The Environmental Debate

[pbottomley]

Did some more reading and this whole carbon footprint thing is ill thought out.

Seems GM has it in its mind that recycling is the best way to reduce its carbon footprint, and that if its can recycle the same amount it burns in energy then it would become carbon neutral (sounds good so far).

So what does it claim to recycle? "its old unsold inventory" E.G. its unsold spares and vehicles are recycled (e.g sold off to the scrap man) and last year they managed to recycle 80,000 tonnes, and can offset this against their carbon footprint.

Maybe someone should ask why the hell they made 80,000 tones of scrap in the first place!!!

Talk about spin to hide bad management

[Sid]

Which also implies they threw 80000 tons of potentially usable spares back into the blast furnace, just to meet their "carbon
neutral" quota.

If that's considered an efficient way to use the earth's energy and resources then I must be on the wrong planet, 'cos I surely
can't understand how people in positions of such power can be so blinkered.

A wise man once said "The trouble with common sense, is that it's not very common."

Perhaps the reason that the world is run so badly is that the people who *have* the common sense, have more sense than to get
involved in politics!

Sid

----- Original Message -----
From: "pbottomley" <general@vauxhallviva.com>
To: <general@vauxhallviva.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Environmental Debate

Seems GM has it in its mind that recycling is the best way to reduce its carbon footprint, and that if its can recycle the same
amount it burns in energy then it would become carbon neutral (sounds good so far).

So what does it claim to recycle? "its old unsold inventory" E.G. its unsold spares and vehicles are recycled (e.g sold off to the
scrap man) and last year they managed to recycle 80,000 tonnes, and can offset this against their carbon footprint.

[pbottomley]

Which also implies they threw 80000 tons of potentially usable spares back into the blast furnace, just to meet their "carbon
neutral" quota.

YEP...

[kellyharding]

Why would a company like GM (or even Ford?) care really though? they're an American giant corporation, they only care about one thing, like all companies generally do. Profit.

Sad thing is, American politians are often supported by people who get their money from oil.

Kelly

[pbottomley]

UMMMM seems I am doing lots of reading at work, whilst the computer databases are running (must be getting borred)

Today in the Daily Mail there is an article about the London Olympics of 2012 and how we (royal we) are going to spend £2 million on a wind turbine that will save 3,000 tonnes of carbon a year, to aid power the games.

To put it in context of a classic car. If a classic is 2.7 tonnes per year better than a new car (see previous messages for calculations), then we need only keep 1,111 older cars on the road beyond their 13.5 year life cycle to equal this saving of carbon.

Does it take £2m a year to keep 1,111 older cars on the road? I blinking hope not...thats £1800 a year each.

I am sure my maths are fundementally flawed, but it makes you think.

I applaude the idea of making the olympics green, but someone has to get to grips with the real issue, old cars are enviromnetally sound and all this "new technology" can actually costs more than it saves. mayeb someone could speak to Lord Coe and suggest the Viva Owners Club can provide a few cars to shop top sports people around and save the planet a bit