guardian.co.uk: Top 10 green living myths

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/26/top-10-green-living-myths

Top 10 green living myths

There is more to being green than driving a Prius and buying local produce. Duncan Clark sheds further light on the eco-friendly messages we've come to take for granted

1. What they tell you: Turning off the lights saves CO2

What they don't tell you: It makes sense for individuals to use less electricity to help reduce the emissions of British power stations. However, it's worth bearing in mind that the total amount of CO2 that can be released by power plants and other industrial facilities across the EU between now and 2012 is fixed by the European Emissions Trading Scheme. This means that if the UK power sector reduces its emissions, extra carbon permits get freed up for use elsewhere, such as German power stations or French cement plants. In other words, the same amount of CO2 will be released, just from different sources. If you want to ensure that your electricity savings do make a real environmental difference, join Sandbag, a charity that will remove CO2 permits from the EU scheme to stop your good work being traded away on the carbon markets.

2. What they tell you: Buy a greener car

What they don't tell you: If you definitely need a new car, it makes perfect sense to buy a small, super-efficient model with low CO2 emissions. However, making a new car – including mining and processing the metals and manufacturing and assembling the components – takes a huge amount of energy. According to an expert at the Stockholm Environment Institute, the production of a typical modern car causes around 8 tonnes of CO2, equivalent to driving 23,000 miles. Because of this, unless you currently drive a lot in a highly inefficient car, it will http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/17/car-scrap-energy-efficiency">often be greener to stick to your existing vehicle than to sell it and buy a new one.

…

[pansypoo53219]

1. what about composting

dirty cotton nappies?

[Nihil]

2. I agree with one of the comments 100%

> This is an awful over-simplification of some quite complex issues.

It mixes up so much over such a wide field that it ends up being totally
useless for anything other than denier quote-mining fodder.

:thumbsdown:

(ETA: Unrec'd for this reason.)

[druidity33]

3. that's a terrible article. nt.

[Canuckistanian]

4. What a load of crap

The main thrust of this article seems to be "your actions couldn't possibly make any difference. Give up trying"

And they use the most convoluted arguments in some examples. Why the hell should I worry about my local power plant getting carbon credits?

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. main thrust of this article … "your actions couldn't possibly make any difference. Give up trying"

I disagree.

I would say they are attempting to sharpen people’s ecological aims.

One may argue (and I have) that even if someone’s ecological efforts don’t have a big payoff, just getting them to think ecologically is a good thing. However, how much better if you can redirect those efforts to make them more effective?

[glitch]

6. It's actually pretty good, trying to simplify looking at the whole life cycle of energy use

is not easy, this was a decent attempt although it is geared for EU.