Carbon Neutral?

[Chriss]

[quote by=Raider link=Blah.pl?b=rbrgen,m=1160741350,s=17 date=1160759351]

...Having said all that, as you can guess Ilike the idea of planting trees to offset the carbon we produce on events. As Malcolm says, it would certainly show us in a good light.
I think we can still be petrol heads and eco-warriors :)[/quote]

I am sure that as Tim says this is the thin edge of the wedge. In 2008 I expect all of us will receive more objections than the trickle we have had this year, despite the fact that we will be making a substantial donation to a worthwhile charity. The public is more about perception than reality.  Eminent and well meaning people can put plausible cases for and against whether global warming is cyclical or human generated, but who really does know? It is more likely to be clear cut that through the media people have formed opinions based upon what the media want us to believe. If people are going to be deprived of cheap flights, you can bet we, and clubs like us, will feel the backlash.

The points to consider are keeping the good name of Club Triumph, continuing to be able to enjoy ourselves in the way that we choose, combined action being more effective that individual and as Martin says above we can do both. When starting the thread I looked at the BP site that Gordon mentions and calculated that between £4-7 is enough to offset most Triumphs for 2,000 miles.  This is not a huge amount each but if multiplied by the entry of The RBRR would be a significant sum that could be used for something usefully environmentally friendly at home or abroad. Combined action rather than individual through CT could be used to further demonstrate the responsible attitude that CT already has, generate positive publicity for CT and be used as a counter argument for those seeking to curtail our fun.

How about for 2007, CT has a voluntary scheme for offsetting carbon generation in CT events by collecting from members who wish to contribute and by establishing a relationship with a non-profit making carbon neutral organisation that puts this contribution to good use, if possible agreed on by CT contributors? This can be used as gauge to see what support the idea has in the club.

[GT6 John]

Planting one tree will definately help counteract the thousands of trees being cut down and wildlife habitat being lost due to the governments insistence on building more and more houses down here in the south east, won't it!! The government who on the other hand are telling us, the 'people' to stop being so nasty and environmentally unfriendly!!!!

People are always happy to criticise other people and their pursuits as it makes them feel better about themselves.  All the time they are not directly affected by the environmental issue they'll moan at us. It makes them appear as though they care, even though they don't.

I too have had a customer say to me about the environmental issue.  I pointed out to him that I walk to work, I pay £70 every month to recycle all the cardboard, glass and plastic that the shop gets through, and only do about 8,000 miles a year in my car which might stretch to 10,000 this year!

He however is a salesman. He gets a new car every 3 years, he does a minimum of 25,000 miles a year in his car, he has just bought one of the new build houses in the harbour that used to be lovely marshland with a big wild bird habitat and currently has no genuine means of recycling on a proper basis.

So, who's the worst offender?

And of course global warming is not caused by him jetting the 8 hour flight to his favourite holiday destination every year, the plane pumping all that gas directly into the upper atmosphere where it does most harm..................

I've taken the train over to France and Germany for my holidays, or I support our country and simply holiday around the UK, now there's a novel idea...

[Alex]

Ok I planted a tree yesterday makes me feel so much better only 93 left to plant come on guys n girls ;D I'm trying to lead by example. ;D

[JohnD]

The following may be useful to reply to the Tree Huggers.  I take the data from a recent Economist article (The sky's the limit, June 8th: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7033931)

The new A380 will transport 550 people, using four Rolls Royce Trent  jet engines, that together produce as much power as "3,500 family cars" (RR quote).
So that's more than SIX cars per passenger.  Smaller planes will be need more!

Then consider that airlines pay no tax on jet fuel, and put the results of burning the stuff high up in the atmosphere where it has two to four times MORE impact on global warming.  And the result of a European Commission study that found that in 'passenger-kilometers' a long haul flight produced half as much again in pollution as a car journey and that short haul flights were THREE times worse than a car.  A bus was best!

Ask them how long it is since they flew by jet, how far and in what aircraft?
Ask them if they walk or cycle to work (near zero carbon emission)
Ask them when they intend to sell their car and/or join a car pool?
Ask them if they voted Green in the last Election?

It'll take more than a few trees to stave off global warming.

John

[Deleted User]

Two words: Nuclear Power

Convert all power stations to Nuclear.
Convert all cookers, boilers, buses, commuting vehicles, trains etc to electric.
Problem solved, we have as much 'leccy as we want, leaving a CO2 reserve for classic vehicles and planes :D

[Alex]

Dont convert boilers to electric that'd be silly just playing into 'their' hands.
Anyway I've only just had me gas central heating installed ;D

[Caroline]

I am eco-friendly. I keep old cars on the road to save them clogging landfill, and to save me having to buy a new one. I like the idea of planing a forest. I cycle to work.

I am actually more worried about how much money we gave the government in fuel tax. If 90 cars did 2000 miles (and we all did more than that getting there and back as well) that's 180000 miles. At 30mpg and at 48p/ litre tax, I think that's about £16000 in taxes we've just paid..... I wonder what we get for that?

[Greeks]

[quote by=John_Martin link=Blah.pl?b=rbrgen,m=1160741350,s=6 date=1160742976]*sigh*  It is very difficult for me not to sound like a conspiracy theorist in what I'm about to say, but I'm not.  I do wonder what the governments remit is though, other than to control even more aspects of our lives including telling us what we can and can't use in fuel.

I am however a realist, someone who finds out actual genuine facts before coming to a decision. So, global warming - mankind is going to die right? Wrong.

Having done extensive research for of all things my wine theory exams and wine dissertation I can assure you that nature and global warming happens anyway.

History of geology and nature proves conclusively that over a 5000 year period there is a massive rise in temperature followed by 3 mini peaks and troughs of hot and cold, 1000 years apart with a massive drop in temperature at the end, otherwise known as an ice age.

We are currently nearing the top of one of the mini peaks.  These peaks are approx. 1000 years apart.  1000 years ago, 2000 years ago and 3000 years ago, (can you see where this is going?) the world went through similar heat peaks.  It is called nature, its what happens, get over it!!

There is no doubt that man is speeding the process up BUT it will happen anyway.  Leading geologists, who are not the people being listened to because they're not spouting the government line, are saying that in 20 - 50 years we will start to cool down again.

We are in fact at the top of the 3rd and last peak before the big cool down.  Over the next few hundred or so years the earth is in fact going to get progressively colder.  What will governments of the time put that down to I wonder. Being too green perhaps??!

[/quote]

Having  followed this debate for about 20 years now, and undertaken two Geography degrees along the way,  until recently I would have followed your argument. In the 1960s the big scare was that the world was going to enter another Ice Age ... this has been discredited, as the patterns aren't nearly as simplified as were believed then.

CO2 levels are relatively easily monitored (and are going through the roof), as are diatom structures, etc. etc. and the relatively few scientists who oppose the regular view that 'nothing is wrong' are either in the pay of the wrong interest, or just playing devil's advocate (admittedly an important role) ... oh, I could write an essay on this. Best job is to watch the "Inconvenient Truth" ... hardly the best or most rigorous debate, but definitely some food for thought.

It never  ceases to amaze me just how unwilling people are to just give a shit and modify their behaviour slightly. "It's not my problem", yes, neither was Hitler, and burying heads in the sand (appeasement) didn't work there. If we could harness the camaraderie of the RBRR and like events and put it towards slight modification of behaviour life would improve.

Unfortunately most people have yet to recognise that "economic development" and "sustainable development" aren't necessarily dialectically opposed. But I believe that will change over time. Living in an area of the world that has such an untouched element to it still, but is so much more fragile than the environment I grew up in has really opened my eyes on this.

Btw ... Nuclear power - nonsense too. Short term solution to long term problems  :)

JohnD - did you read the Sep 9th edition of The Economist ... a special article on climate change, that summed up all the arguments and concluded that action is needed?  :)

Rant over.

[GT6 John]

Just because I don't agree with the current hysteria on global warming doesn't mean I don't believe its not happening, nor that we should just carry on the way we have been.

I'm strongly against all the house building in the south east of England that is eating into vast swathes of countryside that was once home to millions of birds and animals.

I also disagree with our 'throw away' society we live in these days. I try to recycle all suitable rubbish that I produce.  But I also try to reuse rather than throw away.  I only own and drive one car that rather than throwing away because its not 'financially viable' I continue to reuse and simply repair parts rather than buying a whole new car.

Man is definately speeding the warming up, as I've said above, but my point, although perhaps not well made, is that global warming is a natural part of the Earths cycle and as such there is nothing we can do to stop it, but 'we' are not being told this.  That is not to say we should just carry on useing and abusing though.

Hope I've made my position on this subject a little clearer for you.  If not feel free to tell me...:P

[AlanChatterton]

Okay, for what it's worth, here my thoughts.

1) I will not be planting a tree. As other people have said, it's a consumers market, and how I choose to spend my money/burn my fuel is my issue, no one elses.

2) I drive 50,000 miles per year in a "normal" car, and by sacrificing a few things I managed to get a car with one of the lowest emission levels in its class, hence I am lowering my output by my choice of car, therefore I can burn a bit more doing things like this.

3) MOST importantly. By driving, restoring and loving these cars, we are REDUCING the carbon output. Do you realise that if we drive our Triumph's for 100,000 miles, we will still put out LESS carbon emissions than it takes to build a new Ford Focus. Therefore, by RECYLCING older classic cars, keeping them running, and not buying new cars to use, we are doing more to reduce the damage to the environment than any other bloody tree hugging hippy twit in a headscarf.

Thanks for listening.

Rant over

However, serious point here, perhaps we do need to consider if we could do something to help. If planting trees would help then perhaps we should. I dunno, I just can see this going pear-shaped and I don't want anything to get in the way of my enjoyment of my car, CT and RBRR.

[neilnaz]

The individual can make a difference but society can make a huge difference to the problems if we can get people to change their habits and think about polutants and harm that is needless.

One problem is that for every effort made by certain countries and many individuals there are counties that are carrying on regardless with their 'progress'. Look at China and Brazil. Britain had its industrial revolution prior to any understanding that polution was a bad thing.

It costs money to do things in an environmentally friendly way. Therefore, if one country decides to develop in a green way then it suffers economically compared to another not so green. Obviously if everybody played by the rules then everybody would be equally economically dissadvantaged.

This is just like the unilateral vs multilateral dissarmament argument going back a few years. Nobody, or few, are willing to entertain the costs of going green apart from a few ineffectual measures.

Individuals should do things to help but they should be encouraged by hitting their pocket if they do not. Sounds very burdensome and red-tape centralist to me. the other way is to educate and to price things accordingly. Something that is environmentally friendly uses less fuel. Insulation costs so does double glazing but we have bought them cos they make sense. Greener cars make sense - they cost less to run. some people can afford to run thirsty cars. That's fine cos they are paying more. I run a car 5000 miles a year needlessly just for fun. I am paying for it. I don't need a car really. I can use public transport but I enjoy going for a drive. I am paying for it.

The end result of all of this will be that everything we do will have to be justified to the nth degree and that may be because nobody has done anything soon enough and drastic measures ensue. Not a good outcome.

I don't mind tree-planting it is probably a good thing to do to make up for all the trees cut down but CT doing it will still get the rabid green lobby criticising needless motoring even we shout back 'I am carbon neutral me'. The point is, until it gets done at the regional and national level by local and national government encouraging us all to do the right thing to enable us to the things that we have come to expect to do in our leisure time then tree-planting will only serve for people to ease their own guilt if they feel guilty about polluting.

End of surmon  :D

Neil

[Deleted User]

post removed on request of author

[Deleted User]

post removed on request of author

[Andy Flexney]

I can understand the arguments from both sides but…..

I must say I rather like the idea from Chris, why shouldn’t we all plant a tree?

If it is only £6.80 that works out at about 7 litres on top of the 200 we used driving the event.
So we just add £6.80 to the entry fee have 100 trees planted. What a publicity stunt, it would take the wind out of the sails of any objections that might come in the future. And isn’t it better to be proactive?

Remember Club Triumph is the “Club That Does”

[Deleted User]

That is actually a fantastic idea Andy!

[GT6 John]

*cynical old git mode*

Is there any room amoungst the thousands of government endorsed new build houses on green belt land to plant 100 trees?

*cynical old git mode off*

[Greeks]

[quote by=davesideways link=Blah.pl?b=rbrgen,m=1160741350,s=37 date=1161100115]Cars produce carbon, emissions, and nasties during their production than they will in there entire lifepspan on the road. We are doing the globe a favour running old cars.[/quote]

I don't think anyone can disagree with this, Dave!  :) except for the automotive industry. Holden have just introduced the new Commodore (the Ford Escort of Australia ... but bigger) 5 years in the making, $1B in research. A Holden 'blimp' just flew past my window (I work in a tall building) with electronic noticeboards flashing Holden propaganda about how it has electronic everything (i.e. "electronic everything so you can concentrate even less). This car is less fuel efficient than the previous model  ??) wtf is going on  ??) Australia comes second only to the USA in terms of non-industrial greenhouse gas emissions, apparently ... fat cars and air conditioners, and lazy fat people. 50 years ago they managed without a/c ... houses were designed to bear this in mind. In my line of work I've even heard economists argue that we should design houses so that they NEED a/c so people spend their $ on these things ::) ??)

Yes, Dave, the world will even things out eventually, but if you forget about the ecology side of things and think more about human survival I reckon there's a lot to be said for people thinking beyond their own little bubble.

As for tree-hugging hippies, etc. Jesus, please join us in the 21st Century  :P

I'm really pleased to see that people think the carbon neutral idea is good though  :) Not just about the PR side of things, though.

[Goody]

From the land of waste, fat and we don't care.  That's right most American's don't buy into golbal warming and are not likely too.  More important most don't care and nothing is going to change that.  Like elseware in the world we got ours and we are gonna keep it.  We don't care what it might cost anyone else.  Fact: America is the land of the CAR!. We are also the land of lazy fat slobs who will not settle for anything less than total comfort. Gas was and for the most part is cheap overhere.  We like our land yahts, the bigger the better.  When cars got smaller why do you think Trucks and SUV's are now the best sellers.  Cause trucks are BIG! Gas engines rule! I know some who drive their riding lawn mower to their mail box! Ok it's 300ft from the house.  I will admit with only the wife and I we have 7 cars and 1 big Truck.(06 Ford F250)  Besides our 3 Heralds we have 2 Cadillac's(98 Deville & 05 SRX), a 69 Ford Galaxie Conv. (Big Car) and a 46 Jeep. Yes our house has central Heat and AC.  Now I am not saying I agree with my fellow countrymen but their are some things I am not willing to give up.  Do I think global warming is real? Well yes and no.  I thik it's a 100 year clycle and and yes we are to some small degree adding to it.  Sorry I can not bring myself the beleive the Ralph Nader's, Al Gore's and the Greenpeace'es of the world. I have never heard one of them tell anything ever remotely closle to the truth about anytning!!!  I am not willing to give up my cars, move into a apartment in a city and walk to work give up my AC or my COLD BEER!  You might not like what I said or agree with it but I think you will agree that's the way most feel no matter where they live.  Are any of us gonna change? Er will not quite no matter what we say.

[neilnaz]

I don't think that anyone dissagrees that what people do does affect the planet and the environment. The thing is, as Goody mentioned, there are some countries/peoples who will never give up the things that they value. Live in a hot climate and have money - have air conditioning.  ;)

The things that does give me a headache is that some countries are trying to deccelerate the harm that people are causing where others are just carrying on regardless. This means that some 'suffer' measures attempting to reduce polution whereas others carry on polluting as it is their right.  :(

In this country many people go on many air trips which supposedly causes the most pollution of all forms of travel yet we are being told to be environmentally friendly in other ways. Air travel is good for the economy so I am told but so is driving going out for the day visiting places buying lunch and spending a bit of money on leisure activities. I want some consistency here.  >:(

If we get draconian curbs on what we are allowed to do yet the USA/China and many large economies continue to pollute on a massive scale then we are not doing a great deal. If there is a problem then people have to act collectively. I don't want to be forced not to drive around in any car whilst Goody has 7 cars and a Truck and a licence to pollute.  :-/

This will end up with nobody doing a thing because others aren't and we will have destroyed the planet's environment to such a level that we humans cannot enjoy it or live on/in it. The planet will live on and evolve but we may be wlaking around in chemical suits with our own air-conditioning systems strapped to our backs.  ::)

I don't know whether the planet is doomed to such a future without certain measures being taken or not. I am no expert but I do worry that the USA for instance ignores the problem (if there is one) or wholeheartedly rejects Global warming. It is either that or no President will ever be elected on a mandate of acting. I mean can you see a President telling the Yanks 'thou must stop polluting'! I though not!!!  :o

Neil

[Deleted User]

I don't know enough about global warming to proffer my opinion on wether it is exaggerated or overlooked. But something other than the implications of CO2 might affect our usage of Cars/Planes.
Quite simply Oil is running out, it's supply is finite, and in my lifetime there will be a shortage. Sure they can find more reserves, but they will be deeper in the sea, deeper in dangerous countries and you will have to reach deeper into your pockets to buy its products.
No one will stop Goody owning 7 cars, he could have 50 yank tanks if he chose, but the 50 mile round trip at 8 mpg might make him think twice.

I personally believe that the human race is intelligent enough to overcome any such problems. Synthetic fuels can be created, nuclear fusion will become feasible, it will be possible to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Let's not forget before the Stephenson unveiled his rocket, people thought the 20mph it attained would kill you. 200 years later humans are flying to the moon at 13000 mph. From the Wright Brothers to Apollo 11 was barely 70 years. If you look back in 2040 at the last 70 years progress it will be astonishing. Computers going from the size of an office to the palm of your hand in 30 years!!!

Don't under estimate what the human race can do when pushed to it.

"Necessity is the mother of all invention" - Someone Famous, Yesterday

[Luke]

I raised this issue myself some time ago, could Berkeley and myself continue to keep taking part in RBRR and the effect it maybe having on the environment etc also considering that I work for LA and in Waste and RECYCLING!!!    My green work colleagues suggested to me at the time that I should plant 3 trees, and us driving round Britain was far far less damaging than any aeroplane that is taking off every minute.

I walk, cycle and run most days and Berkeley has started to cycle too, we live in a rural area and public transport doesn't exist here unlike the big cities out there.

So here in Lincolnshire we are organising some trees to be planted in aid of  our RBRR 2006 and any other long haul driving trips we will participate in for the future :)

[Goody]

Some see my point.  To travel outside of the UK one must fly.  Ok you can take a ferry to Ireland or mainland Europe.  Are you going to give up travel, vacations and the like.  As for the RBRR we don't do it every month.  Like me you have old cars to enjoy them.  Most of you have a modern car to get around in.  You can take a group tour for you vacation but how many of you want the same feeling as if you were in the Army?  Group tours have their place but most want the freedom to go where they want.  Oil will one day run out but. did you know Russia is sitting on more oil then the mid-east ever had.  Soon even the US will build more things inclucing cars and homes that use less enegry.  Neilnaz is right in that no one running for president would get elected here on a stop pooluting stance.  By the way we are allways planting trees and plants here. Note: we are trying to have less grass to cut.  Therefore less gas and diesel needed for our lawn tractors.  Also with the just the wife and I we can only drive 2 of ours at any given time.  I see form outher post's here some of you have more cars then we do.  We could get into those who have travel trailors, motorhomes and boats!  How many are willing to give those things up?  We did years ago but only because we hardly ever used them and the upkeep got too expensive.  See money will make the differance.  No one will get elected here on a raise the gas tax platform. 

[Chriss]

[quote by=AndyF link=Blah.pl?b=rbrgen,m=1160741350,s=41 date=1161108475]

If it is only £6.80 that works out at about 7 litres on top of the 200 we used driving the event.
So we just add £6.80 to the entry fee have 100 trees planted. What a publicity stunt, it would take the wind out of the sails of any objections that might come in the future. And isn't it better to be proactive?

[/quote]

Andy, you seem to be the only one who has taken my point, that by acting together as CT, rather than as individuals, we can achieve something substantial and obtain good publicity for CT.  For example there are CN organisations that could plant Scots Pines in the Cairngorms or trees on Dartmoor, which would be appropriate as we pass through these places.  A thicket of 90 or so trees would be publicity worthy.  Crickey, Tim could pose for a photo!

We could collect either by a voluntary scheme or say£5 on the entry of an event, collect throughout the year and decide what to do with the fund for best environmental benefit and CT PR.

[Beans]

mmm ... interesting idea, The Triumph Forest. I like the idea  8)
But which trees would be likely candidates to be planted  ::)
There should be some bronzegreen oaktrees for the Dutch CT members  ;D

Sings the Limburgian anthem and quitely sneaks out

[Raider]

A few points I would like to make

Ahem

1) Great to see this level of debate

2) Excuse me Chris but I think I saw your point too :P

3) Ok, if Chris,Andy and I are in agreement why don't we chip in our £5/£7 each and start our CT forest contribution :)  Or our own driver's anonymous club donation if CT isn't ready for this :)  Maybe in collaboration with the Johnsons :-/

4) Chris - could you organise this as I am flying off on holiday very soon :D

5) I am not sure if I believe the science either but I like trees and woods anyway for their own sake :B