Jump to content
IGNORED

UK: No Gas For You!


avatar!
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, I thought this was interesting

1205841346_Screenshotfrom2020-11-1810-25-21.png.9ad226231d03685d6a73f991570210a9.png

https://www.boston.com/cars/car-news/2020/11/17/u-k-to-ban-gasoline-car-sales-by-2030-as-part-of-green-plan

“Our green industrial revolution will be powered by the wind turbines of Scotland and the North East, propelled by the electric vehicles made in the Midlands and advanced by the latest technologies developed in Wales, so we can look ahead to a more prosperous, greener future.”

So, electric vehicles are made in the Midlands? Is this doable in 10 years? Or does Boris J. really not care and thinks this is just a good political discourse on his end?

Rebecca Newsom of Greenpeace U.K. said the “landmark” announcement was a big step forward, although she regretted the inclusion of “speculative solutions, such as nuclear and hydrogen from fossil fuels, that will not be taking us to zero emissions anytime soon, if ever.”

haha! yeah, I love it when scientifically clueless people try to chime in on issues such as nuclear power. Nuclear power produces such little waste compared to coal power, and overall nuclear facilities are incredibly safe when designed and built properly. Also, there is no such thing as "zero emissions". People think solar energy is just free, but the production and maintenance of solar cells also results in carbon emissions not to mention they need a lot of water to keep the facilities cool.

I'm not saying solar and wind should not be pursued, but I am saying everything needs to be done rationally and scientifically rather than just rushing in and listening to clueless people who want "zero emission now!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RH said:

The solution to all these problems is simple--you can create as much e-waste and emissions as much as you like, so long as it's "hidden" in places China, India, Thailand, etc.

And the waste you produce locally can be shipped there just like Canada does. Filling container ships with garbage to send to SE Asia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
10 minutes ago, Andy_Bogomil said:

And the waste you produce locally can be shipped there just like Canada does. Filling container ships with garbage to send to SE Asia. 

Yes, that's half of the equation I'm talking about.  There's the production side and just as important (if not more important) the disposal side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems entirely reckless.  It looks so green and lovely on the surface like you're saving the world, but the amount of crap that gets pumped out making, then disposing to make the batteries, and then on the back end the further waste dumping those large dead battery sets for those cars is awful.  You're just shifting the funk from one crappy means to another, then hiding it under a cute bubbly green loving lie mouthing off about decreased carbon footprints.  I'm shocked, maybe sad a little, no one ever call this crap out in mass scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
3 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

Seems entirely reckless.  It looks so green and lovely on the surface like you're saving the world, but the amount of crap that gets pumped out making, then disposing to make the batteries, and then on the back end the further waste dumping those large dead battery sets for those cars is awful.  You're just shifting the funk from one crappy means to another, then hiding it under a cute bubbly green loving lie mouthing off about decreased carbon footprints.  I'm shocked, maybe sad a little, no one ever call this crap out in mass scale.

Oh they do, but it only gets traction in the right-wing echo chambers. (aka, talk radio and the like.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's just not good enough.  Most of the media, at least mainstream and non-cable broadcast stuff leans opposite of that, which means much of it will get ignored, drowned out, or mocked and believed which is just as bad or worse as it gets into disinformation.  Dino goo bad!  Toxic metal residuals good!  Yeahhh...no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted
2 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

Well that's just not good enough.  Most of the media, at least mainstream and non-cable broadcast stuff leans opposite of that, which means much of it will get ignored, drowned out, or mocked and believed which is just as bad or worse as it gets into disinformation.  Dino goo bad!  Toxic metal residuals good!  Yeahhh...no.

Yeah and don't even get me started about the trash in the ocean.  Is it a problem? Yes!  Where's the source for the overwhelming majority...  well, I'll give you one good guess that's NOT the USA.

I really care about many of these environmental and often human rights issues, but dear LORD, between the denial/willful ignorance by one side of the aisle and the abject politicization and ignorance of the real causes on the other, it's easy to feel hopeless in the middle.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:V localizing all the waste into one area is orders of magnitude more efficient to process and recycle than it is having it spread out across the world.

Sorry to go against the grain here.

 

The only real solution to significantly reducing carbon output is more public transportation and making private car ownership an extreme luxury...like owning a yacht or private jet......also destroy all cattle.

Neither is ever happening, so I’ll just buy some property about 50 feet above sea level so my grandkids can have beach front property by the time I die. Though their grandkids will have to scuba dive to visit the old family heirloom ;)

 

Also, there’s plenty of reports that say it’s already too late to reverse global climate change and the effect will only grow exponentially when the millions of years of literal shit under the permafrost starts melting.

🤷🏻‍♂️ But I’m just a video game geek so what do I really know. I’m just parroting stuff that people who I think are supposed to be smart say.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tanooki said:

Seems entirely reckless.  It looks so green and lovely on the surface like you're saving the world, but the amount of crap that gets pumped out making, then disposing to make the batteries, and then on the back end the further waste dumping those large dead battery sets for those cars is awful.  You're just shifting the funk from one crappy means to another, then hiding it under a cute bubbly green loving lie mouthing off about decreased carbon footprints.  I'm shocked, maybe sad a little, no one ever call this crap out in mass scale.

Yup.

https://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/17435/Will-Your-Electric-Car-Save-the-World-or-Wreck-It.aspx

The result is stunning: manufacturing a BEV adds an entire ton of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere more than a gasoline vehicle. But perhaps more shocking is that the total carbon footprint of a BEV is not zero, it’s half of what it is for the total lifespan of a gasoline vehicle.

And that's just the CO2. There's also lots of other factors - toxic material, labor, etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ThePhleo said:

......also destroy all cattle.

Neither is ever happening, so I’ll just buy some property about 50 feet above sea level so my grandkids can have beach front property by the time I die. Though their grandkids will have to scuba dive to visit the old family heirloom 😉

Also, there’s plenty of reports that say it’s already too late to reverse global climate change and the effect will only grow exponentially when the millions of years of literal shit under the permafrost starts melting.

Soylent Green! 

You probably don't need to go that high - a certain prominent U.S. figure and his wife recently spent $11,000,000 on an estate next to the ocean that is only a few (and I do mean few) feet above sea level.   Despite their proclaimed views on such things do you think they know something you don't?

And how did those pesky Vikings dig into the permafrost in Greenland in the first place?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ThePhleo said:

Also, there’s plenty of reports that say it’s already too late to reverse global climate change and the effect will only grow exponentially when the millions of years of literal shit under the permafrost starts melting.

Dude, you can't "reverse global climate change" because it's NATURAL.  Did you know most of the US was once under ice?  Did you know most of the US was at another time once under water?  Did you know that at one time most of the US was a swampy playground for dinosaurs?  Did you know that not too long ago in the history of this planet it was possible to walk from France to England without getting your feet wet (look up Doggerland on wikipedia)?  The climate of this planet is ALWAYS CHANGING!  It always has been and always will be, regardless of how much or how little Carbon we pump into the atmosphere.  So is the sea level as well. I'm sorry to have to reveal all this to the hardcore environmentalists out there, but it's true...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

Dude, you can't "reverse global climate change" because it's NATURAL.  Did you know most of the US was once under ice?  Did you know most of the US was at another time once under water?  Did you know that at one time most of the US was a swampy playground for dinosaurs?  Did you know that not too long ago in the history of this planet it was possible to walk from France to England without getting your feet wet (look up Doggerland on wikipedia)?  The climate of this planet is ALWAYS CHANGING!  It always has been and always will be, regardless of how much or how little Carbon we pump into the atmosphere.  So is the sea level as well. I'm sorry to have to reveal all this to the hardcore environmentalists out there, but it's true...

🤷🏻‍♂️ I won’t pretend to have the answers. If I did I’d be the worlds first trillionaire.

I do know that much of the world was walkable during the previous ice age, but I also know that the amount of crap we’ve been pumping into the highest heights of the atmosphere and deepest depths of the ocean is way faster than what would happen “naturally” (ignoring that humans are natural)

I live in the suburbs and I wouldn’t mind cleaner air. Driving towards New York City I always see a brown haze about 2 miles above the city and it’s really ugly...but I also enjoy driving my diesel truck.

🤷🏻‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

Dude, you can't "reverse global climate change" because it's NATURAL.  Did you know most of the US was once under ice?  Did you know most of the US was at another time once under water?  Did you know that at one time most of the US was a swampy playground for dinosaurs?  Did you know that not too long ago in the history of this planet it was possible to walk from France to England without getting your feet wet (look up Doggerland on wikipedia)?  The climate of this planet is ALWAYS CHANGING!  It always has been and always will be, regardless of how much or how little Carbon we pump into the atmosphere.  So is the sea level as well. I'm sorry to have to reveal all this to the hardcore environmentalists out there, but it's true...

Is this a joke? You're seriously a climate denier?

As a scientist I can guarantee you that the Earth is warming up because of human released emissions. Yes, Earth's climate naturally fluctuates, but in a mere 200 years the global temperature has risen 2 degrees since the industrial age. 2 degrees in such a short amount of time is insanely huge! The only way this would happen naturally is

1)Tremendous increase in solar radiation - but that's not the cause at all. In fact, for all practical purposes solar radiation has remained constant for the past few millions of years.

2)Volcanic eruptions - nope. You need a ridiculous amount of activity to cause such a sustained increase. In fact, volcanic eruptions are more likely to cool the Earth than warm it.

3)Orbital change - yeah this happens. Over the scale of 10,000 years NOT 200 years!

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, when there's more of it it's like adding a layer of clothing. More clothing, the warmer you are. The correlation with human activity is undeniable. Scientifically it's undeniable I should say. People can deny whatever they want. Heck, we have people who believe the Earth is flat, so deny all you want, but the truth is simply that humans are the cause of global warming and not some natural occurrence. And you don't have to take my word for it, you can listen to the thousands upon thousands of other scientists who know this to be true.

global_temp_vs_carbon_dioxide_graph_620.gif.5b539bb7f2e51782602c1c20f98f3f9f.gif

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ThePhleo said:

🤷🏻‍♂️ I won’t pretend to have the answers. If I did I’d be the worlds first trillionaire.

I do know that much of the world was walkable during the previous ice age, but I also know that the amount of crap we’ve been pumping into the highest heights of the atmosphere and deepest depths of the ocean is way faster than what would happen “naturally” (ignoring that humans are natural)

I live in the suburbs and I wouldn’t mind cleaner air. Driving towards New York City I always see a brown haze about 2 miles above the city and it’s really ugly...but I also enjoy driving my diesel truck.

🤷🏻‍♂️

I'm not saying we should ignore pollution. I think that is something we all can say is something that can be ever improved. 

But there is alot of evidence that climate change can and has shifted rapidly (and I mean stupid fast like decades) in the past, well before humans. It often coincides with mass extinctions also. Is not great for any one particular species but the world as a whole moves on.  Point being fast climate change is nothing new, even instant change (meteor impact) is something that can be survived, and what "stop the climate change" people call "fast" and "extreme " events is diddly shit to what this planet has seen in the past and kept on truckin. Again I'm all for cleaner and more efficient, well everything. Im for nuclear myself. But the constant kill the farting cows and stop driving isnt gunna save us or even really mitigate the inevitable change in climate. It would just be healthier for everyone though, which to me seems like a better way to push the agenda

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Battery production causes more environmental damage than carbon emissions alone. Consider dust, fumes, wastewater and other environmental impacts from cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; water shortages and toxicspills from lithium mining in Latin America, which can alter ecosystems and hurt local communities; a heavily polluted river due to nickel mining in Russia; or air pollution in northeastern China, as mentioned above.”

 

I copied and pasted that from an article online. My son had to do a report  on the disaster lithium mining did in some South American country’s and how it damaged whole ecosystems and water supply to towns around the lithium mines. I believe theres no solution for this, there always gonna be a draw back somewhere. We should just go back to horses and wagons, that will really curve pollution 

😂😂😂
 

 

 

Edited by Psychobear85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LeatherRebel5150 said:

I'm not saying we should ignore pollution. I think that is something we all can say is something that can be ever improved. 

But there is alot of evidence that climate change can and has shifted rapidly (and I mean stupid fast like decades) in the past, well before humans. It often coincides with mass extinctions also. Is not great for any one particular species but the world as a whole moves on.  Point being fast climate change is nothing new, even instant change (meteor impact) is something that can be survived, and what "stop the climate change" people call "fast" and "extreme " events is diddly shit to what this planet has seen in the past and kept on truckin. Again I'm all for cleaner and more efficient, well everything. Im for nuclear myself. But the constant kill the farting cows and stop driving isnt gunna save us or even really mitigate the inevitable change in climate. It would just be healthier for everyone though, which to me seems like a better way to push the agenda

I agree that it's not reasonable to expect people to stop driving and eliminate beef from the world.

I do think that less driving is important, and this is something doable with much better public transportation, as well as incentives. Take Boston, crappy public transportation. A lot of people avoid it because it's crowded, expensive ($2.50 each way), slow, often delays, frustrating. BUT, if that were ever changed, and there would be say some tax incentive to use public transportation, I think that could be huge. I know, "if", but you have to start somehwere.

Secondly, it's true that eating certain foods, such as cows, cost far more energy and hence a much higher greenhouse footprint. Again, incentives and perhaps changing ideals will sway the market.

Lastly, you say " climate change can and has shifted rapidly (and I mean stupid fast like decades) in the past, well before humans." Abrupt climate change is a real thing, but rare. We would know it. We have scientific evidence for everything that is happening. Let me give you an analogy. Say you go to the doctor and you say you're not feeling well. Checks are done, and the doctor says you have the flu. "How do you know it's not chicken pox?" you ask the doctor. Both cause a fever. Well, the doctor says there are obvious signs if it's the chicken pox. Okay, you're not convinced so you see other doctors, thousands of them, and they all agree you have the flu. Are you still going to argue you have the chicken pox? That analogy, is exactly what is happening between scientists and climate deniers.

Edited by avatar!
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, avatar! said:

Is this a joke? You're seriously a climate denier?

As a scientist I can guarantee you that the Earth is warming up because of human released emissions. Yes, Earth's climate naturally fluctuates, but in a mere 200 years the global temperature has risen 2 degrees since the industrial age. 2 degrees in such a short amount of time is insanely huge! The only way this would happen naturally is

1)Tremendous increase in solar radiation - but that's not the cause at all. In fact, for all practical purposes solar radiation has remained constant for the past few millions of years.

2)Volcanic eruptions - nope. You need a ridiculous amount of activity to cause such a sustained increase. In fact, volcanic eruptions are more likely to cool the Earth than warm it.

3)Orbital change - yeah this happens. Over the scale of 10,000 years NOT 200 years!

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, when there's more of it it's like adding a layer of clothing. More clothing, the warmer you are. The correlation with human activity is undeniable. Scientifically it's undeniable I should say. People can deny whatever they want. Heck, we have people who believe the Earth is flat, so deny all you want, but the truth is simply that humans are the cause of global warming and not some natural occurrence. And you don't have to take my word for it, you can listen to the thousands upon thousands of other scientists who know this to be true.

global_temp_vs_carbon_dioxide_graph_620.gif.5b539bb7f2e51782602c1c20f98f3f9f.gif

 

Hey man, I'm not denying anything, I 100% completely agree that climate change is true!  The problem is, your analysis is the same as every other short-sighted scientist with a myopic vision: we only have recorded temperature data from about 1880 to now, and you guys use that as your reference point in every single argument.  Do you seriously think the climate of this planet is supposed to be static?  Really?  You've got 140 years of data for a planet that is like 5 billions years old?  Show me your 140 years of data from BEFORE the industrial revolution so we've got something to compare your graph to.  Oh yeah, we don't have that data, so you can make whatever assertions you want.

I'll dumb it down for you: it can't always be summer, nor can it always be winter; much like the seasons of the year, everything in nature works in cycles.  We've been coming out of an Ice age for thousands of years (ice age = winter) and we are moving towards a tropical age (tropical age = summer).  Once we get there, we'll go back to an ice age again, but this takes tens of thousands of years.  Now, you know how winter is really cold for a long stretch, then when spring comes it rapidly warms up as we move into summer?  And likewise, summer is really hot for a long stretch, but then when autumn comes it rapidly cools down as we head into winter?  Well, if you and all the other scientists could look past this tiny 140 year blip on the cosmic radar of the universe, you would realize that we are essentially in the "spring" of our planet's cycle where it rapidly warms up as we head into a tropical age.  Yeah, it's warming up faster then it did thousands of years ago when we were in the middle of an ice age - no duh!  But instead of spouting bullshit about how it's all our fault, the governments of the world should be preparing for the fact that every ocean-front city on this planet will be under water in a few hundred years, because that is a fact and we couldn't stop it from happening even if the industrial age ended tomorrow.

Look, I'm all for green living and good environmental practices that will keep our planet in the best shape it can be in for generations to come, but as a scientist, would you PLEASE stop spouting this bullshit to the masses about how the rising sea level is all our fault.

  • Thanks 1
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought we were supposed to be under water by 2020 anyway? 

Look, it's cool that these small countries are trying to improve and reduce emissions but the reality is that if Eastern countries like China and India aren't on board we're fighting a losing battle. Just look at a global emissions map. While the US specifically is a decent rank of all counties in regard to our carbon emissions, our overall emissions of pollutants is wayyy lower than our global counterparts.

Good for the UK but oil ain't going anywhere. 

Edited by RegularGuyGamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

Look, it's cool that these small countries are trying to improve and reduce emissions but the reality is that if Eastern countries like China and India aren't on board we're fighting a losing battle.

I’m not sure about India, but China is already slowly moving towards electric vehicles.

I’m not sure on the exact date, but I believe it was maybe by 2040 China wants to cut petrol vehicles. Also they’re one of the biggest battery suppliers so I guess it makes sense.

This move by the UK is big because it will now force the German car companies to go hard on electric. Not sure if I believe all the other Borris Johnson fluff but it should hopefully get things moving quicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member · Posted

Arm chair, bit lucked into it, completely clueless commentary by way of a question--I wonder if Brexit has anything to do with a move like this? Is Brittain taking this initiative in Europe by doing this? If so, does this put them in a good position, somehow, with other British companies wanting change but needing the backing of a government body?

I'm really curious. Maybe it was a parliamentary choice void of the Brexit/EU relationship, but this is a big deal and will no doubt have a major impact on mainland Europe as well.

Edited by RH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...