serious question: how does that jive with Nigel Farage’s party of morons becoming ever stronger?
Because the others are doing a miserable job, probably. And because Farage’s party is united while the left is splitted in a lot of smaller parties which often fight between them
Which has nothing to do. There is no reason why it should not be open source and, beside, even if eCall is a black box, all the other software on the car can be open source and/or documented.
To be honest, I think that the same Gulf countries would have been attacked anyway, the goal of Iran is to put pression on the US, they would have just find another excused instead of the US bases.
It is something everyone can see:
While I agree on the spirit of the law, switching to EV cars are a good idea IF we can solve the problem of recharging them all, but not on the execution.
Simply setting a date without planning for everything else is plain stupid. Something like Germany did closing the nuclear power plants without any plan about how to replace them if not some vague “renewable energy” charade.
Not all EU countries are in the same situation, I agree, and manufacturer are only partially responsible for this, most of the responsability is from past governments that did not have the ball, and foresight, to decide for impopular (at the time) solutions that could have made easier today.
They are the main reason Germany in particular is trying to reverse the ban on new combustion engines
No, they are not. Simply all the necessary infrastructures are not ready (by a long shot) to phase out ICE engines.
/s Technically speaking you rely on it any time you set a password, just saying…
Ask the World Economic Forum or the Stockholm Environment Institute:
Still make no sense if they don’t say what they consider in the data. CO2 is produced basically by every human activitiy (even breathing) so unless they specified what is included in the 15% the data are useless if not wrong entirely. Numbers can be manipulated to say a lots of things.
(and if you are honest, it totally makes sense that rich people produce an overproportional amount of CO2. They have the money. They are flying. They are consuming more. They have bigger houses and all those fancy Saunas, Whirlpools and second homes. Why are you questioning that?)
And they are the 1% of the total. I get that they might produce more CO2 of me, but for every rich person (how we define rich anyway ? Millionaire ? Billionaire ?) there are millions of people like me and you. And I am afraid that their bigger house, their bigger boats and so on are probably state of the art tech, mine and yours not so much…
For every private jet there are millions of cars used by normal people. There are an estimate of about 32k (registered) planes in the world that make about 100k flight a day. How many millions of cars are on the road daily ? (Hint: Rome alone has about 1.7 millions car on the road daily, make an educated guess on the total). And while a jet can produce more CO2 per person per km, they are offset by the sheer number of the cars which, while they produce about 1/4 of CO2 of the plane, are thousand of times more.
Can you possibly post where to find the original image ? Too small to read anything other than some number.
Yes, I really do think that changing the behaviour of those people who are producing 15% of global emissions will have an effect on global emissions.
And how this 15% is calculated ? What is included ? What is excluded ?
Are you sure that you are not targeting this 1% only because it is more simple to just say “is someone else fault” ?
There are two things: The amount of CO2 produced by private jets is not “near nothing”, it is quite significant and produced only by a small number of people
Quite significant of what ? If the total CO2 produced by the aviation industry is the 2% of the total pollution, even if the private jets produce 50% of this quantity it just is the 1% of the total. And I think that commercial jets are way more and fly way more than private jets so the quantity by which you reduce the pollution is negligible.
Again, it is not to be ignored but maybe it should not be our first target.
We need to get to net zero in order to save the planet and therefore we can’t afford a “it’s only a small amount” way of thinking.
Then maybe we could start to focus on thing that have heavier impact, like cars or industry, instead of focusing on niche things that would not make a difference. But ok, I get it, after all the rich are the cause of everything.
And we can already see how this behaviour of the super rich is tipping opinions against environmental protections.
Let me ask a question: do you really think that changing the behaviour of the 1% richest people would change anything on the pollution problem ?
Not that we don’t need to take also them accountable, but I still fail to see how reducing (or stopping) something this marginal can help.
I’m sure you have seen this whole “Taylor Swift is flying everyday and we have to drink out of paper straws”-meme
Yes, and I found it always stupid while looking at the cars lines on a random morning in every big city in the US.
The problem is that we are trying to solve climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions regardless of who is causing them and why.
It is not really important in my opinion to know who or why
That is leading to a world where some rich asshole in his private jet is flying to Monaco to watch the Formula One, and other people can’t afford to heat their homes.
So we “punish” the rich people without doing anything for the other people. Let’s assume that you ban rich people to fly to Monaco, now what ? The amount of CO₂ produced by air travel is reduced by an amount that, on a global scale, is practically negligible, what good it do to the people who cannot heat their homes ?
That doesn’t work and the current backlash is exactly caused by that. You are forced into the office by those rich CEOs and their private jets and the gov is telling you to drive less and is increasing the taxes for your petrol.
The current backslah is caused by idiots who cannot read and understand facts. As i said flying generates about 2% of the global CO2, how much do you think a group of rich people would generate annually on a global basis ?
Moreover these idiots are the same that if you plan to build a new railways to reduce the cars on the road (and conseguently the pollution) protest just because with variety of stupid reasons, not last the NIMBY aspect.
Now, I agree that every reduction in polllution is good but we should aim for the bigger target (which, normally, is the impopular one) instead of the smaller that make the idiots feel good but does nothing.
What I wanted to say is that there are totally fine reasons to fly or move around, and reasons that are not so great and should maybe be avoided. Our current setup is not reflecting that because it’s simply based on your ability to pay.
You are targeting what, on a global scenario, is a niche in a niche. It make no sense if you want to solve global problems.
a violent neonazi will show up at 3 am at your address with a balaclava. throw a molotov cocktail through your bedroom window and leave before the police arrives.
A balaclava don’t save you if I know who you are.
The point is that all these supposed “violent neonazi” are what they are because they think that they are “anonimous” on Internet but they have not the balls to do it in the real life, else there would be way more attacks you describe, after all there are a lot of people who already expose themself against them in the real life.
The problem is that 6000 cycles in laboratory are not the same than 6000 cycles in real life scenarios.
It would be interesting to put that battery out in the field and to see how it perform in real life conditions (assuming that they are cheap enough to be produced in large volumes)
If they are really that good you are right, but there are always a lot of revolutionary advance in lab that never leave it.
And this is so problematic. First of all, there’s really a chilling effect going on with putting your real identity to your online posts. I’m not sure if I would be posting on here if everybody could link my profile here to my real name. There is a reason why people are not discussing depression, drug use, or marital problems with their work colleagues or neighbors. And people really would not like if prospective employers could see everything they are writing online.
I think that the big problem is that more than putting your real identity to your post there should be a way to identify you in case it is needed, anonymity cannot be a free pass to commit any kind of crime.
Online you are not really anonymous anyway, your provider know where and when you go to a site, it would not be difficult to trace back to you if someone is willing to do it.
I don’t know how this problem could be solved btw.
There’s also a chilling effect on political debate. You really do not want your home address being available to violent Neo-Nazis, Hamas supporters, Covid-deniers and other idiots. That will lead to harassment and this will lead to people stopping discussing certain topics.
Well, if anonymity is removed also the violent Neo-Nazis (or whatever) is exposed, maybe he would think twice before doing/saying something stupid knowing that nothing stop someone else to make him the victim of harassment or to be treated like an idiot or ignored at work (or any other real life situation) because people find his social accounts and simply decide to not interact with (if not totally boycott) him.
Yes, maybe not the first time, but in the end people like these will return where they belong, in their small circle of idiots.
That is a problem that is hard to solve. Many people do not need to move but want to move for reasons.
I hope you don’t imply that people should never leave the place where they are born.
Yes, people want to move for some reasons and that’s ok. I don’t see why they should have limits on this.
You do not need to fly to Mallorca in order to get wasted on cheap beer. You do not need to fly to Paris in order to start a shopping spree. You do not need to fly to Barcelona to watch a soccer game or fly into Vienna to catch a Taylor Swift concert. People are doing that. They like it, but it’s totally okay if they are not able to use airplanes for that.
I don’t agree.
Or better I agree for the reasons you cited, but you can go to the cities you list also to just see them, I think it is fine.
It’s also okay if the business class is going back to relying on online calls and meetings like they did during COVID. There’s no reason for someone to fly to London just to present a power point.
That’s a stupid point.
It is not the single flight to London the problem, but that lot of us are forced to go to the office to do a work you can do from home. You want to fight pollution ? If you mandate remote work for every possible worker that can use it, the number of people on the roads will drop significantly and the ones that need to go to work (production for example) have a better public transportation system as a collateral effect.
At this point the single time you need to fly to London to present a power point (because sometime you need to do it in person) is offset by the large quantity of pollution you avoid letting people to work from home.
But there are also reasons why people might want or need to fly, for example to visit their family in a far away country. And that is really hard to balance in our current setup because rich people will be able to fly to Mallorca to get wasted on champagne, while your poor migrant will not be able to afford to fly to Turkey to visit their grandma for the last time.
People fly also to avoid to spend a lot of hours for a trip with a train that can be just a couple of hours flying.
An example: if I want to go to Sicily (Catania to be exact) from Milano I have the option to fly there (2.5/3 hours considering the time to reach airport) or to use a train (a little less than 15 hours with two train transfers). Or if someone want to visit their parent living on some island and the only alternative is the ferry (slower and more expensive).
In the end for every example that you can do about people that could choose to not fly, I could make an example about people that cannot choose to not fly, so maybe the real problem is not that.
Do you think that people can’t move without flying?
No, only that sometimes flying is better that other alternatives.
In France some connection was terminated because train was better (less expensive, overall faster) than flying and that’s ok, but it is not always true.
are you sure that the alternatives to short distance flight are better ?Yes. Including arranging one’s life so that you don’t need to fly.
Ok, but you should ask why people need to fly and I am sure you are not impling that people should never move from the place where they are born, be for work or any other reason.
But I am intrigued by what can be your solution for people who live on islands or has not other alternatives other than using a car/bus instead of flying in the case they cannot/don’t want to spend 8 hours traveling by car or train instead of a one-hour flight.
Under this angle, a few airports for short distances and airlines going bust is not really that bad, is it?
Aside that people still need to move, are you sure that the alternatives to short distance flight are better ? And what can be used as an alternative ? Bus ? Trains (for which you should probably build the railways) ? Cars ?
You think we are at a endpoint with 3d printing technology? As technology improves the ability to make better parts will keep increasing.
No, we are not at a endpoint even if I don’t think there is much more to be done that can improve the tech in some revolutionary way.
Nah, if you’re right, you should also ban the sale of any type of bench milling machine (manual or CNC): anything I can 3D print, I can probably mill just as easily
If the firearms industry think that a 3d printed gun is good enough to compete with them, they are selling shitty products.
It is more plausible that they want to control the 3d printed guns because they are not able (or willing) to stop the people who want to commit some kind of crimes and cannot buy a gun from building one (since, as I understand, to buy the components it seems you have not to undergo a backgroubd check).
Maybe, but as far as I see they seems to run as a single entity or in any case the split seems to be irrelevant.
It is probably a mix of the two reasons, as always, adding irrealistic campaign promises to the mix.