Off Topic Climate change/ pollution

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on these details, but let’s take the debate back a bit and think about some points that I think most people across the debate actually agree on:
- Fossil fuels cause pollution, which harm people’s health.
- our energy bills are too high. The Ukraine/ Russia situation has exposed that, but it’s a wider problem than just that.
- Fossil fuels are a limited supply and the planet cannot rely on them forever.
- we would all like cheap and affordable energy, with secure supply.
- we would all like to breathe clean air.
- we would all like to be self reliant with fuel and not be vulnerable to international incidents, politics and corruption with our energy supply.

where the debate separates out, is in finding a solution. My question is that, whilst environmentalists are generally focussed on finding a solution, which would fix many of the above agreed issues, I’m really struggling to identify the solutions put forward by critics of environmentalism. Doing nothing, or even a slow gradual change to renewables is not going to solve any of the agreed problems or get to where we want to be.

so here is a challenge to any critics on here, what are your solutions to the above issues, or any others that you can identify that I may have missed.

 

Nuclear?

We would all like cheap and affordable energy, but I think we need to be realistic and accept it almost certainly won't happen, I think the best we can say is around the same price as now but cleaner and more renewable.

Transport is the biggest issue to over come imo and EV isn't the solution either. How do we overcome that?

Biggest issue overall is who pays for it? Ultimately it will be us In ££s and inconvenience

All new homes should have solar panels on their roofs as standard now, but again the argument is who pays for it? Homebuilders are struggling to sell homes ATM as it is due the interest rates. Adding more expensive on them just isn't going to work.

Solar farms are a great idea in theory, but nobody wants one near them, take a look at the objections to the proposed one just outside Howden which will be the biggest in the UK.

And let's be fair, as long as China, India and most the developing world continue to do what they do etc, what we in the UK do won't make a shred of difference to the environment but will cost us all ££ and make out lives more difficult.

 

Just on the transport thing, you're right that EVs aren't the answer. At least not the whole answer any way. Switching to them is a positive change but it does nothing for the issue of there simply being far too many cars on the road. We need to have less of them, and more people travelling by more civilised means.

 

If every person, who demanded an immediate or faster change to renewables, retrained in engineering, welding, marine construction etc. It would happen a lot quicker. There's simply not enough workers in west Europe to do these jobs and this is what's holding the change back more than anything else. It's all very well a government investing billions in a tidal power supply, but if there's no one available or with the knowledge to build it, there's an issue - as has happened with nuclear in the UK - after 3 decades of zero investment or incentive, there are not enough educated workers to build them.

Governments and the energy companies are already investing huge amounts in renewables, but most of the surviving oil workers, such as me, have a decade or more until retirement and will have work until then, because not so many new workers are coming into the industry or are getting better contracts in places such as middle east, India, china and Singapore. Most younger engineers and semi skilled workers, that would have gone into the oil industry, are now in wind and hydro and thousands more are needed.

 

Is switching to them a positive change though? It may look that way to people who claim they are driving cars with no emissions etc. But what's needed to get those cars on the road is a much dirtier process then getting an ICE on the road from both a environmental POV and a human rights POV. Once it's on the road and passed its break even point then yes it's cleaner. But we have to find a better way of doing things upfront. Also the structural implications of EVs and the extra building materials needed to make multistorey cars parks for example that now habe to be built differently to withstand the extra weight EVs bring

 

I think the decision on electric vehicles has already been made(by most of the manufacturers) to go into all out production.It won't stop now,it's been decided?

I don't drive,the wife does that for me and the car we have is only 5 years old.We'll keep it on the road until it is no longer viable for repair and by that time,God willing,we'll both be late 60's anyway.
To be brutally honest she doesn't do many miles anyway and we have senior bus passes so we could probably flog it and go on an all inclusive Maldives holiday...

Thinking of others of a younger age who need their cars,this could be an extremely costly affair...

 

EV's are **** and the 2030 deadline for them won't happen. Renault and Geely, Chinese car maker, are investing £7b in 17 engine factories, and 5 r&d hubs, with the HQ based in Britain. They're developing low-emission petrol, diesel and hybrid engines. They won't be the last.


The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.

 

This is the bit that gets me. Accepting the status quo that people should "need" private cars, ignoring the issues of ever-increasing traffic with more and more cars on the road and more and more people switching to bigger ones, but really scrutinising the cost of EVs. It just seems like the wrong priority to me. We need to make cars less important and less of a priority. Some parts of the world do it well, but we're slaves to our vehicles in this country.

 

When's the last time you stood at a bus stop or railway station and your bus never turned up or your train was announced as cancelled?If public transport were readily available and travelled on time and to industrial estates etc (where people usually HAVE to travel to in order to earn) then I'm pretty sure people would use that option.

We're not slaves to our vehicles,we're victims of poor public transport ran by people who'd find it difficult to run a bath never mind a punctual means of commute...

 

Klaus Schwab- is that you.

 

Do you have a car?

The only city in this country where you can probably get on with your life without a car is London. Until places put in proper functioning and reliable public transport systems then cars should and will continue to be the best option. I drive approx 35/40k miles a year for work these days down from 50k pre covid. I use trains if I'm going to London, Newcastle or Edinburgh as it's pretty easy and convenient with LNER. But the only days I ever seem to have problems is the days I choose to take the train...

Planes I also can't avoid for business travel.

 

LNER have been a bit more reliable of late and long may it continue.The linking up to their East coast stations is a different matter entirely? Travelling from Hull to York can be hit and miss at the best of times and these trains are frequently late or cancelled .

It's taken me in excess of 8 hours to get from Hull to Cumbernauld on several occasions over the last couple of seasons and I'm having serious doubts at my age whether it's worth the stress anymore...

 

Yes I have a car.

I completely agree with you and Ric that we need our public transport infrastructure to be much better. That was a big part of my point. When I said some parts of the world do it well, that's what they do, they invest in public transport and make walking and cycling more attractive too. We don't. We prioritise cars and we worry about the effects of costs to car drivers as if that is the priority. It shouldn't be, and until we change that we'll continue to spend half our lives sat miserably in cars complaining about the traffic and the roadworks, and occasionally killing each other with them.

 

Your strawman is that the environmentalists are the ones finding solutions. They are offering suggestions that can actually be more harmful for certain aspects of the criteria.

In some respects, cleaner combustion of fossil fuels, or fossil fuel alternatives is better for health, the climate and the economy.

As one example, part of the reason wave and underwater turbines are not utilised much, as they don't work that well, and not for very long due to the environment they're operating in, and they harm the aquatic eco system.

 

Here is the scientific study that the article was based on.

https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/105549

 

Cheers I'll have a read of that later on

 

Ok in theory it's a great idea, in real life though, let's take Hull as an example... How is this implemented? How is it funded and where does this mass public transport system go? Hull like many many other cities just aren't designed to have these kind of public transport systems and don't have the room to implement them in a way that will bring any real positive effects

 

In an ideal world that would be the prefer thing, but I fear if we do stop any further product of oil and gas, unless we go Nuclear, in a relative short space of time how can we generate enough energy etc? The likelihood is we have to import it, whilst we have it on our own doorstep because I don't believe we can fill the gap quickly.

 

Really it doesn't matter what you or I believe can be done. Scientists can figure all that out. If they say "sorry it just can't be done, there's no feasible way to go greener" then fair enough. I think we all know that's not the case though, so it's a question of political will and public sentiment.