Green Issues

[Mikie_gb]

Not strictly a 944 issue, but since I own a 944 S which fails its MOT on emmissions every year and then passes on retest (I would rather not know)...

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12971&channel=2

More toys for Ken to play with.

 

[John Sims]

I'm so glad I don't pay London poll tax.

I stand on the fence with regard to CO2 causing global warming (and if it does just stop air travel). When these "do gooders" slate older cars for increased omissions they conveniently ignore the emissions, and destruction of natural resources, in producing a new car to replace it.

944s are 20 odd years old. That perhaps represent three life times of a lesser car. So - the manufacturing emissions are three times greater than for that of a 944 - not to mention the emissions related to the destruction of cars at the end of their life. We should be encouraged to maintain and preserve old cars not forced to destroy them.

I'll get off my soap box now. []

 

[jr2015]

The last MOT emissions test on my 1983 944 was:
CO 1.62% and HC 208ppm.
The tester was impressed that an old car could be so clean. However , I always take the car in for test with a stinking hot engine and run some carb cleaner through the induction system the day before.
Don`t forget to sign the Downing St petition (see current thread for a link)before classic cars become another global warming scapegoat.
regards,
jr.

 

[cococola]

What bugs me is many of our cars do less mileage than the average motor and are on limited mileage insurance so just think how little emissions we cause.[]

ORIGINAL: John Sims

I'm so glad I don't pay London poll tax.

I stand on the fence with regard to CO2 causing global warming (and if it does just stop air travel). When these "do gooders" slate older cars for increased omissions they conveniently ignore the emissions, and destruction of natural resources, in producing a new car to replace it.

944s are 20 odd years old. That perhaps represent three life times of a lesser car. So - the manufacturing emissions are three times greater than for that of a 944 - not to mention the emissions related to the destruction of cars at the end of their life. We should be encouraged to maintain and preserve old cars not forced to destroy them.

I'll get off my soap box now. []

 

[sawood12]

ORIGINAL: John Sims

I'm so glad I don't pay London poll tax.

I stand on the fence with regard to CO2 causing global warming (and if it does just stop air travel). When these "do gooders" slate older cars for increased omissions they conveniently ignore the emissions, and destruction of natural resources, in producing a new car to replace it.

944s are 20 odd years old. That perhaps represent three life times of a lesser car. So - the manufacturing emissions are three times greater than for that of a 944 - not to mention the emissions related to the destruction of cars at the end of their life. We should be encouraged to maintain and preserve old cars not forced to destroy them.

I'll get off my soap box now. []

Well on the basis that CO2 levels in our atmosphere are at a 25000 year low and that there is a history of global warming and freezing cycles that dates back to as far as current technology allows us to see (i.e. millions of years) i'm well and truly off the fence. It's about time these environmentalists and the huge industry that has built up around global warming all found something better and more productive to do with their lives. I do my best to be environmentally friendly, not out of some arrogant notion that Mother Earth needs our help (she's done pretty well for herself over the past 5.6 billion years and survived environmental changes much more destructive than a few poxy degrees increase in temperature), but out of respect for Mother Earth and because I think it makes sense, but I don't feel one pang of guilt when I start up my 944! Every time I see a Prius on the road I intantly smile and think "good...more petrol for the rest of us"! It wasn't so long ago that scientists were talking about building plants to pump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere to kick start global warming because they were predicting another ice age following a few years of severe winters! What makes them so sure now?

 

[Robert Edwards]

It is surely no coincidence that 99% of these people are lefties; the agenda seems to me to have little to do with global warming per se and more - much more - to do with a Stalinist and obsessive fiddling with peoples' personal liberties. Now that the Soviet Union has gone, they seek new enthusiasms. The suppression of the Kulaks has already been accomplished, it seems to me...

Much of the global warming debate is entirely bogus and based, not upon scientific observation and empirical method, but on proprietary computer models. As most of us know, if you feed in your assumptions and biases before pressing 'Enter' you have a fair idea of what is going to be the outcome.

Compound this by simply lying about historical data (the well-known 'hockey stick' factor regarding temperature figures back in the late middle ages which has a radical effect upon the time-line) et - voila! it is all the fault of rich people who drive gas guzzling 4X4s and sports cars.

In truth, if all the environmentalist farted at once (a not unlikely possibility on a strictly Vegan diet) then it would blow the ozone layer to shreds. Ban lentils forthwith!

It's probably all bollocks, but we must prepare for the worst. The point already made by Sims, that the pollution generated by the building of 'replacement vehicles' far outstrips that generated by those already on the road, is entirely correct and quite irrefutable.

But a dreadful parallel already exists - it was already well-proven that a hunt with hounds was the most economical / efficient / humane way of killing a fox, but that did not stop the class warriors banning it, did it? What they meant to ban was hunting with horses, but they didn't (yet) dare say that.

I suggest the following defensive postures:

a) Sign the petition.
b) At every opportunity, brag about the low emissions generated by your car. Make up the numbers - everyone else does, after all. Somewhere on this forum is a posting which reports a 944 turbo's CO2 number of 0.55%. That's the stuff...
c) take every step to ensure that the engine of your ancient motor runs as lean as is safely possible.

Strength and honour...

 

[John Sims]

And we should all use bio fuel and bio lubricants.......or perhaps not.

Was chatting with a petrochemical engineer last night to try to get the low down on if such things could damage our cars. Apprently (assuming the product is manufactured correctly) it is the same as the conventional crude oil based "traditional" fuel or oil. Crude came from plants originally any way.

The down side with bio fuel is (to replace millions of years of natural crushing and heating) you have to pump in a lot of energy. Prior to catalytic conversion techniques you pretty much had to pump in as much energy as you got out and therefore ultimately, twice the level of global warming.

 

[Neil Haughey]

Agree with the above comments, especially about the politics of these things.

However I have looked into the science quite closely and I do find cause for concern. A certain amount of shooting oneself in the foot is however evident by overstating things and the risks, some of the reports and papers I have read to my mind are more and more showing a form of sensationalism that I find somewhat depressing from the scientific community. If you smell a rat then it is natural to be sceptical which is the very reason why scientists are supposed to be as conservative as possible with what they say and write!

What annoys me the most is that quite a lot can and should be done with very little to no pain. In fact one can see a situation where a clever country could take a lead and develop leading technology. However everything that comes out of the greens stinks of a communist idealogy.

A couple of simple examples.
1) By changing my diet and buying more fresh food, especially local if I can (I want to support local farmers and local ecology) it now takes me about a month to fill a bin rather then a week as it used to.
2) By using my IR pyrometer which I bought originaly for the porsche I have found a big heat loss (4 degrees C) up around the corner of one of the roofs between the window and the roof, with this rectified I will save a lot on heating.
3) If and when I move house I want to build my own scandinavian style wooden house mounted on multiple plinths/supports rather then a huge concrete foundation which as we all know concrete production is one of the major contributors to CO2 (assuming current building regs will allow it). If I do it as a green eco development I will have a much better chance of getting planning permission so I can target some local land at much lower cost that hasn't been approved for a big new housing development.

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: Robert Edwards

But a dreadful parallel already exists - it was already well-proven that a hunt with hounds was the most economical / efficient / humane way of killing a fox, but that did not stop the class warriors banning it, did it? What they meant to ban was hunting with horses, but they didn't (yet) dare say that.

Sad but true. I live in the country now and everything I have learned would indicate that killing a fox with a hound is by far the most humane way of doing things. AFAIK them the currently acceptable practices are somewhat perverse in there logic:
1) shooting - ever tried shooting a small moving target in the head (which you need for a clean kill) from 75 yards or more in the wind at night whilst having to move and compose the shot quickly yourself? Once someone understands the difficulty of the task it is no wonder that there is a very high probablity that the fox will not be cleanly killed and may in many cases run of whilst sustaining an horrific injury.
2) traps - don't even go there!

Sadly the class war thing was IMHO a small sniff of revenge for the way miners where dumped on in the 80's whereas farming has been supported with massive subsidies (OK not that well supported but something). Its sad that anyone can be such a dynosaur to still think in these terms but sadly they seem to be everywhere.

 

[John Sims]

ORIGINAL: Neil Haughey

..........
What annoys me the most is that quite a lot can and should be done with very little to no pain. ....

A couple of simple examples.

1) By changing my diet and buying more fresh food, especially local if I can (I want to support local farmers and local ecology) it now takes me about a month to fill a bin rather then a week as it used to.....

Ditto on that. Belinda does tend to put aside all recyclables as well.

Noting the advantages of recyling you would think councils would make such schemes easier.

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: John Sims

ORIGINAL: Neil Haughey

..........
What annoys me the most is that quite a lot can and should be done with very little to no pain. ....

A couple of simple examples.

1) By changing my diet and buying more fresh food, especially local if I can (I want to support local farmers and local ecology) it now takes me about a month to fill a bin rather then a week as it used to.....

Ditto on that. Belinda does tend to put aside all recyclables as well.

Noting the advantages of recyling you would think councils would make such schemes easier.

Down here the most important thing to recycle (plastic) isn't collected although they do have bins for plastics in some of the local towns, presumably due to cost whereas paper and glass is. They are going to start a collection for batteries though and I noted the dump has a "special" container for flourescent lights. I wish my neighbours would stop nicking my recycling box and bag! Sainsburys also have a recycling bin for used shopping bags which rather embarrasingly I have managed to fill a couple of times.

 

[pauljmcnulty]

I stand on the fence with regard to CO2 causing global warming

So do I.

But.......(I know, I should just go along with the rest of you but that would be boring!)

If I try to cut my carbon footprint, what's the worst that can happen? I will save money, and be self-righteous, at the very least. If, in 20 or 40 years time the doomsayers are proved wrong, I will have saved money and look a little silly. [&:]

If, however, the doomsayers are even the tiniest bit right, then what harm will I have done by trying a little bit? I'm not talking about buying a g-wizz and wearing hemp, I'm just thinking along the lines of not leaving the tv on standby and unplugging the mobile charger when it's not being used. That sort of thing. The stuff that makes no difference to my life other than to cut the bills a bit. I might even go as far as buying a diesel 5 series to replace the Subaru next time - it's still a decent estate car but will save me some money on the forecourt.

The best analogy I've heard so far was from the only man grumpier than John Sims - Marcus Brigstock. It went along the lines of "if the room you're in is too smoky, lighting up another cigarette won't help the situation". []

 

[924nutter]

ORIGINAL: pauljmcnulty

....... I might even go as far as buying a diesel 5 series to replace the Subaru next time.......

Heretic.[&:]

 

[924nutter]

ORIGINAL: pauljmcnulty

The best analogy I've heard so far was from the only man grumpier than John Sims - Marcus Brigstock. It went along the lines of "if the room you're in is too smoky, lighting up another cigarette won't help the situation". []

On the other hand, stubbing out the cigarette when the room is full of volcano detritus probably shows a lack of prioritisation skills. []

 

[pauljmcnulty]

On the other hand, stubbing out the cigarette when the room is full of volcano detritus probably shows a lack of prioritisation skills.

Smart @rse......[][][][]

 

[Robert Edwards]

Yes, but the linkage between the miners and fox hunting is so tenuous as to be almost invisible. It is surely a bogus construct.

I can recall the (now) lentil-eaters praising old-tech industrial smoke-stack practices (in the USSR) on the grounds that it provided jobs for the lads. All true - and I can further recall Arthur Scargill being driven about in a spiffy Jaguar at the time of the big fight and that his Union was at one stage being supported by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, or at least, by donations (unlikely to have been voluntary ones) from a 'miners' union in the Donbass'

If we fall for this crap it is likely that within less that a generation we will be faced with the unedifying prospect of surrendering just about every value with which we grew up. What's happened? Very little.

 

[sawood12]

ORIGINAL: 924nutter

ORIGINAL: pauljmcnulty

....... I might even go as far as buying a diesel 5 series to replace the Subaru next time.......

Heretic.[&:]

Well there is another myth. The worse thing for the environment are diesel cars. They have only become so popular recently due to the Kyoto treaty and due to that the Kyoto treaty is possibly the most damaging thing to our environment. It is true that diesels produce less CO2 but just about everything else they produce is very damaging to the environment and local air quality. Just look at the increase in Astma and hayfever because of oversenitivity caused by the filth diesels chuck out. On the other hand nothing that petrol engines kick out the exaust is anywhere near as damaging to the environment thanks to catalytic converters (although mine hasn't got one[8|]). A couple of other myths i'd like to dispel while i'm on my soapbox:-

1. Electric cars are still filthy as you still have to generate the electicity in the first place and the environmentalists are fighting against the cleanest and most feasible electical generation method known to man - Nuclear. Also there is not enough copper on the planet to make all the electic engines needed to replace all the cars currently on the road with electric cars. Copper prices are already on the up as it is becoming more rare. Also electric inductance devices produce low level ozone which again affects local air quality and is a green house gas.

2. Aircraft are very very clean. Man made sources of CO2 emmissions account for less than 50% of total CO2 emissions (the rest coming from natural sources - vegan environmentalists farts for example) and of that 'less than 50%' of CO2 emitted by man, aircraft only account for around 3.5% so all this nonsence about not going on holiday as often as you might currently do is rubbish. Also the vapour trails produced by aircraft actually have a cooling effect on the worlds climate as prooved on September 11 2001 (one of the very few environmental aspects that has been scientifically prooved).

There is so much more empiricle evidence to show that global warming is a natural phenomenon (Romans growing grapes on Hadrians wall and all that stuff) and none whatsoever that indicates it is a man made phenomenon. And during mankinds worse polluting period - the steam age and the industrial revolution - the climate actually got colder and has only very recently started to warm up again. My message is "Be kind to the environment, respect it but don't believe the hype". There are alot of people making alot of money out of all this and that is their only motivation. It's a sort of financial terrorism - praying on our environmental fears to get us to put our hands in our pockets to pay for the raft of environmental taxes that are in the pipeline and to buy lots of useless environmental gadgets out there.

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: sawood12

2. Aircraft are very very clean. Man made sources of CO2 emmissions account for less than 50% of total CO2 emissions (the rest coming from natural sources - vegan environmentalists farts for example) and of that 'less than 50%' of CO2 emitted by man, aircraft only account for around 3.5% so all this nonsence about not going on holiday as often as you might currently do is rubbish. Also the vapour trails produced by aircraft actually have a cooling effect on the worlds climate as prooved on September 11 2001 (one of the very few environmental aspects that has been scientifically prooved).

Highly likely in fact that if someone did the calculations it might show that long haul high altitude flying actuall causes global cooling due to the shading effect possibly being much greater then the negative effect of CO2 output.

Biggest problem IMHO with the science is the extent of the unknowns, and I can't see how the experiments which our government describes as "will silence the sceptics" will in fact make much difference. Sadly therefore I only see the debate getting more polarised. The recent rise in temperatures after 200 years of some industrial activity is down to many reasons one of which is likely the slow reactions of the oceans, which is the a thing that absorbs much of the CO2. A big question is, are the oceans not absorbing all this CO2 due to there being too much of it (man made), or because they have warmed up and are less able to absorb CO2 ergo the temperature increase causes CO2 levels to rise rather then the other way round etc. etc.

BTW one of the biggest contributors is de-forestation but this seems to have slipped a long way down the agenda recently.

 

[sawood12]

Well there is alot of spin about alot of green issues on both sides. One fact I read (though I don't know who calculated it) is that since deforestation of the Amazon basin began only about 5% by area has been cleared so far. So you hear all this about x number of football fields of forest being cut down every day but after 30 or so years of deforestation it has had very little impact. Also we read alot these days about how much the icecaps are melting, but in terms of volume of ice there is more now than there was 100 yrs ago - the ice is much thicker.

I think where I get to with this is that our climate is dynamic and is 100% driven by the sun and the sun is a very very active thing and whatever changes occur with the sun you are going to see an effect in our climate. According to that TV programme on ch4 the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is at a low, so how can CO2 levels in our atmosphere (man made or not) be driving global warming? So we have global warming in an environment of low levels of CO2. The simple answer is that it isn't.

By the way Neil, you are absolutely right, the high altitude airliner contrails reflect sunlight away from the earth and on 9/11 when all the worlds aircraft were grounded (apart from the Bin Ladens private jet escaping the US) the worlds clamate increased by a couple of degrees.

 

[Hilux]

Watch the C4 film re global warming. Half the scientists that arev accredited with the CO2 issue practically had to sue the producers of the first warnings documents to have their names removed from accrediting it.

The biggest producer of Co2 is the sea. 2nd biggest is animal f*rts etc, mans contribuiton is miniscule.

The correlation between sun activity and global warming is irrefutable.

During the largest industrial expansion the world has ever seen (post war boom) the Co2 levels DROPPED as did the suns activity.

Problem is now that governments and their ministries have jumped on the bandwagen. It now employs tens of thousands of people and no-one wants to state the bleedin` obvious for sake of ridicule as its now the top `fashion` in politics.

George Bush took advice and rejected the Kyoto agreement, rightly so in my opinion while Al Gore goes around spouting verbage about Co2

While you all spend hundreds of pounds saving energy the Chinese are bringing on line some 200 coal fired power stations in the next couple of years.

Photovoltaic cells we are all encouraged to stick on our roofs take more energy to make than they ever save.

Madness, its complete madness.

Rant over.................[8|]