Pre-Budget Report

[biffvernon]

A fullish train carries people (or freight) with less CO2 emmission per passenger mile than other transport (bicycles, wheelbarrows and sedan chairs excepted). The trouble is that our market prices trains higher than cars and planes but it is an imperfect market. It does not take into account the 'externalities' of environmental cost. If cars and planes had to pay for the damage they do in terms of global climate change and resource depletion they would be far too expensive to use.

Let's face it, people generally do what's easiest and most convenient, and why should they be coerced into something else? Government should be addressing the wants and needs of people, not telling them what to do all the time.

No, government should not be pandering to the short term and uninformed 'wants' of the people but should be coerceing them into behaviour that allows long term sustainable survival on this planet - it's the only one we've got. We employ government to save us from ourselves and it is our responsibility to allow and enable governmnent to do it's job, rather than vote them out of office if they try to do the right thing.

Hence:

A key aim of government intervention is to encourage behavioural change, particularly with regard to the use of energy

 

[biffvernon]

I was surprised to see that fuel had been increased by 1.25p per litre in the budget and by 1.6p per litre at our local pumps!!

'T lad has produced an explanation:Fuel duty and the effect of oil prices on the UK economy

 

[Penners]

We employ government to save us from ourselves and it is our responsibility to allow and enable governmnent to do it's job, rather than vote them out of office if they try to do the right thing.

I entirely agree, Biff. But in order to decide whether or not to vote the government out, we have to define "the right thing".

At present they only seem to be proposing half of the Right-Thing equation: "green taxation". The other half should be to make honest use of the money that such taxation raises to provide a transport system which will give people a real, attractive alternative to the car.

OK - nothing will ever be as totally convenient as the car (or some similar form of personal transportation), but if this country had a fast, efficient, comfortable, comprehensive and cheap rail network (massively subsidised, of course, out of green taxation), perhaps combined with some kind of rentable low emission personal transportation at every railway station, then the government could justifiably start to introduce increasingly draconian "polluter pays" and ultimately "polluter punished" legislation.

I don't believe anything else will get people to stop using their cars.

 

[middi]

The canals and waterways should all be restored to their former glory, and proper horse power to get us about.

Not only they will become a necessity when all our fossils have run out, we would also prolong our existence as it would take too long to get at each other's throats. I can't immagine a few horses f*rts damaging the climate neither.

( apart from that, there would be a lot more choise as to where I could go fishing).

 

[Penners]

The canals and waterways should all be restored to their former glory, and proper horse power to get us about.

A wonderfully nostalgic idea, Middi, but I just can't see the 21st century sales rep being prepared to travel around the country at 3mph (without air conditioning, sat nav and a bluetooth mobile phone).

 

[Flyfisher]

A fullish train carries people (or freight) with less CO2 emmission per passenger mile than other transport (bicycles, wheelbarrows and sedan chairs excepted).

Maybe, but it's not much use if there isn't a full train of people who want to go from the particular A to B at the precise time that the train inflexibly offers. That's the problem with trains. It's similar to the complaint people make about car-driving commuters; of course it's a waste to have only one person per car, but it's also (mostly) too inconvenient to arrange lift-shares otherwise people would do it. Instead of trying to coerce people into a particular form of behaviour, why don't we try to recognise why people behave the way they do . . . it's not usually out of contrariness it's because it best suits them that way.

The trouble is that our market prices trains higher than cars and planes but it is an imperfect market. It does not take into account the 'externalities' of environmental cost. If cars and planes had to pay for the damage they do in terms of global climate change and resource depletion they would be far too expensive to use.

I don't have a problem with that, but I think you might well find that people simply choose to travel less (which might be a good thing) but still use the most convenient form when they do - usually the car. Anyway, what would you do about a half-full train or bus? Charge everyone twice as much or cancel it at the last minute? It's a difficult problem with no simple solution - if it was simple then even the politicians would have discovered it by now :wink:

No, government should not be pandering to the short term and uninformed 'wants' of the people but should be coerceing them into behaviour that allows long term sustainable survival on this planet - it's the only one we've got.

In that case they are failing miserably; they would need to become far more radical to achieve that and do you think it would win votes?

We employ government to save us from ourselves and it is our responsibility to allow and enable governmnent to do it's job, rather than vote them out of office if they try to do the right thing.

But who decides what "the right thing" actually is?

 

[Nemesis]

Newcastle (and Carlisle) to London - far easier by train than by car, believe me.

The hard part is getting to the station. Airports make it easy to drive there and park...

 

[Flyfisher]

The hard part is getting to the station. Airports make it easy to drive there and park...

Yep, railways are generally hopeless in this (and other) respects.

I go salmon fishing on the scottish Dee near Aberdeen. I used to share the driving with a friend and it took about 10 hours. Train wasn't a lot quicker. Nowadays I fly because it takes 55 mins and the last trip cost me £10 to go there and £31 to return. Not a difficult decision is it?

I understand that the carbon/tax situation for road/rail/air is not a level playing field but even if it was, what about all that infrastructure and embedded energy needed to support 500 miles of railway system compared with a couple of miles of runway and an airport terminal?

 

[Nemesis]

The rail infrastructure is already in place ... and has been for quite some time. I actually love trains and railways and stations though. We have wonderful historic stations and we should use them!

I don't find railways hopeless in general - and I won't fly and add to airport expansion. Those sort of prices really aren't very sustainable.

Making parking a little easier and more secure around railway stations would help I think.

 

[Tom]

Funny how we normally use 'dinosaur' in a derogatory sense even though they lasted 350 million years without screwing up the planet and would probably still be here if not for a bit of bad luck with an asteroid. How long has it taken us to be on the brink of disaster? 10,000 years?

Flyfisher, I thought you might be interested in this. It's from a Greenpeace leaflet and puts things well into perspective, I think. By the way, I have to agree with everything else you said in your post

Jaqy



From Greenpeace

Planet Earth

Planet Earth is 4,600 million years old


If we condense this inconceivable time-span into an understandable concept, we can liken Earth to a person of 46 years of age.

Nothing is known about the first 7 years of this person’s life, and whilst only scattered information exists about the middle span, we know that only at the age of 40 did the Earth begin to flower.

Dinosaurs and the great reptiles did not appear until one year ago, when the planet was 45. Mammals arrived only 8 months ago; in the middle of last week man-like apes evolved into ape-like men, and at the weekend the last ice-age enveloped the Earth.

Modern man has been around for 4 hours. During the last hour, Man discovered agriculture. The industrial revolution began a minute ago.

During those sixty seconds of biological time, Modern Man has made a rubbish tip of paradise.

He has multiplied his numbers to plague proportions, caused the extinction of 500 species of animals and ransacked the planet for fuels. He now stands like a brutish infant, gloating over his meteoric rise to ascendancy, on the brink of the final mass extinction and of effectively destroying this oasis of life in the solar system.

 

[biffvernon]

but I just can't see the 21st century sales rep being prepared to travel around the country at 3mph (without air conditioning, sat nav and a bluetooth mobile phone).

Hey. I think you may be onto something there. Every cloud has it's silver lining.

 

[Flyfisher]

Flyfisher, I thought you might be interested in this. It's from a Greenpeace leaflet and puts things well into perspective, I think. By the way, I have to agree with everything else you said in your post

I think I've seen that before somewhere but didn't know Greenpeace was using it. I don't believe we'll destroy the planet though, just ourselves - or at least our current population levels and way of life.

Biff, I quite like railways too. I suspect it's a nostalgia thing born out of past memories of my Grandfather taking me to see the Flying Scotsman at Kings Cross and watching the locomotives being moved around on the turntable at the Hornsey rail depot.

I think nostalgia is part of the problem and it seems to get in the way of rational decision-making. I'm sure railways were amazing in their heyday, before cars and planes were well developed and it was economic to employ thousands of staff to run and maintain the rail network. But I suspect they've had their day. Cars and planes are simply a better transport solution for the world we live in - they must be or people wouldn't favour them. I accept they may not be sustainable but I also suspect very little of our current society actually is.

There are simply too many people living on the borrowed time of fossil fuels and I see little action being taken to figure out how to we're going to survive without them, just a lot of political posturing and tinkering. I suspect that people who think they know the answers don't actually understand the problems.

 

[Penners]

but I just can't see the 21st century sales rep being prepared to travel around the country at 3mph (without air conditioning, sat nav and a bluetooth mobile phone).

Hey. I think you may be onto something there. Every cloud has it's silver lining.

So you think this would sound the death-knell of the sales rep?

We all have our impossible dreams.

 

[Nemesis]

Try driving from Northumberland and into central London - and you will see why the train is a much better bet.

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/maps.html

 

[biffvernon]

In the grand scheme of things, I think it might be better, Flyfisher, if you renamed yourself Coarseangler, and found yourself a pleasant Norfolk dyke bank. They say pike can be quite good to eat. Some of the best period properties have their own carp ponds.

 

[Flyfisher]

Try driving from Northumberland and into central London - and you will see why the train is a much better bet.

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/maps.html

Of course there will always be examples where the train will be more convenient than the car. A day-trip for a business meeting where the station is within walking distance of the meeting venue might be one example. But how about a family of four from rural Northumberland travelling to London to see the in-laws for Christmas complete with overnight luggage, assorted pressies and general kiddie stuff like pushchairs etc? No contest really

I'm not sure how this relates to the STN airport expansion, although I know the area very well as we stand to lose our modest shoot if it goes ahead. I wonder how much land the railways take up though?

 

[Flyfisher]

In the grand scheme of things, I think it might be better, Flyfisher, if you renamed yourself Coarseangler, and found yourself a pleasant Norfolk dyke bank. They say pike can be quite good to eat. Some of the best period properties have their own carp ponds.

My apologies for labouring the point, but it's something I feel very strongly about and none of the 'quick fixes' I've ever read about seem to get anywhere near solving the real problems H.sapiens is facing. I shall try to restrain myself in future.

On a lighter note, a recent EDP issue carried a story about Eastern European immigrants taking coarse fish for the pot, which is of course illegal in the UK. Seems that carp is a festive delicacy in at least one country (can't remember which one; might have been Czech Rep). Apparently the EA fisheries officers are keeping a close watch on the matter and are prepared to proscecute where appropriate.

 

[NT]

Toby:

> Green issues are the preserve of the richer well
> educated, mostly, which is the only reason polititians
> are tinkering at the edges.

This is a popular myth. Reality is there are people designing energy systems with good payback. The reason politicians are tinkering is theyre advised by fools calling themselves experts. There might or might not also be a wish not to upset energy suppliers, whose companies and employees count for a lot of votes.


There is really no reason for us to give up most of what we're used to. Cutting way back is one option, but a pretty poor one. A lot more sensible is going for efficiency. This is being done in some areas, but in many its the same old waste culture and frivolous purchasing driven by senseless ads, lack of appropriate education and the desire for social positioning.


> a lot of the measures like wind or solar power
> actually cost more in energy to make and maintain than
> they give out.

Not really. Dg is the only one I can think of that may be in that category.


> Look at us, on the net!!! my computer and screen are
> using energy, so does PPUK server, so does bt
> server... 15 years ago we couldnt communicate like
> this and look how much energy would have been saved.

Really this is missing the point. Internet is a major vehicle for education today, it is steadily transforming our society. It is because of the internet that people are gtting to understand this climate issue properly, instead of just following the shallow stuff on the tv news. It is because of the internet that the public gets informed and moves toward genuine solutions, rather than silly measures. It is because of the internet that people can gather lots of information and come up with better designs, more energy efficient and resource efficient goods. It is because of the internet that this problem will be solved.

Education takes energy of course, but the net is the most efficient form of education I've ever seen.

Re energy use of pcs now, laptops are coming down in price, and it wont be too long before there isnt really a good case for buying a desktop any more. Laptops are highly energy efficient. Just reading a book uses more electricity than a laptop.

The net is one thing thats making a lot of the solutions happen.


NT

 

[NT]

Biff:
> A fullish train carries people (or freight) with less > CO2 emmission per passenger mile than other transport

I dont think thats a useful comparison. The reason you get this appearance of efficiency is that you've got one vehicle moving hundreds of people. But when that happens, it is inevitable that the vehicle will not take them from door to door, IOW there is more of the journey still to do at both ends. If you want a realistic comparison you need to compare taxi + train + taxi with car and bus transport.

There is the other aspect of trains, that due to the fact that they cant take us from A to B, a great deal of productive manhours are lost in the slow train system. Thats anything but efficiency, and people recognise that, its one of the reasons most tend not to use them.


NT

 

[NT]

Biff:

> No, government should not be pandering to the short
> term and uninformed 'wants' of the people but should
> be coerceing them into behaviour that allows long term
> sustainable survival on this planet

What a scary thought! A government so inept and idiotic it introduced pathfinder, part p and assorted other moronic policies should coerce us to its way of thinking!


> We employ government to save us from ourselves and it
> is our responsibility to allow and enable governmnent
> to do it's job

All I can say is youve got a VERY different idea of government to mine.


NT