RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed

[DonkeyApple]

havoc said:

DonkeyApple said:

Our two largest carbon sources are cars and the burning of nat gas.

24% Transport
21% Energy Supply
16% Residential

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport...

Ahem, "Transport" includes shipping, aviation, (non-electrified) rail and freight.

I'll wager 'cars' is the biggest individual source of CO2 (although aviation may yet prove to be the bigger GW problem), but if you add in other pollutants - NOx, sulphur, CO, etc, then all those dirt(ier) diesels and the god-awful fuel that shipping use step forwards quite a long way.

Let's not do the propagandists work for them by claiming cars are the source of all transport emissions, eh?

But surely the propaganda is to try and skew the actual data with stuff about shipping and aviation where the pollution isn't produced in the U.K.?

How do you account for that pollution?

This is a discussion about 2050 net zero so what is their relevance in that regard? Well close to none. Whether that is right or wrong is wide open for debate but as far as legal net zero targets are concerned the U.K. has outsourced nearly all of its industrial pollution overseas, has next to no shipping related pollution and even aviation only includes the element where the plane is within U.K. airspace.

It's not propaganda, it's simply discussing the laws that have been set and where the U.K. is set to benefit.

As for private cars, was it just our imagination how last year people were complaining about the cost of petrol? Is it may imagination that people are not thoroughly enjoying their hearing bills?

It strikes me as a little bit daft if someone doesn't like high petrol prices and high heating prices but then doesn't like the removal of the too primary drivers of such huge costs that next generations tax payers have been forced to bail out the current generation's profligate excess living?

Surely the propaganda emanates from the greedy adults living way beyond their means and demanding that those not yet born pay their tab off? If you met one of those people in your pub running up a tab that they expected your children to pay off then you'd think they were total filth yet when it's millions of people all doing it and sanctioned by the govt it's somehow righteous?

Now, if you noticed, I did say 'forget the eco angle' in the post above.

[donkmeister]

NMNeil said:

It seems that the Germans stamping their feet has resulted in them getting their way, but now the Italians want to expand the exemption for e-fuels to include bio fuels.

What?? Nations in the EU pushing for legislation to be amended to avoid upsetting the people who donate to political parties back home?!

Has anyone told Ursula vdL that this sort of thing is happening?!?!

[Pan Pan Pan]

havoc said:

DonkeyApple said:

Our two largest carbon sources are cars and the burning of nat gas.

24% Transport
21% Energy Supply
16% Residential

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport...

Ahem, "Transport" includes shipping, aviation, (non-electrified) rail and freight.

I'll wager 'cars' is the biggest individual source of CO2 (although aviation may yet prove to be the bigger GW problem), but if you add in other pollutants - NOx, sulphur, CO, etc, then all those dirt(ier) diesels and the god-awful fuel that shipping use step forwards quite a long way.


Let's not do the propagandists work for them by claiming cars are the source of all transport emissions, eh?

The CO2 emissions coming directly from global computer manufacture and use, exceed those coming directly from global aviation manufacture and use, Does this mean we will all have to give up using our computers to `save the planet?'
What the eco loons love doing, is to focus on the things `they' dont like, such as private cars, whilst ignoring other issues, which are a far greater problem for the planet, like the fact that we are adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting numbers of MAN (The very thing that the eco loons keep telling us is destroying the planet and its climate) at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY.
That is the equivalent of discovering, and shouting about the smoke coming from a from a `fire'. but doing, and saying nothing about the fact that we are adding hundreds of thousands more gallons of fuel to the `fire', and even worse wondering why that `fire' is getting worse and not better.

[GT9]

Pan Pan Pan said:

The CO2 emissions coming directly from global computer manufacture and use, exceed those coming directly from global aviation manufacture and use, Does this mean we will all have to give up using our computers to `save the planet?'
What the eco loons love doing, is to focus on the things `they' dont like, such as private cars, whilst ignoring other issues, which are a far greater problem for the planet, like the fact that we are adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting numbers of MAN (The very thing that the eco loons keep telling us is destroying the planet and its climate) at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY.
That is the equivalent of discovering, and shouting about the smoke coming from a from a `fire'. but doing, and saying nothing about the fact that we are adding hundreds of thousands more gallons of fuel to the `fire', and even worse wondering why that `fire' is getting worse and not better.

A few day go you were getting very animated because you thought that EVs consume more energy than ICEs, simply because they are heavier, which suggests you do care which type of car has less environment impact.

Now that you've learnt how regenerative braking works and that EVs have a vastly lower lifetime energy/carbon footprint due to their high efficiency, it no longer matters, and it's all about computers.

Yet everyone else is either an ecoloon or a zealot....

[911hope]

GT9 said:

A few day go you were getting very animated because you thought that EVs consume more energy than ICEs, simply because they are heavier, which suggests you do care which type of car has less environment impact.

Now that you've learnt how regenerative braking works and that EVs have a vastly lower lifetime energy/carbon footprint due to their high efficiency, it no longer matters, and it's all about computers.

Yet everyone else is either an ecoloon or a zealot....

The climate change deniers find it important to give the enemy a name. That way they can keep spouting it repeatedly amongst their nonsensical content.

It is a technique used by trump amongst others.

[500TORQUES]

SpeckledJim said:

What are you suggesting? Should we invade?

Become the 51st state would be more sensible. Europe is dying.

[bigothunter]

911hope said:

The climate change deniers find it important to give the enemy a name. That way they can keep spouting it repeatedly amongst their nonsensical content.

It is a technique used by trump amongst others.

Is questioning climate change 'facts' permissible? Or would that be heresy?

[otolith]

[havoc]

DonkeyApple said:

havoc said:

DonkeyApple said:

Our two largest carbon sources are cars and the burning of nat gas.

24% Transport
21% Energy Supply
16% Residential

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport...

Ahem, "Transport" includes shipping, aviation, (non-electrified) rail and freight.

I'll wager 'cars' is the biggest individual source of CO2 (although aviation may yet prove to be the bigger GW problem), but if you add in other pollutants - NOx, sulphur, CO, etc, then all those dirt(ier) diesels and the god-awful fuel that shipping use step forwards quite a long way.

Let's not do the propagandists work for them by claiming cars are the source of all transport emissions, eh?

But surely the propaganda is to try and skew the actual data with stuff about shipping and aviation where the pollution isn't produced in the U.K.?

How do you account for that pollution?

That wasn't the debate. You said CARS (note the bold above) were one of our two largest sources of CO2, then proceeded to provide a statistic that showed nothing of the sort. I won't argue with facts, but I will argue with mis-used statistics.


As for 'produced in the UK', I'd argue that any flight or passenger-ferry/cruise trip that originates in the UK is part of our pollution, while any sea- (or air-) freight trip that ends in the UK should be part of our pollution. I doubt the stats work that way, but it'd make sense.

[Pepperpots]

911hope said:

But the physics of climate change are undeniable, to reasonable people.

So... larger and larger parts of the globe will become uninhabitable. Those people are going to migrate to those regions which are not.
.

I'm a reasonable person and I think it's a load of guff.

[Nomme de Plum]

Pepperpots said:

911hope said:

But the physics of climate change are undeniable, to reasonable people.

So... larger and larger parts of the globe will become uninhabitable. Those people are going to migrate to those regions which are not.
.

I'm a reasonable person and I think it's a load of guff.

On what do you base your position?

[Strangely Brown]

911hope said:

But the physics of climate change are undeniable, to reasonable people.

Which is why it is so sad that by the time it reaches the general public the science has been distorted into "The Science™" and used for political ends rather than education. What the public are being fed does not match the actual data.

They're called facts. You don't have to like them.

You don't have to like Peterson but you should probably listen to Lindzen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LVSrTZDopM

Then, once you have dismissed him you can look at Koonin and dismiss him too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reaABJ5HpLk

Edited by Strangely Brown on Sunday 26th March 15:54

[DonkeyApple]

donkmeister said:

NMNeil said:

It seems that the Germans stamping their feet has resulted in them getting their way, but now the Italians want to expand the exemption for e-fuels to include bio fuels.

What?? Nations in the EU pushing for legislation to be amended to avoid upsetting the people who donate to political parties back home?!

Has anyone told Ursula vdL that this sort of thing is happening?!?!

Indeed. The peasants have spoken and they want us to all drive Bentleys, Lambos and Ferraris. They're top chaps. Very selfless of them to take the hit on EVs and let a handful of PHers keep driving the fun stuff.

[Pepperpots]

Nomme de Plum said:

Pepperpots said:

911hope said:

But the physics of climate change are undeniable, to reasonable people.

So... larger and larger parts of the globe will become uninhabitable. Those people are going to migrate to those regions which are not.
.

I'm a reasonable person and I think it's a load of guff.

On what do you base your position?

Since graduating with an environmental science degree in 1997 I have kept an eye on various environmental issues and the reporting has highlighted a lot of legitimate concerns. However, the issue of 'global warming', now 'climate change' has become such a political football, a vote winner and the reporting and data that's been presented has been so distorted and corrupted because funding/votes that I just don't believe a word. None of it.
Just watch some of the crap that the BBC climate editor comes out with. Shameful, 'tax' funded dross. Even the reporters who introduce him can't keep a straight face, it's laughable. But it keeps the little people all glassy eyed I suppose.

Then people come along and say things like 'only reasonable people would believe' as if those that are sceptical are unreasonable? The insults will start, the belittling crap and the comparisons with certain voter types or angry white men with red faces, ad infinitum. Or they'll just say I'm 'thick'.

Well, good luck believing what you want, I respect your opinion. It's nuts but it's your nuts.

Peace.

Edited by Pepperpots on Sunday 26th March 17:03

[swisstoni]

Well this is awkward. Someone with a degree in environmental science not convinced.

[911hope]

swisstoni said:

Well this is awkward. Someone with a degree in environmental science not convinced.

Yet dispute this claimed qualification, there is no actual substance to the post.

You really would expect a scientist to have something concrete to say, would you not?

[Strangely Brown]

911hope said:

swisstoni said:

Well this is awkward. Someone with a degree in environmental science not convinced.

Yet dispute this claimed qualification, there is no actual substance to the post.

You really would expect a scientist to have something concrete to say, would you not?

As if by magic...

It would be sad if it wasn't so laughable.

FTAOD: I refer to the insult by 911hope that was so clearly predicted by Pepperpots.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Sunday 26th March 17:54

[Pepperpots]

Here we go...

[500TORQUES]

911hope said:

Yet dispute this claimed qualification, there is no actual substance to the post.

You really would expect a scientist to have something concrete to say, would you not?

What's more concrete than saying the public domain narrative is political and financial spin of the science.

We all know thats always been the situation where power and money is more important than anything else. If you really do think CO2 will be the end of us, then you have already lost, despite all the COP meetings bugger all really changes, it only does if there is money to be made.

We always lurch from one big issue to the next, in my lifetime it's been the cold war, the coming ice age, the coming global warming, acid rain, the ozone layer, the energy crisis, famine in Africa, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the Iran revolution, Iraq war, Afghanistan war, Ukraine war, Falklands war, the poll tax, aids, covid, zeka, butter mountains, too hot in 76 for water supplies, too wet now for the infrastructure, usually due to some fkwit stopping dredging to save a toad.......

[911hope]

Strangely Brown said:

Which is why it is so sad that by the time it reaches the general public the science has been distorted into "The Science™" and used for political ends rather than education. What the public are being fed does not match the actual data.

They're called facts. You don't have to like them.

You don't have to like Peterson but you should probably listen to Lindzen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LVSrTZDopM

Then, once you have dismissed him you can look at Koonin and dismiss him too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reaABJ5HpLk

Edited by Strangely Brown on Sunday 26th March 15:54

You are right to suggest dismissing these people.

I am surprised that you can only come up with 2 deniers, as the list is so long (even though 97% of climate scientists are in the global warming camp)

While they are on the denial side, what they are really doing is trying to make a living out of appealing to actual deniers, who don't understand anything. Those folks buy their books (if they can read) and watch their waffly videos on youtube. They are after your money.

As an example, do you believe Lidzen's "clouds will save us theory"? Why? What evidence?