Thread: Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies

Originally Posted by isuzurover

The best like for like example would be trading your county on a puma (since it is the new version of the same vehicle).

Assuming you did the same number of km per year as before, you would go from using 20-25L/100km to 10-15L/100km. Now the energy and CO2 content of both fuels needs to be considered, which would narrow the gap a bit. However the emissions need to be considered as well - a carb V8 would emit several orders of magnitude more emissions per km than a Euro IV diesel. Another factor is that the Puma now has a lot more steel and a lot less Al. Unfortunately, the production of a kg of Al requires LOTS more energy than steel. So although you often save weight, it is usually better for the environment to make things out of steel than Al.

Aluminium takes a lot more energy to produce from raw materials than does steel - but not only does recycling aluminium take a lot less energy than does recycling steel, but a far larger proportion of aluminium is actually recycled.

As with any "dust to dust" energy or emissions calculation, there are many assumptions required in the calculation, and what is assumed has a major influence on the result. Consequently, almost all such calculations have the assumptions made adjusted to achieve the desired result. And you can just about guarantee that none apply to any specific example.

Taking your suggestion in the first paragraph - if I trade my County on a new Puma, I probably achieve about a 10% decrease in carbon emissions compared to the Isuzu. This is offset to some extent by the extra mileage needed to take it to a dealer for service instead of doing it myself. For the manufacturing emissions to drop as low as those for the County, I would need to keep it for a similar length of time (24 years), and I seriously doubt that it will be maintainable that long due to parts shortages. As far as I can see, from a carbon emissions point of view, I would do better to continue with the County.

Similarly, only more so, for the 2a ute. While it emits a lot more carbon per kilometre than a new Puma, it only does about 5,000km/year, so the payback time would correspondingly be longer, even taking the increase per kilometre into account. And to bring the per kilometre manufacturing carbon cost down to the same the Puma would have to last 40 years - which seems a bit unlikely (and anyway by then I would be well over 100, and unlikely to be driving)

John

Originally Posted by Hardchina

I'll kind of give you that in a way, but its only really valid when you compare apples with turtles. So yes, if I trade in the county and buy a prius, then maybe after ten years the co2 emissions may start to get a little better (i'd be bankrupt though from all the freakin batteries and servicing)

But apples with apples

I've got a heap of kids so would need something bigger than a prius
How would the figures work out if i bought a new model Hilux or Rangie or territory?

Most new cars are bloated disposable crap


fuel consumption -

what about a '67 mini compared to the latest mini?

'67 monaro compared to the new monaro?

Cars (generally) aren't really getting more fuel effiecient - for every prius sold how many Big boys toys do toyota sell?

at least most other car companies aren't so pretentious about their enviromental credentials.

2002 VW Caravelle Diesel tdi 7.9litres per hundred.


And it looks even more like a brick than a Defender.

Originally Posted by PhilipA

Mr Kelly , I am disappointed in your response to my advice to a poster to believe a scientific study rather than anecdotal evidence .

This appears to contradict your whole proposition that scientists know the answers and "denialists" are uneducated yobbos.

It appears from your response that you discard ANY information from sources you do not "like" even though it appears to be straight reporting of a Government research agency report. Any later "spin" would appear to upset you because it disagrees with your preconceptions. AND that sir is what offends many in the population about the Climate Change debate.

So you prefer to believe that sea levels in Fiji have risen 20-50 CM in recent memory of the islanders without further corroboration??

Regards Philip A

A couple of things here Phillip:

1. I have put no propositions forward. You are projecting something onto me that I did not say. I made no claims about scientists being the only ones with answers. The point I was making is that the podcast was one viewpoint being explored by multiple people, focused on how the "sceptics" used publishing of books to push their angle. It is/was not a debate. I was simply trying to convince another poster that the fact it is one side of the story does not make it lack credibility. I have since come to the decision that my understanding of the meaning of the word "credibility" must be significantly different to that of the other poster since I can not follow his logic in this case.

2. If you think that a newspaper is a place to get a balanced view I apologise for wasting my time in trying to convince you of anything that you have not read in the Daily Telegraph. As you seem to be smarter than that, I will simply say - my point to you was that finding a study in the paper that confirms the core belief of that media outlet is hardly useful.

3. I have no preconceptions about the "climate debate" - I despise junk science and rubbish thinking wherever it is found.

4. I have no idea about the sea levels in Fiji - cant even be bothered reading about it.

5. I doubt that most of the posters in this thread have listened to the podcast.

6. Mr Kelly is my Dad.

Hope that clears up some of the issues.

Thanks for the interesting discourse....

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by ghillie

More FUD Drivesafe. I didn't say you'd made anything up or that anyone else had. What I did say was that you had not given any substantiation for your claims or any references. Both of which were true.

I also said that your comments about others being stupid were just rude. Your above post has more of that. You should calm down. Taking time to edit your posts before submitting them would also be a good idea.

Who is the pot calling the kettle black ?

Originally Posted by drivesafe

Personally, I would rather we paid no annual rego and paid rego at the fuel bowser, then the big guzzlers would be paying a fair price.

I agree.

In Germany, you pay no rego for the first 3 years on a new vehicle, and no rego on an "oldtimer" (>25 yo), as long as it is in good condition and not your only vehicle.

Originally Posted by drivesafe

Personally, I would rather we paid no annual rego and paid rego at the fuel bowser, then the big guzzlers would be paying a fair price.

I agree.

In Germany, you pay no rego for the first 3 years on a new vehicle, and no rego on an "oldtimer" (>25 yo), as long as it is in good condition and not your only vehicle.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Aluminium takes a lot more energy to produce from raw materials than does steel - but not only does recycling aluminium take a lot less energy than does recycling steel, but a far larger proportion of aluminium is actually recycled.

As with any "dust to dust" energy or emissions calculation, there are many assumptions required in the calculation, and what is assumed has a major influence on the result. Consequently, almost all such calculations have the assumptions made adjusted to achieve the desired result. And you can just about guarantee that none apply to any specific example.

Taking your suggestion in the first paragraph - if I trade my County on a new Puma, I probably achieve about a 10% decrease in carbon emissions compared to the Isuzu. This is offset to some extent by the extra mileage needed to take it to a dealer for service instead of doing it myself. For the manufacturing emissions to drop as low as those for the County, I would need to keep it for a similar length of time (24 years), and I seriously doubt that it will be maintainable that long due to parts shortages. As far as I can see, from a carbon emissions pointFSDA of view, I would do better to continue with the County.

Similarly, only more so, for the 2a ute. While it emits a lot more carbon per kilometre than a new Puma, it only does about 5,000km/year, so the payback time would correspondingly be longer, even taking the increase per kilometre into account. And to bring the per kilometre manufacturing carbon cost down to the same the Puma would have to last 40 years - which seems a bit unlikely (and anyway by then I would be well over 100, and unlikely to be driving)

John

In your, (atypical) case, you would probably be best off hanging onto the county and recycling the IIa (much as it would be a shame).

However, you must admit you are somewhat of an "outlier" statistically.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

More BS and misinformation... (not on your behalf but the person who wrote the training manual)

If you come in contact with HF (hydrofluoric acid), the treatment is calcium gluconate gel. By the tyme you could ampurtate the affected body part, the person would probably be well on the way to kidney failure (as happened in a famous case in SA, but the person spilled 70% HF on themselves, and did not have CG gel handy. Nothing was amputated.)

Viton seals may produce HF at temperatures above 315oC, however viton seals are usually only used in things like injector pumps, automatic transmissions and arb lockers. We are talking tiny quantities in sealed components. the chance of getting close enough to a burning car to inhale HF would be infinitesimally small.

John - you know you could put some of the time you put into researching conspiracy theories to better use...

I was just repeating what our area group captain told us about Viton. The group captain bought it up at a meeting a month ago. I do not claim to be an expert in this area. We discussed it last Wednesday night at our brigade meeting.

Are we right about the Prius? We have a clip board on our Fire Brigade's shed wall instructing us about Prius fires.

Originally Posted by ADMIRAL

Who is the pot calling the kettle black ?

I don't understand your point. You'll have to say it plainly.