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

[Echobelly]

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

HS2 goes nowhere near the Cotswolds:

Or they can drive what they want to. We have 2 SUVs. We like them and we use them

Hardly anyone flies from Aberdeen to Paris. Under 20k/year. I don't care about edge cases. I care more about the 777k who fly from Manchester to Paris. A route perfectly viable by train.

I'm quite happy for people to choose how they travel. So long as they pay for the pollution they cause. No more tax breaks and subsidies for polluters...

Yes but the TGV high speed rails are built very straight to accomodate that. A lot of the "high speed" trains we have at the moment are actually tilting trains designed to deal with slightly less straight track. You couldn't replace them with high speed duplex trains like France have on the same lines. Younwoukd have to create brand new high speed train lines
I'm not against double decker trains or 200 mph trains. I think both are very cool. But saying "just build double decker trains" isn't the solution to the UKs issues with train capacity. We need to spend money on building out the infrastructure
I didn't realise that the HS2 tunnels are tall enough to accommodate double decker trains. That's something I guess. I still don't think "just add double deckers and ban short distance flights" is the solution.

The thread from the Conservative Home blogger? And the PP who said that there are flaws with it? Have you got anything actually produced by an expert, published in a reputable publication and peer-reviewed?

I completely agree we could have more people travelling by train from Manchester to Paris and less flying. But then the government needs to actually build decent train track North of Birmingham. Hopefully they will. It doesn't even need to be super fancy high speed at this point. Just the capacity needed so trains can run direct to London and then people can change to the Eurostar. And it needs to be affordable. Again, achievable so long as the UK isn't chasing pointless vanity projects like "the fastest train in Europe" etc.

Not at the expense of everyone else they can't. Cars don't fit in central London. They lower the quality of life of everyone outside them. But we've seen from your childish responses ("boo hoo") that you only think of yourself.

I'd sooner think about the welfare of Ella:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55330945

I think the people of Aberdeen should get a choice. There's already APD.

Flaws but still correct notionally and directionally

The big capacity gain from HS2 (if Piccadilly gets the new platforms it desperately needs) is the ability to run 400m long trains, rather than the 265m ones which currently fit. That takes capacity from 607 passengers to 1008 passengers per train. If a future generation decided to double deck (again, HS2 originally planned for this possibility for captive services to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds) then you're looking at around 1200 seats per train.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsinlondonasaresultofcaremissions

One death isn't a reason to ban cars. Cars do fit. I mean roads still exist in central London. Both our crossover SUVs are ULEZ compliant.

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.

I'm hopeful that Burnham understands Manchester's needs better than Sunak ever did - he who would rather use a helicopter from London to Southampton than take a perfectly decent train.

As for costs, a lot was driven up by appeasing Tory MPs in the Chilterns (not going to have the same issues in Staffordshire and Cheshire under a Labour Government, apart from the fact that most of the legal process is already done). Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine didn't help either - the steel was supposed to come from Azovstal, finding an alternative after that got overrun was pricey. The legislation was badly written - it should have provided a single point of approvals but instead there was a fragmented mess. The main issue though (which was exactly the same as the issues California is having) is that they rushed in to start building and get the politicians their hard hat photo ops before the designs had been finalised. So any changes that needed to be made - or any stalling by Bucks council - drove the costs through the roof.

Building through Staffordshire won't be half as complicated as digging out of London was, nor dealing with the Chilterns. Phase 2A should be an easy win to get as far as Crewe. For Phase 2B there is a short tunnel under Crewe, and a long tunnel under south Manchester that in theory hasn't actually been cancelled yet as it was to share infrastructure with a new Liverpool-Manchester line. If the lessons from phase 1 are learned, this shouldn't be too complicated.

No one is stopping them. As far as "short haul" goes, it's not the same as Manchester-Paris.

We have just invested in solar panels. I drive a hybrid car. I don’t hate net zero and we need to take climate change seriously. America is propped up financially by big oil so they will never take it seriously but China has made great progress. Just because US has no morals it doesn’t mean we should stick our heads in the sand.

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

Did you type that with your tongue ?

How do renewable energy policies “make climate change and pollution worse” ?

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

There are lots of small things consumers could do to reduce their carbon footprint.

For those who say they won’t stop flying/heating their houses to 20+ degrees/driving SUVs, as it will make little difference, do you accept that the same applies to the UK as an entity?

Either the settling an example argument holds water or it doesn’t.

Personally, I think we should continue to trend towards renewables, but at a realistic pace balanced with cost, and we have to make sure the burden falls equally on everyone, not just the poor, as is at the moment.

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.

Which is why our cars are ULEZ complaint

Won’t stop your premature death from pollution though

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

Actually the most cost effective measure against climate change is contraception. By having less humans on the planet you not only reduce CO2 emissions but all other types of pollution and environmental damage.