Man made climate change has appeared to me for three decades to be sufficiently proven, and it has that cardinal virtue of a scientific hypothesis, you can see the things which it predicts will happen, come to pass before your eyes, like being uncomfortably hot in your Edinburgh flat on Easter Monday.
Direct action of the illegal kind is a very important weapon in the arsenal of protest. It represents a challenge to the state’s monopoly of force. While it may appear non-violent, in fact by imposing your body into a space and blocking it off, that is an assertion of physical force. What the Extinction Rebellion protests showed this week was the reticence of the Metropolitan Police in dealing with nice, middle class and largely white protestors. That reticence is to be welcomed; the fact that it is not extended to other groups is what is to be deplored. The alternative is to argue for everyone to get beaten up by Plod equally, which is not a sensible line to take.
I broadly support the Extinction Rebellion protest. In terms of gatecrashing climate change on to the political agenda, they have had a good and entirely necessary effect. Their use of what was in effect force, certainly did some harm in restricting the movement of people around London, and in some cases will have impacted the ability of struggling people to earn their living. It also disrupted public transport systems which are a good thing. But these are minor items if you accept that climate change is whirling its way to becoming an existential threat – and that is a premise which I do accept. The disruption is outweighed by the intent to do a much greater good, in terms of the justification of the people doing the protesting. Whether it succeeds in prompting real action by government and achieving a balance of good, is a different question. I fear we have to get rid of the Tories first.
I accept that climate change is a worldwide phenomenon and action in individual states of limited utility. But individual states can inspire by example, not least by showing that a switch to a greener economy can lead to a major stimulation of economic growth. I do not pretend to expertise in green economics. What follows are rather some homely policy nostrums which I believe should form a part of a coherent approach to green policy.
1) Home Insulation
The Tory Government has effectively abandoned and cancelled home insulation schemes; in effect nothing whatsoever is happening. Yet the government’s own plan to reach committed emissions targets by 2050 explicitly depends on one third of all savings being achieved by insulation in Britain’s existing stock of over 20 million very poorly insulated homes.
There is the clearest case here for government action. The aim should be to upgrade 4 million homes a year. Full funding should be provided to local authorities and housing associations for their stock. Householders should face a legal obligation to bring home insulation up to high defined standards – with generous means-tested grants available from central government funds, which should meet 100% of the cost for all those in straitened circumstances, and a decreasing percentage thereafter based on income and wealth. Private landlords should be forced to comply and self-fund up to the value of four months’ rent, with grants available for higher costs. Failure to comply should lead to the landlords’ property being confiscated by the local council, with tenancies protected.
Those are the broad outlines of a policy which would provide massive employment and contribute to a major Keynesian boost for an economy crippled by years of austerity, as well as make a major difference to emissions.
2) Ocean Energy
Wind energy has made massive strides, and to a lesser extent solar and hydro. But disappointingly little has been done to harness the restless energy of the seas. Government support for research programmes into utilising wave and current energy is pitifully small, given the potentially vast and reliable energy resource available, to the UK in particular.
On tidal energy, those objecting to the Severn or Wash barrage schemes on the grounds of effect on wildlife habitat are failing spectacularly to see the wood for the trees. Of course biodiversity is massively important, but we are fighting a battle in which some resources will need to be sacrificed. The Severn, Wash and Swansea Bay schemes do not require substantial technological innovation – they are basically just low head hydro – and should be pushed ahead as urgent projects. Simultaneously major research funding should be given to innovation. I suspect the harnessing of currents rather than waves would be the first to fruition.
3) Aviation Fuel Tax
Cheap flights are the opiate of the people. I cannot buy in to the argument that aviation fuel tax is only viable if everybody does it. Planes landing can very easily be taxed on any fuel they have in their fuel tanks brought in from third countries. If hub passengers transiting are reduced in favour of fuel tax free destinations, I cannot see that as a bad thing. An aviation hub is a particularly undesirable thing to become, from any sensible environmental view.
Flying is a major contributor to pollution and there is far too much of it. The tax free fuel status that makes flights cheaper than trains is ludicrous. Aviation fuel should be taxed at the same levels per calorific value as road fuels.
4) Expand Rail Networks
Nationalisation and re-integration is of course the sensible prelude to any development of rail transport. The UK is chronically behind most of the developed, and even much of the developing, world in terms of high speed rail lines. This needs to be rectified as does the chronic over-concentration of transport resource on South East England. HS2 should run on to Aberdeen and Inverness, not just be confined to the southern third of the UK.
On a wider note, with demand for rail transport buoyant, re-establishment of many Beeching axed lines should be undertaken with a view to a simple containerised nationwide freight distribution system as well as passenger transport. Rail is far more energy efficient than road. The preponderance of road transport is simply the result of perverse incentive from government policy.
Light rail and tram systems should be expanded in cities. Here in Edinburgh, the poor planning and execution of the start of a tram system should not put us off. Trams should be a local service, not fast and stopping frequently, but rather akin to buses, as in Manchester. They should not be confused as in Edinburgh with an express airport service, with very few and inaccessible stops.
5) Encourage Micro-Generation: Abolish Nuclear
The UK had an immensely successful programme of encouraging domestic solar generation through feed in tariffs, so the Tories cut it, as they cut the less successful insulation grants. Generous feed-in tariffs for domestic generation should be rebooted, while technologies such as heat pumps and exchangers should be zero rated for VAT (as should bicycles).
By contrast, the massively expensive nuclear power projects should be scrapped immediately. I lived almost all my adult life under the impression nuclear energy involved some fiendishly clever technology, until I realised it generates from bog standard steam turbines, and the nuclear part is simply a ludicrously complicated, incredibly expensive and devastatingly dangerous way to – boil water.
The real attraction to governments of nuclear power is the precise reason governments dislike micro-generation – nuclear power promotes a massively centralised security state, and links in well to weaponisation. It is the most expensive electricity of all, and should be immediately closed down.
The above represent my own thoughts on possible short term policy responses to climate change. I acknowledge quite freely that it is not my area of expertise and is perhaps insufficiently radical, and certainly insufficiently broad and detailed. It has however focused my mind on the great economic stimulus that can be gained from wholesale pursuit of the necessary technologies at the government level.
I have deliberately concentrated on unilateral measures rather than international negotiation, because I am sceptical there is sufficient will for progress on the latter or that governments around the world intend to stick to commitments. I have viewed it from a UK not a Scottish perspective because action is required immediately, and Scotland starts from a much better place anyway.
That I am thinking on this at all is in a way evidence that Extinction Rebellion achieved their aim from their immediate action, though it is those in power they seek to influence, not random bloggers. I am very sceptical of their declared desire to “negotiate with government”. If David Cameron were still in power, he would undoubtedly “hug a swampie” and make all kinds of green noises, then continue shutting down environmental programmes. Those around Theresa May are quite clever enough to recommend such an approach, as a potential Tory rescuing image as the party otherwise crashes to electoral disaster.
I would recommend Extinction Rebellion to keep blocking the roads and stay clear of the politicians. If they could refine their tactics to concentrate more on direct action against the big polluters and their financial backers, and move away from shocking the public through inconvenience, that might be tactically good for a while. But on the whole, I applaud. Vigorously.
Two millennia of North Atlantic seasonalityand implications for Norse colonies
William P. Pattersona,1, Kristin A. Dietricha, Chris Holmdena, and John T. Andrewsb
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41825536_Two_millennia_of_North_Atlantic_Seasonality_and_implications_for_Norse_colonies
all done with Mussles
Amazing what’s possible when people put their minds to it. It seems similar to how past temperatures are reconstructed from tree rings, but more detailed.
Sea shells are of course a way of sequestrating Carbon, to the sea floor,
for a long time.
Indeed. I think that process breaks down if ocean alkalinity falls too far, under which conditions certain organisms can no longer grow their shells or exoskeletons. Alkalinity is falling because the oceans are absorbing most of the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. This possibility is another example of a tipping point.
Out cycling with a friend, yesterday, he had a point to do with recycling.
Recently, we have been forced to have a water metre, we are already, encouraged to recycle, but they want you to thourgerly wash the plastic tubs/tins out before you put them in the bin, if you do not wash them you may, in future be fined.
But we now have to pay for our water by volume used.
So, in effect we are not only recycling but paying to recycle.
On one hand we are being messaged to be careful of water use, on the other hand being messaged to waste fresh water to wash out recycled materials.
What is more important
saving fresh drinking water
or washing out materials for recycling?
I do mine with the rest of the washing up. Around here downstream from London they say that we get the purest water in the world, filtered by six pairs of kidneys.
There was a good wholefoods shop in York in the ’80s. Take your own containers in and fill them up. Cheap too.
Wow now experts are claiming an increase of 5C – one of the worst-case scenarios for global warming
in the next eighty years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48337629
Such predictions have existed for decades, but have barely been been reported, which is why some of us have been communicating our sense of urgency – and now, refusal to cooperate.
The predictions that got reported – ie. 1.5°C, 2°C etc. – were all based on the assumption that the treaties would be respected and emissions would be reduced, but in fact not only have emissions risen, they’ve been rising faster and faster, putting us on track for 3°C to 6°C by the end of the century, which corresponds to 8°C by 2300, which would almost certainly trigger tipping points leading to Hothouse or Uninhabitable Earth. But still the media went on and on about 1.5°C and 2°C as if the problem had been addressed by the words of treaties, which are, notoriously, not legally binding. The corporate media trusted politicians, just like they do when we’re told that another war is necessary. Quelle surprise.
That’s why Extinction Rebellion’s first demand is Tell the Truth about the climate and ecological emergency…
…and why we painted that demand on the side of a pink boat, ran it aground in Oxford Circus and held a week-long rave party there. We’re trying to make it more difficult for the media to gloss over.
At a place known as Blyth in North East England
G.E. is to emplace the largest wind turbines in the World.
Haliade-X, 220 metre rotor.
This firm was started by ENRON,
so this may be a scam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
http://portofblyth.co.uk/ge-haliade-150-6mw-nacelle-arrives/
I saw wind turbine sub-assemblies on lorry trailers at Oban a few years ago. Big, but not as big as that one. They’d arrived at the port to be shipped out to one of the islands I think. At first I couldn’t work out what I was looking at, until I saw the blade assemblies behind another lorry and realised it was a wind turbine. I’d been looking at the hub, and the two enormous streamlined side covers. Impressive heavy engineering.
Scam or not, that wind turbine has actually been built, and shipped to Blythe. The ship that transported it looks very new:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD3RUVxP3ZQ
Companies seem to cook the books all the time. Much more transparency needed.
Featuring a 12-megawatt direct drive generator, the Haliade-X will produce 45 percent more energy than any other offshore wind turbine currently available. More specifically, plans call for it to generate up to 67 GWh (Gigawatt hours) annually, which is reportedly enough to power up to 16,000 European households.
It will stand 260 meters (853 ft) tall, with a 220-meter (722-ft) rotor incorporating three 107-meter (351-ft) blades – they will be the longest offshore blades ever made.
67 GWH – annually sound rather huge.
So how many of these would be needed to replace Hinkley Point C
Nearly 270, if they were all generating at full capacity continuously (assuming Hinkley Point C has zero down-time too).
Hinkley Point C: rated power = 3.2 gigawatt
Hours in a year = 24 x 365 = ~8,766 (adjusted for leap years)
Gigawatt hours = 8,766 x 3.2 = 28,051
Hinkley Point C / Haliade-X =
28,051 / 67 = ~420
But Hinkley Point C isn’t even expected to come on line until 2025, so Haliade-X has a considerable head start.
Humanity needs to find ways of having a decent quality of life without demanding so much energy. Despite all the wealth of the developed world, people aren’t happy. We have epidemics of loneliness, depression and suicide. There must be better ways of living than everyone alone in their flat watching screens, or going to work and answering telephones all day.
Ozone layer: Banned CFCs traced to China say scientists
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48353341
Further detective work in China by the Environmental Investigation Agency in 2018 seemed to indicate that the country was indeed the source. They found that the illegal chemical was used in the majority of the polyurethane insulation produced by firms they contacted.
One seller of CFC-11 estimated that 70% of China’s domestic sales used the illegal gas. The reason was quite simple – CFC-11 is better quality and much cheaper than the alternatives.
Well I am disgusted at the Chinese, I will do my best, never to purchase
anything manufactured in China, ever.
Hinkley Point C, under construction after being plagued by financial problems, is intended to consist of two EPR reactors, 1650 megawatt each. But only one such reactor has actually started operation, and that’s in China. The first two EPR units to start construction, in Finland and France, are both facing costly delays until 2020 at least. Proposals in Abu Dhabi, Canada, France, Italy, United States, Finland and the Czech Republic have all been unsuccessful.
And now even its designers EDF have given up on it, opting to design two less powerful versions instead:
https://www.reuters.com/article/edf-reactors/edf-eyes-development-of-new-smaller-reactors-papers-idUSL6N0CD1J820130321
When we discussed coal use in China I found that the Chinese government has no national energy authority. The government issues limits on the use of coal but the companies ignore them and the provinces don’t enforce them. Maybe it’s similar with CFCs. How well regulated is their nuclear industry? I hope their EPRs don’t blow up and melt down!
Electricity from wind and solar is just over half the price of nuclear, and getting cheaper all the time. But there’s an additional cost because a more advanced grid system is needed for intermittent power sources. But but… it’s worth doing because distributed generation will be more robust, and the new DC grid system will have lower losses.
So why did the government opt for Hinkley Point C? Researchers from the University of Sussex, Prof. Andy Stirling and Dr. Phil Johnstone:
– Electricity consumers ‘to fund nuclear weapons through Hinkley Point C’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-hinkley-point-c
But we should always remember that electricity generation is only part of our energy requirements.
Money:
– Last year, the [oil and gas] industry spent an astonishing $124,837,199 on lobbying politicians in the US. During the 2016 elections, the industry spent over $100m on campaign contributions; recent top donors include the Koch brothers, Chevron and ExxonMobil.
– One recent study found that worldwide fossil fuel subsidies amounted to $4.9 trillion in 2013.
– Since the Paris climate agreement on tackling climate change was signed in 2016, 33 global banks – led by big US financial institutions such as JP Morgan Chase – have provided $1.9 trillion in finance to the fossil fuel industry. HSBC is funding the expansion of coal plants in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam; while Barclays bank has shelled out $85bn of financing for fossil fuels since 2015 alone.
– It has been estimated that the US has spent nearly $6 trillion on its post-9/11 wars [wars for oil].
With supporting links:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/25/climate-change-oil-companies-extinction-rebellion
How many wind turbines could be built with that sort of money?
Apparently wind turbines have the highest support, of and power generation system in the U.K.
by the people.
Less so with Solar Farms, solar farms can have some environmental benefits, sheep can be put to grass, underneath them, other wildlife can benefit.
Solar Farms are immensely quick to install, similarly, immensely quick to dismantle, with almost no damage to the land, compare that with the effort and time to dismantle a Nuclear Power Staion,
100 years plus.
With all electricity generating systems, dismantle time/cost – ground renervation,
should be taken in to account, in the application stage
but I doubt if much heed is given to fifty years down the road.
Before the introduction of man made fibres, essentially in the interwar years, there was only localized pollution, all pollution was biodegradable.
Then we entered the Atomic Age, everything changed, now pollution essentially last for ever, ask the people who used to live near Chernobyl?
If Global Warming is going to make our World uninhabitable, say in 200 years when we are eight and a half degrees warmer, when will India and Australia and Brazil and China
take note?
Israel seeks ‘friendly international help’ amid raging wildfires
https://www.rt.com/news/460126-israel-wildfires-help-neighbors/
Israel is seeking help from “friendly” neighbours as the country was hit by an extreme heatwave and subsequent wildfires that have already destroyed dozens of houses and displaced some 3,500 people.
Raging fires forced evacuation of several small towns in central Israel on Thursday. The blazes affected wooded areas between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, with firefighter crews and airplane tankers trying to push back the flames. Some 22 people have been reportedly hospitalized for smoke inhalation.
23 – 18
Better performance for mixed tin-lead perovskite solar cells
You better keep your head down Clark
Extinction Rebellion: Met want 1,130 climate protesters charged
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48402495
Today from the BBC website –
‘The Met will push for the prosecution of more than 1,100 people arrested over last month’s Extinction Rebellion protests, a senior officer has said.’
BBC News – Extinction Rebellion: Met wants 1,130 climate protesters charged
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48402495
A police state.
I wonder if these protestors will be sent to prison?
Storm Hannah uncovers Borth, Irish Sea coast of Wales – sunken underwater forest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48407795
This is compelling evidence that the sea level has risen.
I the recent Euroelections, the Greens did rather well, even beating the Conservatives.
Two million votes and awarded 7 MEP.
Will this make any difference to Global Warming?
HURRICANE Energy has said it expects to generate £200 million annually from production from a giant field West of Shetland and predicted its success in the area could be a game-changer for the oil and gas industry.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/17536061.giant-west-of-shetland-oil-field-on-track-to-start-production-in-next-quarter/
Estimated to contain around 500 million barrels oil, Lancaster lies in an under-explored geological area West of Shetland which Hurricane’s founder Robert Trice realised had huge potential.
The start of production from the field would put Hurricane on the way to generating massive amounts of cash that it could use to bring other finds on its acreage into production.
The company’s progress has already helped stoked interest in the West of Shetland area as oil and gas firms look to make the kind of bumper finds that can underpin long term production.These are increasingly hard to make in well-drilled areas of the North Sea.
If ever more new oil fields are brought on stream, Global Warming will not be stopped
Hello and thanks, Sharp Ears and Michael Norton. Sorry I haven’t been replying; I have been extremely busy and I had a visitor come to stay. I expect to be busy for at least another week. Best wishes all.
Regarding arrests and charges; Extinction Rebellion Chelmsford had twelve members before the London actions. Since then we’ve had a whirlwind of meetings, inductions, training, forming the various working groups and allocating responsibilities. We have several times the number of members now; I don’t know how many exactly, about sixty people attend each meeting, but there are many different faces each time. There were over a thousand arrests in London, which broke the existing record; detainees were being returned from police stations up to a hundred miles away. How many can the authorities can arrest and charge?
On 14 May, Britain generated a quarter of its energy from the sun – the largest proportion yet
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48473259
Chris Skidmore, energy and clean growth minister, said: “The UK has the largest offshore wind capacity on the planet
No coal fired electricity in U.K. for the last fortnight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-48460184
“By using waste which cannot be recycled as the fuel to create low-carbon electricity which will power plastics recycling we are creating a truly…energy-efficient waste management solution.”
The firm said the recycling plant would put 60,000 tonnes of recycled plastic from bottles, pots, tubs and trays in flake and pellet form “back in the economy every year as a viable and sustainable solution to virgin plastic”.
The site will be powered by diverting 320,000 tonnes of waste from landfill and generating 32MW of electricity – the equivalent energy used to power about 44,000 homes.