Electric vehicles

[paulrbarnard]

You can't really equate the figures of deaths in a car vs deaths walking in the same way you can with cycling. The report there is very poorly designed.

Why? The numbers are perfectly clear.

Hi all

If we are completly honest and remove any rose tinted specs then anything we do is like peeing in the ocean, we could all use bicycles, public transport and have no petrol or diesel vehicles but the difference it would make is insignificant when you look at the Asian countries who are all becoming more industrialised and the American people probably produce more methane from eating junk food than all our cattle in the uk. There is no solution until everyone works as a single body and can anyone see that happening, we have enough issues getting on with our so called allies let alone getting places like North Korea onboard. The solution will be delivered by nature, whilst we continue to talk and squabble nature will just cleanse the planet like a giant etch a sketch.

That's an easy thought to hide behind but not so true.
If you look at the total output from US and EU then it is almost the same as China and India.
When you look at it by individual contribution (by population), each person in US polutes more than each person in China and India. China also, and remarkably, has a lower emissions growth rate than US.
The per capita distributions also show the developed countries far exceeding the Asian countries for emissions.

 

[Rorschach]

Why? The numbers are perfectly clear.

Numbers might look clear but you are comparing two completely different modes of transport. Simply basing it on how many miles are covered is farcical. Walking is safer than driving.

That's an easy thought to hide behind but not so true.
If you look at the total output from US and EU then it is almost the same as China and India.
When you look at it by individual contribution (by population), each person in US polutes more than each person in China and India. China also, and remarkably, has a lower emissions growth rate than US.
The per capita distributions also show the developed countries far exceeding the Asian countries for emissions.

Per capita emission mean nothing when the two countries you mention there make up more than 1/3rd of the world population. You really are putting forward some very silly arguments in this thread.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Numbers might look clear but you are comparing two completely different modes of transport. Simply basing it on how many miles are covered is farcical. Walking is safer than driving.



Per capita emission mean nothing when the two countries you mention there make up more than 1/3rd of the world population. You really are putting forward some very silly arguments in this thread.

You realy do cherry pick what you respond to. In the KSI comment I also quoted absolute numbers. I find it incredible that you argue the KSI per mile is farcical and ignore 3000 CHILDREN killed or seriously injured in 2000 by vehicles. For the emissions comment you focus on per capita and completely ignor the other statistic based on population which shows the US being worse.

Anyway I'll not comment on this thread again it is obviously only for those with only one perspective. Is it any wonder the world is in the state it is...

 

[Lons]

"There are too many cars on the road for Roger to walk to school so I drive him in my large collision protected SUV..." .

Is that really the whole reason?
I get it if he's on his own as kids get distracted and play the fool but if the distance is such that he could walk then he will be safe enough if you walk with him instead of using the car.

 

[Rorschach]

Is that really the whole reason?
I get it if he's on his own as kids get distracted and play the fool but if the distance is such that he could walk then he will be safe enough if you walk with him instead of using the car.

Stop it, we might agree on something!

 

[Lons]

Stop it, we might agree on something!

It wasn't meant for you and I probably wouldn't have posted had I thought you would respond.

 

[MikeJhn]

 

[alex_heney]

Numbers might look clear but you are comparing two completely different modes of transport. Simply basing it on how many miles are covered is farcical. Walking is safer than driving.

That is just not remotely true by any rational measure.

It could be true, if the infrastructure were changed dramatically, to put barriers between pedestrian spaces and vehicular spaces, with only very limited crossing points, all with some sort of control.

But at present, it certainly isn't true.

Per capita emission mean nothing when the two countries you mention there make up more than 1/3rd of the world population. You really are putting forward some very silly arguments in this thread.

Not one tenth as much as you are.

Per capita emissions mean everything.

 

[Rorschach]

That is just not remotely true by any rational measure.

It could be true, if the infrastructure were changed dramatically, to put barriers between pedestrian spaces and vehicular spaces, with only very limited crossing points, all with some sort of control.

But at present, it certainly isn't true.

You can't compare walking and driving because they are totally different forms for transport used in totally different circumstances.

Not one tenth as much as you are.

Per capita emissions mean everything.

You are being silly too.
Per capita emissions are meaningless. USA per capita emissions are double the rate of China, but China's population is nearly 5 times higher. UK per capita emissions are only 1/3rd that of the USA and our population is 5x smaller than the USA. The argument that per capita emissions matter is stupid unless taken in the context of population, so why bother, just use the output of the country as a whole in the first place.

 

[AJB Temple]

You are being silly too.
Per capita emissions are meaningless. USA per capita emissions are double the rate of China, but China's population is nearly 5 times higher. UK per capita emissions are only 1/3rd that of the USA and our population is 5x smaller than the USA. The argument that per capita emissions matter is stupid unless taken in the context of population, so why bother, just use the output of the country as a whole in the first place.

It's not really silly or meaningless though - as it gives an insight into how much a country outputs in terms of emissions, when measured against its population. Multiply one by the other and you get total emissions. But you also get a simple measure of how polluting a country is for each person in it. Per capita is not the only measure - it's just a measure that helps to provide context. As does total emissions. As would the type or mix of emissions. As would the reasons why some countries have higher emissions than others (for example restricted access to technology or lack of education about consequences). There are always several relevant factors needed in order to gain a useful understanding.

Calling people "silly" never helps debates and never persuades the person you call silly.

 

[Rorschach]

It's not really silly or meaningless though - as it gives an insight into how much a country outputs in terms of emissions, when measured against its population. Multiply one by the other and you get total emissions. But you also get a simple measure of how polluting a country is for each person in it. Per capita is not the only measure - it's just a measure that helps to provide context. As does total emissions. As would the type or mix of emissions. As would the reasons why some countries have higher emissions than others (for example restricted access to technology or lack of education about consequences). There are always several relevant factors needed in order to gain a useful understanding.

Calling people "silly" never helps debates and never persuades the person you call silly.

I agree, used in context it is very helpful, I stated that. What I was saying was silly is to use per capita as your basis for comparing countries which is what the previous commenters were doing. Spectric made the very valid point that what we do in the UK is meaningless in the grand scheme of things if big countries are not doing something. In the UK we have a moderate per capita emission rating but combined with the fact we are a small country means that our global impact is very small. It is silly to make the argument that what we do is important compared to countries like China that not only have a higher per capita rating than us, but are vastly more populous.

The commenters knew they couldn't win the argument based on total output so they chose a metric that suited their agenda, that is silly and easily debunked, as I just did. I know calling them silly won't persuade them, but nothing will persuade them, they have already drunk the cool aid.

 

[Tris]

I don't think that per country emissions would be much use. How much of China's emissions are down to producing goods for sale in the West?
Equally, what use is a per capita average as carbon footprint varies according to lifestyle.
Just my opinion

 

[evildrome]

A decent free public transport system would help immensely.

Like what Munich has. Ok, its not free but its nearly free for all it costs.

I lived there for 3 years and never missed having a car. My sisters been there for 20 years and has never owned a car.

Given that governments create money when they spend, there seems no reason not to subsidise the economy + help the environment.

Government can buy anything for sale in its own currency, at no cost to itself.

The only danger is inflation and I see no sign of that in the time it would take to build a modern mass transport system for the UK (say 10 years).

 

[NickWelford]

When I lived in London and worked in the city, I didn’t bother with a car. Rented when I needed one. Now I live in a hamlet with fewer than 20 people. Buses? Not ever, never will be. It’s 4.5 hilly miles to the nearest shop. A car is absolutely a necessity. I cannot afford to replace my diesel with electric. It has to last me another 10 years if possible. I suspect we will be taxed out of existence.

 

[boggy]

Consider electric assisted bikes, they cost about £2.5k for a decent-ish one. They are not much use for the weekly shopping trip nor for a trip to the dump, but the carrying capacity can be increased by using a trailer such as the
BOB Yak. www. bobtrailers.com.

 

[treeturner123]

As I can't be bothered to read through all 29 pages, please let me say the following:-

Charging Cars - I have a daughter who lives in Preston. Even in a I/C car, it can take 4 hours to get there. If I had to stop to charge, how long?!
Charge Points 1 - How many would be needed at Motorway service stations for example. Has no one seen the queues at Motorways at Bank Holiday, then add the time for charging a car!!
Charge Points 2 & 3 - Those of you in terraced houses, built onto the street with no garden, how are you going to charge your cars? And, how are we going to generate within the next 10 years, enough electricity to charge cars AND replace Gas heating in new houses with electric heating (Don't start me on that either!)
Road Tax & Petrol Duty - When the I/C car is no longer made, rumoured to be 2030 in the UK, how will the treasury regain the HUGE loss of tax and VAT? I bet that at that point or before, electric cars will have to pay the same license fee as any other type of car.
Car Share - Fine in the city but not in the country. End of....

Finally, don't give me any of the 'Free Public Transport'. For a start, it doesn't go where I want to go, at the time I NEED to go. If I needed to go by bus to our local hospital it would take 3 busses and then some walk, fine if you're fit, but if I'm going for an appointment, by definition, I won't be fit. BTW, time to hospital approx 2 hours for a direct journey of 13 mile. Then I'd have to get back. Second, there is no such thing as a Free anything, someone has to pay and the richer you are, the easier to move, employ tax experts to minimise etc. Better by far to encourage business and get the tax from them.

End of rant!!!

Phil

 

[D_W]

You realy do cherry pick what you respond to. In the KSI comment I also quoted absolute numbers. I find it incredible that you argue the KSI per mile is farcical and ignore 3000 CHILDREN killed or seriously injured in 2000 by vehicles. For the emissions comment you focus on per capita and completely ignor the other statistic based on population which shows the US being worse.

Anyway I'll not comment on this thread again it is obviously only for those with only one perspective. Is it any wonder the world is in the state it is...

Let's be realistic. There's never been a better time to live than now. Every generation is full of people decrying the state of the world while having it better than their parents, who had it better than their grandparents, and so on.

 

[D_W]

You can't compare walking and driving because they are totally different forms for transport used in totally different circumstances.



You are being silly too.
Per capita emissions are meaningless. USA per capita emissions are double the rate of China, but China's population is nearly 5 times higher. UK per capita emissions are only 1/3rd that of the USA and our population is 5x smaller than the USA. The argument that per capita emissions matter is stupid unless taken in the context of population, so why bother, just use the output of the country as a whole in the first place.

China is an emerging economy to some extent, too. Comparing emissions from emerging economies to mature wealthy economies is dopey.

 

[D_W]

That is just not remotely true by any rational measure.

It could be true, if the infrastructure were changed dramatically, to put barriers between pedestrian spaces and vehicular spaces, with only very limited crossing points, all with some sort of control.

But at present, it certainly isn't true.


Not one tenth as much as you are.

Per capita emissions mean everything.

Let's ignore explosive population growth and just focus on per capita......uh huh...everything.

 

[craigs]

what did i just walk in on....

*gets coat and leaves