A non-binding commitment that tells industry “in ten years you folks will need to be in a position to switch to a technology which is already reasonably viable so better get scaling” is a pretty milquetoast effort, and describing it as “climate hysterics” is obvious nonsense. This general plan of banning new sales by 2030 seems to be emerging as a bit of a consensus in different countries, and it looks like a pretty necessary step.
You should be much more worried about this problem than you are, and this worry should translate into pressure on all governments globally to build credible plans for decarbonisation. Those plans should include the use of global trade measures to influence countries who aren’t meeting decarbonisation targets. Continuing to put off essential measures achieves little other than making them vastly more economically damaging when they are implemented later.
Also, and again I know this is a sensitive area so I understand why you are coming across this way, but comments like 'you should be much more worried about this problem than you are' are unnecessary and divisive.
I am extremely worried about climate change. That is why I am concerned by extreme 'all or nothing' impractical approaches that will simply achieve nothing. I prefer something to nothing.
>in ten years you folks will need to be in a position to switch to a technology which is already reasonably viable so better get scaling
Do you consider needing to upgrade 400,000 substations and installing charge points along ~200,000km of roads within 10-20 years reasonably viable?
My whole issue with this is not that we should take NO action, it's that for any action taken we should either:
a. Speak honestly about the actual efforts required to make it happen and then take that action (e.g. start the substation upgrade, start installing the chargers), b. Take more practical action that requires less drastic work.
The option being touted is:
c. Ban non-electric cars by 2030 and hybrids by 2035, say absolutely nothing about the VAST £100's of billions required investment to make that feasible, feel good and move on.
Do you think option c is more or less likely to result in anything changing? I think this requirement is likely to just get rolled back and ignored.
"translate into pressure on all governments globally to build credible plans for decarbonisation"
I actually agree with this, but I don't think unrealistic plans that ignore actual costs are any kind of solution.
I absolutely do NOT advocate putting off addressing climate issues. I personally believe in taking as much of a global approach as possible (if China refuse to stop using dirty coal plants everywhere, economically divest from them for example), correctly counting the CO2 cost of e.g. electric cars/renewable energy from raw material to functional capacity, not just discounting all CO2/other nasty climate gases from production and taking as practical an approach as we can.
I am also a realist and realise that if a country was to go all in on what many deem necessary and suffers a colossal economic impact that'll likely discourage any other country from taking that or probably much action at all.
It's a hard problem that feels like it needs drastic immediate action but the problem is made harder from the fact that that is simply not possible, I'm sorry.
Those who truly are worried about this should be being as practical as possible in order to get as much change into the world as they can.
I think you take a commonly-seen approach that tends to argue that any even moderate efforts to deal with the problem are too extreme. I do not think the phrase you have repeatedly used - “all or nothing” – has any value, since it tends to define even relatively modest steps as “all”.
Do you consider needing to upgrade 400,000 substations and installing charge points along ~200,000km of roads within 10-20 years reasonably viable?
Yes.
My whole issue with this is not that we should take NO action, it's that for any action taken we should either:
In other words, you are probably advocating for a more extreme approach - that is, perhaps make these commitments legally binding and provide the infrastructure and planning to follow through on them. I completely agree with this, and that’s the point - this decision itself is pretty weak, and cannot credibly be called a “climate hysteria” response.
RE: Viability, I mean perhaps I worded that poorly - I think it's _possible_ to do it, I just think it will be exceptionally difficult (there are many roads that are not so simple to just dig up, huge HUGE disruption caused, etc. etc.) and require probably £100's of billions.
My issue is more that the govt have absolutely not addressed or even mentioned that, and many engaged in this debate won't accept that this is a requirement.
>I think you take a commonly-seen approach that tends to argue that any even moderate efforts to deal with the problem are too extreme. Not at all. I simply do not consider a multi-£100bn investment requiring basically every single residential street in Britain to be dug up and every single substation upgraded (not to mention other parts of the grid that will need upgrading) to be moderate and dislike when people talk about this govt action as if that isn't required.
Actually I would 100% advocate for only hybrids by 2030 (which the govt actually does advocate), but not a banning of hybrids by 2035 as it also advocates. Also more govt pressure to make hybrids considerably more efficient (they are already pretty impressive). Perhaps look at banning hybrids also by 2050? Or some reasonably practical timeframe.
I'd also want to start the program of increasing charging points and substation infrastructure but on a more reasonable timeframe, but be honest about it and get the ball rolling NOW, not in 2030. Something like 'every X streets must have at least Y charging points' could be a start. Practicality.
What I'd also want to look at is - more nuclear, more renewables, investigate means of reducing usage of flights, investment into public transport (outside of London it sucks big time, and more generally e.g. trains are the most expensive in Europe + also the least reliable), more advocacy for work from home, greater subsidies in decarbonisation, but more than anything using economic pressure in league with other countries to pressure (and also not only pressure but help via aid) highly polluting developing countries to reduce carbon output.
There is plenty that can be done, I just don't think hand waving + denial of costs will actually achieve anything. In fact I think it HARMS the climate change cause more than anything.
Are these not mostly proxy emissions for western countries? E.g. is it the case that people in these countries are emitting pollution due to their lifestyles, or is the pollution mostly from energy, transport and manufacturing in the pursuit of selling products to western countries?
>> During the covid19 situation we've seen the impact of shutting down parts of the economy on GDP. That naturally always translates into deaths
Is there any evidence of deaths attributable to shut downs so far? There’s over a million deaths worldwide due to covid, how many attributable to non-covid causes? E.g. suicide etc.
I believe we've also seen the impact of not locking down due to fretting over the economy, which is a longer lockdown further down the line because the health services got overwhelmed. Basically not locking down saved 4 months of economy at the expense of the next 2 years.
Good point but I think much of it could also be attributed to countries going through their own industrialisation processes and generating wealth (however that end product gets used). Are we to condemn them all to poverty? Much of China is still rather impoverished.
Also - are you suggesting we should shut down our economies in order that we don't produce anything in China for example? If not then _how_ they produce the power/do industry is in their hands not ours and it's an issue to address.
The big issue in China is the CCP have no reason to care or abide by any global rules on this (or follow the example of any goody 2-shoes western country). They have endless coal plants with very little CO2 mitigation and the corrupt/totalitarian nature of their govt makes it very difficult to have them improve on this.
>Is there any evidence of deaths attributable to shut downs so far? There’s over a million deaths worldwide due to covid, how many attributable to non-covid causes? E.g. suicide etc. There's a strong correlation between economic strife and deaths. I'm not going to get into the missed medical appointments etc. as that is not relevant here but that's a covid factor too.
Is that not just a misconception about how countries develop though?
See Andrew McAfee - More from Less.
E.g. we know that as a country’s manufacturing capability matures, it produces more product with less raw material and energy inputs. It’s somewhat counter intuitive though but the end result is the opposite of what you suggest - maturation of industry reduces emissions and reduces raw material consumption and it can be to such an extent that the amount of product produced increases- example, motor industry of America or Japan, example battery production industry of china. Raw material consumption and energy use went down, manufactured product went up. Andrew McAfee’s book has better examples than mine but these were the ones i looked into to try to disprove his argument.
>> The big issue in China is the CCP have no reason to care or abide by any global rules on this
Wait, the US emissions of co2 per capita is just over 16tonnes per year. Why is China who’s per capita emissions at just under 7tonnes per year the key to moving forward? The key is america but the political approach is always to use the metric of convenience- currently that is absolute volume since that paints china worse than the US, and yet it would be only fair that we adjust for population.
>> There's a strong correlation between economic strife and deaths
Sure, but can we quantify it? We need to figure out if we’re over-prioritising covid response. E.g. if there were 1mm excess deaths and only 25% were attributable to covid, that sounds like the cure is worse than the disease.
As it stands though, it appears almost 100% of excess deaths are attributable to covid, that suggests we need to keep focussing on preventing covid deaths rather than focussing on death ultimately caused by economic harm, correct?
RE: economic impact People have in fact quantified it but it's a big topic as you can imagine. I don't think it's hugely controversial to suggest that poverty results in poor health and the data is clear that poor countries tend to have significantly lower life expectancy and higher poor health outcomes.
I'm not going to digress into covid as that's a whole other conversation :)
Last time I checked exports were around 14% of Chinese emissions. Significant but domestic emissions are the majority. Repeating the proxy emission meme is quite disrespectful if you consider this context. i.e. you are saying that although the other 86% are domestic, their primary purpose is to support the export industry and therefore should be counted as export emissions as well. It's almost the same as saying Chinese citizens only exist for the sake of first world countries.
That is the opposite of what i’ve read so far but happy to be corrected. Is there any data you can point me to that supports your position?
Since you've ignored most of what I said there, let me reduce the surface area of the discussion and ask 1 thing:
Let's assume the UK does everything the climate 'activists' request of them, and this results in an economic depression and unprecedented unemployment and poverty - do you think this increases or decreases the likelihood of other countries following suit?
The sooner countries start to embrace it, the more they'll be able to economically benefit from the required changes that we're all facing.
If the UK (unilaterally) sets an example and does everything the climate activists request of them, but this results in economic depression and unprecedented unemployment and poverty, then no.
Not only will no single country in the rest of the world use their example, plenty will seek to take advantage of an environment in which the UK is rendered deeply uncompetitive, as countries tend to.
And if the constant allegations of climate movements’ funding and influence being manipulated by foreign powers beforehand were strong, they will evolve straight into legitimacy following an event like this.
Yes, you said:
>> The correct approach is a practical middle ground where we try to do what we can
Then provided no examples of what we can do, in your opinion.
This isn’t a problem that can be solved by right leaning politics, this is the right’s blind spot. You’ll need some creative lefty types to sort this out and then you’ll need some efficient righty types to come in a clean up what they’ve designed.
The solution to this is not in the past, it is not doing something we already do in a better way (politics of the right), it is of a new paradigm (politics of the left).
You are also glossing over the consequences of an extreme response to climate change - an honest discussion talks about the cost as well as the benefits of any action taken.
The "all or nothing" approach is likely to get you nothing because in democratic countries when you take actions that result in severe economic consequences, people will just vote in a govt that reverses it. It also sends a signal to all other countries who were considering such action not to do it.
It's not an easy problem this, and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but to me doing SOMETHING that is likely to be acceptable to democratic countries is better than doing nothing and souring the whole thing for ordinary people.
If you're the type of person who believes they're saving humanity, you naturally don't fret over details like what do people want, or some rational cost/benefit analysis. You know better. The axioms are set and indisputable.
Barnacled, you're quite articulate and reasoned in this thread, but I doubt you're changing anybody's mind.
And FYI, the same type of personality also likes to compile "lists of ideological opponents". It's an old book played a hundred times before, so it's good to be aware of that.
I really regret the emergence of figures like Greta Thunberg, while heralded as a great advocate for action against climate change I feel she has actually been more harmful than good - she advocates an extreme alarmist position, often referencing highly debated timelines ('follow the science' doesn't take into account scientific dissent) which of course if/when they don't happen get ignored much like a doomsday cult.
It has resulted in this "if you're not perpetually panicking you're an anti-scientific climate denialist" mentality which I find really stymies actual practical discussion on the subject.
It's not helped by actual climate denialists pointing this out and thus tarring those like myself who absolutely believe in man-made climate change but who are pragmatists who realise the world is not quite so simplistic as good/evil and governments are not all-powerful gods who can magically change everything all at once.
I also think unfortunately there is a fair bit of anti-capitalism (the system that has lifted billions from poverty) that has snuck in, in the UK 'extinction rebellion' a very much Greta-esque protest group have openly advertised their views on this. Of course no comparison is made to other economic systems and their ecological track records...
It shouldn't be about ideals - 'we must cut carbon emissions to 0 no matter what', but rather 'what option is best in comparison to the consequences of another'.
Surely the “something” has to be impossible to achieve given your assertions (which i agree with) that there will be severe economic consequences.
The idea of some magical possibility where we all get to keep doing what we’re doing but climate change does away is impossible. There will be economic losers (and winners)
The cost to fix global warming only gets greater each year.
China buys more electric cars than all other countries.
But mostly it's long term vs short term.
I'd just make pollution illegal unless you paid to clean it up
None of what you proposed can be reasonably considered drastic action, so you're not really in disagreement with OP there.
Reducing emissions by 80% does help some but the problem is that global CO2 levels go down extremely slowly so that any human activity will always dwarf it. Given enough time you will still hit 4°C.
China is actuslly on track to exceed their Paris commitments, while US and Australia are not
That concerns me as to the validity of the Paris accord then. They also have 1/2 of the world's coal capacity and absolutely no plans to reduce that.
Their emissions are almost double that of the USA, if people are to advocate for extreme action surely it should start with them...
Firstly - any response to climate change that does not include China and really India and other emerging economies too is more or less useless. Why should we deny such countries the benefits of full industrialisation?
Secondly - while in some respects you are correct, looking at CO2 numbers some kind of drastic action seems to be required, it also leaves unanswered the question of 'at what cost'. During the covid19 situation we've seen the impact of shutting down parts of the economy on GDP. That naturally always translates into deaths, and the kind of economic impact such drastic action would entail would likely run into millions of deaths, many of them far away in poorer nations receiving less govt aid (as with covid!)
I think the whole 'nothing is enough the world will end!!' mentality does nothing but put those who are inclined to care into a state of deep depression and anxiety and those who are inclined to deny climate change into a better position to argue that the other side are being ridiculous. It does NOT help.
The correct approach is a practical middle ground where we try to do what we can.
In any case this govt response does somewhat epitomise the 'climate hysterics' mentality in that it is hugely impractical, ignores many questions of trade-offs and impact as if there were none to be answered and is unilateral enough to be meaningless in the wider global context.
Keep in mind that if one country decides to take drastic action which tanks its economy, do you think other countries are likely to follow suit or rather elect govts that entirely unwind all and any climate action?