evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.