[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

If petrol vehicles are on their last legs then you dont realise just how much of the talk is completely verbose.

For a start, fossil fuels do a lot more than power vehicles.
The notion that you can do without the offshoots of petro-chemicals is just one example.
Do completely do without items of plastic, medicines and pharmaceuticals, plus a plethora of consumer items such as clothing, carpets and othr flooring etc defies belief.

Secondly, it is a nonsense to assume that the world can sustain its enrgies needs from renewables in the environment per se.
If the reasoning to depart from oil as a major fossil fuel and turn to electricity gemerated from weather elements such as wind and solar power, and the rationale is to save the environment including potential weather and climate transformation then they are putting their hopes in the wrong basket.

In view of the predictions of catastrophic climate change, why are we spending so much on sourcing so much of our needs from electricity generated by using elements of the climate like wind and sunlight when they may not be available much longer?

The argument is not about climate change at all. It is about money.
Climate cycles do alter and the surface of the sun has an enormous effect on what happens here on earth where the oceans play and enormous part in regulating seasonal cycles and movements. Far more than pollution does.

Even the measurement of pollution is a scam.
It is usually quoted in tems of the amount of pollution per capita, which is a complete nonsense.
A small nation, sparsely populated over a relatively medium sized area is generating relatively high amounts of pollution per capita, because of the distances involved in travel and commercial distribution, but the capita amount may be relatively high. But the amount per square 100 kms is quite low.

On the other hand, industrial cities generate enormous amounts of industrial pollution with large populations, like Shenzen in China, or Los Angeles.

China produced 26 percent of global GHG emissions, nearly twice as much as the next- highest producer, the United States. New Zealand contributed 0.17 percent. The top 12 emitting countries produced nearly double the amount of GHGs produced by all other countries.

So the per capita amount is a meaningless amount.
If you believe all the rhetoric, everything you are told, and don't analyze what's really going on, you, miss a lot.

Just like when following F1....

ALL of that times 1000. The idea of the END of anything is foolish bordering on ill-informed agenda politics. The removal of all petro based products is a flat non-starter. It just 100% is and any statements to the contrary show a level of delusion that ends conversation.