Greta Thunberg

I'm all for technological improvements to cut pollution and prevent deforestation, I just don't want the top down authoritarianism that people like Greta Thunberg push as the only solution to their alarmism. It's been bad enough having Boris stripping human rights and micromanaging everyone's lives for the past year under the guise of the societal interest, it's reaching a point where people will soon be supporting proposals for mass genocide just as long as it's marketed as being for the greater good.
 
mmj_uk said:
I'm all for technological improvements to cut pollution and prevent deforestation, I just don't want the top down authoritarianism that people like Greta Thunberg push as the only solution to their alarmism. It's been bad enough having Boris stripping human rights and micromanaging everyone's lives for the past year under the guise of the societal interest, it's reaching a point where people will soon be supporting proposals for mass genocide just as long as it's marketed as being for the greater good.
Click to expand...

We need a top down solution - an actual workable one. So much pressure is put on individuals who have little ability even collectively to make any real difference while little changes at the top. While also avoiding agendas, etc. being pushed from top down which also don't deal with the reality. Many activists in this area seem locked in an ideological mindset as messed up as the more extreme right as to what they think is best for society vs the real world of what actually will have results.

I think this whole coronavirus situation has shown though this civilisation simply can't meet the challenges, is too stupid as a whole to see the bigger picture.
 
this_is_gav said:
I like Lee Hurst, but even I find that rather grotesque and crass.



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.
Click to expand...

Thats not how they work in a normal road car. They still have normal hydraulic friction breaks fitted which can always be pressed and used as they can in a conventional car even if the assistance has failed. F1/FE cars have brake by wire, the pedal isn’t physically connected to the breaks at all.

Regenerative breaking is in addition to that and is where the motor is flipped into a generator when you take your foot off the throttle. The generator slows the car down and the power is dumped back into the battery. The amount of braking from this varies but it’s normally the equivalent of light breaking and many will bring you to a complete stop. You can obviously still apply the normal brakes and stop very quickly if needed. Every hybrid and EV does it quite well.
 
mmj_uk said:
I'm all for technological improvements to cut pollution and prevent deforestation, I just don't want the top down authoritarianism that people like Greta Thunberg push as the only solution to their alarmism. It's been bad enough having Boris stripping human rights and micromanaging everyone's lives for the past year under the guise of the societal interest, it's reaching a point where people will soon be supporting proposals for mass genocide just as long as it's marketed as being for the greater good.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the vast majority of people are happy with their expensive-to-run and dirty cars?
But it's not only the cars - it's the aircraft, ship, all types of transport.

Rroff said:
We need a top down solution - an actual workable one. So much pressure is put on individuals who have little ability even collectively to make any real difference while little changes at the top. While also avoiding agendas, etc. being pushed from top down which also don't deal with the reality. Many activists in this area seem locked in an ideological mindset as messed up as the more extreme right as to what they think is best for society vs the real world of what actually will have results.

I think this whole coronavirus situation has shown though this civilisation simply can't meet the challenges, is too stupid as a whole to see the bigger picture.
Click to expand...

This is why we need leaders who push for sustainable economy that will break with the centuries-old model of ever increasing pollution and pressure on the environment.

People need education in order to see the bigger picture, because currently the politicians push every possible effort towards putting people in little boxes and blind to the ever growing environmental problems.

No one says that we should rely only on Greta.
We need more people to understand that there is absolutely no value in the profit-making model, just for the sake of it.

We are destroying the planet, the capitalism pushes for faster use of the resources than the planet has.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Not a surprising statistic, the world’s wealthiest 1% produce double the emissions of of the poorest 50%.

World's wealthiest 'at heart of climate problem' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56723560

I wonder how much you have to earn to be in the worlds 1%, probably less than most people think.
Click to expand...

"It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue – but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," says David Satterthwaite, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London. He quotes Gandhi: "The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed."


BBC - Earth - How many people can our planet really support?
 
4K8KW10 said:
"It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue – but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," says David Satterthwaite, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London. He quotes Gandhi: "The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed."


BBC - Earth - How many people can our planet really support?
Click to expand...
I think that only works if everyone agrees to give up their car, TV, computer, etc.

Otherwise 7 billion people with cars, TVs and computers - even modest/low spec ones - probably isn't sustainable. Even just one each.

Or you have to have some people with those things and some without, as we do today.
 
FoxEye said:
I think that only works if everyone agrees to give up their car, TV, computer, etc.

Otherwise 7 billion people with cars, TVs and computers - even modest/low spec ones - probably isn't sustainable. Even just one each.

Or you have to have some people with those things and some without, as we do today.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily to give it all up.
Just buy less frequently - you don't need a new smartphone every year, or a new car every 5 years. Buy an electric one and drive it in the next 10-15 years.

It surely must be ways to optimise our consumption without sacrificing everything.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Not necessarily to give it all up.
Just buy less frequently - you don't need a new smartphone every year, or a new car every 5 years. Buy an electric one and drive it in the next 10-15 years.

It surely must be ways to optimise our consumption without sacrificing everything.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that's the thing. If a person on average income in this country is supposedly in the top 1% of earners globally, then the vast majority don't have even one car, one computer, one TV.

So it seems very, very unlikely that it would be possible for everybody to have such things. Even just one in their lifetime, without rocketing global consumption levels.

The idea that if we wasted less, everybody (globally) could share the same Western lifestyle just doesn't seem to add up.

If everybody was to share the same standard of living (globally) it would mean ditching a lot of what we regard as pretty basic luxuries (e.g. your TV).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom