Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the carbon
footprint for various appliances etc?

Mary

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:34:17 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the carbon
footprint for various appliances etc?

Not really. The best starting point is probably Friends of the Earth
and then following up the references.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:34:17 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon
footprint for various appliances etc?

Not really. The best starting point is probably Friends of the Earth
and then following up the references.

I'll have a look, thanks.

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

Mary

This may be of interest to you Mary http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/
and could well steer you to the information that you are asking for.

Brian G

Brian G wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

Mary

This may be of interest to you Mary http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/
and could well steer you to the information that you are asking for.

Brian G


Ask Charles Windsor, I am sure he knows as a green advocate and probably
the person in the UK with the largest carbon footprint.

"Brian G" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

Mary

This may be of interest to you Mary http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/
and could well steer you to the information that you are asking for.

Brian G
I know of that site, thanks, but it doesn't really help.

However, this does! Well worth a look.

http://www.carbonbalanced.org/sms/te...on-offsets.htm

Mary

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

Just about every appliance has the energy consumption given somewhere on
it. Things like kettles will have it stamped into the base etc in watts.
The actual footprint of course depends on use - and a low wattage kettle
won't save energy to boil the same amount of water - probably the reverse.

For other appliances you might have to look at the handbook, etc.

With things like fridges etc the energy used also depends on the degree of
insulation. Washing machines also vary in the amount of energy they use
for a given task. Modern ones are marked ABCDE etc.

--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Broadback wrote:
Brian G wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

Mary

This may be of interest to you Mary
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/ and could well steer you to the
information that you are asking for.

Brian G

Ask Charles Windsor, I am sure he knows as a green advocate and probably
the person in the UK with the largest carbon footprint.

As a rough guide, one's carbon footprint is roughly the same size as
one's arse

On Apr 3, 12:24 pm, Stuart Noble
wrote:
Broadback wrote:
Brian G wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

Mary

This may be of interest to you Mary
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/and could well steer you to the
information that you are asking for.

Brian G

Ask Charles Windsor, I am sure he knows as a green advocate and probably
the person in the UK with the largest carbon footprint.

As a rough guide, one's carbon footprint is roughly the same size as
one's arse- Hide quoted text -

Especially when one is talking out of it, as Charlie tends to.

MBQ

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:19:13 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just about every appliance has the energy consumption given somewhere on
it. Things like kettles will have it stamped into the base etc in watts.
The actual footprint of course depends on use - and a low wattage kettle
won't save energy to boil the same amount of water - probably the reverse.

Surely there are other factors beside power consumption? Appliances have
to be manufactured, transported, and disposed of at end of life, and these
involve CO2 production too.

"Stuart Noble" wrote:
As a rough guide, one's carbon footprint is roughly the same size as one's
arse

In that case John Prescott looks a good bet.

In article ,
John Stumbles wrote:
Just about every appliance has the energy consumption given somewhere
on it. Things like kettles will have it stamped into the base etc in
watts. The actual footprint of course depends on use - and a low
wattage kettle won't save energy to boil the same amount of water -
probably the reverse.

Surely there are other factors beside power consumption? Appliances have
to be manufactured, transported, and disposed of at end of life, and
these involve CO2 production too.

True - but no one site can possibly have accurate figures on this. You can
make an educated guess yourself.

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:34:17 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon
footprint for various appliances etc?

Not really. The best starting point is probably Friends of the Earth
and then following up the references.

Gottit!

Not directly, but from the forum.

Mary

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

Just about every appliance has the energy consumption given somewhere on
it. Things like kettles will have it stamped into the base etc in watts.
The actual footprint of course depends on use - and a low wattage kettle
won't save energy to boil the same amount of water - probably the reverse.

For other appliances you might have to look at the handbook, etc.

With things like fridges etc the energy used also depends on the degree of
insulation. Washing machines also vary in the amount of energy they use
for a given task. Modern ones are marked ABCDE etc.

You missed the 'etc' :-)

I've had helpful information from folk on another forum so thanks to
everyone but I know an answer now..

Mary

--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Brian G" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about
the carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

Mary

This may be of interest to you Mary
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/ and could well steer you to the
information that you are asking for. Brian G
I know of that site, thanks, but it doesn't really help.

However, this does! Well worth a look.

http://www.carbonbalanced.org/sms/te...on-offsets.htm

Mary

That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global warming'
caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to hell because of
this government taxing us to high heaven as an excuse for it.

Brian G

"Brian G" wrote in message
...

That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global warming'
caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to hell because of
this government taxing us to high heaven as an excuse for it.

I don't think we're being taxed to high heaven because of carbon emissions,
governments have always taxed us but now the wrong things are being taxed.

As for not believing in it, that's your prerogative but it isn't just
British scientists who do.

Mary

On 3 Apr, 12:54, John Stumbles wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:19:13 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Just about every appliance has the energy consumption given somewhere on
it. Things like kettles will have it stamped into the base etc in watts.
The actual footprint of course depends on use - and a low wattage kettle
won't save energy to boil the same amount of water - probably the reverse.

Surely there are other factors beside power consumption? Appliances have
to be manufactured, transported, and disposed of at end of life, and these
involve CO2 production too.

http://www.greendoug.com/viewtopic.p...3c4c2e2f efec
explains

In article ,
Brian G wrote:
That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global warming'
caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to hell because
of this government taxing us to high heaven as an excuse for it.

And if the taxes do what they *say* they are intended to do and reduce
such emissions, they'll then have to find something else to tax due to
reduced government income. In other words, you can't win.

--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Brian G wrote:
That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global warming'
caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to hell
because of this government taxing us to high heaven as an excuse for

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is caused by
climate change - not the other way around.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
Brian G wrote:
That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global warming'
caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to hell
because of this government taxing us to high heaven as an excuse for

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is caused by
climate change - not the other way around.

That particular producer has 'form' in terms of bad-science documentaries.

OG wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...
Brian G wrote:
That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global
warming' caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to
hell because of this government taxing us to high heaven as an
excuse for

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is
caused by climate change - not the other way around.

That particular producer has 'form' in terms of bad-science
documentaries.

Climate change has been around for far longer than man has walked this
earth - could the various ice ages and consequent warmings have been caused
by dinosaurs farting?


Brian G

DIY wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote:

As a rough guide, one's carbon footprint is roughly the same size as one's
arse


In that case John Prescott looks a good bet.


Looks like Mrs. Blair has a huge one then :-)
On the other hand, her husband could top her as he is all arse :-)

Dave

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:20:43 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

True - but no one site can possibly have accurate figures on this. You
can make an educated guess yourself.

I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt but what about
the CO2 cost of plastic A versus plastic B and so on - there must be
zillions of things you'd have to be a FoE mastermind to make a remotely
accurate 'educated' guess at.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:19:55 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is caused by
climate change - not the other way around.

It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

At the time the flaws in the opinion piece were pointed out. Of
course those who want to believe the same as the authors of the
opinion piece will continue to clutch at anything to prop up their
belief.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:09:57 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt

The manufacturers of the ship full of toys which arrived from China
before Christmas claimed that the carbon emissions of ships are
surprisingly low. Similar claims are made by exporters of New
Zealand lamb.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Brian G" wrote in message
...

That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global warming'
caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to hell because
of this government taxing us to high heaven as an excuse for it.

I don't think we're being taxed to high heaven because of carbon
emissions, governments have always taxed us but now the wrong things are
being taxed.

As for not believing in it, that's your prerogative but it isn't just
British scientists who do.

Russian scientists are predicting a global cooling cycle, which they expect
to start around 2012. There are also signs of global warming on Mars and we
have the scientist from the Cavendish Laboratory who tells us that only 15%
of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of the
radiant energy that CO2 can absorb while the real danger is water vapour.
Even Chapter 1 of the IPCC report is nowhere near as conclusive as the media
and government want us to believe. The extent of disagreement among the
experts suggests that none of them really know what is happening or what is
going to happen.

Colin Bignell

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian G wrote:
That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global warming'
caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to hell because
of this government taxing us to high heaven as an excuse for it.

And if the taxes do what they *say* they are intended to do and reduce
such emissions, they'll then have to find something else to tax due to
reduced government income. In other words, you can't win.

If the government achieves its target of a 60% reduction in emissions, it
will have little impact on a global scale, as we only produce 2% of all CO2
emissions now.

Colin Bignell

On 2007-04-04 07:38:05 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:19:55 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is caused by
climate change - not the other way around.

It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

Motivation?


At the time the flaws in the opinion piece were pointed out. Of
course those who want to believe the same as the authors of the
opinion piece will continue to clutch at anything to prop up their
belief.

.... and somehow this is different from the belief that human
production of CO2 influences climate change?

In article ,

If the government achieves its target of a 60% reduction in
emissions, it will have little impact on a global scale, as we
only produce 2% of all CO2 emissions now.

Yes, but it is a lovely political bandwagon......

They can put an emotive spin on it, there is no
hard target to measure the govt's performance
against, and, (best of all), they can tax us
like buggery for vague, unconfirmable reasons.

--
Tony Williams.

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:20:43 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

True - but no one site can possibly have accurate figures on this. You
can make an educated guess yourself.

I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt

The difference is possibly less than you think. The latest container ships
carry around 6,000 - 7,500 40ft containers. The distance the goods have to
travel by lorry from the docks or from a UK manufacturer is probably a more
important factor than whether they have come halfway around the world first.

Colin Bignell

On 2007-04-04 07:41:04 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:09:57 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt

The manufacturers of the ship full of toys which arrived from China
before Christmas claimed that the carbon emissions of ships are
surprisingly low. Similar claims are made by exporters of New
Zealand lamb.

So now ask yourself why.

Hmm.... Probably because they want to be able to sell their goods
uneventfully in the West.

What enables them to do that?

A ready market of people wanting low prices for products and not having
carbon footprint as a major purchasing criterion.

Has anybody had a discussion with the purchasing public about this?

Has anyone had a word with the Chinese and Indians about their energy
production methods?

So what could be done? Two ideas.


- The West tells the Far East that they need to dramatically change
their use of fossil fuels for energy production and to install
alternative capacity - if need be with the threat of trade tariffs.

- Implement massive import duties on products manufactured in countries
with a predominantly fossil fuel energy policy and ongoing plan.

The latter would have the effect of a substantial price rise on goods
from these places. It would re-open opportunity for manufacture
closer to the market - e.g. former Warsaw pact and even Western Europe.
That has some political appeal on the jobs front.
The question is would the public be willing to pay or would there be a
political backlash?
Are people willing to put the carbon footprint of their purchases ahead
of their pocketbooks?


I'm not suggesting that either of these are achievable; and this is
leaving aside whether or not doing something to reduce carbon emission
will actually achieve anything.

History shows that trade protectionism doesn't work in the long run and
that the market ultimately decides. Their may even be the odd touch of
fisticuffs along the way.

Nonetheless, I wonder if any western governments have the balls to do it.....

In article ,
John Stumbles wrote:
True - but no one site can possibly have accurate figures on this. You
can make an educated guess yourself.

I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt but what about
the CO2 cost of plastic A versus plastic B and so on - there must be
zillions of things you'd have to be a FoE mastermind to make a remotely
accurate 'educated' guess at.

Indeed; and this applies to the websites which claim to do just this.

My point was that most who want this sort of information don't actually
know (or want to understand) what the plate on an appliance means where
watts are concerned. And this site

http://www.carbonbalanced.org/sms/te...on-offsets.htm

is a prime example of over simplification.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
David Hansen wrote:
I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt

The manufacturers of the ship full of toys which arrived from China
before Christmas claimed that the carbon emissions of ships are
surprisingly low. Similar claims are made by exporters of New
Zealand lamb.

They are indeed per kilo per mile - far lower than air, road or rail. If
they weren't we wouldn't get cheap goods from so far away.

--
*Did you ever notice when you blow in a dog's face he gets mad at you? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-04-04 07:38:05 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:19:55 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is caused
by
climate change - not the other way around.

It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

Motivation?


At the time the flaws in the opinion piece were pointed out. Of
course those who want to believe the same as the authors of the
opinion piece will continue to clutch at anything to prop up their
belief.

... and somehow this is different from the belief that human production
of CO2 influences climate change?

The bus is rolling down a hill towards a cliff. Someone yells 'put your foot
on the brake' and you then get the passengers helpfully saying 'I don't see
why we should brake - that other bus is bigger than we are' or 'It's not
braking that's the issue its all the fault of gravity' or 'I saw a
documentary the other week that said that an astrologer predicted that this
hill was an optical illusion, let's just sit here'.

Andy

In article ,
David Hansen writes:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:09:57 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt

The manufacturers of the ship full of toys which arrived from China
before Christmas claimed that the carbon emissions of ships are
surprisingly low. Similar claims are made by exporters of New
Zealand lamb.

Although many people are surprised when you point out that shipping
worldwide produces twice the CO2 of all aviation, given how much
fuss is made about aviation.

Fortunately I'm not a believer in man-made CO2 causing global
warming as I've not yet seen any valid scientific evidence,
but I do believe in not wasting energy for other reasons.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Mary Fisher wrote:
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the carbon
footprint for various appliances etc?

Mary


No.

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:34:17 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the carbon
footprint for various appliances etc?

Not really. The best starting point is probably Friends of the Earth
and then following up the references.


That's probably the worst place for reliable information.

John Stumbles wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:19:13 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just about every appliance has the energy consumption given somewhere on
it. Things like kettles will have it stamped into the base etc in watts.
The actual footprint of course depends on use - and a low wattage kettle
won't save energy to boil the same amount of water - probably the reverse.

Surely there are other factors beside power consumption? Appliances have
to be manufactured, transported, and disposed of at end of life, and these
involve CO2 production too.

You are starting to see the point..

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Brian G wrote:
That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global warming'
caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to hell
because of this government taxing us to high heaven as an excuse for

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is caused by
climate change - not the other way around.


Well thats been pretty thoroughly debunked.

Dave wrote:
DIY wrote:

"Stuart Noble" wrote:

As a rough guide, one's carbon footprint is roughly the same size as
one's arse


In that case John Prescott looks a good bet.


Looks like Mrs. Blair has a huge one then :-)
On the other hand, her husband could top her as he is all arse :-)

Dave
Save the planet. Strangle a baby today!