Carbon Offsetting by bike

Quoted message said:

However, it did lead me to calculate that every time I cycle to work I
save £3 (equivalent bus fare). My Brompton will have paid for itself
in roughly one year. It also means I can justify a new bike on an
annual basis :-)

Calculate using car costs then you can have a new Brommie 3 or 4 times a
year :-))
--
del 8-)

Richard Bates said:

From time to time I have a think about whether or not carbon offsetting
really works. Mostly my conclusion is that is doesn't.

However, it did lead me to calculate that every time I cycle to work I
save £3 (equivalent bus fare). My Brompton will have paid for itself in
roughly one year. It also means I can justify a new bike on an annual
basis :-)

"Offsetting" is a joke.

I should start my own offsetting service - people can pay me and I'll cycle
to work rather than drive[1], and thereby offset the carbon of them
driving.

[1] I would ride in anyway, but don't tell them that. Oh, and I don't own a
car, but again, they don't need to know that bit.

Jim Higson wrote on 19/05/2007 14:56 +0100:

Quoted message said:

"Offsetting" is a joke.

I should start my own offsetting service - people can pay me and I'll cycle
to work rather than drive[1], and thereby offset the carbon of them
driving.

[1] I would ride in anyway, but don't tell them that. Oh, and I don't own a
car, but again, they don't need to know that bit.

That's the basis of carbon trading.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jim Higson wrote on 19/05/2007 14:56 +0100:

Quoted message said:

"Offsetting" is a joke.

I should start my own offsetting service - people can pay me and I'll
cycle
to work rather than drive[1], and thereby offset the carbon of them
driving.

[1] I would ride in anyway, but don't tell them that. Oh, and I don't own
a
car, but again, they don't need to know that bit.

That's the basis of carbon trading.

And is poosibly a tenuous adaptation of the joke:

Employee number 1: I walk to work and save £10 per week.

Employee number 2: Why don't you walk to work instead of taking a taxi then
you'll save £30 per week......

Jim Higson twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

I should start my own offsetting service - people can pay me and I'll
cycle to work rather than drive[1], and thereby offset the carbon of
them driving.

Don't mock too much ... Could be the basis for some kind of business
sideline in there for the denizens of uk.rec.cycling?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"Alistair Gunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jim Higson twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

I should start my own offsetting service - people can pay me and I'll
cycle to work rather than drive[1], and thereby offset the carbon of
them driving.

Don't mock too much ... Could be the basis for some kind of business
sideline in there for the denizens of uk.rec.cycling?

Yeah. maybe they can have their carbon frames made from carbon captured from
the atmosphere too.

Jc.

Quoted message said:

Has anyone found a supplier of energy bars/gels who give a good
discount for buying in bulk?

Try MyProtein.co.uk -- no energy gels, but you can get pretty much any
other sports supplement you could want.

Christopher Harrison said:

Try MyProtein.co.uk -- no energy gels, but you can get pretty much any
other sports supplement you could want.

What price do they quote for Erythropoietin?

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
[email hidden] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

Duncan Smith said:

by bike, I probably spend on extra food and energy drinks. Has anyone
found a supplier of energy bars/gels who give a good discount for
buying in bulk?

Regards,

Duncan.

Soreen malt loaf is your friend. Cheap and excellent cycling fuel.

Brendan Halpin said:

Christopher Harrison said:

Try MyProtein.co.uk -- no energy gels, but you can get pretty much any

Quoted message said:

other sports supplement you could want.

What price do they quote for Erythropoietin?

Four years, or two if you provide some for your mates as well..

...d

David Damerell said:

That is not necessarily true; in particular, it gives people the
impression they can keep flying if they just do XYZ...

I don't know why there is this huge focus on flying (well, actually - I
do - it's so that the government can fill the tax coffers in a way that
looks "green" and won't cause undue unpopularity).

You could make twice the reduction in energy use by merely reducing
domestic consumption by 50%, compared to banning commercial aviation in
its entirety. But of course, no one wants to do that - energy saving is
for someone else to do, and the government (of any colour) hasn't got
the political guts to make people do a significant reduction in domestic
energy usage. However, big unpopular companies like airlines are an easy
political target, and it makes it look like something's being done.

If they really want to do something about the expansion of air travel in
this country, all they need to do is stop approving new airports, new
terminals and new runways and runway extensions.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Quoting Dylan Smith <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

That is not necessarily true; in particular, it gives people the
impression they can keep flying if they just do XYZ...

I don't know why there is this huge focus on flying

No prospect of significant efficiency savings. Half the domestic emissions
doesn't mean half the houses; half the flying emissions does mean half the
flights, pretty much. Also it seems likely the effect of planes is more
than their emissions would suggest.

Quoted message said:

(well, actually - I
do - it's so that the government can fill the tax coffers in a way that
looks "green" and won't cause undue unpopularity).

Oh, the "global warming as excuse for taxation" conspiracy theory. It's
ridiculous anyway, but it is particularly ridiculous with a government who
won't so much as tax aviation fuel.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Gorgonzoladay, May - a weekend.

David Damerell said:

Quoted message said:

(well, actually - I
do - it's so that the government can fill the tax coffers in a way that
looks "green" and won't cause undue unpopularity).

Oh, the "global warming as excuse for taxation" conspiracy theory. It's
ridiculous anyway, but it is particularly ridiculous with a government who
won't so much as tax aviation fuel.

At the moment, it pretty much is. The so-called "green tax" applied to
aviation recently will do nothing at all to reduce flights - all it will
do is increase taxation. The "global warming as an excuse for taxation"
consipiracy won't go away until governments actually perform actions
that will actually _do_ something. Which the "green tax" recently
imposed on tickets will not. Indeed, no doubt we'll hear how commercial
air travel has increased despite this so called "green tax". If they
really wanted to reduce air travel, wouldn't they simply be refusing all
plans to build new runways, extend runways, and build new terminals?

The government does tax aviation fuel. 100LL avgas for light planes is
130p a litre. It's only fuel bought by large corporations that doesn't
get taxed. In any case, the government really doesn't have much of an
option - they are obliged by treaty not to impose taxes on Jet-A for
airlines. If they did, all the airlines would do would be to fill up in
France or Ireland, since road fuel pricing levels of Jet-A for airlines
would make it much cheaper to tanker fuel around from jurisdictions that
don't have the tax. The unintended consequence would be higher
emissions and wasted fuel. Tax on fuel for airliners will only happen
when there is *global* action to do so.

In any case, attacking the airlines is not the answer since even totally
banning commercial air travel in this country would have a barely
measurable effect. It's just politically convenient to do so. Doing
things that make people as individuals meaningfully reduce their energy
usage means a big lifestyle change, and therefore is not popular, and
therefore no politician has the political will to encourage that change.
Unfortunately, most people believe global warming is something that will
be solved by other people, and energy saving is something to be done by
other people - and consequently, do nothing (apart from perhaps salve
their consciences with a few compact flourescent light bulbs).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Richard Bates said:

From time to time I have a think about whether or not carbon offsetting
really works. Mostly my conclusion is that is doesn't.

However, it did lead me to calculate that every time I cycle to work I
save £3 (equivalent bus fare). My Brompton will have paid for itself in
roughly one year. It also means I can justify a new bike on an annual
basis :-)

I was gobsmacked to see a black cab claiming to belong to the world's
first carbon neutral taxi firm the other day. What about all those
cycle (and ped-pulled) rickshaws?
A little research and I found that Radio Taxis claim to be
CarbonNeutral(R) coz they offset with the CarbonNeutral(R) company.
What a farce, and be careful what you write or you may be breach of
their trademark.

"Dylan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The so-called "green tax" applied to
aviation recently will do nothing at all to reduce flights - all it will
do is increase taxation.

I heard easyjet and ryanair noticing lower load factors recently - increases
in passenger tax was put forward as part of the reason for this. So it is
starting to work.

cheers,
clive

David Damerell wrote on 22/05/2007 12:04 +0100:

Quoted message said:

No prospect of significant efficiency savings. Half the domestic emissions
doesn't mean half the houses; half the flying emissions does mean half the
flights, pretty much. Also it seems likely the effect of planes is more
than their emissions would suggest.

I've cut our household carbon footprint by more than half in the last
couple of years without giving up foreign travel. Choice of cars, more
intelligent heating and better insulation, greater use of train and
bicycles. It wasn't difficult and there is no hardship. It just needs
people to do it rather than waiting for others to do it.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Clive George wrote on 22/05/2007 13:04 +0100:

Quoted message said:

"Dylan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The so-called "green tax" applied to
aviation recently will do nothing at all to reduce flights - all it will
do is increase taxation.

I heard easyjet and ryanair noticing lower load factors recently -
increases in passenger tax was put forward as part of the reason for
this. So it is starting to work.

Its just as likely to be increasing interest rates cutting people's
disposable income.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Richard Bates said:

From time to time I have a think about whether or not carbon offsetting
really works. Mostly my conclusion is that is doesn't.

However, it did lead me to calculate that every time I cycle to work I
save £3 (equivalent bus fare). My Brompton will have paid for itself in
roughly one year. It also means I can justify a new bike on an annual
basis :-)

I was gobsmacked to see a black cab claiming to belong to the world's
first carbon neutral taxi firm the other day. What about all those
cycle (and ped-pulled) rickshaws?
A little research and I found that Radio Taxis claim to be
CarbonNeutral(R) coz they offset with the CarbonNeutral(R) company.
What a farce, and be careful what you write or you may be breach of
their trademark.

Quoting Dylan Smith <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Oh, the "global warming as excuse for taxation" conspiracy theory. It's
ridiculous anyway, but it is particularly ridiculous with a government who
won't so much as tax aviation fuel.

The government does tax aviation fuel. 100LL avgas for light planes is
130p a litre. It's only fuel bought by large corporations that doesn't
get taxed.

Yes, I know. However, since those corporations burn most of it and we're
talking about people using passenger flights run by those corporations,
"aviation fuel is not taxed" ought not to need pedanted at in context.

Quoted message said:

In any case, the government really doesn't have much of an
option - they are obliged by treaty not to impose taxes on Jet-A for
airlines.

We're going to have to break quite a lot of treaties to get anything
meaningful done.

Quoted message said:

If they did, all the airlines would do would be to fill up in
France or Ireland, since road fuel pricing levels of Jet-A for airlines
would make it much cheaper to tanker fuel around from jurisdictions that
don't have the tax.

Tax any flight landing in or leaving Britain for the fuel it used, no
matter where it fuelled up. Yes, this will divert some eg transAtlantic
flights to Continental airports. Joy! We can be spared the bleeding ulcer
of expanding Heathrow.

[And it _will_ make a fair sum of money, which might encourage our EU
partners to join in...]
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Gorgonzoladay, May - a weekend.