RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
Strangely Brown said:
dvs_dave said:
Strangely Brown said:
911hope said:
Strangely Brown said:
911hope said:
That's just a line that you have swallowed.
What is your thinking? What expertise did you apply while adopting your views.
Please be specific, otherwise you cannot be taken seriously.
There are well respected climate scientists who actually worked on the IPCC reports and have given plenty of details and reasoning but you [the royal you] dismiss them as shills, crackpots and conspiracy theorists so why the hell are you going to listen to me. You can choose to listen to people who know what they are talking about and actually wrote the bloody reports or you can listen to government "experts" through the media and hysterical activists.What is your thinking? What expertise did you apply while adopting your views.
Please be specific, otherwise you cannot be taken seriously.
You make your choice. I'll make mine.
Is that your position?
Did you come to that conclusion on your own, or did you just believe someone?
“I can’t provide any facts in support of my position, I just believe it to be true”
“It’s a conspiracy and all these sheeple are a part of it so I must double down on my efforts to lead them to truth salvation.”
dvs_dave said:
“I can’t provide any facts in support of my position, I just believe it to be true”
There are plenty of facts in the reports and presented by both the authors and others who have studied them. You could look at those if you were really interested.That said, it is not required to provide evidence in order to reject a proposition as the burden of proof is always on the person(s) making the claim. In the case of climate change the proposition is that we are facing imminent climate disaster. The data do not support that proposition and there is nothing in the IPCC reports that say anything about imminent disaster or any "tipping point" - That's according to the people that wrote them and have studied them. The claims are constructs from the summaries for policy makers used by politicians, amplified in the media and radicalised by activists. Therefore I reject the proposition.
Strangely Brown said:
You're missing the point. They might well pull out of the ICE in the UK and only sell EVs here, but the cars will still be made for other markets and if the political landscape changes in future then they could return.
I am pretty sure that the world is not going to look like you think it will in the future. The drive to Net-Zero is not going to play out like they think it will.
OPEC is cutting production to push the price of oil up, which is effectively shooting themselves in the foot because it will probably increase the sales of EV's. So no, the ICE engine won't be returning.I am pretty sure that the world is not going to look like you think it will in the future. The drive to Net-Zero is not going to play out like they think it will.
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/10/how-does-the-...
Strangely Brown said:
[
Why would I not want to hear what the authors of the reports, or the reports themselves, have to say...
Here is the summary for policymakers of the latest report.Why would I not want to hear what the authors of the reports, or the reports themselves, have to say...
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM...
It includes a list of authors.
Which of those authors disagree with which assertions?
Or do you mean that someone who contributed in the past and now works for the fossil fuel lobby disagrees with current research?
otolith said:
Here is the summary for policymakers of the latest report.
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM...
It includes a list of authors.
Which of those authors disagree with which assertions?
Or do you mean that someone who contributed in the past and now works for the fossil fuel lobby disagrees with current research?
It is difficult to understand why SB keeps pointing to the IPCC reports as evidence for his anti-climate-change stance. The IPCC reports are very clear that there is a serious problem that needs addressing.https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM...
It includes a list of authors.
Which of those authors disagree with which assertions?
Or do you mean that someone who contributed in the past and now works for the fossil fuel lobby disagrees with current research?
Clearly SB has not actually read this material and is being fooled by his crackpot influencers and he blindly believes them.
Perhaps he can counter this by pointing to some specific evidence..more likely that he will repeat the usual mantra and possibly vaguely point to the IPCC reports again.
Edited by 911hope on Tuesday 4th April 15:10
Strangely Brown said:
There are plenty of facts in the reports and presented by both the authors and others who have studied them. You could look at those if you were really interested.
That said, it is not required to provide evidence in order to reject a proposition as the burden of proof is always on the person(s) making the claim. In the case of climate change the proposition is that we are facing imminent climate disaster. The data do not support that proposition and there is nothing in the IPCC reports that say anything about imminent disaster or any "tipping point" - That's according to the people that wrote them and have studied them. The claims are constructs from the summaries for policy makers used by politicians, amplified in the media and radicalised by activists. Therefore I reject the proposition.
You have never read the IPCC reports, have you?That said, it is not required to provide evidence in order to reject a proposition as the burden of proof is always on the person(s) making the claim. In the case of climate change the proposition is that we are facing imminent climate disaster. The data do not support that proposition and there is nothing in the IPCC reports that say anything about imminent disaster or any "tipping point" - That's according to the people that wrote them and have studied them. The claims are constructs from the summaries for policy makers used by politicians, amplified in the media and radicalised by activists. Therefore I reject the proposition.
Strangely Brown said:
You're missing the point. They might well pull out of the ICE in the UK and only sell EVs here, but the cars will still be made for other markets and if the political landscape changes in future then they could return.
I am pretty sure that the world is not going to look like you think it will in the future. The drive to Net-Zero is not going to play out like they think it will.
once ICE car use hits a certain level, fuel stations will close. importing cars after that point may be possible, but re enabling the fuelling network probably not. I am pretty sure that the world is not going to look like you think it will in the future. The drive to Net-Zero is not going to play out like they think it will.
tamore said:
once ICE car use hits a certain level, fuel stations will close. importing cars after that point may be possible, but re enabling the fuelling network probably not.
Can i borrow your crystal ball please?We are a long way from tradional fuel being unavailable and based on the government plans for hydrogen roll out by 2035, you'll likely see tradional fuel stations diversify to provide current liquid and hydrogen for goods vehicles.
James6112 said:
2035
There will be many u-turns
Who knows where we’ll be then?
I wouldn’t let a fictional 2035 policy affect my decisions now!
Not for new cars there won't.There will be many u-turns
Who knows where we’ll be then?
I wouldn’t let a fictional 2035 policy affect my decisions now!
Most of the large European manufacturers are going to be fully electric or thereabouts long before then.
Skillsets for ICE specific elements are being retrained or redeployed now, not in 10 years time.
The die is already cast, I'm not sure what your vision of a u-turn is?
500TORQUES said:
tamore said:
once ICE car use hits a certain level, fuel stations will close. importing cars after that point may be possible, but re enabling the fuelling network probably not.
Can i borrow your crystal ball please?We are a long way from tradional fuel being unavailable and based on the government plans for hydrogen roll out by 2035, you'll likely see tradional fuel stations diversify to provide current liquid and hydrogen for goods vehicles.
i think it's as likely as the hydrogen refuelling wagons being drawn by teams of pink unicorns. that's what my shiny balls say anyway
Edited by tamore on Wednesday 5th April 07:35
500TORQUES said:
tamore said:
once ICE car use hits a certain level, fuel stations will close. importing cars after that point may be possible, but re enabling the fuelling network probably not.
Can i borrow your crystal ball please?We are a long way from tradional fuel being unavailable and based on the government plans for hydrogen roll out by 2035, you'll likely see tradional fuel stations diversify to provide current liquid and hydrogen for goods vehicles.
TheBinarySheep said:
Wow, BEV vehicles are 80% of new vehicle sales in Norway. I never knew that. It must be difficult to shift ICE vehicles there.
I wonder how fuel stations are copying as the demand for fuel must have dropped?
Should we be looking at Norway as an example of where things are going?
No.I wonder how fuel stations are copying as the demand for fuel must have dropped?
Should we be looking at Norway as an example of where things are going?
Norway taxes a LOT of imported things very heavily, and salaries there are massively inflated vs their peers in central Europe to compensate (nearly 40% higher avg wage than the UK, and higher even than Germany).
This set-up only works because Norway still has North Sea oil & gas, and because they invested nearly all of their profits from oil and gas into state funds which pay for a lot of the national infrastructure.
Note that:-
- Almost nothing else is made-in / exported-from Norway. It's massively uncompetitive. Without oil & gas they'd be bankrupt as a country.
- Prices for things are obscenely high. EVs are only popular because they don't attract such high taxes. Non-EVs are hit with a one-off purchase tax of close to £10k. And EVs (historically) have been exempt from 25% VAT and from the weight-based purchase fee that all cars have to pay.
(e.g. a 330d X-Drive in the UK is £47k before options. In Norway it's 720k kroner. A Tesla-3 Performance is £57k in the UK. In Norway it's 537k kroner. A 62% swing in pricing.)
SpeckledJim said:
500TORQUES said:
tamore said:
once ICE car use hits a certain level, fuel stations will close. importing cars after that point may be possible, but re enabling the fuelling network probably not.
Can i borrow your crystal ball please?We are a long way from tradional fuel being unavailable and based on the government plans for hydrogen roll out by 2035, you'll likely see tradional fuel stations diversify to provide current liquid and hydrogen for goods vehicles.
500TORQUES said:
SpeckledJim said:
500TORQUES said:
tamore said:
once ICE car use hits a certain level, fuel stations will close. importing cars after that point may be possible, but re enabling the fuelling network probably not.
Can i borrow your crystal ball please?We are a long way from tradional fuel being unavailable and based on the government plans for hydrogen roll out by 2035, you'll likely see tradional fuel stations diversify to provide current liquid and hydrogen for goods vehicles.
You own a petrol station. How many Toyota Mirais do you need to see driving past (or stranded at the side of the road) before you decide to invest a gigantic fortune in equipping your petrol station to sell hydrogen?
ETA: it seems that, rounding to the nearest 300 cars, there are zero (!) Toyota Mirai on the road in the UK. Are you going to buy one to help the project along?
https://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/?q=mirai&commit=...
Edited by SpeckledJim on Wednesday 5th April 21:15
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff