[SA Chris]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-56023895

Supporting but also not.

[joeisidle]

Except, hang on a moment: while you can make any number of reasonable points about the Thatcher government's indifference about what would replace mining, you can't get away from the basic point that one reason the United Kingdom is better placed as far as energy policy is concerned is that we have closed most of our coal mines.

Another reason we're better off, as far as the politics of net zero are concerned, is that unlike most of the English-speaking world, our main centre-right party isn't hand in glove with the mining industry, loudly insisting that there are 'clean' ways to use our fossil fuels.

Which bit did you think was excellent?

Didn’t we just import more coal when the UK mines closed, rather than reducing use?

I don’t think for one minute that if there was economically viable reserves left Johnson wouldn’t be on some green coal bullshit.

In terms of the second para, just look at the relationships with the oil producers and the fracking companies.

Agree with all of your points and don't think it's an excellent analysis by any stretch but the important point of the article IMO is that it highlights how electorally unpopular some of the measures required are going to be. Eg. the Tyndall Centre RACER research suggesting that even if a complete shift to ULEV is achieved by 2035 there's still a need for a nationwide 58% reduction in car mileage before that date to keep to a below 2C carbon budget. No way that will happen without very strong, unpopular and potentially damaging legislation coming from govt.

[teestub]

Agree 100%, I think this has often been the case with governments doing the ‘right’ thing on big issues that it’s been against public opinion at the time, such as banning the death penalty and legalising homosexuality.

Also agree with the last point of the article that it’s a terrible time to have a narcissistic populist PM who mainly makes decisions on how much his buddies will like him

[joeisidle]

Agree 100%, I think this has often been the case with governments doing the ‘right’ thing on big issues that it’s been against public opinion at the time, such as banning the death penalty and legalising homosexuality.

Also agree with the last point of the article that it’s a terrible time to have a narcissistic populist PM who mainly makes decisions on how much his buddies will like him

Yeah, very much agree with all of that. Only slight qualification is that intuitively death penalty/homosexuality don't feel like great comparitors to me, as whilst they may have been unpopular at the time I'm not sure their impact was as big on day to day lifestyles, freedoms and short term economic prosperity of the general public as the measures we'd have to consider to address domestic transport emissions alone (let alone other sources).

Not saying that to be defeatist, just feel like this point isn't discussed enough, so was kinda glad to see an article that flagged the point.

[seankenny]

There was a very good article in the NYT the other day exploring our inaction around climate change, given the size of the threat we know it is. This is much, much worse than the rise of fascism, but we aren't mobilising to anything like the same degree.

Paywalled, but if you want to read it, it's here:
https://newtextdocument.com/faa41895f3

I guess part of it is imagination. I said to a friend the other week that really there is no excuse - given what we now know - really to be flying within Europe. It was something he struggled to comprehend: "You can't get to Mallorca on a train!"

So we have to persaude many, many people to embrace a degree of awkwardness to mitigate something that they do not spend much time envisioning. I feel it's somewhat starker than this: there is no way of avoiding radical and uncomfortable change, we just have to pick the change we whilst we still can.

Anyone been to Siurana by train?

[SA Chris]

I would happily make other concessions like use affordable / convenient public transport  or an ebike to commute so I can still get a holiday somewhere warm or snowy once or twice a year, and travelling anywhere like that with kids from NE Scotland in any other way than flying is unfeasible.

[kelvin]

Anyone been to Siurana by train?

A friend thumbed lifts from Chulilla to Istanbul and back. He was gone for just a week.
Anything is possible if the will is there.

[kelvin]

Anyone been to Siurana by train?

A friend thumbed lifts from Chulilla to Istanbul and back. He was gone for just a week.
Anything is possible if the will is there.

Two other friends cycled from Paris to Siurana. They used the train to get home.

[chris j]

so I can still get a holiday somewhere warm or snowy once or twice a year.

Without picking on Chris, this seems a very good example of the disconnect between what change people are prepared to accept and what may be needed, juxtaposed with Sean's post immediately before. (until we have synthetic/no carbon jet fuel or electric planes at least)

[Fultonius]

so I can still get a holiday somewhere warm or snowy once or twice a year.

Without picking on Chris, this seems a very good example of the disconnect between what change people are prepared to accept and what may be needed, juxtaposed with Sean's post immediately before. (until we have synthetic/no carbon jet fuel or electric planes at least)

I still reckon, despite the almighty amount of shit Covid has rained on everyone, the greatest positive outcome for humanity, and the ecosystem is the realisation that basically everything we believe in is entire fictitious.

Well, not fictitious, but the realisation of what many us us humans hold true, and think is unbendable, necessary, immutable, is actually....arbitrary, frivolous. What really matters is people, place, ecology, a sense of purpose, future and potential.

I've been almost at despair the last year, due to crippling climate anxiety and the so-fucking-whatism of actually trying to make a difference.  It feels like pushing a wave uphill sometimes. But you know what? We can change. Massively. Quickly. I know there's a clamour to go back to the pre-covid times, but you know what, that's already a past era.

We can adapt to massive changes to what we're used to.

I just hope we can realise we WE are less important than the whole sometime soon....

[SA Chris]

so I can still get a holiday somewhere warm or snowy once or twice a year.

Without picking on Chris, this seems a very good example of the disconnect between what change people are prepared to accept and what may be needed, juxtaposed with Sean's post immediately before. (until we have synthetic/no carbon jet fuel or electric planes at least)

Pick away. I expect 90% of people here are the same, just won't put their head above the parapet.

[TobyD]

Anyone been to Siurana by train?

I've come back from Siurana by train,  via a few places in the south of France. I think it involved a coach for a bit of it, but that was in France.  Terradetts is easy to get to on the train, as, obviously, is El Chorro.

[andy popp]

Many years ago I went to Buis les Baronnies by train, very easy. I’ve also been to the Picos by coach, returning via the ferry from Santander, which was fantastic.

More importantly both Chris’s are right. Much as we understand the situation very few of us are yet at a point where we are willing to make the real changes that are going to be necessary (mea culpa: I flew yesterday).

[abarro81]

I'm the same.

Re Fultonius' post - the problem is that many people find purpose in family (and travelling to see family), hobbies (and travelling to do them), work (and travelling for work)... Etc... So your sense of purpose is not necessarily good for the environment!

[TobyD]

Which bit did you think was excellent?

Didn’t we just import more coal when the UK mines closed, rather than reducing use?

I don’t think for one minute that if there was economically viable reserves left Johnson wouldn’t be on some green coal bullshit.

In terms of the second para, just look at the relationships with the oil producers and the fracking companies.

This is a bit whataboutery isn't it? However we got there, if you look at how tied the Republican right is to coal and oil to the point that they barely acknowledge climate change,  we are better off than that, surely? I think that the basic contention that actual change will be extremely unpopular is basic, but correct. 
The solutions won't be hydrogen planes or whatever bullshit Johnson can dream up next,  it will be not flying.  It wont be electric cars it will be not having a car at all.

[teestub]

My point was that we got to where we are with coal by not having economically viable coal mines left, if we had them I'm not sure we would be in a hugely different position to the states.

I’m not sure our govt’s relationship with Shell and BP, etc. is any different to that in the states either. Yes they acknowledge climate change but talk is cheap!

[SA Chris]

More importantly both Chris’s are right. Much as we understand the situation very few of us are yet at a point where we are willing to make the real changes that are going to be necessary (mea culpa: I flew yesterday).

I did say I'm prepared to make real changes if options are available - affordable and convenient public transport or other means for my daily commute etc, but as Barrows says, for my sense of purpose (and mental health) I would need to be very hard pushed to forego the occasional short haul holiday. 

[TobyD]

My point was that we got to where we are with coal by not having economically viable coal mines left, if we had them I'm not sure we would be in a hugely different position to the states.

I’m not sure our govt’s relationship with Shell and BP, etc. is any different to that in the states either. Yes they acknowledge climate change but talk is cheap!

I'd agree with all that, although the Republicans are understandably closer to oil really, as they have quite a lot of it, and it's a huge domestic industry. 

On a different subject,  on the points made above by some about buying local food; I may have missed someone else making this point,  but if I haven't,  it's not as simple as local is better. Jay Rayner has written about this quite a lot,  when you investigate methods etc etc, it is often the case that a tomato or whatever grown hydroponically in the Netherlands and flown to the UK in a super efficient supply chain with minimal wastage and water use is actually far better than the local one from a climate change point of view.  Obviously,  the local one still tastes a lot better but the climate change strategy can be pretty counterintuitive.  Ditto plastic packaging on fresh produce,  it can be better than selling without if it drastically reduces wastage.

[petejh]

The solutions won't be hydrogen planes or whatever bullshit Johnson can dream up next,  it will be not flying.  It wont be electric cars it will be not having a car at all.

It looks like you subscribe to the hair-shirt worldview on climate change. Which seems to believe people should go without many of the activities and lifestyles that give them happiness and a feeling of independence. A problem with this view is it's immediately divisive and inevitably ends with rich paying more to keep their nice lives and the poor going without. It'll end up in being a pretty shit way to live for a lot of people if you ask me, and I'd be able to afford the nice lifestyle.
So, what about new little humans aka kids? Should people go without them? They're by far the biggest contributor of CO2 compared to every other contributor, including power generation, travel and eating meat. Do you think people should go without, for e.g., having 3 kids instead of 2? Or is it just lifestyles and the nice things like owning a form of transport that gives independence; international travel; and eating meat?
If the global population stabilised where it's at now, or even reduced slightly, and we brought in the low-carbon travel and power generation technologies that we already are bringing in, then everyone wouldn't have to 'go without' some of the good things in life. Why is growing the population, on a ball with finite resources and an atmosphere that at current consumption levels becomes more inhospitable as population increases, a wise or good thing?

[Bradders]

The solutions won't be hydrogen planes or whatever bullshit Johnson can dream up next,  it will be not flying.  It wont be electric cars it will be not having a car at all.

It looks like you subscribe to the hair-shirt worldview on climate change. Which seems to believe people should go without many of the activities and lifestyles that give them happiness and a feeling of independence. A problem with this view is it's immediately divisive and inevitably ends with rich paying more to keep their nice lives and the poor going without. It'll end up in being a pretty shit way to live for a lot of people if you ask me, and I'd be able to afford the nice lifestyle.

Spot on.

I find this idea that people, for example, shouldn't have a car in future nonsensical as that approach to the problem of climate change is completely counter to thousands of years of human development and human instinct itself. It's a real problem because, as Pete says, it's an extremely divisive approach that risks stopping the conversation before it's even started.

[joeisidle]

The solutions won't be hydrogen planes or whatever bullshit Johnson can dream up next,  it will be not flying.  It wont be electric cars it will be not having a car at all.

It looks like you subscribe to the hair-shirt worldview on climate change. Which seems to believe people should go without many of the activities and lifestyles that give them happiness and a feeling of independence. A problem with this view is it's immediately divisive and inevitably ends with rich paying more to keep their nice lives and the poor going without. It'll end up in being a pretty shit way to live for a lot of people if you ask me, and I'd be able to afford the nice lifestyle.
So, what about new little humans aka kids? Should people go without them? They're by far the biggest contributor of CO2 compared to every other contributor, including power generation, travel and eating meat. Do you think people should go without, for e.g., having 3 kids instead of 2? Or is it just lifestyles and the nice things like owning a form of transport that gives independence; international travel; and eating meat?
If the global population stabilised where it's at now, or even reduced slightly, and we brought in the low-carbon travel and power generation technologies that we already are bringing in, then everyone wouldn't have to 'go without' some of the good things in life. Why is growing the population, on a ball with finite resources and an atmosphere that at current consumption levels becomes more inhospitable as population increases, a wise or good thing?

Have a lot of sympathy with the point around kids and agree this can all be incredibly devisive, but we still need to at least be able to acknowledge the current situation we're in. I'm not clear what population control measures you're alluding to but on a UK level at least any 1 child-esque policy introduced now will have no effect on the need to reduce surface transport by an unprecedented level by 2035, even with the most optimistic picture of EV rollout. The countries likely to drive population growth in the future also don't appear to be those with the highest emissions per capita, which seems to correlate more to income. Not saying this to advocate for a binary "all of us should stop driving no matter what" solution, but any conversation about carbon emissions in the UK in particular has to at least acknowledge the  role that road transport plays in this.

[seankenny]

So your sense of purpose is not necessarily good for the environment!

I think we have a massive problem with framing here. We are talking about "the environment" as if it's something out there, and it's all rainforests and tigers and whatnot. In fact we should be framing this issue in terms of our responsibilities to our children and grandchildren (well, yours - I don't have kids - but perhaps you'll let me feel a certain sense of shared humanity here). If in thirty years time our descendents turn around at us in anger and disgust as their trashed ecosystem leads to extreme political and social dislocation, and ask us why we knew about the problem and didn't take urgent action, are we just going to say "yes, we didn't change because it was.... inconvenient." We'll end up looking like that generation of Germans who excused the Nazi regime - shifty, compromised, living out our lives pretending to ourselves.

Because really, that's what we're talking about here. Inconvenience and a lack of collective imagination to solve the problem. Like Andy, I've taken the train to Buis and it's really pretty pleasant and quite easy. So my question about the train to Siurana is in all honesty a whiny "oh is it really that bad?" when I know that it's a mild hassle compared to, say, dying of heatstroke when I'm an old man or living under a quasi-dictatorial regime that has arisen in response to the massive social pressures of a warming planet. I just don't want to accept this new reality because it's less pleasant than the one I grew up in.

To take Chris' quite reasonable point (shared by 99% of the population so definitely not picking on him)... would a boat from Scotland to the France or the Netherlands to start your holiday be a workable solution? Sure, it doesn't exist now, but why not make it easy for Europeans in outlying parts of our continent to travel without emitting too much carbon?

[mrjonathanr]

What is sorely lacking here is clear unambiguous information so that the public can make informed decisions. Not ‘Is it bad?’  But ‘How bad is A vs B?’

Things which cut through tend to be visceral and paint a picture, not hair-splitting precision. So more ‘If I fly to Magaluf 3 pandas will die’ and less ‘ I should do something so that the world is 0.001 degrees less warm by 2050’.

The government has the means to create public information campaigns and simple dashboards if they want to. They just don’t want to.

[petejh]

Have a lot of sympathy with the point around kids and agree this can all be incredibly devisive, but we still need to at least be able to acknowledge the current situation we're in. I'm not clear what population control measures you're alluding to but on a UK level at least any 1 child-esque policy introduced now will have no effect on the need to reduce surface transport by an unprecedented level by 2035, even with the most optimistic picture of EV rollout.

I realise there are various nuances behind the numbers. But the maths of the problem is still fairly easy to get your head around. CO2 emissions per ton are a direct result of consumption per head, of: power, food, manufactured goods, miles travelled.

Assumptions for the UK are based on a certain level of population increase; all consuming goods, power, transport miles at an assumed rate. A slower population increase immediately impacts CO2 emissions by there simply being far less consumption than models assumed. What would be good to see are the assumptions behind the models used in public discussions. The public should have a say in what they think is most wise to cut down on, and what would be most effective in the timeframes we have. Of course the UK by itself is almost irrelevant in terms of population growth or shrinkage - there needs to be changes to the ways  people consume as well. But 'going without' is a dangerous path to start down as it leads to a pretty dark place.
 
But for e.g. when you say 'surface transport needs to reduce by xyz'. Well, actually it doesn't need to reduce by xyz if you change the model to assume for a slower population increase. It only needs to reduce by xyz based on certain assumptions of future population increase and the associated consumption of that increased population.

What we appear to have is a model of a problem (too high CO2 emissions), where the biggest contributor to the problem (population increase) is assumed to not be tackled. I'd predict that the almost inevitable outcome of that sort of model of the problem is that the poorer in society will be the ones to go without (the hair shirt approach), while the richer will just pay more to sustain their lifestyles close to how they are currently.

Not saying this to advocate for a binary "all of us should stop driving no matter what" solution, but any conversation about carbon emissions in the UK in particular has to at least acknowledge the  role that road transport plays in this.

Surely the conversation is full of transport and power generation. What the conversation needs to acknowledge is the dominant role that population has on per tons of CO2 emitted. That's the elephant in the room. Not transport.

[teestub]

The recent postings in this thread started around the difficult choices for climate change being necessarily politically unpopular. I would suggest that telling people how many kids they can have (or taxing them to disincentivise it, leaving rich people to have more kids?) would be significantly less popular across the electorate than telling people to drive less, fly less or taxing meat consumption (for example). Have any hard population control measure  been carried out outside communist states?

Also, I think the rate of population growth in the UK is falling anyway?