https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/13/trump-buildings-climate-fines-new-york-city
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Climate Crisis
(1297 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Climate change: a socialist writes.
It [commercial airliner] is the means by which the country’s wealth creators travel.
It is no good saying that you never fly any more because of the carbon if you are munching on red meat for the third or fourth time this week.
Micro-consumerist bulls**t.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Hmmm - I clearly need to have a word with mini and micro Morningsider. They have travelled on planes, but I've seen precious little evidence of wealth creation - in fact, quite the opposite.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I never got the impression that Ms Dugdale (who keeps an eye on CCE remember) thinks things through completely. This may or may not be a problem in her new role as director of the John Smith Center think tank.
If you are going to talk about 'wealth creators' then you need to identify them. A conventional socialist analysis would conclude that workers by hand and brain are the wealth creators. Sewer cleansers, nurses, farmers, foresters, factory workers, artists, doctors and so on.
You'd also need to identify what wealth is and what forces can destroy it. I horribly suspect that Ms Dugdale has mistaken money for wealth. Money is created and destroyed every day by the banking industry. The stable atmosphere on which depend farming, forestry, fishing, housing and the other foundations of wealth is gone forever if we destroy it.
The John Smith Centre appears not to disclose its funders. The accounts are 500 days overdue. Etc etc.
Posted 5 years ago # -
“Business travellers account for 12 percent of passengers”* Business travellers are also not necessarily wealth creators most are company people, some on jollies, some working mundane jobs not always what would typically be classified a wealth creator.
I would guess wealth creators would fly private.
“Edinburgh’s own Heriot-Watt University at the moment, where they have invented a biofuel for planes from waste that can’t be recycled.”
I would think the bio fuels for planes from waste an interesting red herring, even waste that cannot be recycled may be best left in a solid state than converting in to gas, if global warming theory is correct then would be six in half a dozen fossil or bio from waste best not converted to gas.
“Until then, perhaps instead of ¬concentrating on what looks like ¬quick-fix solutions” I don’t think the author understand the science, if carbon the concern this bio fuel from waste makes little odds, if its simply running out of fossil fuels yes makes sense.
May be electric air ships or something.
Making decisions on what to eat -) for a weekend in Barcelona 1315 miles each way. Planes do around 40 to 50 miles per gallon per passenger. 136 kg a year divided by 27 if beef 97 KG, if pork 217 KG
If a normal mix to pork would be less than one weekend a year on average and of course this assumes meat is not replaced with anything if cheese than worse than pork. Even potatoes a ¼ as bad as pork.
You would need to eat a lot of more meat than average to reduce meat for the 1 yearly flight, to eat enough less
This use EPA fuel economy figures at 40 to 50 per gallon per passenger planes are much better for the this, to eat less is greater still. I am just making the false assumption that car miles per gallon or carbon per mile is the same its actually worse with EPA figures, so the true amount of meat less would be greater still.
http://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html
https://www.onaverage.co.uk/other-averages/average-meat-consumption-uk
Posted 5 years ago # -
A highly-paid 'wealth creator*' would not care one iota if they had to pay an extra £20, or even £50 on a flight. Most times it's the company paying in any case.
*In the "conventional" non-IWRATS sense.
Posted 5 years ago # -
re: wealth, its definition and creation - the Earth as a common treasury for all?
Meanwhile I see Alastair McIntosh properly quoting Chief Seattle re: Flamingo Land and the short-term blindness that afflicts us as a nation.
Posted 5 years ago # -
The boeing max does 84/8 mpg per passenger miles so say 84mpg per passanger, compared to the EPA of around 25 miles per gallon.
My last post is rubbish about the meat comparison. Boeing 737 max does 84MPH per gallon per passenger. The maths was wrong on EPA the EPA is around 25 miles per gallon. I used the wrong figures on the chart. The EPA being lower than the plane makes the comparison better not worse as I said.
To do it on the 737 max fuel economy figure and if someone ate less meat, then yes it is possible to eat less meat and take a flight. If convert for beef the 63 car miles equivalent 25 mph to 84 mpg equals 211.68 the divided the distance to Barcelona 1315 by 212 its 6.2 KGs of beef so 12.4 kgs for both directions
Of course if was pork 28 divided by 25 times 84 94.08 then divide 1315 by 94 is 13.9 kgs so would need to eat 27.8 Kgs less of pork for the flight. This is still assuming the Barcelona distance to be 1315. This is driving miles the plane miles will be less. So may be less meat still you need to eat to get to Barcelona.
Google says its 1035 miles flying. So 4.9 kg times each way 9.8 as it for beef or pork 11 kgs times 2, 22 kgs of pork is a return trip to Barcelona on the 737 max. At say 84 kg of meat per year per person in uk 2009 figure than yes, someone could eat less meat and take a flight to Barcelona.
The plane is not as bad I thought looking at comparison chart it may not be as different to the train as though. If was going to think of weekend in Barcelona then what of say train weekends in london etc would be inconsistent not do a meat conversion for these, if meat conversion is your thing. of course there is clothes or smart phones or many other things that have a footprint. Google says That 79 kilograms of CO2 emissions for an I phone is like 465 miles in Prius which looking at google again looks to be an hour on a plane?
Posted 5 years ago # -
wealth, its definition and creation - the Earth as a common treasury for all?
I think wealth comes from the operation of human hands and minds on the earth. Food is wealth, shelter is wealth, books are wealth, safety is wealth and aw that.
But I don't think I could count myself as wealthy without giving and receiving love and that just seems to appear out of us.
I'm increasingly thinking that land, like humans, cannot be properly owned.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Posted 5 years ago #
-
The thing about this curve is that flattening it seems to require global mobilisation on a scale that's only ever been used for war and conquest in the past.
As a species we would need to agree to wind down and rapidly cease fossil fuel extraction. The fossil fuel we do burn would be used to;
1) Conquer and control every country that refused to co-operate in the plan.
2) Put in place the first generation of end-to-end renewable energy systems from generation to storage to distribution.
3) Put in place the extreme egalitarian non-materialist low-energy society that would be required to prevent rogue groups from coal mining in future.The first comment under the Scotsman article suggests getting schoolchildren to pick up litter and discuss it in class. That's pretty much where we are at right now with a devolved administration with no responsibility for energy policy babbling about discussions with a national administration which has lost its actual mind.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Hundreds of cars nose-to-tail all along Melville Dr this morning, all one-to-a-car, blocking the junctions, crawling at 2mph, in a park...
I just feel like standing there one morning with a massive sign: "Please stop driving. 415ppm has never been seen before. Never in the 3 million years that modern humans have existed. The planet is dying. Please stop.*"
*I realise that's all a bit long for one sign
Posted 5 years ago # -
"The planet is dying. Please stop"
I'd be more pragmatic than that, the planet will be fine, it's dealt with more extreme conditions than this. We're just in the middle of creating the next mass extinction event. I wonder what will be here after mammals are gone? Is it already here now, or will a new species form and rule the world?
Global warming seems to be more about the end of mammals than anything else, one day we will all be gone, it's up to us to decide whether it's by natural or man made causes. One thing is for sure, historically humans don't have a good track record of saving themselves from themselves.
Posted 5 years ago # -
The second law of thermodynamics says that 'the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium'.
If the universe is isolated in a thermodynamic sense then its ultimate end-state is therefore freezing chaos. All order and information and therefore all human culture will be permanently annihilated in due course.
Should I embrace death now or allow it to embrace me in what will be, in any case, nothing more than the blink of an eye?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Posted 5 years ago #
-
@neddie, how about "STOP DRIVING YOU SELFISH F****ERS".
Black text on hi-vis yellow or pink.
Should get a reaction at least.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Does anyone have Thanos' phone number?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Mmm, we’ll see...
“
@scotgov will be placing climate change at the heart of everything we do. It will be at the core of our next Programme for Government and Spending Review, Climate Change Secretary @strathearnrose has said in a statement on The Global Climate Emergency – Scotland's Response.“
https://mobile.twitter.com/greenerscotland/status/1128294548873121792?s=21
Posted 5 years ago # -
Glesca's plan seems to mostly revolve around electric cars and buses...(yawn)
Embra looking at home energy, waste management, vehicle restrictions and active travel.---
Glasgow and Edinburgh fight to become the UK's first 'net-zero' city
Posted 5 years ago # -
If Edinburgh is going to be serious about improving home energy efficiency, then one thing that it absolutely needs to do is give a huge fenestre-you to those heritage bodies that get all prissy about double glazing (or more specifically, requiring the lack thereof) in flats in conservation areas.
The Georgians and Victorians built those flats as new then, precisely because they were better quality than the buildings that existed before. If either were around now, they would seize on the concept of double glazing with great joy as a wonderful innovation and would start to install new windows (of a sympathetic design) immediately.
The other thing that we really need to do is put a legal requirement on landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their "properties" on a regular basis. Again, double glazing and insulation (where needed) should be a baseline requirement, and white goods and central heathing boilers should be required to be upgraded at least once a decade (or demonstrate that they are still as efficient as newer models).
Posted 5 years ago # -
white goods and central heathing boilers should be required to be upgraded at least once a decade
Hmmm, what is the energy cost of producing a new one though and how long will this take to pay back given the improved efficiency? It won't always be true that replacing something will be better for the environment.Posted 5 years ago # -
those heritage bodies that get all prissy about double glazing (or more specifically, requiring the lack thereof) in flats in conservation areas
Recent studies have shown that single glazing is not nearly as bad as was once thought in terms of heat loss, if properly draught-proofed. A draught-proofed single glazed window can compare favourably against double-glazed units.
Unfortunately, most insulation schemes are an absolute disaster for period pre-war properties, often causing serious damp / condensation problems.
Basically, those period buildings were designed to have a certain amount of moisture content in the walls. That means the building has to breathe - that means good ventilation* (keeping chimneys open / windows with vents) and use of breathable materials like lime-plaster/mortar, non emulsion paints, etc.
Sticking insulation (or other impervious material) on top of pre-war tenement walls just creates a swimming pool effect, trapping water inside the wall and causing irreparable damage (definitely not eco if your property gets damaged).
*It is possible to ventilate in an energy efficient way by means of heat-exchangers.
See below for more info:
https://www.heritage-house.org/damp-and-condensation/managing-damp-in-old-buildings.htmlPosted 5 years ago # -
Also, the best way to prevent damp (and help reduce emissions) in a period property is not to overheat it. Ideally, it should be kept at a constant 15 degrees.
People that live in period homes should be prepared to accept living in lower temperatures than are necessarily comfortable in a pair of shorts and T-shirt!
Posted 5 years ago # -
> If Edinburgh is going to be serious about improving home energy efficiency, then one thing that it absolutely needs to do is give a huge fenestre-you to those heritage bodies that get all prissy about double glazing (or more specifically, requiring the lack thereof) in flats in conservation areas.
Edinburgh has permitted double glazing in most listed/conservation area buildings for many years. http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/4510/listed_buildings_and_conservation_areas.pdf
> The other thing that we really need to do is put a legal requirement on landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their "properties" on a regular basis.
Agreed.
Posted 5 years ago # -
It is possible to ventilate in an energy efficient way by means of heat-exchangers.
Hence the designer's maxim, "Build tight, ventilate right."
Ideally, it should be kept at a constant 15 degrees.
It might be good for damp, but when your house is 15 degrees in wintertime, it's very difficult to be sedentary for any length of time, and three or four layers of clothes becomes a habit.
Posted 5 years ago # -
OK, I obviously over-simplified the situation somewhat, but the point remains that we shouldn't allow the fact that a building may be old to over-ride the need to make it as energy efficient as possible, taking into account the type of building in the methods chosen to do so.
As someone who has lived in far too many flats with drafty (and sagging) sash windows, that's a particular problem that I'd really like to see fixed!
Posted 5 years ago # -
Basically, those period buildings were designed to have a certain amount of moisture content in the walls. That means the building has to breathe
Were they designed that way, or is it rather a consequence of the way they were designed? Thick stone walls, lime mortar and sash windows were probably cutting edge or at least standard practice at the time, to create an acceptable living environment with coal fires – and the CO₂/O₂ balance is also why high ceilings were a thing then and aren't now. Now we whack up a steel frame, line it out with timber and fill the spaces with six inches of foam insulation and tiny DG windows, so the mechanics of moisture and air flow are going to be totally different.
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
