| To save the planet... 16:16 - Jun 15 with 1449 views | SullutaCreturned |
How can people claim that the push for EV is saving the planet when the mining is killing off habitats, destroying the diversity of life and causing pollution, to save the planet, we desrtroy the environment? Seems totally absurd and crazy to me.
bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k36v50zvro
|  | | |  |
| To save the planet... on 16:21 - Jun 15 with 1430 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
Can anyone find a full environmental or fully absorbed CO2 cost benefit analysis for scrapping a small petrol car and buying a new EV? |  |
| |
| To save the planet... on 16:27 - Jun 15 with 1422 views | SullutaCreturned |
| To save the planet... on 16:21 - Jun 15 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Can anyone find a full environmental or fully absorbed CO2 cost benefit analysis for scrapping a small petrol car and buying a new EV? |
newscientist.com/lastword/mg26234941-400-is-it-greener-to-keep-my-petrol-car-or-scrap-it-for-an-electric-one/ | | | |
| To save the planet... on 17:14 - Jun 15 with 1396 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| To save the planet... on 16:27 - Jun 15 by SullutaCreturned |
newscientist.com/lastword/mg26234941-400-is-it-greener-to-keep-my-petrol-car-or-scrap-it-for-an-electric-one/ |
Thanks for posting, different opinions!
Most of the cost benefit cases I've seen take into consideration the CO2 for manufacture and operation of cars but not the full impact; rare earth metal extraction, SO2 production in making batteries, plastic pollution etc. and the environmental impact of scrapping a car.
There is an MIT study that suggests if you are using fossil fuels to generate electricity a hybrid car may be more friendly to the environment than an EV. But there is no definitive study that I can find, lots of studies from organisations with an agenda. [Post edited 15 Jun 17:21]
| |
| |
| To save the planet... on 19:49 - Jun 15 with 1332 views | SullutaCreturned |
| To save the planet... on 17:14 - Jun 15 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Thanks for posting, different opinions!
Most of the cost benefit cases I've seen take into consideration the CO2 for manufacture and operation of cars but not the full impact; rare earth metal extraction, SO2 production in making batteries, plastic pollution etc. and the environmental impact of scrapping a car.
There is an MIT study that suggests if you are using fossil fuels to generate electricity a hybrid car may be more friendly to the environment than an EV. But there is no definitive study that I can find, lots of studies from organisations with an agenda. [Post edited 15 Jun 17:21]
|
I think that there is more self interest from the companies making the Ev's than there is a benefit for the planet.
The mining they do, the extraction of rare elements needed is itself polluting and destructive to environs.
I think we are being lied to because of that self interest
Look at the Scottish wind farms, last year we paid them 500 million to NOT produce electricity. it's nonsense and it's costing the tax payer billions. | | | |
| To save the planet... on 19:53 - Jun 15 with 1327 views | Whiterockin |
No point in saving the planet if we are going to blow it to smithereens and leave it as a wasteland. |  | | |
| To save the planet... on 20:07 - Jun 15 with 1294 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| To save the planet... on 19:53 - Jun 15 by Whiterockin |
No point in saving the planet if we are going to blow it to smithereens and leave it as a wasteland. |
The median global income is about 3,000 dollars a year, most people on the World have no choice about what they burn to cook or stay warm. | |
| |
| To save the planet... on 20:08 - Jun 15 with 1288 views | Scotia |
| To save the planet... on 19:49 - Jun 15 by SullutaCreturned |
I think that there is more self interest from the companies making the Ev's than there is a benefit for the planet.
The mining they do, the extraction of rare elements needed is itself polluting and destructive to environs.
I think we are being lied to because of that self interest
Look at the Scottish wind farms, last year we paid them 500 million to NOT produce electricity. it's nonsense and it's costing the tax payer billions. |
The overarching problem is climate change. If we carry on the way we are, we're going to destroy the planet and create the largest mass extinction event ever, we already are. The extraction of minerals and pollution makes no difference in that scenario really the ecosystems impacted will be destroyed anyway.
As I've said before, I think we're passing the point of no return, and with China, India, USA etc carrying on the way we are there's not much we can do about it. | | | |
| To save the planet... on 20:15 - Jun 15 with 1282 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| To save the planet... on 20:08 - Jun 15 by Scotia |
The overarching problem is climate change. If we carry on the way we are, we're going to destroy the planet and create the largest mass extinction event ever, we already are. The extraction of minerals and pollution makes no difference in that scenario really the ecosystems impacted will be destroyed anyway.
As I've said before, I think we're passing the point of no return, and with China, India, USA etc carrying on the way we are there's not much we can do about it. |
Only 18 percent of the World's population can afford a car. As I said in my post above the median income in the World is 3,000 dollars. The vast majority of people have no real choice how they live and as you say countries like the US, India ,Russia, Brazil and China are just carrying on.
The rapid decline in insect populations indicates that many of the World's ecosystems are on the brink. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| To save the planet... on 15:54 - Jun 16 with 1163 views | SullutaCreturned |
| To save the planet... on 20:08 - Jun 15 by Scotia |
The overarching problem is climate change. If we carry on the way we are, we're going to destroy the planet and create the largest mass extinction event ever, we already are. The extraction of minerals and pollution makes no difference in that scenario really the ecosystems impacted will be destroyed anyway.
As I've said before, I think we're passing the point of no return, and with China, India, USA etc carrying on the way we are there's not much we can do about it. |
Hang on, scientists agree that if we keep killing off insects with pollution, pesticides and polluting fertilisers, that won't matter?
If we kill off bees, that won't matter? Pesticides, without bees didn't the sciemtists say we'd have 5 years.
If we kill off sea life, will that matter? There are expanding dead zones because of farming run off.
What about the Trifluoroacetic acid found in 98% of rivers that ends up on the water we drink? german scientists say it is affecting human fertility. Will that matter.
The human race has already killed itself, dead species walking we just don't know it yet. You're right Scotia, we are passed the point... | | | |
| To save the planet... on 20:06 - Jun 16 with 1064 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
The simple answer to EV cars is to get people out of cars into pubic electrified transport delivered by cables.
Trams trains and buses. In the cities it is easy. That is where most people live. The development of food delivery has been astonishing in the last 10 years with push bikes scooters and Motorbike s.
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live
Coal miners and Oil men especially offshore behave like cowboys and cut an run as seen at Merthyr with administrations either out of their depth or bribed. There are no funds to do reclamation at Maethyr due to inadequate project management supervision and lack of will.
"The good old days of coal and oil were an environmental disaster. I presume lithium and batteries can be recycled.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Millions-of-Orphan-Oil-Wells-Are-a-Ti
The "what is the point?" argument is defeatist. We have to start sometime and somewhere . That is the UK EU and the time is now.
[Post edited 16 Jun 20:19]
|  |
| |
| To save the planet... on 20:22 - Jun 16 with 1037 views | Ray_Delauney |
Read "Material World" by Ed Conway.
Absolutely brilliant. | | | |
| To save the planet... on 20:46 - Jun 16 with 1010 views | SullutaCreturned |
| To save the planet... on 20:06 - Jun 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The simple answer to EV cars is to get people out of cars into pubic electrified transport delivered by cables.
Trams trains and buses. In the cities it is easy. That is where most people live. The development of food delivery has been astonishing in the last 10 years with push bikes scooters and Motorbike s.
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live
Coal miners and Oil men especially offshore behave like cowboys and cut an run as seen at Merthyr with administrations either out of their depth or bribed. There are no funds to do reclamation at Maethyr due to inadequate project management supervision and lack of will.
"The good old days of coal and oil were an environmental disaster. I presume lithium and batteries can be recycled.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Millions-of-Orphan-Oil-Wells-Are-a-Ti
The "what is the point?" argument is defeatist. We have to start sometime and somewhere . That is the UK EU and the time is now.
[Post edited 16 Jun 20:19]
|
Defeatist or realist? What the UK does makes absolutely no difference to anything besides pushing our own prices up and making corporate goons even richer.
Until China, India, the USA and Russia go eco friendly, what the rest of the world does really doesn't matter.
China alone emits one third of the worlds CO2,. Add in those other 3 countries and it's 54% of CO2 coming from 4 countries.
The UK emits 0.88% if we went net zero tomorrow it would make about as much difference as me spitting on a forest fire. | | | |
| To save the planet... on 10:03 - Jun 17 with 893 views | mangohilljack |
| To save the planet... on 20:08 - Jun 15 by Scotia |
The overarching problem is climate change. If we carry on the way we are, we're going to destroy the planet and create the largest mass extinction event ever, we already are. The extraction of minerals and pollution makes no difference in that scenario really the ecosystems impacted will be destroyed anyway.
As I've said before, I think we're passing the point of no return, and with China, India, USA etc carrying on the way we are there's not much we can do about it. |
Climate change  | | | |
| To save the planet... on 10:21 - Jun 17 with 899 views | Vincent_Vega |
I did a little it of calculation and the UK has produced between 76-140 billion tonnes of C02 since 1750. 76 if you count the British isles, 140 if you include the colonial territories that the UK had during that period.
If the C02 timer started right now China would produce more C02 than 140billion by 2036
we aren't killing the planet [Post edited 17 Jun 10:26]
|  |
| Boycott Shampoo......Demand Real Poo!!! |
| |
| To save the planet... on 15:46 - Jun 18 with 749 views | Scotia |
| To save the planet... on 20:22 - Jun 16 by Ray_Delauney |
Read "Material World" by Ed Conway.
Absolutely brilliant. |
I haven't read that but another very good read is "a life on our planet" by Dai Attenborugh. It was a film on Netflix too. | | | |
| To save the planet... on 15:52 - Jun 18 with 738 views | Scotia |
| To save the planet... on 15:54 - Jun 16 by SullutaCreturned |
Hang on, scientists agree that if we keep killing off insects with pollution, pesticides and polluting fertilisers, that won't matter?
If we kill off bees, that won't matter? Pesticides, without bees didn't the sciemtists say we'd have 5 years.
If we kill off sea life, will that matter? There are expanding dead zones because of farming run off.
What about the Trifluoroacetic acid found in 98% of rivers that ends up on the water we drink? german scientists say it is affecting human fertility. Will that matter.
The human race has already killed itself, dead species walking we just don't know it yet. You're right Scotia, we are passed the point... |
It won't matter in the grand scheme of things becasue most will die anyway because the world will be too warm for them to live on. The overarching issue is climate change, get that sorted and we can worry about everying else.
Some things like habitat destruction directly impact both climate change and other life we depend on - such as bees, so I wouldn't say they don't matter but it's papering over a very large crack. If bees are made extinct they can't pollinate so we can't grow things (without human pollination), but we won't be able to grow things on a dead planet anyway.
Microplastics is another case in point, a major problem but incredibly importatnt to deal with because of the worseining impact micrplastic pollution has on climate change. | | | |
| To save the planet... on 16:06 - Jun 18 with 713 views | SullutaCreturned |
| To save the planet... on 15:52 - Jun 18 by Scotia |
It won't matter in the grand scheme of things becasue most will die anyway because the world will be too warm for them to live on. The overarching issue is climate change, get that sorted and we can worry about everying else.
Some things like habitat destruction directly impact both climate change and other life we depend on - such as bees, so I wouldn't say they don't matter but it's papering over a very large crack. If bees are made extinct they can't pollinate so we can't grow things (without human pollination), but we won't be able to grow things on a dead planet anyway.
Microplastics is another case in point, a major problem but incredibly importatnt to deal with because of the worseining impact micrplastic pollution has on climate change. |
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal maximum (PETM) 56 millions years ago, a rapid warming of 5-8C in a few thousand years
Cretaceous Hothouse 100 million
Neo-Proterozoic 700 million
These 3 time periods were significantly warmer than today
There's evidence suggesting that temperatures were about 1°C to 2°C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago.
The planet survived. it's us humans that need to be extinct, the planet is better off without us, even when it is much warmer.
On the other hand, at the rate we are destroying ecosystems a lot of plants an animals will be extinct before it gets that hot. Eutrophication is damaging the seas ecosystem, kill the seas and all that CO2 goes where? | | | |
| To save the planet... on 16:15 - Jun 18 with 705 views | Scotia |
| To save the planet... on 16:06 - Jun 18 by SullutaCreturned |
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal maximum (PETM) 56 millions years ago, a rapid warming of 5-8C in a few thousand years
Cretaceous Hothouse 100 million
Neo-Proterozoic 700 million
These 3 time periods were significantly warmer than today
There's evidence suggesting that temperatures were about 1°C to 2°C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago.
The planet survived. it's us humans that need to be extinct, the planet is better off without us, even when it is much warmer.
On the other hand, at the rate we are destroying ecosystems a lot of plants an animals will be extinct before it gets that hot. Eutrophication is damaging the seas ecosystem, kill the seas and all that CO2 goes where? |
The PETM is a good example of where we could end up as a best case scenario.
A rapid warming (but not as rapid as today) caused by a massive release of greenhouse gases (but not as much as we're releasing) associated with a mass extinction.
The planet will survive and probably a few million humans and other species. But not much else though. | | | |
| To save the planet... on 16:26 - Jun 18 with 689 views | SullutaCreturned |
| To save the planet... on 16:15 - Jun 18 by Scotia |
The PETM is a good example of where we could end up as a best case scenario.
A rapid warming (but not as rapid as today) caused by a massive release of greenhouse gases (but not as much as we're releasing) associated with a mass extinction.
The planet will survive and probably a few million humans and other species. But not much else though. |
The big difference in the PETM is that there's weren't humans around destroying all the ecosystems though.
I would say both things are equally important as we also need to ecosystems to be healthy to help absord CO2, we need plant and animal diversity to thrive to help keep the world in balance. | | | |
| To save the planet... on 22:42 - Jun 19 with 601 views | Kilkennyjack |
Port talbot is new green Windy City …… 💚🫡 |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| To save the planet... on 01:01 - Jun 20 with 580 views | Robbie |
Oil is the biggest asset and bargaining tool in all the Super Countries worldwide .
Middle East including Saudi exist on their oilfield revenue , will they yield , I doubt very much .
Maybe ask China and India to go less on the oil imports from Russia we might have a level playing field .
Electric / Hybrid cars , tele adverts make them look so amazing though . | | | |
| To save the planet... on 06:54 - Jun 20 with 555 views | Scotia |
| To save the planet... on 22:42 - Jun 19 by Kilkennyjack |
Port talbot is new green Windy City …… 💚🫡 |
Unless Reform get elected. I understand they're leading the polls in Port Talbot. | | | |
| To save the planet... on 09:01 - Jun 20 with 512 views | raynor94 |
| To save the planet... on 22:42 - Jun 19 by Kilkennyjack |
Port talbot is new green Windy City …… 💚🫡 |
Thankfully the Crown Estate isn't devolved to Wales or this wouldn't be happening |  |
| |
| To save the planet... on 21:26 - Jun 20 with 417 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| To save the planet... on 09:01 - Jun 20 by raynor94 |
Thankfully the Crown Estate isn't devolved to Wales or this wouldn't be happening |
It is reported 25% of Crown estate income goes directly to King Charles personally. I am not surprised you do not want to see this money going to Wales. I do not know how much it is exactly but it no doubts runs into tens of millions each year.
Reform want to re open the pits and make Port Talbot a plant for raw steel again. Do people really believe this nonsense.?They are still waiting for the re birth of the NHS with the returned Euro moneys and all those US and Indian jobs.
Bridgend had even of a worse judgement selecting Jamie Wallace or whatever he is called now for their MP. | |
| |
| To save the planet... on 22:57 - Jun 20 with 407 views | Boundy |
| To save the planet... on 10:21 - Jun 17 by Vincent_Vega |
I did a little it of calculation and the UK has produced between 76-140 billion tonnes of C02 since 1750. 76 if you count the British isles, 140 if you include the colonial territories that the UK had during that period.
If the C02 timer started right now China would produce more C02 than 140billion by 2036
we aren't killing the planet [Post edited 17 Jun 10:26]
|
Overall green generation , trees plants etc has grown by 17%, trees love CO2 why can't we | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
