[Closed] Technology will save us all...

bump?

Yep. Come 2050 we'll no doubt have some ministerial tosser tell us that "we have to live with climate change just like we do with thunderstorms" and will encourage us all to buy clifftop or floodplain properties.

It must be absolutely brilliant to be the people making 30 year plans for governments that exist only on 5 year cycles, elected by a public that's largely driven by rolling news.

I guess this prediction relies on making jet fuel from cowturd and claiming a carbon offset from Ascension Island, or some such similar wheeze.

Cause the airliners aren't going to look much different.

Standard pile of crap from Government - what they've done is essentially put the entire onus of achieving this onto car manufacturers (and the people buying them) and industry so when the UK inevitably fails to achieve anything close to the targets, they can shrug their shoulders and go "well we thought industry would have stepped up by now..."

Every council in the country is busy justifying its pro-car status by claiming that "cars are moving to electric [therefore we can all keep building bypasses and car parks and out of town places]"

Not much on rail either, need to get some certainty on HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and the associated opening up of capacity on regional networks.

It's a way of washing their hands of the whole thing - what a massive disappointment.

Considering this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-5783380 7"> http://BBC News - EU unveils sweeping climate change plan https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57833807

Also had a press release today, I'm pretty sure that the paper was a little rushed. TBF although we don't have the tech now, if we carry on using jet fuel over the next 20yrs we may as well give up on turning climate change around.

Its the usual greenwash nonsense

the only way to do anything is to reduce energy consumption massively. that means no more cheap petrol and massive subsidy for cars,no more commutting to work, No more cheap jetfuel, no more uninsulated homes and an end to conspicuous consumption

We are beyond the tipping point anyway now - we maybe can delay catastrophic collapse but its coming. Most of the planet will be uninhabitable in 50 - 100 years. mass starvation will sort it out. We are in the latest mass extinction event. Its just like boiling a frog - most people have not noticed yet.

Are you telling me we won't have electric only hover vehicles by then, so I can nip over to Benidorm for a night out ?

We are beyond the tipping point anyway now – we maybe can delay catastrophic collapse but its coming. Most of the planet will be uninhabitable in 50 – 100 years. mass starvation will sort it out.

I think so too - I'm very pessimistic about the options from here on. The reality is that the current issues like the super-heatwave in western USA & Canada, the now-regular mass fires in Australia and California, the increased extreme weather events, the thawing of the Arctic and Siberia etc are all contributing to climate change too so one less flight a year isn't going to achieve much in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not saying "carry on as we are" but Government, to all intents and purposes, are. Safe in the knowledge that they'll have asset stripped the country and buggered off by the time it all comes crashing down.

I know its a joke fossy but electric vehicles do not help. Its still energy consumed both in moving them and in making them

I guess this prediction relies on making jet fuel from cowturd

Not far off. Sustainable Aviation Fuel - synthetic fuel that can be manufactured that produces less CO2. All the latest gen engines can run on an upto 50% blend today and more of it is being pumped into the global fuel network all the time and soon the very latest gen engines will be able to run on 100% SAF (test flights occurring as we speak).

Also the longer term trajectory for aircraft is more electric before we transition to full electric which is a very stretch target for fully electric aircraft before 2050. the best we can hope for are more electric aircraft, so something like hybrids for aircraft. So engines efficiency is compromised alot because you use the same machine to generate take off thrust and cruise thrust, so if you optimise the engine for cruise thrust, so they would be significantly more efficient, and have additional thrust provided by electric motors...or something along those lines powers by batteries that are charged up when aircraft are descending and engines running at idle and effectively windmilling...there are several different platforms and configurations employing varying degrees of electrical contribution. We might get to full electric for very short range routes and small aircraft, but they're pretty niche operations today, but might very well become more common going forward.

But we'll never have fully electric medium haul and long haul aircraft. But it matters not...aircraft today produce so little CO2 that if we decarbonised everything apart from aircraft (which is far easier to do) then we'd be well below the CO2 emissions required to achieve the 2050 goals. But Aviation will significantly reduce CO2 emissions by 2050 just with current and next generation gas turbines and continue beyond that anyway. there is a technology roadmap and significant investment going on today to realise it, and the investment is not all coming from governments, the aviation industry knows it has to be part of the solution and do its fair share to reduce carbon emissions. Engines are running on testbeds today...technology is being invented and developed today...real hardware. Real work. It's not a political stunt or empty promises from politicians.

But as I've said before on threads like this..the best thing we can do to reduce CO2 emissions long term and in a sustainable way is to drag countries and the remaining people currently in poverty, out of poverty. It's those in poverty that pollute the most and as people become richer they not only start to care about the environment and are able to do something about it and their nations become rich enough to do something about it. A longer term strategy for sure

We will have to "learn to live with it".

There is one Green MP.
The economy, and therefore your job/income/house/food/holiday/future, depend on growth at the expense of the planet.
Wildlife is going extinct.
We have gone past the point of return now.

Basically we are now passengers in a runaway train. In a couple of decades we can look back at this point as the best it ever got for humans.

If we drag people out of poverty - don't they all just end up buying big flat screen TV's and consume like we do - way too much ?

Engines are running on testbeds today…technology is being invented and developed today…real hardware.

And still greenwash
the only solution is to use less energy by not moving people and stuff around the planet as much. Any solution that does not acknowledge this is greenwash

Yup, agree with TJ and Trimix. Anyone choosing to have kids now really need to consider what you’re going to cause them to live through

I'm much more concerned by emissions from shipping than from planes.
https://www.ft.com/content/642b6b62-70ab-11e9-bf5c-6eeb837566c5
The global shipping lobby is very powerful.
Then consider the marine pollution they cause and the environmental damage caused by oil leaks - accidental and deliberate - and other incidents.
Low cost manufacturing is likely to be dominated by far eastern countries for the foreseeable future so global shipping will continue to expand.

So cargo will get moved from air transport to shipping. Shipping is in international waters, so its not anyone's responsibility.

But dont worry - we can all pay a tax to grow trees. Basically the cost of polluting will go up, but the polluting will not go down. Our appetite for consuming more will trump any price increase.

Look at the cost of fuel - I can remember when it was less than £1 for a gallon, now look at it. But we now drive more as we all have cars.

We have to lower the population, lower consumption and re-use stuff, not replace it with more stuff. That wont win votes however.

We seem to have got to the point where most of our incomes depend on us buying more stuff we dont actually need, but it keeps the money machine functioning at the expense of the planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/14/amazon-rainforest-now-emitting-more-co2-than-it-absorbs

Ha, we are totally buggered then.

To counter the negativity i do think technology will save us, the only issue is that it will cost us far more by doing it later than it will starting now.
Ultimately financial pressure will make it happen, polluting companies won't be able to get insurance or finance. A fair number of industries are making big changes and more will happen.
Admittedly some of the stuff today is greenwashing but there is a hell of a lot going on behind the headlines

Those industries making changes are chasing customers.

World population stats:
https://www.worldometers.info/

Births this year as at today: 74,498,167
Deaths this year as at today: 31,276,151

For Wobbliscott. I’m sure it’s all skewed propaganda by folks with an agenda.

Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

grahamt1980

How? the only way is to use less energy - like 80% less ie move people and stuff around the planet less

I'm not arguing that, the first thing in my mind is to get all electricity supplied using carbon neutral sources and in excess that way we can use the excess to power future technologies to hopefully reduce the carbon dioxide levels.
Sorry but i have to be hopeful while still being very concerned as i want my 6 year old and all other children to have a good life. I think it is possible as there is no other choice the only choice now is start paying now or pay even more in future

I’m not arguing that, the first thing in my mind is to get all electricity supplied using carbon neutral sources

No such thing. At best its low carbon.

Without major changes in Western lifestyules its fubar

I live a much greener life than many. I don't own a car, I have no children or pets, I rarely fly
Its still an unsustainable lifestyle

Perhaps covid might kill 90% of the humans on earth then we have a chance for the 10% left

Anyone choosing to have kids now really need to consider what you’re going to cause them to live through

Anyone POOR choosing to have kids now. Rich kids in the west (which is pretty much all of them) will be fine, a few more restrictions on travel, but they'll have a good life.

 

Anyone POOR choosing to have kids now. Rich kids in the west (which is pretty much all of them) will be fine, a few more restrictions on travel, but they’ll have a good life.

Not in 50 years time unless they live in gated compounds in the north. food and water will be in short supply. Aus, Much of the US and Iberia will become pretty much uninhabitable. Refugees from africa and asia will be traveling in billions to the north, Much coastal land will be undwerwater, storms and heatwaves kill regardless of how rich you are

I've seen this title doing the rounds now all over LinkedIn, at best it's disingenuous to what has been said, but also offers little in the way of a real path.

Technology will have to lead, but it must not be a single mind set of what that is. Simply saying no more combustion misses the point that we need to stop taking stuff out of the ground and use what we've already dug up. A number of proposals would lead to massive inequality as well as a major assault on the earth's resources. I've mentioned this before, but the interdependency of oil production is more deep routes than anyone gives credit to, simply banning combustion would lead to a lack of refining which leads to a lack of chemicals that are used in your everyday life. The major aim of industry as a whole is to replace fossil crude with a renewable version. This is happening, bit the economics of its success rely heavily on its acceptance to be used for fuel as well.

It's worth reading in both the DfT and EU fitfor55 articles that there are caveats on all of the milestones as even the ideological types can see a storm brewing!

The major aim of industry as a whole is to replace fossil crude with a renewable version.

Nonsense - they resist it has hard as they can. their only aim is to increase profits for shareholders.

It's not nonsense at all. Yes they have to make money, otherwise your pension would be worthless, but they need investment to go cleaner which is driven by policy.

I think some aspects of reduced travel would be tough to swallow for the young, including my young-ish self. Our parents enjoyed decades of multiple jaunts per year around the country and one or two abroad as they pleased. They had their fun, I haven't finished having mine, and younger people haven't started.

I'm struggling with the concept of growth based capitalism which relies on driving consumption, and not using the raw materials that are effectively the er..earths resources.

If you put 3 people on 2 acres of land they will 1. grow food 2. start to trade with each other 3. produce 3-9 children who have 9-27 children 4. deplete the resources they have then start fighting 5. create politics to justify getting rich while the rich ones starve the others through using their land 6. when that runs out start looking for ways to eek it out a bit longer 7. continue to multiply 8. they ground dries up and they all starve.

We are somewhere between 6 and 8 I think.

If we really cared about the survival of the planet or human race..rather than just us..we would voluntarily stop multiplying exponentially.

It’s not nonsense at all. Yes they have to make money, otherwise your pension would be worthless, but they need investment to go cleaner which is driven by policy.

The idea that companies are doing anything voluntarily to make a real difference is utterly absurd. give me one example that is not just greenwash

You will not be able to because the two are fundamentally incompatible and they will always chose profit over real efforts to reduce emissions

Its all just greenwash and window dressing.

One example. Just one please

I’m confused TJ.  post you quoted states it’s policy driven. So not voluntary.

Anyway, we’re all ****ed. Just one big Easter island now.

Look at the cost of fuel – I can remember when it was less than £1 for a gallon, now look at it. But we now drive more as we all have cars.

well yes, but think of how much that £1 was in ?1980 relative to other things then. The average weekly wage then was <£140 of those pounds. £508 in 2019. Fuel is similarly affordable as a proportion of wages

Where we are now is a result of more than no real change in fuel affordability. there has been consistency in government policy and economic shifts that have led to:

road building

Separation of workplace and living locations

more affordable vehicles

these work together to increase dependency on individual transport (ICE for many, electric & bikes for a few).

that dependency is not entirely a matter of personal choice but a consequence of many factors.

For some time, the main component in petrol & diesel prices has been regressive taxation. This was meant to increase year-on-year to make travelling and idling generate more revenue and provide a disincentive to overuse. But this has been at a flat rate for political reasons for a while. Understandable in some ways as folks and the road transport lobby get twitchy when fuel prices rise. Nonetheless, petrol and diesel are sufficiently cheap that they’re not a disincentive to travel.

cutting car and general road vehicle pollution would be a good step. Not so much for global pollution (due to the larger contribution from global shipping, manufacturing, etc), but certainly to improve local conditions.

The unfortunate problem is that while big fuel duty increases would directly influence consumption in time, regressive taxation affects those least able to afford it. I can’t think of a disincentive-driven way to reduce vehicle use that doesn’t take us to a greater division of haves and have-nots.

and that then gets back to the complex problem we have: we built a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. Breaking it may hurt. So the hurt gets pushed into the future and amplified.

pesky.

I’m confused TJ. post you quoted states it’s policy driven. So not voluntary.

sui was claiming companies are working hard to reduce emmissions. My point is its window dressing / greenwash. I read policy as "company policy" but even if it meant government policy the government policies are greenwash ie not intended to make a difference but intended to look like they are doing something

That being my view I wanted Sui to actually come up with some examples

The unfortunate problem is that while big fuel duty increases would directly influence consumption in time, regressive taxation affects those least able to afford it. I can’t think of a disincentive-driven way to reduce vehicle use that doesn’t take us to a greater division of haves and have-nots.

The have nots do not own cars. Take the thousands of pounds per car per years subsidy away and put it into public transport.

Cheap good public transport and expensive cars favour the have nots

On home energy again thats easy. cheap energy up to a certain point then expensive after that. The rich use far more energy

Its very simple to make the pollutter pay and to protect the poor.

What you really mean is that you do not want middle class folk to have to alter their unsustainable lifestyle

.we would voluntarily stop multiplying exponentially.

Oh dear that Malthusian chestnut again? Human population is not growing exponentially. And the growth rate is slowing. https://www.gapminder.org/answers/how-did-the-world-population-change/

the problem of ‘overpopulation’ is more economic than size-based.

Its very simple to make the polluter pay and to protect the poor

Correct.
But the decisions are made by (and for the benefit of) the rich. They’re hardly going to introduce any changes to make their own lives worse are they?
I agree 100% with what you’re saying, but i just don’t see any way out of it, the people who are making the decisions aren’t affected by rising prices, and they don’t GAS about the poor people (who would be massively affected by rising prices)

Technology's the problem. Alanis Morissette to the forum, please only post if your information is highly relevant, and please delete your funny cat gifs on the way.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06610-y

the problem of ‘overpopulation’ is more economic than size-based.

Its a question of food and water supply. These are finite and will fall as climate change worsens. US is already experiencing water shortages.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/13/hoover-dam-lake-mead-severe-drought-us-west