|
-
Originally Posted by lawed143
Here we go again…….
It’s not going to happen Michael. Why not expend your energy doing something useful rather than going round and round in circles calling for something that isn’t going to happen. Stop wasting your time just to gain votes.
He apparently thinks he'll gain votes, by standing in a bike-lane like one of Lewis's. But whilst it may tempt a few to his cause, it will dissuade others who can see the bigger picture re #Climate Change. Overall, I believe being 'anti-bike' is of little or no benefit to him....For goodness sakes mate, the voting public have far more pressing issues on their mind than bikes - duh!
Last edited by The PNP; 17/04/2024 at 09:10 PM.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Nash liked this post
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Your Comments:
-
Originally Posted by Ric
Yes you must be to believe your own lies and bull ****. So many excuses to make a quick buck then blame it on someone else.
Out of interest Ric, what is your job.? Do you drive? Own a house.? Go on holiday? Throw out food.? Eat meat.? Burn gas.? Buy a new mobile every year.?
Bit of a hypocrite yourself aren’t you.?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
He apparently thinks he'll gain votes, by standing in a bike-lane like one of Lewis's. But whilst it may tempt a few to his cause, it will dissuade others who can see the bigger picture re #Climate Change. Overall, I believe being 'anti-bike' is of little or no benefit to him....For goodness sakes mate, the voting public have far more pressing issues on their mind than bikes - duh!
There are indeed far more pressing issues;
I’d like to know what he’s planning to do to resolve
Potholes
Speeding
Pavement obstruction
Tax evasion
NHS crisis
Government waste
Corruption
Immigration
High street
Policing
Climate change
But Mike only seems to be concerned about some paint….
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
The pnp should consider the overall impact of burning wood.
His child-like argument that you burn wood which produces carbon dioxide which is absorbed by other trees which are then cut down to burn ad infinitum is laughable.
Anything which adds to the current carbon dioxide emission levels is unwanted. Trees already have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than they know what to do with.
There are more dangerous products created by the inefficient combustion.
Carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, volatile hydrocarbons and acids are some of the nasties produced by wood burning stoves but the most concerning from a health point are the particulates that are produced.
The smoke is obvious by visibility and smell but small invisible particles are inhaled and enter the lungs and the bloodstream. These can cause damage to major organs.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Ric liked this post
-
Originally Posted by lawed143
Out of interest Ric, what is your job.? Do you drive? Own a house.? Go on holiday? Throw out food.? Eat meat.? Burn gas.? Buy a new mobile every year.?
Bit of a hypocrite yourself aren’t you.?
You don't know me so can't comment.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Ric
You don't know me so can't comment.
So that’s a yes then.! :-)
You could of course just answered the question if you’re so innocent. But no, you’re Guilty.! Hypocrite.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by lawed143
So that’s a yes then.! :-)
You could of course just answered the question if you’re so innocent. But no, you’re Guilty.! Hypocrite.
And quite clearly you're a moron. I can guarantee my carbon footprint is smaller than that of a polluting log burner.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Ric
And quite clearly you're a moron. I can guarantee my carbon footprint is smaller than that of a polluting log burner.
I guarantee that your carbon footprint is a LOT LARGER than wood burner, by an immense amount too. Maybe do some homework before criticising others whom you clearly have a personal vendetta against. Crack on.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Lorquinho
The pnp should consider the overall impact of burning wood.
His child-like argument that you burn wood which produces carbon dioxide which is absorbed by other trees which are then cut down to burn ad infinitum is laughable.
Anything which adds to the current carbon dioxide emission levels is unwanted. Trees already have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than they know what to do with.
There are more dangerous products created by the inefficient combustion.
Carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, volatile hydrocarbons and acids are some of the nasties produced by wood burning stoves but the most concerning from a health point are the particulates that are produced.
The smoke is obvious by visibility and smell but small invisible particles are inhaled and enter the lungs and the bloodstream. These can cause damage to major organs.
Have you heard about cars, trucks, buses, ships and planes.????
What about house building, natural disasters and war.? Rockets?
It’s not just one particular act of burning wood that pollutes, in fact that’s just a tiny proportion of total emissions annually.
But try and retain a cycle lane to help ease congestion and pollution and you lot change the agenda and start harping on about wood burning. Give it a rest and back on topic….
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
^So true....Car tyres alone, produce a shedload of carcinogenic airborne particles 24/7 and 365 days a year. But of course, we never hear about that from the anti-bike brigade - duh!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Ric
[COLOR=var(--YLNNHc)]Despite the misconception that burning wood is better for the environment or “greener”, it actually releases more carbon dioxide than oil or gas for the same amount of heat or energy. Cutting down trees also destroys forests, damages ecosystems and leads to biodiversity loss.
[COLOR=var(--YLNNHc)]From Google. [/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
Yes? Care to take a guess where the carbon dioxide comes from in the first place?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Lorquinho
The pnp should consider the overall impact of burning wood.
His child-like argument that you burn wood which produces carbon dioxide which is absorbed by other trees which are then cut down to burn ad infinitum is laughable.
Anything which adds to the current carbon dioxide emission levels is unwanted. Trees already have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than they know what to do with.
There are more dangerous products created by the inefficient combustion.
Carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, volatile hydrocarbons and acids are some of the nasties produced by wood burning stoves but the most concerning from a health point are the particulates that are produced.
The smoke is obvious by visibility and smell but small invisible particles are inhaled and enter the lungs and the bloodstream. These can cause damage to major organs.
Aircraft expels far more toxic material - as do cars. The UK is one of the least polluted area in the world
"The United Kingdom is the second-cleanest country in the world, receiving an EPI of 77.7." Population Review.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by lawed143
Have you heard about cars, trucks, buses, ships and planes.????
What about house building, natural disasters and war.? Rockets?
It’s not just one particular act of burning wood that pollutes, in fact that’s just a tiny proportion of total emissions annually.
But try and retain a cycle lane to help ease congestion and pollution and you lot change the agenda and start harping on about wood burning. Give it a rest and back on topic….
Cycle lanes do not help pollution they hinder it. Cars have to go slower particularly in congested areas where there are cycle lanes, therefore are present for a longer length of time emitting exhaust fumes.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by said
Cycle lanes do not help pollution they hinder it. Cars have to go slower particularly in congested areas where there are cycle lanes, therefore are present for a longer length of time emitting exhaust fumes.
You’ve over simplified your point.
There isn’t a single cycle lane in Southport that hinders traffic - not one. Remember cyclists are traffic too and for every cyclist there is one less car - zero pollution.
Southport hardly has any queues - the queues that are formed are mainly caused by traffic lights and junctions - predominantly at peak times.
You also mention ‘congested areas’ …… so already there are far too many vehicles causing excess pollution. Yet you blame a cycle lane….and not all the vehicles with a single driver carrying around 4 other empty seats…. You couldn’t make it up.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
^And of course, most local traffic is just that, local. Comprising of single-occupancy vehicles, engaged on short trips. And as most folk know, short trips are best done on a machine most suited to the task; namely the bike. Which is why it's vital for our representatives to realise, we need not less bike infra - but more!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
|
Search Qlocal (powered by google)
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Booking.com
Supporting Local Business
Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
UK,
UK News,
|