Global Warming

[delboy54]

A few years ago I was in Nairobi for work for 2 weeks. I got collected from my hotel at 0700 and taken to the office at 0900.

At 17.00 was taken back to hotel arriving back at 19.00

Total distance, 6 miles each way. Traffic jams horrendous all vehicle engines running, buses and lorries belching out black smoke, it was an awful experience. This is just one of countless similar cities around the world, the emmissions from these ancient vehicles being pumped into the air, have to be having an effect.

I think it took a month off my lifespan due to having to inhale all the fumes during my stay.

[villa89]

1 hour ago, delboy54 said:

A few years ago I was in Nairobi for work for 2 weeks. ...

Third world countries aren't going green anytime soon so they'll still be belting out the emissions in 50 years time.

[bannedfromHandV]

I don’t know how truthful they are but some of the stuff I’ve read regarding the planned switch to EV’s from traditional motor vehicles is pretty scary in that the net effect on emissions is minuscule.

To be honest, all this micro-economic stuff seems almost pointless to me and it’s like feeding people a placebo. Yeah sure we can each live more responsibly individually and we can feel a bit better about ourselves but whilst countries and corporations continue acting with zero concern anything we do individually is rendered redundant.

But of course, it’ll line a bunch of folks’ pockets in the meantime which is the one and only concern for those in a position to effect any real change.

 

[MakemineVanilla]

5 hours ago, villa89 said:

That should be the focus, once that happens then you get automotive transport off fossil fuels 'for free' as they would all be electric too. Planes/boats and farming are more problematic but take the low hanging fruit first. In reality of course we needed to start doing it in the late 80's not forty years too late...

The trouble is that acid-rain was the crisis du jour back in the 1980s.

[Xela]

23 hours ago, limpid said:

Interactive map of the UK. You can choose and change the climate models. Don't zoom in on London in 2050.

Well, thats me not retiring to Spalding!  

 

[CVByrne]

On 24/07/2023 at 14:15, limpid said:

Or we move back to where half of the price of your holiday was the flight so that it can be taxed based on the environmental damage done. When did a foreign holiday become a right?

Do you also think that season tickets should be priced so that anyone can afford them? Or cars? Or jewellery? A foreign holiday is a luxury purchase for almost everyone.

That's fine, but taxation of flights will just price the less well off out of travel. It would cost jobs in the airline industry too. 

The price of flights are set by supply and demand the same as season tickets, jewellery, cars etc.. that's how markets work. 

If UK government just went and significantly increase taxation on flights without other countries doing anything. What actual benefit would that give to climate change? Immeasurably insignificant. Politically why would the unilaterally target air travel over other industries?

Also taxation is for government to decide. I still don't get why we would blame airlines. They're providing a service that is in demand like everything else in our society. 

btw, I personally think increasing taxation to de-incentivise is the right approach. A carbon tax but it would need to be introduced and increased gradually over time to allow industries and people to adjust.

Edited July 26, 2023 by CVByrne

[Mozzavfc]

4 hours ago, villa89 said:

Third world countries aren't going green anytime soon so they'll still be belting out the emissions in 50 years time.

3rd world countries should be more able to switch to renewables as the infrastructure for fossils fuels isn't as imbedded, and they can 'skip' the worst of the polluting by using newer technology 

[CVByrne]

On 25/07/2023 at 18:29, limpid said:

Interactive map of the UK. You can choose and change the climate models. Don't zoom in on London in 2050.

Climate of London in 2050 to be more like the Climate Barcelona was in 2000 

[limpid]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

btw, I personally think increasing taxation to de-incentivise is the right approach. A carbon tax but it would need to be introduced and increased gradually over time to allow industries and people to adjust.

On the same kind of scale as stopping the sale of ICE cars? That's better than nothing; which is what we seem to have at the moment.

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

Climate of London in 2050 to be more like the Climate Barcelona was in 2000 

Unless the Gulf Stream stops, then London’s climate will be more like Montreal. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by LondonLax

[MakemineVanilla]

6 hours ago, villa89 said:

Third world countries aren't going green anytime soon so they'll still be belting out the emissions in 50 years time.

India alone has a population of over 200m people living on less that $1.30 per day, and so it doesn't seem likely that they will ever be in a position to move towards Net Zero.

When the combined population of China and India amounts to 2.8bn, it does seem rather optimistic to claim that the policies of a country of 67m can make a significant difference to the rate of global warming.

It just seems like another expensive post-colonial vanity project, which will inflict hardship on Britain's precariat.

 

[sidcow]

7 hours ago, villa89 said:

Third world countries aren't going green anytime soon so they'll still be belting out the emissions in 50 years time.

They really won't. Not when China floods the world with cheap electric vehicles that cost a car a fraction to charge compared to ICE vehicles. 

I don't think people have a clue what's coming down the road. In 50 years time seeing an ICE car on the road will be like seeing a Traction Engine on the road now. 

[sidcow]

6 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I don’t know how truthful they are but some of the stuff I’ve read regarding the planned switch to EV’s from traditional motor vehicles is pretty scary in that the net effect on emissions is minuscule.

I can stop you there. The stuff you have read is untruthful. It will have been written by the oil and gas lobby and their enormous wealth. 

[sidcow]

56 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

India alone has a population of over 200m people living on less that $1.30 per day, and so it doesn't seem likely that they will ever be in a position to move towards Net Zero.

When the combined population of China and India amounts to 2.8bn, it does seem rather optimistic to claim that the policies of a country of 67m can make a significant difference to the rate of global warming.

It just seems like another expensive post-colonial vanity project, which will inflict hardship on Britain's precariat.

 

Why would these poor people continue to use hugely expensive coal, oil and gas when electricity will cost a fraction? 

You know coal still has to be dug up, refined, transported, bought and burned and the detritus cleaned up and disposed of. 

Oil still has to be drilled for, refined (using enormous quantities of use once and never again cobalt), transported in expensive trucks and boats bought and sold and burned with the detritus cleaned up a disposed of. 

Gas has to drilled, transported through leaky pipes or transported in expensive trucks, burned 

And when these things after all that expensive mining/drilling/transporting/buying and selling are burned only about 70% of it is turned into usable power. 

Why do all that when you are poor when you can stick up a wind turbine or solar panel that produced power you can use 99% of? 

And every Western person who stops buying coal or gas or oil makes the cost of others buying that coal or gas or oil more expensive because those enormous costs of acquiring those resources gets more and more expensive per kw of power. 

Those poor nations just won't be able to afford it. There is a juggernaut (electrically powered) coming down the road and despite the desperation of the oil and gas lobby to convince people otherwise there is no stopping it because it just won't make any financial sense to keep digging, drilling and burning. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by sidcow

[foreveryoung]

Fossil fuels aren't disappearing any time soon. Which is why car manufacturers are still developing ICE's that are as good as emissions free. Oil and gas rule the world and will continue to well passed 2050.

[CVByrne]

11 hours ago, limpid said:

On the same kind of scale as stopping the sale of ICE cars? That's better than nothing; which is what we seem to have at the moment.

I think the EU target for 2035 is absolutely brilliant. ICE cars are not needed anymore. Air pollution, noise pollution of cities is a huge problem as well as the carbon emissions. 

 

[CVByrne]

8 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Fossil fuels aren't disappearing any time soon. Which is why car manufacturers are still developing ICE's that are as good as emissions free. Oil and gas rule the world and will continue to well passed 2050.

They rule the world because the infrastructure of the world in the 20th century developed with them. To transition off that takes decades and large investment.

[magnkarl]

16 hours ago, villa89 said:

Third world countries aren't going green anytime soon so they'll still be belting out the emissions in 50 years time.

In fact some of them are. Countries like Cape Verde are jumping straight past the era the rest of the world had in the 70-80-90's and going for a fully electric, plastic free economy before 2025. Ghana and several other nations in Africa banned plastics over 5 years ago.

Even though we have the money in the West, we're not close to number one when it comes to environmental policies. If we think it hurts to transition to electric, think how much it hurts for the average family in Cape Verde to get rid of their petrol powered generator and car on 1/8th of the income. Many third world countries also have a much more stable access to the sun as they're closer to the equator, you can pretty much spreadsheet your power generation from panels in much of North Africa as the sun and weather is so stable.

Frankly the lower end electric cars (Zoe, Leaf, i-4, MG +++) are at a price point which is cheaper than their comparative petrol models. We should be banning buying new petrol/diesel cars for anyone that lives south of Manchester and doesn't own a farm.

Edited July 27, 2023 by magnkarl

[sidcow]

9 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Fossil fuels aren't disappearing any time soon. Which is why car manufacturers are still developing ICE's that are as good as emissions free. Oil and gas rule the world and will continue to well passed 2050.

 

 

[sidcow]

Car manufacturers who continue to spend large resources developing ICE vehicles will die. 

Companies like ford who have stated they will have no ICE vehicles by 2030 will thrive. 

Toyota will dissappear if they persist with this Hydrogen none.