How much austerity is needed to meet CO2 targets?

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,135
Technology has not advanced. Even in Europe, fossil fuels still dominate transport. And then infastructure from steel, cement and glass. No way around that.
Indeed, but the emergence of technology to provide an alternative is quite recent. Still a long way to go but its getting there. You can buy cars that, at least boast, can travel 400kms on a single charge (of course perfect driving and conditions etc etc).

But the climate debate is fraught with issues, a number of them rarely discussed. Battery manufacturing for instance. Its one of the dirtiest industries out there. You don't hear much about that though. And battery life, what is it for these all electric and hybrid cars? Is it 8 years, 10 years? The car is basically worthless after that. And what about the manner in which the energy to charge them is produced? There is all kinds of spin and bollox claimed.

Some company recently signed a "deal" with a Co Donegal wind farm. The deal was that they miraculously acquire all their energy needs from the wind farm. The kicker is, the company is nowhere near Co Donegal. You can be damn sure there is no cable running from Donegal into this company to supply its energy needs. Spin and bolloxology.
 


McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,445
Twitter
No
//
But the climate debate is fraught with issues, a number of them rarely discussed. Battery manufacturing for instance. Its one of the dirtiest industries out there. You don't hear much about that though. And battery life, what is it for these all electric and hybrid cars? Is it 8 years, 10 years? The car is basically worthless after that. And what about the manner in which the energy to charge them is produced? There is all kinds of spin and bollox claimed.
//
I'm looking to buy an electric / hybrid car, and the small print is that they cause 80% of the CO2 of a petrol car. That's a huge saving. Most of the 80% is in making the battery.

But 80% is still far from zero %. Obviously they make cities nicer to live in, but not the magic bullet while we are still burning PEAT to make electricity ffs.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,135
I'm looking to buy an electric / hybrid car, and the small print is that they cause 80% of the CO2 of a petrol car. That's a huge saving. Most of the 80% is in making the battery.

But 80% is still far from zero %. Obviously they make cities nicer to live in, but not the magic bullet while we are still burning PEAT to make electricity ffs.
They are MASSIVELY expensive. After all the exemptions etc they are still costly vehicles. The Hyundai Kona, which claims the 400km range, is still over 30K after your exemptions. Its a small car in actuality. Looks big in the pictures but its not really. My wife recently had to change her car. We looked at electric but they are just too expensive. Its a con job. You have reaffirmed that with the mere 20% CO2 saving in the small print.

That said, my friend who bought a Kona said he pays about €4.00 a week to recharge it and he travels about 600km a week.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,445
Twitter
No
I should have clarified, they work out the 80% over 7 years. You'd think they'd last longer than that?

I have a diesel jeep made in 1992 still running (on the land only) and surely the other side of sustainability is longevity. Part of the climate change "problem" is built-in obsolescence.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,392
I should have clarified, they work out the 80% over 7 years. You'd think they'd last longer than that?

I have a diesel jeep made in 1992 still running (on the land only) and surely the other side of sustainability is longevity. Part of the climate change "problem" is built-in obsolescence.
That's a very different conversation and a lot of that is the advances and development in underlying technology. Consumers being in a financial position to purchase is what drives commerce. Even with less built-in obsolescence that commerce will continue as long as there are more consumers. The climate issue is more about our general day to day activity.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,135
I should have clarified, they work out the 80% over 7 years. You'd think they'd last longer than that?

I have a diesel jeep made in 1992 still running (on the land only) and surely the other side of sustainability is longevity. Part of the climate change "problem" is built-in obsolescence.
Oh, absolutely. Its been a constant argument against the futility that is the "scrapage schemes". I long ago came to the conclusion that government schemes/grants to people are not to put money back into the pockets of the people but rather a means to funnel taxpayers money into the pockets of business. The retrofitting of solar panels etc is not exception. You should have witnessed the farce that was at my kitchen table when a solar panel provider tried to hoodwink me into buying their brand. The gimmicks were quite astounding. I was getting discounts for my "social network", allowing them to put an advertising board in my garden, being the first in the area to have them installed etc etc. Even with all the gimmicky discounts and government grant, I was to pay 10/12K for it. They claimed payback would be 8/9 years. Total rubbish of course. I rang the SEI about the grant from them because I remember when the grant scheme was initially introduced. The SEI said (while not commenting specifically on the crowd at my table) that their grants were designed to cover one third of the cost of installation. They confirmed to me on the phone that that was still the intent of the grant. For the crowd at my kitchen table, the grant was hardly even covering 20%. I'm sure it was much lower but its about 8/10 years ago at this stage.

But getting back to the electric/hybrid cars, when talking about environmentally friendly, in anything, its the "whole life" that needs to be considered. Electric cars fail miserably in this. As I mentioned earlier, the battery life is a big thing. We didn't look at any electric in a garage so never got to press the question, but if you are going to test drive any, ask them specifically about this and if they put it in writing. My understanding is the "standard life" of the batteries is 8-10 years. After that, you either replace the batteries, which is a massive endeavour, or the car is essentially scrap. So no trade in value and as people become more aware of these things, even trade in values after three years will be severely hit.

EDIT: I should clarify, the SEI grant being to cover one third of the gross (before gimmicks) cost of installation, the grant had a cap of something like €3,000.
 
Last edited:

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,724
The root cause of climate change is population growth, but none of the debate around tackling it seems to recognize this, nor offer any solution other than tax, tax and more tax.

Countries seem to have latched onto population growth as some kind of positive KPI, but then start to plan how to share scarce energy resources between more and more people. The populations in the developing economies in Africa, India and China are all expected to grow by billions over the next 20 years - our own population is expected to nearly double over next 30 years....that makes anything we do now pointless, to be honest, unless there's a game changer like cold fusion just over the horizon....and that doesn't address the very obvious food challenge.

Politicians should be talking about proactive population optimisation rather than tinkering with 2019 carbon emissions.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,135
The root cause of climate change is population growth, but none of the debate around tackling it seems to recognize this, nor offer any solution other than tax, tax and more tax.

Countries seem to have latched onto population growth as some kind of positive KPI, but then start to plan how to share scarce energy resources between more and more people. The populations in the developing economies in Africa, India and China are all expected to grow by billions over the next 20 years - our own population is expected to nearly double over next 30 years....that makes anything we do now pointless, to be honest, unless there's a game changer like cold fusion just over the horizon....and that doesn't address the very obvious food challenge.

Politicians should be talking about proactive population optimisation rather than tinkering with 2019 carbon emissions.
that's too blatant a form of social engineering/population control. Control the birth rate of the poor dark skinned people? Good Jesus but people have died on the court of social media for much less. Additionally, a growing population in third world nations is a positive for government and their supporters. It provides a platform for platitudes and a veneer that they care about such things and people. There is also the immigrant cheap labour argument too.

It'll never happen and to even attempt to start the conversation will see you receiving tremendous opprobrium for such a Nazi style idea.

Edit: Also, if you are too blatant in your population control strategies, it cracks the veneer and people start to see your less blatant forms of such policies.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,724
that's too blatant a form of social engineering/population control. Control the birth rate of the poor dark skinned people? Good Jesus but people have died on the court of social media for much less. Additionally, a growing population in third world nations is a positive for government and their supporters. It provides a platform for platitudes and a veneer that they care about such things and people. There is also the immigrant cheap labour argument too.

It'll never happen and to even attempt to start the conversation will see you receiving tremendous opprobrium for such a Nazi style idea.

Edit: Also, if you are too blatant in your population control strategies, it cracks the veneer and people start to see your less blatant forms of such policies.
...but it makes a complete joke of any tinkering with CO2 policies today when the population of the planet is projected to double over the next 50 years.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,135
...but it makes a complete joke of any tinkering with CO2 policies today when the population of the planet is projected to double over the next 50 years.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But isn't the population explosion going to come / is coming from third world countries? Its probably a more real and immediate reason to control population growth because it brings about at best, children being born into abject and unimaginable poverty (not like the "poverty" as defined in Ireland - the lack of a coat or two etc) and at worst, death from starvation or other horrendous disease contracted because of their poverty. Think of children living and working on dumps to scavenge and compete for food with rodents.

But it wont happen. FFS, our politicians can't even demand that our foreign aid not go to corrupt regimes.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,724
I'm not disagreeing with you. But isn't the population explosion going to come / is coming from third world countries? Its probably a more real and immediate reason to control population growth because it brings about at best, children being born into abject and unimaginable poverty (not like the "poverty" as defined in Ireland - the lack of a coat or two etc) and at worst, death from starvation or other horrendous disease contracted because of their poverty. Think of children living and working on dumps to scavenge and compete for food with rodents.

But it wont happen. FFS, our politicians can't even demand that our foreign aid not go to corrupt regimes.
Well, they can - they just don't.
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,270
Indeed, but the emergence of technology to provide an alternative is quite recent. Still a long way to go but its getting there. You can buy cars that, at least boast, can travel 400kms on a single charge (of course perfect driving and conditions etc etc).

But the climate debate is fraught with issues, a number of them rarely discussed. Battery manufacturing for instance. Its one of the dirtiest industries out there. You don't hear much about that though. And battery life, what is it for these all electric and hybrid cars? Is it 8 years, 10 years? The car is basically worthless after that. And what about the manner in which the energy to charge them is produced? There is all kinds of spin and bollox claimed.

Some company recently signed a "deal" with a Co Donegal wind farm. The deal was that they miraculously acquire all their energy needs from the wind farm. The kicker is, the company is nowhere near Co Donegal. You can be damn sure there is no cable running from Donegal into this company to supply its energy needs. Spin and bolloxology.
Should have been a little clearer. If course technology has advanced but large the technology and d infastructure is still the same as 30 or even 60 years ago. It is be more efficient and carbon effective but it is still largely the same story. So developing nations will follow the same path, albeit more efficiently (we hope) as alternatives for infastructure do not exist.

Also when I see carbon credits or the like, I ignore the entire item.
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,270
I should have clarified, they work out the 80% over 7 years. You'd think they'd last longer than that?

I have a diesel jeep made in 1992 still running (on the land only) and surely the other side of sustainability is longevity. Part of the climate change "problem" is built-in obsolescence.
That 80% is probably too high for Ireland. More like 50-60% if using grid. It depends on the energy input.

 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,472
that's too blatant a form of social engineering/population control. Control the birth rate of the poor dark skinned people? Good Jesus but people have died on the court of social media for much less. Additionally, a growing population in third world nations is a positive for government and their supporters. It provides a platform for platitudes and a veneer that they care about such things and people. There is also the immigrant cheap labour argument too.

It'll never happen and to even attempt to start the conversation will see you receiving tremendous opprobrium for such a Nazi style idea.

Edit: Also, if you are too blatant in your population control strategies, it cracks the veneer and people start to see your less blatant forms of such policies.
The best way to reduce population growth in the developing world is to lift people out of poverty. As a countries population becomes wealthier, reproduction rates drop very significantly. How do you achieve this? Per the earlier discussion points in the thread: burn lots of fossil fuels. There is no other way, period.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,472
Even if you optimistically calculate the impact of new 'green' tech, alternative energy, etc. and add it all up the sum total will be cancelled out by the fact that in the future the demand for energy is going to keep increasing as global population increases. More and more Chinese people for example are going to want to own cars. They are going to DEMAND cars. The best alternative energy can do is to offset the increases somewhat.
That's why there needs to be a discussion about what else is necessary. Those who preach about AGW need to make personal sacrifices and be leaders by example in their own communities by cycling whenever they can (even if just on their day/s off), grow food in their gardens (if you have one, no matter how small, there really is no excuse), and use public transport much more than they do (just because you can afford to avoid public transport doesn't mean that you should).

Most faux eco-lovers are merely virtue signalers who in truth will only consider the easy options that require precisely zero personal sacrifice. An electric car is an easy option because you get to keep on driving your lard a$$ down to the mega-chain-supermarket to buy goods shipped from halfway across the globe that you could just as easily be growing your self with the very minimum of effort and personal sacrifice.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,724
The best way to reduce population growth in the developing world is to lift people out of poverty. As a countries population becomes wealthier, reproduction rates drop very significantly. How do you achieve this? Per the earlier discussion points in the thread: burn lots of fossil fuels. There is no other way, period.
Not a given by any means.

In 1985 the population of Ethiopia was 41m - and the country couldn't sustain that population. Live Aid happened in 1985 and since then there's been a steady stream of foreign "charity" into the country. Now the population is over 100m - in a country that cannot sustain 41m without foreign help.

We can't afford to wait until all countries are wealthy because we're talking about the population doubling again in 40 years, not 400.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,392
Not a given by any means.

In 1985 the population of Ethiopia was 41m - and the country couldn't sustain that population. Live Aid happened in 1985 and since then there's been a steady stream of foreign "charity" into the country. Now the population is over 100m - in a country that cannot sustain 41m without foreign help.

We can't afford to wait until all countries are wealthy because we're talking about the population doubling again in 40 years, not 400.
Speaking of Ethiopia, there are other players in the game apart from charities.

Ethiopia and the Chinese dream in Africa
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,445
Twitter
No
I'm trying to square the circle.

On the one hand, we are to be encouraged to live modestly in tigins, not fly, insulate everything, shop with a wheelbarrow and live on a vegan diet - to save the planet.

On the other hand, "immygrants" will arrive, presumably to run the state and public service.

Can't do both obvi. Why not start with birth control in africa, where e.g. malawi has gone from abt 4m at independence to 20m now.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,724
I'm trying to square the circle.

On the one hand, we are to be encouraged to live modestly in tigins, not fly, insulate everything, shop with a wheelbarrow and live on a vegan diet - to save the planet.

On the other hand, "immygrants" will arrive, presumably to run the state and public service.

Can't do both obvi. Why not start with birth control in africa, where e.g. malawi has gone from abt 4m at independence to 20m now.
The population of Africa is set to double again (from 1.2 bn to 2.4bn) by 2050 and 25% of Africans are apparently determined to migrate to Europe - at 2.4bn that's 600m Africans want to live in Europe, with it's current (and very stable) population of 743m.

So basically while we're being told we need to be taxed more to "save" the planet, the population outside Ireland and Europe is likely to dwarf our population and unless we find a way for people to be carbon neutral by 2050 this means game over.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top