Well of course we are. You know perfectly well that murder is unarguably an evil, whereas most of the banning that the environmentalists want to do is arguable at best. Your comparison is fatuous.
Bill
Not actually had the benefit of seeing the lecture , but a brief look at Dr Richard Leakey FRS previous experience is palentology, anthropology and museum and government administration.
Difficult to see where he could speak with any authority on climate change.
Strongly think it unlikely that the population of Africa can keep up with the `developed` world`s appetite for coal burning power stations and carbon emmisions.
Mortality is certainly a problem to the African continent, soaring birth rates are a more northern issue.
Scary if you believed any of this total bunkum, really.
Cheers Adam
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:19:42 -0000 someone who may be "David WE Roberts" wrote this:-
I have not checked the figures myself, but I have heard a number of people state that more mercury is emitted in generating the extra electricity needed to power old fashioned lamps, assuming that generation is at the UK mix.
Probably true.
It's also true that coal fired power stations emit more radioactivity than nuclear ones.
So, the solution is simple, want it spelled out ?
Derek
Very much so.
Coal ash is almost worth reprocessing
Nuclear staions are built to not release radioactivity, and teh very small volues of waste high and low, are handled with zero release in mind.
Coal are not so built,and the volume of low level waste is huge.
Wont find me arguing.
Well to an extent there is some truth there. Many of the big lamp manufacturers have invested in newer more expensive technologies (patented technologies as well), that there were having difficulty selling since they needed to compete with their existing legacy product (bit like MS trying to sell Vista against WinXP) which the bulk of the customer base was happy with and reluctant to move from. If you can then get government to come along and be the bad boy, alter the playing field such that the ideal product now becomes one that you just happen to have exclusive rights to, and that sells at a premium over the legacy version you have an ideal situation. In this case it backfired slightly since they legislated for more efficiency than could be provided for the particular technology they were pushing IIUC.
More to the point, I expect the vast majority are in no way affected by it being "banned" since they would not countenance doing it anyway just as a result of their own moral standards.
or any other examples of large corporations / collectives / groups attempting to influence legislation to forward their own agenda, to the general detriment of others.
And that, in many cases would be a very good thing. It would force the legislators to do a little and do it well, rather than see the purpose of their existence as generating huge quantities of poorly thought out and often mutually inconsistent "rules" for the sake of it.
(the scale of the current situation is actually staggering - the last year I remember seeing figures for was something like 06 or 07, where there were something in the order of 3600 new bits of legislation (which if printed with all the guidance notes etc amounted to 96,000 pages) enacted in the year, or which a grand total of about 30 were debated in the house, the remainder were automatically enacted via statutory instrument).
Not actually had the benefit of seeing the lecture , but a brief look at Dr Richard Leakey FRS previous experience is palentology, anthropology and museum and government administration.
Difficult to see where he could speak with any authority on climate change.
Did you check further on his 'government administration'? [Leaving aside the unusual assumption that no government administrators know anything about climate change!] He was firstly in charge of the Kenya Wildlife Service and responsible for all the national parks - he is therefore likely to have been involved first hand in evidence of climate change including the drying up of major rivers. He then was responsible for reorganising the Kenyan Civil Service and served for a time in the Kenyan government. So again, he is likely to know first hand about the issues within Kenya including environmental and population issues. He is also an eminent scientist. How does this disqualify him from holding a valid opinion on climate change?
Feel free to post your superior qualifications here :-)
He seemed a reasonable bloke and a very good speaker and what he said seemed to make sense.
I would, however, be interested to see figures on how the total carbon footprint of Africa compares for example to the total carbon footprint of the EU. The per capita useage is likely to be smaller but if the population is to double over the next 10-20 years and their carbon consumption cannot be reduced on a per capita basis because they are already at subsistence level then their carbon footprint is likely to double also. They are unlikely to benefit from swapping incandescent bulbs for CFLs or from swapping old boilers for new combis. Cutting down on their holiday jet miles is also likely to make minimal difference.
And does that mercury go into landfill?
Surely it is better to reduce the amount of mercury going into the environment instead of sayin "Well, we will probably be no worse off". Otherwise you are spending a lot of money to swap one kind of polution for another.
That may be true in the US with their more heavy reliance on coal, but its not the case here. However as has been pointed out before, neither are desirable, but only one has the capability of introducing Hg levels above maximum safe dose levels into your home.
Nature will take care of it, like it always does. When the rivers dry up they will starve to death. Once dead they stop burning trees... The "west" can send in aid but that will only save a few.
He has experience of drying up rivers, seen a few myself.
He dosen`t have the experience or knowledge to comment authoratively on the cause.
He is aware of the effects but can only offer his personal opinions on the cause.
His field appears to be palentonlogy and anthropolgy, would be as liable to ask him about climate change as would to ask a civil engineer for advice on brain surgery.
Just as qualified, as a man in the stree, t to comment on climate change as this gentleman.
Would expect that of someone for who politics has been the main part of their career, very disappointed that the Royal Society gave him an uncritical platform though.
Think that would be extremely interesting to say the least.
The bad doctor didn`t produce figures to back his wild theories then?
If they are burning wood as subsitence, heat, light and cooking , personal carbon footprint is liable to be small. Transmission losses are also 'likely low.
European is sitting with any number of electrical gadgets, electrical or gas powered cooking, high levels of artificial illumination and major power consuming infrastructure behind it. Google on google data centres for instance, normally built beside rivers for supply of cooling water.
Then there is the Americans....
One does wonder where they are going to find all the trees to cut down , Africa is hardly famous for its forests.
Please, ask who is giving you this information, just because they have hijacked the Royal Society to foist their harebrained ideology on the public , does not mean that what they say has any basis in fact.
Cheers Adam
Windscale/ Sellafield and Dounreay are nuclear sieves.
Drigg is hardly zero release and while we are talking about waste, the U.K. high level waste repository is going where?
Cheers Adam
More wind farms?
;)
I don't think there's anything for anyone to challenge. The minister (can't recall which one) admitted on the radio that it was currently unenforcable.
Spelled out in wind turbines ? That would be a thought to conjur with.
More seriously has anybody noticed that steady numbers of these things having been built for a few years running now, their appearance usually as seen from the motorways is getting more and more intrusive, and I assume we are not there yet by a * very * long chalk.
Derek
Apparently we have "achieved" a total installed capacity of 4 GW this year, including 1 GW installed in the last 12 months.
The projected total capacity for wind generated electricity is in the region of 35 GW, so we are about 11% there. Only 89% to go. ;-)
Th real question, is, how much of it can be repealed, and how fast.
It will be interesting to watch.
that is basically the most likely scenario.
Plus supplying weapons to speed up the process.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.