Climate Camp - Cyclists

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:18:01 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Dylan
Smith <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Aviation in the UK represents 7% of CO2 emissions. Non-aviation domestic
transport represents 25% of CO2 emissions. Merely reducing non-aviation
domestic transport emissions by a third will have a bigger impact on our
CO2 emissions than a complete ban on commercial air travel.

Your assertion is based on the climate camp protestors only
protesting about aviation.

However, given that the list of workshops at
http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/workshopsoffer.php includes seed
saving, bike maintenance, permaculture, food, on-site renewables,
personal washing and building your own solar cooker we can see that
this assertion is false.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Quoted message said:

Aviation in the UK represents 7% of CO2 emissions.

Can you tell us your source?

Defra.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Non-aviation domestic
transport represents 25% of CO2 emissions.

That includes buses, trains, commercial vehicles, shipping and private cars?

The simple pie chart I've looked at doesn't go into that detail, but
presumably 'domestic transport' includes all of domestic transport i.e.
cars, buses, trains, pleasure boats etc. (but the chart says this 25%
specifically excludes aviation, which is shown having its own 7% of the
pie for all of aviation).

If you want more detailed information, then that's up to you to look up
- it's all at the Defra website. This white paper might be a good start:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/Project_Data/DocumentLibrary/GA01043/GA01043_2629_OTH.pdf

Evidently you think I'm having a go at the motorist from the tone of
your message, when I'm implying no such thing - to reiterate, I think
the protesters are misguided protesting about something which if totally
banned wouldn't even reduce emissions as much as merely reducing
domestic transport CO2 emissions by 1/3rd.

Incidentally, the same chart shows that residential CO2 emissions are
25.8% of the UK's CO2 output, so the same comments could be made about
household usage, too - reduce it by 1/3rd and it'll have more effect
than banning commercial air travel.

And the reason why the climate protestors are working themselves into a
hissy fit over aviation is that BAA and the airlines are an unpopular,
easy target. Low hanging political fruit. But the low hanging energy
savings fruit are generally elsewhere - but the protesters are either
too ignorant or too politically cowardly to take that on.

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

David Hansen said:

Your assertion is based on the climate camp protestors only
protesting about aviation.

However, given that the list of workshops at
http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/workshopsoffer.php includes seed
saving, bike maintenance, permaculture, food, on-site renewables,
personal washing and building your own solar cooker we can see that
this assertion is false.

Not at all. Until they are seen _visibly_ protesting about domestic
energy use in the same manner that they are protesting about aviation
use, then all they are offering is some advice. They aren't actually
protesting at all about domestic energy or transport use (the two added
together making 50% of Britain's CO2 emissions, over 7 times greater
than the entirety of Britain's commercial aviation).

Until they are out in residential streets, picketing people's homes,
well, then they aren't actually protesting about domestic use.

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

Dylan Smith said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Quoted message said:

Aviation in the UK represents 7% of CO2 emissions.

Can you tell us your source?

Defra.

Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Non-aviation domestic
transport represents 25% of CO2 emissions.

That includes buses, trains, commercial vehicles, shipping and private cars?

The simple pie chart I've looked at doesn't go into that detail, but
presumably 'domestic transport' includes all of domestic transport i.e.
cars, buses, trains, pleasure boats etc. (but the chart says this 25%
specifically excludes aviation, which is shown having its own 7% of the
pie for all of aviation).

If you want more detailed information, then that's up to you to look up
- it's all at the Defra website. This white paper might be a good start:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/Project_Data/DocumentLibrary/GA01043/GA01043_2629_OTH.pdf

Thanks, I had a quick look earlier, but hadn't the time or patience to
search out what I was after.

Quoted message said:

Evidently you think I'm having a go at the motorist from the tone of
your message,

I didn't actually, but I was wondering what you thought "domestic
transport" included. It does include all non-air modes.

Quoted message said:

when I'm implying no such thing - to reiterate, I think
the protesters are misguided protesting about something which if totally
banned wouldn't even reduce emissions as much as merely reducing
domestic transport CO2 emissions by 1/3rd.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Incidentally, the same chart shows that residential CO2 emissions are
25.8% of the UK's CO2 output, so the same comments could be made about
household usage, too - reduce it by 1/3rd and it'll have more effect
than banning commercial air travel.

Yes. Interesting, and noteworthy, that "residential" emissions are
greater than those of the widely condemned private car. Yet we have
huge taxes on the private car, "justified" because of its CO2 emissions.
Isn't it time for a bit of consistency, add 400% duty, then VAT of 17.5%
on top of that, to gas, electricity, and coal.

Quoted message said:

And the reason why the climate protestors are working themselves into a
hissy fit over aviation is that BAA and the airlines are an unpopular,
easy target. Low hanging political fruit. But the low hanging energy
savings fruit are generally elsewhere - but the protesters are either
too ignorant or too politically cowardly to take that on.

Yes, It does remind me of the similarly misguided protests against road
building.

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes. Interesting, and noteworthy, that "residential" emissions are
greater than those of the widely condemned private car. Yet we have huge
taxes on the private car, "justified" because of its CO2 emissions.

Um, no. The taxes you whine about predate any concern about C02.

clive

Dylan Smith said:

David Hansen said:

Your assertion is based on the climate camp protestors only
protesting about aviation.

However, given that the list of workshops at
http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/workshopsoffer.php includes seed
saving, bike maintenance, permaculture, food, on-site renewables,
personal washing and building your own solar cooker we can see that
this assertion is false.

Not at all. Until they are seen _visibly_ protesting about domestic
energy use in the same manner that they are protesting about aviation
use, then all they are offering is some advice. They aren't actually
protesting at all about domestic energy or transport use (the two added
together making 50% of Britain's CO2 emissions, over 7 times greater
than the entirety of Britain's commercial aviation).

Until they are out in residential streets, picketing people's homes,
well, then they aren't actually protesting about domestic use.

Picketing the 64 UK airports which offer comercial flights is much
easier than picketing the 25,000,000 or so households. A different
tactic is necessary to encourage people to reduce their household's
carbon footprint.

Clive George said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes. Interesting, and noteworthy, that "residential" emissions are
greater than those of the widely condemned private car. Yet we have
huge taxes on the private car, "justified" because of its CO2 emissions.

Um, no. The taxes you whine about predate any concern about C02.

Yes, but since the original reasons for their introduction no longer
apply, their existence has more recently been justified on the pretence
that they are required to control CO2 emissions, and even more
bizarrely, "global warming", or "climate change" as it has now been
re-branded, given the uncertainty about the warming prediction.

--
Matt B

Tom Crispin said:

Picketing the 64 UK airports which offer comercial flights is much
easier than picketing the 25,000,000 or so households. A different
tactic is necessary to encourage people to reduce their household's
carbon footprint.

Ah, like the "let's not make a fuss about it" tactic they are currently
employing. Going for the subtle, un-noticable approach, I see!

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

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Is it time to direct the CO2 inspired politics away from the car, and
more towards household gas and electricity use? Would you suggest
adding fuel duty to gas and electricity, and relaxing it on car fuel?

They are doing things about domestic fuel usage, they just take a
rather different form. If you research changes to building
regulations, you will find quite big changes to requirements for
energy efficiency over the past few years. There's not so much you can
do to change the fuel efficiency of an older house, but there are some
changes there - if you put in a new window it now has to be double
glazed, boilers have to be condensing. And you may have noticed a much
higher profile for energy saving light bulbs recently.

Just raising domestic fuel tax would hit poorer people who often live
in less energy efficient homes, and have few options for making
different choices. People have a lot of choice about transport
spending - they can choose a more fuel-efficient car, they can drive
more fuel efficiently, they can choose more fuel efficient modes of
transport, they can drive less. Taxes can influence these choices,
whereas with houses there are fewer choices to influence. The fact
that 4x4s remain popular, often ones with large engines that
accelerate quickly - about the most inefficient personal transport
option short of a private helicopter - suggest that people really
aren't that bothered about transport taxation.

Rob

Quoting CoyoteBoy <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In context it is, in a westernised country half the average is good.

Not if (as it does) everyone in the world being at that level means
disaster.

Quoted message said:

If you live as a goat herder then no, obviously. One cannot make such
drastic changes to ones personal production within the western context
without significantly putting oneself at a disadvantage,

A disadvantage compared to other affluent Westerners, yes. A vast
advantage compared to most of the population of the world.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Teleute, August.

Quoting Dylan Smith <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Aviation in the UK represents 7% of CO2 emissions.

Overall warming effect of aviation 2.7 times that of raw CO2 emissions
(IPCC), so what's 2.7 times 7? Damn near domestic transport, that's what -
and while I neither drive nor fly, it's not hard to work out which is
easier for the average person to abstain from.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Teleute, August.

Dylan Smith said:

Tom Crispin said:

Picketing the 64 UK airports which offer comercial flights is much
easier than picketing the 25,000,000 or so households. A different
tactic is necessary to encourage people to reduce their household's
carbon footprint.

Ah, like the "let's not make a fuss about it" tactic they are currently
employing. Going for the subtle, un-noticable approach, I see!

On the contrary. I see a great deal going on to persuade people to
adopt a more energy efficient home life. The new home information
packs required for larger homes give purchasers specific details on
energy performance. We are all aware of low energy light bulbs, and
many of us have some or all our lighting using low energy bulbs. Wind
farms are springing up all over the place. I know of at least two
people who have had solar heating installed to supply some or all of
their domestic hot water and heating requirements. Double glazing is
now common. Loft insulation is standard.

Yes, there is some way to go, but household carbon release is on the
way down while domestic transport carbon release is on the increase.

Quoted message said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Is it time to direct the CO2 inspired politics away from the car, and
more towards household gas and electricity use? Would you suggest
adding fuel duty to gas and electricity, and relaxing it on car fuel?

They are doing things about domestic fuel usage, they just take a
rather different form.

Ah, you think?

Quoted message said:

If you research changes to building
regulations, you will find quite big changes to requirements for
energy efficiency over the past few years.

Is it anywhere near the size of the changes required for motor vehicles
over the last few _decades_?

Quoted message said:

There's not so much you can
do to change the fuel efficiency of an older house,

No, like older vehicles. That didn't stop them adding 400% tax to fuel
though.

Quoted message said:

but there are some
changes there - if you put in a new window it now has to be double
glazed, boilers have to be condensing. And you may have noticed a much
higher profile for energy saving light bulbs recently.

Yes. I wonder why they chose the optional, softly softly, incremental
approach there, but not for motor vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Just raising domestic fuel tax would hit poorer people who often live
in less energy efficient homes, and have few options for making
different choices.

Yes, like motor fuel duty does, to those who are poorer, with older and
less fuel efficient cars.

Quoted message said:

People have a lot of choice about transport
spending

The wealthier may, yes.

Quoted message said:

- they can choose a more fuel-efficient car, they can drive
more fuel efficiently, they can choose more fuel efficient modes of
transport,

Yes, if they are in the lucky position to be able to afford to.

Quoted message said:

they can drive less.

He he. You think that people drive for fun? It's like saying they can
use their houses less.

Quoted message said:

Taxes can influence these choices,

In what way?

Quoted message said:

whereas with houses there are fewer choices to influence.

Except, people have a lot of choice about housing spending - they can
choose a more fuel efficient house, they can live more fuel efficiently,
they can choose more fuel efficient modes of living.

Quoted message said:

The fact
that 4x4s remain popular, often ones with large engines that
accelerate quickly - about the most inefficient personal transport
option short of a private helicopter - suggest that people really
aren't that bothered about transport taxation.

Or have to make sacrifices elsewhere rather than give up their only
available means of transport.

Face it, private cars are no more of a luxury than private houses.
Would you like to live in a public dormitory?

--
Matt B

David Damerell said:

Quoting Dylan Smith <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Aviation in the UK represents 7% of CO2 emissions.

Overall warming effect of aviation 2.7 times that of raw CO2 emissions
(IPCC), so what's 2.7 times 7? Damn near domestic transport,

Noting that "domestic transport" includes: goods vehicles, buses, taxis,
motorcycles, railways, domestic (non-international) aviation, and
domestic shipping.

Quoted message said:

that's what -
and while I neither drive nor fly,

"driving", as in the use of a private car for non-commercial activities,
accounts for a proportion of the 50% of "domestic transport" emissions
attributable to "passenger cars".

Quoted message said:

it's not hard to work out which is
easier for the average person to abstain from.

Why put pressure on one activity, when a small efficiency increase on
the two major contributors, household energy use, and industry, would
amount to the same saving as eliminating air travel all together?

--
Matt B

Sorry folks, I should have known better. I was just having a rather
dull afternoon. First time I've replied to Matt, never again.

(and sorry for top posting, but I just think this is more effective
here)

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Except, people have a lot of choice about housing spending - they can
choose a more fuel efficient house, they can live more fuel efficiently,
they can choose more fuel efficient modes of living.

Sorry Matt, but I refuse to believe you are too stupid to understand
the fundamental timescale differences between improving the fuel
efficiency of the country's housing stock and personal transport
choices and how this would neccessitate different approaches to
improving them.

I had slight reservations about your troll status before, but you've
just proved it to me, byeee.

Quoted message said:

Face it, private cars are no more of a luxury than private houses.

How could you possibly conclude from what I said that I think private
cars are a luxury? (Don't bother answering because I won't see it.)

Rob

Quoting Dylan Smith <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Ah, like the "let's not make a fuss about it" tactic they are currently
employing. Going for the subtle, un-noticable approach, I see!

That's a bit of a careful selection of protesters, though - obviously the
ones _currently_ protesting aviation are not protesting anything else.

There are protests against car dependency (there's public transport) and
against the willingness to generate more and more electricity in
coal-fired power stations (there's domestic usage). Monbiot discusses
domestic use extensively and proposes a number of approaches to reducing
it.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Teleute, August.

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes, like motor fuel duty does, to those who are poorer, with older and
less fuel efficient cars.

My "older" car cost 500 quid 3-4 years ago and still does 50mpg. So, what
was your point about cheap cars not being fuel efficient?

Quoted message said:

Face it, private cars are no more of a luxury than private houses. Would
you like to live in a public dormitory?

I think you've just pointed out the absurdity of your last statement there.
Ask how many people which they'd put up with giving up, their private house
or their private car, and you'll get the answer as to whic is more of a
luxury.

clive

Quoted message said:

Sorry folks, I should have known better. I was just having a rather
dull afternoon. First time I've replied to Matt, never again.

You cannot tolerate your prejudices being exposed?

Quoted message said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Except, people have a lot of choice about housing spending - they can
choose a more fuel efficient house, they can live more fuel efficiently,
they can choose more fuel efficient modes of living.

Sorry Matt, but I refuse to believe you are too stupid to understand

Ad hominem, a sure-fire argument winner?

You obviously _refuse_ to understand my point. I am of the opinion that
the measures taken against a minor CO2 emitter, the private motorist,
are disproportionate, unjust, and ill-conceived, especially compared to
the much less stringent measures, and softly, softly approach, being
used against the major CO2 emitter, the private householder.

Quoted message said:

the fundamental timescale differences between improving the fuel
efficiency of the country's housing stock and personal transport
choices and how this would neccessitate different approaches to
improving them.

(didn't you recognise the wording - it was yours, almost verbatim, from
your previous post!)

In so much as you have a choice whether to buy an old, less efficient
car, or a newer, more expensive, more efficient one, you also have that
choice when you buy a house. The same with how extravagantly you use
fuel in it. It is also the unfortunate case that you /can/ choose a
more efficient mode of living - in so much as you can forego your car
and share a bus, you can forego your house and live in a hostel.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Face it, private cars are no more of a luxury than private houses.

How could you possibly conclude from what I said that I think private
cars are a luxury? (Don't bother answering because I won't see it.)

Putting your fingers in your ears isn't a sign of an argument winner,
quite the contrary.

--
Matt B

Tom Crispin said:

On the contrary. I see a great deal going on to persuade people to
adopt a more energy efficient home life. The new home information
packs required for larger homes give purchasers specific details on
energy performance. We are all aware of low energy light bulbs, and
many of us have some or all our lighting using low energy bulbs. Wind
farms are springing up all over the place. I know of at least two
people who have had solar heating installed to supply some or all of
their domestic hot water and heating requirements. Double glazing is
now common. Loft insulation is standard.

Yes, there is some way to go, but household carbon release is on the
way down while domestic transport carbon release is on the increase.

Even the government is encouraging (if a bit half-heartedly) the
reduction of domestic fuel usage, but it is encouraging the expansion
of Heathrow. So it makes sense to protest more loudly against the
air travel expansion than about domestic usage. This may have little
effect on air travellers, but it highlights the government's lack
of commitment to the targets it agreed to.

-adrian

Clive George said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes, like motor fuel duty does, to those who are poorer, with older
and less fuel efficient cars.

My "older" car cost 500 quid 3-4 years ago and still does 50mpg. So,
what was your point about cheap cars not being fuel efficient?

I never tried to make that point. I was pointing out that fuel tax hits
the poorer the hardest. The poor are more likely to have older and less
fuel efficient cars. A brand new Toyota Prius probbably isn't an option
for many families.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Face it, private cars are no more of a luxury than private houses.
Would you like to live in a public dormitory?

I think you've just pointed out the absurdity of your last statement
there. Ask how many people which they'd put up with giving up, their
private house or their private car, and you'll get the answer as to whic
is more of a luxury.

Put it another way. Ask how many people would buy a lifetime's supply
of bus-travel season-tickets, rather than a posh new car, if they won
the lottery.

--
Matt B