RE: Uncertainty over EU ICE ban resolved
Discussion
Hill92 said:
Can new M3s or C63s still be created without the hundreds of thousands of 318is and C180s to amortise 3 Series/C series development, supply chain and production costs across?
Sure. Like, for example, the MST Metro 6R4.£300K.
Too expensive? How about their Mk1 Escort? Starting at £100K.
Zumbruk said:
Wab1974uk said:
It's coming. See the WEF Agenda 2030. There will be no meat. Not for us plebs anyway. Holland is trying to close down 3000 food producing farms. All in the name of climate change. They have been protesting in Holland for months.
New UK subsidies to farms will pay them `NOT` to produce food. They are trying to create food shortages. But worry not. Bill Gates is heavily invested in lab produced meat. Tasty.
https://tvpworld.com/64801898/netherlands-to-buy-u...
Could you do us all a favour and pNew UK subsidies to farms will pay them `NOT` to produce food. They are trying to create food shortages. But worry not. Bill Gates is heavily invested in lab produced meat. Tasty.
https://tvpworld.com/64801898/netherlands-to-buy-u...
s off to the "Conspiracy theorists are a bit thick" thread, please?If you took the time to read & watch things not from the MSM, who are heavily sponsored by certain individuals / companies, you might, just might take your head out your ar*e enough to see it's actually facts.
This is why we'll end up with digital ID, digital currency, carbon credits, social credit score, 15 minute cities etc. Because when people like me point out facts, that they literally producing legislation to push it through, people like you prefer to point and laugh rather than looking to see if it's true or not.
Stay asleep. It might make climate change go away !
Wab1974uk said:
I would if they were actual conspiracy theories.
If you took the time to read & watch things not from the MSM, who are heavily sponsored by certain individuals / companies, you might, just might take your head out your ar*e enough to see it's actually facts.
This is why we'll end up with digital ID, digital currency, carbon credits, social credit score, 15 minute cities etc. Because when people like me point out facts, that they literally producing legislation to push it through, people like you prefer to point and laugh rather than looking to see if it's true or not.
Stay asleep. It might make climate change go away !
I think your idea of facts does not quite align with actual facts.If you took the time to read & watch things not from the MSM, who are heavily sponsored by certain individuals / companies, you might, just might take your head out your ar*e enough to see it's actually facts.
This is why we'll end up with digital ID, digital currency, carbon credits, social credit score, 15 minute cities etc. Because when people like me point out facts, that they literally producing legislation to push it through, people like you prefer to point and laugh rather than looking to see if it's true or not.
Stay asleep. It might make climate change go away !
I'm content to live with the facts as I research and understand them.
Unless you can evidence your position then i have no interest in further discussion with you.
Btw I like Digital I.D its really useful in my other country.
Mr Fix It said:
That is way out of date. In 2022 CO2 emissions were, in millions of tons..............
China...................................12466
USA.......................................4752
EU.........................................2774
India......................................2648
Some other countries
Japan....................................1084
Germany.................................665
Canada...................................563
South Africa...........................435
UK..........................................335
The UK's emissions continue to fall significantly, whilst China and India continue to increase theirs sharply. China has quintupled its emissions in the last thirty years and India nearly the same and they have no intention of stopping the increases any time soon. China says it will 'look' at the position in 2030 and India says 'get back to us in 2070!'
The UK has reduced its emissions by 43% in the last thirty years pretty well unmatched in the world.
Edited by Tigger2050 on Wednesday 29th March 15:52
Tigger2050 said:
That is way out of date. In 2022 CO2 emissions were, in millions of tons..............
China...................................12466
USA.......................................4752
EU.........................................2774
India......................................2648
Some other countries
Japan....................................1084
Germany.................................665
Canada...................................563
South Africa...........................435
UK..........................................335
The UK's emissions continue to fall significantly, whilst China and India continue to increase theirs sharply and have no intention of stopping the increases any time soon. China says it will 'look' at the position in 2030 and India says 'get back to us in 2070!'
It's kinda irrelevant though. A population 1.4bn is always going to produce way more Co2 than 68M.China...................................12466
USA.......................................4752
EU.........................................2774
India......................................2648
Some other countries
Japan....................................1084
Germany.................................665
Canada...................................563
South Africa...........................435
UK..........................................335
The UK's emissions continue to fall significantly, whilst China and India continue to increase theirs sharply and have no intention of stopping the increases any time soon. China says it will 'look' at the position in 2030 and India says 'get back to us in 2070!'
Co2 emission per person is a more sensible metric.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-em...
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Wednesday 29th March 15:55
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Wednesday 29th March 15:58
Tigger2050 said:
That is way out of date. In 2022 CO2 emissions were, in millions of tons..............
China...................................12466
USA.......................................4752
EU.........................................2774
India......................................2648
Some other countries
Japan....................................1084
Germany.................................665
Canada...................................563
South Africa...........................435
UK..........................................335
The UK's emissions continue to fall significantly, whilst China and India continue to increase theirs sharply. China has quintupled its emissions in the last thirty years and India nearly the same and they have no intention of stopping the increases any time soon. China says it will 'look' at the position in 2030 and India says 'get back to us in 2070!'
The UK has reduced its emissions by 43% in the last thirty years pretty well unmatched in the world.
The UK has done very well indeed but we still produce 3 x the Co2 per person compared to India.China...................................12466
USA.......................................4752
EU.........................................2774
India......................................2648
Some other countries
Japan....................................1084
Germany.................................665
Canada...................................563
South Africa...........................435
UK..........................................335
The UK's emissions continue to fall significantly, whilst China and India continue to increase theirs sharply. China has quintupled its emissions in the last thirty years and India nearly the same and they have no intention of stopping the increases any time soon. China says it will 'look' at the position in 2030 and India says 'get back to us in 2070!'
The UK has reduced its emissions by 43% in the last thirty years pretty well unmatched in the world.
Edited by Tigger2050 on Wednesday 29th March 15:52
USA is a highly populous laggard and not doing well at all.
Nomme de Plum said:
It's kinda irrelevant though. A population 1.4bn is always going to produce way more Co2 than 68M.
Co2 emission per person is a more sensible metric.
Those emission figures are from 2016. Since then China has increased them by another 20% whilst the UK has further reduced its by another 10%.Co2 emission per person is a more sensible metric.
Since China's per person emissions are already way more than the UK's, Your point is what? India will catch up to the UK's per capita emissions quite soon at the rate it is increasing. It is going full out for coal power, opening up as many new coal mines as it can and ordering its existing mines to increase production to the maximum possible. It is also massively increasing its coal imports.
Edited by Tigger2050 on Wednesday 29th March 16:24
Tigger2050 said:
Nomme de Plum said:
It's kinda irrelevant though. A population 1.4bn is always going to produce way more Co2 than 68M.
Co2 emission per person is a more sensible metric.
Since China's per person emissions are already way more than the UK's, Your point is what? India will catch up to the UK's per capita emissions quite soon at the rate it is increasing. It is going full out for coal power, opening up as many new coal mines as it can and ordering its existing mines to increase production to the maximum possible. It is also massively increasing its coal imports.Co2 emission per person is a more sensible metric.
Yes I agree we need to watch China as due to their population they will have a major impact.
The UK has a major opportunity to grow our GDP from sustainable energy development/technology.
It also has the benefit of making us less reliant on imported energy.
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Wednesday 29th March 16:10
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Wednesday 29th March 16:11
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Wednesday 29th March 16:13
Tigger2050 said:
Those emission figures are from 2016. Since then China as increased them by another 20% whilst the UK as further reduced its by another 10%.
Since China's per person emissions are already way more than the UK's, Your point is what? India will catch up to the UK's per capita emissions quite soon at the rate it is increasing. It is going full out for coal power, opening up as many new coal mines as it can and ordering its existing mines to increase production to the maximum possible. It is also massively increasing its coal imports.
My point is the measure should be per person. Then we should monitor nations accordingly.Since China's per person emissions are already way more than the UK's, Your point is what? India will catch up to the UK's per capita emissions quite soon at the rate it is increasing. It is going full out for coal power, opening up as many new coal mines as it can and ordering its existing mines to increase production to the maximum possible. It is also massively increasing its coal imports.
Edited by Tigger2050 on Wednesday 29th March 16:08
That is not to say we should not improve just because others are performing poorly or just less well than us.
How will you account for all the manufacturing and consequent Co2 that China, India and other countries do on our behalf?
It is very easy to criticise say China when in fact we just shipped our dirty production over there because it is cheap.
Complicated isn't it?
Tigger2050 said:
Those emission figures are from 2016. Since then China as increased them by another 20% whilst the UK as further reduced its by another 10%.
Since China's per person emissions are already way more than the UK's, Your point is what? India will catch up to the UK's per capita emissions quite soon at the rate it is increasing. It is going full out for coal power, opening up as many new coal mines as it can and ordering its existing mines to increase production to the maximum possible. It is also massively increasing its coal imports.
Now that we are discussing propelling vehicles by battery or e-fuel where the root source of the energy is (supposedly) the same....Since China's per person emissions are already way more than the UK's, Your point is what? India will catch up to the UK's per capita emissions quite soon at the rate it is increasing. It is going full out for coal power, opening up as many new coal mines as it can and ordering its existing mines to increase production to the maximum possible. It is also massively increasing its coal imports.
One e-fuelled car goes the same distance as six battery electric cars from the same amount of electricity.
Must be a bit of a quandary for the 'grid won't cope' crowd.
Edited by GT9 on Wednesday 29th March 16:25
GT9 said:
Now that we are discussing propelling vehicles by battery or e-fuel where the root source of the energy is (supposedly) the same....
One e-fuelled car goes the same distance as six battery electric cars from the same amount of electricity.
Must be a bit of a quandary for the 'grid won't cope' crowd.
That's a really useful bite sized piece of information. Thank you.One e-fuelled car goes the same distance as six battery electric cars from the same amount of electricity.
Must be a bit of a quandary for the 'grid won't cope' crowd.
Edited by GT9 on Wednesday 29th March 16:25
DriveSnowdonia said:
You claimed that eating meat causes a multitude of diseases. But there is no strong evidence to support that. Quite the opposite in fact where things like grass fed beef, venison, etc. are packed with the nutrients and complex proteins so vital for life. There is a good reason why vegetarians and vegans normally need to supplement heavily if they are to avoid certain health issues.
Go talk to a properly qualified nutritionist, a little difficult to find amongst the quacks, charlatans, and well-intentioned hippies, but they are out there. And then come back when you have the vaguest clue what you're talking about.Nomme de Plum said:
My point is the measure should be per person. Then we should monitor nations accordingly.
That is not to say we should not improve just because others are performing poorly or just less well than us.
How will you account for all the manufacturing and consequent Co2 that China, India and other countries do on our behalf?
It is very easy to criticise say China when in fact we just shipped our dirty production over there because it is cheap.
Complicated isn't it?
A significant proportion of China's energy production is for its own huge domestic economy. It also exports more to its neighbours and the East than it does to the West.That is not to say we should not improve just because others are performing poorly or just less well than us.
How will you account for all the manufacturing and consequent Co2 that China, India and other countries do on our behalf?
It is very easy to criticise say China when in fact we just shipped our dirty production over there because it is cheap.
Complicated isn't it?
https://en.ndrc.gov.cn/news/mediarusources/202202/...
We only account for 2.5% of China's exports.
Oh and by the way, the UK's total exports of merchandise are about four times the amount of China's per capita.
Not complicated at all.
Breaking the habit of a life time by saying something on topic, the article says something along the lines of a carbon neutral fuel being one in which the amount of carbon released by burning the fuel is equal to the amount absorbed by its creation.
But that is not really important from an environmental perspective. What we care about is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Bio fuels create a carbon cycle. It'll be locally reducing CO2 concentrations where the biomass is being grown, but at the expense of increasing the average atmospheric CO2 concentration everywhere else and that will increase the greenhouse effect.
It's clearly far less damaging than burning fossil fuels, and it looks at the moment that the volumes of biofuel that'll be produced will be inconsequentially small, but it doesn't seem to me that biofuels are particularly "green". Same argument applies to burning biomass in general.
But that is not really important from an environmental perspective. What we care about is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Bio fuels create a carbon cycle. It'll be locally reducing CO2 concentrations where the biomass is being grown, but at the expense of increasing the average atmospheric CO2 concentration everywhere else and that will increase the greenhouse effect.
It's clearly far less damaging than burning fossil fuels, and it looks at the moment that the volumes of biofuel that'll be produced will be inconsequentially small, but it doesn't seem to me that biofuels are particularly "green". Same argument applies to burning biomass in general.
Tigger2050 said:
Nomme de Plum said:
My point is the measure should be per person. Then we should monitor nations accordingly.
That is not to say we should not improve just because others are performing poorly or just less well than us.
How will you account for all the manufacturing and consequent Co2 that China, India and other countries do on our behalf?
It is very easy to criticise say China when in fact we just shipped our dirty production over there because it is cheap.
Complicated isn't it?
A significant proportion of China's energy production is for its own huge domestic economy. It also exports more to its neighbours and the East than it does to the West.That is not to say we should not improve just because others are performing poorly or just less well than us.
How will you account for all the manufacturing and consequent Co2 that China, India and other countries do on our behalf?
It is very easy to criticise say China when in fact we just shipped our dirty production over there because it is cheap.
Complicated isn't it?
https://en.ndrc.gov.cn/news/mediarusources/202202/...
We only account for 2.5% of China's exports.
Oh and by the way, the UK's total exports of merchandise are about four times the amount of China's per capita.
Not complicated at all.
If it's not complicated you can do the Co2 adjustment calculation for us then. Imports and exports.
Not just China btw total trade Co2 adjusted.
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Wednesday 29th March 17:32
Nomme de Plum said:
Meaningless numbers.
If it's not complicated you can do the Co2 adjustment calculation for us then. Imports and exports.
Not just China btw total trade Co2 adjusted.
Not meaningless to someone with half a brain. If it's not complicated you can do the Co2 adjustment calculation for us then. Imports and exports.
Not just China btw total trade Co2 adjusted.
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Wednesday 29th March 17:32
Because you don't like the figures doesn't make them meaningless. We export four times more merchandise than China per person and we only account for 2.5% of China's exports. i.e. the worlds fifth biggest economy takes only one fortieth of China's exports, which are themselves only a small fraction of the UK's per capita
China is massively increasing its emissions to support its massively increasing domestic consumption, as they get richer and consume more.
Tigger2050 said:
Not meaningless to someone with half a brain.
Because you don't like the figures doesn't make them meaningless. We export four times more merchandise than China per person and we only account for 2.5% of China's exports. i.e. the worlds fifth biggest economy takes only one fortieth of China's exports, which are themselves only a small fraction of the UK's per capita
China is massively increasing its emissions to support its massively increasing domestic consumption, as they get richer and consume more.
I had a quick look and the consumption based Co2 ie the number adjusted for imports and exports is for the UK 6.93T per capita and China 7T so identical,Because you don't like the figures doesn't make them meaningless. We export four times more merchandise than China per person and we only account for 2.5% of China's exports. i.e. the worlds fifth biggest economy takes only one fortieth of China's exports, which are themselves only a small fraction of the UK's per capita
China is massively increasing its emissions to support its massively increasing domestic consumption, as they get richer and consume more.
India comes in at 1.65T
Figures as of end 2020.
Pieceof advice it's better not to insult a person's intelligence whether you know them or not. It's just plain rude.
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Wednesday 29th March 17:52
ATG said:
Breaking the habit of a life time by saying something on topic, the article says something along the lines of a carbon neutral fuel being one in which the amount of carbon released by burning the fuel is equal to the amount absorbed by its creation.
But that is not really important from an environmental perspective. What we care about is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Bio fuels create a carbon cycle. It'll be locally reducing CO2 concentrations where the biomass is being grown, but at the expense of increasing the average atmospheric CO2 concentration everywhere else and that will increase the greenhouse effect.
It's clearly far less damaging than burning fossil fuels, and it looks at the moment that the volumes of biofuel that'll be produced will be inconsequentially small, but it doesn't seem to me that biofuels are particularly "green". Same argument applies to burning biomass in general.
While the bio fuels themselves only emit the carbon consumed by the plants grown to make them, hence carbon neutral, that ignores all the additional energy used in the process whether that is tractors running on diesel, power used to manufacture and transport fertiliser, energy used to pump water for irrigation etc. all those processes unless exclusively powered by zero carbon energy also result in CO2 emissions.But that is not really important from an environmental perspective. What we care about is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Bio fuels create a carbon cycle. It'll be locally reducing CO2 concentrations where the biomass is being grown, but at the expense of increasing the average atmospheric CO2 concentration everywhere else and that will increase the greenhouse effect.
It's clearly far less damaging than burning fossil fuels, and it looks at the moment that the volumes of biofuel that'll be produced will be inconsequentially small, but it doesn't seem to me that biofuels are particularly "green". Same argument applies to burning biomass in general.
So overall bio fuels are far from carbon neutral at all.
Even bio fuels created from genuine biological waste require energy to process, and the quantities available are limited.
Nomme de Plum said:
I had a quick look and the consumption based Co2 ie the number adjusted for imports and exports is for the UK 6.93T per capita and China 7T so identical,
India comes in at 1.65T
Figures as of end 2020.
Pieceof advice it's better not to insult a person's intelligence whether you know them or not. It's just plain rude.
Don't throw cheap shots and expect nothing in return is what I say.India comes in at 1.65T
Figures as of end 2020.
Pieceof advice it's better not to insult a person's intelligence whether you know them or not. It's just plain rude.
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Wednesday 29th March 17:52
Those figures definitely are meaningless. It has Russia and Saudi Arabia, two of the worlds biggest exporters of fossil fuels, as net importers of CO2. It has Canada and Australia, near the top of the worlds CO2 emitters per capita, as net importers of CO2.
Yeah right!!
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Wednesday 29th March 17:52
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff