Labels: Cars, Hybrid, transport

Labels: art, Compost, vertical garden

Thanks for the links, but I couldn't find the graph in your post or the figures used in it. You should know that a number of the theories championed by Easterbrook have been examined and shown to be lacking.

For example- Mid century cooling- http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/what-about-mid-century-cooling.php - CO2 isn't the only thing controlling the planet's temperature, during this period the global dimming effect of particulates overwhelmed it. Various other of his arguments, such as that it's a natural cycle or all down to sun spot activity- and several other points- are addressed in articles linked to on this page- http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

But back to the graph at the bottom of your post. I wanted to address it because it just looks wrong. Not the numbers are wrong or it's wrong because I don't agree with your position, but wrong as a graph. Look at the red trend line. Before 2005 it's steady, the wild variations of individual data points don't make it jump around. After 2005 it's following the data points almost exactly. The red line is based upon average anomalies over a given period, but it looks like the averaging was done over a far shorter period post '05 than pre. If the average reacts that drastically to a dip in the recorded anomalies then it should also have kicked sharply up for the El Nino year of 1998 and less sharply down for 1985 (La Nina) and 1993 (Pinatubo volcano).

Basically I think someone has fudged the post 2005 trendline. Or, more bluntly, I think that graph is a lie. I'd recommend checking its provenance before using it again. For graphs of temperature change created from publicly available figures you could try http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery

Labels: climate change, deniers, graphics, graphs, map

Labels: DIY, projects

Labels: Wind Power

Labels: renewable energy, transport, USA

Labels: feed in tariff, microgeneration

4) Most eco-renovation take decades to pay back the cost

Every time we decide to make an investment in an eco-project, the subject of payback comes up. It is possible to do the sums, and before we spend any hard earned cash I like to make sure that it's a good investment. For example, loft insulation can pay for itself in two winters, and with the 2010 feed-in tariff I would expect solar PV to pay for itself in about seven or eight years, and a DIY solar thermal system to heat your hot water should have paid for itself in four or five years. But surely this is missing the point: when it comes to environmentally friendly projects we seem unable to accept the fact that it can be an investment and will add to the value of the house. What is the payback time for a new bathroom or kitchen? If you install solar photovoltaic panels you can reasonably expect them to easily last 25 to 30 years. Everyone knows a new kitchen makes a house more saleable, but in the current economic climate, how much more saleable is a house that will cost the new owners very little to run or may even generate an income?

Labels: Dick Strawbridge, eco-building, energy saving, Green Building, micro turbine, Photovoltaics, Solar, Solar Power, Solar Thermal