Thoughts: Lack of oil wont stop increase in motorists

downfader

Controversial idea, I'll admit, but I've been mulling this over for a long while now. Theres a good sized group of cyclists that assume that now we're past peak oil that cars will start to die out on our roads.

I dont think this will happen. For one the oil and car companies have invested too much of their time and money to simply abandon production. Is it just me, or are we going to see alternative fuels really take off in the next 10 years, Renaut for one have been bragging, as have Honda.

I think if we want to address the pollution issues this is fine to a point. If we want to address health and congestion issues it isnt. So the question must now be in the light of this - how do you encourage cycling when the motor industry has moved the goalposts? We have yet to get a sympathetic government that recognises cycling's potential

Eau Rouge

Equally controversial, but why frame this as a "cyclist vs cars" thing at all? The two are no more exclusive than a "lorry vs van debate" if you look at it.
I'm fully aware of their downsides and what could be described as their 'abuse' but on the whole I happen to think private transport in cars as being a very good thing,

Getting more people cycling should be focused on getting more people cycling, not forcing them onto bikes they don't want to be on.

Cars are not the enemy.

downfader

Eau Rouge wrote:

Equally controversial, but why frame this as a "cyclist vs cars" thing at all? The two are no more exclusive than a "lorry vs van debate" if you look at it.
I'm fully aware of their downsides and what could be described as their 'abuse' but on the whole I happen to think private transport in cars as being a very good thing,

Getting more people cycling should be focused on getting more people cycling, not forcing them onto bikes they don't want to be on.

Cars are not the enemy.

I agree with you. Sadly everyone I've ever mentioned the benefits of cycling to seems to go into some insane rant that I'm trying to physically shove a saddle up their a***.

greg66_tri_v2.0

downfader wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Equally controversial, but why frame this as a "cyclist vs cars" thing at all? The two are no more exclusive than a "lorry vs van debate" if you look at it.
I'm fully aware of their downsides and what could be described as their 'abuse' but on the whole I happen to think private transport in cars as being a very good thing,

Getting more people cycling should be focused on getting more people cycling, not forcing them onto bikes they don't want to be on.

Cars are not the enemy.

I agree with you. Sadly everyone I've ever mentioned the benefits of cycling to seems to go into some insane rant that I'm trying to physically shove a saddle up their a***.

Tell me, DF, what, *precisely* are you doing when you start these conversations...? :shock:

downfader

Greg66 wrote:

downfader wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Equally controversial, but why frame this as a "cyclist vs cars" thing at all? The two are no more exclusive than a "lorry vs van debate" if you look at it.
I'm fully aware of their downsides and what could be described as their 'abuse' but on the whole I happen to think private transport in cars as being a very good thing,

Getting more people cycling should be focused on getting more people cycling, not forcing them onto bikes they don't want to be on.

Cars are not the enemy.

I agree with you. Sadly everyone I've ever mentioned the benefits of cycling to seems to go into some insane rant that I'm trying to physically shove a saddle up their a***.

Trying to ride them like a Pinnarello ofcourse!

Tell me, DF, what, *precisely* are you doing when you start these conversations...? :shock:

downfader

I see the mods are on the ball.

Zachariah

It's actually a very sensible position. In fact, the forced weaning from oil could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to cars.

Consider schemes like this taking off. All of a sudden cars become like PCs - a set of customisable components where companies of all sizes compete for attention. Cars could become drastically cheaper, and much more convenient to own. Electric cars are much easier to maintain than oil driven ones, so I've read.

Eau Rouge

Zachariah wrote:

It's actually a very sensible position. In fact, the forced weaning from oil could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to cars.

Consider schemes like this taking off. All of a sudden cars become like PCs - a set of customisable components where companies of all sizes compete for attention. Cars could become drastically cheaper, and much more convenient to own. Electric cars are much easier to maintain than oil driven ones, so I've read.

Most countries Energy Department civil servants (the politico's don't think beyond the next election) are all in a bother about how their country is supposed to produce enough electricty in 20 years time just to meet the current (no pun intended) demand, let alone any increase, yet people want to go about inflicting electric cars and their massive consumption on us? Why?

That scheme is lovely, but the major car manufacturers have been doing broadly the same thing for over 10 years now anyway.

downfader

Eau Rouge wrote:

Zachariah wrote:

It's actually a very sensible position. In fact, the forced weaning from oil could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to cars.

Consider schemes like this taking off. All of a sudden cars become like PCs - a set of customisable components where companies of all sizes compete for attention. Cars could become drastically cheaper, and much more convenient to own. Electric cars are much easier to maintain than oil driven ones, so I've read.

Most countries Energy Department civil servants (the politico's don't think beyond the next election) are all in a bother about how their country is supposed to produce enough electricty in 20 years time just to meet the current (no pun intended) demand, let alone any increase, yet people want to go about inflicting electric cars and their massive consumption on us? Why?

That scheme is lovely, but the major car manufacturers have been doing broadly the same thing for over 10 years now anyway.

I think housing may become more locally powered. Less reliance on the powerstations and individual units of power production from miniture wind turbines, solar cells (the new generation of bio cells might be more efficient) and even some larger properties using geothermal.

Here, Southampton is built on a load of hot stone if you go deep enough.

I quite like the idea of modular cars like that, would need more than one company to work together though. Something like how cassettes and CDs became a standard would need to set off. Cars are already pretty modular so thats just a natural extension

lae

I'm doing a degree in vehicle design, so this is pretty relevant to my interests n stuff.

I'm interested mainly in making personal transport smaller, lighter and simpler, with more use of local materials. I don't know if we're going to see a long-term shift in this direction, but I imagine that in the next 20 or 30 years, most car companies will have a few very low-impact (i.e. small light efficient simple) vehicles (whether they are 'cars' or not) - this will be mainly down to the relative inefficiency of electric cars (i.e. electric motors and batteries are big and heavy compared to a petrol engine of similar power). I think in the longer-term, as electric and fuel-cell vehicles develop more (if hydrogen vehicles ever do develop, as it needs a very complex distribution infrastructure, far more complex than petrol/diesel fuels (and we already have an electric infrastructure in place)) then we might get a shift towards heavier, more powerful and more complex vehicles again.

One thing we can look forward to (if it ever becomes mainstream) is PMT or Personal Mass Transit systems - basically your personal vehicles will form up into automated groups or 'trains', either on normal public or specialised roads, and drive to the general area of the destination before splitting up again. This eases congestion and aids traffic flow - it could also increase efficiency if the vehicles themselves physically link up for aerodynamic advantages. This will be useful for the residents of commuter towns for going into and out of inner city areas - basically it'll be like driving from your house to the train station, then from the train station to your office - except you never actually have to leave your car.

There's probably gonna be a rise in PRT (personal rapid transport) systems in inner city areas too - basically it's just a network of little trams (say 4 or 5 seats) that runs on a comprehensive network of stops (or you could even use your mobile, or wave them down if they have recognition software). It's like an automated taxi system - you press a button, the next available tram turns up, you get in and press your destination and put in some change, and it takes you there. They too could also link up into 'trains' if lots of trams are going the same way.

Here's something I designed recently.

(please note that I'm not an artist - this image explains it better than engineering drawings though!)

It's a recumbent tricycle with a variable wheelbase - it's designed for commuting medium distances and at high speeds (50 mph plus). Basically when it's in an urban area the front wheels move outwards and backwards, and the rear wheel moves down and inwards slightly - this raises the passenger compartment up and tilts it forward to give a high (visible, and better visibility) and stable platform for city driving/cycling - in city mode it's also very compact (a fair bit shorter than a Smart and much narrower). When you get onto a faster road, it lowers itself into the configuration in the picture for more aero and higher top speeds. It's electrically assisted, and built with a spaceframe construction wrapped in photovoltaic fabric to help charge the electrical system. The hubless wheels are there to make it look cool!

downfader

Frink, I often wonder why more isnt done to develop subway systems. Tram based/monorail travel is fine but it needs all kinds of support structures, powering solutiuons. Just seems more logical to stick it underground :?

lae

Probably because it's bloody hard to build a subway when there's a)unsuitable ground conditons or b)loads of buildings already there. They do take up much less room but they're incredibly expensive. More suited to longer distance travelling and efficient moving of lots of people at peak time, than short-distance hops at any time of the day or night (which is what taxis do now, and what PRT might do in the future).

The tram systems in Sheffield and Amsterdam are great.

nwallace

downfader wrote:

I think housing may become more locally powered. Less reliance on the powerstations and individual units of power production from miniture wind turbines, solar cells (the new generation of bio cells might be more efficient) and even some larger properties using geothermal.

Lucky Southampton.

Here the ground is sand, the wind is low, the river is slow flowing, tidal and needs to remain navigable oh and the winter is dark.

On the other hand across the river Michelin are running their Baldovie plant on 2 wind turbines.

There is no hope of maintaining the growth in electrical demand without nuclear.

More incentives are required to make people use less electricity.

Then again this new power line from the western isles to Deny will save us all up here, we can populate the western isles with thousands of wind turbines, the teuchters won't mind provided they are switched off on the sabbath, and we can all charge our cars and run coal to petrol/gas/diesel plants illicitly.

lae

^ nuclear might not be an option, not in the long term at least. And nobody wants to build more nuclear plants that might be running out of fuel soon, they are rather expensive after all.

Fission reactions eat uranium at an incredible rate, about 1/3 more than current uranium mining can produce. Some people estimate that even with processing of waste and using uranium in nuclear weaponry that peak uranium could come in as little as fifteen years. A good thing, though, is that nuclear power may well end nuclear weaponry.

Now you can gather uranium from seawater, but it's very slow and requires a vast amount of input for a small crop of uranium. It's also finite.

I think in the real long-term, I think the only way to go is green. Solar, hydroelectric, tidal, wave, wind etc. That, and greatly decrease our energy usage.

downfader

frinkmakesyouthink wrote:

^ nuclear might not be an option, not in the long term at least. And nobody wants to build more nuclear plants that might be running out of fuel soon, they are rather expensive after all.

Fission reactions eat uranium at an incredible rate, about 1/3 more than current uranium mining can produce. Some people estimate that even with processing of waste and using uranium in nuclear weaponry that peak uranium could come in as little as fifteen years. A good thing, though, is that nuclear power may well end nuclear weaponry.

Now you can gather uranium from seawater, but it's very slow and requires a vast amount of input for a small crop of uranium. It's also finite.

I think in the real long-term, I think the only way to go is green. Solar, hydroelectric, tidal, wave, wind etc. That, and greatly decrease our energy usage.

Fussion keeps getting name dropped as if its a solution too, and that annoys me. Several of the major figures in that field of research say it could be 50-60 years before we figure that little chesnut out.

You mention our energy usuage and this is something I often ponder about. Think of the things we used to do off our own power. Opening cans of beans.. why do many people want to use electric openers (obviously the elderly excepted, etc). And over-engineering of things too. Windows in cars dont always need to be electric if you ask me.

lae

^ yep, precisely! The problem with fission isn't starting the reaction, it's building a box strong enough to contain it. That's what James May said anyway...

Agreed on energy use. Low-beam headlamps in cars don't need to be electric either, you could have chemical ones for city use - and that's with current technology too. Nobody needs electric seats or electric windows or aircon, it's just opulence.

There are a lot of over-designed objects out there too. Here's an example:

Razors - those Gilette Mach9 5-blade things. Not only are they incredibly ugly (suffer from Power Ranger Syndrome aka Technobling) but the blades are ridiculous.
A pack of five blades costs something like £15.
Each disposable blade is made up of NINE components (five blades, a housing, two gel strips and a clip).
Each pack of five blades comes in a plastic holder.
The plastic holder comes in a printed cardboard box.
Cost per blade is about £3, and a lot of manufacturing and packaging. When thrown away, the blades need very careful disassembly for recycling, or, more likely, just sit on a landfill site. You get a new plastic holder with every box, which probably goes straight in the bin as the box you bought also had one... Each model in each brand's lineup needs a different blade, so you have loads of different factories instead of one larger factory (which is easier to make more efficient and saves on materials and product distribution).

Now I have an old 1920s safety razor, which is handsome and long-lasting. It has three parts (handle and two clamps) and the blade has only one component (... the blade...). It comes packaged wrapped in a bit of plain fag paper, and then 25 blades come in a little paper box. There's a factory in England making these, so they don't have to come all the way from Germany or the US. Cost per blade is about 2p, hardly any manufacturing or packaging. As the only waste product is the blade and a bit of fag paper, and these things are separate, it's much easier to recycle.

My razor works better than any multibladed thing that I've ever used. So you get decreased functionality for increased price, production emissions, materials use and more difficult recyclability.

I know a razor is only a little thing, but it's a good example of the everyday products that are bad for the environment that we just don't think about.

Eau Rouge

downfader wrote:

Fussion keeps getting name dropped as if its a solution too, and that annoys me. Several of the major figures in that field of research say it could be 50-60 years before we figure that little chesnut out.

Is that a problem? OK, they have been giving the same estimate for about 20 years now, but 60 years would be fine wouldn't it? We have fossil fuels enough to burn until then.

Headhuunter

Eau Rouge wrote:

downfader wrote:

Fussion keeps getting name dropped as if its a solution too, and that annoys me. Several of the major figures in that field of research say it could be 50-60 years before we figure that little chesnut out.

Is that a problem? OK, they have been giving the same estimate for about 20 years now, but 60 years would be fine wouldn't it? We have fossil fuels enough to burn until then.

Except that if we keep burning fossil fuels at the current rate it will be a problem, most scientists think we'll have passed some kind of climate change tipping point and no matter what we discover in 60 years time, it'll be too late to reverse rises in sea levels, huge reduction in biodiversity etc[/code]

Headhuunter

downfader wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Zachariah wrote:

It's actually a very sensible position. In fact, the forced weaning from oil could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to cars.

Consider schemes like this taking off. All of a sudden cars become like PCs - a set of customisable components where companies of all sizes compete for attention. Cars could become drastically cheaper, and much more convenient to own. Electric cars are much easier to maintain than oil driven ones, so I've read.

Most countries Energy Department civil servants (the politico's don't think beyond the next election) are all in a bother about how their country is supposed to produce enough electricty in 20 years time just to meet the current (no pun intended) demand, let alone any increase, yet people want to go about inflicting electric cars and their massive consumption on us? Why?

That scheme is lovely, but the major car manufacturers have been doing broadly the same thing for over 10 years now anyway.

I think housing may become more locally powered. Less reliance on the powerstations and individual units of power production from miniture wind turbines, solar cells (the new generation of bio cells might be more efficient) and even some larger properties using geothermal.

Here, Southampton is built on a load of hot stone if you go deep enough.

I quite like the idea of modular cars like that, would need more than one company to work together though. Something like how cassettes and CDs became a standard would need to set off. Cars are already pretty modular so thats just a natural extension

Iceland uses a lot of geothermal power and heating. I read somewhere that central heating is more or less free in Iceland due to the proximity of geothermal energy to the surface there. I also heard that until a couple of decades ago, Iceland was one of the world's largest exporters of bananas which were grown in huge greenhouses heated geothermically, which basically incurred very little cost.

Eau Rouge

Headhuunter wrote:

Except that if we keep burning fossil fuels at the current rate it will be a problem, most scientists think we'll have passed some kind of climate change tipping point and no matter what we discover in 60 years time, it'll be too late to reverse rises in sea levels, huge reduction in biodiversity etc[/code]

The "we can stop it all happening" arguement again, something for which I have never seen any firm basis. It's happening, we can't stop it, trying to is pointless, we may as well make the most of it and adapt to the still-very-liveable planet we'll be left with.

Headhuunter

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Except that if we keep burning fossil fuels at the current rate it will be a problem, most scientists think we'll have passed some kind of climate change tipping point and no matter what we discover in 60 years time, it'll be too late to reverse rises in sea levels, huge reduction in biodiversity etc[/code]

The "we can stop it all happening" arguement again, something for which I have never seen any firm basis. It's happening, we can't stop it, trying to is pointless, we may as well make the most of it and adapt to the still-very-liveable planet we'll be left with.

On what basis do you assume we CAN'T stop it? Most scientists seem to agree now that climate change is caused by humankind, therefore if we stop what we're doing, why shuoldn't climate change at least halt, if not go into reverse at some point?

Bikerbaboon

or as crazy crazy as it all sounds we just need less people.
Over the next 50 years cut world population by 2/3 and humanity is sustainable again.
If you have a heard of cattle eating grass in one paddock and the grass is getting eaten faster than it can grow you need a bigger paddock or les cows.... I cant see the earth growing TBH.

bails87

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Except that if we keep burning fossil fuels at the current rate it will be a problem, most scientists think we'll have passed some kind of climate change tipping point and no matter what we discover in 60 years time, it'll be too late to reverse rises in sea levels, huge reduction in biodiversity etc[/code]

The "we can stop it all happening" arguement again, something for which I have never seen any firm basis. It's happening, we can't stop it, trying to is pointless, we may as well make the most of it and adapt to the still-very-liveable planet we'll be left with.

Good God man, have you not seen The Day After Tomorrow?!

Headhuunter

Bikerbaboon wrote:

or as crazy crazy as it all sounds we just need less people.
Over the next 50 years cut world population by 2/3 and humanity is sustainable again.
If you have a heard of cattle eating grass in one paddock and the grass is getting eaten faster than it can grow you need a bigger paddock or les cows.... I cant see the earth growing TBH.

This is the hard truth. I watched a programme last week about farming methods in the US. One farmer was eulogising over genetically modified crops, his argument was that to feed the world's billions, going with genetic modification was a duty of conscience.

Here's another view. How about not going with gentically modified crops which will likely annihilate many species of insect and bird and reduce bio diversity in the plant world irrevocably changing the natural environment and instead spend some time educating people on use of contraception so they don't breed any more people than our planet can actually sustain?

IMO humankind is increasingly a virus sapping every last drop of blood from the planet at the cost of everything else.

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

Bikerbaboon wrote:

or as crazy crazy as it all sounds we just need less people.
Over the next 50 years cut world population by 2/3 and humanity is sustainable again.
If you have a heard of cattle eating grass in one paddock and the grass is getting eaten faster than it can grow you need a bigger paddock or les cows.... I cant see the earth growing TBH.

This is the hard truth. I watched a programme last week about farming methods in the US. One farmer was eulogising over genetically modified crops, his argument was that to feed the world's billions, going with genetic modification was a duty of conscience.

Here's another view. How about not going with gentically modified crops which will likely annihilate many species of insect and bird and reduce bio diversity in the plant world irrevocably changing the natural environment and instead spend some time educating people on use of contraception so they don't breed any more people than our planet can actually sustain?

IMO humankind is increasingly a virus sapping every last drop of blood from the planet at the cost of everything else.

Sorry - explain to me why GMO's will cause annihilation. I'm intrigued.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Headhuunter wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Except that if we keep burning fossil fuels at the current rate it will be a problem, most scientists think we'll have passed some kind of climate change tipping point and no matter what we discover in 60 years time, it'll be too late to reverse rises in sea levels, huge reduction in biodiversity etc[/code]

The "we can stop it all happening" arguement again, something for which I have never seen any firm basis. It's happening, we can't stop it, trying to is pointless, we may as well make the most of it and adapt to the still-very-liveable planet we'll be left with.

On what basis do you assume we CAN'T stop it? Most scientists seem to agree now that climate change is caused by humankind, therefore if we stop what we're doing, why shuoldn't climate change at least halt, if not go into reverse at some point?

Leave aside what's causing CC. Assume the earth is warming.

What if we could carry on doing exactly what we're doing, but do something additional that would cool the atmosphere. Happy then?


All that aside - limiting the biggest greenhouse gas - water vapour - is rather tricky, I'd've thought.

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Bikerbaboon wrote:

or as crazy crazy as it all sounds we just need less people.
Over the next 50 years cut world population by 2/3 and humanity is sustainable again.
If you have a heard of cattle eating grass in one paddock and the grass is getting eaten faster than it can grow you need a bigger paddock or les cows.... I cant see the earth growing TBH.

This is the hard truth. I watched a programme last week about farming methods in the US. One farmer was eulogising over genetically modified crops, his argument was that to feed the world's billions, going with genetic modification was a duty of conscience.

Here's another view. How about not going with gentically modified crops which will likely annihilate many species of insect and bird and reduce bio diversity in the plant world irrevocably changing the natural environment and instead spend some time educating people on use of contraception so they don't breed any more people than our planet can actually sustain?

IMO humankind is increasingly a virus sapping every last drop of blood from the planet at the cost of everything else.

Sorry - explain to me why GMO's will cause annihilation. I'm intrigued.

Well no one knows for sure what will occur, but inserting genes which act as pesticides and herbicides into crops are going to reduce even further natures ability to exist side by side with farming.

We will increasingly end up with hectare upon hectare of sterility, where nothing but crops, immune and impervious to insects and able to grow taller and stronger and suck more out of the soil than any other plant. What happens when these man made crops begin to spread outside fields and take space in unfarmed, natural land at the expense of natural species still at the mercy of the natural world and unable to fight off infection and predators like insects. Inevitably the new crops will simply take over, they will have no natural predators.

What happens when species of plant close to said genetically modified crops cross pollinate and these genes inserted by man start to spread to other species of plant? What happens to insect life which relies on plants which are later pushed out of the natural environment by "super crops"? What happens to further species of insect whose only food cross pollinates with a super crop and is no longer edible to it? What happens to birdlife and small mammals that live off the insects and on and on up the food chain?

Basically there are too many questions that remain unanswered and once we release this technology into the environment, that's it. There's no taking it back.

Headhuunter

Greg66 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Except that if we keep burning fossil fuels at the current rate it will be a problem, most scientists think we'll have passed some kind of climate change tipping point and no matter what we discover in 60 years time, it'll be too late to reverse rises in sea levels, huge reduction in biodiversity etc[/code]

The "we can stop it all happening" arguement again, something for which I have never seen any firm basis. It's happening, we can't stop it, trying to is pointless, we may as well make the most of it and adapt to the still-very-liveable planet we'll be left with.

On what basis do you assume we CAN'T stop it? Most scientists seem to agree now that climate change is caused by humankind, therefore if we stop what we're doing, why shuoldn't climate change at least halt, if not go into reverse at some point?

Leave aside what's causing CC. Assume the earth is warming.

What if we could carry on doing exactly what we're doing, but do something additional that would cool the atmosphere. Happy then?


All that aside - limiting the biggest greenhouse gas - water vapour - is rather tricky, I'd've thought.

If CC and warming were a natural process, then fine. But all indicators are that it isn't. Climate change and warming is happening at a far faster pace now than it has every happened in the billions of years this planet has existed (as far as our records go back of course).

No I'm not really happy that we carry on heating the earth but do something else to cool it (what exactly? Big air conditioners??!). I'm sure we would probably cock up the balance between articifially heating and cooling. It would surely be tremendously difficult to measure and implement, something which nature carries out to perfection if left to its own devices.

Why not take what is likely to be the easiest route (the other being potential destruction of our own race and many other species on earth) and try to learn to live within nature's boundaries and on its finite resources?

Eau Rouge

Headhuunter wrote:

On what basis do you assume we CAN'T stop it? Most scientists seem to agree now that climate change is caused by humankind, therefore if we stop what we're doing, why shuoldn't climate change at least halt, if not go into reverse at some point?

How Global Warming works is why it can't be stopped.
We need CO2 in the atmosphere to make the planey habitable, at least, to the species that have evolved to live on it now. The CO2 traps reflected sunlight from the Earth, and so reduces the amount of reflected sunlight vented off into space, the more CO2 the more this happens and so the warmer the planet gets. Humans didn't put all the CO2 in the atmosphere, the vast majority of it is there by natural processes. Human involvement has been to increase the levels a bit and that naturally means warming.

As long as the CO2 levels are higher than they have been, the planet will warm. Reducung how much CO2 humans put out will not reduce the level of CO2 already there, it just makes it go up a little bit slower. The natural planet does not have the ability to reduce the levels of CO2. Even if humans stopped all CO2 production, temperature would still rise as the CO2 is already there and there is no way to reduce levels that we know of.

All the "save the planet" stuff doesn't remove CO2 from the atmosphere, just reduces how much extra we put in, but the natural world and humans together are still putting more in than the natural world can take back out. I believe there is evidence that even without human involvement the natural world is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than it can take back out anyway.

Of itself this isn't a dead-planet problem. It gets a bit warmer, the weather gets a bit stormier and thats almost it. The global threat sized problem is the ice sitting on land masses and what happens when it melts. Sea levels rise and submerge a bit of land, on a global scale not really that much, it just happens humans like to live by the sea.

Bottom line, the planet isn't dieing and there is nothing you can actually do to save it.

Headhuunter

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

On what basis do you assume we CAN'T stop it? Most scientists seem to agree now that climate change is caused by humankind, therefore if we stop what we're doing, why shuoldn't climate change at least halt, if not go into reverse at some point?

How Global Warming works is why it can't be stopped.
We need CO2 in the atmosphere to make the planey habitable, at least, to the species that have evolved to live on it now. The CO2 traps reflected sunlight from the Earth, and so reduces the amount of reflected sunlight vented off into space, the more CO2 the more this happens and so the warmer the planet gets. Humans didn't put all the CO2 in the atmosphere, the vast majority of it is there by natural processes. Human involvement has been to increase the levels a bit and that naturally means warming.

As long as the CO2 levels are higher than they have been, the planet will warm. Reducung how much CO2 humans put out will not reduce the level of CO2 already there, it just makes it go up a little bit slower. The natural planet does not have the ability to reduce the levels of CO2. Even if humans stopped all CO2 production, temperature would still rise as the CO2 is already there and there is no way to reduce levels that we know of.

All the "save the planet" stuff doesn't remove CO2 from the atmosphere, just reduces how much extra we put in, but the natural world and humans together are still putting more in than the natural world can take back out. I believe there is evidence that even without human involvement the natural world is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than it can take back out anyway.

Of itself this isn't a dead-planet problem. It gets a bit warmer, the weather gets a bit stormier and thats almost it. The global threat sized problem is the ice sitting on land masses and what happens when it melts. Sea levels rise and submerge a bit of land, on a global scale not really that much, it just happens humans like to live by the sea.

Bottom line, the planet isn't dieing and there is nothing you can actually do to save it.

Rubbish! Plants and trees absorb CO2 and trapthe carbon. As does the sea and large volumes of water and ice (this is happening increasingly and causing acidification of the oceans, destroying life there too). Humankind is fast releasing CO2 trapped over the millennia through burning fossil fuels. As the globe heats up and the polar ice caps and other masses of ice melt, even more carbon is released into the environment.

Your last comment must be the master of understatement - "it gets a bit warmer, the weather gets a bit stormier"!!!! Try telling that to people in Africa under threat from increasing desertification, or on the Indian subcontinent where flooding has destroyed crops, homes and lives! People are actually dying in their millions and this is just the tip of the iceberg! Even closer to home, places like Boscastle have been nearly destroyed and insurance bills have rocketed due to weather related claims...

W1

Eau Rouge wrote:

Equally controversial, but why frame this as a "cyclist vs cars" thing at all? The two are no more exclusive than a "lorry vs van debate" if you look at it.
I'm fully aware of their downsides and what could be described as their 'abuse' but on the whole I happen to think private transport in cars as being a very good thing,

Getting more people cycling should be focused on getting more people cycling, not forcing them onto bikes they don't want to be on.

Cars are not the enemy.

Very good point. Just because someone is a cyclist, it's assumed that they're anti cars! I'm much more of a "car" person than a "bike" person, if I had to pick. But I don't understand why the two are so often considered to be mutually exclusive...

Biking to work has nothing to do with cars (and nor, in my case, any environmental reason either).