Thread: Electric ferries - good idea?

Micky, Micky, Micky, logic has no place when it comes to virtue signalling about climate change.
The fact that you are 100% right is outweighed by the kudos gained by ‘saving’ the planet.

I recall my first experience with a 36v cordless drill. I had no idea what the actual difference was between 36v and 18v, I needed a hole through a bit of timber framing holding up a roof so I grabbed the available drill and up the ladder I went. Lined this puppy up, hauled back on the trigger with the ignorance of the uniformed and proceeded to just about get inverted when the drill bit grabbed on a knot. By inverted, I mean me feet just about pointed at the sky, I was well clear of the ladder it was comic book level stuff!

That drill was awesome - for about 4 or 5 holes... It sucked the battery into a coke bottle shape faster than anything I've used before or after and that in a nutshell is the main issue with grunty cordless tools. You can carry a supply of petrol much easier than a supply of batteries, and the tools generally have more grunt plus they come with that factor that you know how much grunt they have so you don't do dumb sh1t like I did!

Gentlemen, the following is a bit of a tangent, but it's related to the Electric - Emission debate:

I understand that the basic tenet, behind addressing global climate change, is that we want to get a country's emissions back to where they were before...

A mere thousand-ish years ago, or thereabouts, New Zealand had no people, none.

There were numerous Moa, across the land. Moa, now extinct, were like Ostriches, Emu, Rhea and Cassowary.

Question: do Ostriches, Emu, Rea and Cassowary fart?

If so at what rate? and if we were to apply that rate to the population of Moa that were extant pre human, how would that figure in the climate change debate?

If we want to get emissions back to the levels, they were before, surely we can offset the Moa's emissions, which were there, since forever, against the emissions of Cows and Sheep these days?

Originally Posted by MarkN

Gentlemen, the following is a bit of a tangent, but it's related to the Electric - Emission debate:

I understand that the basic tenet, behind addressing global climate change, is that we want to get a country's emissions back to where they were before...

A mere thousand-ish years ago, or thereabouts, New Zealand had no people, none.

There were numerous Moa, across the land. Moa, now extinct, were like Ostriches, Emu, Rhea and Cassowary.

Question: do Ostriches, Emu, Rea and Cassowary fart?

If so at what rate? and if we were to apply that rate to the population of Moa that were extant pre human, how would that figure in the climate change debate?

If we want to get emissions back to the levels, they were before, surely we can offset the Moa's emissions, which were there, since forever, against the emissions of Cows and Sheep these days?

Ahhhhh but grasshopper, this does not suit the agenda. You can't make sweeping changes to a country that gets you huge international notoriety by being practical! We have huge numbers of wildling pines - I bet those buggers suck up some carbon too but because they are feral and not assigned to a favourite (read compliant) personage we can't acknowledge them! Also like individuals just getting hammered to change behaviours by cost - no thought to incentivising behaviour change in a positive way (and I class EV's in the nuetral bracket so far - they just shift the carbon from here to somewhere else).