You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Year 1: Ban private jets
Year 2: Bring in air miles rationing for the top 1%
Year 3: Expand it to the top 5%
But you need to do that across the whole world. And it won't be electorally popular. So how do you bring that into effect?
We know how to slash emissions. What we need to discuss is how to get people to accept and vote for slashing emissions across the whole world.
Flying on holiday once a year or not will make little impact. My friends a pilot and fly's for super rich Saudi's. Paris for Lunch, then quick jaunt to Rome and off to London clothes shopping then back to Saudi. An average week for the incredibly wealthy which we have no chance of influencing.
I dunno. There are not many people who do that. There might be far more flights taken by 20 or 30m Brits going to Malaga once a year.
EDIT it seems the average number of flights per year per person in England is about 1 ish. Of course it's not evenly distributed but that means say 60m flights by English residents. That's 165k per day. I dunno how many super rich private jetsetters there are but I'd expect it's not that many.
Flying on holiday once a year or not will make little impact. My friends a pilot and fly’s for super rich Saudi’s. Paris for Lunch, then quick jaunt to Rome and off to London clothes shopping then back to Saudi. An average week for the incredibly wealthy which we have no chance of influencing.
how many rich Saudis are there, and how many chavs going to magaluf?
edit - beaten by Mols
From that article.
However, private aircraft still emit more than 33m tonnes of greenhouse gases, more than the country of Denmark, and because they carry so few people they are five to 14 times more polluting than commercial planes, per passenger, and 50 times more polluting than trains, researchers have found.
I think you'd have more success electorally banning private jets than you would commercial flying
I think you’d have more success electorally banning private jets than you would commercial flying
Yeah, you probably would. But if you'll forgive the tinfoil-hattery for a moment, electoral hopefuls need to court both the electorate and the rich and powerful, often separately. Otherwise we'd be taxing fat-cats properly because its a pretty popular policy amongst normal people.
Thousands of private jets. Busiest period for Newquay airport was during lockdown as they could happily fly in. Thousands of super yachts lots of them using the Channel Islands for duty free fuel. If you think the numbers are small you just don't know many super rich people.
how many chavs going to magaluf
Usual STW tactic of bashing the white working class. I'd argue the worst offenders are people like my sister who are always flying off to the south of France about five times a year so she can show off on Instagram, or my ex who would fly to scotland to see her mum every other week rather than evil chavs having an annual holiday. And it's always these types who react like you're selling child pornography when you tell them you don't recycle.
Spot on Jambourgie. A friend has just flown to Aus for 4 weeks then NZ then home. Holiday cost £40,000. Regular event and seen as nothing special by them. Millions of people live like this, just shows the growing lack of social diversity on here that's it's chavs off to Magaluf once a year who are to blame.
Usual STW tactic of bashing the white working class.
Hence why any action against climate change needs to start at the top and work downwards over time. Working people are not going to accept restrictions on their lives as long as they see rich people buying their way out of their own responsibility. Climate change is a class issue as much as it is an environmental one.
whilst I agree banning private jets is probably not going to be a problem with the electorate how are you actually going to do it on a global scale? How are we going to persuade the Americans or Saudi’s or Russian Oligarchs they cant use their planes any more?
Its a fine idea, but its never going to happen in the real world
Its a fine idea, but its never going to happen in the real world
I agree. hence the need to find solutions for the pollution to allow these folks to still carry on their lifestyles, because that's the barrier to change. Folks are afeared that by voting for measures to tackle climate change they'll be forced to live in a cave.
Now for absolutists that answer is unsatisfactory, and largely it will mean that we'll miss the ambitious targets of the UN most likely but the only realistic way we'll change anything is bring the majority of folks along, and the only way to do that is to say to normal every day folks is "yes, you can carry on living like you do, just do it this way, rather than the way you did it before". so that's heating that has less impact, driving/using a vehicle with less impact and so on. it might be increasing the cost of meat, but subsidising the cost of vat grown vegetable alternatives for example
A country has to be the first to get to net zero, there's no reason it can't be the UK.
Banning most business travel would be a great idea. It's clearly feasible as we effectively have, in our company at least, and by and large the people travelling don't even want to do it. Three years ago they'd ask us to be on site, now we just get a meeting invite. I've currently got 4 customers on the go, in Finland, the Middle East, Indonesia and California!
The problem is that it needs to be done globally. Customers want to see people fly to them, it impresses them. If you want to win deals or look good with customers then you want to visit them because if you don't a competitor will. So it needs global co-operation. We have a general travel ban because we're an established company living off our revenue stream. But we have recent start-up competitors trying to pinch our customers who are spending a vast pile of VC money specifically for this purpose.
the only way to do that is to say to normal every day folks is “yes, you can carry on living like you do, just do it this way, rather than the way you did it before”
I would change that - I'd say the message is "you can live a good life that you enjoy, but it will look a bit different".
It may be that if our own lives were happier and more fulfiled we might not feel the need to buy endless tat or new cars etc. We might get our dopamine from other things, which might even be carbon intensive just less so. For example if we could stop people wanting new cars all the time and encourage them to go on holiday *instead*, they might actually end up happier and have a lower carbon footprint. Or if we could get people to travel smaller distances to hang out somewhere in the UK with their family, it might end up being more fun than going abroad.
Squirrelking
No it’s not, it’s neither clean nor renewable. And I say that as probably one of the bigger enthusiasts of nuclear here.
Within the definitions being used as "clean" and "renewables".
It's not like wind and solar are actually either clean or using renewable materials either as deployed.
Those solar panels don't magically make themselves and deliver themselves magically to your roof and the batteries needed to use them don't either. Neither do they magically renew themselves and dispose of themselves.
And here lies the crux ...
Option 1 Carry on as per usual - increased global temperatures, changed weather and mass starvation, resource wars.
Option 2 We somehow kill off 75% of the population (or more) and the selected few go back to living in metaphorical caves and we only address climate change as apart of a wider green agenda.
Option 3 We prioritise climate change over all those niceties and change to cleaner and more sustainable tech whilst the population and tech stabilises
The whole important point here is to realise the "green agenda" (option 2) is at its core not about homosapiens living but some belief we shouldn't be leaving a detectable trace on the planet.
That is a whole different thing to how does human kind not kill itself off (option 3).
The "green agenda" has not and never has been about climate change except as a periphery or where it intersects, rather climate change is a bandwagon jumped on by the "green agenda" every bit as much as from the other side.
With the "green agenda" every solution intrinsically leads to a mass cull of homosapiens one way or another.
Is this a good/bad thing? That's more philosophy but lets just be honest what the aims are.
Put another way we can reduce the world population very significantly to a point where we can all use log burners (whilst they can still be produced) and open fires burning wood and tallow candles.
Even the Amish will need to step back their technology by centuries. No kerosene for stoves, indeed no stoves except from steam powered foundries using coal and coke.
This is no less insidious than Option 1 .. it's basically the strong, light, cheap pick any 2.
Reductio ad absurdum
The contradiction for the UK is we need to use our farm land for solar and wind whilst getting rid of 100% of farmland because we have to re-wild the UK (apparently) back to pre-human interference because unless we reintroduce wolves and bears its integral (and if you don't understand that it's because you're too thick).
Go with this and we'll need to insulate our homes with wolf and bear skins (and perhaps some deer the wolves and lynx don't eat though under their utopia wolves will all be vegan)... we can't have wool remember because the pastureland has to be reforested with native trees, we can't even use straw as we can't grow it in the native forests. We can't have kingspan because it's oil... but in any case our stone-age existence wouldn't support making it anyway.
Putting that into a sci-fi context we could liken it to 2 new habitable planets being colonised.
One is going to start off with Tech and fission ... the other is going to work with nature and keep population at levels that don't require tech beyond Roman times. Other than the medical stuff I personally would likely go more for the latter... EXCEPT it's not a sci-fi thought experiment, we have a population and we are dependent on tech or forced depopulation
So coming back to fission ...
it’s neither clean nor renewable
By which metric/option? Option 2 or Option 3?
Option 3 wise .. yes it's not totally clean, we need a LOT of concrete .. we need to mine, refine and transport fissionable material but then the CO2 and greenhouse footprint is almost non existent. We have an abundance of fissionable material... and we can use all that excess power to undertake carbon sequestration
Option 2 wise ... its a different matter.
You can say the same for using gas over wood burning, diesel for long journeys over petrol ..
You guys still whining about ways to find "acceptable to voters" ways of banning certain things?
You just don't get it. The actions required are not acceptable and never will be.
On flights? we need to hit everyone - rich and poor - because even poor people consume too much in our current economy. But you're determined to hit the most polluting sector - yes, the 70 million flights to magaluf are where you hit - not the rich saudis, no matter how unfair that is and how much whiners are going to whine about rich people.
People live a long way from their jobs and struggling for transport because they live in remote locations? We're at the point where we need to be looking at what is an acceptable location for humans to live. - But are we going to do that? Hell no!
You're pissing in the wind people.
With the “green agenda” every solution intrinsically leads to a mass cull of homosapiens one way or another.
Is this a good/bad thing? That’s more philosophy but lets just be honest what the aims are.
You guys still whining about ways to find “acceptable to voters” ways of banning certain things?
You just don’t get it. The actions required are not acceptable and never will be.
Ok you've made your point, we all need to die. Thanks for calling.
We get that that is your opinion. We also get that there's no point debating it, because you haven't really given us anything to debate. You want to do things that people won't accept; the only way to do that is by force so you're implicitly advocating global violent revolution - essentially, you want to take over the world by force and make it do what you want.
Good luck with that, is about all I can say.
I would change that – I’d say the message is “you can live a good life that you enjoy, but it will look a bit different”.
Yes, that’s a much better way of putting it
One also can't help thinking. why go out slowly in misery waiting for a slightly milder catastrophe? Ride it out in style into oblivion!
whilst I agree banning private jets is probably not going to be a problem with the electorate how are you actually going to do it on a global scale? How are we going to persuade the Americans or Saudi’s or Russian Oligarchs they cant use their planes any more?
Its a fine idea, but its never going to happen in the real world
Not really, obviously banning internal private jets in Russia is problematic but a ban on private jets in the G7 would be almost as good.
How are we going to persuade the Americans or Saudi’s or Russian Oligarchs they cant use their planes any more?
Ignoring the Americans as they need to buy-in Saudi's and Russian Oligarchs can keep using their jets but they can only fly internally or to/from each other.
Good luck with that, is about all I can say.
Good luck for your kids and grandchildren with continuing to exist, is all I can say.
When water scarcity hits the 5 billion people it's going to hit, where are they going to go? How big a wall are you going to have to build? Wars are going to kick off over this - and if there's one thing Einstein pointed out about war in the nuclear age, it's not going to be one we recover from.
Unpalatable as the choices are - unless you're thinking in those terms (which, quite obviously, hardly anyone here is) then, you're likely condemning your grandkids to a pretty horrible end.
70% of animals is an extinction-level event. Nobody has blinked at that (in fact, idiots still don't understand how climate and biosphere are linked). Our ecosystems are dependent on them. The topic of discussion here is how to stop people flying planes (and don't forget the rich!) - not, how do we transform every single thing we do...
I'm not "giving you nothing to discuss" - I'm saying we need to completely transform the context of our discussions...
...but indeed. Good luck.
How are we going to persuade the Americans or Saudi’s or Russian Oligarchs they cant use their planes any more?
We don't. We find a way to offer them private planes that aren't as polluting as the ones they use currently. Then when we've done that, we ban the old type.
Good luck for your kids and grandchildren with continuing to exist, is all I can say.
So what's your actual point? Kill 70% of people? Or have no more than one kid? Or no kids? What are you actually advocating here? All I'm seeing is angry ranting.
The topic of discussion here is how to stop people flying planes (and don’t forget the rich!) – not, how do we transform every single thing we do…
No that's just one thing that's been discussed. Many other things have as well. I agree with you that curbing aviation isn't anywhere near enough, and I've said as much.
I’m saying we need to completely transform the context of our discussions…
I agree. So what're your ideas for doing that?
I agree. So what’re your ideas for doing that?
I don't have "ideas" - I'm doing it already! I've shown what the actual problem is - and shown people in no uncertain terms the sort context they need to be thinking in. Now it's up to you to change your thinking - I'm already on that page.
But it turns out, people want to be spoon-fed what they have to think, without actually doing the thinking for themselves.
But to humour you. Lets get a bit out there:
What are you actually advocating here? All I’m seeing is angry ranting.
Both the suffragettes and Nelson Mandela are held up as shining examples of bringing about necessary change, against both an intransigent authority and an apathetic public.
So, a bombing campaign maybe? For both that was their most effective action. When people start getting blown up, the issue is no longer ignorable.
Sunak isn't attending COP27. COP26 was an abject failure. The "nice talking" and "trying to get the public onside" has been going on for 70 years - to very little effect. The UN has come out and said there's no path to the "less dangerous" (but still dangerous) route for climate on the table. The whole planet is yet to see the necessary action - and we're all still ignoring it (or really: paying it lip-service).
You guys have kids. Your apathy and inaction is going to kill them. I've not got a chip in the game - no kids. The only think I'd like to see is maybe the human race gets to live on. But ultimately, despite having taken measurably more hard and fast actions than almost anybody - I'm alright jack.
So I'm giving you the message: What are YOU going to do to save your grandchildren? - because what you're doing right now, the conversations you're having, the action you're NOT taking - gets them all killed.
Constitution be damned.
No Prime Minister. No backup unelected ****er King.
It's not enough of an "emergency" . There are clearly more important things than the continued existence of life...
Within the definitions being used as “clean” and “renewables”.
It’s not like wind and solar are actually either clean or using renewable materials either as deployed.
Those solar panels don’t magically make themselves and deliver themselves magically to your roof and the batteries needed to use them don’t either. Neither do they magically renew themselves and dispose of themselves.
No, you're just making that up. Ironic really given your stance on teachers "lying".
Renewables are very clearly defined and come from energy sources that either aren't going to run out (in humanity's lifetime at any rate) or can be replaced at the same rate as they are consumed.
Nuclear does not in any way meet that criteria using present technology.
Nor is it green because of the very obvious legacy waste issues (which eclipse the disposal and recycling of renewable collectors).
I don’t have “ideas” – I’m doing it already!
You are yes. But that's not enough, as you've said. What are your ideas to get everyone to do what's needed? Because that's what we need.
What are YOU going to do to save your grandchildren?
I have no idea what to do. Sure, I can (for example) not fly, but I don't know how to stop others from flying.
That's weak @molgrips. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. It's now down to you to figure it out and act.
But you're lying - if not to me, at least to yourself. I got roasted (as I knew I would) for suggesting we all do one thing that is really easy to do, doesn't require legislation, and is 100% in our own power: have only one kid.
These sort of threads are started because people want to make themselves feel good - not because anyone has any intention of doing the right thing. I've given you the problem, the context, and I wasn't not serious about a potential course of action if you want to force people to take notice - it worked for the suffragettes and Mandela, and they were only fighting for female equality and equal rights in South Africa - not the continued existence of life on earth.
IF you ain't gonna get your hands dirty to save your grandkids people, the least you could do is stop whining on the internet. Save the electricity and turn your TV off and go for a ride instead. It won't be long before the basic inescapable physics of the Universe consigns the riding of bikes on planet Earth to non-existence once again. And there'll be nobody around to mourn it.
I got roasted (as I knew I would) for suggesting we all do one thing that is really easy to do, doesn’t require legislation, and is 100% in our own power: have only one kid.
Well I've got two already. Do you want me to kill one? I stopped at two for many reasons but one was that two is enough to secure depopulation.
But what do you think will happen if everyone has one kid? I'm not dismissing the idea, I want to explore it. It's clearly not enough either because it'll take 80 years to work. That's too long. And most people won't do it so it won't work anyway. You can persuade us on here to do it, but thats not enough.
IF you ain’t gonna get your hands dirty to save your grandkids people
Get my hands dirty how? I already have two kids, as I said. Too late for that.
if you want to force people to take notice – it worked for the suffragettes and Mandela,
They were fighting for things that were much much easier to implement.
Cutting back on food waste. Plan meals, grow some of your own produce, only buy in season.
Make your garden and green space work for nature, build a bug house, dig and build a pond.
Get children to walk, cycle or scoot to school.
Turn off all the lights in rooms you are not using.
Try and join a 'green' charity eg Friends of the earth, Greenpeace, the wildlife trust, the woodland trust, RSPB etc. These charities can do so much on our behalf for as little as £5 per month.
Lobby your MP.
Reuse, repair, recycle, upcycle, buy second hand, use thrift groups.
But, this is the thing we can't preach, it does not work. Start small with friends, family and neighbours. Explain why cycling to the shop is fun and good exercise. Suggest ways they can improve their 'green' credentials.
There are always going to be those that don't give a toss and will never, ever do anything that disrupts their easy, pleasant, comfortable lives. I live next door to such people and believe me they are not going to change.
For most humans in the Western world putting their rubbish into the correct recycling receptacle is 'doing their bit' and is the most they'll do in their lifetime.
If we accept the possibility that it was the suffragists who won the vote for women, rather than the suffragettes. Reason and experience might be more effective than violence?
One or two people have mentioned building on Greenbelt land, absolutely not. There are plenty of brownfield sites around and these need to be utilised for the building of starter/affordable housing.
Green belt land is needed for agriculture, habitats for nature, recreational purpose, exercise, providing clean air, prevention of flooding and in this day and age - space, peace, tranquility and mental well being.
@lapierrelady:
If we accept the possibility that it was the suffragists who won the vote for women, rather than the suffragettes. Reason and experience might be more effective than violence?
Nope. We don't accept that - to do so we'd have to rewrite history. With their reason and experience the suffragists achieved bugger all. It was the suffragettes and their violent vandalism that forced change.
Molgrips
Ok you’ve made your point, we all need to die. Thanks for calling.
We get that that is your opinion. We also get that there’s no point debating it, because you haven’t really given us anything to debate.
I didn't say everyone needs to die I said we need to separate climate change from the "green agenda" because the green agenda either implicitly or explicitly results in a huge depopulation of homo sapiens.
Molgrips (from different response)
I agree. So what’re your ideas for doing that?
In a perfect world we would have done things differently ... what we have to accept is we didn't.
We are where we are and either we prioritise climate change over things such as NoX, specific wildlife diversity or we don't. If we don't then the shit is really going to hit the fan because from where we are today we can't do both without culling people one way or another.
squirrelking
No, you’re just making that up. Ironic really given your stance on teachers “lying”.
I'm just making up that solar panels don't magically make and install themselves?
Nor is it green because of the very obvious legacy waste issues (which eclipse the disposal and recycling of renewable collectors).
I don't give a toss if it's "green" because that's at best meaningless.
This is my entire point... either something addresses climate change or it doesn't. Either climate change is THE PRIORITY or it isn't.
because of the very obvious legacy waste issues
Apples to apples how is this worse than the associated REE's for lithium batteries?
Radio-isotopes are not some magical thing... and the climate change crisis in NOW
To illustrate, if putting every last red squirrel against a wall and shooting them had a net positive effect on reducing climate change then lets shoot the bloody squirrels. Obviously it won't but that is the whole issue, we either have to decide on a priority and stick with it and stop obfuscating or "people" will not go along with it.
e.g.
BunnyHop
Try and join a ‘green’ charity eg Friends of the earth, Greenpeace,
These are the very organisations that got us into this mess for mankind and continue to obfuscate "green", "eco" and the freaking huge elephant in the room, climate change.
Nor is it green
See, now personally I like Red Squirrels and it would be a loss to lose them but the actual stakes here are billions of dead humans (my species) or killing a few rodents. Obviously killing red squirrels isn't going to reverse climate change but the same thing is happening on a daily basis except "green" or "eco" are being implied to address climate change when in many cases they either do nothing or make it worse.
Our local council has no problem using hundreds of millions of tons of concrete to build unneeded tower blocks right up to it involves a piperelle location. I don't want to see bats killed or displaced either .. but something is VERY VERY wrong when the council thinks concrete tower blocks are OK but not if they displace a single bat and their carbon accounting is simply fantasy, based on neither concrete or steel are produced in the borough therefore they produce no CO2 in manufacture in their accounting.
Again, I'm not anti-bat... quite the opposite I'm just saying priorities are screwed if a few bats are more important than the CO2 created in making these concrete towers.
Reuse, repair, recycle, upcycle, buy second hand, use thrift groups.
Until recycling is properly audited and custodial sentences given out for sticking it in landfill in the developing world it's meaningless at best and actively bad for climate change.
Recycling to most people means "I've done my bit" or "the more packaging I recycle the more I've helped"
Currently someone (Curry's??) are doing an offer to recycle your old appliances... (heard a radio ad)
1) Who is auditing this?
2) Why do people need new appliances anyway?
3) What is the absolute net effect on climate change?
4) Why are these working appliances being destroyed?
The net effect and I assume we all know the reason for this is simply so they can sell more appliances whilst not making people feel guilty.
What I instead propose is if an offer or advert etc. contains the words "green", "eco" etc. there is a climate change statement that must accompany them, audits and custodial sentences for misleading people.
How can you possibly say that the 'green charities' I mentioned above have got mankind into this mess. What a load of twaddle imo.
What you are complaining about in your fairly impenetrable posts Stevextc is bad government, not the green movement itself.
Try and join a ‘green’ charity eg Friends of the earth, Greenpeace,
Green charities are a complete oxymoron. What is even slightly green about anything these charities actually do? They travel round the world telling anyone who will listen what’s wrong with no sense of irony at their own huge carbon footprints. They invest in media time to convince people to give them more money so they can feel good about themselves without having to actually do anything. What solutions have they ever come up with?
Tax electric vehicle - and use the revenue for eco solutions.
Wean the young off dependance on electronics
Walking rather than lifts from mum and dad
Ban parents from taking kids to school in cars for journeys less than 20 min walk
Better public transport
Stop super cheap flights at w/e to reduce "piss up" tourism
I agree banning private jets
Could you define private jets please. Most of these jets (I expect all) wil be owned by a company not a individual. That company may be owned by an individual a group of individuals or a group of companies. Or do you define a private key as a particular class i.e. size between X and Y, speed above S, jet propulsion not prop propulsion? Not saying it's a bad idea but just thinking of the practical bits.
chrismac - you're lumping all the 'environmental charities in your mind into one. The wildlife trust does not go travelling around the world creating lots of Co2.
A charity such as a local 'wildlife trust' is great fun for children. Many of these charities are supported by volunteers and do endless 'good works'.
At this point in time we have to get children involved. They need to get off their screens and see nature and learn to protect it. We humans are part of nature, not above it.
"Simple to implement" - well no not really, since they all involve FORCING others to do as you think right.
That doesn't work, unless we live in an incredibly strict society with rules enforced by violence. That is not an enlightened way of living, is it?
How about you change yourself? Follow Gandhi's advice. You change the world positively when you change yourself for the better. You influence others. You don't change the world positively when you come up with 'ideas to force on others'.
I am a vegan. Going vegan is the best thing to do for animals and the environment. However, few people are 'there yet' in their thinking. I can't force them to be, it is what it is. They think veganism is about diet (it's about the animals), they keep coming out with nonsense about the 'food chain' and loads of reasons which are all to mask the fact they prioritise the 2 minute taste of a sandwich over a sentient being's right to life.
All I can do is hope I influence people positively, which I am doing in a small way (smart people can't help notice the positives it's brought me).
Bunnyhop
How can you possibly say that the ‘green charities’ I mentioned above have got mankind into this mess. What a load of twaddle imo.
If the situation we are in is the current climate crisis then it is the green groups and lobbies that have driven it.
Fundamentally what this boils down to is a simple question.
"Do you believe that climate change is by a HUGE margin the single biggest challenge facing humanity?"
This then leads to the second question should it be prioritised above other ecological concerns?
Lets simply look at 2 factors though the first is just a part of the second.
1) The facts are Greenpeace are STILL anti-nuclear and they and similar lobby groups are why we don't have cheap and clean from a climate perspective nuclear energy today.
This is fundamental to tackling climate change - without it we are still using gas for energy, cooking, driving ICE cars and for most of the last 50 years we burned coal and oil as well.
We still melt iron ore using fossil fuels ... On the flip side abundant energy would have allowed carbon sequestration of irreducible processes such as making cement.
If you look wider than the UK then the green lobby in the UK has pushed slightly dirty (climate change) manufacturing to very dirty (climate change) manufacturing in other countries.
2) The "Green lobby" have their own agendas ... those agenda only causally overlap climate change.
Some of these are not of themselves bad things ... however these are being obfuscated with the huge over riding issue that is anthropomorphic climate change.
This leads to things that have no positive effect on climate change being labelled as "green" or "eco" but additionally many that are negative on climate change being labelled as "green" or "eco".
An example here is replacing diesel ICE with petrol or creating ULEZ zones which has a net negative effect on CO2 emissions.
The average person has been conditioned to associate "green" with tackling climate change not making it worse. As far as they are concerned they just helped tackle climate change when they took the money and traded in a diesel when they actually contributed to it.
There are 1001 examples, many people believe quite literally that the more they recycle the better for climate change. That is literally, they believe a product (they probably didn't need) with recycled packaging delivered to their house is better than not buying a not needed product because they have been conditioned to see the act of putting the packaging in the recycling as assuaging any guilt. If that product has Green or Eco in the name then they assume all the better for tackling climate change even when that product is net negative.
It is this confusion that then allows businesses and government at all levels to exploit this.
At every juncture Greenpeace and their fellow Green lobbyists have presented binary solutions without compromise on something that can actually happen.. no nuclear... no stick to diesel because its better than using petrol for climate change and people will have to put up with NoX and other particulates. At every point they just go back to "Green" or nothing...
Fundamentally the issue here is with our current population, rate of climate change and tipping points the "Green" solution requires a mass culling of humans one way or another. The ideal world in which Greenpeace seem to dream has GONE with current levels of population. Whatever we do now (other than culling humans) we will face some devastating consequences, its simply a matter of HOW bad those consequences will be.
Despite the complete utter bollox being posted that "all life on earth will end" it won't... not by a long way, its simply going to be VERY UNPLEASANT for HUMANS.
We can argue forwards and backwards depending how dark age Greenpeace et al want us to go, if its 1 Billion or 3 Billion... but it isn't 7.98 billion without huge compromises they are unwilling to make.
If you go through this thread then there are intelligent and well educated people asking "what can I do?"
First question is for what?
What is most important buying some bamboo socks that donate 10p to Pandas or slowing and reversing climate change.
My preference is we address climate change as an over riding priority. If Pandas are still about after we can look after that later.
The “Green lobby” have their own agendas … those agenda only causally overlap climate change.
I'm sorry, what?
You are on the same side as these people and yet you still find ways to drag them. No wonder the public doesn't care that much, all they see is nerds arguing with each other.
Molgrips
What you are complaining about in your fairly impenetrable posts Stevextc is bad government, not the green movement itself.
I totally agree it's bad government... but its bad government exploiting and enabled by the "green movement".
It's the binary choices given by the green movement that make you for example ask "What can I do?" and what drives the confusion in the general public.
My very first post on this thread is decouple climate change from the "green movement".
Accept compromise - frankly on anything that doesn't positively address climate change and fight any "green agenda" that makes climate change accelerate. Heck it's not ideal but we have to accept where we are...
To put it strongly... you aren't for sacrificing a kid .. so what are the alternatives.
The “Green lobby” have their own agendas … those agenda only causally overlap climate change.
I’m sorry, what?
You are on the same side as these people and yet you still find ways to drag them. No wonder the public doesn’t care that much, all they see is nerds arguing with each other.
No, I'm not on their side.
I'd like to live in their ideal world but I find culling humans unacceptable as a means to it.
There are those radical fundamentalists who embrace mass deaths of humans through climate change so they can have their utopia at the other end... but a far wider number of people who just don't want to think about how we depopulate.
No wonder the public doesn’t care that much, all they see is nerds arguing with each other.
So its about time Greenpeace swallowed its anti-nuclear stance, clean air etc..and put it aside until (if) we get climate change under control.
You can argue the sustainable population figures ChevyChase gives but current population levels and growth global warming reaches a tipping point without radical and "non-green" choices...
To put that simply
1) climate change is accelerating faster than population growth is decelerating.
2) Our current population is not sustainable without significant compromises and many of those compromises are not green in the wider sense.
Council Tax bill to include additional fee for an annual public transport pass.
what drives the confusion in the general public
You're doing a far better job of confusing things, even on this thread.
You may disagree on climate change, but in your posts you're absolutely destroying their stance. You are basically trashing people who are working towards sustainability, which is ultimately what you want to see. I mean fine, disagree on the details, but the overall message is the same as the one you are promoting, which is that we need to look after the environment.
The takehome message from your posts is 'Greens are bad' and by extension 'it's all rubbish'. That is absolutely not the message we need spreading.
I’m just making up that solar panels don’t magically make and install themselves?
@stevextc it's the energy that's renewable not the ****ing collectors!
I’m just making up that solar panels don’t magically make and install themselves?
@stevextc it's the energy that's renewable not the ****ing collectors!
No wonder you have such a hard time getting your head round teachers "lying" if you can't understand that simple concept.
Molgrips
You may disagree on climate change, but in your posts you’re absolutely destroying their stance. You are basically trashing people who are working towards sustainability, which is ultimately what you want to see.
What I'd like to see personally just isn't possible (anymore) without depopulation.
The takehome message from your posts is ‘Greens are bad’ and by extension ‘it’s all rubbish’. That is absolutely not the message we need spreading.
The take home message is very simple, it's just if you really want to accept it.
EITHER
we address climate change OVER AND ABOVE AND REGARDLESS OF any other concerns
or
we (mankind) is **ED and billions will die
wasn't friends of the earth founded with money from "big oil" as an attempt to stop nuclear power developments?
So moving on from infighting, how about this?
A government produced fast e-bike, European style, that you can buy or lease on the cheap or in installments, maybe through PAYE like C2W is. So you could get around really cheaply and with no up-front cost. This would allow people to get around to work for super low emissions. Everyone's entitled to it so you can travel to the job you need to start bringing in money, and it's way cheaper than a car so you can spend the money you would have spent on car stuff elsewhere.
squirrelking
it’s the energy that’s renewable not the **** collectors!
This is no different than my council building the skyscrapers from concrete and claiming zero carbon because my borough don't make cement.
The global ecosystem isn't concerned by slyly worded lies... we mine the steel and transport it .. we make it into turbines and transport them .. we build roads and lay cables to get to them and then maintain them and we decommission and we have to do the same for nuclear.
The global ecosystem doesn't "care" that this iron ore is being mined or transported to build wind turbines it just reacts to the CO2 produced and not captured
No wonder you have such a hard time getting your head round teachers “lying” if you can’t understand that simple concept.
It wasn't a party it was a cheese and wine business meeting.... it's not really clean or CO2 free because we have to make and transport it but lets all pretend together it is and maybe we can fool the global ecosystem into believing with us?
Stevextc, there are existensial threats from biodiversity both interlinked with and in addition to climate change. Loss of pollinators, collapse of ocean food chains, desertification and deforestation, loss of soils. Its complex and interrelated, not one or the other.
The global ecosystem isn’t concerned by slyly worded lies… we mine the steel and transport it .. we make it into turbines and transport them .. we build roads and lay cables to get to them and then maintain them and we decommission and we have to do the same for nuclear.
Its a hell of a lot easier to decommission and repurpose the materials from a windfarm than a nuclear power station. I know cos i do it for a living.
thestabiliser
Stevextc, there are existensial threats from biodiversity both interlinked with and in addition to climate change. Loss of pollinators, collapse of ocean food chains, desertification and deforestation, loss of soils. Its complex and interrelated, not one or the other.
Yes and were we not teetering off the edge of the cliff fast approaching a very nasty fall all those things matter.
Where we are now is we are over the cliff edge and our choices are a fall into soft sand and maybe break a few bones but probably live .. or a fall onto jagged rocks
I can't put this better than how screwed up it is that we can build tower blocks with millions of tons of concreate and steel... until it disturbs a bat or similar. We NEED to reverse this... and start accounting for carbon and other greenhouse gases regardless of WHERE they get generated.
Its a hell of a lot easier to decommission and repurpose the materials from a windfarm than a nuclear power station. I know cos i do it for a living.
It sure is but the nuclear power station will have produced much more power over its lifetime
Current average age of US reactors is 40 yrs and
To date, 20 reactors, representing more than a fifth of the nation’s fleet, are planning or intending to operate up to 80 years. More are expected to apply in the future as they get closer to the end of their operating licenses.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think
These are mostly older designs... there is no reason to believe that current reactor designs won't be capable of 100yrs...except being conservative in estimates.
It would be nice to think that by then global population will have naturally declined (as predicted) and we would have taken this breathing space to generally do our housekeeping that we've neglected and perhaps be transferring to fusion.
Molgrips
So moving on from infighting, how about this?
A government produced fast e-bike, European style, that you can buy or lease on the cheap or in installments,
https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventrys-boris-bikes-made-germany-14463037
I'll take that up a notch... how about a government produced e-bike actually MADE in the UK (or at Least Europe) that doesn't need to be shipped round the world?
Further to that the very cheap lease cost includes battery refurbishment... so when 1-2 cells go you can get the bike refreshed and made with a repairable motor and a standard set of future proof standards so they don't do like current eBikes and become unsupported in a couple of years?
The global ecosystem doesn’t “care” that this iron ore is being mined or transported to build wind turbines it just reacts to the CO2 produced and not captured
Yes, but for renewables, you do all of that mining and transportation once in a generation, not every single day. Sure there's a sunk carbon cost in manufacture, same as for an EV, but the repayment in CO2 saved globally is both rapid and continual. Full life cycle assessment is important, I agree, but for wind, solar and even batteries if used correctly, it's an absolute no brainer with repayment in a few years and positive contributions spanning decades of zero emissions.
So, of course they care, but it's barely an argument worth having as what's the alternative?
Daffy
Yes, but for renewables, you do all of that mining and transportation once in a generation, not every single day. Sure there’s a sunk carbon cost in manufacture, same as for an EV, but the repayment in CO2 saved globally is both rapid and continual. Full life cycle assessment is important, I agree, but for wind, solar and even batteries if used correctly, it’s an absolute no brainer with repayment in a few years and positive contributions spanning decades of zero emissions. So, of course they care, but it’s barely an argument worth having as what’s the alternative?
It's not "the alternative" but the fact there are alternatives and additional ways to generate heat and power and that this is a GLOBAL scale.
At one end we have burning wood and dung -> coal -> oil - > gas -> and then nuclear and wind/solar/wave
If EVERYONE on earth took a step to the right then that's a huge improvement... 2 steps even better... plenty of STWers could jump from burning wood to gas but hey that's inconvenient.. whilst for lots of developing nations they'd welcome the jump whilst they wait for the appropriate alternative to jump further right.
Non of the data I've seen on wind turbines suggest they last anything like a generation without significant part renewal.. that was 5 years ago but I find it hard to believe they increased in reliability that much in 5yrs.
Equally my personal observations seem to indicate whenever I see these in any numbers one or more isn't generating power.
I'm not saying wind turbines are bad or not a part of the solution I'm saying we need some stable load and peak power capability that solar and wind won't provide by themselves so we need to be realistic and pick the furthest right we can and we need to do this in a global way because greenhouse gases are global.
I’ve mentioned it before, but make it compulsory for councils and the highways agency staff to commute to work without using private cars.
I’ve just started reading Jack Herers ‘The Emperor Wears No Clothes’ (£7 on Kindle).
An abridged version can be found here:
Before the invention of Rayon from petroleum, most clothes were made of either cotton or hemp.
Manufacturing cotton requires a lot of water and chemicals.
Nowadays most of our clothes are made from petrochemicals. This finds its way back into the oceans as micro plastics whenever we wash our clothes.
Simpler just to make our clothes from hemp. Biodegradable and the act of growing the hemp sucks out the CO2 from the atmosphere as part of photosynthesis.
I’ve mentioned it before, but make it compulsory for councils and the highways agency staff to commute to work without using private cars.
Half the highways England depots ive visited can only be accessed from the motorway
I’ve mentioned it before, but make it compulsory for councils and the highways agency staff to commute to work without using private cars.
To be fair, judging by the amazing quality of staff I deal with whenever I contact the council, it seems we need a reason to make the job less attractive..
@stevextc and yet, still, nuclear is not renewable. No matter how you try to wish it into being those uranium and thorium reserves are limited.
As for US stations on 80 year lifetimes, that's wishful thinking. Every station bar none running today is second generation and none started construction after 3 mile Island. Even post chernobyl they still weren't taking maintenance seriously, look up David Besse.
The new stuff? That has a chance but only if taken care of.
Non of the data I’ve seen on wind turbines suggest they last anything like a generation without significant part renewal.. that was 5 years ago but I find it hard to believe they increased in reliability that much in 5yrs.
Equally my personal observations seem to indicate whenever I see these in any numbers one or more isn’t generating power.I’m not saying wind turbines are bad or not a part of the solution I’m saying we need some stable load and peak power capability that solar and wind won’t provide by themselves so we need to be realistic and pick the furthest right we can and we need to do this in a global way because greenhouse gases are global.
The blades are the only part that will need replaced, and you're right, there's no currently sustainable solution to this without a dramatic increase in cost. CFRP (even chopped strand re-used) would be better, but the economics and initial impact are huge and there simply isn't enough chopped strand CFRP to meet demand. But the major environmental impact (in terms of mining and transport) is from copper, and once that's done, it's done and in the system. You need never touch it again. Motors are refurbished, bearings are renewed, but the cables themselves are largely left alone.
Turbines don't turn for a number of reasons of which damage is only one. Another is peak power. The common complaint I hear is that on the windiest of days, there's always a load that aren't working...well, yes, because the systems has been sized for delivery of a certain amount of power, too much wind is as bad as too little, so turbines can be locked out and if subject to too much wind, many turbines will simply feather to reduce load.
Dogger bank will produce 3.6GW of power at average load and will cost around £6-9bn to build and will be fully operational by 2026. Technology improvements have meant that only a fraction (15%) of the original 2000 turbines per tranche will be required. Hornsea B and C are similar in scope and cost, but will be operational earlier. Hinkley Point C will (probably) be operational in late 2027 and will have cost in excess of £26bn and will produce a maximum output of 3.2GW. It's annual operating costs are around 2.5* that of either of the wind farms and will need new fissile material EVERY 18-24m to remain operational...
Battery storage (near term) and Hydrogen (medium-long) storage and burn are what's required - NOT nuclear.
We also shouldn't even be considering hydrogen boilers in homes - it should be Air source heatpumps supplemented by electrical power from renewables. We don't need to renew the gas network, just scrap it.
Retrofitting Air source heat pumps will cause huge issues. My partner works for a small housing association and they are installing asps on a small estate.
The roads have been dug up for months as the electrical supply has been improved and extra sub stations built.
There appears to be some doubt about how good asps are when retro fitted to existing houses.
It's easy to sit at your keyboard and tell it like it is, but things have to work for real people in real life.
Yeah, I'm not sure how ashp are going to be able replace the 16MW district heating system we are working on at the moment either, but apparently the council are working on a plan.
squirrelking
and yet, still, nuclear is not renewable. No matter how you try to wish it into being those uranium and thorium reserves are limited.
That depends if you want to say limited means outlasting humanity or the solar system or the universe.
What we currently *need* is 100-200 yrs
The problem is you are looking at renewable with a religious dogma... as if it actually matters when it doesn't.
As for US stations on 80 year lifetimes, that’s wishful thinking. Every station bar none running today is second generation and none started construction after 3 mile Island.
So the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and US State Office of NUCLEAR ENERGY are just making this up?
Even post chernobyl they still weren’t taking maintenance seriously, look up David Besse.
and ??? a big so what ... the alternative is global warming or don't you believe in global warming?
That depends if you want to say limited means outlasting humanity or the solar system or the universe.
What we currently *need* is 100-200 yrs
Nuclear can never be a significant part of the solution
Nuclear provides a few % of the worlds energy needs and we only have a few decades worth of supply of fuel. Expand nuclear to 25% of the worlds energy needs and they reactors run out of fuel in a decade. There is no solution to waste. Reactors take decades to build. Hinkley producing electricity by 2027? I doubt it. Its already more than a decade late
The only solution is reducing energy usage significantly
Daffy
The blades are the only part that will need replaced, and you’re right, there’s no currently sustainable solution to this without a dramatic increase in cost.
Well motor refurbs etc. the point really though is treating 100% renewable as some sort of religion isn't productive.
The main issue with any form of power unless you subscribe to mass human depopulation is the green movement.
Just as Greenpeace has no problem towing a pretend solar powered boat with a huge diesel speedboat off camera they are currently claiming solar is compatible with farming whilst simultaneously wanting to end the commercial food production that can barely feed the UK as it is.
We can't simultaneously use wind/solar/tidal AND reforest the whole UK AND support post industrial populations.
This is a basic philosophical split ...
On one side we have a philosophical species-ist view that OUR species is more important to us ... and on the other we have the philosophically just as valid view that the world would be better off without humans and only a special chosen few deserve to survive.
Don't get me wrong ... firstly I'm probably someone who'd err to living in the woods with a woodburner in a romantic way... and I understand that the eco-system is an eco system.. and interdependent but philosophically I can't support mass killing of other humans to get to this utopia.
tjagain
There is no solution to waste.
Even if that were true so what ?
Nuclear provides a few % of the worlds energy needs and we only have a few decades worth of supply of fuel. Expand nuclear to 25% of the worlds energy needs and they reactors run out of fuel in a decade.
Stop reading the propaganda spread by organisations who's main aim is to cull 95% of the human population.
Im not. these are hard facts.
Nuclear can never be a significant part of the solution
Where are you going to get the fuel from to power a huge increase in nuclear power generation?
@daffy HPC won't be renewing its entire fuel supply in those time frames, there will be a number of new elements inserted of course and the ones that have burnt out will be removed but a lot will be moved around the core similar to how you stoke a fire.
@stevextc uranium and thorium reserves are a century or two at best, not as dire as TJ claims (I think that's easily extractable uranium reserves only) but still of concern and, again, NOT RENEWABLE.
As for dogma, I'm being objective. I have the academic credentials to talk about renewables, I'm also strongly in favour of nuclear but you are just talking shite.
and ??? a big so what …
And???
And if one operator got caught out with a football sized hole in their pressure vessel from corrosion you can bet others will likely have issues.
And if that's how you treat your plant you can't reasonably expect it to perform well past its design life.
And given in the 70s QC and QA weren't a shade in what we have today we only have best guesses and endless NDT to predict the fatigue life of the components within these stations.
Saftey is not a big so what, especially in the nuclear industry. Windscale, TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown what happens if people do think that way.
FWIW I work in a recently shut down nuclear station that wasn't ragged anything like some of the horror stories in the US. It was, by virtue of design, far safer than a water reactor as well. We still got shut down early because although the core was still safe the rate at which it was deteriorating was deemed unacceptable. We also maintained our plant but you know what? 50 year old plant is 50 years old no matter how you slice it and it will still find interesting ways to eat itself or just generally fail, the alternative is complete refit which is just unviable for a number of technical and economic reasons.
Even if there is 100years of fuel reserves at a few % of the worlds energy needs then for nuclear to be a significant part of the solution ie maybe 20% of energy needs that 100 year supply becomes around 20 years
Nuclear provides a few % of the worlds energy needs and we only have a few decades worth of supply of fuel.
Do you really think companies would invest many billions in building reactors when there wasn't going to be fuel for them in a few years? Experts disagree with you on how much fuel there is.. So please don't talk about 'hard facts' it makes your argument less credible not more.
There are plenty of arguments against nuclear, and consequently I am not pro-nuclear, but fuel running out in a few years is not one of them.
To make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gases then nuclear would need to be increased by perhaps a factor of ten. It is a hard fact that there is a limited supply of fuel. Estimates vary from 40 years to over a hundred at current usage rates of known fuel
So if nuclear is expanded by a factor of ten then the fuel supply available becomes estimated from a few years to a decade or two.
Nuclear only supplys a few % of the worlds energy needs ATM. It would need a massive increase to have any appreciable effect on climate change
The world's present measured resources of uranium (6.1 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.
If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
Don’t get me wrong … firstly I’m probably someone who’d err to living in the woods with a woodburner in a romantic way… and I understand that the eco-system is an eco system.. and interdependent but philosophically I can’t support mass killing of other humans to get to this utopia.
This is to be honest the problem with most if not all philosophical idea society systems the end point as painted in an ideal world (that never would exist) is good. However the journey to get there and the blood involved is ignored. See extreme free market nuts, communist nuts every other extreme political theortical view.
@stevextc uranium and thorium reserves are a century or two at best, not as dire as TJ claims (I think that’s easily extractable uranium reserves only) but still of concern and, again, NOT RENEWABLE.
As for dogma, I’m being objective. I have the academic credentials to talk about renewables, I’m also strongly in favour of nuclear but you are just talking shite.
You aren't being objective because you care if something is renewable to your definition when objectively all that matters is we have enough.
And if one operator got caught out with a football sized hole in their pressure vessel from corrosion you can bet others will likely have issues.
You completely missed the point ... if we will have some failures and some people die .. SO WHAT
If we continue warming the planet at the current rate hundreds of millions to billions will die.
To make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gases then nuclear would need to be increased by perhaps a factor of ten
It only needs to supply base load.
Simply calculating current fossil fuel demand and replacing it with nuclear to demonstrate the unfeasibility of nuclear is not necessarily how it would work.
There's no one solution, and I don't think even pro-nuclear people believe that. We need massive efficiency savings AND huge renewable capacity AND large scale storage AND something to generate base load.
That last one is still the open question and that's where nuclear would fit. Base load doesn't mean backup generators, it means base load.
You completely missed the point … if we will have some failures and some people die .. SO WHAT
If we continue warming the planet at the current rate hundreds of millions to billions will die.
Steve this isn't either/or. The choice isn't either large scale nuclear or billions dead. We need to build a better world, and there will be many many pieces involved.
The Brick
This is to be honest the problem with most if not all philosophical idea society systems the end point as painted in an ideal world (that never would exist) is good. However the journey to get there and the blood involved is ignored. See extreme free market nuts, communist nuts every other extreme political theortical view.
Exactly .... though it doesn't stop there.
Equally we are committing our children and our grandchildren to this philosophy.
Breeder reactors (gen IV reactors) will burn the spent fuel of other, earlier reactors - they're just not commercially operational yet in the west, but I believe they're the plan for France. India and Russia currently have the lead in the technology with Russia having 2(?) operational reactors and India in the process of commissioning one. They're also hideously expensive.
Stevextc - motor refurbishment isn't material intensive to complete - the material is either cleaned/decontaminated and re-used or recycled.
Daffy = then we are back to pie in the sky. No commercial scale electricity generating breeder reactor is yet possible. France tried really hard and failed
Thorium looks a good bet but again its not available yet
Molgrips - nuclear provides IIRC 4% of the worlds energy needs. Its not zero carbon but lowish carbon. to create a significant effect on reducing greenhouse gas then this needs to be expanded massively. There is not the fuel to provide for this massive expansion. Also time scales are two long. 20+ yrears to bring one new reactor on line and we would need hundreds of new reactors
Squirrellking who knows far more about this stuff than you or I agrees in principle with my point tho he is more optimistic.
uranium and thorium reserves are a century or two at best, not as dire as TJ claims (I think that’s easily extractable uranium reserves only) but still of concern and, again, NOT RENEWABLE.
Time, effort and money spent on nuclear means that there is less time money and effort on other solutions
Once again - the elephant in the room is developing nations - their energy usage is going to increase or are you going to deny them clean water, fridges and phones?