Southampton pledges to cut CO2 emissions by 20%

City pledges to cut CO2 emissions

City pledges to cut CO2 emissions

First published in News

Southampton has joined thousands of European Cities by signing up to an initiative that pledges to cut CO2 emissions by more than 20 per cent.

Council leader Richard Williams, pictured, signed up to the European Covenant of Mayors initiative along with the chairman of the Town and Country Planning Association at a ceremony at the city’s SeaCity museum.

The council wants to reduce carbon emissions in the city by 34 per cent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, and by 40 per cent across council buildings over the next ten years.

The signing comes as delegates from nine other European local authorities visit the city as part of a two day conference called leadership for energy action and planning (LEAP).

Delegates from Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Lithuania, Slovenia and the Republic of Ireland were given a tour of the four tower blocks in Inter-national Way to see the refurbishment works to improve insulation, introduce new heating system and roof top solar panels.

The £9m works, which were initially criticised by some residents and Cllr Williams himself as “shoddy”, have been largely funded by British Gas through a Department of Energy scheme to promote energy saving. Cllr Williams ordered an £10,000 inquiry into the work after the complaints.

The Covenant of Mayors is a European movement involving local and regional authorities who are voluntarily committing to increasing energy efficiency and use of renewable energy above national targets.

By signing up Southampton City Council will have to come up with an energy action plan within the next year to exceed the 20/20 target.

It will also have to publish progress reports every two years, organise city “energy days”, and otherwise spread the message of the covenant of mayors.

So far more than 4,000 authorities signed up to the initiative, mostly in Italy and Spain, but also including 34 in the UK.

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:41am Wed 24 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Great idea! So why weren't council tenants allowed to install Solar panels on the lease a roof space scheme?
I know of at least two out of three houses who wanted Panels but the council said no?
This was the easiest & cheapest (free) way of achieving 20% less emissions
Great idea! So why weren't council tenants allowed to install Solar panels on the lease a roof space scheme? I know of at least two out of three houses who wanted Panels but the council said no? This was the easiest & cheapest (free) way of achieving 20% less emissions loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:49am Wed 24 Oct 12

derek james says...

all co2 is is plant food, in the past this country has been tropical, covered in ice thousands of feet thick and desert, do these morons think this is caused by man? a low co2 economy is great if you want no industry already the UK aluminium industry has moved abroad and What is left of the former british steel (now Indian owned) is feeling the pinch through high energy tariffs and is threatening to move abroad..
all co2 is is plant food, in the past this country has been tropical, covered in ice thousands of feet thick and desert, do these morons think this is caused by man? a low co2 economy is great if you want no industry already the UK aluminium industry has moved abroad and What is left of the former british steel (now Indian owned) is feeling the pinch through high energy tariffs and is threatening to move abroad.. derek james
  • Score: 0

6:53am Wed 24 Oct 12

westendsaint says...

Sort the traffic lights out along Cobden Bridge, Bitterne Park Triangle, & St Deny's Road, then stationary cars would get to their destination quicker, thus reducing wasted Carbon production + other gases.
Ps - Drivers into & out of the City would be a lot less stressed too.
Sort the traffic lights out along Cobden Bridge, Bitterne Park Triangle, & St Deny's Road, then stationary cars would get to their destination quicker, thus reducing wasted Carbon production + other gases. Ps - Drivers into & out of the City would be a lot less stressed too. westendsaint
  • Score: 0

7:14am Wed 24 Oct 12

SotonNorth says...

This pledge is at odds with the council's policy not to remove traffic lights even if there is a much better alternative. All Southampton know is to install traffic lights everywhere, and regardless of being controlled by the ROMANSE centre, the lights do not operate as efficiently as they could.
Southampton should take a look at Portsmouth city centre where the traffic lights outside Portsmouth and Southsea station were replaced with a mini roundabout and zebra crossings. It is not a solution that would work everywhere, but I can think of quite a few junctions in Southampton where it would improve things. At this location in Portsmouth, the previous congestion vanished just like that, plus the area looks nicer due to the lack of street clutter, and the area is more pedestrian friendly because the roadway is narrower now and the footways wider. But Southampton are like a dog with a bone with traffic lights, and they have been for many decades.
This pledge is at odds with the council's policy not to remove traffic lights even if there is a much better alternative. All Southampton know is to install traffic lights everywhere, and regardless of being controlled by the ROMANSE centre, the lights do not operate as efficiently as they could. Southampton should take a look at Portsmouth city centre where the traffic lights outside Portsmouth and Southsea station were replaced with a mini roundabout and zebra crossings. It is not a solution that would work everywhere, but I can think of quite a few junctions in Southampton where it would improve things. At this location in Portsmouth, the previous congestion vanished just like that, plus the area looks nicer due to the lack of street clutter, and the area is more pedestrian friendly because the roadway is narrower now and the footways wider. But Southampton are like a dog with a bone with traffic lights, and they have been for many decades. SotonNorth
  • Score: 0

7:42am Wed 24 Oct 12

joenice1 says...

Cycle lanes need improving alot as well I would say. Some of the smaller roads are in a poor condition and other roads are just too small to be safe. Portsmouth road as an example, but also millbrook road, I would never go on that road.

I also wonder if it is possible to futher develop the geothermal energy in the city?
Cycle lanes need improving alot as well I would say. Some of the smaller roads are in a poor condition and other roads are just too small to be safe. Portsmouth road as an example, but also millbrook road, I would never go on that road. I also wonder if it is possible to futher develop the geothermal energy in the city? joenice1
  • Score: 0

8:28am Wed 24 Oct 12

elvisimo says...

loosehead wrote:
Great idea! So why weren't council tenants allowed to install Solar panels on the lease a roof space scheme? I know of at least two out of three houses who wanted Panels but the council said no? This was the easiest & cheapest (free) way of achieving 20% less emissions
who would pay for it?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Great idea! So why weren't council tenants allowed to install Solar panels on the lease a roof space scheme? I know of at least two out of three houses who wanted Panels but the council said no? This was the easiest & cheapest (free) way of achieving 20% less emissions[/p][/quote]who would pay for it? elvisimo
  • Score: 0

9:18am Wed 24 Oct 12

loosehead says...

elvisimo wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Great idea! So why weren't council tenants allowed to install Solar panels on the lease a roof space scheme? I know of at least two out of three houses who wanted Panels but the council said no? This was the easiest & cheapest (free) way of achieving 20% less emissions
who would pay for it?
The panels are put on your roof & you get free electricity in daylight hours they get the tariff on any electricity you don't use so in essence your getting it for nothing they also maintain the panels.
The reason three Labour councillors gave for not having them is if they have to be removed for putting a room in the loft you would have to pay for them?
Any repairs to the roof (old age) you would have to pay to put them back up?
Well the council checks the condition of the said roofs if many years left let them be installed would be the sensible way but they have just said no to all tenants is this fair?
I'm a private house owner & I've taken up this money saving scheme so why can't council tenants?
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Great idea! So why weren't council tenants allowed to install Solar panels on the lease a roof space scheme? I know of at least two out of three houses who wanted Panels but the council said no? This was the easiest & cheapest (free) way of achieving 20% less emissions[/p][/quote]who would pay for it?[/p][/quote]The panels are put on your roof & you get free electricity in daylight hours they get the tariff on any electricity you don't use so in essence your getting it for nothing they also maintain the panels. The reason three Labour councillors gave for not having them is if they have to be removed for putting a room in the loft you would have to pay for them? Any repairs to the roof (old age) you would have to pay to put them back up? Well the council checks the condition of the said roofs if many years left let them be installed would be the sensible way but they have just said no to all tenants is this fair? I'm a private house owner & I've taken up this money saving scheme so why can't council tenants? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:19am Wed 24 Oct 12

loosehead says...

derek james wrote:
all co2 is is plant food, in the past this country has been tropical, covered in ice thousands of feet thick and desert, do these morons think this is caused by man? a low co2 economy is great if you want no industry already the UK aluminium industry has moved abroad and What is left of the former british steel (now Indian owned) is feeling the pinch through high energy tariffs and is threatening to move abroad..
Derek didn't TaTa sell to a Thai company?
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: all co2 is is plant food, in the past this country has been tropical, covered in ice thousands of feet thick and desert, do these morons think this is caused by man? a low co2 economy is great if you want no industry already the UK aluminium industry has moved abroad and What is left of the former british steel (now Indian owned) is feeling the pinch through high energy tariffs and is threatening to move abroad..[/p][/quote]Derek didn't TaTa sell to a Thai company? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:21am Wed 24 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Will we be seeing red zones like London?
cut Carbon & increase revenue?
Many Londoners were looking at Electric cars as this would allow them to drive through the red areas with no surcharge
Will we be seeing red zones like London? cut Carbon & increase revenue? Many Londoners were looking at Electric cars as this would allow them to drive through the red areas with no surcharge loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:43am Wed 24 Oct 12

Jamez3000 says...

SotonNorth wrote:
This pledge is at odds with the council's policy not to remove traffic lights even if there is a much better alternative. All Southampton know is to install traffic lights everywhere, and regardless of being controlled by the ROMANSE centre, the lights do not operate as efficiently as they could.
Southampton should take a look at Portsmouth city centre where the traffic lights outside Portsmouth and Southsea station were replaced with a mini roundabout and zebra crossings. It is not a solution that would work everywhere, but I can think of quite a few junctions in Southampton where it would improve things. At this location in Portsmouth, the previous congestion vanished just like that, plus the area looks nicer due to the lack of street clutter, and the area is more pedestrian friendly because the roadway is narrower now and the footways wider. But Southampton are like a dog with a bone with traffic lights, and they have been for many decades.
Definitely there are many simple junctions where traffic lights are totally unnecessary. For example the Charlotte place junction with St Mary's Road.
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote: This pledge is at odds with the council's policy not to remove traffic lights even if there is a much better alternative. All Southampton know is to install traffic lights everywhere, and regardless of being controlled by the ROMANSE centre, the lights do not operate as efficiently as they could. Southampton should take a look at Portsmouth city centre where the traffic lights outside Portsmouth and Southsea station were replaced with a mini roundabout and zebra crossings. It is not a solution that would work everywhere, but I can think of quite a few junctions in Southampton where it would improve things. At this location in Portsmouth, the previous congestion vanished just like that, plus the area looks nicer due to the lack of street clutter, and the area is more pedestrian friendly because the roadway is narrower now and the footways wider. But Southampton are like a dog with a bone with traffic lights, and they have been for many decades.[/p][/quote]Definitely there are many simple junctions where traffic lights are totally unnecessary. For example the Charlotte place junction with St Mary's Road. Jamez3000
  • Score: 0

11:30am Wed 24 Oct 12

downfader says...

derek james wrote:
all co2 is is plant food, in the past this country has been tropical, covered in ice thousands of feet thick and desert, do these morons think this is caused by man? a low co2 economy is great if you want no industry already the UK aluminium industry has moved abroad and What is left of the former british steel (now Indian owned) is feeling the pinch through high energy tariffs and is threatening to move abroad..
No.

The oil, coal and gas is ancient plankton and bacteria that has settled and compressed at seabeds under mud. Most of it comes from a time in the Earth's history before forests, trees and plant life had truly evolved.

-The Earth is around 4 billion years old.
-Much of the oil and co formed from organisms that purified the oceans and air around 1-2 billion years into Earth's life.
-Plants such as trees, land plants etc evolved around 5-400 million years ago.

Whilst CO2 is plant food (technically sugar, proteins etc is, and thats formed from minerals, oxygen and co2 within the plant) it took millions of years for the atmosphere to level out for organisms like us.

Reducing out co2 has not just an environmental benefit but also an energy independence benefit - all of our power needs come from abroad.
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: all co2 is is plant food, in the past this country has been tropical, covered in ice thousands of feet thick and desert, do these morons think this is caused by man? a low co2 economy is great if you want no industry already the UK aluminium industry has moved abroad and What is left of the former british steel (now Indian owned) is feeling the pinch through high energy tariffs and is threatening to move abroad..[/p][/quote]No. The oil, coal and gas is ancient plankton and bacteria that has settled and compressed at seabeds under mud. Most of it comes from a time in the Earth's history before forests, trees and plant life had truly evolved. -The Earth is around 4 billion years old. -Much of the oil and co formed from organisms that purified the oceans and air around 1-2 billion years into Earth's life. -Plants such as trees, land plants etc evolved around 5-400 million years ago. Whilst CO2 is plant food (technically sugar, proteins etc is, and thats formed from minerals, oxygen and co2 within the plant) it took millions of years for the atmosphere to level out for organisms like us. Reducing out co2 has not just an environmental benefit but also an energy independence benefit - all of our power needs come from abroad. downfader
  • Score: 0

11:34am Wed 24 Oct 12

downfader says...

loosehead wrote:
Will we be seeing red zones like London?
cut Carbon & increase revenue?
Many Londoners were looking at Electric cars as this would allow them to drive through the red areas with no surcharge
I think we're too small for congestion charges.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Will we be seeing red zones like London? cut Carbon & increase revenue? Many Londoners were looking at Electric cars as this would allow them to drive through the red areas with no surcharge[/p][/quote]I think we're too small for congestion charges. downfader
  • Score: 0

11:41am Wed 24 Oct 12

loosehead says...

downfader wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Will we be seeing red zones like London?
cut Carbon & increase revenue?
Many Londoners were looking at Electric cars as this would allow them to drive through the red areas with no surcharge
I think we're too small for congestion charges.
From Itchen bridge & Northam one side to Redbridge fly over the other side they could make a killing
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Will we be seeing red zones like London? cut Carbon & increase revenue? Many Londoners were looking at Electric cars as this would allow them to drive through the red areas with no surcharge[/p][/quote]I think we're too small for congestion charges.[/p][/quote]From Itchen bridge & Northam one side to Redbridge fly over the other side they could make a killing loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

loosehead wrote:
Will we be seeing red zones like London?
cut Carbon & increase revenue?
Many Londoners were looking at Electric cars as this would allow them to drive through the red areas with no surcharge
I've actually seen a guy driving an all electric renault twizzy in Southampton before, the car looks like an oversized 2-seater, electric go-kart but seems quite nippy, not sure about the lack of door windows though.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Will we be seeing red zones like London? cut Carbon & increase revenue? Many Londoners were looking at Electric cars as this would allow them to drive through the red areas with no surcharge[/p][/quote]I've actually seen a guy driving an all electric renault twizzy in Southampton before, the car looks like an oversized 2-seater, electric go-kart but seems quite nippy, not sure about the lack of door windows though. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Mr E says...

So who pays for it all ?

Southampton get British Gas to pay for insulation.

British gas then hike up its prices for everybody.

Fantastic - It must be great being able spend money when you don't have to dig in you're own pockets to find it.
So who pays for it all ? Southampton get British Gas to pay for insulation. British gas then hike up its prices for everybody. Fantastic - It must be great being able spend money when you don't have to dig in you're own pockets to find it. Mr E
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Cyber__Fug says...

Fords have already contributed in helping by closing the transit plant in the City.
Fords have already contributed in helping by closing the transit plant in the City. Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Avery T Decanary says...

I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.
I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant. Avery T Decanary
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Wed 24 Oct 12

A Southampton resident says...

If Southampton City Council are so keen to demonstrate their green credentials then why did they not insist that the new police headquarters on Southern Road be clad with solar and PV panels when it was being designed.

I'm sure the architects could have designed the HQ to BREEAM standards and even if they couldn't, the council planning department should have advised them how to do so. Question to the Planning Department - You did advise them didn't you?

I bet the visitors from Bulgaria, Lithuania and Ireland have gone home with a much clearer idea of how NOT to plan their cities!
If Southampton City Council are so keen to demonstrate their green credentials then why did they not insist that the new police headquarters on Southern Road be clad with solar and PV panels when it was being designed. I'm sure the architects could have designed the HQ to BREEAM standards and even if they couldn't, the council planning department should have advised them how to do so. Question to the Planning Department - You did advise them didn't you? I bet the visitors from Bulgaria, Lithuania and Ireland have gone home with a much clearer idea of how NOT to plan their cities! A Southampton resident
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Avery T Decanary wrote:
I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.
It is because it's a greenhouse gas though methane is worse.
[quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.[/p][/quote]It is because it's a greenhouse gas though methane is worse. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Wed 24 Oct 12

downfader says...

Avery T Decanary wrote:
I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.
Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas.

In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.
[quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.[/p][/quote]Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas. In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc. downfader
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Wed 24 Oct 12

downfader says...

One of the ways we've probably cut our "footprint" in our house is insulation. paid to get the loft done, then paid a company to fill the cavities in the walls this year with a special foam stuff.

This year so far we havent had the heating on other than occasional 20 minutes here and there.

Hoping it cuts our bills
One of the ways we've probably cut our "footprint" in our house is insulation. paid to get the loft done, then paid a company to fill the cavities in the walls this year with a special foam stuff. This year so far we havent had the heating on other than occasional 20 minutes here and there. Hoping it cuts our bills downfader
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Avery T Decanary says...

downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.
Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas.

In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.
CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.[/p][/quote]Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas. In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.[/p][/quote]CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight. Avery T Decanary
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Mr E says...

downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.
Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas.

In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.
That definition of Polluting would classify pretty much everything from watering the garden to breathing as polluting!
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.[/p][/quote]Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas. In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.[/p][/quote]That definition of Polluting would classify pretty much everything from watering the garden to breathing as polluting! Mr E
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Avery T Decanary says...

We breathe in 385 parts per million and then exhale 40,000 parts per million with no ill effects.

We breathe the 40,000 ppm into victims needing CPR and it does not cause them to die!

CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 100 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees.
We breathe in 385 parts per million and then exhale 40,000 parts per million with no ill effects. We breathe the 40,000 ppm into victims needing CPR and it does not cause them to die! CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 100 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees. Avery T Decanary
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Avery T Decanary says...

Mr E wrote:
downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.
Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas.

In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.
That definition of Polluting would classify pretty much everything from watering the garden to breathing as polluting!
Wrong. Pollution is the contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms. CO2 is vital to life and by definition therefore not a pollutant.
[quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.[/p][/quote]Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas. In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.[/p][/quote]That definition of Polluting would classify pretty much everything from watering the garden to breathing as polluting![/p][/quote]Wrong. Pollution is the contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms. CO2 is vital to life and by definition therefore not a pollutant. Avery T Decanary
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Wed 24 Oct 12

downfader says...

Avery T Decanary wrote:
downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.
Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas.

In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.
CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight.
Facts?

Like how 75% of the northern ice sheet is gone. For good. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears then fine, dont preach to others because it is something we have to face as a society.

Who are these "most sensible people" of which you speak? The ABD? (Well known for twisting facts and figures and ignoring concise data) The Oil companies? (Well known to oppose alternatives - they still want to sell the oils)

There are over 3000 scientists and researchers. Its not some conspiracy, it is happening.

You are confusing pollution with poisonous substances. Pollution is simply and scientifically something that should not be in a particular place and in so being has a negative effect.

You clearly dont understand how photosynthesis works, either.
[quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.[/p][/quote]Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas. In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.[/p][/quote]CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight.[/p][/quote]Facts? Like how 75% of the northern ice sheet is gone. For good. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears then fine, dont preach to others because it is something we have to face as a society. Who are these "most sensible people" of which you speak? The ABD? (Well known for twisting facts and figures and ignoring concise data) The Oil companies? (Well known to oppose alternatives - they still want to sell the oils) There are over 3000 scientists and researchers. Its not some conspiracy, it is happening. You are confusing pollution with poisonous substances. Pollution is simply and scientifically something that should not be in a particular place and in so being has a negative effect. You clearly dont understand how photosynthesis works, either. downfader
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Avery T Decanary says...

downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.
Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas.

In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.
CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight.
Facts?

Like how 75% of the northern ice sheet is gone. For good. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears then fine, dont preach to others because it is something we have to face as a society.

Who are these "most sensible people" of which you speak? The ABD? (Well known for twisting facts and figures and ignoring concise data) The Oil companies? (Well known to oppose alternatives - they still want to sell the oils)

There are over 3000 scientists and researchers. Its not some conspiracy, it is happening.

You are confusing pollution with poisonous substances. Pollution is simply and scientifically something that should not be in a particular place and in so being has a negative effect.

You clearly dont understand how photosynthesis works, either.
Here we go, the Environmental Taliban at it again. Firstly I am talking about CO2 - that is not a pollutant. So get your facts right. It is a minor greenhouse gas that has little or no effect on the climate.

For 3,000 scientists, read about a dozen who put together the 2007 IPCC report. And more than 9,000 scientists who wrote to the IPCC to say they had got their facts wrong.

And get your data up to date.

Right now Arctic sea ice extent is increasing rapidly, at about 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) per day, expanding southward at the ice edge, as well as northward from the Arctic continental coasts.

On October 6, daily sea ice extent climbed above the 2007 record daily minimum (4.17 million square kilometers or 1.61 million square miles). On October 14, extent went above 5.0 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles) for the first time since mid-August. Yeah, it melts in the summer.

Photosynthesis requires a combination of carbon dioxide, water and light energy. Yes CO2, clearly you have no concept about how it works so don't accuse me of having no understanding.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.[/p][/quote]Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas. In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.[/p][/quote]CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight.[/p][/quote]Facts? Like how 75% of the northern ice sheet is gone. For good. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears then fine, dont preach to others because it is something we have to face as a society. Who are these "most sensible people" of which you speak? The ABD? (Well known for twisting facts and figures and ignoring concise data) The Oil companies? (Well known to oppose alternatives - they still want to sell the oils) There are over 3000 scientists and researchers. Its not some conspiracy, it is happening. You are confusing pollution with poisonous substances. Pollution is simply and scientifically something that should not be in a particular place and in so being has a negative effect. You clearly dont understand how photosynthesis works, either.[/p][/quote]Here we go, the Environmental Taliban at it again. Firstly I am talking about CO2 - that is not a pollutant. So get your facts right. It is a minor greenhouse gas that has little or no effect on the climate. For 3,000 scientists, read about a dozen who put together the 2007 IPCC report. And more than 9,000 scientists who wrote to the IPCC to say they had got their facts wrong. And get your data up to date. Right now Arctic sea ice extent is increasing rapidly, at about 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) per day, expanding southward at the ice edge, as well as northward from the Arctic continental coasts. On October 6, daily sea ice extent climbed above the 2007 record daily minimum (4.17 million square kilometers or 1.61 million square miles). On October 14, extent went above 5.0 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles) for the first time since mid-August. Yeah, it melts in the summer. Photosynthesis requires a combination of carbon dioxide, water and light energy. Yes CO2, clearly you have no concept about how it works so don't accuse me of having no understanding. Avery T Decanary
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Avery T Decanary wrote:
downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.
Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas.

In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.
CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight.
Facts?

Like how 75% of the northern ice sheet is gone. For good. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears then fine, dont preach to others because it is something we have to face as a society.

Who are these "most sensible people" of which you speak? The ABD? (Well known for twisting facts and figures and ignoring concise data) The Oil companies? (Well known to oppose alternatives - they still want to sell the oils)

There are over 3000 scientists and researchers. Its not some conspiracy, it is happening.

You are confusing pollution with poisonous substances. Pollution is simply and scientifically something that should not be in a particular place and in so being has a negative effect.

You clearly dont understand how photosynthesis works, either.
Here we go, the Environmental Taliban at it again. Firstly I am talking about CO2 - that is not a pollutant. So get your facts right. It is a minor greenhouse gas that has little or no effect on the climate.

For 3,000 scientists, read about a dozen who put together the 2007 IPCC report. And more than 9,000 scientists who wrote to the IPCC to say they had got their facts wrong.

And get your data up to date.

Right now Arctic sea ice extent is increasing rapidly, at about 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) per day, expanding southward at the ice edge, as well as northward from the Arctic continental coasts.

On October 6, daily sea ice extent climbed above the 2007 record daily minimum (4.17 million square kilometers or 1.61 million square miles). On October 14, extent went above 5.0 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles) for the first time since mid-August. Yeah, it melts in the summer.

Photosynthesis requires a combination of carbon dioxide, water and light energy. Yes CO2, clearly you have no concept about how it works so don't accuse me of having no understanding.
Actually sea ice extent is decreasing, not increasing and even if it is increasing, it is so thin that it might as well not be there, this year, a new shipping lane was formed due to the massive extent that the polar ice cap has melted and for the first time, ships could go through the arctic to get to northern Russia, one day the fresh water from the sea ice will melt and the continent of Antartica will be ice free and then one day, the oceans will get so warm, that the natural convection currents will stop and if we stop polluting and find a way of cleaning the planet up by that time, we will probably plunge into an ice age, we're already over due for one.
[quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.[/p][/quote]Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas. In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.[/p][/quote]CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight.[/p][/quote]Facts? Like how 75% of the northern ice sheet is gone. For good. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears then fine, dont preach to others because it is something we have to face as a society. Who are these "most sensible people" of which you speak? The ABD? (Well known for twisting facts and figures and ignoring concise data) The Oil companies? (Well known to oppose alternatives - they still want to sell the oils) There are over 3000 scientists and researchers. Its not some conspiracy, it is happening. You are confusing pollution with poisonous substances. Pollution is simply and scientifically something that should not be in a particular place and in so being has a negative effect. You clearly dont understand how photosynthesis works, either.[/p][/quote]Here we go, the Environmental Taliban at it again. Firstly I am talking about CO2 - that is not a pollutant. So get your facts right. It is a minor greenhouse gas that has little or no effect on the climate. For 3,000 scientists, read about a dozen who put together the 2007 IPCC report. And more than 9,000 scientists who wrote to the IPCC to say they had got their facts wrong. And get your data up to date. Right now Arctic sea ice extent is increasing rapidly, at about 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) per day, expanding southward at the ice edge, as well as northward from the Arctic continental coasts. On October 6, daily sea ice extent climbed above the 2007 record daily minimum (4.17 million square kilometers or 1.61 million square miles). On October 14, extent went above 5.0 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles) for the first time since mid-August. Yeah, it melts in the summer. Photosynthesis requires a combination of carbon dioxide, water and light energy. Yes CO2, clearly you have no concept about how it works so don't accuse me of having no understanding.[/p][/quote]Actually sea ice extent is decreasing, not increasing and even if it is increasing, it is so thin that it might as well not be there, this year, a new shipping lane was formed due to the massive extent that the polar ice cap has melted and for the first time, ships could go through the arctic to get to northern Russia, one day the fresh water from the sea ice will melt and the continent of Antartica will be ice free and then one day, the oceans will get so warm, that the natural convection currents will stop and if we stop polluting and find a way of cleaning the planet up by that time, we will probably plunge into an ice age, we're already over due for one. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Avery T Decanary says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.
Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas.

In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.
CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight.
Facts?

Like how 75% of the northern ice sheet is gone. For good. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears then fine, dont preach to others because it is something we have to face as a society.

Who are these "most sensible people" of which you speak? The ABD? (Well known for twisting facts and figures and ignoring concise data) The Oil companies? (Well known to oppose alternatives - they still want to sell the oils)

There are over 3000 scientists and researchers. Its not some conspiracy, it is happening.

You are confusing pollution with poisonous substances. Pollution is simply and scientifically something that should not be in a particular place and in so being has a negative effect.

You clearly dont understand how photosynthesis works, either.
Here we go, the Environmental Taliban at it again. Firstly I am talking about CO2 - that is not a pollutant. So get your facts right. It is a minor greenhouse gas that has little or no effect on the climate.

For 3,000 scientists, read about a dozen who put together the 2007 IPCC report. And more than 9,000 scientists who wrote to the IPCC to say they had got their facts wrong.

And get your data up to date.

Right now Arctic sea ice extent is increasing rapidly, at about 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) per day, expanding southward at the ice edge, as well as northward from the Arctic continental coasts.

On October 6, daily sea ice extent climbed above the 2007 record daily minimum (4.17 million square kilometers or 1.61 million square miles). On October 14, extent went above 5.0 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles) for the first time since mid-August. Yeah, it melts in the summer.

Photosynthesis requires a combination of carbon dioxide, water and light energy. Yes CO2, clearly you have no concept about how it works so don't accuse me of having no understanding.
Actually sea ice extent is decreasing, not increasing and even if it is increasing, it is so thin that it might as well not be there, this year, a new shipping lane was formed due to the massive extent that the polar ice cap has melted and for the first time, ships could go through the arctic to get to northern Russia, one day the fresh water from the sea ice will melt and the continent of Antartica will be ice free and then one day, the oceans will get so warm, that the natural convection currents will stop and if we stop polluting and find a way of cleaning the planet up by that time, we will probably plunge into an ice age, we're already over due for one.
http://nsidc.org/arc
ticseaicenews/ It is increasing.

The sea lane was open in the 40's, The Chinese sailed it in the middle ages and Amundson sailed it, with difficulty one years ago. It ain't new.

The IPCC propaganda machine has conned so many people.

91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. The melting point of ice is zero degrees. So for the ice to melt on any scale the Antarctic temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees, which NOBODY (except you) is predicting.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.[/p][/quote]Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas. In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.[/p][/quote]CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight.[/p][/quote]Facts? Like how 75% of the northern ice sheet is gone. For good. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears then fine, dont preach to others because it is something we have to face as a society. Who are these "most sensible people" of which you speak? The ABD? (Well known for twisting facts and figures and ignoring concise data) The Oil companies? (Well known to oppose alternatives - they still want to sell the oils) There are over 3000 scientists and researchers. Its not some conspiracy, it is happening. You are confusing pollution with poisonous substances. Pollution is simply and scientifically something that should not be in a particular place and in so being has a negative effect. You clearly dont understand how photosynthesis works, either.[/p][/quote]Here we go, the Environmental Taliban at it again. Firstly I am talking about CO2 - that is not a pollutant. So get your facts right. It is a minor greenhouse gas that has little or no effect on the climate. For 3,000 scientists, read about a dozen who put together the 2007 IPCC report. And more than 9,000 scientists who wrote to the IPCC to say they had got their facts wrong. And get your data up to date. Right now Arctic sea ice extent is increasing rapidly, at about 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) per day, expanding southward at the ice edge, as well as northward from the Arctic continental coasts. On October 6, daily sea ice extent climbed above the 2007 record daily minimum (4.17 million square kilometers or 1.61 million square miles). On October 14, extent went above 5.0 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles) for the first time since mid-August. Yeah, it melts in the summer. Photosynthesis requires a combination of carbon dioxide, water and light energy. Yes CO2, clearly you have no concept about how it works so don't accuse me of having no understanding.[/p][/quote]Actually sea ice extent is decreasing, not increasing and even if it is increasing, it is so thin that it might as well not be there, this year, a new shipping lane was formed due to the massive extent that the polar ice cap has melted and for the first time, ships could go through the arctic to get to northern Russia, one day the fresh water from the sea ice will melt and the continent of Antartica will be ice free and then one day, the oceans will get so warm, that the natural convection currents will stop and if we stop polluting and find a way of cleaning the planet up by that time, we will probably plunge into an ice age, we're already over due for one.[/p][/quote]http://nsidc.org/arc ticseaicenews/ It is increasing. The sea lane was open in the 40's, The Chinese sailed it in the middle ages and Amundson sailed it, with difficulty one years ago. It ain't new. The IPCC propaganda machine has conned so many people. 91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. The melting point of ice is zero degrees. So for the ice to melt on any scale the Antarctic temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees, which NOBODY (except you) is predicting. Avery T Decanary
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Subject48 says...

the air temparature is -40c. Not the water.
the air temparature is -40c. Not the water. Subject48
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Subject48 says...

Besides, are you sugesting that Sir. David attenborough is a liar and global warming is a fiction? So the penguins and polar bears that are dying due to not enough ice are in fact increasing in numbers??
Besides, are you sugesting that Sir. David attenborough is a liar and global warming is a fiction? So the penguins and polar bears that are dying due to not enough ice are in fact increasing in numbers?? Subject48
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Wed 24 Oct 12

downfader says...

Avery T Decanary wrote:
downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
downfader wrote:
Avery T Decanary wrote:
I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.
Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas.

In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.
CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight.
Facts?

Like how 75% of the northern ice sheet is gone. For good. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears then fine, dont preach to others because it is something we have to face as a society.

Who are these "most sensible people" of which you speak? The ABD? (Well known for twisting facts and figures and ignoring concise data) The Oil companies? (Well known to oppose alternatives - they still want to sell the oils)

There are over 3000 scientists and researchers. Its not some conspiracy, it is happening.

You are confusing pollution with poisonous substances. Pollution is simply and scientifically something that should not be in a particular place and in so being has a negative effect.

You clearly dont understand how photosynthesis works, either.
Here we go, the Environmental Taliban at it again. Firstly I am talking about CO2 - that is not a pollutant. So get your facts right. It is a minor greenhouse gas that has little or no effect on the climate.

For 3,000 scientists, read about a dozen who put together the 2007 IPCC report. And more than 9,000 scientists who wrote to the IPCC to say they had got their facts wrong.

And get your data up to date.

Right now Arctic sea ice extent is increasing rapidly, at about 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) per day, expanding southward at the ice edge, as well as northward from the Arctic continental coasts.

On October 6, daily sea ice extent climbed above the 2007 record daily minimum (4.17 million square kilometers or 1.61 million square miles). On October 14, extent went above 5.0 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles) for the first time since mid-August. Yeah, it melts in the summer.

Photosynthesis requires a combination of carbon dioxide, water and light energy. Yes CO2, clearly you have no concept about how it works so don't accuse me of having no understanding.
Take away the oxygen and what happens to a plant?

I did a biology higher qualification. There are simply not enough plants to cover all the CO2 being put into the atmosphere. Plants do not breath CO2, they convert it into food. Oxygen production is a small byproduct.
[quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avery T Decanary[/bold] wrote: I like the idea of cutting pollution. CO2 however is not a pollutant.[/p][/quote]Its still technically pollution - pollution can also mean changing the concentrations of chemicals in a fluid, solid or gas. In the same way that there are heavy metals in the earth, heavy metals can pollute soils and ruin farming, water tables etc.[/p][/quote]CO2 is a colourless, odourless non-toxic gas that is vital to sustaining life on this planet. It is not a pollutant and most sensible people now agree it has nothing to do with global warming. Just get your facts straight.[/p][/quote]Facts? Like how 75% of the northern ice sheet is gone. For good. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears then fine, dont preach to others because it is something we have to face as a society. Who are these "most sensible people" of which you speak? The ABD? (Well known for twisting facts and figures and ignoring concise data) The Oil companies? (Well known to oppose alternatives - they still want to sell the oils) There are over 3000 scientists and researchers. Its not some conspiracy, it is happening. You are confusing pollution with poisonous substances. Pollution is simply and scientifically something that should not be in a particular place and in so being has a negative effect. You clearly dont understand how photosynthesis works, either.[/p][/quote]Here we go, the Environmental Taliban at it again. Firstly I am talking about CO2 - that is not a pollutant. So get your facts right. It is a minor greenhouse gas that has little or no effect on the climate. For 3,000 scientists, read about a dozen who put together the 2007 IPCC report. And more than 9,000 scientists who wrote to the IPCC to say they had got their facts wrong. And get your data up to date. Right now Arctic sea ice extent is increasing rapidly, at about 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) per day, expanding southward at the ice edge, as well as northward from the Arctic continental coasts. On October 6, daily sea ice extent climbed above the 2007 record daily minimum (4.17 million square kilometers or 1.61 million square miles). On October 14, extent went above 5.0 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles) for the first time since mid-August. Yeah, it melts in the summer. Photosynthesis requires a combination of carbon dioxide, water and light energy. Yes CO2, clearly you have no concept about how it works so don't accuse me of having no understanding.[/p][/quote]Take away the oxygen and what happens to a plant? I did a biology higher qualification. There are simply not enough plants to cover all the CO2 being put into the atmosphere. Plants do not breath CO2, they convert it into food. Oxygen production is a small byproduct. downfader
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Wed 24 Oct 12

forest hump says...

All of this trash from the greenie brigade. Why don't we all just shut down all fossil electricity generation? Why don't we all ditch our vehicles that run on gasoline/diesel? Why don't we just rely on wind and solar power? Why don't we just drive battery vehicles? Bunch of whiners who cannot provide an alternative (live in a cave perhaps?) Mother Nature will always prevail and is far superior than our humble selves. Lowering carbon is nothing more than a scam to leech more money. QED
All of this trash from the greenie brigade. Why don't we all just shut down all fossil electricity generation? Why don't we all ditch our vehicles that run on gasoline/diesel? Why don't we just rely on wind and solar power? Why don't we just drive battery vehicles? Bunch of whiners who cannot provide an alternative (live in a cave perhaps?) Mother Nature will always prevail and is far superior than our humble selves. Lowering carbon is nothing more than a scam to leech more money. QED forest hump
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Wed 24 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Bio mass would see an increase in tree planting so eating up the carbon produced burning wood chip.
Solar panels can produce electricity & so can wind turbines & it can be stored in liquid air generators/batteries but NIMBY's say they're ugly.
Coal unless filtered produces ash/soot plus Carbon & other pollutants but are these ugly?
Get Solar Panels buy an Electric car charge a battery in daylight plug/link electric car & battery & charge car battery.
free fuel/energy no road tax & free household electricity more so through the summer months .
Why knock it & why go on about Greenies?
As for the Ice if the salt water is diluted to much we won't get the warm currents so we will get an Ice age even the Anti Global Warming brigade say this
Bio mass would see an increase in tree planting so eating up the carbon produced burning wood chip. Solar panels can produce electricity & so can wind turbines & it can be stored in liquid air generators/batteries but NIMBY's say they're ugly. Coal unless filtered produces ash/soot plus Carbon & other pollutants but are these ugly? Get Solar Panels buy an Electric car charge a battery in daylight plug/link electric car & battery & charge car battery. free fuel/energy no road tax & free household electricity more so through the summer months . Why knock it & why go on about Greenies? As for the Ice if the salt water is diluted to much we won't get the warm currents so we will get an Ice age even the Anti Global Warming brigade say this loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

forest hump wrote:
All of this trash from the greenie brigade. Why don't we all just shut down all fossil electricity generation? Why don't we all ditch our vehicles that run on gasoline/diesel? Why don't we just rely on wind and solar power? Why don't we just drive battery vehicles? Bunch of whiners who cannot provide an alternative (live in a cave perhaps?) Mother Nature will always prevail and is far superior than our humble selves. Lowering carbon is nothing more than a scam to leech more money. QED
To be honest the gas we really need to cut down on is methane, a lot of natural gas that gets released when they hit a new pocket of oil is made of methane, why not capture as much as possible and start running cars off of it, methane is admittedly, 100 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas BUT we still need to cut carbon emissions as well, even though the damage has already been done.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: All of this trash from the greenie brigade. Why don't we all just shut down all fossil electricity generation? Why don't we all ditch our vehicles that run on gasoline/diesel? Why don't we just rely on wind and solar power? Why don't we just drive battery vehicles? Bunch of whiners who cannot provide an alternative (live in a cave perhaps?) Mother Nature will always prevail and is far superior than our humble selves. Lowering carbon is nothing more than a scam to leech more money. QED[/p][/quote]To be honest the gas we really need to cut down on is methane, a lot of natural gas that gets released when they hit a new pocket of oil is made of methane, why not capture as much as possible and start running cars off of it, methane is admittedly, 100 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas BUT we still need to cut carbon emissions as well, even though the damage has already been done. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

9:37pm Wed 24 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
forest hump wrote:
All of this trash from the greenie brigade. Why don't we all just shut down all fossil electricity generation? Why don't we all ditch our vehicles that run on gasoline/diesel? Why don't we just rely on wind and solar power? Why don't we just drive battery vehicles? Bunch of whiners who cannot provide an alternative (live in a cave perhaps?) Mother Nature will always prevail and is far superior than our humble selves. Lowering carbon is nothing more than a scam to leech more money. QED
To be honest the gas we really need to cut down on is methane, a lot of natural gas that gets released when they hit a new pocket of oil is made of methane, why not capture as much as possible and start running cars off of it, methane is admittedly, 100 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas BUT we still need to cut carbon emissions as well, even though the damage has already been done.
Ginger I've been asking why we don't reclaim all Methane from our sewage & use it to produce electricity as the technologies there .
there's a plant up North with a giant drum that spins & dries the sewage the Methane extracted is burnt to produce electricity which drives the drum & goes to the National grid.
then the dried sewage can be used as fertiliser or burnt to produce more Electricity.
another way is put it into great big storage tanks put in the good bugs they break it down producing Oxygen,Methane & Water Vapour.
once again Methane can be burnt to produce power.
when they've finished again the dried sewage can be burnt to produce power think of the endless supply of the natural fuel source?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: All of this trash from the greenie brigade. Why don't we all just shut down all fossil electricity generation? Why don't we all ditch our vehicles that run on gasoline/diesel? Why don't we just rely on wind and solar power? Why don't we just drive battery vehicles? Bunch of whiners who cannot provide an alternative (live in a cave perhaps?) Mother Nature will always prevail and is far superior than our humble selves. Lowering carbon is nothing more than a scam to leech more money. QED[/p][/quote]To be honest the gas we really need to cut down on is methane, a lot of natural gas that gets released when they hit a new pocket of oil is made of methane, why not capture as much as possible and start running cars off of it, methane is admittedly, 100 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas BUT we still need to cut carbon emissions as well, even though the damage has already been done.[/p][/quote]Ginger I've been asking why we don't reclaim all Methane from our sewage & use it to produce electricity as the technologies there . there's a plant up North with a giant drum that spins & dries the sewage the Methane extracted is burnt to produce electricity which drives the drum & goes to the National grid. then the dried sewage can be used as fertiliser or burnt to produce more Electricity. another way is put it into great big storage tanks put in the good bugs they break it down producing Oxygen,Methane & Water Vapour. once again Methane can be burnt to produce power. when they've finished again the dried sewage can be burnt to produce power think of the endless supply of the natural fuel source? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:38pm Wed 24 Oct 12

forest hump says...

Hmm? Hydraulic fracturing can produce more methane than you can poke with a stick! It has been around for decades and has done no harm. Unfortunately, the Hollywood hipocrites are damning this process and making inaccurate films which portray lies. They live lifestyles that would stomp all over most peoples "carbon footprints" just because it is trendy. People should listen to real facts and not manufactured trash.
Hmm? Hydraulic fracturing can produce more methane than you can poke with a stick! It has been around for decades and has done no harm. Unfortunately, the Hollywood hipocrites are damning this process and making inaccurate films which portray lies. They live lifestyles that would stomp all over most peoples "carbon footprints" just because it is trendy. People should listen to real facts and not manufactured trash. forest hump
  • Score: 0

12:13am Thu 25 Oct 12

downfader says...

forest hump wrote:
Hmm? Hydraulic fracturing can produce more methane than you can poke with a stick! It has been around for decades and has done no harm. Unfortunately, the Hollywood hipocrites are damning this process and making inaccurate films which portray lies. They live lifestyles that would stomp all over most peoples "carbon footprints" just because it is trendy. People should listen to real facts and not manufactured trash.
No harm done? Apart from the seismic activity that damaged homes and property in the North of England 2 years ago.

Do you denounce all those who see an issue with carbon reduction as a "greenie"?

And where do you get your own facts from?
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: Hmm? Hydraulic fracturing can produce more methane than you can poke with a stick! It has been around for decades and has done no harm. Unfortunately, the Hollywood hipocrites are damning this process and making inaccurate films which portray lies. They live lifestyles that would stomp all over most peoples "carbon footprints" just because it is trendy. People should listen to real facts and not manufactured trash.[/p][/quote]No harm done? Apart from the seismic activity that damaged homes and property in the North of England 2 years ago. Do you denounce all those who see an issue with carbon reduction as a "greenie"? And where do you get your own facts from? downfader
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree