Also not sure that americans are in any position to be telling us how they ‘ve really been green all along.

They are hypocrites, they wage war for oil….

Give the guy in a mud hut some cash and he’ll buy a fridge

Wouldnt he buy food first? Then some sort of clean water supply? Etc
Doubt he’d actually know what a Range Rover is…

Seriously, climate denying clowns around the world will be coming up with this line from now until the very moment that the arctic is ice free, Texas is flattened by a hurricane, London floods, or whatever truly gigantic/catastrophic event it takes for them to finally wake up to reality.

But hasnt that sort of thing been happening for millenia, before we humans were even here? In fact isnt that the sort of thing that shaped our blue planet in the first place?
We humans seem to think that we are that important that we can change the world….

What more evidence do you need that humans are adversely changing the environment?

None. That’s not my point. Read the thread.

We humans seem to think that we are that important that we can change the world

We have, hugely. We’ve transformed the landscape, cut down most of the trees, and the CO2 in the atmosphere is now increasing faster than EVER before.

I read somewhere about a woman who married a bloke from Tahiti. He’d lived a pretty simple life, and when he came to America he was utterly shocked about how much people wasted and how much money they threw about, and a little upset. Two years later, he was doing the same as everyone else.

People are mostly the same. The ones that are consuming madly all over the west are hardly removed from the ones who were making do and mending 70 years ago.

But hasnt that sort of thing been happening for millenia, before we humans were even here? In fact isnt that the sort of thing that shaped our blue planet in the first place?
We humans seem to think that we are that important that we can change the world….

The bit that people seem to find it hard to get their heads round is the timescale.

Scientists point out that ice is thinning, oceans warming, glaciers retreating, floods becoming more frequent/chaotic etc and sceptics say “but that sort of thing has always happened”

Well, that’s true to a degree, except that in the past these natural events (excepting things like volcanic eruptions, which are just bad luck) happened over much longer periods of time.

We are currently forcing changes which could turn out to be quick, catastrophic and irreversible (in the short term – and in the long term (as the saying goes) we’re all dead anyway).

I’m not too concerned about the next ice age, but I am very concerned about flooding, droughts, crop failures etc in mine and my kids lifetimes – the question is – what is it that we are trying to create that is so fantastic that it is worth playing Russian Roulette for?

We are currently forcing changes which could turn out to be quick, catastrophic and irreversible

This does seem to be true, but i cant help but think that its been used as a vehicle for stealth tax. To conveniently make us all pay more for everything.

But yes, global warming is bad and we all need to change our daily habits. As for getting people out of cars etc, then that wont happen until there is a viable alternative. I mean we cant all go back to using horses can we? Where would you keep one if you dont have a garden?

On the balcony.

‘Life cost’ wtf bs pretentious crap is that? ‘Life cost’ indeed…

At the current moment, purchasing an energy saving dimmable bulb would either involve greater expense than is currently worth it (I have existing bulbs which suit their intended purpose perfectly), greater amount of energy used (bus journey to B+Q/delivery vayn to my house would have a greater environmental impact than the extra energy used by the bulb),

Did I upset you with a phrase you didn’t understand? Sorry. A whole life cost / fully burdened cost / lifecycle cost is the purchase price PLUS the running cost for the life of the item. It isn’t a difficult concept and used by most of the civilized world when making investments in equipment etc. Your low energy bulb costs more to buy but less to run, so overall, it is cheaper. You are focused on the purchase price and not the running costs. Your dogmatic ‘B&Q to buy it’ is just silly so please stop it. You can buy such bulbs from many places so you can combine your tasks and perhaps pick one up when you are at the shop next door / in a supermarket etc. That absorbs your energy expended in to a task you were already doing. The arguement you are trying to make is illogical and wrong, but that might make you appear wrong so you’ll take your usual defence and repeat until we ignore it.

But hasnt that sort of thing been happening for millenia, before we humans were even here?

Yes, but

a) back then there was no-one around to lament the tragedies.
b) if there had been they couldn’t have done anything about it. This time, there’s a chance we CAN do something about it.

i cant help but think that its been used as a vehicle for stealth tax. To conveniently make us all pay more for everything.

It is one of the only effective ways to change behaviour – make people pay for it. Many studies show this.

its been used as a vehicle for stealth tax.

It is very easy to trot out this glib phrase.

What tax do you consider to be a “stealth tax”?

What is that tax being used for that you don’t agree with?

its been used as a vehicle for stealth tax.

Really? Not much stealth about this:

http://www.carbontax.net.au/

People with an Athens login should be able to read this very good review of it in Nature Climate Change…

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n1/full/nclimate1339.html

Did I upset you with a phrase you didn’t understand?

No, you just amused me with yer pretentious waffle. 😀

The arguement you are trying to make is illogical and wrong

No it’s not it’s all bin explained propply if you din’t understand it then that’s not my fault.

I’m right and this argument is done. Move on now please, thanks.

Now, once again; What car do you drive?

The phrase “lifetime cost” is not pretentious waffle. You are confusing it with “lifestyle” 🙂

Btw I am in the Wharf of Canaries tomorrow night and Thursday night. Wanna go into town for some interesting food?

On the balcony.

😆 Not sure my neighbour dowstairs would appreciate being shat upon from a great height……. Then again 😀

What tax do you consider to be a “stealth tax”?

What is that tax being used for that you don’t agree with?

Maybe tax is the wrong word to use- fuel is environmentally unfriendly so each month it costs more. Food costs more because it has to be delivered (they could of course just use local produce but its not enough to feed everyone), and as just about everything needs fuel to make it, produce it, deliver it etc it all costs much more. Fuel ‘duty’ might just line the goverments pockets but it is so high because they can call it an environmental tax.
Yet in the middle east where it is produced it is cheap.
The few alternatives that are out there cost more than the average person can reasonably afford. So we stick to our smoke belchers.
So that means they can keep charging us what they like!

Maybe ive just created my own conspiracy theory, but thats what i anyway….

fuel is environmentally unfriendly so each month it costs more.

It’s also running out (if you mean oil) – peak production was a few years ago and more to the point EROEI (energy return on energy invested) is going down fast – that means that the amount of energy you have to put in for every barrel of oil you get out is increasing rapidly – so production is becoming less efficient! That’s the main reason it’s getting (and will continue to get) more expensive.

Food costs more because it has to be delivered

And more to the point also need lots of oil in the manufacture of fertilizer and pesticides – see above for why this is inevitably becoming more expensive.

Fuel ‘duty’ might just line the goverments pockets but it is so high because they can call it an environmental tax.

But we have never paid the real costs of our oil based economy – we have never bothered to put a price on the real value of things like clean water, biodiversity, worker safety in far off places, cost of disposal of plastics etc etc. In fact the real “stealth” was in keeping all of these real costs hidden. It is true that now we are starting to have to recognise some of these but I think it is the opposite of stealth – it is the revealing of the true costs.

No it’s not it’s all bin explained propply if you din’t understand it then that’s not my fault.

I’m right and this argument is done. Move on now please, thanks.

Amazingly, my prediction came true. Was anyone else struggling with the concept?

But we have never paid the real costs of our oil based economy – we have never bothered to put a price on the real value of things like clean water, biodiversity, worker safety in far off places, cost of disposal of plastics etc etc. In fact the real “stealth” was in keeping all of these real costs hidden. It is true that now we are starting to have to recognise some of these but I think it is the opposite of stealth – it is the revealing of the true costs.

Very true. Basically, our developed existence has been heavily subsidised by the environment. Now that subsidy is running out, things are starting to cost a lot more…

Fred – your dimmers will probably use the same electricity whether dimmed or not.

Extremely unlikely. He’d have to have very archaic dimmer switches.

It occurred to me – how come the greenies like electric cars, but don’t like electric light bulbs?

dark greens don’t like electric cars – they are a greenwash 🙂
the only green car is “no car”

You know which sort of greens I was referring to, TJ…

For reference, I own an old car, which there would be little green benefit in me disposing of – and I’ve only filled it up twice since September.

The thing is, TJ, cars are quite essential for the modern world TO A DEGREE.

The transport mix for typical journeys (not exceptional ones) could end up being say 10% foot, 40% bike, 40% mass transport and 10% car, but cars would still be needed. There are people whose jobs require mobility, there are rural locations and so on.

Given that, electric cars might be very important. Especially if renewable electricity generation takes off. The only other source would be biomass which would perhaps be feasible if car mileage was slashed by a factor of 10 or more.

aracer – Member

You know which sort of greens I was referring to, TJ…
????

molgrips – until someone creates a battery that orders of magnitude more effective and cheaper electric cars will never be significant

There are people whose jobs require mobility, there are rural locations and so on.

require far more range and load carrying that an electric car can provide with current tech.

Fred – your dimmers will probably use the same electricity whether dimmed or not.

Extremely unlikely. He’d have to have very archaic dimmer switches.

Explain this please.

I do know that the front room uses a ‘modern’ type dimmer cos the ‘older’ type ones don’t work with Halogen bulubs apparently. I know nothing about this though. Must be science stuffs.

(Do I dare tell the Energy Saving Nazis about the 19 50W Halogen spots my dim (!) layndlord installed in this flat?)

Explain this please.

“Modern” dimmers use electronics which switch the supply on and off at high speed (well 100Hz 😉 ), not the resistor TooTall seems to be assuming. Hence no wasted energy (well a little in the electrickery, but <<1W).

Can’t see why a halogen bulb would have any problems working with either type of dimmer though – you may have been given some “sales talk” there.

require far more range and load carrying that an electric car can provide with current tech

Doubt it. The midwives and health visitors who come to our house cover a fairly compact area of Cardiff.

Part of the solution, I’m sure.

seems to be assuming

I did say ‘probably’. Doesn’t Fred live in some sort of (evidently well-lit) East End haarsin projekt or slum or whatever they have for the disposessed in that end of town? I thought he was lucky not to have gas lamps never mind modern fittings.

Mind you – a few 5W LED replacement G10s would save a fortune if he turns those spots on.

Anyway, is anybody going to answer the question of why halogen bulbs are so awful if electric cars are so wonderful?

Well halogen bulbs are not energy efficient compared to the alternatives. Electric cars are (or maybe depending on who you talk to).

molgrips – Member

“require far more range and load carrying that an electric car can provide with current tech”

Doubt it. The midwives and health visitors who come to our house cover a fairly compact area of Cardiff.

Have a look at the miles covered and the range of electric cars.

Its a simple nonsense.

They are not energy efficient eiother.

They are not energy efficient eiother.

Compared to what? They’re much worse than a bicycle, certainly.

Bout 70-100 miles typically, isn’t it? I’d wager there are many travelling workers who do far less than that. And I seem to remember reading that even with current electricity generation they would only emit about 40g/km CO2, which is a lot less than even a small car in urban and suburban driving.

Ransos – I’d love to see our health visitor turn up on a bike with a trailer full of her weighing scales, files and other gear, but I doubt it’ll happen any time soon 🙂

For an electric car you take chemical energy ( mainly) and make it into electrical energy – that has conversion losses. then transmit it down power lines – more losses then charge a battery – more losses then convert it into mechanical energy – more losses. There is also the weight of the batteries to lug around

They are not significantly more efficient that petrol cars in terms of co2 output per mile driven.

Over the lifetime probably less as the difficulty of making the batteries and their short life has a significant effect.

Anyway, is anybody going to answer the question of why halogen bulbs are so awful if electric cars are so wonderful?

They are both crap. Electric cars are a shocking use of resources in the way they are manufactured and difficult for many to use with the lack of infrastructure in place. Halogen bulbs have been surpassed by LED. Happy?

I know how it works thanks TJ, you don’t have to explain it.

I am referring to several studies that I have read (but no longer have links to) that have analysed it (instead of just guessing) and come up with a figure at the highest end of about 40g/km.

In your utopia, how would say nurses get around for home visits? Assuming you need a few bags for kit?

They are not energy efficient eiother.

This is rather a silly sweeping thing to say. The implication is that the development of the electric car has stopped, whereas it is still in the rather early stages. Batteries are getting better all the time and materials are getting lighter. Also, it depends where the electricity comes from. Various people have talked about using the batteries in electric cars as a way of storing/using off peak energy in a way that might help make overall production of electricity more efficient.

Imagine if the development of the bicycle had ended with the penny farthing – efficient?

In your utopia, how would say nurses get around for home visits? Assuming you need a few bags for kit?

What are you on about? They would do it as they do now.
🙄

Electric cars are simply not good enough now nor is there any likely hood in the near future of them being good enough. Per mile they are not significantly less polluting, total lifetime it looks even worse.

Well halogen bulbs are not energy efficient compared to the alternatives.

Not energy efficient how? What happens to the energy they “waste”?

I am referring to several studies that I have read (but no longer have links to) that have analysed it (instead of just guessing) and come up with a figure at the highest end of about 40g/km.

How convenient that you don’t have links to them 🙄

Renault are claiming up to 185km for the best of their current range. If I had a regular commute to do I’d buy one at 21 300e and 82e per month for the batteries. Recharge at night when France has an electricity surplus or from solar panels. I don’t commute though and have only filled my car once since the summer.

Given my low mileage keeping the 20-year-old car I’ve got makes more ecological sense. The energy cost of building a new electric car and keeping it in batteries would be greater than putting petrol in my old car for the same period.

Renault make I good case for most car users with the exception of their holiday trips.