- This topic has 21 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: Pay as you go
kwatt wrote:
leavemetogetonwithit wrote:
It comes down to a more localised economy. Even your food will be grown closer to where you live.Absolute claptrap, just environmentalist propoganda.
Of course a lot of these supposed ills are based on flaky science and supposition, not in fact very often.
K.Er, thanks for the compliment Ken. 😀
MikeNot having a go at you as such Mike, just the fact that a lot of these things are based in flawed science and even worse judgements on policy compounded on top of flawed information, or information that is spun to suit the political flavour of the moment.
If they actually were trying to resolve the issues then fair enough, but they’re not IMO, merely another way to fleece people and the people even think they’re saving the poor polar bears and a tree or two at the same time.
K.
Re: Pay as you go
No offence taken and I agree with some of what you say about uselessness of governments etc.
I would strongly disagree with your opinion that the governments are under strong influence of the green lobby. (It was fuel protests that brought this government to its knees in Sept. 2000 causing them to do a sharp U-turn on carbon tax). I don’t think very many people or politicians are listening to the warnings from the green movement. That’s because the implications are too painful. It’s easier just to bury your head in the sand. Politicians have little choice, in a democracy, but to bow to the will of the majority. However, the fact that they are trying to control traffic levels and reduce congestion and carbon emissions should ring alarm bells inside your head. They don’t need to do this to raise revenues. That is just not what it’s about. Revenues will continue to rise iexorably as petrol prices rise due to the ever increasing dominance of supply over demand*. If the best brains in the country are trying to control traffic levels and pollution at vast expense and with no guarantee that it will work then you can be sure they’re worried about something. IMO that something is 1.the future of energy provision due to oil/gas depletion and 2. the effects of climate change.
Mike.
Edit: * I meant to say demand over supply.The effect of the car/van/truck on climate change is negligable at best, it pales into total insignificance when compared with energy production and heavy industries. In fact the waste caused in making a car actually outweighs it’s potential to pollute throughout it’s entire lifespan, as is the case with many things, including solar panels etc as the manufacturing and effect of attaining the raw materials is immense. It is a delicate equation and, whilst as I say I do not disagree with making the best attempt to stop the pollution, I am also a realist and look at things very harshly in general. Which is why I take offence at the car argument, not that I’m a car fanatic as I’m not, but simply as it’s the wrong debate to be having and is picked upon solely because it’s an easy target and one most people will relate to and care about, not because it’s relevant.
Fossil fuels are dwindling, yes. Emerging markets in the sub-continent and Asia are consuming more than they can produce, and this is having the effect on current oil and energy prices, it’s got nothing whatsoever to do with a drop in production, production has actually increased.
But seriously, if we’re all so worried about this then why not, instead of spending countless billions on some useless tracking system, invest it into the R&D of fuel cells for a start. Mercedes and Honda are already heavily into it, Honda recently launched the first commercially available fuel cell vehicle in California (shocker, not) and Merc have had working prototypes for years, but not enough cash to produce it. There’s your answer for cars, it burns hydrogen and oxygen and chucks pure water out the exhaust.
However I think you’ll find, if you dig, that there’s more questions than answers on this subject.
K.
Re: Pay as you go
Oh I forgot…
Climate change, prove it and prove that it hasn’t happened in the past.
And, for every report that you can produce that says it exists there’s another two out there that says it doesn’t. This is why the White House did not ratify the Kyoto Accord as there is no conclusive proof that such a thing even exists beyond the natural cycles of climatic change.
Plus, anything that we do is unlikely to have any effect at all and that includes going back to living caves and foraging for food.
I often wonder if the Neanderthals had a “Heat The Earth” campaign going before the ice age rolled in and how many wept at the demise of the wooly mammoth.
K.
Re: Pay as you go
On just this little island you and I call home there are in fact over 300yrs supply of coal left beneath our feet….untapped!
These natural resources are owned entirely (naturally) by the state and can be readily accessed at any time. Now, historically at least, extraction has proved very costly indeed, leading to the total decline in the coal industry.
However, government controlled scientists within goverment run laboratories are busily working (as I type) on an efficient method of extracting said supplies for the purpose of creating HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS for future generations 8)
Many world governments in a similar situation are onto the same idea, here for example is what New Zealand are up to:-
Re: Pay as you go
There is some hope that technology will come to the rescue but it is a very close call as to whether the necessary advances will arrive in time.
Oil production is thought to be just about at its peak while demand is set to rise and rise (China, India, Brazil and others are needing more and more). No significant new finds have been made of late. Even increased exploration and clever stuff from geologists financed by the increasing price has failed to turn up new fields. Nothing gives the same EROI (energy return on investment) as oil. Coal is not as energy rich and (witness China just a couple of days ago, plus our own history) is not so easy to get out of the ground. “Clean coal technology” is not imminent and even if it was we would still be left with a huge waste disposal problem from it. (What you are no longer allowed to pump into the atmosphere has to be captured and disposed of somewhere, somehow.)
Hydrogen fuel cells are NOT a source of energy they are just a storage mechanism like a rechargeable battery. You have to use more energy to produce the hydrogen than you get back from the fuel cell.
Using what remains of the easy, energy-rich oil to make ourselves ill by sitting in traffic jams doesn’t make any sense to me.
But hey, I’ve no worries. No kids so why should I care about the future?
Think I’ll go to bed now and get a nice peaceful sleep (neighbours permitting) ready for my 25 mile /8 jobs ride tomorrow. 😀
Mike.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.