Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ed110220

1961Nick wrote: »

Perhaps it's the ones that think they can halt AGW that are in "hiding" ... or even denial? The more pragmatic may accept the fact that the planet is going to warm & the best we can do is to slow the rate of change enough to give us the time adapt to the new world.

Global temperature has risen 0.8C - 1.2C since pre-industrial times & yet the population continues to expand as fast as ever. That's a long way along the path towards climate 'Armageddon' with very little effect on the human race so far.

Your post reveals not only a deep ignorance of the impacts of climate change but also of population growth. The human population is not expanding "as fast as ever". Growth peaked in the early 1960s at about 2.2% per year and has declined more or less constantly since to just over 1% today:-



Human population growth is also an extremely poor proxy for "how bad things are". In fact short of the most catastrophic events such as the black death, the worse things are the higher the growth rate tends to be. Consider that the highest rates of natural growth are found in countries with the lowest standards of living such as Niger, Angola and Malawi.

mmmmikey

Martyn1981 wrote: »

That's a strange post?

Of course we can halt AGW, by not adding any additional CO2 into the environment (I won't say atmosphere as you seem to think the oceans don't count).

I can't help thinking you're both right here but within your own different frames of reference.

Looking at this from a technical perspective, it's hard to argue that AGW can't be halted for all the reasons Martyn sets out.

But if you look at this from a political and economic perspective then you could perfectly reasonably argue that the amount of political and economic change within the timescale needed just isn't feasible. That isn't to say it can't happen but just that it is unrealistic to see change on a big enough scale in the necessary timeframes within current global political and economic structures and constraints.

I don't perceive Nick's comments as being in any way being defeatist or in denial about the extent and scale of the problem, just a fairly reasonable and pragmatic way of looking at the real world political constraints. Of course, it's up to all of us who agree with this to work on changing that, which is essentially what Greta is doing.

Being of a nervous disposition, I'm going with both options here. Lets do everything we can to reduce CO2 emissions through technical measures and pushing for the political change needed to make this happens. But lets also make sure we have the insurances in place for living on a warmer planet.

JKenH

Labour will make 30,000 electric cars available for hire on streets “in every community”, the party will announce today.

Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, is to unveil a £300 million plan for “community car clubs” across the country, allowing residents to hire vehicles that would be owned by local councils and cooperative groups.

The proposals are modelled on Zipcar, the private firm that offers more than 2,600 vehicles for hire using a membership scheme. The company’s vehicles are parked on streets around the UK and members can hire them via the internet or a mobile phone application, by the hour or by the day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/23/first-boris-bikes-now-corbyn-cars-labour-offers-30000-electric/

Interesting idea but will it work? Has anyone any experience of using private car clubs?

Martyn1981

mmmmikey wrote: »

Being of a nervous disposition, I'm going with both options here. Lets do everything we can to reduce CO2 emissions through technical measures and pushing for the political change needed to make this happens. But lets also make sure we have the insurances in place for living on a warmer planet.

I totally get where you are coming from, but we don't have a choice. We have to limit CO2 emissions and attempt to limit the temp rise to 1.5C, otherwise there is little chance of preventing runaway GW.

So the argument that we can't afford to act is not only false, but irrelevant, we have to, and are.

As to insurances in place, that too is a little confusing. Nick keeps saying we should spend monies also (or even instead) on preparing for AGW, but what does that mean, what is he suggesting?

We already spend monies on land drainage and flood defence, but these will be completely swamped (;)) if we don't prevent CO2(e) levels rising too far. And of course (I assume this is known by all) many countries simply won't be able to cope with these higher temperatures, and thus entire populations will have to migrate. There are nations already on the borderline due to higher average temps, reduced water, and reduced crops.

But here's the simplest argument, every penny nations don't spend on tackling AGW will result in more than one penny that we will all have to expend dealing with the damage. Most major cities in the UK are built around rivers, and/or coastal, and the same can be seen around the World, as prosperity typically revolved around water based trading. As waters rise, costs will rise, significantly.

But, what are these costs that seem to create so much fear in so many people - Rolling out cheap RE instead of FF generation? Rolling out storage to balance out generation demand, peaks and troughs in price, and make the grid far more stable? Rolling out BEV's that actually have a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) than ICE's? Reductions in pollution and there health/cost implications?

We need to be very careful not to confuse a cost with an extra cost. Buying a new car might be viewed as an extra cost (compared to other non car buying years) but it isn't necessarily an additional cost to our norm. For example, If you've previously bought a £30k diesel car, then (some time later) buying a £30k petrol car could be seen as 'costing' £30k to change, or a £30k BEV as 'costing' £30k to change, but is it really a cost, or just business as usual?

Lastly, and just a play on your word 'insurances' - this might be the best way to explain this, insurances will rise considerably, or be removed completely due to rising sea levels, storm damage, extreme weather conditions etc..

EricMears

JKenH wrote: »

Labour will make 30,000 electric cars available for hire on streets “in every community”, the party will announce today.

Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, is to unveil a £300 million plan for “community car clubs” across the country, allowing residents to hire vehicles that would be owned by local councils and cooperative groups.

The proposals are modelled on Zipcar, the private firm that offers more than 2,600 vehicles for hire using a membership scheme. The company’s vehicles are parked on streets around the UK and members can hire them via the internet or a mobile phone application, by the hour or by the day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/23/first-boris-bikes-now-corbyn-cars-labour-offers-30000-electric/

Interesting idea but will it work? Has anyone any experience of using private car clubs?

No experience but very doubtful about the proposed scheme.

There are already many private enterprise car hire agencies offering ICE cars but very few people have abandoned car ownership in favour of using one of them.

A better approach might be to offer grants to existing hire companies to subsidise BEV purchase hence enabling them to offer the vehicles at the same rates they charge for ICE models.

Martyn1981

There is still some hope left. :T

UN secretary general hails 'turning point' in climate crisis fight

The world may have hit a hopeful “turning point” in the struggle to tackle the climate crisis despite escalating greenhouse gas emissions and the recalcitrance of major emitters Brazil and the US, according to the United Nations secretary general.

On Sunday, ahead of a key UN climate summit in New York, the World Meteorological Organisation published new data showing 2014-19 to be the warmest five-year-period on record.

But UN secretary general Ant!nio Guterres said recent action by some countries and businesses, as well as the stunning rise of the youth climate movement, gave him hope that international goals to avoid catastrophic global heating could be met.

“I see a new momentum,” Guterres said. “I believe in these last few months [there has been] a turning point. Six months ago, I must tell you, I was quite pessimistic about everything. I would see no movement, now I see a lot of movement and we need to boost that movement.”

Guterres said he expects “very meaningful” climate commitments to be made by countries during the summit on Monday, which was thrown open to world leaders who had new initiatives on cutting planet-warming gases to announce.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As to insurances in place, that too is a little confusing. Nick keeps saying we should spend monies also (or even instead) on preparing for AGW, but what does that mean, what is he suggesting?

We already spend monies on land drainage and flood defence, but these will be completely swamped (;)) if we don't prevent CO2(e) levels rising too far. And of course (I assume this is known by all) many countries simply won't be able to cope with these higher temperatures, and thus entire populations will have to migrate. There are nations already on the borderline due to higher average temps, reduced water, and reduced crops.

But here's the simplest argument, every penny nations don't spend on tackling AGW will result in more than one penny that we will all have to expend dealing with the damage. Most major cities in the UK are built around rivers, and/or coastal, and the same can be seen around the World, as prosperity typically revolved around water based trading. As waters rise, costs will rise, significantly.

For the record it's "spend money also"....not "instead of".

My point is, what happens if we spend 100% of our resources on trying to restrict GW (or is that AGW?) to 1.5C and then miss the target? It's not inconceivable that we could overshoot by 2 or 3C ...some would argue that that's the more likely scenario. Maybe world leaders should be giving equal weight to dealing with the consequences of +4C rather than just jumping on the trendy prevention bandwagon....which is more often linked to garnering votes to further their political careers/egos.

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

For the record it's "spend money also"....not "instead of".

My point is, what happens if we spend 100% of our resources on trying to restrict GW (or is that AGW?) to 1.5C and then miss the target? It's not inconceivable that we could overshoot by 2 or 3C ...some would argue that that's the more likely scenario. Maybe world leaders should be giving equal weight to dealing with the consequences of +4C rather than just jumping on the trendy prevention bandwagon....which is more often linked to garnering votes to further their political careers/egos.

Exactly

But no one wants to cool the plant

Because despite protest otherwise, a world that is +2 centigrade hotter isn't a big net negative

While a world 2 centigrade cooler is

Either way we can force the temp up or down today. And in 30 years time it will be all that much easier as world productivity is 3-6x higher than today

zeupater

JKenH wrote: »

Labour will make 30,000 electric cars available for hire on streets “in every community”, the party will announce today.

Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, is to unveil a £300 million plan for “community car clubs” across the country, allowing residents to hire vehicles that would be owned by local councils and cooperative groups.

The proposals are modelled on Zipcar, the private firm that offers more than 2,600 vehicles for hire using a membership scheme. The company’s vehicles are parked on streets around the UK and members can hire them via the internet or a mobile phone application, by the hour or by the day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/23/first-boris-bikes-now-corbyn-cars-labour-offers-30000-electric/

Interesting idea but will it work? Has anyone any experience of using private car clubs?

Hi

Setting up, financing & operating a complex scheme for £10k per vehicle looks to be slightly more than a little ambitious! ....

... don't worry too much though, it''ll be a 'fully costed' line in the upcoming manifesto. :rotfl:

HTH
Z

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Setting up, financing & operating a complex scheme for £10k per vehicle looks to be slightly more than a little ambitious! ....

... don't worry too much though, it''ll be a 'fully costed' line in the upcoming manifesto. :rotfl:

HTH
Z

Perhaps it was calculated using the Abbottcus?