Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

[teuchter]

Let's talk about bioLPG. In some countries it's very popular. It's often described as carbon neutral. I think it would be more accurate to call it 90% carbon neutral because there's a bit of an overhead. But this carbon neutrality confuses me. (I don't have chemistry or biology O levels.) Is it carbon neutral because the plants which it's made of absorbed carbon a couple of years back? If you burn it you release that carbon back into the atmosphere. How can that be good? Perhaps it's classified as 'good' because it's not as bad as burning oil?

I think it's the same as burning wood for fuel - in theory you grow the tree, burn it, grow another tree in the same place, burn it, etc. So in the long term you are not releasing CO2 that otherwise would not exist, as would be the case if you left fossil fuels in the ground.

However, you could also use that wood for something else, such as a building material, in which case you are not releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, at least not for the lifespan of the building. So the idea that it's carbon neutral only makes sense if you ignore the possibility that the carbon could be sequestered as an alternative.

 

[cupid_stunt]

I think it's the same as burning wood for fuel - in theory you grow the tree, burn it, grow another tree in the same place, burn it, etc. So in the long term you are not releasing CO2 that otherwise would not exist, as would be the case if you left fossil fuels in the ground.

However, you could also use that wood for something else, such as a building material, in which case you are not releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, at least not for the lifespan of the building. So the idea that it's carbon neutral only makes sense if you ignore the possibility that the carbon could be sequestered as an alternative.

Under discussion here - Drax is carbon neutral

 

[Spymaster]

I'm worth a lot more than a washed up old coke head who sees fit to try and moralise about other people's parenting.

Says the washed-up old coke head!

You need to calm down fella.

 

[edcraw]

Let's talk about bioLPG. In some countries it's very popular. It's often described as carbon neutral. I think it would be more accurate to call it 90% carbon neutral because there's a bit of an overhead. But this carbon neutrality confuses me. (I don't have chemistry or biology O levels.) Is it carbon neutral because the plants which it's made of absorbed carbon a couple of years back? If you burn it you release that carbon back into the atmosphere. How can that be good? Perhaps it's classified as 'good' because it's not as bad as burning oil?

I guess it’s better because as you say it’s releasing carbon back that was in the atmosphere a few years ago rather than fossil fuels that are releasing carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago.

Pollution isn’t the only issues with cars - they’re generally a very energy wasteful way of transporting people. A large proportion of car journeys are under 2 miles and with 1-2 people in them.

There’s also the fact that cars have made us deign areas in very wasteful ways so that people need to use cars.

 

[David Clapson]

Do we take into account that coal is made of trees, and oil is made of plankton and algae?

 

[maomao]

You need to calm down fella

Stop being a prick, have a look at your double standards and stop acting like the thread bully then. I'll keep a couple of buckets of particularly smelly turds for when you start up again.

 

[edcraw]

Do we take into account that coal is made of trees, and oil is made of plankton and algae?

As it was taken out millions of years ago it’s basically new though.

 

[Orang Utan]

 

[cupid_stunt]

As it was taken out millions of years ago it’s basically new though.

Please can we stay on topic. This is an anti car propaganda thread (very clear in the title). Thanks

 

[Ax^]

*makes mental note

for next time someone slags off the thank you to brexiter thread


this is toxic as fuck

 

[teuchter]

There’s also the fact that cars have made us deign areas in very wasteful ways so that people need to use cars.

Which is really more the kind of thing this thread is aimed at, because the idea that internal combustion engines are involved in climate change is now fairly uncontroversial.

It's the other problems associated with car dependancy that I would say it's worth getting people thinking about, even if their initial reaction is to deny it all.

Once you start looking for certain things, you see them everywhere. For example, the simple question of cars parked on pavements. I don't care if people want to try and mock me for taking photographs of it when I see it. Because whether they like it or not, bringing it to people's attention means they'll start seeing it as well. And maybe eventually they'll join the dots and imagine someone in a wheelchair trying to get past, each time they see it. And then they'll understand why it's a problem.

 

[David Clapson]

I bought a used car recently, with a rather heavy heart. Haven't owned one since 2006. My 'new' car is going to be a campervan, which I need for health/life/money reasons. I'll try to minimise the emissions. I wish I could calculate the environmental burden, and compare it with an EV van, which I didn't even consider because of the cost. Anyone know of a site with a calculator? All I've found are very generalised articles, which say 'on the other hand, lithium' and so on.

 

[Spymaster]

Stop being a prick, have a look at your double standards and stop acting like the thread bully then.

No mate. I'm going to call you out for as long as you persist with this ridiculous charade. YOU started this whole episode with your 'alcoholic' slurs. You've had a dose back and you're getting shirty again. No surprsies there, it's totally your MO.

 

[maomao]

No mate. I'm going to call you out for as long as you persist with this ridiculous charade. YOU started this whole episode with your 'alcoholic' slurs. You've had a dose back and you're getting shirty again. No surprsies there, it's totally your MO.

Lol. Yes, this all started yesterday. Must be all that coke addling your brain.

 

[Spymaster]

Christ almighty! Seriously?

 

[edcraw]

 

[krtek a houby]

Bin this ugly thread.

Bunfights were occasionally amusing in our younger days.

This... is just... shit.

 

[David Clapson]

If you ignore the trolls it's a perfectly serviceable thread. By moaning about the thread you are actually trolling.

 

[Ax^]

couple of thread bans might be in order


weird place for a nasty personal bun fight

this is not the community forums , do not even need to log in to read it

 

[Orang Utan]

I think editor is on holiday and FridgeMagnet is taking a sabbatical.
so this is going to go on on unless people themselves take a step back and get some perspective

 

[krtek a houby]

If you ignore the trolls it's a perfectly serviceable thread. By moaning about the thread you are actually trolling.

Puts David Clapson on ignore

 

[Cid]

Bin this ugly thread.

Bunfights were occasionally amusing in our younger days.

This... is just... shit.

Entirely this. Kind of shit that makes me want to just sack this place off.

 

[David Clapson]

Binning the thread would be a win for the trolls. And they'd just go and troll another thread. How about putting them on ignore and posting something on-topic?

 

[maomao]

Binning the thread would be a win for the trolls. And they'd just go and troll another thread. How about putting them on ignore and posting something on-topic?

Well, I don't really feel like apologising for my behaviour because I'd had enough of the last week or so's personal abuse and needed to kick back a bit. But here's a good, if decade old, paper that actually addresses several areas of car harm and tries to compare it to tobacco use (so slightly analogous to T & P 's arguments about drug use which I don't reject completely in that it's definitely a wide ranging public health issue not just a climate change issue).

Are cars the new tobacco?

AbstractBackground. Public health must continually respond to new threats reflecting wider societal changes. Ecological public health recognizes the links betwe

academic.oup.com

It concludes:

The nature of public health threats evolves to reflect wider societal changes, and the public health community continually needs to recognize, understand and respond to new threats. The public health community rightly continues to fight against the harm caused by tobacco. We should now recognize that private cars are harming individuals, communities and global sustainability. Cars are the new tobacco.

Which understates the problem to my mind. Car use has far greater external harm, especially as public indoor smoking is thankfully banned these days.

 

[David Clapson]

 

[edcraw]

Too right - just ban pavement parking now.

 

[Spymaster]

Too right - just ban pavement parking now.

It’s been banned in London for ages.

 

[edcraw]

It’s been banned in London for ages.

Yep - where London leads the rest of the country follows eventually

 

[two sheds]

I read a few years ago that some people were walking across the top of cars that were parked on pavements.

 

[klang]

I read a few years ago that some people were walking across the top of cars that were parked on pavements.