Are EVs the way forward?

[Salty Spuds]

View attachment 289185

Unless I’m missing something, this proves the point succinctly. Wealth = GHG. Ergo as populations create wealth, their emissions will rise. When high population/low wealth countries (India/China/South America/Africa) start to increase net wealth, then GHG will increase exponentially. So the only way to prevent that is to keep them poor. Good luck with that.
On a more “on topic” note, personally I have absolutely nothing against EV’s, in the same way as I have nothing against Vegans or people who wear DryRobes & Crocs But why do EVs & Vegans come with a virtue signalling “I’m saving the planet” badge? Why can’t someone just buy an EV because they want one & it suits their needs? In the same way that someone who chooses not to eat meat is because they don’t want to eat meat. Why does it always have to be wrapped in a passive aggressive judgemental wrapper?
We were early adopters of solar panels, when the FIT scheme was introduced, I looked at the financials & realised it was too good to miss, so here we are 12years down the line & the FIT payment repaid the initial cost after 7 years, the (tax free) income now covers our annual energy (Oil & electricity) bills. Not once in the 12 years or so that we’ve had them have I been arrogant or deluded enough to believe that they are in any way saving the planet, it was entirely a financial decision.

 

[Salty Spuds]

This is all getting far too political for a van forum!!

Oh I dunno. It’s on topic and quite civilised. No one has invoked Godwits law. I think the topic is very relevant to a vehicle forum. The days of diesel are numbered, that goes without saying, it’s what replaces it that’s the point of debate.

 

[Bav]

This is all getting far too political for a van forum!!

A valid topic for discussion and, as far as I can see, no-one has made any direct reference to politics. If you believe otherwise, report the offending post(s) and a mod will review. The mod team are a group of individuals, not a YT algorithm, so each will have their own view and some may disagree with my assessment.

 

[whodat]

There are very very few forums as civilised as this one.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you. (even if i do get banned)

 

[CJW]

Unless I’m missing something, this proves the point succinctly. Wealth = GHG. Ergo as populations create wealth, their emissions will rise. When high population/low wealth countries (India/China/South America/Africa) start to increase net wealth, then GHG will increase exponentially. So the only way to prevent that is to keep them poor. Good luck with that.
On a more “on topic” note, personally I have absolutely nothing against EV’s, in the same way as I have nothing against Vegans or people who wear DryRobes & Crocs But why do EVs & Vegans come with a virtue signalling “I’m saving the planet” badge? Why can’t someone just buy an EV because they want one & it suits their needs? In the same way that someone who chooses not to eat meat is because they don’t want to eat meat. Why does it always have to be wrapped in a passive aggressive judgemental wrapper?
We were early adopters of solar panels, when the FIT scheme was introduced, I looked at the financials & realised it was too good to miss, so here we are 12years down the line & the FIT payment repaid the initial cost after 7 years, the (tax free) income now covers our annual energy (Oil & electricity) bills. Not once in the 12 years or so that we’ve had them have I been arrogant or deluded enough to believe that they are in any way saving the planet, it was entirely a financial decision.

The point is that poor people will suffer the most, so why are we trying to blame poor people for something they haven’t yet done? Poorer parts of the world are more prone to the effects of climate change. Excellent blame shifting from Kisin.

 

[Alster]

Fair enough

 

[Salty Spuds]

The point is that poor people will suffer the most, so why are we trying to blame poor people for something they haven’t yet done? Poorer parts of the world are more prone to the effects of climate change. Excellent blame shifting from Kisin.

But he wasn’t blame shifting at all, quite the contrary. Are you sure you’ve watched it to the end? He was pointing out that poor people have just as much right to wealth as the rest of us, and that it would be wrong for us to try & prevent that. Your figures show that GHG is directly proportional to wealth, this reinforces the points made in the video.

 

[CJW]

But he wasn’t blame shifting at all, quite the contrary. Are you sure you’ve watched it to the end? He was pointing out that poor people have just as much right to wealth as the rest of us, and that it would be wrong for us to try & prevent that. Your figures show that GHG is directly proportional to wealth, this reinforces the points made in the video.

I did watch it.

He says that the rich west doesn’t need to course correct (i.e. accept any blame) because poor people (I hate that phrase) MAY in the future do what we’ve done. It moves the blame from the rich to the poor - from past fact to future hypothesis.

 

[Dundee_Kev]

Why can’t someone just buy an EV because they want one.

I did!

 

[Bav]

But he wasn’t blame shifting at all, quite the contrary. Are you sure you’ve watched it to the end? He was pointing out that poor people have just as much right to wealth as the rest of us, and that it would be wrong for us to try & prevent that. Your figures show that GHG is directly proportional to wealth, this reinforces the points made in the video.

Agreed - he acknowledged and justified the pushback that is currently being expressed by a lot of developing nations.

He says that the rich west doesn’t need to course correct (i.e. accept any blame) because poor people (I hate that phrase) MAY in the future do what we’ve done. It moves the blame from the rich to the poor - from past fact to future hypothesis.

I believe his assertion was that the UK self-harming its economy by dogmatically pursuing decarbonisation would have a negligible to no impact on climate change. A much greater impact would be to maintain a strong UK economy that is able to financially assist developing nations to transition to a low carbon economy and contribute towards the technological innovation required to address the impact and causes of climate change.

 

[Salty Spuds]

I did watch it.

He says that the rich west doesn’t need to course correct (i.e. accept any blame) because poor people (I hate that phrase) MAY in the future do what we’ve done. It moves the blame from the rich to the poor - from past fact to future hypothesis.

That might be your interpretation of the message, but I genuinely think that that isn’t the essence of the message. Which basically is, if you & your family are literally starving to death & living in abject poverty, then climate change (quite rightly) isn’t high on your list of priorities. I doubt very much that the citizens of Gaza/Ukraine/South Sudan are questioning the carbon footprint of the meagre aid that they are receiving, they literally won’t “give a sh1t” and quite rightly so.
I think we’re going to have to agree to differ on our different interpretations of the message.

 

[Kind of Blue]

If sale of oil was not controlled by OPEC then we would not be having this conversation regardless of the merits of warming the planet or not. The West pukes on the fact that Russia is getting rich on oil and cannot be isolated. The West tried to isolate Russia from the oil sale table and failed. I wonder if those recent arms sales in the middle east where another further sweetener towards that ejection. With out the Americans we are too puny to protect our oil supplies or perhaps even or lines of gas phone or electricity exchanges in the North Sea or the Baltic. The West particularly the Europeans are fighting a proxy war in the Ukraine for two reason one our eyes are bigger than our bellies and we , that is governments and advisers covert the mineral wealth of the Ukraine and the other reason is that it would give the West a huge Strategic advantage over their old foe Russia, with which our nations have been at odds with for a couple of hundred years or more. We even have had military over their for a while now.

We have to be very careful about being too stuck on scientific research. Research is paid for it is not neutral . The Earth has been warming since the last ice age which according to some of my books is not yet over. Humans are most probably affecting the speed of warming but it would happen regardless. Perhaps we should beg the gods to stop volcanic eruptions. Every time the weather goes one way or another it is blamed on global warming even though these weather patterns repeat over time just like the Earths tilt the suns precession along its journey affects the weather We should in any case be more careful with our resources and use and be more careful of the pollution that we create.

I do not believe anyone on here was blaming the poor. I am also surprised that those who feel so strongly do not dispose of their polluting vehicles and buy an e car. I believe that their are a few about. In all probability eventually we will be going e that at some point, the pressures that will be made made by EU and UK Governments regardless will make things very difficult and extremely expensive for those who are reluctant to change. Divide and rule. After spending approx £65,000 on or vehicle I am not tempted to jump just yet also because there is nothing on offer that would do for us or even most people living in the sticks. The Government has not offered large sums of money to crush our cars because just selling them would only pass on the problem to someone else When I go out and about I see no e cars until I arrive in towns. I am not anti e car but they are not necessarily pollution free I just do not see why the haste, other than what I outlined above.

 

[Stay Frosty]

Agreed - he acknowledged and justified the pushback that is currently being expressed by a lot of developing nations.


I believe his assertion was that the UK self-harming its economy by dogmatically pursuing decarbonisation would have a negligible to no impact on climate change. A much greater impact would be to maintain a strong UK economy that is able to financially assist developing nations to transition to a low carbon economy and contribute towards the technological innovation required to address the impact and causes of climate change.

How is it that this same Kisin video which has virtually nothing to do with EVs being the way forward leads to such different interpretations let alone the worlds poor benefitting from the worlds rich carrying on burning gas and oil.
Now if we had become a rich carbon free manufacturing economy then that might inspire the worlds poor but then China is already way ahead of us in that department and making our efforts irrelevant.

 

[Bav]

How is it that this same Kisin video which has virtually nothing to do with EVs being the way forward leads to such different interpretations let alone the worlds poor benefitting from the worlds rich poor carrying on burning gas and oil.
Now if we had become a rich carbon free manufacturing economy then that might inspire the worlds poor but then China is already way ahead of us in that department and making our efforts irrelevant.

Afraid I can't justify anyone else's interpretation and I didn't post the vid, but I've amended your interpretation to more accurately reflect my interpretation. (no offence intended - it's just what I believe Kisin was saying).

 

[Lubrown]

Your figures show that GHG is directly proportional to wealth, this reinforces the points made in the video

But the real figures don’t show this. They show the top 1% in terms of wealth globally are responsible for 17% of carbon emissions.
The lower 50% (in terms of wealth) are responsible for just 12% of emissions.

While nobody should want to stop poor people from prospering it would be good if rich people were responsible for far less emissions. Ironically the rich can afford new shiny EVs, their own solar panels etc. And there is much to be said for other measures like home insulation which reduces emissions and saves on energy bills - while improving health due to said emission lowering but more importantly keeping warm.

I think we’re on a pretty good trajectory but the rich do need to be held to account more.
It won’t work if it isn’t fair - something I’ve said all along.

 

[CJW]

Agreed - he acknowledged and justified the pushback that is currently being expressed by a lot of developing nations.


I believe his assertion was that the UK self-harming its economy by dogmatically pursuing decarbonisation would have a negligible to no impact on climate change. A much greater impact would be to maintain a strong UK economy that is able to financially assist developing nations to transition to a low carbon economy and contribute towards the technological innovation required to address the impact and causes of climate change.

What I would have said, though, is use the economic forces of decarbonisation to become leaders in the innovation and production of renewable tech that massively reduces the cost of energy to everybody in all nations. No self harm involved.

 

[CJW]

if you & your family are literally starving to death & living in abject poverty, then climate change (quite rightly) isn’t high on your list of priorities.

But this assumes that fossil fuels are a cheaper form of energy.

 

[Johnod17]

No

 

[CJW]

Which country makes the best solar panels?

 

[Salty Spuds]

Which country makes the best solar panels?

Austria