| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 138373 | 2014-11-20 19:37:00 | Global Warming......... | B.M. (505) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1388432 | 2014-11-23 02:54:00 | You're still making a simple error. Climate change is not the same as an emissions tax, pure and simple. I will blame you, because you're the one who is doing it here. You're the one saying 'I don't like an emissions tax, so I will argue that their is no climate change'. Don't blame others for your own actions. Show me where I said Climate Change was the same as Emissions Tax. :confused: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1388433 | 2014-11-23 02:59:00 | Hiking taxes to stop climate change doesn't help the issue. Is the climate changing? Yes it is, are we accelerating that change inconclusive. Burying your head emu style doesn't make it go away either. Coming up with a better strategy than raising tax might help. Whining and moaning about it won't help. I'm not personally convinced we are making it worse at the moment because the scientists can't agree. But I do think there are things we can do to help. Take the Tessla car, it seems a good idea on paper. Make a car that doesn't use petrol Oh yay. Until you remember that most electricity is made from burning fossil fuels, Oh bugger. Not everywhere - we use mainly hydro-generated electrickery in NZ, the US/UK/France, more often than not, nuclear. However the big idiocy with electric cars that the greenies conveniently forget to remember is the fact that their batteries are manufactured using rare earth metals (lithium) and the 'carbon footprint' (much as I abhor that description) for this mining/shipping/manufacture process far outweighs any benefit to the environment. Especially when you consider the short lifetime of said batteries.... |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 1388434 | 2014-11-23 03:55:00 | Electric cars don't have much future in NZ the way electricity prices are going. On the bright side though, milk powered cars would be even worse. At least petrol / diesel prices drop occasionally. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1388435 | 2014-11-23 04:09:00 | Well instead of mucking around fudging the argument, how about explaining how Carbon Tax will solve this dreaded problem. :lol: You keep making a few basic mistakes in how you argue your beliefs. Also, whether or not you believe in climate change being at least partly affected by human actions, and whether you believe their should be a form of tax on emissions are two different questions. Show me where I said Climate Change was the same as Emissions Tax. :confused: Whether climate change is occurring, and whether an emissions tax is desirable, are two very different debates. Yet you keep linking the two together, for example replying to a post about climate change with one about an emissions tax (posts 23 & 24). The two are not the same thing, and yet you seemingly refuse to accept that. I rest my case. |
Nick G (16709) | ||
| 1388436 | 2014-11-23 05:52:00 | Not everywhere - we use mainly hydro-generated electrickery in NZ, the US/UK/France, more often than not, nuclear. However the big idiocy with electric cars that the greenies conveniently forget to remember is the fact that their batteries are manufactured using rare earth metals (lithium) and the 'carbon footprint' (much as I abhor that description) for this mining/shipping/manufacture process far outweighs any benefit to the environment. Especially when you consider the short lifetime of said batteries.... Correct i was going to come back with something like that after thinking through my reply. I did read an article today in a magazine about how the Tesla man Elon something or other (I forget his name) wants to mass produce photovoltaic panels and thus flood the market driving the price down, while I applaud his thinking it wont actually reduce emissions in the short term as I'm sure producing the panels will consume quit a lot of fossil fuels and rare earth minerals. |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 1388437 | 2014-11-23 06:40:00 | Whether climate change is occurring, and whether an emissions tax is desirable, are two very different debates. Yet you keep linking the two together, for example replying to a post about climate change with one about an emissions tax (posts 23 & 24). The two are not the same thing, and yet you seemingly refuse to accept that. I rest my case. :lol: Well you don’t have a case to rest because Global Warming & Carbon Tax are inseparably linked. The Carbon Tax supposedly being the fix for Global Warming. If the Tax was for something else tell me what. I can see you would argue that a car shouldn’t be called a "dog" just because its motor is for ever failing. After all, the bumper is fine. Anyway, thank you for confirming that the Greenies are still as illogical as ever. :lol: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1388438 | 2014-11-23 08:09:00 | Anyway, thank you for confirming that the Greenies are still as illogical as ever. :lol: *cough* ;) |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1388439 | 2014-11-23 08:45:00 | Not everywhere - we use mainly hydro-generated electrickery in NZ, the US/UK/France, more often than not, nuclear. However the big idiocy with electric cars that the greenies conveniently forget to remember is the fact that their batteries are manufactured using rare earth metals (lithium) and the 'carbon footprint' (much as I abhor that description) for this mining/shipping/manufacture process far outweighs any benefit to the environment. Especially when you consider the short lifetime of said batteries....But if a car is to be produced anyway would it not be better for it to be electric. The amount of energy it take to refine fuel far exceeds the amount to make a battery. | plod (107) | ||
| 1388440 | 2014-11-23 08:54:00 | :lol: Well you don’t have a case to rest because Global Warming & Carbon Tax are inseparably linked. The Carbon Tax supposedly being the fix for Global Warming. If the Tax was for something else tell me what. I can see you would argue that a car shouldn’t be called a "dog" just because its motor is for ever failing. After all, the bumper is fine. Anyway, thank you for confirming that the Greenies are still as illogical as ever. :lol: You're wrong, plain and simple. There are many possible ways to tackle climate change, an emissions tax being one of them - not the only, or necessarily the right, way. As for calling me a greenie - shows how little you know me! I'm personally more of a National supporter, although with Andrew Little the Labour party is seeming far more attractive than with Cunliffe. Wouldn't vote greens currently; I think some of their welfare policies are silly. But when it comes down to it, I don't pick a party and blindly support them, I look at the issues key to me and pick the party which I believe will handle them the best - but it doesn't mean I support them on everything. But thanks for confirming what I've been saying for the last few posts - that you're linking your stance on whether Climate Change is real or not to your beliefs about an emissions tax. There's a pretty big difference between the two, which I hope most educated people would understand ;) |
Nick G (16709) | ||
| 1388441 | 2014-11-23 10:06:00 | But if a car is to be produced anyway would it not be better for it to be electric. The amount of energy it take to refine fuel far exceeds the amount to make a battery. No not really, fuel production is really quite efficient the issues with it are about emissions and the limited supply. There's a reason petrol has remained the dominant fuel for so long, despite many attempts they have not yet come up with a truly viable alternative that isn't many times more expensive and/or just as bad/worse for the environment. Many of the solutions that seem good at a glance bring their own problems or just aren't able to be done on a large enough scale to replace petrol. Batteries are expensive to produce, take a long time to recharge, and don't always last very long (although supposedly a prius battery should last the life of the car in most cases but that's a hybrid anyway and not all it's cracked up to be). Also you are ignoring the issue of recharging the batteries and disposing of them once used up. Toyota is releasing a hydrogen fuel cell powered car in california next year, it has a 5 min refuel time and a 500km range. At first glance that seems like the first truly usable alternative yet. Except we come back to the question of how you produce the fuel. If it can be produced naturally and cleanly great, but if you use electrolysis to produce it from water you again just shift the fossil fuel burning from the vehicle to the power plants needed to make the fuel. www.theguardian.com |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||