Extinction Rebellion

[Mike Sales]

If you mean that the message is the important thing, I agree. But it is hard not to comment on the irritation of being lectured about the unsustainable nature of my lifestyle by blighters who spend a lot of time flying. I want serious people trying to guide me, not clowns who never look in the mirror.

Of course it is irritating. Try to rise above it. This thing is more serious than which slebs are figureheads.
There are any number of scientists working on climate change.
Michael E. Mann and James Hansen are two of the most prominent. I am sure that you can use a search engine.
In this fallen world famous actors get much publicity, but try to look beyond the fluff.

[pwa]

In nearby Henley on Thames they reckon theres a road vehicle pollution problem. And in Sonning on Thames at the single track lights controlled Thames Bridge right by Clooneys house theres a problem too. Its not only in cities, anywhere stationary vehicles are idling at lights and spitting out fumes.

Will people change their habits, sadly not methinks...

What do people think we should do next?

Al

Change your habits. I have and still am.

Cugel.

Are you still commuting to work, Cugel? It is easier to be environmentally aware if you don't have to commute into a city, if you don't have to live in a city, if you can afford the costs of change and you don't struggle to pay the bills. A lot of people are stuck with damaging lifestyle features by financial constraints and infrastructure inherited from previous generations. If we want people to change we have to help them do it.

[pwa]

If you mean that the message is the important thing, I agree. But it is hard not to comment on the irritation of being lectured about the unsustainable nature of my lifestyle by blighters who spend a lot of time flying. I want serious people trying to guide me, not clowns who never look in the mirror.

Of course it is irritating. Try to rise above it. This thing is more serious than which slebs are figureheads.
There are any number of scientists working on climate change.
Michael E. Mann and James Hansen are two of the most prominent. I am sure that you can use a search engine.
In this fallen world famous actors get much publicity, but try to look beyond the fluff.

Totally agree.

[kwackers]

In nearby Henley on Thames they reckon theres a road vehicle pollution problem. And in Sonning on Thames at the single track lights controlled Thames Bridge right by Clooneys house theres a problem too. Its not only in cities, anywhere stationary vehicles are idling at lights and spitting out fumes.

Will people change their habits, sadly not methinks...

What do people think we should do next?

Al

Most people wont and hence why we need forward thinking government.
Most modern cars cut the engine automatically when they stop and restart it when you engage gear.
Then we have governments making noises about banning petrol & diesel cars so stationary cars will soon not have the ability to spew out pollution when they're not moving.

So yes, most people wont change their habits and so the need to keep pressure on government is paramount.
Government can mandate change and can prepare for it in advance rather than simply reacting.

[irc]

We have a number of people whose main contribution to the thread is to accuse those who do their best to publicise the future climate breakdown of hypocrisy.

I'll point out hypocrisy because I'm more inclined to listen to people who practice what they preach. How genuine is the concern of someone whose own carbon footprint is the size of a village?

WE must reduce our consumption!!!!! (except me)

[reohn2]

In nearby Henley on Thames they reckon theres a road vehicle pollution problem. And in Sonning on Thames at the single track lights controlled Thames Bridge right by Clooneys house theres a problem too. Its not only in cities, anywhere stationary vehicles are idling at lights and spitting out fumes.

Will people change their habits, sadly not methinks...

What do people think we should do next?

Al

Most people wont and hence why we need forward thinking government.
Most modern cars cut the engine automatically when they stop and restart it when you engage gear.
Then we have governments making noises about banning petrol & diesel cars so stationary cars will soon not have the ability to spew out pollution when they're not moving.

So yes, most people wont change their habits and so the need to keep pressure on government is paramount.
Government can mandate change and can prepare for it in advance rather than simply reacting.

Government can only mandate change when it's puppet masters allow it to......

[Mike Sales]

We have a number of people whose main contribution to the thread is to accuse those who do their best to publicise the future climate breakdown of hypocrisy.

I'll point out hypocrisy because I'm more inclined to listen to people who practice what they preach. How genuine is the concern of someone whose own carbon footprint is the size of a village?

WE must reduce our consumption!!!!! (except me)

You should try to distinguish the message from the messenger. Do you really not listen to messages, however cogent, because of the moral failings of the messenger?
I have given pwa the names of a couple of eminent climate scientists. I expect they travel to conferences in powered vehicles, but you should really pay attention to what they say, in spite of this.
Climate change really is a lot more important than the hypocrisy of some of its publicists.

[Cunobelin]

The figures are easy for manipulation.

I remember a few years ago Stellus Savaloy or whatever the guy who invented Sqeeziejet was called, justified adding extra seats to his already crowded planes claming it reduced the amount of CO2. Of course it didn't reduce it at all: it merely reduced the per capita amount. Pollution was the same.

Which is a bit of a problem for ANY public transport.

The average bus pollutes more than the average car, and it is the per capita pollution that is the key to advocating their use.

A bus travelled from A to B and its pollution is fixed - of course carryng more passengers didn't reduce the pollution at all: it merely reduced
the per capita amount. The pollution for the journey remained the same

The key to publict transport is exactly that - it reduces the per capita pollution!

It wasn't so long ago that many cities used to have such things as trolleybuses- of course they were got rid of in the name of progress. But even allowing for that, buses are now quite a bit cleaner than they used to be. The main thing is that a double deck bus seats round 78- replacing the equivalent in cars (bearing in mind most cars travelling to work have one occupant). Even the antique diesel HSTs, because of the seating capacity are more carbon efficient than all those cars they replace. Modern diesel rail rolling stock is much better in this respect. But of course electric trains have been with us since the early 20th century.

We don't need to panic about carbon emissions- just actually vote for governments that invest in decent public transport. Last time I looked, only one UK political party is committed to this..

Which is partly the point, the more passengers carried the better. A car with 2 or 4 passengers is more efficient than a single occupant, a bus that is full is more efficient than one that is empty, the more passengers the plane carries, the better.

However, there will always be a cost for this..... We have a local bus service which is packed in the morning and afternoon but empty in the evenings. Probably far less efficient than those three or four people being in a car.

However, for their convenience (?necessity) do we accept that trip or cancel the service that does not prove more beneficial than the alternative?

[Cyril Haearn]

Trouble is, one may communicate by letter, over fora like this one, even by telephone, but I fear there is no substitute for meeting people in the flesh (and talking to them through an interpreter )

[Cunobelin]

We have a number of people whose main contribution to the thread is to accuse those who do their best to publicise the future climate breakdown of hypocrisy.

I'll point out hypocrisy because I'm more inclined to listen to people who practice what they preach. How genuine is the concern of someone whose own carbon footprint is the size of a village?

WE must reduce our consumption!!!!! (except me)

You should try to distinguish the message from the messenger. Do you really not listen to messages, however cogent, because of the moral failings of the messenger?
I have given pwa the names of a couple of eminent climate scientists. I expect they travel to conferences in powered vehicles, but you should really pay attention to what they say, in spite of this.
Climate change really is a lot more important than the hypocrisy of some of its publicists.

A classic example is David Attenborough, the BBC and it's output.

What must be the footprint of flying him, crews, production teams out to remote locations, the output of the electrical equipment they use, the costs of broadcasting, the cost of the electricity powering millions of TV sets?

No-one can ever question that the programme was massively responsible for a change in the way many people look at and use plastics.

Greta THumberg is pilloried for a single flight, and that apparently totally undermines her....... given those criteria, and looking at the scale, Attenborough and the BBC should be facing charges as international criminals!

Or are we simply back at the apparently unacceptable situation where we can weigh up the cost and benefit?

[Cyril Haearn]

Right again Cunobelin, the bbc must have thousands of hours of archive footage, film of polar bears and the rest, no need to leave London to make the film

[pwa]

A classic example is David Attenborough, the BBC and it's output.

What must be the footprint of flying him, crews, production teams out to remote locations, the output of the electrical equipment they use, the costs of broadcasting, the cost of the electricity powering millions of TV sets?

No-one can ever question that the programme was massively responsible for a change in the way many people look at and use plastics.

There is essential flying and there is non-essential flying, and there is a difference. I have no problem with the flying that goes into making Attenborough's programmes, because it is important that these programmes are made. I believe Attenborough has talked about this.

[Oldjohnw]

We have a number of people whose main contribution to the thread is to accuse those who do their best to publicise the future climate breakdown of hypocrisy.

I'll point out hypocrisy because I'm more inclined to listen to people who practice what they preach. How genuine is the concern of someone whose own carbon footprint is the size of a village?

WE must reduce our consumption!!!!! (except me)

You should try to distinguish the message from the messenger. Do you really not listen to messages, however cogent, because of the moral failings of the messenger?
I have given pwa the names of a couple of eminent climate scientists. I expect they travel to conferences in powered vehicles, but you should really pay attention to what they say, in spite of this.
Climate change really is a lot more important than the hypocrisy of some of its publicists.

And of course if someone was living off grass and sleeping under a tree canopy, walking everywhere, we'd say, "Don't listen to him/her. He/she must be a fruitcake."

[pwa]

To some extent the views of some highly paid celeb is less relevant to me than those of a well informed person living a life a bit more like mine. Someone who doesn't have the dosh to buy a new electric car, who can't up sticks and go and live in the woods because he/she is anchored by a job, who has a house that can be insulated up to a point but is limited by its 1970s construction, and who has a family to support with resources that sometimes seem a bit thin.

But I have to say that all the fuss over the eco stuff over the last few weeks has succeeded in getting me to look at this with refreshed interest, so some credit is due to the bods on the streets.

[Cunobelin]

A classic example is David Attenborough, the BBC and it's output.

What must be the footprint of flying him, crews, production teams out to remote locations, the output of the electrical equipment they use, the costs of broadcasting, the cost of the electricity powering millions of TV sets?

No-one can ever question that the programme was massively responsible for a change in the way many people look at and use plastics.

There is essential flying and there is non-essential flying, and there is a difference. I have no problem with the flying that goes into making Attenborough's programmes, because it is important that these programmes are made. I believe Attenborough has talked about this.

Yet Greta Thunberg has not been allowed to make the same cost / benefit analysis.....