The symbolic force would prove the authenticity of his commitment.
General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
Nothing surprising.
We know the Cmdr and his contempt for the environment and the future of his descendants.
The emoticon also speaks for him.
Same for me. He is completely beside the subject as usual.
He confuses with the environmental issues and invents personalized behaviors for other people.
No doubt to compensate for the weakness of his arguments, his denial of the reality and the preservation of his good conscience.
Who said that?
We talk about the pollution of SUVs that is widely proven and the environmental irresponsibility of their owners, which is a mentally stunted way to go through life.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
There are SUVs and there are SUVs tho...
you have your massive tank like 4WDs.... there are your FWD nissan QQ like vehicles.... I have one, and I also have a peugeot 308 small family hatchback and there really is nothing in them in terms of fuel effiency... the newest QQ has a 1.3l petrol or 1.5l diesel engine and are pretty efficient.
and then there is this
Vauxhall Grandland
The Grandland. With its new shape. Choice of lightweight engines and the latest advanced technology. Find out more.
MG ZS EV
There are SUVs and there are SUVs tho...
you have your massive tank like 4WDs.... there are your FWD nissan QQ like vehicles.... I have one, and I also have a peugeot 308 small family hatchback and there really is nothing in them in terms of fuel effiency... the newest QQ has a 1.3l petrol or 1.5l diesel engine and are pretty efficient.
and then there is this
orVauxhall Grandland
The Grandland. With its new shape. Choice of lightweight engines and the latest advanced technology. Find out more.www.vauxhall.co.uk
MG ZS EV
mg.co.uk
Of couse, electric vehicles are a good solution for all the types of vehicles.
Remains unfortunately the size of the SUVs which are very disturbing in the streets of the cities and denature the beauty of environment because they are ugly, big and invasive.
Concerning the cities, I think that SUVs should be banned from access like the motorhomes in France.
Last edited:
Honestly I really do not try to convince you. For my sake you can believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters if that makes you happy.
I would suggest though, that you yourself try to maybe be a little bit more critical about your Google searches if you want to use them for arguments aimed at convincing others. Michael Joseph Kelly "is Professor of Solid State Electronics and Nanoscale Science in the Division of Electrical Engineering, University of Cambridge", which according to your previous posts makes him as much of a bona fide climate expert as Cathrine Ingram. In 2019 he "was appointed to the board of the UK’s principal climate science denial campaign group", the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Let me quote:
According to Benny Peiser, director of the GWPF, “We are certainly not taking a critical stance on the basic science of the greenhouse effect or the fact that CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are having an effect on the climate.”
Personally I don't think there is anything that proves that a total extinction of Homo Sapiens is inevitable in this century. I also think that UN's estimate of a population of 12 billion in 2100 is highly unrealistic, especially when another branch of UN recently stated that we will be missing food for billions around 2050. I'm tired of excusing myself because climate deniers point towards an idiot crawling around on top of a plane. That doesn't solve anything, even though it could be considered somewhat sympathetic, considering what we're facing.
On the other hand the economy WILL collapse sooner or later. We WILL see a decline in available energy during this century. People claiming otherwise haven't done the numbers on a global scale. We WILL see a lack of food and skyrocketing food prices in 10-20 years, and this WILL lead to worldwide famines, and we WILL see refugee situations around the world that will dwarf anything we've seen. You can be "cool, calm and collected" about that as much as you want. I don't believe ya
Last edited:
The floorplan of many SUVs is the same as many other family hatchback cars and even smaller than others. My QQ for instance is far smaller than a ford mondeo. They are taller which is how they get their space but that does not take any more space up on the road.
The reason why SUVs are popular is because if you have a couple of kids, and have to lug around all their crap they are very practical. Sure, like i said a mondeo or an octavia/Superb would do just the same, but the floor plan of those is bigger than most SUVs.
i disagree with you on the damaging nature of "all" suvs. owning a ford Ka or fait 500 as your only family vehicle is just not a viable solution for a lot of people, plus people who live in the sticks needs something a little more capable over tougher terrain or incase of bad weather.
Last edited:
The parking of motorhomes is prohibited in the city center and there are reserved places in the periphery for this kind of vehicle.
For the majority of SUVs, doing the same thing would be a very good, as they disturb the residents and the pedestrians.
Last edited:
In any case, as the director of the International Energy Agency says :
SUVs, very popular urban 4X4, were the second largest source of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions between 2010 and 2018, warned Wednesday the director of the International Energy Agency.
In 2010, 18% of car sales in the world involved SUVs, in 2018 it was more than 40% !
As a result, over the past decade, SUVs have been the second largest source of CO2 emissions growth, after the energy sector, but before heavy industry (steel, cement, etc.). .), heavy goods vehicles or aviation.
More than 200 million SUVs circulate around the world today, compared to 35 million in 2010.
Often heavier and less aerodynamic, these vehicles consume a quarter more energy compared to a medium-sized car, says the report.
SUVs, very popular urban 4X4, were the second largest source of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions between 2010 and 2018, warned Wednesday the director of the International Energy Agency.
In 2010, 18% of car sales in the world involved SUVs, in 2018 it was more than 40% !
As a result, over the past decade, SUVs have been the second largest source of CO2 emissions growth, after the energy sector, but before heavy industry (steel, cement, etc.). .), heavy goods vehicles or aviation.
More than 200 million SUVs circulate around the world today, compared to 35 million in 2010.
Often heavier and less aerodynamic, these vehicles consume a quarter more energy compared to a medium-sized car, says the report.
As you know i am not an environmental unbeliever however just reading the above, the bias is pretty clear. (I am not saying the statistics are wrong, just that they are being presented with an agenda)
1) SUVs are often as not NOT 4x4 (and 2WD vehicles are already way more efficient than 4WD) so should not all be in the same bracket.
you may as well say 2 seater sports cars are terrible and use a 4WB lambo as an example, but lump the MX5 in with it.
2) SUVs may well have an impact because there are so many of them... but imagine we could ban SUVs.... then people would just go and buy something else. Every SUV owner is a potential Skoda superb driver if they were removed from sale..... and yet as i said, the nissan QQ (I use that because it is the car i know) is way more efficient than a huge car. (That said the diesel QQ - the ones from a few years ago - do have issues of their own)
3) yes they are not quite as aerodynamic so i concede this point but then neither is putting a roof box on a normal car, and that is something that far more people would have to do if they were all forced into small vehicles. I suggest aero dynamics, whilst a true point, is actually a tiny issue compared to the drive chain and compared to just having a well made car with a modern efficient engine.
![[VR] optimal_909](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
Honestly I really do not try to convince you. For my sake you can believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters if that makes you happy.
I would suggest though, that you yourself try to maybe be a little bit more critical about your Google searches if you want to use them for arguments aimed at convincing others. Michael Joseph Kelly "is Professor of Solid State Electronics and Nanoscale Science in the Division of Electrical Engineering, University of Cambridge", which according to your previous posts makes him as much of a bona fide climate expert as Cathrine Ingram. In 2019 he "was appointed to the board of the UK’s principal climate science denial campaign group", the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Let me quote:
According to Benny Peiser, director of the GWPF, “We are certainly not taking a critical stance on the basic science of the greenhouse effect or the fact that CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are having an effect on the climate.”
Personally I don't think there is anything that proves that a total extinction of Homo Sapiens is inevitable in this century. I also think that UN's estimate of a population of 12 billion in 2100 is highly unrealistic, especially when another branch of UN recently stated that we will be missing food for billions around 2050. I'm tired of excusing myself because climate deniers point towards an idiot crawling around on top of a plane. That doesn't solve anything, even though it could be considered somewhat sympathetic, considering what we're facing.
On the other hand the economy WILL collapse sooner or later. We WILL see a decline in available energy during this century. People claiming otherwise haven't done the numbers on a global scale. We WILL see a lack of food and skyrocketing food prices in 10-20 years, and this WILL lead to worldwide famines, and we WILL see refugee situations around the world that will dwarf anything we've seen. You can be "cool, calm and collected" about that as much as you want. I don't believe ya
Don't point at me, it's not me who brought a something into the conversation that looks like a 'flying sphagetti monster'.
You can make a point with WILL, but the point is not whether it happens, but how it happens. I think there will be a gradual deterioration of food and energy supply (i.e. gradual price increase), but because of the scale oil just won't disappear one day to another.
The longer the transition will last the better chances we have that a disrupting technology or innovation comes along, that assures the very basic achievements of civilization: roof above our heads, (seasonal) food, reasonable safety and health care, education and access to information remain protected - at least for us living in better parts of the world.
A few comments to that:
I think many people has a feeling that the World will come to an end in a single day, like in a Bruce Willis movie with a giant asteroid. That won't be the case. It will be more of a slow, accelerating descent, with the system cracking more and more, until some sort of collapse. On the other hand people also believe that we can send Willis et al in some sort of nuke rigged spaceship to solve it all. That is the big mistake.
Peak oil is somewhat controversial, but that is primarily because people don't understand the concept, while others try to talk it down due to personal interests. When we started extracting oil the production was zero. When no oil is left some day, the production will be back to zero. To extract oil the production has to be more than zero, meaning that somewhere between start of extraction and running out, there WILL be a peak. It's simple logic. Also note that most oil experts agree that we're around the peak of cheap oil with high EROI. That is still our main energy source on Earth for transportation etc. Even more important to notice is that after the peak, the production WILL fall towards zero.
I'm all for buying time, and I find the idea about giving up fossil energy in the next 10 years highly unrealistic, bordering global scale stupidity. You can't feed the global population without using energy, and we still haven't found a realistic global alternative to oil. I'm 99% sure we will burn oil for many years to come, and it will change the climate. I'm also sure oil will become expensive, because supply won't be able to follow demand. The best way to deal with that would be to use the remaining oil to build an alternative energy supply, while we still have some left. Once that is gone, we're back to the stone age and manual labor.
Finally: You can't build a wall that will be able to keep you "safe" when billions of people want your resources. Anyone who has seen Starship Troopers should know that.
Nothing out of the ordinary, the less climate related your field is (provided you even do research) the more likely you are to deny climate change, I wonder why...
While you are right about an absolute peak, the line between that and the zeroes is full of local highs and lows, hence making it difficult to conclude when we have reached the peak. Several times over the last decades we had the definitive peak, then we didn't.
Equally, once we reach the definitive peak, we can still have periods of relatively easy oil.
I agree with you about putting the remaining reserves to better use, unfortunately oil is still way too cheap. I wish oil became gradually more expensive, as it actually would do away a lot of things I don't like or not interested in*, while having a positive effect of efficiency.
*I think the concept of mass luxury is stupid
I do think that there are several regions in the world that will be surely a good bet long term, Argentina/Patagonia would be my first choice.
I am not making a point of climate denial, just playing the devil's advocate - and the general term 'all scientists' popped up. Also, there was a claim about that essay that is is credible because the author talked to scientists... Gotta love though, that because it's not their field of expertise, their opinion is dismissed - like if any of us would have more authority than they.
Here is a list of scientists who deny climate change, go and have a look, some of them are meteorologists.
The shape of the production vs time curve that I described is a result of taking the derivative of a logistics function (cumulative production vs time), which is S-shaped, leading to a bell shaped derivative. The area under the bell shaped production vs time curve, the "Hubbert curve", also equals the integral and thereby the total size of the reserve.
That is "interesting" if you include a pinch of philosophy of time. The curve won't be complete until it's finished, meaning that we have run out of oil. However, the data we have today can not change in the future. It is much easier to predict reserve sizes from the production vs time data, once the peak has been reached, but if you have an estimate of the reserve size, calculating the theoretical time of the peak is not very complicated. The thing is that for limited resources we know having already peaked, the shape of the curve follows the bell shape surprisingly well.
It seems that the US crude oil production, the one Hubbert correctly predicted to peak in 1970, has risen to almost 1970 levels today, but that is not true. The oil Hubbert spoke about was classic crude oil, whereas the current spike in production is shale oil. Oil is oil, but the EROI of the two types of oil is wildly different. Back when US crude oil production was good, EROI was close to 100:1, meaning that spending one BTU of energy would give you 100 BTUs of oil. With shale oil that number is more like 2:1, and once it reaches 1:1, production is no longer feasible. The reason we see a peak in shale oil production is because oil prices made it economically feasible, but in the long run it's EROI that matters.
If the bell shape proves to be right for Global reserves, I think it is good news as it provides a relatively gentle decline. Do these studies include the Arctic reserves?
Two notes on EROI:
- Interesting, that despite the Saudi attempt to depress oil prices, it is still feasible to produce oil at such low prices (at the very least it indicated that classic oil reserves do take huge profits even at these prices).
- EROI matter less when you can use alternative energy to produce oil. While this sounds controversial, agriculture cannot run on battery powered vehicles (hydrogen, perhaps?), also chemical industry could pay more for the oil.
I do not think there is a bias in this text.
This agency is not an environmental agency, not an anti automaker agency.
It's only the International Energy Agency who is in the best position to talk about that.
----------------------
It is obvious that an SUV is bigger, heavier and consumes more fuel and therefore pollutes more.
In addition, to the thousands of SUVs in a city are invasive, unwelcome in the city center, rot the lives of pedestrians, spoil the architectural beauty of many neighborhoods.
How do the majority of other drivers with normal cars ? They also have kids, shopping in stores and live very well without needing a mini truck.
The main goal of many SUV owners is to be seen (for vanity) by the others people, to have the impression of being important, to be in a position of domination over normal car drivers.
In any case, the disappearance of SUVs would be an excellent thing for the planet, for the quality of life of the people in the cities, for the preservation of the raw materials that are used in the manufacture of these mini trucks.
Last edited:
Good lord man, please show the court where the SUV inappropriately touched you on the doll.
"Rot the lives of pedestrians"? "Spoil the architecture beauty of neighborhoods"?
Im dying right now XD
What else they do? Beating up kids in school for their lunch money?
Listening to that darn "rock n roll" devil music.
Skateboard on public property?
I get why personally you might not like SUVs but please go on ....
- Status