QuoteUK has promised to make tackling climate change a major international priority for its current presidency of the EU and chairing of the G8. However, the UK is currently way off track from meeting its promise to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2010 (based on 1990 levels), and may even miss its target under the Kyoto Protocol. UK carbon dioxide emissions are less than four per cent lower than 1990 levels.

One thing I dont get is if they are serious about this why dont they do it on one foul swoop?

I mean Ive heard that if everyone changed there light bulbs to the super efficient ones it would reduce our emishions by %25 on its own.
Thats there target met strate away.
So why not just ban regular bulbs?

Is that true because its just something Ive heard.

I highly doubt it would cut our emissions by 25%. Maybe 2.5%.

of course it rather depends what proportion of our juice is burned in light bulbs, but like Sam I cant see it saving 25%.

It might (note might) cut your personal usage by something approaching that much, but residential and even office lighting pales into insignificance when compared to heavy industry. Changing the lightbulb in a room whose main purpose is to house a 1000hp electric motor or some such thing really wont make a lot of difference.

Theres also the fact that there are many situations where filament lamps simple cant be changed for energy efficient ones (probably mostly industrial uses).

When bus drivers stop leaving there engines running for a fag break Ill take the prediction/target seriously.

Tis all bollox though.

Quote from: CypherWhen bus drivers stop leaving there engines running for a fag break Ill take the prediction/target seriously.

TBH, Buses should be their 1st target

Quote from: CypherWhen bus drivers stop leaving there engines running for a fag break Ill take the prediction/target seriously.

I cant think of one bus that dosnt smoke like buggery when pulling off.

Quote from: SamI highly doubt it would cut our emissions by 25%. Maybe 2.5%.

Relates to emissions from peoples homes and doesnt include use of other energy such as gas.

Light bulbs use almost as much energy as cars.

Add in industry use of lighting, that in some instances means 24/7 and its a hell of a lot of power. Just look at the number of empty office blocks that have their lights left on.

QuoteIn the UK alone, it has been estimated that the use of energy-saving light bulbs, in suitable applications, would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by 2.3 million tonnes per year (2.3 Mt CO2).

Such an annual saving would be equivalent to 8-21% of the emissions reduction the UK government has stated that it wants achieved by 2010.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4922496.stm

Not quite a 25% cut but it does meet what the government wants at the top end. Add in other options and it would be possible for a 30% plus cut in emissions.

Real problem is that Chinas increase in power use needs far more than that from a single year. No matter how hard we put our brakes on its the Americans and Chinese who are the real problem.

I havent changed a low energy bulb in five years and I still have the first one I got given after filling in a home energy assessment form - its still working too

Quote from: Madrocker

Quote from: CypherWhen bus drivers stop leaving there engines running for a fag break Ill take the prediction/target seriously.

I cant think of one bus that dosnt smoke like buggery when pulling off.

pfft they are diesel got soot and ozone to worry about from then more than the damned CO2.

the worlds gone mad over this CO2 yet have the stopped the forests being hacked down? nope

The reason they are being so slack about it is simply because they will have to shell out (our money) and presumably are looking for a good excuse to take more of our money in taxes. Its a good moneymaking scheme for them - get the public turned to something by clever manipulation of the press etc and they can rake it in for the new tax they have invented.

They give grants at the minute - at my parents place they have a 30kW turbine (Vespa) and about 20kW of solar PV shingles on a couple of outhouses. net result is no electric bill, rather  credit of up to £60-100 per week. The grant aid (at the time) was 75% for the entire system - the entire system was £40k, so thats a cost of £10k which is paid back in the first year by the credits.

Im slapping my house together (Slowly) at the minute, and Im going for PV shingles on the roof (You cant tell them apart from normal roof tiles)

Quote from: Serious

QuoteSuch an annual saving would be equivalent to 8-21% of the emissions reduction the UK government has stated that it wants achieved by 2010.

read your source again Serious, it says 8-21% of the target, not our total emissions, so thats more like 4% of total emisions

Worth doing, and by the sound of it actually as good as everything else theyve already done put together, but hardly a target beater on its own.

plus most of those businesses that leave lights on 24/7 use strip lights which dont seem to have an energy saving equivalent.

IMO just get fusion running at this new plant and use the surplus power to literally pump CO2 out of the air and back into carbon annd oxygen.  With enough electricity spare its got to be possible to convert CO2 back again.  Hell, trees do it and theyre sh*t.

The main reason theyre being slow is because cutting back on carbon dramatically slows manufacturing and therefore the economy.  Theres a reason why China is producing tons of CO2 but also industrialising faster than any country ever has.