Great Western Coffee Shop

From Left Foot forward (https://leftfootforward.org/2021/01/climate-campaigners-should-block-road-building-not-hs2/)

I suspect the more committed campaigners such as these protest against environmental damage caused by road building, airport expansion and railway construction alike.

Whilst I can admire their commitment, their methods in this particular case are dangerous and moronic - others will have to put their lives at risk to extract them from the tunnels they've constructed should there be a collapse.

I was quite surprised that the author felt it necessary to emphasise his socialist credentials, but then I guess he is writing in "Left foot forward"! 

One thing that can be said for the Coffee Shop, a wide range of publications get cited - everything from the Morning Star to the Mail!  :)

I agree that road building and road "improvements" should be the target of the protesters rather than the relatively much less harmful rail projects.
There is a generaly held view among anti HS2 protesters that it is a "very expensive way for a few rich people to travel a bit quicker" and that the new line wont be available to "ordinary people"
Such views completly ignore the fact that the line is as much about capacity as speed, and that the existing route is full, at least in the southern parts. Moving the longer distance passengers to the new line will free up capacity for more freight and local passengers.

I also suspect that some protesters are opposed to anything innvolving building anything and that they are the latest re-incarnation of the various anti capitalist groups, stop the city groups, and the like.

SOME protesters are genuinely concerned at climate change, but others regard it as a means to an end which is to stop to stop capitalists building anything.

"Save Exmoor" from wind turbines.
"Save Goring gap" from those terrible mast things, AKA railway electrification.
"Save the Bristol Channel" from tidal energy schemes.
"Save our communities" from 5G masts that make children sick.

Why would you need to free up capacity for freight when only 50% of the allocated freight paths on the southern WCML are currently used?

The 'speed for rich people' argument may well be overstated by some anti-HS2 campaigners. However, pro-HS2 campaigners are not averse to overstating the supposed capacity constraints too.

https://citymonitor.ai/transport/no-high-speed-2-isn-t-really-about-capacity-3437

I'm not bothered by the environmental impact of building railway lines, where needed. But, I remain of the opinion that HS2 is an expensive vanity project, the benefits of which have be overstated by its supporters.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it applied to virtually every railway that was ever built in the UK.

If you look at the matter in terms of "vanity prohcts," Brunel was not averse to the odd vanity project such as the Great Eastern steamship, the Great Western Railway, the broad gauge, the Atmospheric railway and even Clifton Suspension bridge. Some were economic catastrophes virtually from the outset and some were found wanting with the benefit of hindsight or the vagaries of economics and history.

And how many small independent railways went bankrupt or were bought out by larger railways before they ever ran a train? I can think of a fair few.

Because we need a massive modal shift of freight from road to rail if we are to meet our climate change targets. 

I'm on the fence here:

• I think some areas of natural beauty (Exmoor may be one) should be protected from wind turbines, but am generally in favour of (aesthetically -designed) wind turbines
• I think the GWML electrification was terribly designed, and given the choice I may have campaigned for a very different design
• I think the main reason for decarbonisation comes from a moral duty to protect biodiversity, and as a result destroying large areas of important wildlife habitat to do so is counter-productive, so I am not in favour of a barrage but think other tidal projects (tidal stream turbines and possibly lagoons) should go ahead
• I can't see the point in 5G; it just seems to be a ruse to sell more 'stuff' - in this case phones - people already have phones so how do we make them buy more? I know, we'll launch a fancy new network so they need to buy a new phone to be able to use it, even though it just does much the same stuff as 4G (and 3G before that)

From what I've seen, there's a strong case for saying that Climate Campaigners should block road-building AND HS2. But certainly, they should not be objecting only to HS2; road-building is far worse. It appears that, once built, HS2 will contribute to the UK releasing a small amount less GHG each year than if HS2 didn't exist (whereas a road road would almost certainly lead to greater emissions). The problem is that constrution of HS2 will have a massive GHG impact which will never be offset, certainly not by 2050. I can't see a right answer here; we need HS2 to reduce transport emissions (think of it as the 'revenue budget' of carbon), but it will have a massive ('capital') impact on our carbon budget in the short term which appears to outway the 'revenue budget' saving.

So, we just carry on repeating the mistakes of the past?

Good answer  ;D

The point I was making, albeit as usual not very well in the first post on a subject, is that the only difference between someone proposing a vanity project and a visionary is in the perception of the commentator. It is one of that small selection of phrases that seeks to shut down debate by implying an absolute truth and only queried by those not sufficiently informed to the see the underlying wisdom. “Project Fear” is another good example.

I have no problem at all with any projects being criticised as long as those critics have facts to back up their position. There are certainly counter-arguments against HS2 but from the evidence I have seen suggests that the benefits outweigh them. Others will of course have their own opinions.

But to get back to “that phrase” can anyone tell me whose vanity project it is? Contenders may include David Cameron (although I suspect he’ll go down in history for something else...); Andrew Adonis who I doubt will get more than a footnote in history if mentioned at all; or perhaps the UK in general. If the latter is the case then the Japanese opened their first similar vanity project in 1964 and today the rest of Europe is covered in similar vanity projects.

So there are plenty of these vanity projects around. I wonder why all those other countries have not seen the light in the same way as a section of the UK population has? Clearly they are all out of step except us...

Here are some "counter arguments", which may well serve to back up the critics position.

1. The most recent independent reviews, using recognised BCR methodology, rank HS2 as a poor value project (IOG 2020)
2. The estimated cost is now well over £100 billion, over 3 times the original estimate, it is fair to assume that it will rise even higher.
3. There are strong suggestions that Parliament was misled over the true cost.
3. Public support for the project is falling - only roughly 25% are positive about it (YOUgov 2020)
4. It's already being re-scoped, which weakens the value case further.
5. It is likely that demand for Business travel by rail will fall considerably post COVID.
6. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (July 2020) have downgraded the likelihood of successful delivery to red, meaning "Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed."

I'd probably be a bit more supportive if building started in the North or even Scotland. At the moment it feels that whatever the benefits for freight and capacity its probably just going to suck more people into commuting into London. I also suspect some of the Northern bits won't ever happen.

As for 5G I think the challenges many people have had working from home with partners working as well and kids playing video games and watching 4K content do suggest that we need to invest in infrastructure. It would be nice if it was a bit more even though and I could get more than 1MB where I am in rural Wales. We've only just come in reach of 4G so 5G seems unlikely but I can see the argument for it.

One example in the media where I work is that we've been able to replace an outside broadcast truck with a people carrier and so on and eventually getting to the point where bonded SIMs in cameras are all that's needed for some situations. 5G only improves that.

 

As they did with Amazon when it was first launched.


Full disclosure time - I have owned a home adjacent to Exmoor for 15 years (and will do for three more weeks). It, and other wild places, should be protected from wind farms. You would struggle to get permission to build something the size of a garden shed on Exmoor, but a 300' tall structure with blades that occasionally turn set in many many tonnes of concrete seems worth asking for. Long before I bought my place, my opinion had changed from thinking what wonderful things wind turbines were to seeing them as a threat to the countryside, far outweighing any perceived benefit. I'm not entirely convinced that sticking them in the sea is entirely environmentally sound, too, but they cause fewer complaints, so carry on. I struggle to imagine what an aesthetically designed wind turbine would look like, but as Spike Milligan said "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - get it out with Optrex".

I'll skip the next two. The benefits of 5G are said to lie in the vastly greater ability to transmit information, giving rise to self-driving cars, smarter  use of energy, and a lot more things other than more cat videos on Facebook. It could be one of those changes that leaves us wondering how we ever managed before, but I am not that good at predicting the past, let alone the future.

We may not. In the timescale of HS2 there will be widespread use of battery HGVs.

In the same timescale, further renewable energy generation will come on stream, as well as mass storage technologies and V2G for said electricity. The UK's first battery storage site should be running by 2024 with capacity to release 640Mwh to the grid. Not a huge amount, but it is only the first of many such plants. Development of other storage technologies continues apace.

With eHGVs and electric buses and coaches taking to the roads in the next couple of decades the railways nationwide will have to adapt. £100bn+ (and rising) would go a long way toward greater OLE and battery electrification for the whole rail network. Rather that than spending it on one high speed line.

I think the UK has missed the boat on high speed rail. It is something we should have been persuing decades ago. Plus, we don't have the greater distances to travel by rail that other countries with established high speed rail services have. Line speed and rolling stock upgrading of the ECML and WCML should have continued.

So, the only reason I can think of for having HS2 now, is to say we have HS2. Vanity.

Whilst very aware that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, aren't we drifting here? This topic is specifically about the merits of protesting against road building as opposed to HS2. For the purposes of keeping things together, isn't this thread:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5138.msg301174#msg301174

a better place for the pros and cons of HS2?

I agree. It is worth discussing traffic generally in this context though, because even a lorry powered by fairy dust would still need a road. Someone has to decide whether we ship goods around the country in lorries 30 tonnes at a time, or by rail at many times that rate. It would also be relevant to think that when all road traffic is free of noxious exhaust fumes, we may find it easier to quantify the harm being done by brake and tyre particulate matter in the atmosphere.

I can see the benefits of investing in digital infrastructure. As you say, home working and schooling is much easier if you have high-quality broadband infrustructure, and indeed may not be practical without such infrustructure. Living in rural Wales myself, for years we were stuck with around 500kbps at best; then the national fibre rollout reached us and it has made a hell of a difference (they must have installed at least a mile of fibre optic cable for just two houses!) But I do almost all my computing at home/work; I don't see the need for similar connectivity on-the-go (although I must admit your outside broadcast scenario is one I didn't think of) and doesn't 4G offer a reasonable speed - would rolling that out more widely be more helpful than 5G?

Batteries are still heavy and the manufacturing process (eg. sourcing the minerals required) isn't exactly zero-carbon. eHGVs may be better than burning fossil fuels but not as energy efficeint as an electric railway (although I suppose we don't know the carbon cost of manufacturing the steel for the OHLE).

There is still a limit to the capacity that you can get out of a railway; no matter how much we upgrade the ECML and WCML eventually we will hit that ceiling and either have to build a new railway or continue transporting things by road. So capacity still remains a valid reason for building HS2, my question is whether that outways the equally valid reasons not to build HS2.

There is a Gaia Wind 11kW Wind Turbine under 200 metres from our house. This is a fairly small wind turbine, and a Google image search for 'Gaia Wind' should give you some idea of how it looks. The Gaia wind turbine is available with a tube-type tower and a lattice type. In my opinion, the one near me (which has the tube-type tower) isn't far off my idea of an 'aesthetically designed' wind turbine - the lattice one is rather ugly in comparison. The only change I would make to the tube-tower version to make it fully 'aesthetically designed' would be to add a third blade, making it look more like the larger turbines found on wind farms (not that I agree with the design of some of those, the shape of the generator housing offends the eye with some of them).

There are areas where I think there are now too many wind turbines, and others which I think should be protected from them completely, but I think there is scope for a few more in other areas, provided they are all 'aesthetically designed' ones.

Re the above, when I read Tony’s post about wind turbines I was reminded of my days as a kid in the early 60s taking a dim view about all the electricity pylons that were springing up in South Gloucestershire, presumably linked to the then new power stations at Berkeley and Oldbury.

Everybody has got used to them after all these years and I suspect that electricity supply coverage (let alone broadband rollout) would be far less today if the country hadn’t invested in them at the time.

Times change and sometimes one’s only choice is Hobson’s...

There are nine 2 MW models not too far from my other place, although happily far enough to be of little personal intrusion. Two villages closer to the site are not so fortunate, and have a much better view of the 60m tall towers surmounted by a nascelle the size of a bus and blades weighing several tonnes apiece. That is despite being formed of fibreglass coated balsa wood, the latter being a commodity that is causing lots of problems elsewhere in the world.  They seem a good idea to people living in cities, where there aren't any. On the occasions when they actually turn, it is at a price greater than the subsidy paid for the last tranche of North Sea wind power. There are no local jobs, and the profits go back to Germany. The planning process took seven years, with the decisions of the local authorities being overruled at a public inquiry. Build any new ones in the North Sea - Exmoor is more aesthetically designed without them.


Pylons are changing following a design competition a few years ago. I think the first new ones in our neck of the woods will be from Hinkley towards the Mendips, where I noticed last time I was allowed out that work seems to have started on the underground section. Quite a few of the existing lattice pylons will be superseded as the HV transmission lines are upgraded. It's odd to think that the "traditional" pylons were the result of a design competition too, all those years ago. Pylons differ from wind turbines in that, with a few notable exceptions, they are a lot shorter, and if they do move, it is generally only once, and in a downward direction.

WHAT! STILL USING LATTICE TOWERS!!

I went to a conference on the impact of renewable energy installations on wildlife, particularly birds as long ago as 2002. At this time the impact of wind power turbines was becoming clear as a result of about 20 years' experience, particularly in the south of Spain around Tarifa and in some sites in the US.

There were two take home messages of lessons learned so far. One was do not put lines of turbines along the tops of ridges and cliffs that attract dynamically soaring birds that take advantage of upward air currents as many fall victim to turbine blades. The second was that lattice towers are an absolute no-no, because sadly birds have a bad habit of perching on the lattice work then launching themselves into flight straight into the path of a fast turning turbine blade. The turbine blade always comes off best.

Having visited the Tarifa area a few times since I have noticed that none of the newer turbines are on lattices (indeed I don't think that I have seen any lattice towers on turbines any where else in Europe other than the older ones in that area - the last time I was there many of these were derelict). So it's concerning that someone is again building turbine towers to a design discredited about 20 years ago.

Bit of a divergence but to answer the question. It would help in terms of geographical coverage. Covering a story near me in Carmarthenshire would probably still need a truck and VSAT. 5G should in theory be cheaper as only one SIM and also give you a faster up and down speed which makes editing in the cloud easier as well as live broadcasts. the bonded SIMs are just on the edge of being acceptable and not always reliable. In many areas contention is still an issue especially if you're covering a big event.

The other big challenge with 4G is that surprisingly corporate date packages are really expensive compared to domestic so in operational costs (i.e. data) the SIMs are very expensive but cheap capital costs.

There was a mention on BBC this morning about the government thinking about putting up the price of meat and dairy products for environmental reasons, not a peep about roads and motoring (or coal mines).

The BBC must have read your post. They've now published this story. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55923731

The government answer in that article:


is good enough for me. The good doctor has done much to heighten awareness of the downside of using fossil fuels, but one would think that his many years working for NASA would have shown that occasionally, needs must.

Agree, iron and steel are vital raw materials, and can not be produced without coke derived from coal.
I see no merit in claiming to be green whilst importing our iron and steel from countries with doubtful reputations.

Such subtleties will no doubt (perhaps, deliberately) be lost on climate change activists.

Apparently the Wentlooge Levels between Newport and Cardiff are a mecca for pylon spotters – yes, seriously, pylon spotting is as much a hobby as train spotting or bird spotting (perhaps easier to fill up your list, as pylons don't move – OTOH that means the spotter can't wait for a migratory type to come to them, they have to go to it) – due to large number of different types used there. Why there should be a particular hotspot of pylon diversity in South Wales, I have no idea.

I expect turbine spotting is also a hobby for some.

There is at least one society dedicated to spotting birds killed by wind turbines. I would imagine pure turbine spotting could be a bigger attraction in Scotland and Wales than in England, given the greater availability.

85% of the mine's output will be exported.

There's only a "hint" that some of it will be used domestically.

For someone who's happy to see the UK aviation industry go down the tubes on environmental grounds, you really do have some interesting priorities!

It's nice that we can still export something, even if it isn't fish.  :)

But seriously - Germany's lignite is no good for making steel, so it's used to generate electricity. We could help them to keep their emissions down a bit by sending a few trainloads over.

I don't know much about France's steel industry, having concentrated on viniculture during my brief periods working there.

Aviation is not in my view comparable to the production of iron and steel.
There are alternatives to flying, including ships and railways, or even staying in one place.
There is no realistic alternative to steel, nor is there any proven way to manufacture it without coal. Steel is needed to build ships, railways, and modern structures.
I would prefer to see steel manufactured in the UK with UK coal, rather than being imported. A UK source of coking coal will encourage the return of steel making to the UK.
The carbon emmisions are regretable, but can not be avoided if we are to continue use of steel. I see no merit in exporting the carbon emmisions to china.

I am happy to not fly, and I try to minimise purchases of goods transported by air.
I can not avoid use of iron or steel products and structures.

The British Steel Industry ultimately failed because its product was too expensive and nobody wanted to buy it. It is far, far cheaper to buy/import steel from Europe or Asia.

A weaker £ and the freedom from EU rules forbidding Government subsidy may help if the Government are interested enough to help, however if you seriously think that opening one mine, the majority of whose product is already slated for export is going to somehow reinvigorate an industry which has been struggling in its death throes for decades despite several venture capitalist induced false dawns, I would suggest diluting the Port (Talbot) a little!  ;)

I wouldn't rely too much on relaxation of state aid rules, despite what was said AIUI, WTO state aid rules aren't much different to EU ones. 

Steel making is one thing that should not be left to rot at home, unless you want to risk having to buy steel from a future enemy. So are PPE and vaccines now. I think the past year will lead some in government to look critically at those things we use a lot of, but no longer produce at home. At least they should be looking critically at it.

This is actually a rather dangerous line of thinking if one takes it a few stages further. It is essentially saying “flying is bad for ecology. I can avoid doing it therefore everybody else should too.”

Heritage railways would be in for a bad time if the idea catches on. There must be a sizeable chunk of the population who see no good reason for them because they never go, so the argument might run “Heritage railways are bad for ecology. They burn fossil fuels and they don’t provide a public service. Rip ‘em all up; throw the rails into a smelter and reuse the steel. And put all the stock in a museum.”

Do we really need road or rail transport? It’s all bad or the planet. Most of us have got two legs haven’t we? The heavy stuff can go on a cart behind a horse or two. Not only do we save all those toxic emissions, we get a plentiful supply of organic manure into the bargain. That sounds like another win-win situation to me as well...

We’ve also got plenty of canals about the place, and those few things that actually do need shifting around the world can be sailed there. Well we used to it that way, didn’t we?

Of course, doing all this would axe millions of jobs around the world but never mind about that, all of those people can stay in one place as suggested.

PS – please nobody tell Greta about this post  ;)

Agree, very strongly.
Basic building materials and raw materials should so far as reasonable be produced within our own country. Including but not limited to
Iron and steel (including the coking coal)
Cement.
Bricks.
Roof tiles, corrugated iron.
Industrial chemicals.
Electric wire and cable. Electrical generating and distribution equipment.
Building timber, and processed wood products such as plywood and particle board.
Glass, including window glass and glass containers.

Production of many such materials is energy intensive, but I see no merit in importing such items and exporting the pollution, whilst becoming reliant on potential future enemies.

We should also aim to produce as much as possible of our own food, medical supplies and other essential goods.

When domestic production is not possible, HMG should keep emergency stocks of basic supplies.

Even I am not proposing a ban on flying, but am opposed to any form of grant or subsidy that encourages more flying, rather than letting it shrink naturally.

I and many others enjoy heritage railways, they could however improve matters by minimising fuel use, I have suggested ways to achieve this.

Of course we need road and rail transport, but both should be electrified as far as possible. Horses could well be used in rural areas.

Canals are potentially useful for heavy and non urgent freight. Should be used more in view of the very low energy used. One horsepower per boat, either an actual horse or battery power.

Sea going ships could be sail powered, at least partly thereby reducing fuel used.

All these alternatives provide employment.

Here's some numbers about coal and this new mine, which may be useful here (on other threads).

West Cumbria Mining said this back in October:
Note, that 60 Mt is for the EU; the UK only uses 3 Mt of which 0.6 Mt is mined here.

DUKES  (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/solid-fuels-and-derived-gases-chapter-2-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes)(again!) has figures for types and uses of coal, of which (2019):

Coking coal used:   2.94 Mt
Steam coal used:   4.47 Mt 
      of which rail:   15 Mtkt -  Estimate revised following research carried out into heritage railways.

Coke oven gas and blast furnace gas production amounted to 9.35 GWh, virtually all of it used in steel-making, or for process heat and electricity used in the plant.

There's a couple of other official references at the House of Commons (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjlx8nQrdPuAhWKRRUIHYVXA9gQFjAMegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2FCDP-2020-0160%2FCDP-2020-0160.pdf&usg=AOvVaw20sb4E5MunBw8qyxSqbgRS) (for the debate in December 2020) and the Industrial Decarbonisation & Energy Efficiency Roadmap to 2050 (Iron and Steel 2015) (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-decarbonisation-and-energy-efficiency-roadmaps-to-2050).

WCM's planning documents are here (on their site) (https://www.westcumbriamining.com/local-news/planning-application-update-may-2020/).

I think that should be 15kt not 15Mt for steam coal used by rail?

You're right, of course - I'd divided all the other numbers by 1000 without even noticing I'd done it.

How DARE you!

Some discussion of HS2 on Andrew Marr this morning with Sian Berry..........interesting for those citing the environmental credentials of HS2 to consider the Green Party's view;

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2020/02/11/jonathan-bartley-responds-to-government%E2%80%99s-decision-to-greenlight-hs2/

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2019/11/28/hs2-is-an-act-of-ecocide-green-party-call-for-end-to-devastating-%C2%A380-billion-project/

............as you can imagine, they're not particularly enthusiastic about the new coal mine either, and neither are Labour......whoever would have thought that?

I've just read this report about the outlook for rare earth metals, which are used in electric motors, among other places. It's not hugely optimistic. Extraction and processing cause various environmental problems, especially as these are often poorly regulated, and this in turn leads to doubts about the feasibility of decarbonisation.
https://investors-corner.bnpparibas-am.com/investing/rare-earth-metals-how-to-limit-the-impact-of-the-clean-energy-transition/

Wind turbines are another, although more modern types use electromagnets in place of the couple of tonnes of neodymium used in magnets. Anything using a powerful permanent magnet can use rare earth metals to great effect.

While I wouldn't go as far as "rip 'em up", since the heritage railway sector is (presumably) tiny in comparison to other things, I don't think it would be right to completely ignore the issue given the fuss that used to be made about fitting low-energy light blubs which (presumably) make a very small saving in the grand scheme of things. My personal view is that no more 'Tornados' (new build steam locos) should be commenced so that, when the owners/regulator decides a loco is too warn out to carry on and is withdrawn the number of serviceable steam locos slowly decreases and the locos in question get turned into static exhibts. It might of course be possible to play "trigger's broom" and keep all the locos going by replacing every part with new one at a time, but at least it would stop the sector growing.

As for steel:
I think I agree with that; what I would say is that rather than exporting the pollution we should try to make our steel in a less polluting way and set and example to the rest of the world (and perhaps even export the interlectural property of said method). Carbon Capture and Storage steelworks anyone? If we could develop that, yes our steel might more more expensive than imports but we could make it mandatory to use it on environmental grounds helping to keep our steelworkers employed and maintaining the ability to do steel production here in case of war.

There is work going on to produce steel using Hydrogen, but the general feeling is that it will take well over a decade and perhaps 2 decades to actually get it to work. 

That is a pretty substantial use of gas, with practically all the fuel consumed on site. Stick some of the fabled carbon capture kit on the exhausts at the steel works, and you have a clean, green operation. That's undoubtedly easier said than done.

If the use of more expensive steel than the competition is made mandatory, what effect do you think that will have on the competitiveness of our own industry and the demand for its products, and the consequences on prospects for employment.

Also, what sort of incentive would you say it would provide for companies to relocate manufacturing to the UK from abroad, where steel would be cheaper?

Taking shipbuilding for example - would making steel more expensive be helpful to that industry, or would it struggle to compete with the extra costs involved?

Even leaving the environmental damage to one side, in considering these questions, perhaps ask yourself why the British Steel industry collapsed as it did in the first place?

That is a serious issue to be dealt with if the world is to deal with Climate Change.  It requires a change to world trade rules so that the import or export of carbon is accounted for.  Ideally an exporting country could remove the embedded carbon they export from their carbon account and it would be added to the importer account.  Governments would presumably deal with this by import taxes and export subsidies but I am not sure the WTO rules would allow this at the moment. 

That is absolutely correct. We are all in this together, and sacrificing UK industry on the altar of climate change won't do much to help. The Paris Agreement was a start, and is boosted by the US returning to it, but it is a club for those who want to join. Proper trade sanctions on polluting countries is probably the only way forward, but that introduces volatile politics into the mix. Not easy at all.

Nothing directly to do with the topic, but I feel the need to comment because I have been involved in energy efficiency ever since SAP ratings were first introduced in 1991. 

Low energy lighting has less to do with individual savings than the cumulative effect. As I once explained to a sceptical tenant somewhere in Enfield some time ago:

"Think of it like winning the lottery. You decide to share the money with everybody in the country. They'll all get a penny each and nobody would feel any better off. But if you could get everybody in the country to give you a penny, that's worth having."

If everyone in the country used LE lighting we could probably save the output of half a power station.

I did a complete switchover to LED lighting a few months after moving into my current home, and noticed the difference immediately on the smart meter. There's a lot of lights in this place, but I would have done the same in a bedsit. The only thing incandescent here is Mrs K, and that's only on bad days.

Multiply that by 21 million households, and it comes to a tidy sum. Add the better energy efficiency of household appliances and home electronics, and it mounts up.

New coal mine now in doubt.

https://news.sky.com/story/cumbria-plans-for-uks-first-deep-coal-mine-for-30-years-thrown-into-doubt-after-local-council-reconsiders-application-12213426

The "new information" gives the council a number of ways of arriving at one of the two possible answers.  They could refuse it, and use the figures to say that they haven't given into the mob wielding virtual pitchforks. The company concerned could then appeal against that decision, pushing the decision making onto the secretary of state and unleashing Fracking MK II. Probably the best idea would be to kick this into the long grass ask for further views in the light of the new information, then decide after the forthcoming Glasgow conference is over. That would give the company involved time to secure the site, although they might actually welcome unpaid tunnellers.

Getting us back to HS2 - see - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56017605, and in particular the following quote-


Which brings to mind something that often occurs to me when looking out over the North Sea from the North Norfolk coast, where there are now large turbines as far as the eye can see - what is the carbon cost of all that steel that has been used to create those turbines, and transporting them to site, creating the foundations and commissioning them? Will it be recovered in the lifetime of the turbines (if the ones in southern Spain around Tarifa seem to be failing at 20-25 years, how long will they last out in the cold, wet, windy North Sea) - and don't forget there's carbon being created (and disturbance to wildlife too) by the constant traffic of maintenance vessels. Then there's the environmental cost of extracting, refining and transporting the rare earth metals that are now a vital  part of the generation equipment. And we mustn't forget the network of transmission cables to get the power onshore.

I have raised the energy cost of generating hydrogen for transport use without ever seeing an answer, but wonder what the real "whole life" cost of off-shore generation is?

It's not hard to find reports on these - lots of think-tanky kind of groups producing them. Here are a couple of more official ones.

This is from the National Infrastructure Commission:

So, that rates as impressively inefficient. And I'm sure it varies a lot, and much work is going on to improve it, so each specific proposal should have a different, but higher, value.

This is from a submission by Vattenfall (written by Royal HaskoningDHV) to the Planning Inspectorate in support of the Norfolk Boreas 1.8 GW offshore wind farm:
And they give a broader comparison:

Thanks Stuving - should have asked you first!


Do you know (or can you find out easily) how does that compare with 25kw v OHL electric traction please?  And as a bonus question - any figures for the carbon cost of erecting OHL lines (presumably considerably more for GWMLR heavy duty Meccano than other solutions?

At least the wind - v - coal/gas equation is clear, even if it seems that turbines spend a lot of time sitting there motionless.

Well they're kind of made for windy places...

As for the carbon emissions from their manufacture and servicing, this is a valid point and I don't know how much. But as a point of fact, their blades are, I've read, not steel but fibreglass.

They are indeed, with a core of balsa wood. This has caused a worrying scramble for the material in south America. National Wind Watch (https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2021/01/29/a-worrying-windfall-the-wind-power-boom-set-off-a-scramble-for-balsa-wood-in-ecuador/) which has an obviously critical view of wind power, quotes extensively from an article behind a paywall in The Economist. (https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2021/01/30/the-wind-power-boom-set-off-a-scramble-for-balsa-wood-in-ecuador) I quote from the publicly available part of the latter

Did I hear that there’s been a change of track regarding the new coal mine?

Well a public inquiry any way:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56364306

Comment on British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News this morning, nothing will happen until after the climate conference. So possibly just window dressing.



Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

When I hear the Government pledge to green the economy (and to be fair, the UK is doing better than most), and then I see a headline that a new coal mine is to be opened, I find myself checking the calendar to make sure it isn't April 1st.

Hopefully this enquiry will put a full stop to it once and for all. How it ever got this far is baffling - when even the Labour party object to coal mines you can see how the world has changed.

I am not convinced that the UK is dong better than most.  The government is not really. They make all the right noises then quietly do nothing about it its all hot air.  Think of the grant scheme for green homes,  lots of money promised but then there was little take up they say, look further and you find that the contractor they chose to administer it is the problem not a lack of applications, but a lack of processing those applications and when processed severe delays in making payments. So what do they do. Stop the scheme due to lack of demand.

They talk of a green transport revolution and then propose building lots of new roads and curtailing electrification, even on EW rail where they could do it far cheaper now than later as the line is not open. 

I'd tend to agree. I'm putting in Solar panels and the grants and feed in tariffs are much lower than they use to be to the point of not being much of an incentive.

The admin around these schemes is also off putting although I can never decide if that's deliberate.

Raising the building quality of new homes would be a simple way to help go green but its continually put off.

And lowering the cost of public transport and improving the service seems such an obvious solution but there seems to be an ideological objection to it despite the current government spending madly.

The UK has done well in greening electricity supply, with about half now comming from renewables. Furthur progress is likely.

That however does not excuse a very poor record in other sectors such as transport and housing.
More road building means more traffic, virtually all of it fossil fuel powered.
Lack of progress on rail electrification.
Lack of progress on building new rail routes or reopening old ones.
No significant progress on electric buses, battery or overhead powered.
Cheaper road fuel which will encourage more driving.

tax cuts to domestic air travel to encourage greater use. Union connectivity encouraged by tax cuts.

New housing with limited public transport provision.
New housing with poor insulation and fossil fuel heating.

Huge waste of fuel in the retail and leisure sectors. Thinking in particular of permanently open shop doorways and the popularity of outdoor heating.

And whilst publictransport is better than driving, "the railway" could do better on fuel use, stations lit in bright daylight, diesel locomotives and multiple units idleing for hours on end. Empty offices lit. etc. etc.

This'll help you - the 2020 Environmental Performance Index.

As you will see, the UK is ranked 4th out of 180 countries - if you click on the UK in the overall rankings it'll give you more of a breakdown and lots of other metrics - obviously always room for improvement, but I think it's fair to say that 4th out of 180 is better than most?

https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2020/component/epi

I find that the UK being in fourth place to be very surprising indeed and feel that the figures linked to may be misleading.
For example I note that Afghanistan is near the bottom of the list, I would expect that nation to be relatively green, not as a matter of policy but simply because most of the population are too poor to afford significant fossil fuel.

I too find it surprising.  However when I look at the detail it becomes more telling.

Look at Climate change: on Greenhouse Gases (GHG) growth rates we do very well, that is the change. Have we achieved that by continuing to export manufacturing to China and other far East countries? 

For what I believe is the most important measure GHG per capita we are ranked 124th.   


Edit : VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

Green house gases per capita sounds a more realistic measure, and puts the UK in a much poorer position than earlier suggested. Regrettable but believable.

But it's not only reduction of CO2 that it is taking into consideration in their scoring scheme  - see the pie diagram on p3 of the document to which TG has supplied the link. It's only 13.2% of the weighting they apply. If I can I will attach a copy of this.

But it would be nice if we could improve our score in that 13.2% by stop messing around with alternatives (high energy input hydrogen production, batteries made out of all kind of nasty materials and generating new recycling challenges) and simply implemented a steady comprehensive electrification program for the railways. And "crossing threads" if someone had the vision to suggest HS2 should go all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow to give "Union Connectivity", with a proper interchange with HS1 at one end, so that the incentive to take internal flights is reduced, so much the better.

One day, somebody will do some real forensic working out of all the various figures. So far this month, the percentage of our electricity coming from wind has varied between zero and 35% at any given moment, and the percentage coming from solar panels between zero and slightly above zero. Biomass varies between about 6% and 10%, depending on how much virgin forest has been fed into the boilers at Drax, which is a scandal. We have front page headlines when a day goes by with renewables producing half our leccy, which doesn't happen often but buoys support. When gas provides the majority, no word is said.

I don't think we get half of our electricity from renewables over a whole year, and I wonder if we ever will. If you have 10,000 windmills producing 40% of the nation's electricity, then 20,000 would produce 80%, but if 10,000 windmills are producing 3%, what sense would there be in building 100,000? There must be a point where adding more doesn't get you more without massive over-provision that can't be justified by the benefits. So far, no-one has defined that point.


No it doesn't. The big problem with private vehicles seems to be working out which is the chicken and which is the egg, out of vehicles or infrastructure. It's one thing stopping fossil fuel cars being built, and demand for electric cars is rising, but it is hardly exponential. In part, the lack of infrastructure is at fault, but providers of infrastructure cite lack of customers. The high price and limited battery life are the other major constraints. We will only have arrived at a situation of normality when a family of modest means can buy a 10-year-old electric car that they know will keep them on the road for a good few years with minimal intervention, and we are at least 11 years away from that. Government doesn't really know how to intervene there to get a decent outcome. Public transport should be taking the lead.

Housing is a bit different. New homes, as I know from experience, are built to be energy efficient. The older stock needs to be updated, but any new schemes seem to be for the benefit of business rather than the home-owner, with one notable exception which will benefit my tenants. And me too, in fairness.


And you are not alone. I found the arguments for the mine to be reasonably persuasive, in that we would not be effectively exporting any pollution connected to the manufacture of the steel we use in this country to anywhere with lesser environmental and human rights standards. Like the arguments in favour of expanding Bristol Airport, there is a potential to reduce emissions against what would happen if nothing was done. There seems to be an element of "What?? Coal!! Bad!!!" about this, but I could be wrong. I will know after the public inquiry.

Regarding two of the specific projects in the previous post.
I SUPPORT the coal mine proposal. There is no currently available process to manufacture iron and steel without coke made from coal. The only alternative to building the coal mine is to import either the coal, or the steel, probably from china.
I see no environmental gain in importing rather than producing our own. There are also national security implications in being reliant on imports.

As regards the expansion of Bristol or indeed other airports, this I oppose since rail travel is an already available alternative.
Contrary to suggestions from some people, I do not propose an end to air travel, but I am opposed to any expansion.

Whenever I log on to this forum I tell myself how fortunate I am to be among experts who are better informed than the likes of the Yale Centre for Environmental Law & Policy, Columbia University, The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, The UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre and numerous other World renowned Professors, academics and Research Fellows.

Truly I walk amongst giants   ;)

Once upon a time footballers, entertainers and politicians were the only people that others thought they could do a better job than them, and they were usually men propping up bars.

The internet has got a lot to answer for...

I make no claim as to having knowledge superior to the various organisations listed above.
I do however feel that some reports are very carefuly produced and woded so as to give the impresion that things are splendid, when a simpler approach might show a less optimistic result.

The combustion of fossil fuels adds to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels which are generally accepted to be the cause of climate change.
Reduction in fossil fuel use is therefore of considerable importance, and the UK has a poor record in this respect.
Better therefore to produce a complex report that takes into account many other factors rather than just a simple amount of fossil fuel used. By giving sufficient emphasis to these other factors, a splendid result may be obtained.
"UK is in the TOP FOUR nations" so we can carry on flying and driving with little concern.

A simple assesment of fossil fuel used per capita is arguably of greater importance, but shows the UK in a very poor light, so best to concentrate on other factors.

So again I claim no superior knowledge, but I DO CLAIM a considerable degree of cynicism and common sense.
A diesel train will under most circumstances use less fuel per passenger per mile, than a car or an aircraft.
An electric train would be better still.
And we are encouraging flying and driving by reducing the costs thereof, whilst making rail travel ever more expensive.
And slowing the already slow progress of railway electrification.

It’s a report by a university in the US isn’t it?  Why would that show any bias to the UK?

Reminds me of Cliff, the know-all Postman character in "Cheers" who was once outraged when someone shouted across the bar to him "Hey Cliff, there's a guy over here who says you know nothing about photosynthesis!"  :D

- what I find astounding at the moment, particularly if you have a look at social media, is just how many expert epidemiologists we have in the UK, who have only come forward since the advent of the coronavirus!

I doubt that bias towards the UK was the aim.
More likely to be a bias towards developed western nations with a high fossil fuel consumption, and against "backward" or "developing" nations that have yet to fully adopt the western way of life.

Possibly funded by the Heartland institute, an American based pro fossil fuel lobbying group.

I make no such claim. I merely looked into the detail provided by these experts that lies behind the bold headline.   It lists 32 indicators under 11 sub headings and 2 main headings. The headline depends on how you weight these individual figures.

So for example we are ranked 6 for biodiversity, but within that we are ranked 1st for marine protected areas despite recent reports that although we have designated some they are not adequately protected from damage by bottom trawling.  More concerning is that we are ranked 143rd for biodiversity habitat index and 43rd for species habitat index.

For eco-system services we are ranked 115th and for fisheries 109th (seems to question the effectiveness of marine protected areas I mentioned above).

For climate change we are ranked yet most of the indicators we do well on there are growth rates and trends, the actual measures of contribution to climate change we rank very poorly at 124th and 125th and 44th.

On agriculture we  are ranked 37th but there is only one indicator and that is on sustainable nitrogen management yet there is great concern over the impact of soil erosion and over sustainable phosphate management which are not covered by these indexes.

Under water resources we are ranked 6th but its only measure, perversely is wastewater treatment about which we do well, despite only 14% of our river reaching a "Good" status and no mention of the severe impact on the environment from over-abstraction of water particularly in the south east of England where on the measure annual rainfall per head of population the region is on a par with arid countries like Portugal and Israel.  

And no I am not a professor, but I have worked for an environmental consultancy for over 30 years and I have a professional environmental management qualification (CEnv).  I also have enough experience of working with professors (including one of the organisations Taplow Green listed) to know that some do need calling out!

In summary what I say is that the numbers all these academics use to build a picture do not support the headline of UK ranked 4th.

 

Could not have put it better myself.

Succinctly, your opinion, narrative and interpretation differs from the findings and conclusions of the Environmental Performance Index, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am sure those who compiled it expected to receive some dissent.

Given the subject, it would be a rather odd publication if it didn't.

A minor correction...

Not all causes of the changes in climate are man made, there are also many possible naturally occurring mechanisms for climate change which have been discussed, analysed and debated in many places. For example other influences are the Earth's elliptical motion around the Sun not being regular resulting in small long term changes in the incoming radiation levels (Milankovitch cycles) and the last ice age only ended some 10,000 years ago and we are now in an interglacial period. Scientific evidence shows that the Earth's surface temperature has varied dramatically over the last several million years without any human input from the burning of fossil fuels.

None of this should be taken as meaning that I think that man-made climate change is all malarkey - Alexander von Humboldt suggested that burning stuff would create a greenhouse effect in the early 19th century and history has proven him correct. What I do find annoying are the suggestions that it is only man-made and therefore it is our fault - for me the holy Greta comes across as a medieval prophetess - and that wearing a hair shirt will somehow make it better.

Of course we should be emitting lower levels of carbon dioxide - but one should be clear that even if the quantity could be reduced to zero and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere reduced to pre-Industrial Revolution levels it is still entirely likely that the Earth would continue to warm up. And then cool again. It always has done so in the past.

Which demonstrates why I said we need a real forensic examinations of all the claims and counterclaims. There are many universities with many students, ready to solve the many problems of the world with scholarship and science. A lot of these seats of learning are funded by outside organisations, giving rise to bias towards certain ideas which are then taught to others. It used to be oil and gas at one time, but not any more.

There are certain issues in which it is not helpful to one's career to go against the perceived orthodoxy. Nuclear energy is slowly gaining ground again, but for a long time it was out of favour, so not funded or researched. Climate change generally is accepted by all but a hardcore of refuseniks, which was not the case a couple of decades back. The argument now is what to do about it, and where to spend the money. I have my own ideas, shared by some and not by others, which have changed over the years. That doesn't make me a scientist, just a fascinated observer enjoying a public debate. And as I pointed out, with the modesty for which I am greatly admired and respected, I might be wrong.

You are of course right that man-made emissions is not the only cause.  Its just that it seems to be the largest single factor by a long way.  So your contention that we do not need to "wear a hair shirt" as you put it is flawed. 

The cost to our economy of climate change is already immense and we have no choice but to pay that, but we have to chose to pay the money to reduce carbon which will save us (and more particularly our descendants) far more in the future. 

Who has claimed that man-made emissions are the only cause?

And why do you think it is ok to make rather snide personal comments about one particular individual?

Quite. The point that is being missed is that Britain looks good on percentage reductions,  because we started with a high baseline, with electricity mostly generated by coal, and lots of energy intensive industries, fed by coal. So it isn't surprising that we can achieve large percentage reductions by offshoring manufacturing and shifting electricity production to gas. For countries that have a larger contribution from nuclear and hydro, they were already starting from a lower baseline,  so further reductions are harder to  make. As you point out, emissions per capita are the better indicator of our actual impact.

Oh, I see.  If that’s the case I’m surprised they didn’t manage to find a way of bumping up the US from its lowly position of 24th!

Anyway, not to worry, ellendune has managed to explain very well, to those like myself who know little about the subject, how 4th place for the UK that TG highlighted might translate into very little in reality.

Quite likely not a deliberate or even conscious bias but simply the result of selecting those criteria which seem to matter most from the perspective of Western nations.

The quote I changed stated that carbon emissions were THE cause of climate change.

I made no personal comments.

I really am not trying to get into a slanging match but what I said was that simply wearing a hair shirt will not make the situation better. The reference meant that one should not do things which are essentially ‘virtue signalling’ without them having any significant effect whatsoever on the outcome.

Whatever measures are taken to reduce the level of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will have to be acceptable to the man in the street — since we live in a democracy. Any steps taken will have to be clear, fair and understandable and have a global effect - simply exporting the emissions will help nobody.

What will not work, for example, is making holidays in the Canary Islands more expensive by taxing air transport heavily or banning certain types of flights — if no compensating mechanism is put into place. Flying is convenient for the customer because less of his or her annual holiday allowance is taken up with the journey. If the alternative offered is high speed rail to Cadiz or Casablanca followed by a sea crossing then annual holiday allowances will have to be increased or there will be social unrest in the Canaries as a large part of the inhabitants' livelihoods will be taken away.

Simply cutting travel will have unintended consequences. Equally offering Paignton or Blackpool as alternatives is not acceptable — unless a lot of outdoor heating is installed and the promenades roofed over!

But the emissions caused by air travel are some way down the list of carbon dioxide sources, domestic energy demands, for example, far outweigh these. Making new buildings energy efficient is easy and over the last few decades changes in building regulations have ensured that this is the case. Treating the older housing stock is a completely different kettle of fish - with the best will in the world it will not be possible to bring them all up to modern standards - there are questions of design, materials, construction standards, sizes of rooms, heritage aspects and the ability of the owners to pay for the changes. Just look at the amounts of money that the owners of flats in tower blocks are being asked to pay where the cladding has to be changed after the Grenfell fire. Sums in the orders of tens of thousands of pounds for external work are being asked of people who are innocent of any wrongdoing. Simply demanding that house owners insulate their buildings for the sake of future generations or the wholesale replacement of the existing housing stock with new energy efficient housing will not work either.

Even if new forms of domestic heating, such as communal geo-thermal energy, are introduced there would still be a, possibly slowly decreasing, residual level of greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe we will have to live with it.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy publishes annual statistics on the country’s aggregate energy balance where all the different energy sources and consumers are standardised to thousands of tonnes of oil equivalent. The series is called DUKES, standing for Digest of UK Energy Statistics. One of the calls made both in this forum and in other places is that to meet decarbonisation and emission targets the railways should be electrified. From the current statistics it would seem that this would not be the most cost-effective method of achieving this goal: in 2019 the country’s total supply of primary energy (oil, coal, gas, electricity) amounted to 197 million tonnes of oil equivalent of which rail transport consumed just over 1 million tonnes. That is rail consumes 0.58% of the country’s total energy consumption. In comparison domestic and road transport consumption are both around 40 million tonnes per annum.

Other Government statistics show that rail contributes just over 1% of the country’s emissions. If more of the network were to be electrified then it might be assumed that the emissions might fall to just under 1% of the total, but at a multi-billion pound price tag. If you were a Treasury official trying to decide the most effective way of spending several billion to reduce emissions I suggest that electrifying more railway would be way down the list.

There are good and valid reasons for electrifying railways - lighter, faster accelerating trains requiring less maintenance than their diesel powered cousins mean a more attractive and cost effective service could be offered. But this argument has to be made on its own merits - reduction of emissions isn’t a factor because in the great scheme of things they are very low anyway.

The American journalist H L Mencken (1880 - 1956) once wrote “For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” The problem of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere has been around since the first cooks and metalworkers although the increases have only become significant for the last 150 or 200 years and atmospheric CO2 been reliably continuously measured for the last 80 or so years. Reducing emissions on a global scale is an enterprise which will take decades - there is no simple, neat answer.



(H L Mencken was also a prophet! He wrote in The Baltimore Sun in 1920 “On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” Boy, was he right!)

I see no need for holidays in the Canary islands, or similarly distant places, and do not expect civil unrest if such holidays became more expensive as a result of taxing air travel.

Those who consider the UK climate unsuited for holidays can always visit the hotter parts of Europe by train. Preferably by fast through train.

If we are serious about the climate emergency, we need to fly and drive a lot less, and that might mean more holidays in the UK. Time spent on holiday travel is a bit of a red herring since most people now get about twice as much paid holiday as was the case in the 1960s. 4 weeks is now the norm rather than two weeks.

No, that doesn't make it a red herring. It means that people are used to twice as much holiday now as other people were in the 1960s. There's little point expecting people to become accustomed to something on a the grounds that it was the norm before they were born (median age of UK population is 41). You might be able to persuade people to go back to the 1960s if you were able to present it as better than the present day, but otherwise those comparisons only have meaning within people's experience. How much holiday did people have 20 years ago?

I do. It's nice there in January and February. It isn't nice here.

You completely missed the point about social unrest. What I wrote was
QUOTE
or there will be social unrest in the Canaries as a large part of the inhabitants' livelihoods will be taken away.
END QUOTE

Not in the UK — in the Canary Islands.

The point being that if getting to the Canary Islands become so expensive in money and time the result will be that the number of tourists drops dramatically.

Your desire to the 'save the planet' — laudable though it certainly is — has now plunged a whole population into poverty.

What do you suggest is now done to ensure that the local inhabitants still have work?

Interestingly, all but one of the route sections required to travel from London to the Canary Islands either already exist, or have some sort of plan in place to be constructed. Assuming a post-Covid world:

London-Paris - Eurostar

Paris-Barcelona - TGV

Barcelona-Madrid - AVE

Madrid-San Roque La Linea (for Gibraltar) - Intercity

Gibraltar-Tanger - Train Tunnel UK-Morocco talks planned (https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2021/01/11/uk-and-morocco-may-discuss-a-tunnel-linking-gibraltar-and-tangiers/)

Tanger-Marrakech - Overnight Train

Marrakech-Agadir then Agadir-Laayoune - New high speed train and classic lines planned (https://www.ecofinagency.com/public-management/2306-41513-morocco-seeks-to-more-than-double-its-railway-network-by-2040-reaching-4-400-km)

That just leaves the last bit. You would need a 93 mile "Boris Bridge" from Laayoune-Morro Jable on Fuerteventura. This would be theoretically (and I use the word in its very loosest sense) possible because the longest rail bridge in the world is the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danyang%E2%80%93Kunshan_Grand_Bridge) in China, part of the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Railway, which is 102 miles long.

So there you have it - broadgage's dream brought to life, and doubtless dover sole and excellent port all round.

A train service to the canary islands is undoubtedly  a long term possibility.
In the nearer term I consider fast, through trains to Europe to be a higher priority.
It is possible, right now, to travel by train from say Glasgow to southern Europe, however the cost, complexity, and time taken are unreasonable.
A THROUGH train, even just once a week, could be most attractive for holidays in the warmer parts of Europe.
A night in reasonable comfort on a sleeper train could compare well to air transport.

Climate change will plunge the population of the Canary Islands into poverty in time.
It is not the responsibility of the U.K. to keep the economy of the Canary Islands afloat    with something that is largely a luxury to most of the worlds population. Tackling global warming is also in the best interests of the Canary Islands. If we can’t make some changes to the way we live, future generations will suffer. Climate change is a simple as that.

Now, I like many things which are bad for the environment, steam and diesel locomotives, 70’s Fords, large construction projects etc. but I understand that time has to move on, things change, and that for the sake of future generations, things have to change pretty drastically now. Carbon emissions are caught up in practically everything we do in the western world. It’s not the fault of individuals, it’s the world of consumerism we’ve become accustomed to or been born into, but it is up to individuals to recognize there is a climate emergency. We can’t change that easily as individuals, this is where Extinction Rebellion come in. They recognize that it’s governments that need to reduce carbon emissions with policy, not leave it to us by hoping we all find the money to buy electric cars, if we even have the space to charge them in. I for one would like life to continue as it was but I realize now that some things are not going to be the same in the future, and I’m willing to forego certain things for the benefit of that and those younger than me.

My personal problem with high speed 2 is that I believe local transport is where the money and efforts should be focused, how we get around the areas where we live, not interurban travel. This will have a far greater effect of taking cars off the road and impact more people’s lives for the money. I understand the capacity argument but if thats really the problem, why build such a high spec railway which involves such destruction of natural habitats at a time when we should be planting more? If capacity is the argument, then reinstating the Great Central would be as effective, I doubt Extinction Rebellion would have any problem with that as they also understand that we do need transport improvements in a future emitting no carbon.

Climate change is a tough truth to face, and one we’ve been contributing to for some time with our heads in the sand, but it’s a truth that all of us on here will probably not see the worst of, that will be the generations below us. They will have to attempt to cope with the problems created by something we exasperated with our desires and needs.

Lisa and I did Barcelona to Melksham ... late afternoon / early evening from Barcelona, 24 hours later arrival in Melksham.   Sure, working it out took a bit of doing and I don't really it being either cheap or expensive.   But then it was just one leg of a longer journey.  

The frustration is that so much of what is needed is there already ... just gummed up in red tape and no-one responsible or willing / able to take the risk of sorting it out.  How many years has it taken to get an independent extra operation from Bishop's Lydeard to Banbury - just imagine how much longer it would take for Cardiff to Barcelona (2nd Cardiff to London operator's just been refused!)

The choice, it seems, is: Do we risk plunging the population into poverty, or just give up and have no population at all? We've got just under 9 years to decide.

Well, if you believe some of the 'information' out there, the population of the world will plumet, due to no more births, after everyone gets the so called vaccine!

It is clear we must take a different course to avoid a making what will already be a very big impact of climate change even worse.  Yet I would contest that doing something different must have the effect you say.  Some places as you suggest will need to find a different form of economy.  However, as an archipelago in the tropics, the Canaries is likely disproportionately hit by climate change (changes in weather patterns - sea level rise) if nothing is done. 

This one's easy. Buy electric outdoor heaters, and switch to a green tariff. You get a picture of a wind turbine on the bill, and the knowledge that the more you use, the better the world is.


This one is not so easy, and depends whether the primary objective is to produce electricity, or generate subsidy. I have a small solar array on the roof, installed at the time the house was built and invisible from the ground. To the builder, and this touches on the quality aspect, it was the cheapest and easiest way of putting the cherry on the icing on the bun of energy efficiency. Building regs set a fairly high bar on new housing, soon to be raised again. My house is easy to heat (big gas boiler in the garage feeding underfloor piping) and takes advantage of natural sunlight.

The solar thing works reasonably well. I get  to use the electricity it produces, and the smart meter shows me that the amount generated is enough to run the dishwasher, but not the kettle. Fridge-freezer, computer, TV set - all can be running without showing any consumption. The feed-in tariff (FIT) pays me for the electricity I have generated, whether it goes into the grid or not. The amount generated is measured, but the amount exported is not, because it isn't cost-effective for small systems. The initial bureaucracy was a little tedious, but only because the builder hadn't left the necessary certification, and the installer had made a minor error with the address when registering it. Once that was done, it becomes a simple matter of emailing meter readings a couple of times annually. The most time consuming part is banking the cheque (yes, they send cheques!), easier now I can do it with my mobile phone. It provides about £100 per annum in cash, plus a greater amount in free electricity. FITs have been cut, because the money allocated was spent, and as we are told, it is cheaper these days to buy the kit. As with all these things, some sharp practices arose, with people signing away the rights to their rooftops for 25 years in exchange for free panels, but not the FIT.

Or alternatively, wear a vest.

What - with a backless, strapless cocktail dress?  ;D

_{Edit: Fixed quotes - RS}

Vests are VERY last century and are only worn by a few old farts like me. The young might wear a "base layer" but only for outdoor sports, not for going shopping or to the pub.

The young aren't the ones who tend to feel the cold the worst.

I have vests down as one of the items that will make a comeback during this decade for those who are reaching the age where wearing one will help. Though they may need an inspired advertising campaign for that to happen.

_{Edit: Fixed quotes - RS}

It's never done me any harm.

Calling old things by new names is often a way to make them appeal to a demographic to which they were previously unattractive. Well known examples include "lucozade" and "isotonic sports energy drink".

Or 'trolley' and 'at seat service'.  ;)

IME it is not easy to find proper short sleeved mens vests these days. Most so called short sleeved vests are in fact T-shirts and not very suitable to wear as an under garment. I purchased proper vests from a German supplier via fleabay.

I know we get the odd bit of thread drift from time to time, but male lingerie has to be one of the more esoteric (not erotic) diversions.

My image of Broadgage as a rough, tough, manly type, ripping a huge steak apart & quaffing several bottles of Port at a single sitting has taken a blow from which I doubt it'll ever recover, knowing now as I do that underneath that mean exterior sits delicate Teutonic hosiery.

We can only pray, in line with his principles, that it wasn't imported by air?

Not to mention siphoning off several gallons of petrol and diesel with his bare teeth, regurgitating them from his ironclad stomach into jerry cans beaten from old Fray Bentos cans with sticks.

Surely not. I mean, Airtex isn't a German brand...

If the garments were flowen in, by an experimental use of food waste to fuel the aircraft, surely:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56408603

Young sir, you are again prone to slight exaggeration.
I am only somewhat tough, somewhat manly, and not particularly rough.
My dimensions could be best described as "sufficient".
I certainly enjoy Port and would be very surprised if this is imported by air, cargo ship more likely.
I also enjoy fillet steak and roast beef, these are produced locally with no question of air transport.

The vests purchased would not be described as either lingerie, or as delicate.
https://www.hermko.de/hermko-3847-3er-pack-herren-extralanges-kurzarm-shirt-10cm-unterhemd-mit-1-4-arm-aus-100-baumwolle/a-38473 (https://www.hermko.de/hermko-3847-3er-pack-herren-extralanges-kurzarm-shirt-10cm-unterhemd-mit-1-4-arm-aus-100-baumwolle/a-38473) These are the ones, extra long as I am tall as well of sufficient girth.
Simple, plain white all cotton, suitable for everyday use. And NOT T-shirts.
I know not what transport mode was used, but they took weeks to get here which suggests not air.

I heat my home largely with locally produced logs, reasonably green. Also off peak electricity which is greener as well as cheaper than day rate electricity. I use some paraffin which is not green, but only about 20 liters a year.
I am about to try some "eco coal" a patent smokeless fuel that is made largely from olive stones, an unavoidable by product of the olive oil industry.

I agree, the situation is serious and requires action to substantialy reduce fossil fuel use. Actual physical reductions, not trading, offsetting, or exporting the fuel use.
There is not the time to agonise over which industries (such as airlines) or which countries (such as those whose main income is from fossil fuels) will be adversely affected.

If action is not taken, then many coastal cities, and entire low lying nations are at risk from rising sea levels. Many other places are at risk from extreme weather destroying lives and property.
Actions should include discouraging flying and driving, and encouraging rail transport, preferably electric.

I've been greatly surprised by the lack of coverage of Saturday's attack on a Lafarge cement works near Marseiile (Bouc-Bel-Air). Even in France it has not had that much national coverage, and so far the only English language article I can find is Breitbart News!

But this does represent a significant step up in the level of damage - and cost - caused by such events. The organisers (an ad-hoc grouping) claimed 200 activists took part, and of course made a video of themselves. The PPE they wore makes this look like a third-rate sci-fi movie, but it does bear out what they say they did. That included taking an axe to electrical cables and equipment cabinets, sacking offices, and setting fire to large vehicles, and the more symbolic emptying cement on the ground and tagging the walls. It looks to me like millions in cost terms, plus loss of output.

This particular plant does raise more environmental issues than just those inherent in making cement at all, as it burns old tyres for fuel. Lafarge will say they are doing a service in getting rid of them and can do it more cleanly, and they are not fossil fuel. But sulphur emissions are also above the usual limit because the rock they roast contains a lot, so by strict application of the rules it ought not to be operating.

More pictures at actu.fr (https://actu.fr/provence-alpes-cote-d-azur/marseille_13055/photos-pres-de-marseille-pourquoi-la-cimenterie-lafarge-a-ete-saccagee_55863892.html).
(https://static.actu.fr/uploads/2022/12/1063607-960x640.jpg)

Meanwhile, heading back towards HS2:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1AEL0XM8Ws

Details of this product are, I presume, here: https://earthfriendlyconcrete.com/

Hardened criminals?

Set in their ways.