Why not real trees?

[Rich_]

Don't know if anyone's seen the new "doing your bit to help avert climate change" advert on TV relating to co2 emissions from cars ?

The the statisticians have worked out if we all drive 5 miles less per week we can make a difference. What can you say?

[gleditsa]

Originally Posted by Rich_

Don't know if anyone's seen the new "doing your bit to help avert climate change" advert on TV relating to co2 emissions from cars ?

The the statisticians have worked out if we all drive 5 miles less per week we can make a difference. What can you say?

if they stopped wasting money on pointless things like this and spent the money developing more enviromentaly friendly fuels/transport , the oil reserves are going to run out sooner rather than later, so why not get developing the alternatives now ?
or is it the usual case of shareholders profits and big bonuses for the management taking priority over the rest of the world ?

j.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by gleditsa

or is it the usual case of shareholders profits and big bonuses for the management taking priority over the rest of the world ?
j.

Spot on!! Welcome to Al Gore, James Hanson of NASA, the IPCC, the U.N. and any other government or politician who wants notoriety or money on this ‘save the word’ scam.
Don’t you just love their little retort of “Even if we’re wrong, it will help the world anyway.”? Well, when we realize they are wrong and it did not make any significant difference to reduce carbon emissions, it will have hurt the world because we did not use that money and plentiful energy on scientific advancement. If they had used the climate change money to improve and widen roads here in the US, we could have reduced carbon emissions by at least 25%.

[Rich_]

Originally Posted by gleditsa

if they stopped wasting money on pointless things like this and spent the money developing more environmentaly friendly fuels/transport , the oil reserves are going to run out sooner rather than later,

j.

Good point,

Before I left school in 1979. I remember being told in a geography lesson that there was enough known coal supplies to last something like 300 years, natural gas was another figure, and oil would run out in about 30 years. This I remember concerned me greatly, what was I going to run my motorbike on in 30 years time !!!! Obviously oil reserves are finite, but is there a figure they have on how long it will last now?

My point is, if this was the thinking back in the 70s , bearing in mind the advancements we have made in everything else technological. why am I still buying petrol?

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Spot on!! Welcome to Al Gore, James Hanson of NASA, the IPCC, the U.N. and any other government or politician who wants notoriety or money on this ‘save the word’ scam.
Don’t you just love their little retort of “Even if we’re wrong, it will help the world anyway.”? Well, when we realize they are wrong and it did not make any significant difference to reduce carbon emissions, it will have hurt the world because we did not use that money and plentiful energy on scientific advancement. If they had used the climate change money to improve and widen roads here in the US, we could have reduced carbon emissions by at least 25%.

a) the energy isnt plentiful - fossile fuel is running out and oil is a valuable industrial resource - too valuable to waste burning it

b) widening the roads would not reduce carbon emmisions but increase them by encouraging more driving.

[Rich_]

Originally Posted by eeyore

a)

b) widening the roads would not reduce carbon emmisions but increase them by encouraging more driving.

They opened a stretch of dual carriageway on my route to work last year
I always set the trip counter to measure the average mpg and I get more economy now.
The trip used to involve stop start driving in congestion through a couple of villages which must have used more fuel than doing a constant 50 or 60 mph. The volume of traffic has not increased it just flows more efficiently.

The distance to work is still about the same.

[Jason Green]

Hi all,

Welcome to WAB, Ted! I catch on fast, don't I...

Originally Posted by eeyore

b) widening the roads would not reduce carbon emmisions but increase them by encouraging more driving.

Absolutely correct! Also, in doing so would involve vast swathes of trees being cut down that would otherwise be taking back some of the CO2 out the environment, as well as the additional volume attracting more cars. There is no reason that this wouldn't happen, or preventative measures to ensure this wouldn't subsequently negate the very reason behind it in my opinion. If the roads are wider, you may then get haulage lorries using it more as a cut-through - more pollution, surely?

[Rich_]

The lack of reliable cheap public transport has more to do with the volume of traffic than the width of the roads. The trucks have to use the roads any way. Be better to shift freight by rail but they don't. They tend to build bypasses and widen roads to accommodate the HGVs due to protests from residents on minor roads complaining of them using the roads as cut throughs.

[pressld2]

Widening roads might help ease congestion in some areas but...

The M25 was built as three lines in each direction. It's now four lanes as standard and five in some sections. Anyone noticed a reduction in congestion?

Dave P.

[Rich_]

You couldn't build a road wide enough to stop traffic jams round somewhere like London. You probably get a jam when the single lane roads exiting the 4 and 5 lane motorway get clogged and back up onto it.

On the road they made near me it did reduce congestion, because there was too much traffic for the narrow road and not enough to congest the new one. However the price paid was that a nice piece of green field was cut through to build it as Jason has hinted at above. The public transport system here is as good as non existent.

The real answer to congestion in the UK is as we all know, cheap reliable trains & buses and freight moved by rail. Public transport is not cheap, is privately owned and run to make a profit. The governments solution to reduce co2 is green tax.

Perhaps where Ted lives wider roads would be of more benefit than here.