Global warming and Christmas lights

stevechambers34

Not wanting to appear humbug but what's it all about eh? despite years of being told about Global warming etc more and more people keep putting up tacky as f*ck Christmas lights, just how much does it impinge on energy useage over the 'festive' period?
It's not just 'Council Estates neither some of the supposedly more informed 'better areas' are the worse. They just get on my ti*s put em up early leave em on til March then complain about GW for the rest of the year, tw*ts the lot of em....rant over.

chainlincs

I agree completely on the tacky Christmas lights thing, but it gets worse. Check out this Raleigh 'One Way' that's had a full-on festive attack.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/2109406917/

They could've at least hooked 'em up to a dynamo hub instead of a battery.

spen666

stevechambers34 wrote:

Not wanting to appear humbug but what's it all about eh? despite years of being told about Global warming etc more and more people keep putting up tacky as f*ck Christmas lights, just how much does it impinge on energy useage over the 'festive' period?
It's not just 'Council Estates neither some of the supposedly more informed 'better areas' are the worse. They just get on my ti*s put em up early leave em on til March then complain about GW for the rest of the year, tw*ts the lot of em....rant over.

The breakfast TV programmes spend 48 weeks of the year bringing us doom and gloom stroies about global warnming and what we need to do tro save the planet and then for the other 4 weeks run various competitions/ promotions etc encouraging people to shove as many lights on their houses as possible and contribute to the consumption of energy

Gavin Gilbert

Most people are in favour of being 'green' - until they work out it means they need to make a lifestyle change.

Big Red S

I'd be tempted to suggest that most Christmas lights consume so little power that even to remove all of them would have a negligible impact.

Though if you go on about it enough, you might manage to convince more people that making concessions in order to consume less energy is more effort than it's worth, I suppose.

spen666

Gavin Gilbert wrote:

Most people are in favour of being 'green' - until they work out it means they need to make a lifestyle change.

But if everyone else changes their lifestyle, then it won't matter that I still drive a 4x4, fly round the world every week etc

richardjallen

Christmas lights in the face of global warming looks irresponsible until you look at the figures that suggest lights account for a fraction of 1% of harmful emissions. The worst being agriculture - not even burning fossil fuels. So instead of turning off the lights - don't buy a turkey.

gandalfcp

richardjallen wrote:

Christmas lights in the face of global warming looks irresponsible until you look at the figures that suggest lights account for a fraction of 1% of harmful emissions. The worst being agriculture - not even burning fossil fuels. So instead of turning off the lights - don't buy a turkey.

I agree, however I refer the honorable gentleman to the earlier posting, which is spot on IMHO

"Most people are in favour of being 'green' - until they work out it means they need to make a lifestyle change".

Interesting article

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0120-20.htm

clarkson

to be honest i fail to see how people can think humans are so great as to affect the climate. has no-one noticed that climate change has happened before and will happen long after humans have gone!

stevechambers34

Whilst I have slight concerns with GW ( I agree climate change will and has/does probably happen without human intervention) I must admit my real concern is the sheer stupidity of people, so much so that even if it were proved that people were affecting GW they would still carry on in their own sweet way.

pipsqueak

Does matter 2 jotts ( does anyone still use that phrase ?) what we all do, if the Chinese and Americans continue to increase their CO2 output year on year were all f***ed anyway.

oldwelshman

stevechambers34 wrote:

Not wanting to appear humbug but what's it all about eh? despite years of being told about Global warming etc more and more people keep putting up tacky as f*ck Christmas lights, just how much does it impinge on energy useage over the 'festive' period?
It's not just 'Council Estates neither some of the supposedly more informed 'better areas' are the worse. They just get on my ti*s put em up early leave em on til March then complain about GW for the rest of the year, tw*ts the lot of em....rant over.

You probably never visitied a council estate by the sound of it.
Update, ok you lived in one.

nwallace

richardjallen wrote:

Christmas lights in the face of global warming looks irresponsible until you look at the figures that suggest lights account for a fraction of 1% of harmful emissions. The worst being agriculture - not even burning fossil fuels. So instead of turning off the lights - don't buy a turkey.

In fact I think you have just hit on the perfect solution for man made global warming, if we just ban agriculture (yes all agriculture, even small holding) there will no longer be any way humans can influence global warming.

Other than the small few who are willing to go out and hunt rabbits and risk eating wild berries most of us will be dead.

stevechambers34

thanks for that oldwelshman just what I'd expect from an ignorant fool,
and yes I have been on one..I was born on one spent most of my life in and around them, was on the picket lines during last miners strike, lived in a blockaded pit village during same and saw all the injustices on both sides, apprenticed in engineering worked in same for much of my life, the point I was making and you obviously missed it was that 'some people' would expect and be quick to point the finger of blame at the 'working classes' (whoever they now are) where in fact the middle and upper middle classes(so much for a classless society) are just as bad if not worse...oh 2 T's in that one not 4.
'better areas' is in commas to show it is a label accepted by many,(not neccessarily me though) you obviously missed that too.

oldwelshman

OK Steve I am big enough to appologise as I missunderstood post so edited mine, but your still a grumpy bxxxxrd
I also was on picket lines, as a striker, also trained in engineering,
Anyway the power taken for a few lights is minimal compared to running cars, industry etc.

nwallace

stevechambers34 wrote:

'better areas' is in commas to show it is a label accepted by many

It is difficult to deny that there are areas that are better than others.

The Life Expectancy in Glasgow is below the age of retirement. Yet just 20 miles out of the city it may be 80. Strangely in the area with worse life expectancy Deprivation is higher, Wages are Lower, Diet is worse, Crime is worse etc etc.

If you refuse to accept the label then you are ignoring the simple fact that many people often through misfortune of birth (some people end up in these areas through their own choice or by misfortune) are stuck because to try and break free from the circle of deprivation is considered either strange or socially unacceptable.

A great social change was in the offing when millions of "slums" and often good quality housing was torn down so as to through up concrete monsters housing thousands in damp squalid conditions where junkies and master criminals now live and try to protect when the council apply demolition orders on them.

Belief that good quality housing [cough] would change people from ne-re do wells to model citizens failed.

The belief that by mixing "good" and "bad" families in more traditional style council estates also failed (the majority of the "good" people moved out)

A mate of mine advocates genocide as a way of reducing the Social Security budget.
If you can work, and there is work and you won't work then your dead. Prior to reaching that conclusion he had also thought that compulsory sterilisation of such people would work then realised that the average age at pregnancy in towns like Dundee is around 12. Thus requiring identification of candidates prior to them being able to identify them selves as a worker or layabout.

A tad on the extreme side I think a trip to the Siberian salt mines would be much more useful for such people.

Um I've gone massively off topic now haven't I

stevechambers34

accepted Oldwelshman, probably right on the Grumpy Bast*rd bit though!
bah humbug.

richardjallen

nwallace wrote:

richardjallen wrote:

Christmas lights in the face of global warming looks irresponsible until you look at the figures that suggest lights account for a fraction of 1% of harmful emissions. The worst being agriculture - not even burning fossil fuels. So instead of turning off the lights - don't buy a turkey.

In fact I think you have just hit on the perfect solution for man made global warming, if we just ban agriculture (yes all agriculture, even small holding) there will no longer be any way humans can influence global warming.

Other than the small few who are willing to go out and hunt rabbits and risk eating wild berries most of us will be dead.

Well of course we do need to eat. But maybe not so much meat. Its very easy to eat meat twice a day everyday.

richardjallen

pipsqueak wrote:

Does matter 2 jotts ( does anyone still use that phrase ?) what we all do, if the Chinese and Americans continue to increase their CO2 output year on year were all f***ed anyway.

China are in the process of building a coal fired power station every week for seven years. Its possible to contain the CO2 produced but of course they are not.

All we can hope for is that we are an example that others follow.

stevechambers34

when I worked in engineering a few years ago one of 'our' products was a filter screen system for factory chimneys, now there is/was no reason why the technology couldn't be applied to power stations, perhaps then one day instead of loads of cars kicking out pollutants all over the country/world they could be electric/dual fuel powered by our landfill waste? or is our 'waste' too valuable and better sent abroad to be processed cheaply in developing countries such as China?
My guess is yet again corporate greed takes precedence over the environment, I am sure someone will tell me.

andyoxon

This might put the effect of Christmas tree lights in perpective...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7167639.stm

Mark Alexander

clarkson wrote:

to be honest i fail to see how people can think humans are so great as to affect the climate. has no-one noticed that climate change has happened before and will happen long after humans have gone!

I think the problem is more to do with the pace at which it's changing and that nature can't keep up. If the climate were to change and eliminate humans which history suggests will eventually happen, lets not help it allong.

P.s. Happy Christmas and new year!