HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,722
Only because the electricity supplier is forced to purchase your electricity at an inflated price - whether or not it wants it.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Extinction Rebellion transport disruption from 17/04/2019
- Thread starter reddragon
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Am I supposed to feel sorry for them? I find it funny that they're happy to take payment by direct debit every month, but the quarterly feed in tariff is made by cheque. No doubt they hope I'll lose the cheque. In all seriousness I make good use of the power generated. On sunny mornings I use the washing machine, dishwasher and tumble dryer and the electricity is free.
I know someone that has a water generator powered by a small river running across their land. It produces between five and 15 kW. It's rather more useful than solar because it works 24/7 and tends to produce more power in winter which is when more power is required.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Looking at the reasons why Extinction Rebellion espouse, I do wonder as to the percentage of the total world climate damage caused by the UK looks when compared to the percentages of China and India.
reddragon
Established Member
Until recent years, the UK who stared it all with the Industrial Revolution and colonialism won, before the US and then China overtook us.
Put in such an eloquent way
mocks Boris Johnson, Trump, Government et al
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=402558703760888
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I am well aware of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, but recent statistical summations talk of the industrial implications over the last fifty years onwards.
There is the matter of desertification of the areas of Earth that has occurred which cannot all be blamed on human activity but on the effects in the Solar System that have caused the Earth to move to different axis levels over the ages of its existence. Look at the history of the differing land areas that are now covered by the Sahara desert as being one example of this.
In terms of comparative evaluation, a period of ten to twelve thousand years is naught in the existence of the Earth, but go back to the history of Britain and a period of such a time in the past would see our local area of Cheshire East being under an ice sheet of at least a kilometre in depth.
reddragon
Established Member
I am not sure the Scientists will agree with you or the flat earth believers
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Perhaps an understanding of the geological reasons of why both Old Red Sandstone and New Red Sandstone, two substrate strata in the North West, were formed and laid down in time before humans were on the scale of life evolvement, would be worthy of consideration by either of the groups to which you allude above.
reddragon
Established Member
Paul, I am sure a man of your experience knows the difference between geological time and something happening within a generation!
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Interestingly enough as the last few postings have been, I think we should all remember that it was transport matters being affected in the title of this thread, noting in particular that Thymallus thymallus had a bi-mode belief before that particular Government post moved to a different incumbent.
Last edited:
reddragon
Established Member
Anyone's guess who will set Transport policy in the not too near future!
There is a lot of focus on carbon but what is perhaps the most annoying part of the message whenever someone from ER is interviewed is that they dont exactly explain the full scale and practicalities of their demands or how to phase them in.
Logically, their demands require some form of rationing (clothes, food, energy, transport) during the transition from the current economy to the future state because it can't happen overnight.
Is there somewhere where they actually set out the steps involved in being carbon neutral by 2025 and the timeline required?
For example, let's suppose everyone was forced to move to a plant based diet by 2025. You would have to phase out meat production but you can't just kill all the animals currently alive for that purpose in one go - rightly or wrongly it would be crazy to contemplate the waste (and landfill) created from that policy - so it has to be phased - same with making the land available for the increase in arable crops needed.
Er, isn't the correct response not to go on holiday at all? Again, rationing of travel may have to be considered to phase out the demand for travel.
Could we close the option to commute to work to new entrants so that people are restricted to living within walking distance of their workplace.
I'd like to see more of the policies which get us to carbon neutral (and excess pollution free) by 2025 so that people can plan appropriately for the new world.
Good post.
Going carbon free* for power by 2025 is simply not possible, so we would have to ration power considerably. Assuming Hinckley Point is on line by then, and all the proposed offshore wind also (construction of which is limited by available resources, which itself is limited by the capability to build or train such resource, which is impractical to sort immediately).... we will have enough power in the grid on a windy day, but when the wind doesn’t blow. But that assumes a level of power demand similar to today, and doesn’t allow for the significant growth in electric cars (see other threads).
And that’s before we get to domestic heating.
Perhaps the answer is for a nationwide carbon capture programme, perhaps involving trees...
reddragon
Established Member
One of XRs aims is for a Climate committee including ordinary people to work out what we need to do.
There is a lot we can do easily. Renewable energy, taxation shifts, electric cars (which due to tax are cheaper in Norway than fossil cars), public information and teaching. Most people quite reasonably are confused on what they must do. A frequent flyer tax would be an excellent start!
There is a lot we can do easily. Renewable energy, taxation shifts, electric cars (which due to tax are cheaper in Norway than fossil cars), public information and teaching. Most people quite reasonably are confused on what they must do. A frequent flyer tax would be an excellent start!
reddragon
Established Member
2025 is very unlikely to happen, but its a negotiating position against 2050 which is far too late. 2030 is emerging as the realistic date in the last few weeks within Europe and has gained traction in many countries.
Electric transport is very easy to achieve. We have the power available and the vehicles just need to be manufactured instead of petrol / diesels.
Home heating? Now that really is the challenge - and don't say heat pumps, they are not suited for most homes!
I agree with the principle of all of that, but, and it is a big but, even if these decisions were taken tonight, it wouldn’t have Britain carbon neutral by 2025.
It is worth acknowledging that the U.K. leads the world (of developed economies, at least) in carbon reductions over the past two decades, averaging nearly 4% pa over that time.
reddragon
Established Member
Unfortunately these have only been achieved by moving manufacturing and the emissions to . . . . . wait for it . . . China!
Gross emissions are actually up, due to growth, air travel and the transportation of these goods now made on the other side of the planet!
Well I’m sorry, it’s a stupid negotiating position. Anyone with the faintest grasp of the subject knows that 2025 is simply not possible, which then discredits the whole argument.
Better to present the argument with evidence that shows how, with major policy change, we could go carbon neutral by date “x”. Then I’d support it.
Source for that? Because o don’t believe it.
I do, however, believe this.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/794557/Consumption_emissions_April19.pdf
(Sorry can’t copy the headlines from it for some reason)
reddragon
Established Member
Well actually, Norway will mostly achieve this domestically by 2025, some places are on to achieve this very soon, but guess what, they took things seriously long ago!
Ah, that's why I bought a house up a hill away from the sea, remember now!
reddragon
Established Member
Again government figures themselves expose their own lies
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...uresoftheuksgreenhousegasemissions/2019-07-24
The transfer of manufacturing abroad, aviation and shipping have resulted in a gross increase in emissions.
Climate Change Act 1990 - 794 million tonnes of CO2
2016 figure including the new imports = 784 million tonnes of CO2
These still exclude aviation which has increased several fold
Last edited:
Geezertronic
Established Member
So how do you deal with aviation or UK and international travel in general? Restrict it? If so, how do you restrict it and based on what criteria? How would that affect jobs?
reddragon
Established Member
The first recommendation is to introduce a frequent flyer levy: -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49808258
Amazingly, 50% of us do not fly and : -
Then there are battery planes, already viable for private jets up to 750 miles, and yes they exist to buy and are cheaper than jets!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48630656
Larger planes, of 737 or A320 size, with 1500 mile range are not that far off either and well within 10 years.
Airports could cater for EVs, use EVs on site and tow existing jets to the runway saving huge amounts of CO2 emissions already today, if they could be bothered.
Geezertronic
Established Member
And how would that affect jobs?
I am a firm believer that hydrogen cars are the future and not electric cars. I am aware currently that to extract the hydrogen releases significant global warming gases, however I am sure They will find a cleaner more efficient way to extract it from water and using bio mass
Introducing a levy isn't progressive though is it? It just makes people's holidays more expensive or puts up the cost to business. We already have air passenger duty. The richest would still travel just as much unless it is based on ability to pay.
Rationing and assessing need to make air travel is more practical, particularly if 50% of people do without it.
They could but you still have to use resource and generate carbon to build this stuff in the short term and the materials for the batteries require us to carry out mining on the other side of the world.
The usual refrain is that jobs don't matter, the climate and future of all mankind is more important.
In practical terms, some suggest there will be new jobs created in green technologies but it would appear that ER is more about a return to a subsistence form of living.
I’d like to acknowledge @reddragon for not only putting his money where his mouth is, but also for producing some pretty decent arguments forward to back himself up.
I agree with quite a lot of what he says and I’m just about to make some big changes myself over the next couple of years to do something about my own carbon footprint. But also to show my children that at least I’ve taken it seriously and tried to do something about it.
If I’d known what I know now twenty years ago I’m not sure if I’d have even had children. I genuinely worry about what they’ll have to face in twenty years time.
I’m not going to London to march on the streets right now, but I do believe that things need to change (and fast) if we’re not going to be looking down the barrel of an enormous gun in the next few decades.
I also however believe that we need to take everyone we can along with this. And I’m not sure that XR are managing to do that at the moment. I’m not sure of the answer to that, but things are changing like it or not.
I agree with quite a lot of what he says and I’m just about to make some big changes myself over the next couple of years to do something about my own carbon footprint. But also to show my children that at least I’ve taken it seriously and tried to do something about it.
If I’d known what I know now twenty years ago I’m not sure if I’d have even had children. I genuinely worry about what they’ll have to face in twenty years time.
I’m not going to London to march on the streets right now, but I do believe that things need to change (and fast) if we’re not going to be looking down the barrel of an enormous gun in the next few decades.
I also however believe that we need to take everyone we can along with this. And I’m not sure that XR are managing to do that at the moment. I’m not sure of the answer to that, but things are changing like it or not.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
A frequent flyer tax would be totally unworkable. How could you ever propose to enforce it? Imagine there were a tax on people who took “too many” rail journeys; I am sure most people on the forum could think of a dozen ways to get around that.
Reversing the democratisation of travel is the most mental, regressive policy anyone who cares about earth could come up with. Global travel has linked our culture with others for decades. And people will still fly - just those of us that can afford it.
Give me your best frequent flyer levy and I’ll tell you how I’ll get around it.
That is why all of the changes proposed are going to need rationing rather than taxes. I'm sure that higher taxes on the better off to pay for the cost of implementing policies might be needed but to actually achieve change, things need to be rationed (and in a pretty strict / non transferrable kind of way so that someone's share of a resource goes spare if they don't want it rather than being bought by someone else).
Last edited:
Bantamzen
Established Member
The prime problem I have with some environmental campaigns is their focus on what they consider "quick wins", e.g. moving to a plant based diet. Notwithstanding the issues you raise, it is simply not possible just to switch off all meat production and switch to crop only agriculture in any short timescale. For example, all UK meat protein production could not be replaced by plant based purely in the UK, much of the land simply could not sustain a switch to plant protein without decades of careful cultivation. And then of course there is the small matter of the seasonality. So to make it happen within 5 years, we would have to massively increase our dependence on imported goods, which would require all sorts of infrastructural changes, as well as potentially driving even more deforestation.
The problem is that with a guilt based approach, as I believe this is & something that has long been popular with dietitians and now environmentalists, is that people naturally aim for the quickest route, regardless of the effectiveness of them. After faddy diets have been around for decades, yet people still need to go on these (ever changing) diets every year. Faddy environmental changes risk the same results, i.e. people will be onboard for a bit, then simply slip back.
But travel is far from about going on holiday. People travel for work, business, family, friends, humanitarian reasons, medical reasons, to escape poverty & war and yes leisure. Yes changes need to be made, but frankly the focus on purely air travel is another one of these "quick wins" that tend to ignore the practicalities. The world has changed dramatically in the last few hundred years, we no longer all live as families in the same villages, we have begun the slow integration of all human cultures as more and more different peoples become more socially mobile. We now have family and friend circles over hundreds & even thousands of miles. To try and simply rationing travel is risking the same results as faddy dieting, people will eventually push back. Better to encourage people to plan their journeys to make the least impact, so if possible train instead of plane, train / bus instead of car, walk instead of train / bus on a sliding scale. And where one is not possible, consider trying to at least offset the carbon buying contributing to carbon fixation.
But then it isn't just about carbon, its about every facet of our lives. Humans probably haven't been carbon neutral for centuries, maybe even millennia. We've slashed and burned our way through our own countries in the industrialised world (then seem nonplussed when we shout at other nations that are doing the same), we've massively increased our population, the amount we eat, the land we use for our homes, the land we cover for our roads. We pump increasing amounts of chemicals into the air, the water and the land we've wiped out countless species of plants and animals, we've even tried to wipe each other out and still have the capability to end humanity in a stroke. Frankly I'm amazed we made it this far. And the solutions will not be simple, quick wins.
reddragon
Established Member
I don't think its about me, Extinction Rebellion or schoolkids coming up with the solutions. That is the job of Scientists & Engineers then democracy.
Silly arguments against a frequent flyer tax affecting the poor? Come on, poor people cannot afford to fly and most people actually have to save up for an annual flight or holiday. Frequent flyers jetting off for weekend breaks every couple of weeks, work trips to New York for shopping that you could do on Skype meeting, come on the future of the planet tops that daft line. I do my international meetings and conferences online. No boozy trips here & there. Next week I have an overseas meeting. I am doing it on Skype, all day. So I miss out on a trip to the city, free food, drinks, entertainment - but why? Greed? self gratification? Come on!
As for the super rich / greedy and their private jets registered on the Isle of Man to avoid tax? Remember all those private jets almost bankrupted Tesco not that long ago - greed? Well, they can swap their private jets with electric ones that will not pay this tax, simples!!
Remember, only the super rich oil magnets and their honcho's benefit from oil and it is they who own 98% of the wealth, not us. If we switch, guess what, they cannot make all that money, it is spread more equally and you will be better off, managing your own energy micro grids not paying for your own demise! Stop letting yourselves be conned and block the Daily Mail its evil.
Silly arguments against a frequent flyer tax affecting the poor? Come on, poor people cannot afford to fly and most people actually have to save up for an annual flight or holiday. Frequent flyers jetting off for weekend breaks every couple of weeks, work trips to New York for shopping that you could do on Skype meeting, come on the future of the planet tops that daft line. I do my international meetings and conferences online. No boozy trips here & there. Next week I have an overseas meeting. I am doing it on Skype, all day. So I miss out on a trip to the city, free food, drinks, entertainment - but why? Greed? self gratification? Come on!
As for the super rich / greedy and their private jets registered on the Isle of Man to avoid tax? Remember all those private jets almost bankrupted Tesco not that long ago - greed? Well, they can swap their private jets with electric ones that will not pay this tax, simples!!
Remember, only the super rich oil magnets and their honcho's benefit from oil and it is they who own 98% of the wealth, not us. If we switch, guess what, they cannot make all that money, it is spread more equally and you will be better off, managing your own energy micro grids not paying for your own demise! Stop letting yourselves be conned and block the Daily Mail its evil.
- Status