Climate Catastrophe

I think electric vehicles is the way forward and will stop a load of shit from being put into the atmosphere.

I will buy electric however the prices need to drastically drop in order for it to be a consideration for me.

Charging points need to increase too.

I have a friend who recently got an electric car thro the car pool in work. I understand there are different tiers of cars but his he gets about 128miles off a full charge. I was on a conference with him when he was tell me about it, and the conference just happened to be aprox 120 miles from where her lived.

His journey planning now involves looking for charging points so basically he had to leave an hour earlier than he would normally needed to have left, stop at a services 3/4 of the way to his final destination, charge his car for “around an hour” and do the same going back home.

I am all for saving the planet but the affordable electric cars sound like a right ball ache to run on a day to day basis.

2 Likes

Reading your post it struck me, why did you, your friend and all the other delegates, need to attend the conference? Why not hold the conference online, thereby eliminating the need for all those journeys, to and from the conference centre? It would represent a massive saving of time and energy. I doubt that anything that was achieved by the conference (if anything was actually achieved :thinking:) required direct face to face contact (other than drinks at the bar :crazy_face:).

The pandemic has shown that in many lines of business people can work, and communicate effectively from home.

So, perhaps, rather than just looking into ever more exotic, and expensive ways of cutting carbon emissions from transport, we should simply travel less?

3 Likes

You have a point, but world without travel is neither desirable nor feasible. Therefore there’s a need to develop more sustainable transport technologies.

2 Likes

Both France and UK and surely others have tried promoting Rail Freight France have even gone as far as promoting canal freight.
I think the major problem is cost after road tax haulage on roads is free out side running vehicule costs. (thinking about it there’s the logistics as well by that I am thinking of the freight changing logistic system from one company to another). I presume electrified roads means that running lorries along that road would cost (there would be a charge).
In France for example when you are on a free section of motorway there are hundreds of delivery vans extra (mainly French reg) lorries. Once back on tolled sections these dissappear.
Of course haulage has changed dramatically since the hey days of trains, there’s just not much heavy haulage anymore however post used rail heavily in the past yet parcels are sent by delivery van today.

1 Like

Riding a bike/going for a run = energy burnt = requiring greater food consumption = impact on the environment. Anything beyond lying in bed hooked up to IV to give us the minimal consumption of food to stay alive, or simply, just not existing, impacts the environment. Everything has an impact. Just varying shades.

Certainly the future is EV and its the best we have got. I’m not so sure we have ‘green energy’ solved given solar doesn’t provide power for at least half the year, so in the future will we be relying solely on wind power? How will the shift to EV put pressure on the electricity grid and can we cope? Given driving mostly takes place in the day maybe that take some of the wasted solar capacity?

Stupid question but would a global power grid be possible? It really would make sense in terms of utilizing solar to full capacity if countries in different parts of the world (day) could be selling their power to a country on the other side (night)

The conference was 2 years ago
 when conferences was the “done thing”.

I always find that argument pretty silly really. It can be applied to nearly everything now.

Why have 50k fans at Anfield every other week the vast majority of those travel by some form of polluting transport when the game can just be watched by everybody on tv.

I agree with your sentiments now though, we will more than likely never have another conference where we actually all travel to be in the same room.

I agree on both counts.

I wasn’t suggesting that all travel should be eliminated, but that we, especially those of us in the developed world, should learn to travel less.

Technology can only take us so far. There comes a point when the costs (and not just the financial cost) out-way the benefits. The Pareto Principle will not be confounded.

We have a choice; we are living unsustainable lifestyles. We either throw enormous sums of money at solving the problem of making our current lifestyles sustainable, or we change our lifestyles to reduce the scale of the problem.

I believe the only viable solution is the latter.

Any problem that arises due to money, is a solvable problem when thinking about the climate emergency.

1 Like

I wonder if people would be satisfied with virtual visits to tourist spots rather than flying 1/2 way round the world?
From the covid experience I have strong doubts. It would be good if tourism was scourned upon, then again just think of all the countries who’s economy would be ruined (perhaps they could charge for virtual visits to these places?).

They will have to develop new, greener, industries.

2 Likes

For me I think that as we develop our power needs will continue to increase and an exponential level.

Therefore, engineer head on the answer lies in many areas. Driving up efficiency in the machinery / equipment we use but also developing bigger, better and cleaner ways of creating energy.

There’s 3 sad facets to this.
a) Most people dont give 2 cents. They’ll give you all the spiel about wanting to save the planet but still want the best car and 2 holidays abroad a year etc. probably even leave the TV on all night as well.
b) Governments don’t give a shit either and yet this is where the massive majority must lie.
c) While battery efficiency is getting better we’re still miles off. Combustion engines are horribly inefficient and every method of clean energy generation we know remains nothing but a theory.

I don’t even think they’ve had the ‘EV target’ conversation in Australia yet. Because the second you have that convo you are politically dead. I mean, Dodge Ram sales in Aus in 2020 went through the roof which says it all really. Europe is the trailblazer here and its going to take a while for a number of regions around the world to follow that lead.

I’m sorry you find my argument silly. Besides, I wasn’t arguing for a blanket ban on all travel. I was suggesting that perhaps we should evaluate which journeys are absolutely necessary, and choose the least damaging option.

Such as attending sporting venues. Perhaps it would be better all round, if we returned to that halcyon time when me, me Da and all his mates walked to the match after they finished their Saturday morning shift. No more oots and wools, they can watch the game on TV. And the atmosphere in the ground would, as if by magic, be restored to its pre-war splendour.

To be serious, taking my RAWK hat off, we all agree the need to eliminate, or at least substantially reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. The damage it does to the environment and to our health is unacceptable.

However the alternatives all come with their own limitations and drawbacks especially until we develop the technology to effectively store energy as it is generated and then release it when needed. Assuming such a technology is even possible/feasible.

All forms of human activity generates pollution and gives rise to global warming. Electric cars consume energy and generate pollution in their manufacture, and the problem of recycling spent batteries still remains to be addressed.

Technology can do much to reduce the impact we are having on the planet, but we might do more, and more expeditiously, simply by reducing our consumption.

1 Like

Electric engines are fine when compared to oil-based engines, especially as it reduces the general noise level. But a big part of that so-called clean energy is still produced by burning oil and coal. It’s not that clean at all.

On the other hand, a life without any car or motorised transport means getting back to the 18th century and before, basically living like the Amish. Even though I’m a friend of reducing any kind of unnecessary transport and pollution, that would be too much even for me! :laughing:

(Edit: on the other hand, thinking a bit about this, we might well get forced into it during the next decades, whether we like it or not
 :grimacing:)

Ye I agree, I was just making the point that what some people would view as essential travel others would view as discretionary etc. And gave the example of a home game at Anfield (something we all have common ground on) where the vast majority of people would use some form of combustible engine to get there (even those from Liverpool just so it’s not a “local v OOT argument) to get there even when the game is on TV.

100% agree there is no need for me to travel to a conference. Or to travel to work when I can work from home, just be careful with your view on it because some people enjoy, and even need (from a social interaction point of view) that interaction with other people that conferences etc provide the same way that we enjoy going to the match etc.

I wasn’t picking on you, and your conference going per se. In the past I was equally guilty. I’ve been to many a conference, and had many a jolly time along the way, but I can’t say that they were particularly useful, or that I learnt more than I might have from just reading the speakers notes or reading a book.

And yes, I agree, people do need social interaction, but perhaps they might find it closer to home. You never know people might actually start talking to their next-door-neighbours. :open_mouth: :scream:

Totally agree pal.

If one thing the lock down has been a positive is that we are now a lot closer to our neighbours.

It’s good that we
Agree that change is needed :+1:t3:

It might be more realistic to liken the projected situation to that which pertained up to the middle of the 20th century, when most households didn’t own a car, but had to rely on travel by foot, bicycle or public transport.

The reality is that unless the price of electric vehicles falls dramatically, they will remain beyond the means of most households, so for many there won’t be any choice but to return to an earlier style of life.

We do now have the advantage of the Internet and other forms of electronic communication unavailable to our very recent predecessors, so it would hardly represent a return to an Amish way of life; in any case most modern houses don’t have the necessary garden space to stable a horse and trap. :thinking:

1 Like

That’s what I was implying too in my response to @cynicaloldgit . The return to something more reasonable and sustainable, not necessarily binning every new technique since 1850. :wink:

One of the most insane things we have to witness these days is to see evolved societies like the communist Chinese one, based on public transport and cycling until not so long ago, now promoting a lifestyle in which every Chinese should have his personal car, and thus suffocating more and more in mass pollution
 :thinking: It happens in many other countries too currently (Russia and so on). Meanwhile, we in the West evolve towards ever-increasing car sizes, bigger wheels, bigger engines etc. In a word, more and more consumption, at a moment in which everything, and especially Mother Nature, cries out for restraint on our part. It’s insane.

The blank truth is that the economical system, based on ever-increasing growth, has gone mad and needs binning. It’s hard to see how to do that without falling into a huge economic gap, but it will happen anyway, either through a controlled shift towards self-moderation and sustainability, or unwillingly, in an almighty collapse, amidst increasingly nasty climatic and sanitary crises.

2 Likes

Thousands of scientists collaborated in order to publish this article, confirming through their respective studies that the planet is at a breaking point regarding several vital signs:

Excerpts:

In 2019, Ripple and colleagues (2020) warned of untold suffering and declared a climate emergency together with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from 153 countries. They presented graphs of planetary vital signs indicating very troubling trends, along with little progress by humanity to address climate change.

On the basis of these data and scientists’ moral obligation to “clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat,” they called for transformative change. Since the article’s publication, more than 2,800 additional scientists have signed that declaration of a climate emergency (see supplemental file S1 for the current signatory list); in addition, 1,990 jurisdictions in 34 countries have now formally declared or recognized a climate emergency (figure [1]). But, at the same time, there has been an unprecedented surge in climate-related disasters since 2019, including devastating flooding in South America and Southeast Asia, record shattering heat waves and wildfires in Australia and the Western United States, an extraordinary Atlantic hurricane season, and devastating cyclones in Africa, South Asia, and the West Pacific (see supplemental file S2 for attribution information).

There is also mounting evidence that we are nearing or have already crossed tipping points associated with critical parts of the Earth system, including the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, warm-water coral reefs, and the Amazon rainforest (supplemental file S2). Given these alarming developments, we need short, frequent, and easily accessible updates on the climate emergency.

(
)

The updated planetary vital signs we present (figures [1]) largely reflect the consequences of unrelenting business as usual. Even the effects of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic on some climate-related human activities (figure [1](javascript:;)d, [1](javascript:;)e, [1](javascript:;)h, [1](javascript:;)i, [1](javascript:;)k, [1](javascript:;)l) were short lived. A major lesson from COVID-19 is that even colossally decreased transportation and consumption are not nearly enough and that, instead, transformational system changes are required, and they must rise above politics. Despite positive intentions to “build back better” by directing COVID-19 recovery investments toward green policies, only 17% of such funds have been allocated to a green recovery as of 5 March 2021 (OECD 2021). Given the impacts we are seeing at roughly 1.25 degrees Celsius (°C) warming, combined with the many reinforcing feedback loops and potential tipping points, massive-scale climate action is urgently needed. The remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C was recently estimated to have a 17% chance of being negative, indicating that we may already have lost the opportunity to limit warming to this level without overshoot or risky geoengineering (Matthews et al. [2021](javascript:;)). Because of the limited time available, priorities must shift toward immediate and drastic reductions in dangerous short-lived greenhouse gases, especially methane (UNEP/CCAC 2021).

(
)

We need to stop regarding the climate emergency as a stand-alone environmental problem. Global heating, although ruinous, is not the sole symptom of our present struggling Earth system but is only one of the many facets of the accelerating environmental crisis. Policies to alleviate the climate crisis or any of the other threatened planetary boundary transgressions should not be focused on symptom relief but on addressing their root cause: the overexploitation of the Earth (Rockström et al. [2009]). For example, by halting the unsustainable exploitation of natural habitats (described below), we can simultaneously reduce zoonotic disease transmission risks, conserve biodiversity, and protect carbon stocks (IPBES 2020). So long as humanity’s pressure on the Earth system continues, attempted remedies can only redistribute this pressure.

(
)

To address this fundamental overexploitation, we echo the call made by Ripple and colleagues (2020) to change course in six areas: (1)energy, eliminating fossil fuels and shifting to renewables; (2) short-lived air pollutants, slashing black carbon (soot), methane, and hydrofluorocarbons; (3) nature, restoring and permanently protecting Earth’s ecosystems to store and accumulate carbon and restore biodiversity; (4) food, switching to mostly plant-based diets, reducing food waste, and improving cropping practices; (5) economy, moving from indefinite GDP growth and overconsumption by the wealthy to ecological economics and a circular economy, in which prices reflect the full environmental costs of goods and services; and (6) human population, stabilizing and gradually reducing the population by providing voluntary family planning and supporting education and rights for all girls and young women, which has been proven to lower fertility rates (Wolf et al. [2021]).

All transformative climate action should focus on social justice for all by prioritizing basic human needs and reducing inequality. As one prerequisite for this action, climate change education should be included in school core curriculums globally. Overall, this would result in higher awareness of the climate emergency while empowering learners to take action.

Given the intensifying urgency and insufficient efforts to tackle the climate crisis at scale internationally, progress on the six above steps is imperative. In addition, we call for a three-pronged near-term policy approach of
(1) a global implementation of a significant carbon price (energy and economy)
(2) a global phase-out and eventual permanent ban of fossil fuels (energy)
(3) the development of strategic climate reserves to strictly protect and restore natural carbon sinks and biodiversity throughout the world (nature).

The global minimum carbon price should cover all forms of greenhouse gases and as many sectors as possible, including forestry and agriculture (food). A higher carbon price will be needed to trigger transformative change in harder to decarbonize sectors (Sharpe and Lenton [2021]). It should be linked to a socially just green climate fund to finance climate mitigation and adaptation policies in the Global South (Cramton et al. [2017]).

The phaseout of fossil fuels should be similarly comprehensive and must ultimately prohibit fossil fuel–related exploration, production, and infrastructure development (Green [2018]). Effective strategic climate reserves provide protection and restoration—which offers enormous co-benefits for biodiversity, ecosystem function, and human wellbeing—and require specific targets that cover carbon-rich terrestrial and marine ecosystems (e.g., forests, wetlands, seagrass, mangroves). Implementing these three policies soon will help ensure the long-term sustainability of human civilization and give future generations the opportunity to thrive.

A final word

On the basis of recent trends in planetary vital signs, we reaffirm the climate emergency declaration and again call for transformative change, which is needed now more than ever to protect life on Earth and remain within as many planetary boundaries as possible. The speed of change is essential, and new climate policies should be part of COVID-19 recovery plans. We must now join together as a global community with a shared sense of urgency, cooperation, and equity.

2 Likes