Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Carbon Footprint - UK specific

jgsijgsi Posts: 5,026
edited October 2019 in The cake stop
With reference to the Panorama programme about getting to be carbon neutral sooner rather than later to save us all.
The scientific consensus being, the UK population is going to have to pull its finger out with "lifestyle" changes.
(Good luck with that)
Mind you if they closed Sundays down like in the 1950s , it might go a long way to achieving this goal.

We also might be able to cycle in peace.

Posts

  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,495
    Biggest carbon contribution we all have are

    1) House heating (water & central heating) - I guess renewable electric would be the way to go currently
    2) Transport - dumping the car for short journeys would be the best start

    We've got gas central heating & hot water - changing to electric would be a PITA and quite expensive outlay plus, at current rates - more expensive to run.
    We do curb our transport as much as we can - but being in a village means we still have to drive a reasonable amount. I do like getting to the working week knowing I haven't moved my car all weekend though :)
  • slowbike wrote:
    Biggest carbon contribution we all have are

    1) House heating (water & central heating) - I guess renewable electric would be the way to go currently
    2) Transport - dumping the car for short journeys would be the best start
    3) Eating meat

    Missed one
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 13,132
    jgsi wrote:
    With reference to the Panorama programme about getting to be carbon neutral sooner rather than later to save us all.
    The scientific consensus being, the UK population is going to have to pull its finger out with "lifestyle" changes.
    (Good luck with that)
    Mind you if they closed Sundays down like in the 1950s , it might go a long way to achieving this goal.

    We also might be able to cycle in peace.
    Even more so if hardly anyone had cars at all, like the 50s.
    But then we all had coal fires in the 50s. Not so green after all
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,495
    slowbike wrote:
    Biggest carbon contribution we all have are

    1) House heating (water & central heating) - I guess renewable electric would be the way to go currently
    2) Transport - dumping the car for short journeys would be the best start
    3) Eating meat

    Missed one
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... mJRN3uMIi0
    No - don't think so ...
  • robert88robert88 Posts: 2,706
    Breeding?
  • keef66keef66 Posts: 13,286
    It's only going to happen with a lot more carrot than stick.
    Much better walking / cycling infrastructure. There's still places I won't leave my bike because there's nowhere safe to lock it up, and there are roads I avoid as I deem them unsafe for cycling.
    Massive house building / improvement program. New builds can / should meet the Passivhaus standard so they need virtually no heating. Old housing stock can be retrofitted to virtually the same standard but it's expensive so it's only going to happen if government provides £££ incentives.
    Wind and solar can only be a part of the solution until we develop efficient ways of storing the electricity generated to manage the mismatch in supply and demand. In the meantime we need a cost-effective way of capturing the CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels. Even when we've scrapped the last internal combustion engine, the power for all the electric vehicles has to come from somewhere and peak demand for charging is likely at night when solar is off stream.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,495
    keef66 wrote:
    It's only going to happen with a lot more carrot than stick.
    Much better walking / cycling infrastructure. There's still places I won't leave my bike because there's nowhere safe to lock it up, and there are roads I avoid as I deem them unsafe for cycling.
    Massive house building / improvement program. New builds can / should meet the Passivhaus standard so they need virtually no heating. Old housing stock can be retrofitted to virtually the same standard but it's expensive so it's only going to happen if government provides £££ incentives.
    Wind and solar can only be a part of the solution until we develop efficient ways of storing the electricity generated to manage the mismatch in supply and demand. In the meantime we need a cost-effective way of capturing the CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels. Even when we've scrapped the last internal combustion engine, the power for all the electric vehicles has to come from somewhere and peak demand for charging is likely at night when solar is off stream.
    The rather obvious answer for power storage is hydro - pumped hydro specifically - but the land requirement is huge so has a big environmental impact...
  • slowbike wrote:
    slowbike wrote:
    Biggest carbon contribution we all have are

    1) House heating (water & central heating) - I guess renewable electric would be the way to go currently
    2) Transport - dumping the car for short journeys would be the best start
    3) Eating meat

    Missed one
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... mJRN3uMIi0
    No - don't think so ...

    "There’s no question we should all be eating far less meat, and calls for an end to high-carbon, polluting, unethical, intensive forms of grain-fed meat production are commendable."

    This is what I'm on about. It's the same as not driving a car on short journeys. I'm not a vegan, but I'm almost a vegetarian. I'm a flexitarian before the term became trendy. We definitely need to cut down on meat production and consumption which is what the article suggests. It's a necessity. Sadly, trying to explain this to a Mercedes on the PCP driving Gammon is futile.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,495
    slowbike wrote:
    slowbike wrote:
    Biggest carbon contribution we all have are

    1) House heating (water & central heating) - I guess renewable electric would be the way to go currently
    2) Transport - dumping the car for short journeys would be the best start
    3) Eating meat

    Missed one
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... mJRN3uMIi0
    No - don't think so ...

    "There’s no question we should all be eating far less meat, and calls for an end to high-carbon, polluting, unethical, intensive forms of grain-fed meat production are commendable."

    This is what I'm on about. It's the same as not driving a car on short journeys. I'm not a vegan, but I'm almost a vegetarian. I'm a flexitarian before the term became trendy. We definitely need to cut down on meat production and consumption which is what the article suggests. It's a necessity. Sadly, trying to explain this to a Mercedes on the PCP driving Gammon is futile.
    Ah - well, yes - intensive anything isn't good - the problem is with capitalism, growth is good - and to get more, you have to grow more - or radically change the product to one that demands a higher price - but to do the later isn't easy, whereas the former can be simpler and easier to achieve short term.
    I can't blame farmers for doing what makes them the most for least risk & effort - it's what most of us do.
  • jgsijgsi Posts: 5,026
    pblakeney wrote:
    jgsi wrote:
    With reference to the Panorama programme about getting to be carbon neutral sooner rather than later to save us all.
    The scientific consensus being, the UK population is going to have to pull its finger out with "lifestyle" changes.
    (Good luck with that)
    Mind you if they closed Sundays down like in the 1950s , it might go a long way to achieving this goal.

    We also might be able to cycle in peace.
    Even more so if hardly anyone had cars at all, like the 50s.
    But then we all had coal fires in the 50s. Not so green after all

    The 50s reference was just that - a reference point. We are not going to get the genie back in the bottle.
    ( poor people coal fires - or latter day middle classes with their wood burners?)
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,495
    It's not so much the owning of cars - it's the frequent use of them isn't it ... ?
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 13,132
    jgsi wrote:
    The 50s reference was just that - a reference point. We are not going to get the genie back in the bottle.
    ( poor people coal fires - or latter day middle classes with their wood burners?)
    All people had coal fires not just the poor. Even if you had central heating, it was coal fired.
    Anyway, my point was that the 50s shouldn't be used as a reference point as it wasn't that clean.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,868
    jgsi wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    jgsi wrote:
    With reference to the Panorama programme about getting to be carbon neutral sooner rather than later to save us all.
    The scientific consensus being, the UK population is going to have to pull its finger out with "lifestyle" changes.
    (Good luck with that)
    Mind you if they closed Sundays down like in the 1950s , it might go a long way to achieving this goal.

    We also might be able to cycle in peace.
    Even more so if hardly anyone had cars at all, like the 50s.
    But then we all had coal fires in the 50s. Not so green after all

    The 50s reference was just that - a reference point. We are not going to get the genie back in the bottle.
    ( poor people coal fires - or latter day middle classes with their wood burners?)

    Coal is never sustainable, firewood is. There is a question about air quality in towns however. Particulates rather than CO2
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,868
    slowbike wrote:
    slowbike wrote:
    slowbike wrote:
    Biggest carbon contribution we all have are

    1) House heating (water & central heating) - I guess renewable electric would be the way to go currently
    2) Transport - dumping the car for short journeys would be the best start
    3) Eating meat

    Missed one
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... mJRN3uMIi0
    No - don't think so ...

    "There’s no question we should all be eating far less meat, and calls for an end to high-carbon, polluting, unethical, intensive forms of grain-fed meat production are commendable."

    This is what I'm on about. It's the same as not driving a car on short journeys. I'm not a vegan, but I'm almost a vegetarian. I'm a flexitarian before the term became trendy. We definitely need to cut down on meat production and consumption which is what the article suggests. It's a necessity. Sadly, trying to explain this to a Mercedes on the PCP driving Gammon is futile.
    Ah - well, yes - intensive anything isn't good - the problem is with capitalism, growth is good - and to get more, you have to grow more - or radically change the product to one that demands a higher price - but to do the later isn't easy, whereas the former can be simpler and easier to achieve short term.
    I can't blame farmers for doing what makes them the most for least risk & effort - it's what most of us do.

    I know the bit in bold is a tiny part of your point but I don't necessarily agree, one of the arguments against organic is that it supposedly takes 30% more land to produce the same amount of produce than 'intensive' farming, which is generally bad
  • tonysjtonysj Posts: 326
    I'm retired so don't have to do the normal "rush hour" journeys but last week I had to take the OH mother to a eye clinic for an 8;50am appointment.
    We both commented on how many cars had a single occupant who were driving to work.
    I think if employers and the government could agree on some sort of benefit to drivers who car share then that would definitely cut back on vehicle usage and pollution.
    If the scheme was achievable logistically society has bread a "Want more" ethos so people would find a way of scamming the scheme to get money when they don't participate to car sharing..
    It's just how previous Tory governments have driven the "haves and have nots" divide.
    Real sad to be honest that we've become this.. : (
  • jgsijgsi Posts: 5,026
    haydenm wrote:
    jgsi wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    jgsi wrote:
    With reference to the Panorama programme about getting to be carbon neutral sooner rather than later to save us all.
    The scientific consensus being, the UK population is going to have to pull its finger out with "lifestyle" changes.
    (Good luck with that)
    Mind you if they closed Sundays down like in the 1950s , it might go a long way to achieving this goal.

    We also might be able to cycle in peace.
    Even more so if hardly anyone had cars at all, like the 50s.
    But then we all had coal fires in the 50s. Not so green after all

    The 50s reference was just that - a reference point. We are not going to get the genie back in the bottle.
    ( poor people coal fires - or latter day middle classes with their wood burners?)

    Coal is never sustainable, firewood is. There is a question about air quality in towns however. Particulates rather than CO2

    Particulates change climate?
    I think the real issue is, no one can agree on anything.
    Burning stuff is bad but the next person will argue that is simply not true.
    Fair does, I'll be long dead before the sh it really hits the fan.
    I'll just my little bit of using the diesel car 10 miles a week but keeping a mechanic fully employed twice a year so he doesnt lose his livelihood.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,495
    haydenm wrote:
    slowbike wrote:
    - intensive anything isn't good -

    I know the bit in bold is a tiny part of your point but I don't necessarily agree, one of the arguments against organic is that it supposedly takes 30% more land to produce the same amount of produce than 'intensive' farming, which is generally bad
    Ah - yes - fair point - needs to be a balance? Or reduce the demand ...

    I understood the argument against the veganism hailed (by some) as the answer to be that it demands soya to be grown - which generally involves intensive farming with lots of herbicides, pesticides and removal of natural habitat - and then lots of processing - demanding loads of power - and transport - more pollution ...

    I guess, ultimately what we need is LESS - less demand for everything - driven by a smaller (global) population? which doesn't quite agree with the capitalist "more more more"
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,868
    jgsi wrote:
    haydenm wrote:
    jgsi wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    jgsi wrote:
    With reference to the Panorama programme about getting to be carbon neutral sooner rather than later to save us all.
    The scientific consensus being, the UK population is going to have to pull its finger out with "lifestyle" changes.
    (Good luck with that)
    Mind you if they closed Sundays down like in the 1950s , it might go a long way to achieving this goal.

    We also might be able to cycle in peace.
    Even more so if hardly anyone had cars at all, like the 50s.
    But then we all had coal fires in the 50s. Not so green after all

    The 50s reference was just that - a reference point. We are not going to get the genie back in the bottle.
    ( poor people coal fires - or latter day middle classes with their wood burners?)

    Coal is never sustainable, firewood is. There is a question about air quality in towns however. Particulates rather than CO2

    Particulates change climate?

    My understanding was that the particulates are bad for air quality in terms of breathing and lung problems but don't really contribute to climate change like CO2 emissions
  • slowbike wrote:
    I understood the argument against the veganism hailed (by some) as the answer to be that it demands soya to be grown - which generally involves intensive farming with lots of herbicides, pesticides and removal of natural habitat - and then lots of processing - demanding loads of power - and transport - more pollution ...

    I don't know many vegans or vegetarians that eat a lot of soya. That's a misconception.
  • keef66keef66 Posts: 13,286
    slowbike wrote:
    I understood the argument against the veganism hailed (by some) as the answer to be that it demands soya to be grown - which generally involves intensive farming with lots of herbicides, pesticides and removal of natural habitat - and then lots of processing - demanding loads of power - and transport - more pollution ...

    I don't know many vegans or vegetarians that eat a lot of soya. That's a misconception.

    I think in the past a lot of vegetarian cookbooks leaned heavily on tofu, but thankfully that's no longer the case. Mind you, edemame beans seem to be appearing in a lot of dishes and salads...

    Edemame sounds so much tastier than soy, but IME they taste of cardboard
Sign In or Register to comment.