3 ms·

Do you really think I advocate for no action to be taken? Taking your first sentence at face value it appears you believe in an all or nothing approach. Also,

Do you really think I advocate for no action to be taken? Taking your first sentence at face value it appears you believe in an all or nothing approach. Also, and again I know this is a sensitive area so I understand why you are coming across this way, but comments like 'you should be much more worried about this problem than you are' are unnecessary and divisive. I am extremely worried about climate change. That is why I am concerned by extreme 'all or nothing' impractical approaches that will simply achieve nothing. I prefer something to nothing. >in ten years you folks will need to be in a position to switch to a technology which is already reasonably viable so better get scaling Do you consider needing to upgrade 400,000 substations and installing charge points along ~200,000km of roads within 10-20 years reasonably viable? My whole issue with this is not that we should take NO action, it's that for any action taken we should either: a. Speak honestly about the actual efforts required to make it happen and then take that action (e.g. start the substation upgrade, start installing the chargers), b. Take more practical action that requires less drastic work. The option being touted is: c. Ban non-electric cars by 2030 and hybrids by 2035, say absolutely nothing about the VAST £100's of billions required investment to make that feasible, feel good and move on. Do you think option c is more or less likely to result in anything changing? I think this requirement is likely to just get rolled back and ignored. "translate into pressure on all governments globally to build credible plans for decarbonisation" I actually agree with this, but I don't think unrealistic plans that ignore actual costs are any kind of solution. I absolutely do NOT advocate putting off addressing climate issues. I personally believe in taking as much of a global approach as possible (if China refuse to stop using dirty coal plants everywhere, economically divest from them for example), correctly counting the CO2 cost of e.g. electric cars/renewable energy from raw material to functional capacity, not just discounting all CO2/other nasty climate gases from production and taking as practical an approach as we can. I am also a realist and realise that if a country was to go all in on what many deem necessary and suffers a colossal economic impact that'll likely discourage any other country from taking that or probably much action at all. It's a hard problem that feels like it needs drastic immediate action but the problem is made harder from the fact that that is simply not possible, I'm sorry. Those who truly are worried about this should be being as practical as possible in order to get as much change into the world as they can.

matthewmacleod 6y ago
Do you really think I advocate for no action to be taken? Taking your first sentence at face value it appears you believe in an all or nothing approach. I think you take a commonly-seen approach that tends to argue that any even moderate efforts to deal with the problem are too extreme. I do not think the phrase you have repeatedly used - “all or nothing” – has any value, since it tends to define even relatively modest steps as “all”. Do you consider needing to upgrade 400,000 substations and installing charge points along ~200,000km of roads within 10-20 years reasonably viable? Yes. My whole issue with this is not that we should take NO action, it's that for any action taken we should either: In other words, you are probably advocating for a more extreme approach - that is, perhaps make these commitments legally binding and provide the infrastructure and planning to follow through on them. I completely agree with this, and that’s the point - this decision itself is pretty weak, and cannot credibly be called a “climate hysteria” response.
- barnacled 6y ago
  RE: climate hysteria I was actually responding to the parent who was saying this was nowhere near enough. RE: Viability, I mean perhaps I worded that poorly - I think it's _possible_ to do it, I just think it will be exceptionally difficult (there are many roads that are not so simple to just dig up, huge HUGE disruption caused, etc. etc.) and require probably £100's of billions. My issue is more that the govt have absolutely not addressed or even mentioned that, and many engaged in this debate won't accept that this is a requirement. >I think you take a commonly-seen approach that tends to argue that any even moderate efforts to deal with the problem are too extreme. Not at all. I simply do not consider a multi-£100bn investment requiring basically every single residential street in Britain to be dug up and every single substation upgraded (not to mention other parts of the grid that will need upgrading) to be moderate and dislike when people talk about this govt action as if that isn't required. Actually I would 100% advocate for only hybrids by 2030 (which the govt actually does advocate), but not a banning of hybrids by 2035 as it also advocates. Also more govt pressure to make hybrids considerably more efficient (they are already pretty impressive). Perhaps look at banning hybrids also by 2050? Or some reasonably practical timeframe. I'd also want to start the program of increasing charging points and substation infrastructure but on a more reasonable timeframe, but be honest about it and get the ball rolling NOW, not in 2030. Something like 'every X streets must have at least Y charging points' could be a start. Practicality. What I'd also want to look at is - more nuclear, more renewables, investigate means of reducing usage of flights, investment into public transport (outside of London it sucks big time, and more generally e.g. trains are the most expensive in Europe + also the least reliable), more advocacy for work from home, greater subsidies in decarbonisation, but more than anything using economic pressure in league with other countries to pressure (and also not only pressure but help via aid) highly polluting developing countries to reduce carbon output. There is plenty that can be done, I just don't think hand waving + denial of costs will actually achieve anything. In fact I think it HARMS the climate change cause more than anything.

matthewmacleod 6y ago

Do you really think I advocate for no action to be taken? Taking your first sentence at face value it appears you believe in an all or nothing approach. I think you take a commonly-seen approach that tends to argue that any even moderate efforts to deal with the problem are too extreme. I do not think the phrase you have repeatedly used - “all or nothing” – has any value, since it tends to define even relatively modest steps as “all”. Do you consider needing to upgrade 400,000 substations and installing charge points along ~200,000km of roads within 10-20 years reasonably viable? Yes. My whole issue with this is not that we should take NO action, it's that for any action taken we should either: In other words, you are probably advocating for a more extreme approach - that is, perhaps make these commitments legally binding and provide the infrastructure and planning to follow through on them. I completely agree with this, and that’s the point - this decision itself is pretty weak, and cannot credibly be called a “climate hysteria” response.

barnacled 6y ago
RE: climate hysteria I was actually responding to the parent who was saying this was nowhere near enough. RE: Viability, I mean perhaps I worded that poorly - I think it's _possible_ to do it, I just think it will be exceptionally difficult (there are many roads that are not so simple to just dig up, huge HUGE disruption caused, etc. etc.) and require probably £100's of billions. My issue is more that the govt have absolutely not addressed or even mentioned that, and many engaged in this debate won't accept that this is a requirement. >I think you take a commonly-seen approach that tends to argue that any even moderate efforts to deal with the problem are too extreme. Not at all. I simply do not consider a multi-£100bn investment requiring basically every single residential street in Britain to be dug up and every single substation upgraded (not to mention other parts of the grid that will need upgrading) to be moderate and dislike when people talk about this govt action as if that isn't required. Actually I would 100% advocate for only hybrids by 2030 (which the govt actually does advocate), but not a banning of hybrids by 2035 as it also advocates. Also more govt pressure to make hybrids considerably more efficient (they are already pretty impressive). Perhaps look at banning hybrids also by 2050? Or some reasonably practical timeframe. I'd also want to start the program of increasing charging points and substation infrastructure but on a more reasonable timeframe, but be honest about it and get the ball rolling NOW, not in 2030. Something like 'every X streets must have at least Y charging points' could be a start. Practicality. What I'd also want to look at is - more nuclear, more renewables, investigate means of reducing usage of flights, investment into public transport (outside of London it sucks big time, and more generally e.g. trains are the most expensive in Europe + also the least reliable), more advocacy for work from home, greater subsidies in decarbonisation, but more than anything using economic pressure in league with other countries to pressure (and also not only pressure but help via aid) highly polluting developing countries to reduce carbon output. There is plenty that can be done, I just don't think hand waving + denial of costs will actually achieve anything. In fact I think it HARMS the climate change cause more than anything.