Climate change policy

[Terry - Somerset]

Well you can do anything with stats. From what I've read the average new price of an EV is still around £45k so a majority will be subject to the new budget luxury tax while ICE comes in around £10k less. Average new EV prices would be even higher if it wasn't for current subsidies and discounting as they aren't selling as well as predicted.
Yes s/h supplies are and will continue to increase but concerns about battery life aren't going away any time soon and it's unlikely EVs will ever last as long as ICE as costs of new batteries outweigh the value of the car. Hopefully future developments will change that but it's just speculation at the minute.

Entirely capable EVs are available new from ~£25k (list price). Current discounts can reduce this to ~£20k. Some basic city cars from ~£15k. They don't match an ICE luxo barge for comfort but are an acceptable way to get from A to B in reasonable comfort and speed.

Battery life concerns are largely unwarranted. Average degradation is ~2% pa and most are warranted for a minimum level of performance for 8 years. The life of an ICE is probably little better - may even be worse given the engineering complexity and number of moving parts,

Not as simple as that, having electricity and being able to use it for an EV isn't always possible
There are a multitude of streets of terraced houses with no off street parking and many can't even park near their own house let alone outside it. My son is one, lovely old Victorian terrace house but often has to park in the next street. My daughter in law, a nurse has a leased EV and has to charge in the town car park if she can't get in at work. She often has to travel on call at odd hours so car has to be kept charged and it's doubtful if her next car will be an EV.

Currently 50-60% of properties have the capacity to charge off road. Those unable can buy new ICE for the next decade and run it for a further 10-15 years. It makes sense to start the journey towards emissions free motoring, not wait for the technology to solve all the problems first.

Rubbish. Pensioners who live in rural areas with poor public transport have little choice and the area I live is a prime example.
Just out of interest there are 7 million over 65s who hold a driving licence, that's 20% of full UK licence holders apparently, out of which 4m are over 70 and more than1m over 80. Apparently 32% of over 65s own a car which represents the largest ownership age group.

Accepting the basic propositions that (a) ICE will be feasible for the next 25 years, and (b) there is likely to be little difference between the costs of ICE and EV, the impact on pensioners is a complete irrelevancy.

Those who can afford cars now will continue to enjoy the benefits. Driverless vehicles and/or better public transport is the solution to the problems of car free rural pensioners.

Agreed. I'm not anti EV surprisingly and I'd buy one if the numbers stacked up which they don't for me at the minute. If I was changing my car tomorrow it would be the petrol version of what I currently drive but I have no doubt that I will at some stage have an EV or perhaps an alternative if they develop one.

I have just changed my car and bought petrol. For me the risks associated with EV are individually small (and possibly inconsequential) but taken together represent a material difference.

• range - we frequently drive 250 miles in a day trip to see relatives and friends. EV likely means recharging to avoid anxiety
• we travel down to southern Spain each winter and sometimes drive. With the exception of premium EV range, recharging would be a constraint
• battery technology is still evolving rapidly - any purchase today may be obsolete in 2 years
• running cost savings estimated at £25-50 per month - useful but hardly critical

Were I changing car in (say) two years time I suspect my decision would have been different. By contrast I know that ICE is proven tech and will comfortably run for the next 5 years or so before I change again.

 

[Jacob]

Climate change threads tend to end up talking about cars - not about saving the planet more about saving the motor industry.
Have you seen the photos of piles of wrecked cars in flooded Spanish towns? Should be welcomed - nature doing the work which we should have started 75 or more years ago.
It'll be our turn soon enough, one way or another.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...EAHbUuKN8Q0pQJegQIFBAB&biw=1258&bih=654&dpr=2
The brief era of the private car is coming to a rapid end, along with a lot of other things.

 

[ey_tony]

It's all well and good for those virtue signalers who can afford electric vehicles with their higher incomes living in their suburban semi or detached homes but millions of people aren't in that position so as already mentioned, EVs are virtually impractical in such as traditional inner city and town housing layouts.
I live in a rural market town where the original narrow terraced streets would virtually preclude half of the town folk from owning EVs due to impracticalities and infrastructure required just to keep their vehicles drivable.

Likewise millions of pensioners rely heavily upon their aging ICE cars especially in rural locations to keep their independence for as long as possible to stave off the effects of aging. They mostly drive older/aging vehicles and struggle to afford them and many just don't have £20K, 30k 40K disposable income to purchase an EV.
How many of those who are advocating the wonders of the EV actually went out and paid outright for the EV they drive? If they have a a good wage coming into the household then they might just have done so but the vast majority of people buy their cars on credit or lease.

It's also worth noting that retired people are most unlikely to take out loans to pay for vehicles unlike I strongly suspect many of the protagonists of EVs. If they want to get up to their eyes in loans then do so but don't expect others to follow a buy now pay later approach to life.
Older people tend to live within their means and not live off credit as they don't have the income to service large loans.

Public transport in most rural areas is dire. If people can't afford their own transport they they are more likely to have to re-locate to areas with better services so where is the extra infrastructure that will be needed to cope with the effects of switching to EV's going to come from?

Unless batteries for EV's drop by a factor of 10 very few of the poorest or retired will be able to afford an older EV say 8-10 years old due to the fear of purchasing a vehicle which needs a new battery.
Just as with the age of an ICE vehicle when it reaches 8 years old today, it's value invariably plummets due to vehicles older than 8 years not being considered by credit companies for loans and it will be even worse with aging EVs. You can purchase a decent and reliable ICE car for much less than the price of a battery right now and it would take a huge shift in pricing to reduce the cost of batteries to make the older EV an affordable risk in future should the battery fail.

Net zero is great in theory until one looks at the practicalities of it all and the ongoing impact it will have on millions of ordinary people who are just trying to get by.
I don't think anyone rational thinks for a moment that we shouldn't do our bit to reduce Co2 and the likes but it has to be done at a rate which has least effect on the poorest in our population and with suitable infrastructure in place and so far I don't think it's been properly thought through.

 

[ey_tony]

Climate change threads tend to end up talking about cars - not about saving the planet more about saving the motor industry.
Have you seen the photos of piles of wrecked cars in flooded Spanish towns? Nature doing the work which we should have started 75 years or more ago?
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...EAHbUuKN8Q0pQJegQIFBAB&biw=1258&bih=654&dpr=2
The brief era of the private car is coming to a rapid end, along with a lot of other things.

Yes the flooding was awful by any standard.
However, out of curiosity and no trickery I assure you, but I wonder if those pictures of flooded Spanish towns were pictures of towns built on flood plains or wadis? I'm not suggesting they were but it would be wise to look into it before using those as examples.

I often hear people bemoaning flooding when it occurs but then when you look more closely at things, you find that the flooded homes etc are built on ancient flood plains...the clue is after all in the title "Flood Plain" and called that for a reason.

Conversely one could also argue that GW is now preventing the ice sheets from re-advancing which are associated with the inter-glacial period we are in at the moment.
If the planet could be cooled by mankind, arguably the fall out from a return of advancing ice sheets would be far worse than the effects of atmospheric Co2 etc with countless millions displaced facing war and famine, so just be careful what you wish for.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

There are dried up river beds and water courses al over them, apparently. Many have been filled with builder's rubble and rubbish.

 

[Chris152]

Net zero is great in theory until one looks at the practicalities of it all and the ongoing impact it will have on millions of ordinary people who are just trying to get by.

Judging by predictions of climate scientists, it'll be far, far worse for everyone if we don't achieve net zero pretty soon, our world will be turned upside down (possibly quite literally), mass starvation, mass migrations - the impact now on the poor will look like nothing in comparison. Assuming the scientists have it right, and I certainly know no better.

 

[Jacob]

Judging by predictions of climate scientists, it'll be far, far worse for everyone if we don't achieve net zero pretty soon, our world will be turned upside down (possibly quite literally), mass starvation, mass migrations - the impact now on the poor will look like nothing in comparison. Assuming the scientists have it right, and I certainly know no better.

Well they have been saying the same thing for a very long time, with a lot of refinement of the details. Plus proof of the theory before our very eyes, as climate changed weather patterns occur, in different ways at different places.

 

[Jacob]

.... it has to be done at a rate which has least effect on the poorest in our population and with suitable infrastructure in place and so far I don't think it's been properly thought through.

The poorest are the ones least responsible but are likely to be hit first in many ways. The wealthy are the main CO2 generators and they will have to take the biggest hit, both in terms of how they live and how they care for others. This isn't "socialism", it's just a fact.

 

[Jacob]

There are dried up river beds and water courses al over them, apparently. Many have been filled with builder's rubble and rubbish.

Same risk true of London and many other coastal cities now vulnerable to rising sea levels.
That crises will occur in the most vulnerable places is a self evident truth.
Opening channels and clearing builders' rubble isn't the solution.
It's happening all over the place
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...-climate-change-shift-green-energy-renewables

 

[Croolis]

Climate change threads tend to end up talking about cars - not about saving the planet more about saving the motor industry.

It's a sad testament to human beings that larger, more fuel guzzling cars became the things to have just when global warming became accepted as an inevitable truth.

I am a practicer of bangernomics. There is more than one reason for this, but money is one of them. I only buy petrol because I know too much about diesel particulates. The transition to EVs is likely to cause me affordability issues, particularly as I get nearer to retirement. But I wouldn't change that trajectory one bit, no matter how problematic it might be for me personally. EVs are a better option in every way outside of convenience for certain types of users, and current cost. The sooner ICEs are got rid of, the better. Battery research holds promise.

Though, TBH, I have a very fatalistic outlook about all of this stuff. Future is bleak. It's going to be uglier than soylent green. My poor kid.

 

[AJB Temple]

Though, TBH, I have a very fatalistic outlook about all of this stuff. Future is bleak. It's going to be uglier than soylent green. My poor kid.

This may be an age related perspective as I tend to agree we have not bequeathed a healthy world to our children. However, my kids (twenties now and left uni just about) seem quite relaxed about everything and are optimistic.

 

[Croolis]

This may be an age related perspective as I tend to agree we have not bequeathed a healthy world to our children. However, my kids (twenties now and left uni just about) seem quite relaxed about everything and are optimistic.

My boy is 12 and I am laden with anxiety

 

[ey_tony]

The poorest are the ones least responsible but are likely to be hit first in many ways. The wealthy are the main CO2 generators and they will have to take the biggest hit, both in terms of how they live and how they care for others. This isn't "socialism", it's just a fact.

Explain exactly how the wealthy are most responsible for Co2 generation as opposed to the poorest?
By the way I don't see the issue as something that is a socialist problem...the way I see it the problem is A-political.

 

[Rebecca Snel]

On a positive note, there are little things we can do to help. Our family have planted several trees in our garden that was once just a lawn and is now a buzzing ecosystem. More trees are the way to go, I think that is more effective than electric cars.
My hubby is obsessed with hand tools, and uses them rather than power tools when he can. He has yet to get a hand/foot operated lathe yet though! He buys second-hand vintage saws that can be re-sharpened rather than modern throw aways from China. To top it all, he learned how to sharpen those saws, and now offers it as a service to fellow hand tool lovers.
What other ways can we encourage others to improve their carbon footprint?

 

[John Brown]

Explain exactly how the wealthy are most responsible for Co2 generation as opposed to the poorest?
By the way I don't see the issue as something that is a socialist problem...the way I see it the problem is A-political.

Oxfam found that, on average, 50 of the world’s richest billionaires took 184 flights in a single year, spending 425 hours in the air —producing as much carbon as the average person would in 300 years. In the same period, their yachts emitted as much carbon as the average person would in 860 years.

Jeff Bezos’ two private jets spent nearly 25 days in the air over a 12-month period and emitted as much carbon as the average US Amazon employee would in 207 years. Carlos Slim took 92 trips in his private jet, equivalent to circling the globe five times.


The Walton family, heirs of the Walmart retail chain, own three superyachts that in one year produced as much carbon as around 1,714 Walmart shop workers.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Explain exactly how the wealthy are most responsible for Co2 generation as opposed to the poorest?
By the way I don't see the issue as something that is a socialist problem...the way I see it the problem is A-political.

It may have escaped your notice but the wealthy tend to own cars, fly places on holiday, consume food with lots of food miles, heat and light their homes, enjoy labour saving devices (dishwashers, hoovers etc).They need fuel, often carbon based, not fairy dust.

 

[selectortone]

Explain exactly how the wealthy are most responsible for Co2 generation as opposed to the poorest?
By the way I don't see the issue as something that is a socialist problem...the way I see it the problem is A-political.

China and India may be directly responsible for CO2 generation, but it's we, in the West, who are the largest consumers of the goods produced - not to mention the vast fleets of behemoth container ships employed to bring them here.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Spain - 1996 a major flooding event in the Pyrenees killed ~70. The death toll is only partly associated with the intensity of the storm - more critical are population densities, topography, quality of existing infrastructure and precisely where the rain fell.

The recent Spanish event is extreme but not unprecedented. In itself it is not proof of climate change, but taken as a pattern of increasing frequency may be.

That climate change is happening seems beyond reasonable doubt - there few informed and knowledgeable who would disagree - mainly those with a credibility deficit.

There are risks of a "tipping point" but no one can say reliably when that might be. More likely is a gradual increase in average temperatures, increased rainfall overall, changing weather patterns. It is a real but not immediate threat.

Perceptions of time are key. By 2100 sea level is expected to rise between 0.28 and 1.02m. Most contributors to this forum will be long gone. The connection with "now" may be grandchildren who will then be 80+.

Changes from a human perspective are slow, from a geological perspective utterly rapid.

The UK, together with many prosperous developed economies will largely adapt to modest changes. It is possible to put head in sand - never knowing anyone materially impacted by climate change, and unconcerned about those who "may" suffer but will never met.

Poorer less advantaged societies will suffer. Worldwide mass migration will emerge and conflict over basic resources - water, farmland etc.

The challenge for developed richer societies will be whether to help and welcome those in need - or put up barriers. Based on current COP progress and the Trump philosophy, which certainly exists throughout Europe, I don't see a happy outcome.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Explain exactly how the wealthy are most responsible for Co2 generation as opposed to the poorest?
By the way I don't see the issue as something that is a socialist problem...the way I see it the problem is A-political.

This is more evidence of your thinking in a vacuum... The people with more money buy more things. Inflated and elevated consumption possesses an elevated and inflated associated CO2 cost. It isn't just the air travel, private jets and super-yachts of the super-rich, but on a far more comprehensive and widespread low-level scale - middle class families own more stuff than the poorest of families. More clothes, more appliances, more energy-hungry home tech and more of everything else besides, including eating more meat.
I would have thought that this is self evident and a prime reason why it doesn't *have to be* the poorest that picks up any increased costs.
In fact, come to think of it, to insist that "the poorest" would necessarily be worst impacted, is not at all apolitical - because it signals that a certain (preferred?) underlying economic and governmental type is being used as the model to explain why "the poorest" would be the worst affected.
In my world view, it doesn't need to be that way - but you are insisting that in yours it must be this way - which is not at all apolitical.

 

[Fitzroy]

It's interesting how I consider myself fairly well informed and well read but when I really thought about it I'd never gone looking for any of the numbers on this topic.

I found this page was great for laying out a load of different slices and dices on CO2 emissions. I love the chart of cumulative CO2 emissions since 1750, and per capita emissions. The UK has halved our per capita (internal) emissions between 1970 and now, that's brilliant we should celebrate it more. Mainly due to switching from coal to gas, and renewables.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions.

I was also looking for some data on how much of our UK carbon emissions are due to the stuff we import. Looking at data from the ONS our carbon footprint on imports is roughly, 750Mt/yr, compared with 400Mt/yr of internal emissions. So all the stuff we import is more important than I had realised.