|
Post by racingteatray on Jul 4, 2019 11:03:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jul 4, 2019 11:20:20 GMT
Currently emitting some 400 tonnes of CO2 per day....
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jul 4, 2019 12:45:52 GMT
I think I read few years ago that one volcanic eruption puts into the atmosphere more harmful gasses than all the world's road traffic does in a year. Makes a complete mockery of the cries to reduce vehicle emissions
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 4, 2019 13:01:03 GMT
I think I read few years ago that one volcanic eruption puts into the atmosphere more harmful gasses than all the world's road traffic does in a year. Makes a complete mockery of the cries to reduce vehicle emissions Yep. What Governments need to do is put a massive concrete plug into every potentially active volcano - we all know how environmentally friendly concrete is because they keep using it a lot in eco houses on Grand Designs!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 13:46:05 GMT
It just shows that we need a proper tiered approach to the ecology, reducing the loss of amazon rain Forest and looking into ALL emissions, like the bloody great marine diesels and the habit of tanker crews of flushing their tanks with sea water etc et al. No single approach will ever work.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jul 5, 2019 12:47:44 GMT
We visited Stomboli on a boat trip (from Vulcano where we were staying as it happens) some years ago. The boats all hung around at dusk waiting for "the explosion" which was, finally, just a small sparkler type affair lasting about 5 seconds and then they all turned away and gunned their engines for home. This would have been a bit more spectacular!
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jul 5, 2019 17:06:56 GMT
A friend of mine was on a boat between Panarea and Stromboli when it happened. Far enough away to be safe, close enough to shoot an amazing video on her phone which she posted on FB. Would share but don't seem to be able to download it from her FB post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2019 5:49:42 GMT
I think I read few years ago that one volcanic eruption puts into the atmosphere more harmful gasses than all the world's road traffic does in a year. Makes a complete mockery of the cries to reduce vehicle emissions There is so little logic underlying that statement that I have no idea where to begin...
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jul 8, 2019 12:25:45 GMT
I think I read few years ago that one volcanic eruption puts into the atmosphere more harmful gasses than all the world's road traffic does in a year. Makes a complete mockery of the cries to reduce vehicle emissions There is so little logic underlying that statement that I have no idea where to begin... Mmm. I didn't either, so didn't.
I was at an event at Guildhall last week called the Green Finance Summit, listening to a fairly high-powered selection of speakers, and the stats they were talking about were very sobering (albeit not news to anyone interested). As one long-standing green campaigner said to me, thank God the City is starting to listen. But it's an uphill struggle - combating climate change needs trillions of dollars of investment to stand any change of success.
Mary Robinson (ex-Irish President, now "Chair of the Elders") was a particularly eloquent speaker. We are trying to keep rises in temperatures to 1.5 degrees centigrade. 2 is considered very problematic, 3 is pretty catastrophic and we are currently on course for 4.
How anyone can be sanguine or dismissive of that is beyond me. Every little thing each of us individually does helps. Only by millions and billions of people taking little steps to change their habits will we make any difference. And we must lead by example.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jul 8, 2019 13:05:38 GMT
A god read. www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/ Volcanoes thought to be <1 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. Human activity approx 29 billion tonnes per year. I'm not sanguine about what humankind is doing to the planet, but it goes much farther than CO2. It includes habitat loss as another huge issue. Me, I'm doing my bit to cut my carbon emissions to zero by 2050 - well around then maybe. As I'll be 90 years old and possibly dead or on the way to sitting in a bath chair gibbering quietly - and with no children to follow me, that'll be it. What was said at the conference about population growth and global population? Not much I expect? If people want to to hector me about global this and that, then population has to be on the agenda. A global one-child per couple policy introduced tomorrow is what we need - yes I'm being provocative but we cannot ignore that very large and growing elephant in the room for ever. If things really are that serious, population control is going to have to be one of the solutions.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jul 8, 2019 13:24:46 GMT
There's a lot of talk but if we are going to get serious we need to get really serious.
Trivial example: We had singer Ellie Goulding* lecturing us on climate change while jetting round the World. She might argue that she does carbon offset to counter her travel, but that doesn't offset the many, many stadium gigs she does round the World and all the CO2 generated by the 20,000+ members of the audience that travel to and from each of her gigs. If she was really serious she'd confine herself to studio concerts live streamed to the homes of her fans. But she's not going to give up touring and do that is she?
* I've picked the lovely, flaxen-haired Ellie at random and if you're reading this Ellie don't take it personally, and don't extend the restraining order any further.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jul 8, 2019 13:36:22 GMT
Quite. There was an article the other day where a dad was saying that his teenagers hectored him all the time to "save the planet", but still expected to go somewhere nice on holiday, wanted lifts into town, all the latest fashions or items and complained when the central heating was turned down in the winter. And I'm sure they'll want to go Glastonbury when they get older. And whilst Glastonbury may have made a big thing about being single use plastic free (or so they said), I am sure very few of the bands or fans walked there carrying their own stuff on their backs and leaving nothing behind afterwards.
And perhaps that is the nub of the issue. It is like socialism and high government spending - great as long as it is using other people's money and not your own. So a lot of what I hear is saying that "you must stop doing x, y or z, but I'll keep doing a, b and c".
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 8, 2019 14:10:10 GMT
The whole climate agenda is very difficult to get on board with when it's packed with those more interested in virtue signalling and self interest. If we want to do make a difference we have to do stuff that makes a difference rather than just be seen doing something notionally perceived as green.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jul 8, 2019 14:23:05 GMT
.... so let's ban film production..... look at how much energy is used in flying actors etc to locations for filming, the consumption of energy to manufacture stages etc, and same for sporting competitions. Films/plays and sport do very little to advance mankind.....
maybe not, but we have to draw the line somewhere, do we ? Where is the divide between enjoying ourselves and protecting the environment for the future? The amount of rain forest that has been felled is sizeable, several percentage points of the earth's surface have been altered and this may have had a more significant effect upon the environment than many other man-made activities.
When I was at school, we were told that the overall temperature was falling and we may be approaching the next ice age, albeit very slowly. How could opinion have shifted so dramatically in under 50 years?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 8, 2019 14:32:28 GMT
The rain forest is an interesting one because it's something we could move to influence. We could tax palm oil or soya as these are the products which largely contribute to the land clearing of the rain forests.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jul 8, 2019 14:46:41 GMT
.... so let's ban film production..... look at how much energy is used in flying actors etc to locations for filming, the consumption of energy to manufacture stages etc, and same for sporting competitions. Films/plays and sport do very little to advance mankind..... maybe not, but we have to draw the line somewhere, do we ? Where is the divide between enjoying ourselves and protecting the environment for the future? The amount of rain forest that has been felled is sizeable, several percentage points of the earth's surface have been altered and this may have had a more significant effect upon the environment than many other man-made activities. When I was at school, we were told that the overall temperature was falling and we may be approaching the next ice age, albeit very slowly. How could opinion have shifted so dramatically in under 50 years? We could argue that the seriousness of the situation is such that we really can't afford to enjoy ourselves. But stepping back from that it's important that every business, and us ourselves, look at the impact we have on the environment, with the hope that small but important steps now prevent the needs for more draconian measures later on - when it's probably too late. Sometimes the necessary steps can prove controversial. The US has experienced the biggest reduction in CO2 output for decades due to the replacement of power generation by fracked gas instead of coal.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jul 8, 2019 18:10:10 GMT
maybe not, but we have to draw the line somewhere, do we ? Where is the divide between enjoying ourselves and protecting the environment for the future? The amount of rain forest that has been felled is sizeable, several percentage points of the earth's surface have been altered and this may have had a more significant effect upon the environment than many other man-made activities. When I was at school, we were told that the overall temperature was falling and we may be approaching the next ice age, albeit very slowly. How could opinion have shifted so dramatically in under 50 years? A possibly little-known fact on here is that my undergraduate degree is in Environmental Biology. I assure you that 25 yrs ago in academic circles we were not talking about a cooling planet. In fact most of the things we worry about now I studied back then. The difference is that it's finally starting to shift from a fringe interest to a mainstream concern.
It's easy to mock and say why bother. But every little bit does actually help. Most of the time we have a choice and it's not much of an imposition to ask that people try to opt for the better-for-the-planet option. An "I'm alright and I'll do as a damn well please" approach is really precisely as selfish as it sounds.
And the climate change agenda is just as much about fighting deforestation of the rainforest and oceanic pollution as it is about changing patterns of industrial and consumer emissions in both the developed and developing worlds.
The conference I was at was primarily aimed at getting big investors that drive market trends, like our pension funds, to be more activist in their activities - not merely avoiding "bad" industries such as coal, but actively investing in new technologies and sustainable businesses in order to drive a much-needed revolution in industrial and consumer habits. Where big money leads, others inevitably follow.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jul 8, 2019 18:11:23 GMT
We could argue that the seriousness of the situation is such that we really can't afford to enjoy ourselves. But stepping back from that it's important that every business, and us ourselves, look at the impact we have on the environment, with the hope that small but important steps now prevent the needs for more draconian measures later on - when it's probably too late. Precisely.
|
|