Climate Change

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think that's the way most new cars are sold these days. EVs are now comparable on leases cost-wise but have lower running costs.

The issue with electric cars is that they are only zero emission when you're driving them* conversely liquid fuelled cars only emit when you're driving them.


*Unless the charging grid is 100% totally fossil fuel free.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The issue with electric cars is that they are only zero emission when you're driving them* conversely liquid fuelled cars only emit when you're driving them.


*Unless the charging grid is 100% totally fossil fuel free.

Both types of vehicle create green house gases in manufacture though.

Originally Posted by Pierre

The issue with electric cars is that they are only zero emission when you're driving them* conversely liquid fuelled cars only emit when you're driving them.


*Unless the charging grid is 100% totally fossil fuel free.

But as a step towards zero emissions, zero emission at tailpipe is a very worthwhile objective. Atmospheric CO2 isn’t the only problem caused by road traffic. Nitrogen oxides in our towns and cities, especially around urban motorways, are an increasing problem. EVs immediately deal with that localised pollution.

Furthermore, they concentrate the pollution caused by producing their fuel into fewer, more controlled locations - at the power stations, where it can then be more easily remedied by implementing carbon capture during the plant’s lifetime, and eventually switching off the power station in favour of green alternatives.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

And what does Greta say

Who cares what that annoying little **** says.

EV may be good for short term journeys, and you can get back home to recharge, but their limited range is still a problem for long journeys.

Hybrids seem a better option atm.

[1andrew1]

Terrible look for the Green Party here.

Green council leader flew from Gatwick to Glasgow to protest against climate change at Cop26

Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty, leader of Brighton and Hove City Council's (BHCC) Green group, took the 80-minute flight from Gatwick on the same day he criticised the Government for a lack of action over climate change.

After completing the 460-mile journey, Cllr Mac Cafferty made a speech on cutting carbon emissions and appeared at a protest march, led by Greta Thunberg, calling for world leaders to stop temperatures rising.

The leader of the Green Party which controls the Sussex council, who co-chairs BHCC carbon neutral working group, has now unreservedly apologised, saying he had been worried his train might be cancelled.

He told The Argus: "In the Friday evening just gone, I took a flight from London to Glasgow to attend COP26 where I had been invited to represent the city at a presentation of the Glasgow Declaration on Saturday morning.

"This decision to fly was a major failure of my judgement which goes against my political group's pledges and principles and I unreservedly apologise."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...cid=entnewsntp

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Terrible look for the Green Party here.


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...cid=entnewsntp

Personally, I’d have had no qualms about flying to Glasgow from Brighton. It’s a long way and if business is time sensitive, trying to arrive and depart just-in-time by train is a risk.

His problem, so far as I’m concerned, is not his choice of the best mode of travel for the occasion, but that his movement generally has eschewed rational engagement with the realities of the world in which we live, in favour of virtue signalling.

Those who live by the virtue signal, will die by the virtue signal, as a very wise man might almost have said.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Personally, I’d have had no qualms about flying to Glasgow from Brighton. It’s a long way and if business is time sensitive, trying to arrive and depart just-in-time by train is a risk.

His problem, so far as I’m concerned, is not his choice of the best mode of travel for the occasion, but that his movement generally has eschewed rational engagement with the realities of the world in which we live, in favour of virtue signalling.

Those who live by the virtue signal, will die by the virtue signal, as a very wise man might almost have said.

I can see the dilemma with the trains being disrupted by the weather so not arriving there v flying being against their ethos.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I can see the dilemma with the trains being disrupted by the weather so not arriving there v flying being against their ethos.

It’s a key weakness of deontological (rules-based) ethical decision making. Consequentialism is often more helpful in these situations (though as a system it too has its drawbacks). As it happens his actions do arise from a consequentialist approach, but his problem arises from the fact that the Green movement often seems to form its messages in ways that imply we should be taking hard, deontological decisions. If they could bring themselves to sound more nuanced, rather than appearing simply to shout slogans from the barricades all the time, they would be less likely to cop flak on occasions like this.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

But as a step towards zero emissions, zero emission at tailpipe is a very worthwhile objective. Atmospheric CO2 isn’t the only problem caused by road traffic. Nitrogen oxides in our towns and cities, especially around urban motorways, are an increasing problem. EVs immediately deal with that localised pollution.

Furthermore, they concentrate the pollution caused by producing their fuel into fewer, more controlled locations - at the power stations, where it can then be more easily remedied by implementing carbon capture during the plant’s lifetime, and eventually switching off the power station in favour of green alternatives.

Fair point, but missing multiple additions IMHO

Mining of raw materials required (emissions + damage to natural habitat)
Transport to
Processing of raw materials required (emissions + damage to natural habitat)
Transport to
Assembly of materials to battery packs
Transport to final assembly.

All of are significant emitters of emissions and damage to the natural environment. some can of course can be mitigated or lessened such as shipping using either slow steam or ultra slow steam.

IMHO battery powered EV's are perhaps at best a short term fix which whist lessening the pollution to the end user/pedestrian moves significant amounts of pollution to different physical areas, thereby creating something akin to a 'Somebody else's problem field'

IMHO The focus should be on hydrogen fuel cells, but, currently that requires significant amounts of energy for production. When i bought our 'EV" i really wanted to go hydrogen, but IIRC at the time of purchase there were only sixteen stations in the whole of the UK.

[Mad Max]

Too many people on this tiny planet.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Too many people on this tiny planet.

Yep

Nature is currently working on that one though

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Too many people on this tiny planet.

Far from it. But if it’s any consolation the global population is forecasted to top out at around 9.5-10 billion in the latter half of the century and then decrease.

The world will be just fine, Greta will be in her 60’s and trying to understand why everything is actually OK and why she wasted her childhood, youth and most of her life on the issue.

Unless we’re hit by a comet.

[Hom3r]

I have flown from Newcastle Airport down to Stansted, it took 45 minutes, the day before I drove with others it took nearly 4 hours.


This meant I had more time to do other stuff.


Some of these climate idiots are not on the same planet as those that work.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

I have flown from Newcastle Airport down to Stansted, it took 45 minutes, the day before I drove with others it took nearly 4 hours.


This meant I had more time to do other stuff.


Some of these climate idiots are not on the same planet as those that work.

Except it didn’t take 45 minutes - that’s the time you were in the air, between two airports. If you add transit time between your home and the airport, and the airport and your destination, and check in/baggage collection time, how long did the journey really take?

Originally Posted by Chris

Except it didn’t take 45 minutes - that’s the time you were in the air, between two airports. If you add transit time between your home and the airport, and the airport and your destination, and check in/baggage collection time, how long did the journey really take?

Yup - that’s why in Italy, the fast inter-city trains have taken a lot of business from the shuttle flights.

At the train station, turn up 10-15 minutes before, take your own luggage on board, walk about the train (and the Rome-Florence train had a cracking buffet, with fresh Espresso made to order), when you arrive at your destination quick taxi yo the hotel; when we did a Italy trip a couple of years ago, the train beat the plane (Rome - Florence) for price, time travelling, comfort, and enjoyment (lovely scenery).