Diesel and petrol car ban: Plan for 2040

[SignalJoe]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

are you malcolm roberts?

this would be the Nobel prize winning IPCC, the organisation considered the world's leading authority on climate change (granted not perfect), about whom one of the criticisms has been that they have underestimated the impact that global warming will have?

things that are just so unlikely that they are beyond science fiction, in order of not likely at all to extremely, beyond comprehension that anyone could imagine otherwise, unlikely.

1. charlize theron is currently searching for for my number.

2. both trump and hillary clinton will be mentioned along with lincoln, jefferson, churchill et al, as great leaders and statesmen.

3. the skins will win the superbowl this season.

4. climate change is not real.

 

Ken that is a fine straw man you built there sir!  No one is debating the fact that climate has always changed and always will.  The debate is the effect man has on that change.  The fact that IPCC doctored data to suit their agenda is also not in question.  In regards to the Nobel prize...well it lost a bit of luster when awarded to a former US Chief Executive after he had been in office just long enough to sit down and have a cup of coffee.  Even the Nobel panelists admit as much.    

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, Corylax18 said:

I was certainly not aiming my post at you, or any one member in particular. I actually think you and I agree on a lot of whats being discussed here and in general. I don't know if my avatar is any hint, but I lean highly libertarian myself. Regardless of how you view this situation I agree the government should not be the driving force behind change.

That being said, the change is happening. Regardless of weather you are a flat earther, a tree hugger, or a fox news watcher you cant deny the change we are seeing in all that is transportation. Some of that has been spurred by government spending, but as you alluded to, its the private money that is making the change. The UK government is not revolutionary, their "goal" is well on its way to happening without any input from them whatsoever. 

I'm not debating the merits of moving from fossil fuels to an all electric fleet, or hydrogen, or unicorn farts. None are perfect, and we will eventually discover something better than each. I am saying the move to automated, alternatively powered vehicles is not going to take 2 and a half more decades to mature in a small highly developed country. Will a farmer in a rural village in africa or south america have an all electric fleet in 23 years? Probably not, but by then the next best thing will be just around the corner. 

I was not attempting to call anyone's views stupid, it was more aimed at the tone.  The issue at the heart of all this, is not and should not be political. We as a society can and should do better, and not just on this issue. Some politicians make a worthless and (in my estimation) eventually inconsequential announcement and for some reason we are debating political systems. Pols around the world have mastered the "hey look over here" trick. The shiny object (political theatre) seems to be distracting every one while little to nothing happens to actually execute progress. The Cubans with the embargo, the Russians still undermining the yankees at every turn, chinese imperialism in the pacific, the UKs ban of all fossil fuel vehicle production in 23 years. All tools being used by their respective governments to distract the masses from the governments rampant ineptitude. As you stated earlier any government is theoretically effective, it is in human execution of these systems where see a stunning failure rate. The politics of this announcement will undoubtedly be viewed as a failure, regardless of the policies actual effectiveness. The less political we keep the discussion the longer it will stay unlocked, hopefully. 

I was actually hoping that I misunderstood what you wrote. You are typically on my list of persons that I relate to. I will call it my reading comprehension and leave it at that! I still don't really understand your previous post, but as we have now moved onto global warming, I think I will run with what we have in common...! -LOL

Thanks for the response. -R

[PigFish]

Damnit Ken, just as we have become as one (your words) you start on global warming!!!

(I am hoping that you have not lost all humor when it comes to our tenuous relationship!)

Cheers matey! -Ray

 

[Ken Gargett]

26 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Damnit Ken, just as we have become as one (your words) you start on global warming!!!

(I am hoping that you have not lost all humor when it comes to our tenuous relationship!)

Cheers matey! -Ray

 

ray, just back - will respond to our friend above asap but a few things do to.

i have to correct you on one thing - i most certainly do not consider our relationship as tenuous. the contrary. occasionally fractious, possibly, but that just makes you as one with almost all of my mates.

but i knew that we would never, ever, be as one on global warming (all my mates are allowed to get something wrong now and then).

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, NYgarman said:

#3 is an absolute impossibility. The Earth as we know it will end before that ever happens lol.

i do not disagree. but i still maintain that is the correct order. (1 and 2 are pretty unlikely as well).

[PigFish]

Just to let you know Ken... I went to Super Bowl 7... and the Skins did lose! -LOL

My uncle was a friend of Sonny Jurgensen and he kindly got us some wonderful tickets!

-R

[Ken Gargett]

20 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Just to let you know Ken... I went to Super Bowl 7... and the Skins did lose! -LOL

My uncle was a friend of Sonny Jurgensen and he kindly got us some wonderful tickets!

-R

way way back then, the only thing i knew about redskins was that they were the guys who always got beat in cowboy movies.

[PapaDisco]

4 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

1. charlize theron is currently searching for for my number.

As Charlize Theron is a blonde, and looks good in a bikini, I believe that it is a near certainty that she is looking for you number . . . given all the hot blondes in bikinis you've been photographed with in the past!  

As to SignalJoe's straw man . . . David Keith (Harvard prof researching climate change and engineering) points out that, while the earth has it's own carbon cycle to be sure, we can very accurately measure what the earth's contribution to CO2 is versus mankind's.  Counting all of earth's outgassing, volcanoes, deeps vents, etc., mankind's output of CO2 is 30-100X the earth's amount.  CO2 warms the planet, and the superheating that came with the Great Dying lead into the high temperatures that supported the dinosaurs that came after.  A second point that Keith makes, is that the most rapid temperature fall we see in the fossil record is the one that starts at the end of the Triassic and follows the dinosaurs down (theoretically an asteroid impact).  Alongside that temperature fall, researchers can accurately plot the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it was declining rapidly, the fastest know decline in the record.  Keith's comment is that today's increase in CO2 is 100,000 times faster than the decrease that killed the dinosaurs.  Environmental change that outpaces evolutionary change leads to extinction.

[PigFish]

19 minutes ago, PapaDisco said:

As Charlize Theron is a blonde, and looks good in a bikini, I believe that it is a near certainty that she is looking for you number . . . given all the hot blondes in bikinis you've been photographed with in the past!  

As to SignalJoe's straw man . . . David Keith (Harvard prof researching climate change and engineering) points out that, while the earth has it's own carbon cycle to be sure, we can very accurately measure what the earth's contribution to CO2 is versus mankind's.  Counting all of earth's outgassing, volcanoes, deeps vents, etc., mankind's output of CO2 is 30-100X the earth's amount.  CO2 warms the planet, and the superheating that came with the Great Dying lead into the high temperatures that supported the dinosaurs that came after.  A second point that Keith makes, is that the most rapid temperature fall we see in the fossil record is the one that starts at the end of the Triassic and follows the dinosaurs down (theoretically an asteroid impact).  Alongside that temperature fall, researchers can accurately plot the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it was declining rapidly, the fastest know decline in the record.  Keith's comment is that today's increase in CO2 is 100,000 times faster than the decrease that killed the dinosaurs.  Environmental change that outpaces evolutionary change leads to extinction.

... does this at all tie into desert island cigars? -LOL

-Piggy

[PapaDisco]

34 minutes ago, PigFish said:

... does this at all tie into desert island cigars? -LOL

-Piggy

Ha ha   We'll be alright . . . well, maybe not you Island-Boy, but the rest of our generation will most likely keep our heads above water.  What's the elevation of Isle of Man?

We all argue about this stuff like it's going to climax (or not, according to the curmudgeons) on a human time scale, but of course it takes thousands of years.  Sure Florida is going submariner in the next 50 years, but they don't know how to vote anyway  .  Between now and extinction of 95% of all life on earth, we'll have plenty of time to smoke a few   and build us one of those crazy Kevin Cosner Waterworld boats!  Send me your GPS coordinates and I'll sail by and pick you up . . . the forward hold in this baby is gonna be one big humidor!   

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, PapaDisco said:

As Charlize Theron is a blonde, and looks good in a bikini, I believe that it is a near certainty that she is looking for you number . . . given all the hot blondes in bikinis you've been photographed with in the past!  

hate to make uma jealous!

[gweilgi]

3 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

I was certainly not aiming my post at you, or any one member in particular. I actually think you and I agree on a lot of whats being discussed here and in general. I don't know if my avatar is any hint, but I lean highly libertarian myself. Regardless of how you view this situation I agree the government should not be the driving force behind change.

That being said, the change is happening. Regardless of weather you are a flat earther, a tree hugger, or a fox news watcher you cant deny the change we are seeing in all that is transportation. Some of that has been spurred by government spending, but as you alluded to, its the private money that is making the change. The UK government is not revolutionary, their "goal" is well on its way to happening without any input from them whatsoever. 

True, there is change.  The question remains how much of that change would have happened at all or at this pace if not for government "encouragement".  How keen would motorists and manufacturers be to push change if not for tightening regulations, fuel taxes or tax rebates?  If we strip out all the incentives, where would the demand or the supply come from to wean us off inefficient gas guzzlers?  Remember the outage and hand-wringing over three-point safety belts or catalytic converters: drivers and carmakers alike were up in arms over nanny-state imposition on our personal liberties and the impending death of the motor industry.

 

3 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

I'm not debating the merits of moving from fossil fuels to an all electric fleet, or hydrogen, or unicorn farts. None are perfect, and we will eventually discover something better than each. I am saying the move to automated, alternatively powered vehicles is not going to take 2 and a half more decades to mature in a small highly developed country. Will a farmer in a rural village in africa or south america have an all electric fleet in 23 years? Probably not, but by then the next best thing will be just around the corner. 

If telecoms are anything to go by, the farmer in Africa or South America will benefit by leap-frogging over entire generations of technology.  They went straight from nothing at all to mobile telephony and internet, without the intervening step of copper cables and interchanges.  I for one would find it entirely unsurprising if I were to read of entire nations in the developing world switching straight from the ox cart to vehicles powered by solar panels on the roofs of their hovels or methane generated by composting facilities in every village.  

I would be careful, though, in underestimating either the conservatism of private money or the huge emotional attachment we have to the motor vehicle.  Private enterprise has invested mind-boggling sums into current business models and infrastructure.  To abandon this hugely successful model that has worked for generations will require an awful lot of persuasion, vision and money from companies and their shareholders.  On the consumer side, we have invested an amazing amount of emotional attachment in private travel by motor vehicle, to the point where cars are totemic items signifying personal freedom, adulthood, success in life, national pride.  This, too, will be very hard to shift, however necessary or inevitable...

 

 

[Scotty]

I will be 74 if I am still here and if I am its likely I will be sitting in my own piss all day, on the bright side, I will have a free bus pass. 

 

The younger generations I do feel sorry for, but, a lot are already in the eco camp so I don't expect them to have as many objections as I do to being told what I can and cant drive and being told what to do by clueless career politicians.  *turns off sweeping statement broadcaster*

[Ken Gargett]

5 hours ago, SignalJoe said:

Ken that is a fine straw man you built there sir!  No one is debating the fact that climate has always changed and always will.  The debate is the effect man has on that change.  The fact that IPCC doctored data to suit their agenda is also not in question.  In regards to the Nobel prize...well it lost a bit of luster when awarded to a former US Chief Executive after he had been in office just long enough to sit down and have a cup of coffee.  Even the Nobel panelists admit as much.    

i have no doubt that there is considerable "change" to the world, in so many ways, that is completely unrelated to human activity. i was surprised it was so extensive, as shown by papadisco's info, but perhaps i should not have been. i don't know anyone who would argue against the concept that not all climate change is caused by humans. to me, it is not out of the realms of possibility that the earth, via a quake/meteor or who knows what, incurs massive change far beyond the level of anything we can manage. if that happens, so be it.

but, in the absence of that, in the meantime, there can surely be no doubt that there is extensive and extremely harmful warming being caused by humans. i agree that there is hypocrisy involved here. and extreme claims on both sides, and more than a little fudging of the truth, even from the white hats. there will be people who will make fortunes from manipulating this.

but leave all that to one side.

climate change is here, it is probably irrevocable and it is going to cause massive problems to the human race across many areas. not just geographically. rising sea levels. droughts. fires. extinction of endless species and the flow-on effect. the security concerns (if your country is turned into a salty swamp or the simple act of growing food to feed the planet becomes a much more difficult enterprise, you think that people are going to quietly starve? or that all manner of religious fruitbats won't be out there beating the drums). to me, disputing the overwhelming scientific evidence is akin to the flat earth movement.

my understanding was that the IPCC does not actually do any research itself but bases its findings on the evidence provided by a wide array of experts and scientists (all unpaid by the IPCC). they may have chosen dodgy data but in general, i believe that they are a highly regarded organisation. they have acknowledged some errors. but i'm not sure about the british scientists to which you refer? any info?

i'd also be very keen to see evidence of the Nobel panel admitting errors but of course, not all appointments inspire confidence (hey, at least they avoided giving it to Bono - that would have been the end of any credibility). and they did give Lit to His Bobness and that was inspired!

 

[SignalJoe]

19 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

i have no doubt that there is considerable "change" to the world, in so many ways, that is completely unrelated to human activity. i was surprised it was so extensive, as shown by papadisco's info, but perhaps i should not have been. i don't know anyone who would argue against the concept that not all climate change is caused by humans. to me, it is not out of the realms of possibility that the earth, via a quake/meteor or who knows what, incurs massive change far beyond the level of anything we can manage. if that happens, so be it.

but, in the absence of that, in the meantime, there can surely be no doubt that there is extensive and extremely harmful warming being caused by humans. i agree that there is hypocrisy involved here. and extreme claims on both sides, and more than a little fudging of the truth, even from the white hats. there will be people who will make fortunes from manipulating this.

but leave all that to one side.

climate change is here, it is probably irrevocable and it is going to cause massive problems to the human race across many areas. not just geographically. rising sea levels. droughts. fires. extinction of endless species and the flow-on effect. the security concerns (if your country is turned into a salty swamp or the simple act of growing food to feed the planet becomes a much more difficult enterprise, you think that people are going to quietly starve? or that all manner of religious fruitbats won't be out there beating the drums). to me, disputing the overwhelming scientific evidence is akin to the flat earth movement.

my understanding was that the IPCC does not actually do any research itself but bases its findings on the evidence provided by a wide array of experts and scientists (all unpaid by the IPCC). they may have chosen dodgy data but in general, i believe that they are a highly regarded organisation. they have acknowledged some errors. but i'm not sure about the british scientists to which you refer? any info?

i'd also be very keen to see evidence of the Nobel panel admitting errors but of course, not all appointments inspire confidence (hey, at least they avoided giving it to Bono - that would have been the end of any credibility). and they did give Lit to His Bobness and that was inspired!

 

Ken I will respectfully disagree with both the premise that man is the culprit and the "overwhelming scientific evidence."  While a bit younger than yourself I am old enough to remember when were all told to brace for the inevitable ice age that our actions had wrought upon ourselves.  Somehow we dodged Armageddon in that form only to face certain death from a hole in the ozone layer.  I would say it was only through divine intervention mankind survived that catastrophe but in deference to your atheism lets say we got lucky.  Man then faced the greatest menace to existence in our relatively short history in the face of global warming, except the data shows there has not been any appreciable warming for the past 20 years; bullet dodged!  Now we have "climate change" and its doomsday alarmists.  When the narrative changes that often in my brief lifetime you'll have to excuse me if I'm skeptical.  

"Climate change" strikes me as a self serving business with a political component.  The research is largely funded by government, which we all agree is self serving and beyond redemption.  More importantly the government showers it benevolence in the form of billions of dollars on researchers whose data miraculously supports it hypothesis.  They then get to redistribute tax payer dollars from 1st world countries to developing nations while writing economy stifling legislation to decrease the "harmful effects" of industry.  With apologies to Al Gore it strikes me as a convenient truth.  

Call me a skeptic or a denier if you wish but the data shows the climate has changed without the benefit or even the presence of mankind.  I don't believe too many SUV's were being driven during the previous ice age.  For that matter not too many were being driven 100 years ago when there was an actual measurable warming trend.  

If I am dead wrong and climate change is the demise of humanity, well perhaps the survivors can create something better than our failed society.  Any society which holds up the likes of the Kardashians, Justin Beiber and the Eco hypocrites jetting around and lounging on private yachts while lecturing the rest of us pedestrians probably deserves that and more.  Perhaps a fresh start will level the playing field and give the Redskins a shot at the Super Bowl.      

In regards to the Nobel award here are a few links for you: 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/18/former-top-nobel-official-says-maybe-obamas-peace-prize-was-not-such-a-good-idea/72396794/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960

[Dave O)))]

Putting aside the effects of global warming, do we not have a right (however ironic this seems in the present company) to breathe unpolluted air? Do we not have a responsibility to maintain air quality for ourselves and future generations? We are poisoning ourselves with harmful polluting gases (no no not tobacco smoke) and anyone who can't see this is kidding themselves. Like the politicians and vested interests who dismiss this issue while they plan to build an airport in the southwest Sydney basin. Short-sighted poisoners and polluters, all for short term monetary and political gain. Idiots.

Fossil fuels will become an endangered species, a rare and expensive commodity, sooner or later. Or it will dwindle down to cottage industry and diy. On several levels, those who choose to transition sooner will be better off. There is and will be further backlashes against the transition, but history is littered with dead industries. The FF industry is still strong, but it won't last. You can't stop progress, not unless/until we ultimately consume ourselves, which I'll never live to witness. Wouldn't surprise me though.

[Warren]

5 minutes ago, rehabit said:

Putting aside the effects of global warming, do we not have a right (however ironic this seems in the present company) to breathe unpolluted air? Do we not have a responsibility to maintain air quality for ourselves and future generations? We are poisoning ourselves with harmful polluting gases (no no not tobacco smoke) and anyone who can't see this is kidding themselves. Like the politicians and vested interests who dismiss this issue while they plan to build an airport in the southwest Sydney basin. Short-sighted poisoners and polluters, all for short term monetary and political gain. Idiots.

Fossil fuels will become an endangered species, a rare and expensive commodity, sooner or later. Or it will dwindle down to cottage industry and diy. On several levels, those who choose to transition sooner will be better off. There is and will be further backlashes against the transition, but history is littered with dead industries. The FF industry is still strong, but it won't last. You can't stop progress, not unless/until we ultimately consume ourselves, which I'll never live to witness. Wouldn't surprise me though.

 

If you are talking about CO2 the last time I looked it  was an essential to every day life. The plants and the trees can't survive without it. It is a colourless, odorless gas that is beneficial to life on this planet.

If you are talking about the large billowing clouds of what looked like smoke coming out of the power plant cooling towers that the greenies liked to show every time there was a story about " GLOBAL WARMING " " CLIMATE CHANGE ". it was in fact water vapor from the cooling process. Again, not a pollutant but another essential to every day life.

In the western world at least, our cities suffer far less air pollution than they did in the seventies. We cleaned up our act by getting rid of leaded fuel and making anti pollution gear the norm on new cars.

Yet we in the west are being asked to fork out the lions share of the cash for this wealth redistribution program. China and India. Among the biggest polluters on the planet are being asked to do what???

Both of these countries are forging ahead with the building of hundreds of new coal fired power stations, more efficient and less prone to emit that nasty colourless odorless gas but still coal fired. Why do you ask? Well it's because they at least realize that solar and wind are not capable of driving industry. Neither of these forms of energy are able to deliver base load current, not yet, who knows when.

Here in Australia our stupid politicians are shutting down coal fired power stations. Yes they were old and less efficient but instead of replacing them with new HELE stations they prefer to allow state wide blackouts that kill industry.

The argument here is not about refusing to embrace the future, what fool would do that. The problem is that we are being made to embrace a technology that is not ready to step into the role. If the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow what then. Battery storage is not at a point in its development to do the job required. Elon Musk is going to build us the biggest battery ever and it will run a small town for about one hour. It will be a monument to the green religion and a complete waste of money.

Develop the technology and prove it works. When we can see it works then we can transition but until that time lets not just all follow the lemming in front.  

[JamesKPolkEsq]

Setting aside the rather contentious topic of global warming, what about the non contentious topic of air pollution in the form of NOx, CO, O3, Sulfur, VOCs and particulate matter?

http://geographical.co.uk/places/cities/item/2340-dossier-the-air-that-we-breath

If for no other reason than the drastic reduction in total harmful emissions from tailpipes, we have a strong public interest in moving away from internal combustion vehicles for the collective health benefits alone.

I recall the halcyon days of the 1980s, when the air in Los Angeles was LITERALLY brown with NOx and we were forbidden from recess periods at school because the simple act of exercise was causing asthma and other respiratory problems. It burned our eyes and our lungs, since NOx in the presence of water converts readily to Nitric/Nitrous Acid. We were couped up in classrooms during 35°C lunchtimes, justifiably.

People screamed about smog laws past by "greedy politicians" at that time as well - "You'll pry my muscle car from my cold dead hands!" Anti-smog laws passed by the California government over strenuous objections (from many fans of smaller government), and the problem has been greatly reduced. People still have their muscle cars, too, but the average car is more powerful and more efficient. Were the cars perfect from the start? Of course not, but the collective resources poured into the effort made these changes a reality.

Look back a bit further to the removal of lead from gasoline. Again, met with strenuous objection from smaller government advocates. Our collective reduction in exposure to lead was a public health boon yet again. 

Technology marches forward friends. Before you poo-poo a potential next evolution in transportation, perhaps you might give it a try.

I wonder whatever happened to all those people that swore up and down that they would never carry a cell phone... 

[PigFish]

Regarding the LA basin... and the inversion layer!

Enjoy!

https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/why-did-a-1542-spanish-voyage-refer-to-san-pedro-bay-as-the-bay-of-the-smoke

-Piggy

[SCgarman]

5 hours ago, rehabit said:

Putting aside the effects of global warming, do we not have a right (however ironic this seems in the present company) to breathe unpolluted air? Do we not have a responsibility to maintain air quality for ourselves and future generations? We are poisoning ourselves with harmful polluting gases (no no not tobacco smoke) and anyone who can't see this is kidding themselves. Like the politicians and vested interests who dismiss this issue while they plan to build an airport in the southwest Sydney basin. Short-sighted poisoners and polluters, all for short term monetary and political gain. Idiots.

Fossil fuels will become an endangered species, a rare and expensive commodity, sooner or later. Or it will dwindle down to cottage industry and diy. On several levels, those who choose to transition sooner will be better off. There is and will be further backlashes against the transition, but history is littered with dead industries. The FF industry is still strong, but it won't last. You can't stop progress, not unless/until we ultimately consume ourselves, which I'll never live to witness. Wouldn't surprise me though.

 

If fossil fuels become extinct, don't just worry about ground transportation! What about those big tubes with wings high up in the sky that need 10,000 gallons or so of jet fuel to travel from coast to coast or wherever? Can you imagine the end of the airline industry? Or will they be battery powered like cars? LOL

[clutch5150]

19 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

are you malcolm roberts?

this would be the Nobel prize winning IPCC, the organisation considered the world's leading authority on climate change (granted not perfect), about whom one of the criticisms has been that they have underestimated the impact that global warming will have?

things that are just so unlikely that they are beyond science fiction, in order of not likely at all to extremely, beyond comprehension that anyone could imagine otherwise, unlikely.

1. charlize theron is currently searching for for my number.

2. both trump and hillary clinton will be mentioned along with lincoln, jefferson, churchill et al, as great leaders and statesmen.

3. the skins will win the superbowl this season.

4. climate change is not real.

 

Uh ok Ken, thought I would get a better thinking reply than this, but here's another one for ya to pounder on down under.  Was on a plane about 15 years ago sitting next to a younger grad student from Berkley.  You know the University that allows (cough) free speech and other freedoms (cough) for all. Anyhoot we struck up a conversation she was doing her dissertation on the subject of Global warming. (Mind you this was 15 years ago).  She went on and on about how human intervention was the sole cause of a planet in chaos etc. etc. etc.  I smiled and let her talk for about 15min. I then politely asked her, does she think that another large portion of the warming trend was the earth was simply coming out of its "ice age"?   She looked at me with a deer in headlights look and told me she never thought about that....

At least she was honest, and could think and it appeared as an old friend of mine, the late Pat Rogers used to say, "learning has occurred".  Have at it Ken, you subtle sarcasm never ceases to amaze me around here, but I surely don't dislike this site for your narrow minded views most times. It's the cigars and not you for sure.  Have a good day Mate.

[Dave O)))]

If fossil fuels become extinct, don't just worry about ground transportation! What about those big tubes with wings high up in the sky that need 10,000 gallons or so of jet fuel to travel from coast to coast or wherever? Can you imagine the end of the airline industry? Or will they be battery powered like cars? LOL

Air travel will likely become too expensive for average people, before aircraft eventually transition to an alternative fuel. Just my opinion.

[losttrailer]

As we drifted away from the OP anyway, imho i find this explanation by Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) to be helpful to put the IPCC statistics in perspective :

 

Nonetheless i am supporting the reduction of excessive use of fossil fuels, but for other reasons.

 

[Dave O)))]

If you are talking about CO2 the last time I looked it  was an essential to every day life. The plants and the trees can't survive without it. It is a colourless, odorless gas that is beneficial to life on this planet.

 

If you are talking about the large billowing clouds of what looked like smoke coming out of the power plant cooling towers that the greenies liked to show every time there was a story about " GLOBAL WARMING " " CLIMATE CHANGE ". it was in fact water vapor from the cooling process. Again, not a pollutant but another essential to every day life.

 

In the western world at least, our cities suffer far less air pollution than they did in the seventies. We cleaned up our act by getting rid of leaded fuel and making anti pollution gear the norm on new cars.

 

Yet we in the west are being asked to fork out the lions share of the cash for this wealth redistribution program. China and India. Among the biggest polluters on the planet are being asked to do what???

 

Both of these countries are forging ahead with the building of hundreds of new coal fired power stations, more efficient and less prone to emit that nasty colourless odorless gas but still coal fired. Why do you ask? Well it's because they at least realize that solar and wind are not capable of driving industry. Neither of these forms of energy are able to deliver base load current, not yet, who knows when.

 

Here in Australia our stupid politicians are shutting down coal fired power stations. Yes they were old and less efficient but instead of replacing them with new HELE stations they prefer to allow state wide blackouts that kill industry.

 

The argument here is not about refusing to embrace the future, what fool would do that. The problem is that we are being made to embrace a technology that is not ready to step into the role. If the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow what then. Battery storage is not at a point in its development to do the job required. Elon Musk is going to build us the biggest battery ever and it will run a small town for about one hour. It will be a monument to the green religion and a complete waste of money.

 

Develop the technology and prove it works. When we can see it works then we can transition but until that time lets not just all follow the lemming in front.  

 

 

 

My family and I are well on the way to providing our home with "baseload" power is self sufficiency. When and not it enough people do this, it will accelerate the pace at which coal becomes redundant in this country.

 

Developing countries build coal plants because it's cheaper. For now. Clean coal is a furphy, a milestone in the inevitable decline of fossil fuels. What'll happen when crude supplies dwindle and become.es too expensive? I know! Steam powered planes trains and automobiles! LoL!!!

 

And no of course I am not referring to CO2 or steam. Read post #71. Removing lead from fuel did not cure the pollution problem. Been to Sydney lately? Check out the view from Hawkesbury Heights lookout on a average day. Not pretty, and it's only going to get worse. There are developed cities in the world that are much worse off than we are, and nothing short of getting rid of internal combustion engines in cars will cure that. If they build that airport at Badgerys Creek, in the short term it will bring a veneer of prosperity to the region, but in the long term it will be the wreck and ruin of Western Sydney.

 

Again, just my opinion. Let's see how this plays out ?

 

 

[Warren]

1 hour ago, rehabit said:

 

My family and I are well on the way to providing our home with "baseload" power is self sufficiency. When and not it enough people do this, it will accelerate the pace at which coal becomes redundant in this country.

 

Developing countries build coal plants because it's cheaper. For now. Clean coal is a furphy, a milestone in the inevitable decline of fossil fuels. What'll happen when crude supplies dwindle and become.es too expensive? I know! Steam powered planes trains and automobiles! LoL!!!

 

And no of course I am not referring to CO2 or steam. Read post #71. Removing lead from fuel did not cure the pollution problem. Been to Sydney lately? Check out the view from Hawkesbury Heights lookout on a average day. Not pretty, and it's only going to get worse. There are developed cities in the world that are much worse off than we are, and nothing short of getting rid of internal combustion engines in cars will cure that. If they build that airport at Badgerys Creek, in the short term it will bring a veneer of prosperity to the region, but in the long term it will be the wreck and ruin of Western Sydney.

 

Again, just my opinion. Let's see how this plays out ?

 

 

I'm not talking about the ability to power your TV and toaster. How do you keep producing Steel, aluminum and other such products on a calm dark day.

Oh that's right, we can import it from India and China, they are the ones with all the power stations and jobs these days.