Son of Segway....

[torrent99]

Seconded.
.

Thirded. Electric vehicles really aren't green without some form of "carbon-free" energy. Nuclear is the only viable/available option at present.
(I'd love to see the development of Thorium based fission, which has far fewer drawbacks vs the current uranium based cycle, but the public's mind is set against nuclear :-()

 

[flecc]

I'd love to see the development of Thorium based fission, which has far fewer drawbacks vs the current uranium based cycle,

Yes, unfortunately India seems to have made very slow progress with this despite leading the effort. It's a pity more western effort couldn't be added into finding the solutions.
.

 

[BGElect]

Perhaps what we need is a solar version and a network of epowered vehicle paths. It can all happen if we want it to, considering the £££$$$£££$$$ sums used to prop up the banking system a few thousand miles of e-paths is not a big deal just need to find the will .... if we could get the city boys to have the same greed for e-powered solutions as they do for unbridled bonuses, job done!

 

[Bikerbob]

It seems that nothing 'green' comes without a price. Most new electrical bikes/vehicles will have some sort of lithium based battery. There was an article in the weekend press saying that about half the world's lithium comes from Bolivia and the mining for it is causing ecological problems there - perhaps not so green after all!

 

[flecc]

The only truly green move is a much smaller human population.
.

 

[Beeping-Sleauty]

The only truly green move is a much smaller human population.
.

...is this a suggestion that perhaps humans should only be 12 inches in height....?

current population growth is 153 new mouths to feed every 60 seconds.

 

[Straylight]

On that thought, my I pass on these links for perusal:

VHEMT

CO2 emissions, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time

The seccond one is particularly thought provoking; I myself am doing my bit for population control, by not intending to hve any children - my personal views are not quite as extreem as those of VHEMT however .

There is a problem when discussing this though, as it can rapidly become an emotionly driven argument, rather than one based on rational thought. Much like telling a car lover that their pride and joy is not such a great thing.

 

[Beeping-Sleauty]

On that thought, my I pass on these links for perusal:

VHEMT

CO2 emissions, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time

The seccond one is particularly thought provoking; I myself am doing my bit for population control, by not intending to hve any children - my personal views are not quite as extreem as those of VHEMT however .

There is a problem when discussing this though, as it can rapidly become an emotionly driven argument, rather than one based on rational thought. Much like telling a car lover that their pride and joy is not such a great thing.

..ha, ha.... sorry peeps we appear to have digressed, but just think how many people you could get on a train or a bus, or even a PUMA.... if humans were only a foot tall........ why, there would be enough food for everyone and houses would be quarter size..... no, OK... back to the voluntary extermination site.

 

[flecc]

...is this a suggestion that perhaps humans should only be 12 inches in height....?

current population growth is 153 new mouths to feed every 60 seconds.

Either way Beeps. Either one sixth of the present population or the present population one sixth of the size. Both would cut all consumptions to cure our ills.
.

 

[Beeping-Sleauty]

Either way Beeps. Either one sixth of the present population or the present population one sixth of the size. Both would cut all consumptions to cure our ills.
.

Agreed, there's a lot of sensible data showing the Earths' resources can support at best 1.5 billion, if used in a sustainable manner, so a projected population peak of 9 billion by 2065 is scary indeed, i find it incredible that the population has doubled in my own lifetime.

 

[flecc]

i find it incredible that the population has doubled in my own lifetime.

Yes, it staggers me too that it's grown from 3 billion to dangerously close to 7 billion in mine. What's facing kids today is truly scary if only they but realised it.
.

 

[Beeping-Sleauty]

Yes, it staggers me too that it's grown from 3 billion to dangerously close to 7 billion in mine. What's facing kids today is truly scary if only they but realised it.
.

...agreed, throw peak oil, climate change & debt deleveraging into the mix and we have come to 'live in interesting times'.

but more kids are aware these days, and earlier too, lets hope their collective conciousness can alter the path of humanity.

 

[flecc]

...agreed, throw peak oil, climate change & debt deleveraging into the mix and we have come to 'live in interesting times'.

but more kids are aware these days, and earlier too, lets hope their collective conciousness can alter the path of humanity.

Just a pity that their awareness is taking them in the wrong direction, anti-globalisation and progress and back to more primitive lives which will make food shortages worse.

The West already has the answer. At one time we had up to 20 kids per family and lived in poverty, but we've advanced to most only having 1 or 2 and many having none at all. Our reward for that is a much better and wealthier lifestyle.

If the rest of the world follows that pioneer model, the resulting much smaller population can also enjoy the goodies. This might seem heresy in this website, but the answer isn't billions riding e-bikes, it's millions riding or driving whatever they like, 4 x 4s included, without wrecking the environment in consequence.
.

 

[rog_london]

This might seem heresy in this website, but the answer isn't billions riding e-bikes, it's millions riding or driving whatever they like, 4 x 4s included, without wrecking the environment in consequence.
.

I don't know where anybody gets the idea that e-bikes are environmentally friendly. Maybe they listen to the marketing hype too much. They are not 'friendly' to manufacture or import, they use 'difficult' battery technology, and the energy to drive them is at best second generation and has to be produced by conventional means. The efficiency may be improved somewhat by rider effort, but even that has been called into question as the rider is not an efficient means of propulsion either!

I'm not knocking them, because I've got one and it turns out to have been a good buy from my viewpoint. It's just that anyone who says those magic words 'helping the environment' hasn't given the matter any consideration at all. The e-bike becomes attractive here in the UK because of accessibility compared to a car or public transport, exercise, and the fact that we duck the huge tax on fuel for road vehicles.

If we ever reach the point where electricity can be produced in a fundamentally different way, that will change the picture dramatically, but it seems we're quite a long way away from being able to do that at present, so whether we use fossil-fuelled or electrically powered vehicles is not very relevant at present. The real 'push' to progress is, and will be, the certainty that fossil fuels will run out sooner or later, and therefore become no longer cost effective. It will be a commercial pressure rather than an environmental one, I think. Try persuading the huge American commercial operations that saving the environment should take precedence over making a buck....

You're absolutely right in what you say, it's not really what we do that's the problem, it's how many of us are around doing it. We'll always be collectively selfish, competitive and greedy, and so those who can make a good profit by satisfying those 'faults' will always do so in the most direct way.

Rog.

 

[Alex728]

I don't know where anybody gets the idea that e-bikes are environmentally friendly. Maybe they listen to the marketing hype too much. They are not 'friendly' to manufacture or import, they use 'difficult' battery technology, and the energy to drive them is at best second generation and has to be produced by conventional means. The efficiency may be improved somewhat by rider effort, but even that has been called into question as the rider is not an efficient means of propulsion either!

putting aside the extra energy input of manufacturing the electronic bits (and I'd be interested in comparisons with something like a MP3 player or laptop or digital camera); the same argument can now also be applied to conventional bicycles particularly the higher end ones due to the decline in Britain's manufacturing industry.

That said, I know that if I did not ride my e-bike to see my friends I would probably end up just doing my CBT and getting a second hand petrol scooter or motorcycle - and two years later eventually a old banger of a car as the bureaucracy for riding motorbikes is now such you might as well just get your full car licence (I've got enough mates who can obtain such vehicles!)

in this case it would certainly be a single male rather selfishly and needlessly adding another vehicle to the pool - I'd be also tempted to start going to raves and festivals miles away and although I'd give lifts to my mates it is still unnecessary travel compared to something like going to work or transporting children around.

Unfortunately also with regard to British "families", the "two kid" family only exists on the increasingly rare occasions where man and wife stay together "until death do them part". Nowadays what happens is the man often wants at least two more kids "of his own" with his new partner to avoid feelings of a modern version of being "cuckolded". Where I live families of 4,5 or more are commonplace now...

Nearly 10 000 babies were born last year in the Suffolk NHS area alone... of which 2 000 were in Ipswich PCT area.

 

[flecc]

Unfortunately also with regard to British "families", the "two kid" family only exists on the increasingly rare occasions where man and wife stay together "until death do them part". Nowadays what happens is the man often wants at least two more kids "of his own" with his new partner to avoid feelings of a modern version of being "cuckolded". Where I live families of 4,5 or more are commonplace now...

Although there are examples of this, they are easily outweighed by the one child couples and the very large numbers of singles who produce no children. One third of the London population are now living single and we are not too far from that being true of the whole country, and although some have produced children, the majority haven't. The only reasons our population has been maintained are immigration and the higher birth rates among immigrant populations. According to the Home Office, those who could be called the British "native" population have had a considerable population decline through low birth rates for over half a century now.

History shows that immigrants adopt our lower birth rate model over time in favour of higher living standards for themselves and their fewer children. The welfare state is an important factor in this, the desire for high birth rates in many countries without such welfare being primarily to ensure parental care in old age.
.

 

[Straylight]

I'd just like to add that the reason there are so many children born in impoverished countries is not simply down to a lack of birth control & education. There is also the high incidence of infant mortality, coupled with an absence of state funded care for the elderly, resulting in people having large families as an insurance policy, i.e. so there will be someone to look after them in their dotage.

So, as Flecc mentioned, globalisation may be a good idea as long as it results in a fairer society for all, and not an increased freedom to exploit the poorer nations. The trade-off here, and indeed the catch as far as we in the wealthy west are concerned, is a level of sacrifice. We need to be prepared to share our economic, political, and as a side effect, martial supremacy, in order to promote a global level of social care and responsibility.

Edit: Damn it! You beat me to it Flecc!!

 

[Alex728]

I think this the lower birth rate and people delaying having kids is true for SE England and London but certainly in the East birth rates are very high (and the bulk being from parents both native to Britain) - with parents also being young (late teens to early 20s is very common here).

Compared to SE England where I once lived, many of my younger friends in Ipswich whom I wouldn't have expected to start families so early have done so - whilst my friends of similar age in Reading remain childless - there are certainly a lot more small children around in East Anglia compared to anywhere else I have lived..

That said even these young kids (of junior school age) have become a lot more environmentally aware but they aren't calling for a return to the stone age, but do want things like recycling etc and to ride bikes (which is much safer here than in SE England)

 

[flecc]

All true Alex, East Anglia is certainly very different in character from the South East, and that's been so for many years, I think you'll agree though that the South East has a commanding proportion of the national population so it's trends unduly influence the statistics of the whole.

However, the direction of the trends are a bit of a red herring, whether being achieved or not, a smaller world population is the only real answer to our environmental problems. Bicycles and renewable energy won't solve anything in the face of increasing billions, together meaning a return to more primitive living, with much reduced transport capacity and energy per capita.
.

 

[flecc]

Edit: Damn it! You beat me to it Flecc!!

But your final paragraph (which I fully agree with) detailed the best way forward which I hadn't done.
.