The carbon impact of PPE

This has to be one of the more stupid complaints:

The considerable use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in health and social care services in England during the first six months of the pandemic added an additional 1% to the carbon burden, a new analysis suggests.

Accept, for a moment, that we do need to limit carbon emissions. No, go on. OK, so we want to use the limited amount we can allow ourselves to produce the greatest value to ourselves that we can. Flying Richard Murphy to a climate conference is not something that adds value to our lives or even civilisation. So, we’ll not do that. Flying ourselves to a beach does, so we will.

Carbon emissions to save lives are worthwhile. So, we do that. Because saving those lives is more valuable to us than the associated damages from future climate change.

This is all pretty simple but so few seem to remember it.

10 thoughts on “The carbon impact of PPE”

  1. This is the thing the ecolomaniacs don’t understand, or refuse to acknowledge, or don’t believe:

    They say there are too many humans, but if there were no humans left, there would be nobody to give a flying f### about the future of the planet.

  2. Do lefties note it as a plus if people have to die for the Plan to succeed?
    It would explain previous examples…

  3. make the assumption and perhaps it justifies the action, or lack of! But making the assumption doesn’t make it so!

  4. “Accept, for a moment, that we do need to limit carbon emissions faeries live at the bottom of my garden. No, go on”.
    You should have stopped at “No” Tim.

    I deliberately did not comment on the last couple of Tim’s carbon dioxide nonsense posts so as not to be seen as too predictable, but I can resist everything except (too much) temptation.

  5. 1. Accept false (or merely unproven) premise.

    Secondly: Compare silly options based on false premise.

    c) Come to some sort of conclusion.

    Make sense? No, it bloody doesn’t.

  6. ‘Perhaps we could arrange a charter from Air Pinochet?’

    If we did this to all the undesirables, think of the carbon it’d save. Though perhaps a simple gas chamber would save more.

    But the real weakness of my proposal is that they’ll probably do it to us first.

  7. @ Adolff
    @ Rhoda Klapp
    What Tim said is that, whether or not we believe in warble gloaming and *even if* we do, that moaning about the use of PPE is ridiculous.
    Makes sense? Yes.

  8. John77, accepting a false premise gives it, and those who believe in it, a semblance of credibility and legitimacy, meaning the believers will not stop. Ever.
    A bit like accepting a women is a man because they believe they are and then indulging their whims.
    It is also a colossal waste of (taxpayer) money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *