Every animal pollutes. Plants don't, by and large. Everything they emit and shed alone is natural. I say "by and large" just in case someone can think of one that does.
Off Topic The Environmental & Pollution Thread
- Thread starter TheSecondStain
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I have a cat called Big Steve. He kills birds occasionally, eats food that probably has some animal source but is packaged in cardboard.
Big Steve doesn't drive a car though, or turn my central heating on. He is responsible for very little single use plastic and he doesn't take holidays abroad.
I have a feeling that Big Steve has little impact on the planet warming, so he gets to stay in my house.
Pets have a greater value than cost IMHO, as they are beneficial to their owner's well being and mental health in many cases so I'm certainly not going to get all evangelical about getting rid of pets as a concept. Responsible ownership is key, but I don't believe that the family dog or cat is tipping us towards meltdown
I absolutely agree with you RJ. My problem isn't with the animals themselves. My problem is with the irresponsible people who have them as pets, on little more than a whim, and those who produce more of them for monetised gain.
Incidentally, I hope Big Steve has a long and happy life. And keeps up with the tradition of killing more birds than wind turbines [I'm joking on the killing bit].
ihatemyselfandwanttodie
Well-Known Member
I think that is pretty judgemental, generalised and ill researched TSS. Most of your posts are very reasoned and educational, but perhaps not this one!
Of course it is me being judgemental. Put it this way BV. I don't like animals being bred as pets as a business. There are enough domesticated animals around for very little [Blue Cross/Battersea Dogs Home] that desperately need a home to go to, without people charging £200 or something for a special cat.
But that has rather moved the chat on from domesticated animals being bad for the environment. Not forgetting that people are generally worse.
Politics, Ralphs blah blah or here oh here it is.
You must log in or register to see media
This might be just as good on the political thread, but it's about uninformed conversation about the environment and electric cars. OK, that happens every day. The problem being is that it is between President Trump and his advisors, who basically talk complete nonsense. And these people make policy which indirectly affects the whole world:
https://electrek.co/2020/01/25/trump-dinner-guests-talk-complete-nonsense-about-evs-tesla/
https://electrek.co/2020/01/25/trump-dinner-guests-talk-complete-nonsense-about-evs-tesla/
Thorium nuclear reactors. Why have they never been adopted, when they have been known about for so long? They're even very safe. Published today, here's Dave Borlace from Just Have A Think to explain the pros and cons of the thorium reactor:
You must log in or register to see media
Last edited:
One last chance for the UK to influence for the good of everyone: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51229604
I'll post a link to a new BBC World Service 4 programme series on our efforts to curb HICC. Here's the blurb [and link];
The road to Glasgow
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct04rp
Discovery 2020: A Year to Save the Planet
Episode 1 of 4
Climate change is upon us. In 2018 the IPCC published a report with the most significant warning about the impact of climate change in 20 years. Unless the world keeps warming to below 1.5% the impacts on the climate will be severe. Sea levels will rise, leading to flooding, and extremes of temperature will become more common. The UK Met Office has forecast that the global average surface temperature for the five-year period to 2023 is predicted to be around 1.0 °C above pre-industrial levels.
Just before Christmas the COP 25 meeting in Madrid ended with a compromise deal. All countries will need to put new climate pledges on the table by the time of the next major conference in Glasgow at the end of 2020. But there were no decisions on the future of carbon trading and big players such as US, India, China and Brazil opposed calls to be more ambitious in our pledges to reduce man made global warming.
Across 2020 in Discovery Matt McGrath will be reporting on what is happening to save the planet.
In this first programme he takes stock after Madrid and finds out what the world’s key players say has to be done before the meeting in Glasgow.
I'll post a link to a new BBC World Service 4 programme series on our efforts to curb HICC. Here's the blurb [and link];
The road to Glasgow
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct04rp
Discovery 2020: A Year to Save the Planet
Episode 1 of 4
Climate change is upon us. In 2018 the IPCC published a report with the most significant warning about the impact of climate change in 20 years. Unless the world keeps warming to below 1.5% the impacts on the climate will be severe. Sea levels will rise, leading to flooding, and extremes of temperature will become more common. The UK Met Office has forecast that the global average surface temperature for the five-year period to 2023 is predicted to be around 1.0 °C above pre-industrial levels.
Just before Christmas the COP 25 meeting in Madrid ended with a compromise deal. All countries will need to put new climate pledges on the table by the time of the next major conference in Glasgow at the end of 2020. But there were no decisions on the future of carbon trading and big players such as US, India, China and Brazil opposed calls to be more ambitious in our pledges to reduce man made global warming.
Across 2020 in Discovery Matt McGrath will be reporting on what is happening to save the planet.
In this first programme he takes stock after Madrid and finds out what the world’s key players say has to be done before the meeting in Glasgow.
Last edited:
As discussed on Koeman's Korner [enjoyed that flashback] Autonomous vehicles in a localised solution [note this is not the generalised solution type]:
You must log in or register to see media
From Koeman's Korner again:
Phew, that's a big question you're asking [Kaito]. Have I got a week to go through it all?
OK, let's start with a couple of things we know. The UK government has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050. Personally, I think they really ought to do it in a much speedier time, but at least the UK was the first to declare a date. And I wouldn't put a speedier time out of the question.
The only coal power station still operating in the UK is Drax, and that is being phased out. When I look at the GridCarbon app for 21:00 this evening, I see Drax is providing 2.5% of the country's need for electricity. That's a lot of power. 990 megawatts. That's going away. There is a phase out time, and I can't remember it. Perhaps you can look it up. Early today, Solar was producing 2300 Megawatts, whiile Coal/Drax was on nothing. I know cause I looked. Solar is producing 0 MW right now, as you'd expect. But Wind is producing 12000 MW right now. Almost double the Nuclear output, and only 600 MW less than Gas.
So, what does all this mean? It means that the electricity grid is getting remarkably cleaner, quite quickly. The UK can give itself a mini pat on the back for that. But present rate of progress is still too slow, but it will speed up. These things happen exponentially, not in a linear fashion. For example, the adoption of electric transport in the UK. There are three things which slow the rate of adoption - ticket price, range, and infrastructure. For 57% of the population, the infrastructure shouldn't be a problem. They have their own driveways, so they could charge their own vehicle overnight and so start with a full tank in the morning. Every day, if they want.
Ticket price is getting there. EVs would already be cheaper than their polluting cousins if the batteries were cheaper. That price is going to drop alarmingly over the next 2-5 years. Tesla are pretty much at parity now. The rest of the manufacturers will take those extra years, depending upon their commitment. What this means is, in the UK. Brand new EVs will become within the reach of those who wish to buy new, and the secondhand market will be bigger than it is now/ Typically now, you can buy a good Nissan Leaf, or equivalent [Renault Zoe, etc], secondhand for about £6K plus. They do come in at £4K, but those are earlier models. All the UK has to do is keep up the incentives on EVs. If they want to do more, then make the incentives even better. Put simply, once the population perceives that EVs are cheaper, and actually they already are overall, in many cases, the inflection point will happen, and the electric revolution will become an avalanche. Then people will wonder why they held off for so long. FFV prices will drop through the floor, and that will give them some longevity. But the outcome of this is that the environment will start to become cleaner still.
These things become self rewarding. For example, only last year, there were several months when not a single lump of coal was burned to make electricity. Literally, from some point like April all the way to October, or something ridiculous like that [can't remember exactly] And in the last quarter of 2019, Renewable power produced more electricity than Gas, which is remarkable. And most of that was due to simple economics, not UK government policy.
Right, as you can see, that lot came out in one splurge [yuck]. I could go on for days about more pros and cons. Sadly, we have to remember that pollutants don't stop at international borders, as you rightly point out. There needs to be a Carbon Tax on industry and transport. Renewable power in all its forms plays on the most unfair playing field with fossil fuels. FFs get subsidies which Renewables could only dream about, but they are still cheaper. Changing to a Renewables only supplier like CitizEn Energy is the ordinary person starting to do their bit. And the chances are that the bills will be cheaper anyway.
Back in the early 1990s, when I was newly married, my wife and I discussed bringing up kids. Both of us came to the conclusion that we didn't want kids to inherit the world we were on course to pass to them. So we never had them. I've been thinking about this game for a long time. I would love to see that we ended up making the wrong decision.
And this is nothing like a full answer. We could go into agriculture sustainability, the loss of ecologies and habitat. ****ing loads of stuff.
Phew, that's a big question you're asking [Kaito]. Have I got a week to go through it all?
OK, let's start with a couple of things we know. The UK government has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050. Personally, I think they really ought to do it in a much speedier time, but at least the UK was the first to declare a date. And I wouldn't put a speedier time out of the question.
The only coal power station still operating in the UK is Drax, and that is being phased out. When I look at the GridCarbon app for 21:00 this evening, I see Drax is providing 2.5% of the country's need for electricity. That's a lot of power. 990 megawatts. That's going away. There is a phase out time, and I can't remember it. Perhaps you can look it up. Early today, Solar was producing 2300 Megawatts, whiile Coal/Drax was on nothing. I know cause I looked. Solar is producing 0 MW right now, as you'd expect. But Wind is producing 12000 MW right now. Almost double the Nuclear output, and only 600 MW less than Gas.
So, what does all this mean? It means that the electricity grid is getting remarkably cleaner, quite quickly. The UK can give itself a mini pat on the back for that. But present rate of progress is still too slow, but it will speed up. These things happen exponentially, not in a linear fashion. For example, the adoption of electric transport in the UK. There are three things which slow the rate of adoption - ticket price, range, and infrastructure. For 57% of the population, the infrastructure shouldn't be a problem. They have their own driveways, so they could charge their own vehicle overnight and so start with a full tank in the morning. Every day, if they want.
Ticket price is getting there. EVs would already be cheaper than their polluting cousins if the batteries were cheaper. That price is going to drop alarmingly over the next 2-5 years. Tesla are pretty much at parity now. The rest of the manufacturers will take those extra years, depending upon their commitment. What this means is, in the UK. Brand new EVs will become within the reach of those who wish to buy new, and the secondhand market will be bigger than it is now/ Typically now, you can buy a good Nissan Leaf, or equivalent [Renault Zoe, etc], secondhand for about £6K plus. They do come in at £4K, but those are earlier models. All the UK has to do is keep up the incentives on EVs. If they want to do more, then make the incentives even better. Put simply, once the population perceives that EVs are cheaper, and actually they already are overall, in many cases, the inflection point will happen, and the electric revolution will become an avalanche. Then people will wonder why they held off for so long. FFV prices will drop through the floor, and that will give them some longevity. But the outcome of this is that the environment will start to become cleaner still.
These things become self rewarding. For example, only last year, there were several months when not a single lump of coal was burned to make electricity. Literally, from some point like April all the way to October, or something ridiculous like that [can't remember exactly] And in the last quarter of 2019, Renewable power produced more electricity than Gas, which is remarkable. And most of that was due to simple economics, not UK government policy.
Right, as you can see, that lot came out in one splurge [yuck]. I could go on for days about more pros and cons. Sadly, we have to remember that pollutants don't stop at international borders, as you rightly point out. There needs to be a Carbon Tax on industry and transport. Renewable power in all its forms plays on the most unfair playing field with fossil fuels. FFs get subsidies which Renewables could only dream about, but they are still cheaper. Changing to a Renewables only supplier like CitizEn Energy is the ordinary person starting to do their bit. And the chances are that the bills will be cheaper anyway.
Back in the early 1990s, when I was newly married, my wife and I discussed bringing up kids. Both of us came to the conclusion that we didn't want kids to inherit the world we were on course to pass to them. So we never had them. I've been thinking about this game for a long time. I would love to see that we ended up making the wrong decision.
And this is nothing like a full answer. We could go into agriculture sustainability, the loss of ecologies and habitat. ****ing loads of stuff.
Thanks for the detailed reply TSS, much appreciated.
I have read quite a lot about the UK moving towards a greener electricity grid but wasn’t aware of the figures you quoted so thanks for that. Anything done to employ and expand renewable energy has to be a very good thing. We are switching to CitizEn Energy next month, so thank you again.
The problem with focussing on electric cars so much is that it tends to become the barometer by which many environmental issues are judged. The sheer environmental cost of manufacturing all the electric cars and vans required to replace what we all have is going to create immense pollution. Scientists and environmentalists agree that electric cars are only a very small part of the answer and the only way to effectively reduce the pollution from transport is to drastically reduce the amount of transport. That requires a complete re-think on the capitalist model the world employs and we have to settle for much less, to gain so much more. Can you see any government agreeing to that?
This is where the problem lies. No government will willingly do anything that even remotely threatens the current industrial and financial economic model. To our governments, the current economy is god and they will have to be forced to change things to a sustainable environmental economy. The only way that can happen is if people refuse to accept the status quo and reject it. We have to stop buying so much junk and live cleaner and healthier lifestyles.
As you know, we have to make drastic changes to the way we live and for many people that will only happen when the realities of climate change affect them personally. I hope that things can change before that happens, but my feeling is that it won’t. You and your wife probably made the correct decision in not having children.
This article by George Monbiot puts it so much better than I ever could:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...te-targets-committee-on-climate-change-report
I have read quite a lot about the UK moving towards a greener electricity grid but wasn’t aware of the figures you quoted so thanks for that. Anything done to employ and expand renewable energy has to be a very good thing. We are switching to CitizEn Energy next month, so thank you again.
The problem with focussing on electric cars so much is that it tends to become the barometer by which many environmental issues are judged. The sheer environmental cost of manufacturing all the electric cars and vans required to replace what we all have is going to create immense pollution. Scientists and environmentalists agree that electric cars are only a very small part of the answer and the only way to effectively reduce the pollution from transport is to drastically reduce the amount of transport. That requires a complete re-think on the capitalist model the world employs and we have to settle for much less, to gain so much more. Can you see any government agreeing to that?
This is where the problem lies. No government will willingly do anything that even remotely threatens the current industrial and financial economic model. To our governments, the current economy is god and they will have to be forced to change things to a sustainable environmental economy. The only way that can happen is if people refuse to accept the status quo and reject it. We have to stop buying so much junk and live cleaner and healthier lifestyles.
As you know, we have to make drastic changes to the way we live and for many people that will only happen when the realities of climate change affect them personally. I hope that things can change before that happens, but my feeling is that it won’t. You and your wife probably made the correct decision in not having children.
This article by George Monbiot puts it so much better than I ever could:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...te-targets-committee-on-climate-change-report
Last edited:
Say what you like about The Guardian, but they put their money where there mouth is:
https://www.theguardian.com/help/in...will-no-longer-accept-fossil-fuel-advertising
https://www.theguardian.com/help/in...will-no-longer-accept-fossil-fuel-advertising
Yeah, I focussed on electric cars because the transport sector is a major contributor to pollution and CO2 emissions. I'm including ships, planes, etc in that. And because I have a decent knowledge at what is coming down the pike.
The thing about manufacturing BEVs. Hang on, let's not do it. Let's continue to manufacture FFVs instead. One of those Self-Charging Hybrid deceptions. That's a great example. That claim was banned in Norway, by the way. But not here. How about petitioning about it? Anyway, making FFVs or BEVs. Similar pollution in the manufacturing. But one potentially stops contributing in a major way the day that it rolls off the production line [BEV]. And the cleaner the electricity grid, the less it indirectly emits. Rooftop solar and it emits nothing. Or charge it from CitizEN Energy and it does the same. It does emit PM2.5 from the tyres, but that's nearly it. So do FFVs. The brakes typically last over 100K miles, so they emit far fewer particulates.
Now compare that to an FFV. The cleanest it ever is, is when it rolls off the production line, ready warmed up. At all other times it will emit more pollution. And as it gets older, significantly more. So which one do you pick? You could pick NONE, and ride a bicycle. Which is what I currently do.
I do have an old Fiat Seicento which I'm going to turn into an BEV, because Fiat made a version of it with the same car. Only this time it will have lithium batteries or better. If better exists by the time I do it. This is a project. Second hand, it would cause very little pollution as an EV. I am saving for a secondhand BEV eventually.
As to getting traffic off the roads, I couldn't agree more. Get your shopping delivered. Buy online. End of High St. Less traffic. Robotaxis, as mentioned before. Timescale is when regulators say it is. It isn't as far off as [uninformed?] analysts say it is.
As to governments being forced to change, the EU is changing their policy [we can always return]. From 2021 [I think] they will not give money in subsidies or investment to fossil fuel companies any more. We have to be the same. Think of this as being on a wartime footing, where you have to do your bit for your country or world, in this case. Governments are actually pretty good at getting people to obey when they have to. The problem is educating the people on the enemy - themselves.
We may have voted in the wrong government, which will drag its heels, environment wise, but they will wise up pretty smartish when they finally realise that the real new capitalism is in clean energy and clean manufacturing [yes, it's possible].
And I do listen and read a lot of George Monbiot. Good guy. He does a lot with Extinction Rebellion too. Yes, a good article. It points out well how the UK government wants to sound good but do as little as possible to maintain the status quo. This is stuff that I've seen mounting up over 30 years and people used to give me sidelong glances when I said "It's already too late" in say.. 1996. It has always been too late. Personally, I don't think we have an earthly chance of keeping to 1.5C or perhaps 2C. Maybe. But that doesn't mean that we roll over and smother our kids with a pillow and then jumping off a chair with some electric cord wound round our necks. The reason why we may climb our way out of this environmental hell hole is because it will eventually be cheaper than to stay in it. Governments like that, and that gives us hope. So we fight to make them realise it quicker.
UK sued for approving Europe’s biggest gas power station.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...r-approving-europes-biggest-gas-power-station
And there we have yet another reason why people don't trust what this government say regarding the environment. Government assurances mean nothing and no matter what scientific evidence they are presented with, they make their decisions based on keeping the wheels of industry rolling, no matter how damaging it is to the environment. It's all about profit and greed, and nothing else matters to these despicable people.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...r-approving-europes-biggest-gas-power-station
And there we have yet another reason why people don't trust what this government say regarding the environment. Government assurances mean nothing and no matter what scientific evidence they are presented with, they make their decisions based on keeping the wheels of industry rolling, no matter how damaging it is to the environment. It's all about profit and greed, and nothing else matters to these despicable people.
I can't find the words to describe the people that came to this decision.
"Overruling the climate change objections of its own planning authority." Flying in the face of the planners. And "the planning inspectorate also concluded that wind and solar power would cut payers’ bills, while the proposed gas plant would not. “Both [Drax] and [National Grid] confirmed that it is the production of renewable plants that will deliver cheaper energy.”
What a ****ing triumph (thanks Vin)
This is what we're fighting against. The other is Hinkley C, that will, if it ever gets turned on, contribute to the UK with the most expensive electricity ever. Sure, it is carbon free and actually, Nuclear Fission does have respectable safety record, but why not Thorium? There are also two similar plants to Hinkley C being built in Finland and France. Both came to a halt a year or two ago. The Finnish one was too expensive and the French had doubts over its plant's safety cell.
I have no problem with using Fission until end of commission time, but for pete's sake, don't build more. Or gas for that matter, but for CO2 reasons.
Last edited:
Yes on the face of it Thorium is a way forward, but and there's always a but, it needs enriching to 232/233 and there's a lot of expensive research to be do. Ideal for an EU project oh now there's a shame. I'm in favour of small scale local solutions coupled with energy need reduction. How about a subsidy for solar power installations and insulation? Oh they've been removed that's a shame to. Time to go on strike, oh I'm retired. Bugger I'm off to the pub.
I quite often listen to the Infinite Monkey Cage Podcast on Radio 4. This week it was on Coral Reefs. Very good listen and one for this thread:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dpl2
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dpl2
I think corrosion from the salt coolant is a major issue with thorium reactors, but hopefully that'll be solved