Great Western Coffee Shop

From The BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57917193)


It may be that she is just one of a small band ... (must be a small band because the BBC says so??) but this is so much on the cusp of becoming more mainstream.

Yesterday, I met with one of our local friends. Formerly a flyer to visit friends in Scotland, she's now using public transport and was telling me about her research of Melksham to Portree in a day - possible but stretching it, starting on the first train and ending up on the late coach from Glasgow, train and bus via Kyle having left by the time the train arrives into Inverness.   Solution is to travel slightly later in the day, and stop overnight somewhere along the way.

Or we speed up the trains a little! Either by increased line speeds or better connections. 

Surely scheduled airlines are "public transport"?  Or did they have their own private plane?

I agree that scheduled airlines are public transport.
A type of public transport that should in my view be discouraged on account of the fossil fuel bunt and growing concerns about climate change, but yes "public transport"

Words tend to change meaning over time, and not always for the better.

"fuel" SHOULD mean all/any fuel unless otherwise specified, but increasingly the term is used to mean only petrol and diesel fuel for motor vehicles.

"energy" SHOULD mean any/all energy unless otherwise specified, but increasingly seems to mean only electrical energy.

And as above "public transport" is often used incorrectly to mean only busses and trains and derivatives thereof such as trams, and excluding scheduled flights and ferries.

The term "energy bills" is now widely used to mean domestic gas and electricity bills. 

Probably because both are frequently supplied by the same company. You can pay your electricity bill to British Gas and your gas bill to Southern Electric. A good example of how the use of words changes in response to changes in habits.

I have read so many articles which refer to people making this choice as being in the minority. We aren't (I have flown anywhere since the 1990s). Each year, the majority of the population in this country do not fly anywhere. Some fly once or a few times, a few fly a lot (mainly but not wholly for business). The point is that it is a minority of people each year who are flying, and to suggest that it is a very small select group of people who aren't flying is nonsense. It may be a small band who make that choice for environmental reasons (though I've never seen anything to actually back that up), but it is an equally small band who are frequent flyers.

On the alternatives to flying, breaking the journey for an overnight stop used to be seen as part of the fun of making a long journey, and there is no reason why it shouldn't become the norm again. It is just a matter of expectations (which both availability of transport and cost of course feed into).

I agree that many people do not fly, a commendable choice that ought to become more common.
I have not flown for about 20 years, and flew very little then.
Except in an emergency I have no intention to fly again.

The carbon dioxide emissions from flying are VERY ROUGHLY equivalent to those from driving, per person, per mile. No great accuracy can be claimed as both aircraft and road vehicles vary in fuel consumption and in load factor, but "in the same ball park"
The problem is that the speed of aircraft encourages much longer distances, very few people would drive 1,000 miles for a weekend break, but flying that distance is becoming routine.
Short haul is worse in emissions per mile, long haul is worse in total emissions per journey.

Supporters of air travel will no doubt state that it represents only a small part of total carbon emissions, which is true, but there is no hope for the climate if everyone says "this bit, or my bit, is too small to worry about"

As an interim measure I would like to see an end to giving any public money to air lines, airports,  plane builders, or related enterprises unless on a small scale in truly exceptional circumstances.
In the longer term I would like to see aviation fuel taxed as road fuel as.

It represents only a small part of total carbon dioxide emissions. About 2%, or about a tenth of those of agriculture. I have no illusions - when aircraft run on synthetic fuel produced from atmospheric carbon dioxide using wind energy*, there will still be protests.

(* Won't be this year)

I would not object to aircraft powered by synthetic fuel produced from wind energy, provided that the following conditions were met.

1) That the electricity used was 100% renewable AFTER meeting other electricity demand. NO running the synthetic fuel works on wind power whilst still burning natural gas for "general use" electricity.

2) Provided that the synthetic fuel is used FIRSTLY for essential purposes such as fire engines, ambulances, and life saving aviation, and THEN for holiday flights. No carrying on burning fossil fuel for food production, and emergency vehicles whilst using limited synthetic fuel for holiday flights.

Given that viewpoint Broadgage, and the fact that Beef Farming/Raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks, trains, ships, and planes in the world combined, no doubt you will be doing your "bit" by personally embracing veganism to set an example and campaigning for GWR to remove meat from the Pullman menu?  :)

No, but I have reduced my meat consumption significantly and only regularly consume locally produced free range beef or mutton, or sometimes wild Canada goose, these birds are large, stupid, and good to eat.
Most farmers consider them to be a pest and that eating them is to be encouraged.

I see. So you're saying that your bit is too small to worry about.

I guess many of us are happy and willing to make a few changes.  For some that might mean flying less or not at all, for others it’s making an extra effort to recycle as much as they can, for others it’s eliminating red meat from their diet, or even becoming a vegan.

Few, very few, do everything we possibly could though, and most will generally choose to carry on doing the things which they enjoy doing the most.

I guess for Broadgage that’s not giving up on meat entirely.  I won’t give him too hard a time over that as he clearly lives a sustainable life that puts most of us to shame, though it would be interesting to know what a ‘substantial’ reduction is?  From seven days a week to once a fortnight would be impressive.  From seven days a week to three days a week, less so.  And getting his goose all the way from Canada is just plain indulgence! :)

My meat consumption varies but WAS several times a week and is now less than once a week on average.
Almost always locally produced so negligible carbon emissions from transport. Always free range so negligible carbon emissions from feed production. In summer I eat largely cold food to minimise use of electric cooker. Hot food more in the winter as use of cooker less of a concern in cold weather.
I recycle all that I can.
Don't drive, don't fly. I do use taxis a little, the last few cab journeys have been in an electric cab.

I shop largely on line, which involves carbon dioxide emissions from delivery vehicles, but suspect that these are less than driving to a supermarket.

I replace clothing and bedding only when worn out, never for fashion or to keep "on trend" I use primarily natural fibers, mainly  for comfort in use, but also to avoid adding "microplastic particles" to the sea via the use and laundering of synthetic materials.
Washing machine used only at night when electricity is cheaper and greener
I heat with logs and off peak electricity, greenish though not perfectly. Logs are presumably cut with a petrol chainsaw and are delivered in a diesel truck.

I keep reserves of anthracite, of propane, of candles, and of petrol, for emergencies but actual consumption of these fossil fuels  is minute.
I keep a stock of paraffin and use perhaps 15 liters a year, primarily to stop the plumbing from freezing. In very cold weather  I might use a Tilley infra red heater in the bathroom, regrettably.

In a heat wave I use a portable air conditioner, use this summer has been for about 25 hours, or about 25 kwh. Use last summer was zero. Carbon cost unknown but hopefully low as use is limited and is at times of maximum solar input to the grid.

No mains gas, no heating oil. Electricity bill is under £400 a year.

I am proud of you, and honoured to have stayed with you pre-Covid when I had a meeting in your home Town. You are admirably meagre with your resources, but your hospitality was and is substantial - thank you.  That was a very interesting evening - of which the meeting itself was just a part.

You are Greta and I claim my £5!  :)

I rather admire Greta, but in my view, actual government policies, and actual actions by individuals are of greater importance than a currently popular figurehead.

The large climate change protests in London, Bristol, and elsewhere certainly increased public awareness of the issues.

You are going to love the governments plans for hydrogen then. Looks like we'll be making it by electrolysis and steam reforming using renewable electricity, then pumping it to houses to burn in boilers, while burning gas to make the rest of the electricity to keep the tellies on and Bitcoin satisfied. It's nearly as bad as Germany's green agenda.


I don't think they have the same Canada geese over there. When in Vancouver, I saw some that looked very similar, but when I asked, I was told that they are just called "geese".

Government plans for hydrogen are daft for the reasons given.

Canada geese in the UK are the same species as found in Canada and in many other places. AFAIK they did not migrate from Canada but were imported as ornamental waterfowl by Victorian land owners.

Edited to add that a respected member has stated that Canada geese were introduced well before the Victorian era, see a few posts down for details

Electric passenger aircraft are coming. Just the the issue of range to be sorted.

It's really difficult to manufacture a 2000 mile long extension lead.

But 2000 miles of catenary has been done before, right?

Electric aircraft are already available, but only with a very limited range. SOME improvement is no doubt possible but I doubt that we will ever see electric planes crossing the Atlantic. The energy density of any available or foreseeable battery is much less than jet fuel.
I expect wider use of electric aircraft, in particular for short hops to islands.  The solar charged electric light aircraft is a distinct possibility for connecting remote communities in the Australian outback and similar places.

Electric trains have a virtually unlimited range as fuel can be supplied as needed, not carried on board.

Well, apart from that one unnecessary luxury you’re ‘doing your bit’ I think it’s fair to say.

I sit in the shade in the garden, and fan myself with a copy of "Aviation News".

I also sat in the shade in the garden, though with an electric fan, when conditions permitted, but on a few days it was too hot outdoors in the shade.

I sat inside with the curtains drawn and gradually reduced my clothing as the temperature rose.  On the very hottest days in previous years I found that the only way to be comfortable was to leave nothing to the imagination.

In the spirit of the search for truth and accuracy in this forum, Canada Geese were first introduced long before the Victorians, possibly as early as Jacobean times. You can make at least one out in John Constable' s 1816 painting of Wivenhoe Park. It was however the spread of flooded ex-gravel workings in the mid 20th century that led to a population explosion.

...which is a long way from the shame of travelling by plane! 

Then I shall try to put the topic back on course!

I am very recently returned from my first "overseas" trip since time began, or at least since Covid. It was a week in Jersey, very pleasant indeed, and Mrs T and myself flew there. It was an Airbus A320-214 in both directions from Bristol. Flying time was about 40 minutes each way, consisting of a climb to 23,000 or 25,000 feet going (we weren't told) and 24,000 coming back*, confirmed by the pilot. Probably 25 minutes was in a slow descent both ways, with a lot of reverse thrust on landing in Jersey because of the short runway. I feel no need to justify my extravagance, but I doubt that there was much of a carbon difference between my flying (with the bus from Bristol) and my driving to wherever the Jersey ferries go from and taking the car with me.

I recommend the Grouville Bay oysters, followed by scallops and monkfish in a marsala sauce.

(*The semi-circular rule. Aircraft heading 0° to 179° magnetic fly at odd-numbered flight levels, 180° to 359° fly even numbered. That way, in the worst possible case of a head-on conflict, you will miss by 1000'.)

Well, Greta is here, by electric train, don't expect 'Amtrack Joe' (is he coming?) took the train or ship option!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59102422

Tell Greta and Joe that I will be along shortly:

(https://regmedia.co.uk/2008/07/01/flying_c5.jpg)

Perhaps she could hold court in Edinburgh?