Environmentalism! Remember that carry on?

kneemos · 15-05-2013 6:12pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Exactly, the governments imposed taxes on big engined cars and the manufacturers produced low emission cars. That's it working.

There's no where near the amount of illegally dumped rubbish there was 10 years ago, there just isn't.

Don't know where you live but every rural road around here is lined with rubbish.Think it's arguable that low emission cars had anything to do with enviromentalists.

ScumLord · 15-05-2013 6:42pm

squod wrote: »

New cars = new pollution for other nations.

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

Fair enough. But we're again just exporting lots of our pollution.

It may be that a small island like Ireland can't deal with it's own waste, we don't have the facilities needed. As long as we pay our way what difference does it make if we export it?

Taxing your way to 'greenness' only works for people who can afford that tax. So essentially it's a way of penalising people for being poor. Cars/goods are cheaper if they're environmentally less friendly.
Under that system, the environment loses when the populations wealth decreases.

We're not penalising people for being poor, these are just the costs now. It's unavoidable.

kneemos wrote: »

Don't know where you live but every rural road around here is lined with rubbish.

Well I guess your community should do something about that. The areas that were known for dumping in my area are now clear and I haven't seen it moved to a new area. I think one reason for that is that everyone around here has a grudge against someone else and is only looking for any excuse to report their enemies for anything they can.

Think it's arguable that low emission cars had anything to do with enviromentalists.

Maybe but there does seem to be a chain of events that started with environmentalists that got combined with peak oil which lead to low emission cars.

Mr Whirly · 15-05-2013 7:34pm

Poor people don't have cars.

hardCopy · 15-05-2013 7:45pm

kneemos wrote: »

.Think it's arguable that low emission cars had anything to do with enviromentalists.

Is it? I've genuinely never seen anyone question it.

SeanW · 15-05-2013 7:46pm

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Most of the "dire predictions" don't come from the environmentalists but rather the sensationalist media.

Are you kidding me? Have you looked at Greenpeace's website lately ever?

Sergeant wrote: »

One of my great 'Celtic Tiger' era memories was driving a classic Mercedes petrol-guzzler with huge emissions and a noisy engine past former Green Party minister Eamon Ryan as he cycled along in the pouring rain.

hooradiation wrote: »

Well, it's good to see that you've matured as a person and are no longer such a petty shi--- oh, wait.

It's not just motorists ... I'm starting to think the average cyclist is as obstinate and infantile as the attitude in the post you quoted and more likely worse. I know this because I've had the displeasure of discussing road policy with some of them and it's ... quite alarming. Oh and BTW the cyclists I was telling you about are actually serious.

squod · 15-05-2013 7:54pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

New cars create more pollution. If we had longer lasting cars and appliances their footprint would be less. Changing a car/fridge/dishwasher/ whatever every five years is only adding to the footprint not reducing it.

ScumLord wrote: »

It may be that a small island like Ireland can't deal with it's own waste, we don't have the facilities needed. As long as we pay our way what difference does it make if we export it?

There's no guarantee where the waste ends up. The ''green'' vision of utopia stops as soon as some lad in a suit discovers cheap places to offload waste. India, Philippines & Africa like.

ScumLord wrote: »

We're not penalising people for being poor, these are just the costs now. It's unavoidable.

''We'' very definitely and extremely are penalising poor people. That's why the tax was invented and that's what it does.

Drive a cheap old diesel, pay a shit-load for road tax. Pay more for insurance due to large engine size etc. It's targeted penalisation on the basis of wealth. There's no option to retro fit smaller engines into older cars to obtain a lower yearly tax rate for example.

Greentopia · 15-05-2013 8:17pm

seamus wrote: »

What will probably happen in the short term (in the EU at least) is an EU-wide ban or at least restriction on the use of pesticides for a set period of years, to see if we can get a handle on the bee populations.

Funny you should say that

. Some good news on that front in the last few weeks: EU votes to suspend for two to three years three pesticides-neonicotinoids-that are alleged to cause serious harm to bees.

Predictably the manufacturers of these pesticides are Not Happy this has been passed despite heavy political lobbying by them.

Ireland voted for this ban I'm pleased to see.

kneemos · 15-05-2013 8:36pm

hardCopy wrote: »

Is it? I've genuinely never seen anyone question it.

Motoring lobbiests and the kickback from new car sales had no influence I'm sure.

_Kaiser_ · 15-05-2013 9:03pm

Sergeant wrote:

One of my great 'Celtic Tiger' era memories was driving a classic Mercedes petrol-guzzler with huge emissions and a noisy engine past former Green Party minister Eamon Ryan as he cycled along in the pouring rain.

Ah Trevor that was just mean! :P

gets coat

hardCopy · 15-05-2013 9:30pm

kneemos wrote: »

Motoring lobbiests and the kickback from new car sales had no influence I'm sure.

I'm not so sure, the American manufacturers have resisted attempts to curb emissions, I'm not sure the Europeans would have been any quicker to cut emissions without being kicked.

That said, I don't think it was implemented very well as it made carbon the sole priority and increased diesel emissions.

SeanW · 15-05-2013 10:27pm

ScumLord wrote: »

We're not penalising people for being poor, these are just the costs now. It's unavoidable.

Then please explain the continuous, punishing increases in pre-08 road tax bands?

flutered · 15-05-2013 10:45pm

in the past week it seems that germany has made the decision to get shut of nuclear power, so they are getting ready to build a plethora of coal burning stations, funny old world is it not.

Nabber · 15-05-2013 10:53pm

Oh Yeah climate change

We fought it so well. We were fools. It was predicted that Ireland would have a Mediterranean Climate by 2030.
Do you know how much plastic I have been burning in my garden. Then these Green fools come along and say no to a hot Summer and mild Winter.

Fcuk the polar bears, I want a BBQ on the beach.

SeanW · 16-05-2013 2:56am

flutered wrote: »

in the past week it seems that germany has made the decision to get shut of nuclear power, so they are getting ready to build a plethora of coal burning stations, funny old world is it not.

Actually, it's been going on for a long time, since maybe 2000 and accelerated as a knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima, but it must be noted that the environmental left has been a key driver in policy-making in Germany for the last decade or so.

In fact I would go so far as to say that all the renewables subsidies and the nuclear phase out, and yes the coal fired power plant building spree which can be attributed to a result of that, are all done at the behest of the environmental left who have effectively been setting energy policy in Germany.

ScumLord · 16-05-2013 3:18pm

squod wrote: »

New cars create more pollution. If we had longer lasting cars and appliances their footprint would be less. Changing a car/fridge/dishwasher/ whatever every five years is only adding to the footprint not reducing it.

The new cars are made in factories that are more environmentally friendly and much more efficient. Some Japanese manufacturers have cars running off the production line every few seconds. When cars take less time to build it takes less power resources to build them.

I agree that planned obsolescence is a major contributor to pollution but at the same time products need to be replaced, we won't ever be in a situation where people want to buy a fridge that lasts 100 years. People like disposable products and like the idea of having to buy a new one in 5 years time.

That's the consumers fault though, the fact remains, the products we make today are more environmentally friendly, are more efficient and are made using less resources.

''We'' very definitely and extremely are penalising poor people. That's why the tax was invented and that's what it does.

Drive a cheap old diesel, pay a shit-load for road tax. Pay more for insurance due to large engine size etc. It's targeted penalisation on the basis of wealth. There's no option to retro fit smaller engines into older cars to obtain a lower yearly tax rate for example.

If you want to put a smaller engine into a old car there's nothing stopping you, it's done in places like Cuba all the time.

squod · 16-05-2013 3:29pm

ScumLord wrote: »

If you want to put a smaller engine into a old car there's nothing stopping you, it's done in places like Cuba all the time.

The point is that I wouldn't be rewarded in the same fashion. There's no incentive for me to change. There's no incentive for technological development of older cars.

There's plenty of incentive for people to buy newer hybrid motors which have a huge environmental impact. The ''Green'' taxes around cars and appliances are just an excuse to penalise poor people. Here and in other countries.

ScumLord · 16-05-2013 3:36pm

squod wrote: »

The point is that I wouldn't be rewarded in the same fashion. There's no incentive for me to change.

The tax is based on engine size and emissions so I don't see why you wouldn't pay less by replacing the engine. Overall there is more to new cars than more efficient engines. Modern cars are also much safer, most people wouldn't want an older car because they're just not as safe as modern cars.

squod · 16-05-2013 3:57pm

ScumLord wrote: »

The tax is based on engine size and emissions so I don't see why you wouldn't pay less by replacing the engine. Overall there is more to new cars than more efficient engines. Modern cars are also much safer, most people wouldn't want an older car because they're just not as safe as modern cars.

The legislation is for cars made in mid 2008 and onwards. Another oddity of ''environmentalism''.
Old SAABs and Volvos, very safe in fairness.

--Kaiser-- · 16-05-2013 4:02pm

ScumLord wrote: »

The new cars are made in factories that are more environmentally friendly and much more efficient. Some Japanese manufacturers have cars running off the production line every few seconds. When cars take less time to build it takes less power resources to build them.

This is the sort of bull**** that pisses me off about environmentalists. Whatever about new cars creating less pollution, it creates so much pollution to build a new car that if you actually want to be environmentally friendly then you'll drive a second hand car. Any time I see some smug idiot driving around in a Prius I want to smack them upside the head

ScumLord · 16-05-2013 4:15pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

This is the sort of bull**** that pisses me off about environmentalists. Whatever about new cars creating less pollution, it creates so much pollution to build a new car that if you actually want to be environmentally friendly then you'll drive a second hand car. Any time I see some smug idiot driving around in a Prius I want to smack them upside the head

There are more components in a modern car, more hazardous chemicals are used that's all true but that doesn't mean a factory is by default more polluting, the two big car manufacturing hubs are Europe and Japan both these places can make factories that have a surprisingly low impact on the environment.

There are more regulations in place now and in many cases one factories waste is another businesses resource. Factories can sell a lot of their waste, or even recycle a lot of it in house with some of the bigger factories.

--Kaiser-- · 16-05-2013 4:54pm

ScumLord wrote: »

There are more components in a modern car, more hazardous chemicals are used that's all true but that doesn't mean a factory is by default more polluting, the two big car manufacturing hubs are Europe and Japan both these places can make factories that have a surprisingly low impact on the environment.

There are more regulations in place now and in many cases one factories waste is another businesses resource. Factories can sell a lot of their waste, or even recycle a lot of it in house with some of the bigger factories.

New cars out of the factory have more of a carbon footprint than they can ever likely produce through subsequent driving

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

Sh1tbag OToole · 16-05-2013 5:00pm

SeanW wrote: »

Actually, it's been going on for a long time, since maybe 2000 and accelerated as a knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima, but it must be noted that the environmental left has been a key driver in policy-making in Germany for the last decade or so.

In fact I would go so far as to say that all the renewables subsidies and the nuclear phase out, and yes the coal fired power plant building spree which can be attributed to a result of that, are all done at the behest of the environmental left who have effectively been setting energy policy in Germany.

Environmental left should have more sense than to go on a coal power plant building spree. Maybe they figure out that they can further punish normal people for driving their cars and what have you that then they can afford the extra CO2 emissions from these new coal power plants

If you were really concerned about emissions you'd be trying to keep the old nuke plants running as long as possible and building new ones. It makes no sense at all unless they are running out of shovel ready pork barrel projects for their builder friends. (this kind of stuff goes on outside of Ireland as well)

"Clean" coal is a bit of a laugh and wind turbines are too unpredictable for daily use unless you're also running a load of gas turbines or hydro or something else that can be turned up and down quickly in response to demand

Andrew_Doran · 16-05-2013 5:00pm

The CO2 based tax and the scrappage scheme were and are a Green Party sop to their voter base: comfortable people that can afford to buy a new car. Typical Irish vote buying politics.

The low CO2-emitting diesel cars made popular by their schemes produce 10-20 times the amount of carcinogenic soot as the petrol cars they replaced.

Those are the sort of emissions that give people cancer and respiratory diseases, and are significantly worsening Europe's air quality and respiratory health situation.

Much like the problem with bees this is now entering the governmental and public consciousness as a serious health issue.

Sh1tbag OToole · 16-05-2013 5:06pm

New small diesel engines are also much more complicated than the old ones and in the long run could cost you more with NCT-forced repairs on DPF's and everything else they put into them to try and keep the nasties in the diesel fuel from making their way into the atmosphere

at the same time they are trying to cajole people into buying small diesel cars they bring in a raft of anti-motorcycle and scooter regulation - those are much more efficient again but for some reason they don't want people using those, they're too simple and there aint enough money in them I'd say.

ScumLord · 16-05-2013 5:07pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

New cars out of the factory have more of a carbon footprint than they can ever likely produce through subsequent driving

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

I don't think you're getting the full picture there. The cars made today are a different kettle of fish to cars made a decade ago, the weigh a lot more, they're bigger than before, all this is down to safety like crumple zones, ABS systems and comforts like radios and electric windows.

It doesn't compare that to the carbon footprint the older car has already clocked up and continues to clock up on a daily basis.

The way our economies work they can't stop producing cars either, companies have to bring out a new car each year to maintain their profits so all you can do (bar abandoning capitalism) is try and force them to evolve, as with motorsport, the way to do that is to impose a restriction.

SeanW · 16-05-2013 7:40pm

ScumLord wrote: »

The fact is we're living in a world that's been changed by environmentalism.

And that's not necessarily a good thing.

For one thing, we burn huge amounts of fossil fuels that we don't need to be burning, because the environmental left gets away with lying and scaremongering about genuine clean energy solutions.

The nuclear phase out in Germany and the protests against the Carnsore point nuclear power plant in Ireland have both resulted in massive increases in coal fired power generation, in Ireland Moneypoint was built as an alternative and in Germany they're currently on a coal plant building spree the likes of which is only comparable to China.

Yet the environmental-left considers this a success. I don't.

Taxes on motorists are also something I imagine you consider to be a plus, especially despite the fact that motoring taxes are many multiples of their counterparts in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

For example, those who know more about cars than I do consider that the cars popular and generally available on the continent are much better specified than those in Ireland due to our VRT regime. Aparently on some car brands, things like leather seats and other things we consider luxuries often come as standard. The colloquial term among some for cars for the Irish market is "Paddy spec" for the fittings and engineering being generally lowest common denominator.

No doubt the motorist hating fruitcakes among the environmental left consider this an accomplishment. As with the coal fired power spree they're responsible for, I do not.

Our road tax regime is also insane compared to that of the UK and other places:

ScumLord wrote: »

The tax is based on engine size and emissions so I don't see why you wouldn't pay less by replacing the engine. Overall there is more to new cars than more efficient engines. Modern cars are also much safer, most people wouldn't want an older car because they're just not as safe as modern cars.

Most people don't want older cars: they can't afford new ones, though in my case the prevalance of rubbish like Dual Mass Flywheels and other crap in new cars makes me like my existing wheels.

You are also flat out wrong when you claim - falsely - that someone can cut their road tax bill by changing to a smaller engine. Not only is this a stupid idea, changing engines for no reason, but it also falls flat when you consider the tax structure and view that motorists are a piggy bank that government can smash whenever it likes.
Consider:

Road tax rates are going up dramatically every year. When I bought my then 10 year old car, the annual tax was €614. Now it's €710 - if you pay annually. If I wanted to cut my tax bill relative to 2009 levels, I would have to put in a 1.601-1.7 litre engine in the car which makes no sense. Again, that assumes I still pay annually.
Our road tax system has a "you're poor, aren't you?" surcharge that adds significantly to the bill if you cannot pay in it in one go. So €710 becomes effective €800 BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY. If we assume that due to austerity more people are broke and paying quarterly (which is true) the bill goes up yet again, and to compensate for this, the new engine would have to have a displacement of no more than 1600.

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/MotorTax/MotorTaxRates/MotorTaxRatesBasedonEngineSize/

So between the continuous increases in an already punishingly high road tax system, and the surcharges designed to hurt people with limited resources, you simply cannot tell someone to put a smaller engine in their car to save tax, because they could still end up paying more tax despite cutting their engine size ~20%.

Besides I really don't see what that accomplishes aside from making vengeful car hating greens and fanatical cyclists feel good that the motorist is getting socked.

Andy-Pandy · 16-05-2013 7:43pm

I hugged a tree last week. It was great (I am not lying).

Grayson · 16-05-2013 9:22pm

Strangely, I was thinking of starting a thread on climate change today. I might still do it later and add a poll. But to address a few points first.

asdfg! wrote: »

Then there's man mad climate change which has become such an article of faith among many people to the point where if any criticism of it is voiced that they practically foam at the mouth and form lynch mobs for the skeptics. To the point were Carbon Dioxide is actually classified as a pollutant. Tell that to the trees.

97% of all climate change papers produced agree that climate change exists and is mad made. This is not an article of faith. This is fact.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/16/climate-research-nearly-unanimous-humans-causes

A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.

Authors of the survey, published on Thursday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, said the finding of near unanimity provided a powerful rebuttal to climate contrarians who insist the science of climate change remains unsettled.

The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.

Climate change is real. It is man made. And if nothing is done, it will destroy civilisation as we know it.

This isn't hyperbole. The US Military is planning for it. The US government have known for quite a while. Baying that makes it sound like it's a conspiracy. It isn't because the whole world know about it. Pretty much every country on the planet has signed up the the IPCC's findings that the climate change was real and it was man made.

the effects of this are crazy. The last time the earth had the same concentration of CO2, the ice caps melted. Glaciers are already disappearing. Once the ones in the Himalayas are gone, India, China and half of central Asia will be without their main source of water.Something similar will happen in europe when the glaciers in the alps melt. The next century is going to be a century of wars over natural resources, mainly water. We're screwed. Monumentally. But the main reason we're screwed is because of people like you who think this is a scare story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/03/ian-jack-overpopulation-ten-billion?INTCMP=SRCH

What's to be done? Emmott takes us through the ideas offered by "the rational optimists" who believe that, faced with the species' near extinction, human inventiveness will engineer a solution. Desalination plants, a new green revolution, seeding the oceans with iron filings to absorb more CO2: all of these threaten to produce as many problems as they solve. He believes the only answer is behavioural change. We need to have far fewer children and consume less. How much less? A lot less; two sheets of toilet paper rather than three, a Prius instead of a Range Rover – that kind of sacrifice won't really do it. And does he believe we're capable of making this necessarily far bigger curb on our desires? Not really. He describes himself as a rational pessimist. "We're ****ed," he says. If a large asteroid were on course to the Earth and we knew when and where it would hit – say France in 2022 – then every government would marshal its scientific resources to find ways of altering the asteroid's path or mitigating its damage. But there is no asteroid. The problem is us.

Recently he asked one of his younger academic colleagues what he thought could be done. "Teach my son how to use a gun," said the colleague.

This isn't a scare "story". It's real. It's going to happen. And it's going to be far, far worse than most people could ever imagine.

SeanW · 17-05-2013 12:55am

Grayson wrote: »

But the main reason we're screwed is because of people like you who think this is a scare story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/03/ian-jack-overpopulation-ten-billion?INTCMP=SRCH

Oh look, the Guardian. They are known to be completely impartial :rolleyes:

As to the whole "we're DOOMED unless we go crazy over carbon emissions" spiel touted by the environmental left, I could believe it if they were consistent.

So humans must have fewer children (not an issue in the West), survive on a diet of insects and vegetables, give up our cars and generally live like paupers, according to the environmental left, to prevent global warming but suggest that nuclear power be used to displace fossil fuels from the energy mix and ... then global warming isn't such a big deal. The people must accept impoverishment in the name of climate change, but eco-leftist dogma must be a sacred cow regardless of how much CO2 emissions it causes.

Hence Ireland built its first coal fired power plant after the Carnsore Point fiasco and Germany's gone coal crazy under the watchful eye of the environmental left who have been setting German energy policy for a long time ... the same boneheads warning us of climate catastrophe.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. Not for a second.

Grayson · 17-05-2013 10:06am

SeanW wrote: »

Oh look, the Guardian. They are known to be completely impartial :rolleyes:

As to the whole "we're DOOMED unless we go crazy over carbon emissions" spiel touted by the environmental left, I could believe it if they were consistent.

So humans must have fewer children (not an issue in the West), survive on a diet of insects and vegetables, give up our cars and generally live like paupers, according to the environmental left, to prevent global warming but suggest that nuclear power be used to displace fossil fuels from the energy mix and ... then global warming isn't such a big deal. The people must accept impoverishment in the name of climate change, but eco-leftist dogma must be a sacred cow regardless of how much CO2 emissions it causes.

Hence Ireland built its first coal fired power plant after the Carnsore Point fiasco and Germany's gone coal crazy under the watchful eye of the environmental left who have been setting German energy policy for a long time ... the same boneheads warning us of climate catastrophe.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. Not for a second.

It is consistant. It's very consistant. You conviently ignored the other link I provided where it was shown that 0.3% of scientific articles/reports about climate change state that it is not man made and not a threat. And the fact that pretty much every government on the planet has agreed with the IPCC's assessment of the danger from climate change.

The planet is fcuked. The reason nothing is being done about it is because it's impossible for any politican to do anything. And it's impossible for them because we, as a species, will not vote for anyone who raises taxes. Hell, there's even a huge thread about people objecting to windfarms because they think they're not pretty. And that's a windfarm that won't even cost us money since someone else is building it.

And it's not just children. In the west we may have smaller population growth but we are still responsable (along with china and India) for the vast majority of emissions. Our lifestyle is massively wasteful. We are glutting ourselves on cheap energy.

If you have kids, write them a long letter. Put down the reasons you think climate change is bogus and why you aren't going to support any measures. Then in 20 years time, they can read it and think "Dad was a fcuking moron"

topper75 · 17-05-2013 11:08am

It is disappointing how W. European society seemed to almost simultaneously wake from the religion scam and fall into this new eco-fascism cult. Fear is the ultimate way to control humans and it is at the root of all mass delusions.

There are interesting parallels -

Save your souls = save the planet
Planet could be doomed if you don't have one shopping bag = soul could be doomed if you think about girls with no clothes
Indulgences = carbon footprint offsetting payments
Human-centric view of universe and its creator (ignoring vast universe) = Human-centric responsibility for planet system variations (ignoring aeons of climate fluctuations)
A revered group of researchers drawing apocolyptic conclusions from massaged data, all the while boosting own profile and importance = a priest class claiming to be intermediaries with the devine, all the while boosting their own profile and importance

Count me out.

Grayson · 17-05-2013 11:44am

topper75 wrote: »

It is disappointing how W. European society seemed to almost simultaneously wake from the religion scam and fall into this new eco-fascism cult. Fear is the ultimate way to control humans and it is at the root of all mass delusions.

There are interesting parallels -
Save your souls = save the planet

Planet could be doomed if you don't have one shopping bag = soul could be doomed if you think about girls with no clothes

Indulgences = carbon footprint offsetting payments

Human-centric view of universe and its creator (ignoring vast universe) = Human-centric responsibility for planet system variations (ignoring aeons of climate fluctuations)

A revered group of researchers drawing apocolyptic conclusions from massaged data, all the while boosting own profile and importance = a priest class claiming to be intermediaries with the devine, all the while boosting their own profile and importance

Count me out.

You know better than 97% of scientists? 97% is not a "revered group" it's pretty much all of them. 0.3% is not a sizeable minority. It's probably equivalent to the number of delusional schitzo's in the general population.

And stop comparing religion to science. Science is based on fact. It is based on rigorously proven theories. Religion has no founding what so ever.

This isn't the equivalent of saying if you look at a girl you'll go to hell. This is the equivalent of saying if you cut yourself often enough and deep enough, you'll bleed to death.

And it's not the entire universe. It's the earth. We will not be destroying alpha centauri. And we can cause irreversible damage to the planet. Every time I hear someone saying it's egotistical to think we can do so I think of two things. The very thin shell that is out atmosphere. Go up a mile or two and it's nearly all gone. And I think of the damage we did to the ozone layer. That is demonstrable proof that humans can radically alter the atmosphere.

--Kaiser-- · 17-05-2013 11:51am

Grayson wrote: »

You know better than 97% of scientists? 97% is not a "revered group" it's pretty much all of them. 0.3% is not a sizeable minority. It's probably equivalent to the number of delusional schitzo's in the general population.

Here's a good link explaining why it is that ‘97%’ of climatologists believe in anthropogenic global warning and what that actually means.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/

And a nice video

One of the Youtube comments above: Which is true?
A. The earth is at an extremely low CO2 concentration level based on the last 500 million years
B. The earth is at an extremely high CO2 concentration level based on the last 500 million years
(answer is A)

And it's not the entire universe. It's the earth. We will not be destroying alpha centauri. And we can cause irreversible damage to the planet. Every time I hear someone saying it's egotistical to think we can do so I think of two things. The very thin shell that is out atmosphere. Go up a mile or two and it's nearly all gone. And I think of the damage we did to the ozone layer. That is demonstrable proof that humans can radically alter the atmosphere.

More greeney gibberish. Over it's vast history this planet has survived much more than we could ever do to it, stop being so over dramatic

Grayson · 17-05-2013 11:56am

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

One of the Youtube comments above: Which is true?
A. The earth is at an extremely low CO2 concentration level based on the last 500 million years
B. The earth is at an extremely high CO2 concentration level based on the last 500 million years
(answer is A)

More greeney gibberish. Over it's vast history this planet has survived much more than we could ever do to it, stop being so over dramatic

Thev earth may have differing levels of carbon, and the planet may survive. As a rock, but with live on it. But that doesn't mean we will. The number of species at danger in the immediate future is tremendous. That will have a cascade effect. I have no doubt that as a planet the earth will have life. But that doesn't mean that life will be human or that it will even be able to sustain a population of humans that is even a fraction of what we have now.

I'll look at the vid in a short while and respond to that then.

topper75 · 17-05-2013 12:09pm

Grayson wrote: »

Science is based on fact. It is based on rigorously proven theories. Religion has no founding what so ever.

This isn't the equivalent of saying if you look at a girl you'll go to hell. This is the equivalent of saying if you cut yourself often enough and deep enough, you'll bleed to death.

And it's not the entire universe. It's the earth. We will not be destroying alpha centauri. And we can cause irreversible damage to the planet. Every time I hear someone saying it's egotistical to think we can do so I think of two things. The very thin shell that is out atmosphere. Go up a mile or two and it's nearly all gone. And I think of the damage we did to the ozone layer. That is demonstrable proof that humans can radically alter the atmosphere.

I think you read my post rather hastily and perceived an attack on science in general.

The picture we get from science changes as we go. Scientists have proposed many things over the centuries that were, for a while, accepted as the definitive truth, and then later revised when new evidence emerged. The 'green' claims revolve around scare-mongering and those of us who aren't swallowing the credo without tasting can easily recognise that any scientist who has been provided with funding to investigate climate change is not going to turn around and say we are fine it is just a normal fluctuation. Nobody saws the branch they are sitting on.

We were told how the polar caps will melt entirely by 20XX, but now we have unforetold growth in Arctic ice that flies in the face of their theories but we hear no recanting. Just some fudge to jam the evidence into the theory, rather like an impatient child making a jigsaw puzzle. Here in Ireland in 2013 we have had extraordinary low temps in March, April, and now May. The global warming notion was a pile of junk. They backtracked and pushed the 'climate change' line. But that is what climate does by definition - it changes. Otherwise there would be no point in ever measuring it, would there?

A huge flawed assumption underpinning all green theory is the paradigm of a stable anthropophillic garden of Eden, that is corrupted by the will of headstrong men who won't pay due heed to the eco-priests. There is one constant in this universe - change! Something you don't have to be a scientist to observe.

ScumLord · 17-05-2013 2:10pm

SeanW wrote: »

Taxes on motorists are also something I imagine you consider to be a plus,

Don't be ridiculous, I think there are people that are so anxious to get their spiel out they don't even bother paying attention to the argument they're jumping into. Maybe if your argument was based more on reason and less on trying to beat the opposition with your opinion you wouldn't make those kind of mistakes.

My point is that engineers have been successfully working around environmental restrictions so well people haven't even noticed the changes in technology. All we see is the taxes up front but none of the work that's been successfully happening in the background.

Todays products are more efficient than they were 10 years ago. Saying that cars are using up more carbon now doesn't take into account the fact there is more car there today than there was 10 years ago. At each step along the manufacturing process the efficiency has been improved by small amounts. For profit, because of the taxes.

Maybe the governments of the world didn't expect businesses to adapt so quickly but they did, and now the balls been thrown back into the government's court where all they're prepared to do is make more taxes.

I am not an environmentalist, I'm just taking part in a debate. If I'm wrong, I'll accept I'm wrong but don't assume my position.

SeanW · 17-05-2013 6:19pm

Grayson wrote: »

If you have kids, write them a long letter.

Did your parents write you a "time capsule" letter explaining why they supported Moneypoint by the back door? Are todays eco-leftists writing letters to their future children why they would not like to have a 90%+ non-fossil, very low CO2 electricity supply like France? No, I didn't think so.

So you're asking me to do something you are not prepared to do ... I could call that rich, even hypcritical. But the only way I can really describe that is ... environmental-leftist.

Put down the reasons you think climate change is bogus and why you aren't going to support any measures.

If someone said they wanted a future full of healthy people and warned of impending doom, but advocated banning hospitals and closing medical schools, I would doubt both their veracity and their sincerity.

The environmental left is no different. Screw the people, but don't touch our irrational sacred cow thats largely responsible for the problems we're warning about.

That's why I don't believe you.

Then in 20 years time, they can read it and think "Dad was a fcuking moron"

With any luck, that's how history will judge people like you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-05-2013 8:10am

Ah yes, Envorionmentalism.

The belief in the set of lies most convenient to your lifestyle.

5live · 18-05-2013 12:04pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Here's a good link explaining why it is that ‘97%’ of climatologists believe in anthropogenic global warning and what that actually means.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/

And a nice video

One of the Youtube comments above: Which is true?
A. The earth is at an extremely low CO2 concentration level based on the last 500 million years
B. The earth is at an extremely high CO2 concentration level based on the last 500 million years
(answer is A)

More greeney gibberish. Over it's vast history this planet has survived much more than we could ever do to it, stop being so over dramatic

One thing about the earth being at an extremely low CO2 level now is that when the CO2 levels were higher the poles were a tropical paradise and the sea levels were 10s of meters higher, covering much of the land masses we currently reside on.

Wibbs · 18-05-2013 1:20pm

ScumLord wrote: »

The new cars are made in factories that are more environmentally friendly and much more efficient. Some Japanese manufacturers have cars running off the production line every few seconds. When cars take less time to build it takes less power resources to build them.

It is still "greener" to run an older car compared to the carbon footprint of a brand new car. BY quite a long way. Take that hippie yoke the Prius, then take into account not just the carbon cost of assembling it, but the carbon cost involved in mining, refining and shipping all the constituent parts to the factory, then the costs involved in shipping and selling the yoke. The bill is a very large one. Now if someone drove said car for 300,000 miles they might go some way towards offsetting that, but most will be lucky to hit 100,000. Driving an older, but efficient car for longer is far more green and quite the number of older cars were/are efficient.

I agree that planned obsolescence is a major contributor to pollution but at the same time products need to be replaced, we won't ever be in a situation where people want to buy a fridge that lasts 100 years.

Why not? Economics? Sure, but if you build a fridge or car that is repairable as opposed to "lifetime" sealed unit, at least some of that would be recouped by maintenance.

People like disposable products and like the idea of having to buy a new one in 5 years time.

And that right there is the problem. Sooner or later we're really gonna have to get off the notion of whoever dies with most the toys wins. If you/we have the personal and carbon resources to buy into that, OK, but increasingly it may get to a stage where we don't and we and the planet will suffer for it.

That's the consumers fault though, the fact remains, the products we make today are more environmentally friendly, are more efficient and are made using less resources.

That's debatable. The "made using less resources" for a start. There's quite simply more "stuff", more toys in a modern car. Much of it barely used. Take electrically moved seats. Eh wut? Too lazy to pull a lever the old fashioned way? Given it's not something you're likely to do everyday unless you share a car and even then it's quicker and doesn't use petrol to charge the battery to make the seats go back and forward. You can say similar of leccy mirrors, rain sensors, intelligent wipers etc. All that adds weight and complexity(which increases failure rates). Yep engines have become more efficient(for the most part*), but cars getting fatter has narrowed that gap quite a bit.

If you want to put a smaller engine into a old car there's nothing stopping you, it's done in places like Cuba all the time.

There are a shed load of issues around that notion. Fine if the range contained a smaller engine option, a right barsteward with matching things up if it didn't. Even then it's not even close to "ah sure drop in the engine Ted". Back in the old days maybe, but today?

The engine may require different mounting points, defo will if the cars chassis isn't designed for it. It will require a different gearbox and a different ECU and loom. Less weight on the suspension would require a different suspension setup. That's just off the top of my head. Try doing that in a car from the last ten years with integrated canbus electrical systems and the like and the best of luck to you. Go to the modified cars forum herabouts and ask them how easy such a suggestion is, though they'd be looking to put bigger engines in, again usually in older cars where it's at least doable without selling your kidneys.

In Cuba you're talking about much older cars that were far simpler in technology and construction where such transplants were a much easier bet(even then the mechanical bodging involved...). Then try and get such a car past an engineers report. Try and get it insured. The NCT would be "interesting". Then tot up the cost of all that. All in all it's a pretty daft idea.

*there's a fair bit of BS with efficiency figures going on. More than a fair bit.

Environmentalism! Remember that carry on?

Comments