[loz]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7536124.stm

The UK has been living under a delusion over its claim to be cutting greenhouse gases, according to two reports that will shake the climate change debate.

They show that instead of falling since the 1990s, UK greenhouse emissions have being growing in line with the economy

An SEI report to be published shortly by the campaign group WWF will suggest that the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions are 49% higher than reported emissions.

A recent little-publicised report for the government department Defra showed that rather than going down 5% as the government claimed, CO2 emissions have gone up 18% between 1992 and 2004 when all emissions are counted.

The government sat on the SEI report since February, tested its calculations, then published it in an obscure press release on 2 July.

This confirms, as BBC News pointed out last year, that the UK's apparently virtuous carbon cuts have only been achieved because we are getting countries like China to do our dirty work.
Some would say this allows them to be blamed for increasing their CO2 emissions on our behalf.

The Defra-SEI report shows that as manufacturing in the UK has closed down, some of the production has shifted to countries where manufacturing is more carbon intensive that it would be here - in other words, more CO2 is emitted per unit of production.

WWF say the new figures are "breathtaking" and make a mockery of the UK's claims of global leadership.

Stuart Bond, WWF's head of research, said: "This shows our claims on emissions are simply a big lie.

"The government has known about this for a very long time but has just refused to face up to it.

[andykn]

Thanks for this.

A few of us have pointed out previously to those who say China's contribution dwarfs ours that this is due to the UK's influence too.

[johntheexpat]

But wasn't the 'Dash for Gas' supposed to be a huge step towards the target?
I do hope the government of the time weren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

[Chrisoldinho]

On the BBC News last night they implied it's increased because we import items that have a carbon footprint created elsewhere but how do you cure this, stop importing? It's simply not viable. I would put money on the fact that it's increased because other countries simply don't follow the same CO2 guidelines that we do therefore the items have a higher carbon footprint, if the items were made in the UK then i'm sure the CO2 rating would be much lower as different technologies would be used to create the products.

But that's the price you pay for the Uk being so damn expensive compared with China where people are getting paid as little as 15p an hour. The report should also say you can't have your cake and eat it.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Chrisoldinho

On the BBC News last night they implied it's increased because we import items that have a carbon footprint created elsewhere but how do you cure this, stop importing? It's simply not viable. I would put money on the fact that it's increased because other countries simply don't follow the same CO2 guidelines that we do therefore the items have a higher carbon footprint, if the items were made in the UK then i'm sure the CO2 rating would be much lower as different technologies would be used to create the products.

But that's the price you pay for the Uk being so damn expensive compared with China where people are getting paid as little as 15p an hour. The report should also say you can't have your cake and eat it.

The cheap imports come with a future cost attached, like we are finding out already in terms of greater fuel and food costs.

Stopping imports may not be "viable", but, if the climate scientists are right, it's going to cost us a lot more than we think we are paying.

[Jason D]

Absolutely right. Whichever way you add it up... "there's no such thing as a free lunch". The British consumer (including myself !) wants more for less. In my view, in lieu of some left-of-field technological discovery the best way is to consume less. Not a palatable message but a fact of life at the moment

[JagoPlasma]

corn laws anyone?

[Rich B]

who cares..
ever taken a look at the emissions of an active volcano? (makes anything we pale in to insignificance)
ever bothered to take a look at what volcanos actually do? (act as a natural carbon balancer)

yes there is climate change.. there always has been.. not one shred of evidence its caused by man. Its quite presumptious of us to even assume we (man) are even capable of overpowering natures own processes on such a large scale.

The only 'delusion' is politicians and eco-bunny-warriors thinking my car producing 0.3% Co2 instead of 0.2% will make the blindest bit of difference to anything.

Global Warming.. Global (cash cow) Con

[robh2002]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

But wasn't the 'Dash for Gas' supposed to be a huge step towards the target?
I do hope the government of the time weren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Diversifying into gas fired power generation does make a significant difference to our CO2 emissions - they would be significantly higher if we were still burning coal to generate electrical power. Using natural gas powered gas turbine cycles coupled with an Advanced Rankine steam cycles, i.e. CO generation - is significantly more efficient than burning coal in a traditional Advanced Rankine cycle.

So no, there was no "pulling the wool over eye's" effect! There may be other political reasons for not wanting to burn coal, but that's another story.

[robh2002]

Originally Posted by Rich B

who cares..
ever taken a look at the emissions of an active volcano? (makes anything we pale in to insignificance)
ever bothered to take a look at what volcanos actually do? (act as a natural carbon balancer)

yes there is climate change.. there always has been.. not one shred of evidence its caused by man. Its quite presumptious of us to even assume we (man) are even capable of overpowering natures own processes on such a large scale.

The only 'delusion' is politicians and eco-bunny-warriors thinking my car producing 0.3% Co2 instead of 0.2% will make the blindest bit of difference to anything.

Global Warming.. Global (cash cow) Con

"...not one shred of evidence its caused by man...".

Umm, most of the scientific community will disagree with you. But let's not go there - please read the name of this forum.

[Rich B]

most of it doesnt actually.
(other than the ones commissioned by government funds).

just as much 'evidence' (read theory) to suggest otherwise

well aware of the forum title, just thought id throw out the option for people to stop quoting the garbage the media feed us and think for yourself as to the validity of the 'research' behind it.

[robh2002]

Originally Posted by Rich B

most of it doesnt actually.
(other than the ones commissioned by government funds).

just as much 'evidence' (read theory) to suggest otherwise

well aware of the forum title, just thought id throw out the option for people to stop quoting the garbage the media feed us and think for yourself as to the validity of the 'research' behind it.

Well we can agree that the media does have an on going habit of presenting rubbish.

I don't take my information from the media for that very reason - but where, might I ask, do you get your information from?

[Rich B]

there is no 'one' source.. if there were it would be a simple clear cut yes or no answer wouldn't it.
You only have to look at some of the assumptions born from something that IS actually scientifically proven. They prove one small part of the story then role that on to assume the rest. (finding '1' and assuming 1+1=3)

there are plenty of dubious sites claiming to offer very plausible arguments against the man made global warming theory (JunkScience, The register all have contradicting theories) but a lot of my own scepticism comes from the all too convenient truth that all these exaggerated (government fuelled) media stories claiming its black and white, are conveniently giving justification for the introduction of the biggest money maker any government will ever see..

The Carbon Economy.. (create something that may or may not exist and make unimaginable amounts of money by 'trading' on it)
All rather convenient (but then we can trust the powers that be right?)

[robh2002]

Originally Posted by Rich B

there is no 'one' source.. if there were it would be a simple clear cut yes or no answer wouldn't it.
You only have to look at some of the assumptions born from something that IS actually scientifically proven. They prove one small part of the story then role that on to assume the rest. (finding '1' and assuming 1+1=3)

there are plenty of dubious sites claiming to offer very plausible arguments against the man made global warming theory (JunkScience, The register all have contradicting theories) but a lot of my own scepticism comes from the all too convenient truth that all these exaggerated (government fuelled) media stories claiming its black and white, are conveniently giving justification for the introduction of the biggest money maker any government will ever see..

The Carbon Economy.. (create something that may or may not exist and make unimaginable amounts of money by 'trading' on it)
All rather convenient (but then we can trust the powers that be right?)

We are in danger of taking this thread away from its intended purpose, so I will not reply after this on this particular subject - although we can discuss privately if you wish.

There is only one source - the scientific, peer-reviewed journals. If you do not have access to these and do not have education enough to understand some of them then I am sorry to say we are wasting our time having this discussion. You can pretty much write off all websites as a source of information - primarily because anyone can set one up and write anything they wish. I have even seen Blogs used here as 'proof' of one things or another. It really is quite astonishing what people will use as evidence - on either side of the argument!

However, I do still tend to agree with you regarding the media and its portrayal of complex ideas, but then they have to 'sell' to the not very educated public.

[robh2002]

Originally Posted by andykn

Thanks for this.

A few of us have pointed out previously to those who say China's contribution dwarfs ours that this is due to the UK's influence too.

Indeed China does dwarf our CO2 output, but part of that reason is, as this article states, it is the rich west who off-loads its manufacturing - we still buy the stuff!

China, on a per capita basis, produces significantly less CO2 than we do in the UK - and that is the reason I think we need to do better. Indeed, I think we have a moral obligation to do so.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Rich B

who cares..
ever taken a look at the emissions of an active volcano? (makes anything we pale in to insignificance)
ever bothered to take a look at what volcanos actually do? (act as a natural carbon balancer)

Don't feel you have to patronise us with any figures to back up your opposition to the opinion of the majority of the World scientists.

yes there is climate change.. there always has been.. not one shred of evidence its caused by man.

One "shred" of evidence is that global temps are rising and there hasn't been any more volcanoes knowking around than ususal. We know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, we know how much we proiduce and we know that CO2 is a greehouse gas.

Its quite presumptious of us to even assume we (man) are even capable of overpowering natures own processes on such a large scale.

To say that man cannot affect weather/climate was disproved when scientists studied temperatures when planes in the US were grounded post 9/11.

The only 'delusion' is politicians and eco-bunny-warriors thinking my car producing 0.3% Co2 instead of 0.2% will make the blindest bit of difference to anything.

Global Warming.. Global (cash cow) Con

Politicans hate Global Warming. They get it in the neck now from people who don't understand/refuse to believe the science and will get it in the neck in future for not doing enough.

Govts do not need any more excuses to raise taxes, they are good enough already with the ones they've got.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by robhowell

Indeed China does dwarf our CO2 output, but part of that reason is, as this article states, it is the rich west who off-loads its manufacturing - we still buy the stuff!

China, on a per capita basis, produces significantly less CO2 than we do in the UK - and that is the reason I think we need to do better. Indeed, I think we have a moral obligation to do so.

Absolutely, and we have to acknowledge that some of our CO2 production is effectively secondhand.

[Rich B]

Originally Posted by robhowell

We are in danger of taking this thread away from its intended purpose, so I will not reply after this on this particular subject - although we can discuss privately if you wish.

i understand, that is fair enough.

Originally Posted by robhowell

There is only one source - the scientific, peer-reviewed journals. If you do not have access to these and do not have education enough to understand some of them then I am sorry to say we are wasting our time having this discussion.

Having 2 Science qualifications to BSc and MSc level i think am capable of casting a critical eye over so called "evidence" given to us, im talking about 'proof' fed to us in the media, i'll admit it has been quite a while since ive read any scientific journals.
If you have (which im assuming you do?) a scientific background you will already know by its very nature science can only ever establish correlation on which you base (assume) cause. It does not 'prove'. (take note AndyKn)

Originally Posted by robhowell

You can pretty much write off all websites as a source of information - primarily because anyone can set one up and write anything they wish. I have even seen Blogs used here as 'proof' of one things or another. It really is quite astonishing what people will use as evidence - on either side of the argument!

hence why i myself called them dubious. .
they do make some interesting points though.

Originally Posted by robhowell

However, I do still tend to agree with you regarding the media and its portrayal of complex ideas, but then they have to 'sell' to the not very educated public.

Ill leave it at that..
interesting to note though, all this 'proof' around yet it appears they have all missed the closing date of Dec1st 08 to submit their abstracts and claim the $500,000 prize..
JunkScience.com's Ultimate Global Warming Challenge
(that was meant tongue in cheek!)