Diesel and petrol car ban: Plan for 2040

[JamesKPolkEsq]

John Oliver really did it best

https://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg

 

[JamesKPolkEsq]

http://www.businessinsider.com/affordable-electric-cars-for-sale-by-2020-2017-8?r=UK&IR=T

 

Clearly, Mr Market can see the writing on the wall too!

[Hayden]

5 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

it does seem that if christ himself came down and explained climate change (i do agree with the above post that it is a better term than global warming), there would still be plenty who would not accept it. and no doubt it will be the same here. for some, there will never be any proof. what really surprised me, on the previous thread now hidden (and i do not want to set all that off again) is that so many deniers simply seem to crucify the messenger, on the basis that if you repeat something about them often enough (talking general sense here), no matter if it is true or not, the mud might stick. so if you do not deny climate change/global warming, you must be a liberal elitists (i must say that would amaze most of my friends who would consider me anything but, but i guess everything is relative).

but it really made me giggle when i was watching something recently that had clips from speeches by both reagan and bush snr, when they were president, both warning of the dangers of global warming. reagan was especially interesting as he had been strongly opposed to the idea of climate change but the science convinced him he was wrong.

if those guys are liberal elitists then perhaps it is not the worst club going around.

There was a really interesting study on this recently. Particularly in the US people associate things like global warming/climate change with political identity and thus it can be hard to have any real discussion about it as people perceive evidence from the others side as attacking their identity. The best way to approach these is try to steer the discussion in a way that leaves their political identity out of the picture which at times can obviously be difficult. It's unfortunate its become this way because I'm sure people with a more diverse spread of political spectrum putting their heads together would come up with better solutions for the problem than arguing about the existence of something that is pretty much unanimously agreed upon within the scientific community. 

[99call]

7 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

it does seem that if christ himself came down and explained climate change (i do agree with the above post that it is a better term than global warming), there would still be plenty who would not accept it.

I have to say, It often crosses my mind, that climate change deniers 'may' form their opinion, as it's an un-approved 'alternative ending' that would spoil judgement day (assuming they're also religious) . In place of endless apologising, to then be cast into a sea of fire, we would skip the painful sorry-saying, and go direct to the sea's of lava part (or an everlasting winter - see living in Manchester).  As point of record, I'm hoping that burning in an ever-lasting sea's of fire, will be much like a bath that's tad too hot. i.e. as soon as the testes acclimatise, your fine.

My thoughts on man kinds correct course of action, are similar to Johnathan Schell's

"Since after extinction no one will be present to take responsibility, we have to take full responsibility now"

The simple logic is....if the death of the earth is an experiment, (regardless if you think scientists are profiteering fruitcakes or not ) if you get it wrong once, your done!!..........regardless whether we believe it or not........we should take action 'as if' we do.

Oh!.......and I do

 

[PigFish]

... while I should let this topic just peacefully die, I won't!

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

Interesting reading. Empirical models that work on planets in the solar system (including earth) that appear to call into question models based on 'greenhouse gas' trapping models. Peer reviewed I might add. Empirical too... 

Apparently there are scientist that don't 'believe' that the science is settled!

Have fun reading this one folks, it is quite interesting...

-the Pig

[99call]

1 hour ago, PigFish said:

 

-the Pig

Ray,  I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the following (playing devils advocate to some degree)

If I take two living experiences

1, living in Jeddah, A disgusting outlook upon polluting, mass production of needless packaging, and dumping it everywhere. Hugely oversized SUV's spluttering there way from A-B etc etc

2, living in Enschede in Holland.  I very aware and green outlook on pretty much everything. Very clean, lots of low emission transport, Very proactive approach to all sorts of recycling blah blah

Now regardless of whether the end of the earth is nigh, or whether it's an evil load of clap trap cooked up by sinister liberals,  having lived in both of these towns, one (Jeddah), was bloody awful, and like living in a dis-utopian nightmare, and the other (Enshcede) was a joy.

Now back on point. To me living responsibly, and not gratuitously, does lead to a more pleasant world. Regardless of the rights or wrongs, do you not agree?, that treating the world like it's a non-expendable item, actually leads to a more pleasant environment?, whether you believe it or not. 

 

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, 99call said:

Ray,  I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the following (playing devils advocate to some degree)

If I take two living experiences

1, living in Jeddah, A disgusting outlook upon polluting, mass production of needless packaging, and dumping it everywhere. Hugely oversized SUV's spluttering there way from A-B etc etc

2, living in Enschede in Holland.  I very aware and green outlook on pretty much everything. Very clean, lots of low emission transport, Very proactive approach to all sorts of recycling blah blah

Now regardless of whether the end of the earth is nigh, or whether it's an evil load of clap trap cooked up by sinister liberals,  having lived in both of these towns, one (Jeddah), was bloody awful, and like living in a dis-utopian nightmare, and the other (Enshcede) was a joy.

Now back on point. To me living responsibly, and not gratuitously, does lead to a more pleasant world. Regardless of the rights or wrongs, do you not agree?, that treating the world like it's a non-expendable item, actually leads to a more pleasant environment?, whether you believe it or not. 

 

Mate, we are getting philosophical and correspondingly political here. I don't mind this conversation but it will take a pile of time to work through, and frankly I don't know if it is worth it...

I get your point, so I am wondering if you can grasp mine, so I will give you a taste. What if I want to be rich and live a luxurious lifestyle elsewhere? Can I do it with your model?

If the answer is yes, there is room for both of us on the planet.

If the answer is this:

Policies: The Club for Degrowth advocates for the following policy goals (as detailed here unless otherwise noted):

• Shift cultural norms to discourage unsustainable levels of consumption
• Raise income tax rates on the wealthiest global citizens and on goods that harm either the planet or people (such as tobacco, carbon, cars, junk food).
• Use increased tax revenue to support public consumption–including mass transit and bicycle lanes, libraries (of book, tools, toys), safe public water–that offsets private consumption (cars, personal purchases, bottled water).
• Also use tax revenue to create ‘rainy day’ funds to deal with disasters already committed to due to climate change already built into the future. Invest now in adaptation to mitigate future effects of disasters.
• Encourage creation of eco-social service providers that can help facilitate the transition to a sustainable economy and help provide people with a new ecological philosophical orientation to replace consumerism.
• Better distribute job opportunities and work toward shifting working hour norms from 40+ hours/week to 20-25 hours/week, providing enough income for more people to afford life’s necessities but less income for luxury consumption.
• Cultivate what Juliet Schor calls the “plenitude economy,” supporting those interested in informal economic strategies like small-scale farming, artisan work, and so on (see below).

http://clubfordegrowth.org/our_philosophy/

The answer is NO... Why?

Because this is just another Marxist (build a better mousetrap) scheme! In a nutshell, centralized planned economy, government control of output, production and consumption, government control of heath and wealth creation, government control of life as I know it... END OF FREEDOM. END OF PROSPERITY. BEGINNING OF TYRANNY. For me, history shows me that the samples that exist, or have existed are in favor of utopian plans leading to the end of prosperity for equal suffering... unless of course you are on the top of the heap politically.

Cloistered societies of like minded virtuous people can make all forms of government work. How long it works I could not tell you, but people, honest ones, with the strength of their convictions can do just about anything!!! I have a lot of faith in what people can do voluntarily. I also believe that I understand the nature of man. I see a guy who starves his country so that he can build nuclear weapons to threaten his neighbors. These people exist too, all on the same planet. You disagree with him, you get shot...

If you wish to live in Holland, and they accept you as one of their own, that is a bilateral agreement between the parties and your decision does not affect me. That is freedom. This is why Holland should have her own government and not have to live under mine...! The globe is like a republic, if the players respect and honor each other.

The problem is when we don't respect and honor each other. Frankly I have to look no further than the players on this thread to know that human nature, bigotry and disrespect for one another still exists... It is alive and well, even in this small society.

Cheers mate! You make a thoughtful argument... Thoughtful people can live and work together and respect each other. If I claim that everyone that has a different outlook than I do is stupid, or otherwise, I am a bigot! So I tend to think the same of people who treat me that way.

-Ray

 

[Fugu]

On 08/08/2017 at 8:54 PM, Hayden said:

There was a really interesting study on this recently. Particularly in the US people associate things like global warming/climate change with political identity and thus it can be hard to have any real discussion about it as people perceive evidence from the others side as attacking their identity. The best way to approach these is try to steer the discussion in a way that leaves their political identity out of the picture which at times can obviously be difficult.

It seems to me this analysis is spot on.  

[99call]

13 hours ago, PigFish said:

I also believe that I understand the nature of man. I see a guy who starves his country so that he can build nuclear weapons to threaten his neighbors. These people exist too, all on the same planet. You disagree with him, you get shot...

 

 

Hmmm, well put, but!

I notice, in your posts (whether is be tabacuba or North Korea) you often lay quite a bit of the troubles of the world at the door of communist principles.

In coming from the city that invented core idea of communism, I would suggest that most of the pure evil that comes out of communism, is in fact pure capitalism.  Dictators duping a society, that they will be their saviour, only to hold up in a palace eating lobster tales, whilst they enforce a police state and enforce poverty. Hmmm sounds a bit like Gordon Gecko to me. Indeed I see little difference between Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump. Two overgrown babies, dis-interested in the opinions of others, and ruthlessly pursuing the path that feathers their own bed, at the expense of others. 

Whilst I think the core ideal of communism.( i.e. a co-operating society, of equality and shared prosperity yada yada) is actually quite a beautiful Idea, the problem is human nature. Human nature, of not being satisfied to be on a level pegging with it's fellow man, means communism often needs to be enforced, and then it obviously starts to become uber-capitalism (for those at the top). Ultimately a failed concept.

To come back on point, I think your idea of people invading each others liberties as being as being negative, I completely agree. However...... 

Ultimately, as a 'citizen of the world' my desire is to enjoy my life, but not at the cost of others enjoyment. Now there maybe things I would like to enjoy, like blast 1000 decibel music out the back of my house, etc etc but I don't because I've got consideration and respect for my neighbours. 

In affect your saying my idea of happiness is to the detriment of yours, and visa-versa, however between our two models of happiness, your's could eliminate mine completely, whereas mine can only make yours less enjoyable.  My point is, is to argue that those liberties are equally defendable, I believe is a nonsense.......but just my opinion, and I realise it's an opinion that hold no weight or meaning for you, if you feel as if the future of the world is not at stake, and all is well.

[Dave O)))]

http://www.businessinsider.com/affordable-electric-cars-for-sale-by-2020-2017-8?r=UK&IR=T

 

Clearly, Mr Market can see the writing on the wall too!

[JR Kipling]

I'm skeptical of all things said by those in government & mainstream media. Twice as skeptical over their 'predictions'. 10x so for their 'long term predictions'.

2040 ?

Yeah . . . right.  Lots can happen between now & then.

 

Are these the same folks who 'predicted' by their polls that Brexit would be voted down & Clinton would win in 2016 ?

[leftimatic]

On ‎04‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 9:01 PM, Ken Gargett said:

 

i'm trying to deal with both of these together so forgive me if i get a smidge twisted.

the problem with 'let's agree to disagree' is that it is another way to say let's do nothing. 'absolute proof that the whole world can see and understand'. wow! when has that ever happened? nor will it here. we wait for that and the world is stuffed.

you suggest common sense. to me, common sense screams that humans are having a massive impact on the climate. sure, other factors are relevant and as i said previously may well have a much greater impact at some future stage. but it is simply inconceivable that anthropogenic climate change is not occurring. to me, to suggest otherwise is tooth fairy stuff, but i understand that there are plenty who do see it differently. i can't fathom how but leave that aside. i also would not jail them (tied down naked in the desert, perhaps). more seriously, far better to show them the error of their ways (and give them the opportunity to do likewise if they can).

it is not being vain. that suggests we take pride in it. surely, quite the contrary. there are 7 billion of us. our use of fossil fuels. the massive devastation to the forests of the planet, waste, so many more examples.

CO2 - first, to suggest that it is the "whole theory" is so utterly and deliberately misleading that it suggests, with respect, that you have an entrenched position and care not one iota for facts or indeed common sense or that you simply have not bothered to do as you claim and investigate the issue, but let's assume i am wrong on that.  i am also not a scientist but my understanding is that yes, CO2 is vital but it is/was a smallish component of the gases in the atmosphere. but you wanted, not unreasonably, information from the scientific community. so i went to the NASA site (i know that malcolm roberts insists that NASA is complicit in falsifying evidence, despite no evidence to back that up that whatsoever, but leaving him aside). hopefully they satisfy your requirements (if not, then we are not likely to get far or would you suggest that Ball is a greater authority?). "Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.".

there is a heap of good stuff on their site. this bit was interesting.

"On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.

Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.

A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.

Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities."

you ask where the IPCC gets their data. i thought that was addressed previously but, again from the NASA site (and i think you will find that you can access all of the info you require on sources for the IPCC through their site, if you really are interested),

"In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."

what about the sun? again from NASA - "How do we know that changes in the sun aren’t to blame for current global warming trends? Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy output of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over this time period. So the sun doesn't appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past several decades. Longer-term estimates of solar irradiance have been made using sunspot records and other so-called “proxy indicators,” such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. The most recent analyses of these proxies indicate that solar irradiance changes cannot plausibly account for more than 10 percent of the 20th century’s warming."

so we do have some evidence/agreement from the scientific community - where is any evidence from Ball? and what is it?

ball has spent time with aboriginal people. good for him. but what on earth has that got to do with anything? or are the inuit experts on fossil fuels and destruction of forests, et al? it is completely irrelevant to any worthwhile contribution to the debate. though, bizarrely, everything i have seen and read suggests that these very people are extremely concerned, far more than most communities, as to the effect of global warming because of the impact it is having on their lifestyle and hunting.

'give me a definite date'. now it becomes obvious that either this is all a pisstake or you have no interest in genuine debate on this issue. what a really silly thing to say. that is doomsday cult stuff.

no one doubts that there are other factors which can cause these issues, aside from man, but it always reminds me of a mate of mine on a fishing trip. left his car doors open. we pointed it out to him and he told us not to worry because his battery would last for weeks. next morning, car battery was stone motherless flat. i can understand him being wrong about the length of life in a battery but why the hell not shut the doors. i can understand (well, not really but i'm trying) people being wrong about climate change and its causes but why the hell not get on board if it does something to protect the planet, life, communities?

the planet is warming. the overall impact is adverse to human life in so many ways. if you (and 'you' here is used throughout this to denote any and all deniers, not just our friend to whom i respond) really must be a denier, do so, but isn't it in everyone's interests to do what we can, whatever we believe the cause to be?

 

 

I do need to set my email alerts. Wow I can't believe this discussion hasn't been shut down yet. I would love to submit a rebuttal Ken but  I have been up to my neck here on the homestead replacing all the temporary infrastructure  with something more permanent. Wood sheds and greenhouses and broiler coops and the like. Whipped up a few quickies to get us through the first few years and now its time to rebuild. Coupled with harvesting summer crops and replanting winter crops I am not left with a lot of time. I am sure you can understand.

So here's hoping things don't degrade and the thread gets shut down but I will get back to you. I love a good debate and looking forward to sharing some points with you and learning a thing or two. Oh and I would like to point that yes I have been on the NASA website many times. Still as glossy as ever.  As I have said I was once a believer too. Can I ask what parts of the video I submitted for forum review did you agree or disagree with and why?

PS  

Agree to disagree was my polite way of saying I am really rather busy and don't see any point in carrying this any further at the present time.

 

But if you bare with me and my busy schedule I will be glad to engage as soon as I can.