Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Reduce your carbon footprint - let the train take the strain


 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I have not read the whole thing, I admit, but, as with similar such analyses, I am never sure whether such figures mean absolute reserves, or reserves judged to be economic to extract?

 

 

Good question - This is from the report (bottom of page 14)

 

Notes: Total proved reserves of oil – Generally taken to be those quantities that geological and engineering information indicates with reasonable certainty can be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. The data series for total proved oil reserves does not necessarily meet the definitions, guidelines and practices used for determining proved reserves at company level, for instance as published by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, nor does it necessarily represent BP’s view of proved reserves by country. Reserves-to-production (R/P) ratio – If the reserves remaining at the end of any year are divided by the production in that year, the result is the length of time that those remaining reserves would last if production were to continue at that rate. Source of data – The estimates in this table have been compiled using a combination of primary official sources, third-party data from the OPEC Secretariat, World Oil, Oil & Gas Journal and Chinese reserves based on official data and information in the public domain. Canadian oil sands ‘under active development’ are an official estimate. Venezuelan Orinoco Belt reserves are based on the OPEC Secretariat and government announcements. Reserves include gas condensate and natural gas liquids (NGLs) as well as crude oil. Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves include NGLs from 2017. Shares of total and R/P ratios are calculated using thousand million barrels figures.

 

Similar notes for natural Gas (bottom of page 30)

 

Notes: Total proved reserves of natural gas – Generally taken to be those quantities that geological and engineering information indicates with reasonable certainty can be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. The data series for total proved natural gas does not necessarily meet the definitions, guidelines and practices used for determining proved reserves at a company level, for instance as published by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, nor does it necessarily represent BP’s view of proved reserves by country. Reserves-to-production (R/P) ratio – If the reserves remaining at the end of any year are divided by the production in that year, the result is the length of time that those remaining reserves would last if production were to continue at that rate. Source of data – The estimates in this table have been compiled using a combination of primary official sources and third-party data from Cedigaz and the OPEC Secretariat. As far as possible, the data above represents standard cubic metres (measured at 15ºC and 1013 mbar) and have been standardized using a gross calorific value (GCV) of 40 MJ/m3.

 

Also they are getting more worried now - read pages 3 to 7, headed Energy in 2018: an unsustainable path

 

I personally think the BP yearly report gives a clearer picture of the worldwide current and future energy / emissions situation than all our pretend Greeny politicians and namby pamby tree huggers (who promptly bu**er off first class on a plane just after protesting) !!.

 

Brit15. (Also bu**ering off on several planes this weekend - not first class though !!).

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Interesting stuff, the estimates.

 

There's an argument about how rigidly you should stick with working with what you know for certain's there and how much you should extrapolate from the rate of discovery of new reserves (i.e. how good a position are we in to make a reasonable estimate of the amount still undiscovered?) Then there's the balance between how sensible or daft it is to consider advances that make the currently uneconomic economic...

Edited by Reorte
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

In 1968 they opened Bacton gas Terminal with an expected north sea gas life  of 30 years. It's now 51 years later and there are still many more years life in the North sea gas fields. what they don't take account of is better methods of production and keeping old fields alive. It just gets harder to get the gas out.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

My wife and I have resolve to take the train rather than the plane wherever possible in future - not just for environmental reasons, but also because they seem to be trying to make plane travel as miserable as possible these days (mostly, it seems, so they can then charge extra to make it less miserable)

 

We did a trip to Poland by train a few years ago, and the journey became part of the holiday - it took us just over 24 hours to get there (Eurostar to Brussels, DB to Cologne, then the sleeper to Warsaw) - sadly the sleepers have now been dropped so we'd have to have an overnight break in the middle to do it again.

 

By the time you've factored in the time to get to the airport and the fact you need to be there two hours ahead, it's often not much quicker by plane for a short journey anyway - and I'd rather spend a bit longer and have a more relaxing journey on a train. I usually figure that the whole travelling day is wasted anyway, whether we spend 6 hours in transit or 12.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I visit RMWeb to get away from this subject.   Its very noticeable that the most environmentally vociferous among my associates have the biggest carbon footprint.   I feel the pre emission regs  Diesel cars like the Montego come out  very well in comparison to rail and air for UK trips when you borrow next doors kids and take the inlaws to fill all 7 seats and drive from home to the destination direct.  Almost 500 miles person miles per gallon. Yes adding people slashes your CO 2 per person mile figure by up to 85%.    Take the wife and slash the figure by 50%.   Aren't statistics wonderful.

Edited by DavidCBroad
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

I visit RMWeb to get away from this subject.   Its very noticeable that the most environmentally vociferous among my associates have the biggest carbon footprint.   I feel the pre emission regs  Diesel cars like the Montego come out  very well in comparison to rail and air for UK trips when you borrow next doors kids and take the inlaws to fill all 7 seats and drive from home to the destination direct.  Almost 500 miles person miles per gallon. Yes adding people slashes your CO 2 per person mile figure by up to 85%.    Take the wife and slash the figure by 50%.   Aren't statistics wonderful.

 

Diesel cars are good for CO2 compared to petrol but not so good for local air quality if they're pottering around cities most of the time. They're on the receiving end of typical oversimplification - formerly people only seemed interested in CO2, now it's just local air quality, so we get an all-or-nothing attitude instead of one that thinks about the right tools for the right job. Cars that spend most of their time going up and down the motorway are better if they're diesel, ones that spend most of their time in town are better if they're petrol (or, increasingly, electric).

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

I visit RMWeb to get away from this subject.   Its very noticeable that the most environmentally vociferous among my associates have the biggest carbon footprint.   I feel the pre emission regs  Diesel cars like the Montego come out  very well in comparison to rail and air for UK trips when you borrow next doors kids and take the inlaws to fill all 7 seats and drive from home to the destination direct.  Almost 500 miles person miles per gallon. Yes adding people slashes your CO 2 per person mile figure by up to 85%.    Take the wife and slash the figure by 50%.   Aren't statistics wonderful.

 

I would hesitate to borrow my neighbours' offspring, as I do not think my ears and nerves could stand it, and my in-laws are now either dead or not well (it's complicated), so what do you suggest?

 

A Montego was an aspiration of mine when they were newish - they went like the dog's wotsits, and I only managed to afford a Maestro - but the fug from their exhaust was something to behold. I am not entirely sure you speekee da truth? (Cough).

 

I am a pollutaholic (I drive a Fiat Diesel which is actually banned on every other day from the centre of Paris) - there, I've admitted it - but I have shame about it, not denial.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We try to recycle as much as possible, use little in processed foods, have older cars and only use them frugally, Not very into buying much in the way of consumerism, as I said going on holiday to Italy by train (nicer way of travelling) but when I see the amount of pollution being created in the far east (India, China etc) plus the pollution caused by shipping, why should I bother 

 

We are being hammered in the country by green taxes, yet do nothing about the main polluters. I get the impression that our government use the environment as an easy way to raise taxes and the EU to maintain its protectionism stance. 

 

I will carry on doing my bit but am very cynical about both governmental policy and pressure group aims 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

...

but when I see the amount of pollution being created in the far east (India, China etc) plus the pollution caused by shipping, why should I bother 

...

 

Because, as I am pretty confident your mother would have rammed home to you when you were a small child, "two wrongs don't make a right..."

 

The ethical failings of others don't in any way justify my own ethical failings.

 

Paul

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Fenman said:

 

Because, as I am pretty confident your mother would have rammed home to you when you were a small child, "two wrongs don't make a right..."

 

The ethical failings of others don't in any way justify my own ethical failings.

 

Paul

 

She also rammed into me as a young child not to ignore wrong doings, I only buy goods from the far east when I absolutely have to. 

 

Still looking forward to my Italy trip and I guess a lot carbon footprint than our two week road trip around Cornwall 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 19/06/2019 at 10:49, DavidCBroad said:

I visit RMWeb to get away from this subject. ....l.

 

Epic fail then.

 

To be honest I didn't expect as much interest as has been shown in this topic when I started it. I thought that we'd end up with a discussion about the practicalities of using rail instead of the car or plane; a relatively easy sell here I'd have guessed. In many ways I'm gratified by the engagement in the topic, whether pro or anti, as it at least shows the subject is on the radar and we're giving it thought. I'll finish with the observation that here in sleepy Tywyn, miles from anywhere on the Welsh coast, a group of pupils from the local school were out collecting signatures and expressions of support for climate change issues. I can't remember being politically active when I was at school, it's good to see the upcoming generation aware and active.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It is the youngsters that are going to have to live in the shite we and our previous generations have created, and not just climate change/global weather change. "If you tolerate this, then you children will be next"; prophetic words in that song. I think we all should bother more really; when a butterfly flaps its' wings etc.

Phil

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 16/06/2019 at 21:56, Sprintex said:

Without a rapid reduction in the human population of the planet (and that's really gonna happen the way some people are churning out the kids like rabbits, because it's a 'right' to be a parent however (in)capable you are) then a lot of animal species are already doomed to extinction, along with a lot of the insect life that forms a vital part of the food chain. The sixth Mass Extinction Event is already under way and it's doubtful enough can be done to minimise its effects.

 

Happily humans are in that doomed list so keep up those toxic emissions everyone, because the sooner the verminous human race is wiped out the quicker the surviving species and the global ecosystem as a whole can start to recover.

 

 

Paul

 

One of the problems is the way cultural beliefs / trends take a long time to catch up with industrialisation / technology / scientific development.

 

Most European countries actually have declining birth rates - hence the various bribes in Hungary / Poland for native women to have bigger families and try to avoid the need to bring in migrants.

 

People forget that it wasn’t that long ago when the British tradition was to have large families, with the unstated expectation that relatively few of them would live to old age*. Things like poor sanitation, a lack of health and safety rules, a lack of medical knowledge, no state pension / welfare state to fall back on, etc. all took their toll back then just as they do in the undeveloped parts of the world today.

 

However the key thing as far as Western Europe was concerned was the introduction of improvements, particularly medical treatments / practices was gradual - and this meant that the cultural transition between ‘lots of kids’ to a ‘a couple of kids’ was easier to undertake.

 

Much as most of the trouble in the Middle East can be boiled down to centuries old medieval feuds** fought with 21st centuary weaponry (and thus far more destructive) - so it is that in countries like India, even though current medical care is keeping more people alive, culturally the traditions of large families are still very much at the forefront of people’s cultral expectations.

 

Thus when it comes to limiting poulation growth, the most effective measure would be for the developed world to stop being charitable to those in need***. Without external support populations would then stabilise based on what the country’s infrastructure could support. Gradual improvements in the country’s development should (if the Europiean experience is anything to go by) will eventually allow the required cultural shift with regard to ideal family size to occur as survival rates increase.

 

 

 

 

* do not confuse this with a child production line ethos - all the evidence is each child was much loved as an individual by most parents.

 

** The conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims is no different than the bloody between the battles which Protestants and Catholics which occurred in many European countries in the distant (or not so distant as regards NI) past. The differences is that Christan battles were usually fought on a hand to hand basis and not with IEDs, car bombs, or AK48s.

 

*** Please note I am not personally advocating this’s a measure to be implemented - but if you want to understand the true facts behind population growth and what can drive it / restrict it, then it is necessary to leave the emotions / moralising behind.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

One of the problems is the way cultural beliefs / trends take a long time to catch up with industrialisation / technology / scientific development.

 

Most European countries actually have declining birth rates - hence the various bribes in Hungary / Poland for native women to have bigger families and try to avoid the need to bring in migrants.

 

People forget that it wasn’t that long ago when the British tradition was to have large families, with the unstated expectation that relatively few of them would live to old age*. Things like poor sanitation, a lack of health and safety rules, a lack of medical knowledge, no state pension / welfare state to fall back on, etc. all took their toll back then just as they do in the undeveloped parts of the world today.

 

However the key thing as far as Western Europe was concerned was the introduction of improvements, particularly medical treatments / practices was gradual - and this meant that the cultural transition between ‘lots of kids’ to a ‘a couple of kids’ was easier to undertake.

 

Much as most of the trouble in the Middle East can be boiled down to centuries old medieval feuds** fought with 21st centuary weaponry (and thus far more destructive) - so it is that in countries like India, even though current medical care is keeping more people alive, culturally the traditions of large families are still very much at the forefront of people’s cultral expectations.

 

Thus when it comes to limiting poulation growth, the most effective measure would be for the developed world to stop being charitable to those in need***. Without external support populations would then stabilise based on what the country’s infrastructure could support. Gradual improvements in the country’s development should (if the Europiean experience is anything to go by) will eventually allow the required cultural shift with regard to ideal family size to occur as survival rates increase.

 

 

 

 

* do not confuse this with a child production line ethos - all the evidence is each child was much loved as an individual by most parents.

 

** The conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims is no different than the bloody between the battles which Protestants and Catholics which occurred in many European countries in the distant (or not so distant as regards NI) past. The differences is that Christan battles were usually fought on a hand to hand basis and not with IEDs, car bombs, or AK48s.

 

*** Please note I am not personally advocating this’s a measure to be implemented - but if you want to understand the true facts behind population growth and what can drive it / restrict it, then it is necessary to leave the emotions / moralising behind.

 

I enjoy, and indeed agree with, almost all your posts, but this is not one of them.

 

The issue of birth rate amongst and between various ethnic, religious, economic and cultural divisions, is nowhere as simplistic as this. I am sure you know that already. 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I enjoy, and indeed agree with, almost all your posts, but this is not one of them.

 

The issue of birth rate amongst and between various ethnic, religious, economic and cultural divisions, is nowhere as simplistic as this. I am sure you know that already. 

 

 

As you can appreciate its somewhat difficulty to crystallise all factors in short post without acquisitions of racism or cruelty being able to be raised.

 

However given analysis by experts in the field tells us that the current rate of growth is un-sustainable with respect to future food production, global warming, the survival of numerous  plant, mammal, fish or avian species we shouldn't stick our heads in the sands and pretend population growth is something humans have no control over or that it is 'off limits' to discuss the causes of what might be termed 'thermal runaway' to use an engineering perspective from which the planet as we know it cannot recover from.

 

While many humans and religions hold that every life is sacred - is that at the expense of running the very body human beings rely on to be able to exist in the first place?

 

Controlling population growth is essential if planet earth is going to be able to continue to sustain the variety of life it does today in future centuries and as such we need to carefully consider the effects of all policies if we are to be honest about the problem.

 

I raise the cultural background angle because it is most definitely a factor to consider.

 

Official statistics also show that in the UK today that white Caucasian women whose cultural and ancestral ties are limed to north west Europe will on reaching 45, have an average of 1.9 children. That compares with 2.35 for a 45-year old woman with the same background living in 1985. It is suggested this change has been driven by greater numbers of women going to work and the grater awareness of sexism in the workplace providing further career opportunities which women have traditionally not had open to them.

 

In other words a shift in culture have also had an impact on the birth rate.

 

Data from the 2011 census suggests the average Afghan-born woman living in the UK has 4.25 children, while the average Pakistani-born woman has 3.82 children. That compares with a rate of 2.19 for women living in the UK who were born in one of the 12 eastern European states, and 1.79 for UK-born mothers. Among the lowest are Australian and New Zealanders, at 1.38.

 

Research by a professor of social work at the University of Oxford has found that women from overseas bring a culture of high birth rates - something that is exaggerated as research suggests migrants often delay having children until they reach a new country, at which point the high-birth rates occur. As migrants then integrate, later generations tend to have fewer children. The most obvious sign which can be observed in the UK is the tend for first generation immigrants from the Asia tend to have larger families as a hangover from the cultural norms in place in their homeland, despite the UKs healthcare / welfare system meaning that Children born here are likely to be better off than were they born in Asia.

 

it should also be noted that according to data from Eurostat (the European statistics agency) shows that four-baby families are far more common than in many Catholic countries, where large numbers of offspring were once the norm. In Italy, just 3.1 per cent of babies had three siblings, while the rate was 2.6 per cent in Spain and 4.6 per cent in Poland. Again this shows cultural beliefs are still having an impact even though a scientific backed approach would suggest a lower figure is more sustainable given the relative chances of living a full life in said countries.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets face it, almost all of the participants in this thread are pro-rail, but for every one of us there are thousands who just want to get where they are going.

 

From my home in SW London Eurostar requires a walk, train and tube, journey, with the fairly awful connection if you have luggage between train and tube at Vauxhall, I still have to have the airport style security at StP and I can't realistically catch an earlier train than about 08.30 because I'm reliant on using the first train of the day or having no plan B if that dosn't turn up. Heathrow is a short taxi ride away, and I can easily get an 06:00 flight if I have to.

 

I've been on a rail holiday where it took 2 days to get to my first steam visit in Poland, by Eurostar and ICE/IC, and by the time I got there all I really wanted to do was spend a couple of hours in the hotel room recovering.

 

I'm quite convinced my grumbling appendix, which eventually had to come out, was triggered by 14 hours on trains coming back from Munich.

 

I had two trips to Frankfurt within a couple of weeks a couple of years ago, the first was my holiday, and taking the 10.58 Eurostar (DB's Europa special fare) with quite a tight connection at Brussels, and I wasn't rolling into Frankfurt until after 17:00. The second I had to go out for work for a few days, I realised if I took the first flight Monday morning, not a flight after work, I could take the S-bahn into the city, leave my case at the hotel and get out to Königstein im Taunus to spend all afternoon photographing the Pentecost specials.

 

All of which has made me realise that even though I HATE flying, I value my limited holiday time more.

 

Jon

 

Königstein001.jpg

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Neil said:

As the topic has drifted into the area of population it's an appropriate time to wheel out this video showing how population growth works.

 

 

 

Many thanks for this - not seen it! And he makes a superb point at the end, about the flatlining of childbirth, as a world average, and the resulting demographic problem of too many people living far longer than society deems them to be contributors to that society (and in reality many of them being a serious drain on society, whether by health and/or social care and financially, given few of us pensioners have private health cover).

 

Hence the need for immigration into those societies with more extreme versions of this, and the societal disruptors that has created, when it has not been handled at all well, by most governments.

 

The rise of AI is a natural, economic (as well as technological) requirement, to overcome that demographic, but "our" society is about as prepared for that as the Luddites, as educashun, training and overall planning still remains a matter driven by a short-termist market AND electorate. It also does not acknowledge the lack of opportunity elsewhere in the world, whether due to climate, politics, geography or culture/religious aspects, which will continue to place pressure on developed countries, whatever institutions we leave or ignore.

 

In terms of Carbon Footprint effect, serious population growth is here to stay (at least for the next 50 years), but not for the reasons most people think. And, for "most people", read (very) Old Gits, like me, because we can't possibly be to blame, can we?? This is why I continue to smoke - just helping out.

 

 

 

Edited by Mike Storey
  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On ‎20‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 09:59, hayfield said:

snip..... but when I see the amount of pollution being created in the far east (India, China etc) plus the pollution caused by shipping, why should I bother....snip 

 

Why should you bother doing anything because India pollutes, do you know the per capita carbon emissions from India (and other emission vandals such as Indonesia, Brazil) and those for such climate friendly countries as the UK, Ireland, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands etc? Do you really think that we can abdicate responsibility for a problem created by the developed world and blame countries for whom access to potable water, a balanced diet, basic healthcare etc is far from a given? Even China's emissions (the arch villain to many) are actually not that high on a per capita basis compared to many much richer countries.

Also, what pollution does shipping make? In terms of emissions per tonne mile it would be good for the planet if all non-electric transport (not fed by renewable generation) was anything like as efficient as commercial shipping. The main issue for shipping is local emissions, not GHG emissions, and local emissions are being cut addressed by IMO.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

So Mr/Mrs Sprintex thinks his/her bad attitude is funny then? Well, maybe think yet again how foolish your initial comment looks in this thread and as you only seem to have posted 26 times, consider not bothering again. Troll?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Resorting to post-count snobbery now huh?

 

We all have different opinions, and so far I don't believe that I've rubbished anyone else's, just thrown my own into the mix which I'm entitled to do. I believe humans as a race are vermin who breed without thought of resources, and destroy other animals' habitats for our own gratification (be that food or simply non-essential cosmetics), because we believe we're entitled to do so. And we're supposedly intelligent?

Case in point: On a radio discussion a few months back some woman was crowing on about how much she recycles, how she encourages her young children to do so, and how much she tries to "be green". How many kids did she have? FIVE :rolleyes:

She had no concept that she has now infected our planet with five more drains on all the resources they're going to need throughout their many decades of life, but it's all OK because she chucks bits of cardboard in a special bin. No thought to having less consumers to start with then.

 

When we're dealing with this kind of stupid what is the point in having belief in the human race? So I stand by my point: the quicker humans disappear from the face of the Earth the better for the other life forms on it.

 

 

Paul 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Why should you bother doing anything because India pollutes, do you know the per capita carbon emissions from India (and other emission vandals such as Indonesia, Brazil) and those for such climate friendly countries as the UK, Ireland, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands etc? Do you really think that we can abdicate responsibility for a problem created by the developed world and blame countries for whom access to potable water, a balanced diet, basic healthcare etc is far from a given? Even China's emissions (the arch villain to many) are actually not that high on a per capita basis compared to many much richer countries.

Also, what pollution does shipping make? In terms of emissions per tonne mile it would be good for the planet if all non-electric transport (not fed by renewable generation) was anything like as efficient as commercial shipping. The main issue for shipping is local emissions, not GHG emissions, and local emissions are being cut addressed by IMO.

 

Everyone should act and you just cannot single out those countries that want to change, we have just been told that we now are producing more electricity from renewable's than fossils, now if all polluters whether they be first, second, third or forth world did likewise, the world would be a better place,. Countries like India and China need to get their act together just as much as those in this country (if only for the benefit of their population).

 

As for shipping being the least polluting way of transporting this clearly ignores the pollution caused in manufacture process of the products using fossil fuel and land clearance etc,  when this is taken into consideration its not so green 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/06/2019 at 11:25, jonhall said:

 I could take the S-bahn into the city, leave my case at the hotel and get out to Königstein im Taunus to spend all afternoon photographing the Pentecost specials.

 

jon

https://imgur.com/FSADUC1

 

My picture is from 2017

Can we see some more of Yours?
CO2 is one thing that will calm down.

Either we go nuclear or reduce number of humans drastically,but the 1.5 ton of concrete we pour per human per year is forever.

Or at least until next Ice Age.

Edited by Niels
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...