Electric is not the way to go.....Wow! Really?

[Kimbers]

Like no one else ever friggin knew!! 

Anyone in the motor industry could tell you that!

Add in that Public transport is shit outside London, Manchester and Birmingham! We get 2 buses a day in our village but they are still building 3 housing estates right now!....ypu don't think this was written by Academics who live in big cities do you? Surely not!!

My thoughts elsewhere. I could expand on them but the promotion of Electric is a pet hate of mine and I would bore you all. 

"Sorry, but being Motor Industry for 30 years this annoys me. Million spent to tell them what? What anyone with a brain could tell them! Just ask anyone in the Motor industry. Firstly swapping one finite resource (fossil Fuels) with another (Litium Ion) AND then have to generate Electricity to use the Litium Ion is ridiculous. Secondly, "People should use public transport"....only it's not public is it?, its privately run for a profit, always full, very poor service and way too expensive! My Village gets 2 buses a day....and they only go to the Hospital. You have to get a second bus if you then want to get into Norwich. Don't even get me started on Trains. £84 one way to Manchester with a transfer or £30 in my car including return in half the time. A Major change needs to happen alright, Public transport needs to be made much cheaper and readily available. They need to stop building housing estates in Villages outside Cities so people can walk, cycle and use the buses and they need to work on hydrogen fuel cells. Electric is not and never has been the way to go."

Some extracts for those who can't see BBC stuff or CBA to read the whole article. She maintains car ownership is wasteful because cars are parked for 98% of their lifetime, with a third of cars not going out every day. “Once you own a car,” she says, “there is a compelling temptation to use it even for simple journeys. “But it is a really expensive investment. If people do not have cars they can spend the money on other things.“Often once people start to live without a car they wonder why they wanted one in the first place – a car is so much hassle.”..................written like a true Londoner!!

She says ministers should prioritise walking, cycling, public transport and vehicle-sharing wherever possible. They should also incentivise local councils to build housing developments that are easy to access without a car. That would also benefit the 25% of households that do not have cars.............good old benefit the minority (That she is obviously a part of) over the majority who live in the real UK.

GAH! Just realised she's a Labour MP based in London.....................Ignore everything she says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48875361?fbclid=IwAR1QbzJdJptMWxnu3i31DaKyhpuuTNRQhPQd5Ap18J1dhMnuCqTwRwbC4-Y

[PAR]

12 hours ago, Kimbers said:

GAH! Just realised she's a Labour MP based in London.....................Ignore everything she says.

I assume she is not and you are trying to make a point? She is not even a Londoner.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. What do you disagree with/oppose strongly to?

 

[Barrykearley]

EV cars are really lovely to drive. Most are pretty horrible to look at sadly.

are they the future ? - no - the lithium required to make them is massively damaging to the planet to dig out the ground. But then we aint mining it in the uk so why should we care? That’s the attitude of the blinkered politicians.

this chart made me laugh 

absolutely no context whatsoever. I got a train one way from malvern to Oxford so I could pick up the S4 the other day - £21. Train was empty and bloody filthy. The bus was then about £4. Public transport is absolutely crap. I’ve sadly had to use it a lot in he last few weeks and it’s dire and bloody expensive.

even if that graph is even half right - I’d swerve the public transport anyway if I could. When was the last time these self serving MPs had to use it ?

[C8RKH]

I totally agree Barry re public transport.  It cost me £47 for a return off peak ticket from Dundee to Glasgow. A journey of some 150 miles round trip and it cost me another £12.60 to park my car at the nearest car park - the station used to have one but they replaced with buildings for public sector workers!  argh......

£47!  For a 1 hour 15 minute odd journey each way.  So if me and the misses were to go, that would be £94 FFS - the car journey for me is the same time and the diesel used would be 3 gallons, so around £18 - and I could take up to 4 people for that cost.

Outside of London and a few other major cities, public transport is quite frankly shite and a complete waste of time. I am in London and Reading every week, I do use public transport (mostly buses), and it does work and it works well. But outside of that, forget it. Over priced. Under invested in. Badly thought out policies (exact fares and no card use - yeah, that is really helpful for a non local).

The policy makers are in London and other big cities so they have literally no idea how bad it is for the rest of us. In the village I live in we have two buses a week - one on a Tuesday and one on a Thursday. Whoop whoop.

[USAndretti42]

It's obvious that electric cars won't help with congestion as they would just replace the fossil-fuelled cars that were being used.

My son uses a wheelchair and a bus is not an option.  It has to be a car but it seems ther disabled don't get a mention when these people talk about congestion, traffic, pollution, etc.

[C8RKH]

Middle class do-gooders who are only thinking about themselves. They all live in cities or large towns and don't get to hug real trees like those of us who live in the country....

[USAndretti42]

I think it's politicians.  That is, people who come up with simple solutions to complicated problems and impose them on us without being brave enough to adjust their course based on how their solutions are going because they would be seen as "weak."

[Kimbers]

A lot of the time Trevor, it is the politcians making the rules, you are right. But its the minority groups who are PC who are "Informing" the Govt as Lobbying or Pressure Groups.

Because Parliament is in London many of these are London Centric.

Because Politicans live in a bubble they consider Lobby Groups to be a representation of the Public.

What these groups are, are often minority groups who are well motivated and organised and have lots of time to Lobby MPs. 

What does that mean? they are often not employed or employed by a minority group to further its goals.

Here's a classic case I can give because I WAS part of the "think tank" as an expert.

Govt and HMRC wanted to look at Company Car Tax about 15 years ago. Partly because it was too cheap (it was) and partly because they wanted to make it more real world and reflective of the enviromental issues at the time. So you would think there would be a nice split of experts, car based, Manufacturers, Enviromental scientists, Engineers, HMRC and Accounts/legal based. The list of Contributors went something like this:

Me: (Working as independent consultant) Expert in Company Car tax, manufacturer based and specialist in Corporate/ Fleet Management
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
Owner of Green Energy Company
Member of Enviromental Lobby Group
HMRC (Only interested in raising taxes)
3rd Rate Enviromental Minister

so I was the only person actually advising from a real world. expert point of view. 

My Point? The Govt aren't interested in hearing what the Issues REALLY are. Instead they bow to pressure from Lobby groups and believe everything they are told (Or pretend to agree because it's PC to do so!). This is why we have ended up wit Electric as our "Go to replacement for Fossil Fuels" instead of the really viable Option Hydrogen fuel cells.

[au-yt]

Tony How true, The public perception is driven by BS and its happened before, as we are currently in a situation the same as the 70's ( yes I'm an old fart) we were then A running out of oil, B headed for an Ice age!

Oh but you cannot be a climate denier its against the science religion

This is an old video interview Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty highlights just how the influencers manipulate things

 

 

[krytensmeghead]

Exactly. I remember being "taught" we were heading towards an Ice Age when I was at school.

Funny how the religion changed it's name from "Global Warming" to the more vague "Climate Change" as soon as the statistical records were revealed showing the Earth's temperature merely fluctuates and is well within the range it's been in for the last 10,000 years.

It seems these days most research is driven by groups with an agenda and a predefined outcome.

[ramjet]

I have never looked deeply enough into all of this, but if someone builds a Wall-E robot (we could say a Roomba is getting there), we're in the crap.

[Techyd]

On 27/07/2019 at 15:50, krytensmeghead said:

Exactly. I remember being "taught" we were heading towards an Ice Age when I was at school.

Funny how the religion changed it's name from "Global Warming" to the more vague "Climate Change" as soon as the statistical records were revealed showing the Earth's temperature merely fluctuates and is well within the range it's been in for the last 10,000 years.

It seems these days most research is driven by groups with an agenda and a predefined outcome.

It’s because climate change is more accurate, global warming is one aspect of it but the climate is more complex than that and so the reference has been changed to reflect that.

With the research and satellite tracking now in place and monitoring, crucially we’re able to track and differentiate the “man-made” aspect away from natural trends.

Of a related tangent. One recent example of the climate monitoring shows the banned CFC-11 gas still coming from regions of China where it’s being used (but not proven to have been manufactured there).

The most recent data shows the temperature trend over the last 400,000 years has operated within a constrained range and now we’ve blasted through that barrier....

Climate change: Current warming 'unparalleled' in 2,000 years https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49086783

 

[au-yt]

Before well we get carried away about temperature, this video is by a ex NASA scientist might help balance the discussion.

 

[oilmagnet477]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328

Tells you all you need to know!

[rjwooll]

On 28/07/2019 at 18:05, Techyd said:

It’s because climate change is more accurate, global warming is one aspect of it but the climate is more complex than that and so the reference has been changed to reflect that.

With the research and satellite tracking now in place and monitoring, crucially we’re able to track and differentiate the “man-made” aspect away from natural trends.

Of a related tangent. One recent example of the climate monitoring shows the banned CFC-11 gas still coming from regions of China where it’s being used (but not proven to have been manufactured there).

The most recent data shows the temperature trend over the last 400,000 years has operated within a constrained range and now we’ve blasted through that barrier....

Climate change: Current warming 'unparalleled' in 2,000 years https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49086783

 

Unfortunately, the BBC is extremely biased in its coverage of climate change. They constantly do the Al Gore trick of generalising from the particular. With a hugely complex system like the climate, it is possible to cherry pick any event that supports your view, as we see with all these shock headlines about weather events that turn out to be entirely within a normal range. The world has gradually been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800s, and this has nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Even now, CO2 only represents .04% of the atmosphere.

[Techyd]

1 hour ago, rjwooll said:

Unfortunately, the BBC is extremely biased in its coverage of climate change

The BBC has a stand out global reputation for its integrity when it comes to journalism and news - certainly they strive to maintain the highest standard for due diligence practices - but of course there will be mistakes along the way by the research teams and so forth.  I am confident however that we can consider what they do publish as being accurate to the best of their ability.

1 hour ago, rjwooll said:

Even now, CO2 only represents .04% of the atmosphere

While that may account for 0.4% of the total volume of atmosphere, it's the impact of that 0.4% which matters.  CO2 is a long lived molecule - more than say Methane which is why its being seen as a important contribution.

From another reputable source that outlines climate change - and in a more neutral scientific tone than my previous BBC example.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

We only have to consider the sheer scale of our activities to conclude that human activity is affecting the climate; that we're now 'waiting' for science to establish and identify the more specific impacts that have or are occurring isn't a basis for denying its happening - at least not for me.

How many flights per day?

How many miles driven?

How many shipping movements?

How much fossil fuel is burnt?

How much industrial output? (just yesterday McDonalds were reported as using more than a million straws in the UK per day)

Every single high street you drive down has stocked shops with the greatest variety of products that we need and don't need, and it all has to be made, packaged and shipped.  An global supply chain sits behind these shops producing the components for those goods and the pattern repeats.

Deforestation is taking away the trees that soak up Co2 (and indeed produce O2)

I really could go on - our contribution of greenhouse gases (not just CO2) is simply everywhere which is on top of natural change from volcanoes and the like and so I have to say I don't accept your trivial response.

 

 

[Bee]

1 hour ago, rjwooll said:

Unfortunately, the BBC is extremely biased in its coverage of climate change. They constantly do the Al Gore trick of generalising from the particular. With a hugely complex system like the climate, it is possible to cherry pick any event that supports your view, as we see with all these shock headlines about weather events that turn out to be entirely within a normal range. The world has gradually been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800s, and this has nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Even now, CO2 only represents .04% of the atmosphere.

 

The world's average temperature has been very consistent over the past 2,000 years (as reconstructed through various methods, e.g. ice core samples, sensitive isotope variations etc., all showing very similar results) with all the temperature variations (including the Little Ice Age) falling within less than a 1°C range. There was a gentle rise, following the Little Ice Age. Since 1900, however, that rise has been unprecedented, i.e. there has most certainly not been a gradual rise since the Little Ice Age, and the evidence suggests this very much 'is' to do with anthropogenic CO2 emissions...

 

Once the rise over the past century has been factored in, we have to say that the temperature variations over the past 2,000 years now fall within 1.4°C; that's a colossal difference caused just over the past century alone.

 

This coincides with the sharp rise in CO2 levels. The CO2 levels 'were' at 4% in 2015 (equates to 400ppm); they now look set to top 415ppm in 2019. They were at 369ppm in 2000; 353pppn in 1990; 328ppm in 1980 and at around 300ppm - 3% of the atmosphere - just before 1900. From, 200-1,000 years ago, they fell within a few points of 2.8%; in fact the only other time CO2 levels topped 300ppm/3% of the atmosphere within the past 800,000 years was around 330,000 years ago, which conicided with a global rise in temperature. 

 

 

[comem47]

hard to conceive 21,000 yrs ago

 

 

[oilmagnet477]

Hey - I've got a graph for you. Looks like the reason for climate change is pretty obvious. Climate change has been happening forever but when you compare this graphic to the one from Ben, is anyone really surprised as to why? Maybe Michael Beurke has a point?

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-buerk-fat-people-nhs-16708510

(only slightly kidding!) The Globe/Nature will adjust itself accordingly at some point - going back to 1900 population numbers is unimaginable but a global 'correction' over which humans have no control will happen at some point.........

[Techyd]

Interestingly, the cause of the thaw that ended the last ice age around 10,000-20,000 years hasn't been clearly identified, though the best guess is that CO2 was released from the southern ocean in combination with a shift in the earths orbit - possibly because of the way the ICE mass was positioned across the earths surface, its wobble changed enough to bring the northern hemisphere more sunlight (i.e. more sunlight hitting the earth).  So around 10,000 years ago the earth saw a dramatic change in CO2 concentrations that did rise temperatures enough to melt these ice sheets over only a few hundred years (as opposed to a few thousand years).

What we're seeing from our human activity is that we're contributing to an accelerating rise in these levels over an even shorter period and thus further warming.  Moving in to these new temperatures, the risk is that the environment / nature won't be able to adapt (including us) - because it's happening too fast.  All being well, the earth should start to cool again over the next few thousand years, but the likely hood now is that it won't and we risk a runaway greenhouse effect and the extinction of life on earth.

8 minutes ago, oilmagnet477 said:

a global 'correction' over which humans have no control will happen at some point.........

Broadly yes I think that's right, the earths orbit and wobble will adjust again to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the earth and temperatures should drop - assuming the atmosphere isn't like it is on Venus by this point!

[TheKevlarKid]

The term I think your looking for is precession! Earth has had many ice ages and then thaws, its even been to the point where the whole planet has been covered in ice.

My view on all of this?

If you look back over the billions of years life has been present on this planet, the Earth has been hot, cold, hot, cold [hit by gamma rays] hot, cold, hot, cold [super-volcano eruption] hot, cold, hot, cold [hit by asteroids] hot, cold, hot cold [fucked by humans].

We're just another global disaster that will ultimately wipe out 98% of all life on the planet before we've finished. But unlike the mass extinctions that have gone before us, we're doing it in a slow drawn out manner rather than in a short sharp hit (and we get a ringside seat to watch it happening...). I fear it's too late now and there's no going back, it's only a matter of time. 

One thing I am sure of though is that Earth will survive us, life will survive us (and thrive again given time), but we definitely won't be part of it...

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by TheKevlarKid

[Escape]

We can't even accurately compare current temperatures to those measured 50 years ago, because the equipment and conditions used for the measurements have changed. But the green lobby claims to have data accurate up to 0.1°C going back over 2000 years?? I don't buy it, all this CO2 panic is just a conveniant excuse for more taxes.

I do not deny there is an environmental problem, I just think climate and CO2 is not where the focus should be. Deforestation, plastic polution, loss of biodiversity etc are all much more important.

Filip

[rjwooll]

On 06/08/2019 at 12:45, Techyd said:

The BBC has a stand out global reputation for its integrity when it comes to journalism and news - certainly they strive to maintain the highest standard for due diligence practices - but of course there will be mistakes along the way by the research teams and so forth.  I am confident however that we can consider what they do publish as being accurate to the best of their ability.

While that may account for 0.4% of the total volume of atmosphere, it's the impact of that 0.4% which matters.  CO2 is a long lived molecule - more than say Methane which is why its being seen as a important contribution.

From another reputable source that outlines climate change - and in a more neutral scientific tone than my previous BBC example.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

We only have to consider the sheer scale of our activities to conclude that human activity is affecting the climate; that we're now 'waiting' for science to establish and identify the more specific impacts that have or are occurring isn't a basis for denying its happening - at least not for me.

How many flights per day?

How many miles driven?

How many shipping movements?

How much fossil fuel is burnt?

How much industrial output? (just yesterday McDonalds were reported as using more than a million straws in the UK per day)

Every single high street you drive down has stocked shops with the greatest variety of products that we need and don't need, and it all has to be made, packaged and shipped.  An global supply chain sits behind these shops producing the components for those goods and the pattern repeats.

Deforestation is taking away the trees that soak up Co2 (and indeed produce O2)

I really could go on - our contribution of greenhouse gases (not just CO2) is simply everywhere which is on top of natural change from volcanoes and the like and so I have to say I don't accept your trivial response.

 

 

First, some maths. 400ppm is 0.04%, not 0.4% (or 4%!)

I'm sorry you find my response trivial, but the reasoning you present is more religious in nature than scientific. Just because one can imagine that all our activities must be somehow damaging the planet doesn't mean that they are. That is why we need science based on observation of actual conditions. The observational record shows that, repeatedly during history, temperature rises are followed by increased CO2 emissions, not the other way around, thus there is no strong evidence that CO2 concentrations are a major contributor to global warming.

I'd also comment that if you look at industrial history, it is marked in its early phase by increased and damaging pollution, but as prosperity develops, the levels of pollution and environmental damage drop dramatically. This is one very good reason to encourage continued economic growth as it spreads prosperity around the world.

A significant contributor to deforestation is the use of forest products as biofuels. A particularly nasty example relevant to the UK is the felling of mature forest in (I think) North Carolina to feed wood pellets to the Drax power station in Yorkshire. When the government published its 'carbon calculator' for Drax, it showed that emissions from felling, processing and transporting the wood alone represented around 50% of the emissions from using coal to generate the same amount of power. Further, wood pellets are dirtier to burn than coal which would mean that the whole process is over 50% dirtier than burning coal. This example demonstrates that the political 'cure' for climate change can easily be worse than the 'disease' (should one exist!)

Regarding the BBC's position - if you are not aware, somebody (perhaps the Committee on Climate Change) managed to get the BBC to write into its charter the duty to present the existence, and highlight the dangers, of anthropogenic global warming - so whatever its virtues in other fields, the Beeb is not even-handed in its reporting of this area.

I'd end up by saying that something I find disturbing about many promoters of the belief in anthropogenic global warming is the focus on population growth as the major villain. Given that we aren't likely to stop reproducing anytime soon, who are we going to get rid of? This is a worryingly totalitarian view, which is able to be countered by correlating prosperity levels with wealth - as wealth increases, so the birth rate goes down. Another argument for policies promoting prosperity rather than totalitarian control. Poverty levels and health have both improved during the rapid population growth we have experienced - I think we should be mindful of these achievements.

 

[Barrykearley]

BBC ? Whatever they say is horseshit these days

[Techyd]

@rjwooll - Thank you for your more in depth and considered response.  It explains your previous post much clearer and indeed presents you point of view such that I can understand where you are coming from.

Apologies for misquoting the 0.04% - just a typo on my part.

 

10 hours ago, rjwooll said:

I'd end up by saying that something I find disturbing about many promoters of the belief in anthropogenic global warming is the focus on population growth as the major villain. Given that we aren't likely to stop reproducing anytime soon, who are we going to get rid of? This is a worryingly totalitarian view, which is able to be countered by correlating prosperity levels with wealth - as wealth increases, so the birth rate goes down. Another argument for policies promoting prosperity rather than totalitarian control. Poverty levels and health have both improved during the rapid population growth we have experienced - I think we should be mindful of these achievements.

I agree with you here.

10 hours ago, rjwooll said:

'm sorry you find my response trivial, but the reasoning you present is more religious in nature than scientific. Just because one can imagine that all our activities must be somehow damaging the planet doesn't mean that they are. That is why we need science based on observation of actual conditions. The observational record shows that, repeatedly during history, temperature rises are followed by increased CO2 emissions, not the other way around, thus there is no strong evidence that CO2 concentrations are a major contributor to global warming.

I think you've misunderstood me - I am all for producing scientific evidence to show the specific impact and establish fuller a understanding of the impact.  As I see it, its common sense that there HAS been an impact (not a religion) and its science to illustrate what that is.  CO2 emissions are certainly the buzz word and I know there are other more damaging types of environmental impact - extinction of animal species through hunting, destroying ecosystems through deforestation, polluting rivers through mining, farming, fishing and so on.

With regards the temperature rises, it can actually occur both ways and is documented to have done so:

"...Comparing the global set of temperature records with the levels of CO2 in the ancient air bubbles trapped in ice cores reveals that global average temperatures started to rise at least a century after CO2 levels began to creep up. That's the reverse of what seems to have happened in Antarctica, where warming temperatures precede rising CO2 levels. But that local warming may be explained by this shutdown of ocean currents as a result of massive glacial melt in the Northern Hemisphere"

Anyway, good to share thoughts - I've certainly taken some away some more points to consider.