I can’t catch a bus to travel less than 10 miles without going in the “wrong” direction first and changing buses
Of all the problems facing us this is the easiest to fix. Just put up some money and plan some routes.
Public Transport and a walk is 90 minutes door to door to do the 9 miles (as the crow flies) to work. Car can take an hour or more for 9 miles.
Used to ride 5 days a week, all weathers taking a 12 mile route via mainly roads/shared path. Unfortunately got badly injured too many times. I'm back to riding the old MTB down the canal 2-3 times a week when in the office. 13 miles takes an hour, plus changing time both ends. Unfortunately, many people can't/or won't do that other than on a nice day. I'll do it all year round, even in hissing rain and the dark.
More than a few miles to work, most won't cycle.
I'm fully for ebikes or, preferably, escooters (if the legislation catches up) for this sort of thing.
There is a level of population density where public transport is convenient for fully end to end use. Outside of major cities, it doesn't seem viable.
Public transport, especially bus services, are all kinds of screwed up.
Until that’s fixed it’s not feasible to encourage people out of cars. It’s a catch 22 though.
Don’t be stupid, the poor can’t afford cars
Lots of folks who're on a couple of min wages zero hours can't afford not have a car, as the sorts of jobs they're often doing (or can get) are out of town on business estates that aren't well served by public transport at the times they need to be at work.
Lots of folks who’re on a couple of min wages zero hours can’t afford not have a car, as the sorts of jobs they’re often doing (or can get) are out of town on business estates that aren’t well served by public transport at the times they need to be at work.
They are therefore not the poorest, just badly paid. About 17% of households do not have a car its about1/3 of households in the bottom 1/5 by income...
So the poor do not have cars, they can't afford them.
I’m absolutely, unironically, all for the banning of private car ownership
This actually pushes more power and money to large corporations and governments. It actually pushes the advantages more to the elite/ wealthy.
Lots of folks who’re on a couple of min wages zero hours can’t afford not have a car, as the sorts of jobs they’re often doing (or can get) are out of town on business estates that aren’t well served by public transport at the times they need to be at work.
Incorrect.
"The ONS data also shows that people earning in the top 25 per cent commute almost twice as long as those in the bottom 25 per cent of earners."
Source
People on low incomes tend to use cars the least. In part because minimum wage jobs tend to be the most evenly distributed.
TINAS, your link to the Independent article isn't about pay, it's about time and distance? Have you linked to the right data?
The statement is adirect quote from the article - which they don't present the data for
TINAS, your link to the Independent article isn’t about pay, it’s about time and distance? Have you linked to the right data?
As above, direct quote from the article.
Probably wouldn't pass as a reference in a PhD, but it trump's your baseless claims that the poorest people are those commuting by car.
There is ALWAYS an extinction event going on
Molgrips
Not according to actual scientists.
See that's just another lie you've been led to believe and repeat.. as per NickC extinction is a continuous part of evolution.
Look, you’re clearly a neurodivergent individual and as such are in good company on here, but you have to appreciate that the rest of the world doesn’t expect strict definitions from words like these, and if a common usage doesn’t agree with your own view of these defintions it a) doesnt invalidate the concept b) doesn’t mean you are actually being lied to and c) it actually doesn’t help the debate for the majority of people.
In other words, quibbling over stuff like this does no-one any favours. You’re giving space to the climate sceptics, even if you aren’t one yourself. Just accept that whilst that’s not how you’d put it, the message is the same.
Current events don't see to bear this out ... what's more these protests actually illustrate why.
People put up and many made excuses with Boris' lying for years but slowly as it has effected people personally they not only turn away but become increasingly passionate ..
Many of these drivers were knowingly lied to .. probably many bought diesel so now something is impacting them directly... they are passionate. Nothing you do or say is making them believe again.
Why is that important?
Kerley
Difficult stuff won’t be happening until at least 30 years away when the disaster is right in front of peoples eyes and they might start to realise something needs to be done about it.
Perhaps 20, perhaps 25? Too late... BUT long enough that support will have gone for the majority of the population long before.
It doesn't really matter for public transport outside of urban centres anyway...
I'd have posted earlier but hey 2 mile walk to walk in clinic who then after 2+ hour wait refer me to fracture clinic over 5 miles away.. so I spent most of yesterday walking as there is nowhere to lock a bike safely.
the disaster is right in front of peoples eyes
It is now but folk don't want to see it
The trouble with the ideas above is that they are based on a sociailst principle that doesn’t work. It goes agaist human nature. We all have our own interests at heart
So why does public and bicycle transoprt work accross large parts of Europe
See that’s just another lie you’ve been led to believe and repeat.. as per NickC extinction is a continuous part of evolution.
For the third time MASS EXTINCTION
70 million farmland birds since 1970 UK alone.
We've fished out the oceans, tilled the plains and steppes, poisoned and channeled the rivers, melted the permafrost, slashed the forests, drained the wetlands ALL with no discernible effect on biodiversity? And we're the ones drinking the scientists kool aid. Have a word with yourself.
So why does public and bicycle transoprt work accross large parts of Europe
which large parts ?
Out side of main cities it became quickly apparent that bikes were as second rate as they are here.
I mean if you only ever say main/large cities you could be fooled into thinking its as easy as it is round edinburgh which by scottish standards has 1st rate cycling infrastructure ..... but reality is very different. Even the dutch looked at me like i had three heads for cycling 8 miles to work through the countryside up near den helder.
Not my experience. Not what the stars say
Jeez TJ you’ve really lost the plot if you’re using astrology to back up your arguments😈
which large parts ?
Out side of main cities it became quickly apparent that bikes were as second rate as they are here.
I often find that people's idylic vision of europe is some sort of mashup of the centre of amsterdam/copenhagen combined with a ski town.
Which is about equivilent to wandering around Kensington and Kendall, and deciding you have seen all of the UK.
TWO HUNDRED!
There is a level of population density where public transport is convenient for fully end to end use. Outside of major cities, it doesn’t seem viable.
I'd add that it also isn't viable when employment is widely scattered, has "odd hours, where housing stock is scarce and very expensive and wages are close to the minimum.
Perhaps congestion charging has a bigger role to play as that applies in areas where public transport is much more viable.
See that’s just another lie you’ve been led to believe and repeat.. as per NickC extinction is a continuous part of evolution.
Extinction yes.
Anthropogenic MASS extinction, no.
There is a difference. Do you understand this?
So why does public and bicycle transoprt work accross large parts of Europe
I don't think there's any country that only has public transport and bikes. There are always loads of cars, it's just the proportions vary. So I think we will always have some level of car usage. Ideally far far less than we have now though.
that doesnt answer the question though does it .
which large parts.
I've lived for extended periods and worked across large parts of Europe and I've had it from very good to very bad ... even just moving cities/Seasons never mind countries.
Extinction yes.
Anthropogenic MASS extinction, no.
There is a difference. Do you understand this?
It's rather obvious that any anthropogenic extinction is different as we've only been around a few hundred thousand years...
As for mass extinction .taking the commonly accepted definition of max extinction (being 75% of ALL species in a short <3Ma period) That is 75% of ALL life, including viri, fungi, bacteria... not only the most visible.
What we are experiencing is not mass extinction but a level hundreds to thousands of times higher than the background... as occurred throughout the recent ice ages and interglacials.
If you want to include the extinctions from the Palaeocene to try and make a 75% threshold then you can't include the word anthropomorphic in front as climate "scientists" try to do. You'd think they would have learned from "climate gate" what happens when you take something "nearly true" and try and spin it as scientists representing "the establishment".
This is not to say the effect on man will not be very severe ... but sloppy words represented as science sooner or later get picked apart and we would almost certainly be in a better position today if public confidence hadn't been lost due to "mostly accurate"
You can see the same thing with Covid .. the public were lied to (presumably for short term control).
Now you have A LOT of people saying "I wore a mask but still got it", "I got vaccinated but still tested positive" because they weren't told WHY they were wearing a mask or WHY they were being vaccinated so are now refusing or proud not to wear a mask or get a vaccination.
The more serious perhaps side is this has then fuelled anti-vax in general...
Go arhue with the scientists who are clear we are ina mass extinction event. Human generated at that
Do you understand what mass extinction event means?
Do you understand what mass extinction event means?
I do .. I'm a geologist. It's >=75% of ALL species extinct in a geologically short <3Ma period.
All species... including ones we don't even know about most of which are invisible to the human eye, including bacteria living in the earths crust. If every mammal disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't make a percent of species.
Go arhue with the scientists who are clear we are in a mass extinction event. Human generated at that
There is no point arguing with fake scientists who bend a definition to fit a narrative.
Despite all the extinctions post Eocene non of these even come close to the definition of a mass extinction. The K-T Mass extinction that killed off the non avian dinosaurs barely passes the 75% by species criteria and is being re-examined as to if it was a real mass extinction or not. When looked at objectively
Molgrips
Look, you’re clearly a neurodivergent individual and as such are in good company on here, but you have to appreciate that the rest of the world doesn’t expect strict definitions from words like these, and if a common usage doesn’t agree with your own view of these defintions it a) doesnt invalidate the concept b) doesn’t mean you are actually being lied to and c) it actually doesn’t help the debate for the majority of people.
In other words, quibbling over stuff like this does no-one any favours. You’re giving space to the climate sceptics, even if you aren’t one yourself. Just accept that whilst that’s not how you’d put it, the message is the same.
Climate sceptics don't need me... they are well funded but what you seem to be missing is "that the rest of the world doesn’t expect strict definitions from words like these" but the actual definition they expect is immaterial so long as it can be exploited and proven to be incorrect.
You can compare this to flat earth or creationists... both of which have an overwhelming mass of evidence against them but are argued from the PoV of poorly used definitions. The main differences are:
1) There is a lot of money backing climate change denial...
2) Globe deniers or creationists are not being financially inconvenienced as such whereas
If you look at fuel price protesters we are actually looking at something that is very very inconvenient over the short term with claims that are easily disproven if being pedantic.
To illustrate: A randomly selected version of "the evolution of man" is easily disprovable even if overall it was accurate in concept.. If I had a penny for every "show me a chimpanzee giving birth to a human" question ... despite no credible scientist ever saying "chimpanzee".. but the rest of the mountain of evidence for evolution is thrown out unless you can show a chimpanzee giving birth to a human
The soundbite as it were is chimpanzee's give birth to humans = evolution..
You could say the same for flat earth and gravity deniers... except I struggle to see how this is funded.. despite that most flat earth arguments depend on poor definitions and they only need to disprove one of these from the establishment to claim it's all lies.
And here is the parallel... I say that I 100% believe in anthropomorphic climate change and that the consequences for mankind are very dire but I'm called a "climate denier" because I refuse to accept some fake definitions that are very easy to disprove?
Cripes... imagine I wasn't a scientist, imagine I'm sat on the fence on this and someone (lets say paid to do this) in a FB group has told me what a Mass Extinction is defined as... imagine I had to go look it up and had satisfied myself it was the case then I get told otherwise whilst being accused of being a climate denier.
Whether it is flat earth, evolution, anti-vax or anthropomorphic climate change the general support this gets is very strongly linked to the idea of prove one thing in the "established view" to be incorrect and the whole thing is incorrect. That's not science, that's just manipulation of the public into a belief system.
As I think we agree on there was a whole diesel debacle... the government is saying (on and off as convenient) it's number one priority is climate change whilst demonstrably doing the opposite or for example trying to conflate different aspects of "the environment".
Really all it needs for many to be convinced are some easily provable false claims and you will convince these on the fence but inconvenienced people until it's too late... there are plenty of paid people who's job is to pick apart the poor science to hide the good science and supply the questions to those on the fence. Actually then taking someone who say's "I absolutely agree that anthropomorphic climate change is going to have very dire consequences for mankind" and calling them a climate denier is not helping.
Prices haven't moved around me, the 3 local stations have been the same now for weeks.
I do .. I’m a geologist. It’s >=75% of ALL species extinct in a geologically short <3Ma period.
The extinction rate puts us comfortably in that arc with a few orders of magnitude to spare. We haven't HAD a mass extinction we are HAVING one
Cheers the stabiliser: a geologist.
PS the 75% figure isn't a hard target it's an indication, a reflection of the scale of previous events, if you lost 74% or even 68% you'd still have a mass extinction
I've just lowered myself to Sainbury's diesel after a lifetime of BP only to find its the same price at the BP near my house.
Thats annoying. Still, I've put enough in to get to Gloucester tomorrow where I know the Sainburys next to the office is a bit lower than London prices, so at least the return journey will be marginally cheaper.
£20 for less than quarter of a tank, ouch.
Kryton - BP have been providing Sainsburys with their petrol and diesel for the last 25 years.
But is the petrol actually the same?
I’ve just lowered myself to Sainbury’s diesel after a lifetime of BP only to find its the same price at the BP near my house.
Who are you people? I want to know what you do for a living
The extinction rate puts us comfortably in that arc with a few orders of magnitude to spare. We haven’t HAD a mass extinction we are HAVING one
So regardless of the number of people tell you and repeat the same lie it doesn't change the scientific definition.
You are making a very outlandish claim so where is your evidence BUT Why does it matter?
With current conservative estimates of unaddressed climate change hundreds of millions quite possibly BILLIONS will die.. and life as we know it will change for the remaining survivors beyond recognition ... this is something we can say with a far higher level of certainty than IF we are in a Mass Extinction...
So lets start with bacteria... how many species have you included, how many have you included we don't yet know exist and what method did you use to estimate as yet unknown species and how many have gone extinct in the last 3ma?
For the purpose of taxonomy feel free to make this easier by adopting the 2021 ICSP decision and omit cyanobacteria add deal with those when we get to plants.
Lets start with say Anthrax... is this on your list of "endangered species"? It's proven incredibly hardy and frozen spores from the Pleistocene are still viable so not only is that a concern for climate change but how do you determine it is extinct (even ignoring artificial weapons strains?) Humans could be extinct for thousands of years and Anthrax can just live on
Then lets look at extreme bacteria (and many fungi) that live in the crust.. estimates put these extremophiles at up to 70% of microbial species. Life it turns out is WAY more diverse than we thought and it is even postulated that life on earth possibly didn't start under the sun but under the crust.
Now perhaps you see why the K-T extinction is not referred to as a Mass Extinction by serious scientists any more because the more life we find in the earths crust and extreme environments and model that for ones yet to be discovered 75% looks WAY WAY too large.
One of two things will need to happen, either like poor Pluto we change the definition and Pluto is no longer a planet and Mass Extinction is applied to macroscopic species or we invent a new term for macroscopic extinctions. (as we did for Dwarf planets)
