2030 new fossil fuel cars roll back - 2035

[wraymond]

[QUOTE=SteveThackery;2996048]1/ Do you think that climate change is happening?

2/ Do you think anthropogenic emissions of CO2 is causing it?

3/ Do you think that climate change is, overall, undesirable for the human race?

If you answer yes to all three questions, or even "probably", then action to avoid it seems logical............

Please forgive the cropping!

Thanks for the opportunity Steve and, if I may say, well argued and logical. As far as the three opening questions go, my answer to all three is no. There’s nothing happening that hasn’t happened before in one way or another.

But why should users, at the minimal end of the polluting scale (1%?), be held jointly responsible for the alleged major and ultimately suicidal guessed-at Armageddon?

Small economical ICE’s are, according to industry sources, responsible for a ridiculously small contribution and are the life-blood of commuters. Why penalise moderation in an attempt to modulate the excesses of the major contributors? Sounds like suicide to me. This whole affair is the result of the major financiers eager to shift profit source.


As usual Mammon rules. There are also political motivations to address, not welcome on here so best not to address in open forum.



.

[daveo138]

My answers would be, yes, no and possibly.

I do believe that the climate is changing, but it always has and it always will.

I don’t, however, believe the changes and man-made, although it could be argued that cloud seeding is having an effect.

Another ice-age could be considered undesirable.

[SteveThackery]

I think that the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment are the best things ever to happen to mankind. 500 years ago we were living like savages - still putting heads on sticks outside city gates. And then it all changed and the benefits are both obvious and vast. We are enjoying the greatest improvements in health, well-being and longevity ever known. And other things flourished, too: culture, the arts, humanities. Our material and cultural wealth is extraordinary.

The benefits of reason, rational thinking and logic extend to our quest for knowledge and understanding. Nothing comes close to the scientific method as a tool for discovering facts, and the truth. Except, of course, that in the scientific method there are no absolute truths or facts; all "truths" and "facts" are provisional. All are subject to review and, in the light of new evidence, to being changed or discarded.

Faith-based thinkers imagine this is the fundamental weakness of science: they say "there are no facts, only theories". How wrong they are! It is by the very process of continuous revision that science gives us the best ever understanding of the world. It is constantly being improved and fine-tuned. As a means of discovering the "truth", there is no better method. Indeed, no other method comes close.

I am a dedicated believer in Enlightenment values, and especially in science as the means to learn about our world. But this means I cannot justifiably pick and choose which bits of science to believe in. There may be aspects I remain sceptical about, but I should be even more sceptical about the alternatives, because they've been arrived at by hunch, opinion, or wishful thinking. Logically I must embrace what climate science says - even though it's a young and difficult science - because hunch, opinion and wishful thinking are even less reliable.

That's why I cannot agree with anyone who answers "No" to my three questions; the current state of the science says "Yes" to all three. If you answer "No" then you are elevating hunches, opinions and wishful thinking above the scientific method. You are denying science.

I repeat: as a means of discovering the truth, nothing comes even close to the scientific method. I repeat: the fact that it may one day turn out to be wrong is not a reason to reject it, because in doing so you are simply accepting an alternative which has even less likelihood of being true..

As a dedicated believer in science, then I must accept what it is teaching us, even though I don't like it. To do otherwise would require me to think unscientifically.

Originally Posted by wraymond

But why should users, at the minimal end of the polluting scale (1%?), be held jointly responsible for the alleged major and ultimately suicidal guessed-at Armageddon?

For the reasons I gave in my other post: if we are in the third of the world's population who is harming the other two thirds, it's incumbent on every one of us to stop doing the harm. It isn't relevant whether we live in a tiny country or a big one - CO2 is produced by the collective action of everyone in that third we are talking about.

Originally Posted by wraymond

Small economical ICE’s are, according to industry sources, responsible for a ridiculously small contribution and are the life-blood of commuters.

What sources? I wouldn't look to industry for that data - they are experts on building cars, not on climate science. The data is plentiful and easily available online from government sources (which are based on supranational scientific data).

Originally Posted by wraymond

Why penalise moderation in an attempt to modulate the excesses of the major contributors? Sounds like suicide to me.

Because we are all part of the problem. If I lived in Germany, would I be a "major contributor"? Germany is made up of individuals just like us. Each individual - whether they are in the UK, Germany or China - produces an insignificant amount of CO2, but collectively we produce too much (scientifically speaking). So we need to act collectively. There is no excuse for not acting - even if the US or Germany don't join in to start with, there is still too much CO2 so each individual is responsible for reducing the CO2 that they produce. How can it be any other way?

Originally Posted by wraymond

This whole affair is the result of the major financiers eager to shift profit source. As usual Mammon rules.

I've heard this said before, but I don't really understand it. Shutting off fossil fuels is surely going to really, really hurt a LOT of financiers! The easiest way to make money is to dig up vast quantities of coal and gas and sell it to people who don't have any.

Also, I think the entire European motor industry must be s h i t t i n g itself, because the Chinese are going to destroy it. At the moment they enjoy a good degree of brand loyalty. But when it comes time for someone to abandon ICE cars and look around for their first electric car, they'll be far more open to trying new brands. And the Chinese are smart - they'll be selling familiar or prestigious-sounding brands, and they'll be undercutting the European manufacturers by a large margin. I predict it'll be another major loss to the Western economies.

So no, I don't think many financiers are looking at this situation and rubbing their hands. All they'll see is the imminent loss of another manufacturing industry, and a vast flow of money towards China.

[MSS]

Steve,

Your post #48 and the one immediately above this are excellent and in my view demonstrate the gift of deep intelligence and logical thinking that many humans thankfully possess.

One aspect you didn't mention but is highly relevant in terms of taking personal responsibility for leaving a better world for future generations is the per-capita consumption and the consequential emissions irrespective of where the emissions actually occur. If one considers this apsect then it quickly becomes clear that what drives China's and India's emissions is our desire for excessive consumption at low cost and their desire to fulfill that consumption.

Looking at it this way it's reasonable to conclude that where emissions occur is driven by financial considerations but the fact that they occur at unsustainable level is driven by our personal behaviours and values of every human.

[wraymond]

Thanks for that Steve, any light thrown is valuable in seeing both sides. There are however so many other considerations to be taken into account. It’s difficult not to take up endless pages from non-professionals like me in order to present with sufficient clarity and authority.

Instead, I can only offer the proven view of, hopefully, ‘experts’ in the field who might be respected for their counter-view. For the full story, and covering vital aspects not widely offered, I can recommend an article in today’s Mail (page 15) by the respected Ross Clark.

He covers various other implications and possibilities not usually offered on the subject which are frankly horrific in exposing the whole subject. Er, hasten to add, I have no, absolutely no, connection!

[SteveThackery]

Originally Posted by MSS

One aspect you didn't mention but is highly relevant in terms of taking personal responsibility for leaving a better world for future generations is the per-capita consumption and the consequential emissions irrespective of where the emissions actually occur. If one considers this apsect then it quickly becomes clear that what drives China's and India's emissions is our desire for excessive consumption at low cost and their desire to fulfill that consumption.

Absolutely agree. There has always been much debate about where CO2 production is assigned. It is argued that countries like the UK, which has genuinely reduced its CO2 emissions by a lot, have simply exported their CO2 production to China.

It is obviously true to a significant extent, but it's worth pointing out that pretty well every other Western country has done the same thing, and yet often their CO2 production hasn't fallen as much as the UK's. We aren't doing badly as a country.

We have handed a vast amount of power to China simply by being greedy. We want loads of "stuff" as cheaply as possible, but in doing so we've destroyed our own manufacturing base and we've destroyed much of our means of generating wealth. So now we go cap in hand to the Chinese, hoping they will pay for our nuclear power stations. What fools we've been.

I've been in a sulk ever since the science made it clear that we need to change our carbon-hungry lifestyles. I'm in my mid-60s and absolutely love my cars, my motorcycles, and motoring in general. I was hoping to continue enjoying them until I die, but it looks like I probably can't.

[The Rovering Member]

Originally Posted by SteveThackery

We have handed a vast amount of power to China simply by being greedy. We want loads of "stuff" as cheaply as possible, but in doing so we've destroyed our own manufacturing base and we've destroyed much of our means of generating wealth. So now we go cap in hand to the Chinese, hoping they will pay for our nuclear power stations. What fools we've been.

I've been in a sulk ever since the science made it clear that we need to change our carbon-hungry lifestyles. I'm in my mid-60s and absolutely love my cars, my motorcycles, and motoring in general. I was hoping to continue enjoying them until I die, but it looks like I probably can't.

Same here but l'll enjoy it as long as l can. We have a stall at The Enfield Pageant next weekend, a chance to wallow in some nostalgia that l always revel in.

I sometimes wonder if a country as small as ours ever did have a chance of keeping our manufacturing base (not to mention our other means of generating income) once the sleeping tiger awoke, as we were always told it would. After all the loss started long before that anyway.