Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

We need to take Climate Change seriously


Dibya
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, UCyborg said:

2001 Volkswagen Polo with 1.0 petrol engine.

I'm not sure about fuel consumption because I don't have information about its consumption history before I got it in 2017. Some guys from some not really car specific magazine gathered information about fuel consumption from approval tests of 25 most common cars around these parts in 2016, the consumption of the petrol cars ranged from 5.97 to 8.01 liters per 100 km. Mine is about 6.3 liters (only if we can assume petrol stations' pump gauges are trustworthy). My everyday routes are quite ideal though, mostly highway, so the engine can run at constant speed most of the time.

That consumption is decent for engine that size so if got excess fuel use it is not too high but may drop a bit after car light goes off

1 hour ago, UCyborg said:

The only oddity I noticed this spring, it happens occassionally that the engine loses its breath for a second or two, when the RPM goes down a bit. One time it happened, CHECK light also blinked. This car required replacement of ignition cables couple of times in the past, the current are about 3 years old, maybe it's happening again?

blinking light is bad and loss of rpm is due misfire. Engine light when yellow or static is ok but blinking or red is serious. Misfire can be caused by multiple things. Have you changed ignotion coils and timing chain/belt? And misfire should be resolved as soon as can or may permanent engine damage

1 hour ago, UCyborg said:

Alright, I also read that light could mean many things, so I guess I'd need to buy one of those diagnostic tools and figure out where the heck to plug it in to get the exact code. Quick searching suggests it's somewhere under steering wheel.

on volkswagen (european models atleast) it is under steering wheel under lid

Link to comment
Share on other sites


21 hours ago, Mr.Scienceman2000 said:

Have you changed ignotion coils and timing chain/belt?

Yup, they're not older than 3 years.

21 hours ago, Mr.Scienceman2000 said:

And misfire should be resolved as soon as can or may permanent engine damage

Well, crap...all seemed nice and dandy after February's mechanic visit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2021 at 3:06 PM, ArcticFoxie said:

Look at it this way, you "impact" the environment to MANUFACTURE a new car.

The impact a consumer makes is nothing to the manufacturer. Even if a person decides to not buy a certain type of car, or even if enough people decide, the industry could take years to adjust and stop manufacturing something. So the environmental impact from manufacturing is not something the consumer has any control over. And besides, the manufacturer already had made that car that is on the lot, the impact of its creation already occurred.

And the one thing that the politicians do not take into account, when they make these laws (or want to or are trying to) regarding cars and the environment... such as changing of emission standard or saying that gas powered cars can't be made after 2030 or whatever, is the fact that we will just be replacing one environmental issue with another. Not having cars run on gasoline means that cars will run on electricity and that is the big push right now. We already know that creating electricity damages the environment no matter how it is produced although perhaps it could be argued that hydroelectric is the cleanest. Windmills and Solar have their own issues but they are different environmental issues than coal plants. Nuclear sounds great unless something goes wrong then we have to wait 10,000+ years because we haven't figured out how to properly handle the waste or deal with a meltdown except by covering it with concrete. And then there is the situation regarding the batteries which are created using rare earth minerals which are mined from the ground and cause damage not only to ecosystems but also pollute groundwater.

So people seem to be tricked into just trading one pollution problem for another.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tripredacus said:

The impact a consumer makes is nothing to the manufacturer. Even if a person decides to not buy a certain type of car, or even if enough people decide, the industry could take years to adjust and stop manufacturing something. So the environmental impact from manufacturing is not something the consumer has any control over. And besides, the manufacturer already had made that car that is on the lot, the impact of its creation already occurred.

And the one thing that the politicians do not take into account, when they make these laws (or want to or are trying to) regarding cars and the environment... such as changing of emission standard or saying that gas powered cars can't be made after 2030 or whatever, is the fact that we will just be replacing one environmental issue with another. Not having cars run on gasoline means that cars will run on electricity and that is the big push right now. We already know that creating electricity damages the environment no matter how it is produced although perhaps it could be argued that hydroelectric is the cleanest. Windmills and Solar have their own issues but they are different environmental issues than coal plants. Nuclear sounds great unless something goes wrong then we have to wait 10,000+ years because we haven't figured out how to properly handle the waste or deal with a meltdown except by covering it with concrete. And then there is the situation regarding the batteries which are created using rare earth minerals which are mined from the ground and cause damage not only to ecosystems but also pollute groundwater.

So people seem to be tricked into just trading one pollution problem for another.

Finally someone who understands how the environment really works. Moving to electric cars just moves the profits around. We really new *FEWER* cars. Better public transportation in urban areas. More walking and biking, much more. Going from two car to one car families is a good first step, and maybe people in urban areas can do without them altogether. I'm more of a rural person myself so I don't see myself not having one. But it certainly won't be an electric one. Not that I'm a fan of gasoline, but there wasn't much else 60 years ago.

"Bright Green Lies" by Derrick Jensen is an eye opener into how environmentalism has been hijacked into a faux environmentalist movement. Electric cars and LED lighting, etc. has no place in an environmentalist movement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tripredacus said:

And the one thing that the politicians do not take into account, when they make these laws (or want to or are trying to) regarding cars and the environment... such as changing of emission standard or saying that gas powered cars can't be made after 2030 or whatever, is the fact that we will just be replacing one environmental issue with another. Not having cars run on gasoline means that cars will run on electricity and that is the big push right now. We already know that creating electricity damages the environment no matter how it is produced although perhaps it could be argued that hydroelectric is the cleanest.

Here they also they ignore weather conditions. Where most leaders live temperature rarely reaches even -10c while rest half of the country temperature can have up to -40c cold.

 

That will cause extremely low ranges or cause car not work at all. Consider it like cellphone or flashlight battery on cold. You will run out of it too quickly. That requires more recharges that consumes more energy, put more strain on electric grid (in Finland we sometimes at -35 reached near limit of our power grid and were advised not to use saunas on too long and avoid excess use of lights. Add 2 million or more electric cars to that on chargers. Network would need insane amount of upgrade and also lot of new plants and of course those would be "clean" nuclear power plants (let just ignore all reactor accidents in a world and fact Finland could produce energy without it). Also cold and extra charge cycles required will shorten battery lifespan and need new batteries faster.

 

Better long term soluction would be alternate energies that could work with current cars. There has been research from biofuels here and atleast before they offered cheap e85 conversion kits to cars to run on bioethanol. Bioethanol is not perfect mostly since petrol got much more energy and for that reason needs, but overtime alternate fuels will get better. Also finland got best recycle system in world, here forest owners plants new trees in place of old ones when cut them and that helps to co2. Those in addition of alternate fuels could help properly against climate change

2 hours ago, InterLinked said:

We really new *FEWER* cars. Better public transportation in urban areas. More walking and biking, much more.

that works well if town got living areas within 5-10km from centre and got proper walking lanes like in my home city. You can get well with car, bicycle or walking and I wont drive a lot. I even walk to work at mornings around 5-6am and walk around 8-9km in hour. Less co2 and better health thanks to it:thumbup. Just enjoy sunrise and fresh air. I only needed bus few times and train few times

2 hours ago, InterLinked said:

Going from two car to one car families is a good first step,

atleast when I was kid still my parents had one car so did most of friends parents. One car did fine enough since bicycles and walking.

2 hours ago, InterLinked said:

I'm more of a rural person myself so I don't see myself not having one.

You definitely do not need one if you got good connections on town:thumbup. Car is moneywaster unless use it a lot. Any car will need spare parts at some point and depending what broke can be pain and expensive to repair so no shame if wont have one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With bicycles it's like with computers. Old stuff is heavy and slower, but much more simple, durable and reliable. Here in Germany, the low-price point is reached for bicycles from the early 90s to 2000s. I've bought three steel frames for 10 Euros each! Every hobo can afford that. Of course bicycles that cheap need some service, but the bicycle mechanisms are quite accessable. With a set of elastic belts, quite a lot can be transported on bicycles, too. I think bicycles as a daily transportation vehicle deserve more respect. I save a fortune through not owning a car. But it's more hard donkey work on the other hand... it's a tough fight sometimes! I was once a courier in the snow, but only at minus 10°C (14°F). How does the situation look like in Finland or Russia? What can the human body endure? Are bicycles even a spark of an option there? (question goes to @Mr.Scienceman2000)

Previous posts mentioned the Toyota Prius and the old Volvo, let's take the 240 as an iconic example. Both cars get special notices from me. The Prius as the early hybrid car it was, was tried out by quite a lot of drivers here, let's say 10 years ago. People did give it a chance. But now? They're almost gone all! The Prius didn't last.
Quite different is the Volvo 240, appearing like a big, bouncy battleship on the streets. The opposite of aerodynamically efficent. All I can say is, that currently there are more Volvo 240 than Toyota Prius on our streets here (which wasn't the case around 2010).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True on the Prius verus the Volvo 240.

But the same is also true for Prius versus a Jeep Wrangler or even a Volkswagen Beetle.

ie, the longevity of the 240 and the Wrangler/Beetle relative to the Prius is a discussion about "brand loyalty" and really has nothing to do with "sustainability" &/or "quality".

I've owned several Jeeps over the years, I always nicknamed them "cheep Jeep" because the doors are 'paper thin' and interior quality is so "cheep" that you can keep the doors off and NOT CARE if the interior gets RAINED ON.

But I assure you, even though a Jeep is "cheep" as far as quality is concerned, you have to spend EXTRA for them because of HIGH DEMAND when it comes to the Law of Supply and Demand and the Price Elasticity of Demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Gansangriff said:

 What can the human body endure? Are bicycles even a spark of an option there? (question goes to @Mr.Scienceman2000)

bicycle depends if lot snow and roads have not been cleared yet then might be hard but even then can walk. Old army bicycles are option for cold endurance. Full steel frame, wide tires, no gears or handbrakes. I used to have one of those then did mistake and changed it aluminum toy that went to warranty once already since busted frame... plan get another of those army bikes some day. What comes to walking just get one of those thermal bags to phones and buy army winter jacket and gloves militaries sells as spares (british, finnish, german army atleast do so). With those can walk without worries even at near -40c to work and back. I did so during this year and 2 winters ago with bicycle. Finnish sisu is not just myth, it is reality :roll1:

 

But during summer we have warm weather allowing better use bicycles. Feels good to only use T-Shirt when bit over month ago still had heavy army jacket and gloves

Edited by Mr.Scienceman2000
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Are there things we as humans can do to make our planet a more pleasant place to live? yes we certainly can, reduce pollution, carbon emissions and clean the landfills that float in the middle of our oceans just to name a few, but here is the thing ........

We cannot and will never be able to stop climate change and the thing no one ever realizes is our planet has been doing this since the dawn of time, without the help of humans creating carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. It is something that just naturally happens, it warms and freezes in cycles, it has been doing it for eons, even before we were here. Think of it as a cleansing. We only know of one ice age when in reality there more than likely have been dozens.

All the money, conferences and geniuses in the world will not stop what planet earth does naturally. The Paris Climate Accord is nothing more than a way for countries to soak money from one another and get nothing done. When is reality all that needs to be done is the entire world take ownership of the pollution and garbage they make and clean it the f@#k up.

Can we slow down the process a little by leading cleaner lives? we certainly can but it will not stop it entirely like we as humans idiotically believe we have the power to do, the only thing we have the power to do is to adapt to it because this planet has the ability to shake us like a bad cold if we start messing with the natural order of things.

Right now the planet is in a warming trend which is why the polar caps are melting, this would have happened with or without our help,  after the warming trend a cooling period will begin and more than likely a new ice age will happen, so , the sky is not falling. it is just a natural process that happens, we just have not been here long enough or have been smart enough long enough through recorded time to realize this. If we had records that spanned before the last ice age we would know this , unfortunately , humans were not smart enough back then, we were just learning how to make fire.

Edited by DarkKnight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Climate change is a natural process but all current science points to the current trend of very, very very fast changes being directly tied to the very very very fast and large increase of carbon (and to an extent, methane) emissions. Studies show, that no, this warming would not have happened without help. The earth is capable of warming and cooling on its own, yes. But not this fast. We have already made irreversible changes because of this (greenland, antartica, etc) but it is still mostly capable of being stopped. Just stopping emissions does not do it. The carbon also needs to be removed from the atmosphere. But if we can put it there, it is possible. Expensive? Probably. Neccesary? Yes. More expensive to do nothing? Very, VERY much yes. The earth was naturally on its way to cooling again relatively soon, but now that the carbon system has been disrupted there is absolutely not a way that can happen naturally for a very very long time, short of some unprecented solar event that somehow reduces the power of the sun, or pushes the earths orbit further.

And, by the way, we do have approximate records going back a long time thanks to ice core and rock sampling, among other methods. There are reasons virtually every scientist thinks climate change is pretty much squarely our own fault.

Edited by i430VX
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have often proposed a solution that I believe very STRONGLY WILL work.

The KEY is consumption, CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION !!!

And how do we CURB it?

I personally think there is an EASY solution.

According to https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/ - the National Average gas price (using the USA as a reference) is $3.035 as of 5/26/21.

The solution - DOUBLE IT !!!

People won't drive so much if the price were DOUBLED !!!

You'll think twice about driving to SIX different grocery stores in ONE day when you CAN get everything at ONE, albeit not your favorite "brand" or whatnot.

 

Drop-dead serious, DOUBLE IT !!!

 

I have a neighbor that drives a Prius (his 3rd one in roughly 11 years).

He's a pretentious prick and I lived here for about two years before a different neighbor finally explained why this prick would snub his nose at me every time I drove by.

It was because his Prius-persona cared very little for the 1996 Jeep Cherokee Country I was driving at the time and its 15 mpg city / 21 mpg highway.

So I literally backed him into a corner and lied to him with him not knowing I knew his thoughts about my Jeep, I pretended to be interested in buying a Prius and asked about his fuel economy.

His face lit up like it was the Fourth of July (another USA reference, as far as that goes).

I asked, "How often do you have to fill up?"

He was PROUD to proclaim that he only fills up once a week.

That is when I "let him have it" and informed him that I work from a home office and ONE tank of gas in my "cheep Jeep" lasts me SIX WEEKS and I can fairly easily stretch it to TWO MONTHS !!!

The expression on his face was a true "Kodak Moment".

He now at least "smiles and waives" when I drive by instead of snubbing his nose at me.

 

Long story short, there is a "psychological effect" to driving a vehicle that gets 50 miles to the gallon - YOU DRIVE MORE BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN UNCONSCIOUS FEELING THAT YOU ARE SAVING THE PLANET.

Where in REALITY you very well may be CONSUMING MORE and you just can't put 1 and 2 together to SEE IT.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said:

I have often proposed a solution that I believe very STRONGLY WILL work.

The KEY is consumption, CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION !!!

And how do we CURB it?

I personally think there is an EASY solution.

According to https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/ - the National Average gas price (using the USA as a reference) is $3.035 as of 5/26/21.

The solution - DOUBLE IT !!!

People won't drive so much if the price were DOUBLED !!!

You'll think twice about driving to SIX different grocery stores in ONE day when you CAN get everything at ONE, albeit not your favorite "brand" or whatnot.

 

Drop-dead serious, DOUBLE IT !!!

 

Yeah, politically, it would never work, because no politician has the guts to do that, but that's what we need to do. And tax electricity too in equal proportions, because electric vehicles are no more innocent. Nothing comes for free, nothing.

People think it's okay to consume all these resources like water, because they will always be there (and even water won't).

 

I have a bunch of phones here, the two main ones on my desk are from 1957 and sometime in the 60s (the date on the second one says it was refurbished in 1992). I have other phones from the 70s and 80s as well.

All of them work perfectly, much better than the plastic junk people have to pay $1000 for every three years to keep "upgrading" to the next "phone" that sounds awful as hell.

 

My stereo, which has tape/CD/aux/AM/FM all in one, is 22 years old, somewhere around there. It's starting to show its age in that the buttons on the unit don't work so well (I always use the remote), and the CD player's starting to skip, but I mostly keep it on radio, and it works great. Wouldn't have it any other way.

I have two monitors on my desk, the smaller secondary one is an early LCD monitor that's also around 20 years old. It had flickering problems for a while but after a few years in the basement, with brightness all the way down, it works reasonably well. It works, what am I going to do, trash it? No, works fine, I'll keep using it until the pixels fall out.

 

Got an electronic piano with a floppy disk reader in it, dates to 2003 - again, 19 years old now. But it works perfectly fine, except the E key below middle C has been stuck now for the past half year. But otherwise, works great, what should I do, get another piano we don't need?

 

Got an MP3 player that has 128 MB of storage and who know's how old it is. Like a lot of my electronics, it's hand me down - literally. But I only use it when travelling, and it can play enough hours to make it all the way through one cycle, so it's all I need. Why would I replace it?

 

Sometimes, it seems like GDP is a better measure of environmental destruction than progress.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ArcticFoxie said:

I have often proposed a solution that I believe very STRONGLY WILL work.

The KEY is consumption, CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION !!!

And how do we CURB it?

I personally think there is an EASY solution.

According to https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/ - the National Average gas price (using the USA as a reference) is $3.035 as of 5/26/21.

The solution - DOUBLE IT !!!

People won't drive so much if the price were DOUBLED !!!

You'll think twice about driving to SIX different grocery stores in ONE day when you CAN get everything at ONE, albeit not your favorite "brand" or whatnot.

will cause major issue if work require transport with car. You cannot carry van amount stuff on hand or bus. Here fuel costs too much already. near 2€ per litre

 

47 minutes ago, InterLinked said:

I have a bunch of phones here, the two main ones on my desk are from 1957 and sometime in the 60s (the date on the second one says it was refurbished in 1992). I have other phones from the 70s and 80s as well.

All of them work perfectly, much better than the plastic junk people have to pay $1000 for every three years to keep "upgrading" to the next "phone" that sounds awful as hell.

back in day many were happy to have any phone and did not upgrade it every so often or whined "but it's oooold". Then idea that "Phone can replace pc" came. For me only use my 6600 as digital calendar (sync with pc and outlook 2002 to have same notes and contacts) and random shots

 

For proper photos got Canon Powershot g6 from 2004. It works like charm still and can even do large memory cards, record decent video, took high quality photos. Also got Nikon coolplix l29 as pocket camera. Both been lasting well and been useful

47 minutes ago, InterLinked said:

Got an MP3 player that has 128 MB of storage and who know's how old it is. Like a lot of my electronics, it's hand me down - literally.

I got 1gb and 4gb mp3 players that are unbranded and old. Both are those classic flash drive sized players with black and white display and backlit and serves me well. Also both got audio recorder and fm radio with rds

47 minutes ago, InterLinked said:

But I only use it when travelling, and it can play enough hours to make it all the way through one cycle, so it's all I need. Why would I replace it?

I use mine on hiking/walking sometimes and with special Panasonic AA rechargable batteries I bought. With it I reach around same playtime as you even on cold winter. For me 1gb is enough fill many CD worth of music with decent (near cd) audio quality. I am not fan of Spotify or Itunes or other streaming services. I got my music as physical copies and thanks to law allowing backup disks to own use got them on hdd and mp3 player too. No ads, no nags, work outside carrier reception, no need pay every month for something you wont own

Edited by Mr.Scienceman2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mr.Scienceman2000 said:

Here fuel costs too much already. near 2€ per litre

2€ is roughly $2.44 US Dollars.

1 liter is 0.264 US gallons.

That's basically $9.24 US Dollars per US gallon.

That can't be right because according to here - https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/Europe/ - the Netherlands tops the list at $8.24 US Dollars per US gallon.

Where Spain through France is only a $6.22 to $7.08 range.

You can't be paying 2€ - but I guess you did say "near" (which can mean 50 cents here in the US, roughly 0.41€).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said:

You can't be paying 2€ - but I guess you did say "near" (which can mean 50 cents here in the US, roughly 0.41€).
 

i mean near when higher than 1.5€. Here current fuel prices here. 1.7€ per litre is what local station shows for now. Been going up lately and soon will get 30 or more cent jump since goverment is having great ideas

Edited by Mr.Scienceman2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...