Global excuses

First published in Letters

FEWER cars? In response to Clive Shakesheff’s letter of August 5, I fully endorse these comments.

Global warming is just an excuse to make more money out of a gullible public. We are encouraged to buy electric cars to go green.

I am waiting for the first big crash involving these. There will indeed be a very big explosion that will make petrol fuel seem harmless.

We live in a more dirty, dangerous and complicated society where few people understand how many things work, can’t repair and, in many cases, don’t understand how to use their toys.

We use more and more energy making new products that the consumer is told will use less energy and save the planet.

All that’s happening is that we are adding to the problem.

Machines and cars do not use less energy than 60 years ago. Although they may be a little more efficient, most appliances and tools are overpowered. A typical electric drill 60 years ago was 250-350W now it has to be 500W upwards, so it uses twice as much to do the same job, and vacuum cleaners use three times more.

We waste energy on inefficient lighting, we are told, when the waste is not to do with the efficiency, but how the light is used. Again, 60 years ago, you did not leave lights on unnecessarily. Now, people can’t be bothered to switch them off.

We need a government that will govern and control without ripping off the public.

G Davies, Cardiff Road, Newport

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:09pm Mon 18 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

What rot.

Electric cars have less energy density than petrol ones (that's one of the reason that despite proportionately more weight in batteries they can't travel as far as petrol car) and as such the "danger" of a "big explosion" is a lot less than for a fossil fuel car. No-one opposes fossil fuel cars due to the risk of explosions so to argue that this is a more significant risk for electric ones is specious at best.

Oh, and first big crash? That would be the one where a Tesla Model S was rammed into a lamppost at 100mph ripping it in half - the front half caught fire. Just like a petrol engined car would. No explosion, no catastrophe.

>Global warming is just an excuse to make more money out of a gullible public.
>We live in a more dirty, dangerous and complicated society where few people understand how many things work, can’t repair and, in many cases, don’t understand how to use their toys.

Apparently though you are able to understand how many things work the clear scientific evidence that global warming is happening is not one of them.

You can argue with man-made climate change if you like (and to my mind the science is not suitably sound to prove the case), but Global Climate Change *is* happening. There is a clear and evident trend when you look at the figures.

Given the cost of doing nothing (probable global famine and population collapse, possible extinction-level event), the "green taxes" are a small price to pay. It's a simple risk/reward balance.

If we do something and man-made global warming is false, we're slightly poorer.
If we do something and man-made global warming is true, we've got a chance to avert disaster.
If we do nothing and man-made global warming is false, we're slightly richer.
If we do nothing and man-made global warming is true, we've got no chance to avert catastrophe.

Even if you wholeheartedly believe that the science points to it not being true, the consequences of being wrong are too high.

Put it another way;

You go to the doctors with a cold and he does some tests and comes back to say that there's a 99% chance you've got a common cold but a 1% chance you've got an aggressive form of Ebola which if allowed to spread will kill you. He says he can't prescribe anything as there's nothing agreed by NICE but there's an experimental drug which you can take for a pound a day which will guarantee that the Ebola doesn't kill you.

Would you take the risk or would you pay for the drugs?
What rot. Electric cars have less energy density than petrol ones (that's one of the reason that despite proportionately more weight in batteries they can't travel as far as petrol car) and as such the "danger" of a "big explosion" is a lot less than for a fossil fuel car. No-one opposes fossil fuel cars due to the risk of explosions so to argue that this is a more significant risk for electric ones is specious at best. Oh, and first big crash? That would be the one where a Tesla Model S was rammed into a lamppost at 100mph ripping it in half - the front half caught fire. Just like a petrol engined car would. No explosion, no catastrophe. >Global warming is just an excuse to make more money out of a gullible public. >We live in a more dirty, dangerous and complicated society where few people understand how many things work, can’t repair and, in many cases, don’t understand how to use their toys. Apparently though you are able to understand how many things work the clear scientific evidence that global warming is happening is not one of them. You can argue with man-made climate change if you like (and to my mind the science is not suitably sound to prove the case), but Global Climate Change *is* happening. There is a clear and evident trend when you look at the figures. Given the cost of doing nothing (probable global famine and population collapse, possible extinction-level event), the "green taxes" are a small price to pay. It's a simple risk/reward balance. If we do something and man-made global warming is false, we're slightly poorer. If we do something and man-made global warming is true, we've got a chance to avert disaster. If we do nothing and man-made global warming is false, we're slightly richer. If we do nothing and man-made global warming is true, we've got no chance to avert catastrophe. Even if you wholeheartedly believe that the science points to it not being true, the consequences of being wrong are too high. Put it another way; You go to the doctors with a cold and he does some tests and comes back to say that there's a 99% chance you've got a common cold but a 1% chance you've got an aggressive form of Ebola which if allowed to spread will kill you. He says he can't prescribe anything as there's nothing agreed by NICE but there's an experimental drug which you can take for a pound a day which will guarantee that the Ebola doesn't kill you. Would you take the risk or would you pay for the drugs? mkaibear1
  • Score: 2

7:47pm Mon 18 Aug 14

Mervyn James says...

The consumer society will destroy us, we cannot keep on following the consumer trail, the resources aren't there to maintain it, not without destroying the resources of other countries as well. And when we do that what is left ? China/India are demanding even more than we do, and have the dense populations and buying power to get priority too. One savant stated the only answer was a world war to cull demand, well, we are half way there already. Greed kills.
The consumer society will destroy us, we cannot keep on following the consumer trail, the resources aren't there to maintain it, not without destroying the resources of other countries as well. And when we do that what is left ? China/India are demanding even more than we do, and have the dense populations and buying power to get priority too. One savant stated the only answer was a world war to cull demand, well, we are half way there already. Greed kills. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

11:02am Wed 20 Aug 14

-trigg- says...

If you really want to do something that will actually make a longterm difference to the levels of pollution and environmental damage then forget about reducing the number of cars on the road.

To actually have any efffect on the environment there would need to be a drastic and sustained reduction in global population. Strangely, you don't hear the 'greens' advocating wholesale slaughter., and instead target drivers as a soft option.
If you really want to do something that will actually make a longterm difference to the levels of pollution and environmental damage then forget about reducing the number of cars on the road. To actually have any efffect on the environment there would need to be a drastic and sustained reduction in global population. Strangely, you don't hear the 'greens' advocating wholesale slaughter., and instead target drivers as a soft option. -trigg-
  • Score: 1

1:41pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Realist UK says...

Considering the UK is accountable for less than 2% of the total output of so call carbon emissions I ask why the UK has taken global responsibility for saving the planet? India, China, Russia & even Germany laugh up their sleeves at out struggling economy due to our "green" religion while they plough forward with coal fired energy. As was put so succinctly recently, the UK by single handedly crippling themselves in energy costs to "save the planet" is like attempting to empty an olympic sized pool with a table fork. Tree hugger I am not, as I refuse to shoulder the burden of saving the world.
Considering the UK is accountable for less than 2% of the total output of so call carbon emissions I ask why the UK has taken global responsibility for saving the planet? India, China, Russia & even Germany laugh up their sleeves at out struggling economy due to our "green" religion while they plough forward with coal fired energy. As was put so succinctly recently, the UK by single handedly crippling themselves in energy costs to "save the planet" is like attempting to empty an olympic sized pool with a table fork. Tree hugger I am not, as I refuse to shoulder the burden of saving the world. Realist UK
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Wed 20 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Realist UK wrote:
Considering the UK is accountable for less than 2% of the total output of so call carbon emissions I ask why the UK has taken global responsibility for saving the planet? India, China, Russia & even Germany laugh up their sleeves at out struggling economy due to our "green" religion while they plough forward with coal fired energy. As was put so succinctly recently, the UK by single handedly crippling themselves in energy costs to "save the planet" is like attempting to empty an olympic sized pool with a table fork. Tree hugger I am not, as I refuse to shoulder the burden of saving the world.
Because someone has to. If by making changes ourselves we can push other people to make changes so much the better - but since we don't know how much change in carbon emissions is necessary to put off the coming catastrophe we can't legitimately argue that it's nothing we need to do.

If the UK's impetus pushes the world onto a safer path, it's worth it. If it doesn't then it's all pointless anyway as we're on course for disaster!

Oh, and it's interesting that our "struggling" economy outperformed every other major world economy last year... clearly the green taxes are totally crippling us!
[quote][p][bold]Realist UK[/bold] wrote: Considering the UK is accountable for less than 2% of the total output of so call carbon emissions I ask why the UK has taken global responsibility for saving the planet? India, China, Russia & even Germany laugh up their sleeves at out struggling economy due to our "green" religion while they plough forward with coal fired energy. As was put so succinctly recently, the UK by single handedly crippling themselves in energy costs to "save the planet" is like attempting to empty an olympic sized pool with a table fork. Tree hugger I am not, as I refuse to shoulder the burden of saving the world.[/p][/quote]Because someone has to. If by making changes ourselves we can push other people to make changes so much the better - but since we don't know how much change in carbon emissions is necessary to put off the coming catastrophe we can't legitimately argue that it's nothing we need to do. If the UK's impetus pushes the world onto a safer path, it's worth it. If it doesn't then it's all pointless anyway as we're on course for disaster! Oh, and it's interesting that our "struggling" economy outperformed every other major world economy last year... clearly the green taxes are totally crippling us! mkaibear1
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Realist UK says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
Realist UK wrote:
Considering the UK is accountable for less than 2% of the total output of so call carbon emissions I ask why the UK has taken global responsibility for saving the planet? India, China, Russia & even Germany laugh up their sleeves at out struggling economy due to our "green" religion while they plough forward with coal fired energy. As was put so succinctly recently, the UK by single handedly crippling themselves in energy costs to "save the planet" is like attempting to empty an olympic sized pool with a table fork. Tree hugger I am not, as I refuse to shoulder the burden of saving the world.
Because someone has to. If by making changes ourselves we can push other people to make changes so much the better - but since we don't know how much change in carbon emissions is necessary to put off the coming catastrophe we can't legitimately argue that it's nothing we need to do.

If the UK's impetus pushes the world onto a safer path, it's worth it. If it doesn't then it's all pointless anyway as we're on course for disaster!

Oh, and it's interesting that our "struggling" economy outperformed every other major world economy last year... clearly the green taxes are totally crippling us!
Spoken like a true Utopian tree-hugger. Got a windmill in your field? It's 20k a year guaranteed rent income. Up the GREENS!!!
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Realist UK[/bold] wrote: Considering the UK is accountable for less than 2% of the total output of so call carbon emissions I ask why the UK has taken global responsibility for saving the planet? India, China, Russia & even Germany laugh up their sleeves at out struggling economy due to our "green" religion while they plough forward with coal fired energy. As was put so succinctly recently, the UK by single handedly crippling themselves in energy costs to "save the planet" is like attempting to empty an olympic sized pool with a table fork. Tree hugger I am not, as I refuse to shoulder the burden of saving the world.[/p][/quote]Because someone has to. If by making changes ourselves we can push other people to make changes so much the better - but since we don't know how much change in carbon emissions is necessary to put off the coming catastrophe we can't legitimately argue that it's nothing we need to do. If the UK's impetus pushes the world onto a safer path, it's worth it. If it doesn't then it's all pointless anyway as we're on course for disaster! Oh, and it's interesting that our "struggling" economy outperformed every other major world economy last year... clearly the green taxes are totally crippling us![/p][/quote]Spoken like a true Utopian tree-hugger. Got a windmill in your field? It's 20k a year guaranteed rent income. Up the GREENS!!! Realist UK
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree