What kind of father sacrifices his children in order, he thinks, to win an election

I’m all for fossil fuels.
I don’t think we will ever be totally reliant on green energy.
It’s just isn’t feasible for the vast majority of the population.

I can’t afford to replace my very reliable gas boiler or replace my diesel run car for an electric one.

Global warming will happen no matter what we do.
It might be delayed for a while longer, but it’s a natural occurrence. And as for ditching oil!
It’s never going to happen entirely.

4allweknow

Is it the LTN he is going to scrap or those stupid schemes whereby residents come out their drive and then have to go on a circular route about 5 miles longer than had they been allowed to drive directly to their destination. For oil and gas, we do import masses of both, some for production of electricity so why not produce our own, provide jobs. The carbon capture is already a feature in northern Scotland. Wonder how much natural resources are going to be needed for the production of electric car batteries, solar panels. Both have a limited lifespan, any ideas on how they will be disposed of en masse.

As I said in a previous post:

We really don't have a clue what we're doing

When I say we I mean the whole world, apart from a few scientists who are working hard to try to find solutions.

Northernlass

There was a time when sewage was chucked out into the streets. Then there were open sewers which fed into the Thames and cesspits in peoples' homes and gardens.

Then someone came up with the idea of an underground sewage system (the Romans had already thought of this centuries before) and in 1859 Joseph Bazalgette designed the sewage system for London. The work took 10 year from start to finish and included many pumping stations along the way so that the sewage was dumped into the Thames and taken away by the tide.

The last outbreak of cholera in London was in 1866 but that was in areas not yet connected to the sewage system.

In 1878 a pleasure steamer sank losing 650 lives, in an area where millions of gallons of sewage had been dumped.
Obviously that was a terrible tragedy that could not be allowed to happen again.

After several years of discussion and investigation it was decided that sewage should first go into tanks where the waste could be chemically treated and the liquid could be separated and shunted off into the Thames. The sludge was put into barges and dumped out at sea of more directly by long pipes. This practice continued well into the 20th century and was only largely prohibited in the 1990s. Unfortunately as we now know, some dumping was still allowed and advantage has been taken of those rules by the current water companies. But that's another story.

I have written this little history to show how things can change. A friend, who is anti wind power told me that in America there are dumps of the wings/blades from turbines that have been decommissioned. By the time the first generation solar panels are no longer used no doubt mankind will have thought of uses for them or how to recycle them. After all, tyres are recycled in many places to build earth houses.

Most of the work on sewage was during the governments of Gladstone and Disraeli, over a number of years. During the Victorian era many reforms which benefited a large part of the population were enacted. What is needed now is for a govt to enact reform for the present day. Whether the Labour Party has the guts to this is yet to be discovered.

This may be of interest - from today's Guardian:

A billionaire global investor has led international condemnation of the UK’s new oil rush, saying he would pull his major investment from the country if the prime minister pursued “clickbait” fossil fuel policies.

The Australian iron ore entrepreneur Andrew Forrest, who also runs the Minderoo Foundation philanthropic organisation, threatened to move his investments out of the UK over Rishi Sunak’s swivel towards new oil and gas drilling.

Here's a link to the full article:

"A billionaire global investor has led international condemnation of the UK’s new oil rush, saying he would pull his major investment from the country if the prime minister pursued “clickbait” fossil fuel policies.

The Australian iron ore entrepreneur Andrew Forrest, who also runs the Minderoo Foundation philanthropic organisation, threatened to move his investments out of the UK over Rishi Sunak’s swivel towards new oil and gas drilling. "

Here's a link to the complete article

www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/01/billionaire-investor-threatens-pull-out-uk-global-outcry-oil-rush-andrew-forrest

www.smh.com.au/business/companies/musk-vs-forrest-the-clash-of-eco-titans-and-their-enormous-egos-20220920-p5bjjj.html

Brilliant post Doodledog.Bravo.

Greciangirl i do not think anyone thinks we will ever be able to manage without the consulption of hydro carbons. they are used in the production of chemicals, pharmaceutics, and many other things, but we can cut our consumption to a point where we do not produce more emissions from all sources, including our breathing etc than the global environment can cope with. The point where the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is starting to decline.

One of the biggest contributors will be declining populations. fewer people on the planet, means less demands on naturalresources to feed, clothe and support them. Already the number of countries whose birthrate is falling below replacement rate is growing and I think we will see this figure grow much larger over the next 50 years. What we need to do is keep the planet's atmosphere surviveable until this natural change takes over. Declining populations will pose their own problems.

But one thing you could do is replace your diesel car with a petrol car. You do not have to go electric. Most diesel cars usually offer petrol alternatives, and we made that change about a decade ago. Similarly ULEZ compliant cars have been around for 20 years, so no matter how small your budget, there is no excuse for not owning a ULEZ compliant car.

Oh blast, your post didn’t come up Doodledog. Anyway excellent post at 14.49.

Greciangirl I can’t afford to replace my very reliable gas boiler or replace my diesel run car for an electric one.

I understand that. We could never afford to replace our 2007 and 2008 cars, fortunately gas - they will have to see us out.

My husbands business transports are newer and gas not diesel, he's lucky there, but his machinery is mostly diesel and always will be.

Maybe some inventor could figure gas equipment?

I actually think suspect electric cars are not a good way forward - reducing emissions on next generation petrol cars seems wiser, to me.

Doodledog Why not subsidise public transport (and electric cars, if an ecological case can really be made for them), instead of charging people who have access to neither? Why not increase the number of electric trams across cities and larger towns? Why not plan new developments with schools and other facilities in them, so that residents don't need to travel every day for basics? And plant trees to help prevent flooding? And so on and on. But no, instead the 'solution' is to keep things as they are for those who can afford to pay, and limit movement for those who can't.

EXCELLENT

Solar Panels can be recycled and Europe is doing it fairly well. As more come to the end of their life it is likely that this will be done more easily. The raw materials used are worth money.
www.greentechrenewables.com/article/can-solar-panels-be-recycled

Norah

I actually think suspect electric cars are not a good way forward - reducing emissions on next generation petrol cars seems wiser, to me.

You do understand that fossil fuels are limited and we will run out of them don't you? www.fairplanet.org/story/when-will-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels/

Greciangirl

I’m all for fossil fuels.
I don’t think we will ever be totally reliant on green energy.
It’s just isn’t feasible for the vast majority of the population.

I can’t afford to replace my very reliable gas boiler or replace my diesel run car for an electric one.

Global warming will happen no matter what we do.
It might be delayed for a while longer, but it’s a natural occurrence. And as for ditching oil!
It’s never going to happen entirely.

See about them running out above-You may continue to use them, your children might, your grandchildren won't be able to.

I think that stopping the production of high-emissions cars is as good a way as any - just phase them out. They will get fewer in number if people can't buy new ones. Maybe have incentives to scrap them or trade them in for electric ones (although as you say, Norah, electric cars are far from being the ideal); but penalising people for using something they bought in good faith isn't the way forward.

Who knows - by 2030 electric cars may be on the way to being phased out because of the ethical implications of lithium mining, difficulties in disposing of the batteries, their weight and impact on roads and car parks, and the reliance they will give us all on China. I'm very surprised there is no pressure group campaigning to get rid of them now. If that happens, what will people who have shelled out tens of thousands for one do? Again, if you are rich it won't matter much, but if the car represents a big chunk of your savings, you are struggling to pay for expensive food and are about to be hit with a huge bill for a heat pump or modern boiler, it could be the last straw.

People generally act in good faith, I think, and if the population can't trust the government to play fair by them there is instability. Although the UK is generally averse to civil unrest, people will only take so much, and we forget that we are ruled by consensus at our peril.

Glorianny

Norah

I actually think suspect electric cars are not a good way forward - reducing emissions on next generation petrol cars seems wiser, to me.

You do understand that fossil fuels are limited and we will run out of them don't you? www.fairplanet.org/story/when-will-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels/

Yes.

Thanks for the link.

Doodledog

I think that stopping the production of high-emissions cars is as good a way as any - just phase them out. They will get fewer in number if people can't buy new ones. Maybe have incentives to scrap them or trade them in for electric ones (although as you say, Norah, electric cars are far from being the ideal); but penalising people for using something they bought in good faith isn't the way forward.

Who knows - by 2030 electric cars may be on the way to being phased out because of the ethical implications of lithium mining, difficulties in disposing of the batteries, their weight and impact on roads and car parks, and the reliance they will give us all on China. I'm very surprised there is no pressure group campaigning to get rid of them now. If that happens, what will people who have shelled out tens of thousands for one do? Again, if you are rich it won't matter much, but if the car represents a big chunk of your savings, you are struggling to pay for expensive food and are about to be hit with a huge bill for a heat pump or modern boiler, it could be the last straw.

People generally act in good faith, I think, and if the population can't trust the government to play fair by them there is instability. Although the UK is generally averse to civil unrest, people will only take so much, and we forget that we are ruled by consensus at our peril.

Well Electric car batteries have a life of 25 years which means ones produced today will power a car until 2048. When they cease to function properly they can then be used for other purposes and plans are in place to enable recycling after their second life.
www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero-stories/what-happens-old-electric-car-batteries

Great, if that happens. But people thought that diesel cars were more emission-friendly than petrol until they found they weren't.

My point is that people need to be able to make financial commitments knowing that the rug won't be pulled from under them, particularly if they are operating on a tight budget. Even things like choosing where to live can be made difficult if instead of using carrot measures to help those whose bus services are barely existent the government penalises car use.

I've been looking at the work going on of running cars on solar panels on the car roof. It looks as if it's early days, but I'm sure it will come, for trains, buses too. When you think of computers which, when I was at university were the size of huge rooms, now fit into our tiny phones, I'm sure that solar panels can be reduced in size to power vehicles.

Great, if that happens. But people thought that diesel cars were more emission-friendly than petrol until they found they weren't

Well, certainly Gordon Brown was convinced.
We bought one on the strength of that advice

Callistemon21

^Great, if that happens. But people thought that diesel cars were more emission-friendly than petrol until they found they weren't^

Well, certainly Gordon Brown was convinced.
We bought one on the strength of that advice

Yes, 'facts' are fluid .

It's not just the length of time the batteries last thought - it's the dreadful conditions in the mines, the weight of the cars and so on. There are ethical considerations as well as environmental ones, and the social implications of ULEZ and LTN schemes.

Why not plan new developments with schools and other facilities in so that residents don't need to travel every day for basics?
Remember the outpouring of horror at the thought of 15 minute cities? Designed to keep us all pinned to one location and deprive us of our freedom, as I recall...

MaizieD

^Why not plan new developments with schools and other facilities in so that residents don't need to travel every day for basics?^
Remember the outpouring of horror at the thought of 15 minute cities? Designed to keep us all pinned to one location and deprive us of our freedom, as I recall...

But guidelines issued to LAs say that primary schools must be included in developments.

I do remember that conversation, yes. The difference was that again, there was to be a charge to leave the zone, if memory serves?

There is a huge difference between having what you need close by and being contained within a limited area if you can't afford the charges to leave it. I don't remember the detail now, tbh; but I do remember that my objection was to the two-tier nature of it that depended on what people could afford. That is a hill I am prepared to die on, I'm afraid.

Doodledog

I do remember that conversation, yes. The difference was that again, there was to be a charge to leave the zone, if memory serves?

There is a huge difference between having what you need close by and being contained within a limited area if you can't afford the charges to leave it. I don't remember the detail now, tbh; but I do remember that my objection was to the two-tier nature of it that depended on what people could afford. That is a hill I am prepared to die on, I'm afraid.

But why focus only on that single aspect? There are so many other things where money buys more.
The poor in any case tend to use public transport more, walk more and so are more exposed to the air pollution than the wealthy.