Anyone using electric diggers?

Flying Torquewrench

Flying Torquewrench

Active member
And air travel is worse in the respect that it releases carbon high into the atmosphere which causes more damage.
.
Have you got a source for this?
I personally find it ridiculous that I am being lectured on what I can and can’t do while the elephant in the room is not addressed. In the last 60 years the world population has trippled and is forecasted to increase by another third in the next 50 years. No matter how much grass we eat, this is simply not sustainable. We can all live on green energie but it will not stop global warming.
A bloke in No.10 is now telling us that we should reduce the consumption of meat as it is bad for the environment. Yet, at the same time he has 6! kids. Guaranteed that those 6 kids have a greater impact on the environment over their lifetime then my 6 portions of red meat a month.

By the way Smiffy, that being lectured comment is not aimed at you! 👍
 
Lancs Lad

Lancs Lad

Well-known member
Or....we all do the electric car and smoke pot thing...and pat ourselves on the back....whilst India and China do F all and we carry in buying our tish from them... I read somewhere that supposedly banned PUR insulation in China alone was responsible for 30% of all ozone emissions...then there's Poland's coal.fired plants... Time we used common sense.
 
S

Smiffy

Well-known member
Have you got a source for this?
I personally find it ridiculous that I am being lectured on what I can and can’t do while the elephant in the room is not addressed. In the last 60 years the world population has trippled and is forecasted to increase by another third in the next 50 years. No matter how much grass we eat, this is simply not sustainable. We can all live on green energie but it will not stop global warming.
A bloke in No.10 is now telling us that we should reduce the consumption of meat as it is bad for the environment. Yet, at the same time he has 6! kids. Guaranteed that those 6 kids have a greater impact on the environment over their lifetime then my 6 portions of red meat a month.

By the way Smiffy, that being lectured comment is not aimed at you! 👍

I can't remember the source, it was a book but can't remember which one. I'll try and find it along with a full explanation of why it's worse as memory is little sketchy about it.

And I completely agree with you over population growth and I honestly don't know if I could have a second child on a moral grounding. And I think it really should be pushed the environmental impact of large families. I also think that having children should be a privilege and not a right but then that upsets people again.
Unfortunately nothing will change all the time we live in an incredibly selfish society
 
Grahams

Grahams

Don't complain - suggest what's better
I think it is always going to be problematic restricting peoples travel when a lot of the people advocating this seem to mean other peoples travel. They still have access to limousines and private jets, but the plebs have to bare the brunt of reducing CO2.
I totally agree about family size. We certainly shouldn’t be subsidising having children.
I have a problem with being told what to do based on the latest fad. I would much rather government realised they were spending other peoples money and concentrated on the basics like infrastructure, the rule of law, defence and helping those who can not help themselves and left me to do what I want to do. I’m an adult and feel I can take responsibility for my decisions and accept the consequences.
 
Bob

Bob

Well-known member
Dont worry if you do you bit to slow down population growth other people will have loads of children and you and everybody else will still have to pay for them ( and me)
 
Last edited:
V8Druid

V8Druid

do it as well as you can,but learn to do it better
Dont worry if you do you bit to slow down population growth other people will have loads of children and you and everybody else will still have to pay for them
I read somewhere the other day that the one child per family regime has been abandoned in China recently .. God help the world population, from here on in, if that's true.
The fact I have no kids was a conscious decision on my part through life ... and have begrudged being taxed at the same levels as the tribe producers who often see knocking 'em out by the half dozen as a 'meal ticket' (very often). Those who 'choose' to be socially conscientious and limit output to two get my vote .. but as said, I regard being 'penalised' at the same levels to fund their production - or any one else's, really grating. Population growth at current levels is totally unsustainable and MUST be restricted in future -- URGENTLY !!
 
J

Jimoz

Well-known member
I think they relaxed to 2 kids around ten years ago then recently relaxed to 3 but I am probably remembering wrong. Is it to do with their ageing population?
If every couple has 2 kids population will decline I'd have thought 2.5 with losses to maintain?
 
Flying Torquewrench

Flying Torquewrench

Active member
@Smiffy thank you. I am genuinely interested on where you get that information from. As I work in the aviation industry but this is the first time I have heard it.

Whilst I am a firm believer that we need to reduce our carbon footprint I feel that demonising one industry/way of life over the other is not going to be the way forward.

We need to think smarter then we do now. If we keep the same lifestyle but electrically powered then I am not sure we make much progress. For example: we live on a lane with about 10 houses. Every day nearly every parcel company drives by and sometimes even several times. Why can’t we have a depot on the outside of a town from which all the deliveries for a certain area are made by a white van? Instead of every company driving 5 miles to deliver 1 parcel?

Our parcel force driver is quite new and when he started he saw that his route could be a lot more efficiently run. Instead of the delivery order parcel force gave him he did the drops as he drove past them. Finished 1 hour earlier and got hauled into the office. To be told that he needs to deliver in the order that parcel force give him. So he now drops a parcel at our house, drive to the next village (4 miles away) for a parcel, then comes back to our village and after that gors to a village past our next village. What a complete waste of time and energy.

If everybody made small changes the cumulative effect would be great. Aviation is responsible for 2.4% of green house gasses per year worldwide. So even if we all stop flying that ”only“ saves 2.4%. Instead if we cut most industries etc by 0.5% or in that region then the total will be a lot higher.

Hope that all makes sense.
 
Flying Torquewrench

Flying Torquewrench

Active member
@V8Druid we also decided not to have kids. Not necessarily because the environmental impact but I don’t like where the world is going. But that is my opinion and I have no issue with people having kids.

It just angers me that we have programs on telly like “23 kids and counting”. Why, just why? Then I get told to eat less meat or dairy as it is unethical!! Sorry but the world has gone bonkers.
 
Flying Torquewrench

Flying Torquewrench

Active member
@Smiffy regarding your comment on the train connecting us to the mainland. Below is the travel planner to travel for my house in the UK to my parents in The Netherlands. If I fly it takes me 2.5 hours door to door, train is considerably longer.
79702663-477C-4E39-80E6-7348AEB52FC5.png
 
Bri963

Bri963

Well-known member
Just a couple of links supporting what Smiffy wrote. (I left out anything connected to Greta) In a quick trawl, there are dozens of articles saying the same thing.



The Guardian one is particularly interesting as it addresses how reporting of aviation emissions is skewed.
 
Flying Torquewrench

Flying Torquewrench

Active member
Thanks @Bri963 but that doesn’t answer the question. The statement was that carbon emissions released high in the atmosphere do more damage compared to when it is released at ground level.

Not talking about the aviation multiplier as that is predominantly about other gasses. Purely about carbon released at high altitudes.
 
Bri963

Bri963

Well-known member
Increasingly, tourists are taking longer flights than most business travellers. What’s more, these emissions are released directly into the upper atmosphere where they cause far more damage, and more rapidly, than if released at ground level. Thus, taking the train to Paris instead of flying effectively cuts CO2 emissions by 90%. Given how hellish airports are these days this is an increasingly popular option.

From the first article. There are several more, and NASA are doing a lot of research into effects of CO2 released at high altitudes. So there may be more information to come.
 
Flying Torquewrench

Flying Torquewrench

Active member
Thank @Bri963 The problem I have with that website is that it is run by a bunch of people who are not scientists. One is a multimedia producer and the other one started at natural England. Both are passionate environmentalists.

I know that our recent history might be a bit checkered 👍 and I am not looking for an argument. As I said to Smiffy, I am genuinly interested in where that info comes from. Not that I don’t believe him (or you)!
 
JD450A

JD450A

Feral as Fk 🐾
What we need is a good pandemic..... Oh wait.

I actually think it's quite simple.... Ban air travel for anything that is not direct charitable action (e.g earthquake rescue relief - Yes.... Politician off to Cornwall - No) Pre 50's it was very very simple. You got on Boaty mc Boatface and sailed.
 
Bri963

Bri963

Well-known member

This one explains why upper atmosphere CO2 isn't good. You have to read quite a way, though. There are others.
 
Furniss

Furniss

Well-known member
Maybe it should just go up to a sensible/responsible price - flying hoards of people out to spain for 19:99€ each doesnt seem right sensible to me 🤷‍♂️
 
Top