Forum

[ed.lazda]

Stinkwheel, what is the source of the table you posted about lifetime emissions of various vehicles? The differences are so stark that I am skeptical -- is it from the science literature, or do the people that published it have an unspoken agenda, and are they comparing like with like?

The point about CO2 is that it is essential to life -- plants need it, and they provide us with oxygen. The increases that are happening won't affect individual humans, and won't cause human extinction. The changes in planetary climate systems will result in major changes in the way human society is organized, and that's the problem -- these changes are unlikely to be pleasant.

I agree with those who say it's not our only problem. As I see it, climate change is simply a marker of the two main issues -- overpopulation and over-consumption. Unless those are dealt with, we're stuffed.

[singleminded]

As I see it, climate change is simply a marker of the two main issues -- overpopulation and over-consumption. Unless those are dealt with, we're stuffed.

Spot on, and the reason for both is 'big business' which needs more customers and is so powerful that it has a malign influence on the social and economic policies of governments worldwide.

[windmill john]

Here's an interesting one.

No need to watch the video, I'll tell you, but the point is two minutes in.

A chap has a VGA monitor and you can buy a working one for £20 to £30 S/H.
The repair is going to cost £60.

This is explained to the customer, but he wants it fixed anyway.
He may have other reasons for repairing it, but ethically, brilliant.
Could I afford to do that? Would I do that? This is an example of where something must change to make us repair not throw away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fDK_CQqjPg


John

[Wheaters]

Just feeding the plants ... https://youtu.be/srifdJbJJkg

And we thought it was fog in them thar Welsh Valleys!

[windmill john]

I'm not into health and safety per se....... but wouldn't you have moved it nearer the door!!!

[Bullet Whisperer]

I'm not into health and safety per se....... but wouldn't you have moved it nearer the door!!!

To be honest, I was so surprised it started, the thought never crossed my mind!

[vince]

Hi, the 1987 big storm destroyed 15 million trees, So I blame the weather gods .

[mart]

Just got this from the MAG- though anything can happen between now and then I suppose.

MAG confirms 2035 ban for petrol and diesel is not for motorcycles

This version: 2020-02-07

On Tuesday 4th February, Boris Johnson launched the UK-hosted UN climate
summit and announced that he would bring forward the end to the sale of
new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2040 to 2035 - or earlier if
possible - and include hybrids for the first time.
As with all such long range, broad announcements, it was not clear what
the detailed policy would be and how it would be implemented. As such,
the announcement caused a flurry of speculation and guesses for
motorcyclists, with conflicting conclusions drawn.

As always, MAG has taken the sensible approach of seeking clarification.
Speaking to Phil Killingley, Deputy Head of the Office for Low
Emission Vehicles (OLEV) at the Department for Transport, MAG’s Director
of Campaigns & Political Engagement, Colin Brown, received confirmation
that the 2035 ban does not apply to motorcycles. Colin commented “We are
pleased to hear that the ban from 2035 will not apply to the sale of
petrol-powered motorcycles. Our membership consists overwhelmingly of
petrol-engine bike users who do not wish to see the very thing they love
banned. Yet it is clear, speaking to the Department, that the threat
remains. It will not surprise anyone that the debate over
electrification is also taking place in MAG, with a range of views
expressed. The task ahead is to plot a sensible, evidence-based
approach in a subject area that ignites great passion and emotion.”

On Tuesday 4th February, Lembit Opik, MAG’s Director of Communications &
Public Affairs, attended a key meeting in Parliament where Visiting
Professor at Oxford and Imperial College London, Gautam Kalghatgi,
explained why petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles cannot, in reality, be
banned by the 2035 deadline. Professor Kalghatgi argued that the
largescale adoption of electric power creates enormous and, as yet,
unsolved problems. Lembit said “this is a highly complex issue in which
all factors need to be weighed and the impacts fully understood before
decisions are made. The answers for motorcycles are different to those
for cars regarding readiness for electrification and impacts on users,
so it’s vital motorbikes are considered separately to cars and vans.”

The government is consulting on the 2035 proposals, telling
stakeholders: “We are aware that stakeholders will have a diverse range
of views on this subject and both Ministers and senior officials will be
engaging closely to understand what those are.” The subjects that they
want feedback on are: the phase-out date; the definition of what should
be phased out; barriers to achieving the ambitions set out in the
consultation; the impact of these ambitions on different sectors of
industry and society; and what measures are required by Government and
others to achieve the earlier phase-out date.’

National MAG Chair, Selina Lavender, added: “MAG is on the list of
stakeholders and will be engaging fully with OLEV so that the views and
opinions of our members are fully represented.”


Contact MAG at 01926 844 064 or [email protected]
ENDS

[papasmurf]

I have just received this from the Motorcycle Action Group, (just the important bit.) :-

MAG confirms 2035 ban for petrol and diesel is not for motorcycles

This version: 2020-02-07

On Tuesday 4th February, Boris Johnson launched the UK-hosted UN climate summit and announced that he would bring forward the end to the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2040 to 2035 - or earlier if possible - and include hybrids for the first time.
As with all such long range, broad announcements, it was not clear what the detailed policy would be and how it would be implemented. As such, the announcement caused a flurry of speculation and guesses for motorcyclists, with conflicting conclusions drawn.

As always, MAG has taken the sensible approach of seeking clarification. Speaking to Phil Killingley, Deputy Head of the Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) at the Department for Transport, MAG’s Director of Campaigns & Political Engagement, Colin Brown, received confirmation that the 2035 ban does not apply to motorcycles. Colin commented “We are pleased to hear that the ban from 2035 will not apply to the sale of petrol-powered motorcycles. Our membership consists overwhelmingly of petrol-engine bike users who do not wish to see the very thing they love banned. Yet it is clear, speaking to the Department, that the threat remains. It will not surprise anyone that the debate over electrification is also taking place in MAG, with a range of views expressed. The task ahead is to plot a sensible, evidence-based approach in a subject area that ignites great passion and emotion.”

[Presto]

Anyone know if this ‘reliable’ information is in fact true? If it is, it’s another ‘fact’ someone somewhere doesn’t want to give as much air space to as the current myth that electric vehicles are the answer to the world’s woes.

It’s claimed producing batteries for electric car creates substantial CO2. The example of two common electric cars: Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S. Respectively the batteries are rated at about 30 kWh and 100 kWh. It’s claimed production of these batteries creates some 5.3 tons and 17.5 tons of CO2 respectively. That compares with London to New York flight of 0.5 tonnes of CO2 emissions.

This would mean production of the battery alone for a Tesla (not including production of the car and subsequent charging) creates as much CO2 as four years of ‘average’ driving in an ‘average’ petrol car (i.e. approx 4.6 tonnes a year). Leaf battery production is equivalent to approx 14 months ‘average’ petrol car motoring.

Could this be true?