Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: health implications of short-lived greenhouse pollutants (The Lancet, 25 Nov 2009, 13 pages pdf)

Key Quotes:

“health effects of three short-lived greenhouse pollutants—black carbon, ozone, and sulphates”

“Meta-analyses of time-series studies of short-term exposure suggest larger mortality effects per unit mass of sulphate than of black smoke,”

“Our analysis of a 66-city, 18-year nationwide US cohort provides estimates of the mortality effects of long-term exposure to elemental carbon, the best available measure of black carbon. This analysis shows stronger effects for elemental carbon than for undifferentiated fine particles (PM2·5)

“Conversely, carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, and nitrous oxide and halocarbons, the other long-lived greenhouse gases, have little direct effect on health.”

That is, if you buy into their latest move to hop on the corporate green bandwagon and portray a socially and environmentally responsible face to the public. As numerous companies hurry to don the ‘green garb’ in any way they can, McDonalds has decided to update its iconic Golden Arches logo, exchanging the ketchup-red backdrop for…you guessed it, relish green. Thankfully it’s only happening in Europe. For now.

In an effort to promote a more eco-friendly image McDonalds believes this Europe-wide initiative may be just what’s needed to aid in repairing a somewhat marred environmental reputation.

McDonalds is by no means the first company to attempt to hop on the green bandwagon by changing their logo colours. GM has also toiled with the idea of changing its classic blue background for an updated green, and recently industry giant Coca-cola unveiled their new environmentally friendly logo and “PlantBottle.” Once again proving that large corporations see their consumers as nothing more than obtuse dollar signs. It’s a sad state of affairs when anyone in our society will take changes like this as proof that these companies have truly gone green. Although I will give Coca-cola a sliver of respect for actually backing up their claims. Coke’s new packaging will replace current petroleum-based plastic bottles with ones that are 30 percent made up of materials from sugar cane and molasses. And their logo change isn’t a total redo, they just made a subtle change that has all the same impact.

So is McDonalds really going green or are they simply using the green crutch as a publicity gimmick to appeal to European nations that are very much eco-conscious and on board with the green movement, if not leading the way in it?

A few franchises in Great Britain and France have already started using the new signs and 100 restaurants in Germany will make the switch by the end of the year.

Hoger Beek, vice chairman of McDonald’s in Germany, said, “With this new appearance we want to clarify our responsibility for the preservation of natural resources. In the future we will put an even larger focus on that.”

The change will be made on all new and refitted restaurants “out of respect for the environment,” Beeck told the Financial Times Deutschland.

“out of respect for the environment” (cough, cough*bullshit*cough)

McDonald’s has long been under fire from environmental groups on several fronts, including its use of packaging and deforestation. (Not to mention the utter disgust and loathing my body feels towards me after I have ingested anything on their menu)

However, superhero environmental campaigners Greenpeace have flown in to save the day and are praising the company for their efforts to be more environmentally friendly, including introducing refrigerators without harmful chlorofluorocarbons and converting used oil to bio-diesel fuel.

With more than 32,000 chains in 118 countries and an overall revenue of $23.5 billion worldwide, perhaps now is the time to change a little more than the backdrop on those famous Golden Arches.

I would be more inclined to believe Dirty Ronnies® and the giant pile of corporate BS they just threw in my face if they were to install solar panels to power their signs or their stores entirely. If they changed their packaging to be less environmentally harmful or got their meat from cattle who have not been artificially fattened with high-corn diets. *Cows aren’t supposed to eat it, it’s not part of their evolutionary diet, but it’s cheap and fattens them up*

And lastly, I wonder what will happen with all those thousands of wasted big old plastic red signs? I’m sure McDonalds – now being the green leaders they are, will dispose of them in an environmentally friendly way.

A Better Energy Plan

Slashdot It!

Yesterday evening while returning home I saw some shepherds herding livestock along the road. The shepherds, sheep and cattle looked famished. I wondered where the sheep and cattle would forage in this concrete jungle. Our multistory apartment blocks and office complexes have encroached into their grazing land. The displaced domestic animals in turn invade and graze inside protected sanctuaries threatening whatever remains of wildlife. During our visits to various wildlife preserves and sanctuaries, Corbett, Chambal, Sariska, Bhindawas, Bharatpur we heard different versions of this story.

Thousands of documents stolen from the University of East Anglia in the UK appear to show that climate change data has been manipulated, on both sides of the Atlantic,  in order to strengthen the case that global warming is the result of human activity.  According to a recent article  in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, data actually shows that global temperatures are declining.  The article says:

“In one email Professor Phil Jones, director of the University’s respected Climatic Research Unit, referred to a ‘trick’ he applied to raw data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures.”

Another article quotes extracts of email exchanges, clearly never intended to be seen by the public:

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). Oct 12, 2009
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate”

Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics – that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.

And …

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.

And maybe the most telling…

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). Date: May 29, 2008
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”

Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.

……………………..

There are now calls for a public inquiry over data manipulation claims.

I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions on this.  If you’ve been visiting here a while, you probably already have a good idea of how I feel about it.

We are not good at keeping peace with the Earth, even if it would be kinda cool to have her on our side. But can we blame her, considering how we treat her every day? Maybe the party in Copenhagen that we are throwing her will smoothen the waves a little bit.  Hopefully.

With the climate summit approaching, the warnings about the effects of global warming sound more and more urgent. One might think this might be based on the reason to use the platform provided by the summit and the attention it already attracts prior to the event. But, maybe, there are some real causes and reasons for concerns.  According to recent studies more substantial reductions of CO2 emissions are needed than anticipated previously, and the effects of global warming will become gloomy reality sooner than exptected. A new report is published by 26 scientist, many of whom have been contributing publisher of former climate treaties.

According to them:

• the greenlandian and arctian ice is melting faster and more than predicted previously, and thereby cause the world seas to rise higher at the same time
• a further decline of natural resources; even if the usage of those sources would not increase, in 20 years the current most common in use will have run out.

The conclusion: by the end of this century all the emissions have to go down to zero, in order to facilitate a stabilization of the current the climate system.

Moreover: not only is global warming endangering the poles, the world seas, affecting the world climate. Moreover the effects of those occurances will become an issue of international security among states. Those changes create essential dangers to humans in many regions of the earth, most of them 3^rd world regions that are already suffering under environmental issues. Those problems can cause conflicts potentially leading to wars among states, fighting over resources.

I am telling you, we need more friends. Mr. Obama, please be a friend and work on your friendships with the other leaders in Copenhagen. Thank you.

Emails leaked over the weekend by anonymous hackers, via a Russian web server, have unearthed a culture of deception, bullying, intimidation and smear-campaigning by certain scientists at apparently reputable climate research institutions such as the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK. Where many have been quick to write off the ‘conspiracy theories’ postulated by a few of the sceptics, it would appear that they’re really not too far off the mark.

With data modelling suggesting that temperatures should have climbed more than what they have, senior scientists at the CRU unashamedly emailed each other essentially lamenting the fact that the facts were not consistent with their theories, and suggesting they’d better find different data, or different ways of interpreting the data, to make it conform to their agenda. Colleagues with differing viewpoints were ridiculed and/or sacked.

In a nutshell, any shred of scientific credibility or integrity has evaporated and they have very clearly demonstrated that they are intent on proving their point regardless of whether that’s factual or not.

I don’t claim to be a scientist, and so can’t argue the finer points of the science behind carbon and it’s role in global warming, but from a philosophical point of view I think it’s clear that we need to keep a much more open mind and be willing to listen to a broader spectrum of voices from the scientific community.

I don’t need any convincing to reduce pollution, waste, landfill, energy consumption and so on. I believe there’s a clear case for treating responsibly our use of the natural resources around us, and our physical health is certainly not aided by wanton pollution. But I have no time for one-eyed, aggressive, bullying agenda-driven politicians and scientists who are so focussed on their agenda (and each may have different motivations behind that) that they disrespect and ridicule dissenters, and fail to allow themselves to think more laterally about other real issues that may be of concern if in fact they’re wrong about the causes of global warming.

Linking stroke mortality with air pollution, income, and greenness in northwest Florida: an ecological geographical study (22 page pdf, Intnl Journal of Health Geographics, May 2008)

Key Quotes:

“to examine if there is association of stroke with air pollution, income and greenness in northwest Florida.”

“the monitored air quality measurements were not used to calculate exposure to air pollution. Instead, the maps of recorded sources of air pollution (both point sources and mobile sources) were used to derive polluter density surfaces as surrogates for ambient air pollution concentration.”

“Conclusion: High risk of stroke mortality was found in areas with low income level, high air pollution level, and low level of exposure to green space.“

Under current SEC regulations, companies are required to disclose material information or information that an investor should posses in order to decide whether to buy a company’s stock.  But these companies do not routinely include climate-related risks in their filings, nor is the information consistent when it is provided at all.

The California Public Employees Retirement System, which manages $202 billion of assets, and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, which manages $130 billion of assets, are among 20 investors and groups that petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to issue guidance telling companies to include risks related to climate change in their quarterly and annual filings.

“The SEC should strengthen and enforce its current requirements so investors’ decisions fully account for climate change’s financial effects,” Calpers Chief Executive Anne Stausboll said in a statement.

The initiative hopes to make the most out of the Obama administration’s renewed emphasis on environmental protection, climate change rhetoric and plans to propose an emissions reduction target at the December climate change conference in Copenhagen.

SEC Commissioner Elisse Walter, one of five members who makes decisions on federal securities rules, has said she believes that climate change is a very serious issue and this is the time for the SEC to issue so-called ‘interpretive guidance’ on this topic.

“This (petition) will be taken seriously and be one more piece of influence on the commission, to perhaps get bit more instructive on considering these issues,” said David Martin, a former SEC director of corporation finance — the division in charge of overseeing corporate disclosures. Martin is now in private practice at law firm Covington & Burling.

Watching David McWilliams recent Addicted to Money programmes recently brought up an interesting fact on consumption of beef and its impact on the environment.

Did you know that producing 1kg of beef results in more CO2 emissions than going for a three hour drive while leaving all the lights on at home (36.4kg or CO2) according to scientists.

A Swedish study conducted in 2003 claimed that raising organic beef on grass rather than feed, reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 40% and consumed 85% less energy.

Now what if everyone in China started to eat meat in earnest?

Information courtesy of The Guardian.

Duke Energy boss Jim Rogers is a big voice on energy and climate change for a couple of simple reasons. He runs a big utility, heavily invested in coal power, and he’s an outspoken proponent of climate-change legislation that spooks many of his peers. Associated Press Duke’s Jim Rogers: “We could find ourselves in 2050 where coal has a limited role, if any.” So his take on America’s energy future is usually interesting. No exception in this recent interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, where he makes the case for why nuclear power will likely beat coal in a country still heavily reliant on the black stuff.

Coal has all sorts of issues, he says, not just carbon emissions. Coal plants produce other particulate emissions, create fly-ash dumps, and promote harsh mining practices: Decarbonization of coal is just on top of that. If you asked me today based on current technologies–and assuming we have no advances in technology with respect to decarbonization of coal–I would say nuclear would trump coal because it produces zero greenhouse gases, it provides power 24/7, and, probably most importantly, it probably produces more jobs than even solar or wind on a per-megawatt basis.

Now, Mr. Rogers has been amping up his support for nuclear power since the summer, including a big op-ed in the WSJ. He’s often mentioned the jobs angle before, but rarely with such detail:

In an operation of a nuclear plant, there [are] .64 jobs per megawatt. The wind business–and we have a very large wind business–is .3 jobs per megawatt. In the solar business–and we’re installing solar panels–it’s about .1. But the difference in the jobs is quite different, because if you’re wiping off a solar panel, it’s sort of a minimum wage type of job, [with] much higher compensation for nuclear engineers and nuclear operators. If our goal is to rebuild the middle class, nuclear plays a key role there, particularly if coal is out of the equation.

Ever since last year’s presidential campaign, the energy debate has been largely a jobs debate—for better or for worse. With unemployment still creeping upward, will jobs—not joules—be the crucial element for America’s energy future?

[via WSJ]

Slashdot It!

An international team of researchers reports in the journal Nature Geoscience that CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels increased by 2% from 2007 to 2008, by 29% between 2008 and 2000, and by 41% between 2008 and 1990 — the reference year of the Kyoto Protocol. The lead author, Prof Corinne Le Quéré of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the British Antarctic Survey, said “the only way to control climate change is through a drastic reduction in global CO2 emissions. The Earth’s carbon sinks are complex and there are some gaps in our understanding, particularly in our ability to link human-induced CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 concentrations on a year-to-year basis.” The report also notes that emissions from land use change have remained almost constant since 2000, but now account for a significantly smaller proportion of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (20% in 2000 to 12% in 2008).

Després de tres programes i dels dubtes en la tria d’un servidor, el Podcast de La Pedalera ja està en actiu. Setmanalment penjarem el programa de cada dimecres que, o be podreu escoltar via streaming, o be podreu descarregar l’arxiu mp3 per escoltar-lo en el vostre reproductor mòbil, ordinador, telèfon, etc. Recordeu també, que us podeu subscriure al Podcast del programa i d’aquesta manera cada cop que pengem l’emissió sereu els primers en rebre-la i escoltar-la.

Si no vareu poder escoltar l’últim programa o voleu escoltar-ne un de concret tantes vegades com vulgueu, ara ho podeu fer gràcies als Podcast de La Pedalera.

La Pedalera
Miquel Cornellà

Le 14 novembre 2008, vous découvriez une toute nouvelle émission sur Absolute Zone.
Un présentateur fou, un PC et des jeux vidéos en folie, des ratages, des ratés, de l’humour, du skill, des invités, un océan d’émotion s’ouvraient à vous, avec comme première émission un massacre intégral de zombies au shot gun dans l’univers du FPS shooté à l’adrénaline de Valve. Un an et 8 jours après, Xidius revient avec la suite de ce jeu pour un massacre encore plus énorme…En quelque sorte la boucle est bouclée.
JOYEUX ANNIVERSAIRE MON ÉMISSION, WOUHOU !!!!

Xidius, dont l’émission est la plus régulière sur ce site.

Mainers for all time have been closely tied to the environment. Wilderness survival skills were essential for explorers and early settlers if they were to make it in the harsh environment. They trusted in themselves and their skills – and little else.

Later, those skills were used for profit as woodsmen utilized their knowledge to find timber for sawmills and ship masts or guided hunters and fishermen to the bounty of the wilderness.

And later still recreational outdoorsmen and women went into the woods for the sheer enjoyment of being in the outdoors with little or no desire to take from it anything other than the experience and perhaps a few trout.

This closeness continues today in the stewardship of what remains wild in Maine.

But much damage was done in the past to the planet’s environment. It does not take a Bowdoin graduate to know things are not going to add up in the long run if we do not work to fix some of the past damage to ease current and future concerns for the planet’s survival.

It is encouraging, then, that Maine seems to be stepping forward in overall efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to increase the use of alternative energy sources to replace power generated from the burning of petroleum products. Wind farms are beginning to dot the Maine landscape and harnessing ocean waves is likely to be a large component in Maine’s future energy picture, as will be the increased use of solar power.

These three energy sources will be especially important as oil companies turn away from producing home heating oil in order to produce other fuels. [I recall as a child when the delivery truck from the local oil distributor would pull over to the side of the road near our home on the hill overlooking Portage Lake, Maine, and drag a nozzle and hose to the side of the house to pump oil into a pipe that led to a holding tank in our cellar. There were times during the winter that the driver would be forced to climb over towering snow banks and through thigh-high snow while towing behind him the heavy nozzle and hose. Home heating oil fueled the heater and warmed the home in winter, but it did not smell particularly good – which may have been a clue as to just how unhealthy it was to be around the stuff.]

A fossil fuel expert earlier this week said that Maine’s midcoast may be at the center of harnessing wave energy. Matthew Simmons is the co-founder of the Ocean Energy Institute, which plans to open an office in Rockland, Maine, in the next few months, and was one of the keynote speakers at the 2009 Sustainable Island Living Conference there last weekend, according to a Herald Gazette story.

He said that oil, natural gas and coal all had passed their peak production and that there were no plans for what would fill the energy void. Ocean Energy Institute is working with the state, the University of Maine and the U.S. Department of Energy on floating windmill pilot projects off Maine’s coast.

We must move away from fossil fuels and continue the development of sustainable sources such as solar, wind and wave. In the meantime, it is important to do what can be done now to help, including visiting the Efficiency Maine website for tips and other information.

Maine is moving in the right direction.

The U.S. Senate will postpone until next year its debate on energy and climate legislation, along with its controversial plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

Key Senators, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), said that the climate and energy bill will have to wait while the Senate tackles bills aimed at reforming the nation’s health insurance system and financial market regulation. The delay follows the harshly criticized, recent pact between Washington and Beijing for a non-binding agreement at the United Nations Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen.

The proposed cap-and-trade legislation has drawn harsh opposition from Republican lawmakers and industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute on the ground that it will increase energy costs and harm the economy.

In June, the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which includes a cap-and-trade system aimed at cutting the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020.

A corresponding Senate bill from John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), which would seek to cut those emissions by 20 percent by 2020, was passed by the Senate environment panel earlier this month.

Republicans have asked for more support for nuclear power and offshore oil drilling in any legislation. Earlier this week, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) proposed a bill, the Clean Energy Act of 2009, that would offer about $20 billion over the next decades, much of it to support nuclear power.

News of a delay until next year leaves the Obama Administration bereft of legislation it hoped to present in December at a United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen to craft an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

The Environmental Protection Agency has moved on its own to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, but has yet to formulate standards for enforcement. The EPA program is expected to cover 70 percent of the nation’s total emissions, including power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year.

But the EPA may well face years of legal battles over regulating greenhouse gases, which could lead the agency to look to Congress to pass a bill, Eric Olbeter, analyst with Pacific Crest Securities, said in a Tuesday note.

In the meantime, questions remain over the competing renewable electricity standards contained in the House and Senate energy and climate bills, Olbeter said. The Senate bill would require 9 percent of the nation’s power to come from renewable resources and 6 percent from efficiency gains by 2021.

But Olbeter said it’s likely the Senate will move to adopt the more aggressive measures in the House bill, which calls for 12 percent of the nation’s power to come from renewables and 8 percent from efficiency by 2020.

These renewable energy mandates, as well as provisions in the House energy and climate bill to give new federal authority to site transmission lines, could be taken up separately from cap-and-trade rules, some observers have noted (see Green Light post).

Olbeter predicted that an energy bill without cap-and-trade could pass by May 2010, but questioned the likelihood of greenhouse gas limits being put into law during an election year.

Any energy efficiency provisions passed into law could well benefit energy services companies such as Honeywell and Johnson Controls, Olbeter said.

But he said solar and wind power “are likely to be left empty handed by a hollow renewable electricity standard.”

Japanese Nostalgic hipped me to the fact that The Smithsonian has a 1977 Honda Civic in their collection. First car to ever meet the Clean Air Act requirements without a catalytic converter. The more you know!

During talks in Beijing, U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao endorsed a package of energy projects, including deals on clean coal and electric vehicles. Environmental analysts say the talks offer new hope the two countries will soon offer targets on emissions reduction…. From VOA. Full story

This site may contain information about: chinese china. The blog is also related to: hongkong china.

According to Inside Cal/EPA (subscription required), “Some oil company representatives are likely to strongly oppose a new air board plan to consider accelerating the inclusion of transportation fuels in its proposed cap-and-trade program — from 2015 to 2012 — based on arguments that the industry will be subject to multiple overlapping greenhouse gas (GHG) rules that could dramatically increase costs on consumers, threaten supply shortages and yield little if any emission reductions.”

According to the report, including GHG emissions from liquid transportation fuels is considered a “major undertaking that likely will involve the thorny issue of estimating lifecycle GHG emissions from different fuels” but state “officials point out that the sector is crucial in terms of reducing GHG emissions to target levels in 2020 and 2050, considering that transportation makes up about 38% of total California GHG emissions.” Apparently complicating matters is that “utilities and other power generation officials have also complained steadily to state regulators that it is patently unfair to give transportation fuels a three-year exemption from cap-and-trade, while their facilities must begin complying in 2012.”

Mario Freese writes to pimp his Air Lines art project. “Every single scheduled flight on any given day is represented by a fine line from its point of origin to it’s port of destination, thereby forming a net of thousands of lines. Hubs like JFK, FRA or DXB turn into dark knots where lines meet, lesser served local services are only are a subtle hint.” He’s selling posters in three different versions. Interesting to see the curves of great circle routes on a Mercator projection.

The dark and sinister side to this art work is the planet-warming emissions generated by these flights – notwithstanding the carbon offsets that are available for travelers. The fact of the matter is that while carbon offsets might help travelers feel virtuous, they do not help reduce global emissions. The mindset is “It’s $4 and I am carbon-neutral, so I can fly all I want.” Whereas a truer price for a flight from London to New York is closer to between $200 and $300, far above what any airlines are now charging.

“The carbon offset has become this magic pill, a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card,” Justin Francis, the managing director of Responsible Travel, one of the world’s largest green travel companies to embrace environmental sustainability, said in an interview. Even private jet companies and helicopter tour operators, which generate very high emissions per passenger have jumped on the bandwagon.

I am not advocating an end to flying, but simply more reflection on the environmental impact of such journeys. A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car.

The influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution (8 page pdf)

Key Quotes

“The benefit per ton ($/ton) of reducing PM2.5 varies by the location of the emission reduction, the type of source emitting the precursor, and the specific precursor controlled. This paper examines how each of these factors influences the magnitude of the $/ton estimate.”

“This heterogeneity is a product of source location, meteorology, mix of pollutants emitted, and atmospheric conditions, including baseline atmospheric concentrations of pollutants.”

“Three inter-related sources of heterogeneity affect the magnitude of PM2.5 $/ton estimates.

The first relates to the chemical processes that govern the formation of PM2.5 in the atmosphere….

The second source of heterogeneity relates to the characteristics of the emitting source…

The third factor that may influence the heterogeneity in PM2.5-related $/ton estimates is the size of the population exposed to PM2.5 and the susceptibility of that population to adverse health outcomes.”

“It should be noted that, while NOx reductions may occasionally generate PM2.5 disbenefits in certain urban areas, because NOx is also an O3 precursor, additional NOx reductions—even in areas where PM2.5 disbenefits are possible—may produce a downwind O3 benefit.”

“The PM2.5 $/ton estimates in this paper reflect three principal sources of heterogeneity:

Variability across precursors. The $/ton for certain pollutants, such as directly emitted PM2.5, is much higher than others…

Variability across sources. Certain sources may emit a common precursor, but may produce very different $/ ton estimates…

Variability across location. The $/ton for a given pollutant showed some degree of variation based on the urban area in which the pollutant was emitted.”

Okay… this is just a thought – It is not 100% figured out, and to be honest, I would be pretty much against some aspects of it – BUT I was just musing over something that MIGHT be the better good for the greater many for the future….

Feel free to add constructive comments!

So anyway… the roads are getting clogged up with too much traffic. Motorways are reduced to a dribble and often just stop during rush hours. Sometimes it is due to roadworks, sometimes due to accidents, and all compounded by pure volume of traffic.

That gives 3 focal points…. Roadworks, Accidents, volume of traffic.

All of these add to pollution in a big way, after all if a car takes longer to get somewhere due to traffic slowing it down, then it is burning fuel and not getting anywhere… Also, lots of cars = lots of pollution.

To reduce roadworks we need to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. The question is which ones do we remove? The answer to this will reflect on the accident rate on the roads…

To reduce accidents we need to remove as many drivers from the road that are likely to cause problems… and by reducing accidents we take a huge load off of the emergency services and hospitals (frees up the Police, Ambulances, Doctors, Nurses, Fire service etc…) and we keep the roads moving more freely due to less road traffic accident caused jams… This saves a lot of tax payers money allowing it to be routed in other directions…. one of those directions would be public transport… but more on that in a moment.

To help reduce the amount of drivers on the road, a much tougher driving test is required. Much, much tougher. This will keep a lot of the drivers off of the road that are dangerous. The less able drivers, the careless, the worriers, hesitater’s, the heavy on the gas drivers etc, all of these would get a taste of a cull. I’d even say that in this day and age the smoothness of a persons driving could be judged – after all a smoother drive gives greater fuel economy and less emissions – and also a smoother drive is a safer drive.

This would leave a lot of people stranded with nothing but frankly shitty public transport to rely on.True, one option could be lift sharing – and that would help save people money by sharing the fuel costs. Not a bad option really, once you see how many cars there are on the road in the morning with only one person in.

Back to public transport though – I had to travel to my work place by train recently as my car was being serviced… it cost over £30 for a return ticket…I had to get up 45 minutes earlier to catch a train… the journey took over an hour longer than my drive and I finally arrived home 1 hour later than usual…. The next day I hired a car and that worked out cheaper than a train ticket!

So how can this dire public transport be improved? I’d envisage more and better bus services… subsidised taxis, Heck, why not mini buses more frequently than the current buses? Who knows? Just SOMETHING!!!

With more people being forced to use public transport there would be more money being spent on travel – so prices could be reduced (finally!). Some of the money saved on emergency services and roadworks could be funnelled into improving the public transport system. In fact with less cars on the road, a regular stopping or fast track coach system could be set up on the motorways (after all, some places aren’t near train stations).

It may even get to a point where unlike my experience with public transport, it might be better for me to use public transport – Cheaper, faster, cleaner….. I can dream!!!

The more people that use public transport, the better it would get due to the cash injection (it would HAVE to get). So there you have it – a rickety theory on reducing the number of cars on the road and at the same time saving us and the Government money from areas that can have spending reduced (the reduction of road traffic accidents & road repairs due to lighter wear and tear etc), whilst at the same time reducing carbon emissions, and road deaths!

One point here… If I was one of the people who were caught in “the cull” then I’d be pretty annoyed… BUT I’d hope that an infrastructure was in place that would alleviate the pain and suffering that losing a car would give me. In fact I’d hope that if a scheme like this ever took off, that some people would simply PREFER to ditch their cars due to a much improved alternative… (stretch your imagination!)

Maybe, as a great deal of accidents are Motorway situated, my theory could be to just make a tough test for people to pass prior to travelling on the motorways. That would mean people could still have access to cars for local travels, but keep the main motorways clearer… hey… it’s just some random thoughts here!

Yes, it is a dodgy theory with many holes in it, but it is just the bones of a discussion that other people might look at and carry on with….