[mrjonathanr]

When I searched ukb, to my surprise, I found no thread on climate change. Maybe I didn’t look in the right places? Surely a message board for climbers, people who spend as much time as they can out in the environment, must have a thread dedicated to its - and our- greatest threat?

If not, let me kick off with this article by George Monbiot:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/polluters-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel

What are we going to do? Nothing? Or something- and if so- what?

[andy popp]

You're right, its a strange omission. We can make personal changes; I'm about to move to a city where I won't have a car and which has serious plans to be carbon neutral by 2025. But personal change isn't enough; my move will mean I fly at least as much as do now. I'm vegan and try and eat local but could do much more in that direction. I almost never been buy new clothing (or anything much really) but still think enough about what and how I consume.

We need to persuade others, lobby, vote in ways that might make a difference (when we can), make this political (climate change is also a matter of social and economic justice), those of us who can need to invent and innovate. And we need to protest.

[teestub]

If not, let me kick off with this article by George Monbiot:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/polluters-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel

It’s interesting in that article it notes the aim of the XR is not to raise awareness about climate change but:

“Only mass political disruption, out of which can be built new and more responsive democratic structures, can deliver the necessary transformation.”

I don’t think I’d got this message previously.

I’ve dipped into a few XR/Climate Change discussions on UKC recently, which I think has a user base representing a broader swathe of the population than our own forums, and seen the same old counter arguments trotted out still: science not settled, what about China and India, etc. etc. which is pretty depressing to see.

At the heart of the issue seems to be convincing people to reduce their perceived quality of life (flying, driving, eating what they want etc.) for no tangible gain for themselves. There doesn’t seem to be much ‘planting of trees whose shade we will never know’ at the moment!

I think in this country a massive investment in public transport would be a good start in the right direction, make it convenient and cheap for people to use trains trams and buses for their commute. Unfortunately it seems like with HS2 (a program to improve capacity not speed), these sort of large infrastructure problem seem to quickly draw a lot of negative coverage around their cost, effectiveness, impact, etc. I think such projects probably need their costs reported in terms of environmental gain, rather than ‘money out of the taxpayer’s pocket’.

[SA Chris]

re: the science. There was a great cartoon I saw recently saying "But what if we aren't causing climate change, and all that happens is we create a cleaner atmosphere and become less dependent on fossil fuels"

There are changes we can all make in our lives; the broadest subjects are;

1) Personal transport / travel
2) Consumption
3) Household Energy
4) Political Influences

Re 1) - For starters, we don't need massive investment in the likes of H2S, what will make the biggest difference to commuting is making local public transport cheaper, more efficient and more reliable, and using personal vehicles in cities more expensive or difficult. For example my 10 minute train journey each way into town costs me at present £3.30 each way, is often late and regularly gets cancelled. If I had free parking near work I'd find it hard to still bother. 
 

[teestub]

1) - For starters, we don't need massive investment in the likes of H2S, what will make the biggest difference to commuting is making local public transport cheaper, more efficient and more reliable, and using personal vehicles in cities more expensive or difficult. For example my 10 minute train journey each way into town costs me at present £3.30 each way, is often late and regularly gets cancelled. If I had free parking near work I'd find it hard to still bother.

One of the main benefits of HS2 for the north of England will be freeing up the existing lines for more frequent lower speed trains to do exactly this, at the moment the system is clogged with Intercity trains and local trains all trying to use the same tracks with the associated headaches around scheduling, delays etc.

[SA Chris]

I understand the rationale, but the investment is astronomical and the solution a few years down the line.

By comparison, sorting out ways to make local public transport better and more affordable are relatively straightforward.

[Will Hunt]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Offwidth]

One of the main benefits of HS2 for the north of England will be freeing up the existing lines for more frequent lower speed trains to do exactly this, at the moment the system is clogged with Intercity trains and local trains all trying to use the same tracks with the associated headaches around scheduling, delays etc.

If the north had better infrastructure, freight could arrive at northern ports and not have to travel north south. By the time HS2 is ready a large proportion of  business meetings will have moved online and way more people with a work base in London and commuting will be working from home part of the time. HS2 was always a white elephant with really confused explanations of benefits (you dont need high speed if extra capacity is the real problem)  and costs are spiralling as predicted and would never have been approved at the current dishonestly low government estimates. That money should be spent on public transport in the north and improving broadband across the UK. Another often forgotten ecological fact about HS2 is that fast trains use proportionately way more energy for the sake of cutting minutes off a journey from London to Birmingham and requires a vastly more expensive track (with its own extra ecological impact) to cope with the high speed and much more greedy use of power for the journey. If its gone now, good riddance.

[dunnyg]

But if your high speed trains reduce the number of flights/cars traveling N-S, then this must negate some/all of the increased energy usage of HS2?

From what I gather the main opposition from people is not that HS2 is a bad thing, just that investment in other infrastructure would be more worthwhile in terms of a) reducing emissions b)reducing delays c) increasing capacity.

What are the extra ecological impacts of HS2? Surely if you increase capacity, which to me means adding another track in my simple views, there will be a similar impact?

[Offwidth]

On the impact front, the track has to be straighter, limiting curving round areas of importance and the land taken is wider than standard fast rail track. On capacity, think on how much more you really get above a standard highish speed track given super fast trains need wider time gap safety margins; the extra line is key, not the speed. There are other cheaper alternatve north south options than the HS2 route if you need freight capacity  ... like, as an example, using much of the line of the old closed Nottingham route. Even on the proposed HS2 route a standard fast line will be loads cheaper, narrower, and use much less power, for pretty much the same capacity gain  if not run at high speed.

I'm normally  massively pro rail investment but this is a horror show of a white elephant in value for money terms, solving todays problems for a time when things might be very different. Improvements in northern rail lines could give much faster relief to more urgent transport problems at genuine value for money. We seem obsessed with moving freight to the north from the south with all the extra ecological impact of land journeys (especially on motorways) when the best method was always to improve northern infrastructure to better utilise northern ports.

I don't endorse everything on the stop HS2 website but they do summarise the many serious questions that do require answers.

http://stophs2.org/facts

[seankenny]

For example my 10 minute train journey each way into town costs me at present £3.30 each way, is often late and regularly gets cancelled. If I had free parking near work I'd find it hard to still bother.

Having lived in London for over a decade I'm always shocked when reminded just how bad public transport is in the rest of the country. It's absolutely vital that the government spends money on this and can't see why people would get upset about having better public transport - unless they are so used to having a shit transport network that they simply can't imagine relying on public transport.

[Offwidth]

A big Guardian series exposing 'the polluters',  in case anyone missed it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/the-polluters

[dunnyg]

Cheers offwidth, I will have a look at what they say.

[Offwidth]

... a great radio show about 110% green power generation on Orkney and use of the spare capacity to produce clean hygrogen fuel (which is used in really clever ways) to prove it's not all bad news:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0009372

[Bradders]

My high level view on all this is that personal change isn't enough; it's up to governments and regulators to enforce change, via investment and business.

Whilst doing things like cycling everywhere and never flying are a clear environmental good, and there is likely to be a very small social impact from you doing those things, the benefits are utterly dwarfed by a) the scale of fundamental ways in which society operates in 21st century Western countries, and b) the growing demand from less developed societies for the same privileges we've enjoyed for the last few decades.

For example; people just aren't going to stop using cars any time soon. It's too good, too convenient, too much fun, etc. I don't want to give up the freedom owning a car gives me, but the alternatives (electric) are currently too restrictive.

As another example, one of the UK's biggest sources of carbon emissions is from gas central heating. Addressing this will require legislation from government and investment from business in alternatives, because they quite simply don't currently exist and people aren't going to give up being warm!

I was struck by something Greta Thunberg said in her address to the UN recently. She said:

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money

Well, sorry Greta but when people say money makes the world go round they're not far off the truth! What she should be advocating for is for people, governments and businesses to use their money in environmentally responsible ways, because that is the only way we'll see investment in the technological innovations we need to get us out of this mess. The alternative, as has been said,is to try and convince people to stop doing certain things that they see as a significant part of their quality of life, which in my opinion is a complete non-starter.

It’s interesting in that article it notes the aim of the XR is not to raise awareness about climate change but:

“Only mass political disruption, out of which can be built new and more responsive democratic structures, can deliver the necessary transformation.”

I don’t think I’d got this message previously.

I think this is a significant issue for that movement as a whole; it's clogged with anti-capitalist protesters who have an agenda which isn't always in line with the central need for action on climate change, and this dilutes both their message and its impact.

I think such projects probably need their costs reported in terms of environmental gain, rather than ‘money out of the taxpayer’s pocket’.

It's not all bad news, as this sort of thing is already happening - see the recent statement from the US Business Roundtable, where they said:

While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders

Thus abandoning the longstanding principle that corporations exist solely to serve their shareholders.

Similarly in the UK there are already proposals on the way for firms to have to publish Climate Related Financial Disclosures.

A big Guardian series exposing 'the polluters',  in case anyone missed it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/the-polluters

Again, it's all very well shining a light on firms like these, but take the money away from them and you'll see how quickly they change!

[Offwidth]

My high level view on all this is that personal change isn't enough; it's up to governments and regulators to enforce change, via investment and business.

Whilst doing things like cycling everywhere and never flying are a clear environmental good, and there is likely to be a very small social impact from you doing those things, the benefits are utterly dwarfed by a) the scale of fundamental ways in which society operates in 21st century Western countries, and b) the growing demand from less developed societies for the same privileges we've enjoyed for the last few decades.

For example; people just aren't going to stop using cars any time soon. It's too good, too convenient, too much fun, etc. I don't want to give up the freedom owning a car gives me, but the alternatives (electric) are currently too restrictive.

As another example, one of the UK's biggest sources of carbon emissions is from gas central heating. Addressing this will require legislation from government and investment from business in alternatives, because they quite simply don't currently exist and people aren't going to give up being warm!

I was struck by something Greta Thunberg said in her address to the UN recently. She said:

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money

Well, sorry Greta but when people say money makes the world go round they're not far off the truth! What she should be advocating for is for people, governments and businesses to use their money in environmentally responsible ways, because that is the only way we'll see investment in the technological innovations we need to get us out of this mess. It’s interesting in that article it notes the aim of the XR is not to raise awareness about climate change but:

“Only mass political disruption, out of which can be built new and more responsive democratic structures, can deliver the necessary transformation.”

I don’t think I’d got this message previously.

I think this is a significant issue for that movement as a whole; it's clogged with anti-capitalist protesters who have an agenda which isn't always in line with the central need for action on climate change,

Again, it's all very well shining a light on firms like these, but take the money away from them and you'll see how quickly they change!

I'm an academic engineer who believes in economics but I see Greta as a necessary and very positive influence. In the end governments won't change without political pressure and companies most certainly won't change much without regulatory requirement,  despite nice words (the place I work is proud to be the greenest in its sector in the UK, according to league tables, but on the big issues , like heating, building insulation efficency and transport assistance, we are as poor as most). When Greta talks about state and company money I see it as calling out the dishonesty around that, not trashing the whole economy. The most important thing citizens can do is political.... support peaceful protest and inform others (including that  its not just important to crusties) and to apply individual political pressure for change. I do agree that although living a better greener life is important its very much secondary to the politics given the urgency.

[Oldmanmatt]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

^^^This.

Applies to almost all aspects of “what should we do” type questions, really.

All of it.

Somethings will work well, some not so well. We really don’t have much to lose.

[SamT]

As another example, one of the UK's biggest sources of carbon emissions is from gas central heating. Addressing this will require legislation from government and investment from business in alternatives, because they quite simply don't currently exist and people aren't going to give up being warm!

Actually, there was a headline about Gas boilers being banned in new builds from 2025 recently.  I was shocked at the timescale, but its not the whole story. 

More reading here. https://www.energistuk.co.uk/gas-boilers-to-be-banned-in-2025-we-dont-think-so/

Getting the national grid (electricity) to be low carbon is key to all this.

[Bradders]

Actually, there was a headline about Gas boilers being banned in new builds from 2025 recently.  I was shocked at the timescale, but its not the whole story. 

More reading here. https://www.energistuk.co.uk/gas-boilers-to-be-banned-in-2025-we-dont-think-so/

Getting the national grid (electricity) to be low carbon is key to all this.

Exactly - there are alternative technologies out there but they're currently far too expensive or rely on the national grid. Hence, legislation and investment is required. It's worrying that the commitment given previously seems to have been swept under the carpet.

I'm an academic engineer who believes in economics but I see Greta as a necessary and very positive influence.

I'm certainly not saying she and others like her are unnecessary, in all honesty I was twisting her words to make a point 

[Paul B]

1) Personal transport / travel
2) Consumption
3) Household Energy
4) Political Influences

You missed not propagating (hi Dave  ).  For the record, I have no intention to have kids because of their impact on my lifestyle rather than an underlying environmental view.

I currently work in Preston and I'm not that far from the local train station but it's still more costly in both time and financial outlay for me to commute by train (this is without taking reliability into account either). It's a shame as the time spent on the train is a lot more relaxing than repeatedly driving the A59.

Unfortunately it seems like with HS2 (a program to improve capacity not speed), these sort of large infrastructure problem seem to quickly draw a lot of negative coverage around their cost, effectiveness, impact, etc. I think such projects probably need their costs reported in terms of environmental gain, rather than ‘money out of the taxpayer’s pocket’.

People generally seem to have a very poor understanding of what infrastructure actually costs. I can remember profits of UU being a headline a while ago, but when you looked at the stated value it was only ~4 of the kind of remedial works projects I was working on at time which were only a drop in the ocean compared to their capital works programme. Everyone on social media was kicking off saying "you can fix all of these leaks first" with absolutely zero appreciation for how much replacing an ageing network of Victorian assets would realistically cost! I don't think you need to report these things in terms of their environmental benefits (how would you begin to quantify such things?), more an accurate assessment of their 'value'.

I think news outlets will just grab the forecast-£££ and run with it (recent events with Whaley Bridge have left me with little faith that they're interested in accuracy or anything other than grabbing attention through a provocative headline).

[teestub]

As another example, one of the UK's biggest sources of carbon emissions is from gas central heating. Addressing this will require legislation from government and investment from business in alternatives, because they quite simply don't currently exist and people aren't going to give up being warm!

Something relatively local to you on this front which I only heard about the other day https://www.leeds-pipes.co.uk/

[SA Chris]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed not, but to use a horrible term, one is relatively low hanging fruit.

[bigironhorse]

 I am moving to Austria next week and to minimise the environmental impact of this I'm quite determined to travel back and forth by train. It has stuck me that this is really not that easy! You use to book through a minimum of three different companies and the cost of the journey is highly variable. This will be improved somewhat when the sleeper teain between Vienna and Bruxelles is introduced in January. Compare this to flying, which is nearly half the price (less if you fly from London) and can booked through a single website. What we need is a Europe wide train booking service with consistent pricing, I guess brexit has put a stop to any idea of that though. Given that trains obviously take longer than flying we should be doing everything possible to make trains more appealing.

On HS2. Some interedting thoughts here that I hadn't considered. Ive long been anti hs2 but not so sure now! Wouldn't it be better to invest in electrification of the existing network? Obviously this is only a benefit if the electricity source is clean though.

[andy_e]

Use interrail tickets. It's generally cheaper or equivalent to individual tickets, but is useful for when one connection goes tits up. You can also book all the seat reservations you need through interrail, but it may cost slightly extra (I think). I did Leeds - Vienna earlier this year and it's a great journey, even with an enforced layover in Munich. That said, the first-thing-in-the-morning train from Munich to Vienna was incredible, with the sun rising over the Alps! The new Bruxelles-Wien nightjet will certainly make things easier.

[tomtom]

If the north had better infrastructure, freight could arrive at northern ports and not have to travel north south.

Just to pull you up on that - the combined ports in the Humber are responsible for more freight traffic than all other ports in the UK save the Solent ones...

Wrt freight and rail the issue in a small country like the Uk is handling... it’s not worth taking a container off a ship onto a train then onto a lorry for delivery.