:-)
Taking it for granted that the premise that reducing UK's CO2 levels is a desirable objective, and making an assumption that cars used for commuting are a major contributor to CO2 emissions, then I as Mr. Stalin Bean Brown would make it a condition of employment that all employees who need to commute to work by car should live no more than 10 miles from the place of employment. That means a ration of 100 miles worth of fuel per week, i.e. 2 gallons a week, on the assumption that you will use a car that gives a minimum of 50mpg average. That equates to an annual allowance of 100 gallons after which the fuel is taxed at 10 times the present rate. That will put a stop to unnecessary CO2 emissions from cars.
:-)
|
I would argue that the school run is also a big problem. Children should be made to attend their nearest school and get there by foot.
|
Very sound point Moonshine. However, an example of the mindset which would have to be overcome..............We live 400 yards from our local primary school. My son walks every day. Our neighbour loads up her 3.0 petrol automatic 4/4 with her various offspring and drives them to the school gate which is on a narrow lane, blocks the lane, unloads them and drives home ! I nearly choked when she announced over the Christmas break that she had bought "gym" memberships for all the family because she was concerned that they were not getting enough exercise. Ermmm just an idea but had you thought................? Oh never mind !
( Its me isn't it ? )
|
The mindset you describe is sadly very common. In the town in which I work there is a rather posh private school. A work collegue commented on how every morning on his commute he would see the same BMWX5 travel 1/4 mile down to road and back to drop off one kid at the school.
|
|
Gosh, I see the same thing with umpteen MPVs and old 4x4s at my local primary school. What has the perception of social status got to to do with it?
|
|
|
|
How about the Government producing some accurate and truthful data and not the warped, biased and factually inaccurate propaganda that they currently use to con the general public into accepting even more taxes.
It's obviously worked with you!
|
|
|
Abolish VED and increase fuel tax - yes, an excellent idea that often gets mentioned on this forum. Unlikely to happen as it would be political suicide for any party that suggest it.
100mpg at 100mph - sorry, not possible IMHO. Technology being blocked by the oil companies? - sorry, while the oil companies do some very dodgy stuff to protect their interests I don't believe for one second that they would be able to stop this.
BTW - I would like to add that one of my cars only does around 15-25mpg depending on how it's driven - I accept that I have freedom of choice, but some things have a cost attached (environmental and financial).
|
:-) Before anyone says that the solution to this "problem" lies in getting USA, India and China and not here in Blighty, my reply is that it is right that Blighty should commit economic suicide by taking unilateral action. After all, wee created the problem in the first place by starting the Industrial Revolution and by conquering the World so that the Sun never set on the Empire. :-)
|
The answer has nothing to do with motoring, but you may want to consider how it is that France's emissions per head are about 60% of Britain's when they are both similarly developed economies/societies.
|
|
Possibly because of the high rate of unemployment? ;)
|
Low energy light bulbs, unless they are the LED type, are a very bad idea as they contain poisonous polluting mercury. They also need to be disposed of as dangerous waste and should not be dumped in land fill. The old incadescent ones are fine and produce heat to help keep your house warm.
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 02/01/2008 at 14:39
|
|
|
|
The answer has nothing to do with motoring but you may want to consider how it is that France's emissions per head are about 60% of Britain's when they are both similarly developed economies/societies.
France is 80% Nuclear powered.
Do I get a gold star? :-)
Blue
Edited by Blue {P} on 02/01/2008 at 18:31
|
|
|
|
Id actually like to see fuel duty become seasonal, so that in the summer, it is more expensive and this would hopefully encourage people to use public transport/cycling when its warmer and more pleasent. Then, in winter, have it lower to counter winter fuel bills.
I certainly think air travel should be jumped on as has been suggested.
Also agree with VED wiped out and an incentive at purchase of new cars for low CO2 models. Cars that come in under the 100 barrier for CO2 should perhaps be VAT free, which would make those new eco models from VAG make far more sense financially for example.
Id also like to see some attempted at reducing emissions from older cars by giving grants to companies who come up with viable ways of reducing emissions from older cars.
|
|
|
|
while the oil companies do some very dodgy stuff to protect their interests I don't believe for one second that they would be able to stop this.
Oh yes the did. It was easy; they just used their well-greased contacts in Brussels to pass a diktat that said all EU petrol engines must be fitted with a cat - even if they could meet the required emission levels without one.
[Which Fords ultra-lean burn development engine could, as it ran at 23-1 air/fuel ratios - and could do 100mpg/mph... But not with a fuel-guzzling cat fitted.]
Didn't anyone wonder why the Campaign for Lead-free Air was funded by Mercedes and Shell? The falsifying of the "official" cat-efficiency tests was a bad joke. The "cold-start" test required the whole car to be heated in an oven for 24hrs to 77 Farenheit [26C] to make the cat light-up time look good - despite the average EU morning temp of 8.5C.
With dodgy practices like that going on; it's no surprise that the politicians soon gave in to the noisy campaigners.
|
>>The answer has nothing to do with motoring>>
Agreed!
Joined up thinking is required, not much of that in today's gov though!
|
Low energy light bulbs, unless they are the LED type, are a very bad idea as they contain poisonous polluting mercury. .
So the myth is still alive and well and continues to spread here.
Many sources of information are available that destroy that myth. But I prefer Greenpeace who are fervent campaigners against mercury pollution. They say
www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/cfl-bulbs-the-myths
"CFLs contain more mercury than incandescents
All CFLs and fluorescent tubes contain a small amount of mercury, which is key in producing the light. It?s not ideal but incandescents are probably responsible for more mercury emissions than CFLs; burning coal for electricity emits mercury, and incandescents use much, much more energy. CFLs can be safely recycled without the mercury escaping into the atmosphere, and the mercury can be safely recovered. (By July 2007, all retailers will have to provide CFL return and recycling facilities at their shops under an EU waste directive - IKEA is the only major retailer doing so at the moment.)"
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A22400182
" mercury emissions by a CFL lamp from electricity consumption over its lifetime is about 2.4mg of mercury. Emissions from an incandescent light bulb is about 10mg. Therefore a CFL bulb emits 76% less mercury over the same time period. However, mercury stored in CFL bulbs is perfectly safe unless the glass is in someway damaged, in which case the bulbs can then emit mercury vapour. If the mercury from a CFL was to escape it would total 6.4mg, a 36% reduction on emissions from an incandescent"
Edited by jbif on 02/01/2008 at 15:14
|
jbif - no myth at all! Like global warming - it depends which one of thousands of reports and comments you hitch your waggon to! Mercury is only generated by the production of electricity in coal burning power stations and these are being 'cleaned up' with regard to emissions. Low energy bulbs should not be disposed of in landfill but I bet they are and the regulations are unclear with regard to the number that may be dumped there. If you drop and break a low energy bulb you could be stuck with quite a large bill for having your room decontaminated, assuming that the presence of mercury bothers you!
tinyurl.com/2cx3qz
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 02/01/2008 at 17:21
|
|
|
|
The answer is the proportion of each country's energy that is derived from nuclear power. France - lots of nukes, low emissions per capita.
|
|
|
Considering all transport industries including public transportation, air and sea put together create about 13% of UK CO2 emissions I would leave transport industry alone and focus on the rest:
Energy wastage - all the office blocks lit like a Xmas trees in city centres, with PCs switched on and aircon roaring full blast all night long for one cleaning lady starting shift at 4am and so on. Has to be dealt with.
Then I would set targets for building industry - for every plot of land sold to developers to build block of flats or homes from now on there must be communal hot water/heating station up to certain standards, all homes insulated and energy losses checked and measured before hand over. No more free willy cheapo developments with lowest quality boilers and outrageously outdated electric heating with all the heat escaping through few sheets of felt nailed to half inch rafters serving as roof. That's just crazy. Standards are easy to set - oh. and I would insist on hallway and external lighting to run 12V installations etc.
Government grant for development of ultra cheap, reliable and ultra easy to maintain condensing boilers. 70, maybe 80% of British homes will have to be brought from almost medieval gravity systems (where back boiler fires up entire CH system to heat washing water in tank) to 21st century at some point in this decade. It can't cost £1500-2000 as it does now, it has to be effective, cheap and done to all the badly insulated, single glazed, council properties first as priority.
Simple incentive - manufacturers of vans and commercial cars, just like lorries should be already on the way to meet Euro VI - if they do it next year and make their cars cheaper than regular Euro IV or V alternative will not pay any taxes on cars sold.
All fuel tax to pay for massive road development. Number of cars on this island is finite. Even if we all have two, we can only drive one. And we will need parking spaces and roads for them. There is no point in arguing we need to drive less when 92% has to commute by car. Roads. More roads. Faster roads. Roads for heavy transit only. Roads for commuters only. We don't live in 50ies anymore. Road network has to join 21st century as well.
Finally I would make diesel cheaper than petrol. It only makes sense.
Edited by v0n on 02/01/2008 at 15:53
|
>and I would insist on hallway and external lighting to run 12V installations etc.<
AND
>all the heat escaping through few sheets of felt nailed to half inch rafters serving as roof<
What is this all about? Unless you have invented a new technology statements like this can only impact on your credibility.
|
What is this all about? Unless you have invented a new technology statements like this can only impact on your credibility.
12V lighting - what's exactly the confusion?
As for the roofing - I'm amazed how insulating of the loft floor to a given thickness is mandatory energy saving but no energy specs are set for the actual roof. In most cases, given ultra light construction of the roof, it's almost as productive as insulating open window by closing courtains.
|
I'm with pmh - how is 12v lighting more efficient?
As for insulating lofts rather than roofs, I think it makes sense the way we do it now. A roof has a greater surface area. If you stop the heat escaping into the roof space in the first place then whats the problem? Don't forget that a roof space will always need ventilating with outside air.
|
how is 12v lighting more efficient
Probably less efficient if anything, it has to be stepped down and all that excess heat generated.
|
I'm with pmh - how is 12v lighting more efficient?
On continent it runs low wattage fluorescent bulbs for efficiency - but that's not the point - because it's 12V it is both safer to use and more secure - as in - people don't try to steal it, wire anything or plug their equipment to it ...
|
As for the roofing - I'm amazed how insulating of the loft floor to a given thickness is mandatory energy saving but no energy specs are set for the actual roof. In most cases given ultra light construction of the roof it's almost as productive as insulating open window by closing courtains.
In a large proportion of new houses the roof space is non-habitable/ unheated space so trying to retaining heat there does not serve any purpose; if you only use the roof for storage then you are paying to heat a room that you may only go in once every few months, so insulation is installed at ceiling level (you can use cheaper insulation there).
New houses with a habitable room in the roof have got to be insulated at rafter level.
The dumb thing about house insulation at the moment is that required insulation performance has been increased over that last ten years, and new houses must now be designed to limit air leakage, but you must still provide background ventilation to prevent condensation, usually in the form of 'trickle vents' at the top of window frames. So all your precious warm air is allowed to waft out into the garden.
What are now gaining popularity in the self-build market are mechanical heat recovery ventilation systems where stale air goes through a heat exchanger and the rate of air change is controlled; and you can do away with trickle vents.
In the not too distant future all UK homes will have to have to be surveyed and given an Energy Performance Certificate (part of the HIP), and will be rated from A-G like a fridge freezer. At the moment these only need to be done at the time of sale/ purchase but in future they are due to become compulsory on all buildings. Most of the UK's current housing stock is expected to achieve a rating of C or D.
So all houses/ buildings will eventually have CO2 emission ratings the same as cars (motoring link!).
Someone posed the theory (just a personal opinion) that in the future HMG could factor in your home energy efficiency rating to increase/ reduce your Council Tax bill.
;o)
Edited by Rich 9-3 on 02/01/2008 at 18:10
|
As I said, your credibility is heading South fast!
|
As I said your credibility is heading South fast!
Oh, you mean we don't get to design national policy regarding carbon emissions from where we sit and all of this is not for real? (shock) ;)
What would be your policy then? :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
