Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: floo on July 26, 2017, 08:46:19 AM
-
deleted
-
I will sob into my pillow when my diesel car is no more. But there we are. For me the key will be speed of charging - I can fill up in ten minutes and recharging is going to have to improve vastly in order to even come close. I guess that the technology is on the way though.
-
I think polluting diesel cars should be removed much sooner than 2040, as they seem to be the main problem.
Fine, if the government will give me the cash to replace it.
-
I have no problem as long as their power, and range are the same or better as current diesel vehicles, and the charge time is around 2 minutes.
Anything else is a step backwards.
-
I expect HGVs, tractors and so on will be running on diesel for a fair while yet.
-
Does anyone really believe this commitment to electric cars given the recent row back on electrification of train lines?
I don't believe a single bloomin' word of it.
-
It's all a bit random, really. What phasing diesel and petrol cars by 2040 have to do with doing anything significant about climate change and pollution is effectively nil, especially in regard to the current position. You might as well say they are going to be replaced by fart powered hoverboards. Meanwhile we continue to expand airports, or at least say that we are going to.
I suspect that if we are correct on climate change, we are screwed anyway.
-
I think it depends on the advances in technology, as said. If it impacts hugely on our ability to move around the country and keep traffic flowing then it won't happen. The key will be whether electric vehicles have good range, rapid charge times and charging points as numerous as petrol pumps are now.
-
It's all a bit random, really. What phasing diesel and petrol cars by 2940 have to do with doing anything significant about climate change and pollution is effectively nil, especially in regard to the current position. You might as well say they are going to be replaced by fart powered hoverboards. Meanwhile we continue to expand airports, or at least say that we are going to.
I suspect that if we are correct on climate change, we are screwed anyway.
I think this is far more about pollution than climate change. Agree with you 110% on airports but then the right to have a stag do in Torremolinos with twenty of your mates seems to be in the Constitution.
But then this banning cars is Doing Something, right?
-
I think this is far more about pollution than climate change. Agree with you 110% on airports but then the right to have a stag do in Torremolinos with twenty of your mates seems to be in the Constitution.
But then this banning cars is Doing Something, right?
it's a brilliant way of doing something in a completely nothing manner. They might as well go the whole hog and say Michael Gove will stand by a different motorway each week with a sign saying 'Down with this sort of thing!'.
It's like saying to a kid, 'If you don't stop doing that this instant, I'm going to count to a million and nine, and then you will be in trouble'
Meanwhile we are going to spend 200m on stuff that we aren't sure about but it will be damn innovative.
I can only assume some other department, probably David Davis, had used the other half of the back of the fag packet.
-
it's a brilliant way of doing something in a completely nothing manner. They might as well go the whole hog and say Michael Gove will stand by a different motorway each week with a sign saying 'Down with this sort of thing!'.
It's like saying to a kid, 'If you don't stop doing that this instant, I'm going to count to a million and nine, and then you will be in trouble'
Meanwhile we are going to spend 200m on stuff that we aren't sure about but it will be damn innovative.
I can only assume some other department, probably David Davis, had used the other half of the back of the fag packet.
No, Macron had it I think.
I'd like to think that this was doing something and nothing. It's actually doing something very big, that could cause huge disruption, possibly compromise safety and the economy and cost a shit load of cash. We have to be sure that it will work as well as, if not better, than what we have now, and that is very far from certain. I live deep in the sticks and rely on my car for pretty much everything, and range and ease of refuelling are key not only to getting around but staying safe. This had better bloody work.
-
I think if the Government puts up the car tax, year on year, on the most polluting vehicles, be they diesel or petrol, it will give people an incentive to buy less polluting cars. My car is considered to be a low pollutant and I pay less tax on it.
-
I think if the Government puts up the car tax, year on year, on the most polluting vehicles, be they diesel or petrol, it will give people an incentive to buy less polluting cars. My car is considered to be a low pollutant and I pay less tax on it.
I can't afford to do that. I can't afford to pay a huge amount in tax either. Even though my car is diesel it isn't one of the worst, but if it was I'd have to give up my car, and realistically that would mean selling up and move where there is public transport.
-
The more you read about this, the more utterly pathetic it becomes, and it started as being as pathetic as a tiny mouse squeaking the Pathetique, caught in the world's biggest mousetrap. This is apparently a tactical solution because they didn't want to come up with a 'botched comprehensive plan'. And while an outright admittance of ineptitude and your inability to do any form of sensible plan might be understandable, we have a random collection of stuff such as non ban ban which won't happen until everyone is dead and is therefore not tactical, and some other stuff that we actually have no idea what it might be so isn't a solution.
To be fair, all of the colossal crapitudinousness is hidden under the big non ban ban. I can only presume that they had a 'brain' storming session where someone said we're could plan to ban cars like the French, and when it was pointed out that that wasn't happening until the 12th of feckin nevety, just decided it would work as a distraction.
'If we just say we will do it, people will start shouting that we will only take their diesel from their cold dead poisoned by pollution hands, and they won't notice that all we are doing is making Michael Gove attempt to cure diesel cars by rubbing their exhaust, and telling it to go and pollute no more'
-
No, Macron had it I think.
I'd like to think that this was doing something and nothing. It's actually doing something very big, that could cause huge disruption, possibly compromise safety and the economy and cost a shit load of cash. We have to be sure that it will work as well as, if not better, than what we have now, and that is very far from certain. I live deep in the sticks and rely on my car for pretty much everything, and range and ease of refuelling are key not only to getting around but staying safe. This had better bloody work.
It isn't doing anything at all. The 2040 date has been picked because (a) there is a vague hope that Elon Musk will have done electric magic by then, and (b) the current lot of politicians and civil servants will be in the Betty Grable Retirement Gulag for the Terminally Rich and Useless.
-
The harm to the environment has to be addressed NOW before it is too late, if it isn't already. It is our children and grandchildren who will reap the whirlwind!
And randomly pricing some poor people out of their cars to make rich people feel as if they are doing something is a bit like rubbing voltorol gel on a radiation burn.
-
And randomly pricing some poor people out of their cars to make rich people feel as if they are doing something is a bit like rubbing voltorol gel on a radiation burn.
That is a silly comment. ::)
-
That is a silly comment. ::)
Odd, I thought it was funny and apposite.
Although I am interested to know how NS came by the knowledge of the sensation Voltarol causes on a radiation burn. :o
-
That is a silly comment. ::)
so do you have anything to back up why pricing some people out of their cars is going to save the planet, and the poor dear dear children if those rich enough to drive and pollute?
-
Odd, I thought it was funny and apposite.
Although I am interested to know how NS came by the knowledge of the sensation Voltarol causes on a radiation burn. :o
Mod, and part time children's entertainer, and torture consultant to the stars.
-
Mod, and part time children's entertainer, and torture consultant to the stars.
:D
-
That is a silly comment. ::)
I've explained to you quite truthfully what will happen to me if I'm forced to give up my car. Do you think that is fair?
-
It isn't doing anything at all. The 2040 date has been picked because (a) there is a vague hope that Elon Musk will have done electric magic by then, and (b) the current lot of politicians and civil servants will be in the Betty Grable Retirement Gulag for the Terminally Rich and Useless.
I'm assuming that car manufacturers will be designing in this basis. I think it's doing something - or getting others to do something. And as you say, those responsible won't be any longer by the time the shit hits.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/20/uk-unprepared-for-surge-in-electric-car-use-thinktank-warns
And half an hour to charge a Nissan Leaf.
-
I'm assuming that car manufacturers will be designing in this basis. I think it's doing something - or getting others to do something. And as you say, those responsible won't be any longer by the time the shit hits.
I think rather it's taking advantage of the fact that car manufacturers are already doing something to make it look like a plan. The industry intention for a number of reasons is to move to electrics, not least as this will be easier when we all go driverless. This looks as if it's an action to back that up when rather it's a thing that can be said with no govt commitment.
-
I think polluting diesel cars should be removed much sooner than 2040, as they seem to be the main problem.
Are they the main problem? They produce less carbon dioxide than petrol cars!
The main problem with electric cars is fuel storage. Petrol and diesel cars store their energy sources conveniently in the form of liquid. Electric cars require very large and heavy batteries to store their fuel. Try driving a long distance in an electric vehicle. The main problem is going to be what do you do in the frequent relatively long refuelling stops that current technology demands?
It's also worthy of note that most long distance rail journeys ar powered by electricity. For some trains the power is supplied from overhead cables, but in most the electric motors are powered electricity generated from on-board diesel dynamos.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/20/uk-unprepared-for-surge-in-electric-car-use-thinktank-warns
And half an hour to charge a Nissan Leaf.
Again this underlines why the whole approach is random. I would say this was one of the biggest challenges govt has over the next few years, but currently they like to take that as a challenge and invent bigger ones taking up all industry specialists. It's the sort of thing that might benefit from a more supranational agreement, possibly between a group of like minded countries that might already currently work together on setting standards.
-
so do you have anything to back up why pricing some people out of their cars is going to save the planet, and the poor dear dear children if those rich enough to drive and pollute?
Surely it is the damage to our planet which is much more important. People who drive these cars should be made to realise the damage they are doing whether they are rich or poor.
-
It's the sort of thing that might benefit from a more supranational agreement, possibly between a group of like minded countries that might already currently work together on setting standards.
THAT would never work. Before long they would be making all our laws and flooding this country with their unemployed cheap labour ... ::)
-
Surely it is the damage to our planet which is much more important. People who drive these cars should be made to realise the damage they are doing whether they are rich or poor.
Then quite simply ban the cars don't make it based in price and compensate those affected on a means test basis. Pricing poor people out of usage is ineffective and unfair.
-
Are they the main problem? They produce less carbon dioxide than petrol cars!
The main problem with electric cars is fuel storage. Petrol and diesel cars store their energy sources conveniently in the form of liquid. Electric cars require very large and heavy batteries to store their fuel. Try driving a long distance in an electric vehicle. The main problem is going to be what do you do in the frequent relatively long refuelling stops that current technology demands?
It's also worthy of note that most long distance rail journeys ar powered by electricity. For some trains the power is supplied from overhead cables, but in most the electric motors are powered electricity generated from on-board diesel dynamos.
Ah you and your so yesterday's stuff about carbon dioxide, we are dealing with the new new problem, nitrogen oxides and those diesel dudes belch it out like a giant colicky diesel baby.
-
THAT would never work. Before long they would be making all our laws and flooding this country with their unemployed cheap labour ... ::)
and try getting a bendy banana or some chlorination chicken!!
-
Then quite simply ban the cars don't make it based in price and compensate those affected on a means test basis. Pricing poor people out of usage is ineffective and unfair.
The harm to the planet is much more important, especially as poorer people are likely to be driving older cars, which are the most polluting. If nothing is done now future generations might find there are very few place on earth, which are habitable when we are long gone. :o
I suppose the Government could come up with a compensation scheme for people on low incomes, who have to rely on their cars, so their old polluting vehicles can be scrapped.
-
The harm to the planet is much more important, especially as poorer people are likely to be driving older cars, which are the most polluting. If nothing is done now future generations might find there are very few place on earth, which are habitable when we are long gone. :o
I suppose the Government could come up with a compensation scheme for people on low incomes, who have to rely on their cars, so their old polluting vehicles can be scrapped.
And if your first paragraph is correct then you need to do far more than price since poor people out of their car and think you are doing anything useful. And it's not old cars that are polluting , it's new cars for diesels. You know the ones that the govt has offered tax incentives for people to drive? It seems a bit bloody perverse to have done that and then say, ah well if you can't afford to drive the thing that's you screwed simply because you spent the money on a car we encouraged you to buy.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/26/end-uk-tax-incentives-for-diesel-vehicles-ministers-are-urged
-
The harm to the planet is much more important, especially as poorer people are likely to be driving older cars, which are the most polluting. If nothing is done now future generations might find there are very few place on earth, which are habitable when we are long gone. :o
I suppose the Government could come up with a compensation scheme for people on low incomes, who have to rely on their cars, so their old polluting vehicles can be scrapped.
Exactly, the government wants to ban them so pay the people they want to target to compensate them.
They bought the cars legally, and now the government is moving the goal posts which is not fair.
-
Exactly, the government wants to ban them so pay the people they want to target to compensate them.
They bought the cars legally, and now the government is moving the goal posts which is not fair.
Not only did they buy them legally they were encouraged to do so via tax incentives.
-
Ah you and your so yesterday's stuff about carbon dioxide, we are dealing with the new new problem, nitrogen oxides and those diesel dudes belch it out like a giant colicky diesel baby.
I don't dispute that. My point (poorly made, I admit) to Floo's post was that both petrol and diesel are polluting. But also I was saying that a switch to electric-powered vehicles isn't without its problems.
Incidentally, in Jersey, the postal system uses electric vehicles - a new problem: you can't hear them coming ...
-
I don't dispute that. My point (poorly made, I admit) to Floo's post was that both petrol and diesel are polluting. But also I was saying that a switch to electric-powered vehicles isn't without its problems.
Incidentally, in Jersey, the postal system uses electric vehicles - a new problem: you can't hear them coming ...
Again, I think it highlights that while a piecemeal solution may have merits, it needs to be reviewed consistently. There isn't a nice simple solution here.
-
Surely it is the damage to our planet which is much more important. People who drive these cars should be made to realise the damage they are doing whether they are rich or poor.
There's the voice of someone who doesn't have to give the cost of running a car a second thought.
I have a friend who lived on toast for a month to keep her car on the road. This fucking privileged attitude pisses me off more than you can think. Wake up and consider the fact that people are struggling to feed their kids and have the basics of life *now*.
-
There's the voice of someone who doesn't have to give the cost of running a car a second thought.
I have a friend who lived on toast for a month to keep her car on the road. This fucking privileged attitude pisses me off more than you can think. Wake up and consider the fact that people are struggling to feed their kids and have the basics of life *now*.
I run a low polluting small car, I am NOT privileged. My husband has worked exceptionally hard all his life so we could be reasonably comfortable in our old age.
When we first married in 1969 I had £4 a week housekeeping, believe you me even in those days that wasn't riches, but we had to manage and we did. We didn't claim benefits like so many do these days! You didn't even get child allowance for your first child then.
-
I run a low polluting small car, I am NOT privileged. My husband has worked exceptionally hard all his life so we could be reasonably comfortable in our old age.
When we first married in 1969 I had £4 a week housekeeping, believe you me even in those days that wasn't riches, but we had to manage and we did. We didn't claim benefits like so many do these days! You didn't even get child allowance for your first child then.
what's that got to do with wanting to put in place a scheme that punishes the poor (of which you are not one currently) to get no real benefit in terns of pollution control?
-
Punishing the poor is obviously not a solution. Worse, the world economy is dependent on the use of polluting technologies - no one pays the true cost (ie including clean-up cost) for anything much.
The way to drive forward the societal and technological changes needed is to target the rich. Can't see how that is going to happen though.
-
I run a low polluting small car, I am NOT privileged. My husband has worked exceptionally hard all his life so we could be reasonably comfortable in our old age.
When we first married in 1969 I had £4 a week housekeeping, believe you me even in those days that wasn't riches, but we had to manage and we did. We didn't claim benefits like so many do these days! You didn't even get child allowance for your first child then.
Some would argue that being able to donate £1,000 to a charity because of a 'flounce and return' would qualify as being privileged. It's a matter of perspective I suppose - I know that I would find it difficult to justify giving that much away. I know my uncle wouldn't. He is wealthy, I am not - at least by this society's standards.
I'm not talking worldwide, that's another kettle of malodorous sea living creatures.
What does that make you Floo?
And is it really necessary to be so dismissive of those less fortunate than yourself who are on benefits?
Keep taking the tabloids.
-
I am concerned about what state the planet will be in for future generations if we don't take drastic action now.
I have nothing more to say on this topic.
-
I am concerned about what state the planet will be in for future generations if we don't take drastic action now.
I have nothing more to say on this topic.
Which is all very well but why then suggest a solution that has no benefit to the issue and merely punishes those not able to afford it?
-
I am concerned about what state the planet will be in for future generations if we don't take drastic action now.
I think we all are. And sooner or later, probably sooner, our recklessness will catch up with us. But it doesn't help to somehow imply that the less well off should suffer more than they already do, to further our efforts to combat the looming catastrophe.
The rich in the short to medium term will be protected from any changes in the transport policy as they will have the wealth to cope. The poor will not. I think that is the nub of what Rhi was getting at.
-
I think we all are. And sooner or later, probably sooner, our recklessness will catch up with us. But it doesn't help to somehow imply that the less well off should suffer more than they already do, to further our efforts to combat the looming catastrophe.
The rich in the short to medium term will be protected from any changes in the transport policy as they will have the wealth to cope. The poor will not. I think that is the nub of what Rhi was getting at.
That and the fact that people struggling with the basics now are focussed on where the next weekly shop is coming from, how to stay warm this winter, how to get the kids to school. They are struggling for survival *now*, not in thirty or forty years or whenever.
And Floo thinks that they should be made to pay up as a punishment.
-
I think we all are. And sooner or later, probably sooner, our recklessness will catch up with us. But it doesn't help to somehow imply that the less well off should suffer more than they already do, to further our efforts to combat the looming catastrophe.
The rich in the short to medium term will be protected from any changes in the transport policy as they will have the wealth to cope. The poor will not. I think that is the nub of what Rhi was getting at.
But ... remember that the poor are also the most likely to suffer the effects of pollution and climate change - that the rich can find ways to avoid.
Whatever the long term solution is, it needs to paid for by those that can afford it now.
-
But ... remember that the poor are also the most likely to suffer the effects of pollution and climate change - that the rich can find ways to avoid.
Whatever the long term solution is, it needs to paid for by those that can afford it now.
Totally agree.
-
But ... remember that the poor are also the most likely to suffer the effects of pollution and climate change - that the rich can find ways to avoid.
Whatever the long term solution is, it needs to paid for by those that can afford it now.
Excellent.
And that's what exactly?
-
Maybe this (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jul/25/sperm-counts-among-western-men-have-halved-in-last-40-years-study)?
-
Maybe this (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jul/25/sperm-counts-among-western-men-have-halved-in-last-40-years-study)?
Soon only the rich will be able to afford IVF and sperm donation. That's probably going to penalise the poor too.
-
Bring back the horse!
-
Bring back the horse!
There again, horses were and are affordable only to the well off.
-
There again, horses were and are affordable only to the well off.
Good for the garden, though.
-
I run a low polluting small car, I am NOT privileged.
You do have a penchant for buying a brand new car , every year is it?
Some would suggest that someone in that position might be a wee bit privileged!?
-
The harm to the planet is much more important, especially as poorer people are likely to be driving older cars, which are the most polluting. If nothing is done now future generations might find there are very few place on earth, which are habitable when we are long gone. :o
I suppose the Government could come up with a compensation scheme for people on low incomes, who have to rely on their cars, so their old polluting vehicles can be scrapped.
Right, so replace all diesel and petrol powered cars with electric ones. What percentage of pollution do you think will go away as a result?
In your answer, take into account the fact that the electric cars all have to be made. That includes an enormous battery chock full of lithium. Think about the environmental damage caused by mining transporting and eventually disposing of all that lithium.
-
Sell your car; buy a bike.
-
Sell your car; buy a bike.
A good idea when possible; tricky for getting the kids to school though.
-
A good idea when possible; tricky for getting the kids to school though.
Or maybe not?
https://tinyurl.com/ycwjbwj2
-
There's always one.
-
A good idea when possible; tricky for getting the kids to school though.
Some children could cycle to school. More children could walk to school. My three used to walk over a mile to school.
-
Good for them.
And if it's ten miles? Five miles to the nearest shop, five to the nearest doctor, twelve to the nearest train station?
(If you really want to make me laugh mention getting the bus).
-
Well, that's your choice.. to live out in the sticks..
-
Well, that's your choice.. to live out in the sticks..
No, it's what I can afford. And there are plenty of people like me who are forced out of properties in or closer to the towns. The notion that rural living is for the privileged is false.
-
I've never thought rural living was for the privileged.
-
I've never thought rural living was for the privileged.
Maybe you don't, but plenty do. Don't sssume it's a 'choice'. And accept that the choices you were able to make - walking, cycling - aren't options for many people. They sound trite.
-
Well, if it's not a choice, what is it?
-
Well, if it's not a choice, what is it?
::)
-
Well, if it's not a choice, what is it?
Which bit of
No, it's what I can afford
are you struggling with, specifically?
-
Don't forget, we all have free will, Shaker...
-
Excellent. Have the freewill to imagine you have more money so that you can freely buy your imaginary house elsewhere :)
-
I've imagined I'm moving to the converted Irish church that they had on Grand Designs once. That'll do.
-
Obviously, it will not be possible to stop people driving everywhere unless (clean) public transport is available.
We need more areas (eg most cities and town centres using park and ride schemes) where green public transport is provided and petrol/diesel cars banned. Tight regulations on diesel vans, trucks and buses need to be enforced - and forced over time to cleaner power.
-
(In response to SweetPea's comment about choosing to live "in the sticks" following talk about walking to school and cyclign)
No, it's what I can afford. And there are plenty of people like me who are forced out of properties in or closer to the towns. The notion that rural living is for the privileged is false.
Too right. House prices in cities alone forces people to move out.
Walking to/from school is fine if the school is reasonably near. Cycling too but not all kids would feel confident cycling a long way in traffic never mind what happens if you get a puncture & are miles from home.
So for some a car is a necessity not a luxury.
Obviously, it will not be possible to stop people driving everywhere unless (clean) public transport is available.
We need more areas (eg most cities and town centres using park and ride schemes) where green public transport is provided and petrol/diesel cars banned. Tight regulations on diesel vans, trucks and buses need to be enforced - and forced over time to cleaner power.
Sounds right to me.
-
As far as I'm concerned, I use buses occasionally, but mostly, if I can't walk, I go by taxi, so whatever they do, I hope taxis will be able to operate in the way they do now. Of course, I shall be long gone before the 2040 deadline comes in!! :D