UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Just_a_fan]

to not believe liars that have something to gain.

Problem is, both sides have something to gain...tricky, eh.

[Jolle]

More related to the original, car-related post, I'd like to add that the EU parliament recently agreed to target a 40% emission decrease from new cars by 2030.

https://www.dw.com/en/european-parliame ... a-45742019

MEPs in the parliament argued that accelerated decarbonization was required in transport — the only major EU sector in which greenhouse gas emissions are still rising.

The draft law, including a report adopted by most parliamentarians, will next be negotiated with the EU executive commission on October 10, a day after EU ministers deliberate on the package.

Existing EU rules set targets for the average emissions across carmakers' fleets. The next set kicks in in 2021, and will call for an average set of CO2 emissions no higher than 95 grams per kilometer driven. Wednesday's 2030 target proposal would be a 40 percent reduction of this 2021, 95 gram figure.

So this can only be achieved by reducing fuel consumption by 40%. I think it is highly unlikely that ICE's can be improved by this amount. So all cars sold will need to be (plug-in) hybrid at least? I wonder how it will be regulated since you can drive a plug-in hybrid just on petrol

ICE cars are not allowed to be sold in Norway by 2025, and in the Netherlands by 2030.

Well... car makers could start really innovative active safety. Current cars are engineered around crash tests. They doubled in weight the past decades, doubled the power and still reduced consumption. If, with (semi) autonomous driving, just like planes, cars could reduce in weight dramatically and become truly efficient instead being constructed to hit a concrete barrier at 60 kph.

But most of the co2 reduction is possible to do transport much more efficient and have more efficient food production. For transport, in Europe, only 25% the total trucks-on-the-road is used.

So. Time to invest in a autonomous road grid, smarter transport and a shift to a more plant based diet and those goals are very much achievable.

[Greg Locock]

This one certainly looks a tad overblown

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... W4zaC9Tx1Q

Actual rise has been 3mm per year, or less.

So that’s just 1.5m. The good people of Florida will be happy at that news. Except that it won’t stop after 50 years.

I realise you've run out of fingers, but that's a factor of 10 error. Meanwhile the residents of Florida will have to invest in a couple of rows of bricks, in some places.

[henry]

This one certainly looks a tad overblown

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... W4zaC9Tx1Q

Actual rise has been 3mm per year, or less.

So that’s just 1.5m. The good people of Florida will be happy at that news. Except that it won’t stop after 50 years.

I realise you've run out of fingers, but that's a factor of 10 error. Meanwhile the residents of Florida will have to invest in a couple of rows of bricks, in some places.

You’re right and I’m wrong. Pleased to be corrected. I’ll use other peoples fingers in future.

[Just_a_fan]

Well... car makers could start really innovative active safety. Current cars are engineered around crash tests. They doubled in weight the past decades, doubled the power and still reduced consumption. If, with (semi) autonomous driving, just like planes, cars could reduce in weight dramatically and become truly efficient instead being constructed to hit a concrete barrier at 60 kph.

But most of the co2 reduction is possible to do transport much more efficient and have more efficient food production. For transport, in Europe, only 25% the total trucks-on-the-road is used.

So. Time to invest in a autonomous road grid, smarter transport and a shift to a more plant based diet and those goals are very much achievable.

One way to really have an impact on transport-created CO2 is car sharing. Instead of two cars going from A to B each with one occupant, one car doing the journey with two occupants. That basically halves the fuel used and the pollutants produced. Takes no technical advancement of any sort. It does require social changes, however. But then climate chnage mitigation is a social engieering issue, not a technical engineering issue.

[Steven]

So this can only be achieved by reducing fuel consumption by 40%. I think it is highly unlikely that ICE's can be improved by this amount. So all cars sold will need to be (plug-in) hybrid at least? I wonder how it will be regulated since you can drive a plug-in hybrid just on petrol

ICE cars are not allowed to be sold in Norway by 2025, and in the Netherlands by 2030.

Well... car makers could start really innovative active safety. Current cars are engineered around crash tests. They doubled in weight the past decades, doubled the power and still reduced consumption. If, with (semi) autonomous driving, just like planes, cars could reduce in weight dramatically and become truly efficient instead being constructed to hit a concrete barrier at 60 kph.

But most of the co2 reduction is possible to do transport much more efficient and have more efficient food production. For transport, in Europe, only 25% the total trucks-on-the-road is used.

So. Time to invest in a autonomous road grid, smarter transport and a shift to a more plant based diet and those goals are very much achievable.

The new WLTP emission tests also include a cycle in which they test hybrids with empty and half-empty batteries. I don't think you can enforce much more, except to make sure that electricity is cheaper than fuel, which will automatically drive people towards making sure they recharge their hybrid cars.

Also, Norway did indeed set extremely steep standards. But then again, the country is EXTREMELY rich, so it can afford to set them.

@Jolle: Removing weight by removing passive safety stuff isn't something you can do while introducing active safety. It can only be done when all older cars are removed from the road. Otherwise, you risk in your modern car to be trashed by an older, manually driven car that smashes into you at high speed.

[strad]

Problem is, both sides have something to gain...tricky, eh.

What do real climate scientists have to gain? I'm curious.

you risk in your modern car to be trashed by an older, manually driven car that smashes into you at high speed.

So manually driven cars are automatically dangerous?
Unlike the autonomous cars that have been in accidents and killed people?

[Just_a_fan]

you risk in your modern car to be trashed by an older, manually driven car that smashes into you at high speed.

So manually driven cars are automatically dangerous?
Unlike the autonomous cars that have been in accidents and killed people?

Taken in context, it's obvious that he means that if new autonomous cars were built lighter on the basis that they might crash less often (as was suggested by a previous poster), an impact with an older, current today, design of big, heavy car would be much more dangerous.

[Andres125sx]

So United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) don´t listen to facts because they heard otherwise on TV?

They are the ones that were caught lying and admitted to falsifying the facts.
They did make many predictions that have failed to come about.
The 61 or whatever the number is that released this newest report are the same group made up of mostly politicians and not scientists with climate specialties that made up the previous reports.
It is not so important which side you want to believe so much as you be willing to research both sides.
We have been thru this before. Now it's less that 1°C that they are freaking about? Come on.
Read some books that don't re-enforce you preconceived ideas. Look at both sides.
I have and I have learned to not believe liars that have something to gain.

Problem is when they did recognize exageratting, you assumed it´s all false. Did you think for a moment that maybe the problem is so important they tried to raise awareness of people exageratting the consequences or shortening the deadline?

I look for all sort of information, but it looks like you can´t follow your own advices and once you found a new wich support that view, you´re done

Here in Spain climate change is too obvious to ignore it. Even in agriculture people start to protect vegetable gardens from sun because otherwise they´ll be burnt, something wich 20 years ago was unconceivable, vegetables need sun. This is not something I´ve read from any sensationalistic journalist, this is first hand experience. Storms, floodings, strong winds, that sort of extreme weather 20-30 years ago was something we only watched on TV from tropical places, but rarely in Spain. Today we suffer it weekly, and I´m not exaggerating.

I don´t need to read any journalist to know if climate change is real or not, I see it with my eyes. Maybe in your country it is not so obvious, but in Spain I read a long time ago we´d be one of the first to notice the consequences (no idea about the reason), and unfortunately the predictions are becoming true, and much faster than I´ve read anywhere.

About who have something to win with each, I don´t know what UN have to win asking countries to reduce their emissions drastically, but I do know some very big companies wich have been buying patents for decades and stopping progress, have some Billions to loose, and they can convice (notice the italics) a lot of people to continue negating the obvious so they don´t loose their fortunes and specially their capacity to influence on governments

[Ferry]

ICE cars are not allowed to be sold in Norway by 2025, and in the Netherlands by 2030.

In September 2018 EV market share in Norway was 45,3% ! 60,1% if we include plug-in hybrids.
https://insideevs.com/norway-60-new-veh ... g-in-cars/

There is a plan/wish/dream of not selling ICE-cars after 2025. Still not regulated by law, but it might be soon. Depends a lot of available cars, I guess. So far you can choose between a soap box or a damned expensive Tesla, but it's getting better. Jaguar i-Pace have just started deliveries. Audi e-Tron is a few months away. There's Hyundai Kona, Kid e-Niro. And soon Tesla mod. 3.
This might be a bit special for Norway, but the fuel cost is somewhere between 5:1 and 10:1 compared to electricity to run a car. A mid-sized car might burn fuel equivalent to its sales price during its life span. Example: 250.000 km * 0.06 l/km * NOK 16,-/l = NOK 240.000,- ($29.000 / €25.000) With electricity 1/10th of the price, you can basically buy a new car for the savings.

[Greg Locock]

So Andres, go to the spanish weather organisation and get them to pull insolation per year (or month) for the past 30 years. It doesn't get around the fact that the climate has changed before. here's the results for my place, kWh m_2 per day average for each month. The last figure is the average for the year. Your vegetable people are probably suffering from lack of water, not excess sun.


7.3 4.9 4.6 2.3 2.2 1.5 1.6 2.4 3.9 4.4 6.9 6.4 4.0
1991
6.0 6.8 4.9 2.9 2.2 1.3 1.8 2.2 3.2 5.5 6.3 6.3 4.1
1992
6.4 6.2 4.2 3.0 2.1 1.5 1.9 2.2 3.1 4.4 5.6 5.6 3.9
1993
7.1 5.4 3.9 3.5 2.2 1.6 1.7 2.3 3.7 5.0 6.1 6.0 4.1
1994
7.4 5.1 4.5 2.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 3.5 3.5 4.7 5.3 7.4 4.1
1995
6.1 5.8 4.4 2.7 1.9 1.5 1.4 3.0 3.6 4.5 5.8 6.4 3.9
1996
6.3 5.9 4.6 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.7 2.5 3.9 5.4 6.1 6.9 4.1
1997
7.2 6.4 4.2 3.0 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.9 4.7 6.0 7.1 4.2
1998
6.6 6.2 4.6 3.0 2.2 1.7 1.9 2.6 3.7 5.1 6.4 6.6 4.2
1999
6.9 5.1 4.6 3.3 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.6 3.7 4.9 6.4 7.0 4.2
2000
6.6 6.1 4.8 3.5 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.8 3.6 4.6 6.6 7.9 4.3
2001
6.4 6.4 4.6 3.0 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.7 3.9 5.1 6.1 5.8 4.1
2002
7.1 6.0 5.2 3.4 2.1 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.9 4.9 6.0 7.1 4.3
2003
7.4 6.2 4.6 3.6 2.5 1.6 2.0 2.9 4.0 4.5 6.8 6.8 4.4
2004
6.5 6.2 4.7 3.1 2.2 1.6 1.9 2.8 3.6 5.6 5.9 6.9 4.3
2005
7.3 5.6 4.5 3.5 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.8 3.9 5.2 6.3
2006
7.3 6.4 5.1 2.5 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.8 4.3 6.5 6.7 7.7 4.5
2007
6.6 6.7 4.9 3.4 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.8 3.6 4.8 6.6 6.8 4.3
2008
7.4 5.9 4.8 3.1 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.4 4.0 5.1 5.9 6.7 4.2
2009
8.5 6.0 4.4 3.2 1.9 1.6 1.7 2.5 3.6 5.3 6.5 7.3 4.4
2010
7.3 6.3 4.4 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.7 2.5 3.5 5.3 5.4 6.7 4.1
2011
6.3 5.2 3.9 3.2 1.8 1.7 1.6 2.6 3.8 4.6 5.4 7.3 3.9
2012
7.1 5.6 3.8 3.3 2.0 1.4 1.7 2.7 3.9 4.7 6.1 7.2 4.1
2013
7.3 6.1 4.6 3.1 2.1 1.6 1.6 2.4 3.6 4.5 4.8 6.8 4.0
2014
7.3 6.0 3.9 2.8 2.0 1.5 1.8 2.8 3.7 4.8 6.1 6.4 4.1
2015
6.1 5.5 4.3 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.6 3.9 6.0 5.7 7.4 4.1
2016
6.3 5.8 3.9 3.3 2.3 1.8 1.9 2.7 3.6 5.0 5.7 6.2 4.0
2017
6.4 5.4 4.3 2.7 2.1 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.6 5.2 6.4 5.8 4.1
2018
6.5 5.4 4.6 3.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.7 3.7 4.2

[strad]

One of my favorite quotes from one of the books from the anti warmist side. I hope you will at least read it. You'll forgive any spelling errors as I am not a transcribest:
""" Fake science there's real science and then there's science or what passes for it these days and there is a big difference.
Real science is about data that can be measured about facts and biological processes that can be established by observation and experiments. About results that can be replicated. Science has an enormous credibility in our society and for very good reason. Over the past couple centuries science, real hard science earned its well deserved reputation by exploding harmful myths, discovering life saving medicines, and enabling the invention of hitherto un-dreamt of technologies. Real science has cured epidemic diseases, given us cars and airplanes and computers and cell phones, taken us to the moon and perhaps most significantly, allowed the earth to house seven billion people, the vast majority of whom would quickly starve to death if modern scientific advances were reversed, in a state of health and prosperity undreamed of by our ancestors. But that reputation has been hijacked by a cause that is anything but scientific. Science is now a cover for the leftist agenda. The democrats are the party of science even as they refuse to acknowledge basic biological facts.
Late breaking news, a man is not just a woman just because he identifies
as female. Unborn babies are living human beings. If we object to wrecking the world economy to cure the supposed planet destroying threat of global warming, we are told that the science is settled though there is hardly any less scientific statement than that. Science is about free inquiry which is the very antithesis of conformity to a consisting consensus, which in any case is always changing for the activists convenience . The sea level going to rise 20 feet and everyone will starve because of catastrophic global warming But when those disasters fail to materialize, no wait, its not warming at all, its climate change . And when the real hard science actually is settled, its ignored. Even if that means people suffer and die unnecessarily. Rice genetically modified to produce beta-carotene could have saved the vision and in some cases the lives of literally millions of poor people across the globe, if the anti-food activists on the left had not kept it off the market for more than 25 years. Humility the willingness to submit your opinions to the real facts of the matter, where ever they may lead is the hallmark of real science. But the purveyors of leftist pseudo science are anything but humble. No matter how often their predictions fail to pan out, how often they reverse their advice or what obvious facts contradict their theories, they are never deterred. They go on making absurd unscientific assertions that issuing new recommendations with absolute assurance, all on the authority of "science". Being wrong even laughably wrong doesn't even slow them down. The reputation of real science has been stolen by its evil twin, a fake science that is really just an ideology and a narrative. That ideology is simply masquerading in the credibility that rightfully belongs to real science. As David Berge at Iowa hawk blog on twitter has pointed out, this is the standard modus operandi of the left. 1 - Identify a respected institution 2 - kill it 3 gut it 4 - wear its carcass as a skin suit while demanding respect.. That's exactly what the leftists have done with science. The have distorted ,faked, and misreported, and skewed the real science, all the while claiming its mantle for their unscientific political agenda. And dangerously the fake politicized science is undermining our faith in the real thing."""

[strad]

hope that wasn't too long for you to read.

[Jolle]

hope that wasn't too long for you to read.

"Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense."

Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

You should read about the Montreal Protocol and how big action by a very conservative government, not just in the USA but also in the UK, saved the ozon layer and set new benchmarks how to deal with climate change.

[AngusF1]

The whole global warming debate completely misses the point.

For far less than the cost of throwing all our cars away and replacing the power generation infrastructure of the entire world, plus developing a totally new technology base for distribution and storage to handle the unreliable production of renewable sources, all to stop locked up carbon, otherwise known as plant food, from re-entering the biosphere, we could...

...develop, design, manufacture and deploy a fleet of shade sails in space to adjust the solar radiation reaching Earth to whatever level we want.

Why is nobody talking about this?