BBC Blog Network

User Profile

SHLA2UK

Listed below are comments made by SHLA2UK between Monday, 16th November 2009 and Wednesday, 25th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Why cars are greener than buses (maybe) 2:41pm on 25 Nov 2009 70. At 11:41am on 20 Nov 2009, Lateralis wrote:

"...Secondly, Justin, a tonne of CO2 dumped into the upper atmosphere by an aeroplane is far more damaging than a tonne of CO2 dumped out of vehicles and so forth at ground level..."

Just to quantify your statement, Lateralis, the entire aviation industry emits just 2% of the total global CO2 emissions. I can state that quite confidently, as I'm currently working on an EU initiative within the air transport industry (ATI) in relation to Carbon Trading. How does that compare with the total emission of CO2 from petrol / diesel engines per head, at ground level?
Why cars are greener than buses (maybe) 2:17pm on 25 Nov 2009 ...and another point, on the car versus bus / train arguement.
I used to drive to work, in a fairly economical car, and it would cost me around £20 per week in petrol for the work journey. I might put more petrol in the tank at weekends for personal use, but in general £20 per week covered it. I'd use the car for other things, like a weekly trip to the supermarket, once a month to the council tip / recycling centre and taking the dog to the vet maybe.

I now use the train. A return ticket costs me £4 (it's only a short journey), and so for a 5 day week, it's £20. If I want to get to the supermarket, I could walk to the station, then take the train into town and back, but a week's shopping is not really 'train-friendly'. The train doesn't go to the council tip, so that means a taxi, which likely will cost a lot more for waiting and cleaning afterwards - the driver might not like to take my garden waste, bottles, cans and paper recycling in his car. The train doesn't go past the vet, so that means two buses, at a cost of around £12 return busfare.

OK, the train doesn't ask me to pay road-tax, have insurance, or arrange an MOT, but in daily running costs, there is no financial advantage for me, between car and train. The downside, for the train, is that, as already pointed out by someone earlier, it takes me from a place that I'm not, to a place where I don't want to be, and so on. My journey was 15 minutes, door to car-park, by car, and is now one hour, including a walk to / from the station at either end. I stand in cramped rush-hour trains and suffer delays and sometimes cancelled services.

Let us live the lifestyle that we've created but address the problem by helping nature combat the change. Don't change the lifestyle to combat the problem.
Why cars are greener than buses (maybe) 1:13pm on 25 Nov 2009 Justin,

If cars, buses, trains and planes are all so polluting (and I'm not denying that they are), and the said pollutants are made up predominantly of Carbon in the form of CO2, then we need to think outside of the box in order to combat the situation.

It's not a case of losing the car to adopt the train or bus. I don't have a car any more, much like yourself, but my situation was brought about by my engine going 'bang' and so I'm being forced to use the train to get to work daily. That said, I have become accustomed to using the train for work, albeit I have to leave almost a whole hour earlier to make it in time.

No, the issue here is purely about the increased Carbon, only part of which is due to the exhaust from petrol and diesel engines. Part also due to power stations generating huge amounts of electricity to charge laptops, mobile phones, to power TVs, PCs, Fridge-freezers, ovens, lights and central heating, not forgetting the Pendalino trains, the London tube, the Tyneside Metro, the Manchester trams and the Clockwork Orange in Glasgow.

If Carbon (in the form of CO2) is the culprit here, we should be planting millions and millions of trees. There is plenty of space on this planet that has not been used (yet). Forests in the UK have been depleted beyond recognition to allow urban development. It's time start claiming back the land for the planet. We don't have the monopoly on the ground under our feet.

Changing our ways is a mammoth task. Whilst the global economy is still promoting mobile phones, TV and all things electrical, the only remedy can come from redressing the balance. If we cannot reduce the CO2 output from our modern society, then we need to increase the CO2 processing ability of the planet, and that comes from nature.

Give nature the tools to do this - give her more trees.
If you thought it was all over... 2:40pm on 19 Nov 2009 50. At 1:47pm on 19 Nov 2009, manuinlondon wrote:

"...These are the same people who swear allegiance to the monarchy. How long ago was that particular back room deal done? The Queen after all has much more power than any President of the Council of Ministers or the High Representative could ever imagine..."

The Monarchy? Much of Europe have Royal Houses. As for it being a backroom deal, I think you'll find, if you read the history, that it was battles and feuds that reign over this decision, made some time before the 'public' had any kind of real vote or power. As for the power of the monarch, it is very much diluted. They are figurehead symbols, not political powers.

"...I am not aware of a presidential election ever being held in the UK..."
The UK is a Democratic Monarchy, not a republic. In order to have presidential elections, we would need to be a republic, something that has not existed in this land since 1660.
Social media focus 5:26pm on 18 Nov 2009 I think it's great that news is available via a multitude of media today. We've moved on a thousand fold since news was delivered by a town cryer, shouting out the main stories of the day. Along came John Bull and the means to print a story and very quickly an industry of reporting and delivering the 'news' took a huge leap.

It has always been and will always be about speed. The news just isn't news unless it's delivered to the required audience as quickly as is humanly possible.

That used to be by word of mouth, and stories would be embellished like a game of chinese whispers. Once print came along, and a network of reporters pushed stories back to their editor, a culture of 'honest' reporting was born. Of course, there were unscrupulous 'reporters' who would sell their story to the highest bidder, and so the 'gutter press' was born.

Thanks to Mr Marconi the Radio Telegraph superseded the cables laid under the oceans and a more instant means of sending messages came about. Oddly, we've regressed back to cable technology in many ways, but to our advantage. Can anyone reading remember when the news was available only on the 'wireless' and then cinema got involved? I'm not that old, but like Boilerplated, am over 40, and so according to Angel_In_Transit, must be pre-senile - I'm guessing you are pre-idiot then. Come back when you're a fully fledged idiot and we can help you become a person.

Then came the Televisual Revolution that was one more step for News, but a giant leap for Newskind. It's exploded, and is still exploding. A bit like the big bang - becoming exponentially faster, bigger, better. Where will it end?

Yes, checks and balances are needed, and are indeed applied. There have been mistakes, but it's a learning process. How many people reading and contributing here could have imagined, 5 years ago, that they themselves could have such an instant input on the news of the day, no the hour, the minute.

You get it via text to your mobile phone. It pops up on your computer screen, or you can install a ticker to see the headlines all day, every day, every hour, every minute.

I wish the BBC and Alex luck. You're (the BBC, not Alex) my #1 source of news on the internet and TV.
Social media focus 5:01pm on 18 Nov 2009 . At 5:58pm on 16 Nov 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:

"...People dont talk to each other anymore!.."
How true my friend.
I was invited to a birthday party, recently, whilst sitting in my dining room on my laptop. The person inviting me? My lodger, sitting upstairs in my bedroom, using my other laptop on facebook.

Bizarre.
Ed Miliband replies 4:46pm on 18 Nov 2009 6. At 09:05am on 18 Nov 2009, Daniel wrote:
"...My Wife and I live in rented accommodation in London. Our landlord will not consider even the smallest and simplest green measures such as insulation; there is no incentive for him to either..." "...I'm sure that there are plenty of tenants living in the UK in flats like this and that a lot could be done if financial incentives / tax breaks were given to landlords in order to motivate them to go green..."

Couldn't agree more Daniel. I am a landlord, and have tenants in my home. I live there, as opposed to you being a tenant without the landlord at home.

I do it a little different in that I charge a rent, with bills included. I pay the bills myself and only charge my lodgers a rent. The problem here is that the lodgers don't see a need to save energy as it is inclusive. Unlike you, they don't pay more if they use more. My fault for doing it that way, I guess.

I spend more time running around turning off lights, lowering the thermo, regulating the heating etc., because it hurts my pocket.

I'm very much in favour of green initiatives. If I could generate my own power, or a portion of it, I'd be very interested. Ideas?
Map of the Week: Galoshes and a smile 4:20pm on 18 Nov 2009 11. At 12:10pm on 17 Nov 2009, badgercourage wrote:

"...But I would go further and have Birmingham the seat of the English Parliament. Westminster could remain the location of the UK Senate, which would deal with the matters which the four nations of the Federated Republic of the United Kingdom had agreed should be done of a federal basis..."

Man, I like your thinking. A Federal United Kingdom - the acronym itself says it all. Or what about the Federation of the Union of Countries and Kingdom. Perfect.
Time to eat the pets? 4:06pm on 18 Nov 2009 139. At 9:30pm on 17 Nov 2009, Mike Davies wrote:

"...the entire human population of the planet just has to stop breathing..."

Hi Mike - glad I'm not the only one who saw the funny side of this. As for the entire human population stopping breathing, I'd like to start it off by suggesting some volunteers who spout enough CO2 on a daily basis to probably compensate for a small village somewhere.

Of course, I can't name people here - I'd probably get taken to court and have loads of quality law-makers give me their undivided attention, but I'm sure it's not hard to consider a top ten / twenty / hundred. Look to the south-bank of the Thames, at that large palace-like building with the clock tower and you're heading in the right direction.

1,2,3 hold.........
Time to eat the pets? 4:21pm on 16 Nov 2009 133. At 2:55pm on 16 Nov 2009, Peter_Sym wrote:

"Its possibly true but only because the vast majority of farm animals are never attacked"..."I once saw a real scumbag set his rotweiller on a cow with a calf..."

Peter, thanks for that. Of course, statistics are subjective and can be manipulated to represent any view. I appreciate your opinion on that. As for the Rottwieler incident - as an ex-Rotty owner, I can only lay the blame for that with the 'scumbag' you cite as the instigator. A rottwieler wouldn't instinctively attack as their instincts are to herd. They are beautiful animals and do not deserve the reputation they've attracted. I'm pleased to see your use of the word 'scumbag' in relation to his owner.

"...I'd have thought foxes are a much bigger risk..."
So true - but also natural. Prevention is better than cure. Stop the foxes from getting access to the domestic animals they prey on, rather than kill the fox.

I guess a compromise might be on the cards - don't eat your pet dog (or your working dog) but what about fox 'n' chips on the menu at your local chippy?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

SHLA2UK