Twitching and your carbon footprint. (3 Viewers)

[rob stoff]

Easiest way to really reduce your carbon footprint is to stoping eating meat (since it´s the really big badguy in globalwarming)

but vegetarians are very flatulent and therefore release more greenhouse gases than their balanced diet friends who eat animals that act as carbon sinks

Rob

 

[dantheman]

Doing the carbon calculations (eg here)

for a journey by plane as opposed to by car seems to indicate car driving is as bad as flying anyway . . .

I drove down to France (about 100 miles south of Bergerac in the mid south) one time last year on my own in my little Ford Fiesta (average 35mpg) (A round trip of approx 1200 miles). The Carbon footprint comes out as 0.361 tonnes.

Flying from a London airport to Bergerac gives a figure for the return trip of 0.211 Tonnes. Then add in the trips getting to the airport and from it at then other end . . .

On the same site, national rail came out a lot better at 0.116 Tonnes, but don't forget half the journey would be by Eurostar (basically flying on the rails), so that figure would have to be increased quite a bit.

Bus (Eurolines) would be in between at 0.172 Tonnes, but then that would take for ever, and still leave me 4 hours away from my final destination (in Bordeaux, a train or car then required!)

What's one to do (Not travel? Get a donkey? Not be bothered and just do it anyway??!!)

 

[kristoffer]

However, in the bigger scale of things, is this so good, at least in the European context.

Which landuses tend to support the greatest diversity of wildlife - arable or mixed farmland/livestock?

80 % of all the arable land/fields worldwide are used for meat or milkproduction. But the food produced here only give us 15 % of the total food consumtion. 1 kg meat från cattle takes 7 kg grain to produce. All grain needed for the meat and milk production need fertilizers that produce _alot_ of co2 since the nitrous oxide discharged here is 296 times stronger greenhouse gas then co2.

The production of food from animals adds up to almost 20 % of the total co2 emissions. So stop eating meat

Im unsure about your landuse question. I think it´s just best for the planet and everyone if we can reduce co2 as much and fast as possible since so many species will die regardless of the landscape layout after 3-4 degrees of global warming.

 

[dantheman]

but vegetarians are very flatulent and therefore release more greenhouse gases than their balanced diet friends who eat animals that act as carbon sinks

Rob

Yet more hot air . . .

Conveniently ignoring the fact that the moo cows etc providing the meat portion of the diet are even more flatulent than your average cabbage eater . . . And I thought the Atkins diet (solely meat) provided the worst noxious fumes of all. . .

 

[kristoffer]

The plane will still go regardess whether I am on it or not.

So, which has the smaller impact in this case? Flying of course.


Yeah, yeah, someone will say the flight only goes because of demand and if nobody wanted to use the plane, then it wouldn't ...but this is the real world, that plane will go come what may.

When we are talking about flawed arguments... No the plane wouldnt fly if no one wanted to pay to travel by it. And many people use airtravel too often and too easy without giving the global warming any thinking. Businessmen is one category who pollute alot and should start using webcams or trains instead. Another is travelers who stay in the same continent that could go by train instead.

 

[Jos Stratford]

When we are talking about flawed arguments... No the plane wouldnt fly if no one wanted to pay to travel by it. And many people use airtravel too often and too easy without giving the global warming any thinking. Businessmen is one category who pollute alot and should start using webcams or trains instead. Another is travelers who stay in the same continent that could go by train instead.

I agree it's flawed, but it's reality. Video conference can only do so much, the reality is face-to-face contact is necessary. Training, multiple meetings, client relations, etc, they just don't work without an element of face-to-face.

So, we need to travel, so how? Now you live in Sweden, I on the other side of the Baltic. Half the businesses here, eg banks, etc, so it seems, are Swedish owned, so it is a good example - going from Stockholm to Vilnius by car/ferry is going to be, more or less, a three day round trip. The flight is less than two hours. And the flight is cheaper too

And should I wish to be a good son and visit my mum back in England, assuming I didn't get killled on the Polish hellhole roads, it is a straight two day drive each way!

And still those planes woud be flying above my head, probably an empty seat laughing at me.

 

[kristoffer]

I agree it's flawed, but it's reality. Video conference can only do so much, the reality is face-to-face contact is necessary. Training, multiple meetings, client relations, etc, they just don't work without an element of face-to-face.

So, we need to travel, so how? Now you live in Sweden, I on the other side of the Baltic. Half the businesses here, eg banks, etc, so it seems, are Swedish owned, so it is a good example - going from Stockholm to Vilnius by car/ferry is going to be, more or less, a three day round trip. The flight is less than two hours. And the flight is cheaper too

And should I wish to be a good son and visit my mum back in England, assuming I didn't get killled on the Polish hellhole roads, it is a straight two day drive each way!

And still those planes woud be flying above my head, probably an empty seat laughing at me.

I never meant that video can replace all face to face meetings but i´m sure it can reduce many more then it is today. And trains or ferrys can (must) replace airtravel when companys start to realise what all plane emissions cause to the climate. This will be easier once more speed trains are being planned and built.

And i agree that it is nice to fly, its fast and cheap nowadays. But perhaps its worth the extra traveltime if you know your timesaving is destroying the climate and the planet that we all live on? It is for me atleast.

 

[Jos Stratford]

And trains can replace airtravel when companys start to realise what all plane emissions cause to the climate. Even more when highspeed trains are being planned and built.

300 km on a train from here to the Klaipeda takes all night, I think I'll skip that one But, when realistic, eg in western Europe, I see no objection.

But perhaps its worth the extra traveltime if you know your timesaving is destroying the climate and the planet that we all live on?

As the ultimate sinner, all my flights are of a distance beyond the possible to take an alternative, so its not a question of losing a little time. I do however not accept that flying is destroying the planet, in many cases I would say quite the opposite.

But I think we can agree to disagree on this

 

[kristoffer]

. I do however not accept that flying is destroying the planet, in many cases I would say quite the opposite.

But I think we can agree to disagree on this

Hmm you think it´s good for the biosphere with airplanes? Yes! I totaly disagree with you on that one

 

[werntonb]

Jim, and Johnny Allen

Well said, both of you. A pregnant woman leaves a bigger, carbon footprint
than ten-thousand twitchers.

Bob, USA

Yeah! I agree to you BOB.. Nothing to oppose with it.

 

[DunnoKev]

Yeah! I agree to you BOB.. Nothing to oppose with it.

Well, that's a bit of a bump.

Still, good excuse to share a 'QI' factoid from the other night- what's the most effective legal way for the average family to bring about the biggest reduction to their carbon footprint?

Have the dog put down. It equates to about two 4x4s p.a.

Even a puddytat is pretty horrendous (I think they said something like a teeny citroen).

So if you're feeling guilty about the Bagnellesque twitch you made last weekend just take ol' yeller down the vets you'll be in credit for the whole of the spring.

 

[squidge]

Well, that's a bit of a bump.

Still, good excuse to share a 'QI' factoid from the other night- what's the most effective legal way for the average family to bring about the biggest reduction to their carbon footprint?

Have the dog put down. It equates to about two 4x4s p.a.

Even a puddytat is pretty horrendous (I think they said something like a teeny citroen).

So if you're feeling guilty about the Bagnellesque twitch you made last weekend just take ol' yeller down the vets you'll be in credit for the whole of the spring.

Wow that is some bump, Too add to that we could eat the family pets thus reducing our need for farmed meats thus reducing the amount of flatulence into the air, We could also start using candles instead of electric lights become short sighted in the process thus being unable too see the dickie birds No more Twitching. Ger.

 

[Johnny Allan]

Amazed that this is thread still rolling on but I'll echo my 2008 remarks (post 5). Uncontrolled and unsustainable overpopulation and population growth is destroying the planets wildlife and environment. Focussing on carbon emission and global warming is masking, and diverting attention from, the real problem.

Conservation bodies such as the RSPB endlessly bang on about global warming. It's not global warming that's overfishing and polluting the oceans or cutting down rainforests for farmland or destroying wildlife habitat to build roads or housing estates or airports or yatch marinas etc etc etc.

By all means be aware of wasting energy and do what you can conserve it (I did before I'd even heard of the term 'carbon footprint', as it makes economic sense), but don't lose sight of the real problem facing the planet's wildlife and environment.

If you haven't seen it, this excellent David Attenborough documentary gives one an idea of the problem and possible solutions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF15YAvT9G0