Morts Musings

Following on from my piece about artifical trees, this BBC piece from a couple of weeks ago got me thinking about another method of reducing transport related emissions, electric vehicles.

Of course the first thing to remember when one considers electric cars or vans is that the electricity has to come from somewhere, and if that’s from a power station which uses fossil fuels then really all you’re doing is obfuscating the vehicle’s carbon footprint, rather than reducing it significantly. Although, saying that, it has to be more practical to employ carbon capture technology in a power station than in a vehicle.

Electric cars and vans actually have a much longer history than most might realise, and in the early days of motorised transport, were far more common then petrol powered vehicles. However, advances in the internal combustion engine (ICE) & petroleum production technology during the early 20th century allowed ICE powered cars to be produced substantially cheaper than equivalent electric vehicles, and as a result electric vehicles pretty much died out for severeal decades.

In some ways it seems ironic to me that we started out on a track we’re now re-embracing, but given the advantages which the ICE had at the time, such as longer range & faster refueling times, it’s hard to blame the people of the time for embracing it, &, I have to wonder whether humanity would have advanced nearly so much as it did during the 20th century without the ICE. Some may argue that less advancement may actually have been a good thing for our species, and the planet in general, and in many ways I have sympathy for that view, but it would feel somewhat hypocritical to get too fervent about it.

In any case the modern generation of electric vehicles do appear to be shaping up rather nicely, and it once again looks like they might be able to give ICE powered vehicles a run for their money. The days when the only electric vehicles on the streets were the old fashioned milk floats are long gone, and although the technology definitely still needs some work, to make it affordable and convenient some of the forerunners of this new generation of electric cars and vans give hope that they may indeed be a viable solution in the very near future.

One of the most impressive is possibly Tesla Motors’ Roadster; A car based on the Lotus Elise which boasts a top speed of 135mph, a 200 mile range, & can go from 0 to 60 in ~4 seconds. Tesla also have plans for a solar powered version which they claim could make the car “carbon positive”, impressive stuff, if it comes about. Even it’s price tag of £90k isn’t that bad if one views it as a luxury sports model, although it is obviously out of many people’s price range. Anyway, take a look for yourself, if you want:

There’s also hope for those who can’t afford that kind of price tag, as more mainstream brands, such as Mitsubishi & Mini, release more affordablle electric vehicles, while others, like volkswagen, clamour to jump on the band wagon. It looks like business is starting to take the idea of electrics seriously too, with some courier companies starting to adopt the use of electric vans, especially around urban areas, where their pollution reducing benefits might be most tangibly felt. Also a number of the big name car and van rental companies are looking at offering electrics as an option, or are already doing so; good news for those who don’t own a car for green principle reasons, but occasionally find the need for something more reliable and flexible than public transport. I suppose it would even give the sceptics, a chance to “try before they buy”.

Overall, I think this technology does have an awful lot of potential; it may not be quite “there” yet, but I think over the next few years it’s likely to become more and more commonplace. The Govt announcement that they’ll support the construction of the required infrastructure has to be a big step forward- An easily accessed, widespread, network of charging points will surely only help encourage people that electrics are more than just an eccentric fad. As I said at the start of the piece, I do have some concerns about the source of the electricity that powers these vehicles, but, in terms of transport, I think we may well be looking at the shape of things to come.

OK, so on the face of it this piece might seem a little hypocritical after my last, but actually I think it’s a good example of the sort of thing which consumers should be protected from. In this case, bizarrely, it was sofas which proved to be a source of hidden danger.

This piece from the BBC looks at a long running legal case over the use of the fungicide dimethyl fumarate on leather sofas made by a number of firms in China, & sold by UK retailers, including big names like, Land of Leather, Walmsleys and Argos. The sofas were apparently treated with the chemical to stop them developing mould while in transport & storage, however many people who bought the affected sofas developed painful skin rashes, as well as chest and eye problems in some cases. The chemical has now been banned by the EU, and the big name retailers who sold the sofas were all quite prompt when it came to issuing recalls & offering refunds.

Anyway, it seems that it’s pretty much old news now, and that those affected have received reparation, but after a couple of comments on my last piece* I wanted to make it clear that I’m not a completely heartless git. I do firmly believe that private companies can’t be allowed to operate under a completely lassiez faire system; The prime motive of business is to make profit, & history has shown countless times that, when unregulated, some businesses will put the bottom line before the quality, or safety, of their goods. Having said that, as an utter cynic, I think any consumer who doesn’t exercise the caveat emptor spirit is probably a little foolish.

In anycase this is the sort of hidden danger which a consumer can’t reasonably be expected to anticipate by exercising common sense, and which they should be protected from. Ok, so this is a pretty clear cut case, people looking to buy quality sofas have a reasonable right to expect that they shouldn’t be laced with unpleasant toxins. Whereas warnings about not letting heavy furniture fall on children should be pretty redundant, since, to my mind it’s rather obvious advice. Obviously there are grey areas inbetween these two examples, & I suppose those are where the slippery slope towards an over-protective nanny state starts.

Hopefully, this sets the record straight on the view I’m expressing, i.e. that people should be expected (& given the freedom) to exercise personal responsibility where possible, not, that we should live in an unregulated world where unethical manufacturers can endanger the lives of consumers if it means cutting production costs.

*No, I didn’t publish them, I’m fine with people criticising my views, but I’m not going to publish streams of profanity, or waste my time editing such comments to make them work place friendly.

I want to start this piece by making it absolutely clear that it’s an unashamed rant about the way the world appears to be moving towards a state where the public expect to be told any time they interact with anything which might be even slightly dangerous, even when it should be perfectly evident that exercising some common sense might be in order.

The tendancy for governments to bombard us with more and more safety legislation every year is an insidious creep towards a situation where everybody is assumed to be a moron who should be wrapped in cotton wool for their own safety. Maybe this is a good thing for the “hard of thinking”, the proportion of society who really do need to be protected from themselves, but I firmly believe that, by taking a “one size fits all” approach to looking after these poor unfortunate souls, govts are encouraging everyone to be more cretinous and less likely to think for themselves in situations where some judgement might be advisable; Not to mention that blanket legislation which caters to the lowest common denominator curtails the freedoms of everybody else.

I’m sure the campaigners who get behind these causes do so with the best of intentions. Often I believe it’s because the “danger” which they seek to protect everybody from has effected their lives in some traumatic way, and that’s almost part of the problem; Nobody wants to be the one to tell these poor misguided souls that they’re over-reacting, perfectly understandable if the campaigner in question has lost a relative, but really somebody should, rather than media, and politicians, jumping on the band wagon for the sake of sales, or to gain a few points in the polls.

Someone really should be able to tell these people that sometimes bad stuff happens, and it’s just bad luck, that no-one deserves to be sued as a consequence, & no laws need to be drawn up to protect others from themselves, or cruel twists of fate, especially if those laws would curtail the freedoms of others who are willing to take personal responsibility & aren’t hurting anyone else.

Ok, so you’ve had the rant now but what was it that set me off? Actually it was this piece from an US news site. It details moves in New Jersey to introduce laws which would require manufacturers, of TVs, and furniture, over a certain size, to provide warnings about the potential dangers to children of such heavy objects falling on them, & provide advice about ways to prevent such accidents.

From the article:

The proposed rules would apply to dressers, bookcases, bureaus, armoires or similar furniture that is 42 inches or more in height and designed to store, display, or otherwise place items; televisions with display screens that are 25 inches or more; and all television stands.

Furniture can Kill! No really, it can!

That’s right apparently furniture is a hidden menace lurking in our homes! All this time you thought it was useful stuff you kept around to store things on, or in, but in reality it’s a killer, just waiting to strike!

Don’t get me wrong I don’t intend to make light of anybody dying, let alone children, but we, as a species, have survived around heavy objects for millenia without anyone needing to legislate for our own protection; Why do we suddenly need laws to protect us, & why should a manufacturer be responsible if a consumer lacks the common sense to realise that heavy stuff is dangerous if it falls on you?!? By the logic of this legislation everything we ever buy should be plastered in warnings, just on the off chance that someone might use it in some unintended but potentially lethal manner! What? you mean it’s a bad idea to insert TVs into random bodily orifaces?
I mean, really, come on, where does it all stop?

It wouldn’t be so bad but, honestly, how many people actually read the manuals for their new TVs anyway? This move seems to be purely about protecting manufacturers from the asininely litigious, a section of humanity who thoroughly deserve to be told to shut up & go away, if not locked up for wasting everyone elses time!

Anyway, you’ve been warned, so next time you’re thinking about buying furniture or a new digital TV consider the dangers it poses to others around you, especially if you have small children! Anyway I’m off to post a warning in the article I hosted about sideboards, a couple of months back, before some litigious numpty tries to sue me for not pointing out the incredibly obvious!

Another of my short pieces looking at travel destination. This time I take a look at the UAE (United Arab Emirates), a place I was lucky enough to visit some years ago. While it might not count as a budget holiday, there are some surprisingly cheap air fares available. For example, Etihad, the national carrier, is currently offering fares of less than £300 from Heathrow to Abu Dhabi.

The UAE is a small country which, prior to 1971, was known as the Trucial States, a reference to treaties which existed between the British and the region’s rulers. The UAE is comprised of seven emirates which still operate as absolute monarchies, although it also has a central federal government.

The two best known emirates are probably Abu Dhabi, the nation’s capital & largest of the emirates, geographically speaking, and, Dubai, the most populace of the emirates. Although both operate under Islamic law, both have, over the years, built a reputation as being amongst the most “western friendly” of the Gulf States; An attitude which, combined with the fact that the UAE has the world’s sixth largest oil reserves, has been of great benefit both to the people of these states, and for the western companies who have worked in co-operation with them.
As a result the UAE today is, economically speaking, one of the world’s most developed nations, and this wealth is clearly evident from some of the feats of engineering which can be seen all over the UAE, such as the Palm Islands, or indoor ski slopes, in Dubai, or the newly constructed Yas Marina Racing Circuit which has been built to host the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.
Both cities also have large international airports, and Etihad operates flights to Abu Dhabi and Dubai, as well as numerous other destinations.

Travellers to the country are strongly advised to familiarise themselves with local laws and customs, a sensible preparation when visiting any foreign culture. For example, during one of Islam’s major festivals, Ramadan, it is not permitted to eat, drink, or smoke during daylight hours, & although foreign visitors tend to be given some leeway, in terms of observing this, eating, drinking or smoking in public during the day will land you in serious hot water! The FCO site is a pretty good place to start looking if you want to find out more of the “dos” and “don’ts”.
Another major consideration, when planning a trip to the UAE, is the time of year. Although air conditioning is almost ubiquitous, both in buildings and vehicles, the summer months are still likely to feel uncomfortably hot to those from cooler climes.

If you’re looking for a holiday which will allow you to experience a completely different culture, as well as spectacles, both ancient and modern, you could do a lot worse than look at the UAE as a potential holiday destination.