Help needed for presentation!!!!

bencheung_2

Hello everyone.

I am on an intense climate course and need some help to brainstorm ideas for reducing carbon in the UK.

The situtation is that I am representing a NGO and have a $1 billion budget which will also appease government as well.

Any ideas people?

I did think about some kind of action plan to encourage less people travelling by car throughout UK by implenting taxes on roads. Thus hoping to point them in the direction of travelling in groups or using trains where if you was to be using carbon, it ould be more "efficient".

Can anyone think of anything else?

Much help is needed.

Ben

Ken68

Where possible, work from home, and if necessary make it possible for people to work closer to home. Maybe an employment exchange system and new jobs should be be restricted to people living locally.
Also the government should enforce the 'new buildings' 2016 Zero Carbon regulations.The big builders apparently are dragging their feet.In fact bring the rules and regs to NOW.
And fine occupants of heat leaking houses.
And increase Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners. :-))

grahamc2003

I wonder how many car journeys are made where the driver isn't the one who pays, thereby doesn't give a toss about the cost of fuel? That would explain the inelasticity of demand of petrol prices.

So my solution to lower the number of car journeys is to make no car journey an allowable expense against tax, and no one to get a mileage allowance for car travel. Getting rid of just 2 or 3 percent of car journeys would lower the number of traffic jams by a large amount (and traffic jams waste masses of fuel).

On the same tack, to slow the expanion of car use, gradually increase the driving age to 20 or 21 - the detrimental effect to the younger age group would be much less than to a higher age group in general. To compensate, give evberyone under 20/21 free travel on by public transport, paid for from petrol duty from those who choose to drive (at their own expense) - remember the cost of fuel would reduce with less journeys from the new non-tax allowance status of car journeys.

celerity

Provide tax incentives to companies that fund home offices for their employees to work remotely.

Don't even get me started on the intransigency of some UK companies to trust their non-customer-facing staff to work from home.

I know so many office-based people who have to commute sizeable distances every day, yet could do their job just as well or better by being allowed to spend say, one or two days per week from home. For most people this would increase their happiness as well, leading to more productivity.

The effect on the roads if this kind of working became the norm would be significant as well.

/\dam

zeupater

Hi

Time to swallow & bite the bitter pill ......

It's not politically correct, governments will baulk at the possibility of negative public reaction to their position/party, NGOs will treat the position with distain .... but when talking seriously about CO2 output reduction, or even reducting the level of increase of CO2 output, there's one extremely big elephant in the room which seems to be ignored ..... population growth.

Governments of 'developed' countries need population growth to an extent where they actually 'crave' population growth. The driver for this growth is the economy and it is perceived by politicians and economists that this needs to expand in value terms in order to pay for future government spending. However, as countries develop and personal standards of living increase, population growth slows, tax income falls. This frightens government by forcing them to make decisions on reducing the size of the state with all of the problems that this would cause both the politicians and, more importantly, the many departmental and jealously protected 'empires' which form the structure of the state ..... much simpler for everyone to bury their heads in the sand, allow uncontrolled immigration and leave the 'decisions' to a future generation, a position very recognisable within recent(/past) UK governmental 'strategy'.

What's this all got to CO2, well it's simple ...
(a) Increase population 10% & reduce CO2 by 10%/head ~ No change CO2
(b) Stable population & reduce CO2 by 10%/head ~ 10% CO2 reduction.
(c) Decrease population 10% & reduce CO2 by 10%/head ~ 20% CO2 reduction.

... the government structure loves (a) as it finances larger empires and shiny projects, hates (b) as it stifles governmental ambition and for (c) the difficult questions appear, where are the jobs for the boys?, what happens to my empire ?, smaller empire = lower pay ?, what happens to me ? ... me .. me ..me ...me ..........

Joined up Government ?? .... until the political classes and public sector wake up, smell the coffee, recognise and stop denying the elephants exist we'll keep going around in circles.

Start the only debate that matters regarding climate change ..... POPULATION.

HTH
Z

celerity

There's not really much the UK government or any organisation can do to reduce our population though, not in practical terms and certainly not by 10%. The Chinese government's (successful) policy of fining families who have more than one child would be unworkable here, and I can't see we'd be any more keen to adopt a Logan's Run solution .

We could improve educational programmes designed to combat teen pregnancies, but that isn't going to make a huge difference.

The reality is that people are living longer which inevitably puts a strain on population levels. Given we can't do much about the population it's reasonable to focus on our carbon footprint, which we do at least have some control over.

/\dam

zeupater

celerity wrote: »

There's not really much the UK government or any organisation can do to reduce our population though, not in practical terms and certainly not by 10%. The Chinese government's (successful) policy of fining families who have more than one child would be unworkable here, and I can't see we'd be any more keen to adopt a Logan's Run solution .

We could improve educational programmes designed to combat teen pregnancies, but that isn't going to make a huge difference.

The reality is that people are living longer which inevitably puts a strain on population levels. Given we can't do much about the population it's reasonable to focus on our carbon footprint, which we do at least have some control over.

/\dam

Hi

But that's exactly the point ....... the UK population became stable on a number of times in the latter part of last century, with a population birth rate falling below par and on each occasion there has either been a deliberate plan to invite immigrants to the country or to simply relax border controls, this is simply done to encourage economic growth and tax receipts to keep the system happy, this includes having enough contributions towards the 'aging' population you raise.

I'm not anti-migration of any sort, but what I do recognise is that population growth is the by far the greatest threat to humanity and the largest contributor to CO2 production.

As the popluation of developing nations become more affluent the birth rates will begin to align with the current 'developed' world. However, what seems to happen far too often is that much of the 'talent' available withing these countries are 'creamed off' by nations such as ours, which simply slows or even stalls the change process .... for example, just think of the numer of doctors & nurses within our NHS which are from developing nations, this must be having a huge impact on the economic and social development in the developing nations from which they originate. Is this a fair position to take as a developed nation, to exploit the 'talent' and wealth investment of underdeveloped nations for our own selfish needs. Without the talented individuals of which I speak, who will be able to educate societies in the developing nations so that they can become more affluent, slow population growth and thus reduce CO2 production .......

It's a joined-up world so we need joined-up thinking and joined-up government ..... poverty drives population growth which drives poverty in the same way that affluence drives demand which drives CO2 production, the big problem is to move from relative poverty to relative affluence quickly enough to stem or restrain population growth in the period of transition .... it's the only morally acceptable solution.

Z

celerity

I don't see a link between population migration and global population growth I'm afraid, although I accept it affects the UK in isolation.
I also think having an influx of skilled immigrants is good for any country (and mankind in general), but am happy to agree to differ with you in that respect. I'll bow out of that particular debate as I am not unbiased - half of my family are immigrants.

Anyway, with regards the original thread, they are asking about reducing UK carbon emissions, so immigration control would achieve this (unless the goal is to reduce emissions per head, in which it probably wouldn't). This would of course just push those usage figures outside of our boundaries. I wouldn't personally be especially proud if we stood up in front of the rest of the world and said "we've reduced our carbon footprint by kicking out or refusing entry to x million people" .

I still favour reducing unnecessary travel as a decent idea to reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality, road congestion and quality of life as well. I'm also in favour of tax breaks for "good" behaviour rather than tax penalties for "bad".

/\dam

zeupater

celerity wrote: »

I don't see a link between population migration and global population growth I'm afraid, although I accept it affects the UK in isolation.
I also think having an influx of skilled immigrants is good for any country (and mankind in general), but am happy to agree to differ with you in that respect. I'll bow out of that particular debate as I am not unbiased - half of my family are immigrants.

Anyway, with regards the original thread, they are asking about reducing UK carbon emissions, so immigration control would achieve this (unless the goal is to reduce emissions per head, in which it probably wouldn't). This would of course just push those usage figures outside of our boundaries. I wouldn't personally be especially proud if we stood up in front of the rest of the world and said "we've reduced our carbon footprint by kicking out or refusing entry to x million people" .

I still favour reducing unnecessary travel as a decent idea to reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality, road congestion and quality of life as well. I'm also in favour of tax breaks for "good" behaviour rather than tax penalties for "bad".

/\dam

Hi

The issue of migration is not specific to the UK. Economic migration exists all over the world and will therfore obviously be mainly from low carbon to high carbon economies which accelerates carbon output.

The link between migration and population growth is that much of the economic migration seen today moves educated and talented people from underdeveloped nations, where they are desparately needed, to developed nations, where their presence is merely 'convenient'.

Regarding the emissions per head. This is wrong. The emission targets are total targets, however, the higher the headcount at any given average personal carbon footprint, the higher the total national carbon production. Migration from low carbon economies to high carbon ones doesn't only have effect within the boundary of the nation to which the migration occurs, it increases the global carbon output.

Population and migration seems to be a very big taboo for discussion in the 'climate change' debate in this PC driven world, but it needs to be considered ... in problem solving you always look for the root cause not the effect. In carbon production terms the root cause is population, closely followed by aspiration. As aspiration moves closer to contentment population growth slows .... this is exactly what the Chinese authorities recognised, they chose to control population growth in the period of transition to a 'developed' economy and accelerate the rate of growth to it's maximum in order to shorten the transition, after which there will likely be a naturally stable population, because that's what happens. I know that the blinkered, PC view is that this couldn't possibly happen elsewhere, but it will, and it must, either in a way which exactly follows the Chinese path, or something very similar, using carrots or sticks, or a mixture.

Regarding transport ... I agree, there are many unnecessary vehicle/passenger miles which can be addressed easily which our government/country is rediculously behind many other parts of the world on .... and I also agree that the carrot is better than the stick ..... well over 20 years ago you had to pay a toll for a vehicle to cross the Golden Gate bridge into San Francisco, unless there were two or more passengers, where there was a dedicated 'toll-free' lane.

HTH
Z

celerity

zeupater wrote: »

Migration from low carbon economies to high carbon ones doesn't only have effect within the boundary of the nation to which the migration occurs, it increases the global carbon output.

Would you mind talking me through the reasoning for this please? I'm in the midst of a few projects and your meaning isn't readily apparent at the moment .

/\dam

zeupater

celerity wrote: »

Would you mind talking me through the reasoning for this please? I'm in the midst of a few projects and your meaning isn't readily apparent at the moment .

/\dam

Hi

Okay, let's take someone from an environment where average personal carbon footprints are low, this being due to a number of reasons, availability & affordability of consumer goods, income levels, power availability & reliability, the energy density to support the individual (streetlights, government, healthcare) etc ..... then place that individual somewhere where aspirational restrictions are not as limited and the energy density of the supporting infrastructure is higher. In this scenario the individual experiences an accelerated transition from an inherently low carbon lifestyle, with a low carbon support structure, to a high carbon, consumer orientated lifestyle, also possibly creating the need to expand the high carbon support structure. The resultant is a reduction in carbon output in a low carbon environment and an increase in a high carbon environment, with the overall change being a net gain in total carbon output.

HTH
Z