Reduce your carbon footprint - let the train take the strain

[APOLLO]

I reduce mine by hopping everywhere

 

Here in a rainy southern Thailand, flew down to Dubai over Iran a couple of days ago oblivious to Trumps crazy plan to start WW3 as we flew over THIS GUY is a real time nut job. Worse for our planet than a bit of CO2

 

Whoops, I see the sun coming out, climate change  !!!

 

Tootle pip, I,ll stock up on foot bandages folks quite cheap here as nobody uses them !

 

Brit15

[Mallard60022]

17 hours ago, Sprintex said:

Resorting to post-count snobbery now huh?

 

We all have different opinions, and so far I don't believe that I've rubbished anyone else's, just thrown my own into the mix which I'm entitled to do. I believe humans as a race are vermin who breed without thought of resources, and destroy other animals' habitats for our own gratification (be that food or simply non-essential cosmetics), because we believe we're entitled to do so. And we're supposedly intelligent?

Case in point: On a radio discussion a few months back some woman was crowing on about how much she recycles, how she encourages her young children to do so, and how much she tries to "be green". How many kids did she have? FIVE 

She had no concept that she has now infected our planet with five more drains on all the resources they're going to need throughout their many decades of life, but it's all OK because she chucks bits of cardboard in a special bin. No thought to having less consumers to start with then.

 

When we're dealing with this kind of stupid what is the point in having belief in the human race? So I stand by my point: the quicker humans disappear from the face of the Earth the better for the other life forms on it.

 

 

Paul 

Well this at least is a post that outlines and explains your opinion and thanks for that. It is not just a laughing emoji from the tick box that said nothing.  Now, I respect your view, however I cannot agree with anything you say in any way at all other than partly "And we are supposedly intelligent?" Yes, most humans are intelligent, however many humans are also thoughtless and aggressive to everything else that lives on the Earth and there you are correct.

As for this " I believe humans as a race are vermin who breed without thought of resources", & " She had no concept that she has now infected our planet with five more drains …………", I am really shocked by these thoughts.

I feel sad that this is how you feel about your fellow inhabitants and give so little value also to you place on Earth and how you might attempt to improve things for the future: "...…….the quicker humans disappear from the face of the Earth the better for the other life forms on it."  Wow! The latter in bold (my edit) has some substance to it of course when we see the destruction we are causing and I can relate to this

If I appear snobbish then fine I can live with that.

Sadly some of your thinking reminds me of somethings I read about in the Plans made by  a certain Mr Hitler and his mob.

All the best,

Another human.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Mallard60022

[APOLLO]

  Like it or lump it the modern world is a huge consumer of resources of every description, and ain1 changing soon whatever the tree huggers suggest  FACT.

 

Over here in rapidly developing Thailand there is scant regard for climate change, though energy is expensive more thought here  is on energy efficiency.

 

God knows what the future holds, I agree we cannot carry on worldwide as we are, but try telling that to the folks over here, I.m not !

 

Off now for some seafood and a couple of beers.

 

Brit15

[jonhall]

6 hours ago, Niels said:

https://imgur.com/FSADUC1

 

My picture is from 2017

Can we see some more of Yours?

 

So is mine, and since I think they were running 01 118 on the branch and this 52 up and down the yard doing cab rides on the Sunday, and swapped over on the Monday I suspect both were taken on the same day. When I saw the captions on yours I thought - 'if there was an Ice Cream van on the other side of the road, I'd probably be looking at that instead! '

 

Most of my photo's are unremarkable ones around Königstein station, however for the last couple of trips I went down to this small halt where I knew that whilst I wouldn't get lots of chuff (because it looked pretty level) I would at least get a clear view of the train from the field.

 

Jon

Edited June 23, 2019 by jonhall

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Well this at least is a post that outlines and explains your opinion and thanks for that. It is not just a laughing emoji from the tick box that said nothing.  Now, I respect your view, however I cannot agree with anything you say in any way at all other than partly "And we are supposedly intelligent?" Yes, most humans are intelligent, however many humans are also thoughtless and aggressive to everything else that lives on the Earth and there you are correct.

As for this " I believe humans as a race are vermin who breed without thought of resources", & " She had no concept that she has now infected our planet with five more drains …………", I am really shocked by these thoughts.

I feel sad that this is how you feel about your fellow inhabitants and give so little value also to you place on Earth and how you might attempt to improve things for the future: "...…….the quicker humans disappear from the face of the Earth the better for the other life forms on it."  Wow! The latter in bold (my edit) has some substance to it of course when we see the destruction we are causing and I can relate to this

 

 

Though perhaps it could better expressed in a different set of words Sprintex has a valid point.

 

Looked at from a purely anodyne, factual emotionless, scientific point of view there s no need for any woman in the UK to have more than 2 children as this will achieve the correct balance between wealth generators and wealth absorbers in the country as a whole while at he same time minimising the amount of natural resources required.

 

Most families dislike wasting money as it were - be it there own or indeed what they pay to the Government through taxes and being eficent is generally lauded throughout the business world the ideal state of afairs. If you look at it like that 'overproducing children' is no diffrent to overproducing cars, mlk, electricity, etc...
 

As such it could be said that something along the lines of the ‘one child’ policy might be one way forward – with the actual number adjusted to suit the prevailing circumstances of each nation.
 

Of course this brings up a whole host of other issues – so please don’t think I am advocating it as a policy to be adopted.

 

I am also not foolish enough to realise that having children is not merely a question of 'optimising the population' so to speak. Some women enjoy the whole experience of binging new life into the world (perhaps in the same way as gardeners enjoy the act of nurturing plants to create a stunning display / landscape later on) while others have no affinity with children and actively avid having any. Some women also find they like the idea but the actual experience of pregnancy / raising a child is such that hey do not want to repeat it.

 

Naturally the same sort of thing can also apply to men - although obviously its slightly different as they are not the ones charged with growing the young internally from seed as it were.

 

Interestingly one of my male colleagues at work has no problem with children per say, he is quite happy around them - but he is adamant he doesn't want to bring any more into the world - citing over population and the negative effects on earths resources as the reasons. He admitted the other day he gets quite angry that 99% of folk assume he will want to procreate in future and don't seem to think his determination is genuine.

 

* He ha also adopted a Vegan diet for much the same reasons.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by phil-b259

[jjb1970]

9 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Everyone should act and you just cannot single out those countries that want to change, we have just been told that we now are producing more electricity from renewable's than fossils, now if all polluters whether they be first, second, third or forth world did likewise, the world would be a better place,. Countries like India and China need to get their act together just as much as those in this country (if only for the benefit of their population).

 

As for shipping being the least polluting way of transporting this clearly ignores the pollution caused in manufacture process of the products using fossil fuel and land clearance etc,  when this is taken into consideration its not so green 

 

I didn't say everyone shouldn't act, clearly they should. I asked if you knew the per capita carbon emissions from a group of emerging economies and a group of developed economies, it's a rather germane question if you consider that there is little point in reducing your own carbon footprint because of emissions in countries like India. An Indian person might reasonably point out that since they produce typically 1/3 - 1/5 of the carbon emissions of a person in developed economies (that is, if we exclude the really high emitting countries) then they shouldn't be expected to do anything until the developed world drops their emissions to the same level. Personally I think that's also a wrong headed argument too but it's a lot easier to defend than the converse position of claiming we don't have to do anything because of countries like India (especially when we are much more able to spend money to make lifestyle choices, to be frank anybody with money to engage in fairly pricey hobbies is in a position to make lifestyle choices in a way most people in the developing world aren't). There is a principle embedded in the Paris agreement - common but differentiated responsibilities to recognise these realities. For what it's worth China is pumping monumental sums into clean tech and is establishing itself as a serious player in clean tech. Their regulatory system is also tightening up environmental controls in a serious way, but then China is not a poor country and they see clean tech as the future for sound capitalist reasons as well as wanting to save the world. My own belief is China is approaching a tipping point to becoming the highest ambition of the high ambition countries for reducing emissions, once they are in a position to clean up by selling the world the necessary clean tech (and I don't blame them for that, Europe wants to do the same). 

 

On shipping, given that everything causes pollution during the manufacturing phase, why single out shipping? If you want to make things in the UK you won't get far without shipping, where are you going to get the raw materials? The great majority of shipping is dry bulk or liquid bulk cargo, not manufactured goods. And funnily, the demand for dry and liquid bulk shipping isn't actually affected that much by moving manufacturing around the world. The sort of shipping that most can visualise (containers, cruise and ferry) is a small part of the industry in terms of materials carried.

[Mallard60022]

Interestingly, on the Radio early this morning, I heard some of a discussion about this very subject. One of the comments was something like ' who are we, in  what was the more advanced west of the northern hemisphere, to suggest that the 'developing' countries elsewhere should behave differently to what we did in the past?' It was also pointed out that China lead the world in developing sustainable energy production, but burn more coal than others and also that air travel creates just about  3% of carbon emissions. I am suspicious about that last figure as I reckon that just looks at the actual emission during flight and probably not all the other associated stuff, including actually producing the materials to build the aircraft and feeding Business Class with fart making fodder and booze!

The other really interesting point was that our Government can maybe boast that 'our' emissions will be curtailed drastically, however with the finishing of steel making here and maybe other home produced goods where Carbon emissions are still high and then importing the same materials from (probably) China) the actual carbon Footprint for us could easily be greater. I had not quite got the footprint thing before, but now I begin to understand more. Could this mean I am more aware than Trump? 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Mallard60022

[jollysmart]

10 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

Interestingly, on the Radio early this morning, I heard some of a discussion about this very subject. One of the comments was something like ' who are we, in  what was the more advanced west of the northern hemisphere, to suggest that the 'developing' countries elsewhere should behave differently to what we did in the past?' It was also pointed out that China lead the world in developing sustainable energy production, but burn more coal than others and also that air travel creates just about  3% of carbon emissions. I am suspicious about that last figure as I reckon that just looks at the actual emission during flight and probably not all the other associated stuff, including actually producing the materials to build the aircraft and feeding Business Class with fart making fodder and booze!

The other really interesting point was that our Government can maybe boast that 'our' emissions will be curtailed drastically, however with the finishing of steel making here and maybe other home produced goods where Carbon emissions are still high and then importing the same materials from (probably) China) the actual carbon Footprint for us could easily be greater. I had not quite got the footprint thing before, but now I begin to understand more. Could this mean I am more aware than Trump? 

 

Steel making hasn't finished here just yet, still alive and producing merely awaiting another ownership change. Trainloads of the raw materials pass daily along with the "green" fuel for Drax.

[hayfield]

12 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

I didn't say everyone shouldn't act, clearly they should. I asked if you knew the per capita carbon emissions from a group of emerging economies and a group of developed economies, it's a rather germane question if you consider that there is little point in reducing your own carbon footprint because of emissions in countries like India. An Indian person might reasonably point out that since they produce typically 1/3 - 1/5 of the carbon emissions of a person in developed economies (that is, if we exclude the really high emitting countries) then they shouldn't be expected to do anything until the developed world drops their emissions to the same level. Personally I think that's also a wrong headed argument too but it's a lot easier to defend than the converse position of claiming we don't have to do anything because of countries like India (especially when we are much more able to spend money to make lifestyle choices, to be frank anybody with money to engage in fairly pricey hobbies is in a position to make lifestyle choices in a way most people in the developing world aren't). There is a principle embedded in the Paris agreement - common but differentiated responsibilities to recognise these realities. For what it's worth China is pumping monumental sums into clean tech and is establishing itself as a serious player in clean tech. Their regulatory system is also tightening up environmental controls in a serious way, but then China is not a poor country and they see clean tech as the future for sound capitalist reasons as well as wanting to save the world. My own belief is China is approaching a tipping point to becoming the highest ambition of the high ambition countries for reducing emissions, once they are in a position to clean up by selling the world the necessary clean tech (and I don't blame them for that, Europe wants to do the same). 

 

On shipping, given that everything causes pollution during the manufacturing phase, why single out shipping? If you want to make things in the UK you won't get far without shipping, where are you going to get the raw materials? The great majority of shipping is dry bulk or liquid bulk cargo, not manufactured goods. And funnily, the demand for dry and liquid bulk shipping isn't actually affected that much by moving manufacturing around the world. The sort of shipping that most can visualise (containers, cruise and ferry) is a small part of the industry in terms of materials carried.

 

So providing you have enough people its OK to pump billions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere ? As it happens both China and India are very wealthy countries, they just decide not to spread the wealth to all their citizens (like most other countries) Just look at the pollution around their major cities. They like most others should do more

 

To put the record straight I also dislike air travel especially cheap social travel. Why is it OK for her to fly to Switzerland and back for less that it coats to fill her car petrol tank? Then we have the distance some commute to work using cars with only the driver, or ultra long distances by train, whilst it may be nice to live 50+ miles from work, is it ethical ?

 

As you have introduced railway modelling into the mix, please make the case for buying a model made the other side of the planet.

 

Importing out of season food ? whilst paying farmers to set aside land to reduce food production. what's wrong in eating seasonally? 

 

As I said we should produce and grow more ourselves, especially as our own energy is getting greener by the day and stop supporting unnecessary transport miles of products

[Mark Saunders]

57 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

 

The other really interesting point was that our Government can maybe boast that 'our' emissions will be curtailed drastically, however with the finishing of steel making here and maybe other home produced goods where Carbon emissions are still high and then importing the same materials from (probably) China) the actual carbon Footprint for us could easily be greater. I had not quite got the footprint thing before, but now I begin to understand more. 

 

Politicians making selective use of statistics!

 

Mark Saunders

[Mallard60022]

51 minutes ago, jollysmart said:

 

Steel making hasn't finished here just yet, still alive and producing merely awaiting another ownership change. Trainloads of the raw materials pass daily along with the "green" fuel for Drax.

Yes, however I  know someone that works there and life is precarious at the moment.

P

[jollysmart]

6 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Yes, however I  know someone that works there and life is precarious at the moment.

P

 

Interestingly I was waiting outside the main gates of the steel works a few weeks ago alongside an artic loaded with steel, idly looking at the load i spotted the label on the steel which read "Made in Kuwait". My understanding from talking to people who work there is that they think the plant is most likely to continue, at least in the short term ,3 months at least, until a new buyer is selected as there is significant interest in purchasing it.

Edited June 24, 2019 by jollysmart

[Mallard60022]

20 minutes ago, jollysmart said:

 

Interestingly I was waiting outside the main gates of the steel works a few weeks ago alongside an artic loaded with steel, idly looking at the load i spotted the label on the steel which read "Made in Kuwait". My understanding from talking to people who work there is that they think the plant is most likely to continue, at least in the short term ,3 months at least, until a new buyer is selected as there is significant interest in purchasing it.

I also heard that the French (I think it were those jolly folk) railway infrastructure bods were hoping to retain the rail production side of the business in this Country as they don't want to have to start production there or import from elsewhere. I may have dreamt this of course! So the steel may be imported but the products continued here? I have no idea how these things work. My 'contact' works in a non production Department and has knowledge of the huge amount of money Scunny has to pay to offset its' Pollution output (including Carbon) The French probably do not want those costs added to their Carbon Footprint tally if they have to open a production plants specifically for rail?

Personally I think it would be  a tragedy for the area if the plant does go, as there is nothing else locally work wise that I am aware of

P

Edited June 24, 2019 by Mallard60022

[Mike Storey]

21 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Though perhaps it could better expressed in a different set of words Sprintex has a valid point.

 

Looked at from a purely anodyne, factual emotionless, scientific point of view there s no need for any woman in the UK to have more than 2 children as this will achieve the correct balance between wealth generators and wealth absorbers in the country as a whole while at he same time minimising the amount of natural resources required.

 

Most families dislike wasting money as it were - be it there own or indeed what they pay to the Government through taxes and being eficent is generally lauded throughout the business world the ideal state of afairs. If you look at it like that 'overproducing children' is no diffrent to overproducing cars, mlk, electricity, etc...
 

As such it could be said that something along the lines of the ‘one child’ policy might be one way forward – with the actual number adjusted to suit the prevailing circumstances of each nation.
 

Of course this brings up a whole host of other issues – so please don’t think I am advocating it as a policy to be adopted.

 

I am also not foolish enough to realise that having children is not merely a question of 'optimising the population' so to speak. Some women enjoy the whole experience of binging new life into the world (perhaps in the same way as gardeners enjoy the act of nurturing plants to create a stunning display / landscape later on) while others have no affinity with children and actively avid having any. Some women also find they like the idea but the actual experience of pregnancy / raising a child is such that hey do not want to repeat it.

 

Naturally the same sort of thing can also apply to men - although obviously its slightly different as they are not the ones charged with growing the young internally from seed as it were.

 

Interestingly one of my male colleagues at work has no problem with children per say, he is quite happy around them - but he is adamant he doesn't want to bring any more into the world - citing over population and the negative effects on earths resources as the reasons. He admitted the other day he gets quite angry that 99% of folk assume he will want to procreate in future and don't seem to think his determination is genuine.

 

* He ha also adopted a Vegan diet for much the same reasons.

 

 

 

Has anyone bothered to read the stats, or bothered to watch the BBC clip included several posts above?? The global birth rate has flat lined to just about 2.0 (which is actually below the reproductive rate needed to maintain a constant population, nominally 2.2). In the UK, the average birth rate is below 1.8, including recent immigrants up to 2017.

 

The step-change in population growth is, and will be for a generation or three, almost entirely due to the increase in average life expectancy across the world. Ironic, when life expectancy in the UK has just gone down, for the first time since WW2. So, which of you is advocating mandatory euthanasia? Save the Planet - Kill an Old Git??

 

The population is going to grow. Harping on about people having too may children is way off target. We have to find ways to deal with that growth, and with the enormous pressure of how to fund the dignified lifestyle of so many people beyond working age, with so many fewer who can work, whilst ensuring the sustainability of the planet for us and all other organisms. A very tall order, not helped by erroneous conclusions, let alone the petro-dollar funded (almost entirely) right-wing politicos and their hidden agendas and constant propaganda (aka fibs). They want, indeed need, us not to give a flying thingy. But let's get the right arguments, if we do care.

 

 

[Mallard60022]

2 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Has anyone bothered to read the stats, or bothered to watch the BBC clip included several posts above?? The global birth rate has flat lined to just about 2.0 (which is actually below the reproductive rate needed to maintain a constant population, nominally 2.2). In the UK, the average birth rate is below 1.8, including recent immigrants up to 2017.

 

The step-change in population growth is, and will be for a generation or three, almost entirely due to the increase in average life expectancy across the world. Ironic, when life expectancy in the UK has just gone down, for the first time since WW2. So, which of you is advocating mandatory euthanasia? Save the Planet - Kill an Old Git??

 

The population is going to grow. Harping on about people having too may children is way off target. We have to find ways to deal with that growth, and with the enormous pressure of how to fund the dignified lifestyle of so many people beyond working age, with so many fewer who can work, whilst ensuring the sustainability of the planet for us and all other organisms. A very tall order, not helped by erroneous conclusions, let alone the petro-dollar funded (almost entirely) right-wing politicos and their hidden agendas and constant propaganda (aka fibs). They want, indeed need, us not to give a flying thingy. But let's get the right arguments, if we do care.

 

 

That's why I was a bit miffed about some earlier posts which I thought were rather extreme, as I am an Old Git and have seen the film (in which the only decent thing was Jenny Agutter [Jessica 6] and I'm not talking about Walkabout. 

[jollysmart]

26 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

 My 'contact' works in a non production Department and has knowledge of the huge amount of money Scunny has to pay to offset its' Pollution output (including Carbon)

 

Wasn't it the published figure of £110 millionfor carbon credits  that he government "loaned" to Greybull/British Steel days before it went into administration? Due because the EU cancelled the UK rights to carbon credits as we are leaving the EU although we haven't left and are still paying in?

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Has anyone bothered to read the stats, or bothered to watch the BBC clip included several posts above?? The global birth rate has flat lined to just about 2.0 (which is actually below the reproductive rate needed to maintain a constant population, nominally 2.2). In the UK, the average birth rate is below 1.8, including recent immigrants up to 2017.

 

The step-change in population growth is, and will be for a generation or three, almost entirely due to the increase in average life expectancy across the world. Ironic, when life expectancy in the UK has just gone down, for the first time since WW2. So, which of you is advocating mandatory euthanasia? Save the Planet - Kill an Old Git??

 

The population is going to grow. Harping on about people having too may children is way off target. We have to find ways to deal with that growth, and with the enormous pressure of how to fund the dignified lifestyle of so many people beyond working age, with so many fewer who can work, whilst ensuring the sustainability of the planet for us and all other organisms. A very tall order, not helped by erroneous conclusions, let alone the petro-dollar funded (almost entirely) right-wing politicos and their hidden agendas and constant propaganda (aka fibs). They want, indeed need, us not to give a flying thingy. But let's get the right arguments, if we do care.

 

 

 

I have indeed watched the video clip - but the point is not that the global population will stabilise in a generation or three * - its quite simply that such a stabilised figure is not sustainable as regards the planets natural resources and that in waiting for that natural equilibrium to happen we will have destroyed much of what makes our planet so special (e.g. the continued extinction of various plants + animals, the continued pollution of our seas + skys plus the increase in desertification + rise in sea levels causing land and indeed nations to disappear beneath the waves.

 

We need action NOW to reduce the number of humans on their planet - because regardless of how environmentally friendly we might try and be, the predictions still make for grim reading.

 

Yes it will make things harder with negative population growth as in the absence of a disease epidemic or mass conflict which could produce a reduction in the more mature sections of society means that there will be a shortage of youngsters to pay into the system which supports the 'old gits' later in life, but such a sacrifice is becoming increasingly necessary as science shows us just how destructive we are as a species.

 

So while it might be a controversial point of view I would support measures deigned to try and change folks minds about having large families rather than simply sit back and await cultural trends to change at their own pace as illustrated in the video clip. These would obviously not go as far as forced abortion or Euthanasia, but could include measures like a tapering of child benefits so they only accrue to the first two children say and perhaps adjusting the giving of aid so that the dangers of an overpopulated world are communicated more strongly from an educational perspective. I feely admit that none of this is easy - but we owe it to the generations to come to at least try.

 

*all things being equal its quite obvious that improvements in healthcare, etc will produce gradual reductions in birth rates and that eventually things will stabilise.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by phil-b259

[Fenman]

22 minutes ago, jollysmart said:

 

Wasn't it the published figure of £110 millionfor carbon credits  that he government "loaned" to Greybull/British Steel days before it went into administration? Due because the EU cancelled the UK rights to carbon credits as we are leaving the EU although we haven't left and are still paying in?

 

Of course - it was all the EU’s fault. Damn those pesky Eurocrats, always outsmarting us stupid Brits. They were probably French, too.

 

Paul

[Steamport Southport]

Well this makes it unlikely I'll ever get a train to Europe.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48742530

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Steamport Southport said:

Well this makes it unlikely I'll ever get a train to Europe.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48742530

 

Not sure this is the correct thread to raise the topic - though it is worthy of discussion in its own right.

 

However it has not escaped the notice of astute observers that preventing the transportation of more than a mere token amount of alcohol (unless you fork out £30 to have it sent via Eurostar's special 'registered luggage service) probably has more to do with making things ready for a 'no deal' Brexit than anything else.

 

Eurostar have a history of limiting alcohol on problematic services (e.g. the ski train or during major sporting tournaments) and there was no need to be quite so draconian if preventing unruly behaviour was the only consideration at work here.

 

Note in a 'no deal' situation the old Duty free limits will immediately apply - and enforcing them for passengers with stuff in their luggage will be a big burden on cross border transport providers. If alcohol is required to be sent via the 'registered luggage service' then exact quantities will be known and any duty to be paid easily determined.

 

(Note as all luggage must go through X -ray scanners before boarding, hiding alcohol at the bottom of your bag won’t work)

 

[Neil]

7 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Well this makes it unlikely I'll ever get a train to Europe.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48742530

 

 

 

 

Jason

 

 

I don't know what restrictions airlines place on carrying on your own booze but judging by some of the lurid stories about alcohol fuelled disruptive behaviour on some flights maybe they don't. It's good to see a train company take the initiative to maintain a pleasant environment for their passengers.

 

Keeping with the theme of taking the train to the continent I wonder if with the questions being raised about the environmental sustainability of mass air travel we'll see a revival of the regional Eurostar concept. I know it faltered because of travel times and cheap flights, but with proper high speeds to London with HS2 and a potential swing against flight I could see a revival. Yes I know that HS2 is specifically not designed to link to HS1 but who knows what the future will hold.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I have indeed watched the video clip - but the point is not that the global population will stabilise in a generation or three * - its quite simply that such a stabilised figure is not sustainable as regards the planets natural resources and that in waiting for that natural equilibrium to happen we will have destroyed much of what makes our planet so special (e.g. the continued extinction of various plants + animals, the continued pollution of our seas + skys plus the increase in desertification + rise in sea levels causing land and indeed nations to disappear beneath the waves.

 

We need action NOW to reduce the number of humans on their planet - because regardless of how environmentally friendly we might try and be, the predictions still make for grim reading. ....

 

 

Unless you advocate death squads and draconian policies like China's one child per family then there's no option but to let the current situation play out and stabilise itself.

[Steamport Southport]

21 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

I don't know what restrictions airlines place on carrying on your own booze but judging by some of the lurid stories about alcohol fuelled disruptive behaviour on some flights maybe they don't. It's good to see a train company take the initiative to maintain a pleasant environment for their passengers.

 

Keeping with the theme of taking the train to the continent I wonder if with the questions being raised about the environmental sustainability of mass air travel we'll see a revival of the regional Eurostar concept. I know it faltered because of travel times and cheap flights, but with proper high speeds to London with HS2 and a potential swing against flight I could see a revival. Yes I know that HS2 is specifically not designed to link to HS1 but who knows what the future will hold.

 

Nah. It's just a money making scheme in my opinion. Just taking a leaf out of Mr Ryanair's policy of charging for everything. I bet there is no limits on alcohol at the bar. Just people bringing their own.

 

They even sell big bottles of champagne for £44.

 

https://www.eurostar.com/uk-en/travel-info/your-trip/food-on-board

 

 

 

Jason

[phil-b259]

10 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

Unless you advocate death squads and draconian policies like China's one child per family then there's no option but to let the current situation play out and stabilise itself.

 

What rot!

 

There is LOTS which can be done without the need to resort to such heavy handed tactics - I have already mentioned one (gradual reducing child benefit the more children you chose to have)  which could be accompanied by other tax / benefit tweaks to adjust peoples behaviour. Naturally any such measures would need to be carefully thought out so as to not have 'cliff edge' type effects or penalise people who made decisions before such measures came into force but where there is will there is a way.

 

The other thing which could be done is to actually tell the truth about the devastating effect overpopulation has on the planet - just look at how the public have responded to the BBC's 'war ion plastic' documentary - orders for home deliveries of milk in reusable glass bottles has shot up even though it is more expensive by some margin directly off the back that one programme. A similar series looking at how increasing population has ravaged fish stocks, decimated wild animals habitat for farming, gobbled up land for housing, etc could make folk stop and think.
 

Such 'soft' measures might not have an immediate effect (changing human behaviours is never easy), nor satisfy your urge to see 'extreme measures' proposed so you can start claiming the moral high ground, - but they can have a powerful effect over time. Combined with other environmental initiatives and changes to the world economic order (e.g. using ever increasing GDP as the sole yardstick as to how we define economic success) the overall effect could be to make our planet a better place in the centuries to come

 

I refuse to believe that we, should sit back, throw our hands in the air and pretend there is nothing we can do or that it will somehow sort itself out in a few generations. Granted overpopulation is not the sole route by which our planet has ended up n the state it has - many other things have an effect too, but to turn around and try and pretend that the numbers of human beings on the planet is irrelevant is delusional.
 

With regards to population growth, human beings have created this problem (by being very clever and inventing modern medicine, modern farming, etc) which allowed us to rule the natural world with impunity. Now we have belatedly woken up to the damage we are doing to the planet we have a moral duty to fix it  - and reducing the numbers of people is just as much an integral part of that as preventing plastic pollution in our oceans etc.

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

49 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

I don't know what restrictions airlines place on carrying on your own booze but judging by some of the lurid stories about alcohol fuelled disruptive behaviour on some flights maybe they don't. It's good to see a train company take the initiative to maintain a pleasant environment for their passengers.

 

Keeping with the theme of taking the train to the continent I wonder if with the questions being raised about the environmental sustainability of mass air travel we'll see a revival of the regional Eurostar concept. I know it faltered because of travel times and cheap flights, but with proper high speeds to London with HS2 and a potential swing against flight I could see a revival. Yes I know that HS2 is specifically not designed to link to HS1 but who knows what the future will hold.

 

Much will depnd on our future reltionship with the EU and the percieved security required for the tunnel itself.

 

All the time you bar regional and international passengers from mixing on the same train on these shores (note the French and the Belgians manage it - even on trains heading towards London) and equally demand every single piece of luggage must go through airport style security, then even a shorter journey time to London wo't have much effect.

 

What makes international high speed rail travel n Europe such a sucess is precsely because it is simple - no security / customs / passport checks at borders combined with good connections into domestic rail services means a hassle free journey.