backtop


Print 79 comment(s) - last by BRMarshall.. on Aug 12 at 6:27 PM

If Britain goes carbon free does that mean no more life as we know it?

The Liberal Democrats -- currently Britain's third largest political party -- are pushing to ban not just sports cars, SUVs, and all other manner of "gas guzzling" vehicles, as some have suggested in the U.S., but all petroleum and diesel vehicles off the streets of Britain by 2040.  If isn't -- at least in part -- electric, it won't be allowed on the streets.

The plan is currently in its final stages and would be voted upon at the socially liberal party's upcoming conference in Glasgow, UK.

The proposal, according to a draft obtained by The Telegraph, states:

By 2040, only ultra-low carbon vehicles will be permitted on UK roads for non-freight purposes.

In other words, only hybrids, battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) would be legal.  Anything else -- in terms of consumer vehicles (including taxis and other small commercial vehicles) -- would not be.

Currently, the British do not buy many electric vehicles.  In 2012 a total of roughly 2 million cars were sold to British buyers.  Meanwhile the top-selling hybrid electric vehicle, Toyota Motor Corp.'s (TYO:7203) Prius moved only 13,000 units (about 0.6 percent of total sales), while the Plug-in Prius saw 470 sales -- even more miniscule.  In total only 3,600 PHEVs or BEVs have sold in the UK since the launch a £5,000 ($7,750 USD) tax incentive in mid 2010.

By contrast nearly 435,000 hybrids were sold in the U.S. last year [source], accounting for approximately 3 percent of sales.  While BEV sales were slow, combined BEV and PHEV sales moved nearly 53,000 units in the U.S. in 2012.  These numbers indicate that the U.S. is likely selling at least twice the number of electric vehicles and hybrids -- percentage wise -- as Britain.

A second plank of the proposed platform calls for airfare taxes to be replaced with a more significant carbon tax.  The party describes:

[Air passenger duty would be replaced with] per-plane duty, charged in proportion to the carbon emissions created by that journey.

That move is intended to stoke the use of biofuels and cut down on "frivolous" air travel.  

One thing such critics of these proposals will likely appreciate is that the party calls for expansion of Britain's nuclear power and natural gas shale exploration/extraction.  The proposal calls on cutting legal red tape to increasing use of nuclear and natural gas for the nation's energy.  

Nuclear energy
The plan does call for the expansion of clean nuclear energy. [Image Source: Corbis]

Among the proposed changes would be to allow for fracking -- hydraulic fracturing -- a process in which pressurized/heat water and chemicals is injected into sites containing oil or natural gas in order to extract it.  The process is controversial as some have suggested it might cause earthquakes; however, at present the evidence supporting that hypothesis remains far from conclusive.  The proposal to drop the party's opposition to fracking does come with some provisions.  The party writes:

[Fracking can commence so long as] regulations controlling pollution and protecting local environmental quality are strictly enforced, planning decisions remain with local authorities and local communities are fully consulted over extraction and fully compensated for all damage to the local landscape.

Experts have estimated that 700 million barrels of oil or more a year could be extracted from oil shale in two areas of Surrey and Sussex.

The proposals -- which aim to create a "zero-carbon" Britain (a rather humorous term, surely) might not be taken seriously were it not for the Liberal Democrats' key role as kingmaker in the British government.  By entering into a coalition with the center-right Conservative party (while ironically bucking the center-left Labour Party), the Conservatives were able to command leadership of the country, including the role of prime minister, which is currently filled by Conservative party leader David Cameron.

In order to stay in power, the Conservative government must make major concessions to their Liberal Democrat allies, despite having a significantly larger head count in Parliament.  Thus as absurd as the idea of banning all non-electric vehicles from the streets of Britain sounds, if the Liberal Democrats pass the proposal, their Conservative allies may be forced to listen.

Source: Telegraph



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Oh boy..
By flyingpants1 on 8/7/2013 8:39:31 PM , Rating: 1
I think we can all agree banning ICE cars outright is very extreme. But that's only in terms of today's standards. In the future, ICE cars will be rightfully regarded as pumping poisonous gas everywhere.




RE: Oh boy..
By FITCamaro on 8/7/2013 8:55:37 PM , Rating: 1
Algae based diesel. Everything that comes out of a tailpipe came out of the air to begin with.


RE: Oh boy..
By Mint on 8/7/2013 9:14:06 PM , Rating: 3
It'll be nice if it pans out, but it's looking a lot like cellulosic ethanol right now.

Molten salt reactors are the future of energy. It's a miracle of our universe that there exists a fuel one million times as dense as fossil fuels.

From there, I can't see biofuels beating out batteries or, failing that, hydrogen. We'll never get completely clean combustion anyway (I'm not talking about GHGs).


RE: Oh boy..
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/7/2013 9:14:10 PM , Rating: 1
Right, exactly like oil.

Oh, here's an idea: Lets use oil! It's relatively cheap, abundant, and the byproducts of combustion are not only beneficial, but necessary to life.

What's that? Al Gore says CO2 is poisonous and causes climate change? Never mind science, lets believe him on FAITH, and destroy our economies to enrich him and his cronies. Great plan all.


RE: Oh boy..
By flyingpants1 on 8/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: Oh boy..
By redbone75 on 8/7/2013 9:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Never mind science, lets believe him on FAITH, and destroy our economies to enrich him and his cronies.


Yeah, instead let's still ignore science and continue to enrich the oil cronies and continue to have FAITH in them that they will do good for us all. Cause that's working well for everyone.


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/8/2013 3:32:12 AM , Rating: 4
How many hundreds of millions of dollars did Al Gore make on carbon credits, again?

quote:
Cause that's working well for everyone.


Okay, let's play a game. A quick thought experiment, if you will.

Let's take away all the oil.

Now there's no cars, and almost no transportation relative to A: the population and B: the places people want/need to go. There's very little electricity. Can't grow enough food, so people start to starve. Can't treat everyone in hospitals, because hospitals need a lot of power. Can't use the military to protect everyone, 'cuz they're still dependent on the oil.

So what happens? Billions of people die. That's billions with a B.

So yes, it HAS worked out well for everyone, at least almost everyone. What has the oil business done? Hampered the Gulf coast's shrimping efforts? Killed a few seagulls and otters? Thrown a little more water vapor into our atmosphere?

How has oil NOT worked out amazingly for everyone, I wonder?


RE: Oh boy..
By lelias2k on 8/8/2013 10:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
Your game would be valid if in reality there wasn't a transition period.

Everything can be adapted, including ourselves.


RE: Oh boy..
By Solandri on 8/9/2013 1:21:46 AM , Rating: 4
Even with a transition period, he's mostly right. The fundamental measure here is productivity. How much work (food production, manufacturing, even making movies) can you as an individual get done per day? First you have to generate enough productivity to feed, clothe, and house yourself. Then enough to buy all the toys we like to play with. After that, you can work for more toys or take time off with family and relaxing.

In the old days, people spent most of their waking lives working in the fields just to grow enough food to survive. Each technological advance in agriculture leveraged cheap energy to increase the productivity per man-hour worked. At first it was water and wind to relive us from the labor of milling, but eventually we transitioned to coal, then oil as even higher density energy sources (yield more energy for a given cost) applied to more and more aspects of food production.

The only reason you have time to spend 8 hrs/day and 2 days a week reading web sites like this is because cheap energy has reduced the number of man-hours needed to provide what you need to survive. If you increase the cost of energy, your productivity decreases and either you have to work longer hours to enjoy the same lifestyle you have today, or your standard of living decreases.

Transition period is irrelevant. What matters is the relative cost of the two energy sources. That's why conservatives tend to be against "green" energy. It's not because they don't like the environment (which is a ridiculously naive assumption made by people who aren't even trying to understand what those with a different opinion are thinking). It's because switching to green energy sources before they're ready (i.e. before they're cost is competitive with fossil fuels) won't magically result in a better world. It'll result in a decreased standard of living.

Maybe that trade-off is worth it. Maybe the pollution from fossil fuels is damaging our lives more than the decreased cost of living if we were to give up fossil fuels. But that's a debatable argument that I rarely see debated. Usually I just see people who think that switching to green energy has only benefits and no disadvantages. If that's what you think, then you simply don't understand how the economy works. Holding all other things constant, increasing the cost of energy decreases the standard of living. The burden of proof is then upon those proposing the switch to green energy to prove that eliminating the negatives of using fossil fuels will benefit us enough to make it worthwhile.


RE: Oh boy..
By conq on 8/12/2013 9:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the old days, people spent most of their waking lives working in the fields just to grow enough food to survive.

Now they instead spend it watching Jersey Shore and ESPN. My, my, my. How far we've come!


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/10/2013 4:42:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your game would be valid if in reality there wasn't a transition period.

I felt a little simplification was justified in light of the "let's enrich Big Oil" canard... as if the use of oil does nothing but.


RE: Oh boy..
By FITCamaro on 8/8/2013 4:04:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now there's no cars, and almost no transportation relative to A: the population and B: the places people want/need to go. There's very little electricity. Can't grow enough food, so people start to starve. Can't treat everyone in hospitals, because hospitals need a lot of power. Can't use the military to protect everyone, 'cuz they're still dependent on the oil. So what happens? Billions of people die. That's billions with a B.


Sounds like a lot of liberals dreams.


RE: Oh boy..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: Oh boy..
By FITCamaro on 8/8/2013 4:03:21 PM , Rating: 1
Ignore what science? Climate change "science"? That throws out any data that doesn't agree with their theory? Sounds like a good plan.


RE: Oh boy..
By Darkk on 8/8/2013 1:02:57 AM , Rating: 1
Hope you are being sarcastic. Oil may be cheap not but it's not unlimited supply. Sooner or later it will run out. So we have to make the changes NOW to ensure that our world continues. Watch Mad Max and let me know what you think.


RE: Oh boy..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: Oh boy..
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/8/2013 3:30:02 AM , Rating: 2
I had an actual LOL over that one. Darkk, you made my day.


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/8/2013 3:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sooner or later it will run out.

And long before it "runs out" it will simply become more expensive to get. And as it becomes more expensive, "alternatives" will start to look more attractive. And as those alternatives become more attractive, they will see greater and greater adoption.

It's almost like a self-correcting problem.

But hey, let's ignore the guy that's not making a penny to say these things, let's instead put our trust in Al "No, No Ulterior Motive Here" Gore as he makes half a billion dollars on carbon credits and enjoys his five lavish mansions and private planes. Hell, even Dubya is more environmentally friendly than Gore.


RE: Oh boy..
By Mint on 8/8/2013 8:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
EVs aren't going to replace oil overnight. It takes decades to first ramp up production capabilities and then flush out 200M existing cars. It's also important for the threat of alternatives to keep OPEC from further manipulating oil prices with their quotas.

As an aside, how did Gore get mentioned 3 times in this thread?


RE: Oh boy..
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/9/2013 6:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
Because more people know of him than say Maurice Strong, one of the real profiteers on the global warming hype train -- former CEO of Petro-Canada (a government oil company created in the 1980s to rob one region of Canada for the benefit of another) who helped create the Kyoto accord, and lives in Beijing with his new masters reaping the rewards.


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/10/2013 4:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
EVs aren't going to replace oil overnight.

Oil's not going to run out overnight, either.


RE: Oh boy..
By Mint on 8/10/2013 1:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, I never said it would. You are the one who brought up the irrelevant scenario of eliminating oil in an instant and having it destroy our way of live.

Secondly, that's perfectly compatible with a multi-decade transition into hybrids/EVs.


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/10/2013 4:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never said it would.

I described a gradual process of transition. You introduced the idea of such a transition "happening overnight". Your reply was utterly pointless.

quote:
You are the one who brought up the irrelevant scenario of eliminating oil

Incorrect.

quote:
that's perfectly compatible with a multi-decade transition into hybrids/EVs.

Yes, that is what I said. Congratulations, you're not COMPLETELY illiterate, just MOSTLY.


RE: Oh boy..
By jimbojimbo on 8/8/2013 1:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And long before it "runs out" it will simply become more expensive to get.
The problem is if everybody pushes EVs the demand for gas will decrease so it'll keep gas prices at a steady rate. Also, every oil producing country HAS to honestly report its capacity otherwise everyone will continue to think there's a good supply left but all of a sudden run out.


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/10/2013 4:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the demand for gas will decrease so it'll keep gas prices at a steady rate.

Demand for "gasoline" may decrease, but demand for "oil" will continue to go up. "Oil" is used for more than just "gasoline", you know.

If demand for gasoline drops, so what? Doesn't that mean some other viable fuel/energy storage medium has been developed and become commonplace? The need to move things and people isn't going to go away.


RE: Oh boy..
By Paj on 8/8/2013 12:33:31 PM , Rating: 3
Sigh.

Carbon monoxide and particulates are beneficial to life? Better brush up on your chemistry.

Like many things, CO2 is indeed vital for some biological processes. The problem is that there's too much of it.

Fats are vital for the body too, but you never hear nutritionists telling people to eat more fat for their health. Why? Because only a small amount is needed, and too much is harmful, leading to a range of health problems.

Nearly every chemical element/compound essential for life becomes hazardous beyond a certain amount.


RE: Oh boy..
By Camikazi on 8/8/2013 5:37:50 PM , Rating: 3
Am I wrong or isn't it true that at the time in our planets history that the world was at it's lushest point (plants everywhere and life abundant) was a time when CO2 levels were at their highest and MUCH higher than now? While there might be gasses that hurt the environment CO2 is not one of them, at least not in the amounts found now or even in the amounts climate change people say it will reach.


RE: Oh boy..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/2013 6:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
Hey hey hey!!! Don't come in here with actual provable facts about Earth's environment! Their awesome computer model technology shows otherwise!


RE: Oh boy..
By Mint on 8/10/2013 5:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
Life adapted to changing conditions like that over millions of years, not 100. This line of argumentation is rather pathetic.

What you should be arguing instead is that humans will adapt to whatever consequences come our way. We have bigger fish to fry than spending $5T for every 0.1 degrees of warming that we want to avert.


RE: Oh boy..
By EricMartello on 8/8/2013 11:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sigh.

Carbon monoxide and particulates are beneficial to life? Better brush up on your chemistry.


So you're operating under the notion that what's bad for humans must be bad for the planet? Take your own advice.

quote:
Like many things, CO2 is indeed vital for some biological processes. The problem is that there's too much of it.


Actually no, as another poster stated, when the CO2 levels on earth were substantially higher than they are today the life on this planet thrived. Temperatures were higher too and it was not a barren wasteland nor was it a maelstrom of unending superstorms.

quote:
Fats are vital for the body too, but you never hear nutritionists telling people to eat more fat for their health. Why? Because only a small amount is needed, and too much is harmful, leading to a range of health problems.


The way people process fats, sugars, cholesterol and other items that are frequently labeled as "bad" for you differ. I'd say that the health problems people experience is more from a lack of diversity in their diet, a shortage of nutrition, moreso than it is an excess of fats or sugars.

quote:
Nearly every chemical element/compound essential for life becomes hazardous beyond a certain amount.


The universe constantly and automatically seeks equilibrium; this process trickles down to earth. This universal balance does a great job of keeping things in check so I have no worries about our atmosphere suddenly (or gradually) becoming toxic...although it's inevitable that sometime in the future the earth as we know it today will cease to exist and there's nothing we can do about it now or in the future.


RE: Oh boy..
By Paj on 8/9/2013 10:14:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you're operating under the notion that what's bad for humans must be bad for the planet? Take your own advice.


Carbon monoxide, not dioxide. It's toxic to humans and animals. Its the leading cause of death by air pollution, and its produced in engine exhaust, along with C02 and heaps of other compounds.

quote:
Actually no, as another poster stated, when the CO2 levels on earth were substantially higher than they are today the life on this planet thrived. Temperatures were higher too and it was not a barren wasteland nor was it a maelstrom of unending superstorms.


You're right, but it's very unlikely that organisms of today (including many food crops) would be able to survive such conditions, as a result of the millions of years of evolution that have taken place. Also, the higher temperatures would melt the ice caps, leading to sea level rise.

quote:
The way people process fats, sugars, cholesterol and other items that are frequently labeled as "bad" for you differ. I'd say that the health problems people experience is more from a lack of diversity in their diet, a shortage of nutrition, moreso than it is an excess of fats or sugars.


It's both. A imbalanced diet is bad for you, so too is an excess of anything. Vitamin A is essential to the body, but only in minute quantities. Too much leads to death.

quote:
The universe constantly and automatically seeks equilibrium; this process trickles down to earth. This universal balance does a great job of keeping things in check so I have no worries about our atmosphere suddenly (or gradually) becoming toxic.


Equilibrium isn't; constant though. It can occur over long timescales, but if the balance is shifted over a short period of time then the results can be very violent or unpredictable. Massive hurricanes, solar storms and other natural phenomena are an example of this.


RE: Oh boy..
By EricMartello on 8/9/2013 3:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Carbon monoxide, not dioxide. It's toxic to humans and animals. Its the leading cause of death by air pollution, and its produced in engine exhaust, along with C02 and heaps of other compounds.


Let me put it another way:

A forest fire burns down huge swaths of greenery and an average person's perception of this event is pure destruction. In reality, the immolation of a forest renews life, improves biodiversity and allows plants that require fire to take root.

Transpose this to CO or CO2 emissions being harmful to mammals - not really. We cannot breath either of these gases but their presence is not toxic to us (i.e. chlorine gas would be toxic even if we held our breath). As levels of CO or CO2 rise, plant life and simple life forms like algae follows suit and helps balance this out to ensure that these gases do not displace the O2 and N that mammals and other complex life breaths.

Life is very adaptable and while there is no doubt that sucking an exhaust pipe is going to kill a human, it's not going to kill the planet.

quote:
You're right, but it's very unlikely that organisms of today (including many food crops) would be able to survive such conditions, as a result of the millions of years of evolution that have taken place. Also, the higher temperatures would melt the ice caps, leading to sea level rise.


If the change was gradual, which it is likely to be, then the plants will adapt to the changes in climate. Palm trees have adapted themselves to thrive in warm climates where strong storms are frequent. That is why they have slender trunks and long, thin leaves rather than branches and broad leaves.

Even if the change happened quickly; plant and animal life will return after an initial shock.

And who's saying that higher sea levels are a bad thing? It's presented as a bad thing because today a lot of people live on or near the coast...but even if the glaciers and ice caps melted 100%, there would still be plenty of inhabitable land available.

quote:
It's both. A imbalanced diet is bad for you, so too is an excess of anything. Vitamin A is essential to the body, but only in minute quantities. Too much leads to death.


Then we agree on this point, because doesn't having a balanced diet imply having a diverse diet? You can't survive by only eating chocolate bars, although it would be a delicious way to die.

quote:
Equilibrium isn't; constant though. It can occur over long timescales, but if the balance is shifted over a short period of time then the results can be very violent or unpredictable. Massive hurricanes, solar storms and other natural phenomena are an example of this.


Actually it is constant as all counter-forces seek to exist in a state of balance, whether it is hot and cold or whether it is an interaction between matter and anti-matter.

The natural phenomena you listed can be viewed as the universe's attempt to restore balance, not offset it. The point you're overlooking is that our existence as humans on this planet is itself an imbalance...at some point we're going to have to return to zero. Humans like to believe that a balanced universe means they get to be a part of it, which is not true.


RE: Oh boy..
By BRMarshall on 8/12/2013 6:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore flies all over the world telling other people to conserve energy. He warns of sea-level rise and buys a huge home on the coast. He puts more carbon in the air than anybody I personally know. Al can do this because he is doing it for the greater good? Give me a break. I drive my manual transmission car and get well over 30 mpg in combined driving. Not perfect, but I try to walk the walk.


RE: Oh boy..
By Samus on 8/8/2013 1:31:52 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Everything that comes out of a tailpipe came out of the air to begin with.


Millions of things become carcinogenic through combustion. By-products of Algae at room temperature is safe, at 1200f, much like anything else considered safe, the story changes.

The fact of the matter is just about anything can be carcinogenic when raised to its breaking temperature.

Cellulose Gum, an ingredient in shampoo, soaps and even some food, is an airborne carcinogen when its temperature exceeds 140F.

Triclosan, an antibacterial agent found in floor cleaners, soap, paint, hand sanitizer, etc, is not only carcinogenic, but is linked to muscular dystrophy.

Lauramide (DEA and/or TEA) is a very common carcinogen found in many skin products, conditioners, and even toothpaste. It causes cell mutation and cancer in animal tests. Since it is a naturally occurring substance, it is even marketed in "natural" products.

We're all going to die sooner rather than later. So I leave one wise mans words:

"Everyone who has ever drank water has died"

And he is dead now. Probably not from water, but who knows.


RE: Oh boy..
By Paj on 8/8/2013 12:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
Its not is the same form though. It might have the same atoms going out as coming in, but in the act of burning it undergoes chemical changes, many of which are hazardous.


RE: Oh boy..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/2013 12:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
See? See what I've been talking about? Some of us saw the writing on the wall years ago with Obama and his radical EV anti-ICE agenda. But you people labeled us crazies and "Fox News wackos".

The Liberal's in Congress and this fascist in the White House are the real wackos you should all be worried about.


RE: Oh boy..
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/8/2013 3:38:24 AM , Rating: 2
I generally get upset when people bash Americans as stupid (being one of the few Canadians who actually likes our neighbors to the south), but considering that nasty piece of work Obama was re-elected...


RE: Oh boy..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/2013 3:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I generally get upset when people bash Americans as stupid (being one of the few Canadians who actually likes our neighbors to the south), but considering that nasty piece of work Obama was re-elected...


You know what, I said that in anger and despair many times after Obama's, impossible, reelection. But those are the words of a bitter and confused person.

I don't believe Americans are stupid. I do believe, however, they've become so apathetic they simply don't put forth the effort to inform themselves on important issues. Critical thinking is becoming a lost ability.

Sure I could, and often do, blame the media. They've done a horrible job of holding Obama accountable for, well, ANYTHING. Journalists and reporters have put Liberal ideology above the truth, abdicating their responsibility of informing the public.

But at the end of the day, if Americans simply cared more, things would be better.

We see it right here on Daily Tech: "bah both parties are crap! Just don't even vote or care about issues anymore, there's nothing that can be done. There's like lobbying, and oh god corporations and bla bla bla!".

I see that here like every day, it's just the sort of apathy and cop-out that has lead to where we are.


RE: Oh boy..
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/10/2013 6:12:14 AM , Rating: 2
As usual, Rush coined it right: low-information voters.


RE: Oh boy..
By Belard on 8/8/13, Rating: -1
RE: Oh boy..
By kyleb2112 on 8/8/2013 6:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
Must be nice to be a progressive these days. You get to constantly push for government control over every aspect of people's lives while simultaneously calling other people fascists.

And I see you object to the one voice of dissent from the most obsequious press in US history. No red flags there? That doesn't bother you just a little? Because, man, if I ever held identical views to 90% of the media gate keepers, college professors, and movie actors, I would rebel just on principle.


RE: Oh boy..
By LRonaldHubbs on 8/8/2013 10:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fascism is a RIGHT-WING way of thinking. Use something called a DICTIONARY and learn the meaning of words.

Here, let's see what the dictionary has to say:

fascism - noun
1) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Hmm, looks like you're wrong. Next time you tell other to read a dictionary, try reading it yourself first. Alternately, you may first need to learn how to read and comprehend.

FYI, the political spectrum is not merely left and right, there is also a veritcal axis which spans from libertarianism to authoritarianism. Fascism is extreme authoritarianism. Throughout history, and even today, there have been examples of both conservative and liberal fascists.


RE: Oh boy..
By Cloudie on 8/8/2013 10:37:55 AM , Rating: 3
'Liberal fascists'. Erm, what? Do you even know what liberal means? It is the complete opposite of authoritarianism lol. I'll give you the first definition from the oxford dictionary:

"willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas"

Does that sound like authoritarianism to you? lol. I just don't get why in the US the word liberal has had its meaning transformed into the opposite of what it is and also become this loaded, "offensive" word??

No doubt, because it suits certain people's agendas. You meant 'left wing fascist' ultimately.


RE: Oh boy..
By LRonaldHubbs on 8/8/2013 10:58:24 AM , Rating: 1
You are of course welcome to dispute my use of the word liberal, but your last sentence clearly indicates that you knew what I meant. For all practical purposes, liberal = left wing and conservative = right wing in US politics simply because that is how so many people talk about it. And I agree, the pervasive use of 'liberal' as a derogatory term is tiresome.


RE: Oh boy..
By ClownPuncher on 8/8/2013 12:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, US political terms. Much like our systems of measurement, the rest of the world has no idea what we are talking about. I still don't get why so many people use terms like "liberal" or "conservative" incorrectly. It just confuses our poorly educated voting base even more.


RE: Oh boy..
By Dr of crap on 8/8/2013 11:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
Were that the other parties were "included" with the normal Reps and Dems. While I hate having to label yourself as belonging to a political party at all, I not have a problem being ANYTHING other than the two parties now in power. AND YES they are in "power".


RE: Oh boy..
By Paj on 8/8/2013 12:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know what fascism means.


RE: Oh boy..
By ven1ger on 8/8/13, Rating: -1
Not even I support this move
By Mint on 8/7/2013 9:01:21 PM , Rating: 4
By 2040, it's almost guaranteed that hybrids will be a no-brainer from both an economical and performance standpoint at any given price. If a few purists want to hold out, who cares.

It is good to see the UK supporting nuclear and fracking, though. Their nuclear history is one of the most expensive around the world, but that doesn't mean they'll keep screwing up in the future. Indiscriminate fracking is a bad idea, but as long as there's some reasonable oversight and accountability, it can drastically reduce the energy costs of everyone in the UK.

2040 is going to be awesome. I expect molten salt reactors to be producing really cheap, clean energy; autonomous driving being so polished that it makes insurance fall to a fraction of today's levels while freeing our time in the car; and when we decide to drive ourselves on more empty roads, cheap induction motors and advancing electronics will make pocket rockets out of even entry level cars.




RE: Not even I support this move
By purerice on 8/7/2013 10:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
Spot on with 2 points. First, indeed, by then batteries will be 1/4th the weight for triple the capacity that can charge in 3 minutes, all at 1/10th the price of today's batteries. Companies would be foolish not to opt for a hybrid system. Indeed, instead of large ICE with an auxiliary battery, most likely we'll have a larger battery with an auxiliary ICE that will mostly kick in during cold weather.

Second, there may always be a niche market for ICEs, just as there is still a market for steam-powered locomotives.


RE: Not even I support this move
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/2013 12:17:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2040 is going to be awesome.


Just not if you live in the UK. Banning carbon is economic suicide.


RE: Not even I support this move
By Mint on 8/8/2013 12:57:05 AM , Rating: 2
Don't worry. It's not going to happen. If you bothered to read past the title, you'd see that this same party is talking about expanding fracking.

It's just like Obama paying lip service to environmentalists and then barely even tries passing carbon taxes or caps. He'll approve the Keystone XL pipeline as well. He's not blind environmentalist and the nation is better for it.


RE: Not even I support this move
By Helbore on 8/8/2013 11:48:09 AM , Rating: 4
This isn't quite what it seems. The Liberal Democrats have never held a majority government in the UK. THey are currently a minor partner in the the Conservative-led coalition and that's the best they've managed. They've also lost a lot of support due to backing the Conservatives, so there's even less chance of them forming a future government.

The conference in Glasgow is an internal party conference, as the Lib Dems don't put policies in their manifesto without putting the proposals to a vote of the membership. That's probably what is happening here.

So even if this vote passes, all it means is that this is a policy supported by a minority party who will almost certainly never have the support in parliament to actually pass it into law.

Unless the Conservative or Labour parties get behind it, its going nowhere, no matter what the Lib Dems propose.


RE: Not even I support this move
By Mint on 8/8/2013 1:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh, I see. Thanks for the info.

Still, it's good to see a leftish party with a stated priority on environmentalism recognize the importance of nuclear power and fracking.


RE: Not even I support this move
By Helbore on 8/8/2013 2:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think the Liberal Democrats have always been advocate of nuclear power.

They're a strange old party, the Lib Dems. Practically everyone always treats them as a left-wing party and they often pick up votes from Labour supporters who are voting tactically against the Conservatives. But they're not classically left-wing. Lots of their policies are quite right-wing. But they also have a lot of social policies, too. Essentially, they are born out of the Liberal Party (old school, pre-communist-era opponents to the Conservatives) and the Social Democratic Party (who were a breakaway party from Labour). So they're kind of a mishmash of classic liberalism and modern socialism.

I personally like them as a party. I think they offer a good balance between libertarianism and socialism - not going too far to the extremes. They've no chance of any real power in government, though


Stupid humans
By Belard on 8/8/2013 4:52:17 AM , Rating: 3
Stupid humans... it would be funny if not serious.

1 - Oil *IS* LIMITED. Simple proof in two words: Offshore Drilling
It costs 10x to drill off shore than on land. The deeper they drill, the more it costs and the difficulty increases.

2 - Cost of gas and oil will always rise. We'll never see $1.00 gallon gas, ever. We drill more oil today in the USA than when Bush was ever in Office, yet Gas prices are still $3.20~3.80 a gallon. Our OIL is being exported to OTHER countries. Get it? Oil companies are the top profitable companies in the WORLD.

3 - This love for combustion engine is stupid. Get back to me when gas is $15 a gallon

4 - Pollution harms people, it effects our food, our water which in turn effects our health and that of our children = we spend money being sick. Prove it: Drink a quart of motor oil instead of water. Yummmy.




RE: Stupid humans
By FastEddieLB on 8/8/2013 5:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
two words: Offshore Drilling

The result of legislation forbidding land-based drilling to not interfere with the three-toed newt's natural habitat.

quote:
Cost of gas and oil will always rise.

Except for when it drops. I work at a gas station, I've seen it happen.

quote:
We'll never see $1.00 gallon gas, ever

It's called inflation. The dollar isn't worth what it used to be ever since we were taken off of the gold standard and the government started printing money without anything of substance to back it.


RE: Stupid humans
By Mint on 8/8/2013 9:07:41 AM , Rating: 4
Oil has increased in price MUCH faster than core inflation in the last decade. If money printing was the reason, all goods would be cheaper.

What you've seen at a gas stations is just short term variation. In the longer term, it's not going to drop for two main reasons. The first is that developing countries are going to keep increasing their demand for oil.

The second is that oil production is not free market. Half of it is controlled by a cartel, and for an inelastic commodity, that's enough to control prices through quotas. This type of collusion is illegal in every modern economy.

When the recession hit, there was a hefty drop in global oil consumption, and oil prices tanked as producers competed with each other for the remaining demand. However, less than a year later prices rose again, even without a recovery of demand. Why? Because OPEC cut production.

The only thing stopping OPEC from raising prices even further is that they don't want alternatives to grow rapidly or for consumer behavior to change.


RE: Stupid humans
By Mint on 8/8/2013 7:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
(EDIT: sorry, I meant all goods would be more expensive)


RE: Stupid humans
By Dr of crap on 8/8/2013 11:41:40 AM , Rating: 2
GAS is over priced mostly because of the insane amount of money being made trading oil futures. Look into it. Check out the investment bankers and the money they make using oil futures. Take away their ability to use that money making area, and gas falls like a hugh rock.

Yes the ICE is not efficient, but it's the best mass marketable, read money maker, transportation we have right now.

AND yes agree pollution should be reduced, and todays ICE is a very low pollution device.

AS the price of gas goes up because it's in limited supply will cause other fueled engines to come to the forefront.

BUT carbon credits is completely the wrong way to go about it!!!


By dnoonie on 8/7/2013 9:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrocarbon based fuel cells could become viable tech in the future. Perhaps they would pass their "electric" standard. Compressed air would not, nor would piston based hydrogen. A move like this would support one technology over another. Why are they playing favorites?




By Captain Orgazmo on 8/7/2013 9:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
*cough* follow the money *cough*


By Mint on 8/7/2013 9:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel cell vehicles can get credits as well:
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Qualifi...

But even $8-12k isn't enough to make hydrogen fuel cell vehicles economically viable - not by a long shot - and hydrocarbon fuel cell technology is even further away.


How I think it will pan out by 2040
By jabber on 8/8/2013 11:54:12 AM , Rating: 2
Basically more and more people will be driving hybrids but by then they will be lightweight composite vehicles probably weighing a third of what current saloon cars weigh so will have much smaller/lighter engines and batteries.

Also the non hybrid cars will have smaller and more efficient 1000cc engines with high efficiency turbos possibly pushing 80mpg+.

I think personal transport will change from being "hey look at me and what my car says about me!" to a more utilitarian A to B form of day to day transport. Basic no frills commuter class vehicles to get you to where you need to go for the least amount of fuel.

Hopefully you'll still be able to drive Grandad's Mustang at the weekend but I wouldn't count on it.




RE: How I think it will pan out by 2040
By MZperX on 8/8/2013 12:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think personal transport will change from being "hey look at me and what my car says about me!" to a more utilitarian A to B form of day to day transport.

Not unless human nature changes. People will be people. Even a thousand years from now (assuming the human race still exists) people will do the same stupid things for the same stupid reasons. Having flashy objects so you can project "Hey, look at me!" at other people is a basic human trait, albeit an embarrassing one. I would not count on it going away anytime soon.


By jabber on 8/8/2013 1:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that people struggle to change however, sheer cost and changes in legislation can really hurry those changes along.

A lot can happen in 27 years.


hybrid v diesel
By Heidfirst on 8/8/2013 12:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
The reason that hybrid/ electric vehicles don't sell well in the UK is that over 50% of car sales here are diesels which match or beat their mpg for less cash upfront. e.g.
Toyota Auris Icon Hybrid upto 74mpg on our cycle for £20400 list.
Toyota Auris Icon turbodiesel upto 72mpg for £18750 list




RE: hybrid v diesel
By flyingpants1 on 8/8/2013 3:43:24 PM , Rating: 1
That's cool. What is that with US units and testing cycle?


RE: hybrid v diesel
By Scannall on 8/9/2013 8:05:09 AM , Rating: 2
An Imperial gallon = 1.2 US gallons. So that 72 MPG=60 MPG US.


Just do this:
By gamerk2 on 8/8/2013 9:52:31 AM , Rating: 2
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/green-tech/adva...

Recharge the battery while driving. Requires a one-time upgrade to the road system, which is much cheaper then moving to an entirely different energy base.




RE: Just do this:
By Just Tom on 8/12/2013 11:19:46 AM , Rating: 2
Right, because redoing the road system is cheaper than putting up charging stations. Do you know how many miles of roadway there are? And the cost is hardly one time, there will be increased highway maintenance costs. OLEV might make sense for regular mass transit routes but I doubt we will ever see it mass deployed.


ICE ICE baby
By TheNuts on 8/8/2013 1:01:48 PM , Rating: 4
My vote is to ban Vanilla ICE. He does drive a 5.0 with the rag top down so his hair can blow.




I'm a little disappointed
By bug77 on 8/8/2013 6:51:33 AM , Rating: 3
I was hoping they'd ban sickness and poverty by 2040, too.




By Ushio01 on 8/8/2013 2:50:01 AM , Rating: 2
Ban the selling of new ICE cars sure, but not already owned ones.




By Tony Swash on 8/8/2013 4:56:57 AM , Rating: 2
a) Be a progressive centre left party and then decide to prop up a rightwing government full of rich people who attack the poorest and most vulnerable in society and who pull crass stunts like driving government vans around migrant areas with large banners telling people to leave the country or face arrest (I kid you not, that is actually happening in the UK right now).

b) Once your popularity has really slumped tell people you are going to take away their cars and make their vacations more expensive. Luckily for maximum effect those measures will coincide with the period when the UK suffers blackouts and people are paying very high energy costs as a result of earlier climate change related energy measures championed and driven though by your party.

At the end of all this the Liberal Democrats will be exactly popular as they deserve.




Absolutely bonkers
By piroroadkill on 8/8/2013 6:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
First off - we needed to build more high tech nuclear power plants some time ago.

Our electricity grid isn't going to meet that demand unless we do something TODAY.

Secondly - people are still buying perfectly good cars that will last 10, 15 years. Unless you can be sure that people's cars will all be broken and crappy by 2040, and they suddenly have to buy new BEVs, then this is pie in the sky bollocks.




At least
By bah12 on 8/8/2013 11:15:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One thing such critics of these proposals will likely appreciate is that the party calls for expansion of Britain's nuclear power and natural gas shale exploration/extraction. The proposal calls on cutting legal red tape to increasing use of nuclear and natural gas for the nation's energy.
I'll give them this, at least their liberal party isn't quite as brain dead as ours. Our's want EV's and no nukes or fracking. Sure the whole idea is draconian and ill concieved, but at least they have the common sense to address the power generation side of the equation.




Hey!
By unplug on 8/8/2013 6:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
Leave my Aston Martin alone!




Liberal Democrats
By hiscross on 8/10/2013 6:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty says it all. Is there anything a liberal can do? I'm stumped to find a single thing besides messing up things.




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki