Zero to Zero

[Vambogills]

In the UK the government will have the contradiction of hosting the 26th International Climate Change conference in Glasgow while at the same time turning a blind eye to a new deep coal mine operation down the road in Whitehaven.
Still plenty of economic v environment conundrums to solve.

 

[Jerryattrick]

In the UK the government will have the contradiction of hosting the 26th International Climate Change conference in Glasgow while at the same time turning a blind eye to a new deep coal mine operation down the road in Whitehaven.
Still plenty of economic v environment conundrums to solve.

i thought the new mine is to give us our own coal instead of buying it from abroad and transporting it to the uk. This i thought was to be because we need coal to make steel.

 

[myonlygillingham]

Gets my vote Mozzer. All new builds should be fitted renewables automatically.

I seriously looked into an air source heat pump to run my underfloor heating a couple of years ago. Even with the grants it was cheaper to run it off the mains gas boiler. Renewables only seem to make financial sense if you can't get mains gas.

That's crazy.

Renewables and microgeneration (at home) has to become mainstream. e also need to develop tidal power to support the grid. Its the one thing that is guaranteed and as an Island we have big tides in places.

I've just come back from a walk through Rochester. The force of the water going under the bridge would drive a turbine all day long

i can remember when they floated the idea of building a hydro power station. across the Severn estuary during the early 70s as the French had opened one in Brittany. But the initial costs involved meant it never got off the paper . Also at the same time Maplins Sands was being looked at as a potential airport site

 

[Archiepoptart]

I make no defence of the political system in China, or its government but it's an easy and often unfair target of environmental one upmanship. China is huge in every sense so it's pollution stats are huge but so are its renewable stats. They are planting vast forests and beginning to seriously address CO2 emissions and general pollution. They will do so with all the crushing bpower of an authoritarian state so expect some headline grabbing stats and claims. I wonder too how pollution per head stats look, not so good for us I suspect. certainly NZ & Australia fair poorly on that measure.

We need to be thinking globally because there are still billions, who need lifting out of poverty ethically , practicalkly and selfishly. They need to be provided a cleaner ropute than the developed world took. That will need investment and the sharing bof knowledge and expertise.

NZ does indeed figure poorly in greenhouse gas emissions stats, despite 80+% of electricity being generated from renewable sources.
Cows emit a lot of methane and there are an awful lot of them in NZ.

 

[Vambogills]

i thought the new mine is to give us our own coal instead of buying it from abroad and transporting it to the uk. This i thought was to be because we need coal to make steel.

Not really. It would indeed be 'coking' coal for steel making but most of the expected 2.78 million tons would be for export to european plants.
Coal is not needed to make steel if you wish to protect the environment. Natural gas can be used and is 40% less damaging in terms of carbon footprint.

 

[Jerryattrick]

Not really. It would indeed be 'coking' coal for steel making but most of the expected 2.78 million tons would be for export to european plants.
Coal is not needed to make steel if you wish to protect the environment. Natural gas can be used and is 40% less damaging in terms of carbon footprint.

i am not over worried about it if it is just genuinely part of a transition plan.

 

[Gills 58]

Is anyone suggesting that humans should not be allowed to travel long distance by air?

We should be "free" to do what we like, shouldn't we Jerry. F### up the planet for everyone else is our "right".

I don't think anyone is saying ban air travel but we need to seriously address global warming in a whole range of areas. I've been guilty of using air travel. I'd happily accept quite stringent limitations as long as it applied to everyone, same as for the Covid restrictions.

 

[MedwayModernist]

We should be "free" to do what we like, shouldn't we Jerry. F### up the planet for everyone else is our "right".

I don't think anyone is saying ban air travel but we need to seriously address global warming in a whole range of areas. I've been guilty of using air travel. I'd happily accept quite stringent limitations as long as it applied to everyone, same as for the Covid restrictions.

The last holiday I went on was to Cyprus in October 2019, and it was lovely. Whilst on a tour of the island, there was a Canadian girl in our tour group who was on a round the world trip.

My wife and I had taken the one return flight that year, which is our standard, whilst the Canuck was taking flights anywhere she could, and she'd been all over the place. She must've taken about 20 flights from Canada to Cyprus via various places in Europe, and was carrying on round the rest of the world if I recall (the Cypriot wine really was very good!).

The reason she could do this is because she didn't care where she was going (within reason) and would just hop on the next cheap flight somewhere, paying around 10-20 quid a pop.

That was the first time I genuinely thought about air travel and pollution, because that is an insane amount of flights to take, and the system is thoroughly fucked if you can still get tenner flights somewhere.

I don't know how you'd legislate for it though, maybe mandatory minimum fares based on a multiple of the pollution that seat share will emit on the flight? How the hell that could be enforced globally is anyone's guess.

 

[Trev_GFC]

Agreed Medway Modernist. I normally fly to two different places a year, both Europe and every other year to USA. I fly more due to the cost of flights - short-haul airlines are far, far cheaper than trains depending on the few countries it’s convenient to go by train.

Otherwise going long-haul I don’t mind saving a good amount of money using connecting flights: if I’m going somewhere in USA I’ll happily get a transatlantic flight to a Hub airport then a little cosy Embraer for another hour or two to my final destination.

In an ideal world we would have direct high-speed trains from over England and to the likes of Cologne/Frankfurt which is still within 5 hours and will open up more connections, although key is keeping train tickets within range of Ryanair etc. Taxing air travel is one thing.

Another option is more efficient train operations: splitting and attaching trains to/from different destinations, Eurohopper tickets, including connections/metro transport in ticket prices, new lines and trains etc. Splitting train services into premium and low cost as TGV and Thalys have done on the continent. Sleepers.

We’ll need a mixture of the two I reckon.

 

[ThreeSixes]

The last holiday I went on was to Cyprus in October 2019, and it was lovely. Whilst on a tour of the island, there was a Canadian girl in our tour group who was on a round the world trip.

My wife and I had taken the one return flight that year, which is our standard, whilst the Canuck was taking flights anywhere she could, and she'd been all over the place. She must've taken about 20 flights from Canada to Cyprus via various places in Europe, and was carrying on round the rest of the world if I recall (the Cypriot wine really was very good!).

The reason she could do this is because she didn't care where she was going (within reason) and would just hop on the next cheap flight somewhere, paying around 10-20 quid a pop.

That was the first time I genuinely thought about air travel and pollution, because that is an insane amount of flights to take, and the system is thoroughly fucked if you can still get tenner flights somewhere.

.

That contradicts the macroeconomic point you made re an individual's carbon footprint - that the airlines put on flights because of the demand. Do people fly to Riga on a city break because they've always wanted to go to Riga, or is it because easyJet do a cheap flight there?

I don't think individual passengers have a carbon footprint. The airline does.

 

[Jerryattrick]

We should be "free" to do what we like, shouldn't we Jerry. F### up the planet for everyone else is our "right".

I don't think anyone is saying ban air travel but we need to seriously address global warming in a whole range of areas. I've been guilty of using air travel. I'd happily accept quite stringent limitations as long as it applied to everyone, same as for the Covid restrictions.

actually there are people calling for a ban. Flights are an easy target when the problem is much bigger but harder to do something about. A real transition plan is required and incentives need to be put in place.

one of the biggest issues is the deforestation of the planet. Is anything being done or even demanded, far bigger long term problem than flights.
Same with plastic pollution destroying the environment and oceans - for ever.

concentrate on the major issues first and give people alternatives now e,g just where are the electric cars going to be recharged?
people moan about china but when you pull out of Shanghai station you see line after line of high speed trains, we have one line.
Obviously things can be done in parallel.

 

[PhilK66]

That contradicts the macroeconomic point you made re an individual's carbon footprint - that the airlines put on flights because of the demand. Do people fly to Riga on a city break because they've always wanted to go to Riga, or is it because easyJet do a cheap flight there?

I don't think individual passengers have a carbon footprint. The airline does.

Of course individual passengers have a carbon footprint. Say an average passenger weighs 60kg with 20 kg of luggage plus any on board items needed to service that passenger. That weight needs to be transported and requires a certain, if small amount of fossil fuel. Every form of travel, to a greater or lesser extent, has an effect on the environment.

 

[alphabet_king]

That contradicts the macroeconomic point you made re an individual's carbon footprint - that the airlines put on flights because of the demand. Do people fly to Riga on a city break because they've always wanted to go to Riga, or is it because easyJet do a cheap flight there?

I don't think individual passengers have a carbon footprint. The airline does.

Actually, the driving factor when i went to Riga was the extremely good exchange rate, so the cheap price of beer and hotels there. But of course I needed the plane to be competitive price otherwise the overall cost wouldn't have been competitive. It was probably one of about 10 European cities we could have gone to for the same price (i've been to on a lot of them too on other holidays in the last 15 years on stag do's). We had a great time and I've recommended it again to other friends since.

Easyjet only do cheap flights there because ultimately, people want to go there! The demand is there for european city breaks for lads/girls holidays. If it wasn't Riga it would be Ljubljana, Budapest, Prague etc.

Companies only sell products that people want - if they don't, then they go out of business quite quickly (or discontinue that product). Likewise, people will only buy products that at the time of purchase, they want.

Its simple supply and demand. The demand is there, and so companies supply it if it's profitable.

 

[PhilK66]

Of course the biggest element that no one wants to look at is over population. I believe that after Monaco we are the most densely populated country in Europe.

I read recently that experts are predicting that the world's population will increase from 7 to 9 billion by the end of the century.

 

[ThreeSixes]

Easyjet only do cheap flights there because ultimately, people want to go there! The demand is there for european city breaks for lads/girls holidays. If it wasn't Riga it would be Ljubljana, Budapest, Prague etc.

Companies only sell products that people want - if they don't, then they go out of business quite quickly (or discontinue that product). Likewise, people will only buy products that at the time of purchase, they want.

Its simple supply and demand. The demand is there, and so companies supply it if it's profitable.

It's not worth arguing about, but I would say for budget airlines it's the other way around. Airlines create the demand, by opening up new routes, and then advertising the destinations as a place to go. They create the demand to fill the supply, not create the supply to fill the demand.

 

[MedwayModernist]

That contradicts the macroeconomic point you made re an individual's carbon footprint - that the airlines put on flights because of the demand. Do people fly to Riga on a city break because they've always wanted to go to Riga, or is it because easyJet do a cheap flight there?

I don't think individual passengers have a carbon footprint. The airline does.

The airline is a business, and therefore acting on microeconomic principals, the same as the individual. To them a tenner in the pocket and a full seat is worth it over an empty one.

Again, these flights would not exist were it not for demand in the market in the first place, hence why yes, airline passengers do have a carbon footprint. There are lot more flights readily available to Cyprus for example than there are to South Sudan I bet.

 

[MedwayModernist]

It's not worth arguing about, but I would say for budget airlines it's the other way around. Airlines create the demand, by opening up new routes, and then advertising the destinations as a place to go. They create the demand to fill the supply, not create the supply to fill the demand.

You cannot create demand, you can only create supply.

Businesses aim to work out where the demand is, and then see if they can supply it at a profit. If the business can't be profitable, then the business fails, and what they were trying to do with either vanished, or be bettered by someone else.

It's best seen with new inventions opening up new markets. Think the Iphone being invented, and everyone wanting it because who wouldn't want the internet in their hands? Now the world is flooded with iphones and their other smartphone clones.

By contrast, whilst it's easy to think of failed innovations (new coke?) it's difficult to think of outright failed inventions, because they generally fail and disappear, because nobody wanted them.

We'd all be riding around in Sinclair C5s if Mr Sinclair could create demand.

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

So there we have it, most posters use planes !

I`m all for magnetic levitation travel - the green and tidy way for the public to speed around in the future.

Start domestically by adapting the existing and under-used canal systems to accommodate magnetic railway and have trains pass silently and less visibly through rural areas into the hearts of big cities. Then grow the system internationally, get tunneling to broaden the magnetic system across Europe and further afield, whilst continuing to refine the IT (plus energy type & cost) and advancing the routine speed of magnetic levitation trains far beyond those of regular airliners (current similar maglev trains can reach almost 400mph !).

The larger oceans will present more challenges but in a world where IT growth and inventive spirit abound - nothing is insurmountable !!

Contemporary thinking comes up with a list of obstacles. Thinking in the future will deliver solutions (i`ve written about this before, though Greta hasn`t replied to my letter yet).

 

[ThreeSixes]

You cannot create demand, you can only create supply.

Businesses aim to work out where the demand is, and then see if they can supply it at a profit. If the business can't be profitable, then the business fails, and what they were trying to do with either vanished, or be bettered by someone else.

It's best seen with new inventions opening up new markets. Think the Iphone being invented, and everyone wanting it because who wouldn't want the internet in their hands? Now the world is flooded with iphones and their other smartphone clones.
.

I don't know, are you fishing? Of course you can create demand, that's what advertising is.

The iPhone is the perfect example of something being created that no-one new they wanted. No-one was writing to Apple in 2007 saying "please can you supply a hand help phone/computer/message system, as I really want to buy one". The engineers designed it, and people wanted it.

 

[Vambogills]

Of course the biggest element that no one wants to look at is over population. I believe that after Monaco we are the most densely populated country in Europe.

I read recently that experts are predicting that the world's population will increase from 7 to 9 billion by the end of the century.

We already know that every time the planet heats up by one degree it makes an area of the planet uninhabitable. Europe could see unprecedented mass migration of millions from the African continent if we cannot manage the current rise in global temperature.
Everything is linked on earth. It really is one giant ecosystem and the sooner governments truly cooperate and make binding environmental policy in terms of decades rather than their next elections the better.