1 hour ago, EnterName said:

Somewhat more detail is required for this to even start to be a valid example of a "crisis" that was averted/solved, and didn't simply follow Sowell's 4 stages of "We want to do this so we'll call it a crisis so we can force it through".

World war isn't a valid example of crisis?!? 

There was oppositions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_World_War_II  I am pretty sure for the oppositions, it sounds like "we want to do this so we'll call it a crisis so we can force it through". 

 

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

But participation isn't going to be optional, is it? So this doesn't apply.

If it was optional, then I wouldn't be grumbling. You can have all the solar panels and wind farms you like. On your property. At your expense.

Problem is, participation is entirely optional. We've already seen so many people on many different social/mainstream media say that they plan to buy an ICE in 2029 and pollute with it for as long as possible. Same for gas boilers. Same for rejecting smart meters. 

 

2 hours ago, EnterName said:

If you think politics have no impact on scientific consensus, I don't think I can help you. 🤷‍♂️

If you think climate change crisis is due to politics, I don't think I can help you either. 

All throughout last 50 years, politics on climate change had been against any changes for climate change, mainly due to the money flowing from fossil fuel lobbies. Now that the science is finally heard and climate change actions are now mainstream, the old doubts planted by fossil fuel industry is still persisting. 

What gets me with climate change naysayers is not that they do not admit that is ICE vehicles are accelerating oncoming more violent weather, flooding, sea rise but that they do not choose governments which guard against climate change ie more installing of storm drains etc as it may well be that quarter, half or three quarters or so of climate change and our industrial activity with carbon burning, and methane etc, is accelerating us to horrendous weather future and we all need to get on to government and get them to think befond 5 years and start thinking about the next 5 years.

 

Humans are so bright we can even extract heat from our environment a get energy out of the process at a ratio of 4 to 1 with heat pumps.

Whilst the UK falls behind other countries who are surging a head to a time of virtual free electrical energy, which will make their industries much more competitive, we languish. 

I have a heat pump in my Zoe. Want one in my house, even if just a room sized one.  When less oil and gas is used for residential and business heating prices will fall and Western Europe being made to dance by not very nice foreign powers can end.

 

Big Heat pump projects..... 800% efficiency................

 

  % 

15 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

we will soon see petrol station closures as more of them just do not have the business to stay open. It is inevitable and happening fast.

  

 

There are around 41million cars in the UK and around 40million are ICE.  I don't think petrol stations will be going out of business any time soon due to a couple of thousand chargers being installed per month. 

15 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

we will soon see petrol station closures as more of them just do not have the business to stay open. It is inevitable and happening fast.

  

 

There are around 41million cars in the UK and around 40million are ICE.  I don't think petrol stations will be going out of business any time soon due to a couple of thousand chargers being installed per month. 

15 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

we will soon see petrol station closures as more of them just do not have the business to stay open. It is inevitable and happening fast.

  

 

There are around 41million cars in the UK and around 40million are ICE.  I don't think petrol stations will be going out of business any time soon due to a couple of thousand chargers being installed per month. 

@skomazAround 41 million vehicles road legal in the UK is it not, not cars? 

 

Point taken though. 

23 minutes ago, toot said:

@skomazAround 41 million vehicles road legal in the UK is it not, not cars? 

 

Point taken though. 

 

Yep...   Apologies for the error...   Only 35 million cars out of that 41 million vehicles...   vs only 750 thousand EVs

@skomaz As we know with this Government, the agencies like the DVLA, or organisations like the Office for national statistics, or the SMMT or RAC is that it is pick a number any number.

It might have been 780,000 Registered / On the roads, it might be a million now, it might be more. 

The number is growing and maybe less are being crashed or scrapped as there are ICE vehicles that are part of the 41 million. 

 

***If really almost a 1/4 First registered in the UK were really BEV,s that would be lots,

but if they were actual EV,s

and that includes Hybrids / PHEV,s then they need liquid fuel. ***

 

There are lots of EV Light Commercials going on the roads with Fleets. 

Also PHEV,s. 

 

CALLING MILD HYBRIDS & PHEVS  EV,s IS KIDOLOGY.   Actual deception IMO.

 

 

Edited 30 June, 20232 yr by toot

Still too many big heavy cars being Bought / Leased / First Registered and getting Tax Breaks from UK Tax Payers, many of who can not afford a car or a new car.

HMRC / Government need to stop encouraging Business,s / Companies to have vehicles running about for their employees or management that are bigger / heavier than required just because management need prestige cars.

 

'Commercial Travellers' REPS as they used to be called, and people that drive long distances regularly for work out of cities do deserve comfort and reliability and range. (EDIT)

Giving them some of the Bigger / Most expensive EV,s does not mean they are getting the most efficient EV,s requiring least charging stops.

 

 

.......................................

CARZAR,

A Car Dealer / Showroom opening in Inverness for 'Younger buyers'.

http://inverness-courier.co.uk/news/inverness-companys-drive-for-younger-motorists-with-new-sho-317510

 

 

 

Edited 30 June, 20232 yr by toot

Fixed.

Edited 30 June, 20232 yr by Breezy_Pete

19 hours ago, wyx087 said:

World war isn't a valid example of crisis?!? 

There was oppositions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_World_War_II  I am pretty sure for the oppositions, it sounds like "we want to do this so we'll call it a crisis so we can force it through". 

I'm sure this makes sense in your head, but can you state your point clearly?

 

20 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Problem is, participation is entirely optional. We've already seen so many people on many different social/mainstream media say that they plan to buy an ICE in 2029 and pollute with it for as long as possible. Same for gas boilers. Same for rejecting smart meters. 

Oh! So ULEZ payments are optional now?

The green levvy's will be optional?

https://www.independent.co.uk/business/green-levies-to-return-to-household-energy-bills-in-july-b2363680.html

 

20 hours ago, wyx087 said:

If you think climate change crisis is due to politics, I don't think I can help you either. 

Yes, I do think the "climate change crisis" is due to politics, with a fair bit of business interest thrown in too.

I've given you a perfectly good example of "The Science" being used to push a political narrative.

You have ignored this example and persist in claiming that science is untainted by political expediency. So that's that.

 

9 hours ago, skomaz said:

There are around 41million cars in the UK and around 40million are ICE.  I don't think petrol stations will be going out of business any time soon due to a couple of thousand chargers being installed per month. 

There are around 41million cars in the UK and around 40million are ICE.  I don't think petrol stations will be going out of business any time soon due to a couple of thousand chargers being installed per month. 

There are around 41million cars in the UK and around 40million are ICE.  I don't think petrol stations will be going out of business any time soon due to a couple of thousand chargers being installed per month. 

 

The 41M vehicles, maybe 35M registered cars is one stat, and not even 1M EVs but it is the miles they travel, the energy and fuel they use.

Couple of years old now but the article below states EV drivers do more miles than ICE drivers and we know many ICE cars are older cars drivers keep for occasional use and not work horses.  Most importantly is the transfer over of van drivers and even truck to EV propulsion as those are the guys and girls doing big miles.  As I do around 30k miles per year I thought it important that I have a full EV in my stable and it is doing well over its 6k miles I contracted for, sadly my Hybrid Arkana is probably doing more than twice that but then, I see from the onboard computer that about 20% of those miles are without the accelerator peddle being pressed and therefore mostly in coast mode with the ICE not running.   I like to call it "Gravity Assist".

 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/electric-vehicles-news/what-range-anxiety-ev-drivers-rack-up-more-miles-than-those-using-tradition/#:~:text=The average EV covers 391,the idea of going green.

 

So it is less about absolute numbers and more about miles travelled.  I love to see those lovely older ICE cars and doing a few hundred miles or a couple of thousand is now biggy. It is us high milers doing tens of thousands a year, last mile distribution and us salesmen and women going to EV, even if only a couple or maybe 5 or 10 millions is key and not the other 30M or so.

 

Other part we need to do is to move our hydrocarbon boilers to heat pump tech and that is equally important as to removing ICE vehicles from the road to getting the UK's carbon figure much lower down than it's current trajectory to do our bit for the world and delay hitting the higher temperature point and the consequential weather problems.

 

Edited 30 June, 20232 yr by lol-lol

Repmobiles.  More of which are needed.     

Actual 0-62 mph / 100 km & much more just a pith take really for 'Company Cars or Family / Private cars in the UK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 30 June, 20232 yr by toot

LOL.

 

 

 

20 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Problem is, participation is entirely optional. We've already seen so many people on many different social/mainstream media say that they plan to buy an ICE in 2029 and pollute with it for as long as possible. Same for gas boilers. Same for rejecting smart meters. 

I can't believe I forgot this example of "optional" participation. I suppose I was just so surprised that anyone would make such a claim.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/environment/dutch-announce-forced-buyout-of-farms-to-cut-emissions

23 minutes ago, toot said:

LOL.

 

 

Much more about the fact that VW is not competing in the EV world very well, when measured against TESLA and even SAIC / MG.

It must be a dilemma, produce EVs when you lose money on every one so therefore cut back but not fully getting in to the EV "game" probably means oblivion after 2030.

 

They must be preparing to beg the EU for protectionist measures as although Asia and North America is being lost they could at least keep some presence in European, excluding those non-EU countries like Norway and of course Russia where buyers of Audis, BMWs, Mercs etc are now buying Chinese brands in big numbers.

 

16 minutes ago, EnterName said:

I can't believe I forgot this example of "optional" participation. I suppose I was just so surprised that anyone would make such a claim.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/environment/dutch-announce-forced-buyout-of-farms-to-cut-emissions

 

Is this about farting animals  ?   What does a nitrogen minister do.  Nitrogen makes up 80% of our air.  There is a problem with farmers allowing chemicals to go in to rivers etc, nitrogen, phosphates etc.  Farmers need electric tractors, bailers, harvesters maybe ? 

 

Water / sewage companies, farmers & rubbish tips and many other business,s need to be turning more human & animal waste and vegetable matter into energy / power sources. 

 

That just needs Governments, Agencies & the Energy companies sewage, farmers & others working for the good of the people and the environment.

 

The thing the world is not short of is sh!te and urine, just as not short of wind or sunlight.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

The 41M vehicles, maybe 35M registered cars is one stat, and not even 1M EVs but it is the miles they travel, the energy and fuel they use.

 

My Hybrid Arkana is probably doing more than twice that but then, I see from the onboard computer that about 20% of those miles are without the accelerator peddle being pressed and therefore mostly in coast mode with the ICE not running.

 

 

Just out of interest what is your long term mpg from the Arkana for those 'well over 6k miles'?

2 hours ago, toot said:

... & others working for the good of the people and the environment.

 

As a kid, my parents weren't on mains drainage, so had to have a septic tank drained fairly regularly.

 

Their neighbour, Mr Gladman, was a keen gardener, even as a centenarian.  He never had his septic tank emptied... but always grew the most amazing vegetables 😎  I guess he had the right idea after all.

 

He'd have moved off this mortal coil about 50 years ago.  Makes me a bit sad, typing this, to realise that I can't picture his face at all.

 

Gaz

 

There was stuff here about waste or losses turning electricity into hydrogen.

 

Well the human body turns food & liquid to energy and waste and any surplus intake and failure to pass out waste from the process is like there stored as fat.

Just a shame that the waste products are not used efficiently to produce more food / liquid and energy in the countries that can easily do it as producing electricity, and gas is a simple process.

 

5 hours ago, skomaz said:

 

Just out of interest what is your long term mpg from the Arkana for those 'well over 6k miles'?

 

I was doing a nidge over 60 mpg on the current tankful, after covering around 200 miles bug M6 was bad with tens of mile of stop start traffic so indicated MPG fell to 54 mpg.

I have been averaging about 55 mpg for the last few tankfulls but in the winter I was bang on the stated average of 49 mpg for the Arkana 1.333 litre mild hybrid.

 

The 1.6 Etech owners  seem to get upper 50s mpg, some 1.33 litre Arkana mpg have reported only getting around 40 mpg or even less but I suspect they are doing lots of town driving and sounds like they would have been better off spending a couple of extra grand and getting the etech Arkana but then they would have lost the much better acceleration of the turbo Arkana rather than 1.6 litre naturally aspirated Arkana.

The new Austral and Rafale should be even better with their 1.2 turbo engines.

 

MPG is where I expected it to be and quite reasonable for quite a large car ie tallish. CO2 is circa 134 gm/km which is not great.  Trade in price is holding up so maybe trade in for Rafale next year....

 

 

13 hours ago, EnterName said:

I'm sure this makes sense in your head, but can you state your point clearly?

Every action has an reaction. The call to arms in all previous conflicts have had oppositions. In all those instances, if you were the opposition, you are very likely to feel this way:  "they want to do this so they'll call it a crisis so they can force it through". You wanted an example to say a crisis that was solved satisfactorily, allies winning the war was one.

 

13 hours ago, EnterName said:

Oh! So ULEZ payments are optional now?

The green levvy's will be optional?

https://www.independent.co.uk/business/green-levies-to-return-to-household-energy-bills-in-july-b2363680.html

ULEZ is entirely optional. I live and breath in this debate as upcoming expansion covers my neighbourhood. But public transport is adequate around here. ULEZ compliant cars are also not difficult to source.

Yes, green levy is not optional but neither is everything else in the standing charge. Is it right to not have a say in this? I agree it's not right. In the standing charge, there's a lot of other things to get angry about, such as the money to prop up failed energy companies.

 

13 hours ago, EnterName said:

Yes, I do think the "climate change crisis" is due to politics, with a fair bit of business interest thrown in too.

I've given you a perfectly good example of "The Science" being used to push a political narrative.

You have ignored this example and persist in claiming that science is untainted by political expediency. So that's that.

I'm not claiming ALL claimed science is untainted by political expediency. I did not respond to COVID because 1. it is off topic and 2. I have nothing to say against points you've made.  Although the COVID mask thing was not scientific consensus backed by majority, as you pointed out, it was presented by gov minister and quoted a single scientist's view.

 

I am saying this scientific consensus about the climate change crisis is untainted by political expediency and business interest.

What you seems to have ignored the tactics that big oil used around 40 years ago. Only recently climate change action has became dominant view in politics, why was the few big oil funded scientists not your concern?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

On 30/06/2023 at 21:42, wyx087 said:

Every action has an reaction. The call to arms in all previous conflicts have had oppositions. In all those instances, if you were the opposition, you are very likely to feel this way:  "they want to do this so they'll call it a crisis so they can force it through". You wanted an example to say a crisis that was solved satisfactorily, allies winning the war was one.

I don't think anything about WW2 was satisfactory, and I do not accept that there was a need for WW2. But I accept you have a different perspective, so I'm happy to agree to disagree and understand your perspective a little more.

 

On 30/06/2023 at 21:42, wyx087 said:

But public transport is adequate around here. ULEZ compliant cars are also not difficult to source.

Well when you put it like that, how could anyone complain about being forced to buy a ULEZ-compliant car? "What do you mean you can't afford a new car!? Come on! They're not difficult to source!"

 

On 30/06/2023 at 21:42, wyx087 said:

I am saying this scientific consensus about the climate change crisis is untainted by political expediency and business interest.

Yes, I realise that. I think it's a very naive opinion and I disagree with it.

 

On 30/06/2023 at 21:42, wyx087 said:

What you seems to have ignored the tactics that big oil used around 40 years ago. Only recently climate change action has became dominant view in politics, why was the few big oil funded scientists not your concern?

I am not ignoring them. I am simply of the opinion that scientists are no less easily bought and controlled now than they were 40 years ago.

In fact I'd say it's easier to control them now, as there's more money to buy them off and public defenestration is a common occurrence for people failing to adhere with the current narrative.

In fact, you can even lose access to banking services, if you fail to toe the line. That's quite an incentive to say what should be said, and not say what must not be said.

As this is a public forum now seems like a good time for me to affirm my views.

 

Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson should be cancelled.

 

Women have penises.

 

Touche pas mes comptes bancaires!

14 hours ago, EnterName said:

I am not ignoring them. I am simply of the opinion that scientists are no less easily bought and controlled now than they were 40 years ago.

In fact I'd say it's easier to control them now, as there's more money to buy them off and public defenestration is a common occurrence for people failing to adhere with the current narrative.

How can the majority be bought?

I get the feeling your view is that companies are spending more money on buying scientists than actually doing the work to bring us green tech.

Is there any source to your claim that it is a fact "it's easier to control them (climate scientists) now"?

 

Defenestration of sources seems to be used a lot by anti-EV individuals, for example: https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/499506-the-truth-about-electric-cars/?do=findComment&comment=5762786

 

14 hours ago, EnterName said:

In fact, you can even lose access to banking services, if you fail to toe the line. That's quite an incentive to say what should be said, and not say what must not be said.

Please do share the source to that "fact". Where climate scientist "fail to toe the line" had lost access to their banking service.

 

You can't make claims like the above 2 "facts" without sources.

Similarly, you can't use numbers that seems to feel very small but without context to make you point.

 

 

14 hours ago, EnterName said:

Well when you put it like that, how could anyone complain about being forced to buy a ULEZ-compliant car? "What do you mean you can't afford a new car!? Come on! They're not difficult to source!"

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location=at_cars&fuel-type=Petrol%2CPetrol Hybrid&include-delivery-option=on&make=&postcode=n11 3pw&price-to=3000&radius=100&sort=price-asc&year-from=2006

7000 choices for under £3000 petrol that is ULEZ compliant. Why does it have to be "a new car"?

Cars are commodity, just sell the non-compliant diesel for a similar priced petrol. ULEZ is only strict on diesels. Petrols after 2005 are compliant, that's 18 years! So pretty much vast majority petrol car are compliant. Typical cars' lifetime is said to be 12-15 years old.

20 hours ago, wyx087 said:

How can the majority be bought?

A combination of the prospect of punishment if you fail to toe the line, and reward if you do toe the line.

 

20 hours ago, wyx087 said:

I get the feeling your view is that companies are spending more money on buying scientists than actually doing the work to bring us green tech.

I haven't given that particular suggestion any thought, so your feeling is incorrect.

 

20 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Is there any source to your claim that it is a fact "it's easier to control them (climate scientists) now"?

You provided no source for your "feeling" so it's a bit rich to ask for a source for an opinion that I stated with an explanation for the opinion provided in same sentence.

On 02/07/2023 at 08:24, EnterName said:

In fact I'd say it's easier to control them now, as there's more money to buy them off and public defenestration is a common occurrence for people failing to adhere with the current narrative.

 

20 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Defenestration of sources seems to be used a lot by anti-EV individuals, for example: https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/499506-the-truth-about-electric-cars/?do=findComment&comment=5762786

I had a look at that. Who's getting cancelled in that example?

 

20 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Please do share the source to that "fact". Where climate scientist "fail to toe the line" had lost access to their banking service.

Please don't strawman me. This is what I said.

On 02/07/2023 at 08:24, EnterName said:

In fact, you can even lose access to banking services, if you fail to toe the line. That's quite an incentive to say what should be said, and not say what must not be said.

The fact is people HAVE lost access to their bank accounts if they failed to toe a particular line. Have I got a specific example of a climate scientist who lost access to his bank account? No. If that's a win for you, revel in it.

However here's an example of scientific defenestration.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/james-watson-scientist-honors-stripped-reprehensible-race-comments

 

Here's another, less significant one.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-trans-humanist-aha-b1835017.html

 

20 hours ago, wyx087 said:

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location=at_cars&fuel-type=Petrol%2CPetrol Hybrid&include-delivery-option=on&make=&postcode=n11 3pw&price-to=3000&radius=100&sort=price-asc&year-from=2006

7000 choices for under £3000 petrol that is ULEZ compliant. Why does it have to be "a new car"?

Cars are commodity, just sell the non-compliant diesel for a similar priced petrol. ULEZ is only strict on diesels. Petrols after 2005 are compliant, that's 18 years! So pretty much vast majority petrol car are compliant. Typical cars' lifetime is said to be 12-15 years old.

You don't think you understand that there are some poor people in the UK who have to run a car but cannot afford to change their existing car for a replacement ULEZ car, which may or may not be a series of bills.

You can say "Look at this one! It's only £1000!" and they couldn't afford it. I don't think you realise that there are some ordinary, decent people living good lives who just don't have the cash for a replacement car. @wyx087

I'm not virtue signalling here, I'm just telling you you don't seem to know any poor people. I offered to sell my old Mondeo to a friend for £500. They asked if they could pay me in instalments. I declined as I had another friend who had the cash, but "I get the feeling" the thought that there are people in the UK in 2023 who would need to pay a £500 bill in instalments is beyond your understanding. That's on you, not me.

 

21 hours ago, wyx087 said:

You can't make claims like the above 2 "facts" without sources.

Please cite the two "facts" I made claims about.

 

21 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Similarly, you can't use numbers that seems to feel very small but without context to make you point.

What are you referring to with this statement?