[RAC Web Team]

Hi everyone - would appreciate your opinion on a new carbon offsetting scheme RAC is considering...

If you use the RAC Route planner you might know that when you get your map online, you can also calculate the carbon footprint that journey will make.

If there was an option to then make your journey carbon neutral by paying a small charge towards the planting of an RAC forest in the UK, do you think you would take it up?

In return for individual's contributions (probably between £1-£5 per journey depending on miles travelled) trees will be planted to create a managed 'RAC forest' in the UK.

Would be interested to know your thoughts on this. Is the ability to make your journey carbon neutral important to you? Would you be willing to pay towards the planting of trees in the UK?

Let us know, we value your opinions.

Thanks, RAC Web Team

[Rolebama]

In general, I would agree to pay for trees, however, I will explain now why I won't. I moved into my current home over thirty years ago, when the houses had just been built. We also had trees planted along the road, which are now what I would consider mature. Last year, we had a character move in, and his first action was to complain to local Council that a particular tree was throwiing his garden into shadow. With no consultation whatsoever, the Council sent a bunch of fools around with a chainsaw, hacking great lumps and branches off the trees, totally destroying the aesthetics of the road. At the same time, we had various Groups vandalising the local woods in the name of 'coppicing'. The PC Brigade can't leave anything alone, now they are destroying our trees. Until PC is replaced with common sense, I do not consider it viable for anyone to do anything which could in any way be construed as useful.

[Azgaard]

No is the simple answer. How ever, if I took out my insurance with the RAC and the advisor said to me that £1-£5 of my premium is being put towards a new forest then I would think thats a good idea and be pleased that the RAC is helping that way. You are asking the public to pay for you (being RAC) to have a good name. Why doesn't the RAC just pay for it out of their own pockets and say "hey look at us, we are helping being carbon neutral"

[MrDanno]

I don't believe in the 'global warming' hype or the idea of 'Carbon offsetting' so I would not be interested.

[smudger]

Yea! I would be OK with that, thing is though, the media seem quite happy to cover the loss of our rainforests and other such events, but they don't seem to cover the positive events, such as this one. (and good luck with it)

Mind you, there was a story in our local press, where the council had planted twice as many new tress, as the ones that were felled to make way for a road widening project;)
Cheers, Smudger.

[Snowball]

I would contribute towards the planting of trees, either by extending forests or developing new forest areas, and arboretums. But only if it was not charged as a tax by government handling. We have been National Trust members for many years; I would trust that kind of body.

I can remember a long time ago, before CO2 and global warming became issues, someone once said, "If every man should plant a tree, a motorist should plant a forest".

[98selitb]

If I had more money I would happily support schemes like that, as I would when buying flights when they offer you the choice of carbon offsetting. But at the moment no, simply because I can't afford to, though in the future I hope to be able to.

[ficklejade]

Regret the answer is no for a number of reasons (not in any particular order):

1. Whilst I'm a firm believer in climate change, I'm not convinced about anthropogenic global warming.
2. You don't have a carbon figures for LPG or other types of vehicle so one couldn't calculate how much to offset.
3. I don't see how the scheme could be administered.
4. I'm a pensioner and with ever increasing prices cannot afford it.
5. If I'm paying into something like this I would want to see it. Whilst I'm not suggesting the RAC would do this, there have and are a lot of carbon offset scheme scams.
6. I find it ludicrous that - when governments are allowing the carving up peat bogs (a carbon sink) they have the termerity to want to crucify the public by green taxes - this just puts me off such schemes.
7. Like other posters, our Council has no respect for trees - had three mature oaks ripped out in our conservation area for some grotty ugly houses and the village has lost a third of its trees thanks to other building works. Yet, when I need to lop a sycamore I have to pay the swine and have to get permission to plant three oaks that hopefully will enhance the area way beyond the lifespan of myself and my sprog! Insane!
8. The scheme is, I'm afraid, only paying lip service - we all know that different conditions (weather, traffic, roadworks, as well as driving style) affect the amount of fuel burnt.

Sorry to be so negative. I can appreciate with all the hysteria going on the RAC wants to be seen as taking positive action. IMHO, I would rather see the RAC sticking to its last and supporting the cause of its members and doing a darn sight more, btw, for those of us in rural communities being hammered.
FJ

[RoverV6]

Trees

Sorry but the answer is a resounding NO! the reason being that the theory of global warning was started by an American who now says it was all BULL. (Daily Mail 16/2/09) Copernicus observed the way the earth travelled around the sun and that at times this orbit is disturbed thus causing severe to mild summers/winters. This propaganda is the flavour of current times to get taxes out of people. If you decide to create a forest and have it as park or gardens I would visit. Notice hoe the Green Party is hardly ever heard of now as all the other parties are on that band wagon. As Jeremy Clarkson says if it is true lets all drive bigger engined cars and get better summers!

[98selitb]

Notwithstanding whether or not global warming exists (we all have differing opinions on this), it is an undisputed fact that the atmosphere has a lot more carbon dioxide in it than in the past, which is directly due to fumes etc. Obviously this is bad, and trees, which take in CO2 and give out oxygen, is good; I think everyone agrees with this anyway. So in this case the arguments about global warming are not relevant, as this plan simply aims to plant more trees which gets rid of some of the CO2, which is obviously a good thing - nothing to do with global temperatures etc.

As an aside, I take stories from sensationalist tabloids with a large pinch of salt.

[Snowball]

I still support the planting of trees by a responsible (not government) body. We are also pensioners, but we intend to remain members of the National Trust, because we believe they do a good job.

Global warming? No, I cannot accept that it is controllable by Man. The Earth has gone through so many phases over something like 4.5 billion years. With all their technological aids and studies, I do not believe the scientists really understand every aspect of the planet. The generation of CO2 from fossil fuel sources has become a knee-jerk panacea to cure all ills. The ecological changes of the planet over time are more complicated than that.

The Earth has gone through half its lifespan without the presence of Man. Do we honestly belive we will survive the next few billion years? We have arrived and, like so many other species before us, we will eventually pass into the Earth's history.
We may need the Earth, but the Earth doesn't need us.
Mother Nature will carry on doing her thing regardless.

[ficklejade]

As I don't read the Daily Smail or regularly any newspaper but do read scientific reports from the official organisations, I'm not sure who the American referred to was. My guess is Al Gore, who admitted over two years ago that there were serious scientific flaws in his much vaunted, Oscar winning film "An Inconvenient Truth"; that he knew about them but left them in to make his point. My apologies if I'm wrong - second guess would be James Hanson (NASA originally) whose figures have been proved to be incorrect.

Don't get me wrong, I love trees and plants and am very unpopular with locals who'd rather have decking and midge magnets than birds and wildlife. But I do not subscribe to a whole load of politicians and greenies (hope everyone's read the report on how wasteful leading and vociferous greenies' houses are!) using largely unsubstantiated or challenged data/models as an excuse to tax folks or for organisations to extract money from folks as an excuse for being seen to be green.

I have no problem with people holding different opinions from my own. What I utterly reject is the hypocrisy of it all.

[RoverV6]

I have no objections with new planting of trees, but with the false reasons of global warming. The literature I quote is from the horses mouth that started this scam.

[RoverV6]

Ficklejade the Yank who was qouted was not Al Bore sorry Gore. This idea is rubbish and the perpetrator has admitted it was.

[ficklejade]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I still support the planting of trees by a responsible (not government) body. We are also pensioners, but we intend to remain members of the National Trust, because we believe they do a good job.

Global warming? No, I cannot accept that it is controllable by Man. The Earth has gone through so many phases over something like 4.5 billion years. With all their technological aids and studies, I do not believe the scientists really understand every aspect of the planet. The generation of CO2 from fossil fuel sources has become a knee-jerk panacea to cure all ills. The ecological changes of the planet over time are more complicated than that.

The Earth has gone through half its lifespan without the presence of Man. Do we honestly belive we will survive the next few billion years? We have arrived and, like so many other species before us, we will eventually pass into the Earth's history.
We may need the Earth, but the Earth doesn't need us.
Mother Nature will carry on doing her thing regardless.

Snowball,only reason I'm not a NT member is quite simply I never get the chance to use it and can't afford the membership fee.

As someone with geological trainig in the background, plus a few other odds & s*ds along the way, your comment "We may need the Earth, but the Earth doesn't need us.
Mother Nature will carry on doing her thing regardless. is very true.

[iancovey]

Originally Posted by RAC Web Team

If you use the RAC Route planner you might know that when you get your map online, you can also calculate the carbon footprint that journey will make.

If there was an option to then make your journey carbon neutral by paying a small charge towards the planting of an RAC forest in the UK, do you think you would take it up?

Although I think it's an admirable idea (and maybe I'm just being paranoid) I don't particularly like making payments online particularly not lots of little ones - so I'd probably not make donations.

If you (the RAC, that is) want to help create sustainable forests maybe you could team up with the National Forest and promote their Plantatree campaign (http://www.nationalforest.org/sponsor/plantatree/) to your members?

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by iancovey

Although I think it's an admirable idea (and maybe I'm just being paranoid) I don't particularly like making payments online particularly not lots of little ones - so I'd probably not make donations.

?

I agree with you, Ian. I am also cautious about some schemes because there is always the chance of the prime mover being a comfortable living for the pepetrator; (maybe I'm being paranoid too!).

Affording a donation and the amount can vary month by month, so any regular contributions, even voluntary, to not appeal to me. Freedom to donate only as and when you can/wish is my preference.

Being caravanners, we frequently stay at places where there are NT facilities to enjoy, especially coastal and moorland walks; and many of these areas are free to non-NT members.
The NT has created open spaces that ordinary folk would not otherwise have access to. Also, there are well maintained park-like areas for picnicking, etc, that otherwise do not exist as they did in yesteryears.

Regards, Snowball.

[98selitb]

Being a forum about motoring, it's not surprising that the general reaction to any green/environmental-related project is negative, seeing as cars after after all one of the worst culprits of pollution.

If you try asking the general public as a whole, there may be other opinions to take into account, it may (or may not) be more positive.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

Being a forum about motoring, it's not surprising that the general reaction to any green/environmental-related project is negative, seeing as cars after after all one of the worst culprits of pollution.

If you try asking the general public as a whole, there may be other opinions to take into account, it may (or may not) be more positive.

I don't think that the average motorist is any more negative about the effects of global warming than anyone else.
Treated as educated adults, we are as open as anyone to ideas to improve the situation. But the motorist is being paraded as the villain, even though he/she is not the biggest culprit. This is because it is easier to financially attack the motorist than the energy companies.
What about the third runway at Heathrow, and the increase in air traffic? The biggest polluter in terms of passenger miles is the airplane, and a very large percentage of it is for leisure use. Yet no constraints are planned in that direction.

There is also the school of thought that the UK, by setting the standard, will influence countries such as China. Even Joe Public knows this is rubbish. Then we hear conflicting arguments by the scientists; some say the increase in CO2 emissions are caused by Man, whilst others claim it is due to natural climatic change.

China will pursue its economic expansion regardless. Are we in the UK expected to suffer a miserable existence over our own insignificant contribution to CO2?

The hidden agenda was exposed when the economic downturn gave governments and environmentalists their chance, with the threatened closures of car manufacturing plants. Billions of pounds/dollars of taxpayers' money is being poured into saving these industries; even subsidised costs of changing to newer cars is being considered. That's how much a threat the motorist really is to global warming.

[ficklejade]

Originally Posted by RoverV6

Ficklejade the Yank who was qouted was not Al Bore sorry Gore. This idea is rubbish and the perpetrator has admitted it was.

Finally sourced - my apologies - but do so agree about the Bore!! :)

[Rolebama]

For what it's worth, I watched a 'Steam Trains from Around the World' DVD round my friends a while ago. It was made last year I believe. Cuba, China, Argentina, South Africa and a few others were 'visited'. You have to see the clouds of smoke from the current generation trains to believe it. The majority of working steam trains in these countries are oil-fired. The pollution levels must be astronomic, yet I don't see anyone having a go at them. Interestingly, Germany also has some, not as many as the others, which they use on their 'tourist' runs. The worst was the Chinese, as they appaently often use huge engines, double-headed, to move ore trains around the country. It's not just the odd train, it is a constant stream of them, day in and day out. I don't think what our little island puts out holds a candle to it.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

For what it's worth, I watched a 'Steam Trains from Around the World' DVD round my friends a while ago. It was made last year I believe. Cuba, China, Argentina, South Africa and a few others were 'visited'. You have to see the clouds of smoke from the current generation trains to believe it. The majority of working steam trains in these countries are oil-fired. The pollution levels must be astronomic, yet I don't see anyone having a go at them. Interestingly, Germany also has some, not as many as the others, which they use on their 'tourist' runs. The worst was the Chinese, as they appaently often use huge engines, double-headed, to move ore trains around the country. It's not just the odd train, it is a constant stream of them, day in and day out. I don't think what our little island puts out holds a candle to it.

This is the crux of the argument as far as the UK is concerned. The extreme environmentalists get a pipedream into the heads of government, and this sets the hare running for excuses to introduce what are, in essence, still more stealth taxes.
Everybody is aware that the likes of China are not going to cut down their pollution and adversely affect their own economy at the whim of western goverments.

In addition, rain forests are being destroyed to clear more areas for evolving countries. How do you tell them it is wrong, when for years we have been taking their hardwoods to gratify our needs to display our own affluence?

Unless the developed nations are prepared to kill their economies dead, road transportation (private and commercial) is here to stay.
The only way that we are going to get out of trouble is by widespread nuclear energy and support for road vehicles that will encourage the manufacturers to embark on clean technology.

The USA will immediately pounce on any eastern countries who try to go nuclear (USA believing they themselves are the only ones to be trusted that it will be for peaceful purposes only), and China and Russia will continue to burn their own coal in massive volumes; which they do anyhow. And isn't the UK currently carrying out a feasibility exercise to regenerate our coalfields?

Round and around we go, merrily chasing our own tails, until we end up in a panic; grabbing at answers which have not yet had their questions raised.

You were right, Robbie, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave.........."

[RoverV6]

Steam Trains

Ah, that beautiful noise and smell! Let's have more of them. I promise to eat my greens if we can. Just think hot global warmed summer days with warm lemonade sitting next to the tracks trainspotting steam engines.
Wake up Roverv6 you are dreaming again like the environmentalists!:D:D:rolleyes:

[MrDanno]

I don't know if anyone else saw it but, there was a program on TV a while back where a bunch of scientist (some of whom advice goverments) carried out test and actually said the truth about greenhouse gases was exactly the opposite as to what we are told by government.
Basically what they said was, the weather we have now is a product of the amount of greenhouses gases 800 years ago. The less gases - the hotter the weather will be in 800 years time.
One of the scientist said that what government is informed by them is not what governments tell the world.

[Snowball]

I once heard a wonderful description of government.

"Government give out statements to suit a situation; not answers to resolve it"
Priceless!

[ficklejade]

Actually expect there's a lot of people out there who would take this up, if in conjunction with a recognised, reputable non-governmental body. My reasoning is that most people can remember the basic principles of photosynthesis or if not know that trees give off oxygen (also a poisonous gas in the wrong quantities!) that we need and absorb CO2. A lot of people have also subscribed to a degree of the "brainwashing" governments and UN have embarked upon and been frightened by this. Witness those that purchased the domestic wind turbines from B&Q and the like and found that they were not what they were cracked up to be in many cases.

Fair enough, let's by all means do what we can within our personal means to reduce waste and energy consumption. Mate of mine - affected by flooding last year down south - ripped up the decking and made it into a hedgehog house, bird table and nest boxes and put in a native (to area/soil) tree and some shrubs. They now spend more time in the garden than they ever did with the decking and all their friends' children are clamouring to come round to see the wildlife!

Having said that, can't wait to use my pass and do the return journey from Fort William to Mallaig and back on the steam train - last did it when it was only steam!!:rolleyes:

[Rolebama]

MrDanno, there is been a group made up of respected scientists who have been advocating that we are not responsible for global warming, and that there is nothing we can do about if, for a few years. They have been 'shouted down' by the hype that the 'we-are-responsible-for-global-warming' group have been spouting. But as long as our governments can use this nonsense to collect taxes, the group are constantly shouted down.

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

MrDanno, there is been a group made up of respected scientists who have been advocating that we are not responsible for global warming, and that there is nothing we can do about if, for a few years. They have been 'shouted down' by the hype that the 'we-are-responsible-for-global-warming' group have been spouting. But as long as our governments can use this nonsense to collect taxes, the group are constantly shouted down.

Unfortunately, The vast majority of public are 'sucked in' by the nonsense that they are fed by governments.

[98selitb]

Rather selfishly, many people take the stance against the existence of global warming simply because it is convenient and gives them an excuse to not change any habits, not because it's what they actually believe.

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

Rather selfishly, many people take the stance against the existence of global warming simply because it is convenient and gives them an excuse to not change any habits, not because it's what they actually believe.

That's me! :D Does any sensible person really need to be told to save energy sensibly?
I don't know anyone that purposely drives an extra 100miles a day, Leaves their lights on 24/7 and burns as much gas a possible. After all we have always had the best scheme to stop people doing this -- The cost of the bills.
I do think it is selfish of the government to hit people hard with high Taxes though. For an example, an elderly person that uses their "non green car" for a few miles a week and pays £180 road tax and someone else pays £35 a year road tax and does 20,000+ miles a year. It would uneconomical for the person that does not use their car much to buy a new car to save the £145 a year.