Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16   Report Post  
Old 23-05-2005, 11:01 PM
Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
Martin wrote:
Surely, it's how much fuel a person uses in total which determines
his/her 'transport' contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, not
the efficiency of one of the vehicles he may use?

I try not to use any. My system is hibernated every night - and I
don't drive. I recycle as much as I possibly can (I would do more
but our local council doesn't take high-density polyurethane (HDPE)
which is what the tops of the milk 'tanks' you can buy in most
supermarkets are made from). I refill my ink cartridges, and I
never print unless it's absolutely necessary, then the results, if
not used, are turned into phone pads.


You must save quite a lot of money doing these things. What do you
spend the money on that you saved? It's highly likely that you spend
it on things or services that consume resources.

Ultimately, to make a real difference, there simply needs to be less
of us on this planet.

Though I'm not planning to leave anytime soon myself...

Regards

Martin


I won't start on the 'less' vs 'fewer' arguement, except to say
'fewer' is the correct word in this context as less is applied to
things which cannot be quantified - e.g. weight, time, etc.

Of the things I mentioned, only the ink cartridges affect me directly
as I live at home and the other savings are passed on to my parents
who pay the bills.

I tot it up every six months, and the last lot was donated to
Afrikids, a charity started by a girl I was at school with to provide
educational materials to children in, er, Africa (though she has
extended her range and has started sending supplies to build a school
for street kids in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia). Don't see how that
impacts the planet (except in a positive way) unless you count the
paper used to print the cheque.


My use of the word "Less" was quite sensible. But that doesn't really
matter.

Let me say that what you are doing is very worthy, but I think you haven't
understood my main point. The paper used to write the cheque is of course
trivial. But pause to reflect on what happens next! The cheque is cashed for
money. The money is used to buy goods or services which CONSUME MORE
RESOURCES. Excuse me shouting, but I'm trying to emphasise the main thrust
of my argument.
The point is, that in a capitalist society, when an individual or company
manages to reduce energy usage, they simply save more money to spend on more
resources. There isn't much you can do about it, except perhaps take
currency and destroy it. If you keep it in a bank, they will invest it,
which means it is gobbling up resources while you sleep!
I agree that sending supplies to disadvantaged kids is a good thing, but
surely you must see that on a very basic level, this is consuming more
energy and resources...

Regards

Martin


  #17   Report Post  
Old 24-05-2005, 12:04 AM
Paul Luton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message
Jupiter wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:13:02 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:



Figures were published in yesterday's Telegraph which indicated that
2.5% of current carbon dioxide emissions worldwide are caused by human
activities. 97.5% therefore originate from other sources, presumably
natural, such as the exhalations of animals, emissions from trees and
plants, natural decomposition and fermentation processes, etc. How do
the environmentalists propose to reduce this?

The crucial point here is NET emissions. The biosphere emits 102 Gt of CO2
per year but also takes in the same quantity by photosynthesis. The 5 Gt
produced by burning of fossil fuels is just addition.

(Dr) Paul Luton

--
CTC Right to Ride Representative for Richmond upon Thames
  #18   Report Post  
Old 24-05-2005, 12:19 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 23 May 2005 22:01:57 +0100, "Martin"
wrote:

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
Martin wrote:
Surely, it's how much fuel a person uses in total which determines
his/her 'transport' contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, not
the efficiency of one of the vehicles he may use?

I try not to use any. My system is hibernated every night - and I
don't drive. I recycle as much as I possibly can (I would do more
but our local council doesn't take high-density polyurethane (HDPE)
which is what the tops of the milk 'tanks' you can buy in most
supermarkets are made from). I refill my ink cartridges, and I
never print unless it's absolutely necessary, then the results, if
not used, are turned into phone pads.

You must save quite a lot of money doing these things. What do you
spend the money on that you saved? It's highly likely that you spend
it on things or services that consume resources.

Ultimately, to make a real difference, there simply needs to be less
of us on this planet.

Though I'm not planning to leave anytime soon myself...

Regards

Martin


I won't start on the 'less' vs 'fewer' arguement, except to say
'fewer' is the correct word in this context as less is applied to
things which cannot be quantified - e.g. weight, time, etc.

Of the things I mentioned, only the ink cartridges affect me directly
as I live at home and the other savings are passed on to my parents
who pay the bills.

I tot it up every six months, and the last lot was donated to
Afrikids, a charity started by a girl I was at school with to provide
educational materials to children in, er, Africa (though she has
extended her range and has started sending supplies to build a school
for street kids in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia). Don't see how that
impacts the planet (except in a positive way) unless you count the
paper used to print the cheque.


My use of the word "Less" was quite sensible. But that doesn't really
matter.

Let me say that what you are doing is very worthy, but I think you haven't
understood my main point. The paper used to write the cheque is of course
trivial. But pause to reflect on what happens next! The cheque is cashed for
money. The money is used to buy goods or services which CONSUME MORE
RESOURCES. Excuse me shouting, but I'm trying to emphasise the main thrust
of my argument.
The point is, that in a capitalist society, when an individual or company
manages to reduce energy usage, they simply save more money to spend on more
resources. There isn't much you can do about it, except perhaps take
currency and destroy it. If you keep it in a bank, they will invest it,
which means it is gobbling up resources while you sleep!
I agree that sending supplies to disadvantaged kids is a good thing, but
surely you must see that on a very basic level, this is consuming more
energy and resources...

Regards

Martin



Absolutely right and crystal clear.



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can't answer replies! Michelle Moreland Orlando Orchids 0 03-07-2005 09:44 AM
An open letter to Dr Avery of RSPB [email protected] United Kingdom 0 24-03-2005 11:39 PM
Why won't my replies post? CS Freshwater Aquaria Plants 1 07-03-2004 08:02 AM
Why won't my replies post? CS Freshwater Aquaria Plants 0 05-03-2004 04:45 PM
thanks for replies Mac United Kingdom 0 11-09-2003 11:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017