UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Andres125sx]

IMHO, this is current situation. We live in a world based on economics and anything wich goes against economics is seen as a threat and the whole system will fight it, governments, companies, normal people wich usually is quite skeptical... and IMHO this is pretty sad if we consider economics as the only important parameter in our lifes. Don´t get me wrong, I defend capitalism, I said the only important parameter, economics are obviously very very important, but should not be the only parameter motivating all of our decisions. But on a capitalist world any decision in this regard will face numerous and ruthless adversaries who will drag a lot of people with them, and IMHO this is pretty sad and speaks volumes about how immature we humans are

you know ... the irony in this is that a large majority of political decisions are 'economic' in nature pushed for by lobbyists (some say that western politics are entirely driven by economic interests)
some years ago they pushed for diesels
now diesels are the devil
now they push for electric cars
you know they will claim that those are bad for the environment, actually, once they've sold enough

it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to force people to buy electric now when they drive a relatively modern car because the damages the production of the new cars does to the environment outweigh any reduction in emission over the forseeable future by far

i drive a ten year old diesel car with a particulate filter and manage roughly 5L/100km on average doing maybe 4000km per year - so i will produce just above 2tonnes of CO2 over the next 5 years

even the tiniest electric car's battery will have a worse impact on the environment than my car usage, yet i might not be able to use it anymore soon-ish because of diesel bans ... the government expects me to buy a new car, if not electric than at least something with a more efficient engine because they will get taxes and the car manufacturers make their money

and even a non electric car's production will cause at least 5 tonnes of CO2 - that's another 12 or so years with the old one - completely ignoring that the new one obviously also uses fuel or needs electricity (which with the current mix over here is still barely better CO2 wise than a small diesel ... lol)

i have talked to some people from a local environmental group and they agreed that it's silly and just about the money

True, problem comes when many people confuse scientific opinions with political opinions, what is a huge mistake

Scientifics have never incentivated diesel cars, they´ve always been very polluting, they´ve always emitted several very harmful and cancerous susbstances, and I´ve never heard or read any scientific saying otherwise. Politicians are different obviously, but we shouldn´t mix both groups, despite what some people think around here, scientifics, generally speaking, are after the truth, that´s their motivation, discovering new things wich make us understand the world, animal life, weather or whatever better. The reason they work in that field will never be economical. Do any on you know someone who studied any scientific degree because he´s after making a lot of money? Scientifics, generally speaking, are the opposite to greed people

Politicians otoh are exactly the opposite, they´re after money, fame, power... mixing both opinions is a mistake so big any scientific will get offended, or they should I think! But many people around here confuse both opinions. It´s very convenient for them assuming that group of people they disagree with (mixing politicians and scientifics) are not rational, they only say BS, they have no idea about the subject, so they´re wrong...

Look at Strad, his last reply is the perfect example... "we can´t predict the weather so we shouldn´t rely on anything any scientific says". I´m sure there´s some common expresion for that attitude, trying to moke someone or some field because they once made a mistake, even assuming they should be sheers or their decades of work in the subject are useless , but my english is not good enough

[RZS10]

no point in leaving this up when you can't even have a discussion here

[Fulcrum]

I know nothing about statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics and absorption spectrums

...

What I can do, is spot the difference between genuine science and speculation.

The latter seems highly unlikely.

[Jolle]

I can’t recall a time that the gouvernement pushed for diesel cars...

in my recollection it was the high pressure direct injection from Bosch that caused a small diesel revolution, while gouvernements tried to regulate with emissions rules (and some car companies cheated).

The UK gouvernement now does something gouvernements rarely do, making regulation for many cabinets away. This 20-25 timeframe gives the manufacturers plenty of time to divert their investments to EV developments.

With this timeframe we don’t have to throw good cars (like your 10 y/o diesel) away, and your next car, in ten years time might not even be a EV.

To blame economics for a push to EV, they would demand it in a few years, not in 20 years. Shareholders don’t care in 20 years, politicians don’t get elected for over 20 years. This timeframe is set so to make the transition with as less strain on companies and consumers as possible.

Germany still subsidises the Diesel with lower taxes compared to Petrol.

The main issue with the emission or air quality rules is that they're too strict and sometimes just completely random (like the much discussed 40 μg/m³).
The CO2 and other emission targets for example are like telling a fat bloke who weighs 350kg at 2m height to lose 175 in half a year, when he's at 250 one year later you tell him "actually go down to 150 soon", once he's getting close you say "nah man go down to 100 and in a year you should be at 50"
At some point he manipulates his scale, gets caught and penalised with more penalities looming because he won't be able to reach the unrealistic goal of 50kg.
As i mentioned in my previous post, with the current energy mix in Germany and a typical consumption of an electric car including power losses on charging you end up with CO2 emissions which are above the current EU goal for 2021, but on paper those cars are emission free... lol
In general, with electric cars as they're being built right now you just move the emissions elsewhere, clean air for me but not for thee ... the pollution happens where the lithium and other materials necessary for the battery are being obtained, where the battery is built and where the energy required to charge it is being produced.

And regarding the "you don't have to throw away good cars" - because of said NOx limits they're banning Diesels in more and more cities, i've seen almost brand new cars that did not comply with the EURO6 norm on the street with pricetags in the windows with stupidly low prices and new-ish cars are getting destroyed for the scrapping bonus program - it's a bloody joke...

When it comes to the 2040 deadline, yea...maybe ... but it's quite obvious they already try to paint electric vehicles as the go to solution now.

True, problem comes when many people confuse scientific opinions with political opinions, what is a huge mistake

[...] diesel cars [ha]ve always emitted several very harmful and cancerous susbstances, and I´ve never heard or read any scientific saying otherwise.

Politicians are different obviously, but we shouldn´t mix both groups, despite what some people think around here, scientifics, generally speaking, are after the truth, that´s their motivation, discovering new things wich make us understand the world, animal life, weather or whatever better. The reason they work in that field will never be economical. Do any on you know someone who studied any scientific degree because he´s after making a lot of money? Scientifics, generally speaking, are the opposite to greed people

Politicians otoh are exactly the opposite, they´re after money, fame, power... mixing both opinions is a mistake so big any scientific will get offended, or they should I think! But many people around here confuse both opinions. It´s very convenient for them assuming that group of people they disagree with (mixing politicians and scientifics) are not rational, they only say BS, they have no idea about the subject, so they´re wrong...

Look at Strad, his last reply is the perfect example... "we can´t predict the weather so we shouldn´t rely on anything any scientific says". I´m sure there´s some common expresion for that attitude, trying to moke someone or some field because they once made a mistake, even assuming they should be sheers or their decades of work in the subject are useless , but my english is not good enough

I'm not conflating scientific opinions with political opinions, in science only facts are really trustworthy, solid results, numbers,not the opinion of scientists, things you can prove or at least forecast with a minimal certainty - and political opinions have nothing to do with what i wrote, i meant policy, rules and laws put in place by politicians.

For most studies scientists work with assumptions, they have to determine cause and effect, not conflate cause and causation - since they're bound to make mistakes there not every result of every study is gospel.

When you burn things you get byproducts, some of which are unhealthy, of course no scientist would disagree, they do however disagree about the impact and dosage of those substances, like the previously mentioned NOx limit and which levels cause harm to people - a bunch of scientist got paid big money to put together a study for the WHO (?) claiming NOx kills thousands upon thousands of people every year (one of the main assumptions being that the lower life expectancy of people living in cities compared to rural areas HAS to be down to air pollution, ignoring other factors) and we therefore need a limit of 40 μg/m³.

And then you have pulmonary specialist who say that the assumptions regarding NOx and fine particulates in relation to health risks are unsubstantiated - also pointing out the obvious: that (passive) smoking is way worse than inhaling some NOx when out in traffic, so if politicians truly cared about the wellbeing of their citizens they'd ban smoking, but of course they can't because it racks in too much cash via taxes.
https://translate.google.de/translate?s ... te-2831090

One TV show here did an interesting piece where they measured NOx levels in various places, the levels on the street were fine, people who had a gas powered heating unit at home had levels several times higher than the limit for the air outside and that consistently during the heating period, and if you cook with gas, oh man, you literally give yourself instant cancer with several thousand μg/m³of NOx - or not, if you're with the lung doctors who say it's not really that bad.

Again, you don't read any articles how we have to find different ways of heating and cooking at home, and no study by the WHO which says how cooking with gas kills millions of people every year because it doesn't fit the narrative of demonizing hydrocarbon-fueled cars.

So yea ... scientists may be after the truth, but none of them will work for free and if your employer or client asks you to write a report on a topic you can make assumptions and choose parameters in a way that will reinforce what you went out prove (confirmation bias)
There's also the little quote "Do not trust any statistics you did not fake yourself."

You can very well believe hard numbers, actual results of calculations etc, but taking any interpretation of those at face value isn't always right - scientists aren't all demigods who don't make mistakes or work without any ulterior motives :^)

That old argument that scientist are in it for the money... yes, they have a job. Sorry that I rate scientist higher than nut jobs and con man paid by the NRA, oil companies or radio shows that claim that fluoride makes you gay.

I trust scientist like I trust my doctor and not the cat lady with her "green tea cures cancer" living next door.

[RZS10]

no point in leaving this up when you can't even have a discussion here

[roon]

I´m sure there´s some common expresion for that attitude, trying to moke someone or some field because they once made a mistake, even assuming they should be sheers or their decades of work in the subject are useless , but my english is not good enough

Don't blame the messenger.

Less common: Tu quoque. A Latin phrase (you also or what of you?) used to name the fallacy of diverting the attention of a debate from ideas to speakers, by highlighting hypocrisy or ideological inconsistency.

Generally these can be considered ad hominem. Attempts to discredit ideas by assaulting the character of those who speak them, without addressing the content of the idea.

[strad]

Roon I'm sorry but you're going to have to show me. I went back to page 4 and could not find one page where I belittled or denigrated you.
I have disagreed with you. Is that what you call denigrating you?
All I have really done is quoted respected scientists and climatologists with a long list of very good credentials that don't agree with you.
Is that somehow belittling you?
I have not once called you names.

[roon]

Did not say that you had. My last response in this thread was to Andres who asked about figures of speech in English. Odd that you chose to write a paragraph about an non-existent comment. Why so?

I have disagreed with you. Is that what you call denigrating you?

No.

All I have really done is quoted respected scientists and climatologists with a long list of very good credentials that don't agree with you.

Whether they are respected or credentialed is irrelevant. What matters is content. Why do you suddenly care about honorifics when you have been denouncing establishment science in this and other threads?

Is that somehow belittling you?

No. If you glean thay from my posts, then you seem to lack an ability to interperet what I'm writing, or are intentionally trying to misrepresent. The worst part is that we're actually in agreement over some aspects of AGW.

[strad]

Deride , insult and belittle the opposition.

Funny, you were using these same tactics in the FE thread for some time. Seems you were a disciple of Bernays before you even heard of him, this guy whom you seem to think invented mocking and slander sometime in the early 20th c.

viewtopic.php?p=832805#p832805

THIS is what I was responding to Roon.

[strad]

I repeat show me where I derided belittled or insulted you.

[roon]

Okay, so you replied to a post from a previous page without context. There is a quote function on this forum. If you use it, it can help others understand what you are replying to.

I repeat show me where I derided belittled or insulted you.

As I already mentioned in the previous post, I never said that you did. You've done so to others but not to me. I don't understand where the confusion is coming from.

[Andres125sx]

As i mentioned in my previous post, with the current energy mix in Germany and a typical consumption of an electric car including power losses on charging you end up with CO2 emissions which are above the current EU goal for 2021, but on paper those cars are emission free... lol

May you share the calculations? Because Germany don't have 100% of their power plants burning carbon which would be the only way this statement may be close to real...


Edit, sorry you meant to comply with 2021 rules... I guess assuming all cars are EVs right? That's not s real assumption

[rgava]

As i mentioned in my previous post, with the current energy mix in Germany and a typical consumption of an electric car including power losses on charging you end up with CO2 emissions which are above the current EU goal for 2021, but on paper those cars are emission free... lol

May you share the calculations? Because Germany don't have 100% of their power plants burning carbon which would be the only way this statement may be close to real...


Edit, sorry you meant to comply with 2021 rules... I guess assuming all cars are EVs right? That's not s real assumption

Andres,

In this post you can take a look and an article from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, written by Professor Thomas Koch (Karlsruher Institut für Technologie) were he states than using the current energy generation mix in Germany, one EV emits more CO2 than an Euro6 diesel viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27180&p=787901#p787901

[Jolle]

As i mentioned in my previous post, with the current energy mix in Germany and a typical consumption of an electric car including power losses on charging you end up with CO2 emissions which are above the current EU goal for 2021, but on paper those cars are emission free... lol

May you share the calculations? Because Germany don't have 100% of their power plants burning carbon which would be the only way this statement may be close to real...


Edit, sorry you meant to comply with 2021 rules... I guess assuming all cars are EVs right? That's not s real assumption

Andres,

In this post you can take a look and an article from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, written by Professor Thomas Koch (Karlsruher Institut für Technologie) were he states than using the current energy generation mix in Germany, one EV emits more CO2 than an Euro6 diesel viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27180&p=787901#p787901

Thats why, following the Paris Climate Agreement, many countries announced that they are moving away from coal and other polluting energy. We expect to have a complete new and Co2 free infrastructure at 2050 in Europe.

[Tommy Cookers]

..... We expect to have a complete new and Co2 free infrastructure at 2050 in Europe.

that hurried statement apparently to match to the UK announcement of June 13th

now already in law in the UK
(all energy CO2 free by 2050 - not just the present electrical energy sector CO2 free)
though the UK has reduced already its all-energy CO2 by 38% - it now has the remaining 62% to go
(when Germany has increased its coal consumption)

needing about 2000% expansion of 'zero-carbon' electricity production
and rebuilding all housing etc to reduce the heating required
as eg all heating everywhere must become zero carbon
inevitably carbon capture and storage


btw - at risk of Andres downvoting me again ....
the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser (now Sir) David King was one of many who advised the diesel car
(but recently he said the diesel makers 'have blood on their hands')
the Govt duly increased subsidies by waiving their licence fee (annual tax) - 'reward low CO2 to help the environment'
though UK diesel was only untaxed in road use for 7 years 1928-35 it was presumably cheap
France and Germany started making diesel cars because of the cheap fuel
then in the 80s when oil heating collapsed because of North Sea gas the diesel car was further helped by governments