RE: German cars have to cut emissions

[havoc]

He's a troll.

I have noticed, however, that the whole 'climate change' (sic) thing HAS polarised people massively.

Whether this was started by one side (I'd guess the 'man made' people), forcing the other side to get equally vehement in their denials, or whether it's just very emotional, I don't know.

Personally, I do think human emissions may well be contributing. What I have no idea about is the level of and the importance of our contribution...and if I'm honest, I bet 99% of politicians don't either, they just see a good bandwagon when they spot one.

Should the human race curb it's emissions - yes we probably should. Will the HALVING (in capitals because it's near-unachievable in <20 years) of automotive emissions in Europe and N.America have any impact even on the man-made portion? Not a lot. Because in the same time, the Chinese and Indians will have doubled or trebled their vehicle ownership (negating any saving), and will have built MANY MANY new coal-fired power-stations which will be pumping out a large multiple of the saving from cars.


Should we be pushing for the following:-
- Restrictions to Chinese and Indian emissions growth - Emphatically yes
- Improvements in NAm and European power-generation emissions...how about we actually recognise the benefits of nuclear power, for example, and export it to China/India?!? - Emphatically yes
- Equally harsh targets for industrial emissions as for automotive emissions. Create a level playing field for ALL pollution sources, it's the only fair way! Lets see what gets done then!!!


Should we also measure ALL noxious emissions against their known environmental and health impacts? Yes. Lets stop focusing on CO2, FFS.

[shoestring7]

Al 450 said:

Take a look at BHP output for a small capacity engine today compared with 10-15 years ago. Rover 1.4 K series put out 105bhp standard, nothing is close now meaning the engine has to work harder to maintain the same pace.

All completely true. If it weren't for the VW 1.4l twincharge engine that produces 170bhp, does 45mpg, and doesn't have a 12k mile headgasket service life.

SS7

[Chrome Orange]

s2art said:

What you propose would cost a fortune and wouldnt be very effective. If the governments were serious about reducing CO2 then we would have a rapid shift over to nuclear power. Nothing else would make a signifigant difference, private motoring just doesnt contribute enough. (you may be including the figures for all sorts of transport when you look at the supposed contribution from the private car)

I'm with you on the nuclear power thing but otherwise I think your off target a bit there.
Private motoring does contribute, even if it's a relativly small percentage of the overall output it still needs to be attended to.

What I propose would in fact be viable, make a difference, and more to the point is exactly the kind of feasible technology the OEM's are developing.

More to the point the OEM's are developing this technology with a view to getting to 40 g/km within 30 years because it's attainable, will be affordable and is worth it. And if they are willing to commit many many billions then they at least must also believe climate change and the statistics also used by Monbiot to be true even if some here do not.

It's ok to claim that it's not all happening and that even if it is there's no point in doing anything about it, least of all to cars because well, it doesn't matter and won't make a difference anyway - but those are just words. The makers of the cars you all drive are putting huge sums of money against solutions to things some of you don't agree with, something they would not do if they could afford it. I cannot accept it'd be more expensive to shout down the politicians and lobby governments so this, overall has to be a compelling reason to trust in 'the crackpots'. So, who are you going to believe?

Personally I'm going with the Monbiot/OEM theory as I think it'll not only stand us a chance of still having a decent world to pass on to our children, but also give us some amazing cars to see it from.

[otolith]

havoc said:

I have noticed, however, that the whole 'climate change' (sic) thing HAS polarised people massively.

The thing that really vapourises my urine is the constant attempt to shut down any debate. The latest tactic is to call anyone who disagrees with any part of the climate change agenda a "denier". As in "Holocaust denier". The inference is clear and deliberate, it's a nasty ad hominen and it would be more honest to speak plainly and call people who don't disagree with them "nazis". It's part of an ongoing pattern of propaganda, though, which is aimed at enforcing a particular "solution" with neither the means nor the end receiving the scrutiny it deserves. The "solution" is an exercise in social engineering. Note the immediate knee-jerk hostility amongst the Green lobby to any technological solution which would tend towards business as usual. Climate change is the biggest threat to civilisation, oh, but it's obviously less of a threat than nuclear energy, no you must reduce your consumerist consumption and rely on windfarms

So, it's seen as so important that the debate is shut down that any discussion of consequences centres around the most dire outcomes of the most speculative of models. It's the same kind of politics which sends countries to war over a dodgy dossier; never mind an open and informed debate, we're right and must scare the crap out of everyone until they agree to whatever course of action we think best. It doesn't matter what the cost/benefit analyses are, nor what the probabilities of the various outcomes are; we have made a decision that the risk is unacceptable and the cost acceptable and we will ram it down everyone's throats. We will persuade the media (who are by and large are too scientifically illiterate to do anything but hype up what they are told), we will indoctrinate the children, manufacture a concensus and excommunicate any scientist brave enough to express any doubts.

So that's why opinions get polarised. Not necessarily because people are sceptical of all of the message, but because the messengers are a bunch of dishonest scrotes with a poorly hidden agenda.

[Chrome Orange]

havoc said:

Because in the same time, the Chinese and Indians will have doubled or trebled their vehicle ownership (negating any saving), and will have built MANY MANY new coal-fired power-stations which will be pumping out a large multiple of the saving from cars

As it stands the per capita CO2 emissions of the Chinese or Indians are insignificant compared to us Europeans. Nice argument but it doesn't stand up.

[CommanderJameson]

Chrome Orange said:

havoc said:

Because in the same time, the Chinese and Indians will have doubled or trebled their vehicle ownership (negating any saving), and will have built MANY MANY new coal-fired power-stations which will be pumping out a large multiple of the saving from cars

As it stands the per capita CO2 emissions of the Chinese or Indians are insignificant compared to us Europeans. Nice argument but it doesn't stand up.

Per capita is brilliantly low for the Chinese, until you remember there's a billion of the buggers. And there's a billion Indians, too.

Billions of "small number" adds up to "big number".

Edited by CommanderJameson on Wednesday 5th September 21:00

[Chrome Orange]

Apache said:

Chrome Orange said:

Good to see the flat earth society and climate change denials are alive and well on Pistonheads.

And it's depressing to see yet another believer (because you simply will not see anything other than the 2 extremes of the subject) ignore facts, pointers and data to dare suggest your heroes might be wrong. You are unoriginal, ignorant and blind

Really? I work for a major auto maker in product development on billion dollar programs slated for launch many years in the future. Products that have to take on the known environmental facts, have to deliver the kind of emission step changes that are needed and discussed below. The progess the auto industry has to make in this area is not hokum, it's real, the work the guys in the industry do is valid and leans on the kind of science so blindly dismissed in some of the posts here.

So, who exactly is ignorant or blind then?

Unoriginal? Go find a mirror.

[Chrome Orange]

CommanderJameson said:

Chrome Orange said:

havoc said:

Because in the same time, the Chinese and Indians will have doubled or trebled their vehicle ownership (negating any saving), and will have built MANY MANY new coal-fired power-stations which will be pumping out a large multiple of the saving from cars

As it stands the per capita CO2 emissions of the Chinese or Indians are insignificant compared to us Europeans. Nice argument but it doesn't stand up.

Per capita is brilliantly low for the Chinese, until you remember there's a billion of the buggers. And there's a billion Indians, too.

Billions of "small number" adds up to "big number".

Edited by CommanderJameson on Wednesday 5th September 21:00

And they have an all-electric car company too!
http://greenermachine.com/index.php?pOption=post&a...

[CommanderJameson]

Chrome Orange said:

CommanderJameson said:

Chrome Orange said:

havoc said:

Because in the same time, the Chinese and Indians will have doubled or trebled their vehicle ownership (negating any saving), and will have built MANY MANY new coal-fired power-stations which will be pumping out a large multiple of the saving from cars

As it stands the per capita CO2 emissions of the Chinese or Indians are insignificant compared to us Europeans. Nice argument but it doesn't stand up.

Per capita is brilliantly low for the Chinese, until you remember there's a billion of the buggers. And there's a billion Indians, too.

Billions of "small number" adds up to "big number".

Edited by CommanderJameson on Wednesday 5th September 21:00

And they have an all-electric car company too!
http://greenermachine.com/index.php?pOption=post&a...

Nice tactic. When presented with a valid point, don't bother to answer it, but employ the Chewbacca defence instead.

[otolith]

Cool, they can charge their electric cars with electricity from all those new coal fired power stations they are building...

[Witchfinder]

Chrome Orange said:

Private motoring does contribute, even if it's a relativly small percentage of the overall output it still needs to be attended to.

There are far bigger savings to be made elsewhere, for less effort and less cost. You've illustrated perfectly what is going on. The car brings freedom of mobility, individualism and personal wealth, and there is a very real and determined effort to stamp this out.

I'm much more worried about that than 0.6 degrees.

[ERIKTHEVETKING]

Isn't Chrome Orange the same guy that walked up and down Regents Street with a placard saying "year 2000 the end is nigh" ???

Roll on 2030 ... oops got it wrong again, now where did I put that Nostradamus book?

[Chrome Orange]

Witchfinder said:

Chrome Orange said:

Private motoring does contribute, even if it's a relativly small percentage of the overall output it still needs to be attended to.

There are far bigger savings to be made elsewhere, for less effort and less cost. You've illustrated perfectly what is going on. The car brings freedom of mobility, individualism and personal wealth, and there is a very real and determined effort to stamp this out.

I'm much more worried about that than 0.6 degrees.

In an earlier comment I noted that actually i think the world of cars is going to get better, more interesting, and far more engineering biased in order to deliver lower emissions. I didn't claim or suggest a reduction in vehicle use - although that'd be good too. We are where we are and the CO2 reductions required can be just about met without haveing to throw away our basic lifestyles.

[derestrictor]

Chrome Orange said:

I work for a major auto maker in product development on billion dollar programs slated for launch many years in the future.

Anyone seen my Veyron? Seem to remember abandoning it outside the gates of a baronial seat in Derbyshire last week but I was full of crack cocaine at the time so things were a tad hazy.

As for the Chinese having less polution/noggin, if that is correct then it will be so for about 4 minutes.

I'm waiting for a politician to roll up to Mandela's statue in a Hummer H1, to disembark not with fatuous platitudes about 'community' and other such meaningless drivel, instead, to regale the throngs with the opening lines from 'Predator' in celebration of the time before Arnie lost his head, thence to announce his committment to a doubling of the nsl.

Sensible policies for a non short asred Britain.

[havoc]

otolith said:

Some pretty perceptive stuff about politics

Long has it been so, and long will it continue to be so.

The only difference with the modern age is information travels so much quicker, so that politicians must be masters of all media. Of course, the corollary effect of this is that if someone hears the same thing from 2 or 3 'different' () sources they're more likely to believe it...


...as for indoctrination of kids... Over my dead f'ckin' body with my kids they will!!!

[Apache]

Chrome Orange said:

Apache said:

Chrome Orange said:

Good to see the flat earth society and climate change denials are alive and well on Pistonheads.

And it's depressing to see yet another believer (because you simply will not see anything other than the 2 extremes of the subject) ignore facts, pointers and data to dare suggest your heroes might be wrong. You are unoriginal, ignorant and blind

Really? I work for a major auto maker in product development on billion dollar programs slated for launch many years in the future. Products that have to take on the known environmental facts, have to deliver the kind of emission step changes that are needed and discussed below. The progess the auto industry has to make in this area is not hokum, it's real, the work the guys in the industry do is valid and leans on the kind of science so blindly dismissed in some of the posts here.

So, who exactly is ignorant or blind then?

Unoriginal? Go find a mirror.

You are blind because you cannot see the 'valid work' your industry is doing is at the behest of the EU and our government, this is based on flawed data and unproven science.

You are ignorant because you seem unable to tell the difference between a massive country with a massive population producing a small but potentially large per capita carbon footprint with a much smaller but fully developed nation with a large per capita footprint.

An you are devastatingly unoriginal in your dismissal of known facts and your reluctance to debate them.

[Double R]

well put Apache!

RR

[grahambell]

Chrome Orange said:

More to the point the OEM's are developing this technology with a view to getting to 40 g/km within 30 years because it's attainable, will be affordable and is worth it. And if they are willing to commit many many billions then they at least must also believe climate change and the statistics also used by Monbiot to be true even if some here do not.

Or maybe it's just that they suspect the prevailing political dogma, 'green tax' revenue generation frenzy and eco-bullshit makes it inevitable irrespective of whether or not CO2 emmissions do actually cause global warming.

Oh hang on - it's not global warming anymore it's 'climate change' - because that means the eco-nazis can moan whatever happens.

As for your earlier 'climate change deniers' remark, I think you'll find that plenty of us on here fully accept that climate change is happening.

However, we also fully accept that it's always been happening. And that even if everybody in the world did stop driving cars, using electricity and went back to living in caves IT WOULD STILL HAPPEN!

While condescending 'save the planet' types try to make out it's all our fault and that everyone did as they wanted nothing would ever change and the human race would live happily ever after, like so much 'man made global warming' propaganda it's all bullshit.

Earth history shows several 'mass extinction' events that have wiped out large percentages of life on the planet. The one that killed off the dinosaurs is the best known, but there are others, they've been fairly regular - and we're due another.

In fact just the other day, buried among all the 'Diana dead 10 years' stuff was news that astronomers have spotted a bloody big asteroid heading our way, and apparently there's a realistic chance that it might hit the planet.

Love to know what the 'save the planet' types are going to do about that...

[kambites]

It does seem to be true that Pistonheads is about the last bastion of "I don't believe in man made global warming" in society and I suspect the huge majority of people on here know no more about it at a scientific level than the people who they lambaste for believing in it.

Personally I'm undecided but at least I'm informed and undecided rather than unwilling to believe something just because it might put my hobby at risk and/or jumping on a media driven band wagon. Having read all the scientific papers I can find on the subject, I've come to the conclusion that it's just too bloody complicated to tell whether we're having an effect on global temperatures; and given the scientific community's tendency in the past to be completely wrong about things that they had a consensus on, I don't buy the "the scientists all agree so they must be right argument" but neither will I discount their theories out of hand.

Like in most things, there are extremists on both sides of the argument making themselves look pretty stupid and a huge undecided majority in the middle. I'm proud to admit my ignorance.

[Marquis_Rex]

Chrome Orange said:

Apache said:

Chrome Orange said:

Good to see the flat earth society and climate change denials are alive and well on Pistonheads.

And it's depressing to see yet another believer (because you simply will not see anything other than the 2 extremes of the subject) ignore facts, pointers and data to dare suggest your heroes might be wrong. You are unoriginal, ignorant and blind

Really? I work for a major auto maker in product development on billion dollar programs slated for launch many years in the future. Products that have to take on the known environmental facts, have to deliver the kind of emission step changes that are needed and discussed below. The progess the auto industry has to make in this area is not hokum, it's real, the work the guys in the industry do is valid and leans on the kind of science so blindly dismissed in some of the posts here.

So, who exactly is ignorant or blind then?

Unoriginal? Go find a mirror.

Interesting.
Many people work in Product development of OEMs.
Some good and technical, some project managers, some meeting attenders.
Just out of interest, if you'd care to disclose, what is your role-what does it involve and how long have you been doing it at an OEM?