The public doesn't hate Net Zero as much as RW politicians insist they do

So if the number of cars registered in London trebled, what do you think the practical implications are?

Yep I think people can buy as many cars as they want. We have 2 and they fit on our driveway. We have what we want. We need to drive. I need to drive to get to work. I drive in a safe and responsible manner.

What this country needs urgently is

Education systems that are fit for purpose
Social housing
New housing to ALL have solar panels on the roof as standard
New hospitals, more GPs, more dentists
Public transport that gets people to work and is affordable
Utilities that are affordable
New reservoirs urgently

some of that has an impact on our carbon footprint but that should be the focus, not fannying around with cardboard and yoghurt pot recycling

Ahh - but you will be accused of being a climate change denier for pointing out these hard facts and reality.

I totally agree that global temperatures are rising and there is an undeniable correlation with rising CO2 levels. But there are quicker and cheaper solutions such as globally phasing out coal fired power in favour of cleaner gas fired power. Sometimes seeking perfection is the enemy of good.

You are also bang on the money about funding for CCS being cut. It doesn't work, running a CO2 pipeline across the UK carrying a heavier than air gas that if it leaks the local village at the bottom of the hill doesn't wake up next morning will be a tad challenging to get through planning and it is budgeted to cost £21 billion (the actual will be much higher).

I agree with what you write.

Net Zero won't happen by 2050. We will be a long way short. The reasons we will fail are :

a) It will cost too much, in a time when the country does not have the money. We have a defence crisis and an age demographic crisis to deal with, as well as spiraling social care costs. Energy prices are already a serious issue, in order to achieve Net Zero we need a vast amount more money to be spent, which just isn't possible politically. Now all three of the largest parties are rolling back from it, even if they might not be saying so explicitly, such as exploiting Rosebank and Jackdaw. I am expecting soon the 20 billion promised on CCS will be reallocated to defence. It seems the natural place to get it from.

b) The upgrades we need to grid infrastructure are just too large without considering the expense. Just to replace gas domestic heating we would need to double the grid capacity. That is without doing something to address the power requirements of cars. It is not just a matter of replacing infrastructure that exists anyway. There is also an issue not only of capacity, but of getting the power from the new generation points to where it is needed. The grid upgrades require human resources and businesses to implement them. These are skilled people/businesses and we don't have anywhere near enough of them.

c) The baseload problem means the challenge to replace our current power sources will be extremely difficult. Building nuclear plants takes a long time and is very expensive. There is not much more capacity for pumped storage in the UK. Battery storage is very expensive. Interconnectors are expensive, and there is starting to be considerable pushback against some of them, examples such as permission for AQUIND and the increases in Norwegian prices caused by the North Sea Link causing political issues in Norway.

In general I think Net Zero is laudable, but doing it on the timescale proposed is completely unrealistic. Unfortunately the decisions often seem to be made by politicians who don't understand either the costs or the technical barriers to achieving it.

That the country will bankrupt itself trying to achieve it doesn't worry me. Because it is not possible to achieve it simply won't happen. We will continue to move towards net zero, it's just that the timescale to get there will be much longer than anything currently proposed.

No sadly it doesn’t

it protects your body

it doesn’t solve the problem, you still need to eat & drink produce that is grown

I agree with what you write.

Net Zero won't happen by 2050. We will be a long way short. The reasons we will fail are :

a) It will cost too much, in a time when the country does not have the money. We have a defence crisis and an age demographic crisis to deal with, as well as spiraling social care costs. Energy prices are already a serious issue, in order to achieve Net Zero we need a vast amount more money to be spent, which just isn't possible politically. Now all three of the largest parties are rolling back from it, even if they might not be saying so explicitly, such as exploiting Rosebank and Jackdaw. I am expecting soon the 20 billion promised on CCS will be reallocated to defence. It seems the natural place to get it from.

b) The upgrades we need to grid infrastructure are just too large without considering the expense. Just to replace gas domestic heating we would need to double the grid capacity. That is without doing something to address the power requirements of cars. It is not just a matter of replacing infrastructure that exists anyway. There is also an issue not only of capacity, but of getting the power from the new generation points to where it is needed. The grid upgrades require human resources and businesses to implement them. These are skilled people/businesses and we don't have anywhere near enough of them.

c) The baseload problem means the challenge to replace our current power sources will be extremely difficult. Building nuclear plants takes a long time and is very expensive. There is not much more capacity for pumped storage in the UK. Battery storage is very expensive. Interconnectors are expensive, and there is starting to be considerable pushback against some of them, examples such as permission for AQUIND and the increases in Norwegian prices caused by the North Sea Link causing political issues in Norway.

In general I think Net Zero is laudable, but doing it on the timescale proposed is completely unrealistic. Unfortunately the decisions often seem to be made by politicians who don't understand either the costs or the technical barriers to achieving it.

That the country will bankrupt itself trying to achieve it doesn't worry me. Because it is not possible to achieve it simply won't happen. We will continue to move towards net zero, it's just that the timescale to get there will be much longer than anything currently proposed.

But an N95 solves the pollution issue

This thread is soooooooooo middle class and has lost a sense of proportion.

I mean how many people actually fly from Manchester to Paris on any given day...a couple of hundred max.

But Tina who's got 2 kids at 2 schools works two jobs, pays a mortgage, has to buy uniform for both this month, washing machine running constantly, 10 year old car which needs new tyres. She really doesn't want to pay a huge amount extra on energy bills to help cut the uks minimal impact on population.

Perhaps if successive governments actually taxed big companies (cough Amazon, Starbucks cough) correctly. Grew a pair and developed decent transport infrastructure irrespective of cost...and given they are currently spunking £157 million on 4 miles of track and a station in the west country....to replace a line that was closed in the 1960s so everything is there and actually isn't needed anymore....the country would be much better off

There are definitely flaws in the analysis but the conclusion is correct and if anything understates the high cost of renewable electricity in consumers bills.

If you read my earlier posts I have explained why. The energy trilemma much discussed in the 2000s was:
Security of supply vs Sustainability vs Cost.

And you can't have all three.

The result was to prioritise sustainability, then security of supply with the result of higher electricity bills.

You might get it when you’re wearing medical equipment to keep you breathing. Or getting a heart consultation to tell you about cardiovascular disease.

maybe you’ll not be so glib then, or maybe you just don’t think it’ll happen to you

Oh well. If those people are so worried they can wear N95s

You wouldn't prefer Eurostar if everyone who flew suddenly decided to use it trust me. Eurostar couldn't cope with the volume to start with. It would become a monopoly, prices would climb. It would become an uncomfortable cattle crush. It's only an underground bridge.

Obviously I don't know where in the UK you are so here are a few examples:

From London, Eurostar will easily get you to Paris in three hours, including check-in, security and border control. The thing with Eurostar is that as long as you join the appropriate check-in line by the 30 minute cut-off (20 for Premier class) you'll get on the train. If there are delays in security or border control, the train will wait for you. Airlines don't do that.

From Manchester, 5h45 according to DB (though I've cut 20 minutes off of that time before by allowing less time to get from Euston to St Pancras and check in).

From Bristol, 5h40 according to DB (again I'd confidently shave 30 minutes from that time).

So how long does flying take? Well, firstly the airport probably isn't conveniently located. Less of an issue for London as there are several to choose from. Even so, more people will live closer to St Pancras than to their nearest airport, given that Gatwick, Luton and Stansted aren't actually in London. Bristol Airport is in the middle of nowhere whereas train passengers have a choice of two main stations, one in the centre and one just off of the motorway. Manchester Airport is on the south side of the city, whereas there are three stations in Greater Manchester with fast services to London (Piccadilly, Stockport and Wigan North Western) so the number of people who live closer to the airport than to a railway station are in a small minority. So if you live in Bolton or Rochdale, it'll take you twice as long to reach the airport as the railway station. If you're in Sale it's about even.

Then you have to allow time to get through security. The airlines generally seem to say a minimum of 40 minutes - but if there are security delays the plane will take off regardless, just look at what has been happening to people caught up in EES delays. In practice the airlines recommend you arrive around 2-3 hours before your flight.

Then flight time. From various London airports it's 1h20 to CDG, 1h35 to Orly. From Manchester it's 1h20 to Beauvais, 1h35 to CDG. From Bristol 1h20 to CDG.

Now you've landed, you need to go through passport control. EES is currently being implemented so it could take you anything from 90 minutes to 3 hours to get through. No such problems on Eurostar, you just walk out of the station.

Then you need to actually get to Paris. Not an issue with Eurostar, you're already in Paris. From CDG on the other hand, 40m. From Beauvais, 1h15. From Orly only 20m, but only one airline offers that route.

So, from any of the UK airports it'll take you at least 5 hours door-to-door. For Londoners this means that the train is far superior to flying. For Manchester and Bristol flying might be quicker, but only just.

So what about the cost then? What's actually included? Eurostar will let me (should I wish to) take two full-sized suitcases and a handbag onboard at no charge. The low-cost airlines by contrast make their money by stinging you for these extras, so unless you can live for a week out of a small purse you'll need to pay more than the headline fare.

Competition is coming to the Channel Tunnel too, with both Virgin and Trenitalia looking to take a chunk out of Eurostar's monopoly. That'll force Eurostar to drop fares.

As for the passenger experience, I'll take Eurostar over Ryanair any day.

Politicians like Kemi Badenoch and right wing newspaper front pages love to talk as though everyone hates Net Zero and sustainability as concepts and wants us to get on with burning coal and drilling for oil. They seem to stake an awful lot on people not like sustainability mostly because they see it as 'woke' as far as I can tell.

I think most people don't think about it enough to hate it really and most people broadly want the outcomes of improved sustainability but would like it to happen without it needing any investment. I reckon some people don't like feeling 'nagged' about saving the environment and in many ways I don't blame them as, while we should all do our bit, really it's up to governments and big businesses to actually do the damn work to truly make a difference.

Maybe Net Zero has a bit of a PR problem as it sounds unachievable, and also maybe it sounds like you get nothing, or something will be taken away from you/society. It might do better to have a name that sounds more 'positive'. But it's a shame because ultimately, even if for some reason you don't believe in climate change it seems to me that the benefits of renewable energy (such as ending energy dependence on some not always friendly countries and less pollution) are pretty clear and I'm not sure people realise it's not just powering a few kettles, it's often around 50% of UK energy production

Won’t stop your premature death from pollution though

Which is why our cars are ULEZ complaint

One death isn't a reason to ban cars.

it’s not one death, it’s around 40,000 a year premature deaths across the country.

no need to ban motor vehicles- just change them so they pollute far less & reduce the deaths

It's not just one death. Air pollution (I don't care if you're ULEZ-compliant, tyre particulates are bad too) and noise pollution negatively impact the whole city. Paving for car parking also shortens rainwater run-off, people are killed by collisions, congestion reduces productivity, the land use is incredibly inefficient, the anti-terrorist barriers are an eyesore... The negative externalities of car use (particularly inside a dense city) are endless.

Besides, if cars fit then every one of the 3.5 million households in London should be able to own two of them like you, right? It's only fair. Where do you think that we'll find the space for all of them?

Because Net zero is all about silly policies that make climate change and pollution worse whilst making someone ric, like putting solar panels on farmland. More energy will be ecpThere was some climate change committee that said the UK had too many sheep on the hills. I think the planes in the sky and all that shit we buy from China that we don't really need are more of a problem. Net zero is just a loaf of useless bollocks. The policies will make me.bets of yb