UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Tommy Cookers]

'1'......Your claim about CO2 release from the ocean is blatantly false.....
'2'.....You say that the effect of water has "been disproved"....

CO2 release from the ocean isn't any kind of false whenever there's ....
warming independent of atmospheric CO2 it causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 by emission from warmed ocean
this is what Gore's plots showed - the exact opposite of what he was proclaiming

DCT
initially (30-40 years ago) scientists suggested a range of mechanisms regarding warming and cooling
now, as in Stalinism's case, this history has been erased and a doctrine has emerged by a process of internal self-censorship
nothing has been proven but we must behave as if everything had been proven

you are imagining me to be a denialist ....
this leading you to misread completely what I wrote re '2' (I was giving a home run to warmism)
and you mischaracterised (as denialist) my starting this thread (it was actually an attack on the UK's feeble response)
another thread that I started years before is a particularly consistent attack on the UK position (I write most of the posts)
ie the UK position (until a few weeks ago) was the pretence that the climate problem is solved ....
by eg partly decarbonising electricity (miscategorised as energy) and having EV cars
since then 'May's legacy' laws mandating decarbonisation of everything (eg heating) by 2050 vastly increased the obligation
the UK Govt like others long boosted the climate problem (because this favours the incumbent by justifying the incumbent)
and like others presented as the mountain they would help us climb something that only now they reveal is a foothill


today's news ....
the UK Parliamentary Select Committee says we must give up our cars, to keep our CO2 emissions on target from 2023
ie ban hydrocarbon-only and hybrid cars from 2035 or earlier and ....
ban most personal ownership of all car types (even electric) to reduce emissions from car production

[Andres125sx]

Andres, you need to remember that Strad is a resident of the USA, and residents of the USA are traditionally against "big government". That's not an attack, Strad, it's just an observation for Andres to help him understand differences in approach.

I admit now that I know nothing about US personal tax, so I have no idea how it compares to similar economies elsewhere. But as the US spends a huge amount on military funding, I'm guessing the Government takes a big chunk of a person's income.

We all need to remember that just because we are using a single language in this discussion (thank you to those using English even though it is not their first language), there are some hugely different cultural differences informing individual positions.

Thanks for the hint Just_a_Fan

[strad]

ban most personal ownership of all car types (even electric) to reduce emissions from car production.

[Andres125sx]

If that´s what UK politicians are really considering, they win the price to the most sensationalist government in the world, and the bar is pretty high!

[DChemTech]

'1'......Your claim about CO2 release from the ocean is blatantly false.....
'2'.....You say that the effect of water has "been disproved"....

CO2 release from the ocean isn't any kind of false whenever there's ....
warming independent of atmospheric CO2 it causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 by emission from warmed ocean
this is what Gore's plots showed - the exact opposite of what he was proclaiming

DCT
initially (30-40 years ago) scientists suggested a range of mechanisms regarding warming and cooling
now, as in Stalinism's case, this history has been erased and a doctrine has emerged by a process of internal self-censorship
nothing has been proven but we must behave as if everything had been proven

you are imagining me to be a denialist ....
this leading you to misread completely what I wrote re '2' (I was giving a home run to warmism)
and you mischaracterised (as denialist) my starting this thread (it was actually an attack on the UK's feeble response)
another thread that I started years before is a particularly consistent attack on the UK position (I write most of the posts)
ie the UK position (until a few weeks ago) was the pretence that the climate problem is solved ....
by eg partly decarbonising electricity (miscategorised as energy) and having EV cars
since then 'May's legacy' laws mandating decarbonisation of everything (eg heating) by 2050 vastly increased the obligation
the UK Govt like others long boosted the climate problem (because this favours the incumbent by justifying the incumbent)
and like others presented as the mountain they would help us climb something that only now they reveal is a foothill


today's news ....
the UK Parliamentary Select Committee says we must give up our cars, to keep our CO2 emissions on target from 2023
ie ban hydrocarbon-only and hybrid cars from 2035 or earlier and ....
ban most personal ownership of all car types (even electric) to reduce emissions from car production

Well, your use of terms such as "warmism", fencing with global cooling, claims on the reverse CO2 flux and use of the medieval warming period do seem to radiate a message of denialism, yes. So if that image is not one you are looking to cultivate, it might perhaps be good to provide some clarification?

As to past global cooling claims... so what?
"Ptolemy's models for the solar system were wrong, so why should I believe Copernic?"
"Aristotle's gravitational model was botched, so why should I believe Newton (or now, Einstein over Newton)?"
The credibility of current claims does not hinge on that of past claims - they are to be evaluated on their own merit. If anything, the strength of science is its ability to progress and overturn incorrect claims - yet you present it as a weakness (or presented, I see you now made the text a bit milder). In essence, that's all there is to it in the current context, but it might be worthwhile to review the eh, scientific climate, in which those cooling hypotheses came to be. While the warming potential of CO2 was known, the state of climate science (including future predictions and feedback loops) was much more rudimentary. It was also a time where smog was a common issue, and smog, via its albedo effect, could potentially lead to cooling. So yes, scientists posed the hypothesis and speculated about potential cooling. Then the mainstream media picked it up, pulled it out of context, and became alarmist (sounds familiar?*). It wasn't the scientists that were alarmist; they speculated, found some of their initial models overestimated the effect (in which several of the responsible scientists admitted their errors), and anyway Smog, being a visible problem, was addressed. So the discussion on global cooling simmered out, became irrelevant. The albedo effect of particulate matter is still accounted for and causes some cooling, but we now know clearly that this is more than offset by the warming effect of other human activities. Already in those days, the majority of climate science aimed at warming, and these insights only cemented that further. And that's that. There's no stalinistic censorship - the papers from that time are still available. We don't talk about global cooling on a daily basis because it became irrelevant - like flogiston theory, bloodletting, and the wellbeing of the pharaos. Or would you regard that as stalinistic censorship, too?

As to the flux of CO2:

CO2 release from the ocean isn't any kind of false whenever there's warming independent of atmospheric CO2 it causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 by emission from warmed ocean.

Yes, I am familiar with the temperature dependence of the Henry coefficient. And the ~1 degree of warming causes a what, 2% decrease in CO2 solubility, all else equal? Thing is, not all else is equal - the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 increased by some 25% in the past century, and consequentially the CO2 flux is from air to atmosphere. I'm not referring to an idealized laboratory situation, but to the actual atmosphere. And so were you in the post I was responding to. Also, I'm not sure which of Gore's many statements you are referring to, but whether or not he was correct has no bearing on the reality of global warming.


*As to media alarmism, I think we agree on this to a degree. I'm not a fan of it. The earth is not due to end, neither is mankind. CC will make lower our living standard, or alternatively framed, will maintaining your current standard of living substantially more expensive - but it will not end life altogether. I also cannot blame people in the 70ies/80ies to be more skeptical towards warming claims, based on the cooling hysteria in the media. But skeptical means "a critical attitude towards", not "in denial of". And when reviewing the evidence, which skeptics ought to do, it would already in those days have been clear that the claims on warming were more credible. No need for alarmism, at that point, but for serious attention and action, yes. Now we are 40 years further, our insights have progressed (AGW has been proven beyond reasonable doubt - which does not mean there is no room for doubt, but it does mean there is no reason for inaction - and the basic physical mechanism is, once again, well known), yet not much action has been taken. Which, in my view, does justify a somewhat more alarmist tone to messages. Not the degree some media outlets show, but the situation is serious if you care about maintaining your living standard - and that may be stressed. The notion that even scientists take a more and more alarming tone. They generally do not like being alarmist, don't see it as their job to be activists either - but more and more regard it as an inconvenient necessity.

[Just_a_fan]

UK CO2 production for 2018 was about 364 million tonnes. Approx. 121 million tonnes of that came from transport (that's all transport, not just cars).

Brazil is allowing/encouraging/not preventing (choose as appropriate) mass burning of the Amazonian forests. According to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49433767 , these fires have released 228 million tonnes of CO2 already this year. If it carries on at that rate for the rest of the year, Brazil's forest fires will emit as much CO2 as the whole of the UK.

Which kind of makes the UK Govt's policy all a bit, well, pointless really. If the Brazilians end up burning down all of their forests, there'll have released more CO2 than the UK will have since Kyoto. Of course, UK Govt's policy is just there because UK Govt signed up to agreements and so needs to be seen to meeting those agreements. Of course, if the Brazilians burn down all of the forests, we'll be worrying about oxygen production next. About 20% of the world's oxygen is produced by the Amazonian forests as I understand it.

Some days, I wonder if we just get on and do what we want and worry about the outcome later. If life for humans becomes too difficult then tough on humans. Life will carry on in some form or other on the planet whether we're here or not.

[DChemTech]

UK CO2 production for 2018 was about 364 million tonnes. Approx. 121 million tonnes of that came from transport (that's all transport, not just cars).

Brazil is allowing/encouraging/not preventing (choose as appropriate) mass burning of the Amazonian forests. According to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49433767 , these fires have released 228 million tonnes of CO2 already this year. If it carries on at that rate for the rest of the year, Brazil's forest fires will emit as much CO2 as the whole of the UK.

Which kind of makes the UK Govt's policy all a bit, well, pointless really. If the Brazilians end up burning down all of their forests, there'll have released more CO2 than the UK will have since Kyoto. Of course, UK Govt's policy is just there because UK Govt signed up to agreements and so needs to be seen to meeting those agreements. Of course, if the Brazilians burn down all of the forests, we'll be worrying about oxygen production next. About 20% of the world's oxygen is produced by the Amazonian forests as I understand it.

Some days, I wonder if we just get on and do what we want and worry about the outcome later. If life for humans becomes too difficult then tough on humans. Life will carry on in some form or other on the planet whether we're here or not.

Well, what's happening in Brazil is an absolute disgrace, but that does not make the actions of the UK irrelevant. If you kill a person, while another person kills ten, that does not make your action irrelevant. Nor does the failure of one country to meet their responsibility alleviate the responsibilities of another. Anyway comparison between countries in absolute terms is botched, because such a comparison is more an expression of population size than of emissions - such comparisons are often used by small countries to pretend their actions don't matter anyway and that that somehow reliefs them from any responsibility, but that's simply bullshit, of course.

Per capita comparison is much more fair. In the end, I would even go a step further and not look at the country level at all - but look at emissions on a personal level. Your emissions are a product of your lifestyle, and every person as such is responsible for the environmental impact of their lifestyle choices. That's why I'm a fan of a representative carbon levy - because that would make one directly financially responsible for the consequences of their actions (or framed alternatively, with such a levy, you would buy off direct responsibility, and transfer responsibility for mitigating the environmental impact to the authority collecting the levy), but that's another topic. Since legislation is written on the level of governments rather than individuals, there is value in the per-capita comparison, still. And in that light, the UK has more work to do than brazil (the UK has a 4x larger per capita footprint).

One could also argue that (part of) the forest fires are incidental natural emissions. But if they are preventable, that should not matter - we should attempt to prevent emissions where possible, natural or man-made, incidental or structural. The fact that Brazil does not seem to be attempting this (or worse, encouraging letting in burn) is terrible, and they should somehow be held responsible. But the response should be action towards them - not inaction because their contribution may eclipse some others.

[Just_a_fan]

Yes, DChemTech, that's all true but sometimes it feels like it's all pointless when so many in the world are doing nothing. I can live entirely CO2 neutral (well, I couldn't actually do that at all but I could try to get as close as practicable) but it's all a bit moot if others are going to continue throwing emissions around as if it's Mardi Gras.

This is the key issue - it's difficult to persuade people to live like hermits if they see others living a lavish life with no regard to the future. Why should people in the UK (or the US, India, Germany, wherever) make wholesale, and not cheap, changes to their lives to protect the future when other countries are living as tomorrow never comes?

[Brake Horse Power]

In my opinion countries who screw up the environment must be sanctioned, ór must be given a new perspective if they stop it. Same as countries who violate human rights or who have a violent regime. Just don't do business with these countries. Brazils apparent approach to the Amazon forest as a leading example, this is not an internal affair only as the government there believes.

[Andres125sx]

Yes, DChemTech, that's all true but sometimes it feels like it's all pointless when so many in the world are doing nothing. I can live entirely CO2 neutral (well, I couldn't actually do that at all but I could try to get as close as practicable) but it's all a bit moot if others are going to continue throwing emissions around as if it's Mardi Gras.

This is the key issue - it's difficult to persuade people to live like hermits if they see others living a lavish life with no regard to the future. Why should people in the UK (or the US, India, Germany, wherever) make wholesale, and not cheap, changes to their lives to protect the future when other countries are living as tomorrow never comes?

Because using that as an excuse nobody will do anything, ever.

For any change in any field, someone must lead it showing the way to the rest.

Take slavery as an example, why anyone should abolish it when the rest of the world is making profit with it? Abolishing will put those first countries in a clear disadvantage... But some did it, and the rest did follow

This is exactly the same

[DChemTech]

Yes, DChemTech, that's all true but sometimes it feels like it's all pointless when so many in the world are doing nothing. I can live entirely CO2 neutral (well, I couldn't actually do that at all but I could try to get as close as practicable) but it's all a bit moot if others are going to continue throwing emissions around as if it's Mardi Gras.

This is the key issue - it's difficult to persuade people to live like hermits if they see others living a lavish life with no regard to the future. Why should people in the UK (or the US, India, Germany, wherever) make wholesale, and not cheap, changes to their lives to protect the future when other countries are living as tomorrow never comes?

I can very much understand that sentiment. But inaction drives inaction. As long as small countries keep saying their contribution is inconsequential while large ones keep saying they're too large to change, nothing is going to happen. The only way to break the cycle of inaction is by, well, action. Perhaps the action inspires other countries to follow (if needed through sanctions such as BHP remarks), perhaps not but at least history cannot blame you for not even trying. As Andres says, someone needs to start this. It might as well be us (after all, we also live in countries that have had the most benefit from fossil fuels in the past). And it doesn't have to be "for the sake of the planet" or anything. It can be for completely selfish reasons - I expect to be on this earth long enough to observe the consequences of our current choices, and I want them not to impair my lifestyle too much.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... someone needs to start this. It might as well be us (after all, we also live in countries that have had the most benefit from fossil fuels in the past).

DCT
presumably D stands for doubletalk .... but ...

1' we' have started it and we are up to our grandchildren's economic armpits in paying for it
2 our supposed 'wealth' is anyway bogus measurement as its mostly borrowed money (nationally and individually)
most of us own 1 house regardless of whether it's worth $500000 in London or $50000 in Brazil (or eg Poland)
3 Brazil etc was built on European etc workers blood and sweat producing 'beneficial' coal and steel for ships etc etc
4 isn't my generation entitled to the present relief that was dearly bought for us by previous generations ?
5 much 'benefit' 'enjoyed' in our temperate zones is the relief from distress (or death) from cold - now a fundamental right ?
6 temperate regions are inherently agriculturally productive due to adequate rainfall (unlike many tropical regions)
7 or do we all migrate globally to follow the seasons and avoid the carbon cost of heat (and of offsetting that cost) ?

[Jolle]

I think what we see a lot in these discussions is the idea that we have to change our personal behaviour. We had these before when smoking bans came into law for instance. People in general are quite bad at this, we don't like change, but somehow it feels completely natural not to smoke at the post office for instance (or at your nephews first birthday party).

This entitlement of "nobody tels me what to do" looks like it's growing, with especially the white males who feel threatened by society. As someone who lives a vegan lifestyle for the past decade, I can tell you I've had many abusive reactions from white males.

Just like there is lots of evidence that cocaine isn't a good breakfast, smoking causes cancer, seatbelts saves lives and getting hit in the head multiple times isn't good, climate change is caused by us. Just like we stopped smoking In the movie theater, we should change our behaviour in relation of how we use our natural resources. greatly reduce the amount or our dependence of livestock and our use of oil. For me this makes as much sense and not having a cocaine breakfast (even when it gives your day a flying start that no Kellogg's can do)

[DChemTech]

.... someone needs to start this. It might as well be us (after all, we also live in countries that have had the most benefit from fossil fuels in the past).

DCT
presumably D stands for doubletalk .... but ...

1' we' have started it and we are up to our grandchildren's economic armpits in paying for it
2 our supposed 'wealth' is anyway bogus measurement as its mostly borrowed money (nationally and individually)
most of us own 1 house regardless of whether it's worth $500000 in London or $50000 in Brazil (or eg Poland)
3 Brazil etc was built on European etc workers blood and sweat producing 'beneficial' coal and steel for ships etc etc
4 isn't my generation entitled to the present relief that was dearly bought for us by previous generations ?
5 much 'benefit' 'enjoyed' in our temperate zones is the relief from distress (or death) from cold - now a fundamental right ?
6 temperate regions are inherently agriculturally productive due to adequate rainfall (unlike many tropical regions)
7 or do we all migrate globally to follow the seasons and avoid the carbon cost of heat (and of offsetting that cost) ?

Great, starting with an ad-hominem accusation without foundation. Should have expected noting better (I think my opinion is pretty consistent, but even if there is some dissonance, it surely isn't of the level of talking like a denier but denying deniership?)

so..

1: which is a reason to dig ourselves in even deeper? or maybe to try and dig ourselves out?
2: and maybe if you so desired an Londoner could buy 10 houses in Brazil, or a Brazilian none in London. So? The average Brazilian now has a footprint of about 2 t/a, the average Brit of some 8 t/a. And that's what they need to mitigate, in the end.
3: Let's not get into discussing the fate of indigenous Americans here. We've strayed far enough as it is. What matters is that we have a substantially better lifestyle than the average Brazilian -now- as a result of said past, and significantly higher emissions. So we have, in that respect, more work ahead of us. Still, whether you live in Britian or Brazil, you have a responsibility proportional to your current footprint. That is not alleviated by any past affairs, if you think that's what I meant.
4: No, that's not an entitlement, but anyway I'm not asking you to forego it, all I'm saying is we need to take responsibility for the effects of our lifestyle. If you can maintain your current lifestyle while taking said responsibility, keep enjoying your benefits. I'm not asking to make up for the heritage-footprint of our ancestors either - we had no way to influence their decisions, so have no accountability for them either.
5: I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here.
6: So let's keep them temperate, no?
7: If that's what you want, have fun. Don't forget to pay the carbon costs of travel, tough... I think offsetting the cost is more cost effective .

edit: I realize you were mainly referring to my part of the quote between brackets. Ok, I should not have made that maybe, because it might imply I think western countries ought to take action first - which I do not. What I meant to say is it doesn't matter who starts (hence the phrasing 'might as well be') - as long as someone starts. And there is no reason why that shouldn't be us.

[Andres125sx]

The funny thing about this "why should we be the first" debate is none will be the first as there are a lot fields to change. Some countries are leading the switch to renewable energy production, some others are leading the switch to EVs, some others focused on renewable heating power, some on reducing fossil fuel power plants...

No country will change from one year to the next all their polluting industries, but many are actually changing some of them. Then the rest use them as an example in that specific field to incentivate their own switch, and that´s great as even when none is a perfect example for everything, many are a good example in some field for the rest

Basically there´s no need to ask anyone to lead the change, the change started a while back, but it will be progressive and slow obviously, as it´s a huge change wich does affect a lot of industries