Are ebikers saving the planet?

[lemmy]

When I were lad we were told robots would be doing all the work .

If my dealings with modern 'business' are anything to go by, they are.

 

[flecc]

Most earlier ages were not heavily industrialised on a global scale, and so had rather less scope to wreak havoc.

Rather proving my point, earlier ages didn't bother themselves with whether what they were doing was global or village, they just got on with what they were doing, leaving the future for the people of the future to deal with.

Better than the mess we are making of trying to plan for the future.
.

 

[bode]

As I said earlier:

I reiterate that we (or our desendants) are doomed. So do what you like (America certainly will). It will make no difference.

When I said "it will make no difference", I did not of course mean that it will have no effect, rather that it will make no difference to the self-destructive path down which we are rushing. In the past, humans would have had fairly limited and localised scope to cause environmental damage, now it is infinite.

 

[Northern Irelander]

Ok, you got me, I'm not a marine biologist, but agree with regard to the natural balance. And indeed to the adaption of that balance to changes. I just hope that the steps we might take are thought far enough through to ensure against any adverse consequences, owing to cause and effect. Seems to me that human beings often do what is expedient, with little thought to the long term. I also think that, if we're not careful, nature's compensation for our influence will involve our destruction, and that we have to start regarding ourselves as part of the system.

I meant no personal offence by any of my comments btw - simply engaging in a lively debate.

It's quite all right Straylight, no offence taken

I agree with your latter comments above, all scientists need to get together round the table pro GW and anti GW and weigh up all the evidence to date.

But it's a hugely complex subject, which neither the marine biologists, politicians (and their advisers) or media have fully grasped. Comparing it to NMR, and other propaganda isn't in the same parallel dimension.

My favourite statistic of all is:

There is a strongly positive correlation between the number of ice-creams sold and the number of crimes committed.

But that doesn't mean they are directly related or inter-linked in some way.
Purely by means of some other factor involved that causes them to rise simultaneously.

 

[Barnowl]

As I said earlier:

In the past, humans would have had fairly limited and localised scope to cause environmental damage, now it is infinite.

Yes but things haven't really changed. "Infinite" environmental damage can be caused at any time by any number of events. An asteroid could could cause an cataclysmic environmental damage tonight and we wouldn't even see it coming.

 

[flecc]

(Re: Originally Posted by Barnowl When I were lad we were told robots would be doing all the work)



If my dealings with modern 'business' are anything to go by, they are.

How very true.
.

 

[Northern Irelander]

An asteroid could could cause an cataclysmic environmental damage tonight and we wouldn't even see it coming.

Yes but Bruce Willis did in Armageddon

 

[Barnowl]

Yes but Bruce Willis did in Armageddon

LOL. Yes, I'd forgotten his marvellous contribution to maintaining the environmental status quo. Give it time and I'm sure he'll sort out all this global warming malarky :

 

[Northern Irelander]

LOL. Yes, I'd forgotten his marvellous contribution to maintaining the environmental status quo. Give it time and I'm sure he'll sort out all this global warming malarky :

Haha send Sting up he'll do it (big fan of the Police actually)

 

[Alex728]

My favourite statistic of all is:

There is a strongly positive correlation between the number of ice-creams sold and the number of crimes committed.

But that doesn't mean they are directly related or inter-linked in some way.
Purely by means of some other factor involved that causes them to rise simultaneously.

ironically the factor is actually the warm weather!

Crime rises in warmer weather - particularly violent crime / robberies and sexual assaults (due to more people being out on the streets later into the evening), then you have a rise in alcohol/drug offences (festival and outdoor rave season) and burglaries (due to windows and doors being left insecure for ventilation purposes).

And of course people buy more ice cream in hotter weater..

I don't bother with the arguments over global warming.

What I do see at "street level" is rubbish in the streets, traffic jams and also too many young people dying in crashes caused by too much traffic and a perceived sense of entitlement to a fast motor car at an early age, also soldiers and civillians dying worldwide to get more and more oil, and ride my e-bike (and before that my normal bikes) to get a few minutes escape from all this.

 

[Northern Irelander]

ironically the factor is actually the warm weather!

Glad you spotted my tenuous link to this thread, some GW supporters might have said that ice-cream makes you go out and commit crime

you have to ask yourself, is GW a result of increased CO2, or is increased CO2 a result of GW or some other factor?

If I was fully supportive of GW, I would invest in an ice-cream business I tell you.

 

[bode]

Yes but things haven't really changed. "Infinite" environmental damage can be caused at any time by any number of events. An asteroid could could cause an cataclysmic environmental damage tonight and we wouldn't even see it coming.

That argument is akin to the "I know smoking's bad for me, but I could be hit by a bus tomorrow" one.
The point is that that we do see the damage that we are doing but lack the will to stop doing it.

 

[Mussels]

That argument is akin to the "I know smoking's bad for me, but I could be hit by a bus tomorrow" one.
The point is that that we do see the damage that we are doing but lack the will to stop doing it.

The point is can anyone convince me that we are causing as much damage as the press would have us believe or are the changes natural?

 

[bode]

The point is can anyone convince me that we are causing as much damage as the press would have us believe or are the changes natural?

I rest my case.

 

[Mussels]

I rest my case.

Why, I'm not saying it's not true but the argument for GW is flawed.

 

[eTim]

I'm with Mussels on this one. I think gone are the days where we blindly believe what the establishment (politicians, media, doctors, police, scientists etc) tell us. Propaganda worked 50 years ago but now we have so much free access to all kinds of media, the internet allows for free exchange of ideas (eg this forum) and knowledge (however qualified) now rests with the many and not the few.

It is very difficult to pick a straight line through any information that is produced by the establishment nowadays with so much conflicting argument, corruption and ideas being thrown into the pot, the gov't seems to go it's own merry way regardless of what the general public think, until they are voted out and the next lot just do exactly the same.

Even Bruce Willis was an instrument of the establishment

 

[Straylight]

I think a balance needs to be struck though, in no way should we return to the age of reverence when politicians etc. were regarded as a form of royalty, this being an overhang of our feudal past where we all 'knew our place', but some appreciation has to be given to the unseen and unpublicised complexities within such professions.

It seems these days that the news is regarded as something of a rolling soap opera, and image sadly has become far more important than substance. For example, the Copenhagen summit looks more like a very expensive PR stunt, rather than a forum where any thing useful can be agreed and then most importantly implimented. Conversely, it seems from Obama's current approval ratings in the U.S., that the electorate didn't want somebody that would actually change anything, just somebody who said they were going to.

Can you imagine trying to get anything done in such an environment, where one slip of the toungue, or tough policy decision can spell disaster for your entire administration, no matter what positive effect you've had in the past? All I can say is rather them than me.

This is one of the fundamental flaws in modern democracy as I see it, that the 'people' feel they've every right to comment, regardless of their understanding of the detail, so the whole system ends up being paralysed by emotionaly driven, uninformed argument. At least in China, not that I agree with their approach to human rights in any way, they actualy get stuff done. Incidentaly they are a huge importer of solar panels (helping the cost to fall by 30% last year alone), and a country where e-bikes outnumber cars 4:1. Oh, and they have the one child policy, which has succesfuly stabilised their population.

 

[eTim]

At least in China, not that I agree with their approach to human rights in any way, they actualy get stuff done. Incidentaly they are a huge importer of solar panels (helping the cost to fall by 30% last year alone), and a country where e-bikes outnumber cars 4:1. Oh, and they have the one child policy, which has succesfuly stabilised their population.

Hmmm not sure that your using China as an example towards a 'saving the planet' debate is such a good one, even ignoring their human rights record, they will only be doing things to either ensure their economy continues to flourish (at the expense of pollution). And it seems to me that the Chinese get things done because of their lack of human rights, ie Chinese gov't being able to control the population to such an extent that anything they say goes including flooding valleys, building heavy industry etc (possibly similar to our own historical industrial revolution). Such is communism albeit with a capitalist element and we all know how their propoganda machine works

This is of course my popularist viewpoint, reality maybe totaly different

Is anyone able to provide an upstanding country with high morals and responsibility and actions to back up their morals when it comes to the truth about what gov'ts think and do ? I think not.

 

[Straylight]

I in no way propose a Chinese system of government as 'the way to go', I was meerly using it as a device to contrast what is, or rather isn't happening here in the west . I do think though, that the forthcomming general election is spectacularly badly timed, at a point where we need a government in a strong enough position to make some serious policy decisions without having to worry about being voted out in a few months. We can only hope that Obama will continue to be true to his word, and lead the west to some meaningful changes in energy and foreign policy. As the climate protestor in Oslo said yesterday "he's won the Nobel peace prize, now he's got to earn it". At least he has enough time left in office not to be immediately concerned with the fickle popularity polls.

 

[Alex728]

Contrary to popular and outdated misconception of the Chinese all running around in identical Chairman Mao jackets they seem to have a similar attitude to rules and regulations as the French, which paradoxically is why on some occasions the iron fist tends to come down (this also happens in France, where their armed riot cops particularly the CRS make even the notorious Met SPG in the 1980s look like fluffy kittens).

Also they still can't totally control Nature, and they do get much more of the sharp end of the environment (floods, earthquakes, extreme weather) compared to the UK.

This means they can (and do) change tactics very quickly, and a fair few of them do actually realise that to save themselves they do need to "save the planet".