RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed

[NomduJour]

Nomme de Plum said:

Back on topic ICEs generate emissions that cause actual and permanent harm to all exposed to it and particular the impact on the developing brains of children is now evidenced as being highly deleterious. I trust you consider that much like smoking bans this knowledge has to be acted upon.

Population is really for a different thread, but the developed nations aren’t the issue.

As for ICE - London is now one of the most (deliberately) congested cities in the world, and we are constantly lied to about London’s “toxic” air. The reality is that banning every bit of road traffic tomorrow would barely register on its levels of pollution (we only need to look at figures from the lockdowns for real-life confirmation) - it’s a far more complicated issue (and there isn’t even any real higher-level consensus on which forms of pollution should be focused on, nor at what level - see recent wild changes in WHO “guidelines”).

[Nomme de Plum]

Soupdragon65 said:

Having experienced the joys of quiet, stink less motoring I have to agree.

There’s a place for full on sensory overload on track, but on the public road, quiet is better, for everybody.

Do you drive around with your windows down and the stereo in full blast as well?

Edited by Soupdragon65 on Wednesday 22 March 13:19

I've done many a track day in my modified S1 Exige and owned a few TVRs as well but now accept the health price is too high now we know better.

It's actually much less stressful driving a quiet car and not have the stereo fight against engine noise.

ICEs are not even banned and will still be available to drive at least 2 decades hence.

I suspect most anti EV people have no experience of them and resistance is pure prejudice.

[SpeckledJim]

NomduJour said:

SpeckledJim said:

Literally millions of us can happily use an EV as-of today. and the benefits have been covered extensively in this thread.

You don't want one. That's absolutely fine. You don't have to have one. Huge relief for you, I'm sure.

Yes, I could use an EV in town - if I wanted to buy an additional car. Otherwise there isn’t currently one that fits my requirements - hopefully there will have been huge advances in battery technology and infrastructure by the time governments are taxing internal combustion out of existence, or the project will fail. Still won’t get excited by electric cars, though.

Just keep your ICE. It'll see you through to 2050 at least, and then you can get a Jetsons Jet-Pack.

[bigothunter]

Nomme de Plum said:

NomduJour said:

I’m not a politician, I’m not forcing anything to be “accomplished”.
Do you believe current levels of world population growth are sustainable?
What do you believe banning internal combustion engines will achieve? Are you sure you want to stop there?

Please remind us what is the rate of world population growth?

Have you looked at the work of the late Hans Rosling? Several decades ago he was projecting that the global population would max out at 11bn. In fact latest projections are around 10.3bn.

Even China has a birth rate that is seeing a population decrease of circa -2% per annum. Most western and developed nations are the similar.

We have an ageing population issue and that ratio is getting seriously unsustainable.

Back on topic ICEs generate emissions that cause actual and permanent harm to all exposed to it and particular the impact on the developing brains of children is now evidenced as being highly deleterious. I trust you consider that much like smoking bans this knowledge has to be acted upon.

World population has grown by almost 15 million in 2023 alone. In recent years, annual population increase is around 83 million. Considerably more than UK population of 66 million, in growth alone every year.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Edited by bigothunter on Wednesday 22 March 13:46

[Nomme de Plum]

NomduJour said:

Population is really for a different thread, but the developed nations aren’t the issue.

As for ICE - London is now one of the most (deliberately) congested cities in the world, and we are constantly lied to about London’s “toxic” air. The reality is that banning every bit of road traffic tomorrow would barely register on its levels of pollution (we only need to look at figures from the lockdowns for real-life confirmation) - it’s a far more complicated issue (and there isn’t even any real higher-level consensus on which forms of pollution should be focused on, nor at what level - see recent wild changes in WHO “guidelines”).

London has been majorly congested for as long as I worked and/or lived there (circa 40 years).

De-toxifying our cities air will not happen overnight, maybe in twenty years time we will get there. We rightly banned smoking in certain places which has had a significant health benefit. In principle this is little different.

[Nomme de Plum]

bigothunter said:

World population has grown by almost 15 million in 2023 alone. In recent years, annual population increase is around 83 million. Considerably more that UK population of 66 million, in growth alone every year.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

We will still max out at a little over 10bn.

Hardly overcrowded is it?

If current trajectories continue after we hit the peak then population will then decline over subsequent decades.

Even the UK has plenty of space. Less than 10% is actually developed.

[NomduJour]

Nomme de Plum said:

London has been majorly congested for as long as I worked and/or lived there (circa 40 years).

De-toxifying our cities air will not happen overnight, maybe in twenty years time we will get there. We rightly banned smoking in certain places which has had a significant health benefit. In principle this is little different.

Driving in London is immeasurably worse than it was even five or ten years ago - just because something was bad once doesn’t justify deliberately making it worse.

How are you going to “de-toxify” London? We know that banning cars won’t do it. How do you propose to deal with background levels of pollution? Fine the Europeans, or the prevailing winds, or the trees, or the natural topography? All of them?

Comparisons with an indoor smoking ban are pretty ridiculous.

[GT9]

ITP said:

otolith said:

But they're not mandating replacing classics with EVs, they're mandating new cars, in the future.

That’s true. It’s the way forward for people who have no interest in EV’s.

We’ll see what happens though with the proliferation of cameras that can ‘potentially’ be used to punitively price you out of actually driving it a few thousand miles a year.

I don't have a lot of time for those arguing for the continuation of production of diesel cars, if the ban was just on that fuel for cars, I'd be ok with that.
It is understandable though that it includes petrol, and I see it as a painful but necessary evil to get the diesel ban through.
As other have said, it focuses the mind.
I don't think there will a be shortage of petrol cars for several decades.
The only people who will miss out are those who want a new petrol car.
Are petrol cars post 2030, in general, going to be any better than what's already on the road or going to be sold over the next 7 years?
If it's just about the shiny, shiny, that's hardly a loss is it?

[Strangely Brown]

Used market might not go the way that people think as quickly as some may like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4l4PbwB8i8

[NomduJour]

GT9 said:

I don't have a lot of time for those arguing for the continuation of production of diesel cars, if the ban was just on that fuel for cars, I'd be ok with that.

Which pollutants, and at which levels, do you think warrant a Euro 6 diesel being banned? Is it the real-life emissions of nitrogen dioxides?

[otolith]

NomduJour said:

otolith said:

NomduJour said:

I think you’re putting more faith in governments than EV engineers.

What is it that you think will be the limiting factor?

For a lot of people who can afford to swap, it will just mean installing or finding chargers; for others it’s going to mean a pretty major change in how they use their cars and run their lives. For anyone who, for whatever reasons of use or location, needs to continue with an ICE vehicle, they are inevitably going to be crucified by the government before infrastructure or battery technology bridges the gap.

To be honest, given the length of lead time, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for anyone who will still have an ICE car dependent lifestyle or business model by 2040.

[bigothunter]

Nomme de Plum said:

We will still max out at a little over 10bn.

Hardly overcrowded is it?

If current trajectories continue after we hit the peak then population will then decline over subsequent decades.

Even the UK has plenty of space. Less than 10% is actually developed.

UK feels overcrowded to me. Poor state of our infrastructure and services endorses that opinion.

[NomduJour]

otolith said:

To be honest, given the length of lead time, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for anyone who will still have an ICE car dependent lifestyle or business model by 2040.

Why? It’s not about pollution, so what is it about?

[Strangely Brown]

bigothunter said:

Nomme de Plum said:

We will still max out at a little over 10bn.

Hardly overcrowded is it?

If current trajectories continue after we hit the peak then population will then decline over subsequent decades.

Even the UK has plenty of space. Less than 10% is actually developed.

UK feels overcrowded to me. Poor state of our infrastructure and services endorses that opinion.

For the South East that is definitely true. Constant building and expansion of towns yet no associated infrastructure to support it.

To paraphrase Mr Creosote... fk Off, we're full.

[havoc]

SpeckledJim said:

NomduJour said:

SpeckledJim said:

But sadly, reality bites.

If that’s the attitude, then I’d suggest a concerted effort to reduce population growth, rather pretending that forcing people into expensive vehicles that don’t necessarily fit their needs is going to change anything.

Right. That's a more reasonable, less dramatic solution, is it?

I want an Audi A4, so you can't have children.

No, but how about

"There are too many people on this planet already - we cannot sustain resource consumption even with the current global split of haves:have-nots. Unless you want your lifestyle (and that of your descendants) in future to be massively curtailed, we need to reduce the population."

...and maybe THAT message NEEDS to go to the Asian and African nations (and the USA, bizarrely enough) who continue to pop out sprogs by the handful as if it was still 100 years ago and child mortality was a major problem.

Frankly, all this debate over EV vs ICE is rather missing the fundamental point that if we don't get a handle on several other factors, private vehicle emissions aren't going to save or kill the planet on their own...
- Population growth
- Red meat consumption
- Power generation (why the **** are we not building nuclear power plants everywhere?)
- Industrial pollution
- Shipping & aviation pollution
- Global trade and cheap tat
- Overfarming (with regard to sustainable generation of food close to home, avoidance of flooding stripping valuable top-soil, deforestation etc.)
- Overfishing (with the consequent impact on phytoplankton, the biggest carbon sink on the planet, and our ability to continually feed the 8 billion fkers on this planet)



(Besides which, no-one actually WANTS an A4. RS4 maybe, but an A4? Far too many 'modern-soulless-rep-clone' vibes going on... )

[havoc]

Nomme de Plum said:

Possibly you like a noisy car. Many people would prefer not to have such noise imposed on them.

I suspect most people would point to bikes (esp. those annoying little farty things with no exhaust that teenagers ride around on) as being a bigger problem than cars.

...and yet bikes aren't being addressed by any of this...

Nomme de Plum said:

I've done many a track day in my modified S1 Exige and owned a few TVRs as well but now accept the health price is too high now we know better.

AKA "I've had my fun and now I want to stop people being able to enjoy what I enjoyed"

The 'health price' of a modern petrol engine with catalytic converters is negligible. Ironically, GPFs, DI and modern high-temp combustion have made it a little worse by increasing NOx. But the cars you describe, as long as they weren't overfuelling, gave off little that would cause a health issue. Far, far less than the diesel taxi or bus that drives through town all day, every day...

Edited by havoc on Wednesday 22 March 14:13

[Nomme de Plum]

NomduJour said:

Driving in London is immeasurably worse than it was even five or ten years ago - just because something was bad once doesn’t justify deliberately making it worse.

How are you going to “de-toxify” London? We know that banning cars won’t do it. How do you propose to deal with background levels of pollution? Fine the Europeans, or the prevailing winds, or the trees, or the natural topography? All of them?

Comparisons with an indoor smoking ban are pretty ridiculous.

As I recall the average traffic speed in London is about 8mph and has been the same for as long as I can remember. Do you have a link that can evidence your anecdotal position?

How do you know what will happen? You can speculate all you want. I said probably 20 years so all polluting trucks taxis etc are removed. Buses will need to be free from emission also.

We learned that smoking not only impacted the smoker but others as well. We now know vehicle emissions causes health problems for all in the area.

I did not say it was the same as indoor smoking did I or even analogous to but we are now more knowledgeable as to the impacts of emissions and therefore are taking action. This is the principle of action after an impact becomes known so hardly ridiculous.

[GT9]

NomduJour said:

GT9 said:

I don't have a lot of time for those arguing for the continuation of production of diesel cars, if the ban was just on that fuel for cars, I'd be ok with that.

Which pollutants, and at which levels, do you think warrant a Euro 6 diesel being banned? Is it the real-life emissions of nitrogen dioxides?

Half of all UK cars are diesel.
And so are all the trucks and buses.
Two thirds of all fuel consumed is therefore diesel.
Replacing all the diesel cars with EV will go further than any alternative single step to address CO2, particulates and NOx all at once.
Real life emissions of diesels is indeed the issue, they don't get looked after very well, and when they go bad, they go bad badly.

[otolith]

NomduJour said:

Population is really for a different thread, but the developed nations aren’t the issue.

Right now, they very much are. The reductions in emissions will have to come from the developed nations (and I'm including China in that) because they currently have most scope to do so and are responsible for most of the current and historical emissions. The places with rapidly growing populations (principally sub-Saharan Africa) are dirt poor and don't emit much per capita or indeed in total.



We do have a coming problem of that poorest 50% wanting a better life, and we're going to have to help them get that without emitting more CO2, but it's that richest 10% who are emitting half the CO2 who are the current problem.

[Nomme de Plum]

bigothunter said:

UK feels overcrowded to me. Poor state of our infrastructure and services endorses that opinion.

Two completely different issues aren't they.

I used to live in or around London for many years but could be in accessible countryside within a 30 mins or less.

I now live by the coast but near the most densly populated city in the UK. Yet we can walk to the beach and around the harbour. I can walk in the South downs and not see another person for hours.

So I disagree that we are crowded nation.