Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,955
Electric cars should have regenerative braking as standard really. Which should cut brake use a bit.
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
I thought the climate change types hated overpopulation? And was the main cause of climate change?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Yeah, if you want to believe simplistic tropes.
Down here, where we're not exactly suffering with smog like London, even here we noticed how much more pleasant, how much cleaner the air was, outside during lockdown #1.
But the brakes decay way before they wear out and have to be replaced early, so it's a bit of a false economy. They will end up covered in rust on EVs and all that turns in to a thick cloud of dust when you do use them.
Tyre wear at urban speeds is very low, especially in the UK where it's mostly wet. I don't think that is really the issue it's made out to be.
The EU recently killed off very soft, sticky road legal tyres because they wear down quicker. But most of the rubber from those sticks to the surface (rather than bits fly off in to the undergrowth like hard rubber). So that was another dumb move.
Last edited:
The people who rabbit on about overpopulation are just ignorant. This planet can easily support our current population. The problem there is that we can't all live like people do in the West - over consuming, wasting too man resources, creating too much waste. To me, the people complaining about over-population are just trying to find a way out of this mess without the need for themselves to change... and that I am afraid is impossible.
Climate Change is not about saving the planet. The planet has seen worse than what we are doing, and it recovered. No matter how stupid we are the planet will be fine. Course, the more damage we do the longer it will take to recover, but in human terms what is a really, really long time is just an instant for the planet. No, this is not really about the planet, it is about us. Whether we will survive. If I am honest I don't much care, but I think the average parent should, they should want a better place for their kids to grow up in.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,308
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
You make a good point, the Earth will always be here until the Sun blows up so it should be 'Save the Humans and other Animals'.
This isn't really true, unless you don't care about the fact that an increasing human population will accelerate non-human species extinction.
We already have *massive* habitat loss around the world. Increasing human population will simply ensure that everything else gets wiped out.
In Africa (etc) people already live subsistence existences in many places - hardly "living like Westerners". The problem of big cats (and other wildlife) being shot by human cattle ranchers is well known, and not going away.
I firmly believe we will lose many species of wild animals, that once were ubiquitous, in my lifetime.
Not aimed at you, but I also hold people who say things like, "Humans are the dominant species; us wiping out wild animals is simply survival of the fittest," to be amongst the most contemptible and ignorant examples of the human condition you can possibly imagine.
Everything you say is right, but that's part of the point I was trying to make. We are destroying this planet and if we continue to live the way we are living then sure it is over-populated and we are destroying all the animals and indeed the food chain. We have to change. But if we do change and learn to share resources with all the people on the planet instead of hogging them, we could not only support all the people that are around today, we could even support some more ( although why we would want more is a mystery to me ).
We are an incredibly arrogant species. No other animal has caused this level of devastation to it's own environment, yet we insist we are superior and that superiority is reason enough to do what we do. We consistently fail to realise that we need other species and we need the planet for our continued survival. I mean not to even mention the morality of destroying other animals the way we do. Nah, I gave up on humanity a long time ago. There are some decent beings in this world, but most of them are not human.
It's incredibly sad, but I don't think we're capable (collectively) of giving a damn. We will continue (collectively) to **** the bed until all is lost.
We won't completely destroy the environment. A large number of people will die off before that can happen and balance will be restored by nature. That is what we are trying to avoid by fixing it now.
An extinction event will happen. It has happened a number of times in Earth's history. One time it was after a type of fern took over. It survived, but in sensible numbers.
An extinction event will happen. It has happened a number of times in Earth's history. One time it was after a type of fern took over. It survived, but in sensible numbers.
Depends what you mean by the environment. We're on course for many, many more extinctions in the near future. We might not blow up the planet, but we will probably leave it almost lifeless, excepting the billions of us crawling over it.
But we don't have the technology to compensate for huge loss of speciese. When they start to die off we will too. Food will run out in places like Africa and it will begin there.
I suspect you are right. The planet has been in worse state than it is in now. The mass extinction we face will not be the worst in history, but it could still be very bad, especially for us. I guess the real question is will humans survive? I also guess the answer will be "probably". And there sure as heck won't be seven billion of us. But one thing for sure life will be very different to today. Interesting to think they will look back on us as the reckless idiots who knew but still went ahead and caused the extinction.
So are sperm counts. Scientists predict most men born after 2040 will be infertile. Problem solved, you fix pollution with more pollution. Of course it could backfire, rather than fixing over population we could end up with small amount of fertile men left selling their services to impregnate hundreds of women lol
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
I like Lee Hurst, but even I find that rather grotesque and crass.
Personally I rarely brake heavily enough to generate any real energy. I tend to cruise coming up to corners and junctions as frankly I don't see the point in unnecessary heavy braking (I keep that for karting) - I guess it's something I carry over from my biking years, where after a couple of 60mph serious accidents you realise there's no point in hardish braking at all - you'll save what, 10-20 seconds across a 30 minute journey? If a regen system was designed well then it would still benefit me, but at the moment the cost (a primary concern for many for probably at least the next 5 years thanks to the pandemic) for most cars would almost certainly outweigh the benefits. I'm all for saving for the environment, but I'm not going to pay through the nose for it.
Frankly in the short term, given how little many of us are driving, I'd rather any energy recovery went straight back into the battery enough to keep the car starting.
A month long bump, and while that's true, I'm not sure how efficient it would be. The cost would be significant at the moment, safety is still a concern (just last month a leading Formula E car had a 40g head on impact with a wall due to a complete electronic brake failure) and I doubt the costs involved would be worth it for most.
Personally I rarely brake heavily enough to generate any real energy. I tend to cruise coming up to corners and junctions as frankly I don't see the point in unnecessary heavy braking (I keep that for karting) - I guess it's something I carry over from my biking years, where after a couple of 60mph serious accidents you realise there's no point in hardish braking at all - you'll save what, 10-20 seconds across a 30 minute journey? If a regen system was designed well then it would still benefit me, but at the moment the cost (a primary concern for many for probably at least the next 5 years thanks to the pandemic) for most cars would almost certainly outweigh the benefits. I'm all for saving for the environment, but I'm not going to pay through the nose for it.
Frankly in the short term, given how little many of us are driving, I'd rather any energy recovery went straight back into the battery enough to keep the car starting.