RE: All good things come to an end in 2035
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
.
To say it is time that we stopped this, well, it REALLY is time with stopped doing this! :-)
Indeed. The situation is so devastatingly serious that in 15 years time you won’t be able to buy an ICE car in the UK from new. It’s arguably the best way to deal with impending doom, sit and wait 15 years. To say it is time that we stopped this, well, it REALLY is time with stopped doing this! :-)
No one is taking this seriously as anything to do with the environment other than those who need the eco dollar to pay off their mortgage and fill their pension pot. Take a step back from the coal face and suddenly you see that it’s about maintaining consumption and therefore taxation.
The future of ‘eco’ died with the G-Wiz. ‘Eco’ I had just been co-opted into the sales and marketing departments of manufacturers. It’s like living through the co-opting of Christianity into the Roman Empire 1600 years ago.
It’s becoming ever more difficult to take seriously the eco rantings of blokes who can’t stop borrowing and spending to have the latest toys either it is the latest eco car, eco kettle, eco wife lightswitch, eco flights, eco dog, eco hair care products, eco designer goods.
It’s all about shopping. It’s all a load of b
ks. And then you look at our batteries, something we really, desperately need and they haven’t changed in 160 years. 160 years the majority of people in the West wore home made rags, never left their town or village and shat in holes in the ground at the end of a garden they didn’t own. It is fair to say that battery tech as not kept pace with human progress.
We could make changes today to slash emissions from PLGs if they were actually important but they clearly aren’t in reality, hence why it’s all shoved 15 years down the road and if economies of scale haven’t caught up to ensure the EV is cheaper to buy and run then that date will get bumped anyway.
2035 is hardly a fixed point and it certainly isn’t a pointnober which to be proud or excited if you actually think anybof this is about our environment.
Also governments aren't thinking particularly hard about 2035 because noone making decisions now will still be in power then, apart from Putin perhaps...
So it's easy to make such commitments and then, when 2035 actually comes up and those in the seats have to make the hard decisions, there's a good chance they'll bottle it.
Problem is, us people want things to get better, but we don't want to change anything to do it. We're always resistant to change, comfortable with the way things are now.
Many of the arguments against EVs, to me, reflect simple resistance to change. They aren't better or worse than petrol or diesel cars, they just have different strengths and weaknesses. We speak like we don't make compromises to run an ICE car. We do, we're just so used to them because they've been a part of all of our lives that they don't seem like compromises, they're just what you do to run a car. EVs do some things better and some things worse. They're a pain to re-energise for those who have to wait for it, but for others, they're better to re-energise because they never have to travel to nor wait at a petrol station. They require less servicing and have fewer bits to break down. They have much better performance, and finally "electric response" to the throttle pedal really has meaning. But they don't sound as good (well, debatable how many cars actually sound better than tyre roar), they're expensive, they're heavy, noone's managed to build a really lovable, attainable driver's car out of one yet, and running out of energy mid trip in one is a much bigger problem than it is with ICE. And if you watch Harry's Garage on the topic, the Tesla charging stations are really good, but the ones all other EVs have to use are a pain in the arse. And Tesla, it seems, need to hire much more top industry experience in quality control, ride and handling, and possibly styling.
But anyway, ultimately, bigger picture, if the world does indeed need saving from humans - or rather, we need saving from ourselves - then to do it we're going to have to change what we do as well as how we do it. We can't just change the background infrastructure. You can make small improvements by making things more efficient. You can make bigger improvements faster by doing less of those things.
So it's easy to make such commitments and then, when 2035 actually comes up and those in the seats have to make the hard decisions, there's a good chance they'll bottle it.
Problem is, us people want things to get better, but we don't want to change anything to do it. We're always resistant to change, comfortable with the way things are now.
Many of the arguments against EVs, to me, reflect simple resistance to change. They aren't better or worse than petrol or diesel cars, they just have different strengths and weaknesses. We speak like we don't make compromises to run an ICE car. We do, we're just so used to them because they've been a part of all of our lives that they don't seem like compromises, they're just what you do to run a car. EVs do some things better and some things worse. They're a pain to re-energise for those who have to wait for it, but for others, they're better to re-energise because they never have to travel to nor wait at a petrol station. They require less servicing and have fewer bits to break down. They have much better performance, and finally "electric response" to the throttle pedal really has meaning. But they don't sound as good (well, debatable how many cars actually sound better than tyre roar), they're expensive, they're heavy, noone's managed to build a really lovable, attainable driver's car out of one yet, and running out of energy mid trip in one is a much bigger problem than it is with ICE. And if you watch Harry's Garage on the topic, the Tesla charging stations are really good, but the ones all other EVs have to use are a pain in the arse. And Tesla, it seems, need to hire much more top industry experience in quality control, ride and handling, and possibly styling.
But anyway, ultimately, bigger picture, if the world does indeed need saving from humans - or rather, we need saving from ourselves - then to do it we're going to have to change what we do as well as how we do it. We can't just change the background infrastructure. You can make small improvements by making things more efficient. You can make bigger improvements faster by doing less of those things.
The biggest subsidy involved in fossil fuel use is that the externalities are not costed. For instance, when we were burning a lot of high sulphur fuels in power stations (and to a lesser extent cars) the resulting acid rain did an awful lot of damage to the environment of Northern Europe. Those communities were not compensated for that. The funding for what little remediation has happened has come from governments, not the fossil fuel industry. So the subsidy there is not being held to account for the costs you impose upon others, and the same argument applies to other impacts whether that's forestry and fishery impacts of acidification or particulates and NOx making people in cities sick, or the effects of climate change.
otolith said:
The biggest subsidy involved in fossil fuel use is that the externalities are not costed. For instance, when we were burning a lot of high sulphur fuels in power stations (and to a lesser extent cars) the resulting acid rain did an awful lot of damage to the environment of Northern Europe. Those communities were not compensated for that. The funding for what little remediation has happened has come from governments, not the fossil fuel industry. So the subsidy there is not being held to account for the costs you impose upon others, and the same argument applies to other impacts whether that's forestry and fishery impacts of acidification or particulates and NOx making people in cities sick, or the effects of climate change.
The cost of decomissionig the North Sea oil and gas infrastructure is also looking like it will get landed on the tax payers plate too.......Evanivitch said:
Max_Torque said:
The cost of decomissionig the North Sea oil and gas infrastructure is also looking like it will get landed on the tax payers plate too.......
Not surprising given the cost of filling South Wales open casts mines has also largely fallen to the tax payer.fblm said:
Evanivitch said:
Max_Torque said:
The cost of decomissionig the North Sea oil and gas infrastructure is also looking like it will get landed on the tax payers plate too.......
Not surprising given the cost of filling South Wales open casts mines has also largely fallen to the tax payer.Zed 44 said:
Maldini35 said:
fblm said:
DonkeyApple said:
160 years the majority of people in the West wore home made rags, never left their town or village and shat in holes in the ground at the end of a garden they didn’t own.
Sounds like France.
fblm said:
Evanivitch said:
Max_Torque said:
The cost of decomissionig the North Sea oil and gas infrastructure is also looking like it will get landed on the tax payers plate too.......
Not surprising given the cost of filling South Wales open casts mines has also largely fallen to the tax payer.Except a few businesses, and directors, like to bleed the business dry and then file dissolve the business at the end, removing all liability for restoring the land to community use. Leaving scars on the land that are unusable, polluted and in some cases deathtraps for adventurous teens.
A private car owner couldn't just dump their car at the side of the road and set fire to it. A private home owner can't leave their home crumble to the state it endangers the public. But a "dissolved" business with transferred to the British Virgin Islands can.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff