[petejh]

Human-caused climate change is an interesting problem, seemingly impossible to come to a satisfying solution because it's caused by us being alive and living well.
Unless and until 'Carbon Emissions' becomes the new global currency for business and individuals to be paid in, and governments to borrow and lend. No more sovereign government backed currency - no dollars, pounds, yen, and no bitcoin. 
In a system of Carbon Emissions currency, and within the confines of current technology and its carbon impact, frequent flyers would have to be millionaires. Alpine climbers highly paid professionals or independently wealthy aristocrats(...), or locals. African villagers would be the new rich -  with tons of disposable income due to hardly any overheads until they dropped sprogs. 'Western' families with 2 kids living a typical western life would have spent virtually all their annual currency for the next 18 years - no flights, no fun for them, they'd have to stay at home planting forests for their sins.

Sounds shit so hopefully tech will advance enough for us to continue living the good life. 

[Bradders]

But I agree, a lot of people still don't think twice about taking multiple flights per year to climb up rocks.

I'm not even referring to climbers to be honest, just people taking advantage of cheap air travel to go on holiday.

I do very much agree that some people are changing their behaviour, my point is it's not enough (and never will be).

[tomtom]

Carbon credits, pricing - or currency - has been around for a good while. But not everyone has signed up for it.

The good example I was given - were if an Indian Bus company were to reequip its fleet with hybrid busses. This would generate carbon credits that someone else (eg a coal fired power station) could buy. In effect subsidising the better carbon busses.

Needs everyone to sign up to it. This came close 10 years ago but... but...

[Offwidth]

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.

It's not that simple: for starters most of the humber imports are bulk and northern port linked road investment could benefit from some of that wasted section of HS2 money too.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/701352/england-port-connectivity-the-current-picture.pdf

[teestub]

Human-caused climate change is an interesting problem...

Pete are you sold on the science now? I have vague memories of you being skeptical previously but I may be confusing you with another poster.

[Steve R]

Human-caused climate change is an interesting problem, seemingly impossible to come to a satisfying solution because it's caused by us being alive and living well.
Unless and until 'Carbon Emissions' becomes the new global currency for business and individuals to be paid in, and governments to borrow and lend. No more sovereign government backed currency - no dollars, pounds, yen, and no bitcoin. 
In a system of Carbon Emissions currency, and within the confines of current technology and its carbon impact, frequent flyers would have to be millionaires. Alpine climbers highly paid professionals or independently wealthy aristocrats(...), or locals. African villagers would be the new rich -  with tons of disposable income due to hardly any overheads until they dropped sprogs. 'Western' families with 2 kids living a typical western life would have spent virtually all their annual currency for the next 18 years - no flights, no fun for them, they'd have to stay at home planting forests for their sins.

sounds a bit extreme, do you think any action at the nation state level is futile?  Seems credible to incorporate carbon into (existing) markets incrementally according to something like this: https://www.econstatement.org/  doesn't sound like it would get us to your dystopian nightmare above straight away and stands a chance of getting the ball rolling faster re. international coordinated effort.

hopefully tech will advance enough for us to continue living the good life.

Agreed.  Risky strategy to rely on but pipeline/future tech looks best hope of averting bad outcome since we're clearly not on track at the moment - seems worth trying to provide best chance of it arriving and being implemented in time by incentivising for it as hard as possible now. 
Also a couple of potential time-buying aces up the sleeve, eg. geo-engineering but hopefully won't come to that.

[petejh]

Human-caused climate change is an interesting problem...

Pete are you sold on the science now? I have vague memories of you being skeptical previously but I may be confusing you with another poster.

?!
That definitely was not me. I've been sold on the science since just about forever I think.

[Oldmanmatt]

Human-caused climate change is an interesting problem, seemingly impossible to come to a satisfying solution because it's caused by us being alive and living well.
Unless and until 'Carbon Emissions' becomes the new global currency for business and individuals to be paid in, and governments to borrow and lend. No more sovereign government backed currency - no dollars, pounds, yen, and no bitcoin. 
In a system of Carbon Emissions currency, and within the confines of current technology and its carbon impact, frequent flyers would have to be millionaires. Alpine climbers highly paid professionals or independently wealthy aristocrats(...), or locals. African villagers would be the new rich -  with tons of disposable income due to hardly any overheads until they dropped sprogs. 'Western' families with 2 kids living a typical western life would have spent virtually all their annual currency for the next 18 years - no flights, no fun for them, they'd have to stay at home planting forests for their sins.

sounds a bit extreme, do you think any action at the nation state level is futile?  Seems credible to incorporate carbon into (existing) markets incrementally according to something like this: https://www.econstatement.org/  doesn't sound like it would get us to your dystopian nightmare above straight away and stands a chance of getting the ball rolling faster re. international coordinated effort.

hopefully tech will advance enough for us to continue living the good life.

Agreed.  Risky strategy to rely on but pipeline/future tech looks best hope of averting bad outcome since we're clearly not on track at the moment - seems worth trying to provide best chance of it arriving and being implemented in time by incentivising for it as hard as possible now. 
Also a couple of potential time-buying aces up the sleeve, eg. geo-engineering but hopefully won't come to that.

It depends on which nation states choose to act. The bigger the economy, the bigger the effect.

It seems so bizarre, that the nations most in need of change, are those with the best eduction levels, or the greatest wealth, or the best technologies and yet have massive scepticism and rampant denialism at both governmental and population levels.

[petejh]

sounds a bit extreme, do you think any action at the nation state level is futile?  Seems credible to incorporate carbon into (existing) markets incrementally according to something like this: https://www.econstatement.org/  doesn't sound like it would get us to your dystopian nightmare above straight away and stands a chance of getting the ball rolling faster re. international coordinated effort.

hopefully tech will advance enough for us to continue living the good life.

Agreed.  Risky strategy to rely on but pipeline/future tech looks best hope of averting bad outcome since we're clearly not on track at the moment - seems worth trying to provide best chance of it arriving and being implemented in time by incentivising for it as hard as possible now. 
Also a couple of potential time-buying aces up the sleeve, eg. geo-engineering but hopefully won't come to that.

Slightly flippant post really but it's an easy topic to be flippant about because it's a planet-level problem with ready solutions that are blocked by individual-level stupidity.

If it's strictly at nation level I think it's pretty futile. I'm not pessimistic about it, I think we'll get there in the long run through a combo of various nation's policies combining to incentivise the tech, and just the natural advancement of knowledge and technology leading to solutions that are palatable to the masses. I just think it will take a long time to get there, longer than we'd want, and we'll have done a lot of damage by the time we're low carbon. Probably it'll negatively affect a lot of the less wealthy for a long time to come. I wonder to myself if the governments of well-developed states have 'priced in' to secret long-term strategies the fact that a certain level of damage will occur. Probably.

[teestub]

?!
That definitely was not me. I've been sold on the science since just about forever I think.

Apols for the slur then!

[Oldmanmatt]

sounds a bit extreme, do you think any action at the nation state level is futile?  Seems credible to incorporate carbon into (existing) markets incrementally according to something like this: https://www.econstatement.org/  doesn't sound like it would get us to your dystopian nightmare above straight away and stands a chance of getting the ball rolling faster re. international coordinated effort.

hopefully tech will advance enough for us to continue living the good life.

Agreed.  Risky strategy to rely on but pipeline/future tech looks best hope of averting bad outcome since we're clearly not on track at the moment - seems worth trying to provide best chance of it arriving and being implemented in time by incentivising for it as hard as possible now. 
Also a couple of potential time-buying aces up the sleeve, eg. geo-engineering but hopefully won't come to that.

Slightly flippant post really but it's an easy topic to be flippant about because it's a planet-level problem with ready solutions that are blocked by individual-level stupidity.

If it's strictly at nation level I think it's pretty futile. I'm not pessimistic about it, I think we'll get there in the long run through a combo of various nation's policies combining to incentivise the tech, and just the natural advancement of knowledge and technology leading to solutions that are palatable to the masses. I just think it will take a long time to get there, longer than we'd want, and we'll have done a lot of damage by the time we're low carbon. Probably it'll negatively affect a lot of the less wealthy for a long time to come. I wonder to myself if the governments of well-developed states have 'priced in' to secret long-term strategies the fact that a certain level of damage will occur. Probably.

I’d idly wondered if the current “Fuck it all” style of Governance in the US and the UK, wasn’t partly borne out of a deeper knowledge of what’s to come and the futility of it all.

Then I tend to think they’re probably too dumb for that.

[SA Chris]

And in my experience climbers travel far more than any other sport I have been involved in other than surfing. Two sports that pride themselves in there eco credentials.

Skiers too, I know a lot of folk who live in England who fly back and forth to the alps a couple of times a month over the winter, and by doing so are destroying what they love, more so than surfers or climbers.

[James Malloch]

But I agree, a lot of people still don't think twice about taking multiple flights per year to climb up rocks.

I'm not even referring to climbers to be honest, just people taking advantage of cheap air travel to go on holiday.

I do very much agree that some people are changing their behaviour, my point is it's not enough (and never will be).

I find it that aviation fuel is tax exempt, thus helping keep cheap air travel viable. I read recently that if a tax was imposed it could lead to a c.10% reduction in aviation emissions, purely due to the increased cost.

However, as everyone has become accustomed to foreign holidays I imagine that it could be an unpopular policy, making flights a luxury again and hitting the poorest most...

[petejh]

And in my experience climbers travel far more than any other sport I have been involved in other than surfing. Two sports that pride themselves in there eco credentials.

Skiers too, I know a lot of folk who live in England who fly back and forth to the alps a couple of times a month over the winter, and by doing so are destroying what they love, more so than surfers or climbers.

Of course. For active outdoorsy people there's no enjoyment and very little social status from sitting at home not contributing to carbon emissions more than is necessary for a basic life. There's enjoyment and social status from going skiing/climbing/surfing/mtn biking often, and being seen to be doing so. As a species we're truly dumb as vegetables in our behaviour if our behaviour is judged in carbon emissions.
I'm flying to Bilbao in two weeks time for 5 days of climbing in the Picos. Based on what we know, how stupid, destructive and selfish is that!
The way to stop dumb addictive destructive behaviour? Maybe look at how various governments have reduced people smoking: regulation, increase costs, education, public attitudes. Appealing to smokers' better nature to look after their own well-being didn't work.

[Ballsofcottonwool]

I think HS2 is fantastic, admittedly it is behind schedule, it should have been built 50 years ago.

Scrap the Heathrow expansion instead.

[Offwidth]

But I agree, a lot of people still don't think twice about taking multiple flights per year to climb up rocks.

I'm not even referring to climbers to be honest, just people taking advantage of cheap air travel to go on holiday.

I do very much agree that some people are changing their behaviour, my point is it's not enough (and never will be).

I find it that aviation fuel is tax exempt, thus helping keep cheap air travel viable. I read recently that if a tax was imposed it could lead to a c.10% reduction in aviation emissions, purely due to the increased cost.

However, as everyone has become accustomed to foreign holidays I imagine that it could be an unpopular policy, making flights a luxury again and hitting the poorest most...

The stats on who does most of the flying are quite surprising. I'd prefer every flight to have tax that covers the carbon offsetting for the flight and a separate tax on frequent fliers (to encourage business to seek other solutions). From the stats below I really don't think the tax will be particularly regressive (ie unfairly impacting on the poor).

"1% of English residents take one-fifth of overseas flights, survey shows"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows

[SA Chris]

That is fairly surprising. I guess businessmen love flitting about the world on a whim, I know some who I've worked for have been awful at it.

Big Corporations should be taking the lead in stopping this, and actively encouraging their supply chain to follow suit.

Still, many people think nothing of going somewhere overseas for a weekend break / hen / stag do just to shop, eat and drink, when they can do the same in any city in the UK.

[tomtom]

I’ve flown three times this year... Vienna, Dublin, Amsterdam.

That’s all for work - meetings and conferences. Skype /. Video conferencing meetings work fine if everyone (or most) have met face to face before. And if the number of people is comparatively small...

In the industry meetings I have (water industry/EA/Defra) there very much is a conscious decision to reduce travel and C emissions by using video conferencing etc.. which also facilitates working at home (less travel too). I think many majorncorps are very aware of cutting back corp travel.

Re jet fuel tax: probably the biggest reducer in airplane emissions has been the drive to better more efficient (newer) planes because of the high fuel price.....

[andy popp]

I’ve flown three times this year... Vienna, Dublin, Amsterdam.

That’s all for work - meetings and conferences. Skype /. Video conferencing meetings work fine if everyone (or most) have met face to face before. And if the number of people is comparatively small...

I'm Secretary-Treasurer of an academic association. We have an annual meeting, normally in North America but global in participation, around 300-400 attendees (e.g. small, some conferences have 10,000+ delegates). Conferences are central to academic life, they are where we hear the latest research, make connections and plans, make decisions as organizations, and see old friends, but we're actually starting to have a serious conversation about whether we can justifiably continue with this model. I don't know what the alternative would look like but we're definitely moving in that direction. I suppose these are the kinds of decisions that need to be taken.

Disclosure: I've flown twice this year - US to Denmark and US to Colombia.

[teestub]

I think it’s going to take serious technological strides before there’s a real replacement for face to face meetings for all but very minor interactions. So much is lost in translation when one can’t see body language properly in small important meetings, I’m not surprised by business men flying all over the shop.  I assume in your example Andy, as is well reported at CERN and other large scientific organisations, as much good work is done in the evenings and lunch breaks as within the scheduled meetings.

[luckyjez]

I work for a global outdoor equipment company with a genuinely serious and strong environmental policy. We meet twice a year in Europe (Sweden and Germany) to see the next seasons products we'll be selling. As always, as much work goes on at dinner and in the bar, as in the official sessions. It feels important and useful to meet the other teams from around the world but it does mean flying 300+ people from nearly every corner of the globe (vast majority from Europe and a lot drive from within the host country). They also live stream every session so we could participate from our homes. The benefits to the business of these face to face meetings is hard to quantify but I believe it is definitely there.
The other dilemma I have is when I have to go from the NE to our office on the south coast - 90 minute flight or 6 hour drive  , £80 of diesel or £300 on air fare. I've done both but I think it will have to be driving in the future. I'd say 3-4 flights a year on average - all work related.

[nik at work]

I'm currently a flying shit. Flying from the Isle of Man to UK every two weeks until Christmas...

After that will probably drop to closer to once a month...

In my (weak) defense it is about as short a flight as you can take at about 15-20mins. Although I imagine cruising is relatively fuel efficient and take off and landing are the bad times...

Sorry 

[Stabbsy]

I think it’s going to take serious technological strides before there’s a real replacement for face to face meetings for all but very minor interactions. So much is lost in translation when one can’t see body language properly in small important meetings, I’m not surprised by business men flying all over the shop.

Not sure I agree entirely, but might depend on the industry. My team are split between York and London, I'm currently sat WFH in Sheffield and all interaction with my team/boss is via Skype. I go into the York office twice/three times a week, but that's out of choice rather than necessity. My boss's boss is based in London and they meet about once a month. The team runs incredibly smoothly.

[tomtom]

As I said earlier - If you know most of the people in a meeting then Skype can work really well. Making new business/work relationships can be hard without meeting in person. But it does tend to rule out the catching up with someone after a meeting for a coffee and sketching through some new ideas etc...

Surprised you find it so hard Tim... would have thought it’s commonplace with your work?

[teestub]

Sorry I guess I didn’t get my point across well at all. I work from home too and with day to day stuff within my team, phone, email etc. are totally fine. But when we are meeting a client to discuss a difficult site or explain complicated proposals for example, or have to have an important conversation with a colleague then I think you lose a lot not being face to face. Our old director tried to do our annual appraisals over Skype one year and it was a total disaster.

Extrapolating this to the wider business world I can imagine that currently the £1000 flight to meet someone face to face to confirm a £1mill contract (or whatever) looks like buttons.