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 (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/polluters-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel)
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.
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.
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money
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 such projects probably need their costs reported in terms of environmental gain, rather than ‘money out of the taxpayer’s pocket’.
While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders
A big Guardian series exposing 'the polluters', in case anyone missed it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/the-polluters
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:QuoteWe 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!
The two are not mutually exclusive.
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.
I'm an academic engineer who believes in economics but I see Greta as a necessary and very positive influence.
1) Personal transport / travel
2) Consumption
3) Household Energy
4) Political Influences
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’.
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!
The two are not mutually exclusive.
If the north had better infrastructure, freight could arrive at northern ports and not have to travel north south.
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.
The biggest stinker for most of us engaged in a travel intensive hobby is surely darting around in cars making hour long journeys to climb 4m high rocks?
A return flight to Swizzy is about 0.32 tonnes, which from looking at a few calculators buys you about 2 tanks of diesel, which doesn’t get you many 2 hour round trips to the crag!
Ste-Mac gets a gold star for cycling out to Stanage and back for a session:)
A return flight to Swizzy is about 0.32 tonnes, which from looking at a few calculators buys you about 2 tanks of diesel, which doesn’t get you many 2 hour round trips to the crag!
Ste-Mac gets a gold star for cycling out to Stanage and back for a session:)
The guy I met at Burbage about to cycle back down the hill with a pad on his back in high wind gets a gold star. Assuming he's still with us :2thumbsup:
The biggest stinker for most of us engaged in a travel intensive hobby is surely darting around in cars making hour long journeys to climb 4m high rocks?
The biggest stinker for most of us engaged in a travel intensive hobby is surely darting around in cars making hour long journeys to climb 4m high rocks?
Yeah, this is why individual changes will only ever get us so far. We (the Western world) have become far too accustomed to such luxuries as hobbies and holidays - every other day I seem to have a conversation with someone who's just booked, about to go on or just got back from some long haul flight based trip.
2) Consumption
The best thing that anybody can do is to not have kids.
How often do you have a passenger for your transpennine voyages Tom ;D
Surely it depends on your peer group/life stage/age? Many of my peers (mid 40s, young kids) seem to all be buying electric or plug in hybrid cars and consciously deciding not to fly as much. Will that still be the case when the little darlings have flown the nest, or will we all be on sun rock trips again :-\
Surely it depends on your peer group/life stage/age? Many of my peers (mid 40s, young kids) seem to all be buying electric or plug in hybrid cars and consciously deciding not to fly as much. Will that still be the case when the little darlings have flown the nest, or will we all be on sun rock trips again :-\
Yes of course there will be variances amongst different societal groups but, as TT says, we're all at fault in some way (your peers all having kids, for instance).
But I agree, a lot of people still don't think twice about taking multiple flights per year to climb up rocks.
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.
Human-caused climate change is an interesting problem...
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
?!
That definitely was not me. I've been sold on the science since just about forever I think.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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...
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 think its going to take serious technological strides before theres a real replacement for face to face meetings for all but very minor interactions. So much is lost in translation when one cant see body language properly in small important meetings, Im not surprised by business men flying all over the shop.
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.
Next is item 2.
2) Consumption
The biggest offences committed here are probably electronics; TVs, phones, household appliances, computers, cameras tablets all purchased in our desire to have the latest, best, fastest, biggest, smallest, shiniest. And discarded at the slightest notion of obsolescence, slight malfunction.
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.
I’ve flown three times this year... Vienna, Dublin
Bizarrely, I bet the trains running costs are lower than the planes non??
The flaw in that logic is that 'the tech route' is mostly a fantasy. How long it takes for that penny to drop will determine our fate (if it isn't already determined).
But I’d argue it’s not too late to restrict sea level rise to 1-2m instead of 2-4m.....
As a race - humans have success in reversing our global impacts - with the example of the ozone hole shrinkage. But - this was helped by an open and shut science case (non wiggle room for doubters) and the availability of CFC substitutes...
I am not optimistic for wholesale change to reverse CC soon, but it is possible.
Bizarrely, I bet the trains running costs are lower than the planes non??
Hmm I don't know actually. With the disclaimer that I know bugger all about either, my instinct is that maintaining train tracks and all the associated aspects (power delivery, tunnels, scheduling, etc.) is more expensive. Not to mention that aviation fuel is supposedly rather cheap.
A quick Google shows the third runway at Heathrow coming in at c. £10-14bn whilst HS2 is somewhere North of £30bn, for example.
The flaw in that logic is that 'the tech route' is mostly a fantasy. How long it takes for that penny to drop will determine our fate (if it isn't already determined).
On the BBC website earlier (I think) that 15% of the UK population take 70% of the flights...That’s why I think it’s just set to increase. A minority of us, many included on here and definitely in the wider climbing/surfing/skiing world, take far to many and could/should reduce this. However there is a far greater number who don’t fly at all but would love to and intend to in the future. So flights will go up.
However there is a far greater number who don’t fly at all but would love to and intend to in the future. So flights will go up.
Cool visualisation. Would be good to see the same normalised for per person in each country.
How much of the figure for Chinese emissions includes manufacturing products which are actually consumed in Europe, North America and Japan? So effectively they are "our" emissions, just outsourced.
Other nations are looking at how Germany acts if only because many other big polluters have a bigger problem in making reductions. Germany’s economy is dominated by services that require less energy and produce less carbon than places tilted toward industry and manufacturing. China, which is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, has a larger share of its economy tied to factories and therefore will find it harder to make reductions.
This is what I meant by technology. My knowledge is pretty limited but it would appear that producing all our energy required for land based travel, heating, lighting and industrial purposes from renewables is possible, and not that far off (20-30 years). However air travel maybe more difficult.Apologies for the terse late night response to your post the other day.
This could be done without making our lives more restrictive.
I am suprisded by trinidad and tobago, but not sure why....
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.
Hydrogen innit.
In the bigger scheme of things, we really ought not to be looking to batteries, with their rare earth metals (clues in the name)., but to Hydrogen, either in electricity producing fuel cells or burnt in jet engines for flights.
Obviously the issue with Hydrogen is that currently, its hugely energy intensive to crack water into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
However, folk are working on developing that process.
Interestingly, there's already a scheme in Sheffield where H is being produced by a system powered by a wind turbine.
http://www.itm-power.com/project/wind-hydrogen-development-platform
I've done a bit of googling and it seems California is starting down that road with about a 100 filling stations to date.
Saw a Sheffield City council van with a sticker 'Powered by Hydrogen' so thought where does it get its H from, Turns out its from the wind powered filling station off the parkway. Its the smaller turbine, i.e. the one that actually turns, that its connected to. Its only the start, but might be the way things need to go.
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.
I disagree. Perhaps when you're talking about meeting clients etc. for the first time (or nurturing that relationship)? The Consultant I previously worked for had a significant advantage over its competitors by being an early adopter/investor in online meetings and tech in general (the wonderful world of BIM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_information_modeling)). They've used it to make use of expertise overseas both in Eastern Europe and India (I'm told that the working conditions in these locations is incredibly good).
We also delivered a project for a Client in the NW using a team based in the south which I think I visited twice (?) by train in a 12M period. I've subsequently left but know they're making use of people in Glasgow, Leeds and Plymouth on current projects, all of which heavily rely on online meetings and communication where travel (by car) is not viewed positively (think lots of paperwork :coffee:). This obviously has other benefits too as it's easier to manage peaks and troughs in workload.
Likewise, my previous Client installed Skype and it was fantastic. OK, it took ~4 years to build trust with them but once that existed my need to visit their offices dwindled dramatically as queries (both ways) could be answered fairly conventionally via instant messaging. Some of the jobs in my current office (which are mostly construction sites based in London) use WhatsApp to send through site queries negating the need for site visits (it's also cheaper for them that way!).
On Fri I had a meeting with a NW England based supplier who's technical expert lives in Poland. It was a very technical subject (with fairly large £££ ramifications) but there was absolutely no need for anything further than the Skype call we used. It helped that their expert was, well an actual expert.
I couldn't disagree more with this.
significant strides
Here is an interesting study on cutting edge carbon dioxide capture research. Seems like significant strides are being taken in this area. Might enable us to kill some of the CO2:
https://www.deccanherald.com/science-and-environment/new-material-efficiently-captures-carbon-dioxide-768035.html (https://www.deccanherald.com/science-and-environment/new-material-efficiently-captures-carbon-dioxide-768035.html)
"The new material developed by the researchers is a porous polymer -- PCP, also known as MOF or metal-organic framework -- consisting of zinc metal ions.
The researchers tested this material using X-ray structural analysis, and found that it can selectively capture only carbon dioxide molecules with ten times more efficiency than other PCPs.
When carbon dioxide molecules approach the structure, the researchers said that the molecule rotated and rearranged to trap the gas molecules.
This resulted in slight changes to the molecular channels within the PCP, allowing it to act as a sieve which can recognize molecules by their size and shape, the study noted.
The researchers said that the PCP is also recyclable with the efficiency of the trapping process not decreasing even after 10 reaction cycles."
Totally agree, however I think over egging an 'idea' such as CCS when really, its still very much an 'idea' is dangerous, as it delays action on the 'cutting fossil fuels' side of things.
I still haven't heard a totally convincing answer to a question I've asked a few times over the years after having this idea while travelling back from a visit to client at a gas-fired power station:
Why don't we turn the road network into a power station? A power station boiled down to basics is just a bunch of moving parts - magnets spinning inside copper coils etc.. We have all the moving parts we need in the road network - us!
By putting magnets on the bottom of vehicles and burying copper coils in the road, couldn't we produce electricity through electromagnetic induction as the magnet travels over the coil? Obviously it would be a fossil fuel power station to begin with. But if the vehicles weren't powered by fossil fuel,.. Also wouldn't it increase the efficiency/utility of the vehicle's fuel-source by using the momentum that it generates to generate some electricity as well as move people from A to B?
Engineers please explain the flaws. I'm assuming there's drag involved. And no such thing as free energy.
I still haven't heard a totally convincing answer to a question I've asked a few times over the years after having this idea while travelling back from a visit to client at a gas-fired power station:
Why don't we turn the road network into a power station? A power station boiled down to basics is just a bunch of moving parts - magnets spinning inside copper coils etc.. We have all the moving parts we need in the road network - us!
So that makes me ask two questions:
Why not use eddy current braking at junctions (or even, when driverless cars take over use eddy current braking between vehicles). And use the stored converted heat energy for something useful? Wouldn't a million (guessed figure for illustrative purpose) decelerations per day across a hundred thousand junctions produce a meaningful amount of energy?
And what happens in a power station generator to the eddy current brake, how is it worked around?
Wouldn't a million (guessed figure for illustrative purpose) decelerations per day across a hundred thousand junctions produce a meaningful amount of energy?
I couldn't disagree more with this.
Interesting we're so at odds with this (I'm aware of where you work). Are you sure about inefficiency? For instance, every 3 months I go to an event in London (hosted by a University) which for some reason isn't broadcast (well it is, but only to one office in Scotland). It takes me pretty much the entire working day to get to the train station (Preston), get into London and back for ~3 hours of content and its incredibly hard to be productive when travelling. Its fine if I need to read something specific or have lot of emails to catch up on but where I am now the latter isn't a thing. That day isn't a good use of my time; I struggle to imagine how the online meetings I have with people could be improved to the point they 'bought back' that time.
Likewise, one of the main reasons for me changing employment was the ability to be more flexible with when and how I work, so like others 'in the office' (I'm now at a place employing ~5 people which is a significant change) I work from home a few days per week. Mostly, I'm far more productive at home than at the office (even when PeeWee drops around for a brew). Even at my previous place, I could sometimes manage to work from home and those days were incredibly productive (and I often worked far more than my hours etc.).
Nat is currently on the other end, as a Client using a large civil engineering Consultancy and she's definitely glad of the ability to Skype call rather than several discipline-experts (with heavy day rates) booking travel, time and expenses etc. in her direction (her budget simply couldn't cope). Likewise, she's a tad over-stretched and travel time is increasingly wasted time.
There was also a significant investment of time in training for the use of such facilities by my previous Employer.
I reckon you could just give every motorist in UK a Tesla for less than it would cost to undertake some version of the proposed engineering nightmare and would smash it in efficiency too (and actually work).
Already solved - electric cars (well I know Teslas do, not sure about other manufacturers but presumably do too) have regenerative braking which can recoup lost kinetic energy under braking/deceleration and get it back into the car's battery at ~70% efficiency.
If the source of the energy in the charging coil is renewable then isn't that getting near a cheaty definition of 'free energy'?
Already solved - electric cars (well I know Teslas do, not sure about other manufacturers but presumably do too) have regenerative braking which can recoup lost kinetic energy under braking/deceleration and get it back into the car's battery at ~70% efficiency.
Yes, this is a great idea because the motor is also the generator meaning very little extra hardware is needed. Electric vehicles also have the potential to solve demand fluctuations on the grid meaning that less capacity is needed. Most cars are only used for short journeys meaning that a lot of the time they are sat around with full batteries plugged into the grid. If most people had electric vehicles that's terawatts of power sitting there. You could charge at times of low demand and put back into the grid at high demand times. Clearly that would mean that the high and low demand times would be smoothed, but that would possibly mean that there would need to be less peak capacity.
If the source of the energy in the charging coil is renewable then isn't that getting near a cheaty definition of 'free energy'?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point... but no. Moving energy from EM radiation or wind form into electrical form is just moving energy around, not making free energy.
well.. a quick google puts the disputed (may be much higher or lower) death toll associated with Chernobyl at 6000-10000. Cost at $225 billion, and the local area is uninhabitable for 20 000 years.
Fukashima has alread cost $187 billion.
If the source of the energy in the charging coil is renewable then isn't that getting near a cheaty definition of 'free energy'?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point... but no. Moving energy from EM radiation or wind form into electrical form is just moving energy around, not making free energy.
Yeah you’re misunderstanding my point but I didn’t word it well. I realise you can’t ‘make’ or destroy energy. It was more a figure of speech for getting energy from carbon-free processes and using it for both transporting people (the moving parts in a power generator) and energy generation.
Matt - so if inertia from spinning rotors is a way that power stations partly mitigate the inefficiency eddy currents, could you find something large and heavy that moves at a relatively constant speed, and use it for power generation? Say a large cargo ship or passenger ferry. Coming into dock use electromagnetic rails either side of it and eddy current to decelerate, instead of liquid fuel.
Also wonder why we haven’t got solar-powered ships - large surface area and plenty of capacity for massive heavy batteries?
I reckon you could just give every motorist in UK a Tesla for less than it would cost to undertake some version of the proposed engineering nightmare and would smash it in efficiency too (and actually work).
:D And lots of folk would sell their Tesla and go back to their 15 year old cars :)
You know more people die in road accidents every year? Every year.
You know how many more die from air pollution, every year?
Our current habits are far more lethal! Not to mention, way more expensive. Add to that, the vast difference between fission reactors and nuclear batteries, in terms of risk etc. Then look at the likelihood of repetition...
Nope, our fear of the bogie man called radiation blinds us to the possibilities.
Which renewable tech does not require “extractive” industry for it’s source? Do wind turbines now grow fully functional from GMO pumpkin plants? I must have missed the fields of organic Stainless Steel crops and Copper vineyards.
Probably hidden by Green houses where they grow the Lithium...
Sorry, snarky I know. But everybody forgets these thing are only “relatively” green.
Yeah you’re misunderstanding my point but I didn’t word it well. I realise you can’t ‘make’ or destroy energy. It was more a figure of speech for getting energy from carbon-free processes and using it for both transporting people and energy generation - by turning people travelling into the moving parts of a generator.
You know more people die in road accidents every year? Every year.
You know how many more die from air pollution, every year?
Our current habits are far more lethal! Not to mention, way more expensive. Add to that, the vast difference between fission reactors and nuclear batteries, in terms of risk etc. Then look at the likelihood of repetition...
Nope, our fear of the bogie man called radiation blinds us to the possibilities.
Which renewable tech does not require “extractive” industry for it’s source? Do wind turbines now grow fully functional from GMO pumpkin plants? I must have missed the fields of organic Stainless Steel crops and Copper vineyards.
Probably hidden by Green houses where they grow the Lithium...
Sorry, snarky I know. But everybody forgets these thing are only “relatively” green.
People are going to start driving more safely because they have nuclear cars?
How much radioisotope would you need for a fissionable mass and how many car batteries would that be. How about for a dirty bomb?
Agreed all things are relatively green, and mining radioisotopes is very far down the list of relatively green!
I think - one of the main issues with this is how our grid is structured...
If you aerosolised a load of tritium (dirty bomb style), and then the population of a city huffed it in, does everyone get lung cancer? I guess you need significantly more tritium to make a beta-voltaic cell in a car than you do do make your watch glow? The difference between using such technology in the Navy and on the street is the people who have access to it.
Wouldn't dare live on dartmoor. The ponies just have that look about them...
Fair enough, the next question is how do you deal with public perception of radioactivity? It might not be a physical problem but it is still a hurdle to a possibly more green technology.
Sorry for all the questions but it is interesting stuff that I know relatively little about!
Tritium eh, not exactly lying around in glowing rocks to be mined? So what difficult And expensive to produce by the sound of it?
Also I can’t think of anything bad anyone has ever done with a mass of tritium. Oh wait, there was that one time in Japan...
You didn’t read the NS article, did you?
The Tritium cells are 1970’s tech.
So - how come, after 70 years and $trillion+ of subsidy* worldwide over this time, Nuclear power is still so amazingly expensive? (and thats not including the ongoing cost of decomissionining the existing plants and development facilities)
Whilst the cost per kw/h of the next Hinkley is still - er 3 times that of offshore wind?
*lets include all that bomb making stuff in there too...
Despite all of the other issues with the potential tech noted above, it also seems to be an answer in search of a question. What are looking is battery tech to store energy from renewable sources, not an alternative power source.
Ultimately, if we’re going to cut our emissions and even act to reverse the situation, we need to power our efforts and society. Or stop. As a species. Just give up and return to the caves, even then our camp fires would be an issue...
I've been on a bit of a journey over the last couple of years. Moving toward a more environmentally conscious way of living.
Very roughly, how much energy do you get out of one of these nuclear batteries (per unit mass or volume - whichever you prefer)? i.e. are we talking about a useful amount of energy, or about it being like sticking a small solar panel on the roof your your electric car and thinking you've solved the problem of how to charge it for your long daily commute?
Very roughly, how much energy do you get out of one of these nuclear batteries (per unit mass or volume - whichever you prefer)? i.e. are we talking about a useful amount of energy, or about it being like sticking a small solar panel on the roof your your electric car and thinking you've solved the problem of how to charge it for your long daily commute?
Ok, the Thermovoltaic batteries used on the voyager missions, were 420w output, Pu units with an energy density of 0.45w/g.
NASA went on to develop it’s multimission unit, which is higher again, but I’ll take that one as the start for the 20x.
So, at a similar mass, energy density of 9 per gram (so way better than the 1970s little pacemaker batteries), the 420w unit was ~1kg.
Therefore the new units would give ~ 8.4kW/kg?
Sound right? I keep having to stop typing/thinking to deal with customers...
There’s a fair amount of mixing and matching between various tech in this, it’s lacking in coherence and I’m extrapolating between them.
To clarify, there are three different nuclear batteries included. The 1970’s Betavoltaics, the Voyager Thermovoltaics (using ²³⁸Pu, low shielding, but Gamma emitting) and the “New” type for which the only data available is “20x the Thermovoltaic” type.
Yeah you’re misunderstanding my point but I didn’t word it well. I realise you can’t ‘make’ or destroy energy. It was more a figure of speech for getting energy from carbon-free processes and using it for both transporting people and energy generation - by turning people travelling into the moving parts of a generator.
I don' really understand your idea about using it "for both transporting people and energy generation" - if we use a wind farm or solar farm, we're generating electrical energy... which we then use for whatever we want (light, running heat pumps, charging our EV etc.) If we then go drive our EV, we can recover some energy using regenerative breaking, but only when we're breaking... and not that much, so it makes sense just to run it back into the battery like Steve said.
When we're doing the bulk of using the energy is when we're not breaking, at which point I don't see how we can "generate" energy for the grid - you'd run your battery harder to inefficiently pump energy back into the grid you just took it out of. Perhaps I still don't quite understand what you're getting at. Is your point just about regen breaking?
Yeah you’re misunderstanding my point but I didn’t word it well. I realise you can’t ‘make’ or destroy energy. It was more a figure of speech for getting energy from carbon-free processes and using it for both transporting people and energy generation - by turning people travelling into the moving parts of a generator.
I don' really understand your idea about using it "for both transporting people and energy generation" - if we use a wind farm or solar farm, we're generating electrical energy... which we then use for whatever we want (light, running heat pumps, charging our EV etc.) If we then go drive our EV, we can recover some energy using regenerative breaking, but only when we're breaking... and not that much, so it makes sense just to run it back into the battery like Steve said.
When we're doing the bulk of using the energy is when we're not breaking, at which point I don't see how we can "generate" energy for the grid - you'd run your battery harder to inefficiently pump energy back into the grid you just took it out of. Perhaps I still don't quite understand what you're getting at. Is your point just about regen breaking?
Not just about regen braking. I'm just wondering out loud that there seems to be so much kinetic energy at work in a road network with millions of vehicles moving around it and most of it goes to waste.
I understand that it's pointless to work an EV (or any vehicle) harder just to put energy back into a storage grid. But what about the example of a vehicle with a magnet in it travelling down a hill over a coil buried in the road- harnessing the kinetic energy produced by force of gravity, which is independent of the kinetic energy produced by the fossil fuel or EV battery that propels the vehicle on the flat? Rather than waste that energy by braking, you could slow down by returning energy to a grid as you pass over the coils? Are there gains to be had there if you scale that up to millions of journeys? Or would that still take as much or more EV battery/diesel energy as the energy that could be returned?
Very roughly, how much energy do you get out of one of these nuclear batteries (per unit mass or volume - whichever you prefer)? i.e. are we talking about a useful amount of energy, or about it being like sticking a small solar panel on the roof your your electric car and thinking you've solved the problem of how to charge it for your long daily commute?
Ok, the Thermovoltaic batteries used on the voyager missions, were 420w output, Pu units with an energy density of 0.45w/g.
NASA went on to develop it’s multimission unit, which is higher again, but I’ll take that one as the start for the 20x.
So, at a similar mass, energy density of 9 per gram (so way better than the 1970s little pacemaker batteries), the 420w unit was ~1kg.
Therefore the new units would give ~ 8.4kW/kg?
Sound right? I keep having to stop typing/thinking to deal with customers...
There’s a fair amount of mixing and matching between various tech in this, it’s lacking in coherence and I’m extrapolating between them.
To clarify, there are three different nuclear batteries included. The 1970’s Betavoltaics, the Voyager Thermovoltaics (using ²³⁸Pu, low shielding, but Gamma emitting) and the “New” type for which the only data available is “20x the Thermovoltaic” type.
Matt, I think you're conflating a couple of things which are incompatible.
The ~0.45w/g of Pu Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Space suggests 0.54-0.57w/g) is the thermal power of the radioactive decay. AFAIK there's no way to change radioactive decay rate of a specific isotope, that's why we know the half-life of say Pu-238. This is the theoretical maximum power density of a Pu-238 RTG. The only way to improve this is to change isotope. The link above has a good section on the selection of fuel (low shielding required, good power density, good half life). Polonium-210 has a much much higher power density, but a half gram sample of it reaches temperatures of 500C through its own decay.
The 20x better is based on the notional improvement in efficiency of converting the radioactive power into electricity. Currently it goes radiation generates heat and heat is converted to electricity with a thermoelectric generator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator), efficiencies in 3-7%. It's this process that the article refers to as a 20x increase.
The RTGs used in Galileo were 300W and have a quoted 7% efficiency, so 20x improvement just wouldn't be possible.
The actual output power density of the RTGs is much lower than 0.45w/g. The 300W(electrical) RTG on Galileo weighed for a 5.2W/kg or 0.0052W/g. Even with perfect efficiency we'd only come back to the 0.57w/g power density of Pu-238.
Big problem with using these widespread (apart from the plutonium part) is that they are always on, we can't unplug them and stop the decay, so we have to dissipate the heat anyways. The 300W generators had a thermal power of 4.4kW.
Note: my only source was Wikipedia
Yeah you’re misunderstanding my point but I didn’t word it well. I realise you can’t ‘make’ or destroy energy. It was more a figure of speech for getting energy from carbon-free processes and using it for both transporting people and energy generation - by turning people travelling into the moving parts of a generator.
I don' really understand your idea about using it "for both transporting people and energy generation" - if we use a wind farm or solar farm, we're generating electrical energy... which we then use for whatever we want (light, running heat pumps, charging our EV etc.) If we then go drive our EV, we can recover some energy using regenerative breaking, but only when we're breaking... and not that much, so it makes sense just to run it back into the battery like Steve said.
When we're doing the bulk of using the energy is when we're not breaking, at which point I don't see how we can "generate" energy for the grid - you'd run your battery harder to inefficiently pump energy back into the grid you just took it out of. Perhaps I still don't quite understand what you're getting at. Is your point just about regen breaking?
Not just about regen braking. I'm just wondering out loud that there seems to be so much kinetic energy at work in a road network with millions of vehicles moving around it and most of it goes to waste.
I understand that it's pointless to work an EV (or any vehicle) harder just to put energy back into a storage grid. But what about the example of a vehicle with a magnet in it travelling down a hill over a coil buried in the road- harnessing the kinetic energy produced by force of gravity, which is independent of the kinetic energy produced by the fossil fuel or EV battery that propels the vehicle on the flat? Rather than waste that energy by braking, you could slow down by returning energy to a grid as you pass over the coils? Are there gains to be had there if you scale that up to millions of journeys? Or would that still take as much or more EV battery/diesel energy as the energy that could be returned?
If it were already an EV, then that example would be the same as regenerative braking (just without the slowing down).
Also wonder why we haven’t got solar-powered ships - large surface area and plenty of capacity for massive heavy batteries?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/15/bank-of-england-boss-warns-global-finance-it-is-funding-climate-crisis
just need to persuade the developed world's pension funds that avoiding climate change is profitable and we'll be fine
just need to persuade the developed world's pension funds that avoiding climate change is profitable and we'll be fine
just need to persuade the developed world's pension funds that avoiding climate change is profitable and we'll be fine
they might also want reduce their liabilities by investing in tobacco, alcohol and developing new vices for the over 60s
On another note, by disrupting commuters trying to use electrified public transport are XR shooting themselves in the foot and making more enemies than friends?
On another note, by disrupting commuters trying to use electrified public transport are XR shooting themselves in the foot and making more enemies than friends?
Definitely, and probably not making friends within XR - according to the Guardian an internal poll of XR members showed 72% opposed action on London Underground.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is the carbon footprint of the food we eat. To minimise this, an easily achievable step would be to buy British and also to buy fruit and veg in season. I used to buy asparagus quite regularly that had been flown in from Peru (which was nice and cheap) but now don't bother, its not justifiable in my view. Sorry Peruvian farmers!
This very much reminded me of this tweet:
https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/583261721994924033?s=20
imported tomatoes from Spain and Italy have two times lower greenhouse gas emissions than those produced in Austria in capital-intensive heated systems. On the contrary, tomatoes from Spain and Italy were found to have 3.7 to 4.7 times higher greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to less-intensive organic production systems in Austria.
I got called small minded (diddums I know) on Twitter for pointing out something similar regarding Lewis Hamilton (veganism and V8s)
One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is the carbon footprint of the food we eat. To minimise this, an easily achievable step would be to buy British and also to buy fruit and veg in season. I used to buy asparagus quite regularly that had been flown in from Peru (which was nice and cheap) but now don't bother, its not justifiable in my view. Sorry Peruvian farmers!
My growing view is that we're all way too cuntish to take individual actions to avoid fucking the planet up - most of us have our vices and wont give them up, whether it's long-haul climbing, driving loads, buying loads of shit from far away, having the heating on too much etc. We just do what's convenient and ignore the rest, and probably 9/10 of us are the same.
I think how we produce and consume food is more important than what we eat.
I got called small minded (diddums I know) on Twitter for pointing out something similar regarding Lewis Hamilton (veganism and V8s)
I guess this depends on whether Hamilton is vegan for environmental reasons or because he doesn’t like killing fluffy animals!
One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is the carbon footprint of the food we eat. To minimise this, an easily achievable step would be to buy British and also to buy fruit and veg in season. I used to buy asparagus quite regularly that had been flown in from Peru (which was nice and cheap) but now don't bother, its not justifiable in my view. Sorry Peruvian farmers!
From the little i have read this is a far more complex thing than 1st meets the eye, as suggested in alexs post. I know a few who have gone down the veggie/non meat eating route for this reason and i am not convinced its as easy as that, nor do i intend to start eating rabbit food all my life. Is eating local grass fed beef worse than imported avocado or asparagus? I believe cheese has a bigger carbon footprint than chicken and pork so should we stop eating that first?
I cant help but feel that the "facts" are often heavily influenced by the" in it for the money" meat producers on one side, and the animal rights campaigners on the other, and i feel the later group really is hijacking this to help push their cause.
I have a lot of good friends who are farmers and they feel pretty threatened by the dont eat meat message but also they dont identify at all with the intensive farming that you see used to justify it. I think how we produce and consume food is more important than what we eat.
so aside leaving it to become woodland (not in itself a daft alternative)
Wasnt farming fish seen as a realtively low C way of generating protein?
On a fruit POV it would mean eating locally grown deciduous fruit (mostly apples plums and pears) late summer, cultivated berries and little else.
On a fruit POV it would mean eating locally grown deciduous fruit (mostly apples plums and pears) late summer, cultivated berries and little else.
Only if you want to burn in hell.On a fruit POV it would mean eating locally grown deciduous fruit (mostly apples plums and pears) late summer, cultivated berries and little else.
Are we still allowed to freeze things?
On a fruit POV it would mean eating locally grown deciduous fruit (mostly apples plums and pears) late summer, cultivated berries and little else.
Are we still allowed to freeze things?
The obvious answer to that is to eat stuff that is in season, which is fine in theory but has some associated problems, not least that we're all so used to being able to source any veg we want at any time of year that cooking seasonally can feel like a huge effort - the kind of effort that seems like quite a hurdle to a busy working family.
preserving in jars is the only way I'm afraid.
The obvious answer to that is to eat stuff that is in season, which is fine in theory but has some associated problems, not least that we're all so used to being able to source any veg we want at any time of year that cooking seasonally can feel like a huge effort - the kind of effort that seems like quite a hurdle to a busy working family.
There's no reason cooking with seasonal produce should be any more actual work (prep etc.) than with non-seasonal, but it requires a different mindset where you first buy what's available and then decide what to make with it. I guess that could feel like a restriction.
The obvious answer to that is to eat stuff that is in season, which is fine in theory but has some associated problems, not least that we're all so used to being able to source any veg we want at any time of year that cooking seasonally can feel like a huge effort - the kind of effort that seems like quite a hurdle to a busy working family.
There's no reason cooking with seasonal produce should be any more actual work (prep etc.) than with non-seasonal, but it requires a different mindset where you first buy what's available and then decide what to make with it. I guess that could feel like a restriction.
I know it sounds lazy (and perhaps it is, but I'd argue it was more to do with having many other things competing for my time) and is a terribly uncool thing to admit to on such a middle class forum, but I don't currently have the culinary creativity required to do as you describe, and the amount of work I think it would take to get to that point is quite daunting.
I know it sounds lazy (and perhaps it is, but I'd argue it was more to do with having many other things competing for my time) and is a terribly uncool thing to admit to on such a middle class forum, but I don't currently have the culinary creativity required to do as you describe, and the amount of work I think it would take to get to that point is quite daunting.
Everyone has a level of climate hypocrisy... we all consume things (down to the carbon that is used to maintain this forum and send the data to our devices) and make internal choices about what we are comfortable with doing.
That includes having children, owning a dog, taking flights, eating meat and so on and so on...
Will Australia become the first place where it is no longer tenable to host a major, advanced society (no doubt some much smaller island communities will be lost sooner)? And, if so, how long will it take?
it could have happened anyway etc. etc..
It also has huge coal and gas reserves... but lets assume they drop out of favour in the next couple of decades.
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.
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 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
Anyone been to Siurana by train?
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.
so I can still get a holiday somewhere warm or snowy once or twice a year.
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)
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)
Anyone been to Siurana by train?
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.
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).
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!
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.
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.
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?
So your sense of purpose is not necessarily good for the environment!
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.
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.
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.The trouble is everyone seems to be focused on the future of EV cars or the evils of travel at the moment. But we all live in shockingly inefficient homes heated mainly by gas boilers at the moment. I read recently that assuming we started building incredibly low energy buildings tomorrow (passive house standard - including air source heat pumps, heat recovery ventilation etc), and retrofitted every existing home in the country to the same standard, which is basically impossible, then by 2050 we still wouldn't have enough energy from renewables or nuclear to power them (based on national grid projections). We're so far off hitting the govt's target of net zero by 2050 it's just a joke.
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.The trouble is everyone seems to be focused on the future of EV cars or the evils of travel at the moment. But we all live in shockingly inefficient homes heated mainly by gas boilers at the moment. I read recently that assuming we started building incredibly low energy buildings tomorrow (passive house standard - including air source heat pumps, heat recovery ventilation etc), and retrofitted every existing home in the country to the same standard, which is basically impossible, then by 2050 we still wouldn't have enough energy from renewables or nuclear to power them (based on national grid projections). We're so far off hitting the govt's target of net zero by 2050 it's just a joke.
And is it any wonder that the govt continues to allow the volume house-builders to throw up the shite they do when the Tory party is funded by property developers? Is this going to change any time soon? Doesn't look like it. But equally - are we all going to spend £100k on retrofitting our own homes with masses of insulation, triple glazed windows, or heat recovery systems - even if that were possible? Probably not.
Basically we're fucked. That's my conclusion. Smiley face.
Basically we're fucked. That's my conclusion. Smiley face.
I tend to agree, Covid has shown that vast tracts of the population won’t take mild inconvenience in the face of an imminent threat. I can’t see any way of getting people to take inconvenience to combat a slightly nebulous but very serious future threat.Agree with this sentiment. Covid also highlighted a lack of resilience in systems and institutions as well as lack of global cooperation between nation states on what has 'mercifully' (overall perspective, lots of personal tragedies obviously) amounted to a relatively benign and relatively easy global coordination problem. Climate change slower but a much harder coordination problem. So lots to be pessimistic about but also a lot of hope and optimism to be had re. climate. Even with just the current (ultimately clearly inadequate) mitigation measures, there's a reasonable amount of runway before things get really bad. A pinch of futurist optimism looking how the exponential rate of progress on earth is ramping up fast now, it's not too difficult to imagine climate being solved in a fairly short time horizon. There're also promising looking runway extension measures in the offing - the impressive Kelly Wanser on a few ideas here: https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/kelly-wanser-climate-interventions/
Re Chris's very tentative appeal to be allowed a trip or so a year. Having recently been dipping my toes into the current world of internet dating recently, I've been completely astounded by the almost absolute disregard for international travel as anything other than a massive jolly. Almost every other person is 80 countries and counting / I live for that next flight / identikit pictures in Petra, Dubai, groping a drugged lion somewhere in Africa, listing their Maldivian beach bucket list. And these are the women - I imagine the blokes are far worse. None of these people are going to curb their behaviour unless there's a serious disincentive. I head something on Today a while back about individual flight logging, with increased flight taxes based on how many trips / miles you do a year, which sounds like a good start...
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
Are you intimating that he should have stuck to masturbation?
Are you intimating that he should have stuck to masturbation?I wish his dad had!
Basically we're fucked. That's my conclusion. Smiley face.
I read recently that assuming we started building incredibly low energy buildings tomorrow (passive house standard - including air source heat pumps, heat recovery ventilation etc), and retrofitted every existing home in the country to the same standard, which is basically impossible, then by 2050 we still wouldn't have enough energy from renewables or nuclear to power them (based on national grid projections). We're so far off hitting the govt's target of net zero by 2050 it's just a joke.
And is it any wonder that the govt continues to allow the volume house-builders to throw up the shite they do when the Tory party is funded by property developers? Is this going to change any time soon? Doesn't look like it. But equally - are we all going to spend £100k on retrofitting our own homes with masses of insulation, triple glazed windows, or heat recovery systems - even if that were possible? Probably not.
Let's face it though, climbers are generally no better!
Let's face it though, climbers are generally no better!
All the steel alloy you ever used in your climbing life was probably made by burning metallurgical coal, of the type from the proposed mine in Cumbria. But in future that steel could be made by electric arc furnace from scrap steel. Prices for steel alloys likely to rise though - £25 quickdraws...
I've been completely astounded by the almost absolute disregard for international travel as anything other than a massive jolly. Almost every other person is 80 countries and counting / I live for that next flight / identikit pictures in Petra, Dubai, groping a drugged lion somewhere in Africa, listing their Maldivian beach bucket list. And these are the women - I imagine the blokes are far worse. None of these people are going to curb their behaviour unless there's a serious disincentive. I head something on Today a while back about individual flight logging, with increased flight taxes based on how many trips / miles you do a year, which sounds like a good start...
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.
Great post Andy.
On the wider point of altering people’s behaviour, in terms of flying for example, what other ‘sticks’ are available to the government besides taxing things to an extent to stop them being an option for anyone but the rich? Any sort of personal ‘carbon allowance’ seems like it would be impossible to implement.
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.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.
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,
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.
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.Alternatives 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 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping-fuel-regulation-to-cut-sulphur-levels-comes-into-force) 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!
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.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.
You can be sure the wealthy will carry on travelling, while lecturing the rest of us on climate change.
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!
I have a friend whose university department is developing a ship paint that barnacles can't stick to for exactly this reason.
And fossil fuel - or at least diesel -car scrappage schemes.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.
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.Taking Greenpeace off the terrorist watch list would also be a good start maybe…
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.
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.
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.
This discussion seems a bit narrow to be focusing on flight for social, domestic, and pleasure. Surely getting a handle on population numbers and changing food production, transportation, and consumption is at least as important, if not more. Not to mention lots of other things that need sorting.
This discussion seems a bit narrow to be focusing on flight for social, domestic, and pleasure. Surely getting a handle on population numbers and changing food production, transportation, and consumption is at least as important, if not more. Not to mention lots of other things that need sorting.
Though, on the topic of recreational flying, what ever happened to carbon offsetting? I haven't flown in a couple of years and have no immediate plans to, but as and when I do fly again it's something I'd look to do. Secondly, 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.
Besides, I was only using the car as an example of my view that people will be extremely reluctant to simply forgo technology which is accessible to them. Which goes back to Pete's point, to make it inaccessible you have to make it expensive.
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.
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.
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.Alternatives 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 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping-fuel-regulation-to-cut-sulphur-levels-comes-into-force) 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..
Ali - I think we're at the beginning of a concerted policy to shift the overton window so that more and more people in countries with high rates of consumption over time get used to their restricted, limited lives.
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.
There's a good Vox mini documentary which talks about cars and public transport in America (for anyone who might be interested)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZDZtBRTyeI
I offset my flying, and driving, by not eating meat. I thought everyone was doing that ;)
Besides, I was only using the car as an example of my view that people will be extremely reluctant to simply forgo technology which is accessible to them. Which goes back to Pete's point, to make it inaccessible you have to make it expensive.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.
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.
So can I just offset my carbon onto my parents as it’s their fault I exist?
So can I just offset my carbon onto my parents as it’s their fault I exist?
Does it necessarily have to equate to inequality? I'd envisaged as everybody being given an equal quota, with people being able to choose to sell.I don't see any other outcome happening apart from those with more cash buying from those with less. It'll be like wartime rationing again, only this time it's the rich creaming off the lion's share of everyone's carbon quotas instead of eggs or butter.
Is it more to do with "excess" children? As in, having more children than just essentially replacing yourself (and therefore contributing to population growth)?To be a true carbon hero you need to time your exit perfectly with their arrival, so you never actually meet your child. That's the carbon neutral way :smartass:
And carbon offsetting is bollocks - that term should be confined to the same ships full of 'recycling' being sent off to Malaysia.
Can anyone explain the maths of this to me? Or point me to something that does?
Can anyone explain the maths of this to me? Or point me to something that does?
I guess the maths is quite simple: if one was considering having a child, and then didn’t for climate change reasons, then one could argue that you’ve saved the planet one entire human being’s worth of carbon consumption.
Does it necessarily have to equate to inequality? I'd envisaged as everybody being given an equal quota, with people being able to choose to sell.I don't see any other outcome happening apart from those with more cash buying from those with less. It'll be like wartime rationing again, only this time it's the rich creaming off the lion's share of everyone's carbon quotas instead of eggs or butter.
If the govt sets strict emissions limits, which is what's needed (not just on flights but across the board), then without some serious regulation carbon emissions will basically become a commodity which ends up being concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest to 'spend' on golfing holidays or trips to space.
And carbon offsetting is bollocks - that term should be confined to the same ships full of 'recycling' being sent off to Malaysia.
As far as I can see, ‘carbon offsetting’ is just weasel words to avoid taking responsibility for your own footprint, or greenwashing to permit business as usual to continue without taking a big PR hit.
And rather than a mere dismissal of "it's bollocks", please explain why it is a nonsense for the conscientious flyer to pay a company to sequester an equivalent volume of carbon when taking a flight.
conscientious flyer
If they're rich and choose to use it on a golfing holiday then that's absolutely fine by me.
If they're rich and choose to use it on a golfing holiday then that's absolutely fine by me.
Golfing is definitely not ok. Golf courses must be one of the most environmentally ruinous activities around. They use vast amounts of water, often in drought ridden areas as well as probably affecting drainage patterns, biodiversity...
conscientious flyer
That oxymoron is where the problem lies Will.
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. That’s where this commodity differs from most others, and also where the risk of further inequality lies IMO.
And rather than a mere dismissal of "it's bollocks", please explain why it is a nonsense for the conscientious flyer to pay a company to sequester an equivalent volume of carbon when taking a flight.If you can find me a way that guarantees the equivalent volume of carbon is sequestered, and in a timescale that isn’t decades or even centuries long, then I’ll be all over carbon offsetting!
What a petulant response.
But it is just sophistry isn't it? Carbon offsetting focusses on a very small part of the pollution
On a side issue, given the planned phase out of gas boilers, what are the relative merits of wood burning stoves to heat homes? I don't have one and don't plan on getting one either, incidentally.
On a side issue, given the planned phase out of gas boilers, what are the relative merits of wood burning stoves to heat homes? I don't have one and don't plan on getting one either, incidentally.Not sufficient to heat a full house unless other aspects of it are improved, like the insulation etc, and if you did that then you may as well use direct electric or a heat pump from renewables. Or you could have one in most rooms like back in ye olde days I suppose. And they're also bad for local air quality.
I read somewhere they caused a lot of pollution of a Victorian type, see if I can find it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39115829
On a side issue, given the planned phase out of gas boilers, what are the relative merits of wood burning stoves to heat homes? I don't have one and don't plan on getting one either, incidentally.Not sufficient to heat a full house unless other aspects of it are improved, like the insulation etc, and if you did that then you may as well use direct electric or a heat pump from renewables. Or you could have one in most rooms like back in ye olde days I suppose. And they're also bad for local air quality.
On a side issue, given the planned phase out of gas boilers, what are the relative merits of wood burning stoves to heat homes? I don't have one and don't plan on getting one either, incidentally.Not sufficient to heat a full house unless other aspects of it are improved, like the insulation etc, and if you did that then you may as well use direct electric or a heat pump from renewables. Or you could have one in most rooms like back in ye olde days I suppose. And they're also bad for local air quality.
Plenty good enough to heat the whole house if you get one with a back boiler to plug into your central heating. The air quality issues seem to be bad and are exacerbated by people not having their burners at the right temperature or using wet wood.
In terms of carbon alone (rather than air quality), you are burning something that’s 20-60ish years old and had been sequestering that carbon from the atmosphere in that time, rather than 200-300 million year old carbon that was previously locked away in the crust.
Plenty good enough to heat the whole house if you get one with a back boiler to plug into your central heating.Sorry, should have been more specific. Clearly it's possible to heat a house with a wood burner. Is it practical as a means to replace gas boilers? Not really. There would have to be a raging furnace in one room to provide enough heat and hot water for a whole house and family during the heating season (or multiple smaller ones spread across the house). And they'd have to be kept lit day and night, including in summer to get your hot water, unless you had a separate water heater which defeats the point really.
If they're rich and choose to use it on a golfing holiday then that's absolutely fine by me.
Golfing is definitely not ok. Golf courses must be one of the most environmentally ruinous activities around. They use vast amounts of water, often in drought ridden areas as well as probably affecting drainage patterns, biodiversity...
I find this interesting.
There are a few sides to the equation here. We tend to travel miles to our venue of adventurous choice. Considering many different factors, it would be really interesting to compare the relative impacts of participation/consumption across various pursuits.
We all have a role to play in consuming less. References to being "a conscientious flyer" strike me as suggesting being more aware than not of the impact of choices on climate.
.. and all very easy for me to comment on, when I only have myself to look after.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Totally agree. That was my point earlier re: domestic emissions.
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 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.
Don't lose hope, everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw