Quote from: andy poppAs to the wider points about mobility; there have, of course, been huge population movements across human history but until very recently most people have lived and died very close to where they were born. Even in Western Europe owning any form of personal transport beyond a pair of legs was unusual until the advent of the bicycle in the late C19th. Very few people owned horses for personal transport. I don't think we're especially hardwired by history to crave mobility. This might true for recorded history, but if we're talking hardwired as in evolution it is questionable; shank's pony is not to be under-estimated. One of the basic properties shared by all hunter-gatherer societies I've read about is the degree of mobility. In fact in the introduction to the book I have on the Mesolithic in Britain, the main point the author strives to impress is quite how mobile they were and how the degree of mobility is always far greater than the layman expects. The broad picture is of course that settled farming civilisations began c.8000 yrs ago on Mesopotamia and spread from there. In evolutionary terms that is basically an irrelevant period of time, particularly with respect to the preceding 2,500,000 years.While farming and then money were of course the engines of technological process, the lack of mobility I would argue was a mostly unwelcome consequence. Health declined too, from hunter-gatherer until very recently, as a result of the limited diet from farming and poor working conditions (intelligence too, due to reduced challenge and increased number of niches available for 'useful idiots', as Harari terms the average worker drone). I think it's entirely normal for people, given a little time and money, to want to 'get away'. Sure international travel has enable that to happen on a different scale, but I think the inference that it isn't hardwired is plain wrong.We've discussed it before, but Bruce Chatwin's book Songlines is of course mainly about Aboriginal Australians but also a great overview of nomadic cultures in general, drawing heavily on his abandoned manuscript for a book on nomads, and driven by a desire to explain his own wanderlust.
As to the wider points about mobility; there have, of course, been huge population movements across human history but until very recently most people have lived and died very close to where they were born. Even in Western Europe owning any form of personal transport beyond a pair of legs was unusual until the advent of the bicycle in the late C19th. Very few people owned horses for personal transport. I don't think we're especially hardwired by history to crave mobility.
Quote from: andy poppAs to the wider points about mobility; there have, of course, been huge population movements across human history but until very recently most people have lived and died very close to where they were born. Even in Western Europe owning any form of personal transport beyond a pair of legs was unusual until the advent of the bicycle in the late C19th. Very few people owned horses for personal transport. I don't think we're especially hardwired by history to crave mobility. This might true for recorded history, but if we're talking hardwired as in evolution it is questionable; shank's pony is not to be under-estimated.
Quite. They also offer a more eco-friendly patch of greenery than most modern farmland, which is mostly disastrous for wildlife. But these are both Uk perspectives, whereas going on a golfing holiday does imply a location where a golf course is likely to be relatively less benign.
We've discussed it before, but Bruce Chatwin's book Songlines is of course mainly about Aboriginal Australians but also a great overview of nomadic cultures in general, drawing heavily on his abandoned manuscript for a book on nomads, and driven by a desire to explain his own wanderlust.
As I have written previously, the miners’ paradox becomes even more extreme when considering the raw material requirements of a 2 °C pathway (our AET-2 scenario). With miners caught between a rock and a hard place, current investment trends and the fundamental outlook over the next five years suggest that the industry will underinvest in the required capacity.As a result, we’ll most likely see a continuation of the classic boom-bust cycle as underinvestment begets shortages, which beget high prices, which beget overinvestment. In that scenario, miners, who should be the custodians of the energy transition, could instead end up inhibiting it. The statement, sometimes credited to Albert Einstein, that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result” feels pertinent here. It seems to me that unless we take action now, far from setting a course to deliver an accelerated energy transition, we will instead become locked into the insanity of mining boom and bust.
Quote from: Will Hunt on August 11, 2021, 01:47:29 pmThough, on the topic of recreational flying...if a flight quota was introduced, why no trading? If my quota was 1 short haul every 3 years, I'd have loved to have flogged that to somebody else.NO NO NO to both of these. The transition to a low carbon economy doesn't HAVE to lead to more inequality baked in. That's a political choice. It will be a completely fucked up world (even more so) when the richest in society can just hoover up poor people's flight quotas or buy their way to maintaining freedoms that the lower orders are priced out of.To take the topic of birth control as an extreme example - hypothetically, if this were to become policy how would people feel if rich people could just buy poor people's baby quotas. Fuck that.
Though, on the topic of recreational flying...if a flight quota was introduced, why no trading? If my quota was 1 short haul every 3 years, I'd have loved to have flogged that to somebody else.
Hold on, I really don't understand this. If we have a per capita flight quota then that's basically setting a maximum amount of air miles for the whole of the UK. Roughly half of the UK population don't fly in any given year so they're not going to be using their apportioned quota anyhow. Hence if they trade, they don't lose anything (and may probably gain) and the person buying the quote definitely gains (otherwise they wouldn't bother). It's a classic Pareto improvement - why wouldn't you do it?
But, but, here's me, who's not going to use my flight quota anyway, absolutely desperate to sell a commodity I didn't previously have to anyone who'll buy it. If they're rich and choose to use it on a golfing holiday then that's absolutely fine by me.
But if the stated aim is to reduce carbon emissions to zero then your choice not to fly should be used towards that goal - not sold on to the golfer so that the emissions happen anyway.
just talking about flight is narrow and completely misses the scale of the challenge.
Quote from: seankenny on August 20, 2021, 01:23:36 pmHold on, I really don't understand this. If we have a per capita flight quota then that's basically setting a maximum amount of air miles for the whole of the UK. Roughly half of the UK population don't fly in any given year so they're not going to be using their apportioned quota anyhow. Hence if they trade, they don't lose anything (and may probably gain) and the person buying the quote definitely gains (otherwise they wouldn't bother). It's a classic Pareto improvement - why wouldn't you do it? Quote from: ali k on August 12, 2021, 07:45:10 amBut if the stated aim is to reduce carbon emissions to zero then your choice not to fly should be used towards that goal - not sold on to the golfer so that the emissions happen anyway.
I’d recommend the book Sapiens that JB alluded to if your interested in the field, it’s a very easy and entertaining read alongside being eye opening https://www.ynharari.com/book/sapiens-2/
Reviving this for my mental health as much as anything else having seen two IPCC reports flicker and then sink without a trace on the BBC’s top stories tracker. ... but the societal and media indifference to what is in essence our final warning from the IPCC makes me feel like I’m taking crazy pills. How do others feel?
The government seems to have abandoned environmental policy, likely that Johnson is frightened of his agitating backbenchers, some of whom who are either closet deniers,…. I can't help but find it all incredibly depressing.
