Pages

Thursday, 6 March 2014

Co2 be, or not Co2 be...

...that is the question.

I think I know the answer to the first, but it raises another issue:

i) public transport is presumably low-carbon, not no-carbon. However, this raises a wider issue - offsetting. I think it would be justifiable for those who use public transport and cars to claim birds as zero-carbon finds if they offset their emissions (and can prove it). Thoughts please.

ii) if I visit relatives in Bedford, who live a few hundred yards from Fenlake Meadows, and I walk to the site from my relatives' house, is this zero-carbon? Would I need to get to Bedford by zero-carbon means, or just from my relatives (if I stayed overnight, for example)? Thoughts please.

Atb,

D

10 comments:

  1. Doing the daily and necessary car commute using the minimum carbon route and an osprey flies over me, has happened. Zero additional carbon

    ReplyDelete
  2. Doing the daily and necessary car commute using the minimum carbon route and an osprey flies over me, has happened. Zero additional carbon

    ReplyDelete
  3. I heard you first time Andy! ;-) I think we would need to form a quorum to decide the legitimacy of ticks such as the one you describe...D

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh come on guys! Zero is Zero, that means if you see the bird from your house/on your land. Or make your way from said abode by foot or any other self operated vehicle. To me, there is no grey area here.
    Off-setting could get complicated D, is there truly a way of off-setting carbon? Once the carbon has been expelled, surely that's it or
    am I being a bit too strict?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess you're right Matt. I'm overcomplicating stuff...again. ;-) Whilst I have your attention, would you stop arsing around with moth traps and build a bloody bench at GLE please? I need a sit down by the time I've walked there from Potton. ;-) Atb, D

      Delete
    2. Agree with Matt - zero should mean zero. Which basically means anything you have seen using no carbon originating your house. Off-setting WAY too complicated!

      Delete
  5. I agree with Matt and Steve, my point re osprey was that anything else makes the idea of zero carbon too silly to be workable

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Complicated? yes; difficult? yes; requiring some thought? yes; unworkable? no; silly? definitely not.

      It was a genuine suggestion so that everyone could be involved. Who knows? We may even have been able to raise funds for a (local) conservation/ environmental group or helped fund habitat management, or is that too grandiose an aim? It may even have added a little kudos and integrity to this whole competition...

      Atb,

      D

      Delete
  6. Cous Cous. That's all I've got to say. Oh and don't see too much, I'm just starting to catch up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yum - love North African food...smuggle me back some authentic harissa please mate! ;-) D

      Delete