Oh Dear...!

[Muddypause]

I'd like to apologise:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berk ... 003544.stm

That's me, that is.

I'd also like to dissociate myself from the bit where it says how wealthy we all are here. If I was wealthy, I wouldn't be here at all. Maybe Hull's got something going for it after all.

[Andy Hamilton]

I think it is all down to my 80 year old grandma that is where she lives too I actually heard that on radio 2 this morning and wonder if you would mention it.

It does not say where Bristol is though, I would imagine that it should be pretty high too.

[Wombat]

Hmmm, Muddy could I interest you in a bottle of Dr Sweeney's AntiFlatus pills?

Nev

[Ranter]

Leicester as 2nd worst offender! Not very good for the 'Uk's first environment city'.

I will start badgering my counsellors about this pronto. Well, after I've had a cuppa & natter with my friend who has just arrived...

[LSP]

I imagine there must be lots of rich people with air-conditioned homes and indoor swimming pools and jacuzzis, etc that need a lot of fuel to keep those things going.

[Muddypause]

Hmmm, Muddy could I interest you in a bottle of Dr Sweeney's AntiFlatus pills?

I'll take a caseful, please.

[The Chili Monster]

However, Brighton and Hove was among the cities with one of the lowest emissions - 5.4 tons (4,905kg).

Bloody commuters, that's why.

while Hull, Southampton and Plymouth had the lowest emissions.

Hull: I lived there for a while: no night sky just this strange orange glow. Any guesses as to pollutant?

[Wombat]

Hmmm, Muddy could I interest you in a bottle of Dr Sweeney's AntiFlatus pills?

I'll take a caseful, please.

I'm right on it!

Nev

[grahoom]

However, Brighton and Hove was among the cities with one of the lowest emissions - 5.4 tons (4,905kg).

Bloody commuters, that's why.

yup loads of them... might have lowest emissions in brighton and hove, but the actual pollution level (from traffic fumes etc) is pretty bad down here, being a regular cyclist it really hits you hard, especially around the preston circus part of town.

[2steps]

Grimsbys just across the river from hull though I've never been there. wonder where london comes on the list? I was surprised it wasn't in the top emitting cities box

berkshire's one of the places we're looking to move too

[Muddypause]

berkshire's one of the places we're looking to move too

It's one of the places I'm looking to move away from.

I think commuters might account for a lot of these statistics. I wonder if the London Congestion Charge is what caused London not to be in the top spot. TBH I am rather surprised that Reading has scored so high (or should that be low?) because there is precious little industry around here any more. But lots of roads.

[The Chili Monster]

Grahoom wrote:

yup loads of them... might have lowest emissions in brighton and hove, but the actual pollution level (from traffic fumes etc) is pretty bad down here, being a regular cyclist it really hits you hard, especially around the preston circus part of town.

I should imagine that the cycling along the Elm Grove to Hollingbury Lane (Sainsbury's)/ Bear Road end of Lewes Road makes for a grim cycling experience as well.

[The Chili Monster]

Muddy wrote:

TBH I am rather surprised that Reading has scored so high (or should that be low?) because there is precious little industry around here any more. But lots of roads.

Didn't the actual report suggest that the more affluent waste more energy simply because they can afford the bills? If this is so, this is one of the few examples of those who have not gaining more by giving away, surely?

Also the report is an attempt to explain energy consumption behaviour in terms of average fuel bills and so we could be arguing the toss over the stats to the cows come home.

A little off thread here, but if we in the South-East are happy (allegedly) to waste energy despite metering, what chance is there that a blanket introduction of water meters will reduce water wastage?

[Muddypause]

Yes, you're right, Chili. The local freesheet came round the other day with a piece about it (hardly in-depth reporting, mind you); apparently it was based on houshold fuel consumption, so cars would have played no part in it. I can't really explain why Reading came out worst in this case - I would not have though it's because we have older (and so less insulated) housing stock than Hull does. The heart of both towns is thousands of Victorian terraces and larger Edwardian semis. Reading is much bigger than Hull, but I would imagine that the measurements are per capita, not total output. And Hull probably has lower average temperatures throughout the year, so you would have though that fuel consumption was higher.

The speculation is that the more affluent population of Reading can simply afford to spend more on fuel. Though the counter argument is that fuel saving measures tend to require a capital outlay that favours the affluent.

[Ranter]

Affluence doesn't explain Leicester's poor showing in this report. Most of the housing stock within the city is Victorian terraces, with a lot of deprived areas. There are grants to help with loft insulation but not much else if you are working, however low paid that work is.

Some textile industry survives (hence a lot of low paid employment) & I think traffic is a big problem here. The LA has done some work on improving bus lanes etc, but it's obviously not having much of an impact on air quality.