h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Switching time is so annoying! I don't mind keeping Summer or Winter time, but let us stick to the same all round the year

Actually, I believe I waste more energy complaining about the time change than I actually save by complying

Normally I hate it when the clocks go back in winter, but this year it means it is getting light when I take the beasties out for their morning walk which is really nice. It is usually dark in the evenings when I walk them anyway so this way at least one trip out is light.


Building regulations have changed a lot in the UK in recent years to make new homes (and homes that are altered) more energy efficient which is a good thing.

There was a frost this morning, the heating will be going on for tomorrow morning so that getting up at 6.15am is that little bit less unbearable, although we might not need it on this evening - will wait and see...

Hi Az

Most countries I think, and certainly in Europe those that do all change at the same time.

I can see why countries such as USA Australia with very large land masses East to West would need different 'Time Zones' and thus make the change at different times.

My own view on it is simple. If it is an advantage to have lighter evenings then let's keep them 'lighter' all year. I can't see any solid benefit in reverting to Winter Time, unless one is an inveterate early riser. The length of 'daylight' changes with the seasons : I see no rea advantage in moving it backwards and forwards within the clock time.

Incidentally I can remember having double Summer Time ( GMT + 2 hrs )during and after WW2.

Novo

<> (novo)

Really? I didn't know that. That now makes two things I have learned today.

I think people like kelli who have wee beasties to walk in the early morning, and also those who like going for an early run in the park, appreciate the extra hour of light in the mornings. Fair enough.

Most people I know don't really care about going to work in the dark and would rather have that extra hour of light in the evening. Myself included. But it all comes down to lifestyle so there will never be an across-the-board agreement on whether Winter or Summer time is best.

Meanwhile, I can also see that it's better for kids being able to go to school in the morning when it's light outside. No argument there.

az

<>

Apparently, children are more likely to be hurt in accidents after school, when it's dark and they're more tired than in the morning. So safety says stay on Summer time.

Actually, they haven't actually been able to test that - it is a theory though, that people at the end of the working day are more tired and prone to accidents, and the kids may also be tired and paying less attention to the roads.

I wonder if the current accident stats (not including children, just general accidents) back that up?

The only way to *really* test that is not to put the clocks back in winter, and see if more kids die.

The GMT+2 was introduced to save energy during the war.

Aren't we talking about saving energy?

What will I do?

Nothing.

Appaling isnt it? I confess only to being completely honest and this is not a posting just to wind people up. Until the time that the US, China, India and other developing countries are signed up to change their ways, I refuse to change my ways.

Doubtless this will be seen as a disgraceful atttitude, but quite frankly I do not care to get in a frenzy over something I personally have absolutley no control.

personally I see it as scandalous. Anyway, I think the argument of daylight savings perfectly illustrates my point. How much energy is actually wasted by switching all those clocks? Just about none. And yet we're worrying about that...it's incorrectly prioritized in the list of energy wasting activities.

Also, recycling *does* take more energy than making something new. That is why I bring it up as being at odds with energy conservation.

And of course I'm sure you know exactly were that would leave us if every single person in the world shared your attitude. But at least your candor is refreshing.

The planet produces 97% (lowest estimate) of greenhouse gases naturally. Britain is responsible for 2% of the difference.

2% of 3% = 0.02% (corret my arithmetic)

So if we stopped polluting entirely in the UK, how much of a difference would it make?

It's 0.06 percent, but close enough.

Close enough It was 1/3 of the correct answer!

Hey, we're among friends here ... yah, close enough for government work, anyway.

Agreed

Sorry for the iness fit

Well hey - it costs more in Spain to buy recycled paper than the fresh virgin pure white stuff. I have no problem with that - it's not a huge price difference.

Just like we have to take *special trips* out to the very few plastic and glass recycling bins they have on offer here in Seville.

It doesn't really matter that recycling is more expensive or perhaps takes a bit more *energy* ... the bottom line is that we are not abusing the resources we have at hand. Which *are* limited. And by recycling we are not adding to the huge global 'garbage dump' out there, which is seriously polluting our water and air supplies.

az

<>

I don't think it's being suggested that the UK should go it alone; it's a global problem, and needs global solutions.

The problem with the statistic, "The planet produces 97% (lowest estimate) of greenhouse gases naturally." is that it doesn't tell us how much more than this the planet can "recycle naturally." A quite small increase in total carbon dioxide production *could* lead to a much bigger increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the air, if natural systems were unable to deal with the extra.

Noggin

Yeah, the whole recycling thing is a bit of red herring, in that it conflates CO2 emissions with sustainable use of resources.

Saying recycling costs more than buying new stuff seems a bit general as well. Maybe making new bottles from broken glass *is* more expensive, but surely using bottles again (after a good clean, natch) wouldn't be. Or maybe it would, I dunno off-hand.

In the good old days of about 20 years ago, you'd get money back on ginger* bottles in Scotland, so why not bring something similar back for all bottles? And use less plastic and packaging etc.



*soda-pop for non-Scots

I'm surprised so many people here are saying that one way of combatting global warming is to use less electricity.

Britain, like every other country in the world, produces more electricity than it needs. It doesn't produce to demand - if you turn lights off you won't alter the amount of electricity being produced and hence fossil fuels being burnt in any way.

If a seriously large number of people vastly reduced their electricity consumption then it would become possible for Britain to run on less electricity but its doubtful this would happen as any reduction in power-output carries an enormous risk of brownouts if the UK's energy demands rise again.

Using less electricity is sensible and saves money but for the average household that's all it does.

It's similar to the argument about "combatting global warming" by not taking the plane. If you fail to take a plane that plane will still take off and still pollute. The numbers of air passengers would need to seriously be reduced in order to make some flights economically unviable and this isn't happening, it's one of the reasons the UK government is thinking of applying a "green tax" to aircraft travel, to force the number of passengers down. The only current way to lower pollution via transportation for the individual is to not use an individually-polluting method of transport such as a car.

The solution to the problem of global warming doesn't lie with individuals "doing their bit", it lies with governments and business who are between them responsible for the most pollution.

Unfortunately, socialist governments use taxation to cure every ill. Whether it works or not. (I remember ciggies being 50p a pack). I think this govt is going to bring in a tax frenzy, labelling them all "green". Hence the media hard sell and scare stories.

So what if temperatures rise? We adapt. It might be a social upheaval, but it's hardly an extinction event.