Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
15th November 2006, 07:53 AM
Isn't there a valid arguement however that the 'good' that archaeology does or could do as an industry offsets the relatively small carbon credit on its account? I mean would anyone seriously suggest that the carbon footprint of an ambulance service is offset against its effiency at arriving quickly on the scene, administering first aid or more serious care to the patient and, if required, removing the injured to a place of safety or further treatment.?
OK I know, define what is meant by the term 'good'.....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
15th November 2006, 11:30 AM
I wouldn't say that an ambulance's carbon footprint is offset by the good it does, but that it is an accepted 'expenditure' of carbon because of the social 'requirements' for ambulances and medical care in the developed world.
How does archaeology compare within society (oh dear, here comes a whole new debate)!!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
15th November 2006, 03:09 PM
Obviously the NHS carbon footprint is outrageous. The amount of work archaeologists would have to do to pay 80 billion that it costs per year in taxes, boggling. I have read the Stern report but have not found the suggestion that the NHS is to be closed. Suspect English Heritage will go first if it has not already gone (who-the commissioners-without tender- of the COSMIC report- Conservation of scheduled monuments in cultivation which set out to set out to develop, test and deliver a robust and integrated risk assessment and mitigation model for archaeological sites in arable cultivation but which has led âun tendered- to Trials to identify Soil Cultivation Practices to Minimise the Impact on Archaeological Sites. These are obviously not as good a read as Planarch 2 Review of Cultural Heritage Coverage in Environmental Impact Assessments - sorry am I supposed to be in another forum blame lack of oxygen to much carbon di.. âchange, the only thing that doesnât.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
15th November 2006, 04:37 PM
Some good calculators for organisations here, if you have time (:
http://www.kyotoclub.org.uk/calculator.php
or
http://www.climatecare.org/business/business_calc.cfm
The questions is not "is our contribution to society worth the environmental impact?" - for example the ambulance service; its impossible to quantify. However, there is no organisation in the land that should not be minimising their impact on the environment and thinking of how to reduce their carbon footprint.
Technology can do so much to improve matters. Paper can be reduced by the use of digital files. In terms of archaeology, what tools could be used for recording to reduce the need for as much paper in the field? Forget expense for now, take a blue sky approach!
For those of you who are techie AND green, and believe that the two work hand in hand to improve our planet, this site is a great resource -
http://www.ecogeek.org/
Ian
http://www.getatrowel.co.uk - trowels for archaeological excavators
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
15th November 2006, 05:03 PM
could try recording on the backs of old envelopes.
So youâre saying that if we reduce the carbon footprint the climate is going to stay constant? Or is it too late? Could the climate of the ipswichian not be a good thing and is it something that might be happening anyway. Is evolution climate change driven?.
By the way I have seen two of the new WHS trowels snap across the foot (blade?) just at the tip of the leg-cleaning early post med cobbles. Seems to me that the new trowels are thinner at this point than the old.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
15th November 2006, 05:37 PM
Hmm will feedback your commments; most responses have suggested stronger and more comfortable...might start another thread on that....
Ian
http://www.getatrowel.co.uk - trowels for archaeological excavators
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
16th November 2006, 01:18 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by getatrowel
Technology can do so much to improve matters. Paper can be reduced by the use of digital files. In terms of archaeology, what tools could be used for recording to reduce the need for as much paper in the field? Forget expense for now, take a blue sky approach!
I am told that the Swedish state archaeological service is moving towards a paper/film free archaeological recording system using something like ArchGIS or Penmap. The recent GPS tie-up between the OS and Leica covering 100% of the UK to milimetre accuracy could allow similar systems to be developed in the UK.
My problem with such plans is not the cost or range of the technology (I have been using the Leica 1200 single-handed surveying system and ArchGIS in Norway for most of the past year), but the assumption that the costs can be offset by savings on staff costs, in other words the redundancy of significant numbers of archaeologists.
I don't think we can be confident in the assumption that 'they will always need archaeologists to dig holes', as more and more I seem to be seeing a reduction in 'manual' hole digging and recording and its replacement with other methods of archaeological prospection and survey. God forbid the day when the number of active field archaeologists can be counted on the arthritic fingers of two mitten clad hands!! (And for that reason alone I would be willing to allow 'archaeology' a degree of grace when it is called to account for its carbon footprint)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
16th November 2006, 01:40 PM
Quote:quote:I can think of some sites where the amount of "Greenhouse Gas" emitted by some could burn a hole in the Ozone layer on its own!!
Speaking of which I went to a conference at the weekend, at which over half the participants were from the United States. My own travel involved 220 miles of car driving.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
16th November 2006, 02:04 PM
Quote:quote:My own travel involved 220 miles of car driving.
Most conference venues are in reasonably-sized towns with railway stations - did you consider going by train?
Just today I have planned attendance at a meeting by a group of 3 people from my office, at a venue 120 miles away. I checked out journey times and cost for car (all in one car) and train travel. Journey times were similar, train cost about 20% higher than car cost (mileage).
I decided on travel by train because a) it should be more reliable b) staff (or at least the driver) will arrive fresher and c) it will use less fossil fuel.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
16th November 2006, 02:19 PM
I very much appreciate your comments 1man. I did consider going by train. The conference was in Bristol, no problem. I live in Telford, also a town with a station. However Telford was designed in the 1960s around motor cars, and public transport connections to the station at the time I needed to travel were simply were not there for me.
Moreover, the cost was considerably cheaper going by car. It used up around 30 litres of petrol (£25.00). Parking was free at the B&B where I was staying.
A Standard Open Return from Telford to Bristol is £56.00. Plus parking at Telford station (£4.50 per day for three days) or a taxi to the station.
I am afraid that economics and convenience won over environmental considerations. Previously when I lived in Worcester, I was 10 minutes walk from the railway station and used the train much more frequently. A return from Worcester to Bristol was about £11.00. However in those days I was commuting every day to Telford by car (80 miles round trip).
There are no easy solutions!
