|
Just learnt that certain EVs have concealed door handles that are electrically operated . These can fail in a fire or accident leaving the occupants with no means of escape .
Its recommended to find the location of the emergency manual internal door releases which can be behind a door panel or under a carpet or in an external flap.
Is this situation common to all cars whether ICE or Hybrid or EV ?
|
Just learnt that certain EVs have concealed door handles that are electrically operated . These can fail in a fire or accident leaving the occupants with no means of escape .
Its recommended to find the location of the emergency manual internal door releases which can be behind a door panel or under a carpet or in an external flap.
Is this situation common to all cars whether ICE or Hybrid or EV ?
Nothing to do with EVs, lots of ICE cars have similar handles.
They all have to have an emergency release.
|
Just learnt that certain EVs have concealed door handles that are electrically operated . These can fail in a fire or accident leaving the occupants with no means of escape .
Its recommended to find the location of the emergency manual internal door releases which can be behind a door panel or under a carpet or in an external flap.
Is this situation common to all cars whether ICE or Hybrid or EV ?
Nothing to do with EVs, lots of ICE cars have similar handles.
They all have to have an emergency release.
Surely if you are inside the car you can just pull the internal door lever thingy. For Heavens sake.. Look in the manual for the emergency release.
How (excuse the choice of words ) effin stupid is that. Oh Tesla. and others open your phone. download the owners manual and by the time you've found the correct page.. oh you are carbonised.
|
|
Lots of cars with electric deadlocking are potential death traps, the doors auto lock once moving with the inside handles having no effect until the doors are electronically unlocked again, in a serous crash which took the battery out you could be in trouble, i've read of people being locked in their cars following electrical breakdown on motorways, not an enviable situation on an 'smart' unlit section.
Sadly in increasingly avoidable UK cities its almost vital that you travel around in your own personal locked in prison, personally i prefer old fashioned locks which can be opened from the inside without electrical power.
|
|
|
|
You’d try not to leave them parked for periods of time above 80 or below 20, but in use it makes not one jot of difference - especially so with the newer FLP batteries. Law of diminishing returns applies when rapid charging when it may take 20-25 minutes to get from 90-100% - at that point you’d get going at 90% ....
I have always wondered what the given number actually means - 90% of what exactly ? I guess many owners would assume that it may indicate 90% of the miles they might hope to achieve, i.e. the distance quoted by the makers ?
It's much the same with a phone, the last few percent takes a long time. I think the percentage should more usefully give the % of charging time to complete.
|
‘ I have always wondered what the given number actually means - 90% of what exactly ? I guess many owners would assume that it may indicate 90% of the miles they might hope to achieve, i.e. the distance quoted by the makers ?’
90% of the available battery capacity. By which I mean a battery has a gross capacity and a net (usable) capacity. The manufacturer will assign maybe 3% as a buffer so it can’t be distressed by either being fully charged or discharge. The 3% (in our case) goes uncharged when charged, or sits charged and unavailable when the state of charge is running low.
So a 100% state of charge on our notional battery will be 100% of the gross capacity, minus 3%.
No needles with a travel marked ‘E’ at one end and ‘F’ at the other on an EV, merely a digital display showing percentage of charge remaining.
|
|
MCB..
So a 100% state of charge on our notional battery will be 100% of the gross capacity, minus 3%.
All this talk about how wonderful e cars are is fine and good, but put yourself in my theoretical shoes. A 250 mile journey in winter with heating on and a minimum buffer of 50 miles. plus the potential long detours.
How much is the Kia EV5 with a 390 mile alleged range...
|
I’ll start at the end of your comment. It’s not an ‘alleged’ range. It’s the result of following the strictly prescribed requirements of the WLTP test. The temperature is a set 23 degrees centigrade and it’s a combined figure taken from an average of four tests -
Low Speed - up to 35mph
Medium Speed - up to 47mph
High Speed - up to 60mph
Extra High Speed - up to 81mph
So because an EV’s range is better in town than on a motorway/high speed road, those tests will bring down the average.
It’s a comparison tool between different cars - nothing more, nothing less.
I have to ask a question - how big is your bladder? I, for one, can’t do 250 miles without a stop. I’d make a convenience stop, and if I had concerns about range I’d plug in. The R4 I have has quite modest charging capabilities (100kW), but with 15 minutes of charging it’ll happily take on 100+ miles of range. I wouldn’t fill a petrol tank at motorway services, I’d put in £10 to get me home. Same with electricity.
If I was down to my last few percentage of charge, I’d be more confident of finding a rapid charger than I would be of finding a petrol station.
|
|
1. My bladder is fine for my age.
1a. I used to regularly drive Geneva to Calais and vice versa without stopping.
Sorry you still miss the point what is the point id the temperature drops and I have to break down to find my real range driving fro Somewhere in North Wales To Colchester in the dead of winter in sub zero temperatures and I can freeze in the car and get home or keep warm and I am sure that you are aware that road closures and diversions do happen.
If I fill up the Korando I have a Guaranteed range of 350 miles come hell or high water.
The downside to your argument is that to have that range I have to add £nearly £30.000 to be in the same position. I could but a Kia EV5 if the fancy took me but why on earth should I because the apostles of doom are telling me I should, without the harm and damage that the mining is causing.
The best and most economic car for my pocket and the environment is the one I have.
I plan to leave with a full tank going and coming. and fuel pumps are never blocked for more than 5 minutes on average. And you want me to spend £27000 plus my car to save 20p a mile.
You're aving a larf..
Edited by Orb>>. on 14/07/2025 at 20:16
|
You brought up the subject of the KIA EV5, not me. Im not suggesting you do anything. You do you.
If you’re happy with your Korando, keep it. No skin off mine anyone else’s nose.
|
You brought up the subject of the KIA EV5, not me. Im not suggesting you do anything. You do you. If you’re happy with your Korando, keep it. No skin off mine anyone else’s nose.
The Kia EV5 is one of the few I would trust, but the point you miss is that the cost is too great to be considered.
Your business is trying to convince people to buy electric but you do not explain the downsides, In your world everything is perfect and will be if we all follow the Apostles of the revolution and sod the poor peasants dying of pollution where the rare earths are mined.
And you still have not replied about range loss in sub zero temperatures with heating etc on. Or does that not matter?
Edited by Orb>>. on 14/07/2025 at 20:55
|
Incorrect.
My job is to explain the benefits of EV, but I’m realistic enough to understand that they’re not for everyone. But they will work for more people than you’d think.
Currently, because of a general lack of joined up thinking, they’re not for me as I can’t charge at home. I drive a lot of them because I’m in the fortunate position of other people paying for public charging.
I would not recommend someone who can’t access sensibly priced charging (at home or work) to spend their own money on a new one.
Of course there are downsides - if I ever get my council to sort out the ability to get a cable legally across a pavement, I genuinely fancy a Renault 5. It’s ideally about 30 miles short of real world range in cold conditions for my greater than average mileage, but I’d live with it for a car that genuinely appeals to me as opposed to a means of getting around.
Out of curiosity, which rare earths are you referring to?
|
Currently, because of a general lack of joined up thinking, they’re not for me as I can’t charge at home.
This is a serious difficulty with an EV for many potential owners, as the needs of an ICE car do not usually make it awkward to use without significant extra cost !
|
|
|
This does seem a very long way of saying "I don't want to buy an EV"...
|
|
Nothing against E cars. Let it be an acceptable purchase which it isn't with the unanswered questions about loss of range in adverse conditions.
|
|
Sorry ORB but that's half right.
"Apparently one should only charge an Ev to 80% and not let it drop below 20%"
You can comfortably charge to 100% overnight if you are using the car in the morning. Yes at 20% you should be arriving at a charger. But it you have to move on and find another charger its no big deal. Just don't leave it at say 3% overnight.
These are guidance, good practice. The EV won't spontaneously explode if you break a guideline now and then.
Now if you intend to leave the car for a week or two, not using it for some while. Then it's good practice to have it in a state of charge between 20 and 80 percent. If you intend to use the car tomorrow then by all means top it up to 100% night before. Or if it is needed with no notice then fine you have up to 80% of your change at your immediate disposal. And if it's a long trip then a public charger might be needed.
To summarise its not hard and fast, it's a guideline.
Edited by Ethan Edwards on 14/07/2025 at 21:18
|
There is honestly no way of giving you a definitive answer to your concerns about cold weather.
Did you pre-condition the battery before setting off? Does it have a heat pump? What’s the external temperature? What would you like the internal temperature to be? Is it a Genesis that has an option to just heat the area in which the driver sits?
Completely unquantifiable, but as a ballpark figure I’d be looking at a 15-20% loss in cold conditions.
|
|
The losses in winter on a motorway journey are not usually that significant because you are only warming the battery and cabin up once. Once up and running the main extra power is to cover thermal cabin losses to the outside.
In other words, the "winter effect" is less on one 3 hour journey than 12 15 minute journeys spaced apart when on every occasion you are starting with a cold battery and cabin.
In terms of range ignore the WLTP and look at battery size and consumption (just like an ICE car). Unless you are buying some stupid brick shaped SUV which weighs the same as Mars it'll do 3m/kWh safely and often 4. So if you have a 75kWh battery you can be pretty sure it'll do at least 225 miles in bad and probably 300 in ideal conditions.
If you are doing your 250 mile journey in the winter you might want to stop after 175 miles and bung in 15 minutes of charge. That'll cover your eventualities. That may well be inconvenient but it depends on whether you are doing said journey 3 times a week or 3 times a year. If it is 3 times a week maybe a pain, if 3 times a year then for your 45 minutes out of your life a year the rest of the time you are getting a nicer to drive car for all your other motoring. It is horses for courses.
As for cost well the whole thing pre-supposes you are changing your car anyway. ICE cars are not cheap so may well cost you £27,000 so it is at the point of change you make the decision not just change anyway.
Incidentally I had a bit of a "hoon" drive back across rural Essex in a Tesla rather enjoying myself this evening. Despite really not hanging around the thing did, I kid you not, 5.46 miles per kWh. That's £0.013 per mile in a 445bhp four wheel drive saloon on my home rate. That is just bonkers. Really bonkers. The mere fact that is possible says to me we are in a golden age of motoring. Enjoy while it lasts.
Edited by pd on 14/07/2025 at 23:54
|
|
Interesting way of bringing EV sales to a shuddering halt whilst manufacturers scramble to work out which of their cars are eligible for the grant, and customers hear about this and don’t want to commit until there’s a definitive list of available cars.
|
|
In general how the manufactures and dealers profit margins compare between ICE/HEV and EVs?
Do EVs cost more or less to manufacture? Common logic says EVs should be cheaper as they have fewer parts but I don't know whether manufacturers pay huge price for batteries.
|
Interesting way of bringing EV sales to a shuddering halt whilst manufacturers scramble to work out which of their cars are eligible for the grant, and customers hear about this and don’t want to commit until there’s a definitive list of available cars.
Quiet so.
Also, previously govt. told us all EVs are better than ICE cars. Now they are telling us there are tiers within EVs. Why not offer a flat grant to all EVs? Apparently they are all zero emissions so should be treated in same manner.
Edited by movilogo on 15/07/2025 at 10:14
|
|
It appears that the Government wish to exclude Chinese built cars so will this include Tesla , Polestar, Honda , Volvo and MG ?
Including the Mini ? I thought this was built in China when plans to build them at Oxford were sc***ped ?
|
It appears that the Government wish to exclude Chinese built cars so will this include Tesla , Polestar, Honda , Volvo and MG ?
Including the Mini ? I thought this was built in China when plans to build them at Oxford were sc***ped ?
It's really just a more gentle tariff. Make British and other "allies" cars a little cheaper to make the Chinese cars comparatively more expensive. I imagine Mini will be allowed the subsidy because they reckon they will start production in the UK next year.
|
Interesting way of bringing EV sales to a shuddering halt whilst manufacturers scramble to work out which of their cars are eligible for the grant, and customers hear about this and don’t want to commit until there’s a definitive list of available cars.
Quiet so.
Also, previously govt. told us all EVs are better than ICE cars. Now they are telling us there are tiers within EVs. Why not offer a flat grant to all EVs? Apparently they are all zero emissions so should be treated in same manner.
If EVs are so 'great', why do they need grants at all? People keep banging on about how 'simple' they are in comparison to ICE ones, and yet they are still (even with the current crop of ICE cars with so much emissions controls and efficiency/hybrid tech) a good deal more expensive.
The Telegraph even had the cheek the other day to tout the new Citroen e-C3 as being 'cheap'. It's list price is £21k for the 'base' model. That's NOT cheap for a small supermini with a range of 150-200 miles in good conditions.
Besides, I suspect that most people who are buying a new EV can already afford them, and don't need £3.5k towards it.
Those who can't, but could afford such cars based on the pre-Pandemic era prices still won't afford the price premium, and certainly won't appreciate the approx. 50% depreciation in its first year and much higher depreciation than ICE cars over the likely ownership period.
Besides, I'd bet many buying smaller cars live in properties (like myself) who will likely never have access to home charging because of the physical / technical constraints (amongst many issues owning EVs) of where we live won't then consider them.
Yet we are now forced to contribute our taxes towards subsidising those who can already afford such vehicles.
[Post edited following complaints - Mod]
Edited by Xileno on 15/07/2025 at 15:49
|
|
<< I suspect that most people who are buying a new EV can already afford them, and don't need £3.5k towards it. >>
Do I detect a twinge of status envy ? Whether or not the suspicions are correct, a grant of £3.5K should persuade some fence-sitters to join those who 'don't need' to hesitate, thereby doing what the govt intends ?
I'm afraid no-one can help how the taxation they are 'forced to contribute' is spent. Wouldn't it be nice if we could opt out of paying any, if we disliked everything it paid for ? :-)
Edited by Andrew-T on 15/07/2025 at 15:51
|
|
Even with Quentin Wilson on board he will have a job on his hands to persuade the fence sitters
One person interviewed on Breakfast TV this morning spoke about his personal experience in that he couldn’t find anyone who would buy his used EV or even accept it in part exchange .
|
Even with Quentin Wilson on board he will have a job on his hands to persuade the fence sitters
One person interviewed on Breakfast TV this morning spoke about his personal experience in that he couldn’t find anyone who would buy his used EV or even accept it in part exchange .
It does seem that there could be another hit on used prices if new become cheaper, but I guess the point of the subsidy is probably to keep the PCP market going until such time as used prices find their correct level.
|
Even with Quentin Wilson on board he will have a job on his hands to persuade the fence sitters
One person interviewed on Breakfast TV this morning spoke about his personal experience in that he couldn’t find anyone who would buy his used EV or even accept it in part exchange .
There have been some quite strong prices paid at auction for EVs in the last couple of weeks. For whatever reason there has definitely been a change in sentiment.
Might just be they have reached a point where the value is obvious and buyers have gone back into the market but they e certainly stabilised at the moment.
|
<< I suspect that most people who are buying a new EV can already afford them, and don't need £3.5k towards it. >>
Do I detect a twinge of status envy ? Whether or not the suspicions are correct, a grant of £3.5K should persuade some fence-sitters to join those who 'don't need' to hesitate, thereby doing what the govt intends ?
No. Why should better off people get less well-off taxpayer money so they can get a more expensive product where there already is a cheaper alternative? And I'd say this whether I could afford such cars or not.
Do I detect more than a twinge of not caring about the less well off so the well off can gain more money and power?
I'm afraid no-one can help how the taxation they are 'forced to contribute' is spent. Wouldn't it be nice if we could opt out of paying any, if we disliked everything it paid for ? :-)
Taxpayer money should never be used to subsidise the lifestyles of the well off and powerful, just as much as the feckless. The sooner that is understood, the sooner this once great nation can get back on its feet.
|
|
<< Why should better off people get less well-off taxpayer money so they can get a more expensive product where there already is a cheaper alternative? And I'd say this whether I could afford such cars or not. >>
I am sure you make the same argument about winter fuel payments, with which I completely agree - I would gladly do without ours I assume that it may be simpler/cheaper to give to all, rather than deciding who is or isn't eligible. When things get tight, however, historical perks that many feel entitled to, are tricky to retract !
The socialist politicians who decided that sales of EVs should be encouraged did that for internal party reasons, worried that MPs were drifting off the party line, and trying to adhere to something in the last manifesto (largely forgotten now).
Your basic argument amounts to Why should some people be so much Better Off ?
|
|
I am sure you make the same argument about winter fuel payments, with which I completely agree .
We don't need the winter fuel payments, but my sister does. A near 80 year old pensioner with a tiny workplace pension inherited from her husband who was a skilled worker forced to retire in 1979 when the steelworks closed and had to work minimum wage jobs where he was as that was all there was. 10 years into a mortgage and 4 children. Never moaned but got on with it. OAPs certainly deserve it and I believe there is a cut off point anyway via taxation
I didn’t miss it and others will not, but if i get it this year ok.
However my pensions are taxable, so HMRC get a fair bit back.
|
<< Why should better off people get less well-off taxpayer money so they can get a more expensive product where there already is a cheaper alternative? And I'd say this whether I could afford such cars or not. >>
I am sure you make the same argument about winter fuel payments, with which I completely agree - I would gladly do without ours I assume that it may be simpler/cheaper to give to all, rather than deciding who is or isn't eligible. When things get tight, however, historical perks that many feel entitled to, are tricky to retract !
The socialist politicians who decided that sales of EVs should be encouraged did that for internal party reasons, worried that MPs were drifting off the party line, and trying to adhere to something in the last manifesto (largely forgotten now).
Your basic argument amounts to Why should some people be so much Better Off ?
No. People are very welcome to be better off, but why should poorer people subsidise those people's living when a) they can afford the product or A. N. Alternative themselves, b) don't wish to buy the product anyway because it isn't for them / don't like it, or c) the 'policy' is built on a LIE.
For someone who seemingly doesn't like socialism, you sure are a great proponent for wealth transfer and dependency on state handouts, just in this case from the less well off to the well off and powerful (lining the pockets of the rich via huge taxpayer subsidies).
If EVs and Net Zero are 'so great' and 'save us money', why are they all in need of huge subsidies and mandates to force people to buy / use them? Want EVs - buy them at full cost with your own money. I'm not stopping you.
Unfortunately, many of us can't afford to buy/run them and don't have (and won't likely ever) any facility to charge them at home, nor can we afford the huge cost of depreciation or replacement of a significant portion of the battery pack, nor can we (on old ones) run a an old EV that only has a range of well under 100 miles, and in many cases will have a range of less than 50.
It's easy virtue signalling when you've got lots of disposable cash at hand, especially when you may well have benefitted from far more generous workplace and government pensions, vastly more affordable housing, etc than those in following generations, where reality set in (those cushy pensions never were affordable) and you can't 'have it all'.
|
|
"... why should poorer people subsidise those people's living when... the 'policy' is built on a LIE."
You state that as if it's an incontrovertible fact.
It's not.
|
|
|
|
“ The downside to your argument is that to have that range I have to add £nearly £30.000 to be in the same position”
Not if you buy used, or even lease a new EV. In both cases the EV option is often the same price or cheaper. Our ID3 was cheaper than an equivalent petrol engined Golf, yet it’s quicker, quieter, more spacious and vastly cheaper to run. I also don’t see why anyone would need a guaranteed 350 mile range. I’m 48 and would typically have a wee pit stop after 2/3hrs. By the time I’ve had a pee, grabbed a bite to eat and a caffeine infusion our ID3 is back up to 80/90% and ready to cover another 200 miles or so. So I’ve paid less than a petrol car, it is more spacious inside thanks to there being no space robbing engine and it’s costing buttons to fuel and it only needs a cheap “service” every two years to keep the remaining 5yrs of battery warranty valid. It’s not for everyone, but upfront cost is increasingly not a reason for ignoring EV’s.
Edited by SLO76 on 15/07/2025 at 23:57
|
|
"Our ID3 was cheaper than an equivalent petrol engined Golf"
But ID3 depreciation over the next couple of years MAY exceed that of a petrol Golf which will have cost more initially, thereby balancing things out. You've already commented on the ID3 shortcomings in infotainment and interior quality and additionally, rattles - almost unheard of in a 3 year old car now. The ID3 may become the next generation Leaf for those wanting a competent EV who are able to overlook it's shortcomings.
|
|
Chris, I think SLO was being hypercritical, every car has some minor niggle if you look hard enough, my Swift is lovely in many respects but some of the interior plastics are rather hard, does it really matter? Not really, I don't drive along rubbing the dash top.
The rattles he mentioned are probably only noticeable because of the utter silence.
|
|
But VW has always been known for quality interiors. They dropped the ball with the ID3 MK1. Hard plastics are fine for some and they'll happily live with an ID3 and appreciate it's strong points but many VW owners want quality and will look elsewhere.
|
|
Can’t deny the lack of quality inside the ID3 compared to a Golf or a Mazda 3 for example. The actual quality of the bodywork is very much up to standard however. The rattle is more noticeable because of the near absence of engine and road noise. If VW upgraded the interior quality and did away with the unhelpful tech the car would be a perfect family hatchback. As it stands it is merely very very good.
Depreciation will be higher, despite the lower starting point, and will never be as harsh as it was from new. Running costs are also far far lower both regarding fuel costs and maintenance. We are planning on longterm ownership - though that will change if it proves troublesome.
I’ve every confidence that the market for used EV’s will firm up with more people converting and higher range models like the ID3 resolving range anxiety issues. I feel completely confident in just jumping in and going, we no longer feel the need to plan ahead as we did with longer drives in the Leaf. It’s not an issue to stop for a quick fast charge, as availability is much better than it was only two years ago when we first started our EV trip.
Edited by SLO76 on 16/07/2025 at 11:41
|
|
Adam Vaughan the Environment Correspondent of the Times has come up with an interesting theory about why Europe is experiencing one of the hottest summers on record and it came as a surprise to me .
This is what he says
Perversely, the continent's cleaner power stations and cars are adding to the discomfort: that they've reduced the "filthy particulates in the skies above Europe" may be great for our health, but it only makes life hotter for us, "as less of the Sun's energy is reflected back to space".
|
Adam Vaughan the Environment Correspondent of the Times has come up with an interesting theory about why Europe is experiencing one of the hottest summers on record and it came as a surprise to me .
This is what he says
Perversely, the continent's cleaner power stations and cars are adding to the discomfort: that they've reduced the "filthy particulates in the skies above Europe" may be great for our health, but it only makes life hotter for us, "as less of the Sun's energy is reflected back to space".
Whether atmospheric pollutants and aerosols reflect or absorb sunlight depends on the chemicals involved. Particles also have an impact on cloud formation which reflect sunlight.
However I think the Times correspondent may have it wrong:
- carbon produced by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in vehicles, absorbs sunlight, warming the atmosphere
- gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide trap heat emitted from the earth's surface, contributing to the greenhouse effect and warming the planet
Not the whole story - but don't believe all you read in the papers even if it reinforces preconceived biases!!
|
Adam Vaughan the Environment Correspondent of the Times has come up with an interesting theory about why Europe is experiencing one of the hottest summers on record and it came as a surprise to me .
This is what he says
Perversely, the continent's cleaner power stations and cars are adding to the discomfort: that they've reduced the "filthy particulates in the skies above Europe" may be great for our health, but it only makes life hotter for us, "as less of the Sun's energy is reflected back to space".
Whether atmospheric pollutants and aerosols reflect or absorb sunlight depends on the chemicals involved. Particles also have an impact on cloud formation which reflect sunlight.
However I think the Times correspondent may have it wrong:
- carbon produced by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in vehicles, absorbs sunlight, warming the atmosphere
- gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide trap heat emitted from the earth's surface, contributing to the greenhouse effect and warming the planet
Not the whole story - but don't believe all you read in the papers even if it reinforces preconceived biases!!
Mr Vaughan is a journalist. SO he is quoting an opinion.
Has he done any experiments and had them ratified? None reported.
I treat what he writes as if he were a normal journalist...prone to making it up at times.
|
|
<< I think the Times correspondent may have it wrong:
- carbon produced by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in vehicles, absorbs sunlight, warming the atmosphere
- gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide trap heat emitted from the earth's surface, contributing to the greenhouse effect and warming the planet
Not the whole story - but don't believe all you read in the papers even if it reinforces preconceived biases!! >>
As a (once-)trained scientist, I am interested to know what you are disputing in these two bullet points. The heat-trapping is well confirmed by experiment, possibly not globally, but certainly on a lab scale. And carbon, at least in the form which emerges from an exhaust, is black, well known to be the most efficient colour for absorbing heat.
Of course you may not want to believe these statements, but that doesn't make them wrong.
|
<< I think the Times correspondent may have it wrong:
- carbon produced by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in vehicles, absorbs sunlight, warming the atmosphere
- gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide trap heat emitted from the earth's surface, contributing to the greenhouse effect and warming the planet
Not the whole story - but don't believe all you read in the papers even if it reinforces preconceived biases!! >>
As a (once-)trained scientist, I am interested to know what you are disputing in these two bullet points. The heat-trapping is well confirmed by experiment, possibly not globally, but certainly on a lab scale. And carbon, at least in the form which emerges from an exhaust, is black, well known to be the most efficient colour for absorbing heat.
Of course you may not want to believe these statements, but that doesn't make them wrong.
I think Terry was suggesting those are established facts that counterbalance this journalist's notion that atmospheric particulates that may reflect sunlight are a good reason to encourage pollution.
The Times has always been on the conservative (big and small c) side of things but I never thought it would lower itself to the level of the Express.
|
|
In fairness to the Times, the preceding paragraph was
"Europe is warming at twice the global average rate, meaning that it is bearing the brunt of climate change. The ever-rising carbon emissions that humanity is pumping into the atmosphere are the main reason, scientists told The Times. Europe’s large landmass and its proximity to the Arctic, which is heating up at three times the global rate, are two more."
I'm not sure why they felt the need to include that nonsense about particulates though
|
|
The author of this report has been involved in environmental matters for a considerable time , previously being part of the environmental team both at the Guardian and New Scientist which are a far cry from the Express !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
