New petrol and diesel vehicles sales ban in UK from 2035
Discussion
Agammemnon said:
Nickgnome said:
We do not need to regress. We need to take heed of future development whilst simultaneously dealing with the issues we have already caused. We may progress more slowly.
What do these words actually mean, out in real-world application?If in the future if we produce stuff which does not contribute to increasing pollution including Co2, that has to have a beneficial impact on the atmosphere as it is now, does it not? Fortunately our eco system can manage certain levels of pollutants and some even thrive on elements.
Nickgnome said:
If in the future if we produce stuff which does not contribute to increasing pollution including Co2, that has to have a beneficial impact on the atmosphere as it is now, does it not? Fortunately our eco system can manage certain levels of pollutants and some even thrive on elements.
Nice words. How do we practically achieve what you've indicated a desire for?Agammemnon said:
Do we not dig materials for solar panels & EVs out of the ground?
Yep, but we don't burn them. They get used. Then recycled. And the volume is much less. Not ideal for sure, but certainly much better, and we're using less and less of the worst materials as things develop.
Nickgnome said:
AshVX220 said:
Yep, stop having kids would be a good start.......
That doesn’t seem like a good plan for the long term advancement of the human race, or even looking shorter term someone to wipe the B.S from your lips in your dotage.Willow1212 said:
Agammemnon said:
Do we not dig materials for solar panels & EVs out of the ground?
Yep, but we don't burn them. They get used. Then recycled. And the volume is much less. Not ideal for sure, but certainly much better, and we're using less and less of the worst materials as things develop.
vonuber said:
Why do you assume he has to have an answer?
He's making a point about the direction of travel we need, other people will come up with the solution.
His position appears to be that someone somewhere has to come up with something then all will be well. My position is that it's a bit fuzzy on detail & practical application.He's making a point about the direction of travel we need, other people will come up with the solution.
Edited by Agammemnon on Thursday 6th February 16:04
Agammemnon said:
Nickgnome said:
If in the future if we produce stuff which does not contribute to increasing pollution including Co2, that has to have a beneficial impact on the atmosphere as it is now, does it not? Fortunately our eco system can manage certain levels of pollutants and some even thrive on elements.
Nice words. How do we practically achieve what you've indicated a desire for?Is assume you would accept that an medical cure / vaccine for the current virus in China may be a good idea. Are you going to come up with one?
Steve vRS said:
NoNeed said:
I do hope the government of the world list and fit charging point in all battlefield so our Tank regiments can charge on the go
The tanks will be allowed to keep their Diesel engines. The artillery have always been green though as they operate as a battery.
JNW1 said:
I took the "stop having kids" to mean looking at ways of halting the rapid rise in population growth we've seen over the last 50 years; that doesn't mean literally having no kids at all but probably does mean limiting the number to the replacement value (i.e. two per couple). As people are living longer there would still be some gradual population growth over time but the very rapid increase in the global population we've experienced in the last half century is without doubt a massive contributor to the problems we're seeing with emissions and therefore climate change. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that - and thinks this population growth can simply continue unchecked - really has their head firmly in the sand IMO...
Plain English is plain English and inferring a meaning which may or may not be there is unwise. There is a whole industry supported by said inferences.He said Stop having children for a start. That is an unambiguous statement.
Have you heard of Hans Rosling?
Ignoring for a moment jokes about charging cavalry, there's been plenty of work in recent years on hybrid tanks. Generally they need to keep their engine running all the time to provide electrical and hydraulic power. Being able to run for a long time on batteries, including the ability to move quietly* would be a very useful thing.
The military are also keen on alternative power sources. Increasing fuel efficiency and reducing water usage has been shown to save lives, the official US figures for Afghanistan are 1 casualty per 24 convoys.
* assuming a fairly loose definition of quiet.
The military are also keen on alternative power sources. Increasing fuel efficiency and reducing water usage has been shown to save lives, the official US figures for Afghanistan are 1 casualty per 24 convoys.
* assuming a fairly loose definition of quiet.
Agammemnon said:
The last one was. How would you define 'major' war? I'd define it as involving infantry, armour & artillery amongst other stuff.
Nah. Tanks will be replaced most likely with personal battle suits offering infantry protection and enabling the carrying of heavier equipment.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff