RE: All-electric Caterham Seven promised
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
otolith said:
So we just continue f
king up the climate then? That's your answer?
Let's be honest here, the real environmental answer is to not buy things that aren't needed. The actual issue is too much Western consumption but all the current solutions are based around maintaining the very excess consumption which is the root cause. The single most environmental act which central governments could do would be to limit consumer lending. king up the climate then? That's your answer?If we are going to be completely honest any form of Caterham product is manifestly part of the problem and can never be a part of any credible solution.
The larger picture - of how we decarbonise transport - has a variety of options of variable palatability depending on your politics.
Option 1 - ban or heavily restrict the manufacture and use of cars. Get everyone on the bus/bike/foot.
Option 2 - price large chunks of the population out of car ownership. In the short term you could do it by restricting credit, for as long as it takes the middle classes to get into the habit of saving their £300 a month and buying cash instead of paying a £300 lease. Then you're back to square one, except your whole vehicle fleet is older and more polluting that it would otherwise be, and you will have to go to the long term options which are either taxing the hell out of motoring so that only rich people can afford it or taxing the hell out of rich people so nobody can afford it.
Option 3 - transition the motoring fleet to lower carbon technology
In a democracy, only 3 is going to get you re-elected.
thewarlock said:
I'd have to disagree with that. Unless the definition of 'any credible solution' means that no-one can buy anything they don't absolutely need, we absolutely should be pushing to make things that are 'greener', less harmful to the planet.
It would be fairer to say that an existing ICE Caterham can never be part of any credible solution, than to make the same statement about an electric version, in my opinion.
Excess consumption is the root cause of excess human pollution. Shop less and you pollute less. It is actually that simple. Absolutely any form of Caterham falls into the bucket of objects that no one actually needs. Ergo, anything they sell is part of the problem regardless of whether it emits slightly less local pollution. It would be fairer to say that an existing ICE Caterham can never be part of any credible solution, than to make the same statement about an electric version, in my opinion.
As for overall pollution, given how few materials a Caterham uses and little it is actually used then the gains to be made by the switch to EV are somewhat infinitesimal.
DonkeyApple said:
Excess consumption is the root cause of excess human pollution. Shop less and you pollute less. It is actually that simple. Absolutely any form of Caterham falls into the bucket of objects that no one actually needs. Ergo, anything they sell is part of the problem regardless of whether it emits slightly less local pollution.
As for overall pollution, given how few materials a Caterham uses and little it is actually used then the gains to be made by the switch to EV are somewhat infinitesimal.
This feels like a bit of a contradiction.As for overall pollution, given how few materials a Caterham uses and little it is actually used then the gains to be made by the switch to EV are somewhat infinitesimal.
On one hand, no-one needs them, get rid (which as I said earlier, to me doesn't seem like a credible solution. No-one needs televisions, guitars, several computers (I'm just looking around my office here and naming things, but we're not going to get rid of them all, or stop replacing them)
But then you go on to say that actually, Caterhams aren't that bad, because they're so light, cheap, and don't consume much to keep them running.
Some people want the answer to be black, some want it to be white. It's always going to be grey.
thewarlock said:
DonkeyApple said:
Excess consumption is the root cause of excess human pollution. Shop less and you pollute less. It is actually that simple. Absolutely any form of Caterham falls into the bucket of objects that no one actually needs. Ergo, anything they sell is part of the problem regardless of whether it emits slightly less local pollution.
As for overall pollution, given how few materials a Caterham uses and little it is actually used then the gains to be made by the switch to EV are somewhat infinitesimal.
This feels like a bit of a contradiction.As for overall pollution, given how few materials a Caterham uses and little it is actually used then the gains to be made by the switch to EV are somewhat infinitesimal.
On one hand, no-one needs them, get rid (which as I said earlier, to me doesn't seem like a credible solution. No-one needs televisions, guitars, several computers (I'm just looking around my office here and naming things, but we're not going to get rid of them all, or stop replacing them)
But then you go on to say that actually, Caterhams aren't that bad, because they're so light, cheap, and don't consume much to keep them running.
Some people want the answer to be black, some want it to be white. It's always going to be grey.
Just like finding someone has left a s
t in your living room. That's a problem but how big of a problem depends on whether it is a firm log on the rug or slurry that's been blasted over the sofa. 
People just need to accept that when they buy something that they really don't need, it doesn't matter if that object has a sticker on it saying 'eco' they are contributing to the problem, never the solution.
DonkeyApple said:
An object can be part of the problem but not a relevant part. There's nothing grey about that.
Just like finding someone has left a st in your living room. That's a problem but how big of a problem depends on whether it is a firm log on the rug or slurry that's been blasted over the sofa.
People just need to accept that when they buy something that they really don't need, it doesn't matter if that object has a sticker on it saying 'eco' they are contributing to the problem, never the solution.
I don't disagree with any of that. Just your definition of what makes a solution 'credible'. It's my opinion that something like an electric Caterham, however unneccessary it may seem to some, can certainly be part of a credible solution.Just like finding someone has left a s
t in your living room. That's a problem but how big of a problem depends on whether it is a firm log on the rug or slurry that's been blasted over the sofa. People just need to accept that when they buy something that they really don't need, it doesn't matter if that object has a sticker on it saying 'eco' they are contributing to the problem, never the solution.
Well, I might possibly disagree with your first sentence. That's surely the definition of a grey area, something that's not a big part of the problem, but also isn't part of the solution.
Anyway, I'm dragging us into semantics, and I prefer debate and discussion to arguments, so I'll stop now!
Cheers.
DonkeyApple said:
People just need to accept that when they buy something that they really don't need, it doesn't matter if that object has a sticker on it saying 'eco' they are contributing to the problem, never the solution.
"Need" is a weasel word, though. You don't really "need" much at all. Certainly no more than a life on state benefits would provide. otolith said:
DonkeyApple said:
People just need to accept that when they buy something that they really don't need, it doesn't matter if that object has a sticker on it saying 'eco' they are contributing to the problem, never the solution.
"Need" is a weasel word, though. You don't really "need" much at all. Certainly no more than a life on state benefits would provide. otolith said:
DonkeyApple said:
People just need to accept that when they buy something that they really don't need, it doesn't matter if that object has a sticker on it saying 'eco' they are contributing to the problem, never the solution.
"Need" is a weasel word, though. You don't really "need" much at all. Certainly no more than a life on state benefits would provide. Is why communism never works - you can't change the human condition to keep wanting More Stuff. Plus even if our government did the probably most ecologically ethical thing and *did* start reducing lending, and increasing consumption taxes (hopefully progressively, so as not to stiff those well off disproportionately); doesn't deal with hundreds of millions of people in China and India who will shift to the middle classes in the near future, and will want a bit of that sweet sweet consumption themselves.
So - governments steering us toward more ecologically sound methods of still consuming seems like their only possible path to me. But if we could somehow get more incentive to channel all those incredible minds that build iPhones, and more and more sophisticated means to sell you Stuff pointed at the overall problem - i remain optimistic humans can solve anything if enough of them pointed at the problem.
Swanson's law for solar; big chimney things pointed at the sky chucking back whatever it is we've taken out of the atmosphere...... other clever things nobody has thought about; surely only really sustainable way to solve this is to seize on the human's inbuilt desire to get more Things, and make the next trillionaires those who are solving climate change with technology. Not delivery on the day parcels.
DonkeyApple said:
otolith said:
DonkeyApple said:
People just need to accept that when they buy something that they really don't need, it doesn't matter if that object has a sticker on it saying 'eco' they are contributing to the problem, never the solution.
"Need" is a weasel word, though. You don't really "need" much at all. Certainly no more than a life on state benefits would provide. I think it's a healthy exercise to weigh up what your wants are and what your needs are, and pretty much everything that you couldn't afford were you on the dole is a want.
otolith said:
cidered77 said:
So - governments steering us toward more ecologically sound methods of still consuming seems like their only possible path to me.
You can reduce pollution instantly by tightening consumer lending. For example, restrict car debt and you'd get an instant reduction in higher polluting cars being bought. But the government would see a fall in tax receipts, not just VAT but fuel. Hence why we have all the fudges to try and maintain the excess consumption.
otolith said:
Yeah - and they think that their arbitrary line delineating what fripperies they wouldn't care to give up is objectively correct and everyone else's is wrong.
I think it's a healthy exercise to weigh up what your wants are and what your needs are, and pretty much everything that you couldn't afford were you on the dole is a want.
Such a miserable outlook. I don’t believe anyone would think like that tbh. As for environmental damage, until certain parts of the globe tow the line it’s just pissing in the wind. I think it's a healthy exercise to weigh up what your wants are and what your needs are, and pretty much everything that you couldn't afford were you on the dole is a want.
DonkeyApple said:
otolith said:
cidered77 said:
So - governments steering us toward more ecologically sound methods of still consuming seems like their only possible path to me.
You can reduce pollution instantly by tightening consumer lending. For example, restrict car debt and you'd get an instant reduction in higher polluting cars being bought. But the government would see a fall in tax receipts, not just VAT but fuel. Hence why we have all the fudges to try and maintain the excess consumption.
ddom said:
otolith said:
Yeah - and they think that their arbitrary line delineating what fripperies they wouldn't care to give up is objectively correct and everyone else's is wrong.
I think it's a healthy exercise to weigh up what your wants are and what your needs are, and pretty much everything that you couldn't afford were you on the dole is a want.
Such a miserable outlook. I don’t believe anyone would think like that tbh. As for environmental damage, until certain parts of the globe tow the line it’s just pissing in the wind. I think it's a healthy exercise to weigh up what your wants are and what your needs are, and pretty much everything that you couldn't afford were you on the dole is a want.
I'm not saying one should give up the wants, by the way, merely that it is healthy to understand what they are and how immensely spoiled and privileged we middle class Westerners are.
otolith said:
DonkeyApple said:
otolith said:
cidered77 said:
So - governments steering us toward more ecologically sound methods of still consuming seems like their only possible path to me.
You can reduce pollution instantly by tightening consumer lending. For example, restrict car debt and you'd get an instant reduction in higher polluting cars being bought. But the government would see a fall in tax receipts, not just VAT but fuel. Hence why we have all the fudges to try and maintain the excess consumption.
The simple fact is that pollution falls when money supply falls. This is because excess consumption declines. Ergo, the quickest means to reduce excess pollution is to reduce excess money supply, ie consumer debt. The obvious problem being that Western economies today are built upon that excess.
ddom said:
Such a miserable outlook. I don’t believe anyone would think like that tbh. As for environmental damage, until certain parts of the globe tow the line it’s just pissing in the wind.
Yup, those terrible little third world chaps making all the tat that Westerners demand. . We, as a Western society must understand that we've reduced our pollution by outsourcing it to the third world. All those dirty factories in Asia filling the holds of ships with goods for us innocent chaps in the West and our little credit cards. All those terrible people ripping and digging up the planet for the materials to make the things we fill our homes with. otolith said:
Alternative - bury head in sand, accept that environmental catastrophe is unavoidable because nobody will do anything while they can see that other people aren't.
I'm not saying one should give up the wants, by the way, merely that it is healthy to understand what they are and how immensely spoiled and privileged we middle class Westerners are.
Sell your three cars then? I'm not saying one should give up the wants, by the way, merely that it is healthy to understand what they are and how immensely spoiled and privileged we middle class Westerners are.
ddom said:
otolith said:
Alternative - bury head in sand, accept that environmental catastrophe is unavoidable because nobody will do anything while they can see that other people aren't.
I'm not saying one should give up the wants, by the way, merely that it is healthy to understand what they are and how immensely spoiled and privileged we middle class Westerners are.
Sell your three cars then? I'm not saying one should give up the wants, by the way, merely that it is healthy to understand what they are and how immensely spoiled and privileged we middle class Westerners are.
The point is, yes, those are luxuries. I'm not in denial about that. I'm about to spend several hundred quid fitting a few grand's worth of supercharger to the Elise, which will make a car already unnecessarily quick somewhat quicker and somewhat more thirsty. This is utterly unnecessary. This is a luxury. This is me being a man-child and spending my money on toys I don't need.
Unlike some, I'm not crying because the grown-ups have said that this is going to have to come to an end.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff