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

"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

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.

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:13:37 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

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.

Those who simply sling mud at FoE may be believed by some, but most
people are intelligent enough to dismiss such mud-slinging.

FoE research can be challenged in the usual way. I note that you
have not done so.


--
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:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:13:37 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

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.

Those who simply sling mud at FoE may be believed by some, but most
people are intelligent enough to dismiss such mud-slinging.

FoE research can be challenged in the usual way. I note that you
have not done so.


I wasn't aware they did any research *to* challenge.

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:37:23 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

FoE research can be challenged in the usual way. I note that you
have not done so.

I wasn't aware they did any research *to* challenge.

Yawn. Perhaps this tells us more about you than it tells us about
FoE.


--
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 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:13:37 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

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.

Those who simply sling mud at FoE may be believed by some, but most
people are intelligent enough to dismiss such mud-slinging.

FoE research can be challenged in the usual way. I note that you
have not done so.

Without evidence the comment (which I didn't see) is worthless.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:13:37 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

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.

Those who simply sling mud at FoE may be believed by some, but most
people are intelligent enough to dismiss such mud-slinging.

FoE research can be challenged in the usual way. I note that you
have not done so.

Without evidence the comment (which I didn't see) is worthless.

Which is just about true of global warming!

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.

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

"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.

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

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
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.

And his farm shop is not organic!

"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

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

"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

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.

"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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

"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

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.

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

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..

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

Mary


No.

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

My footprint is usually mud!

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

No, probably because it's complete cobblers dreamed up by the environ mental
industry to create a few more easy jobs.


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