Electric Motorhomes at Scale, Can't be Far Away Now.

[enark]

That's because the trend said we should be going into a natural ice age over the next few thousand years. Instead the climate did a man made U-turn and has fired off in the wrong direction about 100 times faster than a natural shift.

And while the world has warmed by about 1.5C on average already, that's not guaranteed for the UK and Northern Europe. It might get up to 6C cooler in London and 10C cooler in northern Scotland if the Atlantic Ocean stops the cycling that's largely driven by seasonal melting Arctic ice. Climate similar to Calgary or Moscow does not sound fun.

So my diesel car has helped save the world…….should be free road tax and diesel in recognition

 

[PaulW2]

We talk about this as if we have ... agency. As if what we do will make a difference.

But the climate is global and therefore it's a global problem.

We contribute less than 1% of global emissions - 0.9%. China emits 33%. The US 13%. India 7%. Russia 5%.

How much of an effort are they all making?

 

[Barriesimpson]

We're all gonna die.

 

[The Wino]

We talk about this as if we have ... agency. As if what we do will make a difference.

But the climate is global and therefore it's a global problem.

We contribute less than 1% of global emissions - 0.9%. China emits 33%. The US 13%. India 7%. Russia 5%.

How much of an effort are they all making?

And of course every country in the world could use exactly the same argument to do nothing. Imagine the view from poor countries with very low emissions per capita.

 

[Barriesimpson]

And of course every country in the world could use exactly the same argument to do nothing. Imagine the view from poor countries with very low emissions per capita.

It makes no odds. The world climate will change just as it always has done, and there is nothing we can do about it. We just need to adapt. The quicker people realise this the quicker we will be prepared.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[AndyPK]

We're all gonna die.

……eventually

 

[enark]

And of course every country in the world could use exactly the same argument to do nothing. Imagine the view from poor countries with very low emissions per capita.

Think poor countries will always just have to accept what the powerful ones do and just get on with it….certainly for the next four years…but probably always has been so.

 

[The Wino]

Think poor countries will always just have to accept what the powerful ones do and just get on with it….certainly for the next four years…but probably always has been so.

I think we're in the same situation for the next 4 years too.

 

[PaulW2]

And of course every country in the world could use exactly the same argument to do nothing. Imagine the view from poor countries with very low emissions per capita.

They do. So we have international agreements, in this case the Paris Agreement. The participants are pretty much all delinquent, while putting out spin that they're wonderful. It is politics after all.

But the big players think they don't necessarily need to debase themselves by spinning to gain our approval. The US has now said it's going to pull out - again. It also withdrew in 2021. China blows hot and cold (though its targets are soft and its performance against them poor).

India? They're promising to reach net zero in 2070. Compared with 2060 for China. Russia also says 2060. Ha, ha. Russia 'promises'. And it's 2050 for the UK and the EU.

Any bets on how this is all going to go when economies slump? When wars kick off? When the democratic cycle makes it expedient to abandon goals? When the new dictator or oligarch du jour has a different view?

Meanwhile we've already crossed the 1.5 degree threshold and no one is telling us how much is already baked in. They need us to be stuck at 1 minute to midnight in perpetuity - always almost too late but never actually too late.

So how much immiseration should we in the UK inflict on our pensioners, hospitals and waterways in pursuit of this goal? What level of poverty are we willing to tolerate, and how much strain will the political system tolerate before we elect our own head-banging demagogue?

Should we do so blindly or should we have due regard to what else is going on in the world?

 

[The Wino]

They do. So we have international agreements, in this case the Paris Agreement. The participants are pretty much all delinquent, while putting out spin that they're wonderful. It is politics after all.

But the big players think they don't necessarily need to debase themselves by spinning to gain our approval. The US has now said it's going to pull out - again. It also withdrew in 2021. China blows hot and cold (though its targets are soft and its performance against them poor).

India? They're promising to reach net zero in 2070. Compared with 2060 for China. Russia also says 2060. Ha, ha. Russia 'promises'. And it's 2050 for the UK and the EU.

Any bets on how this is all going to go when economies slump? When wars kick off? When the democratic cycle makes it expedient to abandon goals? When the new dictator or oligarch du jour has a different view?

Meanwhile we've already crossed the 1.5 degree threshold and no one is telling us how much is already baked in. They need us to be stuck at 1 minute to midnight in perpetuity - always almost too late but never actually too late.

So how much immiseration should we in the UK inflict on our pensioners, hospitals and waterways in pursuit of this goal? What level of poverty are we willing to tolerate, and how much strain will the political system tolerate before we elect our own head-banging demagogue?

Should we do so blindly or should we have due regard to what else is going on in the world?

The question of course is whether you actually believe our economy and standard of living would be any better if we abandoned our climate change targets. Personally I think our economic decline was well in advance of any climate change targets or action, blaming our poor performance on them is an excuse just like blaming it on other groups of people.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PaulW2]

The question of course is whether you actually believe our economy and standard of living would be any better if we abandoned our climate change targets. Personally I think our economic decline was well in advance of any climate change targets or action, blaming our poor performance on them is an excuse just like blaming it on other groups of people.

That presumably depends on whether one wants to weigh the actual evidence and apportion one's beliefs accordingly. Many things contribute to an economy being 'any better'.

Disruption to major industries and economic patterns without a ready alternative can have an effect. In the fossil fuel industry, the automotive manufacturing industry, the ancillary industries that supply those industries, the national grid and its ability to do demand management...

If one already knows what is going to believe before weighing the evidence then that's a different thing. That's the norm after all - we all know exactly what every newspaper, journalist and politician will say on a topic before they even open their mouths. It's all comfort food. Just choose your newspaper and they will spend their time stroking you.

It's also how we landed up this particular creek with this particular paddle shortage. But it can be quite boring.

One thing we can be sure of is, however, that it won't be economically neutral. You won't have a wholesale change that has no economic effect. That would just be historically unprecedented.

So it's either going to benefit growth in the near term or harm it. So let's say it won't harm it. It will benefit it instead.

Why then aren't the benefits being shouted from the rooftops? Why isn't it central to the government's 'growth' strategy? Why are they instead having a chastened Miliband now supporting Mordor, aka the new Heathrow runway? Why are Starmer and Reeves announcing that growth will trump everything else? What is in their strategy that could be negative for growth that therefore needs to be trumped?

Could it then be that it was going to be something of a brake on economic growth in the near term after all?

 

[Peregrinator]

The extra CO2 comes from fossil fuels. The ratio of carbon isotopes proves it.

listen, most of what is said is propaganda, there is absolutely nothing, that can be done. The release of Gases from Volcanoes, which there are about 1600 active Volcanoes around the world, and that is, only the ones we know of, it's said there could be hundreds below the sea, and they release multiple gases, not just one Gas, these are CO2, SO2, HCl, HF, H2S, Rn and H2SO4, and every single one is a dangerous Gas, and don't forget Propaganda says they don't release as much Gas as we do, 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year for a car, for a volcano it's 730, 340 tons a day from just one volcano, and that is just CO2, not including all the other gases, which weren't measured, Also there are many Volcanoes that break through underground oil reservoirs, do the maths.

 

[The Wino]

That presumably depends on whether one wants to weigh the actual evidence and apportion one's beliefs accordingly. Many things contribute to an economy being 'any better'.

Disruption to major industries and economic patterns without a ready alternative can have an effect. In the fossil fuel industry, the automotive manufacturing industry, the ancillary industries that supply those industries, the national grid and its ability to do demand management...

If one already knows what is going to believe before weighing the evidence then that's a different thing. That's the norm after all - we all know exactly what every newspaper, journalist and politician will say on a topic before they even open their mouths. It's all comfort food. Just choose your newspaper and they will spend their time stroking you.

It's also how we landed up this particular creek with this particular paddle shortage. But it can be quite boring.

One thing we can be sure of is, however, that it won't be economically neutral. You won't have a wholesale change that has no economic effect. That would just be historically unprecedented.

So it's either going to benefit growth in the near term or harm it. So let's say it won't harm it. It will benefit it instead.

Why then aren't the benefits being shouted from the rooftops? Why isn't it central to the government's 'growth' strategy? Why are they instead having a chastened Miliband now supporting Mordor, aka the new Heathrow runway? Why are Starmer and Reeves announcing that growth will trump everything else? What is in their strategy that could be negative for growth that therefore needs to be trumped?

Could it then be that it was going to be something of a brake on economic growth in the near term after all?

We have been in decline on the world scale for years well before any action on climate change. Why?

 

[PaulW2]

We have been in decline on the world scale for years well before any action on climate change. Why?

Why would you assume that means that new initiatives can’t also have an economic effect?

 

[enark]

They do. So we have international agreements, in this case the Paris Agreement. The participants are pretty much all delinquent, while putting out spin that they're wonderful. It is politics after all.

But the big players think they don't necessarily need to debase themselves by spinning to gain our approval. The US has now said it's going to pull out - again. It also withdrew in 2021. China blows hot and cold (though its targets are soft and its performance against them poor).

India? They're promising to reach net zero in 2070. Compared with 2060 for China. Russia also says 2060. Ha, ha. Russia 'promises'. And it's 2050 for the UK and the EU.

Any bets on how this is all going to go when economies slump? When wars kick off? When the democratic cycle makes it expedient to abandon goals? When the new dictator or oligarch du jour has a different view?

Meanwhile we've already crossed the 1.5 degree threshold and no one is telling us how much is already baked in. They need us to be stuck at 1 minute to midnight in perpetuity - always almost too late but never actually too late.

So how much immiseration should we in the UK inflict on our pensioners, hospitals and waterways in pursuit of this goal? What level of poverty are we willing to tolerate, and how much strain will the political system tolerate before we elect our own head-banging demagogue?

Should we do so blindly or should we have due regard to what else is going on in the world?

My employer promised net zero by 2030 (scope 1) - back in 2018….its all gone very quiet now though…

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Guigsy]

The question of course is whether you actually believe our economy and standard of living would be any better if we abandoned our climate change targets. Personally I think our economic decline was well in advance of any climate change targets or action, blaming our poor performance on them is an excuse just like blaming it on other groups of people.

We're using less energy. And solar and wind are cheap. Government incentives were required to get the technologies established, but they make economic sense now.

And 1.5C has pretty much already happened. But that's not a reason to ignore it and let it get even worse.

listen, most of what is said is propaganda, there is absolutely nothing, that can be done. The release of Gases from Volcanoes, which there are about 1600 active Volcanoes around the world, and that is, only the ones we know of, it's said there could be hundreds below the sea, and they release multiple gases, not just one Gas, these are CO2, SO2, HCl, HF, H2S, Rn and H2SO4, and every single one is a dangerous Gas, and don't forget Propaganda says they don't release as much Gas as we do, 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year for a car, for a volcano it's 730, 340 tons a day from just one volcano, and that is just CO2, not including all the other gases, which weren't measured, Also there are many Volcanoes that break through underground oil reservoirs, do the maths.

Volcanoes are small fry compared to human activity. Humans are approximately 60 times more.

And we can tell all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from burnt plant matter, i.e. fossil fuels. Because atmospheric and tectonic and weathering release carbon with a split of isotopes with a certain ratio. But plants favour one particular isotope over the other. So fossil fuels are much richer in one type than the other. And our atmosphere has rapidly increased in the volume of that isotope. Which of extremely good evidence that the extra CO2 is fossil fuels. There's no other explanation for the shift.

And the extra CO2 in the atmosphere isn't far off the volume we've burnt since the industrial revolution. Funny coincidence that.

The other issue is that all the natural cycles were roughly in balance. And now we've started tipping masses of extra CO2 into the atmosphere with nowhere for it to go. It took millions of years to create those dino squeezings, and we've liberated the gases in a little over a century.

There's so many arguments for human induced climate change, and so much evidence, it's just not funny.

 

[The Wino]

We're using less energy. And solar and wind are cheap. Government incentives were required to get the technologies established, but they make economic sense now.

And 1.5C has pretty much already happened. But that's not a reason to ignore it and let it get even worse.

Volcanoes are small fry compared to human activity. Humans are approximately 60 times more.

And we can tell all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from burnt plant matter, i.e. fossil fuels. Because atmospheric and tectonic and weathering release carbon with a split of isotopes with a certain ratio. But plants favour one particular isotope over the other. So fossil fuels are much richer in one type than the other. And our atmosphere has rapidly increased in the volume of that isotope. Which of extremely good evidence that the extra CO2 is fossil fuels. There's no other explanation for the shift.

And the extra CO2 in the atmosphere isn't far off the volume we've burnt since the industrial revolution. Funny coincidence that.

The other issue is that all the natural cycles were roughly in balance. And now we've started tipping masses of extra CO2 into the atmosphere with nowhere for it to go. It took millions of years to create those dino squeezings, and we've liberated the gases in a little over a century.

There's so many arguments for human induced climate change, and so much evidence, it's just not funny.

Don't use scientific evidence to counter climate change denyers you know they don't like "experts" !

 

[AndyPK]

Don't use scientific evidence to counter climate change denyers you know they don't like "experts" !

Strange - I haven't seen any posts ‘denying’ climate change (it is always changing, and there is ample ‘scientific evidence’ of this too) - the disagreement seems to be about the amount of influence man is/may be having on current trends……

 

[BobJayne]

 

[Guigsy]

View attachment 1011255

And let them generate it for free on their own roof.

And at least we'll be in control of our electricity prices. How much crude oil for diesel and petrol is made in the UK?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[enark]

And let them generate it for free on their own roof.

And at least we'll be in control of our electricity prices. How much crude oil for diesel and petrol is made in the UK?

Easy for someone that owns a roof.

Problem is EVs are exclusively for the rich, ( large driveways, roofs, solar PV arrays, battery banks, £40k plus to buy) so pushing the moral righteousness down everyones throat is a little like snobbery…

 

[Guigsy]

Easy for someone that owns a roof.

Problem is EVs are exclusively for the rich, ( large driveways, roofs, solar PV arrays, battery banks, £40k plus to buy) so pushing the moral righteousness down everyones throat is a little like snobbery…

Got my 4 year old EV for £11k. No solar or battery banks here as it'd be pointless with the tall buildings all around.

New BEVs are as little as £15k. There's quite a lot of choice below £25k now. That's less than a base VW Golf.

 

[enark]

Got my 4 year old EV for £11k. No solar or battery banks here as it'd be pointless with the tall buildings all around.

New BEVs are as little as £15k. There's quite a lot of choice below £25k now. That's less than a base VW Golf.

Roof?

Driveway?

£2000 run around?

Not really open to all eh?

 

[The Wino]

Roof?

Driveway?

£2000 run around?

Not really open to all eh?

But if no one bought one they would never be available secondhand! Are you saying no one ought to buy a motorhome because poor people can't buy a new one?

 

[PaulW2]

But if no one bought one they would never be available secondhand! Are you saying no one ought to buy a motorhome because poor people can't buy a new one?

I think he was just highlighting the flaws in the "let them eat cake" position.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Guigsy]

Roof?

Driveway?

£2000 run around?

Not really open to all eh?

A £2k runaround is how old? BEVs aren't that old yet. Although you do see the occasional 1st Gen Nissan Leaf for that price. It might only have 30 miles of range left (they suffered from bad degredation, which is much less of an issue today). But even 30 miles is fine for the school and shopping runs. Give it time.