another gloomy milestone reached

[Seeker]

We have just reached 415 ppm of C02 in the atmosphere.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/12/co2-in-the-atmosphere-just-exceeded-415-parts-per-million-for-the-first-time-in-human-history/

[SV650rules]

https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/

Plants grow much better with more atmospheric Co2, which is what we need to support the massive number of humans we expect the planet to absorb. Birth control will save the planet not electric vehicles and wind turbines.

[Othen]

https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/

Plants grow much better with more atmospheric Co2, which is what we need to support the massive number of humans we expect the planet to absorb. Birth control will save the planet not electric vehicles and wind turbines.



You are so right, the biggest problem we have is human over population, but politically that is a really unpopular thing to say. We keep avoiding the issue with lots of daft green ideas like using lots more power to produce slightly more efficient new cars or wind turbines that don’t work on still days, but avoid the real issue because it isn’t going to win many votes.

Ho hum. I do my bit by limiting myself to two cars and 4 bikes (although the Bloop may produce as much smoke as the rest of Northamptonshire).

This is the much gloomier prediction:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190513/34c70b5c2cd294228f51f9ecbc3545e1.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Seeker]

Plants grow much better with more atmospheric Co2

unfortunately, that is not as true as once believed (2018 article):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

The article you quoted is from Marc Morano a Republican climate skeptic who works for a group that denies the scientific consensus on climate change.

yes, CO2 has been higher in the past but not with 7.5 billion people. We lose 50% of food production through wastage but what happens when major crop growing areas no longer are capable of producing - the US mid west for example. CO2 is going to be the trigger for a massive methane release which will be unstoppable. Methane levels are already climbing and methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. There is a wide range of predictions on the amount of methane hydrates store in stable form in the world's oceans ranging from 100 to 500,000 gigatons but it is only stable when kept very cold (and under extreme pressure), warm the oceans and it gets released. As someone in his 60s, I used to think this would not affect me directly but now I am not so sure and it will definitely affect my children.

Personally, I think we're screwed, but I'm unsure whether that's a good thing or not (but I have a cynical outlook). Unless we think of this as a species survival problem we are all candidates for Darwin awards.

[Othen]

Climate change happens anyway of course, the world would have been inhospitable to us humans lots of times in the past (we have only been around for 2,000,000 years), so it may be the thing that kills us off. Are we affecting climate change - very probably yes, and the biggest driver is inexorable human population growth, which we do nothing whatsoever about.

Maybe what happens is that climate change kills off our species, earth recovers and some other species adapts to take our place (and wonders where all that concrete came from)? That is just evolution.

Electric cars and wind turbines won’t do much to stop that happening.

Ho hum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SV650rules]

The dinosaurs were a lot tougher than us and they got wiped out. Think of humans as a cancer on the planet, committed to expanding whatever the cost and a not very clever parasite which will kill its only host. Let's face it we are just a naked ape who got too greedy, and thought we were oh so clever but we are obviously not..... Good planets are very difficult to come by, we had the best and blew it with our stupidity, all this talk of colonizing Mars is pie in the sky ( well actually its a pie that is a bit further away then that ).

[Othen]

The dinosaurs were a lot tougher than us and they got wiped out. Think of humans as a cancer on the planet, committed to expanding whatever the cost and a not very clever parasite which will kill its only host. Let's face it we are just a naked ape who got too greedy, and thought we were oh so clever but we are obviously not..... Good planets are very difficult to come by, we had the best and blew it with our stupidity, all this talk of colonizing Mars is pie in the sky ( well actually its a pie that is a bit further away then that ).



It is just evolution - all species are programmed by nature to maximise themselves. Whatever we do I don’t think we will destroy the Earth, but we may make it so it is not viable for us humans and similar mammals. You are right, Earth is a nice place, a Goldilocks planet and possibly even unique in the Universe (although there is a compelling statistical argument that says there must be some other good places that might support life as well).

We (our species) won’t do anything about the overpopulation problem, rather we will make ourselves feel good with some daft green ideas - drive electric cars whilst people install hot tubs in their gardens - what nonsense.

Ho hum ... on with converting some dinosaurs into noise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SV650rules]

Humans are also hooked on cheap air travel and cruises, massive amount of Co2 produced. Did anyone see the number of private jets flying to Davos for climate change conference ? At least 1500 flights which is a massive amount of Co2, makes me wonder if it is as serious as they make it out to be or is a massive tax scam, making climate change into a developed country problem means it is taxable, trying to tax children in the third world would produce no revenue at all....

I did notice that when 9/11 happened and no flights for two weeks in USA people were posting pictures of how blue and clear the skies were. Also when the volcano in Iceland erupted and they stopped flights in UK and Europe how clear and blue our skies were, just as I remember them as a kid growing up....

I saw an article years ago that worked out how much resources the average person would use in a 70 year lifetime, it was a frightening amount, now multiply that by 9 billion, this planet simply cannot afford humans so will simply get rid of us and then start recovering itself ......

There was an item on the news last week - a big fanfare about being the first day in UK we had not had to use coal to generate electricity, what they didn't say was we now use massive amounts of gas to make electricity, we would rather burn gas at 50% efficiency to make electricity to heat homes than use it in domestic boilers at approaching 95% efficiency for heat - madness. Until heat pumps become cheaper and more common will we get equal or more overall efficient heating than condensing boilers.

[Adam Ef]

I did this recently...
https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/
and got a score of 92% of the 2020 target.


If I'm only just making the target and I don't fly (mainly due to not being able to afford it), mostly cycle everywhere, hardly ever buy new items (electronics etc), rarely buy clothes etc and am vegetarian, I imagine it's going to take some massive changes to the average person with disposable income's lifestyle to get anywhere near the target.


George Monbiot was on the radio a while back talking about what we could do to improve the situation. He said that part of the problem was that we all think we're doing the right thing and solving it all by reusing drinks bottles and not using plastic bags, but in fact those things will make hardly any difference at all. We all just consume too much of everything.


There was a video that did the rounds online a while ago of a huge strong track cyclist trying to power a toaster with a bicycle linked to a generator. He put out a crazy amount of watts of power for as long as he could before nearly collapsing and just about managed to turn a piece of bread very slightly brown, just starting to toast. If we all had to do that for all the power we used I think we'd all be sitting in the dark every night and eating cold, raw foods.

[Adam Ef]

+ reports like this don't really help clarify the problems...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBD2qNFXpI


Pack your bags lighter so that the plane uses less fuel, but more people packed into the same space (cheap seats tip) and the extra weight doesn't make the plane use more fuel?

[Talking Heads]

Humans only existed to create the next lifeform: artificial intelligence.
Machines are the future, one day they will no longer need us.

[Sir Trev]

Aviation and cruise liner fuel should be taxed - it is madness that so many people think nothing about the comparatively low cost of travelling the world. It is not a right and you should pay for the damage it is doing to the environment. Shipping is needed but this fuel should also be taxed, perhaps at a lower rate, to encourage domestic production instead of cheap exports sent all over the world in containers. But, I seriously doubt any politician will have the guts to implement it.

We could always go down the Logan's Run route, but if we did I'd already be on the list for the carousel...

[Othen]

I can’t help a wry smile at the irony of this: a bunch of people brought together by their use of Suzuki SV motorcycles - I would venture almost exclusively for leisure (apologies to any commuters) advocating taxing fuel.

One has to admit, that is just a little but amusing :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Talking Heads]

Apology accepted :D

[Othen]

Apology accepted :D



I’m guessing you are a bike commuter - in which case that is commendable :-)

Don’t get me wrong though - I’m as guilty as anyone here - I run 2 cars and 4 bikes (although only one at a time).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Adam Ef]

I can’t help a wry smile at the irony of this: a bunch of people brought together by their use of Suzuki SV motorcycles - I would venture almost exclusively for leisure (apologies to any commuters) advocating taxing fuel.

One has to admit, that is just a little but amusing :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I cycle my 20 mile commute (often drifting past miles and miles of single occupancy cars idling in gridlock)... and think of that as kind of carbon offsetting my occaisional SV leisure blast :D If I (rarely) commute on the SV it's very efficient too, filtering through the stationary traffic and currently getting 67mpg average according to Fuelly. Compared to my van that gets 35mpg at best and would be stuck in that gridlock it's a step in the right direction that most people aren't taking. That van (that spends more time with a flat battery from lack of use instead of being used) is an X reg too, so you could argue that even when used, it's less of an impact on the world than a newly made modern "green" van that's used loads of resources to make and transport just to get to the point of sale.



Leisure blasts are usually a longer scenic route for somewhere that I need to get to. Yesterday was a trip I needed to do, Bristol to Malvern, but via some more interesting roads in Wales instead of the straight A38 or M5.



It's a tricky one to impose on people. We have to live. That's kind of the point I was making above too. To not be causing the problems that we are, we'd all need to sit still, eat minimum calories possible to stay alive with zero food waste and never buy anything beyond the minimum needed to stay alive. Even then I bet we'd still be having a detimental effect. There's just too many of us on the planet and that's increasing.


As already mentioned, no one is ever going to state that though and no one in power would ever make the career ending move to even suggest that is the case. Far better to tell us to do little things and let us believe it will all be better if we recyle the occaisional plastic bottle.

[Othen]

I didn’t mean to cause offence to anyone - I just thought it funny that this group of petrol-headed bikers was advocating putting tax on (someone else’s) fuel.

You are right though, the green stuff is absolute nonsense, but it makes people feel better about themselves as they drive home in their Tesla before taking a dip in the hot tub in the back garden.

It is nothing much to do with the raving greens issues, but just common sense, that we should minimise on use of energy and materials. We throw away too much perfectly good stuff (like my 43 year old Bloop or my 135,000 mile K6, others may have given up on both) and replace it with new because it is not this year’s colour...

The real problem is of course over-population, and the fact that the next, larger generation will not only want feeding but also a new BMW X5 to take the kids to school in their African village. It is not just politicians that won’t say that needs addressing, but also the man in the street that doesn’t realise Thomas Malthus was right :-)

Ho hum, what will be will be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[keith_d]

The real problem is of course over-population, and the fact that the next, larger generation will not only want feeding but also a new Hongqi to take the kids to school in one of the thousand Chinese cities we haven't heard of.

Corrected for you.

Yep, there are just too many people and it's only going to get worse.

I doubt humans will become extinct due to climate change. Even if civilisation breaks down, we are just too flexible. People will find a way to survive, maybe by farming Antarctica or making Greenland green.

[Adam Ef]

We're all screwed... may as well half a laugh about it..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjfxEejS2Y

[Seeker]

I don't know whether his programs were shown here in the UK, but "Bill Nye, the science guy" was a regular on US tv (PBS I think). He would carefully explain science issues in a calm, matter of fact way and make it interesting. His programs were aimed at the youth market but I liked to watch them.

This is not the Bill Nye I remember (you may have to "show controls" and turn the sound on)

http://i.imgur.com/gFQ7OPN.gifv

[Craig380]

As Frankie Boyle recently said: halve your carbon footprint by killing and eating someone. If it's a pilot, even better ....

[Seeker]

Sorry to keep going on about this, but this story makes me so angry:

https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-predicted-high-carbon-emissions-954e514b0aa9/

tldr: Exxon predicted that the CO2 levels would be between 400-420 ppm by now; they made this prediction in 1982. They also acknowledged the results would be damaging but decided not to change their business model (or even mention it).

[Othen]

Sorry to keep going on about this, but this story makes me so angry:

https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-predicted-high-carbon-emissions-954e514b0aa9/

tldr: Exxon predicted that the CO2 levels would be between 400-420 ppm by now; they made this prediction in 1982. They also acknowledged the results would be damaging but decided not to change their business model (or even mention it).



I’m not sure why this would make you angry, it is hardly Exxon’s fault that it is meeting a demand by us people. If we are candid with ourselves we all know that using lots of energy isn’t good for the environment (and we knew that 40 years ago), but it doesn’t stop Joe public flying off on holiday a couple of times per year, running a 4x4 car to take the kids to school as well as a BMW for work as well as a SV650 for weekend fun and having a hot tub in the garden. It doesn’t stop the third world’s population doubling every 40 years or the largest organised religion decrying birth control.

It is easy to blame someone else (particularly if it is a large and wealthy company), but the real fault is the selfish gene that nature has given us that means we will soon overpopulate this planet.

Ho hum.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Seeker]

I’m not sure why this would make you angry, it is hardly Exxon’s fault that it is meeting a demand by us people.

OK: back in the 1980s it was announced there was a hole developing in the ozone layer over the poles, this was said to be a BAD thing.

The culprit was determined to be CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) and steps were taken to use different chemicals and, for a while, it started to close because we took action. (note: I know it has stopped closing recently because of two reasons - the growth of the number of people using a/c and someone in China is illegally still using the old CFCs).

In the 80s we still believed in science and, if we had had the conversations that we are only just started having now, humanity's continued existence might not be in question.

Exxon discovered a potentially species ending scenario and hid it for the sake of their profits, that should make anyone angry.

[Othen]

OK: back in the 1980s it was announced there was a hole developing in the ozone layer over the poles, this was said to be a BAD thing.



The culprit was determined to be CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) and steps were taken to use different chemicals and, for a while, it started to close because we took action. (note: I know it has stopped closing recently because of two reasons - the growth of the number of people using a/c and someone in China is illegally still using the old CFCs).



In the 80s we still believed in science and, if we had had the conversations that we are only just started having now, humanity's continued existence might not be in question.



Exxon discovered a potentially species ending scenario and hid it for the sake of their profits, that should make anyone angry.



I hope you don’t think I’m being difficult, but I’m still having trouble understanding what you are angry about. I certainly remember understanding that CO2 and nitrous oxides were pretty bad things for the environment when I took my A levels (40 years ago), so I don’t think this is something Exxon (in particular) has somehow hidden from us. If Exxon had decided to stop selling us petrol 40 years ago would that have helped? Of course not, Exxon would have ceased to exist (as an energy company) and someone would have stepped in to fill our demand for cheap but dirty power.

I still see the culprit here as us people (all of us), we demand lots and have no scruples about damaging the environment if it costs us even a little (just look at the number of fridges being fly tipped in country lay-bys just because councils have started to charge a tenner for proper disposal).

The biggest issue remains overpopulation (nationally and globally), but our response isn’t to limit the population rise, it is to build more houses and salve our consciences with a little bit of recycling.

It is in vogue (well, I think it always has been) to look for scapegoats to blame, and large, successful companies are fair game (there wouldn’t be any point blaming unsuccessful companies would there, they have all gone to the wall years ago). It doesn’t matter whether it is for the environment (energy companies must be to blame for selling is all that petrol we didn’t want), our health (tobacco companies for forcing people to smoke), accidents (it must be the car manufacturer making people crash into one another) and so on... someone else is always to blame.

Anyway, I think we will have to differ about feeling angry at Exxon. I still think the problem is overpopulation, and we continue to do nothing about it (the UK is a microcosm of the world in this respect, our population increases by 300,000 every year, mainly due to immigration - we know that but our only response is to blame successive governments for not building enough houses).

It is a nice day - I think I might go out and enjoy it on one of my bikes :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Adam Ef]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

[Seeker]

First of all, if a company is producing a dangerous product maybe they should cease to exist. However, they wouldn't have ceased to exist they would have investigated other means of making a profit as they are belatedly investing in alternative energy now.

Neither Exxon's nor Shell's investigations in global warming were for public consumption. The Shell report was marked confidential and the Exxon report was only leaked in 2015. So, yes, they did conceal their findings and worse still lobbied governments to show that rising CO2 levels was not a problem. Furthermore as you suggest, they blamed the consumer, (and governments) not the product.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

I took my A levels in the 70s and CO2 was not mentioned as a problem (no internet), in fact I recall my chemistry teacher saying that CO (ie monoxide) wasn't a problem (from car exhausts) because people would breathe it in and convert it to CO2 (not sure for how long though!).

It was known in 1896 that increasing CO2 in a closed system would allow heat to be trapped, but it wasn't until the 60s that a few scientists started suggesting that this might be a major climate problem but by the late 70s we were more concerned about a nuclear winter courtesy of the Cold War.

So, a few scientists knew that CO2 was going to be a problem, the internet wasn't available until 1983 and the major oil companies hid their findings (and tried to say it's fake news). Yes, I'm still angry. How can we change our ways if, in this case, the facts are hidden and worse contrary facts are pushed to governments making the science look questionable?

Yes, it's fashionable to blame the other person but in this case, justified (imho). I suspect it would be easier to switch to a more expensive alternative energy regime than tell people not to have children.

[Othen]

First of all, if a company is producing a dangerous product maybe they should cease to exist. However, they wouldn't have ceased to exist they would have investigated other means of making a profit as they are belatedly investing in alternative energy now.



Neither Exxon's nor Shell's investigations in global warming were for public consumption. The Shell report was marked confidential and the Exxon report was only leaked in 2015. So, yes, they did conceal their findings and worse still lobbied governments to show that rising CO2 levels was not a problem. Furthermore as you suggest, they blamed the consumer, (and governments) not the product.



https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings



I took my A levels in the 70s and CO2 was not mentioned as a problem (no internet), in fact I recall my chemistry teacher saying that CO (ie monoxide) wasn't a problem (from car exhausts) because people would breathe it in and convert it to CO2 (not sure for how long though!).



It was known in 1896 that increasing CO2 in a closed system would allow heat to be trapped, but it wasn't until the 60s that a few scientists started suggesting that this might be a major climate problem but by the late 70s we were more concerned about a nuclear winter courtesy of the Cold War.



So, a few scientists knew that CO2 was going to be a problem, the internet wasn't available until 1983 and the major oil companies hid their findings (and tried to say it's fake news). Yes, I'm still angry. How can we change our ways if, in this case, the facts are hidden and worse contrary facts are pushed to governments making the science look questionable?



Yes, it's fashionable to blame the other person but in this case, justified (imho). I suspect it would be easier to switch to a more expensive alternative energy regime than tell people not to have children.



We continue to differ, but that isn’t a problem, I have no desire whatsoever to convince anyone else of my views on overpopulation (I’ve thought Thomas Malthus was right since discovering his writings in O level history).

I do still find a humorous irony in people on an Internet forum specifically for gasoline powered motorcycles arguing that petrol is a dangerous product that should not have been sold to Joe Public for the past 40 years. If this was forum was treehuggers.org I’d see no contradiction, but it isn’t, so I do :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SV650rules]

@othen. We agree that overpopulation is the elephant in the room but the problem is, as you pointed out the worlds manor religion especially RC and 15l4m both frown on birth control as their business model needs as many followers as possible and birth control is bad for their business. Added to that global businesses want a continually expanding market and advertising industry is always sending us messages to ditch the old and in with the latest fad, be it cheap clothes, expensive perfume or a new car or TV. We are also lured by ridiculously cheap flights and faraway destinations where locals profit little from tourism and profits go to multinational corporations and the damage done to areas by tourists is ignored.

Most of the extinctions and critically endangered animal population crashes are not due to climate change but to poaching and loss of habitat due to exploding human populations. Humans see animals as pests until we find a use for them, then they become a business opportunity.

I do agree that global warming is a strange topic on a website dedicated to petrol powered motorbikes though. We only need about 25 bhp to get around quite quickly on a bike, but we keep wanting more power.

[ethariel]

We (the 1st World Countries so to speak) have been through the 'build build build step of cultural evolution, now the larger part of the world is catching up and doing exactly the same as we did but on a much larger scale.

If the Uk, heck even the whole of Europe went (buzz word alert) 'Carbon neutral' or even 'Carbon Negative' it wouldn't make one iota of a difference with the African nations, India and China all barreling forward with very little if any interest in cutting back on emissions (why should they, we didnt).

Yes there is a change in the weather, seasonal shift forward i think, but at the end of the day it will take a collective earth to fix the issue and that's never ever going to happen in our lifetimes, our grandchildren's maybe but that's still a pipe dream.

Think the original 'Blade Runner' that's what we are heading for climate wise, just wonder how it will all come out in the end (Tho i'll not be about to worry about it)

[Othen]

@othen. We agree that overpopulation is the elephant in the room but the problem is, as you pointed out the worlds manor religion especially RC and 15l4m both frown on birth control as their business model needs as many followers as possible and birth control is bad for their business. Added to that global businesses want a continually expanding market and advertising industry is always sending us messages to ditch the old and in with the latest fad, be it cheap clothes, expensive perfume or a new car or TV. We are also lured by ridiculously cheap flights and faraway destinations where locals profit little from tourism and profits go to multinational corporations and the damage done to areas by tourists is ignored.

Most of the extinctions and critically endangered animal population crashes are not due to climate change but to poaching and loss of habitat due to exploding human populations. Humans see animals as pests until we find a use for them, then they become a business opportunity.

I do agree that global warming is a strange topic on a website dedicated to petrol powered motorbikes though. We only need about 25 bhp to get around quite quickly on a bike, but we keep wanting more power.



I think this thread has run its course now. It did seem an odd subject to have on a motorbike forum.

Now we can get on with talking about riding and fixing our SV650 bikes :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Adam Ef]

... It did seem an odd subject to have on a motorbike forum....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I think it's good that things like this do appear. It's not an all or nothing situation. Having some negative impact on our surroundings and being environmentaly concerned are not mutually exclusive.


Just because someone rides a motorbike occaisionally, doesn't mean they should totally give up and become a polluting careless monster in all aspects of their life.

[Seeker]

I think it's good that things like this do appear. It's not an all or nothing situation. Having some negative impact on our surroundings and being environmentaly concerned are not mutually exclusive.


Just because someone rides a motorbike occaisionally, doesn't mean they should totally give up and become a polluting careless monster in all aspects of their life.

I agree. Besides, there weren't many active comments in the bike section.

I may be an outlier; I'm aware that my riding/driving a petrol vehicle is damaging so I've attempted to ameliorate that in other ways (don't laugh):
1) I now shower every other day instead of every day.
2) Stopped eating red meat.
3) Avoid imported foods wherever possible (and I really liked avocados).
4) Reduced house temp over the winter to 66-68°F.
5) Increased house insulation to reduce energy consumption.
6) Stopped travelling overseas (no more flying).
7) Written to my MP many times about energy policy

Does it make a difference? Probably not, but as an individual there's a limit to what is achievable.

Euro5 bikes are coming next year but would it be best to buy one and risk the environmental damage of it being made, or keeping a Euro4 bike and polluting more?

My problem is that I'm impatient - if I see a problem I want to fix it and with the current climate issues we have the tools but not the collective will to do so. I wonder what it will take to make people take action, how many times in the UK have new meteorological records been set recently or the weatherman saying: "unusual for this time of year"? We are not paying attention.

I understand Othen's problem with overpopulation but to fix that you would need either:
1) a culling (by age/race/intelligence/country?) Good luck with that.
2) enforced sterilisation (I'm ahead of the curve - I've had a vasectomy), but males are easier to "fix" than females and who chooses?
3) limit number of children? Problem with this is some cultures only want male children and so, like China, you have a male/female imbalance. Religion has already been mentioned.

Reducing the population wouldn't fix CO2 production merely reduce it and I think we're past that point for it to be a solution already, we now need to remove/capture CO2 and we don't know how. I should say we do know how but it's expensive (that damn word again).

[Adam Ef]

...
Does it make a difference? Probably not, but as an individual there's a limit to what is achievable.



I think it does make a difference. It's hard to comprehend how many of us there are on this planet. If everyone of the billions of us took some steps like yours it would definitely make a difference. I don't think we can kid ourselves that it's a total fix, but part of the solution heading in the right direction. On your list the thing that would apparently make the most difference if more people did it is more people giving up or reducing red meat intake. And it's a totally doable thing for a lot of people.



Most people's decisions are made based on convenience and what they can afford. (I'll be the first to admit I don't choose not to fly out of green choices.. I just can't afford to!) Most companies decisions are financial and based on making profit (or not a loss). Those two things combined are a recipe for some of our problems.

[shiftin_gear98]

When I pushed my bike home the other evening I was fairly carbon neutral.

[Othen]

When I pushed my bike home the other evening I was fairly carbon neutral.



:-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Adam Ef]

When I pushed my bike home the other evening I was fairly carbon neutral.


Not according to my neighbour. He honestly believes anything that involves breathing more (ie. me cycling) makes more carbon. There's no point telling him otherwise. He's happy driving a third of a mile for his pint of milk convinced he's more eco than anyone walking it.

[Talking Heads]

Euro5 bikes are coming next year but would it be best to buy one and risk the environmental damage of it being made, or keeping a Euro4 bike and polluting more?

Buying a new one could be more of a detrimental impact on the environment than keeping your existing one.
E5 needs to be 15% more efficient than E4 to break even on manufacturing, so new one needs to be 20% more efficient to have 5% benefit.
Is an E5 really going to be 20% more efficient than E4?
I seriously doubt it.
If you really want to make a reduction in your leisure time motorcycle pollution, buy an MSX or the new 125 Cub, you meet the nicest people on a Honda...

[Talking Heads]

Not according to my neighbour. He honestly believes anything that involves breathing more (ie. me cycling) makes more carbon. There's no point telling him otherwise. He's happy driving a third of a mile for his pint of milk convinced he's more eco than anyone walking it.

If the person going to the shops on foot eats beef then yes, a modern car is less polluting.
The most environmentally damaging thing many people own is a pet dog.
Worse than a Range Rover.

[Adam Ef]

If the person going to the shops on foot eats beef then yes, a modern car is less polluting.
The most environmentally damaging thing many people own is a pet dog.
Worse than a Range Rover.


He's not that specific about his logic. He really just wants a reason to drive for his pint of milk.


(+I don't eat meat)