UKBouldering.com

the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: mrjonathanr on October 09, 2019, 10:39:33 pm

Title: Climate Change
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 09, 2019, 10:39:33 pm
When I searched ukb, to my surprise, I found no thread on climate change. Maybe I didn’t look in the right places? Surely a message board for climbers, people who spend as much time as they can out in the environment, must have a thread dedicated to its - and our- greatest threat?

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)

What are we going to do? Nothing? Or something- and if so- what?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on October 09, 2019, 11:02:48 pm
You're right, its a strange omission. We can make personal changes; I'm about to move to a city where I won't have a car and which has serious plans to be carbon neutral by 2025. But personal change isn't enough; my move will mean I fly at least as much as do now. I'm vegan and try and eat local but could do much more in that direction. I almost never been buy new clothing (or anything much really) but still think enough about what and how I consume.

We need to persuade others, lobby, vote in ways that might make a difference (when we can), make this political (climate change is also a matter of social and economic justice), those of us who can need to invent and innovate. And we need to protest.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 10, 2019, 08:29:39 am

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)


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’ve dipped into a few XR/Climate Change discussions on UKC recently, which I think has a user base representing a broader swathe of the population than our own forums, and seen the same old counter arguments trotted out still: science not settled, what about China and India, etc. etc. which is pretty depressing to see.

At the heart of the issue seems to be convincing people to reduce their perceived quality of life (flying, driving, eating what they want etc.) for no tangible gain for themselves. There doesn’t seem to be much ‘planting of trees whose shade we will never know’ at the moment!

I think in this country a massive investment in public transport would be a good start in the right direction, make it convenient and cheap for people to use trains trams and buses for their commute. 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’.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 10, 2019, 09:11:41 am
re: the science. There was a great cartoon I saw recently saying "But what if we aren't causing climate change, and all that happens is we create a cleaner atmosphere and become less dependent on fossil fuels"

There are changes we can all make in our lives; the broadest subjects are;

1) Personal transport / travel
2) Consumption
3) Household Energy
4) Political Influences

Re 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. 
 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 10, 2019, 09:24:09 am
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 10, 2019, 09:44:59 am
I understand the rationale, but the investment is astronomical and the solution a few years down the line.

By comparison, sorting out ways to make local public transport better and more affordable are relatively straightforward.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on October 10, 2019, 10:10:17 am
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Offwidth on October 10, 2019, 10:47:19 am

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.

If the north had better infrastructure, freight could arrive at northern ports and not have to travel north south. By the time HS2 is ready a large proportion of  business meetings will have moved online and way more people with a work base in London and commuting will be working from home part of the time. HS2 was always a white elephant with really confused explanations of benefits (you dont need high speed if extra capacity is the real problem)  and costs are spiralling as predicted and would never have been approved at the current dishonestly low government estimates. That money should be spent on public transport in the north and improving broadband across the UK. Another often forgotten ecological fact about HS2 is that fast trains use proportionately way more energy for the sake of cutting minutes off a journey from London to Birmingham and requires a vastly more expensive track (with its own extra ecological impact) to cope with the high speed and much more greedy use of power for the journey. If its gone now, good riddance.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on October 10, 2019, 11:00:35 am
But if your high speed trains reduce the number of flights/cars traveling N-S, then this must negate some/all of the increased energy usage of HS2?

From what I gather the main opposition from people is not that HS2 is a bad thing, just that investment in other infrastructure would be more worthwhile in terms of a) reducing emissions b)reducing delays c) increasing capacity.

What are the extra ecological impacts of HS2? Surely if you increase capacity, which to me means adding another track in my simple views, there will be a similar impact?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Offwidth on October 10, 2019, 11:37:55 am
On the impact front, the track has to be straighter, limiting curving round areas of importance and the land taken is wider than standard fast rail track. On capacity, think on how much more you really get above a standard highish speed track given super fast trains need wider time gap safety margins; the extra line is key, not the speed. There are other cheaper alternatve north south options than the HS2 route if you need freight capacity  ... like, as an example, using much of the line of the old closed Nottingham route. Even on the proposed HS2 route a standard fast line will be loads cheaper, narrower, and use much less power, for pretty much the same capacity gain  if not run at high speed.

I'm normally  massively pro rail investment but this is a horror show of a white elephant in value for money terms, solving todays problems for a time when things might be very different. Improvements in northern rail lines could give much faster relief to more urgent transport problems at genuine value for money. We seem obsessed with moving freight to the north from the south with all the extra ecological impact of land journeys (especially on motorways) when the best method was always to improve northern infrastructure to better utilise northern ports.

I don't endorse everything on the stop HS2 website but they do summarise the many serious questions that do require answers.

http://stophs2.org/facts
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: seankenny on October 10, 2019, 11:58:59 am
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.

Having lived in London for over a decade I'm always shocked when reminded just how bad public transport is in the rest of the country. It's absolutely vital that the government spends money on this and can't see why people would get upset about having better public transport - unless they are so used to having a shit transport network that they simply can't imagine relying on public transport.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Offwidth on October 10, 2019, 12:08:52 pm
A big Guardian series exposing 'the polluters',  in case anyone missed it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/the-polluters
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on October 10, 2019, 12:16:02 pm
Cheers offwidth, I will have a look at what they say.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Offwidth on October 10, 2019, 12:26:35 pm
... a great radio show about 110% green power generation on Orkney and use of the spare capacity to produce clean hygrogen fuel (which is used in really clever ways) to prove it's not all bad news:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0009372
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on October 10, 2019, 12:29:49 pm
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:

Quote
We 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. The alternative, as has been said,is to try and convince people to stop doing certain things that they see as a significant part of their quality of life, which in my opinion is a complete non-starter.

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, and this dilutes both their message and its impact.

I think such projects probably need their costs reported in terms of environmental gain, rather than ‘money out of the taxpayer’s pocket’.

It's not all bad news, as this sort of thing is already happening - see the recent statement from the US Business Roundtable, where they said:

Quote
While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders

Thus abandoning the longstanding principle that corporations exist solely to serve their shareholders.

Similarly in the UK there are already proposals on the way for firms to have to publish Climate Related Financial Disclosures.

A big Guardian series exposing 'the polluters',  in case anyone missed it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/the-polluters

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!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Offwidth on October 10, 2019, 12:37:16 pm
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:

Quote
We 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!

I'm an academic engineer who believes in economics but I see Greta as a necessary and very positive influence. In the end governments won't change without political pressure and companies most certainly won't change much without regulatory requirement,  despite nice words (the place I work is proud to be the greenest in its sector in the UK, according to league tables, but on the big issues , like heating, building insulation efficency and transport assistance, we are as poor as most). When Greta talks about state and company money I see it as calling out the dishonesty around that, not trashing the whole economy. The most important thing citizens can do is political.... support peaceful protest and inform others (including that  its not just important to crusties) and to apply individual political pressure for change. I do agree that although living a better greener life is important its very much secondary to the politics given the urgency.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 10, 2019, 12:47:32 pm
The two are not mutually exclusive.

^^^This.

Applies to almost all aspects of “what should we do” type questions, really.

All of it.

Somethings will work well, some not so well. We really don’t have much to lose.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SamT on October 10, 2019, 12:47:51 pm

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on October 10, 2019, 01:01:21 pm
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.

Exactly - there are alternative technologies out there but they're currently far too expensive or rely on the national grid. Hence, legislation and investment is required. It's worrying that the commitment given previously seems to have been swept under the carpet.

I'm an academic engineer who believes in economics but I see Greta as a necessary and very positive influence.

I'm certainly not saying she and others like her are unnecessary, in all honesty I was twisting her words to make a point  ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Paul B on October 10, 2019, 01:03:47 pm
1) Personal transport / travel
2) Consumption
3) Household Energy
4) Political Influences

You missed not propagating (hi Dave  :tease:).  For the record, I have no intention to have kids because of their impact on my lifestyle rather than an underlying environmental view.

I currently work in Preston and I'm not that far from the local train station but it's still more costly in both time and financial outlay for me to commute by train (this is without taking reliability into account either). It's a shame as the time spent on the train is a lot more relaxing than repeatedly driving the A59.

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’.

People generally seem to have a very poor understanding of what infrastructure actually costs. I can remember profits of UU being a headline a while ago, but when you looked at the stated value it was only ~4 of the kind of remedial works projects I was working on at time which were only a drop in the ocean compared to their capital works programme. Everyone on social media was kicking off saying "you can fix all of these leaks first" with absolutely zero appreciation for how much replacing an ageing network of Victorian assets would realistically cost! I don't think you need to report these things in terms of their environmental benefits (how would you begin to quantify such things?), more an accurate assessment of their 'value'.

I think news outlets will just grab the forecast-£££ and run with it (recent events with Whaley Bridge have left me with little faith that they're interested in accuracy or anything other than grabbing attention through a provocative headline).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 10, 2019, 01:06:53 pm

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!

Something relatively local to you on this front which I only heard about the other day https://www.leeds-pipes.co.uk/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 10, 2019, 01:13:16 pm
The two are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed not, but to use a horrible term, one is relatively low hanging fruit.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bigironhorse on October 10, 2019, 01:29:29 pm
 I am moving to Austria next week and to minimise the environmental impact of this I'm quite determined to travel back and forth by train. It has stuck me that this is really not that easy! You use to book through a minimum of three different companies and the cost of the journey is highly variable. This will be improved somewhat when the sleeper teain between Vienna and Bruxelles is introduced in January. Compare this to flying, which is nearly half the price (less if you fly from London) and can booked through a single website. What we need is a Europe wide train booking service with consistent pricing, I guess brexit has put a stop to any idea of that though. Given that trains obviously take longer than flying we should be doing everything possible to make trains more appealing.

On HS2. Some interedting thoughts here that I hadn't considered. Ive long been anti hs2 but not so sure now! Wouldn't it be better to invest in electrification of the existing network? Obviously this is only a benefit if the electricity source is clean though.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy_e on October 10, 2019, 01:46:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 10, 2019, 01:53:59 pm

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 10, 2019, 01:57:04 pm
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.

Austria is funny wrt rail. Afaik it’s got a recently de-nationalised system so there are new private players pitching in for routes. Which leads to some ticket/combined timetable given stuff that we have with our bonkers UK system.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: steveri on October 10, 2019, 02:22:32 pm
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?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 10, 2019, 02:31:47 pm
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?

And those fancy new climbing centres all consume to be built... tbh I don’t think climbing is that bad - doesn’t require much equipment but travel is a component.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 10, 2019, 02:33:34 pm
I'd say nipping over by plane to Font / Spain / Swizzy / The Alps a couple of times a year for a long weekend is worse than the hour long journeys to local crags a couple of times a week.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 10, 2019, 02:47:03 pm
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!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 10, 2019, 02:50:29 pm
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!

10-15? which doubles (in carbon equivalents) if you have two people in the car...

Ste-Mac gets a gold star for cycling out to Stanage and back for a session:)

(sorry - I realise I've only posted slightly snarky replies on this thread so far... just busy with my 3 year old carbon burden :) )
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 10, 2019, 02:58:16 pm
How often do you have a passenger for your transpennine voyages Tom  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: steveri on October 10, 2019, 03:02:44 pm
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:
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 10, 2019, 03:24:43 pm
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!

Does the flight arrive at the crag, or do you still have an hour plus to drive once there?

I'm paying the devil's advocate here; I fly to the Alps once a year, yet complain that the snow isn't as reliable these days!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 10, 2019, 03:25:37 pm
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:

Most of the bouldering I do these days is walking distance from my house, carbon credits!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on October 10, 2019, 03:30:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: T_B on October 10, 2019, 03:36:59 pm
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.

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  :-\
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on October 10, 2019, 03:53:13 pm
The best thing that anybody can do is to not have kids. However, by having kids you immediately become a low consuming individual. No more long haul flights, less meat at mealtimes, less frivolous consumption. Because you haven't got any fucking money!

Swings and roundabouts innit  :devangel:
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 10, 2019, 04:00:37 pm
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.

What we eat is also not great, worst offence include buying bananas or pineapples flown from halfway across the world, only to be thrown in the compost if they go slightly the wrong colour, or binned the day of ther best before date, even if they look and smell fine. Vegetarianism / veganism is good, but not if in the desire to keep food interesting you start getting stuff sourced further and further away. Otherwise, don't buy plastic wrapped / bagged if you can avoid, source local when possible, etc etc.

Wear clothes until they fall to bits, avoid fashion traps and labels, don't own more than you can possibly wear, and if you have too much, donate in clothes bins, charities etc. Don't have cupboards full.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 10, 2019, 04:04:59 pm
The best thing that anybody can do is to not have kids.

Best thing you can do is surely remove yourself from the population completely. Or go on a killing spree first. Next is to not have kids.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 10, 2019, 04:25:22 pm
How often do you have a passenger for your transpennine voyages Tom  ;D

Rarely - but it does happen. But That’s to go to work. If I get weather right it also includes a trip to the crag removing an additional trip.

But I’m not going to get sucked into a ‘my carbon emissions are better than yours’ silly stuff because: 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...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 10, 2019, 04:35:53 pm
(That’s not an excuse - or justification btw - and I’m not saying we shouldn’t reduce our consumption (we should!!) just that we all lead a carbon compromised life no matter how hard we might try)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 10, 2019, 04:45:46 pm
Quite. I think the intent of this thread is to discuss what we can all do better where possible to reduce our environmental impact?  I've committed so many grave offences in the past I could never be forgiven. It would take me a while to count up the number of times I've flown to South Africa and back in my life alone..
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on October 10, 2019, 04:51:03 pm
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).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 10, 2019, 04:57:11 pm
We can do a fair bit through our own behaviour changes and lifestyle choices (mainly about consumption).

But the largest changes come through political and economic forcing. Take EV’s - this (I suspect) is being driven by REAL pollution epidemics in cities, diesel gate (though nox emissions can be easily engineered out - as per adblue), and car manufacturers being kicked into realising there’s a new angle to make money by getting everyone to upgrade (kick via Tesla).

Politically in Europe this is happening slowly - but USA and Australia are heinous outliers in their attitudes and policies... don’t underestimate developing economies appreciation of CC either.. China is making some quite big decisions based on limiting CC.

I wonder what will make the US and AU change.... I thought Katrina back in 2006 would do it - and Sandy and other hurricanes since... but no. Florida is fucked. Really fucked (that’s a professional view). It’s built on effectively porous rock - so you can build sea defences but the water will just pop up inland... when will the penny drop? When the solar /wind lobby is bigger than the oil one?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 10, 2019, 05:18:53 pm
The most utter piece of idiocy I heard too was that, even in the sunniest state in the US, Florida has a ban on anyone sourcing electricity from anyone apart from the state electrical supplier. No individually owned wind turbines, solar panels etc.

Not only is it porous rock tt, but it is flat, very fat, like even more than Norfolk flat.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: T_B on October 10, 2019, 05:21:15 pm
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).

Of course. The question is will people change their actions (even having fewer/no kids)? I think they are doing.

But I agree, a lot of people still don't think twice about taking multiple flights per year to climb up rocks.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Paul B on October 10, 2019, 05:28:31 pm
With my previous leave allowance I went away a lot but it's worth bearing in mind that another member of this parish informed me that (at the time; ~Aug) he'd flown the equivalent of once every 4 days. That's staggering.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Adam Lincoln on October 10, 2019, 05:32:24 pm
Sadly as a climber, and also my career, it is pretty hard to make a difference. I can't see that changing either. I drive an hour each way to the crag 4 or 5 times a week, get a helicopter to work, and run two large diesel vehicles.

I do find it funny that a lot of climbers are always going on these marches down in London, but then they don't think twice about hooning round the country to different crags, and taking flights all over the place.Or maybe they do think twice, but decide to pursue their hobby as it makes them happy. Which doesn't make them bad people i might add.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: gme on October 10, 2019, 06:57:30 pm
I really dont believe we will get people to change how we live enough to make a difference. We can consume better but people will only travel more and consume more.
Focus needs to be on technology to allow it to happen in a less damaging manner. 

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.

 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 10, 2019, 07:02:17 pm
Human-caused climate change is an interesting problem, seemingly impossible to come to a satisfying solution because it's caused by us being alive and living well.
Unless and until 'Carbon Emissions' becomes the new global currency for business and individuals to be paid in, and governments to borrow and lend. No more sovereign government backed currency - no dollars, pounds, yen, and no bitcoin. 
In a system of Carbon Emissions currency, and within the confines of current technology and its carbon impact, frequent flyers would have to be millionaires. Alpine climbers highly paid professionals or independently wealthy aristocrats(...), or locals. African villagers would be the new rich -  with tons of disposable income due to hardly any overheads until they dropped sprogs. 'Western' families with 2 kids living a typical western life would have spent virtually all their annual currency for the next 18 years - no flights, no fun for them, they'd have to stay at home planting forests for their sins.

Sounds shit so hopefully tech will advance enough for us to continue living the good life. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on October 10, 2019, 07:07:22 pm
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).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 10, 2019, 07:27:17 pm
Carbon credits, pricing - or currency - has been around for a good while. But not everyone has signed up for it.

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

Needs everyone to sign up to it. This came close 10 years ago but... but...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Offwidth on October 10, 2019, 07:29:08 pm

If the north had better infrastructure, freight could arrive at northern ports and not have to travel north south.

Just to pull you up on that - the combined ports in the Humber are responsible for more freight traffic than all other ports in the UK save the Solent ones...

Wrt freight and rail the issue in a small country like the Uk is handling... it’s not worth taking a container off a ship onto a train then onto a lorry for delivery.

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

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/701352/england-port-connectivity-the-current-picture.pdf
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 10, 2019, 07:37:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Steve R on October 10, 2019, 08:56:26 pm
Human-caused climate change is an interesting problem, seemingly impossible to come to a satisfying solution because it's caused by us being alive and living well.
Unless and until 'Carbon Emissions' becomes the new global currency for business and individuals to be paid in, and governments to borrow and lend. No more sovereign government backed currency - no dollars, pounds, yen, and no bitcoin. 
In a system of Carbon Emissions currency, and within the confines of current technology and its carbon impact, frequent flyers would have to be millionaires. Alpine climbers highly paid professionals or independently wealthy aristocrats(...), or locals. African villagers would be the new rich -  with tons of disposable income due to hardly any overheads until they dropped sprogs. 'Western' families with 2 kids living a typical western life would have spent virtually all their annual currency for the next 18 years - no flights, no fun for them, they'd have to stay at home planting forests for their sins.
sounds a bit extreme, do you think any action at the nation state level is futile?  Seems credible to incorporate carbon into (existing) markets incrementally according to something like this: https://www.econstatement.org/  doesn't sound like it would get us to your dystopian nightmare above straight away and stands a chance of getting the ball rolling faster re. international coordinated effort.
hopefully tech will advance enough for us to continue living the good life.
Agreed.  Risky strategy to rely on but pipeline/future tech looks best hope of averting bad outcome since we're clearly not on track at the moment - seems worth trying to provide best chance of it arriving and being implemented in time by incentivising for it as hard as possible now. 
Also a couple of potential time-buying aces up the sleeve, eg. geo-engineering but hopefully won't come to that.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 10, 2019, 09:11:20 pm
Human-caused climate change is an interesting problem...

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

?!
That definitely was not me. I've been sold on the science since just about forever I think.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 10, 2019, 09:18:51 pm
Human-caused climate change is an interesting problem, seemingly impossible to come to a satisfying solution because it's caused by us being alive and living well.
Unless and until 'Carbon Emissions' becomes the new global currency for business and individuals to be paid in, and governments to borrow and lend. No more sovereign government backed currency - no dollars, pounds, yen, and no bitcoin. 
In a system of Carbon Emissions currency, and within the confines of current technology and its carbon impact, frequent flyers would have to be millionaires. Alpine climbers highly paid professionals or independently wealthy aristocrats(...), or locals. African villagers would be the new rich -  with tons of disposable income due to hardly any overheads until they dropped sprogs. 'Western' families with 2 kids living a typical western life would have spent virtually all their annual currency for the next 18 years - no flights, no fun for them, they'd have to stay at home planting forests for their sins.
sounds a bit extreme, do you think any action at the nation state level is futile?  Seems credible to incorporate carbon into (existing) markets incrementally according to something like this: https://www.econstatement.org/  doesn't sound like it would get us to your dystopian nightmare above straight away and stands a chance of getting the ball rolling faster re. international coordinated effort.
hopefully tech will advance enough for us to continue living the good life.
Agreed.  Risky strategy to rely on but pipeline/future tech looks best hope of averting bad outcome since we're clearly not on track at the moment - seems worth trying to provide best chance of it arriving and being implemented in time by incentivising for it as hard as possible now. 
Also a couple of potential time-buying aces up the sleeve, eg. geo-engineering but hopefully won't come to that.

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

It seems so bizarre, that the nations most in need of change, are those with the best eduction levels, or the greatest wealth, or the best technologies and yet have massive scepticism and rampant denialism at both governmental and population levels.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 10, 2019, 09:23:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 10, 2019, 09:54:30 pm
?!
That definitely was not me. I've been sold on the science since just about forever I think.

Apols for the slur then!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 10, 2019, 10:54:34 pm
sounds a bit extreme, do you think any action at the nation state level is futile?  Seems credible to incorporate carbon into (existing) markets incrementally according to something like this: https://www.econstatement.org/  doesn't sound like it would get us to your dystopian nightmare above straight away and stands a chance of getting the ball rolling faster re. international coordinated effort.
hopefully tech will advance enough for us to continue living the good life.
Agreed.  Risky strategy to rely on but pipeline/future tech looks best hope of averting bad outcome since we're clearly not on track at the moment - seems worth trying to provide best chance of it arriving and being implemented in time by incentivising for it as hard as possible now. 
Also a couple of potential time-buying aces up the sleeve, eg. geo-engineering but hopefully won't come to that.

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

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

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

Then I tend to think they’re probably too dumb for that.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 11, 2019, 08:46:00 am

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: James Malloch on October 11, 2019, 08:46:38 am
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...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 11, 2019, 09:15:51 am

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

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

Of course. For active outdoorsy people there's no enjoyment and very little social status from sitting at home not contributing to carbon emissions more than is necessary for a basic life. There's enjoyment and social status from going skiing/climbing/surfing/mtn biking often, and being seen to be doing so. As a species we're truly dumb as vegetables in our behaviour if our behaviour is judged in carbon emissions.
I'm flying to Bilbao in two weeks time for 5 days of climbing in the Picos. Based on what we know, how stupid, destructive and selfish is that!
The way to stop dumb addictive destructive behaviour? Maybe look at how various governments have reduced people smoking: regulation, increase costs, education, public attitudes. Appealing to smokers' better nature to look after their own well-being didn't work.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Ballsofcottonwool on October 11, 2019, 10:29:16 am
I think HS2 is fantastic, admittedly it is behind schedule, it should have been built 50 years ago.

Scrap the Heathrow expansion instead.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Offwidth on October 11, 2019, 11:15:40 am
But I agree, a lot of people still don't think twice about taking multiple flights per year to climb up rocks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 11, 2019, 11:21:59 am
That is fairly surprising. I guess businessmen love flitting about the world on a whim, I know some who I've worked for have been awful at it.

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

Still, many people think nothing of going somewhere overseas for a weekend break / hen / stag do just to shop, eat and drink, when they can do the same in any city in the UK.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 11, 2019, 11:36:10 am
I’ve flown three times this year... Vienna, Dublin, Amsterdam.

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

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

Re jet fuel tax: probably the biggest reducer in airplane emissions has been the drive to better more efficient (newer) planes because of the high fuel price.....
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on October 11, 2019, 12:26:31 pm
I’ve flown three times this year... Vienna, Dublin, Amsterdam.

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

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

Disclosure: I've flown twice this year - US to Denmark and US to Colombia.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 11, 2019, 12:39:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: luckyjez on October 11, 2019, 12:39:49 pm
I work for a global outdoor equipment company with a genuinely serious and strong environmental policy. We meet twice a year in Europe (Sweden and Germany) to see the next seasons products we'll be selling. As always, as much work goes on at dinner and in the bar, as in the official sessions. It feels important and useful to meet the other teams from around the world but it does mean flying 300+ people from nearly every corner of the globe (vast majority from Europe and a lot drive from within the host country). They also live stream every session so we could participate from our homes. The benefits to the business of these face to face meetings is hard to quantify but I believe it is definitely there.
The other dilemma I have is when I have to go from the NE to our office on the south coast - 90 minute flight or 6 hour drive  :-\ , £80 of diesel or £300 on air fare. I've done both but I think it will have to be driving in the future. I'd say 3-4 flights a year on average - all work related.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: nik at work on October 11, 2019, 12:49:18 pm
I'm currently a flying shit. Flying from the Isle of Man to UK every two weeks until Christmas...

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

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

Sorry  :'(
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Stabbsy on October 11, 2019, 01:06:48 pm
I think it’s going to take serious technological strides before there’s a real replacement for face to face meetings for all but very minor interactions. So much is lost in translation when one can’t see body language properly in small important meetings, I’m not surprised by business men flying all over the shop.

Not sure I agree entirely, but might depend on the industry. My team are split between York and London, I'm currently sat WFH in Sheffield and all interaction with my team/boss is via Skype. I go into the York office twice/three times a week, but that's out of choice rather than necessity. My boss's boss is based in London and they meet about once a month. The team runs incredibly smoothly.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 11, 2019, 01:16:21 pm
As I said earlier - If you know most of the people in a meeting then Skype can work really well. Making new business/work relationships can be hard without meeting in person. But it does tend to rule out the catching up with someone after a meeting for a coffee and sketching through some new ideas etc...

Surprised you find it so hard Tim... would have thought it’s commonplace with your work?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 11, 2019, 01:37:56 pm
Sorry I guess I didn’t get my point across well at all. I work from home too and with day to day stuff within my team, phone, email etc. are totally fine. But when we are meeting a client to discuss a difficult site or explain complicated proposals for example, or have to have an important conversation with a colleague then I think you lose a lot not being face to face. Our old director tried to do our annual appraisals over Skype one year and it was a total disaster.

Extrapolating this to the wider business world I can imagine that currently the £1000 flight to meet someone face to face to confirm a £1mill contract (or whatever) looks like buttons.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 11, 2019, 01:41:32 pm
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.

It will take a complete culture shift but I think it will have to happen soon. Conferences etc, where academic associations come together, I don't believe there is viable technology in the near future, but directors or senior managers of companies basically flying loops a few times a month just to meet up with staff members is, in my view, no longer justifiable. I think some do it just to accumulate Air Miles. I know some who planned visits to offices in Houston to coincide with Black Friday weekend to do Xmas Shopping, flying back with an overfilled suitcase.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: peewee on October 11, 2019, 02:17:09 pm
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.



Off topic slightly.

This in an interesting one, the family business is a Hifi shop but also do repairs. The customer base is definitely getting older for sales and repairs as the younger generation tend to by the cheaper crap that cant be repaired and they throw away and get new, whereas the better quality equipment will be better, last longer and easily repaired. It's only a small shop in Lancashire but my dad has customers all over the UK bringing items in for fixing, some up to 30/40 years old.

Shows that equipment is built to a price and not to last very long. All the lcd/led type tvs can't be fixed due to the very complicated electronics unlike the old crt tvs which were just basic circuit boards where components can be replaced.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 11, 2019, 02:27:21 pm
I think this is v interesting and entirely in topic; planned obsolescence is a horrendous development in our electronic goods.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 11, 2019, 02:38:27 pm
Definitely on topic. The fridge in our van stopped getting cold, even though the fan still worked. Couldn't get anyone to even look at it for me and tell me inf it could be fixed, or if it was knackered.

I find municipal waste sites incredibly depressing places; Yesterday hi-tech is already today's landfill, just to keep up with the neighbours.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on October 11, 2019, 03:48:52 pm
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 kind of agree, although it's definitely possible to do things remotely already. I ran a project within my firm through 2017 involving very senior (and not so senior) stakeholders from all over the UK. Never met any of them during the project but delivered it very successfully.

Where the people you're dealing with are external to your business, I accept it gets far more challenging.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SamT on October 11, 2019, 04:13:38 pm

I looked at getting the snow train to the alps this year, as a low carb option.

£560 each return, to thats 2200 for the 4 of us.
Flights are 240 each currently, so £960..

You do the math.

We might well end up driving as an even cheaper alternative.  Haven't done the Carbon maths, but driving is prob less CO2.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy_e on October 11, 2019, 04:20:36 pm
Vehicle dependent naturally, but driving alone is generally worse than flying, with one passenger it is generally breaking even or better than flying, with more it's generally better.

A colleague of mine is taking a professorship in Belfast, but needs to travel backwards and forwards between his home in Shipley and Belfast whilst his daughter finished school and he ties up loose ends here at Leeds. He was concerned that flying so much would be bad, but when he calculated, it turns out that driving alone in his Focus and getting the ferry was actually worse than flying LBA-Belfast in a turbo-prop plane. I think this is a rare instance where this is the case though.

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

...and I got the train to both of those places, which is fine for me as a PhD student with loads of free time, but for you was hardly feasible! A difficult balance.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SamT on October 11, 2019, 05:04:30 pm
Yeah - thought it was something along those lines.

I'd happily take the train, but not at the price.  Had this conversation with a pal who noted that some friends of his had just booked return flights to the Alps for £50 each !!  :wall:. 

Until the train is cheaper than air travel, most folks will simply choose to fly and sod the climate change aspect.

Bizarrely, I bet the trains running costs are lower than the planes non?? 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy_e on October 11, 2019, 05:10:55 pm
Have you checked the price using interrail tickets too? Often a good option.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on October 11, 2019, 05:16:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: largeruk on October 11, 2019, 08:09:08 pm
If we have to or choose to fly, surely the very least we can do is pay the extra for carbon offset? Yes, it never fully compensates for the damage caused but at least it should be seen as the 'minimum personal contract' required for engaging in one of the most environmentally damaging acts one can perform?

Or am I just being too naive/simplistic...? :-[
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: gme on October 11, 2019, 10:24:44 pm
I don’t get this argument at all. Seems like you just pay money to counter your guilt.

Re travel.
To properly make a change we all need to stop travelling unless essential and climbing, surfing, skiing, getting pissed in the sun is in no way essential.
This won’t happen so it has to be the tech route.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bonjoy on October 11, 2019, 11:41:32 pm
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).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 12, 2019, 08:21:32 am
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).

Anyone else here been to, say, Greenland and witnessed the retreat of the ice firsthand?

I spent several months there back in 2000. With one of the staff from the university campus at Qaqortoq (no, the dog didn’t jump on my keyboard), we sailed up a fjord to the south western end of the ice cap.
On the cliffs of the fjord, the uni researchers had painted a line to mark the ice limit, every summer, since (iirc) the 50’s/60’s.
At first, those lines were a few meters apart, but always in retreat.
By the 90’s, they were hundreds of meters apart. From the 1999 line, to the edge of the glacier that year, 300 meters.

The rate of retreat is more exaggerated in the fjords, than in the ice shelves (for instance), because fairly large sections float off and calve  as broad catchments of melt water concentrate into the relatively narrow channels, I was told.
Damned alarming to witness, mind.
For reference, the first marks, were almost a nautical mile from the 2000 edge.

So, yeah, probably this is all a bit late, really.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2019, 08:27:37 am
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 12, 2019, 08:39:31 am
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.

Well, we better hurry up then:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/09/truly-terrifying-scientists-studying-underwater-permafrost-thaw-find-area-arctic (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/09/truly-terrifying-scientists-studying-underwater-permafrost-thaw-find-area-arctic)

But, from my limited knowledge of Methane clathrates and hydrates, we’re in for a rough ride soon. Storegga slides and tsunamis etc.

Aren’t the flanks of the Canaries essentially held together by clathrates? And, if that goes, it’s bye bye most of western Africa, Atlantic Europe and a good twatting of the Atlantic seaboard of the US?

Edit:

Sorry. Too brief and obscure.
My point being, sea level rise is not our only issue. Sea temperature is a biggy.
That might already be too far gone and the negative feed back loop in progress. A massive Storegga, and the associated methane release, would tip the atmosphere into a precipitous warming event.
The increased venting, in a supposedly cold zone, seems to indicate this event might be imminent.
As the oceanic temperatures even out (currently we principally have surface warming, but thermodynamics kinda hints that will, um, spread, deeper) we can expect more methane release and clathrate collapse becomes more and more likely.
Right?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 12, 2019, 10:08:53 am
Right, OMM, I’m no scientist, but the concept of tipping points and self-driving release of stored gases is terrifying. The non-linearity does not seem to get much public air time, but it should.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2019, 10:09:43 am
We don’t know is the honest answer. Methane is a potent GHG and the masses stored in Siberia and Canada are a real big issue.

There’s lots we don’t know still about the global climate system or earth system to be clearer. Some may turn out to be irrelevant and some may turn out to be more important than we thought. The issue is that we (humans) are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate and this is bound to trigger off things we’ve not seen before or thought of! 


One I like is they’ve recently found evidence for an event like El Niño occurring in the Indian Ocean X thousand years back.

Btw - the grand Canaria mega landslide wiping out the USA has been pretty much debunked as better tsunami modelling indicates much of the wave would dissipate/diminish by the time it got to the USA. You still see the documentaries based on the old science coming around n tv channels though.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 12, 2019, 11:03:20 am
I actually knew the Canary issue was less potent than first described. It was recently brought to mind by an article I read about the Clathrate “cementing” of fissures around  sites of Sub-oceanic volcanism (methane released by volcanic activity, as opposed to biologically derived) and that the current pattern of small, staggered slides in the Canaries, might change catastrophically, if that cementing is lost. I think they say a ~5+ quake (or caldera collapse) would be needed now, but that would be reduced to ~3 if the speculated cementing in lost...

Anyway, just picked it as a well known example.
Isn’t the main concern the combination of increased melt water (and  therefore sediment flow and deposition) combined with loss of clathrate stability; possibly setting up another Storegga somewhere in the higher (or very low) latitudes? A North Atlantic event being the most likely to impact large numbers of humans?

Anyway, for those that don’t know, 1m³ Methane  Clathrate, would release ~164m³ of methane at surface pressures.
There’s several Giga-tonnes of  it, globally, even if it’s much less than the estimates if the 70’s and 80’s.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Offwidth on October 12, 2019, 12:39:02 pm
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 current HS2 budget for a plan now pruned significantly from the original one is £56 billion and some are predicting a £30 billion overspend.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49048823
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: gme on October 12, 2019, 03:16:32 pm
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).

If that really is the case we are fucked. Your not going to stop people travelling to a point where it will make enough difference so it needs to be done in a non damaging way or develop ways to clear up the damage we cause.

And it needs to be done in a way that companies can profit from it or it will never happen.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: largeruk on October 12, 2019, 05:42:39 pm
As human beings, our motivations are largely emotionally driven - fight vs flight, to protect those we love, to fight for life etc

It seems to me that the whole climate change debate only tackles this in a mostly tangential way. Until a critical mass of us feel personally threatened, little will change. Behaviours are pretty much based on self-interest and self-preservation.

The fact that beginning to listen to a 16 year old literally fighting for her future and try to understand the science, for example, is what it has taken for some of us (me included, embarrassingly) to even begin to think about these 'big non-personal' issues is sobering (to me, at least).

I don't profess to know the answer to how to get more of us to 'wake up' and remove ourselves from the state of comfortable denial in which we live our everyday lives but I feel that at least part of the answer lies in finding a way to connect and engage with our personal emotional drivers.

Apologies for the psycho-babble. I know what I mean - just can't put it into any form of coherent language!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: finbarrr on October 12, 2019, 06:28:07 pm
seems like the people on the british isles can not imagine drastically cutting down on their flying holidays  ;)

i predict people will become more and more ashamed of flying the coming years, probably starting with kids who are thought to think about climate change in a very personal way.
also eating more meat than one needs to be healthy (could vary per person) will become a similar choice.

on the flying side, i would like to propose a cunning plan: just go on one long holiday a year, however many weeks you have in one return flight. might take some organising with work and such, but not a terrible hardship.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: gme on October 12, 2019, 07:55:22 pm
More than 50% of people in uk already don’t fly and if you fly 3 times a year your a frequent flyer which I think was 15% ish. 
I would guess the stats on this forum would put a good amount of us in the later.
If all of us still only took one flight the numbers would go up.
I had only flown once before I was 25 and never flew anywhere for climbing. Probably fly three or four times a year now, mainly short hall for work and to be honest doesn’t seem much compared with some. 11 long hauls in my life and one more coming up.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2019, 08:41:56 pm
On the BBC website earlier (I think) that 15% of the UK population take 70% of the flights...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: gme on October 12, 2019, 10:36:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Kingy on October 13, 2019, 08:24:34 am
While by no means a panacea, carbon capture technology will have some role to play in the future as part of a range of strategies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 13, 2019, 10:13:39 am
Quote
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.

True - esp the growing middle classes of China, India, Indonesia, African countries etc... where air travel is booming (eg Lion Air, Eithiopian)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 13, 2019, 12:12:08 pm
Good visualisation of the problem here:

I don't think brits stopping flying is going to move the needle! 

(https://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/global-emissions-4.jpg)

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on October 13, 2019, 12:57:05 pm
Cool visualisation. Would be good to see the same normalised for per person in each country.
The obvious arguement is, if the UK starts cutting emissions (via fewer flights etc.) , western europe may follow, rest of world (bar USA because I can see it happening).
I like the bar chart at the bottom. I feel that is the more enlightening data for me.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: seankenny on October 13, 2019, 01:11:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: abarro81 on October 13, 2019, 01:27:10 pm
From a data point of view that graphic is terrible. What's wrong with a goddamn bar chart??
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 13, 2019, 03:37:44 pm
Cool visualisation. Would be good to see the same normalised for per person in each country.

(https://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/global-emissions-supplemental.jpg)


Interesting that Germany, among Euro nations, ranks so highly both in per person and overall emissions.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-germany-emissions/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 13, 2019, 03:50:38 pm
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.

Quote from: bloomberg
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.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/f96W84hAiIfyoC0sFtKovQgheOr6i_yiG50cb5D3_WEL-nCCWS1mtlIC8RnZiQ-0u5Fb3SjjvKMeGsvyfYrKqVTCv9GbF56LXTbGjpIYFp73XdowGSLteS5ELeEllOqoWOAC8PSd5qAatXUZdeLh2r2rIMvk9MF0JXTSTdZTupp4jgnuc_rHMlr4g5ZVHr0F579IWUOWHnti7sv51L1eushIKCDf4rVNUiB6WzrhjUhaVNOGy8Ik3MEy8SYRTNDRYTaWuEdcFKzc-1eoDH3OI-35mw48Iw3xjUeRiyKXETv7z0jPfv1hnp-Rqp4B98XhXAB8QZ6pOj9Sp5Z4HMCfF0AWJ8v47syzrTdrvGIbBlAYIQAJ67W1NPHZh7gSxLtUNYyWXSc-S_f_D08gfmUdWhVwNt-HDrWjLI3OKhaoEgnrUYC2RzsO-rpBlhEhEmwww5rNkpWvTGshhnwn2VdL87BHN0yCAGGGQJ7TAWqbuRLavx98obCznNHUoZVCGcIAkKozWuM71O2PGe4SYt5AbZMV8cjsqo3ORDR52e98myNkFaGoO4rMqBULddC3cbfp6nBvgH-ENCmF40kxb6NpwoD4vMmwkle9uf-_mWCkib1aM2fnf1kWeaFRcyE1Csn9UuNi2c-8xDldvAuvecHCHmyNgLAfhE7NVO_tHe2cN1_iogGC2L6b=w1072-h706-no)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on October 13, 2019, 04:16:32 pm
Ask and ye shall receive, thanks! I wish I had the time to properly get into this data.
I was thinking about the correlation between energy usage and temperature the other day, friend of a colleague lives in florida, they have their aircon on most of the year, this must be pretty ruinous in terms of energy usage, which I guess is one of the main reasons Qatar and other Gulf countries have particularly big amounts of CO2.

Will it get to the point where under a future green by all means authoritarian regime, or the effect of market/political forces, people will be effectively banned from living in such  places because it is unjustifiably expensive (in terms of CO2) to do so? Would that be wrong or right?

I am suprisded by trinidad and tobago, but not sure why....
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: abarro81 on October 13, 2019, 04:30:18 pm
The good thing about places where high demand is based around cooling is that it's likely to be sunny there (good solar resource), and peak demand for cooling should be reasonably correlated with peak solar generation.. or at least close enough that storage can principally be in the region of hrs to smooth it out. Large scale solar in those regions is obscenely cheap in $/kWh (also, those govs have a habit of being loaded so can fund cheap acess to finance which is key for solar with its high upfront capital investment)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: abarro81 on October 13, 2019, 04:40:01 pm
Linked to the above, I don't view energy generation as the main challenge, rather storage and grid questions - managing generation resources appropriately, allowing renewables to provide service to the grid that they're currently not allowed to etc...
Solar is already cheaper than most fossil fuels in many places. Lazard LCOE report is good place to get a rough idea of cost comparisons: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

In 50 yrs I'd bet we'll have shit loads of solar and bits of other stuff, loads of batteries and something else for longer term storage and turning solar into a form more useful elsewhere e.g. hydrogen. Question is, will the world be fucked by then...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: gme on October 13, 2019, 07:05:47 pm
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.
This could be done without making our lives more restrictive.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SamT on October 13, 2019, 07:31:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bonjoy on October 13, 2019, 09:24:33 pm
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.
This could be done without making our lives more restrictive.
Apologies for the terse late night response to your post the other day.
There are plenty of techno solutions out there. My view though is that nobody should expect even rapid uptake and expansion of these to be sufficient for anything approaching business as usual to be maintained whilst avoiding severe climate change. I fear Jevons' paradox and human nature will ensure much of the gains achieved by technology will be done as offsetting I.e. a conscience salve to facilitate inaction, and hence wont make a huge difference outside of the offsetters heads.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 14, 2019, 10:07:57 am

I am suprisded by trinidad and tobago, but not sure why....

Large expatriate population, relatively wealthy (oil) lots of offices and hotels, horribly hot and sweaty a lot of the year?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Paul B on October 14, 2019, 11:53:07 am
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Offwidth on October 14, 2019, 12:24:47 pm
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.

Orkney are already doing this for real in that BBC show I linked above...another link:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/20/orkney-northern-powerhouse-electricity-wind-waves-surplus-power-hydrogen-fuel-cell
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: gme on October 14, 2019, 01:15:12 pm
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. We do exactly like you do and are regularly involved in Skype, video conferencing etc etc weekly. Its so impersonal, inefficient etc and takes so much longer to get things done in this manner that its often cheaper and definitely more productive just to send someone. And thats not even factoring in the development of relationships.
Ditto home working, i do it two days a week as it suits me but definitely better for the business for me to be in the office. Every time we have done it with people it hasn't worked. They have no connect with the rest of the team nor the business.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: abarro81 on October 14, 2019, 01:27:56 pm
I'd say that 95% of my interaction with our existing clients is by email or conference call (partly because most of them aren't in the uk). When someone from our team does meet them it's usually to disseminate beyond our usual contact in the company (e.g. to present to their board) or because we're going to be in the same place anyway (e.g. conference or exhibition).
New clients are different though - very unusual that the first piece of work we do for a client isn't delivered in person.

Note: my work is all information based, so it's not like being there is likely to be particularly useful beyond building relationships - either we deliver a report/presentation in person or send it to them and run through it on a screenshare on a call
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Paul B on October 14, 2019, 02:03:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 14, 2019, 02:15:00 pm
Skype (and increasingly WhatsApp video chat and FaceTime) is invaluable to me. I’ve a call this afternoon about a new grant idea - allows all three of us who are working at home to get together and thrash out some details.

The other thing (shock horror!) I’m using increasingly are.... PHONE CALLS..... seem to have been forgotten over the last decade, but a great way of getting stuff done. Especially with those who hide behind an email...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 14, 2019, 02:18:27 pm
 https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-renewables-electricity-energy-fossil-fuels-a9152586.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1571053172 (https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-renewables-electricity-energy-fossil-fuels-a9152586.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1571053172)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 14, 2019, 03:23:29 pm
This is fantastic, but sadly I don't see the top energy consuming countries following suit any time soon.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Kingy on October 14, 2019, 04:09:53 pm
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."
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SamT on October 14, 2019, 04:15:24 pm
significant strides

 :-\

hardly significant.  Carbon Capture and Storage is such a buzz work.  Sounds so good doesn't it, the answer to all our prayers.  Carry on burning the diesel and jet fuel willy nilly.

Its laughable really.  I've seen news reports saying "this new power station is 'CCS ready'", which cutting through the bull, means they've bought the field next door ready to build something, when they know what one looks like. 

Funnily enough, nature has given us amazing CCS machines, they're called trees and coral reefs, but we're busy burning them down/trashing them at an unprecedented rate to make way for our beef farms etc.

Hell in a hand cart.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Kingy on October 14, 2019, 04:20:20 pm
All of that is true. Surely we should try all avenues though. Reduce fossil fuel consumption and capture CO2? Why would we limit our options?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: sdm on October 14, 2019, 04:25:02 pm
We make a lot of use of Teams, bluejeans, WhatsApp, BIM, email, phones etc both internally and with clients (~99% of our projects are not UK based, nor are the majority of our team).

But our ability to use them is often hampered by rigid security/IT systems at our clients that prevents them from communicating in these ways. This requires a lot of otherwise avoidable flights for face to face meetings.

Where working remotely is possible, it is great in most cases. However, it just isn't effective for conflict resolution on large collaborative projects where English is a second language for most people and where there is a clash of cultures. At the risk of making a sweeping generalisation, if you want any results with any of our Chinese, Arabic or southeast Asian clients/collaborators, you're going to have to meet face to face.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SamT on October 14, 2019, 04:25:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 14, 2019, 04:25:51 pm
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."


Wow! I want some of this for my Rebreather!
(Soda Lime reacts like buggery with water, making rebreathers tricky to use underwater).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 14, 2019, 04:35:12 pm
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 know, right.


Especially when there’s these magic rocks, that just emit energy, 24/7/365. You can dig them right out of the ground. No shit, I kid you not!
So much energy, they burn you if you pick them up with bare hands...

 https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13545-nanomaterial-turns-radiation-directly-into-electricity/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13545-nanomaterial-turns-radiation-directly-into-electricity/)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 14, 2019, 10:34:50 pm
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..

Engineers please explain the flaws. I'm assuming there's drag involved. And obvs there's no such thing as free energy. But 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?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy_e on October 14, 2019, 10:49:01 pm
https://youtu.be/gOMibx876A4
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 14, 2019, 10:55:37 pm
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.

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current_brake (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current_brake)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 14, 2019, 11:00:45 pm
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?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Ru on October 14, 2019, 11:20:02 pm
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!

It would be massively inefficient, cost lots of billions, involve digging up the road network, be very hard to achieve from an engineering pov (Apple for instance has abandoned plans to make a charging mat that can charge an iphone and its own watch at the same time as it was too difficult) etc.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 14, 2019, 11:38:03 pm
Yeah thought there must be obvious reasons why it doesn't happen. Still don't quite understand how it works in a spinning generator in a power station without drag making it ineffective; yet doesn't work in a moving vehicle across a coil.

A quick search shows it's starting to be done in reverse to what I wondered about - charged coil buried in road, transfer energy to vehicle rather than vehicle charges coil. For charging electric vehicles
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/21/18276541/norway-oslo-wireless-charging-electric-taxis-car-zero-emissions-induction

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607902/the-case-for-building-roads-that-can-charge-electric-cars-on-the-go/

If the source of the energy in the charging coil is renewable then isn't that getting near a cheaty definition of 'free energy'?



Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 14, 2019, 11:47:15 pm
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?

Loses innit.

In an alternator, the loses are partially mitigated by the inertia of the rotor, once at stable speed.
However, that mitigation is lost, if the “rotor” (read: moving part) is accelerating. It’s by far the least efficient part of a generator’s operating cycle (or a motor, come to that).

Currently, our power generation (that’s a misnomer, since what we actually do is convert one form of energy (usually chemical) into mechanical, into electrical and lose, lose, lose at every step) is incredibly inefficient. Your proposal is not technically unsound, since it would generate power, it just wouldn’t be efficient enough to benefit anything.
Then there is the unstable nature of the current/voltage produced, to consider. A stable speed alternator gives a stable frequency current and voltage, which is much easier to utilise.
The storage of the “power” is also problematic.
     
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Steve R on October 15, 2019, 12:27:53 am
Wouldn't a million (guessed figure for illustrative purpose) decelerations per day across a hundred thousand junctions produce a meaningful amount of 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.  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).   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: gme on October 15, 2019, 08:07:03 am
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.

We dont have the issue with travelling for one meeting as its pretty much always easy enough to bolt on other client visits/surveys/site visits etc. We rarely travel by car so can work on the train.

We still do a lot of stuff via skype etc but only the menial stuff and like most people 90% of communication is via email which whilst efficient is without doubt the biggest cause of conflict and aggravation in my business something you rarely get when face to face.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 15, 2019, 08:18:01 am
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 :)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Ru on October 15, 2019, 08:21:14 am
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: abarro81 on October 15, 2019, 08:35:58 am
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.

Lots of people working on vehicle-to-grid like Ru says.. need to get it right though, if you screw up with management you could end up with more peak demand and not the other way round (people come home and plug car in in the evening). Charging at work car parks a good way to go for this as it's better matched to solar resource in general...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 15, 2019, 08:37:45 am
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.

I think - one of the main issues with this is how our grid is structured - as in its designed to take power from central points (power stations) and distribute kind of radially down to eventually consumers (gross generalisations here..) rather than have more distributed sources/stores.

I'm not sure the below have been factored into the EV storage calcs - that every time you charge and discharge your EV's battery it shortens its lifetime (even by a teeny bit) with the battery being the single largest cost item on an EV (50% of value/manufacturing cost?), also the performance of EV batteries is impaired by the temperature (e.g. they like to operate between 15-30 degC) so modern EV's have battery heaters and coolers - whether all this is engaged/used/part of a grid storage I don't know. Maybe this is all factored into those plans - just saying its not as simple as just having a big battery sat on the driveway (if you have one).

I would love an EV. But living in a terraced house - where street parking is at a premium (its rarely outside where I'm living) at the moment its a no-no. There are ways around this for charging of course (higher capaicites and charging at work/garages/set locations etc..) but this does largely prevent using the EV battery for grid storage.

Whilst rambling about EV's - whilst the carbon impact is important, I think at the moment the most compelling argument for them is with regard to air quality. Living in a city - its horrible - especially on a still winters morning in rush hour.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 08:49:43 am
Seriously, guys.
Nuclear.
Nuclear batteries in particular.

I know as a former RN Engineer, I’m slightly biased in the eyes of outsiders, but the reality is I’m just much more familiar with the true risks of Nuclear power, compared to the perceived.

Even at 1970’s tech, it’s perfectly possible to build a nuclear battery, around, say, Tritium or similar ( that emit Beta (easily shielded)) and use that to trickle charge the main cell of a vehicle. Thus it would always be “regenerating” when idle.
These Betavoltaic cells were common for things like pacemakers, until Lithium batteries became more economically attractive.

The NS article I linked to above, introduces a concept that is an order of magnitude shift in the potential power output of a Nuclear battery, possibly completely replacing the conventional cell entirely.

I immediately start thinking about replacing batteries for capacitors, for peak demand etc etc.

Our fear of Nuclear power and it’s “invisible killer rays”, has blinded us into following an actually far more lethal path.

Stop, consider Chernobyl (about  as bad as a nuclear reactor accident can get), then realise it was a stupid, old fashioned, use of the technology and the worst possible public relations incident any technology could have.
Then, look at how many people actually died.
Then, realise you can now take a tour of the control room.

But, mainly, remember, fusion isn’t even required to generate power from radiation! You don’t even need heavy shielding or Gamma emitting scary stuff.

 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 15, 2019, 09:01:15 am
Why not just use anti-matter?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 15, 2019, 09:03:45 am
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.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 15, 2019, 09:12:42 am
And any nuclear source still relies on extractive industry for its source.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 15, 2019, 11:24:27 am
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 and energy generation - by turning people travelling into the moving parts of a generator.


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?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 11:27:34 am
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.

You know more people die in road accidents every year? Every year.

You know how many more die from air pollution, every year?

( https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/ (https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/) )

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 11:36:56 am
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?

Actually, most of the above is in use or development.

Oddly enough, these things tend to be developed first in the yachting industry, then the military, and only then begin to supplant accepted tech in large scale (even steam power, was first a rich mans toy, before the military advantage of being able to sail directly into/completely without the wind was recognised, only later were the  commercial advantages recognised as military use increased production and reduced costs).

Iirc, eddy current brakes have been used in heavy goods transport and trains for donkeys years. Shaft generators and brakes long used on ships, many of which are propelled electrically now. Quite a few with fuel cell tech as prime mover.

Copper is still too expensive and prone to  corrosion for many of the applications you mention.

 https://futurism.com/new-ship-rigid-solar-sails-harnesses-power-sun-wind-same-time (https://futurism.com/new-ship-rigid-solar-sails-harnesses-power-sun-wind-same-time)

Oh yeah,
Sorry, the first point, that’s a fly wheel.
Generally speaking, the energy cost of accelerating the wheel, and the subsequent frictional loses, make them non-viable/economic in the sense you describe. Frictionless bearings might be the answer, but as yet not available iirc.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: seankenny on October 15, 2019, 11:37:48 am
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 :)

Why would I buy the Tesla you want to sell when I already have a brand new one that the government have just given me?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 15, 2019, 11:43:14 am


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!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: abarro81 on October 15, 2019, 11:45:36 am
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?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 11:52:44 am


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!

Ummmm...
Beta radiation is pretty safe. Generally speaking, a thick sheet of card would stop the electrons released (yes, electrons). No fission occurs, only normal decay. Tritium was what made watch faces glow.
We’re not talking about Uranium here.
This is  exactly the misconception I’m referring to.

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaic_device (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaic_device)

Edit:

Hang on. I realise what the underlying misconception is here.
It’s our current power distribution system.
Everything from centralised storage/generation. National Grid, Domestic Gas etc.

The point of the nuclear battery, is autonomy.

No grid required.

Also, the power required to move a car around? Ooph!

Comparatively, running your home is a doodle.

No grid.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on October 15, 2019, 12:04:05 pm
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.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Ru on October 15, 2019, 12:13:42 pm
I think - one of the main issues with this is how our grid is structured...

There are snags certainly, but a friend in the industry says it is being worked on and can work in theory.

Re: aerosolised tritium - it's hydrogen, it would float off.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 12:21:12 pm
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.

If you aerosolised Lithium in a dirty bomb style....


Nope.

We use lethal elements and compounds daily. We do so by observing suitable precautions.

This is just an unjustifiable fear of the term “radiation”. Take a flight, go sun bathing, live on Dartmoor. Similar risk levels.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on October 15, 2019, 12:30:01 pm
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!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 12:42:30 pm
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!

Mainly, to achieve this, you must never have:

A: Nuclear weapons (that’s how we were all introduced to the radiation party).
B: A Three mile island incident, a Chernobyl incident or a Fukashima.
C: A Tabloid press.
D: An Abysmal approach to science education, that kills interest in the magic by forcing young minds to memorise tedious equations, whilst building a “foundation” of scientific understanding, that is so divorced from day to day activity, that it will almost never actually be built on...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on October 15, 2019, 12:49:26 pm
Sounds like a dead end then...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 12:50:12 pm
Aye.

Our own worst enemy, has ever been ourselves.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 15, 2019, 01:11:23 pm
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...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 01:27:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 15, 2019, 01:28:34 pm
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...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 15, 2019, 01:34:45 pm
Anyway - wheres Stone when he's needed? I've had plenty of discussion with him at the crag about nuclear power and batteries.. :)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 15, 2019, 01:39:51 pm

You didn’t read the NS article, did you?
The Tritium cells are 1970’s tech.

Which bit, none of it talks about cost or scalability but it does talk about stacks of carbon nanotubes filled with gold and lithium which sounds dead cheap to me.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 01:42:25 pm
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...

Tom, you are talking about fission and reactors, I’m talking about batteries and converting radioactive decay directly into electricity.
You are simply compounding the misinformation.

No fission is involved.

No Gamma radiation required.

Relatively safe materials, already in common usage, would suffice.
The combination of nuclear batteries and Graphene batteries (really, capacitors) are extremely exciting!

Graphene has now been produced (quite literally) on the back of a CD, using a modified CD recorder, which was then used to “carve” capacitive structures onto/into the Graphene layer.
The combination of the nuclear battery’s stead, slow, output; with a capacitor’s almost instant full charge absorption/discharge potential, have massive implications for autonomous vehicles, for instance.
Imagine a vehicle, with a Graphene “battery”, coated across  the  inside of it’s body work, a few layers (still microns) thick and a small nuclear battery, constantly trickle charging it. A battery that doesn’t need to be changed for a decade or more and decays to inert.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 01:46:56 pm
 http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-researchers-develop-new-technique-243553 (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-researchers-develop-new-technique-243553)

We have a long way to go, but it will arrive.

Of course, the rabbit hole might branch off unexpectedly in a different direction. But, these were the hot topics when I was designing high efficiency motors, a few years ago. Mostly, I was working on replacing hydraulic systems for maritime applications, such as fin stabilisers and thrusters. But, we were moving into propulsion, when my life flipped.
Our focus then was on fuel cell tech. Replacing diesel units with cells. However, I was still in regular conversation with my erstwhile colleagues when the Graphene news broke and their excitement was palpable. Fuel cells and their need for fuel storage, were not “enough” hence the battery guys were constantly harping on about Betavoltaics and some sort of charge storage.
CMC was a Mitsubishi R&D outfit and I’m too long out of the loop for anyone to share the latest developments with, especially since much of it will be sensitive.
It’s coming though and if I had to wager the direction, this would be it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 15, 2019, 02:26:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 02:48:04 pm
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.

I don’t think so.

I think what we are really in need of is autonomy.

No grid, no central storage.

It might be down to a smaller, regional/community affair and individual vehicles. It might shrink to individual homes and in many cases, individual devices.

You talk of expense, and I see millions of kilometres of cables hanging from pylons, redundant and ripe for repurposing.

Phones that never need recharging.

Cars that don’t need to plug in, to recharge.

Etc, etc.

We are at the point, where these things are not hypothetical. We’re moving from the proof of theory into the engineering challenge.
I know as well as anyone how hard that might prove and how many bumps and drags there may be hiding in the future.

Look, if I came and spoke to 1995 me, and told me I’d be holding in my hand, in less than ten years, a “telephone” with complete internet access (bearing in mind how basic the www was then) , a camera, video recorder and with more computing power than my desk top then, I would have said something along the lines of what you’re saying.
And then, the difference between 2005 me and his devices, and 2019 me’s stuff?

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...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 15, 2019, 03:07:19 pm

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...

We have the means to produce power, that mainly fits in with our current supply system and advances in this won’t involve a wholesale change in the supply and distribution of power as your discussing, which is 1) unrealistic and 2) unnecessary.

We have plenty of sources of clean power that keep getting cheaper and better and the storage is coming on with that. Interesting article the other day about using smart meters and water storage tanks as another power storage system in the same way as electric vehicles and batteries hooked up at night.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Falling Down on October 15, 2019, 03:26:35 pm
Thanks for starting this thread Jonathan.

I've been on a bit of a journey over the last couple of years. Moving toward a more environmentally conscious way of living.  I joined the Green Party, switched to Octopus (100% renewable) Energy, became vegetarian and made a personal pledge not to fly again unless work requires me to or if there's some kind of family emergency.  I've managed to just do two flights to Europe and back in nearly three years. Got rid of the car and motorcycle last year (I accept that's very easy to do in London with the public transport available everywhere). We're in the process of permaculturing our little backyard garden and I help tend the permaculture garden at St James' in Piccadilly. Small things like carrying a metal water bottle and a compact shopping bag have massively reduced plastic consumption.

This move has got me more socially engaged and involved in local community projects - clean air for Brent, tree planting and eco-therapy events and projects. 

Anyway, I hope that doesn't come across as some kind of humblebrag or holier-than-thou stance. It was just really to say that change is possible and it's had a positive impact on me and my life.  I'll follow up with some links and resources when I have some time.









Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 03:45:52 pm
Do you know how much energy is lost in transmitting it across the grid? Transferring it from the prime mover to the grid?
Constantly maintaining moving parts? (Not solar, ok, cleaning pannels).

Renewables are probably the short term answer, as is fission (even at that cost, it’s cheaper than the climate catastrophe), but I don’t see it long term (ie, over the next century).

I could imagine, for instance, someone coming up with a pocket sized charging pack,  that would be able to charge your handheld equipment, for the next decade, without ever plugging in.

Or, a larger unit, for site work, charging existing power tool batteries; or hooked up to lighting etc.

As consumer items power requirements drop too. (I re-did the lighting etc in the Bunker, over the last few years, dropping consumption by more than 70% (all the lighting combined in the main bouldering area consumes 200w and replaces 12 x120w fluorescent tubes). Our coffee machine, has gone from the old 2.2 kW beast to two 800 w units, where the second one is usually off and both shut down entirely if unused for five minutes. Ditching the PC’s in favour of tablets cut consumption quite a lot, surprisingly ).

Economically, just removing the cost of extending the grid, or maintaining it, will seem extortionate. This has already happened, in telecommunications in the developing world, where installing mobile networks, make far more sense than cabling up an entire nation.

Think of the political independence that goes with energy autonomy, too. How much power do we import from France, right now? Not sure, I’ll google, but it used to be a fair old chunk. And all without drowning under wind farms and fields of panels.

The environmental  costs of renewables is not negligible, just better than fossil. I know, broken record.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: abarro81 on October 15, 2019, 03:57:59 pm
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?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 04:30:18 pm
Obviously, I don’t know the current figures.
 The power density of the first, 1970 devices was 0.025 milliwatts /cm³ (the first commercially available) that had doubled by the time Lithium took over, and Tritium cells were better again.
The latest research (according to the NS article) is putting at 20x the previous maximum, so, conservatively, a minimum of 9 mW/cm³?
Early days.
I’m tempted to swallow my pride and reach out to Alessandro, see if he’ll talk to me.

I’ve been gradually drifting away from the wall and back into Engineering. I’m consulting on systems design for a project in Dubai and I will be taking on some project management stuff after Xmas. Coarse stuff compared to the CMC time, but I always was the “bigger hammer “ end of things...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 15, 2019, 04:34:52 pm

I've been on a bit of a journey over the last couple of years. Moving toward a more environmentally conscious way of living.

This sounds great FD, I always loved the community schemes when we were in Hackney and can only assume that there’s more and more of that sort of thing now.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 05:21:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: abarro81 on October 15, 2019, 05:28:26 pm
Cool, cheers. Wasn't really worried about getting exact numbers, just a back-of-the-envelope gauge of whether you could get a useful amount of energy out for recharging for day-to-day commuting etc if you put it in a car. Sounds like you could, although obviously cost might be an issue! Plus if you still need to charge on long journeys you still need various other bits of electronics..
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tk421a on October 15, 2019, 06:35:10 pm
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
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 15, 2019, 06:55:09 pm
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?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tk421a on October 15, 2019, 07:14:25 pm
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).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 07:27:19 pm
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, this is the problem with doing things whilst multitasking...

Not had a chance to go back over the figures and facts, whilst trying to pull it together in my head.
You are correct of course about the energy density, which makes my weight calc wrong.
However, the article definitely states (up to) 20x power, not efficiency. So, like for like masses, should yield as I stated. Without knowing the aggregate mass of the voyager batteries (including shielding) I cannot actually postulate the new version’s mass.
But, it’s reasonable to assume the voyager battery was quite light.

Still, that’s the high energy, Gamma gubbins, which I would envision in mass transport/larger vehicles. I’m still postulating something Betavoltaic for trickle charging a more conventional battery, or Graphene capacitor/battery for domestic use. I’m thinking of the “focusing” of the nano tubes, as that seems the critical improvement.
Though, the ²³⁸Pu type would seem feasible at a regional/community level. Should be managable temperatures and it looks like thin layers would be the way to go, giving high dissipation area etc...

Anyway, this is a thinking aloud thing on my part.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 15, 2019, 07:31:12 pm
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).

I dunno, that one has some merit.
Whether over all loss of efficiency and increased fuel consumption negates the whole thing, when hauling the extra weight back up the next hill; is another matter.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: abarro81 on October 15, 2019, 09:01:50 pm
Pete - pretty sure what you're describing is basically regen breaking for EVs. Much better to put it in the car than under the road
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Steve R on October 15, 2019, 11:05:51 pm
Also wonder why we haven’t got solar-powered ships - large surface area and plenty of capacity for massive heavy batteries?

Was interested enough to do a quick back of envelope calc on this.  Used specs for 'Spirit of Britain' cross channel ferry.

NSFW  :
'The main engines include four MAN 7L48/60CR diesel mechanical engines, each producing 7,600kW' so power required to maintain cruise speed ~ 20,000kW seems reasonable?
crossing time = 90mins
so, energy per crossing = 20,000kW x 1.5h = 30,000kWh

deck surface area = 210m (length) x ~30m (beam) = 6,300m^2

solar panels give ~200W per sq.m in ideal cons

so if whole deck is covered in panels, power produced = 0.2kW x 6,300 = 1260kW

let's be generous and say 1000kW average in daylight hours produced
so for a channel crossing;
30,000kWh / 1000kW = 30 hours of sunbathing in port required per 90min crossing.
ie. 4 days ish?  (more with various inefficiencies not taken into account)   
 

bottom line of above calc, for a 90 min channel crossing a fully solar panelled up Spirit of Britain would have to sunbathe in port for about 4/5 days to generate sufficient energy to just make it across.  Which is actually less time than I thought it would be.  But I guess these ferries cross back and forth more or less continuously..... 
however, build a solar farm nearby (orders of magnitude bigger area than deck size of boat) + wind + tidal maybe (or build a nuclear plant), find a way to store it and zap it into ship's batteries quickly and we may have cracked it.  Or since there's market failure to do any of that, carry on using the reliable, tested and profitable solution of diesel fuel and engines. 
Have read electrification of shipping not immediately viable somewhere I think, not entirely sure why, need to research more.  Not sure what happens re. big battery and motor efficiencies/viability when you get in to realm of tens of thousands of kW?   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tk421a on October 16, 2019, 12:07:27 am
Energy density is the big issue.
Fuel oil is about 50 times more energy dense than a li-ion battery. I did a quick Google it looks like ships are around 2% fuel fraction. So to replace everything with li-ion currently would double the displacement of a ship.
Planes around 50% fuel fraction, hence why passenger electric planes are completely a no go until we work out some new chemistry.

As a rough idea, a garage fuel pump is of the order of 10MW power when filling up a car.
For grid attached energy use switching to renewables and battery storage is possible. For non attached high power usage its much harder.

Theres a good book on the science and numbers of energy generation at
https://www.withouthotair.com/
Cambridge Physics Professor analysing the numbers. It was written a few years back but the science of it is still accurate.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 16, 2019, 08:10:03 am
Yes, this is why fuel cells were the buzz.
However, the channel ferry example, is a worst case.
Most Merchant vessels, will spend very little time manoeuvring and a majority of time at a steady cruising speed. Most of the power requirements in manoeuvring is external (tugs) and the relative increase in displacement by batteries, in partially mitigated by smaller propulsion units (google a Large 2 stroke diesel, they are immense. I once changed a piston on one, the cylinder bore was almost 2 meters).
These vessels are much better suited to alternative power sources than a short ops ferry. Remember too, wind can provide direct drive, as well as charging reservoirs.

Our fuel use, is also speed related, we could do more with less, as it were, if we slowed down. Airships, pure sailing ships (only powered when manoeuvring) etc etc.
We lack the patience, of course and there’s a “single vessel capacity” issue; we’d have to accept more, smaller, consignments etc.
I started out building the diesel electric propulsion for the the type 23 frigates, which were revolutionary, in as much as the motor rotor was the shaft. By the time I was at CMC, we were building motors that absorbed 50% less power for a given output.
(Actually, it’s (unsurprisingly) more complicated than that. Power absorbstion is highest when accelerating a motor, massively so. Starting currents on some equipments can be eye watering. Sometimes, finding ways to avoid accelerating or changing the motor speed, is key, rather than redesigning the motor. Combine  both and you can really make inroads. Another hint, sometimes, with motors, faster is better...).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 16, 2019, 08:47:06 am
I have yet to go through these, but saved them for later perusal. So, shared without comment:

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319917339435 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319917339435)

 https://energypost.eu/u-s-nuclear-plants-to-produce-carbon-free-hydrogen/ (https://energypost.eu/u-s-nuclear-plants-to-produce-carbon-free-hydrogen/)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Johnny Brown on October 16, 2019, 11:26:06 am
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/15/bank-of-england-boss-warns-global-finance-it-is-funding-climate-crisis

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: gme on October 16, 2019, 01:06:41 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/15/bank-of-england-boss-warns-global-finance-it-is-funding-climate-crisis

This relates back to my earlier point where i feel that to get things moving faster re development of alternatives it has to be possible for the big financiers to make money from it. I know this doesnt sit well with the capitalism haters but its fact. Chouinard says similar in his 1st book, something along the lines of wall street wont listen unless its able to profit from it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: lagerstarfish on October 16, 2019, 05:36:08 pm
just need to persuade the developed world's pension funds that avoiding climate change is profitable and we'll be fine
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 16, 2019, 05:54:21 pm
just need to persuade the developed world's pension funds that avoiding climate change is profitable and we'll be fine

I’ve been working on my pension fund divesting in Shell and investing in Sharpe enterprises insect protein balls.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: lagerstarfish on October 16, 2019, 08:17:24 pm
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
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 16, 2019, 08:58:45 pm
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

Like boxes of Anasazi whites.... (is shark 60 yet? ;) )
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 17, 2019, 11:14:57 am
I enjoyed listening to this podcast which makes the case for optimism. (thanks to Steve R for linking in the podcast thread).

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/09/16/64-ramez-naam-on-renewable-energy-and-an-optimistic-future/ (https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/09/16/64-ramez-naam-on-renewable-energy-and-an-optimistic-future/)


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?

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Nutty on October 17, 2019, 11:34:51 am
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: crzylgs on October 17, 2019, 12:18:31 pm
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.

Can't they just stick to making fools of themselves with fire engine powered water hoses?

Organising mass disruption of the London Underground sounds like an excellent way to not make friends for your cause... Also rather dangerous from a crowd control point of view? :/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 17, 2019, 01:25:07 pm
Yep.

I confess to a facepalm this am.
Way to set the cause back years and confirm Daily Fail stereotypes, ya muppets!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 17, 2019, 05:29:02 pm
Five minute read (unless you follow the citations and links):

 https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/10/16/the-risks-of-failed-risk-assessments-on-natural-vs-unfamiliar-sources-of-energy/ (https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/10/16/the-risks-of-failed-risk-assessments-on-natural-vs-unfamiliar-sources-of-energy/)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Kingy on October 17, 2019, 05:37:40 pm
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!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 18, 2019, 09:19:43 am
You'll need to find a different way to make your wee smell now.

Agree on the above though, best before / use by dates need to be abolished, use your nose and eyes.

And flying fruit and veg from across the world, only to bin it because you left it in the fruitbowl for 2 weeks / it's gone a slightly different colour.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Paul B on October 18, 2019, 11:02:04 am
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

You had a multi-year transatlantic redpoint project!

I got called small minded (diddums I know) on Twitter for pointing out something similar regarding Lewis Hamilton (veganism and V8s); to be clear, it's not that I think that efforts such as buying local aren't worth doing but my understanding was that XR are trying to raise awareness of drastic changes needed which will inevitably be the less comfortable choices.

Its can espouse the benefits of not having kids for instance but that (currently at least) is an easy choice. It'll be less easy for me to willingly stop visiting far flung climbing destinations and instead risk the Scottish weather.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 18, 2019, 11:27:41 am
Brilliant.

We should have carbon karma: standard wad points for sending hard oversees proj, carbon punter points for the family of polar bears doing a ‘titanic final scene’ as they slip exhausted beneath the warm sea, because of your obsession. Please overlords make it happen.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: abarro81 on October 18, 2019, 11:47:19 am
This very much reminded me of this tweet:
https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/583261721994924033?s=20

 :lol:

With respect to buying local, I suspect that what you buy locally (in terms of how it's farmed and whether it's in season) is likely to be as important as how local it is, especially when comparing local vs grown in other European countries. E.g. based on 1 min on google: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-013-0171-8

Quote
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.

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.

The only way we're going to stop f*cking everything up is if it's taken out of our hands - so we can use electric planes, cars and ground-source heat pumps run off a clean grid... but by the time we get there we'll probably have screwed everything up already.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 18, 2019, 11:50:03 am

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!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: gme on October 18, 2019, 12:18:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: i.munro on October 18, 2019, 12:54:06 pm

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.



That's why this has to come from Govt.& fast! If you look at the details of flying or even driving it's a small minority doing the great bulk of the damage and while that's the case - even if the majority become self-sacrificing  things can't get much better.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on October 18, 2019, 01:02:43 pm
I think how we produce and consume food is more important than what we eat.

This needn't be an either/or though: our choices around what to consumer (and not consume) are often precisely about the circumstances of its production.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 18, 2019, 01:51:54 pm

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!

Or maybe he sees it as being a healthy diet, which doesn't necessarily include either of the above.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Paul B on October 18, 2019, 02:55:24 pm
It was an environmental standpoint:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/lewis-hamilton-says-going-vegan-only-way-to-save-the-planet_uk_5da6db60e4b062bdcb1b19a9
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 18, 2019, 03:00:27 pm
Thanks Paul, didn’t realise it was recent, ‘yeah chow down on your carrots there Lew’  :lol:
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 18, 2019, 03:06:32 pm
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.

Some good points here Gav.

Some general points (not completely sure they are all correct but make sense to me - at the moment):

RE: Dairy/Beef/lamb - A lot of the grazing land in the UK isnt good enough for crops - so aside leaving it to become woodland (not in itself a daft alternative) then stopping diary/meat production here is not a great carbon plus. However, burning large parts of the amazon basin to make new grazing land - and intensive pastoral agriculture as seen in NZ for example isnt so flash. (though I'm also ignoring methane emissions arguements here too..)

The C footprint of some veg that comes a long way (Bannanas for example) isnt so bad as they can come via sea in bulk.

Its easy for the veg/vegan diet to become a polarising either/or issue (you're either veg/veg or not) - when for many people (like me) it is about eating less meat and more veg... For health, planet, taste and other reasons..  If you persuade most carnivores to have 25% less meat and dairy a week then that will make a bigger difference than getting a smaller number to abstain.

Wasnt farming fish seen as a realtively low C way of generating protein?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 18, 2019, 03:25:00 pm


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?

living on squirrels, rabbits, badgers and mushroom!

Some aquaculture isn't terrible for the environment, but fish farming is potentially more harmful to the environment than CO2, just a different type of harm.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on October 18, 2019, 03:28:27 pm
On the home-grown veg thing, I think I've mentioned somewhere before a thing that I heard on the radio at some point. Basically, if your low food miles grub has been grown in a heated greenhouse you are immediately in a worse position than if it had been brought in on a boat from somewhere that it was grown using the heat of the sun.

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 18, 2019, 03:40:32 pm
On a fruit POV it would mean eating locally grown deciduous fruit (mostly apples plums and pears) late summer, cultivated berries and little else.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 18, 2019, 03:42:37 pm
On a fruit POV it would mean eating locally grown deciduous fruit (mostly apples plums and pears) late summer, cultivated berries and little else.

Apples can last for months if you store them properly (wrap them in paper - don't let them touch and keep them somewhere cool and mouse proof)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on October 18, 2019, 03:58:11 pm
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?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: gme on October 18, 2019, 04:02:50 pm
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?
Only if you want to burn in hell.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 18, 2019, 04:05:13 pm
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?

No, freezers consume too much electricity, preserving in jars is the only way I'm afraid.

Point is, no citrus, no bananas, no grapes (apart from those grown in small corner of Surrey and Kent)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on October 18, 2019, 04:10:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on October 18, 2019, 04:15:17 pm
preserving in jars is the only way I'm afraid.

Preserving is great. We bought a bushel of tomatoes from a local Mennonite (and thus non-intensive) farm for $10 and had fantastic canned tomatoes for almost a year.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 18, 2019, 04:23:37 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoQyt6W64z0
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on October 18, 2019, 04:25:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 18, 2019, 04:38:00 pm
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.

Ping. Your dinners ready now Will. 😃
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on October 18, 2019, 04:43:17 pm
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 have friends who get a season vegetable box from a local farmer, and say they spend a lot of the year finding creative ways to cook turnips.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on October 18, 2019, 05:00:41 pm
I can teach you Will, no worries. Do you like vegetable eggs?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on October 18, 2019, 05:37:23 pm
Gregs do a vegan sausage roll Will.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: nai on October 18, 2019, 05:56:08 pm
haven't looked at this thread for a couple of days so this might have been posted already but on the subject of food production, imports, exports and all that this is amazing and shocking:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0008zkc/what-britain-buys-and-sells-in-a-day-series-1-1-fruit-and-veg
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tc on October 18, 2019, 06:06:10 pm
I ditched British Gas a while ago and changed my energy supplier to Bulb. They provide 100% renewable electricity from solar, wind and hydro, and the gas is 100% carbon neutral. According to their blurb, "10% is green gas produced from renewable sources like food or farm waste and we offset the rest of the gas we supply by supporting carbon reduction projects around the world."

They also reckon that "the average Bulb member lowers their carbon impact by 3.5 tonnes of CO2 a year." This made me feel bettter, and it was also cheaper. What made me feel even better was their referral system that pays £50 to me for anyone I refer who switches to them. The deal-clincher for several of my friends was the £50 they they also received for switching. Money talks.

If you all sign up via my referral link I'll have enough money to go to Rocklands AND Castle Hill for Christmas.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Falling Down on October 24, 2019, 08:01:16 pm
New edition of the fabulous Emergence Magazine online https://emergencemagazine.org/issues/ (https://emergencemagazine.org/issues/) - have a browse through previous editions. It's really something..
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on October 29, 2019, 09:08:44 am
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...

I read a good phrase to describe this earlier in the week:

"No one is climate teetotal"
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 30, 2019, 04:37:31 pm
I thought this belonged here, with it’s rebuke of Western consumer culture.

 https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/british-tribe-next-door-channel-4-racist-biases-a9177416.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1572438947 (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/british-tribe-next-door-channel-4-racist-biases-a9177416.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1572438947)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on November 08, 2019, 09:10:17 am
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/11-000-scientists-warn-climate-change-isn-t-just-about-temperature

Interesting reading and watching
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on November 08, 2019, 02:49:46 pm
Next summer, it will be 20 years since I last ventured under the Arctic ice. It was already retreating rapidly then and we had a feeling of being there at the end of things, or at least, being there and doing something our grandchildren would never see or do.
We were wrong, of course.

I don’t think my own children will even have the chance, let alone my grandchildren.

 https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-06/diving-arctic-climate-change-iceberg (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-06/diving-arctic-climate-change-iceberg)

Edit:

20 years!
WTF!
Feels like every time I blink, another decade fucks me over.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on November 20, 2019, 12:49:34 pm
So, more “good” news, this month.
 Oh shit!  (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/06/harvard-chemist-permafrost-n2o-levels-12-times-higher-than-expected/)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on January 02, 2020, 09:24:12 am
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?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on January 02, 2020, 09:50:46 am
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?

Australia: First it a huuuuuge country... with different climate zones/biomes.. some will be affected in different ways to others.

In terms of heat - no. Certainly plenty of places in the Middle East that get hotter (for longer periods of time) than AU. It can all be air conditioned away..

Water - harder, Groundwater for large parts has gone/going - and with prolonged drought that will get worse. However, water can again be engineered around - less so for agriculture but certainly could be for towns/people. As long as there is some rain some time - natural water will persevere in some format. (looks at the oasis in Lybia/N.Sudan/Algeria that survives despite rainfall once a decade etc...

What Australia has in its positives are - energy and minerals. Its got to have one of the largest capabilities for Solar in the world (land area of low value with ‘proximity’ to market (people)... Consistent sun days etc.. It also has huge resources of copper, other rare metals (inc some uranium) that are all going to be needed for all the technology we require to live in a changing climate (I appreciate the irony...). It also has huge coal and gas reserves... but lets assume they drop out of favour in the next couple of decades.

To answer your second point - its more likely poorer coastal/estuary communities that will go first. Sea level rise is (now) inexorable and relatively predictable. We (the UK) have an example too - Fairbourne that is the first town in the UK to be abandoned to rising seas... Large tracts of Bangladesh, Myanmar, along the Mekong etc... Richer areas and towns will be engineered again - think huge concrete sea walls...

All IMHO etc..

Australia right now is a really interesting study in what level of disruption is required to tip a population over into accepting/doing something about CC... I (amongst many) thought Katrina in 2007 (I think?) was going to do that - but nope...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on January 02, 2020, 10:23:31 am
Thanks Tom, very interesting. I raised the question in an almost speculative or rhetorical fashion (and as a complete lay person, of course). At some point - assuming a. that the predictions are correct and b. we are unable as a global society to do enough to make a correction - a major city/society will have to be abandoned. It's interesting, if depressing, to think about where that might be. Of course, poorer coastal/island societies are already being impacted.

Katrina was 2005. I think general levels of awareness and debate among the public were much lower then. Katrina was a deeply politicised and controversial event but around race (quite rightly, a predominantly black city was effectively abandoned to its fate by the government) so that probably drew attention away from climate.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on January 02, 2020, 10:27:35 am
The link is also not quite as immediate. Climate change producing a raging fire is an obvious mental step to make. Climate change causing increased sea temps producing bigger storms, it could have happened anyway etc. etc.. The link is incredibly obvious, particularly to those who don't know the ins and outs of climate controls on weather processes. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on January 02, 2020, 10:32:39 am
Quick reply (toddler warfare here) but the comparison with how we fixed (more or less) the ozone hole with global action are interesting here.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on January 02, 2020, 10:39:32 am
it could have happened anyway etc. etc..

About 50 % of New Orleans is effectively below sea level; I think a lot of people adopted a "what can you expect" attitude. The city would be a very interesting study in resilience (I'm sure its been done). It lost around 50% of its population in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane but after a very slow recovery I think population is c.90% of pre-Katrina levels. Some neighbourhoods have never recovered but in other ways the city has undergone significant revitalisation, some of which may not have occurred without Katrina.

Of course, the exemplar of great modern city suffering catastrophic population loss is Detroit, but that has not been for climactic reasons - not yet anyway.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: T_B on January 02, 2020, 11:16:17 am
I have friends who've already sold up in Melbourne "to get away from our house in the fire-prone trees" and moved further down the coast to Port Elliot "where the air is heavy with smoke from a fire on Kangaroo Island". Grim.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on January 02, 2020, 11:20:48 am
We’re always talking about awareness, as if it’s a recent insertion into the mainstream media consciousness. It’s not, we wilfully ignore it.
I know I did a major module on it in “A” level Geology in the 87/88 academic year (started with a blind field trip to classify the rocks in Mounts bay. Stumped most of us, because they’re actually a petrified forest).
But, here, oneof the most watched BBC programs of it’s day, Tomorrow’s World, mentions the impending crisis and need to end fossil fuel consumption, as a matter of fact, in their 1989 New Year special:

 Thirty years of head in the sand[/ur,] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStTIX86mhE)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: tomtom on January 02, 2020, 12:00:01 pm
Quick toddler affected reply again :)

@andyp Miami is the city where Sea level rise will fuck it over (that’s a science term 😃) first. it’s all built on karst (carbonate - limestone - chalk etc..) so defending against sea level rise there is like putting a high lip around a sieve then plunging it into a bath. Useless. Already king tides flood large parts of downtown regularly. And that’s without any hurricane / storm surge scenarios.

There is a whole branch of climate science looking at this angle of what the social tipping point is for action (or not).

Omm - yes Global heating has been known about since 80’s by ironically research from oil co’s as recent Exxon (or another oil company) lawsuits have shown recently.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: galpinos on January 02, 2020, 12:00:47 pm
It also has huge coal and gas reserves... but lets assume they drop out of favour in the next couple of decades.

Murdoch was trumpeting the increase in coal exports to Asia whilst Australia was recording it's hottest day ever. They don't seemed have abandoned the fossil fuel bandwagon just yet.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on January 03, 2020, 09:50:58 am
I’m having a bit of an internal crisis.

I’ll be 50, very soon.
I thought I was reasonably well informed about “the World”.

And, I genuinely thought of Australia as being the “nice” western nation. Mentally I had glossed over the whole wiping out, abuse and repression of the indigenous population as an artefact of a different age that was slowly being rectified.

I suppose, around five years back, it started to penetrate my thick skull, that actually the jolly Jackos are quite the bunch of racist, misogynistic twunts. In fact, they seem to have produced the closest thing to a James Bond supervillain, this side of WW2 and more than one (Murdoch et al).
But to finally realise, that Australia produces more CO2 than any other nation but two (not directly, but via their exports of fossil fuels) is a little heartbreaking.
I thought I was too old for that sort of disillusionment.
Hey ho.

 Fosters is not the only pile of crap they export (https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2-exports-third-highest-worldwide/11420654)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on July 28, 2021, 04:57:23 am
Explore where you are.

https://youtu.be/RrQcVHzU1h4

I don't agree with everything George B says, but I've long seen a lot of travel as escape, as opposed to understanding where we are.

I have an Amazon account, and enjoyed an insightful lift, hitching to the Lakes with a guy in charge of developing the electric fleet of Amazon vans. Sure Bezos might behave like the phallus he straps himself inside, but a lot of employees see their job as an opportunity to make a positive real world difference.

That's where the focus needs to be.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 06, 2021, 10:04:41 am
This is from the morning call email by Stephen Bush of the New Statesman, I thought it was an excellent analysis:

Good morning. Boris Johnson is under fire after saying that Margaret Thatcher gave the United Kingdom a "big early start" in the battle against climate change by closing so many of the country's coal mines.

Joining the chorus of criticism are Keir Starmer ("shameful praising of Margaret Thatcher’s closure of the coal mines, brushing off the devastating impact on those communities with a laugh, shows just how out of touch he is with working people"), Lisa Nandy (the remarks "reveal the Conservative Party's utter disregard for the communities still scarred by Thatcher's closure of mines") and Nicola Sturgeon ("Lives & communities in Scotland were utterly devastated by Thatcher’s destruction of the coal industry, which had zero to do with any concern she had for the planet.").

Even one of his own MPs has had a go, albeit anonymously, telling the Times that: “It’s not really the smartest thing to say is it? It’s also not right.”

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.

The biggest problem with Boris Johnson's efforts (such as they are) to meet the challenge of net zero is that he is falling far short of the level of disruption and radicalism required. He's ruled out new taxes on meat, his government drags its feet on measures to adapt to our changing climate, let alone the big changes required to get to net zero.

All too often, Johnson's climate change strategy is essentially 'everyone should have their own electric car': a solution that is neither possible (there aren't enough rare earth materials in the world to replace every car currently in use in the UK) nor adequate (cars don't just produce emissions when they are driven, but also when they are constructed).

If you want to actually tackle the climate crisis, you have to be willing to do big and radical things that upset people, and that do, in the short term at least, create some losers: in most of the world that does mean closing mines. Here in the United Kingdom it has big implications for motorists, what we eat and how and where we take our holidays.

Our Prime Minister is very far from being willing to level with the public about that (to 'tell the truth', as Extinction Rebellion puts it) and further still from being willing to tell the public that this might involve some difficult or radical changes to how we live. Again, that is very far from how Margaret Thatcher approached any issue, including climate change.

But the biggest problem we face, and the one our politicians should be angriest about, isn't that Boris Johnson makes jokes about British mining. It's that it is frankly impossible to imagine him doing something as big or as significant in the fight to tackle the climate crisis today.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 06, 2021, 10:55:35 am

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 06, 2021, 11:10:20 am
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-56023895

Supporting but also not.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: joeisidle on August 06, 2021, 11:17:37 am

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

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


Which bit did you think was excellent?

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

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

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

Agree with all of your points and don't think it's an excellent analysis by any stretch but the important point of the article IMO is that it highlights how electorally unpopular some of the measures required are going to be. Eg. the Tyndall Centre RACER research suggesting that even if a complete shift to ULEV is achieved by 2035 there's still a need for a nationwide 58% reduction in car mileage before that date to keep to a below 2C carbon budget. No way that will happen without very strong, unpopular and potentially damaging legislation coming from govt.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 06, 2021, 01:05:05 pm
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
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: joeisidle on August 06, 2021, 01:33:48 pm
Agree 100%, I think this has often been the case with governments doing the ‘right’ thing on big issues that it’s been against public opinion at the time, such as banning the death penalty and legalising homosexuality.

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

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

Not saying that to be defeatist, just feel like this point isn't discussed enough, so was kinda glad to see an article that flagged the point.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: seankenny on August 06, 2021, 03:04:07 pm
There was a very good article in the NYT the other day exploring our inaction around climate change, given the size of the threat we know it is. This is much, much worse than the rise of fascism, but we aren't mobilising to anything like the same degree.

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

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

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

Anyone been to Siurana by train?

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 06, 2021, 03:48:43 pm
I would happily make other concessions like use affordable / convenient public transport  or an ebike to commute so I can still get a holiday somewhere warm or snowy once or twice a year, and travelling anywhere like that with kids from NE Scotland in any other way than flying is unfeasible.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: kelvin on August 06, 2021, 04:58:58 pm


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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: kelvin on August 06, 2021, 05:00:10 pm


Anyone been to Siurana by train?

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

Two other friends cycled from Paris to Siurana. They used the train to get home.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: chris j on August 06, 2021, 07:32:26 pm
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)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Fultonius on August 06, 2021, 09:34:06 pm
so I can still get a holiday somewhere warm or snowy once or twice a year.

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

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

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

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

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

I just hope we can realise we WE are less important than the whole sometime soon....
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 06, 2021, 10:21:48 pm
so I can still get a holiday somewhere warm or snowy once or twice a year.

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

Pick away. I expect 90% of people here are the same, just won't put their head above the parapet.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 06, 2021, 11:13:57 pm

Anyone been to Siurana by train?

I've come back from Siurana by train,  via a few places in the south of France. I think it involved a coach for a bit of it, but that was in France.  Terradetts is easy to get to on the train, as, obviously, is El Chorro.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on August 07, 2021, 08:06:06 am
Many years ago I went to Buis les Baronnies by train, very easy. I’ve also been to the Picos by coach, returning via the ferry from Santander, which was fantastic.

More importantly both Chris’s are right. Much as we understand the situation very few of us are yet at a point where we are willing to make the real changes that are going to be necessary (mea culpa: I flew yesterday).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: abarro81 on August 07, 2021, 08:17:09 am
I'm the same.

Re Fultonius' post - the problem is that many people find purpose in family (and travelling to see family), hobbies (and travelling to do them), work (and travelling for work)... Etc... So your sense of purpose is not necessarily good for the environment!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 07, 2021, 09:34:00 am
Which bit did you think was excellent?

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

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

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

This is a bit whataboutery isn't it? However we got there, if you look at how tied the Republican right is to coal and oil to the point that they barely acknowledge climate change,  we are better off than that, surely? I think that the basic contention that actual change will be extremely unpopular is basic, but correct. 
The solutions won't be hydrogen planes or whatever bullshit Johnson can dream up next,  it will be not flying.  It wont be electric cars it will be not having a car at all.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 07, 2021, 09:43:02 am
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!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 07, 2021, 10:04:13 am
More importantly both Chris’s are right. Much as we understand the situation very few of us are yet at a point where we are willing to make the real changes that are going to be necessary (mea culpa: I flew yesterday).

I did say I'm prepared to make real changes if options are available - affordable and convenient public transport or other means for my daily commute etc, but as Barrows says, for my sense of purpose (and mental health) I would need to be very hard pushed to forego the occasional short haul holiday. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 07, 2021, 10:07:42 am
My point was that we got to where we are with coal by not having economically viable coal mines left, if we had them I'm not sure we would be in a hugely different position to the states.

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

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

On a different subject,  on the points made above by some about buying local food; I may have missed someone else making this point,  but if I haven't,  it's not as simple as local is better. Jay Rayner has written about this quite a lot,  when you investigate methods etc etc, it is often the case that a tomato or whatever grown hydroponically in the Netherlands and flown to the UK in a super efficient supply chain with minimal wastage and water use is actually far better than the local one from a climate change point of view.  Obviously,  the local one still tastes a lot better but the climate change strategy can be pretty counterintuitive.  Ditto plastic packaging on fresh produce,  it can be better than selling without if it drastically reduces wastage.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on August 07, 2021, 11:03:30 am
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?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on August 07, 2021, 11:28:16 am
The solutions won't be hydrogen planes or whatever bullshit Johnson can dream up next,  it will be not flying.  It wont be electric cars it will be not having a car at all.

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

Spot on.

I find this idea that people, for example, shouldn't have a car in future nonsensical as that approach to the problem of climate change is completely counter to thousands of years of human development and human instinct itself. It's a real problem because, as Pete says, it's an extremely divisive approach that risks stopping the conversation before it's even started.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: joeisidle on August 07, 2021, 11:48:20 am
The solutions won't be hydrogen planes or whatever bullshit Johnson can dream up next,  it will be not flying.  It wont be electric cars it will be not having a car at all.

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

Have a lot of sympathy with the point around kids and agree this can all be incredibly devisive, but we still need to at least be able to acknowledge the current situation we're in. I'm not clear what population control measures you're alluding to but on a UK level at least any 1 child-esque policy introduced now will have no effect on the need to reduce surface transport by an unprecedented level by 2035, even with the most optimistic picture of EV rollout. The countries likely to drive population growth in the future also don't appear to be those with the highest emissions per capita, which seems to correlate more to income. Not saying this to advocate for a binary "all of us should stop driving no matter what" solution, but any conversation about carbon emissions in the UK in particular has to at least acknowledge the  role that road transport plays in this.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: seankenny on August 07, 2021, 11:54:48 am
So your sense of purpose is not necessarily good for the environment!

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

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

To take Chris' quite reasonable point (shared by 99% of the population so definitely not picking on him)... would a boat from Scotland to the France or the Netherlands to start your holiday be a workable solution? Sure, it doesn't exist now, but why not make it easy for Europeans in outlying parts of our continent to travel without emitting too much carbon?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mrjonathanr on August 07, 2021, 12:05:11 pm
What is sorely lacking here is clear unambiguous information so that the public can make informed decisions. Not ‘Is it bad?’  But ‘How bad is A vs B?’

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

The government has the means to create public information campaigns and simple dashboards if they want to. They just don’t want to.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on August 07, 2021, 12:11:35 pm

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

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

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

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


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

Surely the conversation is full of transport and power generation. What the conversation needs to acknowledge is the dominant role that population has on per tons of CO2 emitted. That's the elephant in the room. Not transport.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 07, 2021, 01:04:40 pm
The recent postings in this thread started around the difficult choices for climate change being necessarily politically unpopular. I would suggest that telling people how many kids they can have (or taxing them to disincentivise it, leaving rich people to have more kids?) would be significantly less popular across the electorate than telling people to drive less, fly less or taxing meat consumption (for example). Have any hard population control measure  been carried out outside communist states?

Also, I think the rate of population growth in the UK is falling anyway?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Wellsy on August 07, 2021, 02:21:16 pm
It is but the UK is one of the few European countries whose population is not projected to have collapsed by 2100, in fact it's projected to grow to make the UK the largest European nation (at over 80 million, with France in second place at over 70 million).

Most of the are looking at a big population decrease, only France and the UK of the big nations aren't looking at a population that's lower in 2100 than it is now.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 07, 2021, 04:41:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 07, 2021, 05:58:54 pm
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.

Erm yes I agree entirely, I was making a slightly flippant example. Johnson wants to rely on technology which doesn't exist yet to solve a real current problem (as he did with the Irish border, and that went well).
I don't think my contention was hair shirt to answer Pete's point, I'm not saying it's immediately realistic, but it soon would be if major cities were threatened by rising sea levels, or migration became 1000% worse due to exodus from equatorial countries that had become uninhabitable, surely? These things aren't immediately likely, clearly, but possible results of it getting a lot worse?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 07, 2021, 06:04:08 pm

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 07, 2021, 06:50:32 pm
Sorry Toby I replied to you but it wasn’t aimed at you. Should have made that clear.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Yossarian on August 07, 2021, 07:19:23 pm
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...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Steve R on August 07, 2021, 10:24:25 pm
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/
2050 is long way off, various game changing mitigation, pipeline tech and power gen likely to arrive before then?  probably maybe.  As for 2100?  I'd say all bets off -  AGI and attendant intelligence explosion more likely than not before then?
In an optimistic mood, seems to me there's probably sufficient runway (and currently feasible runway extension measures) for future innovation to solve climate or at least continue to extend the runway sufficiently so that, admittedly more by chance than measure, humanity and the planet has an escape velocity away from significant climate disaster.  Climate change and it's knock on effects clearly well worth worrying about but in the hierarchy of things imperilling humanity and the planet, my sense is it's probably a good few places off the top spot.   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on August 07, 2021, 11:13:11 pm
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...

Not wrong. The people I work with (FTSE 100 financial services firm) are terrible for it, constantly jetting off every which way. Not one of them have yet expressed a viewpoint that would indicate they intend to curb that activity, despite all sorts of new governance structures and initiatives coming in with a climate change prevention basis (I.e. they certainly should be conscious of it).

Let's face it though, climbers are generally no better!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 08, 2021, 08:07:43 am
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

Our exalted leader had a few words to say on this subject back in 2007:

”The primary challenge facing our species is the reproduction of our species itself.

As someone who has now been travelling around the world for decades, I see this change, and I feel it. You can smell it in the traffic jams of the Middle East. You can see it as you fly over Mexico City, a vast checkerboard of smog-bound, low-rise dwellings stretching from one horizon to the other; and when you look down on what we are doing to the planet, you have a horrifying vision of habitations multiplying and replicating like bacilli in a Petri dish.

The UN last year revised its forecasts upwards, predicting that there will be 9.2 billion people by 2050, and I simply cannot understand why no one discusses this impending calamity, and why no world statesmen have the guts to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves.

How the hell can we witter on about tackling global warming, and reducing consumption, when we are continuing to add so relentlessly to the number of consumers? The answer is politics, and political cowardice.

It is time we had a grown-up discussion about the optimum quantity of human beings in this country and on this planet. Do we want the south-east of Britain, already the most densely populated major country in Europe, to resemble a giant suburbia?

All the evidence shows that we can help reduce population growth, and world poverty, by promoting literacy and female emancipation and access to birth control.”


Said a man who went on to father seven children (that he admits to). But I guess if they’re all with different literate and emancipated females that doesn’t count, right?  :wank:
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on August 08, 2021, 09:52:14 am
Are you intimating that he should have stuck to masturbation?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 08, 2021, 10:11:44 am
Are you intimating that he should have stuck to masturbation?

Being a total wanker is the only thing that Boris Johnson appears to possess a competence for.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mrjonathanr on August 08, 2021, 10:33:27 am
Not quite, being repressed and despising the lower orders also figure highly I expect. I have read similar articles before, but this one about the Eton experience is particularly well written:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/08/public-schoolboys-boris-johnson-sad-little-boys-richard-beard

(Off topic, but it seems the obvious place).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 08, 2021, 11:18:12 am
Are you intimating that he should have stuck to masturbation?
I wish his dad had!

Just pointing out the spectacular hypocrisy of the man we have at the helm - leading by example as we navigate the climate challenge. Birth control is just for the feckless mothers on council estates and brown people. Need to get from London to Cornwall?…maybe I’ll take a private jet. Approving a new oil field in the North Sea sounds like a good way to hit my net zero target and set a good example ahead of Cop26 :wall:
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: seankenny on August 08, 2021, 11:40:17 am
Basically we're fucked. That's my conclusion. Smiley face.

This is the other framing that we need to ditch, and as soon as possible - seeing climate change as an absolutist, either/or situation. If each degree or fraction of a degree of warming represents extra human suffering, then clearly any positive change is going to be better than nothing. Better as in reducing the suffering of your children, your grandchildren and probably yourself. Taking a "we're fucked because it's not perfect" is of course an invitation to do nothing because the problem is so overwhelming. I fully expect this will be a common right wing talking point in the coming years. I guess I also expect some people to succumb to a kind of climate-related despair and for climate-induced suicide to be another mental health issue affecting the young. The current generation of over-65s clearly care little for the mental health of younger cohorts (or themselves, to be fair) but I'd like to think the age group prevalent on UKB has a slightly more enlightened approach. What are we willing to do to help them?


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.

This ties back into the article I linked to above - our response to climate change, either actual or conceptual - utterly lags behind the scale of the crisis we face. It's quite clear that we're going to take a massive financial hit whatever we do. What percentage of world output are we going to be spending on climate change? The OECD reckons 5.5% of GDP in 2050 if we act, but maybe 14% of world GDP* if we don't. That's a lot! To put that in context, the loss of world GDP 1929 - 32 was very similar. And of course the bills don't suddenly all come due on 1 Jan 2050. So for those that truly care about the bottom line, mitigation is your thing.

But of course, we don't think like that yet.

Many of the technologically minded posts on this thread kind of miss the point (to me). I have a degree of faith in mankind's ability to find clever technical solutions to problems, but that's not the issue. It's having a change of mindset that's vital - and really fucking hard. Building the kind of long-term institutional change we need is not going to come naturally to our politicians, not because they are awful but because they face certain incentives. The demands have to come from us.

I see something like Steve's post that climate change isn't our most serious threat as the kind of sophisticated bargainning we're all going through (or are going to start going through), that technology will save us. It's only half the story - and there's the obvious kind of bootstrapping problem that if we are going to knock climate change off the top spot we have to admit that it's there right now, otherwise we don't invest at the scale we need.

As for the pandemic, I think we've seen a majority of people take on board the seriousness of the problem and take something approaching the correct measures. This is in the face of piss poor government policy and messaging and a torrent of misinformation. There are always going to be idiots who can't see anything approaching the greater good, no matter how severe or imminent the threat. I saw something on Twitter the other day suggesting that in WW2 there were 950,000 blackout breaches (there was a link to a PhD thesis on this but alas I've lost the link so might be wrong).

I obviously agree with all the Johnson-related angst on this thread! The man's an idiotic monster.



* Source: https://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/oecdenvironmentaloutlookto2050theconsequencesofinaction-keyfactsandfigures.htm
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on August 08, 2021, 07:28:20 pm
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...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Fultonius on August 08, 2021, 07:55:46 pm
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...

Not often you get eh chance to correct Pete. Making me doubt myself.... But they ain't steel (well, haven't been for a while - maybe your rack still is???)

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on August 08, 2021, 08:15:32 pm
Ha! No you're correct  8)
I was thinking of the rope access stuff we use, not thinking that all the stuff I use recreationally is aluminium alloy. As you were. Still.. aluminium... :whistle:
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 09, 2021, 08:36:31 am
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...

This. As well as things like the competitive surf tour. And business; at the company I once worked for the CEO flew to NY for the day to sign a pledge to reduce carbon emissions in the shipping industry...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Falling Down on August 09, 2021, 08:50:00 am
Just in case no-one is paying attention to the news, the sixth IPCC report is out today.  The last one I think was published in 2013. 

I can recommend Alastair McIntosh’s book Riders on the Storm to help understand what’s going on and what we might do about it.  The first half looks at the science and the positions of the denial lobby and the “we’re doomed”, deep adaptation camp.  The second looks at the options and choices we have, both as individuals and institutions to navigate the future.  It’s a good, thought provoking read.

Personally, I’m trying to make as many changes as I can to limit my own impact but also contribute locally and influence the business I work for as far as possible.



Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Fultonius on August 09, 2021, 09:29:25 am
I've been quite enjoying this series on R4:

https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/m000qwt3.rss

39 ways to save the planet. (in the case the link doesn't work).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on August 09, 2021, 12:07:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 09, 2021, 12:37:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: i.munro on August 09, 2021, 01:02:59 pm
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.

Surely a simple - each person has a limit if x miles per year can't be that hard to implement for flights.
Personally I think x must be zero.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on August 09, 2021, 01:05:25 pm
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.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/06/covid-used-excuse-stop-cheap-travel/?WT.mc_id=e_DM1475451&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Loy_Dig_Tri_200526_TopStories&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Loy_Dig_Tri_200526_TopStories20210807&utm_campaign=DM1475451
Prior to the launch of the first package holiday (London Gatwick to Corsica in 1950, six hours via Lyon), most ordinary folk had a fortnight at a British seaside resort, enduring long car or coach journeys, inadequate service stations and challenging B&Bs.

But once you could buy an entire holiday in a shop on the high street, complete with paper vouchers and luggage labels, the world turned upside down.

Thousands of Britons were soon flying chartered planes to Majorca, the Costa Brava, and Sardinia, courtesy of the first mass travel company Horizon.

Competition came quickly:  Wings, set up in 1955 by the Ramblers’ Association, advertised package holidays to Portugal costing 49 guineas for two weeks (about £1,180 today).

By the 1960s, demand from tourists was boosting airport growth; Luton was one of the first to capitalise on the opportunity. (Later, the airport’s role in mass tourism would be immortalised in an award-winning ad for Campari and lemonade, the ultimate package holiday drink.)

The annual shiny Lunn Poly or Thomas Cook brochure could be collected from  your high street travel agent and pored over at home, en famille. Each year, there were new and ever-more exotic destinations: Corfu Town, Albufeira, Naples, Dubrovnik. The hotels promised in-room TVs, three-star dining, local entertainment and day trips. Package holidays went upmarket with Roman ruins and butterfly farms, while souvenir shops offered cheesecloth dresses and hand-woven bedspreads.

Yet still for most the main idea was to spend as much time as possible in the sun.  Night times were for fun at the disco, retsina and waterside dining watched by a horde of feral cats.

Over time two tiers of fliers emerged: the ones who “travel”, and then everyone else, who “go on holiday”. The former look down on the latter, sneering at the way they buy flight and accommodation as a unit, rather than – the ultimate virtue signalling – booking one’s own flight and calling that charming hotel your best pal told you about, in the sort of exotic destination that requires at least three vaccinations – and this pre-Covid. While no one seems to begrudge this kind of thoughtful traveller – casually offsetting their CO2 via an app, cheerful Costa-mongers are another matter. And have been for quite a while.

And so Covid may now have become an excuse for doing what some of our elitist leaders have perhaps dreamed of for years: putting an end to the cheap package holiday.

But while the talk now is of the need to keep expensive testing and complicated rules – in place, this undeclared war on cheap travel is unlikely to end with Covid. There will be others looking to stop the bargain-bucket Benidorm crowd for environmental reasons.

Already, powerful government advisers have mass travel in their sights as they ponder how Britain can meet the government’s legally binding target of reducing carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. For them, Covid restrictions have been a dry run for how our lifestyles might be curtailed in future for the good of the planet.

Yes, that would mean turning the clock back to the era when travel was so complicated and expensive that only the most dedicated and economically blessed among us would consider getting away. And as the numbers of putative passengers to Spain, say, fell, then there would be fewer flights, and those would be offered at higher prices. Throw in testing that costs as much as the holiday itself and suddenly, the sort of ordinary Brit who has come to depend on their annual dose of vitamin D wouldn’t be able to afford it anyway.

Keeping the masses off planes would delight well-off travellers - the sort who assuage their own guilt by buying carbon offsets and who shudder at the fly-and-flop crowd at the boarding gate.

Among those who see Covid as a dry run for restricting our freedom to travel is Dr Susan Michie, member of the Sage committee and director of the Centre for Behaviour Change at UCL. 

In a Channel 5 News interview in June, she said: “We need to think about the way we plan our cities, our transport, our lifestyles – instead of going back to huge long commutes, we have more local hubs where people don’t have to travel so much – good not only for health but for the environment – the environmental crisis is the next one down the road.”

In other words, now we have conditioned the public to expect lockdowns and other restrictions, let’s use them to cut carbon emissions. 

Sir David King, the former chief Scientific Adviser who set up the shadow “independent Sage” committee and the similar Climate Change Advisory Group, is another who might not want to let the opportunity slip.

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.”

His argument somewhat ignores an important point: the public supported restrictions on the basis it was a brief response to a disease threatening to kill large numbers of people in a short time.

However much you dress up the dangers of climate change, it isn’t going to be solved with restrictive measures over weeks or months. If a government was going to try to cut carbon emissions by announcing a ban on, say, holiday flights, it would have to stay indefinitely, or until some alternative technology was invented.

The public might be a little less keen to accept that. Except, perhaps, if they can be either put off going away (the cost, the effort) or frightened into changing behaviour (disease, global warming) forever. 

So the culture war over travel has begun.  Government ministers from Johnson and Sunak down are already modelling the responsible, patriotic and green style of holiday: a sodden staycation in wellies and a coat. It’s one that would suit the World Economic Forum (WEF), which carries on its website a piece by Arthur Wyns, former climate adviser to the World Health Organisation, saying: “The global health crisis we find ourselves in has forced us to dramatically change our behaviour in order to protect ourselves and those around us, to a degree most of us have never experienced before. This temporary shift of gears could lead to a long-term shift in old behaviours and assumptions, which could lead to a public drive for collective action and effective risk management.” 

Can we take that as a promise that the WEF will no longer be inviting the great and good to fly to Davos in their private jets? I fear not. You can be sure the wealthy will carry on travelling, while lecturing the rest of us on climate change. I don’t doubt that, given half a chance, the PM will be jetting off to some borrowed villa in the Caribbean once again.

Covid will be used to justify interference in the lifestyles of ordinary people – by a global elite which, to judge from the fact that G7, COP26 and other beanfeasts are carrying on regardless, are immune to changing behaviour. Life is returning to normal for those important people, who get swept through empty airports without being imprisoned for 10 days at the Holiday Inn. But for the rest of us, the byzantine rules on travel and the cost of complying with them are a foretaste of what is to come. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 09, 2021, 01:08:37 pm
Engineer another coronavirus seeing they did such a good job on the first?

Personal travel - I don't think much else other than taxation.

For corporate / industry there can surely be heavier taxation / carbon limitation / subsidies for not using as much? I'd like to think a result of the remote working over the last would be the realisation that you don't need to go halfway round the world to shake hands on something and then go out for lunch?

This culture needs to be instilled in largest organisations as part of their environmental initiatives, and then their suppliers and sub-suppliers will hopefully follow suit.

(this was a reply to teesub)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 09, 2021, 01:12:28 pm
Personally I think x must be zero.

So I can never see my relatives again?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Paul B on August 09, 2021, 01:15:46 pm
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.”

It's surprising to me that there doesn't appear to be a desire to capture some of the positives that have arisen. Today is MOT day and looking at the mileage I've done, owning two cars over the past year isn't going to come close to being worth it. I've started going back into the office 1/5 days (mostly to appease others and try and resist going back to 4/5) and each time I do it, I'm amazed at how inefficient the days feel (they also feel relatively expensive, considering fuel and then parking etc.).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Wellsy on August 09, 2021, 01:21:02 pm
TBH the covid-dry run has been a fucking disaster if that's what it has been

All it's shown is that for some bizarre reason even during the pandemic people were OBSESSED with holidays. The papers banged on about the summer holidays over and over and over again. It seemed to be a weirdly hot button issue.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 09, 2021, 01:21:45 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/09/flexible-working-is-here-to-stay-says-kwasi-kwarteng

I've managed to kerb mine at 3 days a week, hopefully I can hold fast at that.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: i.munro on August 09, 2021, 01:32:50 pm
So I can never see my relatives again?

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.

Having said that I think this was the point that Greta Thunberg was making with her zero-carbon trip to the states. Alternatives to aeroplanes/ diesel cargo ships  can be created - however they won't unless govts force it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 09, 2021, 01:49:44 pm
Cool, I can just sail to East Coast Australia or South Africa.

Greta's stunt was all well and good for someone with a publicity machine at their back and little time restrictions, but it's just not viable for most people, and won't be for a long long time. When we first emigrated to SA from the UK in the late 70s I think the voyage was about 2 weeks. The Union Castle line ships were scrapped by the late 70 when air travel became too popular.   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Liamhutch89 on August 09, 2021, 01:56:53 pm
Out of interest, what is currently the greenest way to take a summer holiday abroad and how much greener is it?

For example, if a family can arrive at their beach front villa in Spain via train for the 1/10th the environmental cost of flying, this is something that should be promoted heavily.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 09, 2021, 02:23:05 pm
Timely.. pasted from the Telegraph. Covid travel restrictions being a dry-run for climate travel restrictions. Posted without comment.. other than absolutely fuck being poor in climate-zealots world.
You can be sure the wealthy will carry on travelling, while lecturing the rest of us on climate change.
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on August 09, 2021, 02:27:54 pm

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: chris j on August 09, 2021, 04:55:48 pm

Greta's stunt was all well and good for someone with a publicity machine at their back and little time restrictions,

It fell down for me when the company running the boat said they would have to fly out 2 people to crew for the return trip...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on August 09, 2021, 05:31:27 pm
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.

Long haul flights are pretty tricky to reasonably replace, but as we go into the future, perhaps this should be a consideration for those eyeing up a move to Australia etc.. Doesnt help those already in that situation! (This isnt a dig, just a musing).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Fultonius on August 09, 2021, 07:46:09 pm

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..   



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!


With regard to the rich / poor thing. The issue with tax is, as folks have said, that the rich can just keep going on paying (seeing the boom in Rangey Evoques etc. Its clearly not slowing things down much...).

The only fair way is a ration. 1 laing haul per 5 years and one short haul per year or so.  No trading allowed. Fair. But... Where are the Turkeys and is it Christmas?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 09, 2021, 07:48:15 pm
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.

70% of flights by a wealthy 15% of population apparently https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56582094

Maybe Aerosmith came up with the appropriate response to climate change back in 1993!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Ru on August 09, 2021, 10:54:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 10, 2021, 07:39:01 am
Timely.. pasted from the Telegraph. Covid travel restrictions being a dry-run for climate travel restrictions. Posted without comment.. other than absolutely fuck being poor in climate-zealots world.
You can be sure the wealthy will carry on travelling, while lecturing the rest of us on climate change.
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.

I don't know about this, it's comparatively recent as a common thing. Cheap flights to the extent we see now mostly the last 20 years or so.
There are a number of things pouring cold water on indiscriminate short range flights at the moment, EU exit, visa waiver charges brought in, phone charges, COVID testing, and hopefully people are paying attention to the climate situation.
I agree about its disproportionate coverage for the last 2 years though.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 10, 2021, 08:27:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on August 10, 2021, 08:57:06 am
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.

One use of graphene is as an additive to make low friction coatings to improve fuel efficiency. Of course I’ve invested in a company doing this 😁
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mrjonathanr on August 10, 2021, 09:07:25 am
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.
And fossil fuel - or at least diesel -car scrappage schemes.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 10, 2021, 09:27:47 am
Indeed, anything, all of the above, not the present practically nothing though, or flying across the country for a 2 day jolly apart from to appear with our local MP who I would love to give a thorough kicking

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/uk-politics/3365449/boris-johnson-arrives-in-aberdeenshire-what-is-he-doing-here/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on August 10, 2021, 10:30:05 am
If there was an upsurge in supplying more new cars, that would increase the amount of C02 emissions in the short term wouldnt it?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 10, 2021, 10:57:24 am
Scrapping old diesels shouldn't mean replacing with new cars, but at this stage it probably would.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: galpinos on August 10, 2021, 01:38:57 pm
If there was an upsurge in supplying more new cars, that would increase the amount of C02 emissions in the short term wouldnt it?

Nominally, due to the increase in emissions in BEV fabrication compared to ICEV but at the moment we are still buying ICEVs. If we just replaced all those current ICEV sales with BEV sales we would be getting somewhere whilst we move away from car dependency.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 11, 2021, 08:45:09 am
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…
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on August 11, 2021, 01:26:31 pm
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.

Good post.

Sorry I haven't had time to reply properly. My very succinct view is that societal choice is not really a choice at all, but rather an outcome of various input factors. To take your example of the American switch from railroads to cars, what that ignores is that when the railroads were dominant, the technology didn't exist to challenge them. As soon as it did, guess what happened. People didn't choose not to have cars in the 18/19th century; they couldn't have them, so they didn't. But personal transport was still important (horses.....). When the factors changed (technological advancement, cost, etc.), so too did people's "choices".

Thinking about instinct; take the "automotive" out of it and I would argue that humans have always been instinctively drawn to travel, from the earliest mass migrations out of Africa to the explorers of the  17th century onwards. When the technology has made it possible for us to do so, we've changed how we travel, and (because humans are instinctively selfish), always in the most self sufficient mode possible.

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on August 11, 2021, 01:47:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: 36chambers on August 11, 2021, 01:48:30 pm
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
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on August 11, 2021, 02:07:05 pm
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.

Totally agree with that; I think the original point was that the Government's focus on personal car use / electric cars is not the right one, even if it is very visible / high profile. In reality the biggest gains are probably in very niche areas (like ship cleanliness), which also importantly don't infringe on people's lives.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: 36chambers on August 11, 2021, 02:12:32 pm
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.

I offset my flying, and driving, by not eating meat. I thought everyone was doing that ;)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 11, 2021, 02:17:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 11, 2021, 02:33:21 pm

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.

Actually, it was just the final deadline for existing high sulphur fuel and lube oil usage vessels to be taken out of service. In reality low sulphur fuel oil etc hasn’t been used for 20 years and HFO’s haven’t been used for even longer (already old hat when I started out 32 years ago) and even large 2 stroke engines are finally disappearing (despite being the most efficient at constant speed operation). Emissions have been strictly controlled and monitored for around 15-20 years, with incremental toughening over time (some US and Northern European ports now use drones to monitor exhaust gases, unannounced). Scrubbers are now required on all new constructions and retro fit engines and so on…
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on August 11, 2021, 03:42:13 pm
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

A useful illustration. And a good starting point for replying to Bradders' interesting comment on the previous page. Even if we accept that a technology (such as the car) was inevitable in the form we know it (which I don't, but that's a different debate) then we, by which I mean societies, still have choices about how we have cars, how we integrate them into our lives, how society comes to depend on them (or doesn't), how we do (or don't) reconfigure our physical infrastructure around them etc. It's not a binary have/don't have, or road vs. rail etc. - or it shouldn't be. For many, however, driving is not a choice, because no other choice is available. Just because something was chosen doesn't mean it was pre-determined or optimal. The conditions under which a choice is made matter as much as the options available.

At the same time, I do believe societies do make choices in a way that cannot be reduced solely to the aggregation of atomized individual choices, even if the processes are flawed and some voices are much louder than others. That said, individual choices do matter as the starting point from which most of us try and make a change. whether that is by deciding not to fly, buying an EV, or giving up meat. So, in terms of the breadth or narrowness of the debate, I think it's quite natural that we first turn to those things we know we have a chance of changing, like our own behaviour. Most importantly, we can try and make those choices as well informed as possible.

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: remus on August 11, 2021, 04:01:21 pm
I think the place of cars in society, and how we got here, is a really interesting discussion. As you say Andy, personal mobility is a very recent thing in historical terms. It's extremely addictive though, Im sure many on here will remember when they learnt to drive and got their first car: the sense of freedom and possibility is a powerful thing and very difficult to give up once you've lived with it for a while. Being able to hop in the car and get ~anywhere in western europe in under 36 hours is pretty remarkable.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 11, 2021, 04:22:17 pm
All Henry Fucking Ford's fault. That twat :)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on August 11, 2021, 05:04:26 pm
I offset my flying, and driving, by not eating meat. I thought everyone was doing that ;)

I've offset my entire lifestyle by having not had kids (nothing to do with climate change reasons..). By the maths of it I'm pretty much on a free pass to eat anything I like and travel anywhere I want, for life, and will still come in as having lived a low impact life compared to the average family. That's not a dig at people who want or have kids btw, I like kids, it's just the facts of consumption and the resultant CO2.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 11, 2021, 06:18:47 pm
So can I just offset my carbon onto my parents as it’s their fault I exist?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: dunnyg on August 11, 2021, 06:21:36 pm
Worth a try
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on August 11, 2021, 07:43:36 pm
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.

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. Inequality might arise if people on low incomes end up having to sell their quota to make ends meet (you might suppose that these people were unlikely to be flying anyway in an age beyond cheap air travel), or if the market rate goes so high as to make it financially inconceivable to not sell for most people - a problem that could be solved with price caps or other regulation?

It's not a complete idea but I don't think a quota system need necessarily promote inequality.


Carbon offsetting? What happened to that?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on August 11, 2021, 07:48:11 pm
So can I just offset my carbon onto my parents as it’s their fault I exist?

I had this exact same question.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mrjonathanr on August 11, 2021, 08:11:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on August 11, 2021, 08:11:39 pm
So can I just offset my carbon onto my parents as it’s their fault I exist?

Can anyone explain the maths of this to me? Or point me to something that does?

I just don't get the concept that by having a child I am contributing carbon emissions, when surely their own emissions will also be counted against them. Isn't there double counting going on here?

Is it more to do with "excess" children? As in, having more children than just essentially replacing yourself (and therefore contributing to population growth)?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 11, 2021, 08:17:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 11, 2021, 08:25:27 pm
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:
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 11, 2021, 09:18:19 pm
And carbon offsetting is bollocks - that term should be confined to the same ships full of 'recycling' being sent off to Malaysia.

Environmental hero and occasional jet setter Honnold does his offsetting via Mossy Earth https://mossy.earth/

IMO if people are still going to fly for leisure (which seems entirely likely for the near future at least), then I’m happy for them to have their consciences salved somewhat by donating to such organisations. There are a lot of BS ones out there too, but that’s true in any business field I guess.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 11, 2021, 09:22:11 pm

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on August 11, 2021, 09:30:14 pm
Related to the car discussion, this article, containing a load of utter nonsense about the supposed inequities caused by electric cars, just popped up in the FT:

https://www.ft.com/content/f0659114-94dc-4181-ae50-db0d86b84feb?fbclid=IwAR0q9d6i0oApVCUTs1jFKymt4IyOxBoH-9Se95C2Gmg7lRgJZNEXGiAgQuk

Not entirely sure what the point was they were trying to make. Anyone? I'm mystified. Surely everything listed as a supposed problem is easily rectifiable and a natural issue this early in the general switch from ICE to electric.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Bradders on August 11, 2021, 09:35:29 pm

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.

Hmm, yes I suppose so. Although we've no way of knowing what each future human's carbon output is likely to be. It could even be zero!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on August 11, 2021, 10:54:55 pm
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.


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.


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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 11, 2021, 10:55:57 pm
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.

I agree.  It seems like a way for relatively wealthy people or organisations to pretend to make a difference when actually the answer is just to not use resources in the first place. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on August 11, 2021, 10:59:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mrjonathanr on August 11, 2021, 11:12:46 pm
conscientious flyer

That oxymoron is where the problem lies Will.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 11, 2021, 11:31:19 pm
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...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on August 12, 2021, 05:49:31 am
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on August 12, 2021, 07:35:27 am
Don't you want to work for a newspaper, Toby? Do you know how much water it takes to print one of them?

Nobody here ever eaten an avocado? How do you think it got here?

conscientious flyer

That oxymoron is where the problem lies Will.

If you want to be as blinkered and hard line as that, why not just tell anybody who's serious about saving the world to throw themselves under a bus?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mrjonathanr on August 12, 2021, 07:43:06 am
What a petulant response.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 12, 2021, 07:45:10 am
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.

Quote
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!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 12, 2021, 08:06:37 am
P.S. Will I’m not trying to be preachy. I’m as hypocritical as anyone when it comes to my carbon emissions. I just find the argument that I can carry on flying or driving around and pay for that to be ‘offset’ somewhere else wholly unconvincing and prefer to live honestly with my guilt.

And I would like this transition to a low carbon economy to be as equitable as humanly possible - not society even more stratified into those who live with permanent restrictions and others who can afford to buy their way back to a ‘normal’ lifestyle.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on August 12, 2021, 08:11:40 am
What a petulant response.

And your response was completely without empathy to the point of being potentially very insulting, not to mention completely failing to answer the question. There might be people who don't particularly want to fly but find themselves compelled to - perhaps to attend their brother's funeral so that they can be there for his wife and two very young children (not my example, but that of a friend). You're telling them that they aren't conscientious, even if they ensure that they sequester the equivalent carbon?

My point was that literally everything you do in a modern society has an impact greater than if you simply ceased to exist. You say that a conscientious person shouldn't fly under any circumstances, Toby says nobody should be allowed to play golf under any circumstances, but why stop there? Why allow any imported food beyond that absolutely necessary to sustain the population - we could all do with eating more turnips. Why accept that anybody should be able to go to a crag they can't cycle to? Why live at all?


Ali, the point about trading your quota would only work if the quota was sustainable. If it's sustainable, then why not use it?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mrjonathanr on August 12, 2021, 08:24:25 am
Where did I say that you shouldn’t fly under any circumstances? Don’t make stuff up.

I said the problem lies in the idea of the ‘conscientious flyer’. We are all, sooner or later, going to have to accept lifestyle changes. Whilst carbon offsetting is undoubtedly a good thing to do, it is not sufficient to address the problem. If you are really conscientious, you will need to address that reality.

I am sorry your friend is in that position. I am sorry that my Mexican colleague has not been able to attend her mother’s funeral. I am sorry that my French colleague has been unable to attend her mother’s funeral too. I am pretty sorry that my dad and my uncle died last year. None of which has anything to do with glib phrases like ‘conscientious flyer’.

If you are that conscientious, you’ll be asking yourself some pretty hard questions about what it means to fly and when you might feel it to be justified.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: chris j on August 12, 2021, 08:26:30 am
But it is just sophistry isn't it? Carbon offsetting focusses on a very small part of the pollution (much like diesel cars were thought to be environmentally better 20 years ago, on a very narrow metric).

Does anyone here believe Branson's or Bezos' recent jollies to the edge of space were wholly environmentally acceptable because they did carbon offsetting? Or is it just lip service.

In some ways it's like the UK claiming carbon output is down by nearly 50% since 1990 (on a territorial accounting basis), whereas on a consumption basis we seem to have farmed most of the decrease out to imports from Europe and China...

Edit: in reply to Will, not mr jr...

Incidentally, with the mention of banning things, almond milk please before avocados. Environmental disaster for water usage (& bees)...

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 12, 2021, 08:53:37 am
But it is just sophistry isn't it? Carbon offsetting focusses on a very small part of the pollution

It seems to me that it's one of the many ways in which people try desperately to justify not changing their behaviour.

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. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 12, 2021, 09:00:52 am
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
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on August 12, 2021, 09:01:17 am
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.

They're fine provided you don't mind fucking up your neighbour's lungs.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 12, 2021, 09:11:43 am
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 12, 2021, 09:27:57 am
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

That looks pretty grim,  I just wondered about their carbon footprint,  this article skates over it, just saying that they have a good reputation; I'm a little sceptical about whether they are but it'd be interesting to know. 

The study referred to here isn't on wood burning,  but its pretty depressing that the government response to it is to ignore it
https://inews.co.uk/news/hydrogen-climate-gas-boilers-green-renewables-1146693
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 12, 2021, 09:49:30 am
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 12, 2021, 09:58:04 am
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.

Ok, I've had a look at a few things; its carbon neutral in the long term,  but not in the short to medium term according to this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/

It also depends upon where the wood is sourced,  and with what you replace it. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: chris j on August 12, 2021, 09:58:48 am
In terms of carbon footprint, it will surely depend mostly where you source your wood - if it comes from a local sustainable source where they plant more than they fell, or if you're importing premium virgin rain forest...  ;D

Air quality we could stigmatize wood-burners until they're socially as acceptable as running your diesel engine while parked outside an inner-city primary school?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 12, 2021, 10:05:14 am
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 12, 2021, 10:10:08 am
Agree it’s not a practical replacement for gas boilers as we wouldn’t have enough trees for everybody. Having stayed in houses where this is the only source of heat and hot water, it was less faff than I thought it would be.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 12, 2021, 10:13:31 am
My father in law lives in a medium sized house in a fishing village with no mains gas. Pretty much all the hot water / heating in his house comes from a wood fire in the lounge, or electricity (he has one electric shower and an electric heater in his bedroom). Doesn't make a fire for 8-9 months of the year, but needs to have one most days in the winter. Not saying it's ideal, but it is possible and it keeps him busy!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 12, 2021, 11:27:24 am
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.

Oddly, though, Toby is both correct and wrong. Whilst they are not as “ecologically sound” as, say, wilderness parkland, they still represent a more eco friendly patch of greenery in many urban sprawls and cities. Whether or not the consume more water than an equivalent area of housing development, or not, I couldn’t say, but most golf courses occupy an area that would fit several hundred houses or several thousand (potentially) appartements/flats, surely.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Johnny Brown on August 12, 2021, 11:40:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 12, 2021, 12:14:35 pm
I know American ones are notorious for using excessive pesticides and fertilisers to get the greens looking immaculate.

I spoke to a guy at Muirfield and he said at the height of summer they have 14 people employed running full time on drive on mowers just to cut the grass!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mrjonathanr on August 12, 2021, 12:33:44 pm
Link to the IPCC report on climate change.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Johnny Brown on August 12, 2021, 12:35:24 pm
Quote from: andy popp
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.

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Liamhutch89 on August 12, 2021, 01:40:55 pm
Quote from: andy popp
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.

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.

Bloody fascinating post, thanks! Sorry to get off-topic, but what evidence is there for declining health and intelligence over time due to farming and stationary societies? (I don't mean this as a challenge, i'm just interested). Is this decline still continuing or did they begin to rise again at any point?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: teestub on August 12, 2021, 01:43:52 pm
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/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: spidermonkey09 on August 12, 2021, 02:15:57 pm
I enjoyed Sapiens, but not the follow up; had the impression of Harari starting to believe his own hype a little bit too much!

I've got a lot out of reading Jared Diamond on this topic as well. Guns Germs and Steel is an absolute classic but definitely harder going than Sapiens. I also read Collapse by him, which is about how some societies fail and others survive.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Liamhutch89 on August 12, 2021, 02:22:10 pm
I will add these books to my list, thank you.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on August 12, 2021, 03:29:46 pm
Quote from: andy popp
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.

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.

Oh, definitely, I certainly didn't mean to argue there's no hardwiring, which is why I deliberately mentioned history, to make that distinction. I don't think there's a general argument to be made from history about human mobility, just lots of messy, contingent, context driven ones.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 12, 2021, 05:53:02 pm
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.

I take the points made re golf courses, I just notice that most of them seem to have sprinklers on almost constantly, and wonder where all the turf is sourced from. I was probably scarred by the experience of going to Vegas; in the middle of a parched desert and golf courses everywhere... It's gross.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on August 12, 2021, 05:55:21 pm

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.

I think this is one of my favourite books, it's amazing, anyone who hasn't read it should. Ditto for In Patagonia.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Duma on August 12, 2021, 08:22:32 pm
whats yr book on mesolithic britain JB?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Johnny Brown on August 13, 2021, 09:21:25 am
 :kiss2:To the Islands by Stephen Mithen. I hesitate to recommend it, it is misyly an archeologist's self-indulgent autobiography and the prof is clearly above working with editors. If you read some of the one star reviews to his other books you'll get the picture.

The point I refer to on mobility is impressed on him by Lewis Binford, whose work has been highly influential and worth seeking out. I've not got any of his books but a lot of his papers are online.

Obit: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/may/17/lewis-binford-obituary
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: petejh on August 14, 2021, 06:03:21 pm
Another article from Wood Mac, on the constraints on investment within mining which threaten to derail the world's attempt to transition to low carbon energy and transport. Banging the same drum they've been banging for the last few years (and which convinced me to invest in a few choice copper, nickel and tin miners).

https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/why-high-dividends-may-not-pay-off-for-mining/?utm_campaign=metals-mining&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pardot
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on August 20, 2021, 12:02:03 pm
I thought this article was interesting vis-a-vis some of the debates we were having a couple of weeks ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/20/leon-carbon-neutral-burgers-restaurant-environmental

I've never heard of the company before and am not having a dig at them.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SA Chris on August 20, 2021, 12:23:26 pm
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/carbon-calculator#the-mackay-carbon-calculator

interesting to play about with.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: seankenny on August 20, 2021, 01:23:36 pm


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 (https://travelweekly.co.uk/articles/42355/analysis-how-often-do-britons-fly) 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?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 20, 2021, 02:10:35 pm
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?

Will made the same point upthread.
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.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Anti on August 20, 2021, 02:25:11 pm
Is this not otherwise eco conscious people willingly selling the environment short for personal gain? Don't profit, let your 0 emissions count towards a global decease. Get a high five your grandchildren for not fucking things up like our grandparents generation.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on August 20, 2021, 04:05:26 pm
A key point about this never-going-to-happen-anyway-so-why-are-we-bothering-to-argue-about-it scenario is that if a quota is set then it is presumed to be at a level that is sustainable. If that were the case then going below that quota might be nice but why try and prevent international air travel more than you have to?

The reason I mentioned a price cap or some form of price regulation was to get around Ali's equality issue. If the market price was kept below a rate where it made it financially nonsensical for ordinary people not to sell to the super rich then people don't have to sell.


Honestly though, just talking about flight is narrow and completely misses the scale of the challenge.


Spanner in the works: the aerospace industry is working away at the problem and working on carbon neutral plane designs. Don't ask me what they might be or how far off they might be because I don't know. All I can say is that my father-in-law (retired from Rolls-Royce, now consulting for them) is working on this project and the UK government has chucked money at it. Who knows, y'all might be disappointed and we might yet be able to make international air travel sustainable.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ali k on August 20, 2021, 04:23:09 pm
just talking about flight is narrow and completely misses the scale of the challenge.
Totally agree. That was my point earlier re: domestic emissions.

I'm not against international air travel just for the sake of it - if they can make truly carbon neutral planes (not just the usual greenwashing bullshit) then that would be great.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: seankenny on August 20, 2021, 05:02:11 pm
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.

If that's the case then surely you'd just set the annual air mileage quota to half of what it would have been with a per capita allowance that covers everyone, to account for the people who don't fly anyhow? Then allow trading within that smaller quota - you'd get exactly the same outcome in terms of emissions with more people getting what they wanted. I appreciate it's useful in rhetorical terms to cast those benefiting as rich pleasure seekers, but there is an equality issue here too. Lots of Brits have family abroad, often quite a long way abroad - India, Jamaica, Nigeria, etc. With a strict limit and no trading, you're condeming a lot of people to never seeing their family again, as Chris said further up the thread. If you were serious about bashing golfers (not something I have a problem with) then just build in a maximum annual number of flights.

I'm of the view that there are few reasons any of us should be taking flights within Europe, at least not for pleasure, but there are really good reasons for some long haul travel that can't be replaced by other forms of transport. There's also the small matter of if low carbon flying is possible, and hence desirable, how is developing it going to be funded if we make the airline industry much smaller? What happens if we have some kind of quota and the planes we would have used end up getting sold off/leased cheaply to poorer but less environementally concerned countries, so we've only just displaced the problem rather than solved it?

Whilst I agree that flying is only part of the massive challenge we face, it's both important and illustrative of some of the problems we face in making a functional transition. I don't know if this has been occuring elsewhere, but here in London there have been huge rows about Low Traffic Neighbourhoods which aim to reduce car use. I mean, it's obvious why: using a car is often easier than the alternatives, otherwise you wouldn't do it, and no one likes having their lives made harder. There're some very vocal opponents and politicians really do listen to them. Arguments about freedom and rights in travel are going to become a staple for the next few decades.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Fultonius on August 20, 2021, 06:51:05 pm
 I love how one quick offhand comment has sparked this long discussion. I'm not sure I've seen any mention of quotas anywhere else, I just chucked it in as an idea...

So. Quotas. I guess it all gets very "communist" very quickly, but I do think a limit of one long haul every 2 years is reasonable and probably just about sneaks in the climate quota.

My main reason for suggesting no trading came off the back of holiday trading. Its a bit assymmetric and there would be plenty willing to snap up 4 or 5 peoples quotas. Whereas if you set, say, 1 LHF ever 2 years, and you didn't use it then its a great saving in C02 terms.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Johnny Brown on August 21, 2021, 09:22:44 pm
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/

Agree Sapiens is probably worthwhile reading for almost anyone. On this particular subject it is pretty light, as it with most because of the scope of the book. If you want an excellent in-depth treatment on the transition from hunter gatherer to peasant taxpayer I'd suggest James C Scott's Against the Grain.

On air travel, I think some sort of limitation is inevitable. It would be nice if it was equitable but that's hardly the case at the moment. Given the way things are going I think there's a fair chance it will come in as a Covid-style blanket moratorium on non-essential travel while we try to buy ourselves some time.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Falling Down on August 24, 2021, 04:14:50 pm
Part III of the IPCC Report (the bit that has the recommendations) has been leaked by Scientists Rebellion.  https://scientistrebellion.com/we-leaked-the-upcoming-ipcc-report/ (https://scientistrebellion.com/we-leaked-the-upcoming-ipcc-report/) there's a link to a Google Drive location with the documents in.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: andy popp on August 24, 2021, 04:21:29 pm
Maersk spends 1billion GBP on "carbon neutral" ships:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/24/worlds-biggest-shipping-firm-maersk-in-1bn-green-push
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: joeisidle on April 05, 2022, 09:14:14 am
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.

Two months ago the IPCC confirmed with as much scientific certainty as we’re going to get that we have a narrow and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future on this planet. Now we know from the report released yesterday that the point of no return for changing this is 2025, by which point we have to finally achieve a global reduction in reducing emissions. To ensure a sub 1.5 or even 2 degrees trajectory we also need rapid and in most cases immediate reductions in all emissions from all sectors, meaning we’re largely stuck with the technology we already have and also need substantial demand side reductions.

Feel free to correct me if I’m misinterpreting any of the above, I’m not a scientist etc. But my understanding is that both reports prepared by the world’s leading scientists on these fields and with government sign off, so seem to be the nearest thing to a ‘consensus’ on the scale of the issue and the ways we need to globally tackle it that we’re going to get prior to going beyond the point of no return.

Appreciate many/most people here will already know of the above and they’re hardly new messages from the scientific community, 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?

Links to the Feb and April reports:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TobyD on April 05, 2022, 10:18:49 am
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?

Very much the same as you I'm afraid. See my post in the politics thread. 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, or dead against wind turbines, or the simplest best method of decreasing emissions - stop using so much. I can't help but find it all incredibly depressing.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mrjonathanr on April 05, 2022, 11:01:03 am
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.

This.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Will Hunt on April 06, 2022, 12:57:05 pm
Don't lose hope, everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: joeisidle on April 06, 2022, 01:32:08 pm
Don't lose hope, everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw

Thanks for this. I don't know if others feel differently but for me I'm certainly not advocating for a "we're doomed and nothing can be done" position, but maybe that wasn't clear in my original post.

The key point in that video for me is that pressure needs to be put in governments to ensure these promises can be met. Currently we're still looking at a level of warming (3 degrees+) that will likely lead to huge amounts of death and starvation, whilst being faced with a govt in this country that seems to be running away from its own net zero pledge and a govt in the US that seemingly has no ability to enact its key climate pledges. None of this gets changed by despair, but equally none of it gets changed if the public don't do more to hold the govt to account on this.
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal