The joys of electric car ownership!

[Sachakins]

Just to highlight a fine distinction in emissions scandal, in the "GREEN WASHING" advertising.

Two phrases are used regularly, and often interchanged, to imply the same thing which is not true, the headlines used are "Carbon-neutral" and "Net-Zero"

• Carbon-neutral means purchasing carbon reduction credits equivalent to emissions released, without the need for emissions reductions to have taken place.
• Net-zero means reducing emissions in line with latest climate science, and balancing remaining residual emissions through carbon removal
• 
  
• Carbon-neutral involves offsetting using carbon reduction or removal projects which reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.
• Net-zero involves offsetting using carbon removal projects which actually take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
• 
  
• Carbon-neutral allows for emissions to be created with no specified level of reduction required.
• Standards for Net-Zero are laid out in the SBTi Net-Zero Standard. Guidance varies across industries but most companies are required to achieve a 90% reduction in scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions by 2050. The residual emissions can be neutralised through carbon removal projects.
• 
  
• Carbon avoidance projects include renewable energy generation (e.g. solar and wind projects) and cost around £10 per tonne.
• Carbon removal projects involve CO2 removal technologies or matured natural ecosystems, and cost anywhere between £40-£1,000 per tonne, depending on the methodology or technology applied.

So all these great Carbon-neutral advertising campaigns, where energy companies provide "clean Carbon-neutral energy", or "...we are a Carbon-neutral company...." are just white washing the public. No need for them to reduce emissions, can even increase them. As long as the pay about £10 a tonne into recognised schemes that work to negate emissions, ie tree planting, stopping deforestation etc.

So they can actual continue to locally add to emissions pollution, make no attempt to change, but still looks good to the public, with benefits, if any, possibly on the other side of the world.

I feel a similar long term issue could effect the local success of ULEZ we have now. As in future when people get over the financial shock of this pseudo tax and drift back into the mindset of just another bill to pay. Then levels will rise again, health benefits will drop back. BUT the money will still role in for the councils/government!

 

[Jacob]

Just to highlight a fine distinction in emissions scandal, in the "GREEN WASHING" advertising.

Two phrases are used regularly, and often interchanged, to imply the same thing which is not true, the headlines used are "Carbon-neutral" and "Net-Zero"

• Carbon-neutral means purchasing carbon reduction credits equivalent to emissions released, without the need for emissions reductions to have taken place.
• Net-zero means reducing emissions in line with latest climate science, and balancing remaining residual emissions through carbon removal
• 
  
• Carbon-neutral involves offsetting using carbon reduction or removal projects which reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.
• Net-zero involves offsetting using carbon removal projects which actually take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
• 
  
• Carbon-neutral allows for emissions to be created with no specified level of reduction required.
• Standards for Net-Zero are laid out in the SBTi Net-Zero Standard. Guidance varies across industries but most companies are required to achieve a 90% reduction in scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions by 2050. The residual emissions can be neutralised through carbon removal projects.
• 
  
• Carbon avoidance projects include renewable energy generation (e.g. solar and wind projects) and cost around £10 per tonne.
• Carbon removal projects involve CO2 removal technologies or matured natural ecosystems, and cost anywhere between £40-£1,000 per tonne, depending on the methodology or technology applied.

So all these great Carbon-neutral advertising campaigns, where energy companies provide "clean Carbon-neutral energy", or "...we are a Carbon-neutral company...." are just white washing the public. No need for them to reduce emissions, can even increase them. As long as the pay about £10 a tonne into recognised schemes that work to negate emissions, ie tree planting, stopping deforestation etc.

So they can actual continue to locally add to emissions pollution, make no attempt to change, but still looks good to the public, with benefits, if any, possibly on the other side of the world.

I feel a similar long term issue could effect the local success of ULEZ we have now. As in future when people get over the financial shock of this pseudo tax and drift back into the mindset of just another bill to pay. Then levels will rise again, health benefits will drop back. BUT the money will still role in for the councils/government!

Why call ULEZ a "pseudo" tax? It is a very real tax, on emissions in this case, not some sort of subterfuge.
If, as you say, it fails to work then they could just crank it up a bit more. No problem!
I agree about green washing. There's a lot of it going on - CO2 capture and storage being the big one; a hopeless idea heavily promoted by the fossil fuel industry in the expectation of massive of grants from the govt. Look how they've fooled Sunak - or more likely he just another player in the same game.
What is wrong with money "rolling in" for the councils/government? It gets spent on our public services one way or another. Surely the more it rolls in the better for us?

 

[Sachakins]

On the face of it the one child policy worked if they now have declining population?

The problem with that is there will be a gap of years with no young people to take on the jobs of those retiring, no new earners to pay the taxes need to fund development into green clean environment ment.

It's another example of relying on one simple solution, that they now are trying to reverse out of.
The issue now will be, if there's a rush to have 3 kids, then in 10 to 15 years youl need to increase local infrastructure massively to cope. So unless they started that 5 years ago, they'll not be ready in 15 years time.

 

[llywmog]

There is currently a lot of investment going into hydrogen fuel cell development not just automotive but looking to do a lot of the jobs currently done by diesel engines in places away from the grid. Hydrogen replacing domestic gas has some issues the most problematic of which is that it is far more difficult to seal pipes well enough to contain hydrogen, I saw an estimate can't remember the source saying we could expect 50 times as many explosions if we ran our gas networks on hydrogen, I have only seen the result of one house explosion in Coventry quite a few years ago but would not want to see another. It would possibly (just my opinion) be easier to use hydrogen stored in an outdoor cylinder to generate electricity for domestic use, I haven't tried to work out the efficiencies of that , just thinking that any leakage would float away rather than cause an explosion

This podcast mentions the pros and cons of the different possible uses of HO2 The Inquiry - Will hydrogen solve our energy needs? - BBC Sounds Only 20 mins so nice and short

 

[Jacob]

The problem with that is there will be a gap of years with no young people to take on the jobs of those retiring, no new earners to pay the taxes need to fund development into green clean environment ment.

It's another example of relying on one simple solution, that they now are trying to reverse out of.
The issue now will be, if there's a rush to have 3 kids, then in 10 to 15 years youl need to increase local infrastructure massively to cope. So unless they started that 5 years ago, they'll not be ready in 15 years time.

it's not "one simple solution" they are doing all sorts of things. What they've discovered accidentally, is that increased standard of living can lead to falling populations. Happening in other places too. Over population is a sign of a stressed society, take away the stresses and populations stabilise/fall.

 

[llywmog]

I guess both were nutters and their ideas nonsense.
Mind you swapping batteries looks like a good idea; big pile of batteries on charge 24/7, drive in, swap batteries, drive out. Seems to solve a lot of problems. Why is it not on the agenda?

Battery swapping already a thing in China https://www.protocol.com/climate/electric-vehicle-battery-swap-china It does seem odd that this isn't something that could have been agreed by all manufacturers

 

[Jacob]

Battery swapping already a thing in China https://www.protocol.com/climate/electric-vehicle-battery-swap-china

Chinese ahead of the game yet again! The cunning devils!

 

[Sachakins]

Why call ULEZ a "pseudo" tax? It is a very real tax, on emissions in this case, not some sort of subterfuge.
If, as you say, it fails to work then they could just crank it up a bit more. No problem!
I agree about green washing. There's a lot of it going on - CO2 capture and storage being the big one; a hopeless idea heavily promoted by the fossil fuel industry in the expectation of massive of grants from the govt. Look how they've fooled Sunak - or more likely he just another player in the same game.

It is not part of the official list of taxation revenues. Although i agree, public see it as a tax. Officialy its a Levy.
That way it can be set and changed locally, without government need to legislate and vote on change as required for taxation changes.

You can crank it up so much. Consumers can only sustain a certain level, at a tipping point they'll not accept it, then customer traffic drops from businesses, businesses decline& close, tax revenues disappear. Area becomes a ghost town, massive local rise I unemployment, requiring more state intervention, requiring more revenue needed from fewer taxation resources requiring an increase in taxation.

Can you see the spiral forming here. You have to be aware of the downside of continuing to raise the price.

 

[worn thumbs]

Why call ULEZ a "pseudo" tax? It is a very real tax, on emissions in this case, not some sort of subterfuge.
If, as you say, it fails to work then they could just crank it up a bit more. No problem!
I agree about green washing. There's a lot of it going on - CO2 capture and storage being the big one; a hopeless idea heavily promoted by the fossil fuel industry in the expectation of massive of grants from the govt. Look how they've fooled Sunak - or more likely he just another player in the same game.
What is wrong with money "rolling in" for the councils/government? It gets spent on our public services one way or another. Surely the more it rolls in the better for us?

I would have described ULEZ as a tax on presence rather than emissions.As I have mentioned earlier,there is no equivalent tax on the emissions from old woodburners and in winter they are emitting for longer than a vehicle which is passing through.If emissions are truly the target please help me understand why all emissions should not be treated equally?A concept that might usefully be applied to all emissions globally.In the meantime such a selective revenue raising exercise is extracting money that might have been available for dispersing among other businesses from the pockets of individuals.

 

[Jacob]

....

Can you see the spiral forming here. You have to be aware of the downside of continuing to raise the price.

Working well at the moment though. Who knows how it will pan out?

 

[Jacob]

I would have described ULEZ as a tax on presence rather than emissions.

OK. Call it what you like if it makes you happier! Seems to working though.

As I have mentioned earlier,there is no equivalent tax on the emissions from old woodburners and in winter they are emitting for longer than a vehicle which is passing through.If emissions are truly the target please help me understand why all emissions should not be treated equally?

Because they are not equal and they are separate issues, currently being looked at separately?

 

[llywmog]

Hydrogen has to be the longterm solution, produced by splitting water (by product oxygen) using electricity generated from renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro).

Hydrogen then supplied via the gas pipe network to homes etc (natural gas boilers etc converted back (to the spec for town gas) to run on hydrogen. Also piped/shipped to petrol filling stations (converted) to fuel up (in 5 mins) vehicles.

Hydrogen burned, consumes oxygen again - emissions produced water. The “perfect” clean solution.

Once efficiency of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen improves (it’s currently about 57% efficient) it’s the final solution!!

Its usefulness depends on the scenario according to this The Inquiry - Will hydrogen solve our energy needs? - BBC Sounds Good for some (Large vehicles and planes), not so good for others (heating homes).

 

[llywmog]

Jacob - if we stop using fossil-based fuels right now, how does that 46% of imported food arrive in this country - horse & cart ? (I'm still not hearing anybody shouting from the roof tops about stopping the VAST mount of crude bunker fuel used by the merchant shipping fleets or the gazzilions of tons of aviation fuel being used by cargo aircraft) ...

In fairness to Jacob he hasn't asked to stop their use 'right now'. The call is for aims to reduce the use of fossil-fuels and urgently find replacements for the future. There is 'shouting from the roof tops' about finding alternatives to larger vehicles.

 

[llywmog]

I will never, ever vote for the Green Party. While some of their agenda makes sense, there is much of it I could never support, not even in two lifetimes.

As for joining protests, I strongly resent the stop oil, extinction rebellion and other such groups causing mayhem on our streets and would love to see them summarily locked up for a few weeks every time they are caught inconveniencing those who are just trying to live their life.

That's what they said about the universal suffrage and anti-apartheid movements.

 

[worn thumbs]

OK. Call it what you like if it makes you happier! Seems to working though.

Because they are not equal and they are separate issues, currently being looked at separately?

How will the resident's lungs tell the difference?Air quality is supposedly the concern and not all sources of the contaminants are being treated equally.In some circles,equality is a very important tenet.

 

[Agent_zed]

The problem with that is there will be a gap of years with no young people to take on the jobs of those retiring, no new earners to pay the taxes need to fund development into green clean environment ment.

It is a problem but the only alternative is to either try and maintain a stable population or have the population forever increase until it collapses.

In the UK there might be the possibility to maintain a stable population as we are 'developed' and we no longer tend to have many children to account for many of them not surviving, but many of the up and coming countries will still have the mind set of large families but advances in their healthcare will see more and more children surviving to adulthood. It will take a long time for them to trust that they don't need a lot of children and change any cultural value in being seen to have lots of children.

Your statement also relies on the fact there will be jobs available for all these people. Whilst I don't mean to come across as all dystopian future, if AI actually works as well as they think it will we will see vast amounts of jobs removed from the market anyway, from numerous sectors. The main jobs that will be safe are physical ones as we are seeing now it is hard to find anyone who can actually make things anymore.

 

[Agent_zed]

How will the resident's lungs tell the difference?Air quality is supposedly the concern and not all sources of the contaminants are being treated equally.In some circles,equality is a very important tenet.

I agree in principle but there is a key differences from what i can see. The sheer amount of cars far outweight the very few people actually have a wood fire within a city. They have brought in legislation within clean air zones so you need to have a Defra approved fireplace and they are actively trying to prevent people burning wet wood. Chimneys also emit fumes much higher up allowing them to be dispersed better than car exhausts at road level.

Additionally cars are there every day all year round, fires are limited to 3 -4 months of the year when people will have their windows shut.

It could also be argued that it is more important for people to be able to heat their homes, than in many cases to drive the mile or so they dont' want to walk or take a bus.

as an aside burning wood is carbon neutral so to me would make less sense to target its removal.

 

[Fergie 307]

I agree in principle but there is a key differences from what i can see. The sheer amount of cars far outweight the very few people actually have a wood fire within a city. They have brought in legislation within clean air zones so you need to have a Defra approved fireplace and they are actively trying to prevent people burning wet wood. Chimneys also emit fumes much higher up allowing them to be dispersed better than car exhausts at road level.

Additionally cars are there every day all year round, fires are limited to 3 -4 months of the year when people will have their windows shut.

It could also be argued that it is more important for people to be able to heat their homes, than in many cases to drive the mile or so they dont' want to walk or take a bus.

as an aside burning wood is carbon neutral so to me would make less sense to target its removal.

Excuse me burning wood carbon neutral? The tree has spent maybe 40 years or more busily storing up carbon for much of it to then be released when you burn it. It is sustainable, sure but not carbon neutral unless you have personally planted more trees to replace the one you are burning, or can guarantee that someone else has

 

[Jacob]

Excuse me burning wood carbon neutral? The tree has spent maybe 40 years or more busily storing up carbon for much of it to then be released when you burn it. It is sustainable, sure but not carbon neutral unless you have personally planted more trees to replace the one you are burning, or can guarantee that someone else has

Doesn't have to be you "personally" planting trees. Much timber nowadays is FSC certified and otherwise, from farmed or sustained woodland and hence carbon neutral even if you burn it.
If you make things that last then they are carbon footprint less than zero, as you are "sequestering" carbon, as long as you hang on to that rickety chest of drawers and other rubbish you made!

 

[Jacob]

.... not all sources of the contaminants are being treated equally....

.....because they are not equal?
Doesn't mean they aren't being looked at.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...in-effect-banned-new-refurbished-homes-london