Forum menu
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1544182300409303042?t=9Rop58jY1_Nc-J7kYfRKXw&s=09
Cue outrage from the gammons protesting as they realise that the laws they were so in favour of when it applied to Insulate Britain protesters can also be used against them.
On the other hand, this is yet more micromanaging of the police with the intention of using them as the Government's enforcement unit.
Global warming will make large parts of the planet uninhabitable in a gerneration. That is a fact. Its even happening in Europe.
Did you really swallow that or are you just repeating it... ???
Drought and extreme temps in france and Spain. Water shortages in the US. Desertification in africa.
But how does that make large parts of the planet uninhabitable?
Obviously parts won't support the same population density of humans but humans already exist in and inhabit the Sahara... and animal diversity was far greater than today when the earth had much much higher global temperatures.
Stop burying your heads in the sand. Its happening now
What's happening ?
Certainly not the extinction of life on Earth...
Do you deny the Tuareg exist in the Sahara?
That Dubai exists?
That life flourished in the Tethyan ?
When white van man points this out your response is what ?? I don't believe you?
why are you not protesting the pollution that causes global warming that will destroy your kids lives?
Because it won’t make any difference. What we can can do is change our lifestyles as best we can and bring out kids up responsibly. And only have two.
Well we can do little about volcanoes .. true ... but we could protest about diesel prices forcing more gasoline use and higher CO2 ... and lack of nuclear power in the UK.
Meanwhile you might want to protest about peat burning, log fires and knocking down perfectly good buildings to replace with concrete and point out greenwashing where it occurs.
Stop denying facts. How many people where on the planet then and how much water per person did they use?
Drought in Italy as well right now. Thats large parts of Europe with drought. Thats a new development in my lifetime
When spain no longer has enough water for its population then what etc etc.
and animal diversity was far greater than today when the earth had much much higher global temperatures.
Over what time period did those temperatures change?
Do you deny the Tuareg exist in the Sahara?
At extremely low levels per km and with lots of interaction with settled communities. Which people are you going to sacrifice?
That Dubai exists?
Very low population level again although boosted with temporary oil wealth. Not exactly a long term option or one available to many groups.
That life flourished in the Tethyan ?
Which might be useful if we were dolphins or are you hoping for Waterworld?
Its a mass extinction event and we ate at the beggining of it.
Large parts of the world are going to be too hot and too dry to support humans. That means water wars and massive displacement of peoples ad we all try to crowd into the cooler and wetter bits.
The loss of icecaps and glaciets mean rivers become seasonal
I have seen hard evidence of climate change with my own eyes. Stp denying it. Its real and its happening and anyone with their eyes open can see it.
We're approaching 'too many people'; is there a Godwin's Law equivalent?
What TJ's saying, +1.
We’re approaching ‘too many people’
Not really, just far too many greedy people, and too much inequality in resource utilisation.
I'd not be hugely surprised if the "developed world" dumps enough water on it's lawns and flowerbeds and wastes enough through leaks to solve a huge chunk of the issues elsewhere.
Can't remember where i heard it, but until fairly recently the next world war was mostly likely to be caused by water shortages. But instead it'll be a fascist dictator with drug induced megalomania. And if trump gets in again, we can have TWO fascist dictators.
While I agree with the sentiment the way in which it has been delivered is so pithless- a bit like a Labour party manifesto. I can't help but think of this when I read it.
Can’t remember where i heard it, but until fairly recently the next world war was mostly likely to be caused by water shortages
At the end of the film The Big Short, they imply that the guy who predicted the 2008 crash is more recently focusing his efforts and investments in water.
Can’t remember where i heard it, but until fairly recently the next world war was mostly likely to be caused by water shortages.
Yes its been listed as an issue for a long time with several high risk areas especially where one country builds dams etc to hold back water for their own use and deprive other countries downstream of reserves.
You also get the follow on impact for example reduced harvests mean a lot greater risk of revolutions when people get hungry.
Incidentally it is probable that part of the reasoning for the invasion of Ukraine was about securing water supplies to Crimea.
Im slightly confused. Why is it a criminal offence to drive slowly down the motorway but if you glue yourself to the road or priceless pieces of art then that fine and nothing happens. There appears to be a lot of double standards when it come to what happens to protestors as a result of their actions.
It always makes me laugh when you see the anti oil campaigners turning up with their signs made from oil, in clothes made from oil, and no doubt dependent on oil to get to their protest. It’s as daft as Glastonbury having EV chargers on site that were powered by a diesel generator.
Don’t see much of a trend in Spanish rainfall.
Lol. So, you're a climate scientist who's spend 20 years researching and modelling working alongside thousands of others? So what? I found a graph on the internet, look!
What the scientists are saying, by the way, is that rainfall totals in some areas may acutally go up, but it may come in the form of damaging rainstorms in between extended dry periods, which wouldn't be good. Your graph appears* to show rainfall aggregated over a whole year and a whole large country, which isn't much use, is it?
* appears to - I can't tell it's too small.
I have a team that I work with – many are on little above minimum wage. Due to the specialised nature of our work* and the remote location
I think this is the nub of the problem, but seen from the wrong angle.
Lowering the cost of transporting goods doesn't help the consumer, it just means they can be produced further away. Which then means the value of the consumers labour is lower and you end up in a race to the bottom.
Similalry companies rely on people being able to travel large distances cheeply for work. Which means "remote locations" are populated by well paid people with hour+ commutes back to population centers, and 2nd homes. Remove that supply of "cheap" labour and then locals can have better paid jobs because there's competition amongst companies for their labour.
Why is it a criminal offence to drive slowly down the motorway but if you glue yourself to the road or priceless pieces of art then that fine and nothing happens.
The driving slowly law has been there for a while and is intended to cover other situations, but it can be used in this situation by the police to try and ease the situation, which is their job. You may be surprised to learn that the police can only use the laws that currently exist and that it's quite hard to make them up for a specific situation as it occurs. Which is probably a good thing, on balance.
'Why is it a criminal offence to drive slowly down the motorway but if you glue yourself to the road or priceless pieces of art then that fine and nothing happens.'
Because one has recently been outlawed as a protest that causes a nuisance, and the other is potentially criminal damage. Different crimes, and different ways of handling.
Plus the crims driving slowly on the motorway are breaking a bunch of other laws re. driving as a nuisance, no tax, no MOT, no insurance....
Do you deny the Tuareg exist in the Sahara? - they do. But if you give large parts of the world that population density , there's a lot of people to go in the rest
That Dubai exists? Sad but true
That life flourished in the Tethyan ? Tethys was a large ocean. There's no such time period as the Tethyan.
Large parts of the world are already effectively uninhabitable for a large population. You don't need to make that much bigger.
Im slightly confused. Why is it a criminal offence to drive slowly down the motorway but if you glue yourself to the road or priceless pieces of art then that fine and nothing happens.
Are you actually confused, or are you just a lazy troll? If the former, then here, let me spend 5 seconds on Google to help you out:
Im slightly confused. Why is it a criminal offence to drive slowly down the motorway but if you glue yourself to the road or priceless pieces of art then that fine and nothing happens
Remember the difference between good AIDS and bad AIDS?
Isn’t that the “train drivers shouldn’t strike for the much lower paid workers as they are raking it in” argument?
If you like, I'd say going forwards that train drivers probably have more value to society and the combatting of climate change than Yodel drivers, but that is probably a bit unfair and in that instance train operators and the government actually have a mandate in place to negotiate (even if they seemingly fail to do so) where was the negotiation opportunity yesterday?
I suppose for your equivalence to stack up 'Angry Gammons with a Facebook login' should be treated as an organised union in the same way as the GMB? Dunno, their aims and demands weren't totally clear to anyone and I doubt they held a formal ballot on the action they took...
I suppose really yesterday's little protest was just another symptom of the UK's lack of energy security, and addressing that actually goes hand in hand with addressing climate change. Fuel costs are hurting people today (lots of people, even people without cars) and will continue to for a good long while. Except that bigger picture wasn't what concerned the protestors or their supporters was it, they just want to fill up their tanks and carry on like they did before ignoring the wider situation:
The false narrative that the government cutting fuel duty is some sort of solution persists (it was cut by 5p/litre back in March, and yet fuel costs more at the pump now, strange eh?, almost as if other factors are affecting fuel pricing).
Where's the pressure on the oil companies in all this?
Vague talk of "Profiteering" somewhere in the supply chain, I mean that's what oil companies do isn't it? Chase profit. The last few months have been great for oil companies, their costs are down, prices are up, profits are through the roof. Yet the UK is estimated to be 2.3 billion down on fuel duty for 2022/23 thanks to that 5p cut, and yet people will still blame their own governments rather than notice the money going to the Middle-East...
Meh, I'm sure a Referendum will be dreamt up soon to focus all the aimless anger...
NewsThump need to work harder, that is too believable for this lot in charge and especially from Patel.
What the scientists are saying, by the way, is that rainfall totals in some areas may acutally go up, but it may come in the form of damaging rainstorms in between extended dry periods, which wouldn’t be good. Your graph appears* to show rainfall aggregated over a whole year and a whole large country, which isn’t much use, is it?
* appears to – I can’t tell it’s too small.
Yup. extended dry spells means that when you do get a months worth of rain in 24 hours it just hits the baked solid ground, cuts channels everywhere (destroying infrastructure), rips all the (dying) ground cover away, floods the town centre, floods and overflows the sewage treatment plants (barf), causes the rivers to burst their banks and then runs away into the sea. Absolutely **** all use whatsoever for filling reservoirs and promoting healthy growth of crops and wild plants and further preventing erosion.
Out of that "months worth" of rain, you might put 2 or 3 days worth into long term storage.
We've had that three or four years on the bounce here, intermittently huge rain falls in the spring and summer leading to calls to minimise water usage during the summer and autumn. I'm lucky that i'm on my own water supply and the chances of that drying up are remote due to where i am and how deep the borehole is.
We also have extremely low population density and well maintained infrastructure. (under 80 people per sqkm in my region, the most populated region is only 130/sqkm.)
We often hear of these protestors getting arrested but how many ever get charged and convicted of anything?
There is also a lot of profiteering going on. Oil prices have dropped in the last few weeks so why hasn’t the price dropped. It always go up as soon as the crude prices rise so why the delay when they drop
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/
We’ve had that three or four years on the bounce here
Where's that?
Where’s that?
Sweden.
The problem is that whilst yes, fuel is in some ways too cheap and it's too easy to drive all over the place, simply letting the price increase is not a good solution to the problem. It may result in less usage on a macroscopic level; whilst people in the middle of the income spectrum might make discretionary reductions, those at the high end won't care and those at the low end will struggle even more. So simply saying 'it's too cheap' really is facile. That's basically suggesting it's a good idea to let the market take care of things. And we know that that idea causes huge amounts of misery, in a country rich enough to prevent it.
Why should life be so shitty for so many people most of the time?
We often hear of these protestors getting arrested but how many ever get charged and convicted of anything?
What next from the Daily Mail trolling playbook? Let me guess - prisons are like luxury hotels with X Boxes, daily massages and steak dinners for all?
Joking apart though, how else can the common man do anything to make their voice heard? People need fuel, currently it's way too expensive, what else are they meant to do?
I was reading about the Tesla chargers at Glastonbury....they deemed the charging points and superchargers to be too bad for the environment, so they put temporary ones in that were powered by diesel generators and charged a small fortune for using them! 😀
We're decades away from moving away from oil based fuels. For a large number of people public transport just doesn't work, cycling isn't an option and car share certainly isn't.
The cost of fuel needs to be reduced and this is the only way people feel that they can be heard. I'm all for it and i hope it does bring about a reduction in cost at the pump.
Stop denying facts. How many people where on the planet then and how much water per person did they use?
Drought in Italy as well right now. Thats large parts of Europe with drought. Thats a new development in my lifetime
When spain no longer has enough water for its population then what etc etc.
I'm not the one denying facts ....
When spain no longer has enough water for its population then what etc etc.
A dramatic reduction in population through lots of mechanisms
Mechanisms are speculative but war with the newly created states of Catalunya, Basque etc.
Drought and famine
Mass migrations
HOWEVER the population will still be non zero hence it is not uninhabitable and claiming so is a lie and you are asking "white van man" to choose between your lie and other lies.
Human nature being what it is many people will simply follow the one most convenient at this moment.
It always go up as soon as the crude prices rise so why the delay when they drop
Conformational bias of a sort. Falling prices are rarely newsworthy.
And:
People talk about crude prices in $ but buy fuel in £. Last year a $140 barrel of oil cost £100. This year a $120 barrel of oil costs you £100. That's why fuel prices are going up while oil prices drop.
And:
Unless you're looking at very short term changes then oil has been fairly consistently at ~$112/barrel for about 4 months now. It's shot up for a week, then dropped for a week occasionally. But then those highs weren't really passed on either.
cookea
I suppose really yesterday’s little protest was just another symptom of the UK’s lack of energy security, and addressing that actually goes hand in hand with addressing climate change. Fuel costs are hurting people today (lots of people, even people without cars) and will continue to for a good long while. Except that bigger picture wasn’t what concerned the protestors or their supporters was it, they just want to fill up their tanks and carry on like they did before ignoring the wider situation:
Yes, to some extent but not entirely....
It may result in less usage on a macroscopic level; whilst people in the middle of the income spectrum might make discretionary reductions, those at the high end won’t care and those at the low end will struggle even more.
Those at the high end just take one of their EV's anyway ...
Depending where you put "the middle" many of those can as well..
Those at the low end (and to put a current events twist) such as ticketing for trains who have to travel miles before any effective public transport to a location that can be changed daily given the proposals RMT are fighting against)
they just want to fill up their tanks and carry on like they did before ignoring the wider situation:
Of course, they have multiple sets of obvious lies to choose from .. carrying on like they did before is the natural human reaction.
Unless you’re looking at very short term changes then oil has been fairly consistently at ~$112/barrel for about 4 months now. It’s shot up for a week, then dropped for a week occasionally. But then those highs weren’t really passed on either.
The only real influence of the oil spot price today is the effect on futures.
A specific BBL of crude in Saudi today won't be at the pumps for months...
HOWEVER the population will still be non zero hence it is not uninhabitable
Good grief. The fact that a much reduced population will be able to live in some parts of Spain does not make everything okay. You are nit-picking.
What is going to happen is that areas that are currently marginal for human habitation will become uninhabitable; and other areas will be able to support fewer and fewer people. The people who currently live in those areas will be forced to migrate to other areas, which themselves will be experiencing varying degrees of trouble producing food. THIS is what the problem will be. Nit-picking about the semantics and definition of 'uninhabitable' is pointless and destructive.
Its a mass extinction event and we ate at the beggining of it.
Extinction obviously doesn't mean what you think it means..
Large parts of the world are going to be too hot and too dry to support humans. That means water wars and massive displacement of peoples ad we all try to crowd into the cooler and wetter bits.
Non sequiter... A handful but genetically viable population occupy the Atacama desert Sahara etc.
Yes of course there will be water wars and mass displacement.. again you seem to not understand what "uninhabitable" and "extinction" mean.
The loss of icecaps and glaciets mean rivers become seasonal
I have seen hard evidence of climate change with my own eyes. Stp denying it. Its real and its happening and anyone with their eyes open can see it.
Uhhh.. who's denying climate change. I just object to it being lied about .. not simply for moral reasons of lying but because every time it's lied about very obviously a load of people switch off because it's easier to just choose the set of lies that is most convenient.
Yes of course there will be water wars and mass displacement.. again you seem to not understand what “uninhabitable” and “extinction” mean.
You seem not to understand that quibbling over word definitions is not helpful or even interesting.
stevextc is Thanos AICMFP
The term 'mass extinction event' doesn't apply to humans by the way. It means the numbers of species that are becoming extinct which in this case is a result of human activity. Including but not limited to climate change.
Non sequiter… A handful but genetically viable population occupy the Atacama desert Sahara etc.
Large portions of the Sahara are uninhabitable with the settlements around the oases and on the borders. People dont live in most of it but just travel through.
You seem not to understand that quibbling over word definitions is not helpful or even interesting.
I strongly disagree about it being helpful or at least important, are you a Boris fan by any chance?
(I don't think you are btw)
Anyone with t'interweb can look up what extinction means indeed the average bod probably already knows but they can always check.
If people who wish to prevent or slow anthropomorphic climate change want the average bod to believe them then screaming "we'll all go extinct" is at best insulting the average bods intelligence and why would they then believe anything else you then say. Many of whom are the "no nuclear power" brigade or their philosophical descendants.
As I've said multiple times if the government were more concerned about climate change they would be discouraging gasoline and promoting diesel... investing more in mass transport to get people to work and discouraging employers from having people travel just because they can "to promote the economy".
The atacama only has people at the very rare rivers or for mining camps. No vegitation at all because it never rains.
You are nit-picking.
You do know how internet forums work right?
He's arguing with TJ, creator of the Edinburgh Defense and STW resident nit picker in chief!
Footflaps. That phrase was invented to bully and belittle me .
Just seen one of those "share this with 10 people..." things on FB suggesting that everyone should avoid buying any fuel tomorrow.
Which I guess means they'll buy it today or Thursday instead. 🙄
Just seen one of those “share this with 10 people…” things on FB suggesting that everyone should avoid buying any fuel tomorrow.
Which I guess means they’ll buy it today or Thursday instead. 🙄
Yep, bonkers. Straight from the mind/keyboard of white van man (other professions and genders available) who can't get their head around an accounting system beyond counting up their day's takings.
How much slack is there in the system? If everyone brimmed their tank on or by one day, and then didn't buy any more until the light was on, and took measures inbetween to minimise their usage, then that might have an impact when the refinery storage tanks are full and the forecourts are turning away deliveries because nobdy has bought any.
Like in first lockdown, when they were basically giving it away because the oil companies had nowhere to put the stuff.
And the inverse, last october when there was a media manufactured "shortage" and suddenly the entire country went from an average of half a tank in their car to 90% of a tank (estimated numbers) and that then actually caused the shortage.
Apart from a minority (like that guy in the DM that was spending £300 a week) the average car does about 600 miles a month. Most people, I would estimate, are under 1000 miles a month. So even for the normal but above average, thats a tank every two weeks.
So even for the normal but above average, thats a tank every two weeks.
I had surgery on my foot last month, been unable to drive for a month.
Even before that I wasn't driving much - don't think I've bought fuel for about 2 months.
Take that, Corporate Oil!
use oil to develop systems to transition off oil. it's not hard.
the UK is wide open for global commodity fluctuations cos you are an isolated economy who import everything and have depleted natural resources
all the truckers in the world wont change that.
use oil to develop systems to transition off oil. it’s not hard.
Tomorrows world 60 years ago : Hydrogen fuel cells are the green fuel of the future
Tomorrows world 50 years ago : Hydrogen fuel cells are the green fuel of the future
Tomorrows world 40 years ago : Hydrogen fuel cells are the green fuel of the future
Tomorrows world 30 years ago : Hydrogen fuel cells are the green fuel of the future
Tomorrows world 20 years ago : Hydrogen fuel cells are the green fuel of the future
Tomorrows world 10 years ago : Hydrogen fuel cells are the green fuel of the future
Oil industry today : Hey guys, we can make "blue" hydrogen from oil
I work in the oil industry and even I'm beyond cynical about this.
As I’ve said multiple times if the government were more concerned about climate change they would be discouraging gasoline and promoting diesel… investing more in mass transport to get people to work and discouraging employers from having people travel just because they can “to promote the economy”.
I won't argue with that. The current government doesn't give a shit about anything, they are just pissing about. We'd be better off with the STW forum running the country.
Industry:- Yeah, fuel cells are all very well in labs and certain industrial applications but they're really ****ing hard, expensive and unreliable everywhere else.
Tomorrows world:- Hydrogen fuel cells are the green fuel of the future
Industry:- You're not listening are you.
I dunno, I think industry are busy pushing it as well, partly because all this hydrogen or electric stuff is not about saving the planet, it's about saving the car industry.
Hydrogen is still at that "well it's quite interesting and we're testing it" phase - I know there's one hydrogen train knocking around and some part-hydrogen buses but it's still very much in its infancy.
The problem is that it's still being used as an excuse to build more roads and to build in car dependency - "oh it's OK by the time it's built everything driving on it will be electric / hydrogen / autonomous..."
I think that fuel cells and hydrogen ICs are being developed somewhat speculatively. I mean the BEV market is already crowded, but someone's banking on their being enough applications that aren't suited for them to try and come up with something else. I can see it for trucks, especially for those that do regular routes between distribution hubs where hydrogen stations can be installed. I guess not every investment needs to pay off, so you might as well spread your bets, so to speak.
Some questions for the oil industry experts here:
- Given that crude oil produces loads of different things for different applications: if everyone went to BEVs overnight for private cars, would that change the usage of different fuels?
- Would there be loads of petrol and diesel left over that would need something doing with it? Like converting to hydrogen?
- Would the price drop so far that people would continue driving their ICEs?
- If petrol and diesel weren't being sold to private motorists, would this undermine the profitability of other things extracted from crude, and their price would then rise?
Given that crude oil produces loads of different things for different applications: if everyone went to BEVs overnight for private cars, would that change the usage of different fuels?
Where are you getting the energy from? In all likliehood you would either have to burn more Gas or restart oil fired generation. Whils this might well be more efficient I doubt it woudl change much.
Would there be loads of petrol and diesel left over that would need something doing with it? Like converting to hydrogen?
Refining oil to petrol and diesel and then converting that combustable fuel to another combustable fuel doesn't strike me as a practical idea. It would certainly help air quality but you'd probably be better just burning the oil.
Would the price drop so far that people would continue driving their ICEs?
The price of oil has a limited imapct on the price at the pump in the UK, so Id say no.
Hydrogen and EVs aren't a replacement energy source as they are methods of energy storage. We need to start getting more of our energy from other sources in tendme with actually using less.
Even before that I wasn’t driving much – don’t think I’ve bought fuel for about 2 months.
Almost 2 years since I bought fuel at a pump.
Where are you getting the energy from?
It's a hypothetical scenario, to ask questions about oil demand and pricing.
Hydrogen and EVs aren’t a replacement energy source as they are methods of energy storage.
No, they're methods of converting energy as well. Electricity can be generated by all sorts of renewable means, and BEVs can take advantage of that. ICE's can't.
Im slightly confused. Why is it a criminal offence to drive slowly down the motorway but if you glue yourself to the road or priceless pieces of art then that fine and nothing happens.
there has been a minimum speed on motorways for as long as i’ve been driving. just like there’s a maximum speed. it had nothing to do with these protesters vs climate protesters.
@molgrips all the answers boil down to the same thing really.
Not massively. It would mean reconfiguring refineries to produce different products but you can process heavier components into lighter ones, so your gasoline/diesel/naphtha fractions can just be cracked into more usefull things like ethylene.
You can produce hydrogen from oil. It's referred to as blue hydrogen. There's a worldwide excess of it and as a result it's a fairly major component in refineries fuel for their own boilers. The issue isn't it's production it's the distribution. Look at California for an example, for years they've been subsidising it and paying for stations to be built. But as soon as the subsidies run out (the cars come with a fuel card), the fuel then ends up costing as much as UK fuels do, but with no tax. It's ruinously expensive, compared to an electric car, you're looking at fuel costs 3-4x higher.
There's no official minimum speed but drive slowly enough and it's dangerous. The whole point of motorways is traffic is travelling at roughly similar speeds, someone sitting at 30mph is a danger to themselves and others.
Any other protests planned for this week? Am I going to have to avoid them on Friday on my 9hr drive to Scotland?
It’s a hypothetical scenario, to ask questions about oil demand and pricing.
Well if your not changing your source or demand then the overall impact would be limited as the only thing changed is the efficiency of centralised generation over individual.
There’s no official minimum speed but drive slowly enough and it’s dangerous. The whole point of motorways is traffic is travelling at roughly similar speeds, someone sitting at 30mph is a danger to themselves and others.
Yes, if the rest of the road is travelling at 60+ The fact that they're all driving deliberately at 30, and consequently everyone's forced to do 30, I'm not sure if that's actually prosecutable.
I frequently drive on the M25 at 30mph or slower, because everyone else is. Am I breaking the law too?
There’s no official minimum speed but drive slowly enough and it’s dangerous
The HWC doesn't mention going slowly on a M-way at all. I'm sure that if they considered it to be dangerous, they would either advise or rule on it. As OJV says, Smart M-ways are often advising traffic to reduce speeds, often to 40mph...no one is arrested.
Yes, if the rest of the road is travelling at 60+ The fact that they’re all driving deliberately at 30, and consequently everyone’s forced to do 30, I’m not sure if that’s actually prosecutable.
I frequently drive on the M25 at 30mph or slower, because everyone else is. Am I breaking the law too?
I'm guessing (given the police warned these drivers about driving too slow before arresting them) that the protest had agreed restrictions, reading up it was not to completely block the road, not to drive under 30mph. The people who got arrested were doing 20mph.
At least 12 have been arrested on the M4 for breaching a legal notice issued by police before the protest. Demonstrators were told by officers that they needed to travel at 30mph or higher to carry out the action legally.
The HWC doesn’t mention going slowly on a M-way at all. I’m sure that if they considered it to be dangerous, they would either advise or rule on it. As OJV says, Smart M-ways are often advising traffic to reduce speeds, often to 40mph…no one is arrested.
Banned for 12 months for driving at 20mph on the M1.
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-04-14/woman-caught-driving-20mph-on-m1-was-resetting-sat-nav
The difference to the speed limit being set to 40mph, or everyone doing 30mph due to heavy traffic, is that driving at 20mph while everyone else is doing 70 is downright dangerous. See above, prosecuted for dangerous driving.
The protesters broke the legal requirement to travel above 30mph during the protest which is why they got arrested.
The HWC doesn’t mention going slowly on a M-way at all. I’m sure that if they considered it to be dangerous
Its not an offence in its own right but you could be done for careless driving although probability is under normal circumstances they would just escort you off the motorway.
The smart motorway isnt a good example since the speed limits have officially changed and there is generally an attempt to slow traffic down gradually before you hit the jam.
Better example would be some of the big slow moving vehicles but they will have escorts as necessary to warn people.
so not specifically for driving slowly, rather for breaking the rules the police put in place for the protest. Interesting, if one car or lorry at the front breaks that restriction how does everyone else stay above the restriction, might form an interesting defence / challenge.
Banned for 12 months for driving at 20mph on the M1.
No, she was banned for dangerous driving, you can't be fined or banned for driving 20 mph on the motorway. It's not in of itself, an offense, as @dissonance says, you just be escorted of the road, and probably asked if you were OK.
TBF I'm just internet arguing, I don't disagree with you, driving slowly can be dangerous, but the emphasis should be (quite rightly) on drivers paying attention to what's going on around them, someone pootling along at 30 in the inside lane shouldn't be a danger to anyone, that folks (like in your story) are having to swerve out of the way at the last minute says quite a bit about their driving standards also
you live and learn. i honestly thought that there was a minimum speed, on a free-flowing m-way.
you live and learn. i honestly thought that there was a minimum speed, on a free-flowing m-way.
There isn't a minimum speed but if you were driving along a free-flowing motorway at 20mph, you could be done for careless or dangerous driving.
My grandfather was once stopped by police on an A-road for driving too slowly. It was dark and raining and the glare of oncoming lights was confusing him. One of the officers got in his car and drove him home with the police car following. No charges but they did have some strong words about him perhaps getting a taxi in future.
As others have said if there was a minimum speed limit thousands could be punished every day in the endless traffic jams….. Now there is an idea for plod to boost the Xmas party fund 🙂
Hydrogen and EVs aren’t a replacement energy source as they are methods of energy storage. We need to start getting more of our energy from other sources in tendme with actually using less.
Exactly the hydrogen cell is nothing more than a battery. It does have many advantages over a more traditional battery is that it is much easier and environmentally friendly to produce than a li-ion battery. They are much lighter so improving the vehicles performance and they dont degrade and loose charge density like a normal battery.
Well if your not changing your source or demand
I was changing the demand for petrol and diesel but not other products.
molgrips
I won’t argue with that. The current government doesn’t give a shit about anything, they are just pissing about. We’d be better off with the STW forum running the country.
The thing is a huge number of people are just sick and tired of mis-information and being lied to.
If they can dismiss something as a lie in seconds then they can just get on and believe what is most convenient.
So if the government say's "stopping global warming is our biggest priority" (or there were no parties or no press here or ... ) then the evidence is within a few seconds. Should they have forgotten from when they were (mis) sold a diesel or need reminding google will help
https://www.google.com/search?q=does+diesel+or+petrol+create+more+greenhouse+gases
Now take the counter... extinction/un-inhabitable
Again google is your friend (or not)
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+mars+habitable+for+humans
Regardless of any argument of "the end justifies the means" lying to people on easily checked facts just doesn't work. Even if they can't be arsed to actually check themselves someone in the FB mutual microcosm echo chamber or pub will do it for them... "if we can put people on Mars like Elon Musk plans how the *** can we go extinct on earth?"
You can say I'm nit picking... and perhaps I am because I'm doing it by proxy for the huge numbers of people for whom "extinction" or "uninhabitable" are a qualifier. If the soundbite/headline/counter is easily proven to be false why not just dismiss the rest?
I mean we are still arguing what "uninhabitable" or "extinction" mean. All many people are going to want to know is is which side to believe that doesn't upset their immediate plans.
You can produce hydrogen from oil. It’s referred to as blue hydrogen.
Colour classification is getting silly but BEIS only classify it as blue if there is CCUS installed otherwise it's grey. I had a session with the policy guys from a major O&G on this the other day and they seemed fairly exasperated by it all.
That said there are multiple major H2 production plants due to come on line in the next couple of years in the UK. Static and large scale mobile plant, HGVs and busses are looking to convert across and there is a trial due on gas grid injection as a replacement to natural gas. Personal transport is not the target at the moment, BEV serves that pretty well.
Just to get back on track a bit, when global oil prices are dropping all the time, down another 10% now, to below $100/barrel, how can the current prices at the pump be justified, especially when it’s impacting the entire economy and the cost of living.
Just to get back on track a bit, when global oil prices are dropping all the time, down another 10% now, to below $100/barrel, how can the current prices at the pump be justified, especially when it’s impacting the entire economy and the cost of living.
Assuming you live in the UK the answers already in this very thread.
“Just to get back on track a bit, when global oil prices are dropping all the time, down another 10% now, to below $100/barrel, how can the current prices at the pump be justified“
Because:
- the fuel in the forecourts was likely ordered weeks ago at a higher price
- because the spot price for oil today doesn’t reflect a price you can buy at tomorrow so there’s always some averaging
- because $100 a barrel is pretty meaningless without knowing the grade of oil, where it’s coming from, the cost of moving it, how long it will take to move it , the cost of refining it, the cost of transporting it from the refinery to the forecourt etc etc.
- because the price is in dollars and any economy that has a different currency will see changes in exchange rates
- because the spread today was actually been $108 and $132 for Brent crude
- etc etc.
Steve. The scientific consensus is that we are in a mass extinction event and thst large areas of the pkanet will become uninhabitable
Now if you have proof global warming is a fiction and can change tjis fine but i am fed up of folk like you minimising what is happening. Or dont you understand the words?
Now take the counter… extinction/un-inhabitable
Those things aren't really lies, it's just not quite what you assumed it to mean.
There is an extinction event going on. Caused by lots of things that humans have done, climate change is part of it.
Lots of places will become uninhabitable in practical terms i.e. people will have to leave because there's not enough arable land or water. For example, Spain as a whole will still have people living in it. But parts of it will become too dry to support agriculture, and whilst yes, people could actually live in those places, they wouldn't because why would they? It's unlikely to be too much of an issue in a developed country, there'll be plenty of places to move to and the situation will be manageable. But in the developing world it won't be so good. Mass migrations are predicted over time.
Call me prejudiced, but it's nearly always gammon types that feel so entitled to all things car-related.
Those things aren’t really lies, it’s just not quite what you assumed it to mean.
I and most of the population know what extinction means or can look it up...
This is exactly the same as "it wasn't a party" .. (being one of a long string of lies). Bozo can make all the excuses he wants BUT people know what a party look like and what the photo's show.
There is an extinction event going on. Caused by lots of things that humans have done, climate change is part of it.
There is ALWAYS an extinction event going on... though I don't disagree at all that humans are causing specific extinctions.
Lots of places will become uninhabitable in practical terms i.e. people will have to leave because there’s not enough arable land or water. For example, Spain as a whole will still have people living in it. But parts of it will become too dry to support agriculture, and whilst yes, people could actually live in those places, they wouldn’t because why would they? It’s unlikely to be too much of an issue in a developed country, there’ll be plenty of places to move to and the situation will be manageable. But in the developing world it won’t be so good. Mass migrations are predicted over time.
Emm... that's pretty much what I said. Frankly I think it will be MUCH worse.. but uninhabitable means uninhabitable (100%) and extinction is dropping below a viable DNA pool. Hundreds of millions, probably billions will die but that is NOT extinction. We can argue about the MVP for humans but its "thousands" at most..
The real point is that most people in the UK are sick to death of lies ... even Sunak and Javid realise you can't just keep lying about something the evidence contradicts and throw word salads at it indefinitely.
If you want them (the majority) to actually do something positive about anthropomorphic climate change playing word salads is NOT going to convince people.
Our local Green party just (this morning) published a misleading post on FB... for clarity we have a huge fire started on an army live shooting range... the fire brigade have been doing a sterling job but the Green Party choose to publish only the particulates data.
This is either deliberately misleading or they are prioritising local particulates over CO2... they have to choose one. Personally I'd prioritise the CO2... but putting some fire breaks and encouraging a clean burn so not pumping water on it will lower the particulates, especially locally but obviously more CO2 will be produced.