Jump to content

Recommended Posts

micromacromonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In short, no, it doesn't count. There is only so

> much water on the planet, and it's been cycling

> around in and out of the atmosphere and oceans for

> hundreds of thousands of years. 'Anthropogenic'

> water vapour might have small short term effects

> (e.g. clouds near cooling towers) but they will

> dissipate. While water vapour is a greenhouse gas

> (accounts for 90% of the greenhouse effect or

> something like that) any particular effects are

> short term and relatively localised.

>

> Conversely most CO2 that we emit has been trapped

> underground for AGES, and so is effectively a new

> addition to the atmosphere, hence considered a

> pollutant. It won't disappear in a rain shower

> like water vapour will.


Most water vapour that we emit has similarly been trapped underground for ages. When we burn natural gas (methane), two molecules of water vapour are emitted for every one molecule of CO2. The ratio for refined petroleum (diesel/petrol) is closer to 1:1 but still, all that water vapour has been trapped underground as crude oil and would still be there if we hadn't dug it up and burnt it. We have added to the amount of water on this planet just as we've added to the amount of CO2.


I accept the premise that the water cycle runs on a different timescale to the carbon cycle, hence the effects of the additional water vapour may not be as long-lived as the extra CO2. But my point was that both gases, when emitted by human activities, are pollutants.

Just going back on this too - all black cabs will have to be younger than 15 years old. But all residential cars in the ULEZ will have to be less than 6 years old - feels incongruous. Haven't looked in detail but isn't clear to me what standards minicabs will have to meet? Will they be held to the same standards as residential cars? I do support initiatives to make London's air cleaner and its incumbent on all of us to act now, but these plans seem too patchy.

goldilocks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just going back on this too - all black cabs will

> have to be younger than 15 years old. But all

> residential cars in the ULEZ will have to be less

> than 6 years old - feels incongruous. Haven't

> looked in detail but isn't clear to me what

> standards minicabs will have to meet? Will they be

> held to the same standards as residential cars? I

> do support initiatives to make London's air

> cleaner and its incumbent on all of us to act now,

> but these plans seem too patchy.


The black cab lobby is very powerful, that's why they're still driving around in cabs that are up to 20 years old, ancient EURO2 emissions, without diesel particulate filters (DPFs) and up to half a million miles on their knackered engines.


I saw a Hackney Carriage-licensed 1997 R-reg cab in town the other day, belching out clouds of visible soot and regularly follow 02/52/03/53-reg vehicles that ought to be banned immediately.


If I recall, Uber vehicles must be less than four years old; don't know about minicabs, but plenty of them are high-milers with the DPF chopped out of the exhaust system.

But all residential cars in the ULEZ will have to be less than 6 years old - feels incongruous.


This is not so - I have checked our petrol family car(s) with the ULEZ site - they are all older than 6 years, and all 'passed'. It depends what standard they were designed and tested to. It is true that many younger (than my car) diesel cars will not pass. This has not been helped by the 'cheats' installed in diesel cars by the manufacturers (some of them).

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> micromacromonkey Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > In short, no, it doesn't count. There is only

> so

> > much water on the planet, and it's been cycling

> > around in and out of the atmosphere and oceans

> for

> > hundreds of thousands of years. 'Anthropogenic'

> > water vapour might have small short term

> effects

> > (e.g. clouds near cooling towers) but they will

> > dissipate. While water vapour is a greenhouse

> gas

> > (accounts for 90% of the greenhouse effect or

> > something like that) any particular effects are

> > short term and relatively localised.

> >

> > Conversely most CO2 that we emit has been

> trapped

> > underground for AGES, and so is effectively a

> new

> > addition to the atmosphere, hence considered a

> > pollutant. It won't disappear in a rain shower

> > like water vapour will.

>

> Most water vapour that we emit has similarly been

> trapped underground for ages. When we burn natural

> gas (methane), two molecules of water vapour are

> emitted for every one molecule of CO2. The ratio

> for refined petroleum (diesel/petrol) is closer to

> 1:1 but still, all that water vapour has been

> trapped underground as crude oil and would still

> be there if we hadn't dug it up and burnt it. We

> have added to the amount of water on this planet

> just as we've added to the amount of CO2.

>

> I accept the premise that the water cycle runs on

> a different timescale to the carbon cycle, hence

> the effects of the additional water vapour may not

> be as long-lived as the extra CO2. But my point

> was that both gases, when emitted by human

> activities, are pollutants.


I have broken my golden rule of not arguing on the internet about climate change. What you have written I can only assume you have read in good faith on a website somewhere, but you have probably forgotten the GCSE/O-Level science required to critique it.


The answer is: those water molecules end up in the water cycle like other water molecules. They aren't any more likely to hang around in the atmosphere because they used to be part of a hydrocarbon molecule, in some homeopathic memory-of-petrol sort of way. Sure, if the planet warms, then air can hold more water vapour, and that means more greenhouse effect, in a positive feedback loop. But there is more than enough liquid water available (hint: the sea is big) for that to happen without worrying about adding a relatively tiny amount from burning hydrocarbons.

  • 3 weeks later...
There is a massive hole in the tube network over SE London. There is a massive hole in the Boris bike network over SE London. How about fixing one, or both of these things before piling on more restrictions on private transport?

Hi rahrahrah,

You can see a heat map of Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL) here - https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat

The higher the number redder the map the more pubic transport.

You are right that near the south circular PTAL is much lower - those blues in Dulwich Village are in the middle of Dulwich Park BTW.

Equally if you look to the north of London similar heat map PTAL scores before you reach the north circular.


As Londondoners do we try and fix air pollution or not. The waiting for everywhere to have high PTAL would mean not addressing air pollution. We're never going to have universal high PTAL scores.


But for clarity the ULEX means Petrol cars newer than 2006.

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi rahrahrah,

> You can see a heat map of Public Transport

> Accessibility Levels (PTAL) here -

> https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-con

> struction/planning-with-webcat/webcat

> The higher the number redder the map the more

> pubic transport.

> You are right that near the south circular PTAL is

> much lower - those blues in Dulwich Village are in

> the middle of Dulwich Park BTW.

> Equally if you look to the north of London similar

> heat map PTAL scores before you reach the north

> circular.

>

> As Londondoners do we try and fix air pollution or

> not. The waiting for everywhere to have high PTAL

> would mean not addressing air pollution. We're

> never going to have universal high PTAL scores.

>

> But for clarity the ULEX means Petrol cars newer

> than 2006.


But not all provision is equal, is it? A bus which takes an hour to get into central London, is not equal to a tube service which turns up ever few minutes and take 10 to get into the west end (for example).


Personally, I would like to see some Boris bikes at least, so that one could cycle to brixton tube - or just some secure bike parking at Brixton.

AFAIK there has never been any real incentive towards those vehicles (mostly automatic cars, but also some automatic 125 scooters) that automatically switch off the engine when stopped in traffic or at a traffic light. I am no scientist, but I would imagine that not polluting while stationary (which is a huge part of the time in a city like ours) would make quite a big difference?


I also do wonder about the generic impact of replacing an old vehicle with a less polluting one vs keeping it a bit longer. For those who live in the areas where the new vehicle will be driven, a new vehicle will be better. But for the environment overall? What's the environmental impact of scrapping an old vehicle and producing a new one? I genuinely have no idea.

PS Oh, and also the environmental efficiency of British homes is a joke by European standards. In many cases double glazing is not even allowed. The Dulwich Estate doesn't allow it, for example, because of course the "charity" must fleece homeowners by policing the beauty of the houses and overcharging them so that money can be funneled towards posh independent school attended mostly by overpriviliged kids - a most charitable endeavour.


(No, I don't live in the Dulwich Estate area - heel will freeze over before I do).

I wonder how much it would cost to provide proper, secure bike parking at Brixton tube, as opposed to all the yellow line, speed bumps etc that are scattered around our area? I suspect the former would do more to reduce local car journeys than the latter ever will.

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I also do wonder about the generic impact of

> replacing an old vehicle with a less polluting one

> vs keeping it a bit longer. For those who live in

> the areas where the new vehicle will be driven, a

> new vehicle will be better. But for the

> environment overall? What's the environmental

> impact of scrapping an old vehicle and producing a

> new one? I genuinely have no idea.


Very, very roughly, a car produces around three tonnes of CO2 during its production and scrappage phases. If you had a car producing 150g/km of CO2 and swapped it for a new one producing 100g/km, over five years of average (8,000 miles p.a.) use you'd save about five tonnes of CO2, so in general the new car would be the greener option, but of course there are lots of variables - if you only ever use your car for a trip to Brighton once a fortnight keeping the old one would be the better bet.


I wonder how much it would cost to provide proper, secure bike parking at Brixton tube, as opposed to all the yellow line, speed bumps etc that are scattered around our area? I suspect the former would do more to reduce local car journeys than the latter ever will.



Different boroughs, different budgets.


Very much agree though.. while personally, by the time I've ridden to Brixton or Kennington, I might as well bike the rest of the way, I can understand others not wanting to. And especially once you start talking e-bikes - there's no way I'd leave a ?1000+ bike locked outside either of those tube stations.


I reckon dockless hire bikes like OFO would do a roaring trade along the EDG - Herne Hill - Brixton corridor (a bit heavy & poor gearing for going over Dog Kennel Hill, but fine on the flat). Anyone know if Southwark will be adopting them? Seems the phone app and no-strings T&Cs appeal to youngsters in particular.

I was wondering about how valid the comparison is between the emissions of a new car that you would buy, and the emissions of your old one. If you are the sort of person who buys a new car, you're probably NOT the sort of person who has run the old one into the ground. So you sell your old one to someone who has an older (== more polluting) car, and that may happen a few times. At the end of the chain a real old banger is getting scrapped somewhere, so you might reasonably claim that you saved a lot more. (Clearly this also assumes that we have reached saturation point for our roads, and are operating a one-out, one-in policy, which isn't yet true. Car numbers are still increasing.)


The above takes into account only CO2, which is very much a non-localised concept. It's great for global warming, and the notion that possibly our great-grandkids might have less chance of dying in climate related manners in 80 years time. But kids are dying right now because of localised NOx and particulate emissions, both of which will be more immediately and locally impacted by the choice of buying a new vehicle.


TL;DR: buying a new car is probably more of a good idea than you think.

5 cycle superhighways - none in SE London

hundreds of bike docking stations - none in SE London

A couple of hundred tube stations and only 4 in SE London (outside of Zone 1)


How can we get people out of their cars? I know, making driving a little more difficult will do it.

Oh, please, how much more difficult do you want driving to become, and what do you think it will achieve?

And I say this as someone who does not even own a car.


If you go from zone 2 to zone 3 or 4, driving might be feasible, but if you're going to a more central area, whether for work or else, driving is already so expensive (and rightly so) and infuriating that I do wonder how many people do it. Do you know anyone who goes to central London, for shopping or for work, by car?


Maybe regulating minicabs (we might have too many...) and trying to make sure that delivery vans and construction trucks do not congest the roads at rush hour might help somewhat.

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> PS Oh, and also the environmental efficiency of

> British homes is a joke by European standards. In

> many cases double glazing is not even allowed. The

> Dulwich Estate doesn't allow it, for example,

> because of course the "charity" must fleece

> homeowners by policing the beauty of the houses

> and overcharging them so that money can be

> funneled towards posh independent school attended

> mostly by overpriviliged kids - a most charitable

> endeavour.

>

> (No, I don't live in the Dulwich Estate area -

> heel will freeze over before I do).


Err, in most cases Dulwich Estate do allow it:


http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/som/policy-guidelines/8-replacement-doors-and-windows

Lowlander Wrote:


> Err, in most cases Dulwich Estate do allow it:

>

> http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/som/policy-guidelin

> es/8-replacement-doors-and-windows


Most or some? There have been discussions here about people being refused double glazing, e.g. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1403483,page=3 and I know a few such cases, too

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Gone to the better hunting grounds during this local ongoing dry spell.
    • The Dreamliner has an impeccable service history, you are more likely to get mugged on the way to the airport than having any issue with your flight, that's how safe it is!  Have a great trip.
    • Maybe. Does that kill grass? If so, possibly the same dog that has left its poo outside my house - pretty sure it's not fox poo.
    • Here you are, intexasatthemoment (you seem to have been in Texas for a very long time!) We went to three of the recommended places yesterday,  as they were all in the same road (just near Wallington)  and I needed to give the car a run to avoid another slap on the wrist from my garage (and another new battery). Here's my findings. BARNES Parking We thought we would go here first as it was the earliest to close on a Sunday (3pm). There was no apparent entrance or anywhere to park. One notice said do not park on grass verge, and another one said staff cars only! Flittons was opposite but I'd already passed the entrance, so I had to drive down the road, turn round at the next available place (covered in signs saying do not park here) and park in Flittons car park! Plants Barnes  specialise in hardy perennials, so that was basically what they had, but an excellent selection, and many more unusual plants (or at least, plants you probably wouldn't find in a garden centre), eg Corydalis,  lots of different varieties of Epimediums, Trollius, some lovely Phygelius, lots of different ferns). The plants were divided into sections according to whether they needed sun or shade or could cope with both. They had a particularly good selection of  shade loving plants. There was really useful information above  each group of plants, which meant you didn't have to look at individual labels. All the plants looked in good health and  very well cared for. They don't produce a printed catalogue, but they  said their plant list was online (I haven't looked yet). I assume most of  the plants they have at any one time are when it's their flowering season (if they flower). I wasn't intending to buy anything, though was very tempted, but I'd definitely go here again once I've sorted out my overgrown garden. Other Stuff Don't think they sell pots, compost, etc. No cafe/tea room and I didn't see a loo, but Flittons is just over the road. FLITTONS  Parking Easy to park Plants Sorry, but mostly terrible. There was one section with vegetables and the rest was flowering plants. There was a general feeling of delapidation. Some of what was on display was actually dead (surely it would only take a minute to remove dead plants) and a lot of the rest was very poorly maintained, eg gone to seed, weedy, apparently unwatered, or with a lot of dead leaves. There was a notice asking for volunteers to work there, so I can only assume they can't afford to pay staff. Other stuff There was a notice to a play barn (?) saying invited people only, so I think they must host kids' parties or something. They redeemed themselves with a cosy little cafe with savoury stuff, nice cakes, iced chai and oat milk, and a loo. Also a selection of books and CDs on sale for charity. If you want an Andrews Sisters CD, you can find one here. There is a small shop with gift shop type stuff and a display of the history of Flittons, which apparently is family owned since the sixties (I think it was). I suspect that the arrival of Dobbies down the road must have greatly affected Flittons' fortunes, which is sad. DOBBIES  Parking Easy in theory once you had navigated a rather narrow entrance, but it was very busy so it took a while to find a space. Plants  Lots of plants, well maintained but I imagine their turnover is high. Lots of nice bedding plants for hanging baskets, window boxes etc  to cater for all tastes (ie some of it wasn't mine, but fine if you like those horrid little begonias (my opinion only) but they did have some nice (in my opinion) stuff as well. I was tempted but decided to buy from North Cross Road market. Fair selection of climbers, various different Clematis etc. I'd be happy to buy plants from here. The prices seemed reasonable and they were in good condition. Other stuff  It's a big garden centre with all that entails these days, so a large area selling garden furniture and storage, tools, animal collars, pots, all the usual stuff you would expect. Very helpful staff. There's a cafe which we didn't check out, charging points for electric cars, a Waitrose (no idea how big, we didn't look). Only on our way out did we see that there was a drive through "express section" for compost etc, which was annoying as I wanted compost and hadn't seen any anywhere,  but I was getting tired by that time. Just Down the Road A ten minute drive away is Wilderness Island, a nature reserve in Carshalton, which is well worth a visit. We heard eleven different kinds of bird (according to Merlin) and saw a Kingfisher flying down the tiny river!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...