Day Eleven: I survived!
Despite my fears of being blugeoned to death by furious Top Gear fans with the mocking, satanic laughter of JC (he's not the messiah...) ringing in my ears and various carbon oxides burning in my nostrils, it would appear that the motor show is survivable, with the correct guide. So, as a mark of my gratitude I've decided to let the remaining twenty six mistakes in their token 'green' page remain uncorrected.
Firstly, I think I have a few loose ends to tie up in terms of issues I said I'd explain and then didn't bother. So, for the sake of completeness, here's some depressing information about why most of the proposed solutions to climate change won't work.
1. Off-setting
At the most basic level, this isn't solving anything, just transferring the problem elsewhere, and so it only works for the wealthy who can afford to pay others to be green on their behalf. Someone somewhere has to actually reduce their emissions - we can't just create some sort of endless carbon carousel.
That being said, if you are going to fly to Florida or drive a Discovery, it's better to off-set than not. The real concern I have is that many people think they can lead a high emission lifestyle and then fully compensate the environment by planting a few trees. Planting trees only compensates for emissions if, after they're mature, you chop them down and bury them at the bottom of a coal mine with an air-tight seal, otherwise the carbon remains in the biosphere and any 'locking up' of carbon will be entirely temporary. Planting trees is still a very good thing, and I do find myself somewhat charmed by NICE's scheme to plant trees in the city where their cars are being driven, but in climate terms the whole idea's a bit like giving furniture to someone who's house has been bulldozed.
Another problem is the complexity involved. Not only do you have to be careful that the project you're funding is genuinely reducing emissions without, say, chopping down a rainforest on the side (where do you think they're planting all those trees?), but there's also the issue of additionality. That is, if you're funding a project which would have happened anyway, are you really achieving anything?
For example, many western nations are committed to a certain level of emissions reduction under the Kyoto protocol. If you invest in emissions reduction technologies in one of these nations as a form of off-setting, there's a good chance the government will off-set you right back by including your good work under their targets, and so do less themselves. Goingreen off-set in the developing world to try to avoid this, although I'd have to do a bit of research before I could vouch for them.
So, in short, off-setting isn't equivalently virtuous to reducing your emissions, and if you are going to off-set then please be choosy. The Clean Development Mechanism Gold Standard should exclude the dodgier schemes, so look out for that, and remember when someone tells you they can compensate for your holiday to Australia by planting a tenner's worth of trees, it doesn't just sound too good to be true.
2. Biofuels
I've largely ignored biofuels such as biodiesel and bioethanol in this blog, no doubt to the fury of biofuel enthusiasts, who are in a perpetual state of bewildered anguish that a government which claims to care about climate change is trying to tax them out of existence, and they don't even get any real support from environmental groups. (Sorry guys.)
The vast majority of these poor, downtrodden and betrayed individuals are doing really saintly work to save your planet, recycling chip fat and the like, and I'm not surprised by their slight bitterness at the lack of appreciation they receive. However, there is a reason why they're not getting all of the backing they think they deserve. The total fossil fuel energy mankind uses each year is four hundred times the energy produced by the planet in biomass. So, if we were going to replace fossil fuels with biofuels in a straight swap, we'd need four hundred fertile planets to grow the stuff on.
This has no bearing on the biofuel pioneers, who are having an entirely positive impact right now, but if, say, biodiesel was promoted to the level where it was powering a sizable proportion of our cars, and nothing else, we'd have certainly kissed the Amazon goodbye, if not every wilderness on Earth.
UPDATE (06/12/06). Fortunately, the four hundred figure is not accurate in this context, as it refers to the biota needed to produce our annual fossil fuel use through natural processes. The real figure for land needed to produce enough biodiesel to replace our current petrol and diesel use is a tiny fraction of this, but still far too big to be practical. The arguement still stands, but in a slightly weakened state. Apologies to my reader.
graham
3. The Competition
My regular reader (hi Kieron) will remember that on Day Six I launched an exciting competition to decode the hidden messaging in the Top Gear motor show stand. The competition was won, somewhat surprisingly, by my brother Mark, so well done Mark, your worthless bit of tat is in the post.
For those of you untrained in the obscure art of motor show semiotics, here is the answer:
The 'promotions girls'
Selling, sex, 'I love muscle cars' (fnar fnar), it's basically the infantile culture of ignorant consumerism and wilful avoidance of reality which allows the world to get in this state. I would go into more detail but my girlfriend informs me that I've already spent more than enough time writing about promotions girls. She also banned the pictures. Sorry.
The enormous screen emitting huge quantities of Clarkson into the atmosphere
Yes, this one is a bit obvious. What appears to be bland, tasteless stuff which, despite its ubiquity, just washes over us harmlessly turns out to be an acutely dangerous hazard which must be captured and disposed of beneath the sea bed for eternity.
The life-size plastic model of a sports car
Some of you thought this might have something to do with plastic being oil-based, but actually it was merely a visualisation of the true nature of cars (outsize toys) and their fans (outsize children).
The toyota pick-up
An example of the sort of pathetic, doomed techno-fix we'll employ to try to maintain our unsustainable lifestyles as the waters rise around us.
The VW camper narrow boat
As above, with the subtle hint that Norfolk is going to get flooded first. I'm not making this up, you know.
The Ford Anglia yacht
See? Ford Anglia - East Anglia - Norfolk.
So, congrats to Mark, and here's your Greenpeace Approved Motor Show Survival Guide, complete with 'promotion girl':
Drive carefully,
graham
Comments
I have been thinking in buying a Range Rover Defender. When I saw this page and all the information that Greenpeace sent me I felt really really bad, because I try to be as responsable with the environment as I posibly can. But I live in the country in Mid Wales, here Land Rovers are everywhere, they are the cars that most farmers use for work, mostly off roads. I've check all the cars in your "alternative motor show" and any of them fit with my needs: dirt roads, dogs, mud, sand, space for hiking gear, diving gear, etc. Any of them fit very well with the needs of a large family either.
I would love to be able to be more sensitive with my choice of car but at the moment I don't see enviromentaly frienly alternatives for people like me.
Posted by: berta madrigal | July 31, 2006 1:15 PM
Blogger's Brother here. Chuffed with my 15 minutes of fame courtesy of this fine journal - assuming of course Kieron is still checking postings! With a now wider appreciation of how far up the creek we are I look forward to receiving my paddle in the post. Mark
Posted by: Mark Thompson | July 31, 2006 5:42 PM
Thanks again Graham, that was a great blog! :)
Posted by: Kieron | August 1, 2006 1:18 PM
Hello Berta, thanks for thinking about the environment when choosing a car - you're half-way to doing the right thing and that's a head start on most people. If you genuinely need 4 wheel drive for the terrain you have to drive over, then the best you can do is to find the least polluting 4x4. This means you should consider LPG or CNG, or if these options aren't very convenient, at least get a diesel. You can then look into the availability of biodiesel in your area, and if it's produced from recycled vegetable oil you can use it with a clean conscience and do less harm to the climate than the average small car owner.
Posted by: graham | August 2, 2006 12:43 PM
Just got done watching that rather pedantic anti suv video greenpeace produced. Then followed the link over here where, surprise, surprise, I'm offered more of the same.
I've been going back and forth over what it is I'd like to purchase in the way of a new vehicle. In a way, I guess I should thank greenpeace for helping me make my final decision. Tomorrow I'm off to the local GM dealership. Where its my intention to put a down payment on a brand-new suburban. With the 454 under the hood, of course. Ah, but what of those emissions. Well seeing as vehicle emissions supposedly contribute to 80 percent of the co2 humans produce. And the human contribution to the total global co2 output comes to a whopping 3 percent. The only contribution I'm really considering is what my vehicle and continuing fuel purchases will add to the economy. Oh and how it will add to the collective F.U. to greenpace and their fellow travelers.
Cheers.
MS
Posted by: Mike | August 25, 2006 6:16 AM
Hello Mike, I assume that as a climate sceptic you must be an American. I've looked up 'pedantic' in a US English dictionary, and it seems to have the same meaning as it does in British English, i.e. being overly precise with your use of language. Call me pedantic, but I would have thought that describing people such as yourself as 'wankers' was precise, but not overly so. Unfortunately I can't say the same for your stats. According to the US DoE 'The transportation sector accounts for about one-third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions', not 80%, and humans produce 2% of total emissions, not 3%. I appreciate that you're having difficulty understanding how this is significant, but I'm sure that over the next few years, if you pay attention, it'll start to sink in. Good luck with those payments.
Cheers.
Posted by: graham | August 25, 2006 12:40 PM
Out of all the pages I have read on the Website, I see the Audi A2 TDi (64mpg, 119g/km C02) fails to be mentioned. I currently drive this vehicle, and Live in a very Rural part of North Wales. In December I simply change the tyres to Winter Weather Tyres, and then continue my journey with family of 2 Children and a Welsh Terrier. If you need extra luggage space add on a Roof Carrier (but remember to take it off again, to keep mpg down).
In realitly many people convince them selves they need a bigger or 4x4 car, because of where they live or because they have a Family and Dog etc....
If they look around carefully they will find a more economical alternative (The A2 being an example). It is a shame that Audi have discontinued this model in 2006, due to the high cost of making an all Aluminium Small Car.
And one final note : my Road tax now costs £50 per year..!
Posted by: Richard | September 12, 2006 1:32 PM
I am really impressed!
Posted by: nikelir | October 13, 2006 12:39 PM
I took a breath to say something then and was silenced by my suddenly thoughtful look and a 'hmmm'....
We have a Nissan X-Trail, (40 mpg, even when towing it seems) which is probably about the same size on the roads as a large car, apart from height wise.
Usually I say we need this because we have a dog and we tow a caravan or boat a lot. But it seems Richard has dis-proved most of my ideas, and I once saw an Audi A4 Quatro (not the same I know) towing a very large yacht through a boatyard. As I said, hmmmm....
Posted by: cjeam | December 14, 2006 12:16 AM
Thats not an Anglia. It's a convertible Triumph Herald.
Posted by: Trev | April 24, 2007 7:27 AM
You know, I think you might be right. Well done Trev. Bugger.
Posted by: graham | April 24, 2007 9:42 AM
It's Not a Anglia!
Get Your Facts Right!!!!!!!!
Posted by: JhonnyBeany | May 24, 2007 4:14 PM
It's Not a Anglia!
Get Your Facts Right!!!!!!!!
Posted by: john | May 24, 2007 4:15 PM
The car based yacht is a Triumph Herald and not a Ford Anglia.
If you can't be bothered to get that simple fact right then how much else do you just make up?
Posted by: Pete | May 24, 2007 6:24 PM
How dear you call that awful thing a Ford Anglia Yacht. Its a jolly triumph herald and if you had done your job properly researching your story you would have heard this mentioned at least 14 times in the show!! Anyway what is wrong with using a 30+ year old car?? I would call it recycling, something you tree hugging let wing liberals try and tell me to do more of.
*just off to hunt a hectors dolphin for a family BBQ*
Posted by: NZ Anglia Owner | May 25, 2007 6:59 AM
Dear Commenters,
Can everybody else who has spontaneously and independently noticed that this is a Triumph Herald in the last twenty four hours please try to include some other information in their comments in order to avoid repetition.
Thank you for reading.
Posted by: graham | May 25, 2007 12:28 PM
It's a Truimph Herald convertable...
...oh and they don't have narrowboats on the Norfolk Broads...
...better?
Posted by: Alex | July 3, 2007 7:23 PM
Much.
Posted by: graham | July 4, 2007 10:09 AM
Hi Graham,
OOPS! Sorry to bring up the Anglia thing. It looks like you've copped a fair bit of flak over it. Hey I'm a big Top Gear fan. I think Clarkson, Hamster and James are great. I also love old cars. Thats how I found this page in the first place. I googled "Anglia" and got The Stig standing in front of a Herald with a mast and sail.
Anyway, I just wanted to say just because I like old cars, it doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I'm fitting a late model Japanese 4 cylinder fuel injected engine to my Anglia. Not only for performance but also to lower emissions. I've heard that the majority of pollution from each car is made in the vehicles manufacture. If this is true, wouldn't it be wise to dramaticly lower the amount of vehicles being made? Of course this wouldn't sit well with the car makers... Also it would mean people would have to keep their car in better order so that it would last longer.
Posted by: Trev | August 12, 2007 11:09 AM
Hello Trev, glad to hear you're trying to reduce your emissions. We're happy for people to correct any mistakes that we might post, and you seem to have given the Anglia owners club a bit of excitement, so that's all good. I'm afraid I can't agree with you about Clarkson et al, but I'm quite fond of old cars myself. Apparently not particularly expert on Anglias, but no-one's perfect.
The vast majority of emissions produced by cars come from their use, and not their construction. I believe that the industry claims that 20% are from construction, on average. Of course this 20% is a big chunk of CO2, so making cars last as long as possible is still very important, but you'll be polluting less buying a little diesel hatchback every ten years than driving the same Range Rover for thirty. If only someone could produce a car which was durable AND efficient...
Posted by: graham | August 13, 2007 3:18 PM
Global warming is a load of rubbish and festering waste of time and money. There is NO conclusive evidence of climate change, and scientists with any credability are forced to submit to these narrow minded-views to stop their careers being rubbished. Those who are loyal to science agree that co2 is a natural gas, and frankly the world itself is giving off more co2 than the human race. Can I also say, that James May's sailing/car is a Triumph Herald. Long live Top Gear!
Posted by: GHR | February 7, 2008 12:15 AM
Hello GHR,
You're right about the Triumph Herald. To find out why the rest of your comment is wrong, please have a look at this list of 26 common misunderstandings about climate change -
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Yours are numbers 3, 4 & 8.
Posted by: graham | February 7, 2008 11:00 AM
Inconclusive, simply a collective of opinions rather than hard evidence. Sorry, but my opinion won't change. I do not agree with the destruction of rainforests, or anything to do with purging the earth of it's fruits, but all of this "Carbon Footprint" stuff... urgha:S Under the same scientific prinicples, the earth should have burned up during the 19th century, when the industrial revoultion gripped the world in a haze of co2, sulpher etc. Compared to today's standards, we're practically squeeky clean.
Posted by: GHR | February 9, 2008 1:58 AM
I think you're confusing the world with the UK - in general the planet's far more industrialised now than in the nineteenth century. However, feel free to believe whatever you like, and do let us know if you manage to persuade any climatologists.
Posted by: graham | February 11, 2008 10:37 AM
(Actually... industry today is is significantly less harmful in terms of chemicals in the air.)
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Posted by: GHR | February 12, 2008 12:22 AM
Actually...you're quoting the most discredited source I've ever encountered. This stuff makes the Hitler Diaries look good. Even the page you link to says "two of the scientists who took part in the film, have made public complaints about the way the film was made. They claim that the way the film was edited gave a misleading impression of critical data and their own viewpoints" and carries on listing further flaws, despite this being the official home page promoting the film!
If you'd like more detail about why no-one took 'GGW swindle' seriously, there's an amusing article here -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece
- but for the full demolition, you'll have to wait for the Ofcom verdict. Should be even funnier than the original programme.
Posted by: graham | February 12, 2008 11:39 AM
Well! Going by the current "Global Warming Crusader" Al Gore, sued by about 11 British teachers for over 9 scientific errors in his "film". Thank god for those who still stand up against this well-worded properganda! Until there's proof, rather than a load of tree-huggers and clever politions getting their own agenda, I'll carry-on with common-sense! (((Last Post)). GHR
Posted by: GHR | February 12, 2008 4:24 PM
I'm afraid your brand of common sense is getting less and less common - according to this BBC poll, only 6% of the world, and only 3% of the UK, still don't believe we need action to confront climate change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_09_07climatepoll.pdf
Incidentally, Gore wasn't sued by any teachers, but by a truck driver on behalf of a far-right political organisation called the 'New Party'. The Judge ruled that the film was 'broadly accurate' and cleared it for use in UK schools. The next day Gore won the Nobel peace prize.
Toodle-pip.
Posted by: graham | February 18, 2008 10:13 AM