Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Reduce your carbon footprint - let the train take the strain


 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

...

Interestingly, despite China's one child policy to contain population growth there emissions have grown rapidly over the last 30 years because of their explosive economic expansion (although their per-capita emissions are still not that high).

 

Isn't that because we’ve simply off-shored all our pollution (along with manufacturing) to China?

 

Paul

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, Fenman said:

 

Isn't that because we’ve simply off-shored all our pollution (along with manufacturing) to China?

 

Paul

 

To a large extent yes. I find it quite heartening that more and more developing economies (China, Malaysia, Phillippines and others) are banning the import of waste and sending it back to countries of origin. Exporting waste has been an easy way to avoid difficult choices and just exported even more pollution (quite literally).

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
52 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

There is some truth in that, but currently the countries which have been experiencing very rapid population growth (which also tend to be less developed countries) for the most part have low total emissions and also low per capita emissions. The other issue is that GHG emissions have a cumulative effect and dwell in the atmosphere, even if we eliminated emissions today we would still have a bit of a problem. Therefore whether you look at it from the perspective of absolute emissions today, per capita emissions today or cumulative GHG emissions in the atmosphere it is primarily a developed world problem. We created the problem and the developed world continues to emit more. Interestingly, despite China's one child policy to contain population growth there emissions have grown rapidly over the last 30 years because of their explosive economic expansion (although their per-capita emissions are still not that high).

 

Agree with most of that, although the point was that even if we could somehow ethically halve the UK population and keep the amount per capita that would still be a significant change. I suppose I'm just saying that any ways of deciding impact have their flaws, so there's no absolute correct objective interpretation to how individual countries' contributions should be counted.

 

Just on the question of the amount per capita, and with the usual provisos about Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita puts China's CO2 emissions per capita above the UK's. The point in the post above that some of that is effectively us outsourcing our emissions by buying stuff made in China instead of making it ourselves is valid though.

 

edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions has more recent figures. The UK is pretty low down on that list for a developed country.

Edited by Reorte
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question

 

Is CO2 really the problem ?

 

Or is the problem that in around 50 years or so we will have run out of affordable oil and gas ?

 

Or is it a bit of both ?

 

Honest question from a now retired 40 plus years in the business gtas distribution engineer.

 

Brit15

Edited by APOLLO
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Question

 

Is CO2 really the problem ?

 

Or is the problem that in around 50 years or so we will have run out of affordable oil and gas ?

 

Or is it a bit of both ?

 

Honest question from a now retired 40 plus years in the business gtas distribution engineer.

 

Brit15

Hi Brit15,

 

I quite agree, also you may be interested in this video explaining solar cycles and their effect upon the Earth;

 

 

 

One for the denial deniers !?!?!?

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Interesting that the current SOS for international development has woken up to the fact that human beings are the problem and aid might be better directed at the natural world rather than people...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48770640

 

While not explicitly stated the undertone is merely 'saving lives' as per traditional aid programmes (which usually increases global population growth) is not a sustainable policy and we need to be putting the needs of the planet, not people first

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just France. I seem to remember seeing something about other countries across Europe looking at this idea, even here in UK.

Glad tosee we have go back to talking about railways, not that population etc isn't important. It is not unusual for this type of discussion to get side tracked in this way, but we can't as individuals do much about population increases in other countries, but hopefully being railway enthusiasts we can promote the idea of using the railways more.

One crazy news story recently talked of how Network Rail were using air travel to get around as it was cheaper than going by train. Bonkers!!

 

As I have not had a car for nearly 3 years Ihave been dependent on trains, my feet and lifts from friends. Not easy, but I am now a lot fitter, so hopefully will live a lot longer! If roads were partly converted to dedicated cycle ways then I would add cycling, or at least pedal power to that list.

 

If we want more to take an interest in railways, then maybe we should be promoting railways more ourselves, including more exhibitions which can be easily accessed by train, and maybe using our knowledge of railways ,before the likes of Beeching closed many down, to see if more old lines could not be reopened. Why build a new HS2 when there are two old routes, north to south now closed or partly closed. It might be mean we have to put the concept of railways being put back to do the job intended instead of preserved railways as centres of entertainment(and a little learning). I know that might upset some, and be controversal, but if we , as railway enthusiasts don't support that, why should anyone else. I would rather see buildings built in past 50 years being knocked down than those which have ben around for a lot longer and are of more historical value, yet road builders are happy to do that. 

I recently found out how much cheaper it was to put back an old line, fully upgraded, electrified and requiring new bridges to handle modern freight trains, than to build a new road, and it is a no-brainer, yet we seem to welcome new road building or upgrading(?) which just creates another linear carpark. In fact we should be thinking more about freight trains than passenger ones as it was freight that kept railways going, until the rules were changed to favour road.

 

Ironically it is some of the new ideas being tried for road vehicles, such as electric and driverless vehicles which could benefit railways far more. New improved batteries, reduced weight, and two nicely placed guide rails and who need complex GPS control systems.  Whilst railway modelling has moved towards DCC, putting us in the driver's seat rather than the signlman, maybe real railways should be going the other way.

 

Finally, if you told someone 20 years ago that they would build a new tramway system in Mancheter and other cities, they probably would laughyou out of the room,but, look what has happened, and now they are considering tram trains for Manchester. Manchester has miles of unused old railways criscossing it, and one which has been converted into a cycle way is now almost too dangerous for cyclists as gangs are attacking cyclists on it. Put the railway back, and give more of the road  to pedal power. Insread of putting a surcharge o vehicles entering city centre if they are considered too poluting, just ban them. If you can ban steam in 1968, if you can ban smoking in public buildings, then you can ban toxic road vehicles from city centres. There is even now a totally electric icecream van developed by Nissen. I would also bad non electric trains from city centres, which might be more controversal, especially as brand new diesel trains are being introduced, but tough. The rail industry should be lookng to the future and not investing in old out of date propulsion systems.

Edited by rue_d_etropal
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst not totally relevant to the topic, and an example from another country, I had an experience of just how ingrained the non-train mentality can be a few years ago. My (government) employer sent me to Sydney for a meeting in the City centre. It was assumed I'd get a cab from the airport into the city, and then back to the airport again. However, 2 minutes on the Internet told me that there was an excellent train service that would cost a fraction of the cab fare and take a fraction of the time, with no risk of traffic hold ups. So I took the train. Fast, efficient and cheap. So fast, in fact, that, after the meeting, while all the other interstate attendees were scrambling for cabs and then sitting in traffic, I had time for a stroll down to Circular Quay for a squint at the bridge and the Opera House before hopping onto the train. Much more fun. However, everyone to whom I mentioned my discovery of this wondrous means of travel looked at me as if I were mad to have thrown away the opportunity to spend an hour with a stranger in a sealed metal box smelling of a thousand Friday night drunks, at the expense of the taxpayer. I also discovered that my employer's internal systems made it significantly harder to reclaim a small train fare than a large cab fare. I'd still take the train option if I did it again though. 

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all cabs have to be metal boxes . https://www.ebay.com/itm/Electric-Velotaxi-Tricycle-pedicab-electric-tricycle-bicycle-rickshaw-/323536732178

and then there is this http://www.bluebird-electric.net/bluebird_solar_powered_rickshaw.htm

 

If something like thes was offered at railway stations like Boris bikes are, then maybe more would drive one. I don't think there is a need for everyone to own one, just have access to one. Ironyis that whe I started resarching these 10 years ago, one of the companies leading the field was the design team that had designed the Smart car for Mercedes.

 

I spotted a website recently which showed a design which could do 100mph, but can't find it now. 

 

Ah searched and found it

https://www.motor1.com/news/75902/this-raht-racer-hybrid-bike-can-go-100mph-on-pedal-power/

Come on Top Gear, you have done electric, now do Pedal Power!

 

Think back to those go-carts kids used to build from old prams and the fun of them.  Just need to get rid of those noisy, smelly tin boxes that clutter the roads!

Edited by rue_d_etropal
new info
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/06/2019 at 10:58, hayfield said:

 

Carefully dodged the question of actually keeping to the quotas we have signed up to, those who pollute most have to accept to clean up the most. Not only sign up to it but actually do it. 

Or those who pollute the most can simply say eff off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very interesting points of view posted on here recently.  From various angles , but, perhaps split into three - if I may?

 

1. Humungous, life-threatening, imminent crisis, which requires immediate and draconian action (probably the majority, and supported by most of scientific opinion, not that the other categories will place much importance on that, because clearly, almost all scientists, bar the ones paid for the people whose opinion they favour, are corrupt and are only saying these things to get grants or similar.... )

 

2. There is no problem so ignore it. Or it would have happened anyway, despite humans, so still ignore it, and have a good time. Mainly from people with no children.

 

3. There is a problem but it isn't our problem. A recent documentary on the attitude of Trumps's new right-wing, Presidential friend in Brazil, highlighted this - he has basically ignored the legally protected status of the Amazon Rain Forest and is actively encouraging wholesale demolition (2,000 football pitches per day), to allow massive expansion of intensive farming, primarily for the Brazilian beef industry. Several farmers were also interviewed, and essentially, their view was that the forests of most developed countries were decimated many years ago, so why should they suffer? In other words, they want to be bribed to stop such development, which the Paris Accord was willing to do, but not Trump. The documentary, obviously completely falsely, attributed this policy alone to contributing to the acceleration of around a whole degree (C, not F, this was not a US documentary) increase in global average temperature over the next 40 years. Equivalent to a 25% increase in the likelihood of droughts, extreme rainfall events, extreme storms/hurricanes etc events, and sea level rises above current predictions (to a level I cannot remember but a lot). Based on many, studious, common sense, comments made on this thread, it was clear that the documentary was made by a bunch of leftie snowflakes, so I instantly ignored it. Is that right?

 

Puts the esoteric issue of birth control into some perspective. Probably the most basic thing most of us can do, if we give a fig, is to reduce how much meat we eat. Or not. Like I care. But I have made every effort to displace my meat intake with alcohol, which is a primary reason for moving to France (where a vegetarian, within the Gilets Jaune areas of influence (those people who are prepared to burn enormous amounts of fuel in order to throw petrol bombs, or set parts of French cities ablaze), as people who just eat chicken, or for the more enlightened, just fish). Life just goes on giving........until it doesn't.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

...

Life just goes on giving........until it doesn't.

 

 

 

I thought your summary was interesting. But isn’t one of the general problems we face the assumption by most of us that - unlike every human society that has gone before us - *our* society will (or could) continue to develop and thrive into an infinite future?

 

It’s clear that, technologically, no human society before us has achieved more than us. But ultimately all human societies must adapt or face (inevitable?) extinction - the world is littered with the remains of staggeringly dominant polities, some of which lasted not a couple of centuries but thousands of years. All gone. I’m not sure why we assume our society will be uniquely different. 

 

Humans as a species have thrived because we are adaptable generalists. Perversely, the more technologically advanced and globally integrated we become, the more specialised we are and, therefore, the more vulnerable to change.

 

Our current society is, by some measures (eg, population size), a fantastically successful adaptation to the unique circumstances in which we have found ourselves. But it’s a highly specialised adaptation. Just like those complex manufacturing industries which have developed wonderfully efficient Just In Time global supply chains, a small change somewhere can bring the whole house down.

 

It is only our arrogance (in a toxic mix with the problem of the commons) which leads us to assume our society can’t *really* ever end - we are the one design of human society that is better than everything which has gone before and which will thrive into an infinite future. Just like we as individuals struggle with truly understanding that our own lives are finite, just specks in the vast sweep of time.

 

Bolsonaro, Putin, Trump, May ... they are just specks. Our system might have given them more influence than some other specks, but their ability to change our world much, even if they actually wanted to, is strictly limited. As the Native American chief said, “if I keep trying to lead my people where they don’t want to go, I won’t be leader for long”. Of course, his society was also ultimately doomed. 

 

Paul

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

Some very interesting points of view posted on here recently.  From various angles , but, perhaps split into three - if I may?

 

1. Humungous, life-threatening, imminent crisis, which requires immediate and draconian action (probably the majority, and supported by most of scientific opinion, not that the other categories will place much importance on that, because clearly, almost all scientists, bar the ones paid for the people whose opinion they favour, are corrupt and are only saying these things to get grants or similar.... )

...

 

 

The fourth position is "significant issues but describing it as a humungous, life-threatening, imminent crisis is excessive." I don't think this is the same as your third position. It's about where you cross the line from genuine concern into scaremongering and looking at the worst case scenarios imaginable without properly considering the probabilities.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the fourth position is that there is indeed a problem, and it is ours (in the developed world) just as much, if not more, than anywhere else, however the lifestyle changes necessary to make a real difference are so great that no Government could possibly effect them; ie:

 

Reduce, if not eliminate,  meat eating;

Tax polluting forms of transport so heavily that no-one can afford to use them;

Introduce family size limits;

Manage a gradual reduction in population.

 

In the meantime, individuals can of course always make choices to reduce their own carbon footprint; As mentioned before, no more taking the kids to school in the car, turn the heating down, or off, and wear an extra jumper, and no more flying, anywhere (and that applies to rich actresses as well as ordinary people).

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

The fourth position is "significant issues but describing it as a humungous, life-threatening, imminent crisis is excessive." I don't think this is the same as your third position. It's about where you cross the line from genuine concern into scaremongering and looking at the worst case scenarios imaginable without properly considering the probabilities.

 

Fair enough. I would imagine that the probabilities are reflected in the percentage increases in extreme weather events etc, and that it is not a case of time will tell, but that time is now telling. Along with melting glaciers, ozone holes, CO2 emissions, average sea temperatures, and all that stuff, that was all predicted and is actually happening faster than those predictions (bar the ozone holes I think). So, I am not sure "scaremongering" is any longer appropriate? The debate tends to move onto causation, in the cyclical argument over climate change being natural or man-made, or some combination, and therefore how much effect Humans can have on the changes. Even Trump no longer denies there are "changes in the weather"! He just says it is nothing to do with industry, well, not American industry anyway, so that there is nothing we can, or should, do about it............ Now that is scary!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The scaremongering is of the "we're all going to die!" variety. The scientific view appears to be in broad agreement of the direct effects and results but the wider results - just quite what the impact will be - tend to get blown up by a sensationalist press and less scientific campaigners, both of which just help to turn people off. As does the message of "you'll have to change things in a way you hate to prevent a possibly bigger disaster." Even if it's true that'll never win people over. Mind you no-one ever seems to come up with any vision of the future, even ones that are trying to portray themselves as entirely positive, that leave me hoping to live to see them rather than hoping they don't happen until after I'm dead.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever we do in the UK pales into insignificance when viewed on the world stage.

 

Just driven today from Kanchanaburi to and through Bangkok. This city expands exponentially year on year, six lane elevated highways over six lane roads below, new rail lines being built everywhere also (but won't replace the cars and millions of motorbikes though) building infrastructure has gone completley mad here. Most big cities worldwide are the same.

 

It's a brave man who will tell the Thais to get rid of there cars, stop eating meat (pork and chicken mainly here), have less children etc. Just won't happen until armageddon makes it so.

 

Yes, being here I'm  part of the problem, but I'm  not a bearded sandal wearing tree hugger.

 

In my opinion we are well past the tipping point. Hold on tight folks and enjoy the roller coaster into the future, there's sod all point in making your own life hard, billions of others simply do not give a toss.

 

Sawadee Kap !!!

 

Brit 15

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 03/07/2019 at 13:36, Mike Storey said:

 

Fair enough. I would imagine that the probabilities are reflected in the percentage increases in extreme weather events etc, and that it is not a case of time will tell, but that time is now telling. Along with melting glaciers, ozone holes, CO2 emissions, average sea temperatures, and all that stuff, that was all predicted and is actually happening faster than those predictions (bar the ozone holes I think). So, I am not sure "scaremongering" is any longer appropriate? The debate tends to move onto causation, in the cyclical argument over climate change being natural or man-made, or some combination, and therefore how much effect Humans can have on the changes. Even Trump no longer denies there are "changes in the weather"! He just says it is nothing to do with industry, well, not American industry anyway, so that there is nothing we can, or should, do about it............ Now that is scary!

One of the big problems is that some are trying to simplify it into a cause and effect scenario.

Imagine being fully fit, good diet etc and you are in a room with people with bad colds or flu. Chances are that because you are fit, the worst you will suffer is a mild dose of the cold or flu. On the other hand you are someone who has not looked after their health, in the same room, you will probably end up catching a bad cold or flu, or worse. It is not a simple A causes B, but A makes it more likely that B will happen. If we look after the planet, then it can litterally weather the storm, if we don't then ......

 

Having said that, then rather than getting into discussions on what has happened and the possibility that it might be too late to fix it, lets play to our stengths and use our knowledge of and interest in railways to push for return of railways. That might not help others, but it might make our paths in the future smoother. 

 

Oh, and none of this tree hugging vegitarian talk. Having been involved in environmental/conservation movement(initially inpractical work) for over 40 years, I can categorically state that most of those involved are meat eaters and don't hug trees. In the same way not all those who are interested in railways are or have ever been train spotters.

Edited by rue_d_etropal
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 05/07/2019 at 02:17, rue_d_etropal said:

One of the big problems is that some are trying to simplify it into a cause and effect scenario.

Imagine being fully fit, good diet etc and you are in a room with people with bad colds or flu. Chances are that because you are fit, the worst you will suffer is a mild dose of the cold or flu. On the other hand you are someone who has not looked after their health, in the same room, you will probably end up catching a bad cold or flu, or worse. It is not a simple A causes B, but A makes it more likely that B will happen. If we look after the planet, then it can litterally weather the storm, if we don't then ......

 

Having said that, then rather than getting into discussions on what has happened and the possibility that it might be too late to fix it, lets play to our stengths and use our knowledge of and interest in railways to push for return of railways. That might not help others, but it might make our paths in the future smoother. 

 

Oh, and none of this tree hugging vegitarian talk. Having been involved in environmental/conservation movement(initially inpractical work) for over 40 years, I can categorically state that most of those involved are meat eaters and don't hug trees. In the same way not all those who are interested in railways are or have ever been train spotters.

Indeed. For the same reason I find it annoying when people characterise "green" jobs as basket weaving or tofu manufacture. Who do such folk think do the civils or fabrication for, eg, a widfarm or solar project? Oddly enough, it's a lot of the same people who'd be involved in a coal fired generating plant. Strange that. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PatB said:

Oddly enough, it's a lot of the same people who'd be involved in a coal fired generating plant. Strange that. 

Hi Pat,

 

You are quite correct, do these folk that annoy you actually think that engineers grow on organically sourced trees ?

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It isn't only the same person's, in many cases it is the same companies, who have moved into low carbon energy for very sound commercial reasons. 

 

It's a sobering experience to view the coal stock at a large coal fired power plant, look at how much is being consumed and consider just how much carbon is going into the atmosphere. And that's without thinking about the footprint of all the rail movements, ships, mining etc. 

 

In fairness it amazes me that biomass power plants managed to get themselves seen as eco friendly. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 03/07/2019 at 14:20, APOLLO said:

Whatever we do in the UK pales into insignificance when viewed on the world stage..........................In my opinion we are well past the tipping point. Hold on tight folks and enjoy the roller coaster into the future, there's sod all point in making your own life hard, billions of others simply do not give a toss.

 

Sadly, absolutely right.  People the world over are not going to change.  Those who are willing to do so (or claim they are) tend to be those living in societies that have already taken advantage of pollution in advancing their own economies and lifestyles, but even then it only tends to scratch the surface and are all too often aimed more at promoting the interests and profits of large companies than actually doing anything useful (there's a lot of money to be made by persuading people to go what they tell us is green).  We should not waste time trying to convince everyone worldwide that they have to abandon their aspirations and change their lifestyles, usually for the worse as they see it, to combat some problem that may occur in the future.  Instead, our energies should be concentrated into how to deal with those changes when they inevitably come.  Of course, in the short term there's not much money to be made out of that......

 

DT

Edited by Torper
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 07/07/2019 at 08:45, jjb1970 said:

It's a sobering experience to view the coal stock at a large coal fired power plant, look at how much is being consumed and consider just how much carbon is going into the atmosphere. And that's without thinking about the footprint of all the rail movements, ships, mining etc.  

 

It's just as sobering standing next to a gas transmission pressure regulator station on a cold winter's day listening to the high pitched very loud scream of the Natural gas passing through a 36" dia pipe at around 1000 PSI. Keeping our houses warm and dinners cooked (and lights on also !!).

 

Face it folks, fossil fuels ain't going away soon.

 

And what about the big German car manufacturers boasting of huge increases in electric car production over the next couple of years - very green till you note that the Germans have shut their nuclear plants (after Fukushima) and now burn increasing amounts of dirty Lignite to produce electricity.

 

Wonder if Greta knows ?? Short trip down from Sweden down to the Fatherland to do some campaigning !!.

 

Brit15

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...