We don't actually know that CO2 is a problem.

It could be rising temperatures happen and more CO2 is released as a result. You can draw either conclusion from the available data. At the expense of disappointing people, The Science isn't that convincing, despite what is claimed.

I will repeat again - eminent physicists such as William Happer (look him up, have a listen) consider that there isn't too much CO2 at all, rather there isn't enough of it.

What if we've been asking the wrong questions?


... meanwhile, back in hysterical media loony land, there's hot summer weather in continental Europe! Their blisteringly dark red map graphics prove it. Over here, we have a relatively cool and very wet July. All seems so very, very... normal and not concerning at all.

You're basically supporting the Precautionary Principle.
'Better safe than sorry' is beguiling but carries significant risk of unintended consequences. (Plus in this case, maybe, a cover for intended nefarious consequences)
Covid in fact was a real life experiment - the initial lockdown (early 2020, UK), may well have been appropriate - largely due a failing NHS with minimal spare capacity - but it rapidly became clear that the risk was not in the least universal. The precautionary principle should have been robustly challenged by 'the science' and the decision makers as the fatality data came in. It wasn't, 'just in case' kept us locked down at vast cost, and we will be suffering the societal impacts of two more lockdowns for years to come. And the kids will have been hit the most.

https://www.aei.org/arti...iple-without-principle/
"While the advocates of the precautionary principle rely on the rhetoric of prudence and public health protection, they encourage the exclusive focus on one set of risks while ignoring others. Contrary to what your mother may have told you, “better safe than sorry” isn’t always safer. In fact, when it comes to policies to protect public health and the environment, this type of thinking could do us in."

Written 2007. But what happened when covid came along? A complete meltdown of process, an unholy alliance of 'the science', useless politicians, media, and, tbh, an anti-Boris blob. (How dreadfully parochial and irresponsible that lot were).

It's very hard not to see the exact same thing happening with global warming/ climate change/ climate crisis/ climate catastrophe.

The disparity between the shrieking hysteria and what people see around them is extraordinary, yet what do the 'experts' do? Shriek louder and colour their weather charts ever redder. Not a very effective communication technique.

Everyone knows UK has a miniscule affect on global emissions yet they see Khan and his ULEZ, they see jumped up local councillors taking the opportunity to save the world with 5 bins per household, and all the rest. (But potholes go unfilled)
Sea level is not 10 inches higher than it was within living memory. The weather is not significantly different. 'Record broken' is usually qualified 'since records began in 1997' etc
They hear the Maldives bleating about disappearing then see them building/ enlarging 7 airports. They hear Pakistan politicians demand reparations because the monsoon floods are more dramatic and wonder why no-one asks why the deforestation was allowed to facilitate the floods.
Ditto with Canada and badly maintained firebreaks in the forests.

The more the shrieking from medialand and 'science', the more the jumped up local idiots play God, the less people are going to listen.. and the whole circus ramps ever higher with rhetoric.

If we really have hit the end of times then nothing we do will make the slightest bit of difference. Let's party.
Or,....Take some deep breaths, calm down and lets see what can be done to mitigate without wrecking everything else in a stupid rush to revolution.

Many people, vested interests and organisations see this a chance to realign the globe more 'equitably' - reparations anyone?
Many others just want to upset the status quo (almost always lefty metro revolutionaries) just for the hell of it.

If you're asking for thoughtfulness and moderation, then I'm with you. But we'll be drowned out by the hysterical shrieking, I'm afraid.

Edit. I think cutting waste is fantastic btw. It would be fantastic to do away with single use plastics, most packaging etc. I hate seeing what we are doing to the natural world with waste and excrement.
I also think the IC engine has reached the end of its evolution and it's time for something else. I look forward to the next exciting propulsion system.
But no-one is going to expect me to comply with kneejerk political tricks designed to simply redistribute my 'wealth' nor ruin my families futures, under the guise of this stupidity.
Thirty years of apocalyptic and entirely wrong headlines ( the next ice age??) give me all I need to take that position.

Norwegian ferry company banned EV cars from its ships earlier in the year. It doesn't seem to have made the news here, not on the Biased Broadcasting Corporation anyway. Can't have honest and factual reporting spoiling the The Narrative now can we?

https://www.autoevolution.com/ne...on-its-ships-208942.html

EV cars pose a dangerous fire hazard it seems.

This is whilst we find that multi storey car parks are not designed to take the weight of these over priced and inefficient lumps of shite. Nor are the road surfaces, so we can expect even more pot holes as the general public are forced to drive these things. Then there's the dangerous pollution from all the rubber and brake dust particles from such ludicrously heavy vehicles.

Looks like our politicians and their useless officials have been sold a pup again. I wonder what other green policies will turn out to be expensive mistakes as well...?

I see the government is now starting to backtrack on its 2030 petrol car ban. I wonder why.

^^ probably worth noting that there are far, far more ICE vehicles currently on the road, and a proportion that are quite old and knackered, like the old bangers some people drive. Whereas the EVs are all new. Yet Eurostar and this ferry company have more confidence in ICE vehicles.

I guess it is similar to how airlines don't like people putting their laptops in the hold. Even a small laptop battery can cause a disastrous fire. The EV batteries are enormous.

There are other issues....

An IC fuel tank tends to be at the rear of a vehicle and reasonably high up. If it gets punctured it will leak fuel. If the car is moving it is losing fuel as it drives along. There is no obvious ignition source..

In an EV battery they are usually right under the passenger compartment. They tend (from videos) to burn outwards and sideways, making getting out of a vehicle very very hard. Then the passenger compartment is consumed. But also the battery IS the ignition source. A punctured battery will set on for the moment air reaches the lithium. No source of ignition is needed.

This happens very fast. Just how fast a bus can go from "smoking" to "all the passengers are now dead" can take literally 2-3 seconds, as can be seen here....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T71cVhxG_v4

When this happens, as it inevitably will, everyone will be saying "how could anyone have known". Well we do know. We know now the issues. But the EV zealots will simply ignore this and carry on because it's too inconvenient to face the reality that they are going to fry a lot of people....

And another.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YoBiNhjMPg

Diesel buses simply don't do this...