Going Green

[CarlMetro]

It seems to be a bit of a political obsession in the UK at the moment.

We have the Chancellor yesterday announcing rises in fuel duty for motorists and a doubling of environmental taxes on airline flights from £5 to £10.

We had a transport study published which suggests charging motorists for every mile they drive.

Then have seen the Congestion Charge in London introduced, the price then inflated and now the are covered expanded to almost double the original size.

And of course we are about to see greater increases in road fund licence for the most polluting vehicles, with the top band possibly paying upwards of a £1,000 a year.

We also have local authorities proposing that we should be paying more for refuse which is not recyclable to be taken away.

We are told that we should turn off our tv's and computers rather than leaving them on standby, and to use energy saving light-bulbs to save electricity.

All of this, and much much more to save the planet, to maintain the climate we have, to stop man from destroying the one thing he truly cannot exist without.

...........and yet a report last week, published by the Chinese government confirmed that they plan to build 526 coal-fired power stations in the next 20 years.

USA still refuses to acknowledge the benefits of the Kyoto Agreement, and therefore refuses to sign up to it, although primarily because of cost of implementation.

Former Eastern block countries such as Poland produce more pollutants in a day than some of the better countries across the world do in a week.

So, tell me, what is the point of me doing little things when not everyone else is doing the same thing?

[Sleeper]

Not much in the grand scheme of things, but someone has got to make a start somewhere. Might as well be here, just wish it didnt mean overcharging us without seeing any benifit in any department. :mark:

[oldhippie]

the oil companys are ripping you off so why shouldnt the government get a piece of you too? :s

[Daniel]

Not much in the grand scheme of things, but someone has got to make a start somewhere. Might as well be here, just wish it didnt mean overcharging us without seeing any benifit in any department. :mark:
I agree. It's got to start somewhere. if it fails then it fails. At least we tried.

[Hazell B]

There's a massive point to doing something rather than nothing.

For example, refuse. What other countries do has no bearing on our own problem with landfill and recycling. Let them have litter in the streets, that's their own fault. However, if we continue just lumping rubbish together in the land, we'll end up landfilled to our own back door steps. Fancy living near a dump? Neither do I :p :

Less cars in the cities means cleaner air near your lungs, and that of your children. What's wrong with cutting down on car use if you want to breathe clean air when walking the city streets?

Using a bit less power at home means lower fuel bills (no matter what the power companies say!) each year. Unless you enjoy paying your electricity bill, why waste power?

I'm a bit confused about the zero carbon new house thingy. Anyone care to explain that one to me as I cannot work out how a new build can possibly be zero carbon when it's built with concrete, etc. Unless they mean zero when it's lived in?

[Daniel]

There's a massive point to doing something rather than nothing.

For example, refuse. What other countries do has no bearing on our own problem with landfill and recycling. Let them have litter in the streets, that's their own fault. However, if we continue just lumping rubbish together in the land, we'll end up landfilled to our own back door steps. Fancy living near a dump? Neither do I :p :

Less cars in the cities means cleaner air near your lungs, and that of your children. What's wrong with cutting down on car use if you want to breathe clean air when walking the city streets?

Using a bit less power at home means lower fuel bills (no matter what the power companies say!) each year. Unless you enjoy paying your electricity bill, why waste power?

I'm a bit confused about the zero carbon new house thingy. Anyone care to explain that one to me as I cannot work out how a new build can possibly be zero carbon when it's built with concrete, etc. Unless they mean zero when it's lived in?
I'm guessing the latter is correct. It's carbon neutral when lived in? I think it would be very hard to negate the carbon used in the construction of a house.

Incidently I helped out yesterday planting a woodland on an old tip site that had been capped and had a bit of topsoil put on top of it. Just think of all the carbon that those trees will be taking out of the air :) Plus it will also look a little better than a barren old tip site!!!!!! :) Was quite satisfying work even though it was raining. Thank god for gore-tex raincoats!!!!

Being green doesn't just have to make sense from an environmental point of view either. Having a composter, wormery, wind turbine or light efficient bulbs saves money by meaning you need less electricty and you don't need to go to B&Q and buy compost or fertiliser. If you can save money and be green at the same time then why not? :)

[BDunnell]

I agree with the view that doing nothing on an individual level because China, India and the like aren't doing anything is no argument at all. It's an obvious thing to say, but if every country that isn't that big a polluter in the grand scheme of things took the same attitude, the world will get nowhere in terms of tackling something that is undeniably (unless you seriously believe those who say that the phenomenon of climate change doesn't exist) very important.

[Daniel]

I agree with the view that doing nothing on an individual level because China, India and the like aren't doing anything is no argument at all. It's an obvious thing to say, but if every country that isn't that big a polluter in the grand scheme of things took the same attitude, the world will get nowhere in terms of tackling something that is undeniably (unless you seriously believe those who say that the phenomenon of climate change doesn't exist) very important.
Regardless of whether this warming is caused by natural warming or the greenhouse effect it's something that people should be very worried about. Just a few hundred metres from where I live here in lovely sunny north wales there's a nice big hill which is I think about 500 ft tall. Not that many thousands of years ago it was almost all underwater and where I'm sitting now would have been a few hundred feet under the sea by an oceanside cliff rather than being just a couple of miles from the sea as it is now. Regardless of whether it's caused by us or the planet it's happening very fast and has serious implications for many areas of the planet and not just people living by the sea.

[schmenke]

..............and yet a report last week, published by the Chinese government confirmed that they plan to build 526 coal-fired power stations in the next 20 years....
Former Eastern block countries such as Poland produce more pollutants in a day than some of the better countries across the world do in a week....

True, but on a per-capita basis Western countries still are far more polluting than China, specifically in the production of greenhouse gases. USA and Candada are the worst offenders. I'll do some googling and try to dig up some statistics.

[Dave B]

It's frustrating when you try to be as green as possible, only to see countries like China and the USA undo all your good work.

On the old forum, I made fun of the fact that I can change a 100w filament bulb for an 18w energy saving one, yet the chavs over the road will use five times that saving just with their Christmas lights!

Of course the UK should do the right thing, and be seen to be doing the right thing. But there's a massive sense of injustice that we're doing ourselves no favours economically, while certain other countries can expand their economies without a care in the world.

If you wanted a ship built, or to set up a factory, would you do it in a country that was carbon-neuteral, or one that would do the job cheaply?

[Daniel]

It's frustrating when you try to be as green as possible, only to see countries like China and the USA undo all your good work.

On the old forum, I made fun of the fact that I can change a 100w filament bulb for an 18w energy saving one, yet the chavs over the road will use five times that saving just with their Christmas lights!

Of course the UK should do the right thing, and be seen to be doing the right thing. But there's a massive sense of injustice that we're doing ourselves no favours economically, while certain other countries can expand their economies without a care in the world.

If you wanted a ship built, or to set up a factory, would you do it in a country that was carbon-neuteral, or one that would do the job cheaply?
The last bit of your post is an excellent point. Why would you do the right thing when being irresponsible is soooooo much cheaper? I seriously think that with labour prices as they are in the east countries like China and India could still be competitive without polluting so much.

If you think your neighbourly chavs are bad wait till you see what our neighbours have done.......

[BDunnell]

Of course the UK should do the right thing, and be seen to be doing the right thing. But there's a massive sense of injustice that we're doing ourselves no favours economically, while certain other countries can expand their economies without a care in the world.

I find it worrying that so many people have decided to feel such a sense of injustice in the face of all the recent coverage of climate change issues, rather than just getting on with taking small steps towards being more energy-efficient and accepting the fact that certain things are going to cost more. I for one don't feel this 'massive sense of injustice'.

My frustration is with the politicians of almost all parties who have never stopped to think about the adverse effects of globalisation. Earlier today, I was listening to Peter Hain, the Welsh Secretary, talking in support of a campaign to stop Burberry from moving clothes production from Wales to somewhere cheap in the Far East. His arguments as to why they shouldn't move — just like all the arguments put forward by people from all parties as to why Airbus will never move production out of the UK — were entirely spurious, and failed to take into account the realities of mass production and globalisation. The same is true of the growth of economies such as those of India and China with their resulting environmental impacts. This has been allowed to happen in part because globalisation is inevitable, and is seen as such by politicians and electorates, yet there seems to be surprise that it has had such an adverse environmental effect. Again, globalisation is all very well until these adverse effects hit home.

[CarlMetro]

Less cars in the cities means cleaner air near your lungs, and that of your children. What's wrong with cutting down on car use if you want to breathe clean air when walking the city streets?

So I guess you'll either be getting rid of the Landie? Or smiling when Gordon's cronies send you a £1,000 bill for 12 months road fund licence then?

Don't get me wrong here people, I recycle, I use energy efficient light-bulbs and I even turn my TV off at night but I feel that my, abeit miniscule effort, each week is being undone by the likes of China and India in a matter of hours.

I'm a firm believer in global warming and believe we have witnessed serious climate change over the past few years. For me the problem is only going to get worse, no matter what many governments enforce because there are too many like China, India and the USA whose see it as a 'get rich at all costs situation' rather than the potential death of civilisation as we know it.

[Dave B]

I find it worrying that so many people have decided to feel such a sense of injustice in the face of all the recent coverage of climate change issues, rather than just getting on with taking small steps towards being more energy-efficient and accepting the fact that certain things are going to cost more. I for one don't feel this 'massive sense of injustice'.

To be fair, I have got on with things and felt a sense of injustice!

Every light fitting that will accept one has an energy-saving bulb, I recycle more than I thrown out (most weeks), I'm more aware of what I leave switched on... lots of little things which do add up. That doesn't mean I don't get upset when I see other people or other countries not making the effort.

As an aside, there's an article on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6188940.stm) about plasma TVs being wasteful, and there's this delightful comment which I wish I'd made myself:



Who cares about how much power they consume? I know I don't. It doesn't matter what you do, there's always somebody sticking their oar in, whinging about eco this and eco that. If they're that concerned about it, why don't they develop a TV that doesn't use as much power. I have a 42" Plasma, it's switched off at the mains at night watched for 25 mins while I get ready for work and about 4 hours on an evening after my evening meal. The majority of people are not like these un-employed people who buy TV's like this from credit companies and sit on their rears all day watching Trisha and eating pot noodles, pumping out children all year so they don't have to work. I paid for my TV outright, I can buy what I want to buy when I want to buy it and use it how I see fit (within reason of course!)
Steven, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

:D

[BDunnell]

To be fair, I have got on with things and felt a sense of injustice!

Every light fitting that will accept one has an energy-saving bulb, I recycle more than I thrown out (most weeks), I'm more aware of what I leave switched on... lots of little things which do add up.

Yes, but you are pretty enlightened about these things. Many other people are not.


As an aside, there's an article on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6188940.stm) about plasma TVs being wasteful

Yes, there is quite a lot of rubbish talked about some of the small things that people think they should do. A friend who is rather more environmentally-minded than I insists on turning off his Telewest set-top box every night to prevent it being on standby while he's asleep, because leaving things on standby is terrible. He will not accept what I see as the fact that turning it back on must use up more energy than having it on standby, as all the lights on the box have to go through that period of incessant flashing while the damn thing resets itself.

[Daniel]

Yes, but you are pretty enlightened about these things. Many other people are not.



Yes, there is quite a lot of rubbish talked about some of the small things that people think they should do. A friend who is rather more environmentally-minded than I insists on turning off his Telewest set-top box every night to prevent it being on standby while he's asleep, because leaving things on standby is terrible. He will not accept what I see as the fact that turning it back on must use up more energy than having it on standby, as all the lights on the box have to go through that period of incessant flashing while the damn thing resets itself.
You've also got to consider practicality. While a TV doesn't take that long to switch on rather than come out of standby a Sky box or Telewest box takes a while and that's not very convenient is it? :mark:

Tbh I don't see how having a nice TV makes you some sort of eco-devil. While a big LCD or Plasma is surely a luxury I don't see it as being OTT or anything. I also think their comparison of LCD/Plasma vs CRT is somewhat off. With desktiop monitors LCD's crap all over CRT's for energy consumption.

[schmenke]

...If you wanted a ship built, or to set up a factory, would you do it in a country that was carbon-neuteral, or one that would do the job cheaply?

Ships and factories are being built in the first place to respond to world consumption. The biggest consumers are Western countries whose citizens don't think twice about the environment when they purchase their plasma t.v. Factories are established in China and India because of cheap labour. The same plasma t.v. constructed in the U.S. or the U.K., where collective labour barganing ensures high wages, would cost twice as much. As it happens, China and India have very loose environmental regulations.
So... we want our cake and eat it too. We want our plasma t.v. and we want it cheap. The environment suffers.

[LotusElise]

I recycle when I can and have those energy-efficient lightbulbs as well. I actually prefer the softer light the give out too. My local supermarket has a "bag for life" scheme where you buy a sturdy shopping bag for 50p rather than use the carriers - I have three "bags for life" now, two of which are two years old! Refusing extra packaging is always a good idea.
My houseplants are watered with collected rainwater as well.

[schmenke]

...
My houseplants are watered with collected rainwater as well.

Show us your butt ;) :D

[CarlMetro]

Congrats to schmenke for the first smutty post on the new forum :laugh: :up:

[Rocsta]

You've also got to consider practicality. While a TV doesn't take that long to switch on rather than come out of standby a Sky box or Telewest box takes a while and that's not very convenient is it? :mark:

Tbh I don't see how having a nice TV makes you some sort of eco-devil. While a big LCD or Plasma is surely a luxury I don't see it as being OTT or anything. I also think their comparison of LCD/Plasma vs CRT is somewhat off. With desktiop monitors LCD's crap all over CRT's for energy consumption.

I don't get why LCD/plasma displays are being singled out as the spawn of the devil compared to a CRT, I have a 14" CRT which uses 80W, a 17" LCD which uses 70W and a 25" CRT which uses 159W.While both CRTs use more than my small LCD, size for size LCD and plasma are more efficient.

LCD and plasma are picked on because they are large, not because they are any more inefficient than a CRT, plasmas are also not much, if at all worse than an equivalent size LCD as a plasma' power usage is variable and is determined by what is shown on screen, the darker the image (watch a lot of films made at night etc) the less power is used as opposed to an LCD which is constant due to the backlight always being on regardless what is on screen.

Sky boxes on the other hand are pretty wasteful as they consume the same power when in standby as when they are on (mine is 18W when on and 17W when in standby and 35W when using the modem, so a whole 1W saving in standby), they actually don't switch off at all when in standby and only turn off the audio/video output to your TV, the rest is still on so not much point putting in standby at all. The only way is to unplug it at the mains, but then it won't receive any over the air updates when they are sent which are received when in standby.

We have been making our green contributions too by recycling, energy saving bulbs, home made radiator reflector panels and either buying local organic produce or growing our own, I don't understand why food has to travel hundreds or thousands of miles when it's made on my doorstep. I have also been looking at getting a wind turbine, but still not convinced that the cost/savings return is quite there yet.

[Eki]

If oily oaf went green, he'd be olive oily oaf.

[oily oaf]

If oily oaf went green, he'd be olive oily oaf.

Oi! I bloody heard that :mad:

While I'm at it young man it may have escaped your notice but I enhanced your forum "rep" yesterday when I proclaimed one of your posts to be "reindeer lickin' good"

Have I received a reciprocal commendation?
Oh dear me no :(

[Caroline]

We have also been looking at the costs involved in getting a wind turbine. We made a trip to the Centre for Alternative Technology a few weeks back to get some ideas and inspiration. It's apparent that roof fixed panels to heat water won't work in this climate but turbines might work as we get plenty of wind.

We should all do as much as possible. It makes me angry that some countries don't adhere to the Kyoto Protocol but if we don't set an example, who will?

[fandango]

Coming from what was originally a very Catholic country, the "bag for life" idea is really nothing new :)

On a serious note, I don't think it matters much how much of the little things you do - all that saving by recycling and using low energy bulbs. It's industry and factories that are using the resources - and not just the ones in those other countries. We have to face up to that as a society and change things. Politicians have to make big and difficult decisions. We buy too much stuff. I don't believe that feeling you've done your bit is enough. In fact, it could lead to a complacency which is worse...

[schmenke]

[quote="fandango"]... We buy too much stuff...quote]

Exactly. We are a world of consumers, and we in the "West" consume the most.

[Alexamateo]

... We buy too much stuff...quote]

Exactly. We are a world of consumers, and we in the "West" consume the most.

The only problem with that attitude is that without consumerism, most of us would not have jobs :eek:

[viper_man]

A lot of it seems as though its just governments and politicians campaigning for votes and the like, but if they are dedicated then of course its a good thing.

It just all seems a bit hit and miss, a lot of it seems as though they dont have much of an idea about what to tax and what is greener than what etc.

Also, I beleive we may have left it too late already, and if not, then massively more drastic measures are needed to make the world a 'greener' place.

[Hawkmoon]

...........and yet a report last week, published by the Chinese government confirmed that they plan to build 526 coal-fired power stations in the next 20 years.

USA still refuses to acknowledge the benefits of the Kyoto Agreement, and therefore refuses to sign up to it, although primarily because of cost of implementation.

Former Eastern block countries such as Poland produce more pollutants in a day than some of the better countries across the world do in a week.

So, tell me, what is the point of me doing little things when not everyone else is doing the same thing?

This is exactly the problem. Kyoto is nice press but is ultimately a crock of sh!te that will no absolutely nothing to help the environment.

Australia has not signed up either and nor should we. It's not mentioned much but many countries who have signed Kyoto can actually increase their emmissions and still meet the targets set out under the protocol.

If Australia shut down every coal-fired powerplant in the country today, China would replace our emmsions in about 10 months. Does this sound like a viable long-term solution? It sure-as-Hell doesn't to me.

We can't place the blame on the developing world however. The likes of China and India are trying to catch up with the West in terms of standard of living and are doing the same things that the West has been doing since the Industrial Revolution. It is rather hypocritical of the West to tell China not to pollute when the West has been doing it for hundreds of years.

This is not to say that we should do nothing. We have to do something. I believe that we should be investing in technologies that remove carbon emissions from power plants before being released into the atmosphere. We also need to find an alternative to oil-based fuels for transportation. Just saying that we are only allowed to emit x tonnes of carbon is not the answer.

[fandango]

The only problem with that attitude is that without consumerism, most of us would not have jobs :eek:

It's not an attitude, it's a fact. Do you want a job or a planet?

[LotusElise]

If we all make a small effort, surely it will have some effect and encourage others to do so. We have to start somewhere!

[Mark]

Making an effort is absolutely what we should do. However, how far do we take things in terms of the government forcing changes in our behaviour? Many believe the population of the country will end up enduring hardship in order to server the environmental cause, whereas other countries don't bother.

Personally I'd like to hear more about positive things you can do in your house and your lifestyle, and less emphasis on saying what you can't do and what you must pay more for.

[schmenke]

... It is rather hypocritical of the West to tell China not to pollute when the West has been doing it for hundreds of years...

It is rather hypocritical to blame China when the all the bigger, better and cheaper consumer goods that we crave are built in Chinese factories.

[Daniel]

It is rather hypocritical to blame China when the all the bigger, better and cheaper consumer goods that we crave are built in Chinese factories.
Yup. I think people should vote with their money and try to buy goods which are more environmentally friendly in the way they are manufactured and in their operation.

For instance when I bought a power supply for my still yet to be build PC a few months ago I made sure I bought one which had a high efficiency rating so that it will use less power and of course this will mean less carbon dioxide being released :)

[ioan]

So, tell me, what is the point of me doing little things when not everyone else is doing the same thing?

If everyone would do it than without asking him/herself this question than we would already have a healthier environement.
I do it because I believe we have to do this if we want a better future.

[Hazell B]

Carl asked if I'd be getting rid of my Land Rover as I'm saying cleaner air is a national rather than international problem.

Daft question - of course I won't. Thing is, if I did sell it and buy a smaller engined vehicle, I would produce far more carbon! Taking ten trips to market with auction lots instead of one isn't exactly sensible, is it? Nor will I moan about raised road fund - in fact I've stated on this forum many times that I strongly believe silly women in 4x4s should be taxed out of ownership and I'm willing to pay to see it done.

Having spent most of today's miles on soil tracks that don't even appear on OS maps, I think my 2.5TD (with fuel efficiency magnet fitted) is a damned sight cleaner than the morons who drive them for fun in towns and claim they 'need' a large vehicle for twice yearly camping trips, transporting a spaniel or carrying golf clubs :mark:

[fandango]

If we all make a small effort, surely it will have some effect and encourage others to do so. We have to start somewhere!

If only this were true. Industry's effects are much stronger than consumers'.

I think the small effort we all need to make is to pressure the politicians to make big changes. I mean, in most countries (if not all) the Green Party or its equivalent is not in power. No-one can imagine them with a parliamentary majority. Why is that? Well, for a start, the general feeling is that they don't know a thing about economics, and so the economy would be ruined. So there we have a very simple priority: we care more about the economy than about the environment. If we voted green would they get their economic policies together quicker than the other parties would sort out the environment? I reckon so, because clever economists would go and work for them.

This may all seem too simplistic, but it'll probably come to that choice this century.

[BDunnell]

Making an effort is absolutely what we should do. However, how far do we take things in terms of the government forcing changes in our behaviour? Many believe the population of the country will end up enduring hardship in order to server the environmental cause, whereas other countries don't bother.

Personally I'd like to hear more about positive things you can do in your house and your lifestyle, and less emphasis on saying what you can't do and what you must pay more for.

Those positive things you could do with your lifestyle may well enjoy driving and flying less, though. The things that people may be told not to do or to pay more for are likely to be larger contributors to pollution than light bulbs and TVs.

However, I do agree that forcing changes in behaviour is a very difficult one, given that governmental interference can only really go so far. A balance needs to be struck.

[Lousada]

All these measures are rather ridiculous. They tax cars more because they pollute, but there is no sensible alternative to a car. So what happens: nothing.
They also tax for putting your container out. The reason is, if you put your container out more often, you obviously pollute more and therefore have to pay more. So what happens: people put bio with the regular garbage and vice-versa, just to fill one container to the very edge and keep the other empty. Or they put plastic garbage in glassjars, which go in public containers. Or they just throw it on the streets. Anything you can and can't imagine, just so they save some money (to spend on expensive petrol). The problem is, I'm not the one polluting, it's the damn corporations. Cookies for example are collectively wrapped in a giant platic... wrap. Following that they are also individually wrapped, so when you unwrap the big wrap, all the cookies are still wrapped. In this small wrap, most chocolate cookies also have a cardboard/plastic wrap, so they don't melt in your hand. I JUST WANT MY DAMN COOKIE. The other day I had to get a battery. This battery is about ten square centimeters from above. Yet it was packed in a piece of plastic at least 50 square centimers big up front and an equally big piece of cardboard on the back. No wonder people don't give a damn about recycling when they are confronted with such waste every single day.
You also have to pay to go to the dump. The dump is a drive way with a container alongside it where you put your rubbish in. Every time you go, you have to pay more. Because if you go to the dump regularly, you pollute a lot, and people who pollute should pay more. I don't pay for my dump though. My dump is the nearby forest, and I'm not the only one who goes there, seeing all the furniture that's lying around between the trees.

The goverment needs to stop this enviromentalist bull**** because people are not stupid. Everything we will do with regards to the 'enviroment' is infinite compared to what China and India blow in the atmosphere everyday. And the earth will also inhabit life, even human life, when all oil and coal and gas is burned down. They say oil will be gone 5-10-20 years. Let's say even 100 years. You really think the climate will change so drasticly within that timeperiod that the earth becomes uninhabitable?
What the goverment should do is change their propaganda. They should say, we tax your SUV's extra because these fuelslurping monsters run on a substance that's only found in dictatorships we do not approve but we are depended on. We want you to use energy-saving lights because oil and gas plants use so much resources that these dictators can charge whatever they want, and that way we'd only have to tax you more! We tax your containers because plastic uses up a lot of oil. Oil that is not renewable and will probably cease to excist within our lifetime. Oil that our whole economy depends upon! In short, show them the doom that happens to us when fossile fuels run out.
I am sure this change in propaganda strategy would have a notable effect on peoples behaviours. Because this way, people that save and recycle can actually make a difference to the greater scheme of things.

Long post :s