On Thu, 20 May 2021 11:33:11 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

On 20/05/2021 11:19, Scion wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 00:54:36 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

On 20/05/2021 00:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to
stop occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience
unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the
end of the world.

It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to
get to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.

How can you plan for a sudden death and the funeral being the next
day,
on the far side of Ireland?

If you can't get there, you don't go. Just like today if relatives
lived in NZ for example.

But we can get to Ireland with *existing* vehicles. The problem is that
we are being pushed to replacement vehicles that cannot make the same
journey. We simply want to maintain the same ability that we have now
and not go backwards.

Sure, that's what we want. But *if* climate doom is true and *if* stopping
fossil fuel was the answer then need would replace want.