Bluemarlin

I hear what you're saying Linas but, whilst it's an issue, I don't think that the primary problem is education, and more that for some reason we've created a society where people don't care, especially about others, and politicians fail to address that. Let's use education as an example. Money isn't the issue, as I went to a private school (thanks to not very well off parents, who were willing to make huge sacrifices), where the local authority would provide grants for qualifying kids. At that time, the amount it cost them to pay the grant was less then it cost to send the same kid to a state school. Now sure, there might be some inefficiencies in the state system, but that could be fixed if people simply cared enough to do so. This is true of virtually any issue. We have a society made up of some people who care, some who are indifferent, and others who care about nothing but themselves. That's probably true of any society, and so it's the role of politicians to recognise this, and pitch their policies accordingly. Doesn't mean they need to change them, just to recognise that they don't need to appeal to those who already care, but to those who are indifferent or don't care. In other words, a sad face "think of the children" message might appeal to their core supporters, but won't work on anyone else. Instead it needs to show how those policies, which aren't directly aimed at the indifferent or uncaring, will ultimately benefit them. I have a bit of sales background, and was taught that you list the features, and sell the benefits. So, listing the features of education reform, like more teachers, newer school buildings, better educated chidren, or even better prospects for the poor, has no meaning for those it doesn't immediately affect, or who don't care. However, clearly showing that it will reduce unemployment costs, juvenile delinquency, burglary, car crime, and ultimately produce a better, safer society, is something everyone can get on board with. It's funny, there are those who don't care about the poor, and have no interest in investing in education, but would be happy, whatever the cost, to send the youth of the nation into national service, purely because it's presented in terms of improving the things they do care about. Not picking on you, but I could use you as another example. Regarding climate change, your main argument is that scientists and governments might be wrong, and that man made emissions have no meaningful effect. This is just a belief though, and one which goes against the political, scientific, and even industrial consensus, which says the opposite. Your core issue though, is that following that consensus means it will cost you in terms of lifestyle. As a consequence, you're swayed by a weaker evidential case, simply to support the things you care about. That's not about lack of education on your part, but a failure of politicians, who focus their message on saving polar bears, far off indigenous tribes, and that it's an unfortunate responsibilty to bear some cost for this; instead of highlighting how you might benefit, either in terms of innovation, more efficient energy provision, better health from cleaner air, as well as protection from the future cost of dealing with an even worse mess. So, if there's any education issue, it's with our politicians, who are too busy playing to their own crowd than trying to win over some of the opposition. Trump was a great example of this. He won the presidency by a tiny margin, with a lot of good fortune. Had he spent a tenth of his time in office trying to win over people who didn't vote for him, instead of pandering to those who would vote for him no matter what, he'd have probably won a second term. This is probably in part due to the rise of ego driven, populist politicians, who think they're celebrities, and an electorate who seem increasingly drawn to style over substance; and so I long for the days of the boring but educated politician, who had some integrity and conviction, even if I didn't agree with their political stance. Give me a guy I can trust over one I agree with, any day. Education is hugely important, but more important than academic education is an education in social responsibility, and the ability to see the big picture, by being taught that what might sometimes appear to be a sacrifice, to help others, has a broader purpose, that ultimately helps you too.

That's the crux of it Linas, and we're left with people better qualified than you or I to determine that. There's enough evidence to show that climate change is having devastating effects across the globe, which we're already paying for and are predicted to worsen, as well evidence that shows that man made emissions cause significant changes to the climate. Now, it's entirely possible that people might wrongly correlate cause and effect but, without a deeper understanding of the science they use to draw their conclusions, which we don't have, then we can neither confirm nor deny that. As a result, we're left with having to rely on our best experts to draw their conclusions and make their recommendations, and for goverments to decide if and how to act on them. Whether they're wrong, or whether there's just a global conspiracy to con everyone, is something we won't know with any certainty for many years, or even generations. As such, the way I see it is simply a matter of balancing risks. On the one hand the risk is losing some money if it's a mistake or a con, versus global disasters, and an even higher cost to maintain survival and society if the conclusions are correct. So, you might be right, you might be wrong, but with the scientific consensus saying the latter, and no way of knowing anything for certain, the logical bet seems to be to go with it. That being the case, rather than fight what seems to be a futile fight, it's probably better to get on board, and either embrace the innovations it will inevitably bring, or better yet adapt in ways to benefit from those changes. My guess is that the smart money is already doing the latter.

I'm more of an optimist, and think that naivety, lack of foresight, ignorance, incompetence and expendiency are often better explanations than conspiracy. So I don't think it's always by design, and sometimes unintended consequences. For example, I can see the logic behind thinking that trickle down would work (and was once a believer in it), without anticipating that businesses would simply reinvest money for other reasons than job creation or wage increases. Sometimes poor decisions are made simply because politicians think it's what people want, and so will win votes. An example of this might be how we wasted natural resources like oil on short term expenditure and popular tax cuts, instead of longer term investment; whereas somewhere like Norway chose a different path, and so their oil investments are estimated to fund their social costs for the next 300 years or so. Easy to see with hindsight though. We have a political system where governments are at the mercy of an electorate who increasingly demand instant gratification, and so short term bad ideas are always at risk of getting voted in, and long term good ones voted out. People choose their governments, and so if people don't act as a society, with consideration for others as well as themselves, and are unable to see how that might benefit all, then they won't get a government that can create a society where all might benefit. Instead of having governments that are best for the country as a whole, we've pretty much accepted that each party is only really interested in their own chosen section of society, and so we're just left with picking a team.

An interesting philosophical point. We all have choices, even the mugging victim, when offered the alternative of being stabbed over handing over his wallet. The question then becomes whether they're meaningful choices, or an illusion that comes from having to decide between the lesser of two evils.

Funnily enough I have always considered a benevolent dictatotship to have the most potential for the best political system 🙂

Totally agree with your post Ed, and would like to comment on one paragraph. The result, or even the purpose of some things isn't always as advertised. As well as it being seen as a worthy goal for all, university for everyone also served the purpose of removing large numbers of school leavers from the unemployment register, whilst requiring them to borrow money for the priviledge. Whether the intention was good or not, it was oversold, and in many ways set unrealistic expectations and became self defeating, as it tumed more into a commercial venture than an eduactional one.

Totally agree with your last sentence, as well as your statement that merely taxing the rich more won't solve anything. As you say, the very rich will simply find ways to avoid it, and so they, along with successive governments, have long since learned that there's far more money to be had from a few extra percentage points in the midddle, than any number of points from the top. Especially as those people in the middle are less able to avoid it, and too busy getting on with their lives to rebel against it. That's why I believe it's more a structural issue than a financial one. The current situation, along with most future proposals, offers little more ingenuity than taking more money from top and blindly dishing it out at the bottom. In my opinion this perversely harms those at the midddle and botttom more that it does those at the top. Whilst it might be seen as somewhat idealistic and socialist in principle, it appears to be more of a necessary function of the economic system we've created. In order for businesses to grow profits, an important factor is to keep wage costs down. The most reliable way of doing this is to always maintain a surplus of labour. I read somewhere once that the optimum level of unemmployment for a capitalist society is between 6% & 9%. Below that and wages get too high, and above that the benefits costs start to have a negative effect. That level can be managed in a number of ways, such as immigration, or incentivising non work through the benfits systems. Both parties seem to do both, either by accident or design. Far from benefits being a drain on the wealthy though, it's a bit of shell game. Any tax paid by corporations and the rich, which goes to the poor, almost exclusively gets spent on goods and services, and so that money eventually filters its way back up the chain. The bulk of that tax money comes from the middle though, who already spend what they need/want, and would otherwise save or invest any surplus. By taking it from them, it allows that surplus to be put in the hands of those who have no choice but to spend it, and so it simply shuffles money from the middle, to the bottom, which finally ends up at the top. It's probably why the middle classes keep getting poorer and the number of the poor gets larger. Whether this system is by accident or design, it's seems evident by just following the flow of money. To me, one of the primary causes of this is that our economic model requires constant growth for it to function. That can only happen through ever increasing expenditure, which can only be achieved by either increased loan finance, or taking unspent money from those who save, and giving it to those who'll spend it. In other words, using seemingly socialist tools to drive a capitalist economy. Either way it keeps people at the bottom down, either by pricing their labour at an unrealistically low level, or not providing enough incentive or motivation to work, and simply thowing money at them to survive. Both sides of the political spectrum do it, either for economic benefit, or under the guise of idealistic principles, with no one seeming to catch on that the results are the same, regardless of differing motivations. It is of course possible that both sides want the same, and simply sell it under a different label, in order to appeal to their own voter base. So, whllst I agree with your last sentence, I'd also add that I'd look at the waste and unfair distribution that comes from the need for ever increasing growth and profits. Instead of taxing the middle to enable the bottom not to work and yet still spend, I'd be looking at a wage structure that creates a big enough gap between working and non working, so that there's no incentive not to, except for the incurably lazy and incapable. Of course there are mechanisms that large corporations could use to avoid this, but also measures to combat those if the will was there. The goal of any country should be to create an environment where even the poorest members have the tools and opportunity to work and earn enough to feed, clothe and house their family, in reasonable comfort, without having to rely on loans or handouts. If the cost of that is reduced profits, dividends and bonuses, then so be it. I'm fortunate, in that I've had the benefit of a private education, and a successful career, but even I can see there's something fundamentally wrong when corporations post billions in profits and pay millions in bonuses, while there are capable people, willing to work, and even working, who are struggling to get by. This will never come by arbitrarily redistributing wealth within the same game, but instead from changing the rules of the game itself. I guess what I'm saying is that we've relied heavily on enabling wealth creation, and relying on a trickle down effect to benefit society, which clearly hasn't worked, and is instead increasingly crippling society. Perhaps then it's worth enabling the poor, instead of simply financing them, with the goal of that trickling up to benefit society, whilst still allowing those who are capable of it to create as much wealth as they want.

I have to say that I agree with a lot of what Linas is saying, and I don't think that he's saying that we should strive for some sort of average. Fair warning, this has ended up longer than I intended, but to me it seems that the problems we face run far deeper than simply that of education, so I'll throw in my thoughts on it, for what they're worth. What I believe Linas is saying is that we should strive for equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome. Of course you're also right in that many won't take advantage of that opportunity, and so we'll still be left with an unbalanced society. But that's ok, as long as everyone has a fair chance, and where they end up is a result of their own choices/decisions. That's currently not the case though, and the fate of many is left mostly to an accident of birth, followed by an economic system that's largely weighted against them. If you doubt that, then you only have to look at the life of the lazy buffoon born into a wealthy family, compared to that of the average kid born into poverty. Or the fate of the failed small business owner, compared to that of the CEO of a failed bank or multinational. I get it though, life isn't fair, and so it is what is, but it's not hard to see why many think that it's a broken way of doing things. One problem I see is that we've been taught that free market capitalism provides a system that enables anyone willing to work hard to be successful, and that market forces are the only mechanism required to manage that efficiently. However, we can't, and never will have free markets. In order for businesses to remain successsful, or even survive, we have to manipulate things like interest rates, currency rates and, in some cases, provide subsidies. Jeez, we even have to spend billions on regulation, to prevent even our most respected banks, financial institutions and corporations from ripping people off. And yet still they do it, and face little more than a corporate fine, with no one going to prison for it. The poor and middle classes pay for these things. So, it's not unreasonable for money to flow in the other direction to help those at the bottom, in the form of higher taxes for the wealthy. It's the same principle, and is just more visible than the taxes, interest rates and increased prices that the less well off have to pay, to allow businesses to function profitably. And, for all practical purposes, profit is just another form of privately raised taxation. Another problem is that such a system demands constant growth, and the drive for ever increasing profits. In itself there's nothing wrong with that, as market forces should mitigate unwarranted price rises by decreasing demand. A free market should therefore stabilise at some point, as the only way to stimulate demand at higher prices would be to increase wages proportionately. Instead though, to drive expenditure and growth, without a corresponding wage increase, other artificial mechanisms were introduced, such as easy credit and loan finance. This has resulted in the situation Linas referred to, where house prices have far outstripped income levels, and the same is happening for basics like food. One could even argue that gender equality, and the subsequent rise in women's incomes, and their numbers in the workforce, which should have delivered greater household wealth, instead simply led to further increases in prices, and an increased need for borrowing. What began as a choice, to provide a financial bonus, soon became a financial necessity for many. So, even those willing to work, in order to provide a better life, soon get overtaken by the economic system we have. I truly do get what you're saying though, in that it would seem unfair to take from those who've been successful in order to bring up the level of those who haven't. That's only true though if the successful haven't had advantages given to them in order to achieve and maintain that success, and the unsuccessful haven't been artficially held back. Therefore I don't believe in blindly taking from the wealthy to just give to those less well off. Instead I believe some of the protections afforded the wealthy should be removed, such as the ability to retain wealth in the form of salaries, pensions and bonuses when they fail, as well as prison sentences for senior executives of corporations who break the law. On the other side of the fence, I believe that workers should be given stronger powers to negotiate wages, so that they have an equal opportunity to use market forces to determine the price of their "product". In this way no-one has to take from anyone in order to distribute wealth and resources more fairly, as it would put measures in place to allow the market to function more freely, and stop things swinging too much in any direction. Instead, everyone has a more equal opportunity to determine their path, and a more level playing field on which to follow it. Whatever system we have, there will always be those who will exploit it for their own ends, at both the top and bottom end of the financial spectrum. The best we can do is try to provide an environment where the majority have a fair chance of realising their potential and achieving their goals, however modest or ambitious they might be. I don't know what the answer to achieving that is, but I do know that we're a long way from it.

Interesting thought. I don't know whether it's a preference or whether the cars preferrred by thieves are more common in black. Lots of Range Rovers, and other SUVs are black, and Lexus seems unusual in that silver is a very popular colour for its SUVs, whereas I rarely see a silver Range Rover.

Indeed. I believe they used call them tithes 🙂

Surely it would come up on their system if it happened at Lexus. That said, a lot would depend on when the gap was. If it was the last 4 years, then yes, it would be a concern. However, if it was say from 2012 to 2016, then probably less of an issue if the car is running well. When it comes to reselling, I doubt it will matter much if it's an older car, with the gap being early in it's history and a full history therefafter. Personally I'd look to see if any maintenance items beyond oil changes, such as spark plugs etc have been carried out to schedule, and if not get them done. I'd also look at the mileage records for those for those 4 years, and would probably be concerned it it had done 50 or 60k without any evidence of an oil change. Lexus relax would still apply if the car is within age/mileage limits, and they serviced it in the last year, but if not you can also ask them about the 10yr plus extended warranty, if you want additional peace of mind. What are the Lexus dealer saying about the gap? Are they saying it was actually serviced during that period, but they just don't have the records, or are they saying that they have no idea if it was serviced or not during that time? Is there any way that either you or they could simply ask the previous owner why there's an apparent gap?

Unforunately so, but that's what it's there for. Sadly too many people buy insurance just because it's a legal requirement, but are then scared to claim on it because of the potential premium increase, even if one has no claims discount protection. I think there should be legislation which acknowledges that one's initial premium is already based on a calculated risk factor, and so a claim shouldn't come as such a surprise to an insurer that they have to substantially increase the premium. Further, there should be a legislated limit as to how much, if at all, they should be allowed to increase premiums if one has paid for no claims discount protection. Given the current rises in insurance, I'm sure there's a market for an enterprising insurance company to offer say 3 years cover at a guaranteed fixed price, subject to x number of claims over that period.

If they're talking those kind of numbers I'd be leaving it to my insurance company to worry about.

There are some interesting stats from the Netherlands, that I've just picked up from a quick Google search, such as: More than half of the road deaths are cyclists over 75 years old, with 85% being over 50. 66% of deaths are over 65s, and yet they only cover 3% of the miles. 25% of fatalities were on e-bikes, mostly men over 65. The recent increase has been entirely male, with female deaths dropping. It also seems to be confined to older men, as I believe deaths among under 30s dropped. Helmets are rarely used. 25% of deaths involve no collision with another vehicle or object, just riders falling off or slipping. Conversely, cyclings has increased, and so the deaths per km ridden has gone down. Most concerning for those interested in speed limits is that whilst only 10% of bicycle kilometers are on 50 km/h (31 mph) roads, they account for 40% of the fatalities. Make of all that what you will, but on the face of it, it looks like a large part of the problem is an ever increasing number of older people in the Netherlands, who in turn are turning to cycling and e-bikes.

It could be, or could be a bad/corroded connection somewhere. I'd probably ge looking to get it properly diagnosed by a hybrid specialist, as throwing parts at it based on assumptions could get unnecessarily expensive.

Illuminated door handles seem to me something that might have been a good idea decades ago, before remote keys and keyless entry, but seems a bit redundant now, and just something else to potentially go wrong.

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.

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.

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 🙂

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.

I don't know if things have changed recently, but according to my 10yr + extended warranty paperwork, the warranty is provided by Toyota GB (Lexus Division) and administered by TWG. That said, as I understand it, you can't get it from TWG direct, and have to go through a dealer. The issue with that is that a lot of dealers are unaware that such a warranty exists; I had to get my dealer to contact Lexus to get the details and set it up. If your dealer is unable/unwilling to do so, then I know Lexus Guildford are aware of it, and I believe Reading too, and I suppose it doesn't matter which dealer you get it through, as it's a central thing and not dealer specific. Cost is give or take £500 per annum, depending on model, and of course is conditional on Lexus servicing for the duration. Depending on service history, they might also want to carry out an approval inspection first.

My service is done every September, so most things get checked before winter. They even replaced the front and rear wipers at no charge. I also bought some of the Prestone extreme concentrated screen wash when it was offer in Costco for around a fiver for a 5 litre bottle, so I might add a more concentrated mix later in the year. The only other thing I've done is give the underside a rinse with a lawn sprinkler and then a good spraying with ACF 50. I already have all season tyres, so that's pretty much all I'll do. I may give it a quick hand wash every now and then if it gets dirty, but I put a graphene coating on it so the rain keeps it fairly clean. Also, if it gets cold enough for them to salt the roads, I might rinse the underside.

I've had the Crossclimate SUVs for a couple of years now and am very happy with them. They're good in the snow as I drove through Germany and Swizerland a couple of winters ago, and had no problems. They also seem to be perfectly fine in the wet as far as I'm concerned, but I guess that varies depending on how one drives. They're also pretty quiet and comfortable compared to the Dunlops it had when I bought it.

You're right Linas, it isn't about you and me, and I honestly do understand where you're coming from, and the feeling that your generation is paying some kind of price; even if we don't agree on that. Utimately I enjoy the discussion and sometimes play devil's advocate to explore and understand points more deeply. I'm also genuinely sorry if you feel that you're being punished in any way. You're also right in that we're going round in circles on the climate issue, because we both have different beliefs around its cause and effects. We also disagree on the point that human activity is outweighed by natural occurence, and that it's therefore pointless changing what we do. We're unlikely to change our views, so I'll summarise where I'm coming from and leave it that. The short version is that I believe that man made emissions have an impact on the climate, which has and will create effects on the environment that are both costly and detrimental. The longer version is that I also believe that this is both over and above, and faster acting than natural/cyclical events, and so acting to reduce them will have beneficial consequences in the short to medium terms. As a result, cost effectiveness is entirely relevant, as my beliefs are based on the assumption that limiting emissions will reduce damaging effects, and doing nothing will increase them. Whilst I agree that natural forces also cause damage, I don't believe that they have the same immediate impact of man made forces, nor do I believe that their occurence is a reason not to change what we're doing. Either way, I believe that we can more easily, cheaply, and less disruptively, alter our own actions than we can mitigate against unforseen natural events, although ideally we'd do both. I also agree with Rowley, in that it's impossible to be 100% certain of anything, which opens the door to speculation. What is fairly certain though is that we're pumping things into the atmosphere at a level that wouldn't occur naturally, and so it's logical to assume that they'll have an effect outside of natural occurence. Now, when it comes to what effect that might have, we're left with examining all the available evidence, and then trying to draw the best possible conclusions, which is where we seem to disagree. I'm certainly not qualified to understand, analyse and interpet that data, let alone draw any conclusions from it, and I'm guessing the same applies for you (apologies if I'm wrong and you're a climate scientist). As such, we have to rely on the people best qualified to do that. The people we turn to, far from lacking perspective and understanding, are fully aware of the historical and cyclical changes in the planet's temperatures and climate and, for the most part, have a pretty good understanding of why and how they occured; along with the predicted speed and effect of any natural changes, like 6C increases and ice melting at some point in the future. That is their field of expertise, which they've collectively studied for very many years, and so will have factored that in to any conclusions. Sure there are gaps in knowledge, like there are with evolutionary theory, which can then be interpreted by others to paint an entirely different picture. However, the consensus amongst those with the appropriate education and training, is that man made emissions are causing damaging climate changes that we're seeing today, over and above natural forces, which will only get exponentially worse if we don't address them. So, we can either believe the consensus of people with the relevant education, background and training in the subject, or those who pursue the gaps, and my preference lies with the former. I fully agree with you though that politicians, and those with vested interests, will exploit the data and conclusions, on both sides of the debate, for their own ends. We've seen this happen in the past, with politicians and corporations who exploited the gaps in favour of the oil industry, and we'll see it with others who'll now exploit the scientific consensus for political and financial gain. We will also see some ill thought out decisions made; some with the best of intentions, some with more nefarious motivation. That's the nature of politics, business and human nature, unfortunately. However, it's my belief that those who would prefer not be exploited, would be better off focusing their energies against greed and corruption, than fighting an argument about climate change. Both are probably losing battles, but the latter isn't the reason why people will be taken advantage of, and simply another tool with which it can be done, which can be easily changed for another if it's taken away.

I'm still confused by the relevance of the doom scenario, Linas. As far as I can see, no one is saying that the world will end tomorrow unless we do something about it. Ok, maybe some environmental extremists are but, as you say, they're ill informed fanatics. Additionally, no one has said that scientists agree that climate change is only human made, so you're disagreeing with a strawman there. What they are saying is that burning fossil fuels is having an effect on the climate over and above natural occurence, which is leading to damaging weather and environmental events. Regardless of historical trends, cyclical events, and natural occurences, the scientific consensus seems to be that burning fossils has an effect on the climate which has been destructive, and that continuing to do so will only perpetuate that damage. In addition, this was something predicted by the oil companies own scientific research 40 years ago, and which the oil companies acknowledge as a reality today. I agree with you that a 6 degree rise is easily survivable, but that's not the point. The issue with warming isn't that we'll burn to death, no one is even saying that, it's that the effects it will have on the environment will cause substantial disruption. Nor does what happened 3 million years ago, 3 thousand years ago, or even 3 hundred years ago matter. We're not talking about what's survivable, but about what's sustainable, given the societies we've created in the last couple of hundred years. So you're right in one sense, whether temperatures stay the same, or increase by 6C, the human race will survive. However, the issue isn't simply about survival, it's about the cost of managing the effects of any such increase. When you boil it down, it's just a cost benefit analysis. It's as simple as that; and the deeper, more complex areas of climate science, historical data, and cyclical trends are a distraction to anyone other than climate scientists. The bottom line is, does burning fossil fuels cause changes to our climate that carry a cost? Even the oil industry accepts that as fact. As a consequnce, it's then just a case of deciding whether it's more cost effective to reduce our carbon emissions, and the effect they have on our climate, or would it be more cost effective to carry on and pay the costs of fixing and adapting to the changed climate. I believe the former to be the case, with the added bonus that it will drive innovation that might lead to many other improvements. As for the quality of life thing, right now you seem to be focusing on what you think you might lose, rather than anything you've actually lost, or even what you might have gained. You mentioned inflation and rising costs, but that's a recent thing. Up until a couple of years ago your generation enjoyed possibly one of the longest periods of low interest rates and inflation for a long time. Far from having all the benefits, at your age my generation were paying 15% mortgage rates. I think you have a somewhat rosy view of what it was like for previous generations. I don't think it's because I don't get what you're saying, or that I have different priorties. I face the same things you do, but it's just that I approach things differently. Getting upset because things aren't how I'd like hurts no-one but myself. Instead I just try to change what I can and adapt to what I can't. For example, if they banned SUVs, then the mentally healthier option for me would be to adapt to an estate or saloon, or justify a sports car, rather than remain annoyed at the loss of my SUV. Maybe I'd even move to a country where they allowed SUVs, who knows. Absolutely last thing I'd do though is look for anything and everything that shows the banning of SUVs was unjustified, or that it was scam or a plot to punish me. Not because that might not be true, but because to do so doesn't benefit me in slightest. So, we'll see what happens with EVs. I agree though, that some might not have exactly the kind of car they'd like, but then others might end up with something far better than they could ever have hoped for. Unfortunately the world doesn't care about your happiness and quality of life Linas, that's your responsibility, and you just have to take what the world throws at you and make the best of it.