# Electric motorhome



## Toffeecat (Sep 15, 2019)

Looks good but im very suspicious of range quoted by companies. And its only £200,000 Euro. Gulp! Ok if you do campsites with hook up and charging points. What about wilding and using lights tv etc. Watch that range drop.


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 15, 2019)

If you run out of juice the AA will bring you a few gallons of charge wont they.
In fact i have heard the AA & RAC will be running vans with gens or large battery packs to jump charge you to get to a nearby charging spot,that is if there are no other sucking on the teats.


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 16, 2019)

I met a nissan 200E electric camper conversion ontop of the col d' izeran 2700m. They said the climb  of 1000m from val disere 20 kilometer took 22% of the battery rather than about 10% if level but they expected to get down the other side almost for free. They had a german lifting roof conversion you could sleep 2 in. 2 bikes on the back. They had driven from Germany at 120 kilometer average per charge. 20% to 80% fast charge in an hour or long overnight on a 6amp hookup. They had 130 watt solar on the roof for lights and a compressor fridge. It can be done already


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 16, 2019)

Well fact is we have to within the 20 year time span.


----------



## colinm (Sep 16, 2019)

Derekoak said:


> I met a nissan 200E electric camper conversion ontop of the col d' izeran 2700m. They said the climb  of 1000m from val disere 20 kilometer took 22% of the battery rather than about 10% if level but they expected to get down the other side almost for free. They had a german lifting roof conversion you could sleep 2 in. 2 bikes on the back. They had driven from Germany at 120 kilometer average per charge. 20% to 80% fast charge in an hour or long overnight on a 6amp hookup. They had 130 watt solar on the roof for lights and a compressor fridge. It can be done already


It can be done, but still far from practical for many. The nearest bit of coast to me is beyond 120km, so just to get to the coast would need a stop and charge, on a Friday evening after work going off for the weekend this is not so good. Then there was the other favourite for me when traveling down to Cornwall, leave in the evening and drive to near bottom of M5, arriving at around 11pm, and an early start in morning to miss the traffic, this would need at least 3 one hour stops, and 11pm becomes at best 2am, the easy journey suddenly becomes much more onerous, and I'm not sure I would want to go back to that size of van. On the otherhand, a local estate uses these for those that do mainly short journies, such as the buildings manager, and they work really well for that.


----------



## GWAYGWAY (Sep 16, 2019)

Will not get far with a 6 amp charge on a site.


----------



## The laird (Sep 16, 2019)

Test


----------



## cobra rob (Sep 16, 2019)

A supped up.elextric milk float.  Nothing new  apart from a crazy price tag


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 17, 2019)

colinmd said:


> It can be done, but still far from practical for many. The nearest bit of coast to me is beyond 120km, so just to get to the coast would need a stop and charge, on a Friday evening after work going off for the weekend this is not so good. Then there was the other favourite for me when traveling down to Cornwall, leave in the evening and drive to near bottom of M5, arriving at around 11pm, and an early start in morning to miss the traffic, this would need at least 3 one hour stops, and 11pm becomes at best 2am, the easy journey suddenly becomes much more onerous, and I'm not sure I would want to go back to that size of van. On the otherhand, a local estate uses these for those that do mainly short journies, such as the buildings manager, and they work really well for that.


It may be early days, but the minor inconveniences you describe will be worth it to be able to tell your grandchildren that you were one of the first to try to give them a future. I will certainly not buy another diesel.


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 17, 2019)

Problem with above post that to make a battery pack is twice as dirty as a car running about 15 years,and to top that,cloths made around the world produce more dirty gases in one minute than all the cars running in the uk for 10 years,so where do we start to fix all this,dont think there is a easy solution.


----------



## colinm (Sep 18, 2019)

trevskoda said:


> Problem with above post that to make a battery pack is twice as dirty as a car running about 15 years,and to top that,cloths made around the world produce more dirty gases in one minute than all the cars running in the uk for 10 years,so where do we start to fix all this,dont think there is a easy solution.


It's turned out to be even worse than that, due to the wind turbine manufacturers using gas which is much worse than co2 for green gases the so called green energy has so far been anything but, then we have the national grid being behind on recognising the need to shift large amounts of (relatively) low voltage power across the country which has been very costly. Electric vehicles are still evolving and I feel many will end up on the scrapheap very early as they are superseded by better models. As the technology evolves I hope it will work out, but as far as I'm concerned it's not there yet and is not suitable or sustainable for widespread use except in limited circumstances. Gf used to drive a Renault Zoe occasionally at work and we looked at buying one, not only are they very expensive for the class of car, the battery lease costs are around same as or higher than it costs for petrol used on standard car.


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 20, 2019)

colinmd said:


> It's turned out to be even worse than that, due to the wind turbine manufacturers using gas which is much worse than co2 for green gases the so called green energy has so far been anything but, then we have the national grid being behind on recognising the need to shift large amounts of (relatively) low voltage power across the country which has been very costly. Electric vehicles are still evolving and I feel many will end up on the scrapheap very early as they are superseded by better models. As the technology evolves I hope it will work out, but as far as I'm concerned it's not there yet and is not suitable or sustainable for widespread use except in limited circumstances. Gf used to drive a Renault Zoe occasionally at work and we looked at buying one, not only are they very expensive for the class of car, the battery lease costs are around same as or higher than it costs for petrol used on standard car.


Yes perhaps it is early days. But dont give up looking. I wont!
 I do not believe what Trevskoda says is true but if it were, the answer is do not buy things made of "cloths" and Also try to buy lesser CO2 transport.
 I worked out that 6000 miles of driving our little camper to Spain made less CO2 than heating our house for the winter. That might be a good idea?
 Whoever you are the more money you have to spend the more damage you will do to the future, almost by definition. Where do we get the money to solve the climate crisis? By taxing the excessively rich and all learning to have enough with less?


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 20, 2019)

Climate change is not a technological problem only to be solved if cost benefit analysis shows it is worth it. It a moral wrong where some people cause other people (mostly but not all in the future) to suffer and die. It must be stopped!


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 20, 2019)

Derekoak said:


> Yes perhaps it is early days. But dont give up looking. I wont!
> I do not believe what Trevskoda says is true but if it were, the answer is do not buy things made of "cloths" and Also try to buy lesser CO2 transport.
> I worked out that 6000 miles of driving our little camper to Spain made less CO2 than heating our house for the winter. That might be a good idea?
> Whoever you are the more money you have to spend the more damage you will do to the future, almost by definition. Where do we get the money to solve the climate crisis? By taxing the excessively rich and all learning to have enough with less?


I dont tell porkies,lots of info to be read and i just qt others on tinternet.


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 20, 2019)

All the cars, buses, HGV,  and Motorhomes in the world account for 14% of CO2 emmisions. It seems to me that things that are not as tangible as driving about in a diesel Motorhome are doing far more damage.
The average uk citizen produces 7 tons of CO2 per annum, the average US citizen 22 tons.
After you visit Las Vegas, you realise that we are doing is a bit like farting in the wind. Oops sorry just added more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 20, 2019)

The world can cover every citizen making about 2 or 3 tons of CO2 per person, so nevermind the USA you are still part of the moral wrong. My foot print is about 5 ton so me too!


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 20, 2019)

You see when you tell people that they lack morals Derek, they just stop listening.
Im off to plant some trees, to improve my morals.


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 20, 2019)

If my f/print was 5 ton then i would try slimming world,darn it there books are more c/footprint,maybe i should roll over and die,feck burn house more blinking co2,i will try vanish but again more plastic,my head hurts.


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 20, 2019)

trevskoda said:


> If my f/print was 5 ton then i would try slimming world,darn it there books are more c/footprint,maybe i should roll over and die,feck burn house more blinking co2,i will try vanish but again more plastic,my head hurts.



You need to go on a CO2 diet Trev.






						Welcome to Slimming World | Achieve your weight loss dreams | Slimming World
					

You’ll love Slimming World’s generous weight loss plan and personalised support – the easiest way to lose weight for life! Start your journey today.




					www.slimmingworld.co.uk


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 20, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> You see when you tell people that they lack morals Derek, they just stop listening.
> Im off to plant some trees, to improve my morals.


Yes that is a significant problem. I apologize .
  However when for decades people have avoided the issue as a small thing that action can be kicked into the future and may even not be humanities fault. 
Now that 99.9% of scientists who are expert in a relevant field see climate change as mostly Anthropomorphic, therefore our responsibility. We need to change our view or nothing will happen.
 I became a whole food plant based diet person 6 months ago otherwise I would be 7 ton very average Brit myself. I need to do more myself but find further change more difficult, but I feel I must move further  in the next few years or I will not be able to look my grandchildren in the eye.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2019)

Derekoak said:


> Whoever you are the more money you have to spend the more damage you will do to the future, almost by definition. Where do we get the money to solve the climate crisis? By taxing the excessively rich and all learning to have enough with less?



Here we go, tax someone else. When only the rich could afford to fly or drive cars and buy expensive furniture there was little to no climate change, now all the plebs around the world can fly, drive and buy throw away items, we have a big problem. Want to go to Spain and leave a small carbon footprint? do as Laurie Lee and walk there. Want to decimate emissions from vehicles? Tax them so high the plebs can't afford to drive.


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 20, 2019)

colinmd said:


> Here we go, tax someone else. When only the rich could afford to fly or drive cars and buy expensive furniture there was little to no climate change, now all the plebs around the world can fly, drive and buy throw away items, we have a big problem. Want to go to Spain and leave a small carbon footprint? do as Laurie Lee and walk there. Want to decimate emissions from vehicles? Tax them so high the plebs can't afford to drive.


I think that the polluter pays is a very fair principle?. We need money to solve climate change. It does not have to be punitive, it does have to be enough!!


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 20, 2019)

There are 70 seat private jets taking off with 1 rich passenger.  That is obscene!


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 20, 2019)

Maybe we should start by fitting catalitic con to cows as im told they are worse than us,except when i have had b/beens.


----------



## harrow (Sep 20, 2019)

trevskoda said:


> Maybe we should start by fitting catalitic con to cows as im told they are worse than us,except when i have had b/beens.


a catholic converter ?


----------



## barge1914 (Sep 20, 2019)

One of those might reduce the overpopulation of some countries if you fitted them to pious men in frocks who procreate by proxy.


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 20, 2019)

Derekoak said:


> Yes that is a significant problem. I apologize .
> However when for decades people have avoided the issue as a small thing that action can be kicked into the future and may even not be humanities fault.
> Now that 99.9% of scientists who are expert in a relevant field see climate change as mostly Anthropomorphic, therefore our responsibility. We need to change our view or nothing will happen.
> I became a whole food plant based diet person 6 months ago otherwise I would be 7 ton very average Brit myself. I need to do more myself but find further change more difficult, but I feel I must move further  in the next few years or I will not be able to look my grandchildren in the eye.



Big words, big figures on a subjective subject.
Since the start of the industrial revolution CO2 emissions have increased by roughly. 50%. Pre industrial revolution 280 ppm (max) today 414ppm. But the worlds population has increased by 400%. Using these figures means that those living prior to the industrial revolution were bigger per capita polluters than we are today. Diesel Motorhomes and all.

Now Derek we have a problem and that problem is over population, possibly global warming will be our saviour getting rid of a few billion, whilst maintaining lower birth rates owing to lower reproductive rates.  

The worlds Forrest’s used to absorb 50% of all produced CO2. But today that figure is only around 30% with an area of Forrest the size of Wales disappearing every year. So stop cutting down trees and start planting trees could do more than removing all internal combustion engines from the planet.

It’s smoke and mirrors, it’s lets tax the man on the street, it’s never give a sucker an even break, it’s global warming. (We could do with that up here).  
Tell me Derek do you believe that we only discovered what comes out of a diesel tail pipe. We have known for decades about nitrogen oxide, and the particulate matter. Yet ten years ago go it was “ dash for diesel” now it’s £12 a day to drive your 4 year old diesel with a Euro 5 engine 80 times cleaner than the first diesels.
The new 6b models have taken levels from 85ppm on the current euro 6 down to 50ppm. In the 1960s that figure was 490ppm,with much higher particulate. Today diesels produce 40% less CO2 than petrol. Yet you can drive a 12 year old petrol in London, but a 4 year old diesel producing much less CO2 will cost you £12 a day.

Smoke and mirrors Derek, nothing definitive, just one thing is certain, more taxes.
Clarity is lacking, detail obscured, and minds are being bent towards concern for the planet.

Today it’s go electric, yesterday dash for diesel.
Tomorrow who knows, but if it’s electric you can bet one thing it will somehow get much more expensive, no matter how beneficial it is to the planet.


----------



## phillybarbour (Sep 21, 2019)

It’s the rate of change that’s staggering, given that the big push has only been on for around 2 years it’s moving fast. I expect hybrid diesel vans to be common (new vans) within the next 18 months. Mercedes have hybrid diesel in several of there cars including the E Class and soon in the GLE Class. Those units units would move across to the Sprinter I’m sure as the base engine is the same now.


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 21, 2019)

The amazon is being cut down at a alarming rate,fields were made bigger in uk and else where by cutting down trees and boundry hedge rows,pestacides used after the war killed bio life and now known to cause cancers and destroy nerv sys ,we are slowly killing the planet and ourselves.
The whole thing is out of control and i for one dont see an easy fix.


----------



## Private (Sep 21, 2019)

Derekoak said:


> I think that the polluter pays is a very fair principle?. We need money to solve climate change. It does not have to be punitive, it does have to be enough!!





Derekoak said:


> There are 70 seat private jets taking off with 1 rich passenger.  That is obscene!



Fair principle but obscene? 

There are private jets taking off with no passengers; returning only with a favourite pizza from Italy. 
Can the fact the polluter can afford to pay for such ignorant, couldn't care less excess really be a 'very fair principle'?


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 21, 2019)

The main reason for rise in cancers is a quadrupling of background radiation since the nuclear tests of the 1950s and 60s. Chernobyl saw a massive increase in strontium levels in Scotland. This led to deaths throughout Europe. But strontium lies dormant on the ground, this led  to a massive increase in cancers in dogs due to them sniffing the ground looking for scent. It also led to massive increases in cancer rates in many other animals. 
Yes there has been a large increase in CO2 in the past 50years and some of that is no doubt due to us. But I don’t think electrifying our transport will make much difference. We have to stop using fossil fuels for heating our homes. Industry has to use energy far more efficiently. And renewables have to and will improve. Storage of electricity has to improve in battery and capacitor developments.

What will save us all is nuclear fusion.
This uses the same process as the sun.
Instead of splitting atoms as we do today. We will fuse them together creating massive energy.
But that won’t happen till towards the end of the century. Just think nuclear power thousands of times greater than what we produce today from fission, with no risks of radiation. Now that will be a massive game changer.


----------



## ricc (Sep 21, 2019)

whatever the hype theres a big problem with battery vehicles.   leave aside the energy costs of manufacture of the battery pack,  theres only a limited supply of the metals  required not enough on the planet to produce the number of batteries required.


on another note, on tv last night somebody stated that the the last 4 summers were the hottest since records began.    when i was a kid hot days meant butter left out on the kitchen table melted into liquid.  that hasnt happened lately, so either theres summit wrong with the temp records or theyre mucking around with our butter.!


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 21, 2019)

ricc said:


> whatever the hype theres a big problem with battery vehicles.   leave aside the energy costs of manufacture of the battery pack,  theres only a limited supply of the metals  required not enough on the planet to produce the number of batteries required.
> 
> 
> on another note, on tv last night somebody stated that the the last 4 summers were the hottest since records began.    when i was a kid hot days meant butter left out on the kitchen table melted into liquid.  that hasnt happened lately, so either theres summit wrong with the temp records or theyre mucking around with our butter.!



The tar used to melt on the pavements in Glasgow in the 1960s, maybe it is made of better stuff now.


----------



## RAW (Sep 21, 2019)

Surprised that with the roof space there is no solar to also aid with trickle charge to battery packs, would make sense. That way there would be less likelihood of being completely out of charge and you could fit a small generator in the garage under part to also help with that. Maybe even some form of Wind generator would be useful when travelling in large vehicles ?


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 21, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> Big words, big figures on a subjective subject.
> Since the start of the industrial revolution CO2 emissions have increased by roughly. 50%. Pre industrial revolution 280 ppm (max) today 414ppm. But the worlds population has increased by 400%. Using these figures means that those living prior to the industrial revolution were bigger per capita polluters than we are today. Diesel Motorhomes and all.
> 
> Now Derek we have a problem and that problem is over population, possibly global warming will be our saviour getting rid of a few billion, whilst maintaining lower birth rates owing to lower reproductive rates.
> ...


Overpopulation makes it worse but the big problem is the rich polluting the world.
 Arable land produces enough calories for 7000 calories per person per day. An average person requires 2000 calories, of these 7000 about 2000 human edible calories are fed to domistic animals as feed.( Over and above pasture feed). In return we get about 200 calories of meat milk, eggs per person. a poor return. Another 1000 is turned into biodiesel and ethanol which makes up a tiny portion of the fuel needed to drive our vehicles. That leaves 4000 calories per person. The rest is lost in waste in harvest, manufacture, storage transport and finally bought by us and thrown out uneaten! Meanwhile due to bad distribution some people starve.
 World Population could be fed and is now across the world at reproduction level only, in every continent except Africa. Yes we need to educate women to a high level as then they do not want too many children.
 Rich people sending a jet to get a pizza or whatever need to pay all the costs of their pollution and yes they should have their flights rationed and if they need more they should pay increasing penalties! But first before that inflammatory position the very rich should be taxed to get the money to sort the problem.


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 21, 2019)

They say making of cloths is one of the biggest polutors ,ladies do you really require a new outfit every time you cross the door,head down now


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 21, 2019)

Derekoak said:


> Overpopulation makes it worse but the big problem is the rich polluting the world.
> Arable land produces enough calories for 7000 calories per person per day. An average person requires 2000 calories, of these 7000 about 2000 human edible calories are fed to domistic animals as feed.( Over and above pasture feed). In return we get about 200 calories of meat milk, eggs per person. a poor return. Another 1000 is turned into biodiesel and ethanol which makes up a tiny portion of the fuel needed to drive our vehicles. That leaves 4000 calories per person. The rest is lost in waste in harvest, manufacture, storage transport and finally bought by us and thrown out uneaten! Meanwhile due to bad distribution some people starve.
> World Population could be fed and is now across the world at reproduction level only, in every continent except Africa. Yes we need to educate women to a high level as then they do not want too many children.
> Rich people sending a jet to get a pizza or whatever need to pay all the costs of their pollution and yes they should have their flights rationed and if they need more they should pay increasing penalties! But first before that inflammatory position the very rich should be taxed to get the money to sort the problem.



Derek you must be a right load of fun to be with mate.
Do yourself a favour.
Sit down, watch strictly with favourite tipple in hand, and let the world go bye.
There is sweet fa you and I or anybody can do about it.
But if we humans are good at anything it’s adapting.
We will adapt, improve our technology.
Then all you will have to do is wonder where to go next in your hydrogen fuel cell Motorhome.


----------



## Private (Sep 21, 2019)

Derekoak said:


> ......
> Rich people sending a jet to get a pizza or whatever need to pay all the costs of their pollution and yes they should have their flights rationed and if they need more they should pay increasing penalties! But first before that inflammatory position the very rich should be taxed to get the money to sort the problem.



I argue that money should not be able to buy you anything you want:
Private jet for pizza etc.; make it strictly illegal with punishment of prison. 
Private jets in general; equally a luxury our planet cannot afford. 

Start at the top for once (we never do) as that is where the obscenely excess polluters are.


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 21, 2019)

Private said:


> I argue that money should not be able to buy you anything you want:
> Private jet for pizza etc.; make it strictly illegal with punishment of prison.
> Private jets in general; equally a luxury our planet cannot afford.
> 
> Start at the top for once (we never do) as that is where the obscenely excess polluters are.



You can always get Elton John to “offset” your carbon footprint 

Well that’s what Harry and Megan did.


----------



## Private (Sep 21, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> You can always get Elton John to “offset” your carbon footprint
> 
> Well that’s what Harry and Megan did.



Sorry, but I don't know what they got up to to!


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 21, 2019)

Private said:


> Sorry, but I don't know what they got up to to!



Whilst preaching “save the environment “ they were flown to Nice in Elton Johns private jet. But Elton stated he carried out whatever to offset the damage done to the environment.


----------



## colinm (Sep 21, 2019)

Derekoak said:


> Overpopulation makes it worse but the big problem is the rich polluting the world.
> ...
> Rich people sending a jet to get a pizza or whatever need to pay all the costs of their pollution and yes they should have their flights rationed and if they need more they should pay increasing penalties! But first before that inflammatory position the very rich should be taxed to get the money to sort the problem.


Complete and utter rubbish, I deal with a lot of rich people, yes each one might produce a bit more polution, but by far the worse thing is the average people are all producing large amounts of polution, take one of my rich customers, he has loads of cars, but he can't drive more than one at a time, and if that one is his Tesla by your  standards he is producing less polution than your van.
Now lets go on to flights, that same customer owns a biz jet company, which operates out of our local airport along with quite a few other biz jet companies, from our farm I can see in the distance all the flights from the airport, by far the most flights, which produce by far the most polution are all the Easyjet etc flights they ain't filled by rich people, they are full of average people. Tomorrow evening will be peak time for biz jets landing, even then they will be outnumbered by Wizz air flights full of people coming back from eastern Europe.
If you where to totally ban all the rich from using biz jets there would be a infinitesimal drop in polution levels, if on the other hand you where to ban all the average people using cheap airlines there would be a much bigger drop in polution levels.


----------



## mark61 (Sep 22, 2019)

Private said:


> I argue that money should not be able to buy you anything you want:
> Private jet for pizza etc.; make it strictly illegal with punishment of prison.
> Private jets in general; equally a luxury our planet cannot afford.
> 
> Start at the top for once (we never do) as that is where the obscenely excess polluters are.


You at the top, guv?


----------



## Private (Sep 22, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> Whilst preaching “save the environment “ they were flown to Nice in Elton Johns private jet. But Elton stated he carried out whatever to offset the damage done to the environment.



Thank you.
I'm sure that works in the fantasy land they live their lives in.


----------



## Asterix (Sep 22, 2019)

Here's an interesting read that was in the paper a few days ago...








						For the sake of life on Earth, we must put a limit on wealth | George Monbiot
					

Increased spending power leads to environmental damage. It’s time for a radical plan, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## yorkslass (Sep 22, 2019)

Asterix said:


> Here's an interesting read that was in the paper a few days ago...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An interesting read......however.....it would be like expecting turkeys to vote for christmas.


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 22, 2019)

yorkslass said:


> An interesting read......however.....it would be like expecting turkeys to vote for christmas.


That I do not understand. Why does the rule of the majority give such power to 1% of the population? Agreed after the very rich are restricted and taxed we will all need to enjoy having enough rather than as much as possible. But not doing so would be like Turkeys voting to have no future as a species!


----------



## colinm (Sep 22, 2019)

Monbiot preaches to the converted, or in his case it's more telling people at best distorted truths, yes it is bad that biz jets produce polution out of proportion to the passengers carried, but they are but a tiny proportion of the polution produced from jets, by far the main polluters are the flights carrying ordinary people, next are the flights bringing in freight, coming a long way behind are biz jets. But of cause it's not going to make him popular telling it like it is, better to create a hate target,  it reminds me of the lies he tells about our uplands.


----------



## Asterix (Sep 22, 2019)

colinmd said:


> Monbiot preaches to the converted, or in his case it's more telling people at best distorted truths, yes it is bad that biz jets produce polution out of proportion to the passengers carried, but they are but a tiny proportion of the polution produced from jets, by far the main polluters are the flights carrying ordinary people, next are the flights bringing in freight, coming a long way behind are biz jets. But of cause it's not going to make him popular telling it like it is, better to create a hate target,  it reminds me of the lies he tells about our uplands.



Although he mainly talks about the obscenely rich,it really includes all of us,compared to the majority in the world everyone on this website would be viewed as obscenely rich.


----------



## 2cv (Sep 22, 2019)

Derekoak said:


> That I do not understand. Why does the rule of the majority give such power to 1% of the population? Agreed after the very rich are restricted and taxed we will all need to enjoy having enough rather than as much as possible. But not doing so would be like Turkeys voting to have no future as a species!



You may be surprised to find who the top 1% are.


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 22, 2019)

When i typed my income in it said are you sure and would not let me go forward,i always knew i was a poor barstewart.


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 22, 2019)

Asterix said:


> Here's an interesting read that was in the paper a few days ago...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah here we go, let's have a pop at those who have more than us.
Its all relative, I mean someone going to a food bank here is massively better off than someone living in a mud hut in Mozambique.
The person going to the food bank will have a much larger CO2 footprint, than the native African living in the mud hut.

So we limit wealth, a world with no incentive to create wealth will be a poorer world for us all.
The technologies that will save us from this global catastrophe  will require vast sums of money from governments,
and the very people who's wealth that you wish to limit.
And by limiting their wealth you limit our ability to earn, thus less taxes are collected by the governments you wish to
prevent global warming.
In the past we have seen the results on limiting the wealth of individuals, we have seen the devastating effect it had on those living within
such a dystopian system. Poverty prevails, no freedom of speech, limits on child birth, mass murder, and fear, I could go on.

Our system is not perfect, not by any means.
But until I see a better system, one that will deal better with global warming, give us our freedom of speech, free from poverty, and from fear,
I will stick with this one, thank you.

_Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Circa 1947, Winston Churchill._


----------



## Asterix (Sep 22, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> Ah here we go, let's have a pop at those who have more than us.
> Its all relative, I mean someone going to a food bank here is massively better off than someone living in a mud hut in Mozambique.
> The person going to the food bank will have a much larger CO2 footprint, than the native African living in the mud hut.
> 
> ...



Wealth used to be limited and people were still free to create it,in the Victorian period the highest paid person in a company could only earn 10x as much as the lowest paid employee,during the Thatcher years this increased to around 100x...now it is in the thousands,and not limited in any way.
What I find odd is that people with billions in the bank,are usually only concerned with adding more billions to their pot and it is nearly always at the expense of the lowest earners. If we went back to the Victorian principle then there would be an incentive to increase the earnings of the lower earners and distribute wealth in a more equitable way.
It doesn't have to stifle creativity,in my view the Victorian era was the most innovative in history and gave rise to our modern society,yet they didn't need stupendously wealthy people to do it. 
We all got sucked in by the trickle down theory espoused in the 80s,myself included but have since recognised the opposite is actually true,the 1 percenters use us to create their wealth,wealth equals power,power equals subjugation.


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 22, 2019)

Asterix said:


> Wealth used to be limited and people were still free to create it,in the Victorian period the highest paid person in a company could only earn 10x as much as the lowest paid employee,during the Thatcher years this increased to around 100x...now it is in the thousands,and not limited in any way.
> What I find odd is that people with billions in the bank,are usually only concerned with adding more billions to their pot and it is nearly always at the expense of the lowest earners. If we went back to the Victorian principle then there would be an incentive to increase the earnings of the lower earners and distribute wealth in a more equitable way.
> It doesn't have to stifle creativity,in my view the Victorian era was the most innovative in history and gave rise to our modern society,yet they didn't need stupendously wealthy people to do it.
> We all got sucked in by the trickle down theory espoused in the 80s,myself included but have since recognised the opposite is actually true,the 1 percenters use us to create their wealth,wealth equals power,power equals subjugation.



And what about those who are not employed within a company, who own the company.
You know the type of people who have gambled their homes to build up a business, with some losing everything.
I was referring to the entrepreneurial spirit, not those working for a salary within a company. They don’t create wealth.
Yes those with billions in the bank want more, and guess how they achieve that, but building bigger and better businesses.
Preventing the creation of wealth will do nothing for us or our economy, and nothing to prevent global warming.

Yes people with enormous wealth have higher CO2 footprints, but their overall contribution to global warming is tiny.
As I have stated previously all the cars, buses, vans, HGVs, motorhomes etc combined amount to only 14% of mans contribution
to global warming.
And battery operated vehicles will still contribute both directly and indirectly to global warming.
We have to look at deforestation, how we heat our homes, reduce the amount of meat we consume, and reducing the cost of and improving public transport.
These options alongside improvements in renewables and storage, will be much more effective than robbing the wealthy, simply because they have more than us.
And more importantly these improvements are possible.


----------



## Asterix (Sep 22, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> And what about those who are not employed within a company, who own the company.
> You know the type of people who have gambled their homes to build up a business, with some losing everything.
> I was referring to the entrepreneurial spirit, not those working for a salary within a company. They don’t create wealth.
> Yes those with billions in the bank want more, and guess how they achieve that, but building bigger and better businesses.
> ...



The only wealth they are creating is for themselves,while their employees are having to get handouts from the government (taxpayers) or rely on food banks and schools (taxpayers again) to feed their children. A point I often like to make is the example of a worker whose only job is to join part A to part B,yet without him doing that Mr One Percenter wouldn't have a product to sell,who is the most important person in the chain? Neither one is more or less important,but that's not how our society sees it. Hourly wage earners do create wealth but it's within their own communities,if they are paid minimum wage then communities suffer,and the guy at the top is unlikely to be using local services,so once again the taxpayer has to subsidise local services. I certainly don't have an issue with someone making millions,but I do when it's at the expense of the very people that help them achieve that.


----------



## Private (Sep 22, 2019)

Fisherman said:


> And what about those who are not employed within a company, who own the company.
> You know the type of people who have gambled their homes to build up a business, with some losing everything.
> I was referring to the entrepreneurial spirit, not those working for a salary within a company. They don’t create wealth.
> Yes those with billions in the bank want more, and guess how they achieve that, but building bigger and better businesses.
> ...



I understand your sentiment but the reality is far different. 
We do not live in a capitalist society. 
If we did, for one simple example, the majority of the banks would be bust. 

We constantly democratise costs and privatise the profits in wealthy countries. 
Socialism is considered great for bailing out banks but not for looking after the many. 

Most people also risk everything by dedicating themselves as PAYE workers; it's not just the business owners who do that. I would guess there are way more house repossessions from PAYEarners than there are from business owners.


----------



## colinm (Sep 22, 2019)

Well we have one person saying the wealthy are wasting money on frivolities then others saying they just accumulate money, seems damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'm primarily employed by wealthy people, IME they appreciate quality work made by people they can talk to.


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 24, 2019)

People in the thread seem to think that the rich are not a significant part of the climate change emissions problem. As far a flying goes  they are just wrong! 
A quote
"Flying at present is “very skewed” towards a small number of people, said Stark. About half of people in the UK do not fly in any given year but a minority fly often. On current trends, the number of flights taken in the UK would rise by 50% by 2050, but the committee advised this must be halved to a 25% increase to stay within the zero-carbon target.
Many green campaigners want policies to focus on penalising frequent flyers and curtailing airport expansion, along with improvements in public transport to make rail a better option than flying on short journeys.
Leo Murray, director at 10:10 Climate Action, said: “Most of the environmental damage from air travel is caused not by annual family holidays but by very frequent leisure flights by those at the top end of the income spectrum. A frequent flyer levy is the fairest and most effective way to keep aviation within safe limits, while protecting access to some air travel for all.”"
This is a quote from the link below 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-face-extra-tax-under-plans-to-cut-emissions?


----------



## colinm (Sep 24, 2019)

Derekoak said:


> People in the thread seem to think that the rich are not a significant part of the climate change emissions problem. As far a flying goes  they are just wrong!
> A quote
> "Flying at present is “very skewed” towards a small number of people, said Stark. About half of people in the UK do not fly in any given year but a minority fly often. On current trends, the number of flights taken in the UK would rise by 50% by 2050, but the committee advised this must be halved to a 25% increase to stay within the zero-carbon target.
> Many green campaigners want policies to focus on penalising frequent flyers and curtailing airport expansion, along with improvements in public transport to make rail a better option than flying on short journeys.
> ...



Once again you are totally misrepresenting the facts, even in that article it doesn't say rich people make most flights, it talks of frequent flyers, the biggest operators out of UK airports are budget airlines running 'cheap' flights. Thousands of people take short breaks in europe, many even take weekend breaks to the canaries! Many flights are to eastern europe where EU nationals 'pop' home for the weekend.


----------



## Fisherman (Sep 24, 2019)

Derekoak said:


> People in the thread seem to think that the rich are not a significant part of the climate change emissions problem. As far a flying goes  they are just wrong!
> A quote
> "Flying at present is “very skewed” towards a small number of people, said Stark. About half of people in the UK do not fly in any given year but a minority fly often. On current trends, the number of flights taken in the UK would rise by 50% by 2050, but the committee advised this must be halved to a 25% increase to stay within the zero-carbon target.
> Many green campaigners want policies to focus on penalising frequent flyers and curtailing airport expansion, along with improvements in public transport to make rail a better option than flying on short journeys.
> ...



Global aviation amounts to 2% of contributions to our CO2 output, and the stinking rich that you so obviously hate a tiny proportion of that roughly 2% of 2%, I will leave you to work that one out.

I don’t know what I hate more people like Prince Harry telling us we need to take care of the environment better whilst flying all over the place in private jets, or people who detest anyone with a few bob more than them.

If I was a African tribesman living in the jungle, I may despise you for your wealth, with your fancy house, your car, your Motorhome, and your whole way of life. If I was struggling in Syria right now, fighting for my life with everything I had destroyed, I might despise you also for your wealth and the lifestyle that you have. If I could get online I might even come on here and tell you all what I think of you.
If I lived in a small Pacific island just above sea level worried about hurricanes and rising sea levels created by your car your Motorhome and your way of life I may also come on here and tell you what I think of you.

The pot and the kettle and all that, people in glass houses and all that.


----------



## Private (Sep 24, 2019)

colinmd said:


> Once again you are totally misrepresenting the facts, even in that article it doesn't say rich people make most flights, it talks of frequent flyers, the biggest operators out of UK airports are budget airlines running 'cheap' flights. Thousands of people take short breaks in europe, many even take weekend breaks to the canaries! Many flights are to eastern europe where EU nationals 'pop' home for the weekend.



Climate Action, said: “Most of the environmental damage from air travel is caused not by annual family holidays* but by very frequent leisure flights by those at the top end of the income spectrum.* A frequent flyer levy is the fairest and most effective way to keep aviation within safe limits, while protecting access to some air travel for all.”

It does however say 'the rich' (which I guess those at the top end of the income spectrum are) cause the most environmental damage from air travel.
I doubt their claim is true but I do believe superfluous travel should be curtailed first  .

I can assure you however that it won't happen the way the article suggests; it's just an appeasement article before we all take the next financial hit.


----------



## mark61 (Sep 24, 2019)

Is that the same Leo Murray behind the orange man baby blimp.


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 24, 2019)

@colinmd no misrepresented facts, I was talking about flying this time, slightly different to emissions in general of course. As you are aware frequent flyers are more relevant than the rich in general (apart from a private jet just for a pizza unlikely story). So all relevant  . We must start with the worse offenders.  The rest of the frequent fliers also need to be dealt with. A flying ration seems a sensible idea?
@Fisherman I  do not hate the stinking rich, I hate what they do to the rest of us. Like Colin I used to work for them but I never saw the need to apologise for their lifestyle.  Flying is a immediate problem that needs dealing with ASAP . We have so little time left! The longer we leave it the more extreme the remedies become.
  I am aware that the poor people you indicate might see me as part of the problem which is why I must continue to bother you and change my lifestyle in the right direction.  As I see it I am the pot with 1/3 clean calling out  all the very and extremely  black kettles, Whilst working out how to clean more of myself. I do not see anything strange or wrong about that metaphore. How can it be otherwise.  Can only perfect saints express opinions.


----------



## Asterix (Sep 24, 2019)

Here's another very good read....








						Vaclav Smil: ‘Growth must end. Our economist friends don’t seem to realise that’
					

The scientist and author on why humanity’s endless expansion must stop.




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## vindiboy (Sep 29, 2019)

Life is simple, it is Humans that complicate it, back to the Stone age for a decade or two , give the Planet time to recover, is the only solution and then start again.


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 29, 2019)

If only life was simple. History does not usually allow another start after extinction


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 29, 2019)

WE cannot dist it as its like a battery,we take out use and die to recharge it once more,millions of years back the polar caps were forests as the ice melted then and returned.


----------



## vindiboy (Sep 29, 2019)

Quite right. what goes round comes round but I do believe we are speeding things up with our lifestyles , doubt we will be here to see it happen though, it takes  millions of years , but things happening recently seem like the start of a sky fi movie, ie floods , tempest wild fires, earthquakes etc, Oh and Jeremy Corbyn hee hee.


----------



## Deleted member 79302 (Sep 29, 2019)

All electric vehicles do is move the pollution from the road to the electric generating power station


----------



## Derekoak (Sep 29, 2019)

I think you have not noticed that this year carbon neutral electricity was more than half the electricity generated in the UK.  This will only get greater as more wind power comes online.
Anyway it is easier to clean and collect emissions from a few power station chimneys  than a million exhausts. Also the vehicle exhausts are much closer to peoples lungs!


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 29, 2019)

MaxusMicky said:


> All electric vehicles do is move the pollution from the road to the electric generating power station


There going to use wind and wave power along with nuclear which is carbon free.
If we do get cold fusion then all will be ok.


----------



## Deleted member 79302 (Sep 30, 2019)

trevskoda said:


> There going to use wind and wave power along with nuclear which is carbon free.
> If we do get cold fusion then all will be ok.


I wasn’t aware of much wave power generation nuclear is downright dangerous as Sellafield Chernobyl Fukushima have shown us and cold fusion has been promised since the 50s still waiting


----------



## barge1914 (Sep 30, 2019)

A humbling thought...if you have a home in a nice area, a good pension pot, and a good job  you are probably already amongst the worlds top 1% richest people. A bit less and you are probably in the top 2%. If you are not well off and live in the uk on a state pension or benefits you’re probably still in the top 5%.
This is because there still exists an overwhelming number of abjectly poor people in the rest of the world who have nothing at all but a few rags, a rudimentary shelter, no clean water, and hardly enough to eat...too many children they can’t afford to prevent or feed, and a very short life expectancy.

Sometimes here perhaps we get all wound up about the wrong problems!


----------



## trevskoda (Sep 30, 2019)

MaxusMicky said:


> I wasn’t aware of much wave power generation nuclear is downright dangerous as Sellafield Chernobyl Fukushima have shown us and cold fusion has been promised since the 50s still waiting


Much less people have been killed by n/power than war,starvation or disease.


----------



## colinm (Oct 1, 2019)

Here is a interesting article on deaths related to different types of energy production, it doesn't include wind or solar as there is not any data as yet, although I guess it will be very low.








						What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?
					

Fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous energy sources, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner. The differences are huge.




					ourworldindata.org


----------



## Derekoak (Oct 15, 2019)

Quote from link below "But at the same time we now live in a world where two-thirds of the global population live in a country where wind and solar power is the cheapest form of new electricity capacity."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/14/rise-renewables-oil-firms-decades-earlier-think?


----------

