Cost of fuel

[andyinluton]

If you are really concerned about climate change then one would neither fly or drive a Cali anywhere.

Wouldn't be online commenting about it either, with the internet contributing something like 15% of the worlds electricity usage & 5.5% of world carbon emissions.

 

[Ch1pbutty]

and of course we need to the CO2 consumptions per day per person staying in a hotel (A/C - heating- several services, lifts etc) vs camping ..

+ taxi / hire car from the airport to final destination etc etc...

 

[Velma's Dad]

Wouldn't be online commenting about it either, with the internet contributing something like 15% of the worlds electricity usage & 5.5% of world carbon emissions.

And don't save up for your new Cali with Bitcoin*.

* "...the carbon footprint of Bitcoin, the world’s largest cryptocurrency, is equivalent to that of New Zealand, with both emitting nearly 37 megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, according to a February 2021 CNBC article."

 

[Ting Tong]

Rishi’s 5p off fuel duty is rather specious when you consider the recent rise of about 40p a litre is netting the government almost 7p extra in vat!

 

[Velma's Dad]

Rishi’s 5p off fuel duty is rather specious when you consider the recent rise of about 40p a litre is netting the government almost 7p extra in vat!

Taxation, as some wise French bloke once said, "consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing."

 

[WelshGas]

Rishi’s 5p off fuel duty is rather specious when you consider the recent rise of about 40p a litre is netting the government almost 7p extra in vat!

Its OK. If you don't want the 5p/L saving then donate it to a good cause.

 

[Amarillo]

Taxation, as some wise French bloke once said, "consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing."

Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619–83), the Finance Minister to King Louis XIV

He (supposedly) referred to the "art of taxation".

 

[TheDoc]

Given the carbon footprint of a dog is somewhat more than that of a Cali I think those beating up on Cali ownership maybe barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Given the carbon footprint of a dog is somewhat more than that of a Cali I think those beating up on Cali ownership maybe barking up the wrong tree.

Ha ha that old one, there were some clickbait-y press articles about this a few years back. From memory, seemed to be based on some pretty big numbers for how much food a dog gets through (must be some pretty fat dogs out there), didn't allow for the fact that most meat in dog food is a by-product of meat production for human consumption, and in at least one study the comparison with a car was based on 'eco-acreage' rather than CO2 emissions and didn't take account of the tailpipe emissions of the car!

There are some journalists out there who should be put in the doghouse.

 

[TheDoc]

Ha ha that old one, there were some clickbait-y press articles about this a few years back. From memory, seemed to be based on some pretty big numbers for how much food a dog gets through (must be some pretty fat dogs out there), didn't allow for the fact that most meat in dog food is a by-product of meat production for human consumption, and in at least one study the comparison with a car was based on 'eco-acreage' rather than CO2 emissions and didn't take account of the tailpipe emissions of the car!

There are some journalists out there who should be put in the doghouse.

I appreciate it may be challenging to put an exact figure on the carbon footprint of a dog and there may be some debatable points. However that does not then mean one can then write it off and ignore it like Donal Trump did on climate change because because some of the numbers could be challenged.

 

[Velma's Dad]

I appreciate it may be challenging to put an exact figure on the carbon footprint of a dog and there may be some debatable points. However that does not then mean one can then write it off and ignore it like Donal Trump did on climate change because because some of the numbers could be challenged.

I know there are huge issues with estimating carbon impacts of various aspects of life (I first studied environmental impact assessment as an env. science student when the discipline was in its infancy in the early 80s). Unfortunately there's a whole genre of studies (/"studies") of varying quality that get headlined though the media as though they can be considered definitive of themselves, with no attempt whatsoever to state, let alone assess, their assumptions and their limitations. They very often quote a single figure in some futile effort at precision, rather than stating a range.

Hence, imbecilic press articles like "Scientists calculate the carbon footprint of a dog is bigger than a car".

Of course I think we should all do best to think about the environmental implications of all aspects of our lives, but it needs to be done with a modicum of critical thinking and unfortunately the media often don't assist in that.

I would however be prepared to say anyone who denies the reality of human-induced CC, supported by the overwhelming totality of evidence, can be categorised with Donald Trump, ie as a cretin.

 

[GeorgeandAnne]

I know there are huge issues with estimating carbon impacts of various aspects of life (I first studied environmental impact assessment as an env. science student when the discipline was in its infancy in the early 80s). Unfortunately there's a whole genre of studies (/"studies") of varying quality that get headlined though the media as though they can be considered definitive of themselves, with no attempt whatsoever to state, let alone assess, their assumptions and their limitations. They very often quote a single figure in some futile effort at precision, rather than stating a range.

Hence, imbecilic press articles like "Scientists calculate the carbon footprint of a dog is bigger than a car".

Of course I think we should all do best to think about the environmental implications of all aspects of our lives, but it needs to be done with a modicum of critical thinking and unfortunately the media often don't assist in that.

I would however be prepared to say anyone who denies the reality of human-induced CC, supported by the overwhelming totality of evidence, can be categorised with Donald Trump, ie as a cretin.

If the last 2 years have taught me anything it’s to stop calling people that present differing views “cretin”. Also that short-cutting thinking for myself by doing the opposite of what someone I can’t stand publicly advocates is dangerous.

“Studies” in any given field are not infrequently fraudulent. And anything that creates a glib headline is almost certainly on that spectrum. The hard of thinking, but kind of heart, will try to come up with a way of addressing that simplified headline-informed issue. From what I’ve observed that action inevitably devalues the human life in some way shape or form. (Like denying yourself the joy of dog ownership). Which is so sad.

As a survivor or many a weight-loss diet, my personal observation is that the more you tell people they must forgo something for their own good, the more they will consume it. This also applies to telling people there will imminently be shortage. Which makes me think that whatever the truth of it, “climate change” as a narrative is likely sponsored by the fossil fuel industry.

So once again we’re all left with using our own eyes and brains. And I’m off to gorge on toast before the world runs out of wheat.

Anne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WelshGas]

I know there are huge issues with estimating carbon impacts of various aspects of life (I first studied environmental impact assessment as an env. science student when the discipline was in its infancy in the early 80s). Unfortunately there's a whole genre of studies (/"studies") of varying quality that get headlined though the media as though they can be considered definitive of themselves, with no attempt whatsoever to state, let alone assess, their assumptions and their limitations. They very often quote a single figure in some futile effort at precision, rather than stating a range.

Hence, imbecilic press articles like "Scientists calculate the carbon footprint of a dog is bigger than a car".

Of course I think we should all do best to think about the environmental implications of all aspects of our lives, but it needs to be done with a modicum of critical thinking and unfortunately the media often don't assist in that.

I would however be prepared to say anyone who denies the reality of human-induced CC, supported by the overwhelming totality of evidence, can be categorised with Donald Trump, ie as a cretin.

Well, if Donald Trump is a Cretin " a person who is physically deformed and has learning difficulties because of congenital thyroid deficiency." then it doesn't say much for the rest of the population who didn't get to be President of the United States.

Trump has many, many, many faults but a Cretin he is not.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Trump has many, many, many faults but a Cretin he is not.

Okay then he's a moron.

Okay probably not that either. However my personal read of a range of perspectives on what he has said and done lead me to conclude that his overall level of intellect if far lower than is widely credited. He really is pretty stupid.

 

[Calimili]

I think knowing the exact carbon foot print of a dog is pointless. So it doesn't matter how accurate that CO2 gr number is. do we want to solve the CO2 world problem by getting rid of dogs ? How about people, there are 3 Billion (like Trump said with a "B") more humans on the planet than 30 years ago, maybe should be getting rid of people instead especially when they fire high CO2 consuming rockets, guns, fighter planes, tanks , burning down buildings (+people) for a month in a row. What's the CO2 impact of that?
To solve the CO2 problem more generalcommon sense is needed rather than the precise figure of dogs Co2 footprint, in my opinion.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

If I bought some charcoal ‘odour eater’ insoles for my trainers would they increase my carbon footprint.

 

[Calimili]

If I bought some charcoal ‘odour eater’ insoles for my trainers would they increase my carbon footprint.

probably, but the benefit of the odour pollution reduction outweights the Co2 increase

 

[GrannyJen]

If I bought some charcoal ‘odour eater’ insoles for my trainers would they increase my carbon footprint.

The charcoal granules probably come from an artisanal child labour coking plant deforesting the amazon, the covers come from china and the whole lot are finished off in a printing plant om Sakhalin island employing banged up Russian dissenters so your stuffed mate!!

 

[clarinetbcn]

Well, if Donald Trump is a Cretin " a person who is physically deformed and has learning difficulties because of congenital thyroid deficiency." then it doesn't say much for the rest of the population who didn't get to be President of the United States.

Trump has many, many, many faults but a Cretin he is not.

Sheesh.

 

[WelshGas]

View attachment 90780

Sheesh.

He might be a criminal, extreme right wing, and not someone you or I might follow but "stupid" he isn't because if he is, so are most of the worlds population.

 

[Amarillo]

Okay then he's a moron.

 

[Wildcamper]

Going back to the original theme of this thread. £1.68 at Tesco Cardigan compared to £1.75 at Tesco Cirencester. Someone is making money!!

 

[GrannyJen]

Going back to the original theme of this thread. £1.68 at Tesco Cardigan

£1.68 for a Tesco cardigan is cheap but then probably not wool

 

[Calimili]

£1.68 for a Tesco cardigan is cheap but then probably not wool

still better then getting circumcestered at Tesco!!

 

[GrannyJen]

still better then getting circumcestered at Tesco!!

@Wildcamper seems to go to the same places as I do. Ceridigon is a most beautiful county of Wales and Cirencester is one of my favourite English towns, La Fontana restaurant is one of my favourites.