Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Monbiot admits that Public Transport isn't the answer.....

Get rid of houses, factories, hospitals, schools etc. as they contribute far more (exponentially) than vehicles.
Exponential is a term to refer to the change in just one variable, usually over time when we are talking of growth. You can't say that something produces "exponentially" more emissions than something else. Here, you would have to go back to using simple multiples for such comparisons.

I'm also intrigued to know which, in your opinion, is more vital to society's survival, hospitals and schools, or aeroplanes and 4x4s. And can you justify it too please.
 
two sheds said:
I'm just saying it's harsh to blame Ken for all this..

Probably, but hes a seasoned politician and opportunistic enough to take credit where it isnt merited so must take rough with the smooth imo.
 
I am certainly NOT in favour of Europe dumping its environmental problems on India or elsewhere. But the expansion of the EU means that Lithuania etc is closing as a market for for polluting old vehicles and I thought the transport cossts might have made it less worthwhile to move an old car only woth a few quid over longer diatnces.
 
Personally I think all this 'You need a car to live in the countryside' business is bollocks - riding a horse or walking (and we can ad cycling to that list now) were perfectly acceptable solutions for about 4000 years, most people want to move to the coutnryside to 'get away' from hustle and bustle and slow their lives down generally - what do you need a car for?. Keeping a horse probably costs about the same as running a car these days.

So Monbiot should have bought a horse. Seriously.
 
Cobbles said:
Says who?
You know, this is just a passing thought in relation to this whole thread, Cobblers, but I find it mildly interesting that, not only in the thread title, but at various points throughout the thread itself, you've found it necessary to over-polarise, creatively misrepresent the position you're arguing against, and engage in quite breathtaking generalisations of all kinds of things, from the opinions of people interested in environmental issues to the practicalities of emissions, road use, and freedoms of choice.

One could be forgiven, I think, for perceiving you as acknowledging the desperate weakness of your own debating position by being so ready to resort to such approaches rather then just destroying the counter-arguments to your - admittedly ludicrous thesis - with a few well-placed facts.

Looking forward to more facts and less invective, old son ;)
 
pembrokestephen said:
Looking forward to more facts and less invective, old son ;)

Well I'm still looking forward to the independent technical material that shows that climate change is nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
 
two sheds said:
Well I'm still looking forward to the independent technical material that shows that climate change is nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
I shouldn't hold your breath. Cobbles' rep on anything beyond unsubstantiated handwaving and insults isn't good.

In fact, even the insults generally aren't all that impressive, either.
 
pembrokestephen said:
I shouldn't hold your breath. Cobbles' rep on anything beyond unsubstantiated handwaving and insults isn't good.

In fact, even the insults generally aren't all that impressive, either.

True, and he doesn't know what 'exponentially' means :( .
 
I gave some thought to the whole timetabling shizzle tonight.
The problem occurs when you have "local" people using as nodes in conflict with directional flows from major nodes:
Whether that's Ceredigion, Cardiff or London. But there are solutions. Innit.
 
Back
Top Bottom