Personally I think x must be zero.
Last September, he wrote in The Washington Post: “The pandemic ought to make fighting climate change easier, serving as a model for responding to the climate crisis. While it did so at a huge cost to the economy, it has proved that large swaths of the population could change their behaviour and lower the trajectory of emissions — not over decades but in a matter of weeks.”
So I can never see my relatives again?
Timely.. pasted from the Telegraph. Covid travel restrictions being a dry-run for climate travel restrictions. Posted without comment.. other than absolutely fuck being poor in climate-zealots world.You can be sure the wealthy will carry on travelling, while lecturing the rest of us on climate change.
I fear that after 40 years of govermental stalling & dithering the situation is now that you have a simple choice between seeing your relatives & keeping them (along with everthing else) alive.
Alternatives to aeroplanes/ diesel cargo ships can be created - however they won't unless govts force it.
Greta's stunt was all well and good for someone with a publicity machine at their back and little time restrictions,
Quote from: i.munro on August 09, 2021, 01:32:50 pmI fear that after 40 years of govermental stalling & dithering the situation is now that you have a simple choice between seeing your relatives & keeping them (along with everthing else) alive.Not wanting a fight but this is simply not the choice we face - it's an exaggeration, used for effect, of a choice we face now that might help people we'll likely never meet, a long way into the future, avoid some undoubtedly severe long-term effects of a warming planet. The simple choice, for those who can afford it, is to choose to continue trying to live the same/similar lifestyle but pay much more; or don't and spend less. The choices available to the less wealthy will be narrowed down for them without their input. Quote from: i.munro on August 09, 2021, 01:32:50 pmAlternatives to aeroplanes/ diesel cargo ships can be created - however they won't unless govts force it.Regs for heavy oil used in international shipping changed at the start of 2020 to much lower sulfur dioxide, I remember reading. Hydrogen or heavy batteries augmented by solar arrays feasible for shipping also. I expect shipping, along with electric rail to increase for public transport. Still, all for the wealthier classes aren't they..
Is it the Jones's jetting off to spain once a year that is causing the majority of air pollution? I would imagine air freight and frequent fliers are surely causing more.
As per one of the episodes of the podcast above, they reckoned around 1/3 (iirc) of shipping fuel was wasted due to dirty ships!
Quote from: petejh on August 09, 2021, 01:05:25 pmTimely.. pasted from the Telegraph. Covid travel restrictions being a dry-run for climate travel restrictions. Posted without comment.. other than absolutely fuck being poor in climate-zealots world.You can be sure the wealthy will carry on travelling, while lecturing the rest of us on climate change.They’re gonna have to tread very carefully with this. It’s one thing denying access to the nice things in life for the poorest when they’ve never tasted it. But taking stuff away that people are used to like flying to Spain, private ownership of a car, etc won’t go down well if the rich carry on as per usual. It’s a recipe for revolt.
Quote from: Fultonius on August 09, 2021, 07:46:09 pmAs per one of the episodes of the podcast above, they reckoned around 1/3 (iirc) of shipping fuel was wasted due to dirty ships!I have a friend whose university department is developing a ship paint that barnacles can't stick to for exactly this reason.
Quote from: dunnyg on August 09, 2021, 05:31:27 pmIs it the Jones's jetting off to spain once a year that is causing the majority of air pollution? I would imagine air freight and frequent fliers are surely causing more. No it isn't. it's just an easy target. Freight trains, decent subsidies for home solar panels, better mass transport, safer cycling routes, better home insulation are all initiatives open to government.
If there was an upsurge in supplying more new cars, that would increase the amount of C02 emissions in the short term wouldnt it?
Freight trains, decent subsidies for home solar panels, better mass transport, safer cycling routes, better home insulation are all initiatives open to government.
Quote from: Bradders on August 07, 2021, 11:28:16 amI 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. This is a highly teleological take on human history - neither evolution nor instinct have fated us to become automotive societies. We have been automotive societies (societies significantly structured around personal ownhership of cars) for, at best, a century and that outcome was not determined but was the result of choice (in reality, a huge complex of choices, but choices nonetheless). Choices are always available to us as societies. The US is the ultimate example of this. At the start of the C20th the US was a nation built by railroads - it was railroads that had created the possibility of a national market and economy rather, for example. American cities were amply equipped with public transport systems. The car destroyed that (often also physically destroying communities as highways connecting suburbs and downtowns were driven through poor neighbourhoods). This didn't happen simply because people preferred cars but because of regulatory choices that privileged the car (and the trucking industry). Intercity rail networks evaporated, over time, and cities themselves became choked with cars. This is true of British cities too, though perhaps to a less extreme degree. Increasingly, we have restructured them and our lives around personal car ownership. Now we believe they are a right and a necessity. No-one living in a city should need a car simply to function.I find the idea that it will be impossible to persuade people to imagine living without owning a car to be as fatalistic as the hairshirt, we're all doomed perspective.
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.
