Fighting Climate Change With Simple Ideas

[Chinook]

Do not buy large hybrids! Hybrids save 2mpg freeway and 0 mpg city even though they cost more. Buy a car one size smaller. They cost less money and have better mpg figures for both city and freeway driving than hybrid ripoffs. Just make sure you don't compensate by driving more.

Sorry, Not true Wiggy. The 4 Wheel Drive version of the Mazda "Tribute" SUV which is more or less a copy of the 4 Wheel Drive version of the Ford Escape gets 31 MPG in the city, burns no gas at all when waiting at a stoplight (or stuck in a traffic jam).

The front wheel drive version gets 34 MPG city. They actually get less on the Highway (27/30 MPG) because battery weight to power ratio slows it down at higher speeds.

The non-hybrid version :

19 MPG city, 25 MPG hwy. So, only if you're doing absolutely no city driving would Wiggy's statement be accurate. (and only the mpg highway part)

These are all okay:

1. Drive less. For example, when shopping at 2 stores in a strip mall, walk from one end to the other instead of driving and reparking.
2. Turn off lights and electronics that you are not using.
3. Use fluorescents but please recycle the old lamps.
4. Next time you buy a car, buy the smallest, cheapest, most fuel efficient one that you can tolerate.
5. Caulk around windows (remodels and new construction require double glazed but until then I wouldn't bother).
6. Weather strip around exterior doors (the bottom usually has the biggest gap).

But you should add going solar, which can be costly, but you can remove your carbon footprint entirely from the home you live in. Plus, there are government subsidies everywhere to help you pay for the solar systems and if you produce more than your share the utility company will pay you for the extra.

 

[chrispenycate]

And in England, if this sort of weather keeps up, it would make sense to have Hydroelectric generators (dams) in the rivers. a) generate electricity b) control the water, so no flooding. Or will environmentalists say it's bad for the environment?

The environmentalists would indeed; and they would have their arguments.

The lakes generated are good for some species, but leave no wetlands, a habitat which has been marginalised over the centuries with marshes drained for farmland, and a remarkable number of birds and beasts require.

Anyway, where were you intending to put these lakes in England? In the downs, perchance? For hydroelectricity you don't only need flow rate, but head. And the rain has to fall higher than that, too.

But while we're on hydroelectric, is anyone considering tide power and wave power? There's a lot of energy there, it's just a bit diffuse and irregular. You could always use the energy of the Severn bore to pump water up a welsh mountain, then get conventional hydroelectric turbines to produce continuous current.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

The UK should stop messing about and get the Severn Barrage built. A few stupid birds are going have to find a new home but they'll be extinct anyway if the global warming fanatics are right, So no harm there. Estimates for the Severn vary between 5% and 10% of UK needs. This is not the only river that it could be done to and given the variation in tides around the UK that would probably be a river somewhere that was producing.

We could use all the landfill waste for the barrage so we wouldn't have to worry about extra quarrying of infill. It's win win.

On another note if the government really believed it's doom and gloom predictions of rising sea levels then they should be upgrading the coastal and river flood defences like the Thames barrier. But wait no such improvements are on the cards. Instead they are building more homes on low lying coastal sand bars.

 

[Nik]

IIRC, there's an un-adopted scheme for Severn Barrage that would retain tidal pattern, wetlands etc etc as if at average tides. The gotcha is that it requires a MASSIVE, oval, pumped-storage reservoir in mid channel. Think 'cooling tower' thrice size of 'New Wembley', tall as the London Eye...

Okay, it would make a great tourist trap, and could have a zillion cliff-birds' nest-boxes on outer face, but it would need a heap of rebar and concrete more than just a barrage...

Free-standing wind, wave and current generation equipment is probably more economical...

Uh, low-lying / flood-plain land is no bar to building new homes *provided* you follow that Dutch/German prototype design and make them float. IIRC, they just slide up a pair of concealed piles. Services are slung beneath a hinged 'gangway'. Worst case, they can ride several feet higher than even the elevated / levéed access road. Just, have a small wind-generator on the roof for emergency lights and a dinghy mooring stanchion on the edge of the deck...

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

NiK:

Stuff the birds, as I said they're going to have to migrate to somewhere else anyway. That's why it'll never get built. We'll all die for the want of the environmentalists who are not prepared to act to save us because some lesser spotted dork gull will die out sooner if they disturb it's 'soon to be flooded under a tide of Maldive ocean water' habitat.


As for houses that can be jacked up:-

No way the UK government is going to think that way. It costs more and in any case, as I said, I don't think they actually believe the doom and gloom they tell us.

In any case raising your house seems a good idea but your car still get swept away in the night. Whereas I, with my hill top based home, am above all that and I can watch the plains flood below me, happy in the knowledge that I'll probably die of starvation as the supplies and fresh water can't get through the flooded roads.

I'm afraid I'm one of those that think it's just and excuse to tax us without using the revenue to do anything.

 

[skeptical]

TEIN

You need not be quite so enthusiastic about living up to your name!

The IPCC predict a global average sea level rise of 59 cm by 2100. Currently it is rising at 3 mm per year, so even the 59cm prediction will require a substantial increase in the rate of sea level rise. I don't think you will be gazing at permanently flooded plains any time soon.

 

[Dave]

1. Drive less. For example, when shopping at 2 stores in a strip mall, walk from one end to the other instead of driving and reparking.

I've never been to the US, but Bill Bryson's 'Notes from a Big Country' describes how impossible this is in US 'out of town' retail parks due to the physical barriers between car lots. He humourously describes how you cannot walk to the next store but are forced to drive. In the UK, we also had a surge in the development of these in the late 80's and early 90's. They are a little more pedestrian friendly over here, but they have killed off some old town centres and often can only be visited by road.

And in England, if this sort of weather keeps up, it would make sense to have Hydroelectric generators (dams) in the rivers. a) generate electricity b) control the water, so no flooding. Or will environmentalists say it's bad for the environment?

I think most rivers in the UK are already controlled by dams Boneman.

The River Derwent that just flooded in Cockermouth is already dammed at Bassenthwaite Lake, but it is surrounded by hills that had highest level of rainfall measured in England in a 24 hour period since records began. A dam isn't going to prevent that. I'm not sure any flood defences can.

The River Tyne had a flood in 1815 that washed away buildings on Newcastle and Gateshead Quaysides. That kind of event can never be prevented, but the building of Kielder Dam in 1982 has probably reduced the chances. Even so the Tyne floods in 2005 were the worst since 1815.

The threat of flooding in London does not come downstream where the Thames is controlled by a series of locks down to Kingston. The threat comes not from rainfall, but from a peculiar series of circumstances that result from a combination of rising sea level, lowering land level, high spring tides and a funnelling effect of the North Sea and Thames Estuary when a low pressure storm lies over Norway.

 

[chrispenycate]

They've got to raise the sea level an awfully long way to get me.

Back in the – sixties, I think it was, maybe the early seventies – before plans were finalised for the channel tunnel, along with a channel bridge, there were proposals for a channel dam. A roadway along the top (multilane, plus rails) bridging the enormous locks for merchant shipping (that you could tax as it came through) but above all for this thread, bidirectional turbines generating enough electricity for the south of England, the north of France and Belgium. Now, that would have been engineering (even if I suspect the power requirements or the regions have increased a little in the meantime).

I seem to remember a humourist suggesting a great big changeover jubction in the middle, where cars went from driving on the left, to the right. I'm not sure what the shopping malls and residences along it did for sewage disposal; I do hope they didn't just dump it into the sea.

Now, all they need is to garnish the edges with windmills…

 

[Vladd67]

I'm afraid I'm one of those that think it's just and excuse to tax us without using the revenue to do anything.

Doesn't help that Darling recently admitted the recent 'green' tax on air travel which was claimed to help protect the environment was actually to help pay for the bailing out of the banks.

 

[Wiglaf]

Sorry, Not true Wiggy. The 4 Wheel Drive version of the Mazda "Tribute" SUV which is more or less a copy of the 4 Wheel Drive version of the Ford Escape gets 31 MPG in the city, burns no gas at all when waiting at a stoplight (or stuck in a traffic jam).

The front wheel drive version gets 34 MPG city. They actually get less on the Highway (27/30 MPG) because battery weight to power ratio slows it down at higher speeds.

The non-hybrid version :

19 MPG city, 25 MPG hwy. So, only if you're doing absolutely no city driving would Wiggy's statement be accurate. (and only the mpg highway part)





But you should add going solar, which can be costly, but you can remove your carbon footprint entirely from the home you live in. Plus, there are government subsidies everywhere to help you pay for the solar systems and if you produce more than your share the utility company will pay you for the extra.

I looked at more reliable data; you are right about mpg. However, I am still correct about buying a smaller vehicle being a vastly superior method of reducing fuel consumption from a cost stand point. Here solar for your home isn't that helpful as during the day you aren't home to take advantage of it. However, for commercial situations where you have A/C, dozens of computers, and windowless rooms requiring lighting, it becomes feasible if there are subsidies and/or carbon taxes on electricity generation. The European method of taxes is more efficient than the American method of regulation. You could use the revenue to cut business taxes to reduce income effects while maintaining substitution effects. For all these ideas, it would help for government to foster policy that would make them economically feasible.

 

[Chinook]

I looked at more reliable data; you are right about mpg. However, I am still correct about buying a smaller vehicle being a vastly superior method of reducing fuel consumption from a cost stand point. Here solar for your home isn't that helpful as during the day you aren't home to take advantage of it. However, for commercial situations where you have A/C, dozens of computers, and windowless rooms requiring lighting, it becomes feasible if there are subsidies and/or carbon taxes on electricity generation. The European method of taxes is more efficient than the American method of regulation. You could use the revenue to cut business taxes to reduce income effects while maintaining substitution effects. For all these ideas, it would help for government to foster policy that would make them economically feasible.

Right, I was only talking about SUV's because so many people like them as family cars. My theory is that (mothers especially) feel safer in an SUV than a small car. They would be right, and even more so if they are not very good at driving. (I recently read a poll that said that men are more crazy on the road than women, so I'm not saying anything chauvinist. )
What feeds into my theory is that mothers are concerned about the safety of their children which is why (some) will prefer a larger car. A small car like the Honda Insight (43 city/40 hwy) and the Toyota Prius (51 city/48 hwy) will pay for itself in gas cost savings faster than a big car, and of course expell much less in greenhouse gases, but some folks have other concerns, and I was trying to enlighten our audience to those other options, and point out a middle road, so to speak.

And you'd better believe I agree when it comes to taxing business for their greenhouse gas emissions. But I know that there are many companies who are now trying to pitch in by lowering their emissions, plant trees, etc. The jury is still out on whether we can turn the "winds of change" around fast enough. It might be prudent to reward companies who do pitch in.

 

[Boneman]

By Chinook
Plus, there are government subsidies everywhere to help you pay for the solar systems

The government can buy whole solar systems!!! I knew we were taxed too much, but those b******s should give some of it back to us!


And the car thing: if I drive to my place of work (50 Miles) in my 2 Litre BMW the guage tells me that I get 60mpg (it's all motorway and I stick at 70mph). If I drive in my son's 1 litre polo at the same speed, I get 42mpg. Am I wrong, or am I burning more fuel in the smaller car, and polluting more? Maybe it's american cars they mean - 8 litre, 12 cylinder, behemoths...

 

[skeptical]

Boneman

Not uncommon for cars to get amazing fuel economy under those conditions. If you have flat motorway, and can pretty much stick to the same speed throughout without accelerating or braking, your fuel economy may look incredible.

However, if you take into account all kinds of driving, including city stop/start driving, you will find the average drops dramatically.

 

[HareBrain]

Skeptical, I think Boneman was saying he does the same drive, under the same conditions, in a smaller engined car, and gets worse fuel economy.

It's likely that the smaller car will be revving higher at the same speed; that might have something to do with it. Might be that the gauges calculate consumption differently.

I once did a motorway trip in my 1600 VW Beetle and got about 19mpg!


(Edit: 1600 was the engine size, not the year of manufacture - though come to think of it ...)

 

[skeptical]

I have a 4 litre Ford. When I drive on the motorway on flat land using cruise control at 110 kph (70 mph), I get 50 mpg. However, I live in a coastal rural area. When I drive there, it is all up and down hills, braking for corners, accelerating out of corners etc. I get 12 mpg!

The difference in consumption due to different types of driving is so dramatic that it is not surprising that a smaller car can get lower economy, assuming it is driven in a less constant manner.

 

[Drachir]

The government can buy whole solar systems!!! I knew we were taxed too much, but those b******s should give some of it back to us!


And the car thing: if I drive to my place of work (50 Miles) in my 2 Litre BMW the guage tells me that I get 60mpg (it's all motorway and I stick at 70mph). If I drive in my son's 1 litre polo at the same speed, I get 42mpg. Am I wrong, or am I burning more fuel in the smaller car, and polluting more? Maybe it's american cars they mean - 8 litre, 12 cylinder, behemoths...

Actually there are very few cars like that built in the USA. Even the Humvee only has eight. Most North American built cars are four cylinder and siz cylinder vehicles. I must admit, having visited Italy this year that the cars in the US and Canada are still much larger than their European counterparts, but they have shrunk considerably over the years. I currently drive a four cylinder Kia.

 

[Wiglaf]

The government can buy whole solar systems!!! I knew we were taxed too much, but those b******s should give some of it back to us!


And the car thing: if I drive to my place of work (50 Miles) in my 2 Litre BMW the guage tells me that I get 60mpg (it's all motorway and I stick at 70mph). If I drive in my son's 1 litre polo at the same speed, I get 42mpg. Am I wrong, or am I burning more fuel in the smaller car, and polluting more? Maybe it's american cars they mean - 8 litre, 12 cylinder, behemoths...

The 1.0 is probably undersized for the vehicle and some small vehicles have less transmission speeds. This is more of a problem with cheap cars. Also, a better term than smaller would be lighter. Furthermore, fuel mileage at constant freeway speeds is greatly affected by wind resistance and gearing. It takes little power as at 70mph you are at what, less than 1/4 throttle. Fighting inertia from the on-ramp metering light will use more fuel in a heavier car.

 

[Dave]

Whatever car you drive - accelerate less and brake less!

What is the point in being first to reach the next set of red traffic lights anyway? In heavy traffic that kind of hard on the pedals driving may save you a minute or two on a 40 minute journey (if you are lucky) but will use much more fuel and wear down your brake pads. It is also much less comfortable for any passengers to be thrown around.

 

[Chinook]

I totally agree with that idea, Dave. I even learn the traffic light patterns so I know how fast to drive to get to the next light as it's turning green. Meanwhile, your mention of brakes and such reminded me of this principle, they are already using in many hybrid and electric cars:

When the driver steps on the brake pedal of an electric or hybrid vehicle, these types of brakes put the vehicle's electric motor into reverse mode, causing it to run backwards, thus slowing the car's wheels. While running backwards, the motor also acts as an electric generator, producing electricity that's then fed into the vehicle's batteries. These types of brakes work better at certain speeds than at others. In fact, they're most effective in stop-and-go driving situations. However, hybrids and fully electric cars also have friction brakes, as a kind of back-up system in situations where regenerative braking simply won't supply enough stopping power.

(From: HowStuffWorks "How Regenerative Braking Works" )

 

[dustinzgirl]

1. Tinfoil or Mylar on windows reduces energy consumption.
2. Sweep your carpet instead of vacuum.
3. Unplug your cell phone or rechargeable battery charger when not in use.
4. Keep the refrigerator at the medium low setting.
5. Keep the thermostat at 69 degrees. Wear an extra layer instead.
6. Reduce your speed and rate of increase to conserve gas and reduce emissions.
7. In winter, put a blanket over your car windows. This stops frost, so you waste less time trying to defrost. Also, warm your car up fully before taking off. This reduces emissions and preserves your engine, which helps the environment by not wasting metal.
8. Only purchase products when you know their origin. For instance, don't by diamonds from Africa or South America for both environmental and humanitarian reasons.
9. Coca Cola purchases sugar in the billions of tons from child labor and slash and burn farming. Don't drink it. Or any of their products.
10. Shop second hand for clothing. Use trade systems and barter at local shops instead of buying new to reduce consumption.
11. Do not eat fast food. The trash from fast food is in the millions billions of tons. It also makes you fart which creates more gas in the air.
12. Kill termites. With your shoe, not poison or fire. Their farts are destroying the air.
13. Purchase your dry food in bulk using a reusable bag, such as a lined gunny sack. (Flour, pasta, ect). This will prevent millions of tons of garbage. Think about how many empty boxes of pasta you've thrown out your whole life.
14. Dry your clothes on a line or in the house on a rack.
15. Stop wasting food. Think about how many people you are cooking for. Reuse all left overs or freeze them. Food that you have that you aren't going to eat should go to the food kitchens.
16. Don't be a whiner and turn off the air conditioner. Put a washcloth or bandanna in the freezer and wrap it about your head when its too hot out.
17. Canning your own food. Its not hard and the jars are reusable unlike the ones you get at the grocery.
18. Stop buying bottled water, or if you have to buy bottled water buy it by the 5 gallon barrel (I've had to buy water lots). Make sure you get the reusable barrels and reuse them.
19. Be nice to your neighbors and offer to help them recycle/reuse/donate unused stuff to reduce consumption.
20. Be creative...think about what you are wasting and stop wasting it. Think about what you put in your trash and if there is a better way to stop making it trash. Think about what you don't use and if someone else could use it. Think about.......turning waste into resources.

These are not hard things to do. I've been doing most of these the majority of my life.

PS: You also do not have to flush the toilet each time you go number one. Only for number two. It wastes several gallons of clean, fresh water. Or, if you are lucky enough not to have neighbors, number one outside. No. I'm not joking.