drive gently says tony

[Tonyt3]

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Mullett (original)

What amazed me was that F1 is carbon neutral!? They apparently have a big forrest in Southern Mexico (or somewhere like that), where they're planing trees to compensate not only for the race cars, but for the visitors, planes etc. The whole thing!? Sounds too good to be true, but the claim I heard was that Athelitics are more damaging to the environment than F1!

yeah sounds like marketing BULL***T to me. Do they really plant enough trees for the thousands of developement laps that the cars do each season, for the hundreds of helicopters that fly in and out during F1 week, for the fuel used to transport the cars, trailers, motorhomes, personel and spares around the world every two weeks......????

Funny, havent seen signs of a new rain forest springing up in Mexico on Google earth just recently.....

Many companies make big claims about saving the planet. Funny how its not evident.

[Goonery]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonyt3 (original)

yeah sounds like marketing BULL***T to me. Do they really plant enough trees for the thousands of developement laps that the cars do each season, for the hundreds of helicopters that fly in and out during F1 week, for the fuel used to transport the cars, trailers, motorhomes, personel and spares around the world every two weeks......????

Funny, havent seen signs of a new rain forest springing up in Mexico on Google earth just recently.....

Many companies make big claims about saving the planet. Funny how its not evident.

Plenty of former and existing racing circuits are being slowly returned to nature though.
Brooklands is now a retail and industrial park, Castle Combe is threatened with closure by the "new" locals, Thruxton has seen better days, as has Brands Hatch.
Silverstone is continually being battered by F1 as being inadequate

[Paul]

autosport.com - F1 News: F1 already 'carbon neutral' since 1997 <--- Hmmm.

[jon vital]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fin (original)

I don't like all this new legislation to help stop 'climate change', which the government seems to want to rush in as a knee jerk reaction to scientific data reported by the media. The whole thing to me seems like an over reaction.

It's a very deliberate reaction because it helps further the Bush/Blair dream of turning our countries into police states. Why do you think the Americans have made such an about turn regarding climate? It's the perfect excuse to implement Black Box tracking in our cars and all sorts of other social control policies.

I was very disappointed to see the new air travel taxation ideas from the Tories too.

[lespurgeon]

Michael,
You could have kept Cheney, he was to be intended as a gift, but I think we decided we didn't hate Oz that much.

But seriously folks,
The vast majority of reputable scientists agree that global worming is occuring, and that human actions (greenhouse gas emissions) are at minimum partially to blame. Simply because the government can speak out of both sides of its mouth does not mean we should not make choices to protect our future. I support regulation both to reduce global warming and to help people save for their retirement.

That said, while I bike to work most days, I also have a bit of a heavy right foot in the MCS - and I should put a bit more away for retirement as well.

[Paul]

Agree with the above.

[Fin]

I still believe that the blame assigned to CO2 is out of proportion to it's actual effect. As I said before there are many other factors, but just as an example have a look at the graph I have attached. It shows the trend in solar variation with the average surface temperature of the Earth over about 140 years. You don't have to be a genius to see the correlation.

I do agree we need to move away from fossil fuels (due to their limited supply), but I don't want to be made to feel guilty about my carbon footprint so Gordon can get more tax out of me. Besides, there are other gases in our atmosphere (such as methane) that are much more efficient at absorbing electromagnetic radiation within the infra-red wavelength.

So stop farting everyone, or you'll get taxed on it!

[Tonyt3]

Well, this is what I think most companies get out of 'carbon neutral' policies - its taken from the Wikipidia site on their very good balanced article on Carbon Offsetting:

"Not all environmentalists agree with carbon offsets. George Monbiot, an English environmentalist and progressive writer, has compared carbon offsets to the practice of purchasing Indulgences during the Middle Ages, whereby people with money could purchase forgiveness for their sins (instead of actually repenting and not sinning anymore). Monbiot also says that that the trade in carbon offsets is an excuse for business as usual with regards to pollution."

Rich companies/people spend money to solve problems rather than modifyin behaviour. This gives them the 'right' to preach to others and to carry on doing whatever they wanted to do......

Carbon offset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So does this mean I'm against F1? No, it means I'm against people that say they are saving the world when in fact all they are doing is paying someone not to cut down some trees.

Some excellent reading on this by the way - for instance, trees give out more CO2 when they decay that they absorb during their life time - trees simply store CO2, they dont actually reduce it.

"this study found little to no net global cooling from tree planting in temperate climates"

"There are also concerns that using carbon offsets actually increases demand for polluting sources of power since overall power consumption isn't being reduced"

The final word on it is the quote above surely though - Carbon Offsetting by buying trees elsewhere in the world is simple false economy - unless you actually cut back on something you canot possibly gain - for instance, when my wife tells me that she saved £50 at the sales I ask her to show me the £50 that she saved - and yet her purse is empty because she actually spent all the money I gave her in order to save £50.

[Paul]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonyt3 (original)

Some excellent reading on this by the way - for instance, trees give out more CO2 when they decay that they absorb during their life time - trees simply store CO2, they dont actually reduce it.

Thought this was pretty much comon knowledge. That's why using wood and paper from sustainable forests is good, because the new trees eat CO2 and produce oxygen, and they're chopped down and used before they release it all during decay.

[Tonyt3]

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Mullett (original)

Thought this was pretty much comon knowledge. That's why using wood and paper from sustainable forests is good, because the new trees eat CO2 and produce oxygen, and they're chopped down and used before they release it all during decay.

No, my point is more that planting trees doesnt actually make CO2 disappear, it just stores it for the future - trees dont 'consume' CO2, and I think that most people would be surprised that the net result of planting a tree is more CO2 not less. So you have to plant the right trees in the right places and use those trees as a sensible resource. Paying a poor farmer in mexico £3 a tree becomes irrelevant if the tree cannot sustain a local economic benifit long term as long after the farmer stops recieving money for his trees he's going to burn them down to re-plant a more cash rich crop. Perhaps that after the planet hass warmed a little and he can now grow other stuff!!!!!

The point is that if the overal net effect of being 'carbon neutral' by paying someone to go and plant a load of trees is negative then whats the point? Only actually cutting CO2 emmisions can improve things, not continuing to emit the same or more just because a few trees have been planted.

How then can F1 actually cut CO2 emmisions? There are many ways, from the complex such as more fuel efficient engines, or perhaps alternative fuel sources, to the rediculously simple - less races per year or perhaps shorter races.....

....however, that would hit F1 in the pocket and they wouldnt do it. Some of the races (such as Bahrain for instance) are run in front of a virtually empty race curcuit, because theres not enough locals with enough money to actually go and watch the race, and why should they when most can stay at home and watch it on the tele.....

Does F1 need 18 or 19 races a year? And if they lasted 1.5 hours instead of 2, would they not perhaps actually be more entertaining? Fuel tanks could be smaller therefore fuelling would still be required.....

Of course, revenues would go down because there would be less adverts.... and then Bernie would say he hasnt got enough billions left to plant more trees to save the planet.....

[Goonery]

You could say its not in the interests of Governments to reduce energy use because if they did....................

1. Big business would suffer because they are all by and large based on consumption of fossil fuels and raw materials to make the products they sell
2. Governments rely on business to provide employment, balance of trade, GDP, consumer products and all that stuff, so if we stop using it, the profits fall, people get laid off, and we end up with a world wide depression

I'm Carbon Offsetting my GP with BP of all people because in my opinion they are making a genuine attempt in conjuction with other partners which is improving and educating the systems in other countries, its not just planting trees though lots of other good stuff going on there.

And of course there is some truth in the argument that Global warming is cyclical. There once was an Ice age, it got warmer, then it cooled, then it got warmer. Some say the sun is getting hotter as it gets older before it goes into terminal decline and finally collapses in on itself. Thats a way off and hopefully the human race will have sorted itself out by then

[Fin]

Yeah, there is a long time yet before the Sun starts burning Helium and expanding!

But there are cyclical variations in Solar activity.

[matt1985]

I have been discussing this recently as it has annoyed me. The way Labour seem to make money from a situation they know people will have to pay more as opposed to using public transport.

I could yes, use public transport to get to work. But i am not going to unless i am gauranteed a sunny day because it is inconvenient to me. I used my hard (ish) earned pounds to buy an awesome car and damn him im going to use it.

Labour seem to think this is their only way to cut emissions and "save the planet"

But can i just make a quick point, but how enviromentally friendly is the conflict in Iraq!?

I cant imagine they are even considering it with any real meaning.

Its laughable, they want me to pay more, when they get driven around in jags and even if they did their more than generouse pay slip would ensure they wouldnt even notice an extra tax payment leaving their vast accounts.

Labour....ppfffftt!!!

[Paul]

I think this is more a governmental issue rather than party political. Right now I think the chase is on as to who will tax most to save the environment.

[Tonyt3]

Unfortuantly the real lack of a credible apposing arguement means that we will end up getting stuffed no matter what party ends up in power. Tony Blah is currently working fevereshly to impose his ideals on saving the planet because he is desperate to end his leadership with us all thinking he's a great man for caring so much, instead of his legacy of Iraq. I wouldnt be surprised if Gordon Brown makes Tony Blair into some kind of 'UK Global Warming Zsar" so that he can move not to the back benches but onto some wider global stage.

However, that said, if it did happen, it probably wouldnt be that bad an idea. As he showed with Iraq, he stuck to his convictions and beliefs despite what his people said. I think he belives he can save the planet from catastrophe and get people to agree a way forward.

Ones things for sure, this is all going to cost us.