Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cars or the planet? What would you choose?

«1

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Is it possible to add a poll in the new boards setup



  • Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    3 lite American Lincoln every single time. The electric cars at the moment are more polluting as the electricity is mainly got from burning fossil fuels. When the world gets serious about nuclear i may change



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,282 ✭✭✭PsychoPete


    Cars but once they aren't electric



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭daheff


    I'm choosing a helicopter. Less traffic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭atilladehun


    In cities there's definitely a market for not owning cars but using them, especially now with WFH. Being able to book a regular car at a lower price than a taxi, or monthly repayments, insurance, petrol and then tax will become an option in the future. Especially with technology and automation.

    This doesn't mean it's for everyone so don't panic. The market will determine this one. Ownership will still exist and it will be a gradual changeover.

    As you've linked, the whole world will change here, Eamon Ryan will have very little say in it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 648 ✭✭✭MakersMark


    I choose my truck over the planet.


    But that's not really the choice though, is it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,975 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    It would be great to get rid of most cars are get more people cycling



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,153 ✭✭✭✭dodzy


    Poll for your favourite car.

    "Get rid of the car. Get a bike"

    FFS 🙄



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84,761 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    Get rid of the commercial production of meat instead.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,834 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Can I not just vote that everyone else should get rid of their cars - and other climate change influencing lifestyle choices , ?

    Leaving me free to drive around on empty roads in a giant pick-up truck , eating steak sandwiches and running my air-con with the window open .... Yee-haw...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    I think car can be just used more economically. Like 5 years ago I bought an 06 golf for 3k, it is all I need, has decent mpg, handy to park, Ive even loaded it up at Ikea and brought it on a ski trip. Over time I've replaced brakes, control arm, struts all in about 1k. Has over 200k miles on it. These cars will last for years with minor maintenance. If I had bought a new SUV I would be down thousands with depreciation. This golf is still going and parts are not expensive. If people buy boring Corollas, golfs and civics, and maintain them for twenty years, that would have a good environmental impact and you'll have your own car.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,973 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Cars

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    I'm thinking my next car should have a huge engine and no cat, maybe 2 big straight through exhausts, cowcatcher like a western train for pushing cyclists aside,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,213 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Build a public transport system fit for purpose if you want less cars. Still waiting on the metro (one line which we’ll see probably in another fûckin decade… no actually, 2034 is the accepted revised completion date…both my parents still working when it was approved, now they 1000% won’t live to see it….. they’d be mid to late ‘90’s….when it’s up and running….

    provide an alternative to cars….

    currently it’s gonna be 33 years since it was green lighted in 2001 to it being built and used…

    Want less cars, provide an alternative fit for purpose public transport system ..



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,235 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Want less cars, provide an alternative fit for purpose public transport system ..

    Like busses? But then you need to remove all the cars in order to make it fit for purpose. It wouldn't be fit for purpose if the busses had to sit in a traffic jam caused by people in cars!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,239 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Could we just get rid of all the CO2 catastrophists instead? I'll take cars.

    There are lots of equally fatuous and stupid questions you could ask; like which 5 billion are we going to cull for the sake of the planet? Which do you pick - hot water and home heating, or the planet?. Between cooked food or the planet, which do you choose? Elctricity and health care, or the planet?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭growleaves


    People can't get around medium to long distances by bicycle.

    If genuinely serious about abolishing cars we would need to bring back horse and carriages.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 241 ✭✭MarkHenderson


    Motorbikes.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,235 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Who suggested abolishing cars? (The greens didn't in case you try and suggest that they did)

    However, the majority of people driving into Galway and other cities across Ireland should not have this as their default commuting choice. We need to have sustainable choices and not pander to the motoring lobby (which I'll admit I used to subscribe to in the past) because cities should not be dominated by cars as they have done in the past. It is inefficient, dirty and completely unhealthy for both the driver and the people living in the surrounding neighbourhoods.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Right so what do you suggest? I suggest that driving a horse and carriage is more realistic than pedalling a bicycle over large distances.

    When cars were first invented they were called horseless carriages.

    You don't want cities to be dominated by motorised cars. But not all travel is within cities, i.e. within cycling distance.

    So... horses



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,235 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Are you that lacking in imagination that a functional public transport network doesn't spring to mind but horse and carriages do?

    Plus for those that must use a car or van, there would be less traffic on the road.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Covering the whole country? Won't happen. Have you been around Ireland?

    How many decades will an interlinked electric rail system take to build? We can't even build a metro to airport.

    Yes horse and carriages spring to mind because they would work and have worked. They are roughly equivalent to motorised cars which replaced them at the beginning of the 20th century.

    That is more realistic than expecting people to hop on a bicycle each time they want to travel from Waterford to Belfast.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,235 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    That is more realistic than expecting people to hop on a bicycle each time they want to travel from Waterford to Belfast.

    Given that absolutely nobody has proposed such a means of travel, why are you being so melodramatic and posting such a suggestion to make your bias appear reasonable?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    horses need energy too. No fossil energy, but food. This means that replacing tractors with horses would raise the need for additional agricultural land to grow feed for the animals (land that in turn has to be cultivated by extra horses). Tractors could derive their fuel from agricultural land, too, if we turn food crops into bio-diesel or ethanol. Therefore, to know whether it is a useful strategy to replace tractors by horses, we have to know how many extra acres would be needed to feed the horses, and how many acres would be needed to “feed” the tractors.

    "Powering agriculture with tractors requires almost 2.5 times as much (bio)energy than powering agriculture with horses"

    This calculation was done in a study published in the ‘American Journal of Alternative Agriculture’, eight years ago. With oil prices almost 4 times lower than today, the researchers might as well have been talking to a brick wall.

    Conclusion: when everything is taken into account, powering agriculture with tractors requires almost 2.5 times more energy than powering agriculture with horses.

    Swedish study published in 2002 came to similar results: it concluded that a tractor-based agriculture consumes 67 percent more energy than a horse-based agriculture. The Swedish also calculated that the energy input in (local) agriculture increased 13-fold from 1927 to 1981, while total agricultural production in 1981 was only 2.4 times that in 1927. Find a link to the full pdf of the Swedish studies here.



    So we are going back to horses?!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,608 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Thread title is fairly obvious question no?


    For me also the cars should be cut down to a minimum. The car industry pulled a massive trick in convincing people to spend so much of their disposable income on something that they don't use for so much of the time, and when they do use it, use it for such short journeys most of the time also.

    I think people are deliberately missing the point about needing a vehicle for a long journey occasionally and therefor cars must be maintained. In a sharing option, you can still book the car for the long journey as you need it every now and then, or still own a car if you are someone who does need it much more frequently.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,998 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    All the talk of going electric...And we can barely cover existing electricity demands...Only solution is to go Nuclear...Yes its expensive but its the only solution...the waste can be stored on site...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,998 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    You'll have he vegan's up in arms if such a move was to be considered



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭quokula


    Nobody's saying to get rid of all cars. Just lots of solutions for different scenarios that all add up to dramatically reduced emissions.

    Firstly public transport - as one of the linked articles mentioned, very few people living in Manhattan own cars because public transport is easier and more efficient to use and a car basically becomes a liability. The more access to public transport, and the more efficient public transport is, the more cars are voluntarily taken off the road by people who realise they just don't need them.

    Secondly car sharing - bicycle sharing has already proved very successful with increasing uptake in many cities. Car sharing services do exist in much more limited numbers but aren't yet as widely accepted. But if they did, and you knew you could access a shared car easily near your home and near your work, then this may cut down the need to own a car, in the same way many people now cycle without owning a bike.

    Thirdly automated cars - this depends on technology that isn't fully proven yet outside of limited areas. I suspect road layouts in Europe will be a particular challenge as you get much narrower, twistier layouts than the US and newly developed regions of China for example. But assuming automation is proven, it basically becomes a much much cheaper taxi service, where you can easily and reliably have a car come to you and take you to your destination, negating the need for a car of your own.

    Neither car sharing or automated cars will necessarily reduce the number of miles being done and the amount of tailpipe emissions, but if they are then combined with zero emission electric vehicles, they become vastly more efficient as you have a single hit of manufacturing emissions then far far more zero emission mileage once that car is on the road. You can have one electric car operating for 20 hours per day instead of 20 electric cars operating for 1 hour per day.

    The key to all of these is that they become so convenient that people don't feel the need to own a car. And if you do live somewhere or have specific needs that still require car ownership, then that is always an option. Preferably electric to keep emissions as low as possible of course. We're already at a tipping point where EVs have comfortably enough range for the vast majority of people and make more sense than ICE when buying a new car as the running cost savings make up for increased initial price, even if all you care about is overall cost of ownership and not the improvement in local air quality or the reduction in emissions. This is not so much the case for second hand yet, but that will trickle down in the coming years.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The average journey distance in 2016 was 14.7 kilometres and on average, took 23.6 minutes to complete. Average journey distance for persons living in Dublin has continued to get shorter, while average journey duration has got longer





  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Hmmn are journeys on average not long enough in Dublin to get people to switch to public transport?

    A journey of 25 mins seems ok, even at slow speed. Replacing that with a bus.. most people will be a 10 minutes between the walk and wait at the bus stop and you're already approaching 40% of the journey time. Could be half before you're on the bus at all if it's not on time. Hard to compete with



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,814 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    This is some laugh, why dont we return to Medieval ways of doing things altogether?

    Want to save the planet? Stop **** and popping out kids.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 710 ✭✭✭TefalBrain


    The planet will be fine my friend, it will sh1t us out and power on for millions of years.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,235 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Yeah because what would the scientists know with their data and evidence when compared to people who formed their theories via Facebook or some other craphole?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 710 ✭✭✭TefalBrain


    Who said anything about Facebook, i'm not even on it buddy. All this "save the planet" nonsense is arrogant, the planet may be damaged but it won't be terminal. Save the human race is more appropriate.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,239 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui



    The average temperature of the Earth at the moment is about 16°C. We are currently in an inter-glacial period in a 3 million year old ice age. The planet is abnormally cold. It's 'usually' a lot warmer; around 22-23°C average global temperature. Ice caps at the poles are not planetary normal. Most of the time there haven't been any.

    We are being sold a story - mainly by the BBC apparatchiks - that we face catastrophic global extinction if temperatures increase a piddling 1.5C, when 'normal' is 6-7°C warmer.

    The other crock of dung we are being sold, is that atmospheric CO2 levels are at an all time high. This is a blatant lie, as the current CO2 levels are nearer to being at an all time low. 'Usually' the atmospheric CO2 levels are far higher than at present.

    Almost all life on Earth is dependent on photosynthesis, which is at it's optimum at 25 - 30°C. At 22°C with lot's more CO2 in the atmosphere, plant life on the planet thrives, and pretty much goes berserk. If plants can live in an environment, so can humans.

    The very reason we have fossil fuel deposits is because life on Earth thrives astonishingly when the planet is warmer and has more CO2 in the atmosphere.

    All this comes from scientists who do know, though not the climate mongers who like to bend the truth. They know that we humans thrived during the Roman and medieval warm periods and that times were really good for us then, but they try to bury this truth and pretend they never happened.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Me. Earlier*.

    But jesting aside... We need to massively reduce our consumption levels. Forget climate change for a moment, but what's undeniable is that we're doing serious damage to the natural environment and damage I can see even within my lifetime(as a flyfishing type since my early childhood, there are artificial flies I don't use any more, because the naturals they mimic are nowhere to be seen any more). While we've made big steps as far as recycling, at least on the surface, enough to make us feel better when we put out our green bins anyway, we're comsuming so much more than any time in history. That's undeniable too.

    On the car front, I drive an old car, coming up on 22 years old as we speak. So I'm kinda doing my bit for sustainablity. If more car companies kept a stock of spares in play that would be great, but that doesn't suit the bottom line(though some are starting to. Mercedes for one. You can get parts for every car they ever made. At a price. In Japan Mazda will rebuild your 90's MX5 from the ground up). Anyway it rolled off the line in December 1998. Since then over half of all plastics ever made since their invention have been produced. That is, if you'll pardon my French, fúcking insane.

    And we're being bullshítted all the time to make us all think we're doing our bit. Buy your new phone and it'll be full of all sorts of stuff, plastics to the fore, and pretty much bugger all of it will, or even can be recycled, and what can will be in a once off downgraded form. Those recycling symbols you see on plastics? They were dreamt up by the plastic manufacturers to get ahead of the game and regulations.

    On cars again: a 1920's Bentley is significantly more recyclable and less damaging to the environment than a new Tesla. I'm not singling out Tesla either. That goes for any new car you buy. The Bentley is made of steel and copper and rubber and glass and leather and wood. All recyclable and if it's left and rots into the ground a lot less damaging. A Tesla? Eh...nope.

    Oh and you know that new model year for cars thing? When cars were first available to the ordinary man and woman on the street they were seen as a very long term purchase and enterprise. When advertising the Model T, Henry Ford said it "was the only car you will ever need". Until "everyone" bought one and sales dropped. Then other brands and Ford saw the need to make them a throwaway item. By the 1950's the US car turnover was around 5 years. The head of Chevrolet IIRC boasted that he could get it down to one year. You know the way cars rust? The Model T was made from vanadium steel. It doesn't rust. You can dig a Model T out of a swamp after 60 years, wipe the surface down and the panels will be good to go for the most part.

    And that's before we get to the ability to repair all the new dopamine hits for dopes we all surround ourselves with. Your phone stops working? fúck it in the bin. Buy a new one. Repairing them is a purgatory. If you can get the parts. Same for your other IT gear. Apple led the way there and others have followed. You don't need no stinking upgrades and we've removed the options anyway, buy the latest thing! Household appliances aren't much better. Oh sure, we'll give you an "extended warranty" on your washing machine, but when it kicks the bucket in three or four years time it'll be "cheaper and easier" to buy a new one. Oh and we'll even take back the old one in exchange. Straight to the landfill.

    That's how it's going and is today folks. We're all too brief (increasingly)renters of stuff between factory and landfill. Cars are a problem, but IMHO they're the tip of the fúcking iceberg.





    *and yep I do heel and toe when downshifting. Not because of any skill or racing stuff, but because the Da(tm) taught me to drive and he learned on a 1930's car with no synchros, which was the fashion in them days. One of the reasons I failed my first driving test because the tester quite reasonably enquired of me: "WTF are you doing!!". In a dual control Starlet.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,323 ✭✭✭MightyMunster


    EVs are not more polluting, proven many many many times and renewable electricity in Ireland at night is over 60% and rising each year...oil on the other hand is 0%

    Ten times more people in Ireland are killed by air pollution than road traffic accidents. Why wouldn't you want to improve air quality in your local area while saving thousands in running costs and the pleasure of driving a faster, quieter cleaner car?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,577 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    No way would I share some econobox with anyone else. I'm living way out the countryside and need MY OWN car.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,754 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Where are people going to be driving these cars if there's no planet? (Assuming the choice is one or the other, of course)

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,239 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    What's this no planet nonsense? The planet isn't going to die beacause of a mild increase in temperature. It's been a lot, lot hotter in the past and life thrived. So much life that a tiny fraction of it gave us all the fossil fuels we have been using.

    People should be a lot more concerned about the planet getting colder.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,754 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Ask the OP! - I was just questioning the logic of choosing cars if it had to be a straightoward choice.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,239 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    You are aware that it's the Greens and EPA who are to blame for all those deaths from that Air pollution, if it's real ,and not more back of the envelope epidemiological hokum, of course?

    Where did you get this 60% of night time electricity from renewables? Eir grid said 2020 renewables generation was 40%. Currently it's only 26%.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭growleaves


    People are naturally biased in favour of private vehicle ownership and any 'carless' future scenario would be a lowering of living standards, including a 'shared electric cab' with no owner - which is what environmentalists now seriously propose.

    Like open offices or 'co-living arrangements', being pushed together with a load of strangers in a space owned by others is something most people would avoid if they could.

    Reverting to horse-drawn vehicles would be a turning black of the clock to 19th century living standards in a way that would be obvious and undeniable and a little absurd, which is why it annoys environmentalists.

    Rich and politically connected people, such as TDs, will be given exceptions to drive motorised cars just as they give themselves exceptions to go maskless and hug one another in public.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    Would like to see a proper breakdown of these air pollution deaths because I suspect smoking would play a large part in them,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,819 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    What is the point in even trying these discussions on boards any more? Flat earthers and folks who think the irish green party are the root cause of evil and all their personal problems.

    There wont be a happy ending if we continue to live and consume as we do, things need to change globally, think about it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,608 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Covid really opened my eyes to the actual seriousness of the situation we are in. Way too many people at all levels in society who don't give a fcuk about whether or not others might be at risk or indeed are suffering right now, not to mind in the future.

    They unwillingness to accept scientific direction or evidence even when presented with accompanying pictures and videos of hospitals as literally millions of people dying has been very telling.

    And when it comes to the environment, it's way easier to absolve oneself from responsibility. And the scope of the problem here is so much greater, every facet of society and the all powerful 'economy' is part of the problem because it is fueled by increasing engagement, production, sales, use etc etc etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,819 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    And people saying it's just a Green attack and wanting to lower living standards by suggesting not everyone has a car. Do people seriously think we should plan for a future where everyone has their own car, even as the population increases? And we should keep building all the roads and infrastructure to support this indefinitely? Surely even people in Rural Ireland realise this is just not sustainable?

    I don't own a car but would like the use of one over Xmas holidays. I may be able to borrow one for a bit but not guaranteed. Renting a car is stupid expensive for a few days and there are few other options. Some kind of car sharing scheme like Dublin Bikes would be ideal for people like me who need to use one now and again infrequently.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭growleaves


    @Thelonious Monk 'And people saying it's just a Green attack and wanting to lower living standards by suggesting not everyone has a car'

    It's an objective fact that replacing personal car ownership with shared, unowned vehicles would be a massive lowering of living standards.

    It's an utterly insipid vision of the future and the only selling point is to say it's inevitable, unavoidable etc., etc.

    So the Greens have no solution bar dismantling people's way of life and saying 'Sorry, we've no other choice and no new ideas'

    Basically green foot-soldiers like yourself will soon be reduced to trying to convince people that shared vehicles are 'a good thing' ("why wouldn't you want to ride with friends?" etc.)

    @Tell me how



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Quoted Tell me how by accident sorry



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,381 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Cars. Every time. Mainly because I've no intention of having kids so my line dies with me, so I don't have future children to leave the world in crap to. Just other peoples children, and they're not my problem.

    Seriously though, Ireland was ranked 95th out of 115 countries on this list from mid-2021. https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_by_country.jsp

    As someone said earlier, me changing to an electric car (can't afford one, and it's not greener to charge) won't make a blind bit of difference in a country that produces less pollution than 94 of 115 countries. Get ta feck. Proper public transport is the only way, and change city centres to public transport only and create park and rides for every city. I'll continue to live in the country, so public transport and electric cars are useless to me.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement