You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
UK transport decarbonisation plan is out today. I'm looking forward to reading it. I thought it was a given that reduced travel and alternative travel modes were going to be essential, but the pre-release press claims we can de-carbonise domestic flights by 2040 without reducing passenger numbers. Seems like moon on a stick to me!
Carry on flying, says government
bump?
Yep. Come 2050 we'll no doubt have some ministerial tosser tell us that "we have to live with climate change just like we do with thunderstorms" and will encourage us all to buy clifftop or floodplain properties.
It must be absolutely brilliant to be the people making 30 year plans for governments that exist only on 5 year cycles, elected by a public that's largely driven by rolling news.
I guess this prediction relies on making jet fuel from cowturd and claiming a carbon offset from Ascension Island, or some such similar wheeze.
Cause the airliners aren't going to look much different.
Standard pile of crap from Government - what they've done is essentially put the entire onus of achieving this onto car manufacturers (and the people buying them) and industry so when the UK inevitably fails to achieve anything close to the targets, they can shrug their shoulders and go "well we thought industry would have stepped up by now..."
Every council in the country is busy justifying its pro-car status by claiming that "cars are moving to electric [therefore we can all keep building bypasses and car parks and out of town places]"
Not much on rail either, need to get some certainty on HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and the associated opening up of capacity on regional networks.
It's a way of washing their hands of the whole thing - what a massive disappointment.
Considering this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-5783380 7"> http://BBC News - EU unveils sweeping climate change plan https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57833807
Also had a press release today, I'm pretty sure that the paper was a little rushed. TBF although we don't have the tech now, if we carry on using jet fuel over the next 20yrs we may as well give up on turning climate change around.
Its the usual greenwash nonsense
the only way to do anything is to reduce energy consumption massively. that means no more cheap petrol and massive subsidy for cars,no more commutting to work, No more cheap jetfuel, no more uninsulated homes and an end to conspicuous consumption
We are beyond the tipping point anyway now - we maybe can delay catastrophic collapse but its coming. Most of the planet will be uninhabitable in 50 - 100 years. mass starvation will sort it out. We are in the latest mass extinction event. Its just like boiling a frog - most people have not noticed yet.
Are you telling me we won't have electric only hover vehicles by then, so I can nip over to Benidorm for a night out ?
We are beyond the tipping point anyway now – we maybe can delay catastrophic collapse but its coming. Most of the planet will be uninhabitable in 50 – 100 years. mass starvation will sort it out.
I think so too - I'm very pessimistic about the options from here on. The reality is that the current issues like the super-heatwave in western USA & Canada, the now-regular mass fires in Australia and California, the increased extreme weather events, the thawing of the Arctic and Siberia etc are all contributing to climate change too so one less flight a year isn't going to achieve much in the grand scheme of things.
I'm not saying "carry on as we are" but Government, to all intents and purposes, are. Safe in the knowledge that they'll have asset stripped the country and buggered off by the time it all comes crashing down.
I know its a joke fossy but electric vehicles do not help. Its still energy consumed both in moving them and in making them
I guess this prediction relies on making jet fuel from cowturd
Not far off. Sustainable Aviation Fuel - synthetic fuel that can be manufactured that produces less CO2. All the latest gen engines can run on an upto 50% blend today and more of it is being pumped into the global fuel network all the time and soon the very latest gen engines will be able to run on 100% SAF (test flights occurring as we speak).
Also the longer term trajectory for aircraft is more electric before we transition to full electric which is a very stretch target for fully electric aircraft before 2050. the best we can hope for are more electric aircraft, so something like hybrids for aircraft. So engines efficiency is compromised alot because you use the same machine to generate take off thrust and cruise thrust, so if you optimise the engine for cruise thrust, so they would be significantly more efficient, and have additional thrust provided by electric motors...or something along those lines powers by batteries that are charged up when aircraft are descending and engines running at idle and effectively windmilling...there are several different platforms and configurations employing varying degrees of electrical contribution. We might get to full electric for very short range routes and small aircraft, but they're pretty niche operations today, but might very well become more common going forward.
But we'll never have fully electric medium haul and long haul aircraft. But it matters not...aircraft today produce so little CO2 that if we decarbonised everything apart from aircraft (which is far easier to do) then we'd be well below the CO2 emissions required to achieve the 2050 goals. But Aviation will significantly reduce CO2 emissions by 2050 just with current and next generation gas turbines and continue beyond that anyway. there is a technology roadmap and significant investment going on today to realise it, and the investment is not all coming from governments, the aviation industry knows it has to be part of the solution and do its fair share to reduce carbon emissions. Engines are running on testbeds today...technology is being invented and developed today...real hardware. Real work. It's not a political stunt or empty promises from politicians.
But as I've said before on threads like this..the best thing we can do to reduce CO2 emissions long term and in a sustainable way is to drag countries and the remaining people currently in poverty, out of poverty. It's those in poverty that pollute the most and as people become richer they not only start to care about the environment and are able to do something about it and their nations become rich enough to do something about it. A longer term strategy for sure
We will have to "learn to live with it".
There is one Green MP.
The economy, and therefore your job/income/house/food/holiday/future, depend on growth at the expense of the planet.
Wildlife is going extinct.
We have gone past the point of return now.
Basically we are now passengers in a runaway train. In a couple of decades we can look back at this point as the best it ever got for humans.
If we drag people out of poverty - don't they all just end up buying big flat screen TV's and consume like we do - way too much ?
Engines are running on testbeds today…technology is being invented and developed today…real hardware.
And still greenwash
the only solution is to use less energy by not moving people and stuff around the planet as much. Any solution that does not acknowledge this is greenwash
Yup, agree with TJ and Trimix. Anyone choosing to have kids now really need to consider what you’re going to cause them to live through
I'm much more concerned by emissions from shipping than from planes.
https://www.ft.com/content/642b6b62-70ab-11e9-bf5c-6eeb837566c5
The global shipping lobby is very powerful.
Then consider the marine pollution they cause and the environmental damage caused by oil leaks - accidental and deliberate - and other incidents.
Low cost manufacturing is likely to be dominated by far eastern countries for the foreseeable future so global shipping will continue to expand.
So cargo will get moved from air transport to shipping. Shipping is in international waters, so its not anyone's responsibility.
But dont worry - we can all pay a tax to grow trees. Basically the cost of polluting will go up, but the polluting will not go down. Our appetite for consuming more will trump any price increase.
Look at the cost of fuel - I can remember when it was less than £1 for a gallon, now look at it. But we now drive more as we all have cars.
We have to lower the population, lower consumption and re-use stuff, not replace it with more stuff. That wont win votes however.
We seem to have got to the point where most of our incomes depend on us buying more stuff we dont actually need, but it keeps the money machine functioning at the expense of the planet.
Ha, we are totally buggered then.
To counter the negativity i do think technology will save us, the only issue is that it will cost us far more by doing it later than it will starting now.
Ultimately financial pressure will make it happen, polluting companies won't be able to get insurance or finance. A fair number of industries are making big changes and more will happen.
Admittedly some of the stuff today is greenwashing but there is a hell of a lot going on behind the headlines
Those industries making changes are chasing customers.
World population stats:
https://www.worldometers.info/
Births this year as at today: 74,498,167
Deaths this year as at today: 31,276,151
For Wobbliscott. I’m sure it’s all skewed propaganda by folks with an agenda.
Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity
grahamt1980
How? the only way is to use less energy - like 80% less ie move people and stuff around the planet less
I'm not arguing that, the first thing in my mind is to get all electricity supplied using carbon neutral sources and in excess that way we can use the excess to power future technologies to hopefully reduce the carbon dioxide levels.
Sorry but i have to be hopeful while still being very concerned as i want my 6 year old and all other children to have a good life. I think it is possible as there is no other choice the only choice now is start paying now or pay even more in future
I’m not arguing that, the first thing in my mind is to get all electricity supplied using carbon neutral sources
No such thing. At best its low carbon.
Without major changes in Western lifestyules its fubar
I live a much greener life than many. I don't own a car, I have no children or pets, I rarely fly
Its still an unsustainable lifestyle
Perhaps covid might kill 90% of the humans on earth then we have a chance for the 10% left
Anyone choosing to have kids now really need to consider what you’re going to cause them to live through
Anyone POOR choosing to have kids now. Rich kids in the west (which is pretty much all of them) will be fine, a few more restrictions on travel, but they'll have a good life.
Anyone POOR choosing to have kids now. Rich kids in the west (which is pretty much all of them) will be fine, a few more restrictions on travel, but they’ll have a good life.
Not in 50 years time unless they live in gated compounds in the north. food and water will be in short supply. Aus, Much of the US and Iberia will become pretty much uninhabitable. Refugees from africa and asia will be traveling in billions to the north, Much coastal land will be undwerwater, storms and heatwaves kill regardless of how rich you are
I've seen this title doing the rounds now all over LinkedIn, at best it's disingenuous to what has been said, but also offers little in the way of a real path.
Technology will have to lead, but it must not be a single mind set of what that is. Simply saying no more combustion misses the point that we need to stop taking stuff out of the ground and use what we've already dug up. A number of proposals would lead to massive inequality as well as a major assault on the earth's resources. I've mentioned this before, but the interdependency of oil production is more deep routes than anyone gives credit to, simply banning combustion would lead to a lack of refining which leads to a lack of chemicals that are used in your everyday life. The major aim of industry as a whole is to replace fossil crude with a renewable version. This is happening, bit the economics of its success rely heavily on its acceptance to be used for fuel as well.
It's worth reading in both the DfT and EU fitfor55 articles that there are caveats on all of the milestones as even the ideological types can see a storm brewing!
The major aim of industry as a whole is to replace fossil crude with a renewable version.
Nonsense - they resist it has hard as they can. their only aim is to increase profits for shareholders.
It's not nonsense at all. Yes they have to make money, otherwise your pension would be worthless, but they need investment to go cleaner which is driven by policy.
I think some aspects of reduced travel would be tough to swallow for the young, including my young-ish self. Our parents enjoyed decades of multiple jaunts per year around the country and one or two abroad as they pleased. They had their fun, I haven't finished having mine, and younger people haven't started.
I'm struggling with the concept of growth based capitalism which relies on driving consumption, and not using the raw materials that are effectively the er..earths resources.
If you put 3 people on 2 acres of land they will 1. grow food 2. start to trade with each other 3. produce 3-9 children who have 9-27 children 4. deplete the resources they have then start fighting 5. create politics to justify getting rich while the rich ones starve the others through using their land 6. when that runs out start looking for ways to eek it out a bit longer 7. continue to multiply 8. they ground dries up and they all starve.
We are somewhere between 6 and 8 I think.
If we really cared about the survival of the planet or human race..rather than just us..we would voluntarily stop multiplying exponentially.
It’s not nonsense at all. Yes they have to make money, otherwise your pension would be worthless, but they need investment to go cleaner which is driven by policy.
The idea that companies are doing anything voluntarily to make a real difference is utterly absurd. give me one example that is not just greenwash
You will not be able to because the two are fundamentally incompatible and they will always chose profit over real efforts to reduce emissions
Its all just greenwash and window dressing.
One example. Just one please
I’m confused TJ. post you quoted states it’s policy driven. So not voluntary.
Anyway, we’re all ****ed. Just one big Easter island now.
Look at the cost of fuel – I can remember when it was less than £1 for a gallon, now look at it. But we now drive more as we all have cars.
well yes, but think of how much that £1 was in ?1980 relative to other things then. The average weekly wage then was <£140 of those pounds. £508 in 2019. Fuel is similarly affordable as a proportion of wages
Where we are now is a result of more than no real change in fuel affordability. there has been consistency in government policy and economic shifts that have led to:
road building
Separation of workplace and living locations
more affordable vehicles
these work together to increase dependency on individual transport (ICE for many, electric & bikes for a few).
that dependency is not entirely a matter of personal choice but a consequence of many factors.
For some time, the main component in petrol & diesel prices has been regressive taxation. This was meant to increase year-on-year to make travelling and idling generate more revenue and provide a disincentive to overuse. But this has been at a flat rate for political reasons for a while. Understandable in some ways as folks and the road transport lobby get twitchy when fuel prices rise. Nonetheless, petrol and diesel are sufficiently cheap that they’re not a disincentive to travel.
cutting car and general road vehicle pollution would be a good step. Not so much for global pollution (due to the larger contribution from global shipping, manufacturing, etc), but certainly to improve local conditions.
The unfortunate problem is that while big fuel duty increases would directly influence consumption in time, regressive taxation affects those least able to afford it. I can’t think of a disincentive-driven way to reduce vehicle use that doesn’t take us to a greater division of haves and have-nots.
and that then gets back to the complex problem we have: we built a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. Breaking it may hurt. So the hurt gets pushed into the future and amplified.
pesky.
I’m confused TJ. post you quoted states it’s policy driven. So not voluntary.
sui was claiming companies are working hard to reduce emmissions. My point is its window dressing / greenwash. I read policy as "company policy" but even if it meant government policy the government policies are greenwash ie not intended to make a difference but intended to look like they are doing something
That being my view I wanted Sui to actually come up with some examples
The unfortunate problem is that while big fuel duty increases would directly influence consumption in time, regressive taxation affects those least able to afford it. I can’t think of a disincentive-driven way to reduce vehicle use that doesn’t take us to a greater division of haves and have-nots.
The have nots do not own cars. Take the thousands of pounds per car per years subsidy away and put it into public transport.
Cheap good public transport and expensive cars favour the have nots
On home energy again thats easy. cheap energy up to a certain point then expensive after that. The rich use far more energy
Its very simple to make the pollutter pay and to protect the poor.
What you really mean is that you do not want middle class folk to have to alter their unsustainable lifestyle
.we would voluntarily stop multiplying exponentially.
Oh dear that Malthusian chestnut again? Human population is not growing exponentially. And the growth rate is slowing. https://www.gapminder.org/answers/how-did-the-world-population-change/
the problem of ‘overpopulation’ is more economic than size-based.
Its very simple to make the polluter pay and to protect the poor
Correct.
But the decisions are made by (and for the benefit of) the rich. They’re hardly going to introduce any changes to make their own lives worse are they?
I agree 100% with what you’re saying, but i just don’t see any way out of it, the people who are making the decisions aren’t affected by rising prices, and they don’t GAS about the poor people (who would be massively affected by rising prices)
Technology's the problem. Alanis Morissette to the forum, please only post if your information is highly relevant, and please delete your funny cat gifs on the way.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06610-y
the problem of ‘overpopulation’ is more economic than size-based.
Its a question of food and water supply. These are finite and will fall as climate change worsens. US is already experiencing water shortages.
The us is experiencing water shortages because they have built cities in the desert and other areas of extremely low water levels.
Plus the majority of that water is going to agriculture which they could reduce the need by not monocropping and growing sustainably.
I agree it will need a huge amount of work but most of the issues are structural and need unpicking but the knowledge and will is becoming more and more apparent.
Considering the majority of this country think that climate change is of massive importance you will see businesses actually make changes now as it is simple good business sense
will see businesses actually make changes now as it is simple good business sense
npe - not a chance of them doing the fundamental changes that are needed
again - one example please?
well, maybe some silver lining to the increasing consumption of electricity by data centres is that it might herald an increase in a move to cheaper, greener energy?
After all, how can our AI overlords hope to conquer the planet when they might be constrained by the amount of power they consume?
Though if the past (energy crisis) is anything to go by, folks will try and exploit cheaper fossil fuels before embarking on almost limitless free energy from the sun shining today rather than millions of years ago. I suppose there is the Matrix scenario…
again – one example please?
the all-electric-car companies Tesla & Rivian? Cutting combustion pollution at point of use. They predate the current government blah blah though.
@tjagain
From my industry
Astrazeneca sustainability
https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/responsibility/environment/
Healthcare is apparently the 2nd biggest emitter after oil and gas
the all-electric-car companies Tesla & Rivian? Cutting combustion pollution at point of use
Irrelevant to the issue. they still use similar amounts of energy to move people around the place in huge heavy boxes. Cutting combustion pollution at point of usevhelp air quality in cities. It does nothing to make the level of change required and of course mining the metals for the batteries is very carbon intensive and polluting
total lifetime CO2 production for an electric car is perhaps at best a little lower. It does half of nothing to actually address the problem of rising CO2
Pure greenwash because they pretend an electric car solves the issue when it does not - because they are looking at the wrong issue. the issue is the amount we move people and goods around and the energy that uses
Electric cars are not the best answer. They still need some sort of fuel and at the moment not all of it is green. They are also massively expensive, so only the wealthy can buy them compared to a cheap petrol/diesel car. They still require lots of raw materials, some of which are quite rare, to be mined.
But that mining is in a 3rd world country, so we don't have to see it. The electric cars replace working existing ones, so that wastes a vehicle. The electric car will be marketed by a business that wants short term profits, so soon marketing will cause you to buy a new one in a year or two, especially as no one actually buys them, they are all on a contract.
The solution has to come from lower population, lower demand and greater efficiency. None of these things are going to happen with the current economic and political systems we have.
Graham - fine words with no notion of how they will do it and too little too late.
Greenwash again. fiddling round the edges
The only answer is deep and fundamental changes in how we live our lives.
From the inside it is not green wash. Zero carbon emissions for all parts of the supply chain including suppliers by 2030 as greenwashing? What do you suggest then? We stop making medicines?
But if you are so intent on demanding population decrease then who are you suggesting we start with then?
I appreciate some cannot see any hope here and you are entitled to your opinion but i see a lot of positive coming and refuse to think that way. Yes i see the challenges but they can be overcome
tj, if your looking for an answer along the lines of "comapnies are all funding it, on their own out of the goodness of the hearts, for no return" then yes you wont get an example of that, not easily anyway.
However, there are plenty that are investing billions into to sustainable tech beacuse it secures their future which is being driven by social need as well as policy. Every large "big oil" company is doing something, there are many many startups that are setting up to use waste product all over the globe to help replace fossil. Im working with a number of the companies, oooking at what they are producing, seeing how they can be optimised and where we can use those products to replace their fossil equivelants. But tch like this is expensive, it needs investment, investment wants a return..
You see it as greenwashing, as the only solution for you is for man to die off, becasue lets face it man will always want to stride forward - hence why we don't live in caves anymore.. Simply put you cannot have progress without innovation. Innovation leads to trade, trade needs mobility, mobility needs energy - not all energy is easily utilised..
Every large “big oil” company is doing something,
Greenwashing you mean?
so you really do not have any examples of what you claim.
My solution is a complete reset of how we live our lives. If this does not happen then we will get a mass die off. I don't advocate a mass die ioff. Its just its the inevitable outcome unless we make major changes. We are IN a mass extinction event. It happening
What you really mean is that you do not want middle class folk to have to alter their unsustainable lifestyle
By ‘middle class’ do you mean anyone with a car?
I don’t think I said ‘do not put huge, regressive, taxes on fuel’. I said there was a problem with it. In much the same way that higher-paid folks pay less tax on most consumption than lower-paid folks. If you only increase regressive taxes this creates greater inequality problems.
taxing fuel, heavily, would indeed have a direct ‘polluter pays’ effect. And many indirect effects.
Selfishly, I’d say ‘go for it’ petrol and diesel at £10/L? That might cut a few trips. It would though greatly penalise folks who currently commute into high-cost areas for work: teachers, NHS staff, … .
improving public transport, pandemics aside, would be a boon. Done well, it could remove some part of the vicious cycle of individual transport that worker-displacement creates. As would increasing decentralisation of the workplace. This kind of joined-up plan, and several ideas TJ et al have commented on, is what a bold government might consider. And what bold leadership at G7 etc might be able to get movement on.
I agree that left to their own devices companies tend to carry on doing what they’re doing until legislation forces them to change. Unsure if it is true, but since the ‘increase shareholder value’ mindset came about, the incentives to do more of the right thing have been less intrinsic drivers to businesses.
. It would though greatly penalise folks who currently commute into high-cost areas for work: teachers, NHS staff,
completely missing the point Its the commute that is a large part of the issue and commuting in cars at that
Stopping commuting is a key first step.
Its a complete reset of how we live that is needed.
I guess TJ and Trimix have it sewn up. Anything other than complete and immediate overhaul of global economics and politics is greenwashing.
you folks win.
There’s no hope of progress unless everything changes now.
This is too complex to fix in one go.
Therefore we are doomed?
Does look that way to me.
If it doesn't involve a massed cull of the human population it is clearly greenwashing.
Am hoping tj doesn't have a car so it will take him some time to get down to where i live so i should be safe from the cull for a while
completely missing the point Its the commute that is a large part of the issue and commuting in cars at that
Get your head out of the sand dude. Commuting is not the root cause of the problem. It is displacement of workplaces from living places. The solution is not public transport. This only shifts the energy consumption from many vehicles to fewer, bigger vehicles. The solution is re-engineering of the built environment. People being able to afford to live within waking distance of where they work. And having such lovely surroundings that this is desirable.
edit. Ah, perhaps this reorganisation is what you’re getting at in your own way? What policies should government enact to bring about the changes you consider necessary?
Am hoping tj doesn’t have a car so it will take him some time to get down to where i live so i should be safe from the cull for a while
🤣🤣🤣 he does cycle an awful lot so unless you’re separated by a lot of water it won’t take long for him to get wherever you are.
Until governments start adding huge environmental taxes on imported electronics, I won't take any measures seriously. As has been pointed out, the environmental and energy cost of manufacturing electronic devices is absolutely enormous. It takes about 1.5MWh to maunfacture a laptop, and TVs and phones are not much different.
Buying a new EV, or not flying, will not fix the issue at all. Modern passenger planes are, per seat, much more efficient than a car with a single occupant. Encouraging car-sharing would do much more for the environment than taxing airlines, as would encouraging lifestyles that reduce the amount of expected travel.
Saying that, one very good way of reducing travel expectations would be to make buying a car very expensive, and re-fueling it annoying and time consuming. Mabye EVs are the answer!
tj, its not hard to find,
https://www.bp.com/en/global/air-bp/aviation-fuel/sustainable-aviation-fuel.html
https://fulcrum-bioenergy.com/
https://totalenergies.com/group/energy-expertise/exploration-production/committed-future-bioenergies
https://www.abengoa.com/web/en/negocio/energia/residuos/
they are a handful of examples. All of them expensive and being subsidised by "big oil" or invested by "sustainability funds" - but they will all eventually want a return.
TJ - you talk about a reset of the way we live our lives - the only example of man not pushing forward are the tribes in the amazon. since day dot man has an eagerness to do more -that is why we are where we are. EVERYTHING YOU do today has had a reliance on energy derived from fossil until recently. we all get that needs to change, and it is - but like you i disagree with some of the policy (electrification being the prime solver for one).. However you are being niave to think that your vision of a reset and then carrying on can change over night and will not lead to where we are again – does your reset include never travelling, only eating the food grown in your back garden, no internet, no beer – actually everything – everything you can think off needs mobility. As I pointed out in my last post
Innovation leads to trade, trade needs mobility, mobility needs energy
, you can reverse that!
Mleh, they'll be an hardening of the Ice age we're in currently in about 1500 years or so anyway...That'll do for most of the humans left (if there are any still left)
I can’t think of a disincentive-driven way to reduce vehicle use that doesn’t take us to a greater division of haves and have-nots.
We could pay people to cycle
Encouraging car-sharing would do much more for the environment than taxing airlines, as would encouraging lifestyles that reduce the amount of expected travel.
This is another dead cat that gets brought up routinely in pro road building circles.
Oh, everyone will be in Electric / Hydrogen vehicles
Oh, people will car-share.
People hate car-sharing. It's shit, unreliable, you have to make small talk with the work colleague you'd rather not see much of at all, the driver's choice of music is invariably not the same as yours and if you're doing it on an informal basis (like through a community scheme or something) its even worse as you have little say in who you get paired up with.
It's not the same as 3 mates piling into a car for a weekend camping trip and at absolute best, it leads to a reduction in traffic of fractions of a percentage. Better off just getting on a bus!
What policies should government enact to bring about the changes you consider necessary?
All private landlords should have their assets seized and run by housing associations. Price caps on housing sales based on multiple of rent value.
Anyone who is retired gets relocated so that those who are required to live and work in the cities can do so.
Non working travel pass holders restricted to travel outside of rush hour and to the local area only to ease over crowding for commuters.
Leisure travel is restricted or taxed to reflect the carbon emissions produced.
Luxury goods such as non basic bicycles are taxed on their carbon miles before purchase.
All sound fair to me.
Plus have safe and convenient routes to get to public transport hubs. If i want to bike to a station so i can get the train to work it would be 8 miles on dodgy back roads. 8 miles on a nice route would be fine but not those roads in rush hour.
Thankfully i will be reducing my commuting time by 70% simply by not having to go into work. If i wanted to move to be able to walk i would be taking about an extra 3-400k on a mortgage so until they fix that structural issue the options are reduce reliance on ice, improve transport links and reduce travel
People hate car-sharing. It’s shit, unreliable, you have to make small talk with the work colleague you’d rather not see much of at all, the driver’s choice of music is invariably not the same as yours and if you’re doing it on an informal basis (like through a community scheme or something) its even worse as you have little say in who you get paired up with.
It’s not the same as 3 mates piling into a car for a weekend camping trip and at absolute best, it leads to a reduction in traffic of fractions of a percentage. Better off just getting on a bus!
Sounds like a small sacrifice to save the planet!
If I'm being asked to invest in an EV, stop flying, and live vegan, we can all put up with some different music during a commute.
This is another dead cat that gets brought up routinely in pro road building circles.
I'm not sure why it's a "dead cat", but I'm not pro road-building. I'm anti-pointless, expensive, and mandated consumerism that does not achieve what it says it will.
Sounds like a small sacrifice to save the planet!
You know, it might even work as an incentive: Take steps to reduce your carbon emissions, or we'll make you car share...
From my early forum years of arguing the toss with TJ about climate and whatnot I seem to have undergone some sort of Damascene conversion over the years and I tend to agree with him on this issue - we're in deep trouble and nothing less than a wholesale reduction in our combined energy usage and a change to working remotely could be considered a positive first step. Ten years on from arguing with TJ about the future of energy production and we're still burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate, various geopolitical decisions taken over the years mean that we're going to be reliant upon food imports sourced from the other side of the world and shipped here with grim implications for climate change. Viable alternative energy sources are still "25-50 years away" and we don't have the luxury of time to leisurely implement change.
This all makes rather depressing reading for someone with teenage children. But then I remember that when I was a teenager (in the ‘80s) we were definitely all going to die in a nuclear war. It was just a matter of when.
Maybe this disaster will come to pass, but I’m not sure it’s as certain as some people make out. Yes, the way we live in 100 years will look very different to now, but that would be the case whether it was caused the climate change or some sci-fi future of jet packs and spaceships.
Zero carbon emissions for all parts of the supply chain including suppliers by 2030 as greenwashing?
thats an aim not what is happening and the piece you posted I could find nothing but nice words about haw to do it - and its virtually impossible anyway
Sui - none of those things are actually addressing the real issue - we use too much energy
there is no such thing as a sustainable biofuel - we need that land to grow food not to grow plants to make fuel
all of those are classic greenwash - totally missing the point that is not less polluting fuels we need - its using massivly less energy by radically altering our lifestyles not by pretending that growing food crops to make fuel is any sort of a solution
You make my case with such weak examples
Have a look at the report then to see what has been done to date then. It is listed in the link i provided for az
All private landlords should have their assets seized and run by housing associations. Price caps on housing sales based on multiple of rent value.
I am certainly in favour of rent caps and state provided housing. Does nowt about the polution tho and I will have you know my rental has been fully insulated to a very high standard out of my own pocket with money I will never recoup
Anyone who is retired gets relocated so that those who are required to live and work in the cities can do so.
Oooh - can you relocated me to somewhere warm please - and anyway yo don't want to live in my flat. too many stairs for you and too many neighbours
Non working travel pass holders restricted to travel outside of rush hour and to the local area only to ease over crowding for commuters.
Already restricted to outside of rush hours I think - and I don't have one
Leisure travel is restricted or taxed to reflect the carbon emissions produced.
Quite agree. Most of my leisure travel is by bike. Most of the rest by train. I would be quids in compared to most folk. I have been in a car / van for a few hundred miles in the last 2 years
Luxury goods such as non basic bicycles are taxed on their carbon miles before purchase.
Quite agree. transport miles figured as a large criteria for my new bike. It has no components from outside europe and much from the UK. But yes - luxuries should be highly taxed and I favour punative carbon taxes. this will be the 2nd new bike I have had since i was 14. Every other bike has been second hand
Reduce, reuse , recycle
I did graham - its a good step but its a tiny first step and they are missing some basic easy steps and not counting things that they should
Ooh this is fun but i am off to walk to a local cafe where i will be consuming locally produced food prepared by people who live locally and that uses reusable cutlery and crockery and that composts / recycles all their waste
various geopolitical decisions taken over the years mean that we’re going to be reliant upon food imports
Yeah, this kind of shit has to stop, pears grown in China, shipped to South America to be packaged and shipped to the UK for sale, when pears will grow in this country...madness