The EV fact thread

[markjay]

Did they assume it was zero?

Or did they assume that, at that point, it just looked like another severe respiratory disease outbreak? Except that this one was better televised?

To this day we still don’t have numbers for the harms caused to the under 25’s, not to the very old by the epidemic. We can measure the enormous ridiculous cost to Europeans, but does the public notice how much the response cost it?

Was it better to lock up and isolate those about to die within the next couple of years “for their own good?” Different opinions exist.

And then there’s the suicides and social harms

The underlying issue is that focusing on the numbers instead of the issue itself is an age-old deflection technique often used in debate.

A current-affairs example is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

When a pro-Israeli spokesperson is asked about the 27,000 (and counting) Palestinian deaths in Gaza since 7 October, they often reply: according to who? According to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health. Do you believe them? And how many of these deaths are Hamas terrorists? And how many of them were killed by failed Hamas rockets?Etc. the discussion is then rerouted to the reliability of the data and no one talks anymore about the fact that whichever way you count the deaths, it is indisputable that thousands of civilians were killed and wounded by the massive IDF attacks on Gaza, many of them children.

Then, when a pro-Palestinian is asked whether they condemn the killing of 1,200 Israelis in the 7th October attack, they will often reply: according to who? According to the IDF? We don't believe them. And, some of the people killed were shot dead by Israeli troops. And many of them were soldiers. And so on. At this point the debase becomes about the numbers, totally ignoring the indisputable fact that hundreds of Israeli civilians, including elderly, women, and children, were tortured, raped, burned alive, mutilated and subjected to other horrific atrocities committed by the Palestinian invaders on 7th October.

And so... we can argue from now until the cows come home about the exact number of children suffering from Asthma and people developing cancers due to poor air quality, and conveniently ignore that fact the regardless of the actual figure, we are talking about thousands and thousands of people suffering from preventable diseases and premature deaths across the UK as result of air pollution in city centres and near busy roads.

 

[BTB 500]

I'll do my broken record bit.

If this is an accepted problem then absolutely ban house building and schools near busy roads. That's not being done. I see housing and office developments next to busy dual carriageways, motorways, and interchanges.

But that option just isn't considered.

As an aside National Highways have been 'trialling' a 60 mph limit specifically to improve air quality on some stretches of motorway. This has allegedly produced no evidence of an improvement, despite having run for over 3 years now (originally meant to be 12-15 months).

Four motorways to introduce 60mph limits to cut pollution

Speed limits on parts of four motorways are to be cut before October in a trial to reduce pollution.

www.fleetnews.co.uk

Ironically EVs are also limited to 60 in these zones, despite not emitting anything (apart from tyre particulates, which aren't being measured).

 

[markjay]

"A bas les aristos"

Parisians vote to triple parking fees for SUVs in latest green push

Paris voters on Sunday backed a proposal from the capital's socialist mayor Anne Hidalgo to triple parking charges on hefty SUV-style cars, according to official results from city hall.

www.france24.com

That's not directly related to EVs, I don't think... EVs are heavier, but not necessarily physically larger. And, most large SUVs such as the Range Rover or Land Cruiser etc are still ICE, not BEV.

 

[markjay]

Do they ?

England Air Quality Index (AQI) and United Kingdom Air Pollution | IQAir

England Air Quality Index (AQI). Read the air pollution in England, United Kingdom, get real-time, historical and forecast PM2.5 and weather data with AirVisual.

www.iqair.com

From the link above:


"AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AND STATISTICS FOR ENGLAND

What are the sources of air pollution in England?

Emissions from the transportation system is the highest contributor to air pollution followed by emissions from coal-fired power stations and then industry. Surprisingly, agricultural practices are a prominent source as it collectively produces 88 per cent of the UK’s ammonia gas. This gas combines with other naturally occurring substances and producesa particulate matter which is harmful to humans.

Although still in the planning stage, it is intended to phase out coal from England’s choice of energy. It has always been problematic and the main source of much of the air pollution of the past.

80 per cent of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) comes from internal combustion engines. The huge increase in the number of cars on the roads means there is now one car for every two people living in England. This not only has a huge impact on air quality but also produces adverse effects such as noise pollution, lack of physical exercise and injuries due to road traffic accidents."

Just waiting for someone to start a debate about the accuracy of the figures...........

 

[Bellow]

It was you that voted for the politicians and regulators that created the EV transition as a response to CO2 change, wasn't it?

Nope.

What made you think that the grid would need to be "upgraded" to recharge "all EV's" in domestic settings over the course of the next four decades? (The period that it will take to replace "most" ICE vehicles with ICE)

Electricity consumption has already fallen 20% these last two decades since 2003, despite population growth, and is on course to have probably halved within the next two decades.

So if every one of our 35 million cars in the UK was already an EV, we'd be consuming, as a country, the same amount of electricity that we were in 2003. But, fortunately we don't have 35 million EV's, we have one million.

At the same time as electricity moved from being more than 90% fossil fuel to being 50% renewable in 2024, and hopefully very near 100% renewable by 2035.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the guy who I mentioned prior who's electric van isn't cutting the mustard, the company he works for at SSE's behest turns of its refrigeration plant for a few hours each day to ease demand. This when the 'supplying' power station is two minutes up the road.

Is it that you're opposed to solar panels and wind farms because they don't look nice?

I live in Scotland where we actually permit on-shore wind turbines - and I've been an advocate of them for decades.

 

[Bellow]

My EV does under 2,000 miles a year (I am yet to take it abroad). I drive the car far less than I used to. These days, I mostly walk or take public transport where possible

All well and good and is what I do too and others also I don't doubt - though more could make more of an effort in that direction.

. I am not opposed to people travelling. I'm just thinking that the congestion on our roads is the result of the private car still being the most convenient alternative for most people, and this should not be the case.

Different issue - now you are back to local air quality.

As for CO2, I am not sure that there's a mode of transport that has no CO2 signature, certainly the transition to EV is not going to solve this particular problem.

At what point then do you accept the travelling has to stop if it continues to create CO2 in large quantities with ne solution in sight and the travel is non-essential?

 

[Dryce]

Just waiting for someone to start a debate about the accuracy of the figures...........

I don't think there's an argument about accuracy of measured data.

The issue is 'accuracy' of modelled data. So going back to Scotland - if you look at the Scottish minimum alcohol pricing policy benefits or the wider Glasgow LEZ benefits then modelling is used.

Now when it comes to actual effects on the population from what you are measuring then that is one other whole can of worms. So take a look at the drop in roadside NO2 over the last 20 years. Doesn't matter where the stuff comes from. It's a huge sustained drop.

Why is that important? Because we should see a measurable result.

So an honest and pragmatic report should be able to say that if we are saying current pollution level is expected to produce a number like 9400 it should be able to also reasonable report and demonstrate higher numbers from previous years when NO2 numbers were higher.

We had a collapse in MMR vaccination rates because of a tiny study that was over hyped. People just wouldn't switch their brains on and look at the wider picture and look at the basic numbers on autism and vaccination going back to the 1970s. Instead they focused on specific promoted - ie. *advocated* research.

This stuff needs to be properly red teamed. But I don't think anybody in the decision making bodies is allowed or inclined to do that.

 

[markjay]

All well and good and is what I do too and others also I don't doubt - though more could make more of an effort in that direction.

Indeed.

Different issue - now you are back to local air quality.

To my mind 'air quality' is the air people breathe and gets into people's lungs.

At what point then do you accept the travelling has to stop if it continues to create CO2 in large quantities with ne solution in sight and the travel is non-essential?

I think that greenhouse gases is a real issue, but the response to it has to be far more comprehensive than switching one mode of transport for another.

Replacing ICE cars with EVs will help our children's health, and that's a good thing, but it won't save the planet. To achieve the latter, we'll need to make far more radical changes to our way of life. In this respect, the EVs vs ICE issue is causing more harm than good - because it has the potential of luring people into believing that once we've replaced all our ICE cars with EVs we'll be out of the words. Spoiler alert: We won't.

 

[ChipChop]

Quite alarming that a number of the UK's net zero legal obligations were based on data taken from just a single year. In short the costings for a UK 'green grid' are quite wrong.

Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Climate Change Committee
only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero. “They have conceded privately that that was a mistake,” Sir Chris said in a presentation seen by The Telegraph.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/656f411497ae14084ad8d03a/t/65b0ff0db4775c668f87903c/1706098447506/Montford-Cost-of-renewables-grid-7.pdf

 

[ALFAitalia]

And if it was 5,000 deaths? Or 3,000 deaths? What difference does it make? Just because we don't know the exact figure, isn't a reason to not do anything about it.

The point is that we don't really know if it was any at all, the figures are so spurious.. the air quality is pretty good in London these days..... and we don't know if those people were dying any way. Its like COVID... the quoted figures are of people who died WITH COVID.... not OF COVID.....massive difference.

 

[markjay]

Quite alarming that a number of the UK's net zero legal obligations were based on data taken from just a single year. In short the costings for a UK 'green grid' are quite wrong.

Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Climate Change Committee
only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero. “They have conceded privately that that was a mistake,” Sir Chris said in a presentation seen by The Telegraph.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/656f411497ae14084ad8d03a/t/65b0ff0db4775c668f87903c/1706098447506/Montford-Cost-of-renewables-grid-7.pdf

What are suggesting - that it will cost more - or that it will actually be cheaper - than predicted?

 

[ChipChop]

At what point then do you accept the travelling has to stop if it continues to create CO2 in large quantities with ne solution in sight and the travel is non-essential?

Sounds like you are advocating for climate lockdowns.

Bad idea judging by the demonstrable harms society experienced thanks to just such a policy during covid.

 

[markjay]

The point is that we don't really know if it was any at all, the figures are so spurious.. the air quality is pretty good in London these days..... and we don't know if those people were dying any way. Its like COVID... the quoted figures are of people who died WITH COVID.... not OF COVID.....massive difference.

The idea that exhaust gas emissions from ICE cars in London do not cause any major issues is nonsensical... every bit of data we have shows a link between exposure to exhaust gasses and poor health and premature death.

Just a reminder that the Tobacco industry have been claiming for decades that there's no proven link between smoking and lung cancer, in spite of the overwhelming statistical data - and they were right, heavy smokers were dying of lung cancer in their early forties in droves but no one could prove the link at the time - it was only after Sir Ernest Kennaway proved the link between smoking and cancer that they conceded that cigarettes can kill.

 

[ChipChop]

What are suggesting - that it will cost more - or that it will actually be cheaper - than predicted?

It is all in the report but in summary the UK's net zero plan is based on "unrealistic modelling of demand and extremely optimistic technological and cost assumptions."

Ergo net zero will cost everyone in this country a lot more than they are letting on.

 

[Bellow]

Sounds like you are advocating for climate lockdowns.

Nope.

Bad idea judging by the demonstrable harms society experienced thanks to just such a policy.

There will be no harm to our economy when people quit flying abroad to spend their money there.

 

[ChipChop]

Nope.

There will be no harm to our economy when people quit flying abroad to spend their money there.

Glad to hear it.

Costs versus benefits. Ignored during covid and it seems also during what some call the climate emergency. Doing more harm than good seems to be quite the thing.

 

[markjay]

Glad to hear it.

Costs versus benefits. Ignored during covid and it seems also during what some call the climate emergency. Doing more harm than good seems to be quite the thing.

The perceived benefit during COVID was saving human lives.

But you are right that the saving of a human life must have a finite cost - even if arbitrary - placed on it. NICE and the NHS both do that, all the time. You could not run a free-at-the-point-of-delivey national health service if you set out to always save lives 'at all cost'.

Nor could you run the emergency services - police, fire, ambulance - unless you concede that the country can only afford to spend that much in order to save lives. Otherwise, where do you stop? At having fully-staffed ambulance, fire station, and police station at every street corner? Etc.

So, yes, the government had to take some tough decisions during COVID regarding how much the UK could afford to lose or spend for each death that was prevented. And all that, with no empirical data to hand. I don't envy them.

 

[Dryce]

To my mind 'air quality' is the air people breathe and gets into people's lungs.

Sounds simple. But what is it in meaningful terms.

So we have the likes of the EU and government trying to parameterise it. We have claimed effects. We have reports. We have assumptions. We have policy. What doe we worry about - gases such as radon or NO2 or CO? Particulates? Contaminants? What about location - places people pass through, places people work, places people live in. What about sources - industrial, vehicles, consumer products such as aerosols and cleaning products, smoking and vaping, dust, domestic combustion from open stoves and heaters, pollen and plants, animal dander, and so on.

So back in the 60s and 70s there was large increase in asthma problems. It's still not really understood.

 

[markjay]

Nope.

There will be no harm to our economy when people quit flying abroad to spend their money there.

I would replace 'no' with 'limited'.

Ground crew, some of the air crew, baggage handlers, businesses located at international airports terminals and their employees, taxi drivers, coach drivers, etc, will all be impacted to some extent.

But yes, overall, the damage to our own economy will be limited. Especially if the money will be spent on domestic holidays instead.

 

[markjay]

Sounds simple. But what is it in meaningful terms.

So we have the likes of the EU and government trying to parameterise it. We have claimed effects. We have reports. We have assumptions. We have policy. What doe we worry about - gases such as radon or NO2 or CO? Particulates? Contaminants? What about location - places people pass through, places people work, places people live in. What about sources - industrial, vehicles, consumer products such as aerosols and cleaning products, smoking and vaping, dust, domestic combustion from open stoves and heaters, pollen and plants, animal dander, and so on.

So back in the 60s and 70s there was large increase in asthma problems. It's still not really understood.

Back to basics - all ICE cars emit unhealthy exhaust fumes, at least to some extent. BEV do not. So let's replace the ICE cars with BEVs.

Why obfuscate this simple statement with a debate about complex, incalculable figures, until we lose sight of it?

The prolonged breathing ICE cars' exhaust fumes makes people unwell. Simple. Let's do something about it.