Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Modest Proposal
 
#26
A lot of those were theories that got blown out of proportion by alarmists, not to mention that they were working with either incomplete data or data that was just plain outright bad.

Contrasted to current research done on climate change, there's much more data available now.

Although resource depletion is something that can legitimately happen. No matter how you slice it, there's only so much materials on this rock to go around. And not even fracking changes the fact that there is a finite amount of petroleum in the ground. You WILL eventually use it all up, and it makes no sense at all to delay switching to renewable resources.

And that's another thing that kills me, this weird stance against renewables. People grasp at all kinds of straws. "Wind farms kill birds!" "Solar disrupts habitats!" "Nuclear power is dangerous!" "Hydroelectric strangles rivers!"

It's not the tools, it's how you implement them!!! More space between wind turbines and employ bird deterrents. Build solar along existing infrastructure like highways (you realize how driving conditions in cities can be improved by shading highways with solar panels?) Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed, and there are much safer reactor designs than BWR reactors. You don't have to dam an entire river - just divert a little bit into a reservoir and release it as needed.

You make so many arguments about why we shouldn't change, even despite calls for change from within the Republican Party itself! Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't give a shit about climate change - he'd just like to be able to breathe when he's in LA. THAT'S A GOOD ENOUGH REASON RIGHT THERE.
Reply
 
#27
Not all climate change policies are good for the environment. And not surprisingly the UK government is behind one of the worst. Currently UK Cars are taxed by CO2 emissions. You would think this is a good idea except it means vehicles with diesel engines pay less tax than the same vehicle with a petrol engine. Is that a good thing? Well it depends whether you have your own private air supply or not.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/c ... -pollution
http://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ution-case

My rule of thumb is this. Would the technology have still been brought in if it was carbon neutral rather than cutting CO2 emissions?

I've heard good things about solar, and thorium based nuclear plants sound like they are actually fail safe. Electric Cars will eventually be better than petrol vehicles in all aspects.

There are a lot of good technologies that also happen to be low CO2 and so get extra government resources and I don't have a problem with that. Its the lower CO2 at any cost attitude that is a problem as the diesel car issue will testify.

Mark
edit fixed broken link
Reply
 
#28
skyfire2020 Wrote:... Its the lower CO2 at any cost attitude that is a problem as the diesel car issue will testify.
And the "move to motorized autos at any cost" attitude was a problem for the buggy-whip makers.

Technology changes, and measures to move to the newer and better technology will always be a "problem" for the people with vested interests in the older and not-as-good technology.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Reply
 
#29
Can someone explain to me how diesel cars count as newer and better?

Mark
Reply
 
#30
I think you missed the analogy there, but diesel cars are newer and better than horse-drawn buggys because they have greater range and endurance.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Reply
 
#31
My own point was that diesel car tax break was yet another case of a government policy which you can describe at best as having unintended consequences.
Some UK cities including London want to fine vehicles based on NOx levels which will hit diesel cars more than petrol cars.http://www.whatcar.com/news/older-diese ... in-london/
The UK government has changed it policy for new vehicles http://www.whatcar.com/advice/buying/ve ... d-to-know/ to make diesel vehicles less attractive but it is still focuses on CO2 levels not Nox levels.
Now if I could wave a magic wand and make all road vehicles pollution free I would do so, but until then is it too much to ask for the politicians to make up their minds about what type of vehicle they want people to buy.
Yes pure electric cars will satisfy everyone (as long as they cost under 40K to avoid the "driving while rich" tax - as mentioned in link above) but they are not yet ready to replace all cars.
Mark
Reply
 
#32
Over here in the US Diesels are required to have a very low NOx emission level, which is why many of them have an urea injection system installed into the exhaust system.

It's a bit pricey, and it's only really practical on larger cars (pick-ups and small SUVs) because of the additional plumbing involved as well as the need for the reservoir for the urea fluid. This is part of what led to the huge kerfuffle with Volkswagen when it came out their TDi's were a sham.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)