Climbing, Flying, Guilt and Carbon-offsetting

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Robert Durran 24 Apr 2019

I suspect that I am far from alone among climbers on here currently examining their conscience about their carbon footprint, particularly from flying off on climbing trips around the world. For me (and, I assume, many others) the freedom to travel and climb is a massive and enriching part of my life - a significant part of what I live for. Can I justify continuing to do so? If I do so, just how guilty should I be feeling? Are climbers who fly for pleasure soon to be social outcasts, furtively indulging themselves below the accusing social media radar on Kalymnos or in The Himalayas? If I do continue to fly, would carbon offsetting genuinely offset the guilt as well as the carbon (If I can afford the flights I can certainly afford to offset them - I probably shall do so in future). Does the fact that I have (arguably) hugely diminished my carbon footprint by not having any children give me a bit of leeway to indulge myself (it's also the reason I can afford to do so in the first place!)?

Part of me, I admit, looks at China building a new airport for Beijing to handle 100million passengers per year and thinks, "sod it, what difference would I make by foregoing my pleasures". I tend to think that governments are simply not going to take the drastic action needed until the shit really hits the fan and that mitigation is only going to eventually come from developing astronomically expensive large scale geo-engineering, probably funded by realistic carbon taxes (which I would welcome right now on all emissions).

Anyway, looking on the bright side, with my favourite places to climb being the world's deserts, I might soon not need to travel so far anyway..........

 Tigger 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I would be intersted in a app that allows one to track their carbon foot print. Kg of co2 would be transferred to points, which would add up depending on your use of transport and diet etc...

You'd be given a yearly target of say a maximum of 3000 points (equivelant of 3 tons, which if I remember correctly is the maximum safe amount one person should produce a year). If you could go abroad using a plane a remain within your quota why not?

I think a full 737 produces 90kg of co2 per person per hour of flight.

*a point system is probably not needed just a tracker of kg of co2 produced I guess.

Post edited at 21:39
 RX-78 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, currently having the same thoughts. Had promised my wife we would go to Japan some day as I have been a few times for work, but not sure now. Also took the ski train rather than flying to the alps for the first time this winter. Might discuss with the family a future commitment to reduce or end flying trips for leisure.

 pavelk 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Tigger:

When I first saw Life of Brian I thought it was a parody but I was wrong.

As I read discussions here I find it was a documentary. Amazing!

8
 Dr.S at work 24 Apr 2019
In reply to nickprior:

The ‘secondary’ section is fascinating - how do my mortgage repayments generate 2.5t of CO2?!

OP Robert Durran 24 Apr 2019
In reply to pavelk:

> When I first saw Life of Brian I thought it was a parody but I was wrong.

> As I read discussions here I find it was a documentary. Amazing!

Care to explain?

 Wiley Coyote2 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Tigger:

I have been practising holding my breath to reduce my CO2 output. Does this count?

OP Robert Durran 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> The ‘secondary’ section is fascinating - how do my mortgage repayments generate 2.5t of CO2?!


And it only seems to allow me to offset three return flights!

 Dr.S at work 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Best make them long ones!

OP Robert Durran 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Best make them long ones!

They already are!

I'm actually thinking that once I've retired (and looking forward to even more travel......... ), I could reduce my footprint by making fewer but much longer trips (months at a time rather than weeks).

 Flinticus 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Why not just do it, carbon offsetting? I do for my car hire in Scotland. Its doesn't require much consideration.

OP Robert Durran 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Flinticus:

> Why not just do it, carbon offsetting? I do for my car hire in Scotland. Its doesn't require much consideration.

I probably shall. But does it really cancel out the harm or is it really mostly just away of feeling less guilty? Clearly it would be better to offset a flight without actually taking the flight or, even better, spend the money for the flight on offsetting even more flights I don't actually take!

I think it would be great if, whenever one bought a flight, the website offered offsetting with one click when making the payment (I think Easyjet used to do this but don't any more). In fact it would be great if this was offered with all carbon heavy stuff such as petrol and home fuel.

Jimbo W 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

The shit is really hitting the fan and governments arent doing anything. Our government have been warned we will need desalination to supply uk water within a couple of decades even if we do sort all the leaks and increase capacity. We're doing neither of the latter. Veg yields were down 20% in the UK last year, and olive yields were down 60% in Italy in a new climate pattern set to continue. This is before we lose the reflection from arctic ice, which is now unavoidable and expected any summer over the next few years, which will then markedly amplify northern hemispheric warming trends. And we have Claire Perry MP in parliament confused about what a climate emergency might look like... ...well how about doing your job and considering at least some mitigation of the effects even if you aren't going to lift a finger to help our kids?!

I've been off UKC for a few years, being more on Twitter (which gave great direct access to talk to climate scientists). I started the recent bout of climate discussion after being surprised at the discussion around the Etive hydro. It wasn't that particular hydro (which is genuinely controversial) that surprised me, but rather the surprising dysjunction between just how much we need to do to at least try to address climate change and just how unreal the climbing/walking community's appreciation of that seemed to be.

Refreshingly there are a good number who are trying, as well as the professional contrarians there always were on UKC, but also a few who are disappointingly undermining of the value of individual effort (which in contrast I think is essential primarily because it is rarely just individual).

I used to love climbing, skiing and walking mostly across Europe. And while climbing had fallen by the wayside at the time, I would love to have kept travelling abroad for holidays and especially for skiing. However, I made a conscious decision not to fly anymore about 5yrs ago. I still climb, walk and occasionally ski. However, I switched to do more hill running, kayaking, and have recently taken up fencing (epee) which is addictive as hell. Life is still good!

Being environmentally conscious has made me aware of low impact fun. I've played music for years, but I suddenly realised just how much real value can be created with very little material consumption from things like playing music in sessions. I never thought I would have done any gardening 10yrs ago, but now it is another focus, which being a geek I love the science of, and again it has community associated with it. So, I think if you want to make acting on climate a priority, and I'd love you to do that, I think you will find many local opportunities in the same or different activities, and you won't be borrowing from tomorrow's people to do so.

As for China. Well yes China is the big emitter we need to urgently change direction. However, though they are very much the problem creators on emissions, remember that that economic activity is in no small part driven by western consumption. Furthermore, their mitigation looks serious too. Their investment in solar panels has helped liberate a world market and they are doing the same now with battery tech. They are the biggest global renewables investors. They are also with India responsible for maintenance of the balance that has kept a global greening trend through reforestation despite deforestation elsewhere. Their scientists have produced a perennial rice (PR23) that is as productive as an annual, which should allow mixed animal systems that along with reducing soil erosion should reduce methane production too. So China are very much the problem, but they are also doing more solution creation than others too.

My own view is we get our house in order, because thats the way we lead, persuade others of the direction of travel, get market advantages, and, most particularly, its the way we look after our own people best too. Are we not even going to do that?

And, as I've said before, there is no such thing as individual action. We live in families, communities, companies, organisations. Our changes of behaviour can be unnoticed, but they can be provocative and create new possibilities. The results may be the small incremental step we alone have taken, but they can extend much wider. And look what a few individuals have achieved, $3billion of fossil fuel divestment started with a few people, extinction rebellion was started by 2 academics, Greta Thunberg has started a global school strike movement. I know the problem is huge, but I find it ironic that the product of an individualistic society is one in which so many prefer to believe in the impotence of individuals, and indeed believe in the impossibility of challenging our own consumptions. It is probably naive, but I think being the change we want to see is the way forward.

Post edited at 00:46
1
Jimbo W 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> I have been practising holding my breath to reduce my CO2 output. Does this count?

Not unless you try really hard!

 Phil1919 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Once you've retired your choices may be very limited. Make the changes now. I don't think we fully realise, that very soon there will be a lot less choice than we now have. Not sure how the pension funds will fare when the first serious food shortages turn up. 

Post edited at 08:18
 dh73 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

i think that the fact that you are asking this question means you already know the answer deep down...

 Tigger 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Well if you were to hold it long enough, seems a little extreme to me though 😁

Post edited at 08:44
Removed User 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

It's occurred to me that I could buy a yatch and sail to places like Lofoten, the Callanques, Pabbay...

 Phil79 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> The ‘secondary’ section is fascinating - how do my mortgage repayments generate 2.5t of CO2?!

I'd be interested to find out? 

The only thing I can think of is the investment of your money by the banking system in fossil fuel related industries? That seems a bit tenuous though.....  

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to dh73:

> i think that the fact that you are asking this question means you already know the answer deep down...

Maybe...........

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> It's occurred to me that I could buy a yatch and sail to places like Lofoten, the Callanques, Pabbay...

I'll come! Once I'm retired and have loads of time, slow means of travel (boat, train) will certainly be appealing for trips within Europe.

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Phil1919:

> Once you've retired your choices may be very limited.

Well, I'm hoping to retire in three years or so and I really can't see air travel becoming more restricted by then, except perhaps by realistic price rises.

 Mike Highbury 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Jimbo W:

> I've been off UKC for a few years, being more on Twitter 

How on Earth did you cope with the character count?

Jimbo W 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> How on Earth did you cope with the character count?

With difficulty!

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Jimbo W:

> The shit is really hitting the fan and governments arent doing anything.

I was really thinking of when we in the rich west start to notice significant effects of climate change in our daily lives - I think that is when governments will start taking drastic action. Right now, without radio, TV or internet, I could probably go about my daily life blissfully unaware that there is a problem.

> As for China. Well yes China is the big emitter we need to urgently change direction.........Their investment in solar panels has helped liberate a world market and they are doing the same now with battery tech. They are the biggest global renewables investors.

But they are still building huge airports and investing in massive aviation expansion - is that sort of ok if they are doing all this other good stuff.

Similarly, to go back to my original question, can I, at least to some extent, get myself of the hook by offsetting my emissions.

The thing is, I just really, really love travelling and climbing! Nothing else come close.

 summo 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Well, I'm hoping to retire in three years or so and I really can't see air travel becoming more restricted by then, except perhaps by realistic price rises.

Just offset your carbon. That's how Emma Thompson justified it on r4 earlier, because she can afford to.

I think I'll switch from beef to fish and see how far I can fly. It's the thought that counts. 

3
 jonnie3430 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

If you look at the statistics nothing you do will have a difference on climate change and the majority aren't going to stop, so you may as well get the trips in now, before the catastrophe that causes the world to make changes, when you won't be able to go away again.

2
OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019

So could anyone recommend a good offsetting company which genuinely does the job in a way which is environmentally positive in other ways (such as renewing rainforest or reforesting Scotland with native species). I'm at least going to offset the flights I've already paid for!

Also, what's a good genuinely renewable gas and electricity supplier?

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to jonnie3430:

> If you look at the statistics nothing you do will have a difference on climate change and the majority aren't going to stop, so you may as well get the trips in now, before the catastrophe that causes the world to make changes, when you won't be able to go away again.

I agree that that is the logical approach, if not the moral one!

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to summo:

> I think I'll switch from beef to fish and see how far I can fly.

Swim surely?

 Xharlie 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I know this opinion will surely be unpopular, here, but I wonder how many flights to sunny climbing destinations (or wintry skiing destinations) equal one rocket launch to put a Tesla Roadster in orbit?

Or one voyage on some super-yacht or one day of navy manoeuvres, both burning bunker-fuel?

I do, personally, avoid flying and try to minimise my own environmental impact because I realise that individual action is the only realistically achievable way forward (if any is, at all) but I am none-the-less bitter about the fact that me sacrificing my own fun makes really no difference at all, in the end, compared to the wastes committed by governments and the rich-boys who have now decided that launching stuff into space is their new form of pissing contest.

I choose to limit my consumption and curtail air-travel because it makes me feel less guilty -- for no other reason. It's a matter of conscience. I have no faith that it makes any measurable difference, whatsoever.

5
 pavelk 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Discussions how to get climate condonation (for climbing or other sins) seems to me as absurd as discussion about a true prophet who never admits to being a true prophet. Sorry.

It remains me my childhood when we fought for world peace at school by cutting paper doves and we were intimidating imperialist by waving parade sticks

9
 Flinticus 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Well, I use Ecotricity. No problems with them after nearly 20 years. That's jusy my experience however.

For my carbon offsetting, rather than get bogged down in precision which is probably not possible (perfection is the enemy of good and action), I donate through World Land Fund which saves rain-forests etc from deforestation. It seems a bona-fida organisation. That has the added benefit of biodiversity preservation rather than carbon offsetting via mono-cultural plantations or new forest. 

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Xharlie:

> I realise that individual action is the only realistically achievable way forward.

> I choose to limit my consumption and curtail air-travel because it makes me feel less guilty -- for no other reason. It's a matter of conscience. I have no faith that it makes any measurable difference, whatsoever.

These two statements seem contradictory! I disagree with the first and agree with the second.

In the end, the only thing which will make s real difference is massive government action. That is not going to come about by me foregoing a climbing trip. 

On the other hand, the collective actions of individuals in mass protests might make a difference in bringing about government action - I suspect that one Extinction Rebellion protestor is doing more good than one climber skipping their Euro-clipping trip.

 felt 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

>  Does the fact that I have (arguably) hugely diminished my carbon footprint by not having any children give me a bit of leeway to indulge myself?

It certainly gives you enormous leeway to not worry about what sort of world you're handing over to them and their children once you're gone.

 Jim Hamilton 25 Apr 2019
In reply to summo:

> Just offset your carbon. That's how Emma Thompson justified it on r4 earlier, because she can afford to.

It doesn't seem to be that expensive - her return flight to LA (first class?) would be about 11.43 tonnes CO2, according to the above calculator (about the same as the annual energy consumption of the average Dutch home according to some other calculator) which could be offset by planting 12 saplings! Although apparently trees don’t absorb any meaningful CO2 until they’re 15 years old..

Jimbo W 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Flinticus:

> Well, I use Ecotricity. No problems with them after nearly 20 years. That's jusy my experience however.

> For my carbon offsetting, rather than get bogged down in precision which is probably not possible (perfection is the enemy of good and action), I donate through World Land Fund which saves rain-forests etc from deforestation. It seems a bona-fida organisation. That has the added benefit of biodiversity preservation rather than carbon offsetting via mono-cultural plantations or new forest. 

I'd second this suggestion. There are many decent reforestation programs going on globally and you can read about them. We regularly donate to several. However, i'd add, away from energy source switching, the carbon impact of offsetting is often buffered into the future, because it takes a long time for trees to grow, if they will at all in some areas. So be aware that offsetting often still involves borrowing from the future, and so better by far is to reduce your immediate impact.

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to felt

> It certainly gives you enormous leeway to not worry about what sort of world you're handing over to them and their children once you're gone.

I do wonder whether I would instinctively feel more guilty and concerned if I did have children! 

Post edited at 10:50
1
OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

> It doesn't seem to be that expensive - her return flight to LA (first class?) would be about 11.43 tonnes CO2.

Really? I put in my recent flight to Las Vegas and it came up with about 3.5 tonnes.

 Jamie Wakeham 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Also, what's a good genuinely renewable gas and electricity supplier?

There are a few who will do 100% renewable electricity and offset the CO2 from gas: Bulb are good (and it seems surprisingly cheap), and Ovo were good when I was with them too.

If you want actual renewable gas, then I believe your only choice is Ecotricity: they are developing what they call 'gas mills' (anaerobic digesters turning grass into methane) and they state that 14% of their gas is produced like this at the moment - their ambition is to get that to 100%.  I think there are other reasons to go with Ecotricity - unlike many of the green suppliers they are generators too, so their profits actively go into building more renewable generation.  And they are responsible for the motorway network of superchargers, so if you have an EV then supporting them is clearly a good move (you get to use the network at half price if you are a domestic customer).  But they are a little more expensive and their interface is a bit clunky.

1
OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Jimbo W:

> However be aware that offsetting often still involves borrowing from the future, and so better by far is to reduce your immediate impact.

This is why I'd really like to see universal carbon taxes which would be spent on a mixture of short and long term research as well as reforestation etc.

 Jim Hamilton 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Really? I put in my recent flight to Las Vegas and it came up with about 3.5 tonne

Economy? and did you remember to include the Radiative Forcing Factor!

 Wiley Coyote2 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm hardly an eco-warrior but isn't carbon offsetting just complete self-serving conscience salving? EG if Emma Thompson is genuinely worried about the planet would it not have been better for her to plant the trees (or whatever she does) and also not fly halfway across the world for a climate protest (you really could not make that up, could you?). That way her contribution would be a net positive rather than just trying to be neutral by offsetting the harm she caused by her vanity appearance?

Jimbo W 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I completely agree a robust carbon price/taxation is needed. However it will have to be redistributed or the carbon price would be devastating for those on low incomes and politically impossible. However, with a price for carbon and allowing commercial offsetting, that would radically stimulate carbon fixation technology and natural regeneration. There is alot of work that has already been done, but there is very little money for spin-out. But carbon prices work, even when imposed for a short period:

https://mobile.twitter.com/astrokatie/status/1049332600257560577?lang=en

1
 felt 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I do wonder whether I would instinctively feel more guilty and concerned if I did have children! 

Given that you feel guilty and concerned without them, it almost goes without saying that you'd feel infinitely more so if you had to look the inheritors of the problem – the ones you can't help but want the very best for – squarely in the face every day.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Maybe the answer is slow travel. You will need more time but the journey is richer. Thirty years ago I hitched all the way to the Caribbean, using rides on yachts to cross the Atlantic, from Morocco after climbing Toubkal. 

I then hitched across America too. Climbing and working along the way over a year. 

Its very difficult when flights are so cheap and easy. But I still think it is more fulfilling to have an adventure ( as in not being sure of the outcome), hitch hiking to the Highlands or the Alps or India  than flying there. 

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> I'm hardly an eco-warrior but isn't carbon offsetting just complete self-serving conscience salving?

Well it's presumably at least a bit better than flying without offsetting.

And if I'm going to fly, I quite like the idea of feeling a bit less guilty about it..........

1
OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> Maybe the answer is slow travel. You will need more time but the journey is richer.

As I said earlier, once I've retired.........

 Wiley Coyote2 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Well it's presumably at least a bit better than flying without offsetting.

I can see that. I just find it a bit unconvincing if you are so certain it's a Bad Thing that you make it OK by planting a few trees.  By paying the offsetting  'fine' you seem to be giving yourself permission to commit the bad act, a bit like Boris and his Bullingdon Club chums thinking it's OK to trash restaurants because they could afford to pay for the repairs. As you say, better to offset than not but surely if you are genuinely concerned better not to go at all

Removed User 25 Apr 2019
In reply to summo:

> Just offset your carbon. That's how Emma Thompson justified it on r4 earlier, because she can afford to.

> I think I'll switch from beef to fish and see how far I can fly. It's the thought that counts. 


Do you also sneer at politicians who fly to summits on climate change to try and agree ways of cutting CO2?

If Emma Thomson has persuaded 20 people to reduce their carbon footprint by 5% then she'll have had pay back on her trip in one year. After that it's just profit isn't it. She also paid for carbon offsetting to cover the trip. Offsetting isn't the best solution but better than sitting on your fat arse in LA blaming everyone else/the government for not doing anything.

4
 Phil1919 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Mmmmm. Perhaps not by design, but many more growing seasons as difficult as last year will begin to make service as normal difficult. 

 Mike Stretford 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> In the end, the only thing which will make s real difference is massive government action. That is not going to come about by me foregoing a climbing trip. 

Massive government action won't come about until a majority of the electorate vote for a government who will take that action. For that to happen, realistically, it will need a majority who have voluntarily made changes to their own lifestyles.

You may in future campaign for a government who will make the average families summer holiday unaffordable ( as part of that massive action).... people are not going to listen to people who are still jetting and driving about for their own fun.

Post edited at 13:24
 Mike Stretford 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> If Emma Thomson has persuaded 20 people to reduce their carbon footprint by 5% then she'll have had pay back on her trip in one year. After that it's just profit isn't it. She also paid for carbon offsetting to cover the trip. Offsetting isn't the best solution but better than sitting on your fat arse in LA blaming everyone else/the government for not doing anything.

She's probably done more harm than good. I'm really surprised people are sticking up for her... the hypocrisy is a gift to people who are looking for an excuse to do nothing.

In one of her responses she basically said she would pay for 'cleaner energy' flights. Well that's not coming anytime soon but the admission that air travel would be for the rich will not go down well with the general public.

Post edited at 13:29
1
 neilh 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Air travel is also for shipping stuff around. I do this with machines all over the  world. They go on passenger planes not cargo planes.

Its either that or seafreight which takes in alot of cases 3 months versus 7 days.

The volume of freight shifted by air is overall tiny comapared with sea freight.

 Mike Stretford 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> In the end, the only thing which will make s real difference is massive government action. That is not going to come about by me foregoing a climbing trip. 

Not aimed at you, but I think the 'government' angle is becoming a very convenient excuse for some....'mmmm forgo that trip to the states and all that driving for fun, or support Extinction Rebellion?' The latter is definitely easier than the former.

Post edited at 13:36
OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> I can see that. I just find it a bit unconvincing if you are so certain it's a Bad Thing that you make it OK by planting a few trees.  By paying the offsetting  'fine' you seem to be giving yourself permission to commit the bad act.

Another way of looking at it is that the plane's going to fly anyway and it's better that I'm on it and offsetting than someone else who isn't or that there's an empty seat. Yes, I know that the planes would stop flying if nobody bought tickets, but that's not realistically going to happen any time soon.

Post edited at 13:46
3
OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Massive government action won't come about until a majority of the electorate vote for a government who will take that action. For that to happen, realistically, it will need a majority who have voluntarily made changes to their own lifestyles.

I don't think that follows. I can and would vote for a government that takes serious action while quite possibly still flying and offsetting for as long as I could afford it.

 Oceanrower 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

> Economy? and did you remember to include the Radiative Forcing Factor!

Ok, I'll admit not understanding some of this but how on earth can economy be the difference between 3.5 tonnes and 11.4 tonnes?

It's the same bloody plane isn't it? Going from tha same start to the same finish. Just sitting at different ends of it...

Post edited at 13:48
 Mike Stretford 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran: 

> I don't think that follows. I can and would vote for a government that takes serious action while quite possibly still flying and offsetting for as long as I could afford it.

Most people wouldn't. And there's a majority who will not vote away their foreign holiday when richer people will still be able to enjoy them (and if you are one of those your endorsements aren't going to go down well!)

 felt 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

Business people are three times as big as normal.

 felt 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, I know that the planes would stop flying if nobody bought tickets, but that's not realistically going to happen.

Surely that's the only reason for not flying, to get em big birds outta the goddam sky.

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Ok, I'll admit not understanding some of this but how on earth can economy be the difference between 3.5 tonnes and 11.4 tonnes?

> It's the same bloody plane isn't it? Going from tha same start to the same finish. Just sitting at different ends of it...

Because your seat takes up three times as much space; if there were three economy seats there instead, the emissions would still be the same but they would be shared between three people. Same reason you pay three times as much!

 Xharlie 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> These two statements seem contradictory!

Not contradictory at all. I do not believe that anything other than individual action will ever come about. Governments will not act because they are controlled by lobbies that would hurt their own financial prospects if meaningful changes were made. Commercial forces over-rule the democratic votes of the individual.

So I believe that individual action is the only action that will materialise, even while I believe that it will ultimately be ineffectual. These ideas are not incompatible.

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to felt:

> Surely that's the only reason for not flying, to get em big birds outta the goddam sky.

Obviously, but my argument (and I admit I'm playing devil's advocate a bit) is that realistically not enough people are going to voluntarily give up flying to stop the planes flying; it's going to take legislation that prices them out of it or otherwise stops them.

2
 felt 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> is that realistically

Flying will mark you out as a social leper soon enough. I don't mind telling you that my opinion of you has fallen greatly knowing how attached you are to flying, just as your opinion of me will go up immeasurably when I say that I haven't stepped on a plane since 2010 (and that was only, in a manner of speaking, at gunpoint; we didn't mention this to the cabin crew, obviously).

3
OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Most people wouldn't. And there's a majority who will not vote away their foreign holiday.

If you put it like that on the ballot paper, then yes, I agree, but I think that people will eventually vote for a government which takes drastic action which might include pricing them out of their flights once climate change starts to impinge directly on their lives in other bad ways (which really isn't happening for the vast majority yet in the rich west)

1
 Timmd 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

A thought occurred to me while tidying and sorting things out, is that a helpful way of thinking towards flying on climbing holidays less often, might be to think of it as 'not suffering' to do so, rather than seeing oneself as being denied something, and this being a bad thing?

 It's not plausibly a solution which can be applied across society, but if one can still go climbing in the UK, and can eat and be housed and all the other essentials, life is still great in the scheme of things. It's something one can apply on a personal level.

It's perhaps a little bit Buddhist in perspective, in that it isn't the not flying to go climbing causing any suffering or bad feeling, but the desire to go - feeling denied.  With the right mindset, it's all good.  Going climbing in the UK compared to somebody confined to a hospital ward, is pretty amazingly lucky.  

Post edited at 14:35
 summo 25 Apr 2019
In reply to felt:

> Flying will mark you out as a social leper soon enough. I don't mind telling you that my opinion of you has fallen greatly knowing how attached you are to flying, just as your opinion of me will go up immeasurably when I say that I haven't stepped on a plane since 2010 (and that was only, in a manner of speaking, at gunpoint; we didn't mention this to the cabin crew, obviously).

Can I have you as my carbon offset and I'll just fly every other year? 

 Mike Stretford 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If you put it like that on the ballot paper, then yes, I agree, but I think that people will eventually vote for a government which takes drastic action which might include pricing them out of their flights once climate change starts to impinge directly on their lives in other bad ways (which really isn't happening for the vast majority yet in the rich west)

You've nailed it..... people will only vote for this government when it's too late.  In the meantime what we can do is lower our carbon footprint, and try to persuade others to.

Post edited at 14:16
OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to felt:

> Flying will mark you out as a social leper soon enough. I don't mind telling you that my opinion of you has fallen greatly knowing how attached you are to flying.

I can understand you feeling like that.

>  ........just as your opinion of me will go up immeasurably when I say that I haven't stepped on a plane since 2010.

That would depend how big a sacrifice it is for you. Whether you just had an occasional tedious flight for work or the odd beach holiday, or whether it was something which brought you major life enriching experiences.

It would be great if I really lived for, say, gardening.

Post edited at 14:19
OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

>  In the meantime what we can do is lower our carbon footprint, and try to persuade others to.

Even if it makes no appreciable difference (playing devil's advocate again)?

 pavelk 25 Apr 2019
In reply to summo:

> Can I have you as my carbon offset and I'll just fly every other year? 


I can give you fifty names of poor people in poor countries I know who will never be able to fly anywhere if these wealthy ecowarriors get enough influence. You can use these poor to ofset your holidays

1
 Mike Stretford 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Even if it makes no appreciable difference (playing devil's advocate again)?

I think the best chance of any real impact is a global movement of like minded people, who have made a commitment to low carbon lifestyles.

Your alternative is doing nothing until we get this 'government', I'm talking about doing something in the meantime. That has to be better. As I inferred before those campaigning for this government will get a better hearing if they have made the sacrifices they are expecting others to make.

 Duncan Bourne 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

One thing that is rarely mentioned is the effects of not going to destinations that rely on tourism for their economy.

Will Popular med destinations revertt to the subsistance farming communities they once were?

Jimbo W 25 Apr 2019
In reply to pavelk:

> I can give you fifty names of poor people in poor countries I know who will never be able to fly anywhere if these wealthy ecowarriors get enough influence. You can use these poor to ofset your holidays

Unjust for sure. However, I can give you a list of countries where the rights of people to food, water and life have been severely impacted by the climate change induced by people in the West (and now China) and which would continue to be exacerbated by ongoing consumption, which is especially problematic in those conscious situations where that excess fossil fuel use isn't actually necessary.

1
 Timmd 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Jimbo W: The number of people who rely on the sea for their food and living is huge, as the sea temperature and acidity increase they'll have to (struggle) to adapt. The shells of the creatures which have them grow thinner when the acidity increases.

Post edited at 15:27
 GridNorth 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

The trouble is all of our efforts are just p*ssing in the wind.  There are simply too many people and while ever big corporations have the ear of governments we can have very little impact. They want higher populations a) to increase the pot of potential customers and b) to provide a bottomless pool of cheap labour.  That is not say that I disagree with the principle that we should all do our bit but sometimes it seems a little pointless in the grand scheme of things so I'm only willing to go so far. For example if I can get to the Alps by train rather than flying I will but abandoning such trips all together would be too big a sacrifice while ever those lecturing us about it continue to travel by private jets etc. I'm thinking here of the likes of Al Gore, Leonardo Dicaprio, Prince Harry etc. etc.

2
 Timmd 25 Apr 2019
In reply to GridNorth: It can seem pointless, but I see it a little bit as about being able to sleep at night, as well as there being some hope of it being a beneficial to make lifestyle changes, while trying to support any movements pressing for change on a more systemic or governmental scale.

Post edited at 15:30
 summo 25 Apr 2019
In reply to pavelk:

> I can give you fifty names of poor people in poor countries I know who will never be able to fly anywhere if these wealthy ecowarriors get enough influence. You can use these poor to ofset your holidays

Yeah and regardless of what we do, if we don't fly, we go vegan, we walk everywhere... a few billion people around the world will want precisely what we have now. 

So the only way is for them to have it. But those of us in the West who are already at that level should be investing in science, to discover how the developing world can eat better, have water, better homes, travel etc.. without destroying the planet. 

Telling everyone in the world they have to go without won't work. I don't think man would have evolved to the point we have, if we were prepared to make do with less. 

2
 AJM79 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Hi Robert,

When it comes to off-setting the thing to keep in mind is that the carbon cycle works on different timescales.

The carbon which is in the atmosphere, in plants and organisms is part of the short term cycle. So, if we hypothetically cut down every plant and burnt them then the atmospheric carbon would increase greatly. However, this could also be removed from the atmosphere very quickly as new plants grew to recycle it.

The carbon buried under the ground represents the long term carbon cycle and it is this which is one of the controls on the Earths climate. If this is released, either naturally or anthropogenically, then it increases the size of the reservoir in the short term carbon cycle, swamping systems which already have enough to operate (how often do your garden plants die due to lack of CO2). Also for the Earth to sequester carbon back into the long term cycle (i.e carbonate rocks and fossil fuels) takes many tens of thousands of years.

So the short answer is off-setting doesn't work it's just a way of clever accounting to mask a problem, a bit like benson and hedges donating 5p a packet to cancer research and telling you they'll have found a cure by the time you get ill.

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> I think the best chance of any real impact is a global movement of like minded people, who have made a commitment to low carbon lifestyles.

I think a global movement of people demanding change would do more good. I think I would almost certainly be doing more good joining an Extinction Rebellion protest and then flying off on a climbing trip the next day than doing neither

Post edited at 15:41
 GridNorth 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Timmd:

I'm not sure there is much point until such time that comparisons can be made.  So for example there are possibly people on this forum taking the moral high ground by saying they will cut back on flying for example.  But if I fly once a year and say I will not do this anymore and somebody else says they will cut back on their 3, 4 or 5 trips a year which one of us deserves to hold that moral high ground and who is to hold us to account.  Until we can do that it's really just a matter of assuaging feelings of individual guilt I'm afraid.

OP Robert Durran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to AJM79:

> So for the Earth to sequester carbon back into the long term cycle (i.e carbonate rocks and fossil fuels) takes many tens of thousands of years.

So rather than offsetting by planting trees, could I do better by helping fund research into carbon capture and sequestration (which I suspect is going to be how we eventually mitigate things).

Post edited at 15:51
 Tigger 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

I know, mone came out at 1.3 tons! Without that addition though my varbon footprint is at about 3.3 tons per year (interestingly 0.29 of that was a a flight to Malaga).

 jkarran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Tigger:

> I think a full 737 produces 90kg of co2 per person per hour of flight.

With 200 passengers on board 35kg/pp/hr in the cruise by my reckoning based on a burn rate of 5000lbs/hr. That's about 2.5x a single occupancy 30mpg car/van averaging 30mph to provide a some perspective. For many of us our commutes are significantly worse for the world than our holidays.

jk

 pavelk 25 Apr 2019
In reply to summo:

> So the only way is for them to have it. But those of us in the West who are already at that level should be investing in science, to discover how the developing world can eat better, have water, better homes, travel etc.. without destroying the planet. 

That´s exactly what we do though tne Apocalypse heralds refuse to see it. Bans and regulations will not help

 Pyreneenemec 25 Apr 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> The trouble is all of our efforts are just p*ssing in the wind.  There are simply too many people and while ever big corporations have the ear of governments we can have very little impact. They want higher populations a) to increase the pot of potential customers and b) to provide a bottomless pool of cheap labour.  That is not say that I disagree with the principle that we should all do our bit but sometimes it seems a little pointless in the grand scheme of things so I'm only willing to go so far. For example if I can get to the Alps by train rather than flying I will but abandoning such trips all together would be too big a sacrifice while ever those lecturing us about it continue to travel by private jets etc. I'm thinking here of the likes of Al Gore, Leonardo Dicaprio, Prince Harry etc. etc.

I wonder if a future, as portrayed in the 1970's film 'Soylent Green ' ( Charlton Heston & Edward G Robinson) is likely to become reality ? The rich, who manage to preserve their advantages: better education, housing, reserved employment, even child-bearing, contrasting with  the poor who will be made to survive on hand-outs in whatever form they take. There will be no mobility between the two, you are born poor, that is the way  you are going to stay. The film takes an extreme stance by having human beings, who have had enough of 'only surviving' choosing euthanasia. The dark secret is that their bodies are recycled  to produce cheap nutrients for the masses, the 'Soylent Green' in the title. 

Well worth a watch if you have not seen it recently or even not at all. Edward G Robinson ( his last film, he died  just months after filming ended) is excellent.

 echo34 25 Apr 2019

Electrofuels May be the way to go with aviation until a different fuel/propulsion can be developed, in the medium term. 

Problem is it puts costs up so you need everyone to do it.

Same problem with taxing AVTUR, you need it be be a worldwide policy or all your competitors will just tanker and all your domestic airlines go out of business. 

The medium term solution would probably be global price rises for air travel,(electrofuel is estimated ~60% increase) either through tax or just raising prices, less pax movements but same revenue for the airlines. People who want to travel will be willing to accept the higher cost and those who aren’t don’t fly.....

Post edited at 16:25
 Timmd 25 Apr 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> I'm not sure there is much point until such time that comparisons can be made.  So for example there are possibly people on this forum taking the moral high ground by saying they will cut back on flying for example.  But if I fly once a year and say I will not do this anymore and somebody else says they will cut back on their 3, 4 or 5 trips a year which one of us deserves to hold that moral high ground and who is to hold us to account.  Until we can do that it's really just a matter of assuaging feelings of individual guilt I'm afraid.

I don't agree, in that all changes in behaviour are beneficial, and if enough people change their behaviour, it starts to add up, and both people deserve credit for being bothered enough to act. We simply have to act, because if we see things as being hopeless - that will become the reality.

Post edited at 16:37
 GridNorth 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> I don't agree, in that all changes in behaviour are beneficial, and if enough people change their behaviour, it starts to add up

I don't disagree with that statement but we are not talking about actions, we are talking about words and those words become shallow when the persons doing the talking are acting the opposite way. So until we can measure the actions and not the words progress will be difficult.  Credible people should be making the case.  Giving a talk about how we should all do our bit and then hopping in a private jet or helicopter to the next venue is not credible.

Jimbo W 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> The number of people who rely on the sea for their food and living is huge, as the sea temperature and acidity increase they'll have to (struggle) to adapt. The shells of the creatures which have them grow thinner when the acidity increases.

Absolutely right. Oysters can't be farmed in the US and now also in France in ocean systems, and have to be grown until a certain size in land based tank systems because the young oysters cannot provide the energy to form shells due to ocean acidification. This is a scary indicator of the physiological stress shell forming organisms will be experiencing, including plankton, and the wider ecosystem implications.

 Timmd 25 Apr 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> I don't disagree with that statement but we are not talking about actions, we are talking about words and those words become shallow when the persons doing the talking are acting the opposite way. So until we can measure the actions and not the words progress will be difficult. 

That's not what you said before, though? I had a thought while shopping just now, too, that even if one person does give up flying, and another only cuts down, it doesn't 'feel fair',but the person who doesn't fly at all has still potentially made up for the person who still flies and has only cut down. It's about doing as much as we can, without saying 'What about them?' leading to inaction - which would mean we're definitely screwed. 

> Credible people should be making the case.  Giving a talk about how we should all do our bit and then hopping in a private jet or helicopter to the next venue is not credible.

Caroline Lucas seems pretty credible to me, and that Swedish teenage who traveled here by train.

Post edited at 17:34
1
Removed User 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

For someone with a leftwing view of the world I seem to have more faith in capitalism, or should I say managed capitalism, providing acceptable solutions to air travel than many posters on here do.

Is there any reason, for example, that continental air travel couldn't be replaced by high speed electric trains? Why shouldn't the major cities in every continent be connected by the equivalent of TGVs taking from one city centre to another at 250 mph powered by green electricity. There is nothing in principle that stops this happening as far as I can see. One can already travel from the South of England to Grenoble in pretty much the same time door to door that one do the same journey by flying. Once there in a decade's time we could be met by an autonomous car to take us to out final destination. Why are people whingeing about HS2 when they should be pressing for the government to expand it and make it a replacement for air travel.

Developing countries can of course leap frog the West in the same as they did with telecoms, going straight to high speed rail and missing out air travel as they when they went straight to mobile base stations and ignored copper wire. Is there any reason why there shouldn't be a high speed rail link between Cairo and Johannesburg?

All it needs is a will to make it happen and that will has to come from you and me, telling politicians that that is what we want. I think people misunderstand the political dynamic, it is not politicians who influence us but the opposite, politicians spend their lives trying to figure out what we want and then they give it back to us, while making it look like it was their idea all along.  If they don't think that people will vote for change then they won't advocate it if they think there are votes in it they most certainly will.

So we should press politicians. Make them know that there are votes in going carbon neutral and while they're coming round to the idea we should all be making it abundantly clear to them by conspicuously preferring green alternatives to the coal black status quo.

 Tom Valentine 25 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

 I've just done an online trip calculator which shows that I would have to fly nine times to see my mate in Ireland to match my wife's once a year jaunt to Cyprus in terms of Co2 production. That's not exactly pro rata for the distance  but close enough. 

Move to a different website and the difference is four times rather than nine. Oh well.

Post edited at 21:55
 AJM79 26 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Unfortunately capture seems to be the only way we have to go, not that we really have the technology yet.

I've given up meat, and recently flying. Of the two meat was definitely easier. It's hard but I do think that in order for us to make a meaningful difference we're going to have to make massive societal changes the world over and I don't really see that happening.

Saying that, the way I look at it is, my reduction might not make a big difference but do I really want to give financial support to the companies which are doing the most damage. Capitalism is democratic at the point of payment and I'd rather not vote for further damage. I only wish I could afford an electric van.

 Jim Hamilton 26 Apr 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> One can already travel from the South of England to Grenoble in pretty much the same time door to door that one do the same journey by flying.

Is that right?  Looks as though 1.5 hr flight time versus 7 hours by train?

> Why are people whingeing about HS2 when they should be pressing for the government to expand it and make it a replacement for air travel.

Because critics say it involves massive cost and disruption without the claimed benefits.

> All it needs is a will to make it happen and that will has to come from you and me, telling politicians that that is what we want.

We could all vote for the Green party?

Post edited at 10:00
 skog 26 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I suspect that a world where people can't travel around, intermingle, visit and see other places, will be a world where people care less about what happens to far away people and places.

It makes a lot of sense to ask yourself, before travelling, whether it's worth doing - can you have just as good a holiday without doing so? Do you really need that business trip? Can you combine trips more often, make them fewer but longer? But I can't support the idea of stopping travelling, nor try to impose that on my children. The solution surely has to include finding ways to make such travel more environmentally friendly, rather than stopping doing it.

It's only the wealth we've achieved through exploiting and damaging the environment that gives ordinary people the luxury of worrying about that damage - people struggling for survival, living day by day, don't really have that option. The increasing awareness of the unsustainability of our current lifestyles should be harnessed to push towards better ways of doing things, to create new methods of feeding ourselves, powering things, and enjoying our lives which are sustainable, as we reign back those that are not. I think that if the green movements embrace this approach people will support them and feel good about it - but if it's all just about cutting back, sacrificing experiences and opportunities now in the hope that it might make things less worse in the future, it just isn't in human nature to do that.

 Richard J 27 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Flippant answer: since globally ICT has a bigger carbon footprint than aviation, and ICT's carbon footprint is growing faster than aviation's (driven in part by the massive energy consumption of cloud computing services), maybe you should be less guilty about flying, and more guilty about posting on climbing internet forums.

Serious answer: of course we should all feel guilty about flying.  But it's worth asking, why this one activity, which amounts to about 7-8% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions on a consumption basis, attracts so much attention.  I guess this is to do with: (a) the fact that when flying, it's obvious that one is sat next to a device burning huge amounts of kerosene, in way that's much less clear for things like the (arguably more important) embedded energy of the goods and services we buy (including, perhaps especially, digital services); (b) the fact that this is so unevenly distributed, with a relatively small fraction of the population enjoying most of the benefits; (c) the fact that flying for pleasure is something we do have agency over - we can (usually) choose to fly less.

This emphasises that we live in an economic system that depends on an unsustainable level of carbon emissions, and as individuals we don't have any control over most of this.  So perhaps we should emphasise collective, political action to change this system  rather than making it an issue of personal morality.

OP Robert Durran 27 Apr 2019
In reply to Richard J:

> Serious answer: of course we should all feel guilty about flying.  But it's worth asking, why this one activity, which amounts to about 7-8% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions on a consumption basis, attracts so much attention.  I guess this is to do with: (a) the fact that when flying, it's obvious that one is sat next to a device burning huge amounts of kerosene, in way that's much less clear for things like the (arguably more important) embedded energy of the goods and services we buy (including, perhaps especially, digital services); (b) the fact that this is so unevenly distributed, with a relatively small fraction of the population enjoying most of the benefits; (c) the fact that flying for pleasure is something we do have agency over - we can (usually) choose to fly less.

Hi Richard, I have had similar thoughts about flying perhaps being a convenient and obvious but perhaps the wrong target. It seems to me that, because flying is so difficult to make carbon neutral - it is going to require fossil fuels for the foreseeable future - it makes more sense to focus efforts on almost everything else which can be run on potentially renewably generated electricity. If we assume that the rich west is, realistically, not about to largely give up the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed, perhaps we should accept that aviation is going to continue, ideally slap a hefty carbon tax on it, and focus on tackling the other 92% or so of emissions and urgently throw resources at developing technology for carbon capture and sequestration.

> This emphasises that we live in an economic system that depends on an unsustainable level of carbon emissions, and as individuals we don't have any control over most of this.  So perhaps we should emphasise collective, political action to change this system rather than making it an issue of personal morality.

I think it is certainly true that only government action can seriously tackle the problem; indivdually we can't do much more than make small gestures., which, admittedly, might make government sit up and take notice.

Jimbo W 27 Apr 2019
In reply to Richard J:

> Serious answer: of course we should all feel guilty about flying.  But it's worth asking, why this one activity, which amounts to about 7-8% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions on a consumption basis, attracts so much attention.  I guess this is to do with: (a) the fact that when flying, it's obvious that one is sat next to a device burning huge amounts of kerosene, in way that's much less clear for things like the (arguably more important) embedded energy of the goods and services we buy (including, perhaps especially, digital services); (b) the fact that this is so unevenly distributed, with a relatively small fraction of the population enjoying most of the benefits; (c) the fact that flying for pleasure is something we do have agency over - we can (usually) choose to fly less.

Flying, as I understand it, is worse than jist its pure carbon emissions. Radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is in large part mediated by increasing water vapour, which is a powerful greenhouse gas. Flying puts water vapour exactly where you don't want it. So flying has a radiative forcing that exceeds its mere carbon emissions.

> This emphasises that we live in an economic system that depends on an unsustainable level of carbon emissions, and as individuals we don't have any control over most of this.  So perhaps we should emphasise collective, political action to change this system  rather than making it an issue of personal morality.

I think it's a mistake to think that collective political action is separate from individual action. Really there is no such thing as individual action. Our behaviour can be unnoticed,  but it can be provocative. You might have very little effect, but a few will have systemic influence. Individual changes mold cultural change. And most of those events that speak to collective political action have also been started by a small number of individuals, $3trillion divestment from fossil fuels and growing fast, extinction rebellion started by two academics, Greta Thunberg's now global school strike movement. Its not that I don't agree that collective action is required, its just that getting there involves individuals, and the most dangerous thing we csn do is therefore take hope, drive and necessity away from individuals.

1
 Richard J 27 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Hi Richard, I have had similar thoughts about flying perhaps being a convenient and obvious but perhaps the wrong target. It seems to me that, because flying is so difficult to make carbon neutral - it is going to require fossil fuels for the foreseeable future - it makes more sense to focus efforts on almost everything else which can be run on potentially renewably generated electricity.

Yes, from one perspective it makes sense to address the easy things first rather than the hard ones.  It's pretty clear what needs to be done - electrify everything, completely decarbonise electricity generation, and reduce demand.  So we need to massively accelerate the introduction of electric vehicles; for decarbonising generation I think in the UK the heavy lifting has to be done by a big expansion of offshore wind and bringing forward a large-scale nuclear new build program (much as I like solar, which is where about half of my own research is focused on, I fear the problem of winter presents a limit to its penetration for the UK); for demand reduction we need an ambitious programme of retrofitting existing housing and a big program of new social housing (urgently needed anyway) with high energy efficiency standards.

This leaves the more difficult areas - cement and steel making, which I think will need carbon capture and storage - and aviation, where it's difficult to see getting away from liquid fuels, which in principle will need to be synthesised using low-carbon electricity or process heat from 4th generation nuclear.  These need a programme of research and pilot scale deployment to be started pretty much now.  And, as you suggest, we should tax carbon as much as politically possible, which unfortunately I suspect is a lot less than its true cost.

OP Robert Durran 27 Apr 2019
In reply to Richard J:

> And, as you suggest, we should tax carbon as much as politically possible, which unfortunately I suspect is a lot less than its true cost.

I actually think that a carbon tax on flights might be a vote winner. It seems that offsetting would mean fare increases of the order of 10% which ought to be completely affordable if you can already afford the luxury of flying.

 Richard J 27 Apr 2019
In reply to Jimbo W:

I don't disagree about the power of political activism (hence my positive comments about Extinction Rebellion in an earlier thread) but it would be good to see that directed towards promoting policies that are actually effective.  One example - did you know that less than 3% of UK government R&D spending is directed towards energy research of any kind (compared to 22% for health and 16% for defense)?  I brought this to the attention of a reasonably prominent writer/activist on sustainable energy, who wrote a piece about it last summer, but as she ruefully confessed, it made no impact at all, as the need for R&D to bring down the cost of existing low carbon energy technologies and devise new ones just doesn't seem to be part of the conversation.

Jimbo W 27 Apr 2019
In reply to Richard J:

You're right. I have written directly to ministers (Claire Perry, Greg Clark, and Michael Gove) on this because, as a doctor, there is little doubt that big carbon emissions reductions or mitigation of the effects of climate change (eg water infrastructure) are going to have a far bigger impact on health than cancer research. A wholesale reprioritisation is required. Having said that, there is quite a wealthof research, but a real dearth of spinouts, underlying the lack of incentives and or more systemic mechanisms like robustcarbon pricing. The Tories are a joke here. They've cancelled competitions on carbon fixation and capture twice in an area we could be leading. More positively, and bringing this backto the point about individual/collective action, since I started campaigning on this, there used to be scant healthcare workers where there are now multiple nhs groups campaigning for climate action on health grounds, which is exactly right.

 Richard J 28 Apr 2019
In reply to Jimbo W:

I've done my best on health research reprioritisation - see https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/biomedical-bubble/

This got me a social media hate campaign from the Medical Research Council and a frosty meeting with the Biotechnology Industry Association - but a very supportive editorial in the Lancet, and an afternoon with Jeremy Farrar and the Wellcome Trust senior team, who are taking this issue very seriously now.  But biomedical research is a bit of a juggernaut that won't be turned round easily.  I certainly agree about the poor record of the current government.

 Richard J 28 Apr 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I'd like to think you're right.  One issue is that the economically preferred way to tax aviation would be to tax aviation fuel directly, to give airlines incentives to use more fuel efficient aircraft and better operating practises, but this would need to be done with a  lot of international agreement and cooperation.

Jimbo W 28 Apr 2019
In reply to Richard J:

> I've done my best on health research reprioritisation - see https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/biomedical-bubble/

> This got me a social media hate campaign from the Medical Research Council and a frosty meeting with the Biotechnology Industry Association - but a very supportive editorial in the Lancet, and an afternoon with Jeremy Farrar and the Wellcome Trust senior team, who are taking this issue very seriously now.  But biomedical research is a bit of a juggernaut that won't be turned round easily.  I certainly agree about the poor record of the current government.

Aha you are that Richard J. Good man! All I can say is thank you, keep at it, and there are growing numbers of us on board and pushing in the same direction, even people like me, a Histopathologist who spends a great deal of time working on cancer. Jeremy Farrar is awake, I think. Was Mark Walport on the team you spoke to then and receptive or had he already moved across to be chief government scientist? He might be a good person to target too. Richard Horton is clearly alive to the health relevance of climate breakdown and is a useful forum to continue to use. I'd be interested in your views about where the trch developments look interesting and where the deficits are.

 Richard J 28 Apr 2019
In reply to Jimbo W:

My Wellcome visit was just last autumn, so Mark Walport had long since moved on - and in fact he's moved from GCSA to run UK Research and Innovation, thus now overseeing the government's £7 billion research budget.  What can I say about Mark in a public forum... I don't think he's a natural ally.  I'm already in trouble for criticising the make-up of the UKRI board, so I probably shouldn't point out here that it's not a good look for the top-level board of the UK's main research funder to have on it a Chevron main board member (Alice Gast) and the former CEO of BP, now chairman of a Russian oligarch's oil company, L1 Energy (John Browne).

Jimbo W 28 Apr 2019
In reply to Richard J:

Indeed, that was the question behind my question. Having met him a few times I'd have been surprised if you had had such a decent reception if he was there, which is  why I used the word "target" rather than something more dependable. I thought i might have judged him wrong. I didn't know that he had moved on again. You are right to point out the UKRI board make up. That is deeply embarrassing and should be repeatedly pointed out at every public opportunity to do so!

 Richard J 28 Apr 2019
In reply to Jimbo W:

I rather suspect you judged him all too accurately!  The board membership thing I've mentioned to a few people with an interest in climate activism, and it gets no traction - again, I think this is a symptom of the need for clean energy research just not being part of the conversation.

 Offwidth 28 Apr 2019
In reply to Richard J:

Add another person happy to finally realise who you are. If we get the chance to look back at how climate change was resolved my expectation is it will have come through research and innovation and if the most capitalist of western governments were needed to be pushing that they will probably have been late to the table due to the current mire of political self interest and vested interest lobbying.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...