Government ban on new petrol and diesel cars pushed back to 2035

joe sod said:
will we end up driving ageing cars like Cuba due the lack of availability of new ones, or a 10 year waiting list for a car like the old Soviet union, we seem to be going down that road
Click to expand...
The precedent of our housing disaster suggests literally anything is possible.
 

Government drops plans to ban sales of fossil fuel cars by 2030

EU told the government it would have to wait for the EU to legislate as a bloc for an internal combustion engine ban in 2035, but the government will still strive to make all new car sales fully electric by 2030
www.businesspost.ie

I heard it on newstalk yesterday but apart from this article in the business post not widely reported in the media. Surely pushing back the petrol and diesel car ban to 2035 is actually a big thing
 
We'll have to greatly increase our electricity generation capacity before we can have a meaningful increase in our EV fleet.
We'll have to greatly increase our clean electricity generation capacity before we such an increase can have a meaningful impact on our climate change targets.

I don't understand the fetish for stopping people driving amongst many environmentalists when changes to agriculture, changing the types of food we choose to consume and the consumption of fast fashion and many other consumer goods would have a greater positive impact without the social and economic cost of reducing population mobility.

I say that as someone who considers climate change to be by far the biggest problem humanity faces.
 
"Cut the other guy!" is the worst possible argument against the new environmental Luddism.
 
T McGibney said:
"Cut the other guy!" is the worst possible argument against the new environmental Luddism.
Click to expand...
I accept the weight of scientific evidence that cuts in greenhouse gases are necessary. I question why cars are front and centre in that discussion.
 
I'd really like to know how many kilometers in a relatively new, Euro 6 diesel would it take to have the same CO2 emissions of 1KG of minced beef. Depending on the figure, would it not make more sense for the government to encourage us to ditch the beef?
 
It's reasonably well established that meat production is more environmentally harmful than cars.
Meat provides 20% of net global calories but meat farming consumes 80% of our arable land. If we halved our meat consumption we'd free up 40% of the arable land in the world. Plant trees on that land, build lots of modern Nuclear power stations and reduce women's clothing purchases to the same level as men's and that's job done; Climate Change fixed.
Drive what you want and fly where you want and Greta can go back to school.
 
Firefly said:
I'd really like to know how many kilometers in a relatively new, Euro 6 diesel would it take to have the same CO2 emissions of 1KG of minced beef
Click to expand...



Firefly said:
Depending on the figure, would it not make more sense for the government to encourage us to ditch the beef?
Click to expand...
Why not both?

But also consider that there's more to vehicle emissions than greenhouse gases, it's becoming increasingly clear that particulate matter and nitrogens of oxide are having serious impacts on our health. NOx is highly localised (being even a few meters from the source reduces your exposure significantly) so electric vehicles reduce your exposure to zero even if some NOx is released at a power station somewhere in the distance to make the electricity your car runs on.
 
Last edited:
What will people eat instead?

Bear in mind that large parts of the world, albeit decreasingly, still have actual or contingent malnutrition issues.
 
One serving of Beef (100g) is equivalent to 78.7 km of driving

Wow - didn't know that, thanks. So a family of 4 eating quarter pounders (113g x 4) produce the same carbon emissions as driving for about 350kms (an average month for me).

Perhaps, down the road (sorry ), beef will be more heavily taxed..
 
Towger said:
Government could start with removing all the farm subsidiaries for non environmentally friendly farming. No need to raise taxes.
Click to expand...
Same result and equally unpopular.

Any government that would deliberately make staple foods unaffordable to the poor would never deserve to be elected again,

Thank God for democracy.
 
T McGibney said:
What will people eat instead?

Bear in mind that large parts of the world, albeit decreasingly, still have actual or contingent malnutrition issues.
Click to expand...
Very few people eating beef where there are malnutrition issues. They eat dairy products but not much beef. Considering a cow consumes a large multiple of the calories it produces (obviously) the last thing people with a food shortage need is a cow.
So, to answer your question, veg and eggs from chickens which are fed with vegetable scraps. Almost a billion Indians are vegetarians and they get by just fine.
 
Towger said:
Government could start with removing all the farm subsidiaries for non environmentally friendly farming. No need to raise taxes.
Click to expand...
farm subsidies don't come from the irish government but from the EU, in any case the direct subsidies have been substantially reduced now and are targeted at environmental measures such as forestry. The price of basics like grains, beef and dairy have increased substantially over the last year as a result of the Ukraine war and the shortages of basic food stuffs. People will be eating less beef and dairy anyway due to the increased prices of these alone. Most of the the dairy and beef produce here is exported and is regarded as a prime product in Europe, Kerrygold is the no1 irish brand in Germany
 
After years of progress, world hunger has been on the increase since 2019 with Covid, climate change, and conflict the drivers.
 
Think I read somewhere years ago that the humble hamburger is one of the biggest offender's if not the biggest when you take everything into account from birth of the poor cow to consumption especially in the USA
 
Leo said:
After years of progress, world hunger has been on the increase since 2019 with Covid, climate change, and conflict the drivers.
Click to expand...
Yep, and at the start of Covid people who pointed out the inevitable consequences on the poorest in the world of closing down the global economy for 18 months were castigated. Our actions may well have just shifted the death tole from rich countries to poor countries. In general terms we may have saved the lives of fat old people by causing the death of undernourished poor people. We spent trillions saving the fat old people but won't spend a few billion saving the undernourished poor people.
Increases in conflict can also be linked to our actions to stop the Covid pandemic.

I'm not saying we should have don anything differently but we have to learn lessons in relation to the zealous self-righteousness of the champions or the orthodoxy and the almost maniacal rejection of the apostates who dared to just ask questions.

The same applies to Climate Change. It's based on science, not politics or a liberal/conservative split, and science always leaves room for those who ask questions.
 
Reactions: Leo
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register