another gloomy milestone reached

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Othen

... 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]

Originally Posted by Adam Ef

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]

Originally Posted by Seeker

...
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.

Originally Posted by shiftin_gear98

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Adam Ef]

Originally Posted by shiftin_gear98

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]

Originally Posted by Seeker

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]

Originally Posted by Adam Ef

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]

Originally Posted by Talking Heads

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)