Food for thought - Climate Change

[Boomer54]

1 minute ago, Linas.P said:

... that is not something I call myself 😄 

Yet ! but there's hope, I can tell.

[Bluemarlin]

21 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I have said myself that human caused emissions are majority of excess, so I don't think we disagree here. However, I as well said that whatever policies are in place does not seem to address human made emissions and rather just focuses on few areas which are both most profitable/easily exploited by taxation and least important in overall climate change picture. Besides the goals set to us goes beyond just human emissions so it seems like they were set to fail (and I think we should question why?).

So I think we both agree that climate change is happening and human activity is contributing to it, we disagree about impact and cost of it, but to be fair I also agree with Rowley that we can both be wrong, or both be right, it is just to hard to put the price tag on it when climate isn't exact scienience (at least not yet). The only thing I am saying here - the price we currently paying isn't worth it, because we addressing wrong issues and in wrong way, because we are misled by our rulers about what needs to be done about it, because they themselves don't understand either because of ignorance or malice. This is quite evident and I don't mind repeating the examples of where it is quite obvious... like starting from personal transportation which is minor contributor, but ignoring big industry which contributes the most, is just one of them.

Finally, this was exactly intention of this whole debate - "focusing their energies against greed and corruption", except I see current argument about climate change being part of "greed and corruption" rather than separate topic. Basically, why I am saying - greed and corruption nowadays are masquerading as "virtuous saviours of the planet".

And don't worry about me, I like good debate myself and sometimes to get to the bottom of it requires touching on various subjects. 

It seems that in a broader sense we probably agree, and perhaps you focus more on the rights and wrongs of the individual details, whilst I'm more focused on the bottom line, and accept the details won't all be right. I might be wrong in that approach.

It's true that part of climate change is about greed and corruption, but climate change is just today's available tool of choice. I'm pretty sure that the greedy and corrupt exploit others things, like universal healthcare services, mass food production, and I guess there were even those who found ways to greedily exploit the abolition of slavery, but none of that made the core principles any less worth pursuing.

You might be right Linas, and we might be going about things the wrong way, who knows, I certainly don't. But whatever we do, I'm pretty sure that someone will find a way to exploit it for their own ends. All we, the non corrupt, can do is our best to identify what we see as the problems we face, and are then reliant upon others to solve them. Without a complete overhaul in our political, economic and societal structures, I'm not sure how we'll drive greed and corruption out of that.

[Bluemarlin]

20 hours ago, Malc1 said:

and the seemingly indisputable FACT that it's the cows farting and belching that are the biggest contributors to CO2 emissions and all that harm to our planet !

Malc

Don't get me started Malc. Never mind the cows, I blame it all on the "save the whale" lot.

Plankton is one one of the biggest processors of excess CO2, and whales eat plankton in vast amounts. Saving them surely decimates the plankton population and leaves us with all that CO2. "Save the plankton", that's what I say 🙂

Note to Linas: That's not a serious scientificargument in support of ditching our current policies in favour of hunting whales 🙂

[Bluemarlin]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Context for my statement - when argument get's political, and it "always" get's political when facts are missing, and then it becomes us and them argument. In Europe we have less of that, but for example in US all argument about everything between democrats and republicans get's to that point (gun control, birth control, education, healthcare... you name it). I think Climate argument we having here in UK is also reaching that point - liberals and ecomentalists do not care about any stats and the opposing side does not care about their feelings (not sure how to define "opposite" to ecomentalist - climate deniers, realists, people like me, meat eaters, normal people?!).

Arguments get polarised because people are lazy. I don't mean that in a mean or critical way, and just that we're wired to take shortcuts about some things.

Stephen is right, we don't teach people important skills like critical thinking and so, instead of thinking for themselves, people pick a team. As a consequence, we get situations like you describe, where people are opposed to something like gun control, not because they've given much thought to gun control, but because they're against abortion, and other people who oppose abortion are against gun control, so they must be right. People seem to find it hard to differ on an individual issue basis, and feel compelled to buy into a portfolio.

Many years ago I was taught in sales that if you gave people a series of statements that you know they'd agree with, then they'd most likely agree with the next thing you say, whether they'd given it much thought or not. Such manipulation appears to be very easy to do, and is neatly demonstrated by current American politics. Not many years ago, you'd struggle to find anyone on the American right who had a good word to say about Russia. Now though, all you have to say is "guns good, abortion bad, universal healthcare is communism", and people will agree with you when you tell them that Putin is a well intentioned saviour of poor Russian victims.

I think it starts by accepting that the people you follow might have perhaps 8 ideas you support, but maybe 2 you oppose, and so you take the rough with the smooth. However, people don't like the cognitive dissonance that brings and so, over time, they smooth over the rough edges, until eventually they get to a point of not only accepting those things, but agreeing with them, and ultimately defending them. That way they don't have to live with the idea that they've supported something they disagree with, and so have balanced any psychological disharmony.

I don't know if and how that will change, even with education and critical thinking skills, as we're tribal by nature, and picking teams has obviously had survival and social cohesion benefits, even if it costs us in other ways.

 

[Linas.P]

I also think we broadly agree on both the issue and the solution, even if we have different opinion on the details. I guess I am as well more relaxed about consequences even if I don't deny them... I just have less empathy in general. BUT... I think my main concern is that current "Climate Action" not only does not lead us to the right direction, but rather seems to be designed to hide the real issues... i.e. it masks the problem.

I think it was well illustrated by story @LenT shared of outright ignorant view some people have and the current "actions" just plays to that narrative i.e. people demand "solutions", because in general they want to do "good", they are given diversion and they just follows that diversion, without questioning and understanding it, but they are happy because they feel like they did enough.

So in this sense wrong action, not only does not achieves what we need to achieve, but diverts the resources and makes it even worse. As an analogy - it is no different from misdiagnosing the disease... imagine one has cancer and thus have headache, but are give painkillers and sent home... the outcome I guess is obvious. So our current "climate action" is painkiller which just masks symptoms without dealing with problem, whilst that problem is becoming worse.

[First_Lexus]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

Many years ago I was taught in sales that if you gave people a series of statements that you know they'd agree with, then they'd most likely agree with the next thing you say, whether they'd given it much thought or not.

Slightly off topic, but many (many!) years ago, having just left University and not knowing what to do for a job, I went for an interview with Audi Head Office for ‘corporate sales.’ This was when Audi were pushing their brand upmarket, and company car purchases were still made by individual companies rather than being outsourced to lease agencies.

As part of the interview process, they gave us high-level training for half a day on how they approached corporate clients. We then had to role play in the afternoon. It was fascinating. They told us the types of questions to ask senior people to make them - essentially - boast about their lives. The golf club they were members of, where their children went to school, where they lived, notice their watch, their shoes etc. The idea was that by doing that, and linking success and boasting to driving an Audi, that they’d want them on their company car list.

Believe it or not, they said it worked really well…people were, and I’m sure still are, so easily manipulated!

[Boomer54]

11 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I also think we broadly agree on both the issue and the solution, even if we have different opinion on the details. I guess I am as well more relaxed about consequences even if I don't deny them... I am just probably l have less empathy in general. BUT... I think my main concern is that current "Climate Action" not only does not lead us to the right direction, but rather seems to be designed to hide the real issues... i.e. it masks the problem.

I think it was well illustrated by story @LenT shared of outright ignorant view some people have and the current "actions" just plays to that narrative i.e. people demand "solutions", because in general they want to do "good", they are given diversion and they just follows that diversion, without questioning and understanding it, but they are happy because they feel like they did enough.

So in this sense wrong action, not only does not achieves what we need to achieve, but diverts the resources and makes it even worse. As an analogy - it is no different from misdiagnosing the disease... imagine one has cancer and thus have headache, but are give painkillers and sent home... the outcome I guess is obvious. So out current "climate action" is painkiller which just masks symptoms without dealing with problem, whilst that problem is becoming worse.

he People’s Republic of China (hereafter ‘China’) accounted for almost all of the global increase in electricity and heat sector emissions between 2019 and 2021. A small decline from the rest of the world was insufficient to offset the increase in China. "

Global Energy review produced by IEA.

I could then show other data about largest increases by coal producing energy countries..China and et al ,because I get bored banging the same drum.

Pareto's Law standing on it's head is the best way I can think of to describe current policy.

The smallest CO2 contributors are spending the most to make the least reduction in emissions. If you think transitioning to electric cars is cost effective then just bear in mind the largest sector responsible for emissions is (electric/heating). Transport as a sector is barely half that, and of course even that encompasses countries which are very far down the scale in terms of relative contribution overall.

As Linas implied, from an Accounting viewpoint of Differential analysis I am quite sure itwould show there is likely a high cost for simply joining the herd and throwing monetary mud at a wall and hoping it will stick. That is, actually achieve something meaningful.

Pity we cannot filter out the noise and actually pick the right targets.

[Boomer54]

3 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

Slightly off topic, but many (many!) years ago, having just left University and not knowing what to do for a job, I went for an interview with Audi Head Office for ‘corporate sales.’ This was when Audi were pushing their brand upmarket, and company car purchases were still made by individual companies rather than being outsourced to lease agencies.

As part of the interview process, they gave us high-level training for half a day on how they approached corporate clients. We then had to role play in the afternoon. It was fascinating. They told us the types of questions to ask senior people to make them - essentially - boast about their lives. The golf club they were members of, where their children went to school, where they lived, notice their watch, their shoes etc. The idea was that by doing that, and linking success and boasting to driving an Audi, that they’d want them on their company car list.

Believe it or not, they said it worked really well…people were, and I’m sure still are, so easily manipulated!

Eric Berne researched this sometime after the WW2. Basically it is called Transactional Analysis and at it's heart what you are describing is called 'stroking'. I came across this in the 70's in a book by a well known writer on Psychology and Business. Unfortunately, I cannot recall their name any better than I can remember what I had for tea yesterday !

[Malc1]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

Without a complete overhaul in our political, economic and societal structures, I'm not sure how we'll drive greed and corruption out of that.

even with such a complete overhaul there'll be another faction emerging to do us all down I'm sure 😥

 

22 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

I cannot recall their name any better than I can remember what I had for tea yesterday !

whale steaks might have been on the menu ........  save the plankton I say ............... invent an anti farting formula to give to the livestock methinks ........ HIGH PRIORITY for a university research unit somewhere

Malc

[First_Lexus]

34 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Eric Berne researched this sometime after the WW2. Basically it is called Transactional Analysis and at it's heart what you are describing is called 'stroking'. I came across this in the 70's in a book by a well known writer on Psychology and Business. Unfortunately, I cannot recall their name any better than I can remember what I had for tea yesterday !

Should add, I didn’t get the job. I was rubbish…😂

[Boomer54]

16 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

Should add, I didn’t get the job. I was rubbish…😂

No, you a valuable member of society. Stephen Hawkins picked your brain, Brad Pitt consulted on hairstyles...stroke,stroke !

[Bluemarlin]

2 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

Slightly off topic, but many (many!) years ago, having just left University and not knowing what to do for a job, I went for an interview with Audi Head Office for ‘corporate sales.’ This was when Audi were pushing their brand upmarket, and company car purchases were still made by individual companies rather than being outsourced to lease agencies.

As part of the interview process, they gave us high-level training for half a day on how they approached corporate clients. We then had to role play in the afternoon. It was fascinating. They told us the types of questions to ask senior people to make them - essentially - boast about their lives. The golf club they were members of, where their children went to school, where they lived, notice their watch, their shoes etc. The idea was that by doing that, and linking success and boasting to driving an Audi, that they’d want them on their company car list.

Believe it or not, they said it worked really well…people were, and I’m sure still are, so easily manipulated!

Tip of the iceberg Ed.

I once came across a training company when working for a small business.  We obviously bought the cheap package, but the trainer told me that they provided expensive courses to large corporates, that included NLP and hypnotic techniques in sales training.

I suppose most communication is manipulation really, right from when we start crying as babies.

[First_Lexus]

4 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

Tip of the iceberg Ed.

I once came across a training company when working for a small business.  We obviously bought the cheap package, but the trainer told me that they provided expensive courses to large corporates, that included NLP and hypnotic techniques in sales training.

I suppose most communication is manipulation really, right from when we start crying as babies.

I seem to recall David Cameron talking about ‘nudge culture’ back in the mid-2000s, the idea being that Government would try to alter the behaviour of people through positive messaging - essentially doing the right thing - but the key (and what makes it relevant here) was that it didn’t say behaving in a different way wasn’t permitted. “Hug a Hoodie”, “Reuse and recycle” etc. 

When it comes to the climate debate, we seem to have moved from that approach. People should want to buy an EV, or a heat pump, or to reduce their own environmental impact because we want to be kind to our planet, not because they’re forced to do so. Clearly some people will act like that, but not enough. Behaviour change should be based on positive arguments rather than penalties for NOT complying imho, unless we are past the point of no return…

It’s a tricky one though. Without taxation making certain things less desirable - take alcohol or tobacco - then the risk is they continue to be abused by more people than they might be. I’m glad I’m not a politician. For all the criticism we give them, it must be a pretty thankless job.

 

 

[Linas.P]

16 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

Behaviour change should be based on positive arguments rather than penalties for NOT complying imho

That is one of the big issues I have with current policy.

If BEVs would be cheaper and actually better, and more convenient, then there would be no need to convince people to take them-up, but they ARE not, they are much more expensive and they are inconvenient... and the only reason any of them sells at all is because ICEV owners are severely punished. 

Same for all alternatives, public transport is not better, cycling is not better, walking is not better - the only reason people do it is because something was artificially done to make driving impossible or very expensive, like LTNs, ULEZ, Congestion Charge, parking sports destroyed/no parking etc.

So it is all being achieved by negative action, tax until it hurts, bans, harassment etc. I cannot see any policy which was positive in this transition except of maybe some subsidies that only limited number of already well off people could take advantage of.   

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

That is one of the big issues I have with current policy.

If BEVs would be cheaper and actually better, and more convenient, then there would be no need to convince people to take them-up, but they ARE not, they are much more expensive and they are inconvenient... and the only reason any of them sells at all is because ICEV owners are severely punished. 

Same for all alternatives, public transport is not better, cycling is not better, walking is not better - the only reason people do it is because something was artificially done to make driving impossible or very expensive, like LTNs, ULEZ, Congestion Charge, parking sports destroyed/no parking etc.

So it is all being achieved by negative action, tax until it hurts, bans, harassment etc. I cannot see any policy which was positive in this transition except of maybe some subsidies that only limited number of already well off people could take advantage of.   

"Same for all alternatives, public transport is not better, cycling is not better, walking is not better - the only reason people do it is because something was artificially done to make driving impossible or very expensive,"

Here you go again. Do I have to tell you this is patently incorrect. There are many reasons why people might do the alternative to driving that has nothing to do with expense, inconvenience etc. When i could run , I loved doing it just for it. Nowadays I walk for the same reason as I am sure do many other people.

Stick with your underlying idea. If something is desireable enough you don't need to coerce people into doing it. As for 'nudge', I usually have the view that you can manipulate me if I want you to 😄

[Linas.P]

9 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

"Same for all alternatives, public transport is not better, cycling is not better, walking is not better - the only reason people do it is because something was artificially done to make driving impossible or very expensive,"

Here you go again. Do I have to tell you this is patently incorrect. There are many reasons why people might do the alternative to driving that has nothing to do with expense, inconvenience etc. When i could run , I loved doing it just for it. Nowadays I walk for the same reason as I am sure do many other people.

Stick with your underlying idea. If something is desireable enough you don't need to coerce people into doing it. As for 'nudge', I usually have the view that you can manipulate me if I want you to 😄

Let me correct that one for you, intention of my statement was - "the only reason people do it in circumstances where driving would be cheaper and more convenient is because".

I think you should not take the statement as absolute either, so that is kind of your issue that you taking it as absolute... sure if I am going to run my 5k in the morning, then I will be running not driving, because that is the point of running, I want to exercise and I love it. I would not achieve much by making 5 rounds around the park in the car, right? Likewise if we decided to cycle and have a little picnic in the park when the weather is nice, then we will be cycling, that is because we chosen to cycle. When we go for little shopping in Sainsbury's which is literally 400m away, we walk, because that is most sensible choice.

However, when I go to work in the morning I would definitely 100% without doubt would rather drive, but I can't, I am forced not to drive so I use public transport. And it would not only be significantly cheaper to drive (I reckon £1.50 in petrol), but as well significantly more convenient, cleaner, comfortable etc. but obviously I can't, because congestion charge would be £12.50 and parking would be like £48, because London had dozen of "unused" multi-storey car parks demolished just in last few years. As well some of my friends now living in LTNs where I am literally prohibited of entering, because only residents can enter. Likewise the place I am living in does not have visitors parking, in fact it has 30 parking spaces for ~200 flats. Why? Because the estate would not get planning permission without cutting down parking spaces i.e. government mandated developers to build buildings without parking, so that residents would be inconvenienced and could not own cars. So if somebody wants to visit me they can't drive and that actually had negative impact on me as I have to find alternative place to meet my friends, I would go to their place, but now that is LTN. In other countries government specifically mandates opposite e.g. minimum of 90% flats must have parking, so that public roads are kept clean, in UK they mandate basically "chaos". Another example, when I was in University my campus had MASSIVE parking, but students were not allowed to park. Basically when council realised that ~2000 spaces car park was for everyone to use, they threatened university with withdrawing approval for entire campus planning permission. Because entire car park was already built what happened was that they fenced most of the car park, so the staff carpark of ~280 spaces remained, there was little 100 space visitors and deliveries car park and 2000 spaces car park was all built but completely fenced off and not used. In practice only disabled students were allowed to park. This is by the way what faculty dean told - she said the councillor told her "pffff ridiculous, why should students be driving, they should be taking public transport, better get used to that!".

At least we agree on this - "if something is desirable enough you don't need to coerce people into doing it".

[Malc1]

14 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

pffff ridiculous, why should students be driving, they should be taking public transport, better get used to that

nothing changes ...... when i was at school some 58 years ago I was firmly TOLD by the Headmaster that I could NOT use the school car park .....  only his car and one or two teachers could afford cars in them far off dark days ..........  school car park virtually permanently empty .......  so i just parked outside the school grounds on the public highway to the annoyance of local residents ..  of course !

That was Orpington in Kent and in those days not many house owners had cars either 

Malc

[Linas.P]

23 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

nothing changes ...... when i was at school some 58 years ago I was firmly TOLD by the Headmaster that I could NOT use the school car park .....  only his car and one or two teachers could afford cars in them far off dark days ..........  school car park virtually permanently empty .......  so i just parked outside the school grounds on the public highway to the annoyance of local residents ..  of course !

That was Orpington in Kent and in those days not many house owners had cars either 

Malc

I guess the difference is that Dean for our Faculty, now I believe President and Grand Chancellor of entire University... was herself American, therefore when she was in charge of selecting the place and design for new campus she built it to the more American standard i.e. with parking spaces, crazy I know! She as well told me that the place for campus was specifically selected on previous "brown site" so that building the parking would not be an issue. They had central London campus and obviously expanding parking was not an option there, as well majority of students were from Essex and Kent. They actually done the most democratic thing possible and had a student survey asking how they would prefer to travel to new campus given an option... and students overwhelmingly voted for driving. Now bear in mind that was like ~2003 or 2005 when this took place. The planning for new campus etc took until ~2010 and it was nearly finished by 2012 and that is when Council made a massive hissy fit over parking. 

So I guess difference was not "dckhead master", but actually unelected government official putting his nose into business of other people. It was not like Council was paying for building work or anything, just pure political agenda behind it, taking it away from students, working behind the back, not allowing university to serve the students well. Sadly, she refused to tell me the name of the councillor as I was in little bit of the mood of giving him nasty surprise back then.

[LenT]

11 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Sadly, she refused to tell me the name of the councillor as I was in little bit of the mood of giving him nasty surprise back then.

She sounds like a very wise woman indeed, Linas!  😀

[Linas.P]

6 hours ago, LenT said:

She sounds like a very wise woman indeed, Linas!  😀

Yes - I am sure I would have got me in trouble for no good reason. Unlikely that setting councillors car on fire or covering it in shaite would have changed his mind on student parking. Even if he had changed the mind that likely was irreversible and past decision.

My point is just that hostility towards drivers and car owners is real, in the past it was more hidden where nasty old farts were working behind the backs to ruin it for everyone, likely salty people that failed in their life and are miserable, just taking it out on people who they thought have it too good. But in last decade it is coming out more and more, it is becoming more and more acceptable to lash out on the drivers, introduce hostile policies etc. In principle I don't believe sentiment has changed, it is just that now it is more open and in the public. 

On other news - today government announced their "ZEV" policy... and as you can imagine it is absolute cluster duck. Starting with the name it is already bad start - they are not ZERO emission vehicles, they are at best 30% cleaner, so LEV (lower emissions vehicles) probably was appropriate... so if they can't get the name right then what we can expect from the policy. Second, major issue - they said it is based on consultation with "ALL" stakeholders... and if you check the stakeholders were just industry groups, behind closed doors and actual drivers are not considered stakeholders, that is people who use the dang things have no say in it! Literally the definition of "stakeholder" is "a person with an interest or concern in something".

So it is sham scheme, based on sham consultation looking to force BEV sales when actual uptake has slummed. I think this year it stands close to 20%, but there is huge drop in second half, used BEVs not selling and it signal single thing - BEV limit was reached. In the past I was predicting ~10% will be the limit, but it seems we have not reached even that. Well I guess my prediction was based on solid government plan to roll out charging and support individuals with installing the personal chargers at home, which they failed to do... so the total amount of BEVs today stands at... roll the drums... 3.1% of all vehicles in UK. 

I still expect it to rise as pressure mounts, but it is clear that even with such small number we already facing issues and take-up has stalled, so imagine how bad it will be when we get to 10% or 20%.

Ohh... and by the way... I am not against BEVs, I just think we doing them fundamentally wrong and new ZEV policy just going to hurt further.

[Boomer54]

49 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Yes - I am sure I would have got me in trouble for no good reason. Unlikely that setting councillors car on fire or covering it in shaite would have changed his mind on student parking. Even if he had changed the mind that likely was irreversible and past decision.

My point is just that hostility towards drivers and car owners is real, in the past it was more hidden where nasty old farts were working behind the backs to ruin it for everyone, likely salty people that failed in their life and are miserable, just taking it out on people who they thought have it too good. But in last decade it is coming out more and more, it is becoming more and more acceptable to lash out on the drivers, introduce hostile policies etc. In principle I don't believe sentiment has changed, it is just that now it is more open and in the public. 

On other news - today government announced their "ZEV" policy... and as you can imagine it is absolute cluster duck. Starting with the name it is already bad start - they are not ZERO emission vehicles, they are at best 30% cleaner, so LEV (lower emissions vehicles) probably was appropriate... so if they can't get the name right then what we can expect from the policy. Second, major issue - they said it is based on consultation with "ALL" stakeholders... and if you check the stakeholders were just industry groups, behind closed doors and actual drivers are not considered stakeholders, that is people who use the dang things have no say in it! Literally the definition of "stakeholder" is "a person with an interest or concern in something".

So it is sham scheme, based on sham consultation looking to force BEV sales when actual uptake has slummed. I think this year it stands close to 20%, but there is huge drop in second half, used BEVs not selling and it signal single thing - BEV limit was reached. In the past I was predicting ~10% will be the limit, but it seems we have not reached even that. Well I guess my prediction was based on solid government plan to roll out charging and support individuals with installing the personal chargers at home, which they failed to do... so the total amount of BEVs today stands at... roll the drums... 3.1% of all vehicles in UK. 

I still expect it to rise as pressure mounts, but it is clear that even with such small number we already facing issues and take-up has stalled, so imagine how bad it will be when we get to 10% or 20%.

Ohh... and by the way... I am not against BEVs, I just think we doing them fundamentally wrong and new ZEV policy just going to hurt further.

Stakeholder agrees.

[Boomer54]

https://www.ft.com/content/1b40cdfe-2289-4ee0-a88c-df5f7b1712e1

and so it begins ! The battle lines being drawn.

[wharfhouse]

On 9/29/2023 at 10:39 AM, Linas.P said:

Yes - I am sure I would have got me in trouble for no good reason. Unlikely that setting councillors car on fire or covering it in shaite would have changed his mind on student parking. Even if he had changed the mind that likely was irreversible and past decision.

My point is just that hostility towards drivers and car owners is real, in the past it was more hidden where nasty old farts were working behind the backs to ruin it for everyone, likely salty people that failed in their life and are miserable, just taking it out on people who they thought have it too good. But in last decade it is coming out more and more, it is becoming more and more acceptable to lash out on the drivers, introduce hostile policies etc. In principle I don't believe sentiment has changed, it is just that now it is more open and in the public. 

On other news - today government announced their "ZEV" policy... and as you can imagine it is absolute cluster duck. Starting with the name it is already bad start - they are not ZERO emission vehicles, they are at best 30% cleaner, so LEV (lower emissions vehicles) probably was appropriate... so if they can't get the name right then what we can expect from the policy. Second, major issue - they said it is based on consultation with "ALL" stakeholders... and if you check the stakeholders were just industry groups, behind closed doors and actual drivers are not considered stakeholders, that is people who use the dang things have no say in it! Literally the definition of "stakeholder" is "a person with an interest or concern in something".

So it is sham scheme, based on sham consultation looking to force BEV sales when actual uptake has slummed. I think this year it stands close to 20%, but there is huge drop in second half, used BEVs not selling and it signal single thing - BEV limit was reached. In the past I was predicting ~10% will be the limit, but it seems we have not reached even that. Well I guess my prediction was based on solid government plan to roll out charging and support individuals with installing the personal chargers at home, which they failed to do... so the total amount of BEVs today stands at... roll the drums... 3.1% of all vehicles in UK. 

I still expect it to rise as pressure mounts, but it is clear that even with such small number we already facing issues and take-up has stalled, so imagine how bad it will be when we get to 10% or 20%.

Ohh... and by the way... I am not against BEVs, I just think we doing them fundamentally wrong and new ZEV policy just going to hurt further.

The only way is for people not to buy BEVs - the manufacturers can put more pressure on the government than the people. Once manufacturers realise that they will not hit the mandated government targets they will be putting on pressure behind the scenes. Of course of the public go and buy BEVs then it will prove the government right - so the power to purchase or not is always in our hands.

I smiled at an announcement at the Tory Party Conference when there was an announcement that the government will be starting a campaign to counter what it sees as misinformation about running EVs - looking forward to what green washing they are going to come up with for that... 

[Malc1]

3 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

counter what it sees as misinformation about running EVs - looking forward to what green washing they are going to come up with for that... 

depreciation and finance costs, electricity costs, charging points ............ Uk and global inflation and being on the brink possibly of a recession ...... inability for the majority of the public to buy any new car let alone an EV  .............. Scary for any Govt to pontificate on any of that, the rest must just be dabbling around the edges of it all ...  surely 

Let's wait and see ......  I suspect there will be nowt new of any consequence coming from the mouths of Govt .........  nor anyone else 

Malc

[Linas.P]

On 10/9/2023 at 8:47 AM, Boomer54 said:

https://www.ft.com/content/1b40cdfe-2289-4ee0-a88c-df5f7b1712e1

and so it begins ! The battle lines being drawn.

Yes... and I think Labour is as well putting much emphasis on building homes, so it seems they want to draw battle lines between choosing the cars vs. homes. I can't personally see why can't we have both and I am sure that will be Tories response "yeah yeah - we will build homes as well"... except that they have tragic record of promising this over and over again and failing to deliver. That said Labour has quite poor record as well - they may deliver 1.5 million homes in 5 years, but those going by their previous achievement will be poor quality housing, perhaps good for slaves or animals, but not human occupation (sort of in line with communist ideals of blocks, communal everything, just a place for proletariat to live). As well 300,000 homes per year is not really a solution, as estimate is that we need at least 300,000 just to say on top of it, but we already have shortage of ~1.7 million homes, so proposed Labour plan really does not address the issue, just promises "not to make it worse". Really they would need to double their goal to achieve anything resembling the reasonable resolution.

Now the reason why Tories keeps promising homes and fails to build them is because... let's face it - average conservative voter is against building more homes, they are statistically likely to be older and have their homes, so building more homes and resolving the shortage would just depreciate their assets, so by keeping their promise Tories would undermine their base. Thinking about it - it is just so predictable that Labour is focusing on housing as that is what appeals to most of their voters and Tories focus on cars and climate goal softening.