Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
3556 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 664

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2110961 19-Oct-2018 13:38
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

Dingbatt: Yes. They are called tolls.

My point above about taxing fuel was to do with the global warming tax portion rather than the facilitation of either more roads or alternative public transport. It is a punitive tax as proposed, but why should someone who loves cars and has a V8 that is only used for Sunday drives pay either a huge annual levy or an increased purchase price when the goal is to 'save a polar bear' by stopping them emitting.


 


You mean save all animal/insect/bird/fish life



Nope. I meant what I said.




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

5242 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2132


  Reply # 2110964 19-Oct-2018 13:44
Send private message quote this post

Aredwood:

Geothermal power is the perfect replacement for nuclear power in NZ.

 

But geothermal has GHG outputs as well.  The worst of NZ's geothermal stations outputs as much C02 equivalent per MWh as a coal plant.





Mike

4650 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2156

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2110972 19-Oct-2018 13:55
Send private message quote this post

MikeAqua:

Aredwood:

Geothermal power is the perfect replacement for nuclear power in NZ.


But geothermal has GHG outputs as well.  The worst of NZ's geothermal stations outputs as much C02 equivalent per MWh as a coal plant.



Except that now we are extracting energy from that CO2 instead of it just leaking into the atmosphere and meanwhile we emit *additional* CO2 getting our energy from something else.




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


4650 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2156

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2110974 19-Oct-2018 13:56
Send private message quote this post

Dingbatt:
MikeB4:

Dingbatt: Yes. They are called tolls.

My point above about taxing fuel was to do with the global warming tax portion rather than the facilitation of either more roads or alternative public transport. It is a punitive tax as proposed, but why should someone who loves cars and has a V8 that is only used for Sunday drives pay either a huge annual levy or an increased purchase price when the goal is to 'save a polar bear' by stopping them emitting.


 


You mean save all animal/insect/bird/fish life



Nope. I meant what I said.


Why should polar bears die just because you like V8s?




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.




Glurp
8498 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3897

Subscriber

  Reply # 2110978 19-Oct-2018 14:02
Send private message quote this post

I am not anti-car. I am getting too old to care about driving performance machines, but I certainly enjoyed the thrill of the open road when I was younger. I do believe that environmental concerns are more of an issue than I used to think, and for anything meaningful to be done about that, everyone has to be prepared to make sacrifices. But that shouldn't mean you cannot continue to be a weekend V8 enthusiast. 

 

People who come from different backgrounds, especially environmentalists, may have difficulty appreciating what car enthusiasts get from their hobby. I think that places the onus on car enthusiasts to organise and lobby for their interests. If they make their wishes known to politicians, with reasonable alternative suggestions and comprehensible explanations of their objections, they can probably achieve an acceptable outcome. 

 

As an example, classic cars have an exemption from seat belt requirements and other features that modern vehicles must comply with. I don't see why there could not be a class of performance hobby cars that also have exemptions for certain things. As regulations grow tighter, maybe there would be a law change that would only allow them to be driven on public roads on weekends or certain holidays, but they could still be enjoyed. Maybe there would also be a special class of levy for them, based on their limited road use, so the user cost would be less than for ordinary vehicles. There are many ways in which this kind of thing could be approached.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


3823 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1249


  Reply # 2110979 19-Oct-2018 14:04
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

MikeAqua:

 

Aredwood:

Geothermal power is the perfect replacement for nuclear power in NZ.

 

But geothermal has GHG outputs as well.  The worst of NZ's geothermal stations outputs as much C02 equivalent per MWh as a coal plant.

 

 

http://nzgeothermal.org.nz/emissions/

 

 

 

CO2 emissions for geothermal power plants are normally in the range of 10-400 g/kWh compared to 900-1000 g/kWh for oil and coal-fired plants or 400 g/kWh for gas-fired combined cycle plant. Atmospheric emissions from geothermal plants average only about 10% of the emissions from equivalent sized fossil fuel power plants

 

 


3556 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 664

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2111049 19-Oct-2018 15:26
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

SaltyNZ:
Dingbatt:
MikeB4:

Dingbatt: Yes. They are called tolls.

My point above about taxing fuel was to do with the global warming tax portion rather than the facilitation of either more roads or alternative public transport. It is a punitive tax as proposed, but why should someone who loves cars and has a V8 that is only used for Sunday drives pay either a huge annual levy or an increased purchase price when the goal is to 'save a polar bear' by stopping them emitting.


 


You mean save all animal/insect/bird/fish life



Nope. I meant what I said.


Why should polar bears die just because you like V8s?


Where in the above did it say I like V8s?
For your information, I have never owned a V8 and don't actually like them.
And I'm sure you have seen the picture of the polar bear stranded on the shrinking iceflow that is a symbol of AGW. If you look really carefully there is a V8 on the flow next door ready to pounce.(Not)

You missed entirely the point I was trying to make. If you must punish people, do so for emitting (ie burning fossil fuel), not for owning a car that they like. So tax the fuel, not the vehicle.
But once you've done that, use the money to provide more renewable energy sources. Ones that are reliable like hydro, geothermal and tidal*. Make us energy independent of Middle Eastern oil. And less reliant on any fossil fuels.

*. Tidal is reliable on the sense that it is entirely predictable, unlike wind and solar.




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

4650 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2156

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2111133 19-Oct-2018 18:08
Send private message quote this post

Dingbatt:
You missed entirely the point I was trying to make. If you must punish people, do so for emitting (ie burning fossil fuel), not for owning a car that they like. So tax the fuel, not the vehicle.

 

 

 

Well in that case we are in complete agreement.





iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.




Glurp
8498 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3897

Subscriber

  Reply # 2129458 19-Nov-2018 14:50
Send private message quote this post

The other day I found myself herding a mob of sheep. Not something I normally do but someone left a gate open and they got into the yard. I was on my own. 

 

I have learned from bitter experience that you do not make sheep go where you want by waving and shouting at them. That just panics them and they end up going everywhere you don't want. Instead, you need to gently nudge them, approaching cautiously and circling at a distance to get them moving in the right direction. As you creep closer, one or two will eventually break and start trotting the way you want them to go. As soon as a few sheep are moving the right way, others will follow. Soon you have them all flowing where you want.

 

This made me think of penguins, and they way they all slide into the sea. First they huddle up against the edge of the ice. Eventually the pressure grows too great and one or two jump in. As soon as the others see that they are all right they also begin to follow until they are all leaping into the water.

 

Arguments about the environment are a bit like this. Why should we go first? We are just a small country and what we do won't make any difference. Any measures we take will hurt our economy by making us more expensive and less competitive but won't do anything to save the planet. We are just too insignificant to change things. Someone with more clout should take the initiative.

 

Or maybe not. Maybe it just takes one tiny penguin to make the leap. One goes, another follows, soon it is a wave. It just takes one to go first. 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


3190 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1231

Subscriber

  Reply # 2129863 19-Nov-2018 23:38
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

This made me think of penguins, and they way they all slide into the sea. First they huddle up against the edge of the ice. Eventually the pressure grows too great and one or two jump in. As soon as the others see that they are all right they also begin to follow until they are all leaping into the water.

 

Arguments about the environment are a bit like this. Why should we go first? We are just a small country and what we do won't make any difference. Any measures we take will hurt our economy by making us more expensive and less competitive but won't do anything to save the planet. We are just too insignificant to change things. Someone with more clout should take the initiative.

 

 

 

 

But we don't need to harm the economy to help the environment. We could just make very big cutbacks to pension payments to get the necessary money to help the environment. People who are of pension age today, thought nothing of rampant CO2 emissions and other pollution when they were younger. Yet it was that pollution which allowed them to accumulate their assets, supported their quality of life in their younger years, and which enables the pensions that they receive today.

 

Compare per capita CO2 emissions today Vs 50 years ago. Also look at pollution problems such as leaded petrol, CFCs (ozone hole), nuclear radiation from historic weapons tests and usage + power station meltdowns, etc.

 

There have been lots of claims that we need to make very drastic cutbacks to CO2 emissions in the next decade or so to avoid runaway global warming. Assuming that that claim is true, the necessary changes would be far easier to make. If current atmospheric CO2 levels weren't already so high due to historic emissions.

 

So younger people are being asked to sacrifice their current and future quality of life, just to help support those who were not willing to make the same sacrifices in their younger days. Just consider the necessary pension cutbacks as a retrospective carbon tax.

 

As a ton of CO2 that was emitted back in 1968 is still doing the same harm to the environment as a ton of CO2 that was emitted yesterday.






2506 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1222

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2129892 20-Nov-2018 07:03
Send private message quote this post

Aredwood:

 

So younger people are being asked to sacrifice their current and future quality of life, just to help support those who were not willing to make the same sacrifices in their younger days.

 

 

Lots of today's environmental issues (in particular, climate change) weren't even known to be issues 40 years ago. You can't say that people "were not willing to make the same sacrifices" if there wasn't any question about making a sacrifice.

 

Not to mention that younger people (as well as older people) have got the benefit of the economic development enabled by decisions which, 40 years later, turned out to be bad.

 

 


4650 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2156

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2129898 20-Nov-2018 07:33
Send private message quote this post

frankv:

 

Lots of today's environmental issues (in particular, climate change) weren't even known to be issues 40 years ago.

 

 

 

 

But the big ones certainly were. Exxon knew about climate change as early as 1977 and confirmed it for sure by about 1982, and the first known article on the idea was published in The Rodney and Otamatea Times in 1912. Furthermore, even if the general public didn't know about climate change, they did know about the Arab Oil Crisis of 1973 which should have been a big signal that reduction in oil dependence would be a good idea, if for no other reason than that it is a strategic weakness.

 

On the plus side we at least have the Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987, which shows that actually, we can get together as an international community and fix the mistakes we were making.





iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


Mad Scientist
19167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2492

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2129912 20-Nov-2018 07:53
Send private message quote this post

SaltyNZ:

 

frankv:

 

Lots of today's environmental issues (in particular, climate change) weren't even known to be issues 40 years ago.

 

 

 

 

But the big ones certainly were. Exxon knew about climate change as early as 1977 and confirmed it for sure by about 1982, and the first known article on the idea was published in The Rodney and Otamatea Times in 1912. Furthermore, even if the general public didn't know about climate change, they did know about the Arab Oil Crisis of 1973 which should have been a big signal that reduction in oil dependence would be a good idea, if for no other reason than that it is a strategic weakness.

 

On the plus side we at least have the Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987, which shows that actually, we can get together as an international community and fix the mistakes we were making.

 

 

Of course they know.

 

It's all about making money.

 

Just follow this.

 

Part one: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jun/28/solar-power-energy-us-utilities-environment-climate-change

 

Part two, after the fossil fuel lobbyists realise they need to make more money https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-solar-insight/billions-in-u-s-solar-projects-shelved-after-trump-panel-tariff-idUSKCN1J30CT





Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.


13617 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2456

Trusted

  Reply # 2129930 20-Nov-2018 08:37
Send private message quote this post

frankv:

 

Aredwood:

 

So younger people are being asked to sacrifice their current and future quality of life, just to help support those who were not willing to make the same sacrifices in their younger days.

 

 

Lots of today's environmental issues (in particular, climate change) weren't even known to be issues 40 years ago. You can't say that people "were not willing to make the same sacrifices" if there wasn't any question about making a sacrifice.

 

Not to mention that younger people (as well as older people) have got the benefit of the economic development enabled by decisions which, 40 years later, turned out to be bad.

 

 

 

 

Plus, I think emission levels have doubled since the 1980's, so while we know more since after 1980, we pollute a lot more. 


5242 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2132


  Reply # 2129942 20-Nov-2018 09:04
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

Or maybe not. Maybe it just takes one tiny penguin to make the leap. One goes, another follows, soon it is a wave. It just takes one to go first. 

 

 

Our first-penguin policies on nuclear free and free trade has IMO proven that theory incorrect.  The same countries (soon to be more) all still have nukes.  The larger economies in the world are still heavily protected by both tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers.

 

A good chunk of the worlds population knows that NZ doesn't exist.  A bigger chunk doesn't give a hoot what we say or do.  Can you imagine either a Demo or GOP presidential candidate using NZ's brave stance on climate change to convince US voters to embrace significant climate policies?





Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.