Life after Virtue signalling

[cromwell]

Is going to get interesting.
In 2019 Theresa May in the last few weeks of her rule set the UK the target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. Thus signalling her virtue and doubtless trying to establish her "legacy"
All very well, but someone else has to make it happen because by 2050 Theresa May will be a dusty line in a history book.

Similarly Boris Johnson has pledged to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030. Will Boris still be PM in 2030?

Today transport secretary Grant Shapps (a man described by Michael Ryan as "worse than failing Grayling") unveiled the government's green transport agenda.
This pledges to ban HGV's by 2040, have net zero emissions for internal flights by 2040, net zero international flights by 2050, etc etc.

You know what this is? Hit and hope. Post some targets, demonstrate your virtue and pray. Because atm there is no alternative to diesel lorries or jet planes. They both depend on hydrogen engines being developed for these targets to work. As of right now, this technology doesn't actually exist!

Plus the government gets in circa £37 million in various vehicle taxes, petrol etc. How are they going to plug that hole? Latest thinking is "road pricing" where your EV will be fitted with a gps transmitter to track you everywhere you go and charge you by the mile. That'll be popular.

Ah well, ne'er mind, because by 2040 Grant Shapps won't be transport minister either.

In other news the government's "food tsar", multi-millionaire Henry Dimbleby (yes, one of THE Dimbleby's) came up with his latest wheeze to stop our naughty eating habits.

£3 per kilo tax on sugar, £6 per kilo tax on salt.

I sometimes think I've gone to sleep and woken up in the nuthouse.

Government's job used to be to try and improve the lives of it's people. Christ knows what it is now; I doubt they know themselves. Being pushed around by "activists" and "campaigners", maybe.

[Workingman]

Ah yes, as though our 1.02% of global emissions (behind Int shipping @ 1.83% and aviation @ 1.47%) is going to save the planet!

Five countries produce 58.05% of the total. If they do not chip in with the same level of cuts that we "virtually" are going to make then 7.6 billion of us are screwed.

Sky News has a piece in its World section pouring its heart out to the millions upon millions who are already on the move due to a warming world of floods, heatwaves, droughts and famines. It says not one thing that only a few decades ago those millions would be in the 100,000s nor that because they have contributed to the CO2, as we all have, we would be having fewer of these events.

I predict resources wars in the not too distant future. Not for precious metals and minerals but for fresh water and arable land for food. I really do fear for my granddaughter, Lyra, when she is in her fifties - 2170. Life on Earth will be hell by then and that's because we 'in the now' will not change. We are happy to play the virtue game and carry on.

[Suff]

This is the problem with AGW and politics.

In order for us to be net zero for 2050, we have to start right now and keep at it until we get as close as we can.

But why do we need to be net zero by 2050 and who gives a crap because we've got stuff going on now and it needs to be dealt with RTFN. Doesn't it? We should ignore all this CO2 crap and let the future look after itself. Shouldn't we?

So here is the problem. In 2050, we estimate, things will be starting to become so bad that the only people who deny it will be those who will have made preparations for their future generations to survive the aftermath. However, once finally convinced, the great masses who couldn't be bothered to DO anything for the previous 29, or 50 (yes we've already been at it for 25 years), years, will suddenly DEMAND that something IS DONE AND DONE NOW OR THEY'RE GOING TO DIE.

Yep, that's about the long and the short of it. At this point the majority of the world is going to be yelling for the major emitters to cease and desist no matter what the cost.

Then the actions which will be taken will have to be ultra severe. Think your food rationed and controlled as to what you eat, public transport mandatory, personal vehicles banned, luxury goods and gifts, banned. Pretty much world war footing. Not for 5-6 years but for 30 to 50 years to get control of the situation and try, vainly, to limit the worst of the damage. By then damage will be baked in, all they will be trying to do is ensure survival, not comfort, simple subsistence.

If we start now and I mean RIGHT NOW, we can get to 2050 without these huge restrictions and controls on our lives. Yes something will have to be done about taxes etc, they will work out a formula that doesn't include tracking but it will cost us all in the end anyway. But if we do even 70% of what is committed, then come 2050 when the planet is swirling the pan in preparation for the dive into the shitter, we will, at least, spare the future generations the worst of the controls which will be put in place.

But, apparently, with 100% navel gazing, we want to kick the can down the road until the future generations get the full impact of our procrastination.

If you read the future energy document from the national grid, you see that they estimate that simply by banning the sale of FF cars from 2030 will ensure that there are 4.7 million electrified vehicles on the road by 2030. By banning hybrid vehicles from 2035 will ensure that the majority of these vehicles will be fully electric and not fossil fuelled vehicles with expensive electric parts bolted on but unused except for a cheap tax bargain.

As for the UK to change international flight to hydrogen? Not if the other end doesn't have hydrogen refuelling facilities. I've had my comment on that elsewhere. The UK cannot unilaterally take aircraft hydrogen without international fuelling. Although I expect that to come. There really is no viable alternative.

Whilst we might not have it right, we need to try and we need to keep on trying. Not because we're a huge emitter, not because we're good people. Because the consequences of not doing it are going to be felt by a lot of the world and if by steady and constant change we can avoid most of those consequences for the people of the UK, it is an investment in the future of our children and grandchildren and that is no bad thing. The most important thing is first to recognise the fact and the next most important thing is to start doing something about it.

[cromwell]

I thought we were in trouble there for a moment.
But Harry and Meghan have urged people to have fewer children - whew, we're saved!

Of course some miserable nay sayers might pass comments like "he'd be better off telling people in Niger" as they have the highest birth rate in the world with seven births per woman. Even Tunisia has a rate of 2.1 births per woman, and that's the lowest rate in the continent of Africa.

Still, some anguished liberal ladies in Islington will probably take his advice to heart.

It's amazing how we in the west refuse to acknowledge the obvious because stating the obvious is frowned upon.

[Workingman]

I predict that if I borrow my mate's time machine and come back in 2040 most of the 8 billion+ will be living similar lives as those of us today.

Most cars will still be FF. Planes will still be taking us on our holidays using Avtur or Avtag. Many homes will still use gas CH. We will still be eating meat, maybe a few bites less individually, but a lot more collectively. Primark will still be selling wear-wash-wear-and bin clothes. There will be cupboards full of part used "must have" cosmetics. A new phone every year will still be the rage, plus many other essential battery powered gadgets to make our lives easier. Chopping down trees will continue and coal fired power stations will still be being built. We will still be getting all these future targets from politicians.

And the people will still be screaming "We need to do something, and we need to do it NOW!"

[Suff]

You are right WM. However my take is that if the UK transitions away fro CO2 emissions in a gradual way for the next 30 years, the DO SOMETHING NOW target will not be the UK.

If the UK is net zero, then the only target is offshore emissions. That is an easy one to deal with. Onshore manufacturing and pay the price.

It will not change what is going to happen, but it will change the impact on the UK.

[Workingman]

Only if we have no FOM of weather and climate and sea rises.

We are all in this together and together is the only way out.

[cromwell]

Ooooops.
I wouldn't say that I talked crap sometimes, it's just that I get things wrong occasionally.

Like saying hydrogen powered flight doesn't exist.

Last year a Cranfield based outfit called ZeroAvia tested a hydrogen powered plane. Not a jet, but still.

https://www.zeroavia.com/

Maybe the DC 7 will make a comeback? Does anyone know where the plans for the Dakota are????

It sounds pretty good anyway and full marks to them for giving it a go.

[Workingman]

Airbus are also looking into hydrogen jet engines. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories ... ained.html

And as an F1 fan it was interesting to hear Ross Brawn and Toto Wolff claim that hydrogen was the future for the sport rather than batteries, but what would they know about engines? There is already an E-series but it needs so many tricks and stunts to make it work it's a joke.