What is "green"

[unbeliever]

Not everything runs on electrical power, and many things are battery powered, so efficiency is a goal in itself.

 

CFCs were an example of the green movement actually achieving its aims. We were heavily damaging the ozone layer, now it's recovering.

 

I totally agree that science and engineering are the way forwards, although they still require a level of "bossing about" to ensure that they are used rather than cheaper alternatives in the short term.

 

CFCs were solved with legislation, nobody thinks that was the wrong thing to do though do they?

 

CFCs were easy to substitute. It was perfectly reasonable. I'm not sure the ozone layer is recovering. http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov

 

I'm not convinced that forced efficiency is necessary. Efficiency saves people money. The natural incentives should be sufficient if one does not strive for some kind of hyper-efficiency.

Batteries are switching from Cadmium and Mercury to Lithium (and maybe Sodium). Not much pollution to be had there, although the mines are rather ugly.

 

With hindsight, it was pretty dumb to try and force everybody to switch from non-toxic lighting technology to Mercury based lighting, only to find out that a bit more patience would have had everybody on LED based lighting which is both efficient and non-toxic. That was a classic triumph of CO2 panic trumping pollution concerns with well-intentioned legislators making things worse.

 

Another triumph of CO2 panic beating genuine pollution concerns was the switch to diesel cars. I've got one myself. Less CO2 and far more toxins. Many (including on this forum) now recognise that as a mistake. Without government campaigns and incentives, would this mistake still have occurred?

Edited March 27, 2016 by unbeliever

[Cyclone]

I didn't say that efficiency should be forced, just that sometimes legislation is required generally regarding environmental protection.

If we didn't have laws about not polluting water courses for example, then companies would, because it's the cheapest thing to do.

[unbeliever]

I didn't say that efficiency should be forced, just that sometimes legislation is required generally regarding environmental protection.

If we didn't have laws about not polluting water courses for example, then companies would, because it's the cheapest thing to do.

 

No argument there.

 

This thread though was more about compromising traditional environmental concerns in the pursuit of efficiency and general CO2 reduction.

[Cyclone]

I pretty much agree with you on that. You asked what is "green", so I answered what I think it is. It's not a religious approach to reducing CO2 no matter what else the cost.

[El Cid]

Is "green" to you simply denying other people luxuries that you don't want?

 

We do seem to be moving towards a country whereby the Government tells you what you are allowed to do; but I hope it doesnt come to that.

In a democracy, the Government need the people of the country to agree to the rules/laws/taxes.

[unbeliever]

We do seem to be moving towards a country whereby the Government tells you what you are allowed to do; but I hope it doesnt come to that.

In a democracy, the Government need the people of the country to agree to the rules/laws/taxes.

 

So why do you want to deny people to who want them, arbitrary things like 4x4 vehicles; even if such luxuries can be made and run in an environmentally friendly way?

[El Cid]

Batteries are switching from Cadmium and Mercury to Lithium (and maybe Sodium). Not much pollution to be had there, although the mines are rather ugly.

 

With hindsight, it was pretty dumb to try and force everybody to switch from non-toxic lighting technology to Mercury based lighting, only to find out that a bit more patience would have had everybody on LED based lighting which is both efficient and non-toxic. That was a classic triumph of CO2 panic trumping pollution concerns with well-intentioned legislators making things worse.

 

Another triumph of CO2 panic beating genuine pollution concerns was the switch to diesel cars. I've got one myself. Less CO2 and far more toxins. Many (including on this forum) now recognise that as a mistake. Without government campaigns and incentives, would this mistake still have occurred?

 

I am not aware of deaths caused by mercury from lighting, but there will have been many detrimental effects from fuel for both vehicles and domestic heating fuel.

Where do we draw the line? I guess that brings us back to whether nuclear power is safer. I drive an old smokey 1.4 Renault, its done around 120,000 miles; it would be good if our MOT system encouraged me to make it the best it could be.

My total mileage is low, so I pollute less than people doing 10,000 miles and more.

 

Dont forget folks, always keep your distance from the car in front, because you are breathing in their exhaust fumes.

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2016 at 10:03 ----------

 

So why do you want to deny people to who want them, arbitrary things like 4x4 vehicles; even if such luxuries can be made and run in an environmentally friendly way?

 

Can 4x4 tanks be made more fuel efficient than a nice sleek car? I dont want to ban them, you are using extreme words again.

[unbeliever]

 

Can 4x4 tanks be made more fuel efficient than a nice sleek car? I dont want to ban them, you are using extreme words again.

 

I didn't say you wanted to ban them. I said you wanted people to be denied them.

[El Cid]

I didn't say you wanted to ban them. I said you wanted people to be denied them.

 

Higher taxes on non productive things do work, they dont deny people those things, just reinforce that they are a negative item.

Climate change seems to be a dead topic because there are very few hot issues, the majority of taxes are not green taxes, even green taxes can be justified on health grounds.

[ANGELFIRE1]

I dont see a need for people to drive 4x4s, do u see that as keeping up living standards?

 

 

 

 

I don't see why people drive tiny little cars that kill you when you have a bump over 40mph as they simply get squashed. Let the small car people buy what they want, let the 4 x 4 buyers do the same. Live and let live.

 

Angel1.