Bluemarlin

Linas, there's a huge difference between all the permanent ice melting, and sufficient ice melting for it to cause environmental problems, and even disasters. There's also a difference between cyclical occurences that happened prior to us having sophistiated and complex societies that are affected by such things, and the effects of climate change on life today. As such, it doesn't matter if such things were more frequent 5000 years ago, and only what their frequency is now, and the extent of damage they cause. Equally, saying that such things happened naturally 5000 years ago does not automatically mean that man made emissions aren't contributing to them today. That would be like saying that cancer existed before cigarettes, and so it's wrong to blame cigarettes for causing cancer. As for flooding, you're right in that poor land management might result in floods in developed areas like the Thames valley, but that doesn't account for things such as why US coastal flooding has doubled in a few decades. Nor does it account for increased flooding and/or droughts in less developed parts of the world. For decades, in much the same way as the tobacco companies, oil companies have funded the denial of fossil fuels affecting the climate, despite their own scientists warning them long ago of the dangers. As far back as 1979, an Exxon study said that burning fossil fuels “will cause dramatic environmental effects” in the coming decades. So, you can deny the effects of it as much as you wish, but even the oil companies now accept the reality of it. The truth is buried in the research and data, and once again, like tobacco, will take time to emerge; but with lawsuits starting to be filed against oil companies, it's only a matter of time before all the evidence comes to light. So I don't buy your argument that such claims are put forth by undeducated people who don't understand climate processes, as most of these claims are made by highly educated climate scientists, who conclude from the available data that man made emissions are affecting the climate in such a way that has a negative impact on the environment. It's not just the scientific consensus either, as even the oil companies now acknowledge that burning fossil fuels causes climate changes that are detrimental to the environment. I would therefore counter such a claim by saying that it's only uneducated people who are taking historical data to leap to the conclusion that it's all natural and cyclical, and that our activities are inconsequential. The tax argument would have some merit if we didn't pay high taxes on oil, but we do, and so whatever we do, regarding cars, the climate, or whatever, the government will adjust taxes to suit. It makes no difference. I think your fears are unfounded too. I see nothing in what we're doing that will "significantly diminish our quality of life". At worst I see some minor inconvenience and short term cost. Further, any cost and incovenience is no worse than your proposed solution, which would be to relocate cities and restructure society in order to maintain the viability of burning fossil fuels. I fear that mandating that people should move from their home might be a far more inconvenient solution than having to buy an EV, and would lead to an even greater diminishing of one's quality of life. Once again, you're using timing to inaccurately characterise what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that no-one is being forced today. Already many people are choosing to buy EVs, without being forced. If costs come down sufficiently, then by 2035, it's quite possible that most will make that choice of their own accord. Nor are those on lower incomes impacted, as they traditionally buy used cars, and can continue to do so long after 2035. I do agree with some of what you're saying, but equally feel that you're exaggerating some points, to the extent that it comes across as making a mountain out of a molehill. I also agree with you that the technology in terms of batteries is not yet mature, and would certainly agree that if everyone were forced into BEVs today then that would be wrong. The reality is that goverements are looking to transition in a way that allows the technology to catch up. If it were simply a scam we'd be forced into them now, but the fact that the government has already agreed to a five year delay suggests that they're acknowledging the current limitations, by allowing more time for progress to be made. So, I agree with some of what you're saying about the speed of any such transiton, and that if pushed along too quickly will be detrimental. But I don't agree that we will see any significant diminishing in our quality of life, in anything that we're currently doing, or are likely to do.

You're welcome Rowley. Another possible side benefit of the ACF 50, is that it's also a lubricant and, I don't know if it's the reason, but I don't have any suspension sqeaks or creaks. Another quick tip is do it just after getting the car serviced and/or MOT'd, as the garage won't thank you for the oily mess if you do it just before.

Again, I don't know where you get your 5000, or even 500 years from, but there's plenty of evidence showing the effects of climate change today, such as the increased frequency of storms, flooding, landslides, desert expansion, drought, and a host of other things. As I've said before, you can choose to believe the evidence that points to man made emissions being the cause, or you can choose not believe it. Nothing either of us say will change the other's beliefs on that, and so it's a fruitless area to pursue. I can't say whether we'll become dependent on China for batteries because, as the demand for the required resources grows, more and more countries are starting to find reserves. What I can say though is, much like cellphones, the technology will move rapidly as the need grows. Lithium may be the answer today, but in 10 or 20 years it could be sodium batteries, or some other technology. There are no hard facts as to what the future will bring, and so it's open to speculation. You speculate that that we're doomed to dependence on China, and to being wedded to expensive tech, and I speculate that we'll innovate our way into better and cheaper solutions. I'd also argue that history is on my side, as in the 1980's, the first cellphone cost around four grand, and ran for an hour on a NiCad battery. Let me tell you a story to illustrate this. Around 30 years ago I spoke with a senior director of a large multi national. Cellphones were relatively new then, with poor battery life, very expensive to run and, with the knowledge and experience of the time, had a limited use case. He told me flatly that he could never see a time in that company's future where they'll ever have a need for them. Less than 30 years later, they're not only essential for any business, but so cheap that even homeless people have them. The point being that it's very easy to dismiss something based on what we know today, whilst forgetting that things change, and that those changes accelerate rapidly once there's some momentum behind them. Today there's momentum behind renewable energy and the move away from fossil fuels, so much so that the energy landscape could be unrecognisable in 30 years time. No-one is being forced to buy EVs, my last purchase was a hybrid, but could have just as easily been ICE, and the government are set to delay the transistion by another 5 years. Already used EVs are coming down in value, and new ones will follow suit as volumes increase. Like cellphones, and any other new technology, the early adpoters will pay a premium but, as the technology (and the market) matures, the products, and their pricing, will become mainstream. I understand that you feel that that things might be being forced to move too quickly, and perhaps there's some merit to that view. But the curve is happening, and so one can either ignore it, try to flatten it, or get ahead it. We differ in so much as, at least to some degree, I favour the latter.

I also use the Dynax stuff, and here's what I've done to date. Last year I sprayed any cavitities I could see with Dynax S50. I also removed the wheels and arch liners (one at a time), cleaned up inside the arches, covered the brakes with a plastic bag, and gave the area a good spray of S50, especially around the brake lines and fuel filler on near side rear. I then gave the underside a good spray of Dynax UB. Both Dynax products come in a can, with a fairly long 360 degree lance, as such they're easy to apply, particulary on an RX, which is high enough off the ground to reach most places. This took most of a day, and I then left it overnight for the Dynax to dry. The next day, for good measure, I took a garden pump sprayer bottle and sprayed the underside with ACF 50. I figure the Dynax is good for 2 or 3 years, so this year (this week in fact), I gave the underside a rinse with a lawn sprayer, and the following day gave the underside a good spraying of ACF 50, which only took about half an hour. I will add that it's wise to put something under the car before you start, I used flattened out cardboard boxes from the recycle bins, to catch any drips, especially from the ACF 50, which is quite runny; and allow a day or so for things to dry off before using the car.

Your post prompted me to get out the Gummi Pflege and do the seals. While I was on a roll I stuck a load of cardboard under the car and did my annual underbody spray of ACF 50, ahead of winter.

Ok, interesting discussion, which is more easily undertaken when debating the pros and cons of addressing climate change, regardless of how one feels about its urgency or necessity. To start, I would like to say that many don't feel that action against climate change is unnecessary, so that's not a given. Regardless of whether the climate will change due to natural occurence, with or without our contribution or intervention, is a matter of timing. If we are accelerating that process, at a speed at which we can't economically adapt, then it makes sense to take action to prevent that. So, we're not trying to prevent inevitable climate change, we're trying to prevent our contribution to it, which is having affects at a rate of which we can't effectively and economically adapt to. That's what some believe, although I accept you don't. Again, we can both put forth theories to support either belief, so best to just accept that we differ on that point. Yes, we could burn all the fossil fuel till it runs out, and then look at the alternatives, but let's also look at the downsides of that. Whilst currently abundant, it's no longer the case that fossils fuels are a relatively cheap form of energy. On the one hand the prices are kept artfcially high by the cartels and corporations that control the supply, and on the other hand we're at the mercy of things like war and political whim as to the reliability of that supply. We've seen that most clearly over the last year or so, with domestic energy bills tripling, and petrol prices still artificially high. As I said previously, one of the biggest selling points of shifting from fossil fuels, for me anyway, is not the perceived climate benefits, but the opportunties for energy independence. In addition to cost, those who claim exploitation of people in order to mine the natural resources for batteries, seem blind to the corruption, conflict and death that is an integral part of the oil industry. Parts of Africa are kept in perpetual conflict to facilitate the supply of oil, and the same can be said of the Middle East. You may or may not care about these things, but they're hardly a selling point. My alternative view to yours, is that we have been artificially limited by an oil industry that has for many years resisted, if not obstructed, the development of alternative technologies, not because oil is more affordable, but because it's profitable for them to do so. Nor are your alternatives mutually exclusive. Suppose we did want to colonise other planets; how much would that cost purely in fossil fuels to travel there? How much is propulsion technology retricted by the need to carry and burn fossil fuels? What about providing energy on planets that don't have fossil fuel reserves? Advancements in wind, solar and other means of electricity production might not only provide more efficient means of travel, but also renewable forms of energy once there. So, what I'm saying is that, even without the climate issue, carrying on with fossil fuels is what is stifling innovation, simply because it requires nothing to change. The climate argument, regardless of its veracity, is the one single thing that is motivating people to do things differently, which is how innovation takes place. Sure, we could kick the can down the road, but the impact of doing that depends on how you feel about the potential negative affects on climate. Whatever one's belief on that though, it seems it would also be kicking any innovation down the road. That's just my view though.

I might be misremembering, but I seem to recall them taking thrupenny bits. I also remember that it took superhuman strength to open the doors on a phone box.

Linas, I fear you're missing my point. Sure, we can live in space, or underwater, but at what cost? I completely agree with you that we can both survive and maintain our comfort levels, should temperatures rise dramatically. What I'm saying though, is that to live in space, underwater, or even in the desert, whilst maintaining our current comfort levels, would require a level of cost, inconvenience and upheaval, on a far greater scale than that of doing what we can to try and maintain a climate that allows us to continue to live as we currently do. Even if we can't do that forever, as natural forces may intervene, we can still slow the process, so that any possible upheaval can be delayed; allowing any required transition to be more economically bearable. So, what it seems you're saying is that you don't like the cost and inconvenience of tryng to mitigate climate change, but would happily accept the cost and inconvenience that would be required to adapt our societies to a changed climate? Unless you believe that the latter would be cost and inconvenience free, which I fear is at best a somewhat fanciful notion. Nor am I saying that all animal species should survive. Some do, and some become extinct, that's the way of things; but when one species acts in such a way that is destructive to many others, it alters the balance, and has knock on effects. You say that we shouldn't directly annihilate a species by overhunting it, but then how is that any different to annihilating it by destroying its habitat. I get it, some species might be lost because of the actions of another that are necesssary for its survival. However, much of the destruction we cause isn't necessary for the survival of the human race, and is instead pursued for the profit and benefit of a few individuals and corporations. We don't need to burn oil and gas to maintain our survival or comfort levels, it's simply more profitable. In part that's due to not only it's relative abundance, but also corruption. It's estimated that global corruption is at a scale that, if eliminated, we could afford to feed, house, clothe and educate everyone on the planet. That's a separate conversation though, so let's look at your observation about how humans made the most progress during interglacial periods. As a species we adapt well to change, and are at our most innovative when forced to deal with changes. For around 100 years the auto industry has steadfastly refused to seriously explore electric vehicles. Now however, when forced to change, they can suddenly produce them as if it were no problem at all. The transition has been so successful in fact, that many auto manufacturers are up in arms at the UK government's suggestion that they'll delay the ban on ICE vehicles for a further five years. My point being, that the transition away from fossil fuels may not be as difficult or painful as some suggest, and may also put us on a path that leads to development and innovation that brings improvements in many other areas of life. So, like ice ages, and interglacial periods, the so called "climate crisis", whether real or manufactured, could equally be a catalyst to further evolutionary advancement of the species. I guess we've taken the climate thing as far as we can. You feel that the best course is to carry on as we are and adapt to any changes, whilst I believe that it's more cost effective, and will provide long term benefits to take a different path. I doubt either of us will change, no matter how many times we bat arguments and counter arguments back and forth, so probably best to just agree to disagree at this point. I still don't get what you mean by "punished". Inconvenienced perhaps, but not punished. Despite any generational difference, I still drive, as you do, and still eat meat, as you do. Driving might be somewhat more inconvenient than it was 30 years, but not so much that it bothers me, and certainly not that I feel punished. As for meat, I don't know where you shop, but it's cheaper and far more plentiful than I ever remember it, and so I'm not punished in the least for eating it. It's swings and roundabouts though. 30 years ago driving might have been a little easier, but then I had to drive to get anything I wanted, and to every meeting, no matter how pointless. Today I can have most things delivered, often faster than I could have got them myself, work from home, and conduct meetings via tele or video conference. Jeez, from what I understand, you're making upwards of six figures a year from an industry that didn't really exist when I was born. So yeah, you may have lost some things that I had, but have gained some too. You also said in another post that when you're 70 you'll probably have a different perspective. Until then though, allow me to to suggest something that might give you a head start. Over time, one thing you'll learn, which many learn too late, is that your happiness comes from appreciating and enjoying the things you have, and not being upset because you don't have what you want, or feel you should have. One unfortunate thing about modern technology is that social media is filled with people who seem to thrive on making us all feel like the world is against us. Sure, it's not perfect, and there are those who exploit others, but there are those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to shield ourselves against the worst effects of it. So, when someone on a six figure salary, living in a relatively free and liberal country, feels that they're being punished, I question just how much of that might be down to the messages they're exposing themselves to, compared to the reality of their situation. Take a break from youtube (or whatever), eat meat, and enjoy the fruits of your relative prosperity for a while, and I suspect you'll improve your own comfort levels without any help from others. I say this with sincerity and kindness as, from experience, rabbit holes can can create as much dissatisfaction and discomfort in themselves, as they claim to be highlighting. You're a young man Linas, with a lot to look forward to. So, by all means have a moan every now and then, but remember to spend most of your time enjoying life to its fullest. Live long, and prosper 🙂

As to what period is relevant, well that depends on what you want to achieve. On the one hand you posit 300,000 years, merely because humans have existed that long, but later you say that human comfort is the most important thing, not survival. Sure, if we go back 300,000 years, we can see at what range humans can survive, but that totally ignores comfort. Our ancestors survived precisley because they weren't technologically advanced. Their survival wasn't based upon building a massive infrastructure largely for the purpose of comfort and convenience. What may have been survivable for nomadic tribesmen, is unlikely to maintain our current comfort levels, without the substantial cost of mitigating any climate changes. Humans as a species may very well survive significant climate changes, but loss of habitable land leads to things like mass movements of people, and a limiting of the ability to produce food. This might mean that coastal cities would need to be relocated, or mass migrations into properous regions, on a scale that makes current immigration look like nothing. All of which carries a huge cost, and has a substantial impact on comfort levels. So, if survival is the only goal, then look back as far as you like, and determine that we need do nothing. However, if you want to maintain comfort, then you need to look much more recently, in order to determine the far narrower range that's required to maintian the comfort levels in the societies we've created today. In short Linas, the environment is primary, as our comfort is much more at risk from environmental changes than our survival is. As for animals going extinct, well in many cases they're a barometer for the health of the planet. They also have the potential for knock on effects. The loss of bees, for example, could quickly see us lose the ability to grow food, and thus starve to death. We don't live in isolation, we're part of an ecosytem, and both our comfort, and survival, are based on how that ecosytem is balanced. I'm also not sure what you mean by 1 child policies, or population reductions, as no-one is suggesting that. On the contrary, many countries are now seeing lower birth rates and are looking at how to increase them. I do get what you're saying about not wanting to spit out what others have eaten, but the counter argument is that if our current use of fossil fuels leads to damage that will affect the lives and comfort of future generations, then you're condemning them to spit out what you've eaten. To be honest, I'm not sure what your gripe, as I haven't been told to eat less, or crumbs, because there's no food left. I accept that things like 20 mph speed limits are inconvenient, and certainly agree that they're unhelpful and ill thought out. However, on balance, people's comfort levels have improved substantially during even my lifetime. The reality though is that we all have to iive with what's been left by previous generations. The good we benefit from, and the bad we try to fix/change. I think you'e in danger of promoting as much doom and gloom as the extreme climate evangelists. The shift from fossil fuels will result in some cost and inconvenience in the short term, but the point is that it's balanced against the cost and inconvenience that will come from doing nothing. As you've said, a few degrees hotter won't kill everyone but, over a sustained period it will dramatically alter the environment, in such ways that would not only impact our comfort levels, but require adaptation that could far outweigh the financial and inconvenience costs of anything we're doing now. So, I believe that what we're doing will lead to better things, whilst you believe the opposite. I'm speaking broadly of course, and accept that there'll be a measurre of stupid decisions that fall under that umbrella. No one knows for certain either way and so, for now at least, we can both enjoy the luxury of our differing opinions.

It's not really a fair analogy though, as people who live in hot climates adapt to them. It would be a bit like saying that eskimos get on with their daily lives and manage ok living in ice huts, so it would be no big deal if we were suddenly plunged into sub zero temperatures. It's not the heat, or the cold, in itself that causes the problem, but the sudden shifts. It's why we always struggle with snow compared to colder countries, as we don't get it often enough to have permanent resources in place. Sure, we could keep rebuilding our societies to adapt to changing climates but, as I said to Linas, that's likely to be more even more expensive and disruptive than what we're currently doing. As for desalination plants, to answer Malc's question, I believe they are largely powered by fossil fuels. I also assume that they're not very cost effective, as even fuel rich places like the UAE have explored towing icebergs as an alternative means of supplying fresh water. I do agree though that the news media spreads scare stories. They do it about the climate, crime, immigration, or whatever else they think will get people riled up and sell papers. It's just how they are, and for the most part are best ignored.

Linas, looking at a 120,000 year spread in this context isn't very helpful today. Even a few thousand years ago we could possibly have easily adapted to substantial climate changes, or been too ignorant to have cared about any loss of habitat or life. Today though we've created permanently placed societies that are based on things remaining broadly the same. Sure, we could say "tough" and just have to adapt to any changes, but I suspect the cost of uprooting cities and their populations would far outweigh the cost, and inconvenience, of shifting away from fossil fuels. 50 years ago it might have been unthinkable, but today EVs are churning off production lines at a rate of knots, with an ever expanding infrastucture being built to support them. As for your two points. 1. Yes, there's a finite amount of carbon, but historocally much of it has been buried away in fossil fuel deposits. So, it's not a case of releasing it back into the atmosphere, but introducing it and adding it to the atmosphere. 2. I'd agree with you, if the goal was only to replace ICE vehicles with EVs, but it's not. It's to ultimately eliminate, or at least reduce, all carbon emisssions. No one is being punished by the move to EVs, any more than people were punished by moving from horses to cars. It's simply a transition. A transition that will not only produce cleaner, but possible better ones. It would seem that cars are the easiest starting point though. Manufacturers seem to be producing them without too much diffculty and EV sales are now topping over a 1 million a year in the US, with EVs outselling Toyota in California for the first time. This will continue to drive innovation and technology towards the production of non fossil fuel energy production, which in turn will spread to other areas and industries. Nor is anyone talking about no electricity, heating, or anything else, as you seem to believe, and simply different ways of generating that electricity and providing those things. As I said, the climate argument might well turn out to be a red herring, and that the real benefits will come from new technologies, cheaper energy, and energy independence. You keep saying that we're majorly inconvenienced, but I've yet to see it. I read about in various scare stories, but to date I haven't been inconvenienced in the slightest. Everything has the power to inconvenience, and right now we're seeing how war in another part of the world has inconvenienced us due to our reliance on fossil fuels. I do understand your buffet argument, but that's simply a matter of swings and roundabouts and timing, which one can cherry pick. One could equally say that everything you enjoy in life today was delivered to you by that generation of 6pm arrivers, who sacrificed their lives to protect the freedom of future generations. If you stop for a minute and think Linas, I think you'll be able to find more things to be grateful and happy about, than you will to feel hard done by. But no, we can't control the climate, but we can control the amount to which we contribute to and accelerate any changes in it. As such, the more can do in that regard, gives us more time to address and adapt to any natural processes that we have no control over.

Can't really say Stephen, as I apply dry. There are however top up, ceramic quick detailing sprays that sre designed to be applied wet.

I use 303 Graphene nano spray, which I guess is the same kind of thing. I do it a panel at a time by spraying it on a microfibre sponge, wiping it on and, after two or three minutes, buffing (more of a wipe really) it off. Unlike wax it's very quick and easy to apply. I do this about once a year and it makes in between washing very easy. I also apply it to the wheels, which subsequently are easily cleaned with a wipe over wiith a wet noodle mitt. Twice a year would probably be better, but for me I find once to be fine.

Personally I'd be rejecting the car. If I ordered something and was given something different, unless it was an upgrade, I'd be pretty angry. If I accepted any compensation I'd still be left with a nagging feeling that I haven't got what I wanted. Car and trim colours are a personal thing, and buying new allows one to pick precisely what they like. I like a light interior, it makes the car feel more spacious and less cramped, and to me it feels more luxurious. My last 3 cars have had light interiors and have never been a problem to keep clean. A once year application of a protectant and any marks just wipe off with a damp cloth. I get that some people prefer black, but I doubt many would be happy, or accept it, if they ordered one and were delivered white.

Office politics has always existed Linas, it's only the battlegrounds that have changed. In your case that happens to be around the environment. You could of course adapt to that environment and fight the battle on their terms, by buying an electric car, booking a parking space, and insisting that they install a charging point 🙂

It's hard for me to comment on your climate and CO2 thoughts, as I don't know where you get your data that says temperatures will rise naturally by 6 degrees. My understanding is that a 6 degree rise will see rain forests turn to deserts and entire ecosystems wiped out, with mass migrations of people to habitable areas. I'm also confused by your acknowledgement that 90% of excess CO2 is caused by human activity, but then object to finding ways to reduce it. So, all I'll say is that I don't believe that a transition from fossil fuels will see us losing cars, heated pools, or anything else that uses energy, and simply that we'll find other ways to power them. I'll also briefly touch on roads and say that whilst it may be true that there's plenty of space to build more roads, that space tends to be in places that people don't want or need to drive. Of course you could redistribute the population, but then you'd be back to what you're opposed to, which is forcing people to do what they don't want to, via either mandate or financial penalties. Unlike you, I don't feel punished, and so don't believe we're punishing ourselves. Instead I believe we're taking the opportunity to try and do things better. As with any such course of action though, there's a price to pay in the short term, with the goal being long term gain. I will however try and answer your question about quality of life, by giving you some idea of how my quality of life has changed. Here's some things I've lived through, and don't experience now: Power cuts, where you had to spend the evening sitting around a candle 🙂 A far smalller choice of food, especially fruit and veg, indeed in some restaurants orange juice was considered a luxury starter. As for the economy, whilst it may be described as poor, it's swings and roundabouts. Some things may have been cheaper before, but when I was your age mortgage rates were around 15%, and so I might have had to spend less on things, but had less money left to do so. Today's inflation may lead to higher prices, but also leads to higher returns on my savings and, when the times come that I'm old enough to draw my pension, it will have increased far more substantially over the last year or so than it has in previous years. So it's not all doom and gloom, and for the most part, despite higher prices on some things, my bottom line has improved. Even quality food is cheaper, as cheap food before wasn't great quality. If you want fresh fruit and veg, go to a greengrocer stall on the high street and you'll be amazed at how much cheaper it is than the supermarket, and better tasting. Go to Aldi or Lidl and you'll find plenty of good quality food at very affordable prices. In fact I find most supermarkets now are far more competetive than they were 20 or 30 years ago. The technological advances are too numerous to list, but a small number of everyday improvements include the ability to work from home, or anywhere, to manage most of one's life online instead of having to visit establishments, and to have ones goods and groceries delivered next day if one so chooses. I disagree with the lack of freedom too. You might be pulled up for saying things that were let go years ago, but that's because you now have the freedom to say those things to far more people. Swings and roundabouts again, as the ability to reach millions of people, from the comforts of one's desk, has as many benefits as it does downsides. One could also argue that the people on the receiving end of such things have seen their quality of life improve. So, individually you might feel worse off, but on the whole people's quality of life has improved. I do find it funny though that an older person is promoting the benefits of change, to a younger person who seems resistant to it. Surely it should be the other way round 🙂

I enjoy the discussion too Linas and, like you, will cherry pick a couple of points. Not because I necessarily disagree with them, but just to offer an alternative perspective. The fact that climate change happened 20,000 years ago, without human intervention, doesn't mean that human intervention doesn't cause climate change now, they're not mutually exclusive. We do things now that we were never able to before, that could either affect the climate on its own, or add to natural processes. But yes, natural events have caused death and disaster, but is that a reason to not do anything to mitigate our own actions? Following that logic we might just as well let everyone smoke in public places, do away with medicine, heck why not just allow murder. We're all going to die anyway at some point, so why bother about those who die from man made causes? I would disagree with your portrayal of the public perception of climate. No-one believes that we can stop naturally occuring climate change, and no one is trying to do that. What people believe is that we are causing/accelerating certain changes to the climate, that are having an environmental impact, and that we can do things differently to mitigate that. You go on to say that we might be better served by trying to control the climate in such a way that we have a climate that is most suitable for us. There's certainly some merit to that, but I would say that's precisely what we're trying to do. A more suitable climate is one that doesn't heat so rapidly, and one way of acheiving that is to reduce things that cause warming, like CO2. I suspect though that what you mean is a method by which can produce as much CO2 as we like, and the means to preventing it entering the atmosphere to affect the climate. I believe there are already methods being employed for carbon capture, but how cost effective, viable, or even safe they are in the long term is not yet known. My guess is that by the time it does become viable we'd have already moved on to other energy sources. As far as reducing carbon emissions goes, it's impossible to show where it's improved lives, as we haven't reduced much yet. However, regarding motoring, many cities have seen improvements in air quality, and certain neighbourhoods have benefitted from traffic restrictions. We could argue the pros and cons of such initiatives but, putting that aside though, let's look at the main initiative that seems to irk people, that being the transition from ICE to EV. Not really much diffferent from transitioning from horse and cart to cars, in my opinion. Back then people were opposed to cars, they though them too expensive, that there wouldn't be sufficient capability/resources to build them, and that it would be impossible to create a viable fuelling infrastructure. Restrictions were put on horses because of the pollution the manure caused in towns. Some even argued that it was a deliberate conspiracy to remove people's freedom that came from horses and force them into cars, and was uneccessarily expensive. Sound familiar? And yet we overcame the perceived difficulties, and motorised transport was a success, and gave people even more freedom. Currently we're in the early days, and so there is freedom to speculate as to whether the shift to EVs, and away from fossil fuels will be a good or bad thing in the long term. My own view is that it will be a good thing, and not just because of the environmental concerns. As you say, nature might kill us anyway, but because I believe it will open the door to a host of new technologies and opportunities, that might bring many more as yet unexplored benefits. Our lives have improved vastly over the last century, not by doing nothing and maintaining the statues quo, but by changing, innovating, and finding ever more creative ways to improve them. I don't much care for the politics of climate change but, as I said previously, I believe they're a catalyst to further innovation and improvement. As for cars and roads, I'd also like to address your cinema analogy. Sure if 10,000 tickets were sold for 500 seats, then more would be built, but when we run out of room, the demand would be controlled by raising prices. That's the situation with roads in the UK. Sure, maybe we could expand the motorway network, but the congestion exists in towns, where there's no room to build more roads. I live in London, and simply don't see anywhere where you'd fit more roads, let alone the bridges to support them. As to your last point, to date my life hasn't been made any worse yet and, despite the fear mongering, I'm not sure it ever will. You like referring to history, so let's look at history. There's been doom mongering for as long as I can remember but, on balance, over the years my life has only got better. Sure, there'll be changes, some good, some bad, some very smart, and some very dumb, but I suspect that the bottom line for most people is that their quality of lives will improve, as it has for centuries. That's history 🙂

To be fair, advertising has never really been about representing society as it is. If that were case then ads for fast food, frozen pizzas, and oven chips would depict uncouth mothers yelling at fat kids, beer ads would show yobs fighting in pubs, and gambling ads would show losers deperately placing their last pennies on the final race, and struggling to pay their debts. Instead advertising has always been somewhat aspirational in its approach, however unrealsitic that might be. In some cases that aspiration is for a society where all people are seen and treated equally, regardless of their colour, culture or preferences. A society where such differences are invisible. So, whilst I'm not a fan of political correctness, the fact that some people notice, and are even bothered by the fact that some people in ads are "different" to them, suggests that we're still a long way from that goal. Like you, I'd like to see a society in which we didn't need enforced quotas for anyone different. However, I don't think that's possible until we have a society in which we don't see other people as being meaningfully different. Not having a go at you Bill, as I too sometimes wince at things I see, and instead am just making an observation, and giving my thoughts as to why such things are done. PS I've never heard it decribed that way before, but I think I too am a left wing capitalist, or right wing socialist. Power to the people (and their financial advisors) 🙂

I get what you're saying LInas, but just don't agree with some it, or at least can see that there's another side to it. I think some of the anti climate change rhetoric comes from activists too. They may not glue themselves to roads, but infest social media with pseudo scientific reasons as to why it's all a sham. Like I said before, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. CO2 prevents the planet from dissipating heat, hence warming. How much excess CO2 there is, and how much we contribute to it may be up for debate, but we can only control the CO2 we produce, so that's all we can try and reduce. Sure, 20,000 years ago climate changed, ice melted, sea levels changed, and habitats were altered. However, 20,000 years ago we didn't have large populations living in permanent coastal dwellings. 20,000 years ago people could up sticks and move inland at little to no cost. 20,000 years ago people weren't affecting the environment to the extent we are now. The world has moved on, and in some ways we have the power to affect global changes (for better or worse), and in others we have the power to mitigate those changes, whether man made or natural. So what happened 20,000 years ago has little bearing on the world today. I still don't believe that quality of life wil be affected to the extent that you do, but the counter argument to that is that some of the quality of life improvements that we enjoy today have come at the cost of causing damage to our environment. As such, we're being asked to pursue a path that causes less damage, and explore ways in which that can be done whilst maintaining that quality of life. I have mixed views on the motoring aspect. On the one hand, like you, I don't want my driving to be made more difficult, more expensive or more restricted. That said, in this country at least, part of the problem is the sheer number of cars on the road. I'm inconvenienced far more by traffic levels than I ever am by speed restrictions, congestion zones and cycle lanes. The problem is that I can't rant about traffic volume in the same way, as the only way to deal with that is to put restrictions on driving, and encourage the use of alternatives, which then makes driving more difficult, which I don't want. Besides, whilst one may talk of the quality of life restrictions on drivers of older cars in cities, that ignores the quality of life of those affected by the pollution levels in those areas. There are plenty of people living in cities now, who neither want, nor need cars, and who feel their quality of life will be improved by a reduction. I'm not saying that one is right or wrong, just that sometimes one man's restriction can be another's freedom. So, let's say the climate scientists are right, and we destroy the environment to such an that we cause disaster. Some, like you, might say "so what", disasters are a natural part of the planet, but life goes on and the planet adapts and deals with it. Fair enough Equally though, let's say that what you say is right, and that we follow an an uneccessary path, at great cost and inconvenience, for no real gain. Well one could just as easily say "so what", we sufffer financial and economic disaster on a reasonably regular basis too, that severely impacts the quality of life of many people, and yet we survive those and carry on. It's true, we don't know everything with any degree of certainty. We can only try and make best guesses based on the available information. The areas of doubt leave gaps which the zealots on both sides can exploit to their own advantage. Most of those zealots ae probably well intentioned, no matter how well of ill informed they may be, and will continue to be exploited by those who have vested financial interests on either side of the argument. So, whether we do something, or do nothing, there will be winners and losers on either side. If you have the power to afffect change in the direction you'd liike things to go, then by all means do so. Otherwise one's best course is to try and predict which direction you think things might go, and do whatever you can to adapt to that environment. I actually like the argument in favour of moving to somewhere more condusive to one's own preferences, although Brexit haas somewhat hindered that. 20,000 years ago people didn't moan about the difficulties of where they lived, instead they either adapted to it, or upped sticks and moved elsewhere 🙂

In many ways I agree with you Linas, as I too would prefer clear facts, but what are they? We may not be representative of the majority though. Studies have shown that as much as 90% of decisions are based on emotion. That's why people are so easily taken in by "alternative facts", as they can use them in an attempt to logically justify their emotional choices. Many scientists and environmentalists say that "climate catastrophe" is a fact, whilst others dispute it. The reality is that both sides present what they claim to be "facts" so people can pick which facts they want to believe, according their own emotional preference. To be fair, there's as much scare mongering from the other side too. For example, the notion of having to sacrifice comfort and luxury, or reduce one's quality of life, are far from facts. Politcally, economically, and technologically, no one is striving for that. Instead the aim is to find ways of maintaining (and possibly improving) quality of life, without the downsides that come from fossil fuels. So to me the, "climate catastrophe" is no different to the "quality of life catastrophe", as both are just designed to scare and influence people. And before you say it, yes I'm sure you can give me anectodal examples of quality of life changes but, given that they can be matched by anecdotal examples of climate driven catastropnes, it would serve no purpose. If and when I'm compelled to substantially alter my quality of life, then I might see things differently, but I suspect that what will change is how that quality might be delivered, rather than the substance of it. Cold hard facts would be great for you and I Linas, but it seems that emotionally driven rhetoric is what moves and motivates most people.

I would assume that the plugs weren't changed at 50k miles. If they have been changed it's most likely it will have been done during your ownership, at either 6 years (2013) or 12 years (2019). If you have the service invoices for these years then check them, and if not ask the dealer for a copy of those invoices. I'd be surprised if the dealer didn't do the change at one or both of those intervals, unless you specifically asked them not to.

I too once believed that if we had suffcient oil reserves of our own then it would mean cheaper fuel, if not for mankind, then at least for us. Sadly though, like other countries, we'd manipulate the supply in order to maintain prices. The cost to us wouldn't be based on any abundance, or our ownership of it, but on what price the suppliers think the market will bear.

I agree with you that the argument would be better framed in terms of energy independence than climate change. However, whatever the stated aim, any such goal is best achieved by having the most backing. Most people these days seem to be onboard with environmental concerns and, unlike you 🙂 take a somewhat more emotional view regarding sacrificing animal species in favour of heated pools. In truth, there is a lack of logic on both sides. On the one hand, some people will support almost anything, as long it's dressed up being environmentally friendly. Equally though, if I offered a product that promised to deliver half price energy, with absolutely no down side, then there will be others who attacked it if I described it as "green", or "endorsed by Greta". I am aware that many arguments are put forth claiming that the dangers of CO2 are overstated. However, I'm reminded of the similar arguments put forward years ago, about how smoking tobacco was perfectly safe, and that the science was both overblown and inaccurate. In both cases there were substantial financial interests behind maintaining the status quo. It's entirely possible that a transition away from fossil fuels could provide us with not only energy independence, but also cheaper energy, whilst preserving the environment and animal species. The fact that the latter is presented as the goal, with the former a potential side effect, is merely a matter of presentation, as it could just as easily have been presented the other way round. It's simply a matter of reading the room, and presently the room leans in favour of environmental concerns. Either way, the investment, research and innovation required to explore those possibilties would not occur at a sufficient level without legislative motivation and disincentives aimed at fossil fuels. Without those, complacency would keep us on the easy path of burning oil and gas which, apart from any environmental concerns, is becoming an increasingly expensive way to do things, and one in which we seem to have little control over either supply or pricing. We're an inventice species, with an amazing talent for problem solving. Sometimes though we need a kick up the arse, and the lid being put on the box, in order to think outside of it. I'm an optimist, and for the first time in my lifetime I can see a real drive, in terms of both the financial investment, and genuine desire to seek alternatives to fossil fuels. Factor in todays new and emerging technologies, like AI and quantum computing, and I'm hopeful that we'll see new and exciting developments that will bring a host of benefits. Perhaps even a situation where you can heat your pool even more cheaply, without losing a single big cat 🙂 So yes, the presentation may not be ideal, but the goal is still worthwhile.

No need to add thousands Linas. If other countries move forward with the transition to greener energy, and we do nothing, we'll be a long way behind in 40 years, and it will be expensive to catch up. As I said above, right now it's more about politics and economics than it is the environment and, as a small nation, the least risk course would be to follow those trends. Doesn't mean it's the only course, or even the right one, but a bookie would probably make it a 3/1 shot, with doing nothing a 50/1 outsider. Yes, CO2 is vital for survival, as is water, but too much of either is detrimental. Once we reach a level of CO2 that exceeds what plants can absord and recycle, which we have, then it starts to have negative effects. That might be in the form of reducing the planet's ability to dissipate heat, or it might be acidification of the oceans, as excess CO2 is absorbed into them. If both of these happen too quickly, which is the claim, then it doesn't allow enough time for marine life, or those of us on land, to adapt to the environmental changes. To reiterate though, one can argue the science till the cows come home, but that battle seems to have already been decided, and the war has moved on to if and how to address it. To be honest, what probably matters most, at least from a UK long term perspective, is whether it's realitsic to assume that we can generate more of our own energy from renewable sources than we can from fossil fuels. As is stands, we're at the mercy of a small number of countries, banded together in a cartel, who manipulate supply in order to drive up prices. To turn it back to a motoring perspective, this means that it's not only drivers of ICE vehicles who are having to pay in the order of £100 to fill up, but even EV drivers face higher costs, because the electricity they need is generated from fossil fuels. So, even if the climate and environmental arguments are red herrings, they've been a catalyst to drive a determined shift away from dependence on fossil fuels, and the virtual monoplolies that are in control of their supply. It may not turn out to be the best, or right answer, but to my mind it's a pretty good goal to strive for.

Thanks Phil, I won't lose heart at all. Another thing the Pareto principle has taught me is that the most successful strategy is to put most of my energies into changing the things I have the power to change, and adapting as quickly as possible to those I can't.