All UK HGVs to be zero emissions from 2040

[8ob]

Agreed, battery powered cargo ships are not currently even remotely viable, however, FF’s are not the only option.
The obvious possibility is to go the way of subs and use your favourite source, nuclear.
Of course this isn’t new, the Russians have been operating LASH from 1988 right up to today. Let alone all the military ships.

Shipping is a significant problem so it does need to be addressed, nuclear of course is not without downsides so how about wind power, needs a bit of work and certainly has its own major downsides but not quite as crazy as it first sounds…
In Gaz’s honour, here’s a YT video to support my post…

The answer to the shipping problem is simple, stop using the east to supply/ship all our goods. We need to take a step back and kick start industry here, zero imports would probably solve most of the other issues we face. Hang all the counterproductive paper shufflers/office chair polishers and get folk productive (again) . Shipping should only be used for moving raw materials, not goods.

Bob

 

[Kayos]

Thats pretty much the case in a lot of rural locations, there are thousands of miles of ancient overhead and buried cables in service not fit for purpose. Before I replaced the cables to this place the fly cutter on the mill would make the lights flicker in about twenty local properties. I sorted my end out thirty years ago but the others are still fed off a tiny lead sheathed supply that must have been installed after the war.

Bob

The school i mentioned is the same, the final cable is old but the services in the area have all been upgraded. This is very rural Northumberland

 

[J1nx]

The answer to the shipping problem is simple, stop using the east to supply/ship all our goods. We need to take a step back and kick start industry here, zero imports would probably solve most of the other issues we face. Hang all the counterproductive paper shufflers/office chair polishers and get folk productive (again) . Shipping should only be used for moving raw materials, not goods.

Bob

Totally agree, it’s all a cumulative effect, if we can drop the amount moved by 20-30%, then increase efficiency of transport by another 20-30% then its all steps in the right direction. We are creating jobs whilst getting a cleaner environment, I can’t see anything but a win win bar a few geriatrics moaning about change.

 

[eLuSiVeMiTe]

Totally agree, it’s all a cumulative effect, if we can drop the amount moved by 20-30%, then increase efficiency of transport by another 20-30% then its all steps in the right direction. We are creating jobs whilst getting a cleaner environment, I can’t see anything but a win win bar a few geriatrics moaning about change.

How do we tackle this then

Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity | Oxfam International

www.oxfam.org

 

[J1nx]

How do we tackle this then

Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity | Oxfam International

www.oxfam.org

The linked article answers the very question it asks

Governments can tackle both extreme inequality and the climate crisis if they target the excessive emissions of the richest and invest in poor and vulnerable communities. For example, a recent study found that the richest 10 percent of households use almost half (45 percent) of all the energy linked to land transport and three quarters of all energy linked to aviation. Transportation accounts for around a quarter of global emissions today, while SUVs were the second biggest driver of global carbon emissions growth between 2010 and 2018.

Gore said: “Simply rebooting our outdated, unfair, and polluting pre-Covid economies is no longer a viable option. Governments must seize this opportunity to reshape our economies and build a better tomorrow for us all.

“Governments must curb the emissions of the wealthy through taxes and bans on luxury carbon such as SUVs and frequent flights. Revenues should be invested in in public services and low carbon sectors to create jobs, and help end poverty,” added Gore.

Of course the richest will find low carbon lifestyles easy, apart from buying a carbon offset they can easily afford electric cars/bikes, highly efficient housing etc.
Its not the 1% we need to worry about, its changing everyone.

 

[MattF]

Totally agree, it’s all a cumulative effect, if we can drop the amount moved by 20-30%, then increase efficiency of transport by another 20-30% then its all steps in the right direction. We are creating jobs whilst getting a cleaner environment, I can’t see anything but a win win bar a few geriatrics moaning about change.

All these plans rely on ideal conditions. They make no allowance for rural conditions, people working overnight in the back of beyond etc.

Ideal conditions don't exist in most cases.

 

[8ob]

How do we tackle this then

Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity | Oxfam International

www.oxfam.org

Robin it would be interesting to know how they calculated that, its pretty limited what an "individual" can produce in the way of emissions. The industry and emission production that supports their lifestyle surely has to be shared among those employed/benefiting by them.

Bob

 

[Other Daniel]

Agreed, battery powered cargo ships are not currently even remotely viable, however, FF’s are not the only option.
The obvious possibility is to go the way of subs and use your favourite source, nuclear.
Of course this isn’t new, the Russians have been operating LASH from 1988 right up to today. Let alone all the military ships.

Shipping is a significant problem so it does need to be addressed, nuclear of course is not without downsides so how about wind power, needs a bit of work and certainly has its own major downsides but not quite as crazy as it first sounds…
In Gaz’s honour, here’s a YT video to support my post…

Hey....!! What a brilliant concept.
We could even, perhaps, call these wind powered ships sailing boats.

 

[eLuSiVeMiTe]

Robin it would be interesting to know how they calculated that, its pretty limited what an "individual" can produce in the way of emissions. The industry and emission production that supports their lifestyle surely has to be shared among those employed/benefiting by them.

Bob

Tesla would be an interesting company to look at.

 

[eLuSiVeMiTe]

This made me lol.

Fossil fuel firms sue governments across the world for £13bn as climate policies threaten profits

The majority of the cases are being brought under the Energy Charter Treaty, and are being hosted within the International Centre for The Settlement of Investment Disputes, a branch of the World Bank.

www.google.com

 

[Bravheart]

The answer to the shipping problem is simple, stop using the east to supply/ship all our goods. We need to take a step back and kick start industry here, zero imports would probably solve most of the other issues we face. Hang all the counterproductive paper shufflers/office chair polishers and get folk productive (again) . Shipping should only be used for moving raw materials, not goods.

Bob

Yes yes yes.

Let's get back to the time when every village had a blacksmith and a cabinet maker, every high Street had numerous greengrocers, butchers, bakers candlestick makers cobblers, seamstress etc. etc. etc.
Also a station and raw ingredients grown locally floated in or moved on iron wheels. Juggernaut hadn't been invented and there was a city somewhere in the far east called peking.

Bliss

 

[dobbslc]

Sounds great ^ as long as they've invented motorcycles by then

 

[8ob]

Tesla would be an interesting company to look at.

True but you can share that carbon footprint with the millions of shareholders ,the seventy odd thousand employees, the supply chain and other industries living off their back. Its never really the man himself which is why I cant accept the finger pointing.

Bob

 

[Mma man]

Exactly good point.

Like why why else would the intercity 125 still be in service more than 40 years after it was first built and the electric 225 superceded it.

I can remember back early 2000 s we had to purchase these French trains that ended up sat in yards around the country because they didn't have enough power to run them. Wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayers money. At the time they wanted to electrify the southwest and other parts but 20years later and nothing ever changes.

 

[eLuSiVeMiTe]

True but you can share that carbon footprint with the millions of shareholders ,the seventy odd thousand employees, the supply chain and other industries living off their back. Its never really the man himself which is why I cant accept the finger pointing.

Bob

Oh. Everybody in the chain has to share because he wants to be a spaceman

But on a serious note that mentality is what's got us to this point

 

[knighty]

I think everyone is forgetting the "by 2040" bit.... gives us 20 years to get it sorted

as soon as truck+electric is cheaper than truck+diesel transport companies will jump all over them

and it'll be a lot less than 20 years for them to not need drivers


electric grid will always be upgraded as late as possible, grid is constantly being upgraded even if we don't see it in our day to day lives and no-one wants to spend a fortune for something they don't need yet - can just imagine the headlines if our eclectic bills went up a few quid to pay for faster upgrades


I can't wait till electric vans are viable, I'm out £1500/week on diesel - and I'm only running transits/sprinters!

 

[minimutly]

Shipping, agriculture, remote power generation and a few other industries will be getting exemptions. Battery/electric power is never going to run agricultural/forestry equipment that can be miles off the beaten track running up to eighteen hours a day.

Bob

Agreed, but if the ones shouting loudest are listened too, oil products will be too expensive to be viable...

 

[MattF]

I think everyone is forgetting the "by 2040" bit.... gives us 20 years to get

I think we aren't. I can recall the 2000AD comic being somewhat of a vision of the future back in the 70's/80's.

 

[8ob]

Oh. Everybody in the chain has to share because he wants to be a spaceman

But on a serious note that mentality is what's got us to this point

It’s commercially viable, nasa have pumped money into it and it’s tech, I think it’s all part of a global interest in space travel. Time will tell, but it’s definitely a bit more involved than Mr Musk wanting to be Tin Tin.

Bob

 

[mike os]

Tesla would be an interesting company to look at.

View attachment 318815

So there were typically 1200 trans Atlantic flights a day pre covid, I’m going to be generous and suggest that 25% were ‘essential’.

that means most were doing it for fun, musk does it for fun and that’s an issue is therefore a little hypocritical. Yet according to that data he could do it twice a day and have less impact than all those people determined to destroy the planet