Five companies produce more CO2 than all the cars in Britain

[DaGaffer]

From the department of the bleedin' obvious:

http://www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=14552

We can be as green as you like but it'll make feck all difference while this is going on. But hey, its easier to penalise the individual than a multinational...

 

[Chilly]

and how the fuck is a gas/coal power station going to reduce co2 output? Short of not generating any power and pushing leccy prices up even more there isnt really a solution other than expensive and nasty carbon trapping reactions on the exhaust.

 

[djpringle]

Oh and what a surprise, they're all power companies...

'British sites operated by Tesco, Walkers, Ford, Unilever, Kellogg's, Allied Bakeries, Nestle and Cadbury Trebor Bassett are among those that emitted more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2 in 2004.' - a figure greater than that of many small countries.

I did like this bit though, which small countries are they refering to? I guess the ones that don't produce their own power...

 

[Tom]

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

 

[old.user4556]

Nuclear for the win?

 

[Sar]

I don't see any problems with Nuclear power.

Sure there may be problems with reactor leaks etc (a la Chernobyl, the area around which will be unliveable in for another 500 years or so), but how often DO they go tits up like that?

V Rarely tbh, and tech is much more advanced now than it was back in Chernobyl, so why the hell not?

 

[Wij]

And recycling is shit too.

 

[Will]

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

The domain is registered to a former oil company employee, so I can pretty much guess what I'm going to see. The IPCC managed to get 2500 scientists to agree climate change was an issue, FoS have six consultants. I know which side I'm going to believe.

 

[Tom]

I ain't believing anything until I see proof.

 

[Chilly]

I don't see any problems with Nuclear power.

Sure there may be problems with reactor leaks etc (a la Chernobyl, the area around which will be unliveable in for another 500 years or so), but how often DO they go tits up like that?

V Rarely tbh, and tech is much more advanced now than it was back in Chernobyl, so why the hell not?

it wasnt the fault of the technology that caused chernobyl, it was some goon deactivating safeties for tests that subsequently went titsup. The design was fairly solid - assuming the humans operating it didnt have a deathwish.

Today its probably a lot more secure, youd probably need all sorts of stuff to happen before a safety could be de-activated (or the root password to the controller computer ).

 

[UrganNagru]

I ain't believing anything until I see proof.

Seems a bit hostile to me, I know that what we've been told is on shakey grounds as they've changed their mind as to wether is gonna cool down, warm up or do nothing, and I'm not going to become a conspiracy nut saying how companies and governments are funding groups to be anti-global arming.
But wheres the harm in trying to cut back as long as we don't send our selves backwards in quality of life. Heck taking some measures could slightly improve quality of life global warming might be debatable but pretty nasty things are realeased that aren't great to be breathed in, and the more efficient and more we re-use materials the longer the world oil, metal reserves etc will last. And people complaining about the power companie polluting more than cars, yes there are measures they can take but in the end its pollution being produced to run out toasters, t.v's and yes the computer I'm using to type now because I'm a total hypocrite.
Sorry for the rant, just think theres more to it than just global warming.

 

[Will]

Seems a bit hostile to me...

Tom is our resident climate change denier. I occasionally try to get him to bite, but he won't change his mind. Ever.

 

[Jupitus]

I read a recent book, may well have been Michael Crichton (sp?) where they also challeneged alot of the current scientific 'evidence' of global climate change - I'll see if I can dig the book out and confirm the title, but basically it was aimed at getting people to at least question what we are being told - good read.

 

[Tom]

Tom is our resident climate change denier. I occasionally try to get him to bite, but he won't change his mind. Ever.

I don't have to deny something that hasn't been proven. 2000 years ago you could grow grapes up your end

 

[DaGaffer]

I read a recent book, may well have been Michael Crichton (sp?) where they also challeneged alot of the current scientific 'evidence' of global climate change - I'll see if I can dig the book out and confirm the title, but basically it was aimed at getting people to at least question what we are being told - good read.

"State of Fear". As much as an axe to grind from the opposite direction tbh.

Personally I think CO2 is irrelevant; even if we cut emissions by 20% or whatever an environmental change not caused by man could come along five minutes later and make all the effort irrelevant. The effect of man is just another contributory factor in an ongoing cycle; we may make things a little different by degree but not by type. We just have to adapt to it, that's all, because the alternative is to try and micromanage the environment for ever when we don't really know how it works. If that means Norfolk ends up underwater; tough shit; the human race has survived ice ages and global warming with far fewer resources and skills before, and we'll have to do it again.

Which isn't to say I don't think we should be looking for alternates to oil and coal, but not because of CO2; just because oil is a precious resource that is too useful to burn.

 

[old.user4556]

I don't have to deny something that hasn't been proven. 2000 years ago you could grow grapes up your end

Och aye !

 

[TdC]

thank god the climate shift forced the protoscots to discover whisky!

 

[Bodhi]

There's no doubt climate change exists, hence the ice ages, general changes in climate over the ages etc etc. To deny that would be lunacy, much like claiming we've had anything to do with it. Considering we haven't had an Ice Age since the Industrial Revolution, I think it's fair to say we haven't upset the planet too much. I think it's also fair to say that the last ice age wasn't caused by cave fires and mammoth farts (wooly and human) so let's keep a sense of perspective here. We are not God, we are Man. As the old saying goes "Ye cannae change the weather". If we focused on being Man and adapting to whatever Mother Nature throws at us most of our problems would go away.

Case in point being the water shortage in the South East. They have blatantly known this was going to happen for years now, but instead of finding a way to get more water to the SE (pipe it down from Scotland clearly - they can get natural gas across Europe from Russia surely a bit of water down from the land of the Kings shouldn't be too much trouble) they piss around giving us a bollocking for driving too fast and heating the planet up. I should warn you at this point, whilst posting this I have exhaled a large amount of CO2, I believe an Ice Age is imminent. Anyway back to my point, let's not kid ourselves we're important enough to affect our climate. We're just another creature on planet Earth, let's just live out our lives doing what we know best like all the rest do eh? Cows are a fairly major contributor to greenhouse emission, think they give a toss? Precisely.

 

[Tom]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bodhi again.

Fuck sake.

 

[XenX]

/agree

I agree, our planet will go through another ice age at some point, we cant do royal sod all to stop it, however i think that we are speeding up the inevitable, but to be honest untill the HUMAN RACE actually do something about it.. were just gonna carry on the way we are..

to be honest i'd be more worried about actually running out of oil, which is far more likely to happen before we have to worry about our next ice age and ice age +no oil cant be good, we need to switch completely to another fuel and sharpish,
nuclear being 1 way to go.. although its pretty inefficient (more efficient than oil is but still rubbish) and we gonna end up with a load of radioactive waste in 100 years god knows what were gonna do with that! maybe make chernobyl into a nuclear landfill ?

or come up with something else completely, but tbh while money grabbing companies are invoved we arent gonna come up with anything that actually works someone somewhere is gonna eventually have to forget cost, and just come up with something that is sustainable long term.

meanwhile im gonna sit back and laugh in 50 years (if im still alive) when we realise weve got bugger all oil left