so what are you going to do when there is no more petrol at all?

[Orangejuicemarathoner]

All these people all over the media and social media saying why they personally need petrol over other people, because their job is more important/their need is greatest/they have no alternative, or whatever.

They don't seem to realise that petrol is expected to run out completely in their life time anyway. 4-5 decades, most projections, although it is likely to become unavailable to private citizens a long time before that, maybe 20-30 years before.

What are these people planning to do then?

What are these people planning to do if the country does run out next week, or next month, or next year, any of which is possibly after Brexit, and what are they planning to do in a world or a country without petrol?

@BoreiPuriHagafen I don't own a car and can't drive either. I too think it is unnecessary to own a car in our area but am sometimes shocked at how many people here own cars and drive regularly. But my point was that even though it is suburban london, we still are under such restrictions so we should not be surprised if they are increasingly introduced in many other urban areas across the UK and given that most people live in urban areas, they should take that into consideration when buying their next car. Definitely go for electric. And if they can't buy an electric car for whatever reason, maybe move to a place with acceptable public transport.

@BoreiPuriHagafen cool username! hag Sameach

@ejhhhhh

It could also be said that you just don't WANT to believe in climate change, if you don't think CO2 emissions are real air pollution *@UsedUpUsername*. Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't meant the rest of the world is going to agree with you. It seems like wishful thinking on your behalf if you don't think we're in for some drastic lifestyle changes (and yes, that will mean lots of government interference) as a consequence of global heating.

lol obviously climate change is real. But I don’t think we need to significantly change our lifestyle either. A rich, productive society is better able to mitigate, and the developing world is harmed by poverty more than climate change. They need access to cheap fuels—more people die from cold than from heat.

You seem giddy by the prospect of government interference. That’s a bit concerning.

Besides, if people were actually concerned they’d be building nuclear power plants like it was the 70s again, not throwing away good money chasing some green pipe dream.

Also, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It’s a greenhouse gas. When we talk about pollutants, it should be things harmful to human health and plant life (and not in the existential sense either)

@FixTheBone

The biggest development will not be electric cars, but self driving.

Once a car van drop you at work then go get the next person, it won't be economically viable or desirable to own a car.

Most people will subscribe, like Netflix or Amazon, but the total number of cars will need to be far fewer, which in turn will save more energy than simply moving away from fossil fuels.

This

Hopefully the bus and train services will improve a lot.

Not really sure what that's based on, really.

@UsedUpUsername please don't lecture me on chemistry and climate science, I know what I'm talking about (scientist by profession, in a related field), are you confident that you do? Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant. Just like methane, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides and carbon particles and CFCs are air pollution. What you're calling air pollution is actually just carbon particulates and nitrous oxides, and they're only distinguished as such from carbon dioxide so the lay person can understand the difference. Carbon dioxide is of course a type of air pollution, but it's a different type of air pollution to that which affects air quality and therefore asthma etc, so it's termed "air pollution" in non scientific publications. But air pollution actually encompasses many different pollutants.

Please tell me what you think a greenhouse gas is if it's not a pollutant @UsedUpUsername. Wow me with your scientific knowledge. If you put that on a GCSE paper you'd get 0.

Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant.

has anyone told the plants ?

[quote onlychildhamster]@BoreiPuriHagafen cool username! hag Sameach[/quote]
You're the first person ever to clock it! Chag sameach to you too.

Oohhh, you know plants take in carbon dioxide in photosynthesis, aren't you clever? Rocking that primary school level science there aren't we? Pretty much all air pollution has a natural cause and is completely normal in safe levels. Fire releases carbon particulates, animals produce methane etc. It's when the quantities released exceed natural levels it's a pollutant. Where did you do your PhD? The school of Google? I'm sorry, I actually do have a PhD in this stuff from a real life university, go away and get some more qualifications if you want to critise my knowledge.

I won't engage with this anymore. But it grinds my gears to have spent 8 years of my life studying and researching this, just to have randoms on the internet tell me I'm wrong about school level science. Just because you can read the internet, does not mean you understand what you're talking about.

We don't know who anyone is on here and what their qualifications are. People can post any old shit.

That is very true. But please, I'd love to hear about what they're highly qualified in, so I could pick some basic fact in their field to argue to toss about, so they could experience how frustrating that is. You may not believe me, but I'm being 💯 truthful. It's not like you need a PhD to even verify these basic facts, they actually are there on the internet for everyone to access. At least do a Google first when you assert scientific facts when you don't actually have any expertise. Then you're less likely to get rants from pissed off people like me! I'm completely happy to be called out if I am wrong by those with more knowledge then me. But I wouldn't argue about stuff when I don't actually, fully understand, and criticise those that do. I'd have to be pretty confident in my knowledge to be that arrogant.

[quote ejhhhhh]@UsedUpUsername please don't lecture me on chemistry and climate science, I know what I'm talking about (scientist by profession, in a related field), are you confident that you do? Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant. Just like methane, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides and carbon particles and CFCs are air pollution. What you're calling air pollution is actually just carbon particulates and nitrous oxides, and they're only distinguished as such from carbon dioxide so the lay person can understand the difference. Carbon dioxide is of course a type of air pollution, but it's a different type of air pollution to that which affects air quality and therefore asthma etc, so it's termed "air pollution" in non scientific publications. But air pollution actually encompasses many different pollutants.[/quote]
This is a value judgement and shows some bias in your thinking. A pollutant traditionally should be harmful to human health or to the environment. I’m concerned with air pollution when it comes to the ICE; I don’t really care about CO2 as it’s harmless to humans.

I’ve lived in places with horrible air pollution, caused by coal plants. So this is rather an important distinction to me—bad air days literally caused people to have heart attacks.

People need to take air pollution more seriously and not confuse it with carbon emissions or act as if lowering carbon emissions should be the be all end all.

Yes, I do agree with your points about air quality. But why assert that carbon dioxide isn't an air pollutant so strongly? I sense a hint of bias in your argument too, as you seem to be minimising it. when even if not a "traditional" air pollutant, and why would it have been, before it was understood that levels were rising due to human activity, and affecting the earth's temperature, it was considered harmless, but it is now considered an air pollutant as it is at levels that are harmful. I think that shows just as much bias in your judgement. You seem to want to deny that it is now classified as a pollutant, why is that?

Well, short of acquiring a flying carpet hopefully in years to come electric cars will be a lot more affordable with the right level of infrastructure to support ownership. I'm in a 2 bed terrace so charging an electric vehicle at the current time would be nigh on impossible!

@ejhhhhh

Yes, I do agree with your points about air quality. But why assert that carbon dioxide isn't an air pollutant so strongly? I sense a hint of bias in your argument too, as you seem to be minimising it. when even if not a "traditional" air pollutant, and why would it have been, before it was understood that levels were rising due to human activity, and affecting the earth's temperature, it was considered harmless, but it is now considered an air pollutant as it is at levels that are harmful. I think that shows just as much bias in your judgement. You seem to want to deny that it is now classified as a pollutant, why is that?

Thank you for recognising my concerns here. I am definitely biased because I find that normies conflate CO2 with the black sooty stuff that comes out of industrial plants. Having lived in a place with smog that can blacken your white laundry when left hanging out to dry (imagine what that’s doing to your lungs), it sort of makes me angry when something essentially harmless to human health is classified the same as a real pollutant that can actually kill you.

I suspect the classification is precisely so governments can legally place limits on carbon emissions.

Ive pumped my bike tyres up …

But I know I’m fortunate to not live rurally

That is probably the case, yes. Poor air quality is such a big problem, it's literally killing people, and CO2 emissions are often unhelpfully conflates with that, that's true. It annoys be when the fashionably eco drive around in their hydrid cars and tut at takeaway coffee cups, then fire up their log burners at home (when they live in a city and have gas central heating, so they've no need for it they just like it) without a second though about their local air quality. But CO2 emissions are harmful to health, very harmful. Australia will be so hot it's inhabitable, isn't that harmful to health? When a home is underwater, or on fire, isn't that harmful? And when crops can no longer grow? What's happening now is just a taster of what's to come, and what has happened already is pretty hairy. CO2 emissions and carbon particulates/nitrous oxides are now all classified as pollutants, because we now know that they are all harmful and levels must be controlled. Why the hostility to the switch to EV on the basis of CO2 emissions? A wholesale switch to EV will help both CO2 emissions and air quality, but why is that a positive move on the basis of air quality only?

Moments like this should be absolutely seized by the car manufacturers. They should be lobbying hard for EV points in the places that stop people buying eg terraced houses with no drives. Every manufacturer should be looking at their best sellers and ramping up design and production. You cannot buy an electric Fiesta WHY??? One of the biggest selling small cars around and you can't buy an electric version. And when you do design it, just drop the bloody price and consumers will be there by the bucket.

Also, Vauxhall I know you've done it with the Corsa but FGS make it look like car adults would drive rather than buy for their small children.

[quote TroysMammy]@JesusMaryAndJosephAndTheWeeDon as hamsters are nocturnal you'd have to work nights. The lazy little blighters will be asleep during the day.[/quote]
Fuck it, back to plan A and making the horse earn her keep then

Well, in 2-3decades, we'll almost definitely not have the same car. It's pretty economicsl for a larger car but it's 61 reg.

4-5 decades, if dh or I are still around, I doubt there will be any driving happening. We're a lot older than our car.

Next?

Unless the government actually do something to force the provision of charging points in less commercially attractive areas they will end up having to postpone the 2035 deadline because it will be impossible for too many people.

We can go back to using horses and then we can worry about what we'll do with all of the horse shit that is lying in the streets