Reduce your carbon footprint - let the train take the strain

[royaloak]

27 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

We in the UK are / about to shoot ourselves in the foot, WHY ? - What do we emit - 1% ?

 

Brit15

We on this tiny little Island could go back to emitting the same pollution levels as we did during the industrial revolution and it would make naff all difference to the worlds pollution, something our inept leaders dont seem to understand in their quest to tax us to death in the name of saving the planet.

[phil-b259]

9 hours ago, Neil said:

 

 

Some of what you say is true, train instead of plane isn't to everyone's taste (at least for the moment) but I need to take issue with you on:

 

Luggage, yes there are just two of us but if we want by car, ship, plane, bus or rickshaw we would still need to take the same amount of stuff.

 

City centre destinations, our trips sometimes take us to city centres but even then there are changes of train to take into account. St Pancras to Utrecht requires changes at Brussels and Rotterdam (likewise Leiden). Not all trips have been to city centres, Italy (Desenzano) and Collioure are by no means cities. Our nearest miss came on our last holiday to Hamburg where our train in the UK became stuck behind one which had expired on the way to London, the Eurostar was caught by the skin of our teeth.

 

Budget, yes overnight stops cost but they're part of the holiday. It's all a matter of attitude, if your holiday doesn't start till the final destination then yes it's an extra expense, if the holiday starts at your local station or St Pancras then it's just as much value for money as the hotel/apartment at your final destination.

 

Haste, why would you be?

 

Children, agree it's harder with children and we didn't take ours abroad by train but we had a good number of UK holidays by rail and it can't have been too gruesome an experience as my daughter and her husband take the grandchildren on holiday by train.

 

Obviously (to reiterate my first sentence) the train won't be for everyone at the moment, but with my crystal ball/tea-leaves/runes/magic seaweed I foresee a growing trend. I think it'll really take off when air travel is priced to take into account the pollution it generates. Of course I could be wrong but I'd be surprised if in ten to fifteen years time we don't see an increase in rail and a decrease in flight for holiday travel.

 

EDIT: Apologies, somehow I've managed to surround Phil's quote with Appolo's header. Just to clarify it's Phil I was replying to.

 

Haste - well if you are in work and your employer only gives you the minimum of holiday time then you are not going to want to waste precious time phaffing around on trains when you can be at your resort by mid afternoon (I’m thinking package holidays to the med here - which is where most folk flying short haul for holidays are going)

 

Budget - again if you are only getting close to the minimum wage then money is usually going to be pretty tight and intermediate overnight stays + train fares are going to be significantly more expensive than flying direct.

 

Travel as part of the holiday experience - Most of the UK population do not share our interest in trains - or indeed the act of traveling. For them traveling is simply something you have to do to get from place to place and unless it’s something particularly special (a cruse, a trip on a steam railway, etc) then they will seek to make it as short as possible (Hint take a look round you on your next journey and observe just how many of your fellow travellers have their nose stuck in an electronic device rather than looking out of the window).

 

All the above are significant factors in why our love affair with flying as it were is not going to disappear anytime soon. Obviously some will chose to take the train - but it will be a very small percentage and as admarible your daughter + husband are such things are relatively unusual.

 

Now I accept that within the UK there is plenty of opportunity for modal shift from planes to trains - but most short haul journies with the UK are for business / weekend breaks and not family holidays where the motor car is likely to be the preferred choice. International air travel on the other hand is a different matter with far more of a mix of passengers - many of whom are not suited to modal shift.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

I agree with some of your points phil-b259, but not the bit about airport security being relatively painless - To use your own words, what rot !

 

My experience; Queue up, finally get to the front of the line, find a plastic tray, take off jacket, belt and shoes and put in tray, empty pockets (not just metal objects, paper tissues as well !), watch tray disappear, wait to go through scanning gate in socks, go through again if security officer not happy, wait for tray to reappear, hopefully with all contents intact, refill pockets and put jacket, belt and shoes back on. An absolute pain in the posterior.

 

I appreciate the need for security, and of course there are journeys for which rail cannot compete with the plane, but for internal trips within a small country such as the UK, rail should be preferred. Getting the message through might be hard however; I read a recent newspaper travel section article on Glasgow, and the only transport option from London suggested was BA; No mention of an hourly centre to centre train service !

 

 

Yes removing your belt and shoes is a bit of a pain - but in the overal scheme of things not the end of the world. As I said earlier with a bit of pre-planning separating out money, liquids, etc to allow speedy handling goes a long way to minimising delays.

 

I have flown short haul with EasyJet from Gatwick several times over the past 5 years and my biggest gripe is in fact not security (they have always had a plentiful supply of trays and relatively short queues) - it’s the long shopping mall selling overpriced tat that stemmingly goes on forever that you have to walk through to get to the frequently overcrowd departure lounge and the equally long walk to the departure gates.

 

I much prefer smaller airports - it might be basic but Berlin Schonefield or Prague were much less stressful places to travel through.

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, royaloak said:

We on this tiny little Island could go back to emitting the same pollution levels as we did during the industrial revolution and it would make naff all difference to the worlds pollution, something our inept leaders dont seem to understand in their quest to tax us to death in the name of saving the planet.

 

We could - but that’s not the point.

 

If we want to try and influence others then we cannot go round acting like we ruled half the globe (I.e. in the days of Empire) telling others to cut their emissions while still producing our own.

 

As with many things in international relations going round demanding this, that and the other from others rarely gets results (something certain inhabitants of Westminster refuse to acknowledge when dealing with a certain tricky problem).

 

Setting a good example and lots of hard dimplomatic work behind the scenes will eventually pay dividends in even the biggest polluting countries - which is why the UK is rightly trying to take a lead with certain initiatives  - although I admit that noble aim is somewhat undermined sometimes by the obsession with ‘the power of the free market’  ideology by the current Governing party lest it impose too much of a burden on business.

[TheQ]

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

I have flown short haul with EasyJet from Gatwick several times over the past 5 years and my biggest gripe is in fact not security (they have always had a plentiful supply of trays and relatively short queues) - it’s the long shopping mall selling overpriced tat that stemmingly goes on forever that you have to walk through to get to the frequently overcrowd departure lounge and the equally long walk to the departure gates.

 

 

I was a regular at Gatwick  when they removed rows of seats to increase the number  shops or as they put it " improve the shopping experience ". I disliked the place before,  I hated it afterwards.   The only place to sit, was to fight your way to a bar and pay an extortionate amount for a pint. 

[caradoc]

9 hours ago, royaloak said:

We on this tiny little Island could go back to emitting the same pollution levels as we did during the industrial revolution and it would make naff all difference to the worlds pollution, something our inept leaders dont seem to understand in their quest to tax us to death in the name of saving the planet.

 

But it would make a hell of a difference to pollution levels in this tiny island - Anyone for pea-soupers ? No thanks !

 

[62613]

10 hours ago, royaloak said:

We on this tiny little Island could go back to emitting the same pollution levels as we did during the industrial revolution and it would make naff all difference to the worlds pollution, something our inept leaders dont seem to understand in their quest to tax us to death in the name of saving the planet.

I bet we're not far off emitting the same levels of pollution as we did during the industrial revolution. The difference is that today it's a lot less visible, in the form of stuff like motor vehicle exhausts, or from gas-fired central heating vents, for instance.

 

[johnofwessex]

One obvious point is that air/high speed travel in general leads to an 'all you can eat' situation.

 

If we took  the train rather than flew or used public transport/bikes/walked rather than drove moving around suddenly becomes less straightforward/quick resulting in us travelling less, a win-win.

 

[APOLLO]

OK folks - let's all freeze, starve and stay in our dimly lit unheated hovels - Johny foreigner WILL be impressed !!!!!

 

Last time I went through security at Manchester it was awful - rushed, shouted and bawled at (everybody), shoes off, belt off, everything electronic in your bag (leads & all) out and into the tray - other side nowhere to sit and re-arrange yourself. i walked straight into Duty free belt & shoes in hand - sorted myself out there - the sales people WERE not impressed - STUFF EM !!!!. Overpriced tat anyway.

 

Another thing, buying a mag at WH Smith (cover price - no duty free there) they always want to scan your boarding card so THEY reclaim VAT etc.

 

By the way, transferring flights at Dubai again through security (belt & shoe job also) - quick, efficient & your not shouted at. Same at Bangkok also - quick, efficient & done with a smile.

 

Getting slowly to hate the UK (The state, government etc - NOT the country & people).

 

Brit15

 

 

[31A]

19 hours ago, Neil said:

Admittedly Belgium or Paris is as far as I would want to travel in a day from home, but the journey becomes part of the holiday experience. 

 

When travelling towards Switzerland I have found Strasbourg a very good destination for an overnight stop en route.  On the way to eastern or southern Germany, Cologne makes a good place to spend the night on the way.  Quite agree about scheduling in an overnight stop and regarding the evening in a fine city as part of the holiday, especially as when flying from my part of the world (York) the flight is often early morning from Manchester (e.g. c. 0845 to Zurich which I have done a couple of times) which means an overnight stop in a soulless airport hotel in order to check in for the flight next morning.  As well as soulless, airport hotels are often expensive and you don't appreciate them anyway, having to get up at stupid o'clock to check in!

[Mallard60022]

Yesterday, whilst checking one of those flight tracker sites so that I can see if SWMBO's plane reaches Belfast later today, I was attracted to look at the flights over Britain. I almost fainted at how many bl##dy planes there were and then I checked Europe. God help us all. 

Oh yes, I spotted a flight from Chester to Norwich and it was an internal schedule small jet, Tui or something, not one of these tiny taxi planes. WTF? Chester to Norwich by plane? Doh! (Even if it is a bit of an arse to get from Chester to Norwich by train).

P

[royaloak]

3 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

But it would make a hell of a difference to pollution levels in this tiny island - Anyone for pea-soupers ? No thanks !

 

The point I was making (and actually wrote down) was that it would have zero effect ON THE WORLD AS A WHOLE, but even when you write what you mean the pedantics always ignore it so they can make their point dont they!

[caradoc]

3 hours ago, royaloak said:

The point I was making (and actually wrote down) was that it would have zero effect ON THE WORLD AS A WHOLE, but even when you write what you mean the pedantics always ignore it so they can make their point dont they!

 

Actually reducing emissions by 1% would have the effect of, let's see, reducing emissions by 1%. However pointing that out is obviously pedantic so I will say no more.

 

[jjb1970]

The argument that our country isn't the world and us eliminating GHG emissions will make no difference is flawed on several levels:

 

-At a strictly technical level, us reducing GHG emissions will reduce global emissions, albeit a small reduction in global aggregated emissions;

 

-The developed world created this problem and got rich on the back of exploiting fossil fuels, we therefore have a responsibility to show equal leadership in reducing emissions;

 

-In per capita terms, the developed world is still very much a huge part of the problem, as can be seen from these two Wikipedia pages (yes, I know, it's Wikipedia, but they're convenient and these pages seem accurate)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

 

Yes, China now ranks quite high up the last (though not as highly as most assume) but that is after three decades of explosive economic growth and most of the emerging economies are still behind the established wealthy economies (I include the rich middle east oil/gas states as part of the rich world, quite fair I think since they see Europe as a bit of a poverty stricken area);

 

-From a strictly greedy capitalist perspective, the next major industrial revolution will be the shift to a post carbon world, therefore it would appear to make sense to position ourselves to be a winner rather than a loser in that shift; and

 

-In strictly ethical terms, the fact that somebody else behaves badly is not generally seen as fair reason for the rest of us to behave badly, climate change is real, emissions are real and we all have to do what we can to reduce emissions and mitigate climate change.

 

I really don't think people in the developed world realise how much it annoys people in the developing world when we try and turn this around so that emerging economies are the villains. India is building coal plants, not good and not something I'd advocate but their per-capita emissions are still minor compared to oh-so-environmentally-aware developed economies. I get as peeved off as anybody by the modern craze of virtue signalling on this issue and am quite cynical about much of the spin we see, that is however very different from being in denial of the need to reduce emissions and of our own responsibility.

 

 

 

-

Edited June 16, 2019 by jjb1970

[Sprintex]

Without a rapid reduction in the human population of the planet (and that's really gonna happen the way some people are churning out the kids like rabbits, because it's a 'right' to be a parent however (in)capable you are) then a lot of animal species are already doomed to extinction, along with a lot of the insect life that forms a vital part of the food chain. The sixth Mass Extinction Event is already under way and it's doubtful enough can be done to minimise its effects.

 

Happily humans are in that doomed list so keep up those toxic emissions everyone, because the sooner the verminous human race is wiped out the quicker the surviving species and the global ecosystem as a whole can start to recover.

 

 

Paul

[Reorte]

On 15/06/2019 at 22:27, royaloak said:

We on this tiny little Island could go back to emitting the same pollution levels as we did during the industrial revolution and it would make naff all difference to the worlds pollution, something our inept leaders dont seem to understand in their quest to tax us to death in the name of saving the planet.

True, but that's not really much different to "if I don't pay my taxes it will make naff all difference to the government budget so I'm fine dodging that" (other than the legal impact).

 

What we don't have to do though is go overboard with annoying token gestures that won't make any difference even within the UK.

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Sprintex said:

 

Happily humans are in that doomed list so keep up those toxic emissions everyone, because the sooner the verminous human race is wiped out the quicker the surviving species and the global ecosystem as a whole can start to recover.

 

The only thing likely to wipe out the human race is a nuclear war. We're not all doomed. We might create a lot of hardship and suffering but this is not an existential crisis.

 

And whilst I may be a cynical so-and-so who often isn't very impressed with humanity (even with those whose hearts are in the right place) uniquely we've got the ability to deliberately do good even when it's against our immediate instincts, which is unique.

[Mad McCann]

20 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

We might create a lot of hardship and suffering but this is not an existential crisis.

 

 

It's pretty existential on a personal level when you have no home, no income and are living on the street, because although you are confined to a wheelchair, somebody at the DWP deemed you fit to work.

An awful lot of people in the UK are blissfully unaware that this is the reality of life for many now, but, unbelievable as it may be to our more sheltered readers; reality it is for many people less lucky... 

[hayfield]

We will be having our third holiday in Italy using the train, haste is not the thing as we spend an extra day going and an extra day coming back. Its far more civil and relaxing going by train having a stopover night breaking up the journey, making the journey as enjoyable as the holiday. I just dread the thought of flying now with all the hassle involved. With the train you have nice comfy seats, a nice big window to look out (especially if on a double decker) get up and have a walk, go for a drink and or something to eat. Best of all you see the countries you pass through rather than over

[jjb1970]

I think that which mode of transport makes most sense depends on a number of variables, including distance, who is travelling, what baggage is necessary and how much time you are willing to spend travelling. 

 

My preferred method of travel is train, but there are times when it isn't that sensible. I am taking the boy to Hull this weekend for a two day ice hockey tournament. Getting from MK to Hull by train isn't the most convenient journey at the best of times, doing it with the boys ice hockey kit bag (a huge thing) and weekend stuff for us both would be a pain so I'm driving. Tomorrow I am off to Copenhagen for a couple of nights and am flying as my employer wants to minimise travel time. Next week however I am spending a few days in Antwerp and am going by train as it is just the best way to travel to Belgium. In a couple of weeks I am going to San Francisco for a week and the only realistic option is to fly. The irony of the SF trip is it is a meeting called by a green NGOs who invited me because they want to discuss...... lowering GHG emissions from shipping. 

[jollysmart]

On 16/06/2019 at 10:39, Mallard60022 said:

Yesterday, whilst checking one of those flight tracker sites so that I can see if SWMBO's plane reaches Belfast later today, I was attracted to look at the flights over Britain. I almost fainted at how many bl##dy planes there were and then I checked Europe. God help us all. 

Oh yes, I spotted a flight from Chester to Norwich and it was an internal schedule small jet, Tui or something, not one of these tiny taxi planes. WTF? Chester to Norwich by plane? Doh! (Even if it is a bit of an arse to get from Chester to Norwich by train).

P

 

Have you thought it might be a repositioning flight, empty, or a return to service, empty rather than actually taking passengers?

[The Stationmaster]

On 15/06/2019 at 22:27, royaloak said:

We on this tiny little Island could go back to emitting the same pollution levels as we did during the industrial revolution and it would make naff all difference to the worlds pollution, something our inept leaders dont seem to understand in their quest to tax us to death in the name of saving the planet.

This is an interesting point.  if we forget emissions per capita and just look at national totals it would be interesting to see how the UK has changed because if we go back to the industrial revolution there were no cars on the roads and no electricity being generated  but we now have millions of cars on the road and we still generate electricity with methods which produce emissions.

 

CO2 per head can also be misleading because of we look at UK population growth in recent years we have seen considerable 'unnatural ' increases. (unnatural in that they don't relate to the usual form of a population pyramid) so even if we generate more emissions the quantity per capita can be influenced.

[APOLLO]

This is very interesting info - just published - The BP energy statistical review of world energy for 2019 (2018 figures)

 

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf

 

This yearly review is respected around the world as relevant by many in the energy industry / governments etc.

 

Interesting at the end are pages on resources important to key minerals - Lithium Cobalt etc. Look at the emmisions / use year on year etc, and more importantly the current R/P (reserves/production) ratios, basically how many years we have left (current known reserves / current production - a best guess if you like). Oil is 50 years, Natural Gas is 50.9 for the world. The North Sea (both oil & gas) isn't too promising - I'll let you all find it, tonight's homework !!.

 

Page 14 for World Oil reserves

 

Page 30 for World Natural Gas reserves

 

Page 42 for World Coal reserves

 

Page 57 for world CO2 emissions.

 

Page 59 is an eye opener - 42 years then no Cobalt !!

 

Brit15

 

 

[Mallard60022]

6 hours ago, jollysmart said:

 

Have you thought it might be a repositioning flight, empty, or a return to service, empty rather than actually taking passengers?

Well, yes I had. Next?

P

[Mike Storey]

3 hours ago, APOLLO said:

This is very interesting info - just published - The BP energy statistical review of world energy for 2019 (2018 figures)

 

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf

 

This yearly review is respected around the world as relevant by many in the energy industry / governments etc.

 

Interesting at the end are pages on resources important to key minerals - Lithium Cobalt etc. Look at the emmisions / use year on year etc, and more importantly the current R/P (reserves/production) ratios, basically how many years we have left (current known reserves / current production - a best guess if you like). Oil is 50 years, Natural Gas is 50.9 for the world. The North Sea (both oil & gas) isn't too promising - I'll let you all find it, tonight's homework !!.

 

Page 14 for World Oil reserves

 

Page 30 for World Natural Gas reserves

 

Page 42 for World Coal reserves

 

Page 57 for world CO2 emissions.

 

Page 59 is an eye opener - 42 years then no Cobalt !!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

I have not read the whole thing, I admit, but, as with similar such analyses, I am never sure whether such figures mean absolute reserves, or reserves judged to be economic to extract?