Letters: Global warming is happening, it is time for us to change
The main point:
As oil prices rise, small trips will be a luxury
Why does NCE continue to print letters from man-made global warming deniers (Letters 29 October)?
Civil engineers have an important role to play in overcoming the challenge of global warming. Hiding their heads in the sand and pretending that it isn’t happening is not the way forward.
Professor Carter’s paper was mentioned, he’s on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs − a right wing group funded by the oil companies, so hardly an independent view. As for being convincing, his views have been widely discredited.
I doubt if the Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors is still questioning whether the earth is round or flat, they have moved on, and it is time that NCE moves on as well.
- Dr Richard Barnes (M), r.barnes@concrete.org.uk
I thought that the dinosaurs who think we can go on using ever more oil were beginning to loose heart, but here they are in NCE.
We live in a global community. We cannot continue to steal all the assets from the world’s poor to provide our extravagant lifestyle. And yes, even travelling 17 miles to work will come to be seen as an extravagance. Certainly an issue for blame from our children.
The price of oil is going to go up. Not by tiny nibbles but by factors of two and three and, possibly within my lifetime of perhaps 20 years, orders of magnitude. We will learn that we can’t use oil for moving as we need it all for making things. That is, as a feedstock not as energy.
A very large proportion of the UK population are on the brink of being disenfranchised by having transport priced out of possibility.
When oil is priced sensibly, the division between car and train will become unarguable for any but the disgustingly rich or those for whom carrying samples is essential. Oil is a much smaller part of the cost of public transport and there is potential to make it smaller yet.
- Bill Harvey (F), OBVIS Gairloch, Hensleigh Drive, Exeter EX2 4NZ
Made to last: A sustainable classic
Morgan cars: Last for 20 plus years and can be rebuilt
NCE editor Antony Oliver’s profile of ICE president Paul Jowitt, is interesting reading (NCE 29 October). However, I don’t see any contradiction between our new president driving a Morgan car and his being passionate about sustainable development.
By virtue of the method of construction the Morgan is indefinitely rebuildable − so very few are ever scrapped and many achieve extraordinarily high mileages − both surely measures of sustainability.
Also Morgans are deceptive − under the traditional exterior the mechanicals are always among the most modern available at the time of original build. This, combined with light vehicle weight, leads to very good fuel economy and low carbon emissions.
The Morgan way seems to me a better approach to sustainability than a scrappage scheme for cars just 10 years old. It would have to be a darn sight more attractive scheme than that currently on offer to tempt me to scrap my Morgan − a mere youngster at only 20 and nowhere near a rebuild as yet.
- Chris West (M), 8, Longland Avenue, Storrington, West Sussex RH204HY
Looking to the future
NCE deputy editor Jackie Whitelaw cites Victorian objectives for present day politicians to glory in (NCE 29 October): “Investment will accumulate huge return in wealth creation and economic benefit for the country”.
But recent investment has been promoting growth of the rich-poor divide in the UK − exacerbated by the banks crashing.
Smeaton’s lighthouse protected millions of pounds worth of shipping − to build an empire of inequality; Victorian terraced housing − the epiphany of people alienated from the land; motorways − promote pollution, food miles and places for drivers to fume in traffic jams. All these forms of infrastructure promote unsustainable activities.
Thank goodness the new ICE president Paul Jowitt doesn’t want to sit back and glory in the history of the ICE − at least that means he might promote a different approach that is equitable and sustainable.
Perhaps Jowitt could invite Whitelaw to join his apprentices when they are asked to consider actions and recommendations needed to achieve change to sustainability. And explain to them how a systems approach can be the basis of change.
- Pat Toms (M), pat@toms.org
We need to have concrete plans to be fire safe
I was surprised to read an article in the October New Concrete Engineer supplement (NCE 28 October) indicating that post tensioned concrete floors are being used for the 43 storey Strata building in Elephant and Castle, London.
The safety in fire of this type of construction was thrown into doubt following publication of the results of a research project in The Structural Engineer on 7 October 2008. This research included a fire test where the construction collapsed into the furnace before reaching its nominal fire rating.
I am not aware that any appropriate tests have been carried out since to demonstrate that this method of construction is now safe in fire.
Many questions remain and can only be answered by a comprehensive series of large scale fire tests. I sincerely hope that Strata does not provide a venue for such tests.
- David Rowbottom (M), dave.rowbottom@corusgroup.com
Living within our means
CBI Construction Council chairman John McDonough, in his interview with Ed Owen (NCE last week), advocated the continued use of ECI and PFI.
Whilst agreeing with the value of ECI, I wonder about the morality of PFI − a procurement method which gives us benefits that future generations will have to pay for.
Of course they will get some benefits too, but the amount of debt that has been built up in recent years is enormous and will be a significant burden for future generations.
I’m not sure what the upper limit of this should be, but I tend to think the time has come to stop spending our children’s money and live within our means.
- Ainsworth (M), Ian@ainsworth04.plus.com
Is it time to slow down?
On the heated debate on sustainability, I see many arguing the pros and cons of many technical solutions and the merit of this and that scheme.
However, we need to rethink the whole economic system mankind currently operates on. Urbanising and linking up the whole planet with faster transport systems is not even that great an idea.
Consider this: How about slowing down for a change? This alternative will have a harsh transition phase, but we’ll soon get used to it.
A whole different paradigm is required to keep this planet alive. Einstein said that solutions to problems need to be sought on a different level from that which they originate. Engineers might argue that building and inventing machines is what we do, by the same token that killing is what the military does.
What is the whole point of getting around faster in the first place? What is the point of urbanising massive cities, and then take a week off to get in contact with nature on the beach or the countryside.
Let’s try and get the fundamentals right, and reduce the demands we make on the planet.
Birth control is an example. I’m not disputing that renewable energies and eco transport developments are not important, but we need to operate on both sides of this equation to find a lateral solution.
- Paulo Sacramento, paulo@propertytradinglondon.com
On your bike
Paul Withrington calls for railways to be converted to busways (Letters last week). The Railway Conversion League in the 1960s campaigned for Marylebone to be a busway, when the chairman of British Railways Dr. Beeching threatened to close it.
The current conversion of the St. Ives railway into a busway will allow his theory to be proved in practice, if 40 years of the Runcorn Busway is not enough?
Messrs Tedbury and Marco argue for car usage, and in part they are right. The only public transport offering door to door service is the taxi, use of which has grown over the last 20 years.
Conventional line public transport, railways, trams and buses, need good access, including park and ride, to allow low density areas to be served.
What all three correspondents miss is that peak oil is here, carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced, and that there is as yet no viable or economic zero carbon fuel for cars, buses or lorries.
Railways and trams can be electrified cheaply, and with renewable power generation can be energy sustainable and zero carbon. About 70% of all car trips are under 8km long. Most could be cycled and many walked, good for our fitness, the environmental and energy security.
Where is the civil engineering lobby for bikeways ?
- Prof. Lewis Lesley, 30 Moss Lane, Liverpool L9 8AJ
Safety first
Do the CDM 2007 Regulations apply to offshore wind farms in deep water? I only ask in the light of Andrew Dever’s comments: (NCE last week) “Turbines will be further from land and fixed in deep water, making maintenance and installation more difficult.”
It would be interesting to see how the risk to construction and maintenance workers has been considered by the proposers of this strategy. Or will we have to wait for the first fatality?
- Tony Putsman (M), Construction Team Technologies, tony@cttechnologies.co.uk
The right and wrong message
Am I the only one to be outraged over the fact that the pain of the recession is being borne by those who are least able to afford it (NCE 15 October).
The top 10% of earners saw their salaries increase by 1.2% whilst the bottom 10% saw their salary decrease by 6%. Apart from the fundamental unfairness of this, employers should be reminded that profits and improvements in productivity are gained by investing in and valuing your employees.
It is hard working employees who roll up their sleeves that ultimately deliver, not suits in boardrooms. What message does this send out to recent graduates and those on lower incomes hoping to make a career in civil engineering?
Is it: You will not be valued or paid a fair wage for your hard earned skills? I hope not, as civil engineering can and should offer a fulfilling and worthwhile career.
- Stephen Farrar (M), stephenjfarrar@btinternet.com
Your views & opinion
NCE welcomes letters from readers. We attempt to print as many as possible, which means letters longer than 200 words are likely to be condensed.
The Editor, NCE,
1st Floor, Greater
London House,
Hampstead Road,
London NW1 7EJ
email:nceedit@emap.com
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Readers' comments (1)
nigel nixon | 20-Nov-2009 3:16 pm
I am writing in response to the letter written by DR Richard Barns in the 12th November Edition of the NCE.
To say that those who don’t agree with his notion that global warming is manmade, have their heads in the sand and in pretence, is both highly insulting and derisory. Of course he is welcome to express his views but the fact he has based them on scientific data he chooses to select does not mean that there is another equally sound scientific opinion that offers a different view on the causes of global warming. I have watched with interest the many letters that the NCE have chosen to publish over the last few years and note that the camp in which the NCE editorial team lies is fairly obvious. I doubt therefore that this letter gets published! Many Fellows and Members that I have spoken have tried to get letters published offering very different views to Richard Barns without success, an example of what I suspect is another case of the silent majority not being heard.
All I ask is that we, as professional Engineers, should shy away from becoming entangled in politically motivated arguments and focus on our quest for knowledge, understanding properly sought scientific data and seek to use all analysis techniques available globally in order to understand more fully the reasons why we are experiencing climate change, instead of being directed into accepting the views of particular politically driven panel of Scientists who apparently have all the acceptable answers to Governments and Green activists, ignoring the research of other equally competent scientists with no political interference, who hold other views.
The jury is still out on this very important issue and all I ask for is a truly balanced non emotive debate embracing both sides of the argument allowing society to judge for themselves whether Man or nature is the cause of this current bout of global warming. Surely we, as Engineers, need to enter into this interrogation, as Belamy. Nigel Lawson and others have tried to do, so that our expertise can be funneled in the right direction and not be aligned later with a critism of misusing our mission of using nature to the benefit of mankind.
To arrogantly state that deniers are in pretence is both totally unacceptable and bigoted.
Nigel JB Nixon BSc CEng FICE PE
Unsuitable or offensive?