The Instagram thing was definitely what did for Threads. My Instagram persona (well the two of them, the vineyard and the French barn conversion) are completely separate from my 2 Twitter personas or indeed my Linkedin or PB ones. My vineyard twitter is a different style and voice to my vineyard Insta. Zuckerberg should have understand that people adopt different selves for different platforms.
So Twitter ("X") it is, or maybe just nothing.
Talking of different personas today I experienced the intriguing cultural borderland that is the white peak / dark peak dividing line in Derbyshire. We travelled West from the post-Brexit olde-England land of pies and crown green bowling that is the Derwent Valley into the White Peak heartland of Ashbourne, Thorpe and Dovedale. Still rural yet a different world. The pub we went to contained staff with nose rings and served things like brisket and gin-cured salmon. They even had kimchi. The fonts on the menus weren't in comic sans. A couple of old stone barns we passed had big black framed glass frontages.
And in Dovedale itself, a true sociological oddity. Not sure if anyone's recently been to Dovedale (beautiful little valley owned by the National trust) but by some quirk of recent history it seems to have become a massive pilgrimage site for Muslim families, presumably from Manchester and Birmingham. Inspired I assume by "the Dovedale hike" which is an annual event run by a popular Islamic cleric who walks people through the valley while teaching and meditating on the Koran, or something along those lines. There is a sign at the front forbidding not only barbecues and camp fires, but also "shisha pipes". This makes for one of the most evocative evening walks imaginable. Ambling along by the babbling river in the early evening and passing large groups of picnicking families, women in hijabs and niqabs, men strolling confidently or overseeing the picnics with notably long beards on display, small boys and girls scrabbling up the limestone and dirtying their Shalwar Kameez, it was like being transported into some craggy sunlit pass in the Northwest Frontier or the Hindu Kush. I half expected to encounter Rory Stewart breezily strolling along with his dog. For a fascinating little insight into British Muslim culture on a day off I heartily recommend a trip to Dovedale.
There's a good explanation of how development has helped the poor in nations like Indonesia in Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalyse Never". And how the Green religion in developed nations is holding many of them back.
Certainly helped the Chinese poor and to a lesser extent Indian poor.
But also explains why half the Co2 from fossil fuels in mankind's history entered the atmosphere since 1990.
Countries need to be helped to skip the polluting phase of growth. Indeed many less developed counties are ideal for solar power.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
Ahem; the numbers commuting by bike has increased markedly in the UK in the last quarter century. Now, it's still small in the general scale of things (and mostly concentrated in London), but it is definitely increasing.
Oh, absolutely, they have markedly increased on a proportionate like-for-like basis of cycling stats versus cycling stats.
They have not markedly increased as a percentage of total travel.
As far as total km* travelled, cycling has in the past quarter of a century risen from a low of less than 1% of total km travelled ... to a new high of less than 1% of total km travelled.
* or miles, using km for international comparison purposes.
Total km travelled is a poor measure, given the large proportion of journeys that are below 5 km.
We could have a massive increase in cycling journeys with very little impact on total kilometres.
That's why for me at least, it's not an emissions issue. It's a congestion and other stuff issue.
There's a good explanation of how development has helped the poor in nations like Indonesia in Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalyse Never". And how the Green religion in developed nations is holding many of them back.
I read a fantastic development economics book about twenty years ago, that started "There's only one thing worse for a developing country than well intentioned western aid, and that's oil."
There's also someone who said something like the only thing worse for a 3rd world country than being ruthlessly exploited by the capitalist west, is NOT being ruthlessly exploited by the capitalist west.
Truth is none of us knows. For most of human history my father ploughed and sowed and reaped, and I plough and sow and reap, and my son will plough and sow and reap, was as good as it got, and a safeish prediction. Now, who knows?
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
The graph demonstrates a strong correlation between finding the roads dangerous and not cycling, which is what you would expect. People in the UK find it dangerous; they don't cycle.
Actually that is only one correlation.
It is important when making a conjecture to stress test your conjecture and look for alternative explanations and from that data multiple interesting correlations and conjectures can be found from that graph, of which the line shown is only one of them.
The Netherlands, Japan and China greatly distort the graph, if you exclude those nations [and I'm curious how they're weighted given China's population] then almost all nations are in the same sort of range regardless of perceived danger.
Looking at Anglosphere nations, the USA, Canada, Australia and Great Britain have almost identical cycling percentages. Regardless of very perceived "danger" levels, the cycling percentage is almost identical in all Anglosphere nations. Drawing a line between the Anglosphere countries would show simply a horizontal line, thus no relationship demonstrated whatsoever.
And finally and interestingly if you were to cherrypick a portion of the chart, using Canada, USA, Australia, South Korea, South Africa, GB, France, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Peru, Mexico, Chile and Columbia as the nations then there seems to be a very clear inverse relationship to the line shown. In that rather closely dotted together subsect of nations as the claimed "danger" goes up, so does the amount of cycling, which is fascinating.
There are of course other relationships to divine. Notably that apart from the very clear exceptions of the Netherlands and Japan, that cycling is the preserve of less developed nations and that low cycling rates are found in wealthy countries. Which perhaps goes back to explaining why GB, Aus, USA and Canada have almost identical rates besides quite different "danger" percentages.
Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too
The Guardian are such wankers.
For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.
When did you last publicly burn one ?
Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question
Not at all. Casino could have said the people publicly burning the Koran purely to make others unhappy are wankers. But he didn't.
Personally I can't think of anything more wankist than what those guys are doing.
True.
Mind you, I do wonder how small, tiny and afraid your God has to be, that a bunch of tossers being nasty with an nth generation copy of His Book is even noticeable.
It is plainly intended to denigrate Muslims, not Allah, but you know that really.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
Ahem; the numbers commuting by bike has increased markedly in the UK in the last quarter century. Now, it's still small in the general scale of things (and mostly concentrated in London), but it is definitely increasing.
Oh, absolutely, they have markedly increased on a proportionate like-for-like basis of cycling stats versus cycling stats.
They have not markedly increased as a percentage of total travel.
As far as total km* travelled, cycling has in the past quarter of a century risen from a low of less than 1% of total km travelled ... to a new high of less than 1% of total km travelled.
* or miles, using km for international comparison purposes.
Total km travelled is a poor measure, given the large proportion of journeys that are below 5 km.
We could have a massive increase in cycling journeys with very little impact on total kilometres.
That's why for me at least, it's not an emissions issue. It's a congestion and other stuff issue.
As far as the climate emissions is concerned, it is the only measure that matters.
I note the discussion earlier about the US Actor's strike. You may want to watch this 10-minute video by the reviewer and producer Chris Stuckmann, explaining why it is important to support the actors. The TL:DR is the studios are trying to pay small one-time-only fees for eternal rights to somebody's appearance, a prospect I find abhorrent. You may able to consider the argument with more balance than I and come to different conclusions, but nevertheless the video is here:
Well. I’ve rediscovered cash after more than a decade. In the Balkans. On holiday.
My main takeaway? It’s a bloody stupid, time-consuming, expensive ‘system’.
Who would design a system now that requires the bloke who is selling you goods/service to have change just so you can buy something? Who needs you to visit a cash machine 500 yards plus away? Whose main form of trade can literally be blown away in the sea breeze?
Fuck this. Human life is and will be better when we can rid ourselves of this antiquated nonsense worldwide.
Man who fulminates about antiquated nonsense does so from "the Balkans".
I'd hop on a BEA turboprop and leg it back to blighty, if they accept traveller's cheques at the aerodrome.
I’m not really sure of your point, to be perfectly honest with you.
The cash lovers on this forum were desperate for me to walk into trouble, which I now have. In the Balkans, which I’m touring on holiday.
I’ve been honest. I’ve been screwed. I’ve been to the cash point more times in five days than in the preceding five years.
But why? It’s boring nonsense. Cash is rubbish. It’s just a completely pointless waste of time and energy.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
The graph demonstrates a strong correlation between finding the roads dangerous and not cycling, which is what you would expect. People in the UK find it dangerous; they don't cycle.
Actually that is only one correlation.
It is important when making a conjecture to stress test your conjecture and look for alternative explanations and from that data multiple interesting correlations and conjectures can be found from that graph, of which the line shown is only one of them.
The Netherlands, Japan and China greatly distort the graph, if you exclude those nations [and I'm curious how they're weighted given China's population] then almost all nations are in the same sort of range regardless of perceived danger.
Looking at Anglosphere nations, the USA, Canada, Australia and Great Britain have almost identical cycling percentages. Regardless of very perceived "danger" levels, the cycling percentage is almost identical in all Anglosphere nations. Drawing a line between the Anglosphere countries would show simply a horizontal line, thus no relationship demonstrated whatsoever.
And finally and interestingly if you were to cherrypick a portion of the chart, using Canada, USA, Australia, South Korea, South Africa, GB, France, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Peru, Mexico, Chile and Columbia as the nations then there seems to be a very clear inverse relationship to the line shown. In that rather closely dotted together subsect of nations as the claimed "danger" goes up, so does the amount of cycling, which is fascinating.
There are of course other relationships to divine. Notably that apart from the very clear exceptions of the Netherlands and Japan, that cycling is the preserve of less developed nations and that low cycling rates are found in wealthy countries. Which perhaps goes back to explaining why GB, Aus, USA and Canada have almost identical rates besides quite different "danger" percentages.
The idea that feeling safe is important is backed up by things like this Yougov poll:
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?
It is.
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.
How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?
Thomas Malthus, is that you?
The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.
Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.
We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.
In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.
The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.
Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:
The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.
Sure.
But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!
In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?
We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.
Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"
Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.
It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.
Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.
You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.
Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.
But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍
The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.
My argument for cycling is less about emissions and more about other problems like air pollution, road wear, and congestion though.
I think you suggested that people weren't scared of cycling in the UK? Here ya go:
Yes, and I respect your opinion even if I completely disagree with it. You aren't masquerading that cycling is the solution to climate change unlike other anti-car fanatics. That's why we can have an intelligent conversation with differing opinions because you aren't claiming something patently absurd as those who say cycling resolves the climate does.
As for your graph, it doesn't prove anything about "scared". If people choose to drive 2km because they want to, because they don't want to get wet, because they're lazy, because its convenient, because its easy, or any other reason - that is their choice. And in a free society, their choice should be respected.
Indeed the fact that the UK is well, well below the line suggests that choice, more than fear, is the reason.
Furthermore as I said, people are dishonest in polls, and virtue signal. This is well known. The percentage who claim they'll vote in polls is far more than the percentage who actually do. Given people are choosing not to ride a bike, as demonstrated by the fact the UK dot is well underneath the line of the chart, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a significant proportion of people are saying "its too dangerous" as a more virtuous reason why they don't than "I'm too lazy".
Ahem; the numbers commuting by bike has increased markedly in the UK in the last quarter century. Now, it's still small in the general scale of things (and mostly concentrated in London), but it is definitely increasing.
Oh, absolutely, they have markedly increased on a proportionate like-for-like basis of cycling stats versus cycling stats.
They have not markedly increased as a percentage of total travel.
As far as total km* travelled, cycling has in the past quarter of a century risen from a low of less than 1% of total km travelled ... to a new high of less than 1% of total km travelled.
* or miles, using km for international comparison purposes.
Total km travelled is a poor measure, given the large proportion of journeys that are below 5 km.
We could have a massive increase in cycling journeys with very little impact on total kilometres.
That's why for me at least, it's not an emissions issue. It's a congestion and other stuff issue.
As far as the climate emissions is concerned, it is the only measure that matters.
Which is why yes, its not an emissions issue.
For me things like air pollution, noise pollution, pedestrian deaths, congestion are important too.
Dr. Foxy said: "Countries need to be helped to skip the polluting phase of growth. Indeed many less developed counties are ideal for solar power."
I agree with that -- which is why I was so disturbed by the conclusions in this WaPo article: "About 4,000 solar mini-grids have been installed in India, of which 3,300 are government financed and owned, according to information collected early this year by Smart Power India, a subsidiary of the Rockefeller Foundation, and provided to The Washington Post. Only 5 percent of the government grids are operational, the group found. . . . A team of Dutch researchers reported in 2017 that in a sample of 29 solar systems in sub-Saharan Africa, only three were fully working. “The reasons cited for failure always point to the same challenges: an absence of local maintenance expertise and a lack of acceptance,” researchers said in an article published by the Conversation.
An Indian solar expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share closed-door conversations, said that the Ugandan government is seeking international help because 80 percent of its 12,000 local solar connections in health-care centers are out of service. Journalistic reports from Nigeria depict a similar situation." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/31/india-solar-energy/
I am enough of an optimist to believe these problems should be solved -- and can be in many less developed countries, but I think we -- and they -- are going to have to look harder at what happens before and after the installations.
(Why the "many" qualification? Because in some nations, terrorists will block such solutions. In theory, Saharan nations could export large amounts of electricity from solar panels, but I wouldn't invest in a company trying to make that happen.)
I note the discussion earlier about the US Actor's strike. You may want to watch this 10-minute video by the reviewer and producer Chris Stuckmann, explaining why it is important to support the actors. The TL:DR is the studios are trying to pay small one-time-only fees for eternal rights to somebody's appearance, a prospect I find abhorrent. You may able to consider the argument with more balance than I and come to different conclusions, but nevertheless the video is here:
I've got a mortgage on a £640K property that's fixed at 1.3% until 2026, I don't know what interest rates will be then but significantly higher than that. I hope our salaries can keep up but not confident at this stage
"Our" - who are you shacked up with?
Is it a 640K mortgage or a 640K property with a 10K mortgage though.
I thought he's about 26 years old and lives with his mum, or something.
His property is worth more than mine if that's true, and I have a four-bed detached in Hants.
@Casino_Royale I am sure he said he was left a big inheritance or a property or suchlike some time ago.
Comments
So Twitter ("X") it is, or maybe just nothing.
Talking of different personas today I experienced the intriguing cultural borderland that is the white peak / dark peak dividing line in Derbyshire. We travelled West from the post-Brexit olde-England land of pies and crown green bowling that is the Derwent Valley into the White Peak heartland of Ashbourne, Thorpe and Dovedale. Still rural yet a different world. The pub we went to contained staff with nose rings and served things like brisket and gin-cured salmon. They even had kimchi. The fonts on the menus weren't in comic sans. A couple of old stone barns we passed had big black framed glass frontages.
And in Dovedale itself, a true sociological oddity. Not sure if anyone's recently been to Dovedale (beautiful little valley owned by the National trust) but by some quirk of recent history it seems to have become a massive pilgrimage site for Muslim families, presumably from Manchester and Birmingham. Inspired I assume by "the Dovedale hike" which is an annual event run by a popular Islamic cleric who walks people through the valley while teaching and meditating on the Koran, or something along those lines. There is a sign at the front forbidding not only barbecues and camp fires, but also "shisha pipes". This makes for one of the most evocative evening walks imaginable. Ambling along by the babbling river in the early evening and passing large groups of picnicking families, women in hijabs and niqabs, men strolling confidently or overseeing the picnics with notably long beards on display, small boys and girls scrabbling up the limestone and dirtying their Shalwar Kameez, it was like being transported into some craggy sunlit pass in the Northwest Frontier or the Hindu Kush. I half expected to encounter Rory Stewart breezily strolling along with his dog. For a fascinating little insight into British Muslim culture on a day off I heartily recommend a trip to Dovedale.
But also explains why half the Co2 from fossil fuels in mankind's history entered the atmosphere since 1990.
Countries need to be helped to skip the polluting phase of growth. Indeed many less developed counties are ideal for solar power.
We could have a massive increase in cycling journeys with very little impact on total kilometres.
That's why for me at least, it's not an emissions issue. It's a congestion and other stuff issue.
Truth is none of us knows. For most of human history my father ploughed and sowed and reaped, and I plough and sow and reap, and my son will plough and sow and reap, was as good as it got, and a safeish prediction. Now, who knows?
It is important when making a conjecture to stress test your conjecture and look for alternative explanations and from that data multiple interesting correlations and conjectures can be found from that graph, of which the line shown is only one of them.
The Netherlands, Japan and China greatly distort the graph, if you exclude those nations [and I'm curious how they're weighted given China's population] then almost all nations are in the same sort of range regardless of perceived danger.
Looking at Anglosphere nations, the USA, Canada, Australia and Great Britain have almost identical cycling percentages. Regardless of very perceived "danger" levels, the cycling percentage is almost identical in all Anglosphere nations. Drawing a line between the Anglosphere countries would show simply a horizontal line, thus no relationship demonstrated whatsoever.
And finally and interestingly if you were to cherrypick a portion of the chart, using Canada, USA, Australia, South Korea, South Africa, GB, France, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Peru, Mexico, Chile and Columbia as the nations then there seems to be a very clear inverse relationship to the line shown. In that rather closely dotted together subsect of nations as the claimed "danger" goes up, so does the amount of cycling, which is fascinating.
There are of course other relationships to divine. Notably that apart from the very clear exceptions of the Netherlands and Japan, that cycling is the preserve of less developed nations and that low cycling rates are found in wealthy countries. Which perhaps goes back to explaining why GB, Aus, USA and Canada have almost identical rates besides quite different "danger" percentages.
Which is why yes, its not an emissions issue.
I note the discussion earlier about the US Actor's strike. You may want to watch this 10-minute video by the reviewer and producer Chris Stuckmann, explaining why it is important to support the actors. The TL:DR is the studios are trying to pay small one-time-only fees for eternal rights to somebody's appearance, a prospect I find abhorrent. You may able to consider the argument with more balance than I and come to different conclusions, but nevertheless the video is here:
"Writer/Actor Strikes: Why They Matter", Chris Stuckmann, YouTube, July 15 2023, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlj-5kPl6fU
The cash lovers on this forum were desperate for me to walk into trouble, which I now have. In the Balkans, which I’m touring on holiday.
I’ve been honest. I’ve been screwed. I’ve been to the cash point more times in five days than in the preceding five years.
But why? It’s boring nonsense. Cash is rubbish. It’s just a completely pointless waste of time and energy.
Faff for the sake of faff.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1zfucf7m32/YouGov-results-Epiphany-160222.pdf
(But I get the sense that you would have to get knocked off your bike before you thought there was any truth in this)
I agree with that -- which is why I was so disturbed by the conclusions in this WaPo article: "About 4,000 solar mini-grids have been installed in India, of which 3,300 are government financed and owned, according to information collected early this year by Smart Power India, a subsidiary of the Rockefeller Foundation, and provided to The Washington Post. Only 5 percent of the government grids are operational, the group found.
. . .
A team of Dutch researchers reported in 2017 that in a sample of 29 solar systems in sub-Saharan Africa, only three were fully working. “The reasons cited for failure always point to the same challenges: an absence of local maintenance expertise and a lack of acceptance,” researchers said in an article published by the Conversation.
An Indian solar expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share closed-door conversations, said that the Ugandan government is seeking international help because 80 percent of its 12,000 local solar connections in health-care centers are out of service. Journalistic reports from Nigeria depict a similar situation."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/31/india-solar-energy/
I am enough of an optimist to believe these problems should be solved -- and can be in many less developed countries, but I think we -- and they -- are going to have to look harder at what happens before and after the installations.
(Why the "many" qualification? Because in some nations, terrorists will block such solutions. In theory, Saharan nations could export large amounts of electricity from solar panels, but I wouldn't invest in a company trying to make that happen.)