Are people bothered about their carbon footprint?

[L00b 441]

I'm in the market for a 3rd car right now (we're "semi-retiring" the MX-5 in Sept, she's earned it ) and am not looking at mpg or g/km too closely.

 

It'll be just the replace to '5 as a daily/runaround for the Mrs, and so long as it improves the mpg (won't be difficult ), I'm not particularly bothered about a super-high mpg or low g/km. Something like a Mini or small BMW (compact), like. It won't be new, that is for sure. So, still doing our bit for Mother Earth I suppose

 

As for non-motoring areas (trying to get back on-T ), I am in complete agreement with your post:

I do try to not consume excessively - it's not just about my 'carbon footprint'. Though I suspect most people use that term interchangeably with 'environmental impact'.

In a roundabout way, it kinda ties with my take on the carbon footprint thing ("Just another snake-oil scheme to justify more indirect taxation"). Less controversially, I'd call it a measure to try and wane people off their consumerist high of the past decade, on the quiet/thru smoke-&-mirrors

 

Some of the effects have been very positive, as pointed out by earlier posters - particularly house insulation, that kind of thing. Although I have a sneaky suspicion that the net result for the common end-user will be not very much at all: use less energy, but pay more per unit = no gain. So, a way to gradually reduce the UK's dependency on imported energy on the one hand, politically important. But no real benefit long-term: it's just running to stand still.

 

It's only when you work with the companies that provide these Gvt-backed schemes (solar PVs, standby-eliminating products, etc.) that you realise what a great big con it is, in terms of the use made of taxpayer's money, and the 'disconnect' between the environmentally-friendly fluffy-bunny messages and the corporate reality of the implementations.

 

E.g. British Gas and other utilities 'gifting' standby-eliminating sockets and similar products: it's cheaper for them to buy these in bulk and give them away to their customers, than to buy 'carbon credits' from the Gvt and/or do anything to improve their actual emissions from their infrastructure (because such devices have 'green points' to offset against the Gvt's carbon tax). So that's what they've been doing, for a long time now. Why do you think you've been getting that free, made-in-China-for-peanuts, EC-marked-don't-make-me-laugh energy monitor for free?

 

As I said...smoke and mirrors, dressed up in a beard, sandals and a bowl of lentils

Edited July 5, 2012 by L00b

[Cyclone 10]

Hi, I am a plumbing and heating engineer in the South Yorkshire area and I would love to know what people really think about their carbon footprint and ways of saving fuel costs in their homes.

 

Is it something people really don’t think about?

 

Is it the expense that puts people off?

 

Would people like to know more about what is out there to save on fuel costs and should more money be spent on awareness for this.

 

I'm interested in it (I say interested, not concerned, on purpose).

 

I'd be happy to reduce my outgoings, but the assessment I make is based on the payback period for any particular improvement. A lot of them don't actually stack up when looked at from this point of view.

 

The carbon saving in changing to something new and more efficient also has to be offset against the embedded cost of manufacture in a new device and the scrapping of the old one. The idea of changing to a newer more efficient whatever isn't as simple as some people would have us believe.

[Cyclone 10]

It's also the reason I prefer older cars. I've got a 1995 Subaru Legacy.

It's reliable, not the cheapest to run but then I've not contributed to the massive amounts of pollution creating a new car creates.

 

Exactly my point about embedded manufacturing costs.

 

Although a car isn't the best example, as at least the old one isn't immediately scrapped.

A boiler on the other hand is scrapped entirely when replaced.

[ccit 10]

A boiler on the other hand is scrapped entirely when replaced.

That's a good point that you have raised Cyclone and one that is relevant to the OP, being a gas engineer. Last year we replaced the boiler at a relative's property and we did manage to recycle everything, including the old boiler, which was working but we could not sell it due to its age and D rating. Managed to get a few bob for the copper cylinder too. The only reason that we changed it was again down to expense because the old system was costing too much to run - nothing to do with carbon footprint I am sorry to say.

On the subject of cars, I too am dismayed to see how many are on the roads purely for short journeys, particularly to fetch and carry children to school. There are so many large vehicles too such as the 4x4 ones. We have an LPG conversion and the fuel is cheaper and not so polluting so if the government were serious about carbon footprint why not give grants for conversions for people who do high mileage, e.g. van drivers?

Edited July 5, 2012 by ccit

[Cyclone 10]

Costing too much to run?

 

Surely installing a new boiler costs £2k+ (maybe upto 4k), so the payback on saving £100/annum on heating is 20 to 40 years!

[van&mansheff 10]

With regards to vehicles, I don't think there's any need to worry about carbon emissions; simply because combustion engines won't be around for too much longer. As with most human endeavour, cost is going to be the main driving factor, and with petrol and diesel at current prices that factor has in recent years become immediately important. Renault have now launched an electric Kangoo, so it's no longer about concept cars and ridiculous G-Wiz's. Real electric vehicles are on their way.....

[Cyclone 10]

And of course driving an electric vehicle means that the electricity came from a magic pollution free source?

[DaFoot 10]

And of course driving an electric vehicle means that the electricity came from a magic pollution free source?

 

Nope.

But hopefully sources of electricity will become cleaner.... burning fossil fuels will never be clean.

 

I'd imagine in a pollution (carbon) sense electricity is cheaper to transport than oil based fuels.

 

EDIT:

Missed the crucial "to transport" words!

[Greengeek 10]

And of course driving an electric vehicle means that the electricity came from a magic pollution free source?

 

And what happens to the batteries, where do they come from, how are they disposed, what's the cost of replacement, etc etc.

 

You can't just blindly go buying electric/hybrid cars without knowing what the end game is!

[Cyclone 10]

Nope.

But hopefully sources of electricity will become cleaner.... burning fossil fuels will never be clean.

 

I'd imagine in a pollution (carbon) sense electricity is cheaper to transport than oil based fuels.

 

EDIT:

Missed the crucial "to transport" words!

 

It is, but getting the fossil fuel to the power plant is just as inefficient as transporting around liquid fuel.

And of course batteries are incredibly polluting and have a 10 year lifespan, lots of rare earth metals that come from far far away and are processed with very dangerous chemicals (which need disposing of afterwards).

The environmental cost of a prius outweighs the dubious savings of using electricity many times over, and that's before you consider that the majority of the electrical supply in the UK comes from coal.

[van&mansheff 10]

Cyclone - the Department for Energy and Climate Change state on their website that by 2009, coal had dropped to around 14% of the UK energy mix. The last time it constituted a majority share was around 50 years ago. The Battle of Orgreave was lost, you know.......

 

But, in my opinion, the argument about cars vs power plants using more fossil fuels is largely irrelevant anyway. The very reason why electric cars are being discussed and developed is because fossil fuels are becoming unaffordably scarce, and soon enough they will run out completely. Clearly the same applies to power plants that burn such fuels, so in the medium to long term it makes no difference whether or not combustion engines are a better option than fossil fuel based energy being used to charge batteries.

 

Obviously, if you think that how we use fossil fuels over the next 3 or 4 decades (or however long it takes for them to become unaffordable) will determine whether or not we break the planet, then short term arguments also matter. Personally I think that how we use up the tail end of fossil fuels is unlikely to have a significant impact.

[choogling 14]

Costing too much to run?

 

Surely installing a new boiler costs £2k+ (maybe upto 4k), so the payback on saving £100/annum on heating is 20 to 40 years!

assuming the boiler will last that length of time,replacing an old properly working old style boiler will never add up to a worthwhile saving.My daughters combie has been repaired four times in ten years ,at a total cost in the hundreds of pounds,my forty year old system has had a replacement tank.