COP28: Could have been done on Zoom? Why this all looks a farce to the rest of the world.

Rather than fly to Dubai's COP28, should King Charles have led by example

and sent a video message over Zoom to show the way forward, instead?

An interesting fact - The total CO2 amount in the world's atmospheric gases =

CO2 = 1/2 of 1% of the total 100% of all gases.

Nitrogen is 95% of all gases.
 

Another year, another meaningless 'COP Summit' ? - this time we learn that there will be some 400,000 attendees to the Dubai COP28 conference, you can't help feeling that there is some element of hypocritical repetition here. Or another 'you couldn't make it up' story.

400,000 people intent on 'saving the Planet' are jetting from across the world to warm and sunny Dubai, perhaps there is clue in that. It is warm and sunny?

One thing we did benefit from during Covid was that so many of us were able to work from home. So that was one good thing to come out of it.

Zoom became the vital work tool of the day, often saving many people the worthless drudge of commuting to an office every day and allowing them to work from home. Hurrah! And from having to mix with stupid idiots you normally would otherwise avoid. But I digress...

COP28's spectacular own goal has been to treat the rest of the world not attending this earnest jamboree as fools. 

They have not seen that had this conference and all it's virtue signalling could have been conducted on Zoom. The likely only outcome of COP28 is to achieve a COP29 in 2024. Nearly 30 COP meetings later we are still alive and the doom and gloom about a dead planet hasn't happened yet.

The world is an oil based economy, Oil isn't going away anytime soon, nor are fossil fuels. The 'beloved' and failing EV market will need Oil to make tyres for these vehicles, which wear out tyres at a far higher rate than Petrol or Diesel vehicles. 80% of a Tyre is made from Oil. The paint and plastics on an EV are made from Oil. Go figure. Do the math - We need Oil.

Tarmac for roads includes Oil. EV's due to their weight cause more damage to roads.

If the West stops using Petrol or Diesel, Russia and China as examples likely won't be so squeamish. We can produce synthetic Petrol and Diesel fuels from renewable elements. We do not need to abandon the internal combustion engines, which are the cleanest ever now and will only improve.

We make clean air zones in cities, yet base an airport on the city periphery which blows pollution right back across these 'clean air zones' - we are not stupid. 

We can see the stupidity of charging motorists to drive and allowing unabated, free pollution by aircraft to be dumped back on those cities into those clean air zones.

The difference between Natural Gas and Hydrogen is barely a few elements, yet there is this a fanatical zeal to get rid of Natural Gas usage only because it is a 'fossil fuel.' This is frankly ridiculous when there is no viable ad cheaply priced technology in place, to take its place.

Whilst King Charles often pours forth his views on the climate and his concerns are valid to a point, he could have stolen a march on the whole COP28 shebang by giving a Zoom message to the COP28 delegates from the UK, rather than jet off to Dubai.

Perhaps this might have made the other delegates think. Maybe not. 

However, with all manner of celebrities and old has-been politicians bobbing up at COP28, it looks just to be another nice little 'jolly' - the lure of warm winter sunshine and the opportunities for networking, glad-handing and hobnobbing, or any other form of nobbing one wishes to indulge in, must out way any concerns for the climate then?

Be warned, the public are not fooled by all this vacuous grandstanding and dire warnings of climate doom being spewed out at COP28 and every COP before and likely in the future. 

Where is Greta Thunberg when you need here? I suppose it's early days yet and she has a week or so to pop up uninvited and foist her views on this jolly shindig.

Electric Vehicles Poll - the Public speaks and votes. They don't want them Polls show.

That looks like a No then........ 

a very big NO........

Fremantle Ship on fire in North Sea carrying 3000 vehicles - Electric vehicle possible source- The future of importation might be nigh if Insurers won't insure transport

Ship on fire in the North Sea carrying cars and EV's -

Electric Vehicle reported as believed responsible for starting the blaze

The Fremantle Highway Cargo Ship being hosed down in the North Sea - 

this effort will likely not save it from sadly being lost in the end

This ship will probably be scrapped now. A serious fire took hold inside the vessel, with further combustion being promoted by electric vehicle batteries and the combustibility of the other internal combustion engined vehicle cargo components fuelling the fire in a confined space. It was not possible to extinguish the flames and I believed that this vessel would likely sink.

Sadly one crew member is dead as a result of the fire on this vessel, it shows the dangers of carrying electric vehicles on boats, which is why they are being banned from some ferries and also underground car parks.

Trying to put out the flames on this vessel at sea proved a futile exercise as the batteries short out and combust, spreading to other vehicles and the ships's flammable parts. 

(Update, it is still afloat but under tow and is going to be salvaged - scrapping this ship might cause further toxins to be released).

The colossal environmental impact of these burning vehicles and components is a major set back for the EV industry. This example may prompt insurers to not cover the transport of these vehicles in future.

It takes 22,000 gallons of water to put out a single EV battery fire on land per vehicle, a fire in a gigafactory will be a major disaster and will not be able to be put out before it destroys the establishment - the reason is that the batteries do not need oxygen to burn, they burn because of short circuits which generate heat and melt insulation, leading to chain reactions of spreading in an EV battery, which is a collection of linked individual cells. 

The dangerous fumes given off by burning batteries can cause paralysis and the hydrofluoric acid can burn through skin and bone.

This is surely a fitting obituary to the folly that is the EV project? If ever there was a good argument for abandoning the EV, then this is it - one EV car fire has essentially made this ship a floating environmental disaster that will cost millions to compensate.

Strangely there was very little media coverage.

 

Jet Zero - so why not have synthetic fuels for road vehicles? Germany is going down this road and has the rules adjusted to allow it.

 

With the UK government looking to alternative fuels for air travel -

Whey the hell are they not allowing synthetic fuels for other transport use?

The UK government today announced on the hottest day of the year, a plan to convert the airline industry to using non-fossil fuel alternatives including they say fuels made from sewage and vegetable bases. 

However, either they seem to be completely ignoring the obvious need for road, rail and sea vehicles to be able to use synthetic fuels - these do NOT seem to be on the table. 

These fuels are now available and we can make them in the UK. Porsche has with Siemens developed a net zero Petrol alternative that can be used in modern and old cars without adjustment and is now in production. Algae based Diesel alternatives can be made and both of thee fuels could be produced in Britain.

Had these truly 'Green' technologies been embraced a few years ago, then the Ukraine war's impact on fuel prices, availability and inflation / cost of living would not be as serious as they are today. 

We have the ability to produce these fuels and distribute them through the existing fuel station network, not have all the issues of the ridiculous alternative battery vehicles, which only have a use in cities.

The focus by those in charge seems sadly to be on the wrong end of the telescope, forcing the ceasing of the sale (but not the manufacture) of Petrol and Diesel vehicles by 2030, whilst apparently failing to recognise the their pet alternative of battery vehicles are unworkable. This 2030 date is an EU directive and as the UK is no longer in the EU, this can and should be dumped.

The reasons for the eventual failure of the battery vehicle lobby include, firstly that the electric vehicle manufacturers haven't even agreed on a universal charging plug format before they embarked on production  - a schoolboy error of epic proportions perhaps? Its not rocket science. Its a fundamental error.

Recently, a Tesla driver stopped at the motorway services and could not get on a charger for 30 minutes, when he did get charged he had overstayed his 2 hours on the services site and got fined. Or you might turn up at a charging point, but find the wrong plug or the right machine, but not working.

Worse still is the vehicle's operational range problems, hitch up a caravan and try and drive around hilly mid Wales in your EV and you'd be lucky to get a third of the projected range. 

The biggest problem is that the resources for batteries are finite - China holds the monopoly on battery components and manufacturing, the battery car is in its infancy and it gets worse.

A petrol or diesel car with the spares backup can last 20 years, engines are very much cleaner than they ever were too. An electric car lasts about 6-7 years and is half as expensive to buy again - to get the same 20 year vehicle lifespan you have to buy 3 of them and increase the CO2 created in their making by 3 plus times v the old ICE engine alternative. 

The battery car is in most cases just scrap when the battery goes. 

The answer is patently clear. 

For the airline industry we managed ok during coined and the skies were a cleaner place. 

Most commercial aviation is luxury travel abroad, why not just stop it? 

Why fly three or four half empty airlines to the same place the same day? 

Road transport is often essential, for carers, workers and professionals who need to use the roads. Plus our on-line parcels need shipping around. Not to mention our agriculture industry and food deliveries.

Battery vehicles are never going to be in place by 2030, so lets abandon this stupid idea now and create a really sustainable alternative net zero synthetic fuels situation.

The motorist has been a cash cow for decades. We all know it. The classic vehicle industry is worth £18 Billion a year to the Government alone. If it kills this golden goose for one, then it is like losing a year's funding for the MOD being paid in to the Treasury in one hit. This unaffordable.

Germany has now allowed the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles that 'can use other fuels' (other than fossil Petrol or Diesel) - very cleverly, they have sidestepped the EU's 2030 directive - well done Porsche and Siemens - this gives us all hope. Sadly our people in charge have not seen this.

It is also now time to remove the hated and damaging E10 fuel and go back to straight unleaded fuel - the E10 can in some cars mean that the car covers 100 miles LESS than on straight unleaded fuel per tankful. This lunacy is waved through because the E10 is 'Green' partly produced from Bio Alcohol from Sugar Beet or Maize. 

With the Ukraine war, these additives to Petrol and Bio Diesel (vegetable oils) will have to stop. These additives although 'Green' cost the vehicle performance, range and add to the fuel cost. It is high time these 'Green' additions were dropped and the straight fuels reinstated.

The synthetic fuels for non aviation transport are the future and are sustainable and virtually infinite, unlike the electric counterparts.