Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[garbon]

I guess you have been good and patient. Been a bit since you went on an anti-car rant.

[Tamas]

I am sitting on a train. Objectively it's a nice train. But sitting in the small seats in a full carriage with all the chit chats and phone calls going on past my ear phones, I kind of wish I have taken the risk of a 400 miles roundtrip by car instead.

Travelling independently is just a different quality no latter how good you make communal travel.

But I agree it should be made a more efficient alternative to car journeys.

[Josquius]

I guess you have been good and patient. Been a bit since you went on an anti-car rant.

I'm sorry for caring about the future.

Travelling independently is just a different quality no latter how good you make communal travel.

I agree with this statement however I suspect with quite a different interpretation. I much prefer sitting on the train free to do my own thing for a few hours to having to actively work and stay alert, focussed solely on the road, any second's slip killing myself and others. :p

But generally its more on the shorter distances where the big wins of transit are to be made rather than these long distance journeys. There the competition is more planes than cars.

[Tamas]

That's fair but I actually really enjoy driving. Pre pandemic, on days when traffic wasn't horrible, driving there and back was easily the best part of the work day.

Mind you, that's probably because most of it was on motorways. Driving in town on medieval streets just wide enough for 1.5 cars I enjoy significantly less.

[garbon]

I guess you have been good and patient. Been a bit since you went on an anti-car rant.

I'm sorry for caring about the future.

Ah yes, famously that's the one manner in which to demonstrate one cares about the future.

[Sheilbh]

That only works if you massively overhaul urban and rural planning and infrastructure in pretty much every western country. And I don't see any country having the political will (or corporate backed lobbying which might be more important) to do so.

Or necessarily the capacity.

Nye Bevan's line that "the language of priorities is the religion of socialism" is, I think, true for climate too. I think EVs are good enough - which is enough, for now. They can meaningfully deal with about 50% of transport emissions - as well as a possible solution for the other 30% of road freight - which just leaves the really difficult (but relatively small) problems with aviation and shipping.

In terms of massively overhauling our infrastructure I think the priority should be decarbonising the grid and housing because those are areas where there isn't another "good enough" alternative like EVs. We are already simultaneously changing the energy basis of our society and massively increasing supply of that energy - I'm not sure we can also add to that re-ordering how we do transport, even if it would be nice (and, unlike Jos, I do think the end goal should be to ban cars ).

I think it is easier for China because a significant rise of car ownership socially is coinciding with EVs

[garbon]

(and, unlike Jos, I do think the end goal should be to ban cars ).

Such a small country point of view.

[Josquius]

In terms of massively overhauling our infrastructure I think the priority should be decarbonising the grid and housing because those are areas where there isn't another "good enough" alternative like EVs. We are already simultaneously changing the energy basis of our society and massively increasing supply of that energy - I'm not sure we can also add to that re-ordering how we do transport, even if it would be nice (and, unlike Jos, I do think the end goal should be to ban cars ).

Incremental change is the way to go.
There's a tonne of low hanging fruit out there, places where a little bit of investment in even bus infrastructure could really knock off by double digits the amount of cars on the roads.
I really don't think this is an either/or with changing the electric grid.

(and, unlike Jos, I do think the end goal should be to ban cars ).

Such a small country point of view.

Its not about the size of the country, its how you use it. Some tiny countries like Malta do absolutely horribly.
If you're living in rural Arkansas with your nearest shop an hour's solid drive away then yeah, hard to imagine that ever being fixed. 
But if you're living in a decent sized city and 99% of your journeys are within that city then there's no reason you should be forced to own a car.

[Sheilbh]

Incremental change is the way to go.
There's a tonne of low hanging fruit out there, places where a little bit of investment in even bus infrastructure could really knock off by double digits the amount of cars on the roads.
I really don't think this is an either/or with changing the electric grid.

What do you mean not either/or on the grid?

In the UK there's some low-hanging fruit. We have too many buses and too many bus stops. Local regulation is key and possible now - but it took Andy Burnham 3-4 years going through the courts v incumbent bus companies, which wasn't ideal but is now a model for the rest of the country. It is good from a transport perspective.

But if the priority is decarbonisation/climate rather than transport, then I think EVs are a big part of the solution.

Such a small country point of view.

Not small country point of view - just maybe a little bit more China-aligned on this

[garbon]

(and, unlike Jos, I do think the end goal should be to ban cars ).

Such a small country point of view.

Its not about the size of the country, its how you use it. Some tiny countries like Malta do absolutely horribly.
If you're living in rural Arkansas with your nearest shop an hour's solid drive away then yeah, hard to imagine that ever being fixed. 
But if you're living in a decent sized city and 99% of your journeys are within that city then there's no reason you should be forced to own a car.

I was reply to Sheilbh who wants to do away with cars. As you highlight in your post that's not really feasible for people living outside of metro areas.

[garbon]

Such a small country point of view.

Not small country point of view - just maybe a little bit more China-aligned on this

Do you often think about how things would be better if we adopted more from Chinese society?

[Norgy]

I meant that the Guardian is being inconsistent in looking benevolently on Norway's actions.

This.
We basically are per capita the worst people on Earth. I can say a thing or two about The Guardian and how they make their pieces, but I will save that for later.

[Josquius]

Incremental change is the way to go.
There's a tonne of low hanging fruit out there, places where a little bit of investment in even bus infrastructure could really knock off by double digits the amount of cars on the roads.
I really don't think this is an either/or with changing the electric grid.

What do you mean not either/or on the grid?

In the UK there's some low-hanging fruit. We have too many buses and too many bus stops. Local regulation is key and possible now - but it took Andy Burnham 3-4 years going through the courts v incumbent bus companies, which wasn't ideal but is now a model for the rest of the country. It is good from a transport perspective.

But if the priority is decarbonisation/climate rather than transport, then I think EVs are a big part of the solution.

I mean I don't see where doing as you say and copying Manchester in more places, rationalising bus stops, and various other bits and bobs, means we can't invest in the electrciity grid and wind power. They're totally separate things and both would help a lot.

EVs are part of the solution certainly. But too many fall into the idea that just swap out ICE vehicles for EV vehicles 1:1 and then job done, problem solved. There needs to be a fundamental reduction in vehicles too, but the current balance of focus is way too much over towards 1 for 1 swap thinking.
We need to work to actively change the reality that people know so that they can open up their mind to it being practical to just not have a car.

[Sheilbh]

Do you often think about how things would be better if we adopted more from Chinese society?

There may be some lessons particularly on infrastructure and energy transition.

I mean I don't see where doing as you say and copying Manchester in more places, rationalising bus stops, and various other bits and bobs, means we can't invest in the electrciity grid and wind power. They're totally separate things and both would help a lot.

Okay but you're talking about bits and bobs and tweaks here. But earlier it was about where the focus should be and Syt's point that it'd require a lot of changes to our lived environment and infrastructure.

If it's bits and bobs, then I've no issue. If it's more substantial than that then I don't agree that the focus should be transport policy I think climate is the focus and decarbonisation needs can broadly be met by EVs. And to Syt's point about political will - I do also think there are probably real material constraints. We are currently changing the energy basis of our society - and as a consequence will require twice as much energy by 2050 than we currently do. I think that's a massive political, engineering, infrastructure project. So adding re-ordering our entire transport infrastructure to that (which is not necessary to hit net zero) I think would be quite challenging - as I say, aside from political will and finance, purely from a capacity perspective.

In terms of climate and decarbonising emissions are basically equally split between energy, housing, transport, industry and agriculture. We have (sometimes imperfect) solutions for most of housing and transport - which also relies on decarbonising energy. Industry and agriculture are tougher at the minute - but, bluntly, those are probably areas where the solution won't come from the West but China (for example over 50% of the world's steel is made in China, so I suspect the breakthroughs on affordable clean steel will too). But getting there on housing and transport (and probably eventually industry and agriculture) all relies on energy. Again this is where I always have a slight issue with so much of Western environmentalism being framed around restraint and less - in order to achieve net zero we need to double energy supply and transmission as well as basically retrofitting the world. It is more on a huge scale.

I think we may be looking at it from slightly different angles. I can't drive. I might one day learn because it is good for holidays. I have zero interest in cars. My only interest in EVs is as a tool for getting to net zero. Separately my transport preferences are basically public transport - but I don't think that's necessary for energy transition. Whereas I think you might be viewing it as EVs from a what should our transport look like pov?

[HVC]

Such a small country point of view.

Not small country point of view - just maybe a little bit more China-aligned on this

That should be your first* sign to recognize how wrong you are.


*the second sign is agreeing with Josq