I’m a little interested in general opinions of how to reduce C02 emissions.
Very simply should we increase renewable energy sources or reduce consumption?

I’d suggest both, whilst sorting out public transport to make it fit for purpose…

That’s a very big question for somebody who’s only a little interested.

Feeling bored?

We should go back to living in caves

Don’t worry about CO2, in a few years as they finally admit that we’re entering a minor period of global cooling there will be CO2 emission credits.

We should go back to living in caves

Haven’t you heard there’s a caves shortage?

CO2 should surely be reprocessed into oxygen and pencils. How hard can it be? 🙄

So it’s a question of prioritising.
JonEdwards is going for the reduced usage route while Stoner is leaning towards a more sunstainable production point of view.

aracer, it’s your money, as it were, so the decision and answer is quite simple. Would you put 10k into solar panels or insulation?

One child per couple for a hundred years will do the trick.

Would you put 10k into solar panels or insulation?

Ah, so we’re actually talking money here, rather than saving the planet. For your house, or as an investment?

Actually in either case, the answer is the same – ignore the CO2 reduction benefits as they’re irrelevant, go for whichever has the better subsidies – right now that looks like solar.

Interesting, but folks are still forking out fortunes on double glazing.

DG companies have good salesmen.

😀

reduced consumption
renewable energies
Everyone veggie – [1/3 of co2 from meat ]
use the bodies of idiots who deny AGW [ or think its cooling] to fuel coal power stations therby recycling them, reducing consumption and stopping them breeding?

Both will be useful if it ever turns we don’t have infinite quantities of oil/coal/gas…

Frankly whatever we do in the UK is going to be more of a gesture than anything else – the Chinese populations energy consumption/CO2 emissions over the next few decades is going to grow so fast.

Doesn’t mean we didn’t ought to try, though, but we’re not going to save the world.

Every time I ride my bike rather than taking the car and fighting traffic makes me feel like I’m giving the world another day! 😉

We clearly need both. Slash our usage/wastage by 75% and use renewable for the rest. Sorted….

It’s virtually impossible to meet our current or predicted energy demand and reduce CO2 by the amount necessary to prevent serious climate change. So we either need to reduce demand by employing more efficient technology, or reduce demand by doing less stuff. Jevons’ Paradox tells us that employing more efficient technology doesn’t reduce demand, so we’re left with the latter. Not a very palatable choice, I admit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Thanks ransos, but by my understanding that demand simply shifts because of cost and that the demand could come from either burning carbon to produce the energy or producing it from sustainable sources and sustainable production would be favourable in reducing emissions if the cost was favourable.
(While I agree in principle, cars become more affordable, more people buy, emissions increase, it doesn’t take into account sustainable fuels).
This would determine that cost is the overall driving force and that as we have a greater understanding now, we can obtain a cost reduction in one of two ways, or better still a combination of both.
So yes, a more efficient method of usage is going to increase uptake, but we have a choice of the fuel to run and a choice is how to make it more efficient.
There is only one 21ºC for heating the home and various ways of reducing costs to achieve this, which is you preferred way?
Or have I misunderstood Mr Jevons?

Oh another idea – all those shale oil reserves they just found in the UK?
LEAVE ‘EM THERE!

(Until future brits need to power some spaceships in 1000 years time, or something)