You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
We spend a shit load of money and it makes absolutely no difference in the big global problem.
The only thing we can guarantee is that if we don't spend the money it will make no difference. At the end of the day the money will go towards creating jobs, paying salaries and supporting the economy. That in itself is worth it, and there are obvious other benefits like a cleaner environment, more breathable air etc and all the health benefits that provides. I honestly don't understand this obsession with how much money the govt spends. If the govt didn't spend money, we'd all be completely f*****.
It's been hammered into people's heads for years that the tax payer's pay for everything. And those that sit at the top of chain need this narrative to survive.
It takes a lot of re-wiring.
The thing is there's zero evidence to support the deficit hawks argument. It relies on ignorance. And Labour have done little in this area too.
With one simple argument - where do you get the money to pay your taxes - the whole things crumbles ...
Accountancy is more useful than economics to describe our monetary system.
MMT starts with how the spending system currently works - no other theory or explanation starts from that point. The rest start from the point of creating scarcity of public funds rather than describing what we can or can't do.
If the govt didn’t spend money, we’d all be completely f*****.
Ha ha truly idiotic.
The government and the BoE underpin all the machinations of the market and commercial bank system.
Commercial banks fail? Bailed at the BoE.
Who backs your 85,000 money guarantee at the commercial banks? The BoE.
Where does base money/reserves come from? The BoE
Where do commercial banks have accounts ? - the BoE.
Now explain how a functioning modern Fiat system can work without the state.
Laughable!
Green U-turn poll 😉
https://twitter.com/wethinkpolling/status/1755977564932194668?t=JVRR0sRq-JgAhRjENAWoKQ&s=19
Reform matching the Libdems! Looks like the progressive socialist future is on hold for another decade at least!
<em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000;">And what does my tax go on…funding wars, funding ridiculous government schemes, funding council amenities I never use, paying for schooling for other peoples kids, paying benefits for people who can’t or won’t work..”
🤔
Other than the first 2, I don’t have an issue with it tbh. And I don’t think any decent human would resent paying money to send refugees to Rwanda or fund the killing of innocent civilians. The others, it’s a part of life I accept to live in a functioning society. I think I pay enough already however, a personal opinion based on the fact i can’t afford to pay more in the current climate.
back on topic there are far better ways to fund green initiatives. and that should start with taxing the people who are are the worst contributors to the problem. Higher fuel bills, higher tax on items that are seen as disposable, higher tax on air fairs, and perhaps an unpopular one, higher tax on families with numerous kids if they can afford it.
what I do resent is people saying I should pay more tax to fund the climate crisis whilst driving their 4 kids around in a brand new 40k transporter. When it comes to climate change, I’m willing to bet that my when time on this earth ends, my carbon footprint is going to be significantly less than 90% of the uk population.
Whilst I agree with the above in also see that it is hard to be fair. Taxing fuel just hammers the low income rural livers who struggle anyway. Just one example
Too my mind we should be hammering any luxury. Most bikes, certainly anything new and those which do not serve a commuting purpose. Mobile devices. Bet you 99% of them are not essential and being able to call the family to say I am home late isn't essential. Foreign holidays. No all holidays. New electricals. Ban most. New cars. Ban the bloody lot.
Sorry but I bet that upsets stacks of people. I'll take people seriously when they put their actions where their mouth is. Concerned about the environment? Don't drive to ride that stupidly excessive bike bought last year and ditched next year.
Oh yeah. Are we talking world or local here? If the former , dream on.
All of the above seems to accept that freedom of choice is wrong which fits in well with the modern ethic anyway. So why not hinder people choosing jobs that need cars? Why not stop making cars that are not easily repairable? Who needs a computer? The points on my mid 60s Mini were fine and we knew how to deal with them. Lets stop all Asian imports. Let's stop making cars and all those who lose their jobs can go an pick fruit or work in the care industry. Added bonus there of reducing immigration.
"Higher fuel bills, higher tax on items that are seen as disposable, higher tax on air fairs, and perhaps an unpopular one, higher tax on families with numerous kids if they can afford it."
High fuel bills are part of the reason the national debt is so big as they had to be subsidised when they went up after Russia invaded Ukraine. As for taxing kids. The UK population (excluding immigration) is producing kids at below the replacement level. Maybe tax breaks for kids are needed?
I noted on the previous page that earned income was taxed more than unearned income:
The Green Revolution – Would You Pay More?
No, nope, cannot and don't want to.
As a "young" person on here, although I do agree with the need for change and follow the debates on how it could be achieved, I do (generally, not here) feel some annoyance at older folk who've already had their fun and established their lives, advocating for me to do X, not do Y, pay more for Z etc.
They're doing the good things now (home improvements, electric car, carbon offsetting their company etc.), but they can afford to now. They had decades of their prime enjoying a cheap energy lifestyle.
Also goes for jealous people who are trying to use the green hammer to stop other people having nice things which they themselves already can't afford.
What does that actually mean? Are you saying you don’t believe in climate change or that you don’t care or that you don’t like it? Seems like an odd use of the phrase ‘nonplussed’…
Oh I absolutely believe in it, seems irrefutable at this point.
I used the word nonplussed with intent - what I meant was that it just doesn’t factor in my day to day life; if I get a flight I’m not looking at the co2 and when I buy a car I’m not looking at the emissions.
My malaise is really due to the fact that I could cut everything out in an effort to ‘make a difference’, which would make no difference at all in reality and we’re a long time dead anyway.
All that said, I’m not anti environment - I don’t waste anything, recycle as much as humanly possible and regularly clear up green spaces.
I’ve got a lot of respect for those that really do care and do what they can, it’s a much less selfish viewpoint.
Too my mind we should be hammering any luxury. Most bikes, certainly anything new and those which do not serve a commuting purpose. Mobile devices. Bet you 99% of them are not essential and being able to call the family to say I am home late isn’t essential. Foreign holidays. No all holidays. New electricals. Ban most. New cars. Ban the bloody lot.
Would be a lot easier if the whole world would just stop eating beef and would have a bigger impact that any of that. Just imagine, all you have to do is replace any meal where you ate beef with a plant based substitute.
Not really much of a sacrifice for the return is it.
Well it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice if it were true but 10 seconds with Google will reveal that the whole of agriculture is dwarfed by transport and beef is a only a part of agriculture. Reducing or eliminating meat from you diet is part of a lower carbon lifestyle but not the biggest issue by any means.
Reducing or eliminating meat from you diet is part of a lower carbon lifestyle but not the biggest issue by any means.
Yes, but dietary choices can be made by individuals whereas a lot of transport impacts cannot.
I would rather they banned the sale of EVs that have no proven enubenefit when you factor in manufacture, disposal and replacement of the batteries than beef. EVs are a huge con job that is filling a short term desire to be seen to do something. I note bmw have joined this lengthening list of car manufacturers who are no longer looking to develop EVs by to focus on hydrogen instead. EVs will be the Betamax to vhs
I note bmw have joined this lengthening list of car manufacturers who are no longer looking to develop EVs by to focus on hydrogen instead.
Hydrogen is crap though.
robotic systems capable of intelligent interaction with humans, and their application in industrial, medical and rehabilitation settings.
That's not even close to what BMW said. They said, and I quote "hydrogen engines are poised to play a significant role globally in the long term. The focus on fast performance, quick refuelling, and environmental sustainability aligns with the emerging priorities in the transportation sector"
Not that they were abandonning EVs. The problem for BMW and others that produce, large, heavy 4x4 SuVs is that when you add a battery to that, the weight gain is a scaler, not a constant. Unfortunately for BMW, this now represents a substantial part of their revenue, so must be accounted for, H2 might be the only way to do that. But I promise you, it will be bloody expensive to buy and eye wateringly expensive to run. Our (aerospace) best prediction for LH2 are that it will be DOUBLE the price of Kerosene. Out short term figures put that at 4-5times. Coupled with a fuel cell efficiency of, at best 55-60% with PEM cells, it's not attractive for anyone but the luxury market, it's likely to be 8-9 times more expensive than EV at cheap rates.
"Yes, but dietary choices can be made by individuals whereas a lot of transport impacts cannot."
I don't see that one. We can all choose to cycle or use public transport more but we mostly choose not to. I get free bus travel and have used it two or three times in the past year. A bike is faster after allowing for waits at bus stops and the fact a bike is true door to door. Many people are not fit enough or confident enough to mix it with urban traffic though. A car is more comfortable, more or less door to door for most of my journeys, and doesn't stop working at 11:30pm. So I cycle for leisure and use the car the rest of the time.
What would make me replace car commuting journeys with a bike. Decent shower facilities and a locker. Despite working in a building along with hundreds of other employees I don't have a locker or any other personal space and the only shower is a pretty poor one in the disabled toilet. And this is a public sector organisation that has a few £60k EVs parked outside as part of it's green policies.
I don’t see that one. We can all choose to cycle or use public transport more but we mostly choose not to
I said "a lot" not "all". Structural stuff like public transport provision, EV and other infrastructure, electrification, generation fuel mix etc needs government intervention. I agree that most of us could do better but we're heavily constrained in our choices.
roneFree Member
It’s been hammered into people’s heads for years that the tax payer’s pay for everything. And those that sit at the top of chain need this narrative to survive.
This isn't a problem, it's an opportunity. Assuming most people think like this, then getting them to willingly contribute (those that don't can opt out and can similarly divest themselves of any potenatial gains), means they have a personal stake in the solution.
I would rather they banned the sale of EVs that have no proven enubenefit when you factor in manufacture, disposal and replacement of the batteries than beef. EVs are a huge con job that is filling a short term desire to be seen to do something. I note bmw have joined this lengthening list of car manufacturers who are no longer looking to develop EVs by to focus on hydrogen instead. EVs will be the Betamax to vhs
Where do you get this from, chrismac? It's all fake news. The lifetime carbon footprint of an EV is significantly lower than ICE with the electricity generation mix in Europe and hydrogen is many times worse because it's so inefficient. We need a surplus of renewable electricity before hydrogen can be considered and that's no happening anytime soon. To quote BMX's hydrogen man:
“We think the future will be electric with the majority battery-electric and we're trying to develop architecture that can do both [electric and hydrogen],” says Juergen Guldner, general project manager for hydrogen technology with BMW Group."
I would rather they banned the sale of EVs that have no proven enubenefit when you factor in manufacture, disposal and replacement of the batteries
I mean, that's just total and complete bollocks. Taking into account the FULL LCA for an EV vs FF car it's at minimum 70% less emissions:
[url] https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/electric-cars-greener-petrol-cars/ [/url]
[url] https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/how-clean-are-electric-cars/ [/url]
In the UK, that will soon (2025.2027) be closer to 85% less. Do some actual research, FFS!
I have thanks.
THe greenpeace article ingores the CO2 in making the vehicle and the second one is a green loby group funfed by green charities so likely to be ass biased as the pto oil funded loby groups trying to proove the opposite. Neither are credible
A diesel car takes on aaver 5.8 tonnes of CO2 to make v 8.8 for an equivelent EV.
The ASA have recently also banned adverts from the car companies for been misleading in how green EVs actually are
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/mg-motor-uk-ltd-a23-1209401-mg-motor-uk-ltd.html
Futher more a fossil fuel car has to be 95% recycleable. For EVs that figure is only 50% because of the difficulty in recycling the hazzardous materials in the batteries.
Do the lifetime emissions allow for energy generation in the UK having fossil fuels all but removed from the mix by 2030, and reduced in every year from 2025? (Which assumes the Tories lose the next election of course)
If buying a new car now (not something I’ll be doing), a new EV or plug in hybrid will become less damaging in future, a new 100% petrol or diesel car will not.
An old small petrol car will be my next vehicle as it happens. But new cars moving to EV makes sense, no matter how hard you try and squint and contort the current figures for them. Keeping old cars in use is as important though, cost of production can’t be ignored.
EV manufacturers are being let off the hook when it comes to manufacture and end of life at the moment. This needs to change, and it will soon (it’s already planned in for most markets).
chrismacFull Member
I have thanks.THe greenpeace article ingores the CO2 in making the vehicle and the second one is a green loby group funfed by green charities so likely to be ass biased as the pto oil funded loby groups trying to proove the opposite. Neither are credible
You clearly haven't as the Greenpeice airticle DIRECTLY addresses mining.
TnE is an NGO operating in 6 countries and which clearly publishes it's source material, funders, etc. None of its funders are Automotive or Electrical or Resource.
An average FF car in europe produces 3t of Co2 in 10000miles. By your own figures, the EV would breakeven in 1.4 years at the current EU average emissions. For the remaining assumed 8-10 years, you'd save 25t of CO2. That's assuming that grid power does not get greener which it will (because it alredy has, we're at 30% of what we were 15 years ago) and will be at 25% by the end of 2024.
Even assuming 50% non-recyclability (a measure which was put in place to allow for the difficuly of batteris while the problem is solved...and it is being solved) it's still a whopping 20t greener than your Diesel and it improves air quality and lowers noise pollution.
For EVs that figure is only 50% because of the difficulty in recycling the hazzardous materials in the batteries.
A French company was on the news with plant recovering nearly all the metals and 70% of the lithium, the residue being harmless enough to incorporate into building blocks. When they have more batteries they'll scale up, at present the shortage is batteries, they're mainly from written-of cars rather than end of life batteries because they're lasting so well.
Prefer to spend the money supporting Ukraine.
You clearly haven’t as the Greenpeice airticle DIRECTLY addresses mining.
I have it talks about the following
Their desire for 80% renewables by 2030 which wont happen as the infrastrucutre in the grid isnt there
It talks about mining being not nice but then trys to deflect it by saying the child labout used is no worse than drilling for oil. I beg to differ.
Nowhere does it produce any evidence or propose any solution to its desire for electric cars. It ignores the CO2 impact of upgrading the national drid to cope with all the elctricity demands the switch away from fossil fuels will require.
Well it wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice if it were true but 10 seconds with Google will reveal that the whole of agriculture is dwarfed by transport and beef is a only a part of agriculture. Reducing or eliminating meat from you diet is part of a lower carbon lifestyle but not the biggest issue by any means.
Looks like an amount worth looking at for something that should be a lot easier and lower impact on peoples lives than many of the other options.
If anything crismac, ignoring other impacts in the total analysis is very much in favour of ICEs because it ignores a large part of the CO2 in providing their fuel. The co2 produced in producing, refining and transporting oil products is enormous. You're worrying about the electricity grid but forgetting the oil pipelines,tankers, rigs, drilling ships, refineries, storage, gas pipelines... .
Then there's methane. In many oil producing regions old wells are left uncapped and leaking methane forever. For those that are capped the success rate is disappointing particularly for gas. A German researcher has been putting together a map of methane emissions; high levels surround the oil industry but in particular gas pipelines, gas installations, gas wells and gas points of use, oil drilling. The problem has got worse since flaring was stopped in some areas. Methane is a stonger greenhouse gas than CO2. Don't let people blaming cows fool you, the elephant in the methane room is the oil and gas industry.
I think you'd agree that the correlation between high methane levels as measured by satelites and the oil and gas industry is quite striking. I can't find the more detailed maps for Berlin and Germany but they make the assertion that methane emissions in Europe are mainly down to agriculture hard to believe. There aren't many cows in Berlin but very high levels of methane which again follow the gas distribution network.
I do already choose to pay more.
If possible I try and travel by public transport to get to places. Often that costs me a bit more than driving.
I think the thing that really frustrates me is the massive status quo bias that stops us making the changes that the vast majority would like, and even enjoy.
Most people use cars out of necessity. It then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, because so many people use them that other forms of transport are overlooked.
When these changes are made, they are generally popular. I honestly prefer travelling by bike and train to driving, even given the extra cost and the current state of the rail system. It annoys the hell out of me that the reason that public transport is in the state that it’s in is because of the current government’s limited ideology.
This is why it’d be interesting to give people the chance to pay more. It would give the government leverage to plan long term investment and strategy knowing that not only do people say they want to make a difference, but that they’re actually willing to put their money where their mouth is and do something about it. They can then track the figures, see the trends and campaign on it. It’s self fulfilling, the more people on-board, the more secure the governments (maybe the nation, not the government) future long term planning might be.
That’s the purpose of a democracy though?
I read something interesting the other day, which is the current government actually tries to downplay any of it’s (limited, granted) environmental achievements because it’s actually a vote loser with it’s (nutjob) party members. 😳
Green policies are popular with voters (although not necessarily with some vested interests) which is why Starmer's U-turn is unlikely to give Labour an extra boost, and why Thatcher long ago tried to present herself as champion of the environmental debate:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-green-hero