Transitioning to a low carbon life

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

16 minutes ago, Cuban8 said:

With the exception of the very poorest countries, our modern day prosperity has been driven by industrialisation and the access to cheap personal transport. Been going on for a century and more and I just don't see how trying to rip the backside out of that in a matter of a couple of decades is not going to wind up impoverishing most of us here in the UK. They'll try to have us all nice and zero emission (and skint) while some other poor devils across the other side of the world do our dirty work, quite literally, for us. It's started already with many new stealth 'green' taxes and levies, pointless rules and regulations,  along with  controls on where and when one can go.

(A programme on Lithium extraction from rivers in Argentina and the disasterous effect it is having on poor people living a substistence life style was show on Al-Jazeera recently - I urge you to try to see it.)

 

I'm sick to death that we in the UK are being screwed down to the floor with increasing numbers of virtue signalling plans dreamed up by out of touch academics just back from some nice comfortable international conference, and dodgy politically motivated scientists whose views seem to be accepted unquestioned by obsequious politicians and many figures in the media. Phew!

 

The chances of humanity being incinerated by thermo-nuclear war has diminished to next to nothing, so those needing something alarmist to fill their days with need to come up with something else. What could be better than CO2 emissions and global warming? So easy to fiddle figures, distort statistics and over state the effects of various natural phenomena. It's all bad news according to them as they conveniently ignore the very many positives of moden day living. I point a finger at Sky News and their Climate change panic programmes, and of course the good old BBC who will jump on any dodgy bandwagon at the drop of a hat.

The trouble is, by doing so in order to create false alarm and unneeded 'crisis action', real problems and bad actions will become lost in the noise............I draw your attention to the very different scale of or very own issues with the authorities and model aircraft regulations - a minute problem in the scheme of things but driven by the same motivations IMHO.

Am I mistaken?

 

 

 

Yes,but you'll probably never accept it. For every Lithium extraction issue you'll find a multitude of oil extraction or spillage issues, sewage pumped into rivers/seas, chemicals leaching into water tables, pesticides causing issues etc etc etc.

Natural phenonema ? You do realise the big events that some point out and, say it's just the Earth going through one of it's cycles, are imbalances in atmosphere's caused by what's happening on the planet at the time, if you accept that, and accept we pollute on a massive scale, logic leads you somewhere.

Screwed to the floor with Green taxes ? Enlighten me please, Petrols gone up 11p a litre in a short time mind you.

[David Hazell 1]

37 minutes ago, Cuban8 said:

 

Am I mistaken?

 

 

 

I sincerely hope so. We're all seeing the effects of climate change and it's accelerating. Being petulant with FOMO about us leading the way because others might not do as we do is NOT leading the way! I'm wholeheartedly convinced that climate change is really accelerating and believe the facts and figures I see to back that up.

 

When I got a job in my local city, I used to cycle the 11 miles each way to the office, 5 days a week. I saved both time and huge amounts of money, I gained health benefits mentally and physically and I polluted ABSOLUTELY ZERO, let alone net zero. I had absolutely no fear of missing out on the big swanky leather trimmed gas guzzler, I beat _everyone_ who used a bus the same distance and cars too once they'd had to figure out where to park in the city centre. If some forward thinking governments could increase uptake of cycling and reward that somehow we'd have a healthier happier nation _and_ environment.

[Outrunner]

46 minutes ago, Cuban8 said:

With the exception of the very poorest countries, our modern day prosperity has been driven by industrialisation and the access to cheap personal transport. Been going on for a century and more and I just don't see how trying to rip the backside out of that in a matter of a couple of decades is not going to wind up impoverishing most of us here in the UK. They'll try to have us all nice and zero emission (and skint) while some other poor devils across the other side of the world do our dirty work, quite literally, for us. It's started already with many new stealth 'green' taxes and levies, pointless rules and regulations,  along with  controls on where and when one can go.

(A programme on Lithium extraction from rivers in Argentina and the disasterous effect it is having on poor people living a substistence life style was show on Al-Jazeera recently - I urge you to try to see it.)

 

I'm sick to death that we in the UK are being screwed down to the floor with increasing numbers of virtue signalling plans dreamed up by out of touch academics just back from some nice comfortable international conference, and dodgy politically motivated scientists whose views seem to be accepted unquestioned by obsequious politicians and many figures in the media. Phew!

 

The chances of humanity being incinerated by thermo-nuclear war has diminished to next to nothing, so those needing something alarmist to fill their days with need to come up with something else. What could be better than CO2 emissions and global warming? So easy to fiddle figures, distort statistics and over state the effects of various natural phenomena. It's all bad news according to them as they conveniently ignore the very many positives of moden day living. I point a finger at Sky News and their Climate change panic programmes, and of course the good old BBC who will jump on any dodgy bandwagon at the drop of a hat.

The trouble is, by doing so in order to create false alarm and unneeded 'crisis action', real problems and bad actions will become lost in the noise............I draw your attention to the very different scale of or very own issues with the authorities and model aircraft regulations - a minute problem in the scheme of things but driven by the same motivations IMHO.

Am I mistaken?

 

 

So what's your alternative answer? Stick your head in the sand?

[Tim Kearsley]

1 hour ago, Cuban8 said:

 

Am I mistaken?

 

 

Yes, of course you are.

[Cuban8]

Thank you, some very interesting responses that are food for thought. I don't particularly agree with them but that is the nature of debate and discussion. It's not worth setting out on a tit for tat argument here about what is after all a highly complex and emotive subject of so many facets. Folks in high places are well paid to do that.

It can be spun and weighted to one's own preferences and I deliberately closed with the statement Am I mistaken? .............Interesting to note that replying simply  'yes, of course'  to that, or having an Ostrich type mentality merely continues my worry that many of us are too readily permitting themselves to be convinced by something that is being sold as simple and clear cut, when it self evidently is nothing of the sort -  a black and white, 1 or 0 message and must not be questioned. And I often wonder why that is?

Anyway, I respect others opinions, for opinions is all that any of can have in our positions on such a complex topic- I hope that you respect mine.,

[Nigel R]

10 minutes ago, Cuban8 said:

And I often wonder why that is?

 

Because the general public are, in general, not capable of correctly interpreting complex issues, like climate change and the myriad causes and effects thereof...

 

10 minutes ago, Cuban8 said:

merely continues my worry that many of us are too readily permitting themselves to be convinced by

 

...quite literally every expert in the field?

 

Still, if that won't convince you, nothing will.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Nigel R

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I enjoy topics like this, it's a difficult thing to accept that what we do damages the planet, debate gets emotional and one side claims the other side are easily led "Sheeple" tother side responds in a likewise manner.

Claims are made that "Them" are giving a false narrative to suit an agenda, who's "Them" to believe eh, the "Woke Greenies" or the "Evil neo liberals" ?

You claimed we're being screwed to the floor with Green taxes C8, please explain how/where ?

 

 

[Tim Kearsley]

The thing is, we're obviously all entitled to our opinion and climate change is clearly a very complex issue.  But the HUGE majority of evidence and scientific opinion points unequivocally to the warming of the planet as being down to human activity. 

There will always be the "independent thinkers" as Sir Patrick Moore put it. There are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, who claim the earth is flat.  Many are making some feeble attempt to be different, because they can't abide the thought of being mainstream, others probably genuinely believe it.  But the flat-earthers are harmless and are quite amusing whereas the climate-deniers are potentially far more damaging, many "experts" having links to, or financed by the huge fossil fuel industry. The world is so broken that people are more inclined to believe some charismatic, right-wing halfwit than a thousand well-respected, intelligent scientists.

[Outrunner]

I don't need to be led or mislead by the climate lobby or the government I can see for myself the damage done to our planet. I can see the pollution in our rivers, scientists confirm what I can see. I noticed our climate gone a bit mad on hot and sometimes very wet summers, I've seen the floods that seem to happen much more regularly, the wild fires burning across the world. It's happening before our eyes, we need to do something about about it, not deny it.

[john davidson 1]

Martin Harris has hit the nail on the head, overpopulation is the real menace

[Ron Gray]

2 minutes ago, john davidson 1 said:

Martin Harris has hit the nail on the head, overpopulation is the real menace

Correct but nothing can sanely be done about that, maybe in the future but we are where we are. We are also living a lot longer which certainly doesn't help matters!

 

But can we, as individuals, do something, no matter how small? I think we can rather than say it's all too late or that difference is insignificant.

[GrumpyGnome]

On 04/09/2023 at 09:33, Nigel R said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuling_Hongguang_Mini_EV

 

 

Can't get many of my planes in that.........  

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

9 minutes ago, john davidson 1 said:

Martin Harris has hit the nail on the head, overpopulation is the real menace

Disagree, it's the simplistic go to target, what those people do is the problem more than the number of them, some have lifestyles that impact little, others have massive impacts.

Family A. Mum, dad, 2 kids, tv in 3 bedrooms 2 down stairs, in car for even the smallest journey, on first name terms with Amazon driver, Uber eats, et al 4 cars on drive, holidays abroad, got all the latest tech and replaces on regular basis coz, gotta have the latest tech, back to the cars, traded in every 5 years coz it'll depreciate, hot spar in garden every gadget known to mankind and Alexa there to switch it on for em.

 

Family B. Mum, dad, 4 kids, tv in lounge, no cars, kids walk to school or bus it, mum dad walk or use public transport, no foreign holidays, who's Alexa ?

 

50% more people in family B, so they've caused the problem ?

[Ron Gray]

8 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

Family B. Mum, dad, 4 kids, tv in lounge, no cars, kids walk to school or bus it, mum dad walk or use public transport, no foreign holidays, who's Alexa ?

Unfortunately that family is pure fantasy, whereas Family A is reality!

[MattyB]

6 hours ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

We can bandy figures and statistics around until the cows come home after a day’s methane production but the root of the problem is the success of the human race.  Not only is it expanding at an exponential rate but all the world’s population are more aware of and aspire to a “western” lifestyle. Sadly, the world is likely to resolve this situation by a combination of war, pestilence, famine and natural disasters unless we can limit population expansion by humane methodologies. 

 

Whilst I don't disagree with your point overall, the tag line "exponential population growth" is often used, but it isn't true at this point.

 

The rate of population growth peaked in the 60s and has been dropping steadily ever since as global education and contraception improve and fertility rates decrease. Whilst we are a long way off the population peak, most projections have that happening at somewhere between 2060 and 2100 depending on the speed that birth rates drop over time. The total population numbers possible are still very high even so, though I assume none of these models include the impact of the climate change induced war, pestilence, famine and natural disasters that you mention in your post.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by MattyB

[Rich Griff]

You forgot to say John, family a open the windows as it's sunny outside and don't tell Alexa to turn off the central heating.

 

Recent radio 4 program stated with info from poll data that more affluent people/families don't bother turning stuff off, whilst the poorer people do !

[Jon H]

While i understand Cuban's distrust of media hype the climate situation is real and is a major issue. The biggest problem is agreeing on a way to solve it. 

 

I am in total agreement that the way climate change is discussed is ridiculous. Everyone is tripping over themselves to be 'green' but when you drill down into it you find that, in many cases, there is no net gain for substantial effort and, in some cases the effort is even undermined by some short sighted choice. As an example, plastic drinking straws were banned and we now have soggy paper ones that are in many respects worse than the plastic ones. I also i saw one of the new eco friendly paper straws recently with a trim line of plastic gold foil spiralled up it giving us the worst of both. That nissan petrol electric thing i mentioned before isnt green, its just ridiculous and worse than a petrol car. And yet green virtuous folk are lapping it up and bragging about how green they are. 

 

Again, we cannot consume our way to sustainability or buying more stuff is not a solution to the problem. 

 

We also have to suffer this modern world where everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone is right. its simply not true, facts are facts and while an opinion is fine i would like to think that you need to be able to back that up with factual data for it to hold any water. But as Tim points out, people would rather listen to a self professed expert on tiktok than an actual scientist. Hardly a surprise though, i cant even convince some of you chaps that castor oil is dead 😛

 

As for population control it has to come, but the human race needs a metal adjustment first from 'what about me?' to 'we are in this together' and realise that the rights of the individual might actually have to play second fiddle to the species under certain circumstances. If someone tells me i can only have 2 kids to reduce my carbon footprint and save us all it sounds totally reasonable to me. Although as it stands right now ill be single forever so not an issue! John raises a valid point about lifestyle, but ultimately we still need to feed all of family B. They need clothes, medical care etc, so population control is a factor. You are right though and a smaller wasteful family could consume more than a larger frugal one. 

 

One thing not to loose sight of is we do not want to curtail our lives in the name of saving co2 to the point where we essentially sit around and do nothing and pretend its 1400. A family summer holiday on a plane is hardly going to be the end of us all provided we get the rest right. 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

3 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

Unfortunately that family is pure fantasy, whereas Family A is reality!

 It's a forum post Ron, family B exists in many places in the world, yes I made it "Simplistic" for impact but the points valid.

[Zflyer]

Its correct to say that overpopulation is the main issue here.  I note Matty B's breakdown however its not the numbers its the requirement and needs of the population. Then we have the so called aspiration to emulate the 'western lifestyle'. A hugh part of the problem is in fact the west's constant strive for for growth. A certain individual, now deceased, has a product which is constantly being update, previous products it would appear having had a built in obsolescence, people with the must have syndrome. If we did more repairing of products and did away with the constant alleged improvements to drive growth, which only benefits companies and their shareholders we could see a different world. 

Many years ago I read a short story where cars and good were manufactured only to be moved to factories near by were they were disassembled, off to foundries, melted down and returned metal for products. 

The reason, to keep people in work and thereby out of mischief, but the over arching matter was a stable economy and not so much damage to the surroundings as the populace had what they required. No new gizmo which did the same as the previous model but had a bit more glitz.

If we move from the glitz to the repairable and functional, apart from a few billionaires we could all benefit.

Whilst I appreciate growth has its benefits it is not the be all and end all, though truth be told it is the end all because everything that grow eventually dies. So keep buying swank glittering stuff and when you replace that for another round of swank and glitz do us all a favour and have it buried with, it may not be degradable but if someone or something comes along in the future and digs it up they just might recognise how the world ended.

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Zflyer

[Tim Kearsley]

Zflyer raises another crucial point.  Capitalism and the Western way of living depends on growth.  Who was it that said "Only lunatics and economists believe in infinite growth"?  What do all our politicians constantly strive for?  Economic growth.  I can't see the fundamental change in approach that’s needed happening in time.

[MattyB]

On 04/09/2023 at 15:16, Jon - Laser Engines said:

As I have tried to point out numerous times already, the scale the the problem is immense and its clearly lost on many. 

 

I don't think the scale of the problem is lost on many in this thread; the only possible exceptions are the small number here who are sceptical of there being any human induced climate change at all. Where lots of us disagree with you is that we should not do anything at all in case the lifecycle carbon emissions of our action are worse.

 

According to you I should not have invested in solar because the carbon emitted during their manufacture and transport from China. Putting aside the fact the original ones we ordered were from Norway so wouldn't have had to come far anyway (those were sadly unavailable), all the best solar panels today last for at least 25 years, more likely 35 with minimal (~0.3-0.5%/year) degradation. Models show that (even here in the UK) manufacturing carbon costs will be offset by the carbon-free energy they produce in 2.5-3.5 years. That means there will be a net carbon reduction for the remaining 22-32 years. They are also reducing our transport emissions too; by partially powering the (yes, secondhand, already existing!) PHEV hybrid with solar over the first 250 miles, it looks like 80-100mpg across our usage cycle will be possible, though there will be a drop of a few % points for 2-3 months of the year when we will need to charge it from the grid. 

 

"But what about the harmful effect of sourcing the materials, and the fact we don't have UK recycling for them yet?" you say... Well, I simply choose to believe that:

1. many highly educated people who know far more than all of us on here about energy generation and use state that solar is an important part of the energy mix going forward, so us doing it seems sensible, and;
2. there is an awful long time for the recycling aspect to be addressed before my current panels will have to come down off the roof! 25 years is a lifetime in tech after all.

Do I know with absolute certainty the lifecycle carbon and overall resource usage of us as a family is lowered significantly by this decision? No, I don't. However, I am absolutely certain that without buying the solar we would have consumed less efficiently (because we wouldn't be so careful thinking about how we consume), and we'd have used far more fossil fuels over the next 25-35 years for home and transportation purposes. Given the balance of probabilities on emissions, and the fact it gives us 80% electricity independence and saves us significant money in the long term, we believe going ahead with it was more likely to be beneficial to both the planet and us than keeping going as we were.

 

On 04/09/2023 at 15:16, Jon - Laser Engines said:

As for hydrogen, i never said its efficiency would be that great. But as we have insufficient lithium, and changing battery chemistry might require more mining, it may still be a greener option if it can be manufactured in a sustainable way. 

 

Hydrogen may be helpful option in some specific circumstances (probably large scale transport like lorries and possibly shipping). However, it is much harder to make a case for it in private vehicles or (in future) surface based robotaxis. It's bulky, dangerous, difficult to transport and store, and (in comparison to a vehicle that uses electricity directly instead of using it to store water) extremely inefficient. It is also interesting that over the last 10 years EV adoption has increased hugely, but H2 adoption (both in terms of cars sold and infrastructure) remains microscopic. If H2 is the future, it's coming awfully slowly.

 

It also appears FC vehicles suffer from similar issues to those that you have criticised EVs for, most notably powertrain life. The tech is apparently improved in recent years (though I've never seen or driven in one so can't comment from experience), but powertrain warranties don't seem to reflect that:

 

• Toyota Mirai in the UK - 5yrs/50k miles (apparently in some markets it is longer than this, not sure why though)
• Toyota BZ4X (full electric BEV) in the UK - 10yrs/100k miles
• Toyota hybrid batteries in the UK - 15 years

The older FC vehicles would appear to have been similar in robustness to first gen EVs like the Leaf, i.e. not very! This Hyundai owner in Germany paid 50k Euros for the car, which went 50k miles before the FC died, at which point Hyundai quoted 100k Euros to replace it! Replacement FC's for the newer model are only ~42k Euros each though; positively bargainous, though not even quite as "cheap" as a replacement EV battery... 😉

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by MattyB

[Frank Skilbeck]

Or Exxon when their scientists discovered CO2 emissions were affecting the environment set in process a scheme to discredit climate science. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

 

 

[J D 8]

22 hours ago, J D 8 said:

           I follow the Club of Rome who fifty one years ago published a book that caused a lot of controversy around the world and was much poo pooed by the powers that be of the time. However much of what was warned about has come to be and the calendar/timing of increasing problems for mankind as noted is pretty much on track.

  The members of the Club of Rome have continued to publish many more items on the effect we are having on the planet and ourselves. They also have many ideas/suggestions as to how things could improve. Check them out.

About us - Club of Rome.html

[Don Fry]

4 hours ago, john davidson 1 said:

Martin Harris has hit the nail on the head, overpopulation is the real menace

I can’t ignore, seeing the carnage in the Mediterranean, the channel ( La Manche), imagining when the population of Bangladesh up sticks to Europe, no land left,  the answer, machine gun factory, and artics full of ammo belts?
Displace blame if you will, but it’s is the west put the carbon in the air we breath. Own the problem. 

[Don Fry]

2 hours ago, MattyB said:

 

I don't think the scale of the problem is lost on many in this thread; the only possible exceptions are the small number here who are sceptical of there being any human induced climate change at all. Where lots of us disagree with you is that we should not do anything at all in case the lifecycle carbon emissions of our action are worse.

 

According to you I should not have invested in solar because the carbon emitted during their manufacture and transport from China. Putting aside the fact the original ones we ordered were from Norway so wouldn't have had to come far anyway (those were sadly unavailable), all the best solar panels today last for at least 25 years, more likely 35 with minimal (~0.3-0.5%/year) degradation. Models show that (even here in the UK) manufacturing carbon costs will be offset by the carbon-free energy they produce in 2.5-3.5 years. That means there will be a net carbon reduction for the remaining 22-32 years. They are also reducing our transport emissions too; by partially powering the (yes, secondhand, already existing!) PHEV hybrid with solar over the first 250 miles, it looks like 80-100mpg across our usage cycle will be possible, though there will be a drop of a few % points for 2-3 months of the year when we will need to charge it from the grid. 

 

"But what about the harmful effect of sourcing the materials, and the fact we don't have UK recycling for them yet?" you say... Well, I simply choose to believe that:

1. many highly educated people who know far more than all of us on here about energy generation and use state that solar is an important part of the energy mix going forward, so us doing it seems sensible, and;
2. there is an awful long time for the recycling aspect to be addressed before my current panels will have to come down off the roof! 25 years is a lifetime in tech after all.

Do I know with absolute certainty the lifecycle carbon and overall resource usage of us as a family is lowered significantly by this decision? No, I don't. However, I am absolutely certain that without buying the solar we would have consumed less efficiently (because we wouldn't be so careful thinking about how we consume), and we'd have used far more fossil fuels over the next 25-35 years for home and transportation purposes. Given the balance of probabilities on emissions, and the fact it gives us 80% electricity independence and saves us significant money in the long term, we believe going ahead with it was more likely to be beneficial to both the planet and us than keeping going as we were.

 

 

Hydrogen may be helpful option in some specific circumstances (probably large scale transport like lorries and possibly shipping). However, it is much harder to make a case for it in private vehicles or (in future) surface based robotaxis. It's bulky, dangerous, difficult to transport and store, and (in comparison to a vehicle that uses electricity directly instead of using it to store water) extremely inefficient. It is also interesting that over the last 10 years EV adoption has increased hugely, but H2 adoption (both in terms of cars sold and infrastructure) remains microscopic. If H2 is the future, it's coming awfully slowly.

 

It also appears FC vehicles suffer from similar issues to those that you have criticised EVs for, most notably powertrain life. The tech is apparently improved in recent years (though I've never seen or driven in one so can't comment from experience), but powertrain warranties don't seem to reflect that:

 

• Toyota Mirai in the UK - 5yrs/50k miles (apparently in some markets it is longer than this, not sure why though)
• Toyota BZ4X (full electric BEV) in the UK - 10yrs/100k miles
• Toyota hybrid batteries in the UK - 15 years

The older FC vehicles would appear to have been similar in robustness to first gen EVs like the Leaf, i.e. not very! This Hyundai owner in Germany paid 50k Euros for the car, which went 50k miles before the FC died, at which point Hyundai quoted 100k Euros to replace it! Replacement FC's for the newer model are only ~42k Euros each though; positively bargainous, though not even quite as "cheap" as a replacement EV battery... 😉

 

Wots a FC?