Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
Stig said:
Thanks for posting this. That's all well and good, but if I've read your extract and this correctly, APD is treated as a part of the general tax basket. As citizens we all (in theory, at least, although it's often hard to see in practice) benefit from the taxes raised and paying tax in one tax regime presumably keeps other taxes lower, i.e. we are effectively paying ourselves (though not as much as we are paying Michelle Mone and her ilk). It strikes me that what we really need are a range of green taxes that not only discourage damaging activities, but pay to help ameliorate or even reverse the damage that is being done. The money raised from APD should be ring-fenced for green initiatives, be that reforestation projects, mechanical air filters or investigation into initiatives such as seaweed farms. When we take part in activities that are destructive to the environment, our debt is to the environment, not to UK PLC, any resulting taxation should be used accordingly. If this is happening already, then the links need to be more visible.SporadicAddick said:ShootersHillGuru said:
This is pretty much where I am. I feel that although the mantra of “every little helps” can’t be dismissed, it’s in the great scheme of things irrelevant. I still rage at supermarket packaging. Again, small but slow improvements can’t be ignored but I get the feeling it’s generally more companies virtue signalling rather than some sort of drive to eradicate the tons of package waste. This simply must be led top down. It needs government intervention yet where is it ? Straws and plastic bags isn’t enough. I fly probably twice a year and I won’t change that because the options for me and my family to do something different simply aren’t there. I recycle what’s required of me but what else can I do. Change simply must be led top down. Force packaging to be green. Put a (?) £20 levy on each air ticket. Drive forward subsidies for insulation and home improvement to reduce energy consumption. The list is virtually endless. I am completely convinced that the world is fucked. This won’t impact me I doubt I’m 68 but I fear for my grandchildren’s future.Stig said:
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.cafcnick1992 said:When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
You are correct. When APD was first introduced in 1994 part of the rationale was to offset the environmental impact of air travel - it was set at £5 for European flights and £10 for long haul flights (the chart above shows how that has "progressed") - it has morphed into an easy to collect general tax.
I attach two articles which may be of interest. Reading both in conjunction would support my view that simply stating "increase APD" is over-simplistic and counterproductive.
https://www.iata.org/en/programs/sustainability/sustainable-aviation-fuels/
https://airlinesuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Impact-of-Air-Passenger-Duty-on-Airline-Route-Economics-4.pdf
The airline industry is not going to disappear (quite the opposite) and therefore the most appropriate approach is to secure the economic benefit of that growth whilst supporting investment in the path to sustainability (the two go hand in hand).
0 -
You’ve grabbed an extra LPopIcon said:Politicians can't fix this mess, you're kidding yourself if you think so. How do you fix something when you are the problem?
Homo sapiens are the worst species to have evolved. We're greedy, selfish and fickle. Self awareness and free choice hasn't empowered us to become better, it's driven us into groups where we grab as much as we can without ballance.
Commercialism has ruined us, we take until we break.
We can fuck it and choke ourselves, but the earth will recover with or without us.
I hope those who are yet to come do better job.0 -
This. I've posted before about the signalling effects of seemingly small changes I your lifestyle on businesses and government policy. There is a lot of evidence out there that shows every person making a small, incremental change actually adds us to larger changes than just that change. It may feel like passing in the wind but if enough people do it businesses and governments take notice. That's why I urge everyone to make whatever small changes possible. It can make a difference.swordfish said:
I'd swap 2 and 3 round. Policies are offered on the basis of popular appeal,a good indicator of which is patterns of consumption. 3 & 4 as you have them are the ones I find most challenging.Arthur_Trudgill said:
The personal changes, in order of priority need to be:swordfish said:
As my decisions and actions contribute to a problem, I'm making changes which inconvenience me to take more personal responsibility for them. I know I can't save the planet, but when it's too late, which it will be, at least I can look my nephews and nieces in the face and say I did my bit, not say I was waiting for others to do theirs, or offer up any other lame excuse laying the blame elsewhere.Stig said:
Your first statement seems to me to be the sort of thing that people say to justify the fact that they are doing nothing themselves; a bit like those who justified breaking the covid rules or things like speeding, littering or raiding the company stationery cabinet on the grounds that 'everybody's at it'. I think it's an accusation that can be reasonably be levelled at some people (myself included), but not others. To accuse everyone of doing nothing is as outrageous as it is plain wrong. Hopefully, Canter's post above has already disabused you of that.cafcnick1992 said:When it comes to climate change, people would rather look good than do good. Absolutely nobody on here is reducing the number of flights they get on, the amount of miles they drive, etc.
Even governments around the world are happy to export their dirty emissions to the developing world, just to make statistics at home look better.
As for your second point, I think you're absolutely right. Carbon offsetting is a major problem as it allows governments (and hence their populations) to do nothing.
I suppose having coughed to being in the group of people who are personally doing very little, I ought to explain myself. It feels to me that unilaterally making individual changes is like spitting in the ocean. Whatever I do, or not, is so insignificant that it will not impact the overall outcome. We need to take action together. That is why your second point about exporting dirty emissions is so important. We need to have some sense that we're all in it together. Hypocritical? Probably, yes. Unconcerned? Not a bit of it.
1. Accept there is an emergency
2. Vote for policies that address the emergency.
3. Gradually change your lifestyle to address the emergency.
4. Advocate (where reasonable and safe) for others to change.5 -
Whilst that anecdote is interesting and not a great sign there is plenty of evidence that China has massively pivoted towards green energy and tech.Chippycafc said:
Indeed add China to that list. A friend of mine is a "Rhodesian" as he likes me to be called and told me last week that China is building two new railway lines from the inner country to the coast so they can export coal from there.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
I'll excuse the pun ;-)Stig said:
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?WishIdStayedinthePub said:
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.cantersaddick said:
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.cafcnick1992 said:
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!cantersaddick said:There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
They are investing serious money in these both from both government and private investment. They don't do that for fun.0 -
Alturistic or clever business. Looking like the Chinese are going to corner the market on electric cars and I suspect they see a massive opportunity to do the same with other green tech. I’m afraid I’m pretty cynical when it comes to China.cantersaddick said:
Whilst that anecdote is interesting and not a great sign there is plenty of evidence that China has massively pivoted towards green energy and tech.Chippycafc said:
Indeed add China to that list. A friend of mine is a "Rhodesian" as he likes me to be called and told me last week that China is building two new railway lines from the inner country to the coast so they can export coal from there.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
I'll excuse the pun ;-)Stig said:
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?WishIdStayedinthePub said:
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.cantersaddick said:
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.cafcnick1992 said:
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!cantersaddick said:There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
They are investing serious money in these both from both government and private investment. They don't do that for fun.0 -
Not just for fun, but also for soft power across Africa.cantersaddick said:
Whilst that anecdote is interesting and not a great sign there is plenty of evidence that China has massively pivoted towards green energy and tech.Chippycafc said:
Indeed add China to that list. A friend of mine is a "Rhodesian" as he likes me to be called and told me last week that China is building two new railway lines from the inner country to the coast so they can export coal from there.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
I'll excuse the pun ;-)Stig said:
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?WishIdStayedinthePub said:
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.cantersaddick said:
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.cafcnick1992 said:
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!cantersaddick said:There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
They are investing serious money in these both from both government and private investment. They don't do that for fun.1 -
-
Sounds like a win win to me, certainly beats refusing to adapt and shitting on people for being 'lesser'SporadicAddick said:
Not just for fun, but also for soft power across Africa.cantersaddick said:
Whilst that anecdote is interesting and not a great sign there is plenty of evidence that China has massively pivoted towards green energy and tech.Chippycafc said:
Indeed add China to that list. A friend of mine is a "Rhodesian" as he likes me to be called and told me last week that China is building two new railway lines from the inner country to the coast so they can export coal from there.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
I'll excuse the pun ;-)Stig said:
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?WishIdStayedinthePub said:
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.cantersaddick said:
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.cafcnick1992 said:
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!cantersaddick said:There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
They are investing serious money in these both from both government and private investment. They don't do that for fun.4 -
As opposed to just colonising it by force, thieving the people to work as slaves overseas and then fucking off with all the resources, dooming native populations to destitution for generations?SporadicAddick said:
Not just for fun, but also for soft power across Africa.cantersaddick said:
Whilst that anecdote is interesting and not a great sign there is plenty of evidence that China has massively pivoted towards green energy and tech.Chippycafc said:
Indeed add China to that list. A friend of mine is a "Rhodesian" as he likes me to be called and told me last week that China is building two new railway lines from the inner country to the coast so they can export coal from there.WishIdStayedinthePub said:
I'll excuse the pun ;-)Stig said:
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?WishIdStayedinthePub said:
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.cantersaddick said:
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.cafcnick1992 said:
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!cantersaddick said:There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
They are investing serious money in these both from both government and private investment. They don't do that for fun.7 -
Interesting podcast from BBC world service re geothermal energy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct5ws8
There is apparently 50,000 times more energy in the upper ten kilometres of the Earth's crust than all the oil and gas in the World.
Vulcan Energy Resources are tapping into a resource in the Upper Rhine Valley whereby they're using the hot water, producing electricity and incredibly, filtering huge amounts of Lithium at the same time. The Lithium makes up 80% of their profit. The current operation will produce enough Lithium to make 500,000 car batteries.5 - Sponsored links:
-
There really are some fascinating and inspiring advances happening in the area.
Hopefully it's not too late.0 -
I'm constantly factoring in environmental impacts into my decision making now, but have decided to keep running my Ecoboost Fiesta into the ground, reducing my mileage, hoping to make it my last car.
So if I don't replace it all, and run it for 8-9 more years at 5,000 or less miles a year averaging 50 mpg but using public transport alternatives instead where possible, I wonder how the carbon emissions would compare to those involved in making a new EV all the way back down the supply chain to the impact of extracting the resources used to make it.
Anyone care to hazard a guess?
Edit. See link. I'll do the maths later myself
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/sustainability/358628/car-pollution-production-disposal-what-impact-do-our-cars-have-planet#:~:text=Around 5.6 tonnes of CO2,the construction of the battery.1 -
Has the wet belt given you any problems yet?swordfish said:
I'm constantly factoring in environmental impacts into my decision making now, but have decided to keep running my Ecoboost Fiesta into the ground, reducing my mileage, hoping to make it my last car.
So if I don't replace it all, and run it for 8-9 more years at 5,000 or less miles a year averaging 50 mpg but using public transport alternatives instead where possible, I wonder how the carbon emissions would compare to those involved in making a new EV all the way back down the supply chain to the impact of extracting the resources used to make it.
Anyone care to hazard a guess?
Edit. See link. I'll do the maths later myself
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/sustainability/358628/car-pollution-production-disposal-what-impact-do-our-cars-have-planet#:~:text=Around 5.6 tonnes of CO2,the construction of the battery.0 -
On my Fiesta? NoKindoncasella said:
Has the wet belt given you any problems yet?swordfish said:
I'm constantly factoring in environmental impacts into my decision making now, but have decided to keep running my Ecoboost Fiesta into the ground, reducing my mileage, hoping to make it my last car.
So if I don't replace it all, and run it for 8-9 more years at 5,000 or less miles a year averaging 50 mpg but using public transport alternatives instead where possible, I wonder how the carbon emissions would compare to those involved in making a new EV all the way back down the supply chain to the impact of extracting the resources used to make it.
Anyone care to hazard a guess?
Edit. See link. I'll do the maths later myself
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/sustainability/358628/car-pollution-production-disposal-what-impact-do-our-cars-have-planet#:~:text=Around 5.6 tonnes of CO2,the construction of the battery.
A 2017 model, but mileage of only 37,000, most of which is down to me having bought it at just over a year old (the car, not me 🤣) Is it a common problem? Worn suspension parts and tyres the only things replaced so far. Brakes must need replacing soon as still original parts. Advised two years ago, but not last - same garage, How does that work? 🤔0 -
Climate change really hitting home hard in Orpington today… 💨
3 -
Pah, 24,300 wind force where I live 😂NorthStandDan said:Climate change really hitting home hard in Orpington today… 💨
The BBC are apologising and saying the app will be fixed soon0 -
Hunker down everyone, batten the hatches .. there’s a storm coming to Bexley too. I’ve been out and stocked up on bog rollsNorthStandDan said:Climate change really hitting home hard in Orpington today… 💨 
0 -
Don't panic.......the mother of all software glitches apparently, 13,000 mph winds forecast for London. Try hitting into that at your local golf course.0
-
They aren't known as Ecobooms for nothing!swordfish said:
On my Fiesta? NoKindoncasella said:
Has the wet belt given you any problems yet?swordfish said:
I'm constantly factoring in environmental impacts into my decision making now, but have decided to keep running my Ecoboost Fiesta into the ground, reducing my mileage, hoping to make it my last car.
So if I don't replace it all, and run it for 8-9 more years at 5,000 or less miles a year averaging 50 mpg but using public transport alternatives instead where possible, I wonder how the carbon emissions would compare to those involved in making a new EV all the way back down the supply chain to the impact of extracting the resources used to make it.
Anyone care to hazard a guess?
Edit. See link. I'll do the maths later myself
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/sustainability/358628/car-pollution-production-disposal-what-impact-do-our-cars-have-planet#:~:text=Around 5.6 tonnes of CO2,the construction of the battery.
A 2017 model, but mileage of only 37,000, most of which is down to me having bought it at just over a year old (the car, not me 🤣) Is it a common problem? Worn suspension parts and tyres the only things replaced so far. Brakes must need replacing soon as still original parts. Advised two years ago, but not last - same garage, How does that work? 🤔
Just put the following into google and see why
"why are ecoboost engines bad"
0 -
Something for me to look forward to then? 😉Kindoncasella said:
They aren't known as Ecobooms for nothing!swordfish said:
On my Fiesta? NoKindoncasella said:
Has the wet belt given you any problems yet?swordfish said:
I'm constantly factoring in environmental impacts into my decision making now, but have decided to keep running my Ecoboost Fiesta into the ground, reducing my mileage, hoping to make it my last car.
So if I don't replace it all, and run it for 8-9 more years at 5,000 or less miles a year averaging 50 mpg but using public transport alternatives instead where possible, I wonder how the carbon emissions would compare to those involved in making a new EV all the way back down the supply chain to the impact of extracting the resources used to make it.
Anyone care to hazard a guess?
Edit. See link. I'll do the maths later myself
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/sustainability/358628/car-pollution-production-disposal-what-impact-do-our-cars-have-planet#:~:text=Around 5.6 tonnes of CO2,the construction of the battery.
A 2017 model, but mileage of only 37,000, most of which is down to me having bought it at just over a year old (the car, not me 🤣) Is it a common problem? Worn suspension parts and tyres the only things replaced so far. Brakes must need replacing soon as still original parts. Advised two years ago, but not last - same garage, How does that work? 🤔
Just put the following into google and see why
"why are ecoboost engines bad"0 - Sponsored links:
-
Excellent news - air connectivity is essential to our economic growth. Just need to sort Heathrow and Gatwick now.Showmetheway2gohome said:Just announced the 1.1billion expansion of stansted airport that should improve khans air quality. Around London.1 -
How far away from electric aeroplanes are we ? It’s certainly going to happen within the next ten years for short haul isn’t it ?Showmetheway2gohome said:Just announced the 1.1billion expansion of stansted airport that should improve khans air quality. Around London.0 -
Just got to get the power cord long enough.ShootersHillGuru said:
How far away from electric aeroplanes are we ? It’s certainly going to happen within the next ten years for short haul isn’t it ?Showmetheway2gohome said:Just announced the 1.1billion expansion of stansted airport that should improve khans air quality. Around London.1 -
I very much doubt it. SAF is the trend, not electric.ShootersHillGuru said:
How far away from electric aeroplanes are we ? It’s certainly going to happen within the next ten years for short haul isn’t it ?Showmetheway2gohome said:Just announced the 1.1billion expansion of stansted airport that should improve khans air quality. Around London.
By way of example, Easyjet announced plans for the development of an electric aircraft in 2017. Those plans have been gradually shelved as the reality kicks in.This is the revised position, shared in 2022.
Britain’s biggest budget airline, easyJet, has switched its future focus from electric aviation to hydrogen fuel.
Chief executive Johan Lundgren has launched what he says is the carrier’s “most ambitious airline net-zero roadmap to date”.
Along with the engine-maker Rolls Royce, easyJet is making final preparations for its first hydrogen engine ground tests.
The aim is to have an “easyJet-sized aircraft” – carrying around 200 passengers – by 2035.Previously easyJet had championed electric aviation, working with a US firm, Wright Electric, to promote battery-powered flight on short routes by 2030.
Mr Lundgren told The Independent: “We continue to also work with Wright Electric as well. But what we have said all along is that we are quite indifferent in terms of what technologies will be there.
“We know that electric might form part of the solution, with a hybrid solution, hybrid electric, and remember that an electric engine can actually use hydrogen as the energy source, so that’s not out of the picture at all.
“But I think right now, the most promising of these technologies is really the solution that Rolls Royce is working on.”
3 -
Blimey, if you put a heavy battery in an EasyJet you'd be down to one change of underwear in the luggage allowance.0
-
Which you might need sooner than you'd anticipated.Raith_C_Chattonell said:Blimey, if you put a heavy battery in an EasyJet you'd be down to one change of underwear in the luggage allowance.
3 -
Shocking scenes of devastation and loss of life in south eastern Spain. One of those things or a trend ?0
-
there is an unprecedented event like this happening in the world every couple of weeks to a month at the moment. People choosing to look away/not engage, other things going on in the world (and the medias general attitude to climate change) so they don't really get the coverage they should have. Wonder when people will take notice?ShootersHillGuru said:Shocking scenes of devastation and loss of life in south eastern Spain. One of those things or a trend ?
Lots of scaring things coming out over the last few weeks, about AMOC, about ocean temperatures, earths natural carbon sinks not taking anything in this year as they are basically full. All things exacerbating the already desperate situation. Scientists are starting to say the tipping point has already been reached and all we can do is slow it down/mitigate at this point. Desperately terrifying.4 -
Only when they open their front door and Mr climate change punches them in the face.cantersaddick said:
there is an unprecedented event like this happening in the world every couple of weeks to a month at the moment. People choosing to look away/not engage, other things going on in the world (and the medias general attitude to climate change) so they don't really get the coverage they should have. Wonder when people will take notice?ShootersHillGuru said:Shocking scenes of devastation and loss of life in south eastern Spain. One of those things or a trend ?
Lots of scaring things coming out over the last few weeks, about AMOC, about ocean temperatures, earths natural carbon sinks not taking anything in this year as they are basically full. All things exacerbating the already desperate situation. Scientists are starting to say the tipping point has already been reached and all we can do is slow it down/mitigate at this point. Desperately terrifying.
4 -
I’ve thought all along that climate change wont be taken totally seriously until there is a major catastrophe in one of the worlds great cities and it probably needs to be in the USA for them to wake up to what’s needed. Dreadful to think it’s going to need massive loss of life and destruction on a large scale for the world to wake up. I think tipping point is very close if it’s not already been reached. It’s a terrifying prospect ahead of us.1
