[News] Climate change: Tax frequent fliers and get rid of SUVs, + California on fire.

[beorhthelm]

Why would you think they are mine to share? Scientists have been screaming about climate change and what causes it for ages. We have had the technology to reduce CO2 output for ages, but we have not bothered and, in fact, increased the output. Short-termism won.

confused, so is this secret tech? how do you know its there?

 

[portlock seagull]

Why would you think they are mine to share? Scientists have been screaming about climate change and what causes it for ages. We have had the technology to reduce CO2 output for ages, but we have not bothered and, in fact, increased the output. Short-termism won.

Indeed. And sadly concur.

 

[portlock seagull]

confused, so is this secret tech? how do you know its there?

Stop being difficult! You know the point being made is that we’ve known for decades what would happen and what to do about it. The political will and public appetite for sacrifice just ain’t there. Never has, never will be. Some of the ‘tech‘ is as simple as planting more trees. It’s not all sci-fi solutions. And I’m pretty sure if we invented a turn key one tomorrow, we’d still be arguing about the cost of development long after the final ice cap melted. Humanity will never reach a common consensus and a meaningful plan of action on such a gargantuan problem as global warming. I think that will always be wishful thinking as the evidence suggest to date.

 

[beorhthelm]

Erm....not sure if you are serious....

seems we'll never know.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

SUV's can do one, frivolous class of vehicle.

I bought a secondhand Volvo XC60 last year and sold my VW Passat estate.
Both are/were 2-wheel drive with 2-litre diesel engines but I was surprised to find out that the Volvo's annual road tax is just £30 compared to the VW's £190
Given that road tax is calculated based on fuel emissions I can only deduce that my Volvo SUV has significantly lower emissions than my VW estate car.
Please therefore explain in what way is the XC60 "more frivolous" than a Passat estate?
By the way, overall length, width and height are near identical, the estate was a few CM longer, the SUV a few CM higher, width nothing in it.

From a purely personal point of view, my age makes me bend less well so sliding onto the SUV seat rather than lowering myself into the estate means [for me] a much more comfortable driving experience - I do not see it as "frivolous" and would genuinely like to hear your views for why you think it is.

 

[portlock seagull]

I bought a secondhand Volvo XC60 last year and sold my VW Passat estate.
Both are/were 2-wheel drive with 2-litre diesel engines but I was surprised to find out that the Volvo's annual road tax is just £30 compared to the VW's £190
Given that road tax is calculated based on fuel emissions I can only deduce that my Volvo SUV has significantly lower emissions than my VW estate car.
Please therefore explain in what way is the XC60 "more frivolous" than a Passat estate?
By the way, overall length, width and height are near identical, the estate was a few CM longer, the SUV a few CM higher, width nothing in it.

From a purely personal point of view, my age makes me bend less well so sliding onto the SUV seat rather than lowering myself into the estate means [for me] a much more comfortable driving experience - I do not see it as "frivolous" and would genuinely like to hear your views for why you think it is.

In fairness, Beo’s point was ‘on the whole‘. You’ve got a cleaner car than the last. Not because of size but because techs moved on. If you compared to an equivalent newish Smart car say though, it’s always going to be more polluting. That’s the general point. Which is true. As an aside, roads aren’t big enough in this country for SUVs, that’s why I dislike em. That and women can’t drive em

 

[BadFish]

Stop being difficult! You know the point being made is that we’ve known for decades what would happen and what to do about it. The political will and public appetite for sacrifice just ain’t there. Never has, never will be. Some of the ‘tech‘ is as simple as planting more trees. It’s not all sci-fi solutions. And I’m pretty sure if we invented a turn key one tomorrow, we’d still be arguing about the cost of development long after the final ice cap melted. Humanity will never reach a common consensus and a meaningful plan of action on such a gargantuan problem as global warming. I think that will always be wishful thinking as the evidence suggest to date.

I feel like we were getting close to consensus some years ago. Then the climate-denying movement gathered momentum and those who are inconvenienced by the need to change our ways were given something to hang their hats on and we took a step backwards.

Having said that I think that most people have a will to improve things, sadly though this will doesn't have a high enough priority at the ballot box. Economy, Brexit (in UK's case) possibly immigration and law and order all seem to be higher priorities for people when voting.

As has been mentioned the solutions are out there and available.

I believe that the film '2040' deals with this although I haven't got around to watching it yet.

 

[beorhthelm]

I suppose you have never heard of electric cars, wind farms, solar panels etc etc?

all in wide use, so not really gathering dust. weird.

 

[beorhthelm]

I bought a secondhand Volvo XC60 last year and sold my VW Passat estate.
Both are/were 2-wheel drive with 2-litre diesel engines but I was surprised to find out that the Volvo's annual road tax is just £30 compared to the VW's £190
Given that road tax is calculated based on fuel emissions I can only deduce that my Volvo SUV has significantly lower emissions than my VW estate car.
Please therefore explain in what way is the XC60 "more frivolous" than a Passat estate?
By the way, overall length, width and height are near identical, the estate was a few CM longer, the SUV a few CM higher, width nothing in it.

From a purely personal point of view, my age makes me bend less well so sliding onto the SUV seat rather than lowering myself into the estate means [for me] a much more comfortable driving experience - I do not see it as "frivolous" and would genuinely like to hear your views for why you think it is.

whats a "SUV" for? its not an offroader, nor an estate, just bigger than typcial cars with out purpose.

 

[rogersix]

A frequent flyer tax, phasing out polluting SUVs and restricting cars in city centres are among climate change solutions suggested by members of the public.

A citizens' assembly of 108 people from all walks of life published its report after weeks of debate.

They proposed curbing road building and using the pandemic to cut emissions.

MPs said the report offered a "unique insight", but activists Extinction Rebellion said it didn't go far enough.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54087176


It pains me to include the full headline as this thread will be:-

'But Tubthumper flies everywhere'.
'Yes but I don't have any children'
'Here's a graph showing the damage you do in a plane'.
'But I travel by carbon neutral airlines and here's graph about childr.
'But...'
'But...'


Although in other considerably less dull news here's California :-

[tweet]1303909838376722432[/tweet]

View attachment 128197
.

every year the same, california and se oz ablaze. both removing vast volumes of water from the land, coincidence?

a bit more won't make any difference

 

[beorhthelm]

every year the same, california and se oz ablaze. both removing vast volumes of water from the land, coincidence?

a bit more won't make any difference

in Cali thats different areas, fire in mountian forests, water taken from valley floors.

 

[macbeth]

a good place to start would be just by making public transport more affordable. sorry but with the current state of the rail fares for the service provided, why wouldn't anyone want to get into a super-polluter SUV and drive instead of getting the train? you'll find it cheaper to fly to Spain than you would to take a long-distance train journey in the UK at the moment. this is a huge problem, particularly with the 'staycation' age now apparently here, via combination of covid and climate change. it wouldn't have a massive impact but if they want people to use their cars less, alternatives like this have to be made viable, at the moment they're not

 

[Music City Gull]

A frequent flyer tax, phasing out polluting SUVs and restricting cars in city centres are among climate change solutions suggested by members of the public.

A citizens' assembly of 108 people from all walks of life published its report after weeks of debate.

They proposed curbing road building and using the pandemic to cut emissions.

MPs said the report offered a "unique insight", but activists Extinction Rebellion said it didn't go far enough.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54087176


It pains me to include the full headline as this thread will be:-

'But Tubthumper flies everywhere'.
'Yes but I don't have any children'
'Here's a graph showing the damage you do in a plane'.
'But I travel by carbon neutral airlines and here's graph about children'.
'But...'
'But...'


Although in other considerably less dull news here's California :-

[tweet]1303909838376722432[/tweet]

View attachment 128197
.

Was really weird looking in Anaheim(SoCal) yesterday as well. This was the sky and then this was the ash on my windshield leaving work.

 

[rogersix]

California has a history of mega-droughts. These can be forty odd years and in very extreme cases, have been calculated as a couple of centuries. So, if we accept that California has a history of prolonged dry spells, why would Californians (who are meant to be enlightened, climate aware people) think it sensible to live in such vast numbers in an area which is virtually a desert?

Also, from what I’ve read, there are concerns that the restrictions on controlled burning leads to an accumulation of tinder, which means that the fires, when they get started, are more intense. Same problem happens in Australia - the law of unintended consequences.

It XR want to control CO2 emissions, they’ll need to ask those nice Chinese and Indian governments to stop building their coal powered generation plants - good luck with that.

If you look at the Paris accord and see the impact it has on projected CO2 growth (that’s assuming that countries stick to it - yeah, right....), it’s insignificant.

it's more to do with the water cycle

 

[rogersix]

in Cali thats different areas, fire in mountian forests, water taken from valley floors.

water table

 

[portlock seagull]

I feel like we were getting close to consensus some years ago. Then the climate-denying movement gathered momentum and those who are inconvenienced by the need to change our ways were given something to hang their hats on and we took a step backwards.

Having said that I think that most people have a will to improve things, sadly though this will doesn't have a high enough priority at the ballot box. Economy, Brexit (in UK's case) possibly immigration and law and order all seem to be higher priorities for people when voting.

As has been mentioned the solutions are out there and available.

I believe that the film '2040' deals with this although I haven't got around to watching it yet.

Not heard about that film, I’ll take a look. Cheers Badfish.

 

[BadFish]

Not heard about that film, I’ll take a look. Cheers Badfish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-rTQ443akE

I must get round to watching it

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

A frequent flyer tax, phasing out polluting SUVs and restricting cars in city centres are among climate change solutions suggested by members of the public.

A citizens' assembly of 108 people from all walks of life published its report after weeks of debate.

They proposed curbing road building and using the pandemic to cut emissions.

MPs said the report offered a "unique insight", but activists Extinction Rebellion said it didn't go far enough.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54087176


It pains me to include the full headline as this thread will be:-

'But Tubthumper flies everywhere'.
'Yes but I don't have any children'
'Here's a graph showing the damage you do in a plane'.
'But I travel by carbon neutral airlines and here's graph about children'.
'But...'
'But...'


Although in other considerably less dull news here's California :-

[tweet]1303909838376722432[/tweet]

View attachment 128197
.

Wise words

Don’t forget carbon NEGATIVE craft beer. Yes, negative; the more you drink the more you save the planet.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emanue...ally-the-first-carbon-negative-beer-business/

I shall be doing my bit by ploughing into a few of these tonight.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Yeah science is moving quickly and has done clean power ages ago. It is a shame the politicians and general public are a few decades behind the science though.

To a point I agree with you BUT this clean power isn't as straight forward as your post makes out. For example, let's take central heating. A vast majority of people have a gas boiler - really dirty for the environment. The alternative being suggested is a hydrogen boiler. All well and good but they aren't available yet. Even if they were available how would they be supplied. The idea is to start with is boilers that use 20% hydrogen mixed with 80% gas. Now it theoretically that can be delivered via the current gas infrastructure - problem being that it would mean all current gas only boilers would be inoperable. So it needs a whole new supply network ..... to every home. And what about people that can't afford to change to a hydrogen boiler ( once they are actually available ) ?

The ideal would to be to make people change their habits - the frequent flyer tax would be a good start ( just as long as there is no trading facility ). I'd like to see the government pull forward the ban on new diesel cars - maybe even not allow any new cars to have an engine bigger than 1.6l. A ban on SUVs is also a good idea. Charge supermarkets for excess packaging ( and Amazon ! ). Remove the tax break airlines have on fuel.

 

[yxee]

A really awkward issue is that the UK contributes only a small bit towards global heating, so if we go 100% carbon neutral are we just making our lives harder with no change in the end result? The best solution is international cooperation and it's so frustrating that this can't be achieved right now with buffoons in charge of other countries.

On the other hand it's an opportunity for UK industry to grow into green technology so maybe we should go full steam ahead to get a head start.