The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan

[biffvernon]

Over three quarters of the energy we use in our homes is for heating our rooms and water, most of which comes from gas-fired boilers. This accounts for 13% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, but by 2050 emissions from homes need to be almost zero.

From page 77 of the the report.

Almost zero! So, how are we going to do that?

(We really do have to do it. Let's not argue about that. The question is how?, not why?)

 

[Flyfisher]

OK, I'll bite. :wink:
I was half listening to a Milliband on the radio talking about this. If I heard correctly, the UK was the first country to set a 60% carbon reduction target some years ago, and now we're the first to set an 80% target; yet, the last I heard, we were struggling to meet the Kyoto targets and have only been managing a 1-2% reduction per year. And I think I recall Biff saying this was largly 'automatic' due to increased gas use compared to coal.

In other words, the Gov is talking a good story and setting an 80% target for 41 years hence is pure politics when none of those involved will be around to answer for the results. Having said that, 41 years is a pretty long time and a lot of new technology could come to our aid during that time. But zero-emission homes sounds like a very tough target. Still, that's politics.

Back in the real world, it will be almost impossible to reduce energy consumption in the home so the only solution will be to provide zero-emission (or very near) electricity for domestic heating and make it cheaper than the current alternatives so that people actually convert. So I guess that means a barrage across the Severn, wind turbines everywhere else and a bunch of new nuclear power stations.

I would have mentioned wood burners but they'll only work for a couple of years, after which there won't be a tree left in the land and wood will become a museum curiosity for the kids of 2050.

 

[Pford75]

According to this article http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=488471&in_page_id=2 people will be forced to take out loans to pay for the installation of double glazing and insulation

Mr Adams said householders who refused to take part in the scheme could face higher council tax rates and, when they sell, the threat of raised stamp duty which could put off prospective buyers.

In case you missed it....Mr Adams is from Knauf Insulation (no vested interest there then :evil: )

 

[Flyfisher]

For goodness sake! Why do 'government advisers' always seem to invent complex schemes to dictate how people must live their lives instead of just implementing some basic parameters and let people choose how to adapt to them.

So our fossil fuel usage is too high - fine, increase the tax on it and people will find a myriad number of ways to reduce their consumption of it. For some, DG will be the answer but others may choose long-johns and extra jumpers, converting to inherently green fuels, installing heat pumps, not centrally-heating unused rooms etc etc.

And, of course, this proposal will increase the pressure on period properties to have DG installed. Indeed, how long will it be before period property owners join the ranks 4x4 owners as 'destroyers of the planet' in the eyes of the popular media?

 

[Pford75]

Absolutely agree with you.

However, your argument presumes that the key objective is a reduction in fossil fuel usage and not increased tax revenue and profits for insulation companies (will be interesting to see if Mr Milliband were to accept a role with them after the next election)

I'm sure the demonisation of period property owners will come - it fits very nicely with the sterotype of the middle classes. I can imagine the Grauniad having a field day

"Selfish toffs refuse to insulate and save the planet" ....."National Trust = Natural Disaster" etc. etc.

 

[Pford75]

And much as others will disagree, in the interests of balance....I provide a link to a recent article by Dr David Evans

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/no_evidence.pdf

Evans challenges (in a reasonably balanced way....even if clearly a sceptic) the lack of empirical evidence of a link between CO2 and global warming.

I know some will be foaming at the mouth before they've even read the article, but for me, it did seem to raise some reasonable questions.

 

[Flyfisher]

However, your argument presumes that the key objective is a reduction in fossil fuel usage and not increased tax revenue and profits for insulation companies (will be interesting to see if Mr Milliband were to accept a role with them after the next election)

Well, I do try to suppress my naturally cynical disposition with all things political, but now you mention it . . .

 

[Hatster]

And much as others will disagree, in the interests of balance....I provide a link to a recent article by Dr David Evans

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/no_evidence.pdf

Evans challenges (in a reasonably balanced way....even if clearly a sceptic) the lack of empirical evidence of a link between CO2 and global warming.

As an academic, I'm all in favour of providing balance, and challenging accepted views.

Just a couple of general notes for reading scientific / academic publications though - it's always important to check where a piece is published, as this can tell you a lot about it's credibility. For example, is it published in a peer reviewed publication? If it's a book, was it reviewed before publication by peers? Can you find reviews of the book by subject experts in credible and relevant journals? Who is the author? Where does he / she work? What external roles does he / she play?

This piece is published by the Science and Public Policy Institute - do we know who they are, what their political links are, and where their funding comes from? Are they likely to benefit from publishing work with a specific bent?

If we're happy with the answers to these, then it's time to go on and read the arguments themselves.

 

[Pford75]

This piece is published by the Science and Public Policy Institute - do we know who they are, what their political links are, and where their funding comes from? Are they likely to benefit from publishing work with a specific bent?

I tend to use sourcewatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute which addresses some of the questions you rightly raise

 

[biffvernon]

The SPPI are a bunch of nutters. Move on please.

(We really do have to do it. Let's not argue about that. The question is how?, not why?)

 

[robgil]

when will food manufacturers simplify their packaging to reduce the products carbon footprint? when will people use smaller cars and not use land cruisers for the school run , or even school buses , or even dare i say it , walk? when will people stop using agas and the like that burn fuel needlessly? when will couples stop having more than two kids? when will we stop buying unnecessary , disposable crap from overseas where its easier to manufacture things?
all these things are easier said than done , but why wait until 2050? anyone here going to throw away their aga any time soon?
peoples attitudes need to change and until that happens our government will always implement silly taxes and rules and fines upon us.
but how can fines and taxes change peoples attitudes towards climate change? it just means that those who can afford it will continue their ways and those that cant will find a way anyway.
i think our government is being too soft to be fair.
i can still walk into a supermarket and buy lots of unnecessary crap , get handed a load of plastic bags to pack it in and load it into the back of my huge 4x4 for the 15 mile trip home.

what if supermarkets didn't hand out plastic bags? didn't have car parks and didn't sell products that are not really needed but are dressed up so people think they need them? people would be thoroughly peeved off i expect.
stop buying disposable crap i say , that will make a huge difference. for example, mrs robgil insists on using paper towels in the kitchen for everything , even ones pre soaked in detergent. what ever happened to good old, reusable cloths?

 

[Pford75]

when will food manufacturers simplify their packaging to reduce the products carbon footprint?

Some packaging increases shelf life or reduces damage in transit (both of which have a positive environmental impact)...it's not as simply as less packaging = good and more packaging = bad.

when will people use smaller cars and not use land cruisers for the school run , or even school buses , or even dare i say it , walk?

Some of us live in the countryside...not everyone lives in Islington. Our children's school is 4.8 miles and there is no bus service from our village. As for the choice of car - our Defender is now 14 years old and the total lifetime environmental footprint is lower than that of a newly manufactured car

when will couples stop having more than two kids?

When we become a facist state

I don't mean to sound harsh...but the world you describe sounds a bit like communist Russia, with the state telling people what they can/can't do, what we can buy, what business can provide and so on. It's not a future I (or most of the UK) would want to see

 

[Lime]

I'm not an Alarmist nor am I a Denier, I'm a Doubter.

I doubt claims that we can make any difference to what is happening to the World.
Quite simply on a local level, there are too many people being born elsewhere who will completely obliterate any world-saving actions I make.
So where is the difference to create an improvement?

I doubt anything is going to change Mankind's headlong rush into self-destruction.
Even the Alarmists do not like talking about over-population and have no solution to offer.
Yet remorselessly the world population grows, expanding into wilderness and the last strongholds of nature.
Our world is finite and we are near the finish of what we can pillage.

I doubt that mankind understands how the Earth "works".
My feelings are very strong on this issue.
I've seen and heard too many idiots in the past proclaiming understanding only to be proved wrong in their assertions.
At one time the world was flat and I would have been tortured or killed if I had said otherwise.
Then, more recently, there is the Ice Age that we should be in now.

I doubt that Man in general or Man in particular will make any difference whatsoever.

.... otherwise why do we believe it makes sense to travel long distances to work?
......or transport everyday items across the world unnecessarily?
We consume 34% of our total energy transporting people and things around in this country.
Does that make sense to you?
It does not make sense to me at all.... not if you believe in "saving the planet" that is!
Meanwhile the the Chinese and Indian populations all aspire to travel as we do.
Stupid or what?

 

[robgil]

when will food manufacturers simplify their packaging to reduce the products carbon footprint?

Some packaging increases shelf life or reduces damage in transit (both of which have a positive environmental impact)...it's not as simply as less packaging = good and more packaging = bad.

when will people use smaller cars and not use land cruisers for the school run , or even school buses , or even dare i say it , walk?

Some of us live in the countryside...not everyone lives in Islington. Our children's school is 4.8 miles and there is no bus service from our village. As for the choice of car - our Defender is now 14 years old and the total lifetime environmental footprint is lower than that of a newly manufactured car

when will couples stop having more than two kids?

When we become a facist state

I don't mean to sound harsh...but the world you describe sounds a bit like communist Russia, with the state telling people what they can/can't do, what we can buy, what business can provide and so on. It's not a future I (or most of the UK) would want to see

sainsburrys tomatoes get shipped (or used to get shipped , not sure if this is still the case) by lorries to Poland where they are packed and then shipped back. the tomatoes in question are one of the most tasteless variety's there is , its just that they are the only ones hardy enough to withstand the journey.

if the worlds natural resources are unable to sustain its population then there are too many people , granted it may not be such a huge problem in most countrys but it will happen if populations keep growing. the world isnt physically going to get any bigger.

i too have a landy , but its a toy and not an every day car , i too live in the country side but i dont need a 4x4 to do so , i am not a farmer. i also run my landy on 50 - 60% veg oil , it doubles its range on almost the same carbon foot print. i built it using mostly second hand parts and when it breaks down , if i can i use second hand parts to repair it.

our governments shouldn't really have to tell us what to do, we are not sheep , we cant rely on 'them' to sort out our lifestyles for us. does our government really have to tell us to bring our own bags to the supermarket? i firmly believe its the little things that will create change , and its up to the individual to implement those changes , don't buy tomatoes from sainsburrys for instance. :wink: jaimie oliver doesn't , he grows his.

 

[biffvernon]

>robgil:when will food manufacturers simplify their packaging to reduce the products carbon footprint?
My daughter's deli packages the food in paper or a biodegradeable corn-starch derived 'plastic' from Earthclear. It is an excellent material.

>when will people use smaller cars and not use land cruisers?
We've just bought a new car! Of course it's a Citroen C1. Uses less fuel than any other ordinary car, only £35 road tax and is a nice blue colour. I also have a small diesel van for my business. We need two vehicles since my wife has to travel a few miles to work most days.

>when will people stop using agas?
Never had one.

>when will couples stop having more than two kids?
I've only had two. Maybe what they do is as important as the number. Here's a film of t'lad recently, lecturing on the relationship between energy and climate change.http://vimeo.com/5594507

>when will we stop buying unnecessary,
Probably a bit guilty, but less than most folk I know. As Ghandi said, there is enough for everyone's need but not enough for everyone's greed.

>all these things are easier said than done,
Hmm, it's not so hard, and can make life better.

>but why wait until 2050? peoples attitudes need to change and until that happens our government will always implement silly...
Dead right. The trouble with democracy is that the government tends to follow rather than lead. It's up to us at the grass roots to make stuff happen. Thats what the Transition Initiatives are all about.

>i think our government is being too soft to be fair.
Indeed.

>what if supermarkets didn't hand out plastic bags?
12th September is Plastic Bag Free Day

>mrs robgil insists on using paper towels in the kitchen for everything,
Yes we have a bit of that but Mrs V also knits cotton dishcloths that are amazingly good. I was skeptical at first but they really do work. Very absobant, strong, longlasting washable...

There are solutions.

 

[robgil]

There are solutions.

there are indeed , for instance large city based company's hand out large , juicy company cars to entice prospective employees to come and work for them.
why not have a 'work from home' policy instead of a drive to work policy? cheaper , less environmental impact , happier work force (probably more productive) and you get to spend a lot more time with the wife and kids (it is a good thing , really) and you don't need to wear a suit and tie every day so even your clothes have a smaller carbon footprint , you could even do it naked if you wish.
:shock:

 

[Flyfisher]

(We really do have to do it. Let's not argue about that. The question is how?, not why?)

It's an interesting assumption that we have to do something. I'm not talking about denial, but has anyone ever considered polling people before forcing them to radically change their lifestyles? Suppose people would rather party now and deal with the consequences later? Irresponsible, perhaps, but what about choice? That's the trouble with freedom - people do what they like with it.

But I digress.

How will we do it? I'm inclined to think we won't. Mankind has not got a good record of solving even 'simple' global problems such as adequate food and medicine for all so why do we believe we're going to head off something rather less tangible? I suspect we'll carry on more or less as normal and just deal with any consequences as they arise. This won't be an explicit choice as such, more a consequence of human nature and the way the world works.

That doesn't mean nothing will be done, I'm sure many will dig out a string bag for their shopping instead of using plastic bags, grow a few vegetables, buy smaller cars even and feel contented that they are doing their bit without really being honest about the futility of such actions in the face of the wider global implications of 4 billion (and rising) people who expect their standards of living to rise up to at least equal our own privileged lives.

We're all addicted to the good life. Heck, many people smoke cigarettes in the full knowledge that there's a high chance it will shorten their lives. Against that sort of decision-making what's the likelihood of people worrying about the state of the climate by the end of the century?

 

[JoceAndChris]

Bravo. Beautifully put.

As far as I'm concerned my carbon footprint is when I accidentally step in a bit of ash in my Jimmy Choos. I fully intend to do nothing at all (excepting Robgils's idea of doing it naked, which sounds very sensible indeed).

 

[biffvernon]

Yeah you can take the negative attitude, saying it's all futile and it won't make any difference and we're all doomed/it's just a conspiracy. But that won't help you answer your grandchild's question, "What did you do when there was still a chance?"

By working together we can make a difference. We need to empower government to do the right thing and that means supporting those who are trying to go in the right direction.

Here's a start: it's Small Change, Big Difference Week, a campaign set up by the Local Government Association. Us Period Property folk tend to have contact with bits of local government from time to time. Take a look at their website, know what's going on, and take the opportunity to support and act when the occasion arises.
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=269299

 

[robgil]

you know perhaps human beings do need to be culled , but its very sad that we intend on taking the rest of the planet with us eh?
its easy to do nothing , but as biff said our children and their children wont really appreciate the fact that we sent them to perhaps an early grave simply because we chose to ignore the warnings in favour for our good life. perhaps we cant change things , but we can at least try. and we can still have a good life ,
i think part of the problem is people seem to think it will never happen , but its already happening, and to rely on the fact that the earth has warmed up before and we are all still here is a very big gamble indeed.