Posted By J Knight
Don't really know what to say William. Use of the pejorative term 'tree-hugger' is usually an attempt to limit debate, and you certainly seem to be using it in that context. For example; limiting energy demand is a considerably better option than going nuclear in my opinion; does that make me a 'tree-hugger' and mean I dance naked around camp fires playing bongos (difficult while dancing I admit, takes a lot of practice). Or does it mean I am a life-long amateur naturalist with a scientific education, capable of weighing the evidence and reaching a considered conclusion? Oh, and an Associate member of IEMA with a Level 3 qualification in Environmental Management? You decide, as you evidently have all the answers,

John

Posted By anon1234
What has this got to do with occupational safety and health? - after all this is the OSH discussion forum.

Lets stick to using this forum for OSH matters (albeit with the odd Friday funny)

Posted By Taff
Why not post this on the IEMA discussion forum and see the responses you get there???

Posted By William
you have your opinion John as i have my own, what my point is that tree huggers are responsible for giving governments and business reasons not to take the subject seriously until they really have to. As all they seem to do is see the negatives with any proposal and attempt to impose their minority views on the rest of society in a similar fashion to a communist dictator, i think the tree hugging lobby should grow up and realise that unless we go back to living in mud huts then what humans do will always damage the environment and we have to get our priories straight and do what we can to minimise the impact of our activities. If Kyoto allowed the carbon trading scheme then it would be better than having no deal at all, which is what we have at the moment.

Posted By J Knight
William,

Did you read my posts? There is no 'tree-hugging' lobby outwith the imagination of fevered journalists working for rags like the Daily White Whine. Environmental issues are complicated, and there are often conflicting interests and factors to be weighed.

I know a lot of environmentalists, from 'deep-greens' to corporate pragmatists, and we all agree that things need to be done to try and keep a bit of what we still have. The problem is in interpreting the science, and balancing legitimate concerns,

John

Posted By Chris Packham
Tidal generators do not need to be in barrages. In fact that is an expensive way of doing it and can cause disruption to traffic etc.

I recollect that a trial has been going on in the Bristol channel of a simple turbine, mounted on a post, which can be lowered into the sea to spin and generate power, and raised out of the water for maintenance, etc.

Provision could be made to minimise any harm to fish, through cages around the blades etc.

Chris

Posted By William
So what is the way forward? carbon capture technology is another area which looks interesting.

The average man (or woman don't want to offend the feminists as well) will not pay any attention to various schemes if it hits his pocket as we live in an age where people are only interested in getting to the end of the month to pay the mortgage and bills, then we start all over again, people are more interested in this than the environment and when you get who i refer as the "tree huggers" putting a spanner in the works with every initiative it is a complete turn off for most people as what most people hear them say is, nuclear is bad, then they get asked what about wind power? and then they say that is bad and harms the environment, and so on.

All you seem to get is people who are critical of any scheme without coming up with any alternatives and if you question their stance or have one of your own, then they attempt to become patronising and think they know best.

Also John i studied occupational safety, health and environmental management, so i think that entitles me to have an opinion on this subject, i just have a different more practicable opinion on this subject.

Posted By William
That's a very good point holyterror and i think we can all accept that man is the worst thing for the environment there is at the moment.

What i am looking for is practicable ways to make our impact more positive, but in a way which will not turn off the average man in the street and i believe i have found one.

We are all reminded of reducing our carbon footprint and i don't think the average person will unless there is a financial incentive or other desirable incentive which will benefit them. So today my better half and my daughter were on the way back from the library and they went into the local butcher to get some cold meat and some beef olives ( i am a carnivore and not ashamed of it ), what we found will surprise many people as it was quite a bit cheaper (25%) for the cold meat which came from within 20 miles of the shop than it was from the leading supermarket we use, the quality was also far superior as it was not full of gristle and you knew it would not be full of water and additives like the vacuum packed meats, it is fresher and you knew it had no-chance of being contaminated with bird flu and it came from the local area and not abroad.

When you consider that by buying local produce you are supporting small businesses, saving money and reducing your carbon footprint then it seems a good idea, i think from now on i will always try to buy locally, perhaps companies with canteens could look at doing this as well.

This is the type of idea which will help, it may not be perfect but its a start, but wait some tree hugger will find fault with it!

Posted By William
Personally I think that IEMA would benefit from my input, as no progress is being made on this issue at the moment.

It is attitudes such as yours which is holding action back as you seem to think you and others like you are right and everyone else is wrong if their attitudes differ to yours.

The truth is that at this moment in time the way in which you believe in is not working, if it was Kyoto would be ratified and this would not be an issue.

What exactly do you think the attitudes of China and India are to this issue, do you think they are going to do anything to jeopardise their growth and lifting their people out of poverty?

What do you think Africa's attitude will be when they are given the chance to work themselves out of poverty? The way they will see it is " here comes the do gooders from developed countries with wealth, food, education and medicine who's activities have brought this about and now they want to limit our growth to make up for their mistakes".

Everyones attitudes has to change but the people who have to change the most are the tree hugging nimby hippies who need to realise that we need energy in ever greater proportions and if you think that this a problem now then you are very naive, energy saving measures and limits wont work as what we need is a source of energy which does not release carbon, that can be controlled and is going to be cost effective and there is only one in my book that fits the bill and that's nuclear.

Posted By J Knight
William,

Fraid you miss my point again. I have never said that we should do nothing about environmental problems. All I have attempted to point out is that these problems are rather more complex than you seem to think, and vilifying people as 'tree-huggers' rather misses the point.

Take for example Selena's post; there is ample research on the effects of Palm Oil plantations, much of it is 'proper' research; cutting down forest to plant palm oil, or anything else, results in a net loss of bio-diversity. Bio-diversity is the essence of the environment; the environment is made of bio-diversity; a reduction in such is ipso-fact damaging to then environment. Whatever the rights or wrongs of using palm-oil as a sustainable fuel, characterising people as bogey-men just because they raise uncomfortable questions is of no help.

Yes, we have to reduce carbon emissions, but we have to do so in a way which causes less damage than the current regime, otherwise, what's the point? Why is it worth fixing one problem by exacerbating another? There exist many measures which will effectively reduce CO2 emissions without compromising bio-diversity; Chris Packahm mentioned one on this forum, and so have I. Wind-farms if properly placed are good (did I ever say that wind-farms are bad? No, I said you have to be thoughtful about where you put them). Tide power has potential. Demand management is good. Bio-fuels are possible but not without demand reduction, as there simply isn't enough available land to grow the fuel we will need.

I have no hope that you will engage with what I am trying to say, as you have neatly categorised me as a 'tree-hugger' and can therefore discount my comments.

Well done, that about wraps it up for me. By the way, did I say that I am a member of IEMA and have a L3 qualification in environmental management? Or that I am a practising (and pragmatic) environmental manager? Oh, I thought so,

John

Posted By J Knight
The Palm Oil Truth Foundation appears to be an industry body with very strong links to the Malaysian government. As well as denying that cutting down forest degrades habitat, it also states that Palm Oil, a highly saturated dense fat, solid at room temperature in the UK, is good for your heart.

Must be telling the truth then,

John

Posted By Robert K Lewis
The fundamental problem when trying to make comparisons is that the base assumptions for CO2 production per megawatt-hour are often not clearly stated. I saw one report recently that demonstrated that wind power had higher whole life emission of CO2 per mw-hr than a nuclear station and was not significantly different from a modern gas fired. It depends on how you choose the figures as to the decision that you make.

I will however permit my rant here concerning CITES and protected species, particularly plants (flora). The offences are to possess any part, living or dead. There is no specific penalty for destroying a colony of rare plants. There is no real joined up thinking within the whole area of environmental work, I speak here as an ardent environmentalist. The whole question of the best way forwards will therefore continue to be the topic of endless debate.

Bob

Posted By William
Two questions, you go on about energy reduction along with your qualifications, (what exactly is a level 3? NVQ maybe?) we hear about the energy saving light bulbs, which do last much longer, but take much more raw materials and energy to produce and i am not sure but are they not more difficult to dispose of?

Posted By J Knight
Technically speaking its an L3 equivalent, I think, as I don't think it has an occupational standard to be assessed against,

John

Posted By William
Thanks for your input Merv/Frank, although methane should maybe be considered in the case of industrial farming as they will have large amounts of "matter" which would be useful and why let it go to waste (nice pung i thought). I wonder if this would be possible at sewage works as well, if it is there use it. I do switch everything off when i do not need to use, i don't see the point on the needless waste of anything, although this attitude has had to change as i have had to stop eating so much and clearing my plate.

Posted By DaveW
Human nature is an odd thing isn't it?

Before we all became "environmentally aware", we all wanted oodles of electricity and gas. We all wanted as much hot running water as the plug hole could take, enough central heating to keep an aircraft hanger at a constant 21 degrees, enough light in the house to light up Wembly Stadium and we wanted all of the rubbish we could possibly produce to be collected on the dot, once per week, no questions asked. We all wanted our waste water and effluent to disappear neatly down that little hole never to be seen again. We wanted fancy cars, refridgeraters, sun-beds and all of those little devices that made life that little bit more convenient. We were the perfect consumer society

What we didn't want was a landfill site or an oil refinery at the bottom of our gardens. We didn't want a sewage farm at the end of our street and we weren't particularly interested in the idea of living next to a nice little coal fired power station. We wanted Ralph Lauren and La Cost and we weren't particularly interested in their production. We wanted to have our cake and eat it.

Now that we are all "environmentally aware" we all want to reduce carbon and methane emmissions, we want all of our waste neatly sorted and disposed of in an environmentally freindly manner. We want clean energy, we want alternative energy, we want low energy appliances, clean rivers and recycling. We want hybrid cars, carbon farms, efficient public transport and all of those little devices that use a bit less juice. We are now trying to be the perfect environmentally freindly consumers.

What we don't want is an incinerator or a refridgerant extraction plant at the bottom of our gardens. We don't want a waste recycling operation plant or a water treatment facility at the end of our street and we certainly don't want a wind farm or a nuclear power station within twenty miles of our back door. We want palm oil and we want virgin rain forest. We want sustainable resources and we want "natural" environments. We want "fair trade" and we don't like Chinese or Indian sweat shops for western convenience. We want to have our cake and eat it.

There's a cost to be environmentally friendly just as there was a cost to being environmentally unfriendly, it's just a different cost and few of us, it would seem, are willing to pay the new cost any more than we liked the old cost.

We could always blame China or India.

Little changes in human nature does it?

On an OSH note: I feel healthier every time that I visit the bottle bank, it's a little personal environmental foot massage isn't it?

Do we want a foot massage or do we want a healthier planet?

The choice and the cost are ours.

Posted By J Knight
Selena,

I don't want to get too far into the Palm Oil debate, but simply regurgitating the statements on the Palm Oil Truth Foundation website won't help your cause. Palm Oil is almost certainly not a healthy food; it is a long-chain saturated fat and in general all such fats should be regarded with some caution. Palm Oil plantations are planted at the expense of virgin forest.

I am a very knowledgeable amateur ornithologist (though I say so myself) with a number of professional naturalists among my close friends and though I haven't been to Malaysia I can tell you now that there are birds (about 40 species) which are seriously threatened. Palm Oil plantations are one of the factors involved.

Other countries in the Palm Oil belt are also suffering loss of biodiversity to this sort of development. The government of Sumatra (part of Indonesia) currently has plans to convert 1,000,000 hectares of forest into Palm Oil plantations (source Conservation International) and similar future developments are likely.

And I fail to understand why you would trust a commercial interest over and above one which stands to gain nothing and hopes only to raise awareness. I am sincerely baffled,

John

Posted By DaveW
The Nitty-gritty?

Nuclear Power?

Do we currently have a viable alternative that can meet both local reduced demand and growing global demand? Wind and water, as major sources, are still as pie-in-the-sky as the probability that we will find a solution to our radioactive waste disposal problem. Wind and water can meet a comparitively small percentage of local reducing demand, but in the near future; no more than a comparitively a small percentage. They're an ideal, unfortunately ideals are rarely practicable, in this case; especially at a global scale.

Nuclear energy can meet all demand including our proposed reduced local demand and our unfortunately but realistically predictable growing global demand. It can meet it arguably cleanly, it can meet it arguably safely. Would the cost of finding a long term safe means of disposal for the waste product from nuclear energy production equal the many previously mentioned costs of designing and commissioning what many view as more "environmentally friendly" options; wind, hydro, solar etc? Could other less impacting forms of nuclear energy be developed such as the so-called "energy amplifier concept", if so; at what cost?

Is the conversion of a Scotish Island into a power station "environmentally friendly"? Would the conversion of every patch of high wind-swept ground in UK to wind energy production prove to be "environmentally friendly"? Solar panels or carbon farms on every available patch of land? Assisting or encouraging developing industrial nations such as India and China to develop cleaner energies? at what logistical and financial cost?

How do we assess comparitive risks, net losses and net gains, human cost, environmental cost and not forgetting of course financial cost; wind and water weighed against nuclear energy, "The Cost", the "practicabilities"?

I'm as concerned for environmental issues as any-one could be, I'm looking for the least environmentally detrimentally impacting options. I know the isle of Lewis and I know what to expect to find there on my next visit. I know the winfarms on the Humber Estuary and in Cumbria. I know Dounreay and I know how little it impacts on that stretch of coastline. I also knew Trawsfynydd and how little it impacted beyong immediate environment.

We all know how to assess risk and practicability don't we? We all know how to weigh risk against practicability.

I think that we probably all know and understand the questions but as a Health and Safety practitioner I have come to appreciate the value not of finding only the problems but the real value that is in finding the solutions.

Can we find an environmentally and financially viable method of disposing of radioactive wastes?

Can we find an environmentally and financially viable way of utilising wind, water or solar power to meet our reduced local demands or growing global demands?

For my money; those are the questions that we need to answer.

Posted By DaveW
Hello John,

When a country such as the US can spend tens of billions of dollars on a star wars program, tens of billions of dollars to find out what a holiday on Mars might feel like and more tens of billions of dollars sticking their noses into Central America and the middle east, I find it a little difficult to believe that they couldn't equally spare a few tens of billions of dollars on addressing the dirty side to an otherwise efficient method of producing energy.

What is lacking is the will to do it.

If that dirty side to an otherwise efficient method of energy production were to be addressed, the west coast of britain looking like a Windy Miller heaven would become a non-starter.

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
As someone with an MSc in the subject, I understand that the most significant problem with the use of uranium, as a fuel source is that it is not sustainable source of energy. As with oil it will eventually run out, however as uranium ore does requires a considerable amount of energy in order to convert it into nuclear fuel, there will be a threshold in which it will no longer be a viable to do this as the quality of the worlds mined uranium ore falls.

As the World dashes for nuclear energy, this threshold may be sooner than we think.