Do you agree with the ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2035?

Can we not just grow more veg oil and run around in old diesels pumping them full of chip fat?

 

Your vision for the future sounds like absolute * to me, tbh. Personal transport is freedom.

But I think you are correct in terms of what the agenda is actually about. It's not about changing the weather. It's about making personal transport unaffordable for the working class.

Do you drive currently KoK?

 

Aye * public transport. Absoloute pish.

We already kind of have them, but I'd like proper futuristic demolition man cars. You drive in the town but just say "alton towers" or something far away and the car can drive you on the motorway while you watch a movie or have a nap. Would be qaulity.

 

Im absolutely for it but i'm still skeptical over the lfie span of electric vehicles and specifically the second hand market.

I dont know what the realistic next step is, hydrogen?

 

Expensive, air polluting automobiles hurtling around at breakneck speeds would’ve sounded like * to plenty of people who preferred horseback riding. This is the nature of change - people complain, adapt, and then thrive.

That wasn’t what I was implying any agenda was about. The introduction of EV’s and the investment into public transport go hand in hand in regards to tackling the climate emergency, but the former has no impact on personal freedoms. It simply replaces one mode of personal transport with another.

I do drive currently, and not an EV. The UK isn’t a great example of success, because car ownership is exceptionally high, and public transport is poor and expensive. Plenty of countries make it work very well though, to the extent that the drawbacks of having a car begin to outweigh the benefits, particularly in urban environments. I was in Ghent about a month ago, and the city centre itself was virtually free of motorised transport.

 

Wait, so the agenda isn't about trying to help the climate - record heat levels, record flooding levels, record dry spells, record ice melt etc etc but the agenda is about trying to price the working class out of owning a car...

Looks like another record level has been reached as well now... the sheer level of uninformed ignorance some folk have.

 

Just seen a video that is a perfect example of why mandating EVs will not work.

Here is a YT Short with a bit of background about why he is more than qualified to talk about the issue.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-7GCsP7S8rs

This is the point. He explains why fully electric will be impossible for a lot of industries.
https://x.com/MusicScarf/status/1718968681655570847?s=20



It's a pipe dream that is clearly not in the best interests of anyone. People will be forced to admit it eventually.

You don't need to be a genius to see that we don't have the energy capacity to replace the petrol and diesel for transport.

 

It's the assumption that we have the ability to change the climate that holds you back from taking a rational stance.

You have been sold a solution and have religious like faith that it is true.

NetZero in the UK has already been offset by the sheer amount of water vapor and chemicals that have been released into the atmosphere the past few weeks with all the volcanos erupting. Nature has a way of putting us back in our place.

Sure, we should be trying to be more sustainable. Hybrid technology, EVs mandates for certain industries, invest in nuclear. But banning new ICE vehicles is a * stupid idea.

Thankfully, the majority on this forum are able to see it and are not blinded by a political or personal stance on a very important issue.

I seen this comment on Instagram that sums it up perfectly.

"Here in California, we use 18,000,000,000 gallons of gasoline a year. That is equivalent to about 600 TW hours of electricity. California presently consumes 250 TW hours of electricity, but only produces 200 TW hours of it, making California, a net importer of electricity. 5 mi.2 of solar panels produce 1/3 TW hours of electricity per year. California is approximately 160,000 mi.². To generate enough electricity to replace gasoline energy would require paving over 1/3 of California with solar panels.

 

Me being unable to take a rational stance... this from the same individual who actually didn't know gas was a fossil fuel is priceless
While neither of us know what the majority on here believe, seriously I wont be taking your wee poll as a definitive guide lol, if we look at the stats for the wider population on climate concerns -

"During the latest period*, 74% of adults in Great Britain aged 16 years and over said they were (very or somewhat) worried about climate change. This latest estimate is similar compared with when the question was asked a year ago at 75% (6 to 17 October 2021)."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ng the latest period, 74,6 to 17 October 2021).

*due to be updated.

So while it might be different on here, I doubt that very, very, much though, so you making claims that the majority are somehow seeing things as you do is utterly laughable.
Some day you are going to stop making claims that are nothing more than outright lies... but given your long history of doing that - lying- it wont be soon tbh will it. Why this is tolerated on here amazes me.. but at least it doesn't reflect on me.
You are nothing more than a deeply untrustworthy individual who will happily and knowingly make any kind of misleading, inaccurate or down right false claim to try and make whatever guff you are peddling look accurate/truthful.

Have a nice day you lying wee *

 

People being "very or somewhat worried about climate change" is not the same as people having a rational discussion on policies that will drastically effect our life. Thinking that the poll you linked has any relevance is cute.

You call me a liar in a pathetic attempt to avoid the relevant points I have made. You ignore them and keep going back to something that was said months ago. That tells me all I need to know, honestly.

If you spotted me posting any sort of inaccurate information you would be in here screaming and shouting like the little gimp you are. It's clear for all to see.

 

You talking about a rational discussion is ironic given the level of hysterical and misleading guff you post.

I note you make no attempt to deny being called a liar - That tells me/anyone reading this all we need to know "honestly"

You seem to be under the illusion I read all of the waffle you post, I don't. Yet when I do read a post from you, surprise surprise, there is an error shall we say... this is clear for all to see.

ps if someone clearly demonstrates how utterly clueless they are... there is no time frame on that being brought up

 

When you say your skeptical about the life span of EV's what do you mean exactly? They have less regular maintenance to do on them then an ICE car. No reason I can see why my EV won't last at least as long if not longer then an ICE car would for me.

 

I have no problem with you calling me a liar because I know you are an angry wee troll who throws out accusations to avoid actually bringing anything to the discussion. If someone else called me a liar, I would probably be more willing to defend myself. But with you, I don't care.

You have once again derailed a thread bringing absolutely nothing to it.

You saying you have not read any of my posts only means you haven't found a tiny wee detail to have a tantrum about to try and discredit me completely so you pretend to have ignored them. You are pathetic, childish and embarrassing.

 

Ah the defence of you are a troll eh... * * is that the best you can manage.. seriously

As for the bolded, they do say self reflection is good for the soul.. so lets see if you actually act upon it son.

You completely discredited yourself a long time ago. As for derailing threads you should go look at the threads you have taken over in ... no * bothers even posting in them much at all now due to the level of utter * you post, they have turned into one long bigman post line of waffle and false claims

 

Everything I post is accurate with the relevant info linked where possible.

I would ask you for some examples of my "false claims" but we both know you won't do this.

Enjoy your night you sad little troll.

 

Where possible... indeed lol.

Examples... that's easy, all anyone needs do is scroll through your waffle and they will soon come across numerous other posters who have pulled up your false claims and bullshite son.

As I've said before - Every time I upset some right wing scum bag I enjoy myself.

 

If only it was just me who pulled you up.... but its not been just me has it, so I don't need to waste my time going looking for them as other folk know it to be correct.

 

Batteries have a shelf life - through daily use and charging, they'll naturally lose their effectiveness.

I presume that new batteries are going to cost an absolute fortune (wouldn't be surprised if the battery is at least a third of the price of a new vehicle in some instances), which falls into my second point of the second hand market issues and what condition the battery will be in by that point. Insurance will no doubt exclude battery cover.

As I say, I'm skeptical. On lease, yeah fine. Past that, no chance I'm taking one.

 

I just hope that when the battery goes down it dims the headlights on your SUVs with 10,000kW floodlights attached to the front.

Maybe then I can drive down a country road at night with my retinas intact. What the * is up with those headlights.