Imposing change - would you be in favour??

[Twattergy]

Reading the climate change threads there is a lot about the changes we can make to do our bit for the environment. But my feeling is for the dial to shift some fundamental things need to be imposed on us, not a choice. Covid has shown us that people will manage restrictions of they have to. I think there should be:
-Compulsory water metering

• Massive clamp down on water waste by water companies- like business threatening level fines
• Restrict number of flights per person per annum and pay a significant tax if you need to do more
• Product makers forced to ditch unnecessary packaging ( I acknowledge much food packaging reduced food waste so you can't just look at food)
• My most extreme one is rationing of meat, the US and UK per capita consumption of meat is ridiculously high and all of us would be fine if we ate less of it (and yes govn would need to compensate meat producers, but furlough shows state compensation is possible if the need is strong enough).

There are others but those are my opening thoughts!

I expect it will be about reducing rather than banning things. But I do expect some sort of top down change will be needed and people need to see why and get behind it.

The big problems for carbon include
Food and farming
Transportation
Construction
Clothes/fashion
Home heating/energy
Other purchased things e g cars
Energy generation
Change of land use/deforestation

To simultaneously decarbonise all these, globally, will be on the scale of WW2 rationing.

Also the companies that make money out of these things have no incentive, currently, to reveal how environmentally damaging they are. They need to be forced to publish/label things in an understandable way.

You would hope that a greener, cleaner less materialistic society would be more equal and nicer to live in too.

The media reporting of this is totally disingenuous. If you read, properly in detail, and dive into the data of the original academic report (IIRC by TU Delft) you will find that no such comparison was made by the authors, and after initial scoping studies cattle were dropped from the study.

The report measured the amount of water received by a wide variety of food sources and by a wide variety of mechanisms, including rainfall. Comparing the rain that falls on cattle in a soggy field in the West Country (x number of cattle per hectare and y amount of rain) to a Californian mono-crop watered with drinking quality water in a region where there has been a drought for the last 22 years is ridiculous.

This type of reporting does extreme harm to the understanding of climate change and sustainability.

Hi @NotMeNoNo Net Zero road maps gov just needs to make this law. I predict that at some point, hopefully not too far in the future, companies will have to produce a sustainability report similar to an annual Companies House report.

My idea, more investment by very large corporations for improved environmental technology , especially e.g. Darpa etc

@Hawkins001 DARPA? Please explain.

@Tania64 has a very valid point, it’s all well and good saying ‘normal’ people are limited to x amount of flights per year when it won’t restrict the wealthy at all, their lives won’t change because they can take the hit, they can still fly as often as they want, it would increase the divide between the haves and have nots to an even bigger degree than it is now.

Its simple: CONSUME LESS!

For sixty years, DARPA has held to a singular and enduring mission: to make pivotal investments in breakthrough technologies for national security.

The genesis of that mission and of DARPA itself dates to the launch of Sputnik in 1957, and a commitment by the United States that, from that time forward, it would be the initiator and not the victim of strategic technological surprises. Working with innovators inside and outside of government, DARPA has repeatedly delivered on that mission, transforming revolutionary concepts and even seeming impossibilities into practical capabilities. The ultimate results have included not only game-changing military capabilities such as precision weapons and stealth technology, but also such icons of modern civilian society such as the Internet, automated voice recognition and language translation, and Global Positioning System receivers small enough to embed in myriad consumer devices.

DARPA explicitly reaches for transformational change instead of incremental advances. But it does not perform its engineering alchemy in isolation. It works within an innovation ecosystem that includes academic, corporate and governmental partners, with a constant focus on the Nation’s military Services, which work with DARPA to create new strategic opportunities and novel tactical options. For decades, this vibrant, interlocking ecosystem of diverse collaborators has proven to be a nurturing environment for the intense creativity that DARPA is designed to cultivate.

DARPA comprises approximately 220 government employees in six technical offices, including nearly 100 program managers, who together oversee about 250 research and development programs.

www.darpa.mil

@Hawkins001 okay that DARPA. If you really lay the blame for climate change at the feet of defense organisations you need to do a bit of maths.

We need to stop burning fossil fuels.

It's pretty much that simple.

I would encourage cycling and walking by banning on all pavement and cycle lane parking in the whole of the UK not just London. No ifs or buts.

I would red route all bus routes and reduce parking spaces on road. Any road over the limit for pollution is closed until it is safe for people to walk.

I am in agreement in principle and although I have willingly made plenty of small changes myself I am the first to admit that I won't stop flying unless a restriction is imposed or it becomes unaffordable

I don't do long haul but love a European city break or ski trip. If flying wasn't an option then I'm sure I would survive and seek alternative modes of travel but while cheap flights are available it's hard to resist!

I was using that organisation, as an example of a company that can develop technology to help the climate.

Not sure how you arrived at your perspectives ?

"We need to stop burning fossil fuels."

How did you arrive at that conclusion ?

@Daftasabroom

In your perspectives, what energy sources should humanity use instead that's available now and can replace the power produced by fossil fuels ?

@Hawkins001 roughly 3/4 of emissions come from burning fossil fuels. Our World in Data is a well respected organisation.

Solar and wind energy will be the principal sources of energy, with small modular nuclear bridging the gaps. Excess energy will be used to produce hydrogen or hydrogen based power to liquid fuels.

I think you are both right, please no quoting and sniping.

Burning fossil fuel is a big driver of CO2 emissions. It should stay in the ground. Innovations and development are needed to scale up and improve renewable power though for sure.

There are no one-liners in this business, it's a complex problem with complex solutions that need to work together systematically.

I think shops should be made to turn their lights off overnight. We drove home through town after dark the other night and some shops were lit up like it was daytime. That's so unnecessary. Maybe some lighting is needed for security but I particularly noticed Specsavers, it was fully brightly lit at 12.30am. Energy crisis anyone?

I could get on board with all of your suggestions OP, as long as we were allowed a reasonable amount of flights a year.

I’d also want to shine a light on how bad cruises are for the environment. I’d ban them entirely if we could, but they should be significantly restricted too.

I’d be happy if all animal products became expensive enough that they reflected something closer to their real
cost, with them all being organic and having the very best lives and deaths possible. I don’t eat meat but have a lot of dairy and I’d rather be able to pay for it knowing that it doesn’t result in excessive suffering.

@NotMeNoNo (I know I've posted this before, but) re innovation - I work in STEM research and the pace of change and innovation is currently unlike anything I have ever seen before. Five years ago no one was taking hydrogen very seriously now there are billions being spent on research. Where previously organisations looked at 5, 10, 20 year time frames now they are more like 1, 3, 8.

Turbine blades are roughly twice the size they were ten years ago.

Wind and solar have been around a while but developments mean they are both cheaper, and extensive. Wind generation is due to increase by 500% in the next decade and the UK will likely become a net energy exporter.

Oh that last sentence did make me laugh

@ClocksGoingBackwards Link to Carbon Footprint of travel while per km travel flying is worse, because we fly fewer miles, aviation only accounts for about 2% of global emissions. Equally the aerospace sector is making huge efforts to decarbonise, Airbus have ZEROe for instance. The UK Government recently completed the FlyZero project and the likes of Vertical aim for production deliveries in less than 5 years.

Yes. More needs to be done. But that would take a Govt that actually plans and costs out green policies and dares to implement them.

My personal “If I was PM for the day…” ones are:

• Compulsory annual/zoned parking permit to park private cars on a public street and money raised reinvested into cycle networks and public transport. I don’t see why stationary private cars should clutter up the world. Most hardly move or could be shared. And, at the same time, ban parking on pavements nationwide
• ban paving over gardens or green space for car parking.
• install thousands of public water fountains and water bottle filling stations in towns, stations, airports, shopping centres, at tourist attractions. And at the same time ban single use bottles of drinking water.
• ban plastic grass and plastic plants outdoors.
• force all property developers to install solar panels on roofs in new build and renovated properties (with exceptions for Listed properties, I guess)
• tax domestic short haul flights. Reinvest the money in improving rail links.
• nationalise water companies and maintain parity with EU laws of water quality and bathing standards. We can’t have deregulation!
• radically change town planning strategy away from building detached houses on cul de sac as dormitories with driveways to terraced houses and flats built around a large public garden square with private cars excluded and compulsory regular bus routes and cycle lanes.
• standardise recycling across the country. Local councils vary so much.
• Compulsory air quality monitoring by local councils

I am clearly fond of banning lots of things🤣

@MadeInChorley you wouldn't need to be PM for a day to do all that. Have you considered standing for local council, and I mean that. It's easy to bash out threads on MN or attend a protest march but actually getting involved as a decision maker is much more effective (and I mean that genuinely and in the nicest possible way). So to your points:

• Parking, I completely agree but this is local councils not government. I'd also add in cycle lanes, personal mobility, car shares etc.
• Paving etc should be taken out of permitted development and require planning, again this would give local government control.
• I'm not sure about drinking fountains, I think they'd get vandalised. Single use plastic bottles aren't actually that bad, ironically PET is one of the easiest and most cost effective plastics to recycle. WRAP has done, and continues to do excellent work in collaborating with manufacturers and recycling equipment manufacturers. The key is in recycling.
• Double VAT on plastic grass. - BTW cotoneaster is exceptional at removing pollution and particulate emissions.
• Solar panels on domestic properties don't make much sense, the grid tie equipment is a larger part of the overall cost, and cleaning and repair much more difficult when they are just a few on someones roof rather than a thousand in a field or a factory roof. Much better to require developers to reach passive house standards of energy reduction.
• Flights - see my earlier post, Urban Air Mobility is the next big thing.
• I'm not sure about nationalisation. It's great in theory but it's too easy for governments to treat nationalised assets as easy targets when it comes to saving money.
• Town planning - absolutely, and this needs to tie in with passive homes, transport infrastructure, vertical green spaces, work hubs etc etc. As our high streets decline we need to replace them with something better.
• Recycling will get better but it needs more commercial pull for recyclate, the easiest way would be to have a requirement for a minimum percentage of recycled material in new products.
• Air quality - almost fifteen years ago I drove (hired) a VW Golf with auto stop start when stationary e.g. traffic lights and jams. Why oh why hasn't this been compulsory on ALL motor vehicles for the last ten years at least? 40,000 people a year die from respiratory related illness linked to particulate emissions.

Offshore wind to hydrogen
UK Government Funding
Current electricity production - 52% fossil fuel, 48% renewable or low carbon

I'd create a network of dry cycle lanes around the country. Perhaps using solar panels to create the roofing

Id like all new builds to have compulsory solar panels and when they are building estates, its such a ligical time to put in ground source heat pumps as there are diggers and lots of earth movement going in anyway.

More simply lots of trees in urban environments.