Superb cycle rates fail to solve Richmond's pollution problem

This Is Local London: Everyone's doing it: But carbon emissions remain high Everyone's doing it: But carbon emissions remain high

Richmond boasts the highest proportion of cyclists in London, but with little effect on the borough’s environment.

The percentage of people who cycled at least once a month in Richmond was 31, compared with 25 in the second place borough, Lambeth, according to sustainable energy company GI Energy.

Despite this, Richmond was 13th worst for transport emissions (191,000 tonnes of CO2), compared with Islington (125,700 tonnes of CO2) in second.

Councillor Jerry Elloy, opposition spokesperson for transport, said: “We are terribly concerned about that. We are very keen on promoting cyclists but it has got to be part of a strategy.”

Coun Elloy said transport emissions were relatively high due to busy roads running through the borough, particularly the A316 and A205, which produce a lot of exhaust fumes and, to some extent, take the problem out of the council’s hands.

But according to GI Energy, housing was the biggest contributor to carbon footprint at 48 per cent, while transport counted for 21 per cent.

Richmond was the fifth best borough for recycling at 44.7 per cent, compared with Bexley in first place with 53.5 per cent. It produces the eighth least CO2 emissions – 840,000 tonnes – compared with the low of 730,000 tonnes in Kingston.

Chris Davidson, director of development at GI Energy, said: “Richmond is clearly going in the right direction to achieve its aim of becoming the most sustainable borough in London, and its drive to make the borough’s housing stock more energy-efficient is commendable.

“However, in the long term, to reach the Government’s targets of an 80 per cent reduction in the UK’s carbon footprint by 2050 there are a number of sustainable energy solutions which reap substantial benefits, both in reducing carbon footprints and building running costs, that should not be overlooked.”

He suggested a series of sustainable energy solutions, including ground source heat pumps.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:41pm Sun 22 Dec 13

pluton says...

For people to cycle once a month contributes nothing much to reducing pollution. Cycling on a daily basis to replace journeys made by car would be much more relevant. The borough's Mini-Holland bid represents a step in the direction of allowing everybody to choose a healthy and environmentally friendly mode.
For people to cycle once a month contributes nothing much to reducing pollution. Cycling on a daily basis to replace journeys made by car would be much more relevant. The borough's Mini-Holland bid represents a step in the direction of allowing everybody to choose a healthy and environmentally friendly mode. pluton

5:28pm Sun 22 Dec 13

metis says...

pluton wrote:
For people to cycle once a month contributes nothing much to reducing pollution. Cycling on a daily basis to replace journeys made by car would be much more relevant. The borough's Mini-Holland bid represents a step in the direction of allowing everybody to choose a healthy and environmentally friendly mode.
You do realize that CO2 is not pollution, dont you?
[quote][p][bold]pluton[/bold] wrote: For people to cycle once a month contributes nothing much to reducing pollution. Cycling on a daily basis to replace journeys made by car would be much more relevant. The borough's Mini-Holland bid represents a step in the direction of allowing everybody to choose a healthy and environmentally friendly mode.[/p][/quote]You do realize that CO2 is not pollution, dont you? metis

11:00pm Sun 22 Dec 13

pluton says...

metis wrote:
pluton wrote:
For people to cycle once a month contributes nothing much to reducing pollution. Cycling on a daily basis to replace journeys made by car would be much more relevant. The borough's Mini-Holland bid represents a step in the direction of allowing everybody to choose a healthy and environmentally friendly mode.
You do realize that CO2 is not pollution, dont you?
It isn't (relevantly) toxic if that is what you mean. Increasing the concentration in the atmosphere has damaging effects ( ocean acidification as well as climate change) so calling it a pollutant seems reasonable. What name you call it doesn't much matter.
[quote][p][bold]metis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pluton[/bold] wrote: For people to cycle once a month contributes nothing much to reducing pollution. Cycling on a daily basis to replace journeys made by car would be much more relevant. The borough's Mini-Holland bid represents a step in the direction of allowing everybody to choose a healthy and environmentally friendly mode.[/p][/quote]You do realize that CO2 is not pollution, dont you?[/p][/quote]It isn't (relevantly) toxic if that is what you mean. Increasing the concentration in the atmosphere has damaging effects ( ocean acidification as well as climate change) so calling it a pollutant seems reasonable. What name you call it doesn't much matter. pluton

5:06pm Mon 23 Dec 13

metis says...

pluton wrote:
metis wrote:
pluton wrote:
For people to cycle once a month contributes nothing much to reducing pollution. Cycling on a daily basis to replace journeys made by car would be much more relevant. The borough's Mini-Holland bid represents a step in the direction of allowing everybody to choose a healthy and environmentally friendly mode.
You do realize that CO2 is not pollution, dont you?
It isn't (relevantly) toxic if that is what you mean. Increasing the concentration in the atmosphere has damaging effects ( ocean acidification as well as climate change) so calling it a pollutant seems reasonable. What name you call it doesn't much matter.
It does matter. The media misleads people into believing CO2 is a pollutant. An invisible trace gas that is vital to life on the planet.
CO2 is a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere, 96.775% of which is naturally occuring. UK responsible for 2% of manmade CO2 and transport a small fraction of that. Cycling a few more times a week in one small town will make no difference to climate change which has been going on for 4 and a half billion years. Historically CO2 is at low levels compared with the Devonian period.
[quote][p][bold]pluton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]metis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pluton[/bold] wrote: For people to cycle once a month contributes nothing much to reducing pollution. Cycling on a daily basis to replace journeys made by car would be much more relevant. The borough's Mini-Holland bid represents a step in the direction of allowing everybody to choose a healthy and environmentally friendly mode.[/p][/quote]You do realize that CO2 is not pollution, dont you?[/p][/quote]It isn't (relevantly) toxic if that is what you mean. Increasing the concentration in the atmosphere has damaging effects ( ocean acidification as well as climate change) so calling it a pollutant seems reasonable. What name you call it doesn't much matter.[/p][/quote]It does matter. The media misleads people into believing CO2 is a pollutant. An invisible trace gas that is vital to life on the planet. CO2 is a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere, 96.775% of which is naturally occuring. UK responsible for 2% of manmade CO2 and transport a small fraction of that. Cycling a few more times a week in one small town will make no difference to climate change which has been going on for 4 and a half billion years. Historically CO2 is at low levels compared with the Devonian period. metis

5:59pm Mon 23 Dec 13

jeremyhm says...

Metis - I entirely agree with your viewpoint. Very well said.
Metis - I entirely agree with your viewpoint. Very well said. jeremyhm

12:58pm Wed 25 Dec 13

pluton says...

Metis
Copper is essential to life but copper sulphate added to the water supply would be a pollutant. (The poison is in the dose)
You say that CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere - when I was born it was only 0.03% and that is significant as most gases in the atmosphere do not absorb IR radiation.
If you want to dispute the meaning of the word "pollutant" petition for the formation of an English Academy. If you want to dispute the significance of increasing CO2 emissions take it up with the real Royal Society.
Metis Copper is essential to life but copper sulphate added to the water supply would be a pollutant. (The poison is in the dose) You say that CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere - when I was born it was only 0.03% and that is significant as most gases in the atmosphere do not absorb IR radiation. If you want to dispute the meaning of the word "pollutant" petition for the formation of an English Academy. If you want to dispute the significance of increasing CO2 emissions take it up with the real Royal Society. pluton

9:59pm Thu 26 Dec 13

metis says...

pluton wrote:
Metis
Copper is essential to life but copper sulphate added to the water supply would be a pollutant. (The poison is in the dose)
You say that CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere - when I was born it was only 0.03% and that is significant as most gases in the atmosphere do not absorb IR radiation.
If you want to dispute the meaning of the word "pollutant" petition for the formation of an English Academy. If you want to dispute the significance of increasing CO2 emissions take it up with the real Royal Society.
You are not comparing like with like. If you add CuSO4 to H20 you are adding an alien compound to a different compound and therefore contaminating it. Adding CO2 to CO2 is not adding a contaminate. You could have made a better comparison by saying adding H2O to H2O has a potential to cause flooding, to illustrate your point !! but you certainly would not be polluting it.
Im betting you signed the petition to ban Di-hydrogen monoxide!!!!!!
The Royal Society's motto is “Nullis in Verba" which they have long since abandoned. CAGW is still an unproven hypothesis.
Have you really nothing better to do on Christmas Day?
[quote][p][bold]pluton[/bold] wrote: Metis Copper is essential to life but copper sulphate added to the water supply would be a pollutant. (The poison is in the dose) You say that CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere - when I was born it was only 0.03% and that is significant as most gases in the atmosphere do not absorb IR radiation. If you want to dispute the meaning of the word "pollutant" petition for the formation of an English Academy. If you want to dispute the significance of increasing CO2 emissions take it up with the real Royal Society.[/p][/quote]You are not comparing like with like. If you add CuSO4 to H20 you are adding an alien compound to a different compound and therefore contaminating it. Adding CO2 to CO2 is not adding a contaminate. You could have made a better comparison by saying adding H2O to H2O has a potential to cause flooding, to illustrate your point !! but you certainly would not be polluting it. Im betting you signed the petition to ban Di-hydrogen monoxide!!!!!! The Royal Society's motto is “Nullis in Verba" which they have long since abandoned. CAGW is still an unproven hypothesis. Have you really nothing better to do on Christmas Day? metis

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree