I don't normally watch Richard and Judy. I truly hope that Richard was playing Devil's advocate - if his treatment of his guests is a reflection of his stance on climate change, he is should be embarassed at his own ignorance.
At one point he implied that we in the Western world have some kind of 'right' to take holidays abroad by plane. On whose authority? We once has the right to produce goods with CFCs in, until science proved the damage it was doing. There is no serious doubt in the scientifc community that climate change is happening, and that it's happening primarily because of humans (see work by IPCC, Stern report etc - and if we can't take major studies like them seriously, what's the point of doing them). The world changes as we add to our knowledge, and if that means we have to change the way we live our lives, so be it. No 'rights' are immune to such evaluation.
Anyway, no-one is saying don't take holidays. Try taking the train somewhere.
Originally posted by stevem23: Anyway, no-one is saying don't take holidays. Try taking the train somewhere.
I think the vast majority of people will take the cheaper and more convenient option, which probably won't benefit the planet, but will benefit their pocket.
Originally posted by stevem23: Anyway, no-one is saying don't take holidays. Try taking the train somewhere.
I think the vast majority of people will take the cheaper and more convenient option, which probably won't benefit the planet, but will benefit their pocket.
Well of course people will take the cheaper and more convenient option - that's why the air travel issue as it relates to climate change is such a tricky problem. Unlike switching to energy efficient lightbulbs for example (which actually save you money overall), persuading people not to fly has no obvious immediate benefit to them. And that is why massive efforts are required to make a difference.
A particular problem with building another runway is capacity is increased, which means demand goes up, and prices coming down. Thus it becomes even more likely that people will fly.
Originally posted by stevem23: Unlike switching to energy efficient lightbulbs for example (which actually save you money overall),
Energy efficient light bulbs are a con. They might last you 5 times longer but they cost about 5 times as much as conventional ones! And why are they such a funny shape? They don’t fit any of my lighting appliances at home and they look so ugly when hanging from the ceiling. I think I’ll stick to conventional light bulbs, thank you very much!
Energy efficient light bulbs are a con. They might last you 5 times longer but they cost about 5 times as much as conventional ones!
Well, the fact that something is more expensive doesn't make it a con. The reason for them is to reduce carbon emissions.
On a more positive note, compact fluorescent lamps (which are the most common low energy lighting sources) are likely to be a stop gap, new energy efficient incandescent lamps have been developed as well as LED and other technologies.
quote:
And why are they such a funny shape? They don’t fit any of my lighting appliances at home and they look so ugly when hanging from the ceiling. I think I’ll stick to conventional light bulbs, thank you very much!
Aren't all bulbs a funny shape? Conventional bulbs are a funny shape to. As stated above, a major company has developed low energy incandescent bulbs and other technologies will come along.
Also you won't have a choice soon, old style incandescent bulbs (100w, 60w etc.) will be phased out.
Originally posted by corkman: Energy efficient light bulbs are a con. They might last you 5 times longer but they cost about 5 times as much as conventional ones! And why are they such a funny shape? They don’t fit any of my lighting appliances at home and they look so ugly when hanging from the ceiling. I think I’ll stick to conventional light bulbs, thank you very much!
I like the odd shape of the energy efficient light bulbs, I think they give a room a certain "Blake's 7" look.
Originally posted by Occasional Visitor: [QUOTE]I like the odd shape of the energy efficient light bulbs, I think they give a room a certain "Blake's 7" look.
If, by a "Blake's 7" look, you mean nasty, cheap, tacky and outdated, then i fully agree with you OV!
I agree with you.
