It's quite interesting to read through these. Just leaves one wondering what is best!
Judy
It's one of those articles that's a little confussed. They seem to think geen living = reducing CO2, which it's not.
Green living is a lifestyle and respect for nature with the aim of using as little of the Earths resources as possible and minimising impact on the earth.
One of the facts about burning wood is wrong. Coal creates loads of soot, but wood in comparison generates very little.
Myarka
Hi Myarka,
Yes, it is a bit flawed as you can see if you read the comments below it, but I thought it was still interesting. Some of the beurocratic rules just make me despair!
Re wood burners - I have one, an old one unfortunately (one day when I can afford it I will get a more efficient one). There is no soot, just ash, which you can put onto the garden, but what mine does cause is a huge build-up of tar in the chimney. I believe the new ones are much cleaner.
Judy
For a purpose of generating debate and getting people to think about green issues then I guess the article is useful. However as myarka points out, there is more to being green than CO2.
The mention about eco detergents was strange, as one of their aims is to be less damaging to our water supplies.
Not only do we need to reduce / stop increasing CO2 emissions, but what about all that has already been released? The 'west' cut down all their forests many years ago, and now complains about other countries (Brasil, Indonesia etc) cutting down theirs. We need more 'reforestation' schemes. How about if 1p of the current petrol taxes was diverted to planting new forests?
We need more 'reforestation' schemes.
Here's on in my local area:
However, what we really need is world standard national parks, or International parks - so that the world takes a greater role in protecting natural areas instead of leaving to local economies where development and GDP are more important.
Therefore it would be wonderful to see the Amazon declared the first World International Park, then other can follow on.
The west cannot carry on consumming while preaching to the developing world, we have to start living the life.
Myarka.
Here's on in my local area:
However, what we really need is world standard national parks, or International parks - so that the world takes a greater role in protecting natural areas instead of leaving to local economies where development and GDP are more important.
Therefore it would be wonderful to see the Amazon declared the first World International Park, then other can follow on.
The west cannot carry on consumming while preaching to the developing world, we have to start living the life.
Myarka.
Declaring an International Park is a fine idea - except how do you force the idea on a country where said park (or part thereof) lies to play along? And of course their argument will be if we make them have such a park, then others (e.g. U.S., UK) should as well. And then there is how much of the cost should be borne by the local, vs international, economy. Etc, etc...
The West will never stop consuming so long as its denizens remain spoiled, selfish children in control of the world's resources.
It makes sense for individuals to use less electricity to help reduce the emissions of British power stations. However, it's worth bearing in mind that the total amount of CO2 that can be released by power plants and other industrial facilities across the EU between now and 2012 is fixed by the [url]European Emissions Trading Scheme[/url]. This means that if the UK power sector reduces its emissions, extra carbon permits get freed up for use elsewhere, such as German power stations or French cement plants. In other words, the same amount of CO2 will be released, just from different sources. If you want to ensure that your electricity savings do make a real environmental difference, join , a charity that will remove CO2 permits from the EU scheme to stop your good work being traded away on the carbon markets.
The above quoted from the article in post #1.