The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan

[worms]

Revive horse travel.

Nice idea, but we would have to cope with the fact that part of our increase in food production has been that land that previously fed horses was freed up for other crops. In 1920 England had 2m acres dedicated to oat production, which was down to 0.5m acres by 1970. In 1920 there were 1.2m farm horses in use and by 1970 they were largely all gone. It is difficult to get figures for grazing that was dedicated to horses before the days of the car and tractor, since this is simply listed as grazing (which includes land for cattle and sheep) but estimates are for up to a third of all our agricultural land being used for horses in the late 1800s.

There are ways to square the circle of land-need for food and transport in a post-oil economy, but that would be a whole new thread and topic.

 

[biffvernon]

Not sure who you think is imposing what on whom but I can't see much wrong with pursuing utopian goals.

Of course you do; you want everyone to stop burning fossil fuels.
Pursuit of utopian goals is fine, on an individual basis. The ethical dimension rears its ugly head when you wish to impose your utopian goals on others.

Yep I want everyone to stop burning coal... I also want everyone to stop fighting wars, allowing starvation, disease, lack of education...etc. I don't see where utopian goals and ethics have ugly heads.

 

[biffvernon]

Re the Chinese and showing our own moral leadership as an example. I must admit they don't seem to be following our lead on human rights, democracy, non-use of the death penalty, health and safety legislation, etc, etc, etc. Why would they follow our unilateral lead on scrapping coal-fired power stations?

Biff - do you really really honestly think that we can avert the effects of GW? Not a leading question - just wonder if folk really think that is possible (suspending the disbelief that humanity can act together for the greater good in sifficient time). Isn't the problem the latent effect of greenhouse gases (if they are the main cause of GW)?

Not defending the Chinese system for one nanosecond, but remember that Texas has a higher execution rate than China and their health and safety legislation is better than our was a few decades ago and they are catching up fast.

Do I think we can avert the effects of GW? That's actually quite complicated. There is already enough warming in the system and CO2 in the atmosphere to make some more global warming inevitable no matter what we do. If we stopped all fossil fuel burning this afternoon and forever we would still have a major adaptation problem to deal with. But we probably could deal with it without the complete loss of civilization. There is still a good chance (though not a certainty) that we have time to avert the worst case scenario - runaway global warming which would end civilization and possibly even our species. There is a complex interplay between the amount of fossil fuel that remains, our rate of its expoitation, and climate change. There is a great deal that is as yet unknown but we know enough to know that it is worth acting now. If you want to study the problem you might start with my son's recent talk in Dublin to Feasta: Net Energy, Energy Csenarios and Climate Change.

 

[CHRIS]

OK, here's a green suggestion from me which would not only please environmentalists and significantly improve our quality of life, but also be happily accepted by many.

Revive horse travel.

Just think of the pleasure of going into work on horseback. In the country, many of us could get off the roads pretty much entirely, in the cities, there would need to be horse lanes and perhaps a share-a-horse scheme. Email me Boris, I've got it all worked out. The car would not be eliminated, but greatly reduced.

You will soon have to pay a £10 congestion fee to cover the cost of sweeping up all the C£$%

 

[skier-hughes]

Why not use a bike?
Healthy, easy to park outside sainsburies and fitted with panniers can carry an awful lot of shopping, or get a trailer if you need to shop less.
I use one now for most of my local journies and it does't require feeding/stabling/brushing etc, just a quick oil, wash and check over now and then.

 

[Flyfisher]

Not sure who you think is imposing what on whom but I can't see much wrong with pursuing utopian goals.

Of course you do; you want everyone to stop burning fossil fuels.
Pursuit of utopian goals is fine, on an individual basis. The ethical dimension rears its ugly head when you wish to impose your utopian goals on others.

Yep I want everyone to stop burning coal...

So why say you're "not sure who you think is imposing what on whom"?

I also want everyone to stop fighting wars, allowing starvation, disease, lack of education...etc.

Laudable sentiments, of course. But these examples are of immediate benefit to those concerned and are likely to be unconditionally welcomed. Imposing a prohibition on burning coal, however, would be detrimental to most people and thus likely to be rejected, or at least resisted, by many. The ethical issue arises when people are forced to accept changes they don't want and therein lies the challenge for the 'green movement'; to influence the hearts and minds of people rather than just tell them they 'must' do something that will most likely have a detrimental effect on their current standard of living (in the case of the 'developed' world) or significantly limit the potential increase in their standard of living (in the case of the 'developing' world).

I don't see where utopian goals and ethics have ugly heads.

That's a bit worrying.

 

[biffvernon]

So why say you're "not sure who you think is imposing what on whom"?

Er, well, it's because I didn't know what you meant. I kinda assumed that you knew that I wasn't Master of the Universe, and so have no power to impose anything on anyone. Obviously if I was, I would ban coal burning this morning as the consequences of the economic disruption it would cause and short term catastrophic failure of power grids would be nothing as compared with runaway global warming. But I'm not, so we will continue to burn coal.

The best I can do is to join with the large and growing number of people who have realized that we really do have a very big problem, the biggest problem facing humankind since at least the last Ice Age, and do my best to to persuade others that burning coal is a very bad thing and should be stopped as soon as possible.

Global Warming is far and away the greatest threat to Period Properties. It might be more constructive to discuss just how we can adapt our houses and the lifestyles of those who live in them and to mitigate the risk.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Why not use a bike?
Healthy, easy to park outside sainsburies and fitted with panniers can carry an awful lot of shopping, or get a trailer if you need to shop less.
I use one now for most of my local journies and it does't require feeding/stabling/brushing etc, just a quick oil, wash and check over now and then.

Cycling is completely laudable and well done to you for making part of your healthy life! I applaud all the efforts in London to get people cycling too - it's healthy and it improves the city in so many ways.

Cycling, and walking, back to Beacon Cottage is only possible for the extremely energetic and fit however! (very steep hill and no proper road, and most times I return with half the contents of Wickes: fence posts, paint, scaffolding towers, etc etc) A horse would make mincemeat of this. You've heard of let the train take the strain, my campaign would be let the horse do the chores.

 

[Flyfisher]

I kinda assumed that you knew that I wasn't Master of the Universe, and so have no power to impose anything on anyone. Obviously if I was, I would ban coal burning this morning as the consequences of the economic disruption it would cause and short term catastrophic failure of power grids would be nothing as compared with runaway global warming. But I'm not, so we will continue to burn coal.

Sorry Biff, but I kinda assumed you knew I didn't mean to imply you were actually imposing things on others, merely that you wished to impose things. But you make an interesting defence and I'm surprised you see no ethical dimension to it. There are people being charged under anti-terrorism laws for conspiring to cause less disruption and harm than you wish to impose in the short-term in the cause of some future utopian belief.

 

[worms]

let the horse do the chores.

Very Good!

Let the steed do the deed?
Let the nag carry the bag?

 

[biffvernon]

I'm surprised you see no ethical dimension to it. There are people being charged under anti-terrorism laws for conspiring to cause less disruption and harm than you wish to impose in the short-term in the cause of some future utopian belief.

Eh? I thought it was me wot brought up the ethics bit. I think it unethical to burn coal. That's why there is a tonne of it sitting in my shed waiting for me to think of a creative use for it that ensures it will never be burnt. And that's why I support the brave folk who stopped a coal train heading towards Drax and a coal ship heading for Kingsnorth and those who weren't allowed to get near Radcliffe. It is heartening that I'm on the same side as James Hansen, Director of GISS, the leading climate monitoring organization, and frustrating that there are still people who do not accept the science.

Now Flyfisher, do let's move on and discuss adapting Period Properties for the 21st century. I'm making some double glazed windows for a 16th century mud and stud cottage today.

 

[JoceAndChris]

let the horse do the chores.

Very Good!

Let the steed do the deed?
Let the nag carry the bag?

:lol:

Oh, worms. It's you and me babe, joint directors of the Horse Marketing Board in 2030.

Don't burn fuel, get a mule.

 

[Flyfisher]

Eh? I thought it was me wot brought up the ethics bit. I think it unethical to burn coal.

Quite. But you don't think it's unethical to shut down the national grid regardless of the harm and suffering it would cause to people.

It is heartening that I'm on the same side as James Hansen, Director of GISS, the leading climate monitoring organization, and frustrating that there are still people who do not accept the science.

I'm not questioning the science. I'm questioning your right to use science as an excuse to impose, or wish to impose, significant and probably detrimental changes to the lives of millions of people without their consent. For example, what about the rights of millions of people who choose not to have children and for whom global warming is of little or no consequence?

 

[JoceAndChris]

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.

Why would I care if populations have been wiped out in 200 years time? We should live for now, for this moment. It's all we have.

 

[Roger H]

Why would I care if populations have been wiped out in 200 years time? We should live for now, for this moment. It's all we have.

Erm, because it's incredibly self centred to knowingly f#ck up the planet for populations as yet unborn?

 

[biffvernon]

Shutting down the grid is, of course, just hypothetical and it won't happen (well, not until the next time there's a cold snap at the same time as a gas shortage - but that's another story).

However, and purely hypothetically, we are balancing 'probably detrimental changes to the lives of millions of people without their consent' and the extinction of the human (and many other) species.

Is it ethical to do harm if by so doing a greater harm is prevemted?

(Don't answer that one, Joce, you appear to be without ethics - and I thought it was just the silverfish.)


Anyway, sod the ethics and the people of future generations, it's our period properties that count and mine will be washed away by the sea if we don't prevent global warming.

 

[Moo]

This has been a fascinating thread, but unfortunately both sides of the argument have been presented so well that I've been washed back into the 'don't know' pond.
However, just a few questions from one of the less clued-up brigade:

Just how much difference would it make to the global warming situation if GB were to reduce its carbon footprint from a size 10 to a size 5 - or even a size zero?
And if, as I suspect, it wouldn't have a huge effect (bearing in mind that we're such a little group of islands) would we be setting such a good example that the rest of the world would be shamed/inspired to follow our example?

And what about the rain forests, and the desertification of great chunks of land caused by clearance for agriculture?

I do try to do my bit, by re-using plastic bags and composting stuff with an almost manic intensity, and being very careful not to over-fill the kettle or to leave the water running when cleaning my teeth. And, of course, living in almost stygian gloom so as not to waste a scrap of the electric lighting uninhabited rooms. But then I walk into the city, bathed in light from street lamps and shop windows, and wonder why I'm bothering.

It's all very depressing, and one feels so helpless. Thank goodness for people like Biff.

And Joce - once upon a time I'd have agreed with your lighthearted remarks. But now I worry about it because I can't bear the thought of the world my children (and grandchildren, if only they'd get a move on) will be living in if something isn't done and it all goes pear-shaped. Motherhood** does funny things to the human brain.


** and, of course, fatherhood

 

[Penners]

Just how much difference would it make to the global warming situation if GB were to reduce its carbon footprint from a size 10 to a size 5 - or even a size zero? And...would we be setting such a good example that the rest of the world would be shamed/inspired to follow our example?

Questions that exactly mirror my own concerns, Moo. In a nutshell, what the hell difference are we able to make - individually or nationally?

But I suppose all we can do is try to work individually towards having the clearest possible conscience. After that, we're in the hands (God help us) of the world's politicians.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

But I suppose all we can do is try to work individually towards having the clearest possible conscience. After that, we're in the hands (God help us) of the world's politicians.

Which is precisely why we're screwed. And also why setting an example as a small (albeit punching above our weight) nation won't, in my view, bring the errant nations of the world to their collective senses. It's naive to think it will (no offence Biff, but I think my example of China and human rights, health & safety, etc still stands)

Far better in my view to continue to develop economically and technologically in preparation for the apparently inevitable conflict and consequences ahead. To my mind that is the only sensible solution if we are personalising this to my own children/grandchildren. Other grandchildren are not of significant genetic/cultural concern to me. Sorry if that is harsh - it's just the way it is.

It's all there in gaming theory - and altruism/self-sacrifice is rarely a successfuly strategy on an individual basis.

 

[JoceAndChris]

And Joce - once upon a time I'd have agreed with your lighthearted remarks. But now I worry about it because I can't bear the thought of the world my children (and grandchildren, if only they'd get a move on) will be living in if something isn't done and it all goes pear-shaped. Motherhood** does funny things to the human brain.


** and, of course, fatherhood

I love the fact you have the courage to say this publicly. (I also love the image I have of you running round in the night with banana skins). And Robin too. And I have the courage to say that it's precisely because I'm childless, and bitter about it, that I don't care much about the inhabitants of 2210.

Being told I have no ethics is a stupid, pointless thing to say - what does ethics mean exactly? There are people, animals and even things I'd suffer for, even die. Same goes for all of us I'm sure, the things that are dear to us are worth fighting for. That I'm not do-goody or dishonest enough to put the starving millions, the people of the future or silverfish in that list does not make me a murderer, or somehow evil.

It's all ego isn't it? Period properties, modern luxury, campaigning, charity work - people do what makes them feel good. Being a vociferous campaigner does not make you a better person than a binman, or a tycoon. It just means we have to listen to your shouting.