Is it the death knell for the combustion engine?

I respect the sentiment, but suspect that you are driving a diesel motorhome? (apologies if I'm wrong on that).

However, if you really think that you are contributing to the massacre of 40,000 people per year, surely you would give up motorhoming in a heartbeat? Or am I being too simplistic.

what about my car will I give that up as well. Maybe take the bus but it’s diesel also, get the train oh it’s diesel also. If motorhomes powered by electric become available I may buy
one. But my next car will be petrol or electric. We rarely drive in cities with the motorhome and we only do 3,000 miles a year on it. Possibly you think I support extinction rebellion, I don’t.
 
The OP is about vehicle emission's, in the UK it is estimated 38,000 people per year die early due Deisel emissions, about the same as the very worst case scenario for Corvid 19.

That is simply a lie. The figure is globally not UK, That study is over 2 years old based on a single computer model using best guess figures and wording like "could have contributed to." in relation to deaths. Nothing but scaremongering,
 
what about my car will I give that up as well. Maybe take the bus but it’s diesel also, get the train oh it’s diesel also. If motorhomes powered by electric become available I may buy
one. But my next car will be petrol or electric. We rarely drive in cities with the motorhome and we only do 3,000 miles a year on it. Possibly you think I support extinction rebellion, I don’t.

No, I don't think that you support the extinction rebellion (I don't even know what it is!).

But motorhoming is not a necessity so are you saying that it's ok to contribute to these deaths just a bit? I do applaud your choice of doing low mileage, not in cities etc. and your decision to go petrol/electric.

It all depends on how much you believe the environmental questions and how strong your beliefs are.

My post was not really a crticism by the way. We are all contributing but nobody seems 100% sure on where the harm lies.
 
That is simply a lie. The figure is globally not UK, That study is over 2 years old based on a single computer model using best guess figures and wording like "could have contributed to." in relation to deaths. Nothing but scaremongering,

Yes I realised the figure was globally when looking at post a few minutes ago, as for rest, please show a study which refutes this.
 
What do we have to lose, only a unbelievable amount of money as a country, that could be better spent.

Yes there is upfront costs,but longer term there's massive savings to be had,South Australia is a good example of consumers saving millions in the first year that Tesla installed a huge battery bank,and a more recent example from the UK of consumers being paid to use electricity. There will be job losses in the fossil fuel industries to be replaced by jobs in green energy,what are the "unbelievable amounts of money" that you refer to?

 
Yes there is upfront costs,but longer term there's massive savings to be had,South Australia is a good example of consumers saving millions in the first year that Tesla installed a huge battery bank,and a more recent example from the UK of consumers being paid to use electricity. There will be job losses in the fossil fuel industries to be replaced by jobs in green energy,what are the "unbelievable amounts of money" that you refer to?


Not entirely due to environmental policies but largely affected by them car sales are in a steady decline, affecting employment prospects for many thousands. Link
Just this week thousands of jobs have been lost at Flybe, largely because of APD, pushed as an environmental tax.
These are just a couple of the many examples of where “unbelievable amounts of money” that belief in the co2 theories are costing.
Climate change policies could well leave the next generation with a very damaged world economy to live in. If the theories are wrong, we’re unnecessarily making life difficult for the next generations.
 
Yes there is upfront costs,but longer term there's massive savings to be had,South Australia is a good example of consumers saving millions in the first year that Tesla installed a huge battery bank,and a more recent example from the UK of consumers being paid to use electricity. There will be job losses ile country n the fossil fuel industries to be replaced by jobs in green energy,what are the "unbelievable amounts of money" that you refer to?


Are you on commission from Tesla. Its not uncommon in the motor trade. As i said before if only the whole country could afford a £40,000 Tesla then the world would seem not green but very rosy.
 
Not entirely due to environmental policies but largely affected by them car sales are in a steady decline, affecting employment prospects for many thousands. Link
Just this week thousands of jobs have been lost at Flybe, largely because of APD, pushed as an environmental tax.
These are just a couple of the many examples of where “unbelievable amounts of money” that belief in the co2 theories are costing.
Climate change policies could well leave the next generation with a very damaged world economy to live in. If the theories are wrong, we’re unnecessarily making life difficult for the next generations.

The same thing happened when we stopped relying on steam engines,but new technologies replaced those job losses,I don't see any difference this time around.
Personally I'd like to see the world's economy trashed,only wishful thinking on my part as I think it unlikely to happen but continuous growth can only end badly.
 
The same thing happened when we stopped relying on steam engines,but new technologies replaced those job losses,I don't see any difference this time around.
Personally I'd like to see the world's economy trashed,only wishful thinking on my part as I think it unlikely to happen but continuous growth can only end badly.

This would undoubtedly lead to great hardship for most people, as in the 1930s. Seems a rather strange aspiration.
 
The same thing happened when we stopped relying on steam engines,but new technologies replaced those job losses,I don't see any difference this time around.
Personally I'd like to see the world's economy trashed,only wishful thinking on my part as I think it unlikely to happen but continuous growth can only end badly.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
No, I don't think that you support the extinction rebellion (I don't even know what it is!).

But motorhoming is not a necessity so are you saying that it's ok to contribute to these deaths just a bit? I do applaud your choice of doing low mileage, not in cities etc. and your decision to go petrol/electric.

It all depends on how much you believe the environmental questions and how strong your beliefs are.

My post was not really a crticism by the way. We are all contributing but nobody seems 100% sure on where the harm lies.

extinction rebellion are the group who protested in London closing off roads, and climbing on top of trains in the tube stations. They want us all to stop driving cars and living how we do now, and right now.

I believe we have to change gradually over decades in order that we don’t destroy our economies. Diesel fumes kill people in built up areas such as cities and large towns. Bristol has announced a ban on all diesel vehicles at certain times of the day, and other cities will follow suit.

I will be buying a new car early 2021, and I am looking at petrol and electric. I will not buy a diesel. If a suitable non diesel Motorhome was available I would do likewise.
 
This would undoubtedly lead to great hardship for most people, as in the 1930s. Seems a rather strange aspiration.

Hardship has got to be better than oblivion.
Who gains from a thriving economy? Certainly not your average worker as already proven over the last forty odd years of the trickle up effect.
Who loses from a trashed economy? Mainly billionaires who are likely to end up as lowly millionaires,my heart really bleeds for them.
The one percenters always push for economic growth,which means more low paid jobs,which means more of the world getting tarmacked over,which means more population/immigration required,which means more housing shortages,more congestion,the endless spiral of growth,pollution,consumerism,species extinction, until it ends up as wars over dwindling resources. That is what great hardship looks like.
 
Hardship has got to be better than oblivion.
Who gains from a thriving economy? Certainly not your average worker as already proven over the last forty odd years of the trickle up effect.
Who loses from a trashed economy? Mainly billionaires who are likely to end up as lowly millionaires,my heart really bleeds for them.
The one percenters always push for economic growth,which means more low paid jobs,which means more of the world getting tarmacked over,which means more population/immigration required,which means more housing shortages,more congestion,the endless spiral of growth,pollution,consumerism,species extinction, until it ends up as wars over dwindling resources. That is what great hardship looks like.


History says that the poor suffer most in a depression. Not only that, but should the world economy fail the most affected would be in the third world, where rather than just losing luxuries survival would become a problem.
 
History says that the poor suffer most in a depression. Not only that, but should the world economy fail the most affected would be in the third world, where rather than just losing luxuries survival would become a problem.

No need to wait for a depression,the poor are suffering now,the boom times have done nothing for the lower rungs of society and the upper rungs of society really couldn't give a stuff. You can maintain the fantasy of a trickle down economy that lifts everyone up but it's worn a bit thin over the years.
 
No need to wait for a depression,the poor are suffering now,the boom times have done nothing for the lower rungs of society and the upper rungs of society really couldn't give a stuff. You can maintain the fantasy of a trickle down economy that lifts everyone up but it's worn a bit thin over the years.

I can only say that it’s not good to be putting the prosperity of future generations at risk on the basis of a disputed theory which may turn out to be unfounded. Not to mention that the replacements suggested require raw materials whose sourcing could well lead to ecological disaster.
Maybe we just need to be patient as the Earth heats inevitably up due to solar activity over the next few hundreds of millions of years and todays problems become relatively trivial.
 
I can only say that it’s not good to be putting the prosperity of future generations at risk on the basis of a disputed theory which may turn out to be unfounded. Not to mention that the replacements suggested require raw materials whose sourcing could well lead to ecological disaster.
Maybe we just need to be patient as the Earth heats inevitably up due to solar activity over the next few hundreds of millions of years and todays problems become relatively trivial.


The constant chase for prosperity is the heart of the problem,the entire ethos of what we value as a species needs to change.
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top