主播大秀

Shouldn't this be * not ?

oh dear i seem to have touched a nerve (and on the main 主播大秀 editors' blog too, i note). i do hope my frank comment didn't cause too much excitement in the Newsnight office. sorry for wounded feelings but i do honestly believe this isn't the kind of thing that Newsnight's remit should cover.

Hi Justin, I think you鈥檙e 鈥榖eing an ae鈥�.

So, you have given up your car have you. Except for those times when you need one? Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

My main point however, is to do with the whole thrust of your so called 鈥楨thic Man鈥� project. Whose ethics? I drive a car, am I unethical? The 主播大秀 seems to have come to a decision that the only ethical lifestyle is that proposed by green, sandal wearing Guardian reading left-wingers.

I have the greatest amount of sympathy with you. It certainly can麓t be easy being green, especially if your heart麓s not really in it and the whole family has to suffer simply because of your job.

I麓d be inclined to hire the wonderful toyota diesel estate for the year and get them to allow you to spray it green and perhaps paint a few flower power sunflowers on it together with the slogan "PM麓s green machine!"

I live on a main road and I often see people go past on horses with a little cart here in Lancashire. Surely two would have more than enough space for the whole Ethical Family, and costs wouldn't be too bad if you were only hiring.

I'm concerned that Justin may be placing less emphasis on overcoming difficulties ethically and more on testing out new-fangled gizmos.

Justin, I applaud your efforts however after much thought have decided to go the Mercedes S500 route, very fast, 5 litre engine, and has beaten the Toyota Prius by being the first car in the World to win and environemental certificate (ref My advice is to go out and buy yourself a really big fun car then concentrate your efforts on saving the environment by raising awareness of Global Warming in China and India - that's where the really big damage is about to start ?

Hi Justin,

I鈥檇 like to echo some previous comments in saying I鈥檝e really enjoyed Ethical Man鈥� but driving a hire car to a green festival is not cheating? Who are you kidding? (Does this make you a , or even a *?)

Ethical man is the way forward to the day when petrol becomes too expensive to run a car.
Ethical man is the way forward to the day when UK is in economic meltdown.

Hiring a car to go somewhere for a special occasion is absolutely not cheating - people who say so are being well-meaning but mean-spitited purists! Are you supposed to never leave the house again?! The aim is to avoid using a car when not necessary. Car sharing schemes are also a great idea for people who want a car only every now and again and are usually cheaper than hiring.

How did you get across London to do that piece on terrorism trials -did all the crew use public transport.

We cycle to work and work from home for 90% of my working life. I can tick all of the recycling check boxes and wouldn't be bothered if the local council collected our rubbish every three weeks as we have so little non-recyclable waste.

I have no doubts that if everybody did the same we would have a cleaner world. But I know that unless the "powers that be" regulate my actions really are just a token.

As to the lazy mans excuse that there is no point in cleaning up our act because the developing world will overtake us soon. I think the likes of China might take us a bit more seriously if they saw we could practice what we where preaching and not just adding to the green house effect with a lot of hot air.

Next I think I'll see if we can reduce our usage of drinking water for toilet flushing and gardening by installing a large underground rainwater tank and capturing our own water.

To answer J.G (post 5) - the reason being green is ethical is because if we do not live within the limits our planet can sustain, we pass on a less rich planet to our successors - to be emotive, we are stealing from our children and grandchildren.

There are limits to the amount of things we remove from the earth (will it be our generation that uses up virtually all the earth's oil?); and in the mount we put back in (will our carbon dioxide emissions wreck the climate?)

So there is nothing inherently unethical about driving a car - even a Ferrari frankly - as long as you remain within those limits. As the pressing one in terms of cars is carbon emissions, you won't get to drive as far in the Ferrari as you would in your hybrid - but stick within the limit (and don't drive in a way that endangers others) and it is perfectly ethical.

And as for the now famous Kate who thinks the whole idea is not one that Newsnight should cover...is your concern that examining how people can ensure our plant remains a viable place for humankind to prosper is getting in the way of political gossip? What exactly is more important?

One nitpicking thing - Cameron has a Lexus luxury saloon hybrid car, not an SUV one. Hybrids are starting to get a bad press because many journalists don't understand them (not accusing you of this by the way). They are fantastic in city traffic conditions becuase the battery enables them to store a proportion of the energy lost in braking. At a steady speed on a motorway this makes less difference, because you don;t slow down much. So if you do lots of urban driving they are great - lots of motorway driving, its more questionable the extra cost is worth it.

can i drift a little off topic and ask about taxation of non-fossil fuel oil ?...

from my blog in another forum, on the topic of vegetable oil fuel taxation, and the question asked "surely, if fuel taxation is about saving the planet, why is [vegetable] sunflower oil taxed ?"

unfortunately it has more to do with earning revenue as your point demonstrates, also, the cynical may suggest that it is to keep us all from using vegetable oil, possibly as the result of big oil lobbyist activites ?

if road and fuel taxation was really about saving the planet, there would be no roadtax, instead cars might have an 'mot disc' in the screen, and all road funding and fuel taxation would be added to fuels, at least then, there would be some logic to (reduced rate for vegetable oil use) taxation for fuels such as sunflower or other non fossil fuels

providing all road user revenue through fuel taxation could work very nicely indeed, and it could be quite just as well, if you (for example) work out the average annual mileage (for cars, in this instance), divide the average road fund licence by those miles, and work out the average miles per gallon for the average car, and multipy the (now divided) road fund licence cost by those miles (per gallon), you then have your figure for how much tax you would add to the cost of a gallon of fuel

in [b]rough[/b] terms something like this - 拢150 road fund licence divide by 12,000 miles multiplied by 30 miles per gallon = 拢0.375 per gallon (in addition to the current fuel levy for fossil fuels) - buy a thirsty car, pay more tax, buy a frugal car, pay less, of course, this still leaves electric cars out of the loop, but something could be arranged for those

i have been wittering on about this for more than a decade, it could be done, it perhaps should be done, so why hasn't it ?

...and furthermore, in answer to the issue of land area, and vegetable oil production pressures upon it...

initially a thought of 'green hi-rise' may occur, but vegetable [oil] products can be grown in vertical farms, so actual land area becomes less of an issue, i think that done right, a 'farm city' could be an attractive use of the human termite-esque desire to build upward

Hi Justin,

Isn't it true that you are only expected to live the ethical life during working hours and your family car is in use outside of these times?

David

Daryl Hannah for u.s. president !

matt wrote
"...and furthermore, in answer to the issue of land area, and vegetable oil production pressures upon it...

initially a thought of 'green hi-rise' may occur, but vegetable [oil] products can be grown in vertical farms, so actual land area becomes less of an issue, i think that done right, a 'farm city' could be an attractive use of the human termite-esque desire to build upward"

If you build a vertical farm you would cut the light on the shaded side so reducing the space available for growing stuff, so nothing would be gained.
The only reason high rise works for humans is because we use artificial lighting, which is not in itself a good green solution for growing plants.

As an aside carbon offsetting, by planting trees, is a non starter. To offset every flight from Britain, per year, you would need to plant an area the size of Wales - permanently, and stop the trees from ever rotting. So where would you plant next years offset trees ?

Simon

not true, it is entirely possible to double, treble, or quadruple the area of land used in agriculture by stacking, it is not necessary to grow many crops in total unobscured sunlight, additionally, the kind of stacking i had in mind would comprise each storey being spaced higher than an ordinary 'human' storey

add in the use of glass reflectors, which would be integral to the structure, and you have no real issues with one storey being beneath another

factor in mesh flooring with confined rows of root system, and you have something more akin to a pagoda than a multi storey carpark

i appreciate where you're coming from, but you make many assumptions as to how it might not work, whilst ignoring the many ways in which it could actually be made to succeed

indeed, much work is being done all over the world to make this happen

The Swedes (I think) have some sort of deal where people with Smart cars get reduced cost of town-to-town car hire, subsidised by the govt for reducing carbon emissions. The idea is to use the tiny but low-emission Smart car round town for shopping etc, and use bigger (but still low-emission) vehicles for longer journeys. Seems sensible to me.

BTW the US military gets 30% fuel savings on hummvees running a diesel donkey engine to electric direct-drive motors in the wheels. But that would cost car companies a lot in R&D&Marketing.

Editor,
Why have all the postings since Nov. 2006 been wiped off? It couldn't be because there have recently been some more critical postings, could it?

When I think of the objections people have to congestion charging, I can't but feel that many of the same individuals are ignoring the fact that they are pouring money down the sewer. Many of the same motorists are the sole occupants of inefficient large saloon cars, people carriers and suv's. If those vehicles had at least one passenger, the efficiency would be double for necessary journeys, and the cost would be halved. Should we not be promoting the use of a new generation of clean personal transport machines such as a form of scooter or lightweight carbonfibre car for the millions of commuters currently jamming the cities daily. Stopping this senseless car traffic would make it far safer for commuters to use more efficient personal transport. It would also improve road conditions for public transport vehicles. Also, certain roads could be converted for the sole use of two wheeled vehicles such as bicycles and low powered scooters so that they wouldn't be in danger of being run over and not endangering pedestrians and being a nuisance to other legitimate road users. Could urban cycle tunnels be built underground solely for cyclists ? I can't help but feel that the future of the internal combustion engine is due for a revolution. The Diesel engine was invented to provide a more efficient engine through high compression ignition. The inefficient reciprocating otto cycle engine is the steam engine of the 21st century, and has long been identified as inefficient and outdated, with engine designs already long invented that surpass the limited technology. Still using this inferior technology in hybrids, albeit with atkinson cycle adding 5% efficiency, and regenerative braking reclaiming lost energy in braking fails to address the core of the issue. The reciprocating otto engine in a heavy steel framed vehicle is fundamentally flawed. Having a compression ratio equal to the expansion ratio inherently limits efficiency. Maybe rotary forms of the otto and atkinson cycle designs is the future to avoid this limit of the reciprocating pistons. However, performance of Diesel engines have been improved with common rail injection, and the forthcoming generation of direct injection. Particulate emissions are the main reason for its lack of favour, however using fuels that reduce these emissions, including biofuels should help improve their status. On these lines, Ethanol in petrol will improve the efficiency of combustion of the petroleum component by providing additional Oxygen for combustion. So we also need a change in fuels, similar to the cleaner low Sulphur and Unleaded Premium fuels we all know and love so much now. Biofuels are not the only answer, as it is fanciful and utopian. The fuel industry in the real world needs to work with automobile manufacturers to produce new vehicles that use the energy in new fuels more effectively. The dti can influence this, and act as arbitrator, as has been done in the past. As soon as politicians and Joe Bloggs get involved, and tell everyone where they're all going wrong, this fascist social change washes away any technical improvements that can be made, and liberties are lost. Europe needs to use its technical agencies to facilitate technological improvements. A Union of Communist Carbon Cap Republic approach that non-technical socialists view with totalitarian delight is alarmingly gaining momentum in various forms and is heralding a social reversal to the liberation of car ownership and other industrially facilitated social revolutions. Would this mean, that I would only be able to drive twice as far if I can afford a more efficient car ? Would I have to not shower for a month to save the Carbon emissions to drive to Scotland, despite the fact that a nuclear power station or solar water heater could provide my domestic energy ? I sincerely hope not. Maybe people should be informed how to avoid their wasteful habits, I congratulate the tyre pressure promotion, but think more effective ideas to improve efficiency could be forthcoming. This is in line with our long fought for democracy, we can make our own choice as to whether we choose to act. How to enlighten our ignorance to cut the waste out of our socially unhealthy habits. I congratulate Newsnight and Ethical Man for informing the public where they are wasting resources, being polluters, and promoting better habits. I think ethical man embarked on a journey of discovery, but identified the reality that we are at the tip of the iceberg as the responsible citizen. Society and the wheels of technology need to do the rest. I trust the qualified technologists of their respective disciplines enough to do their jobs with admirable efficiency and to ask the politicians and communists to leave it to the experts. Society needs to wake up to the environmental impacts of modern life, and the individual needs to act responsibly, but we live in a democratic society, and we have the right to as good a quality of life as we can achieve, without resorting to miserable poverty. We need to find better ways of doing things, both for us, and for the environment.

When I think of the objections people have to congestion charging, I can't but feel that many of the same individuals are ignoring the fact that they are pouring money down the sewer. Many of the same motorists are the sole occupants of inefficient large saloon cars, people carriers and suv's. If those vehicles had at least one passenger, the efficiency would be double for necessary journeys, and the cost would be halved. Should we not be promoting the use of a new generation of clean personal transport machines such as a form of scooter or lightweight carbonfibre car for the millions of commuters currently jamming the cities daily. Stopping this senseless car traffic would make it far safer for commuters to use more efficient personal transport. It would also improve road conditions for public transport vehicles. Also, certain roads could be converted for the sole use of two wheeled vehicles such as bicycles and low powered scooters so that they wouldn't be in danger of being run over and not endangering pedestrians and being a nuisance to other legitimate road users. Could urban cycle tunnels be built underground solely for cyclists ? I can't help but feel that the future of the internal combustion engine is due for a revolution. The Diesel engine was invented to provide a more efficient engine through high compression ignition. The inefficient reciprocating otto cycle engine is the steam engine of the 21st century, and has long been identified as inefficient and outdated, with engine designs already long invented that surpass the limited technology. Still using this inferior technology in hybrids, albeit with atkinson cycle adding 5% efficiency, and regenerative braking reclaiming lost energy in braking fails to address the core of the issue. The reciprocating otto engine in a heavy steel framed vehicle is fundamentally flawed. Having a compression ratio equal to the expansion ratio inherently limits efficiency. Maybe rotary forms of the otto and atkinson cycle designs is the future to avoid this limit of the reciprocating pistons. However, performance of Diesel engines have been improved with common rail injection, and the forthcoming generation of direct injection. Particulate emissions are the main reason for its lack of favour, however using fuels that reduce these emissions, including biofuels should help improve their status. On these lines, Ethanol in petrol will improve the efficiency of combustion of the petroleum component by providing additional Oxygen for combustion. So we also need a change in fuels, similar to the cleaner low Sulphur and Unleaded Premium fuels we all know and love so much now. Biofuels are not the only answer, as it is fanciful and utopian. The fuel industry in the real world needs to work with automobile manufacturers to produce new vehicles that use the energy in new fuels more effectively. The dti can influence this, and act as arbitrator, as has been done in the past. As soon as politicians and Joe Bloggs get involved, and tell everyone where they're all going wrong, this fascist social change washes away any technical improvements that can be made, and liberties are lost. Europe needs to use its technical agencies to facilitate technological improvements. A Union of Communist Carbon Cap Republic approach that non-technical socialists view with totalitarian delight is alarmingly gaining momentum in various forms and is heralding a social reversal to the liberation of car ownership and other industrially facilitated social revolutions. Would this mean, that I would only be able to drive twice as far if I can afford a more efficient car ? Would I have to not shower for a month to save the Carbon emissions to drive to Scotland, despite the fact that a nuclear power station or solar water heater could provide my domestic energy ? I sincerely hope not. Maybe people should be informed how to avoid their wasteful habits, I congratulate the tyre pressure promotion, but think more effective ideas to improve efficiency could be forthcoming. This is in line with our long fought for democracy, we can make our own choice as to whether we choose to act. How to enlighten our ignorance to cut the waste out of our socially unhealthy habits. I congratulate Newsnight and Ethical Man for informing the public where they are wasting resources, being polluters, and promoting better habits. I think ethical man embarked on a journey of discovery, but identified the reality that we are at the tip of the iceberg as the responsible citizen. Society and the wheels of technology need to do the rest. I trust the qualified technologists of their respective disciplines enough to do their jobs with admirable efficiency and to ask the politicians and communists to leave it to the experts. Society needs to wake up to the environmental impacts of modern life, and the individual needs to act responsibly, but we live in a democratic society, and we have the right to as good a quality of life as we can achieve, without resorting to miserable poverty. We need to find better ways of doing things, both for us, and for the environment.