Climate Change - The Languish 'Community' Responses?

[mongers]

Aiming to just replaces this with a similar level of slightly more expensive greener options, misses the far wider environmental impacts of such a high level of energy use, movement of people/resources and excessive consumption.

The lifestyle of an immiserated Indian peasant is not going to be attractive to anyone but a handful of Western climate anchorites.

Nice straw and wicker construction there Leggy, but I don't you'll persuade many to step inside the trap. 

[grumbler]

Aiming to just replaces this with a similar level of slightly more expensive greener options, misses the far wider environmental impacts of such a high level of energy use, movement of people/resources and excessive consumption.

The lifestyle of an immiserated Indian peasant is not going to be attractive to anyone but a handful of Western climate anchorites.

OTOH, virtue signaling, while it doesn't help the planet, is cheap and fairly carbon-free (depending on the source of the electrons used to send the virtue signal).

[mongers]

Went I did about 1200-1300 miles on the trains in the 2nd half of June, I think about 35 separate journeys, I can only recall 2* of those being electric, the new hitachis I caught from Bath on my way to Oxford, the rest diesel; the UK still has a long way to go to 'green' public transport.

* edit:
I looked it up, just over 100 miles or 8.5% on electric trains vs 1150 miles on diesels. 

[mongers]

One positive thing I do is not use the controls/lights on various pedestrian/other* crossings on roads.

I prefer to wait 10-20 seconds for a good gap to appear in traffic and then cross safely, otherwise I'm causing several cars to stop and then have to accelerate back up to their previous speed, at rush hour that could easily be one or two dozen multi-ton vehicles.

I wonder what the resulting C02 emissions and extra pollution might be otherwise?


* pelican, toucan and Pegasus crossings.
On zebra crossings I just manually wave the slowing cars through.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I can't see that making much difference; though as it happens I also usually cross the road in a traffic gap rather than using a crossing.

The key problem with individual action is whenever we spend money it ends up in someone else's pockets; they then use that money to go motorbike scrambling, scoffing burgers or on vanity trips into space 

I think that was the point of Leg's comment; unless one lives on a subsistence smallholding and leaves the mainstream economy behind we are hugely limited in the cuts we can make.

[Maladict]

I can't see that making much difference; though as it happens I also usually cross the road in a traffic gap rather than using a crossing.

The key problem with individual action is whenever we spend money it ends up in someone else's pockets; they then use that money to go motorbike scrambling, scoffing burgers or on vanity trips into space 

I think that was the point of Leg's comment; unless one lives on a subsistence smallholding and leaves the mainstream economy behind we are hugely limited in the cuts we can make.

Still, if enough individuals act it will make a difference. If everyone stops eating meat the gains will offset the vegetable tycoon's trip to space.

[Sheilbh]

I can't see that making much difference; though as it happens I also usually cross the road in a traffic gap rather than using a crossing.

The key problem with individual action is whenever we spend money it ends up in someone else's pockets; they then use that money to go motorbike scrambling, scoffing burgers or on vanity trips into space 

I think that was the point of Leg's comment; unless one lives on a subsistence smallholding and leaves the mainstream economy behind we are hugely limited in the cuts we can make.

I'd also add that individual action is exactly the argument used by companies and government to excuse their inaction. I remember being at a friend's wedding and having an oil/gas lawyer explain how you can't really fault the oil companies - its all of our individual faults for creating demand and there's nothing more they can do but devastate the coast of Nigeria. In a sense they were right, in another, more important sense, they weren't

I'd also add my emphasis on transition, which I think is going to be a huge shift (and us in Europe are irrelevant compared to the shift that will happen in China), is, in part, because I think if we focus on the measures that a few hundred million individuals in rich countries can take then we won't be looking at a set of policies or a framework that can also lift billions from low or lower-middle incomes. I think the individual acts of a few hundred million people (albeit carbon intensive people) will not be enough to offset the increase in consumption and energy that we should want to see and be aiming for for billions of the rest of the world. We need to do both - a massive energy transition and climate justice.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Don't get me wrong here; I believe that individuals have a moral duty not to be wasteful and to avoid pointless carbon emissions and have taken several steps myself; but we not going to get anywhere without international action by states.

The most optimistic news on the horizon imo is that renewable energy is getting so cheap that it is becoming possible for people to adopt it out of mere greed. Perhaps the best thing for a rich western country to do is to facilitate the adoption of solar and windpower in places like sub-saharan Africa that are short on capital and the necessary skills; though if anything it seems that short-sighted selfishness is on the increase so I'll not be holding breath.

[mongers]

I'd also add that individual action is exactly the argument used by companies and government to excuse their inaction. I remember being at a friend's wedding and having an oil/gas lawyer explain how you can't really fault the oil companies - its all of our individual faults for creating demand and there's nothing more they can do but devastate the coast of Nigeria. In a sense they were right, in another, more important sense, they weren't

... snip ....

As someone who's worked in the oil industry I can see his point of view and the 'justice' of your opinion, though as you say he's wrong.

But there's another dimension to his comments about the Nigerian delta; oil companies do what they do, pollute, because they can get away with it, corrupt and inefficient 'governments in the 3rd world are co-conspirators in the destruction.
Which is why we need to move as much energy production to near the location of it's consumption as possible, both to increase efficiency of use and because there's no way they could get away with that pollution in Western Europe.
Localism for energy production if you will; which is why I'd be happy to see an oil field developed in the New Forest or wind farms plastered across Dorset, the Jurassic coast and its sea scape. 

[Josquius]

From what I've read its certainly the case that the major oil companies see the writing on the wall and are fast trying to pivot to renewables.
But yeah, its a bit daft to blame the oil companies themselves purely for the 'we make petrol' part of their operation. Where there's opportunity for profit the capitalists will chase it.
Of course in other cases where they actively sabotage public transport, cut corners and generally behave in a horrific way, again in the pursuit of maximising profits...but a bit more blame worthy there.
The big challenge will be in overturning the current order and restoring things to a early 20th century state of affairs. Way too many people have the mental model that the way things are is the way they have always been and always can be. Considering how quickly things changed post war its not like they can't change again if the political will was there.

[Sheilbh]

But there's another dimension to his comments about the Nigerian delta; oil companies do what they do, pollute, because they can get away with it, corrupt and inefficient 'governments in the 3rd world are co-conspirators in the destruction.

Yes - but I would add that I'm not sure they're entirely separate. I think that oil companies benefit from being able to do with what they can get away with and have a vested interest in corrupt and inefficient governments. It's no different from oligarchs in CIS states.

Which is why we need to move as much energy production to near the location of it's consumption as possible, both to increase efficiency of use and because there's no way they could get away with that pollution in Western Europe.
Localism for energy production if you will; which is why I'd be happy to see an oil field developed in the New Forest or wind farms plastered across Dorset, the Jurassic coast and its sea scape. 

I think this will also be key in expanding access to energy. I think there's been a cycle (a bit like with telecoms) from lots of local producers, to big national grids and we will revert to lots of local producers - and I suspect that as with the towers and telecoms revolution in Africa there may be something similar with local, often renewable, energy generation.

But the key on renewables is battery/energy storage research and production and I think they've made progress over time - but I just think with the sort of state backing that we had for vaccine research we could probably revolutionise that sector.

Linked to that though - with RH's point - is that I don't know how our economy on energy is going to work when we start doing this in full. Because the more solar or wind capacity and the cheaper it gets, you are likely to produce more energy than you need. The more you add the less valuable it becomes and, unlike a power plant, we can't throttle production from the wind or the sun. Storage will be part of the solution, but even with mass storage it is possible it drives prices down even into negative territory - and I don't know how that works with our economic system/model. I'm interested to find out though

I mean it might be like nuclear where we end up having to pay the wind farms of Dogger Bank to keep turning even if the energy produced is useless - a bit like we need to keep the nuclear power plants on even if we don't actually need their energy at that moment.

Obviously on solar there are also wider ethical issues given how many solar panels are produced in Xinjiang (I believe it's estimated at about 45%) - which need to be addressed. It's very difficult to talk about climate justice if one of the foundational pieces is forced labour.

[crazy canuck]

If the supply of carbon free energy becomes so abundant the it becomes less expensive than the cost to produce more of it, we will have won.

[mongers]

If the supply of carbon free energy becomes so abundant the it becomes less expensive than the cost to produce more of it, we will have won.

A huge If, nothing is replacing kerosene anytime soon, other than solar or gas in the some 3rd world homes, which is a relatively small percentage of it's use.

[mongers]

But there's another dimension to his comments about the Nigerian delta; oil companies do what they do, pollute, because they can get away with it, corrupt and inefficient 'governments in the 3rd world are co-conspirators in the destruction.

Yes - but I would add that I'm not sure they're entirely separate. I think that oil companies benefit from being able to do with what they can get away with and have a vested interest in corrupt and inefficient governments. It's no different from oligarchs in CIS states.

... snip ...

Yes and hence my use of "co-conspirators", but I think we're on the same page as regards that view.

[crazy canuck]

If the supply of carbon free energy becomes so abundant the it becomes less expensive than the cost to produce more of it, we will have won.

A huge If, nothing is replacing kerosene anytime soon, other than solar or gas in the some 3rd world homes, which is a relatively small percentage of it's use.

Right.  In other words Sheilbh should not be worried too much about that occurring.  If it does it would cause for celebration.