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.
This has long been Zuckerberg's blind spot. He's always looking for a way to prevent people having different personas.
I suppose on a casual look I'm not quite sure what Zuckerberg's goals are, as a plutocrat. Bezos wants everything to be sold through his platforms and to make human beings work like automatons, Musk wants to dominate enough of cars and the internet so he can play with his rockets unimpeded whilst trolling people online, and Zuckerberg...something something the metaverse?
He wants to connect everyone and make the world a better place by breaking down our facades.
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.
I don't think it's the *only* measure that matters.
Travelling 200 miles on the motorway in a car - especially a modern one, and if there's a couple of you in the vehicle - is pretty efficient. (On a CO2 per person per mile basis.)
Travelling half a mile to the store to buy a pint of milk, with all the associated parking hassles and idling at the lights, probably doesn't look so great on a CO2 per person per mile basis.
Not all car journeys have the same CO2 per mile per passenger.
The glorious thing with mathematics is that x * 0 = 0
In order to be reaching Net Zero, we are going to need zero emissions vehicles. Which we have invented. If those vehicles are powered by zero emissions electricity, then we have net zero emissions.
200 * 0 = 0
0.5 * 0 also = 0
If we need to reach net zero on the 200 mile journeys, then we also must by definition reach net zero on the half mile journeys too. QED.
Depends where the electricity is coming from.
The electricity needs to be zero emissions to reach net zero.
Once electricity is zero emissions, there's no reason not to use it.
And of course charging cars will help tremendously with the transition to zero emissions electricity.
One problem with renewable electricity such as wind, or tidal, or solar, or even nuclear, is that it does not scale to demand (reaching the peaks of demand) and it works when it suits the source regardless of time of day even in the troughs of demand (eg overnight for wind).
To offset that, we are going to need some sort of battery or similar storage to offset demand and supply. And there is no greater distributed form of storage than our cars and the associated batteries they are going to have. That is many TJ of storage, distributed across the nation.
Far from cars being the enemy of a zero carbon future, cars are an invaluable part of the solution. They will absorb the overnight wind power generated, making it viable to scale up renewable generation for the daytime too.
There is no greater distributed form of storage than the natural gas network. Convert it to hydrogen, add some salt caverns and all the surplus renewables can be used to create electrolytic hydrogen, which can be stored for use in periods of peak demand - both for power generation and for heating our homes.
BTW, I am not denying that battery storage is part of the solution, including car batteries. Use your car to boil the kettle when you get home from work, and all that.
Converting electricity to hydrogen and back again is so inefficient, that it is really throwing away all the energy, but accidentally keeping a tiny bit.
Hydrogen is terrible for storage - leaks like crazy. Though it improves quite a bit if you add some carbon atoms. One for every 4 hydrogen atoms is quite nifty.
Thing is we are already often throwing away lots of renewable energy, and not even accidentally keeping a tiny bit. As we add more renewables to the grid this will only increase, so converting this surplus, which is effectively free energy, to methane makes a lot of sense.
If Casino's gas central heating can be powered with methane created with surplus wind energy then that would solve a lot of problems quite neatly.
Watching Close Encounter on BBC4. I thought one of the characters said "the train was just puffing out" but the subtitles said "pulling out". Checked the transcript on the internet and it says that it is indeed "puffing out". Why can't the people writing the subtitles make sure they get it right? Took me about 10 seconds to check it.
Because (a) they don't have people writing the subtitles anymore, but use dictation software, or (b) if the people writing the subtitles checked every little detail they'd end up being paid well below minimum wage.
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
If ours cost thousands of pounds and yours are cheap then it may be we are talking about different things.
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
If ours cost thousands of pounds and yours are cheap then it may be we are talking about different things.
I think they're talking about some kind of monster central unit to replace your boiler, which can be impractical for various reasons. I think the solution is, don't do that, just do it the normal way with a box that puts the heat or cool in the room where you want it.
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
If ours cost thousands of pounds and yours are cheap then it may be we are talking about different things.
I think they're talking about some kind of monster central unit to replace your boiler, which can be impractical for various reasons. I think the solution is, don't do that, just do it the normal way with a box that puts the heat or cool in the room where you want it.
The 'problem' with that is that you still need a way to heat domestic hot water and for most people in the UK, the most efficient way of doing that is still with a gas boiler so if the objective is to decommission gas boilers, it doesn't help. For this reason air-to-air heat pumps aren't eligible for the subsidies.
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
If ours cost thousands of pounds and yours are cheap then it may be we are talking about different things.
I think they're talking about some kind of monster central unit to replace your boiler, which can be impractical for various reasons. I think the solution is, don't do that, just do it the normal way with a box that puts the heat or cool in the room where you want it.
The 'problem' with that is that you still need a way to heat domestic hot water and for most people in the UK, the most efficient way of doing that is still with a gas boiler so if the objective is to decommission gas boilers, it doesn't help. For this reason air-to-air heat pumps aren't eligible for the subsidies.
We also have gas boilers here (although a lot of new places use electric) but you don't use much gas if you're only using it for baths/showers/sinks and not for heating.
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.
I don't think it's the *only* measure that matters.
Travelling 200 miles on the motorway in a car - especially a modern one, and if there's a couple of you in the vehicle - is pretty efficient. (On a CO2 per person per mile basis.)
Travelling half a mile to the store to buy a pint of milk, with all the associated parking hassles and idling at the lights, probably doesn't look so great on a CO2 per person per mile basis.
Not all car journeys have the same CO2 per mile per passenger.
The glorious thing with mathematics is that x * 0 = 0
In order to be reaching Net Zero, we are going to need zero emissions vehicles. Which we have invented. If those vehicles are powered by zero emissions electricity, then we have net zero emissions.
200 * 0 = 0
0.5 * 0 also = 0
If we need to reach net zero on the 200 mile journeys, then we also must by definition reach net zero on the half mile journeys too. QED.
Depends where the electricity is coming from.
The electricity needs to be zero emissions to reach net zero.
Once electricity is zero emissions, there's no reason not to use it.
And of course charging cars will help tremendously with the transition to zero emissions electricity.
One problem with renewable electricity such as wind, or tidal, or solar, or even nuclear, is that it does not scale to demand (reaching the peaks of demand) and it works when it suits the source regardless of time of day even in the troughs of demand (eg overnight for wind).
To offset that, we are going to need some sort of battery or similar storage to offset demand and supply. And there is no greater distributed form of storage than our cars and the associated batteries they are going to have. That is many TJ of storage, distributed across the nation.
Far from cars being the enemy of a zero carbon future, cars are an invaluable part of the solution. They will absorb the overnight wind power generated, making it viable to scale up renewable generation for the daytime too.
There is no greater distributed form of storage than the natural gas network. Convert it to hydrogen, add some salt caverns and all the surplus renewables can be used to create electrolytic hydrogen, which can be stored for use in periods of peak demand - both for power generation and for heating our homes.
BTW, I am not denying that battery storage is part of the solution, including car batteries. Use your car to boil the kettle when you get home from work, and all that.
Converting electricity to hydrogen and back again is so inefficient, that it is really throwing away all the energy, but accidentally keeping a tiny bit.
Hydrogen is terrible for storage - leaks like crazy. Though it improves quite a bit if you add some carbon atoms. One for every 4 hydrogen atoms is quite nifty.
Thing is we are already often throwing away lots of renewable energy, and not even accidentally keeping a tiny bit. As we add more renewables to the grid this will only increase, so converting this surplus, which is effectively free energy, to methane makes a lot of sense.
If Casino's gas central heating can be powered with methane created with surplus wind energy then that would solve a lot of problems quite neatly.
I am not a chemist but AFAIK natural gas is mostly methane anyway and could be far more practical than Hydrogen?
I appreciate that burning methane releases CO2 but if that methane is perhaps captured and put in, in the first place when the gas is created, then over a cycle, would it not be carbon neutral?
@Andy_JS Yes if you like Aaron Sorkin (the writer: he did The West Wing and A Few Good Men). The soundtrack by Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross is distinctive and I like it. It's a talky, arguing-in-offices piece.
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
Most flats in England are leasehold. You don't own the house, you own the lease which gives you the right to live in the house but you must obey certain conditions which are set out in that lease. One of those conditions is "don't make structural additions or alterations". You don't own the walls and will have to ask permission to drill a hole thru the wall and bolt it to the outside. And no you can't fit them into the windows either, for the same reason.
As has become sadly, wearily, very, obvious, many people on PB are rich or very rich, and find it difficult to understand why you can't just do things. This is the third, fourth or fifth time I've had to explain that there are things you just can't do in flats, and no doubt there'll be a sixth.
During a fuel crises a Conservative MP was criticised for saying "But why can't people just store fuel in a jerry can in the garage", and people had to patiently explain to him that most people don't have a garage. I get the same vibes here.
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
Most flats in England are leasehold. You don't own the house, you own the lease which gives you the right to live in the house but you must obey certain conditions which are set out in that lease. One of those conditions is "don't make structural additions or alterations". You don't own the walls and will have to ask permission to drill a hole thru the wall and bolt it to the outside. And no you can't fit them into the windows either, for the same reason.
As has become sadly, wearily, very, obvious, many people on PB are rich or very rich, and find it difficult to understand why you can't just do things. This is the third, fourth or fifth time I've had to explain that there are things you just can't do in flats, and no doubt there'll be a sixth.
During a fuel crises a Conservative MP was criticised for saying "But why can't people just store fuel in a jerry can in the garage", and people had to patiently explain to him that most people don't have a garage. I get the same vibes here.
Ummm:
I'm about to put an air conditioning unit in my flat in London. Most leaseholders are perfectly willing to let you make changes, so long as you pay for them.
Sure, you need to get permission, but you make it sound like that is impossible rather than (as most contracts say) "not to be unreasonably withheld".
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.
I don't think it's the *only* measure that matters.
Travelling 200 miles on the motorway in a car - especially a modern one, and if there's a couple of you in the vehicle - is pretty efficient. (On a CO2 per person per mile basis.)
Travelling half a mile to the store to buy a pint of milk, with all the associated parking hassles and idling at the lights, probably doesn't look so great on a CO2 per person per mile basis.
Not all car journeys have the same CO2 per mile per passenger.
The glorious thing with mathematics is that x * 0 = 0
In order to be reaching Net Zero, we are going to need zero emissions vehicles. Which we have invented. If those vehicles are powered by zero emissions electricity, then we have net zero emissions.
200 * 0 = 0
0.5 * 0 also = 0
If we need to reach net zero on the 200 mile journeys, then we also must by definition reach net zero on the half mile journeys too. QED.
Depends where the electricity is coming from.
The electricity needs to be zero emissions to reach net zero.
Once electricity is zero emissions, there's no reason not to use it.
And of course charging cars will help tremendously with the transition to zero emissions electricity.
One problem with renewable electricity such as wind, or tidal, or solar, or even nuclear, is that it does not scale to demand (reaching the peaks of demand) and it works when it suits the source regardless of time of day even in the troughs of demand (eg overnight for wind).
To offset that, we are going to need some sort of battery or similar storage to offset demand and supply. And there is no greater distributed form of storage than our cars and the associated batteries they are going to have. That is many TJ of storage, distributed across the nation.
Far from cars being the enemy of a zero carbon future, cars are an invaluable part of the solution. They will absorb the overnight wind power generated, making it viable to scale up renewable generation for the daytime too.
There is no greater distributed form of storage than the natural gas network. Convert it to hydrogen, add some salt caverns and all the surplus renewables can be used to create electrolytic hydrogen, which can be stored for use in periods of peak demand - both for power generation and for heating our homes.
BTW, I am not denying that battery storage is part of the solution, including car batteries. Use your car to boil the kettle when you get home from work, and all that.
Converting electricity to hydrogen and back again is so inefficient, that it is really throwing away all the energy, but accidentally keeping a tiny bit.
Hydrogen is terrible for storage - leaks like crazy. Though it improves quite a bit if you add some carbon atoms. One for every 4 hydrogen atoms is quite nifty.
Thing is we are already often throwing away lots of renewable energy, and not even accidentally keeping a tiny bit. As we add more renewables to the grid this will only increase, so converting this surplus, which is effectively free energy, to methane makes a lot of sense.
If Casino's gas central heating can be powered with methane created with surplus wind energy then that would solve a lot of problems quite neatly.
I am not a chemist but AFAIK natural gas is mostly methane anyway and could be far more practical than Hydrogen?
I appreciate that burning methane releases CO2 but if that methane is perhaps captured and put in, in the first place when the gas is created, then over a cycle, would it not be carbon neutral?
It is basically methane. And if you want to heat water, then it's pretty damn efficient to simply burn methane and use that to heat water.
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.
I don't think it's the *only* measure that matters.
Travelling 200 miles on the motorway in a car - especially a modern one, and if there's a couple of you in the vehicle - is pretty efficient. (On a CO2 per person per mile basis.)
Travelling half a mile to the store to buy a pint of milk, with all the associated parking hassles and idling at the lights, probably doesn't look so great on a CO2 per person per mile basis.
Not all car journeys have the same CO2 per mile per passenger.
The glorious thing with mathematics is that x * 0 = 0
In order to be reaching Net Zero, we are going to need zero emissions vehicles. Which we have invented. If those vehicles are powered by zero emissions electricity, then we have net zero emissions.
200 * 0 = 0
0.5 * 0 also = 0
If we need to reach net zero on the 200 mile journeys, then we also must by definition reach net zero on the half mile journeys too. QED.
Depends where the electricity is coming from.
The electricity needs to be zero emissions to reach net zero.
Once electricity is zero emissions, there's no reason not to use it.
And of course charging cars will help tremendously with the transition to zero emissions electricity.
One problem with renewable electricity such as wind, or tidal, or solar, or even nuclear, is that it does not scale to demand (reaching the peaks of demand) and it works when it suits the source regardless of time of day even in the troughs of demand (eg overnight for wind).
To offset that, we are going to need some sort of battery or similar storage to offset demand and supply. And there is no greater distributed form of storage than our cars and the associated batteries they are going to have. That is many TJ of storage, distributed across the nation.
Far from cars being the enemy of a zero carbon future, cars are an invaluable part of the solution. They will absorb the overnight wind power generated, making it viable to scale up renewable generation for the daytime too.
There is no greater distributed form of storage than the natural gas network. Convert it to hydrogen, add some salt caverns and all the surplus renewables can be used to create electrolytic hydrogen, which can be stored for use in periods of peak demand - both for power generation and for heating our homes.
BTW, I am not denying that battery storage is part of the solution, including car batteries. Use your car to boil the kettle when you get home from work, and all that.
Converting electricity to hydrogen and back again is so inefficient, that it is really throwing away all the energy, but accidentally keeping a tiny bit.
Hydrogen is terrible for storage - leaks like crazy. Though it improves quite a bit if you add some carbon atoms. One for every 4 hydrogen atoms is quite nifty.
Thing is we are already often throwing away lots of renewable energy, and not even accidentally keeping a tiny bit. As we add more renewables to the grid this will only increase, so converting this surplus, which is effectively free energy, to methane makes a lot of sense.
If Casino's gas central heating can be powered with methane created with surplus wind energy then that would solve a lot of problems quite neatly.
I am not a chemist but AFAIK natural gas is mostly methane anyway and could be far more practical than Hydrogen?
I appreciate that burning methane releases CO2 but if that methane is perhaps captured and put in, in the first place when the gas is created, then over a cycle, would it not be carbon neutral?
It is basically methane. And if you want to heat water, then it's pretty damn efficient to simply burn methane and use that to heat water.
So why not manufacturer green methane and use that for our gas network? Couldn't that be carbon neutral? Or is it too expensive/impossible?
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
If ours cost thousands of pounds and yours are cheap then it may be we are talking about different things.
I think they're talking about some kind of monster central unit to replace your boiler, which can be impractical for various reasons. I think the solution is, don't do that, just do it the normal way with a box that puts the heat or cool in the room where you want it.
The 'problem' with that is that you still need a way to heat domestic hot water and for most people in the UK, the most efficient way of doing that is still with a gas boiler so if the objective is to decommission gas boilers, it doesn't help. For this reason air-to-air heat pumps aren't eligible for the subsidies.
We also have gas boilers here (although a lot of new places use electric) but you don't use much gas if you're only using it for baths/showers/sinks and not for heating.
You don't own the walls and will have to ask permission to drill a hole thru the wall and bolt it to the outside.
Same when you rent. The solution is to ask permission to drill a hole through the wall.
Your comments point to a reasonableness, practicality and compromise that's clearly abundant in Japanese housing, government and carbon policy that simply isn't present in the UK. See also general house building
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
Most flats in England are leasehold. You don't own the house, you own the lease which gives you the right to live in the house but you must obey certain conditions which are set out in that lease. One of those conditions is "don't make structural additions or alterations". You don't own the walls and will have to ask permission to drill a hole thru the wall and bolt it to the outside. And no you can't fit them into the windows either, for the same reason.
As has become sadly, wearily, very, obvious, many people on PB are rich or very rich, and find it difficult to understand why you can't just do things. This is the third, fourth or fifth time I've had to explain that there are things you just can't do in flats, and no doubt there'll be a sixth.
During a fuel crises a Conservative MP was criticised for saying "But why can't people just store fuel in a jerry can in the garage", and people had to patiently explain to him that most people don't have a garage. I get the same vibes here.
As @edmundintokyo suggests, though, that ought not be a hard problem to solve. It would, of course, require some government input. Not the same vibes at all.
Watching Close Encounter on BBC4. I thought one of the characters said "the train was just puffing out" but the subtitles said "pulling out". Checked the transcript on the internet and it says that it is indeed "puffing out". Why can't the people writing the subtitles make sure they get it right? Took me about 10 seconds to check it.
Subtitles are about rendering the spirit of a performance. They have to be read and processed quickly and connected to the images. It’s a more complicated process for the brain.
I can easily believe the subtitle composer decided “pulling out” would be a more familiar phrase for people who are not used to steam trains and favoured simplicity over literal accuracy. The alternation doesn’t change the narrative in any way
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.
I don't think it's the *only* measure that matters.
Travelling 200 miles on the motorway in a car - especially a modern one, and if there's a couple of you in the vehicle - is pretty efficient. (On a CO2 per person per mile basis.)
Travelling half a mile to the store to buy a pint of milk, with all the associated parking hassles and idling at the lights, probably doesn't look so great on a CO2 per person per mile basis.
Not all car journeys have the same CO2 per mile per passenger.
The glorious thing with mathematics is that x * 0 = 0
In order to be reaching Net Zero, we are going to need zero emissions vehicles. Which we have invented. If those vehicles are powered by zero emissions electricity, then we have net zero emissions.
200 * 0 = 0
0.5 * 0 also = 0
If we need to reach net zero on the 200 mile journeys, then we also must by definition reach net zero on the half mile journeys too. QED.
Depends where the electricity is coming from.
The electricity needs to be zero emissions to reach net zero.
Once electricity is zero emissions, there's no reason not to use it.
And of course charging cars will help tremendously with the transition to zero emissions electricity.
One problem with renewable electricity such as wind, or tidal, or solar, or even nuclear, is that it does not scale to demand (reaching the peaks of demand) and it works when it suits the source regardless of time of day even in the troughs of demand (eg overnight for wind).
To offset that, we are going to need some sort of battery or similar storage to offset demand and supply. And there is no greater distributed form of storage than our cars and the associated batteries they are going to have. That is many TJ of storage, distributed across the nation.
Far from cars being the enemy of a zero carbon future, cars are an invaluable part of the solution. They will absorb the overnight wind power generated, making it viable to scale up renewable generation for the daytime too.
There is no greater distributed form of storage than the natural gas network. Convert it to hydrogen, add some salt caverns and all the surplus renewables can be used to create electrolytic hydrogen, which can be stored for use in periods of peak demand - both for power generation and for heating our homes.
BTW, I am not denying that battery storage is part of the solution, including car batteries. Use your car to boil the kettle when you get home from work, and all that.
Converting electricity to hydrogen and back again is so inefficient, that it is really throwing away all the energy, but accidentally keeping a tiny bit.
Hydrogen is terrible for storage - leaks like crazy. Though it improves quite a bit if you add some carbon atoms. One for every 4 hydrogen atoms is quite nifty.
Thing is we are already often throwing away lots of renewable energy, and not even accidentally keeping a tiny bit. As we add more renewables to the grid this will only increase, so converting this surplus, which is effectively free energy, to methane makes a lot of sense.
If Casino's gas central heating can be powered with methane created with surplus wind energy then that would solve a lot of problems quite neatly.
I am not a chemist but AFAIK natural gas is mostly methane anyway and could be far more practical than Hydrogen?
I appreciate that burning methane releases CO2 but if that methane is perhaps captured and put in, in the first place when the gas is created, then over a cycle, would it not be carbon neutral?
It is basically methane. And if you want to heat water, then it's pretty damn efficient to simply burn methane and use that to heat water.
So why not manufacturer green methane and use that for our gas network? Couldn't that be carbon neutral? Or is it too expensive/impossible?
It is currently, and likely for the foreseeable future, far too expensive for the mass market.
There is a large amount of research going on into making more efficient the electrolysis of water, though.
One thing to remember about juries in the US: They differ widely from area to area. Two of the worst areas -- for a Republican -- are DC and New York City.
It varies a lot in the UK too, Jim. But what is equally important and often overlooked is that the intelligence of the jury is a huge factor.
I have sat on four. Two were fairly normal but one of the others seemed to have cornered the market in local dimwits. One member was unable to read the swearing in statement, and his contribution to the discussion was simply to agree with the other dimwits. It returned a not guity verdict which was obviously wrong as became evident from the judges remarks to the defendant.
The fourth case was the reverse. The court clearly expected a not guilty verdict but the jury was very sharp, and included a couple of people with some specialist knowledge of the subject in question, the handling of counterfeit money. The result was that it saw through the defendant's bullshit, much to his surprise.
So if you are ever charged, try to contrive a stupid jury. (Donald Trump please note.)
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.
This has long been Zuckerberg's blind spot. He's always looking for a way to prevent people having different personas.
I suppose on a casual look I'm not quite sure what Zuckerberg's goals are, as a plutocrat. Bezos wants everything to be sold through his platforms and to make human beings work like automatons, Musk wants to dominate enough of cars and the internet so he can play with his rockets unimpeded whilst trolling people online, and Zuckerberg...something something the metaverse?
He wants to connect everyone and make the world a better place by breaking down our facades.
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.
I don't think it's the *only* measure that matters.
Travelling 200 miles on the motorway in a car - especially a modern one, and if there's a couple of you in the vehicle - is pretty efficient. (On a CO2 per person per mile basis.)
Travelling half a mile to the store to buy a pint of milk, with all the associated parking hassles and idling at the lights, probably doesn't look so great on a CO2 per person per mile basis.
Not all car journeys have the same CO2 per mile per passenger.
The glorious thing with mathematics is that x * 0 = 0
In order to be reaching Net Zero, we are going to need zero emissions vehicles. Which we have invented. If those vehicles are powered by zero emissions electricity, then we have net zero emissions.
200 * 0 = 0
0.5 * 0 also = 0
If we need to reach net zero on the 200 mile journeys, then we also must by definition reach net zero on the half mile journeys too. QED.
Depends where the electricity is coming from.
The electricity needs to be zero emissions to reach net zero.
Once electricity is zero emissions, there's no reason not to use it.
And of course charging cars will help tremendously with the transition to zero emissions electricity.
One problem with renewable electricity such as wind, or tidal, or solar, or even nuclear, is that it does not scale to demand (reaching the peaks of demand) and it works when it suits the source regardless of time of day even in the troughs of demand (eg overnight for wind).
To offset that, we are going to need some sort of battery or similar storage to offset demand and supply. And there is no greater distributed form of storage than our cars and the associated batteries they are going to have. That is many TJ of storage, distributed across the nation.
Far from cars being the enemy of a zero carbon future, cars are an invaluable part of the solution. They will absorb the overnight wind power generated, making it viable to scale up renewable generation for the daytime too.
There is no greater distributed form of storage than the natural gas network. Convert it to hydrogen, add some salt caverns and all the surplus renewables can be used to create electrolytic hydrogen, which can be stored for use in periods of peak demand - both for power generation and for heating our homes.
BTW, I am not denying that battery storage is part of the solution, including car batteries. Use your car to boil the kettle when you get home from work, and all that.
Converting electricity to hydrogen and back again is so inefficient, that it is really throwing away all the energy, but accidentally keeping a tiny bit.
Hydrogen is terrible for storage - leaks like crazy. Though it improves quite a bit if you add some carbon atoms. One for every 4 hydrogen atoms is quite nifty.
I'm trying to throw in a reference to a a free retainer of an Anglo-Saxon lord ("Me, Thane") but I can't make it work. Apologies.
We’ll all be in thrall as you duke it out with the thesaurus.
1. @washingtonpost, @axios, @cnn, and @nytimes are all "reporting" that, to convict Trump, Jack Smith has to prove Trump knew he was lying about the 2020 election
Trump's lawyer is saying the same thing. And so is Fox.
It's also very clear from the indictment that he had lawyers present arguments which were directly in contradiction with all the evidence that had been given to him, and to them.
That is outside of any First Amendment protections (and as the indictments make very clear, Trump was entirely entitled under First Amendment protections to simply lie about the election results; that is not the issue).
One thing to remember about juries in the US: They differ widely from area to area. Two of the worst areas -- for a Republican -- are DC and New York City.
It varies a lot in the UK too, Jim. But what is equally important and often overlooked is that the intelligence of the jury is a huge factor.
I have sat on four. Two were fairly normal but one of the others seemed to have cornered the market in local dimwits. One member was unable to read the swearing in statement, and his contribution to the discussion was simply to agree with the other dimwits. It returned a not guity verdict which was obviously wrong as became evident from the judges remarks to the defendant.
The fourth case was the reverse. The court clearly expected a not guilty verdict but the jury was very sharp, and included a couple of people with some specialist knowledge of the subject in question, the handling of counterfeit money. The result was that it saw through the defendant's bullshit, much to his surprise.
So if you are ever charged, try to contrive a stupid jury. (Donald Trump please note.)
That is the aspect of the case that troubles me. I hope they're more intelligent than most of the journalists covering it.
Sadly the natural gas network is utterly unsuited for storing or transporting hydrogen. You would lose vast amounts of hydrogen in leaks and probably vast numbers of people in domestic explosions. It is not a viable alternative.
Agreed. Your point is not emphasised enough, and is certainly not understood enough.
I am biting my lip with frustration at the fact that we are jumping into options like heat pumps and hydrogen without any thoughts to the expense and logistics, even when those logistics have obvious difficulties and the expenses are obviously large.
Heat pumps, for those with well insulated homes, are usually pretty efficient. And they also cool in summer
What's your beef with them?
I went thru this at some length last time, so I'll give you the TL:DR
In general
i) they're too expensive
ii) they're not suitable in existing leasehold properties and/or flats, especially for those above the ground floor
iii) I don't like the element of compulsion
Other people advanced arguments saying they were inefficient/inadequate: I agree with those arguments but they do not constitute my beef.
We have heat pump units (combined heating/dehumidifying/ac) everywhere in Japan (and most of Asia) and they're mostly just bolted on after the fact. They're cheap and you can fit them basically anywhere. If the landlord doesn't want it when you move you can remove them when you go and put them in your next place, the only damage is a single, easily-filled hole in the wall.
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
If ours cost thousands of pounds and yours are cheap then it may be we are talking about different things.
I think they're talking about some kind of monster central unit to replace your boiler, which can be impractical for various reasons. I think the solution is, don't do that, just do it the normal way with a box that puts the heat or cool in the room where you want it.
The 'problem' with that is that you still need a way to heat domestic hot water and for most people in the UK, the most efficient way of doing that is still with a gas boiler so if the objective is to decommission gas boilers, it doesn't help. For this reason air-to-air heat pumps aren't eligible for the subsidies.
We also have gas boilers here (although a lot of new places use electric) but you don't use much gas if you're only using it for baths/showers/sinks and not for heating.
You don't own the walls and will have to ask permission to drill a hole thru the wall and bolt it to the outside.
Same when you rent. The solution is to ask permission to drill a hole through the wall.
Your comments point to a reasonableness, practicality and compromise that's clearly abundant in Japanese housing, government and carbon policy that simply isn't present in the UK. See also general house building
Are all the landlords and leaseholders and so forth in Britain total dicks? I mean, I'm sure some of them are but...
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
On the Trump case: It really does look like he could be facing meaningful prison time. He needs a presidential pardon, and it's not clear whether or not a president can pardon themselves.
Say he gets to early 2024, he's locked up a majority of delegates for the GOP nomination, but it looks like he may well lose to Biden, who is nevertheless unpopular. Isn't the move to chose someone who can actually win the election, and can be relied on to pardon him? I know there's a question of whether he's psychologically able to process the evidence that he might lose the election and I don't know either way, but let's suppose he is. Who would he pick? The required traits are loyalty to Trump, and a high probability of winning, given a Trump endorsement. I don't think he cares much about policies and so forth.
On the Trump case: It really does look like he could be facing meaningful prison time. He needs a presidential pardon, and it's not clear whether or not a president can pardon themselves.
Say he gets to early 2024, he's locked up a majority of delegates for the GOP nomination, but it looks like he may well lose to Biden, who is nevertheless unpopular. Isn't the move to chose someone who can actually win the election, and can be relied on to pardon him? I know there's a question of whether he's psychologically able to process the evidence that he might lose the election and I don't know either way, but let's suppose he is. Who would he pick? The required traits are loyalty to Trump, and a high probability of winning, given a Trump endorsement. I don't think he cares much about policies and so forth.
Once that person has won, what is their incentive to pardon Trump?
If they do then Trump becomes centre of the party again and the action defines their presidency. If they don’t… well…
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.
I don't think it's the *only* measure that matters.
Travelling 200 miles on the motorway in a car - especially a modern one, and if there's a couple of you in the vehicle - is pretty efficient. (On a CO2 per person per mile basis.)
Travelling half a mile to the store to buy a pint of milk, with all the associated parking hassles and idling at the lights, probably doesn't look so great on a CO2 per person per mile basis.
Not all car journeys have the same CO2 per mile per passenger.
The glorious thing with mathematics is that x * 0 = 0
In order to be reaching Net Zero, we are going to need zero emissions vehicles. Which we have invented. If those vehicles are powered by zero emissions electricity, then we have net zero emissions.
200 * 0 = 0
0.5 * 0 also = 0
If we need to reach net zero on the 200 mile journeys, then we also must by definition reach net zero on the half mile journeys too. QED.
Depends where the electricity is coming from.
The electricity needs to be zero emissions to reach net zero.
Once electricity is zero emissions, there's no reason not to use it.
And of course charging cars will help tremendously with the transition to zero emissions electricity.
One problem with renewable electricity such as wind, or tidal, or solar, or even nuclear, is that it does not scale to demand (reaching the peaks of demand) and it works when it suits the source regardless of time of day even in the troughs of demand (eg overnight for wind).
To offset that, we are going to need some sort of battery or similar storage to offset demand and supply. And there is no greater distributed form of storage than our cars and the associated batteries they are going to have. That is many TJ of storage, distributed across the nation.
Far from cars being the enemy of a zero carbon future, cars are an invaluable part of the solution. They will absorb the overnight wind power generated, making it viable to scale up renewable generation for the daytime too.
There is no greater distributed form of storage than the natural gas network. Convert it to hydrogen, add some salt caverns and all the surplus renewables can be used to create electrolytic hydrogen, which can be stored for use in periods of peak demand - both for power generation and for heating our homes.
BTW, I am not denying that battery storage is part of the solution, including car batteries. Use your car to boil the kettle when you get home from work, and all that.
Converting electricity to hydrogen and back again is so inefficient, that it is really throwing away all the energy, but accidentally keeping a tiny bit.
Hydrogen is terrible for storage - leaks like crazy. Though it improves quite a bit if you add some carbon atoms. One for every 4 hydrogen atoms is quite nifty.
Thing is we are already often throwing away lots of renewable energy, and not even accidentally keeping a tiny bit. As we add more renewables to the grid this will only increase, so converting this surplus, which is effectively free energy, to methane makes a lot of sense.
If Casino's gas central heating can be powered with methane created with surplus wind energy then that would solve a lot of problems quite neatly.
I am not a chemist but AFAIK natural gas is mostly methane anyway and could be far more practical than Hydrogen?
I appreciate that burning methane releases CO2 but if that methane is perhaps captured and put in, in the first place when the gas is created, then over a cycle, would it not be carbon neutral?
I was being sarcastic, adding atmospheric carbon to hydrogen to create methane would lose even more energy.
Nearly any energy storage method you could think of is better that hydrogen, for storing surplus renewables electricity.
On the Trump case: It really does look like he could be facing meaningful prison time. He needs a presidential pardon, and it's not clear whether or not a president can pardon themselves.
Say he gets to early 2024, he's locked up a majority of delegates for the GOP nomination, but it looks like he may well lose to Biden, who is nevertheless unpopular. Isn't the move to chose someone who can actually win the election, and can be relied on to pardon him? I know there's a question of whether he's psychologically able to process the evidence that he might lose the election and I don't know either way, but let's suppose he is. Who would he pick? The required traits are loyalty to Trump, and a high probability of winning, given a Trump endorsement. I don't think he cares much about policies and so forth.
Once that person has won, what is their incentive to pardon Trump?
If they do then Trump becomes centre of the party again and the action defines their presidency. If they don’t… well…
Why would they pardon Trump?
Leaving everything else - sex abuse, illegally retaining classified docs, putting US national security at risk and lying about it - aside, he attempted to corrupt the US democratic process, and prevent the assumption of power of a legitimate Government.
Surely "try, lock up, and throw away the key" is the appropriate option?
I can imagine Trump eventually just fleeing the jurisdiction if not detained during his trial.
Do the Republicans have processes for deselecting a criminal candidate?
On the Trump case: It really does look like he could be facing meaningful prison time. He needs a presidential pardon, and it's not clear whether or not a president can pardon themselves.
Say he gets to early 2024, he's locked up a majority of delegates for the GOP nomination, but it looks like he may well lose to Biden, who is nevertheless unpopular. Isn't the move to chose someone who can actually win the election, and can be relied on to pardon him? I know there's a question of whether he's psychologically able to process the evidence that he might lose the election and I don't know either way, but let's suppose he is. Who would he pick? The required traits are loyalty to Trump, and a high probability of winning, given a Trump endorsement. I don't think he cares much about policies and so forth.
Once that person has won, what is their incentive to pardon Trump?
If they do then Trump becomes centre of the party again and the action defines their presidency. If they don’t… well…
If they don't then Trump will turn the MAGA people against them, so I think most people would do it, especially if they'd promised to. I agree they'd have to consider the non-zero risk that he'd run against them in 2028 at the age of 82 but I think that's lower than the risk that they'd lose reelection (or renomination) because they'd lost 2/3 of their base by breaking their promise and locking up their hero.
And I don't think the action defines their presidency, especially if they'd said they'd do it when they ran. It just kind of closes the book on the previous one.
On the Trump case: It really does look like he could be facing meaningful prison time. He needs a presidential pardon, and it's not clear whether or not a president can pardon themselves.
Say he gets to early 2024, he's locked up a majority of delegates for the GOP nomination, but it looks like he may well lose to Biden, who is nevertheless unpopular. Isn't the move to chose someone who can actually win the election, and can be relied on to pardon him? I know there's a question of whether he's psychologically able to process the evidence that he might lose the election and I don't know either way, but let's suppose he is. Who would he pick? The required traits are loyalty to Trump, and a high probability of winning, given a Trump endorsement. I don't think he cares much about policies and so forth.
Once that person has won, what is their incentive to pardon Trump?
If they do then Trump becomes centre of the party again and the action defines their presidency. If they don’t… well…
Why would they pardon Trump?
Leaving everything else - sex abuse, illegally retaining classified docs, putting US national security at risk and lying about it - aside, he attempted to corrupt the US democratic process, and prevent the assumption of power of a legitimate Government.
Surely "try, lock up, and throw away the key" is the appropriate option?
I can imagine Trump eventually just fleeing the jurisdiction if not detained during his trial.
Do the Republicans have processes for deselecting a criminal candidate?
Of course you are right, but @edmundintokyo was positing a dodgy political deal.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
There was a chap on R4 last night as I was driving home from Black Rock. He was also a Tory candidate at the next election. He was being interviewed by Evan Davies. Didn't catch his name but very articulate and informed.
His view, FWIW, is that interest rates have probably peaked and that in a year things may look very different with much lower inflation, real wage growth and with interest (and mortgage) rates starting to fall.
Whistling in the dark? Very probably. Growth is still going to be next to non existent, there will be very little public money to bribe, sorry, to enhance essential public services and peoples memories are slightly longer than that of a goldfish. But I suspect he reflected thinking around Sunak. Hang on, things can only get better. Maybe.
There was a chap on R4 last night as I was driving home from Black Rock. He was also a Tory candidate at the next election. He was being interviewed by Evan Davies. Didn't catch his name but very articulate and informed.
His view, FWIW, is that interest rates have probably peaked and that in a year things may look very different with much lower inflation, real wage growth and with interest (and mortgage) rates starting to fall.
Whistling in the dark? Very probably. Growth is still going to be next to non existent, there will be very little public money to bribe, sorry, to enhance essential public services and peoples memories are slightly longer than that of a goldfish. But I suspect he reflected thinking around Sunak. Hang on, things can only get better. Maybe.
Sounds like Rupert Harrison who was George Osborne’s right hand man at the Treasury.
There was a chap on R4 last night as I was driving home from Black Rock. He was also a Tory candidate at the next election. He was being interviewed by Evan Davies. Didn't catch his name but very articulate and informed.
His view, FWIW, is that interest rates have probably peaked and that in a year things may look very different with much lower inflation, real wage growth and with interest (and mortgage) rates starting to fall.
Whistling in the dark? Very probably. Growth is still going to be next to non existent, there will be very little public money to bribe, sorry, to enhance essential public services and peoples memories are slightly longer than that of a goldfish. But I suspect he reflected thinking around Sunak. Hang on, things can only get better. Maybe.
Sounds like Rupert Harrison who was George Osborne’s right hand man at the Treasury.
Yes, it was mentioned that he had worked for Osborne as a Spad. Very impressive individual, if a bit optimistic (at least publicly).
FPT: 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.
Yes, equipment maintenance is a real problem in Africa, in part due to an electricity supply with unstable voltages, outages and surges. Partly that a lot of equipment is second hand or second rate when donated, as each countries aid programme favours its own manufactures, and partly expertise to fix, even if parts can be sourced.
The hospital that I have helped with in Malawi is a graveyard of high tech equipment, and if anything needs servicing the nearest agent often several thousand miles away.
I don't know how this reads across to solar powered networks, but it wouldn't surprise me if some similar problems applied.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
This is utterly magnificent from the Scottish government.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
I'm supposed to know who Rachel Riley is, aren't I? Its so hard to keep up.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
I'm supposed to know who Rachel Riley is, aren't I? Its so hard to keep up.
She's a Manchester United fan* who took over Carol Vorderman's job on Countdown in 2009.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
FPT: 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.
Yes, equipment maintenance is a real problem in Africa, in part due to an electricity supply with unstable voltages, outages and surges. Partly that a lot of equipment is second hand or second rate when donated, as each countries aid programme favours its own manufactures, and partly expertise to fix, even if parts can be sourced.
The hospital that I have helped with in Malawi is a graveyard of high tech equipment, and if anything needs servicing the nearest agent often several thousand miles away.
I don't know how this reads across to solar powered networks, but it wouldn't surprise me if some similar problems applied.
Two anecdotes about this:
*) The other day I mentioned a very rich man who was always dressed shabbily. He made much of his money buying ambulances, fire engines and other municipal vehicles, doing them up, and selling them as fleets to poorer countries. They were cheaper, and being a generation or two behind, easier to source cheap spares for.
*) A couple of years back, I heard a podcast about hearing aids. A US charity had a scheme where hearing aids were sent to Africa. This was a good scheme. The manufacturer of the hearing aids got large, regular orders. Then a manufacturer's representative actually went to Africa, and talked to a recipient. He asked the girl how she liked the hearing aid, and she replied she had liked all of them. When asked what she meant, she said she had had a few; when the batteries died, they could not afford or source new batteries, they got a new hearing aid from the charity. Shocked, he went back and the company designed one that used different/rechargable batteries, and which were easier to maintain. Which may have been difficult to get past his company's board...
Basically: if you want stuff to work in societies that have less access to trained people for repair, or the money to repair kit, design it to be easy to repair and maintain. In fact, we should be doing it here, too. Right to repair...
This is utterly magnificent from the Scottish government.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
I mentioned our atrocious summer weather would change around the 10th.
This is still on, particularly for the Eastern part of the country. And starting a bit earlier in the South.
London max temps on the US GFS model this morning, from next Tuesday: 24, 28, 26, 30, 27, 29, 30, 24. A very decent spell of weather.
Thereafter the models diverge as is their wont, but the large scale pattern is different from July. Less of an Atlantic depression conveyor belt.
It’s been a miserable few weeks. But we’ve needed them, certainly down here in the South West. A repeat of last summer would have been disastrous. And even now, after record rainfall in July and the ninth wettest October to May ever recorded, reservoir reserves are depleted, such is South West Water’s appalling water capture and management. The only things they’re remotely competent at doing are discharging raw sewage into our rivers and seas, and giving senior managers vastly inflated salary packages. I suspect the LibDems will reap rich rewards from pointing all this out come the GE.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
I'm supposed to know who Rachel Riley is, aren't I? Its so hard to keep up.
She's a Manchester United fan* who took over Carol Vorderman's job on Countdown in 2009.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
I'm supposed to know who Rachel Riley is, aren't I? Its so hard to keep up.
She's a Manchester United fan* who took over Carol Vorderman's job on Countdown in 2009.
*Not the worst thing about her.
Okay, so I am supposed to care about her why?
She has taken on the Corbynites and broken them.
The television presenter Rachel Riley has been awarded £10,000 in damages by a high court judge after suing a former aide to Jeremy Corbyn for libel.
Riley, 35, the numbers expert on the Channel 4 show Countdown, sued Laura Murray over a tweet posted more than two years ago.
Mr Justice Nicklin, who oversaw the high court case in London in May, delivered a ruling on Monday. He said Riley was entitled to “vindication”.
He had heard how both women posted tweets after Corbyn, who was Labour leader at the time, was hit with an egg while visiting a mosque in March 2019.
Murray tweeted in response to a post by the television presenter.
Riley initially posted a screenshot of a January 2019 tweet by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones about an attack on the former British National party leader Nick Griffin, which said: “I think sound life advice is, if you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi.” She added “good advice”, with emojis of a red rose and an egg.
Countdown star Rachel Riley has been awarded £50,000 in damages from a blogger who claimed she was a "serial abuser".
Political blogger Mike Sivier published an article on his website Vox Political in January 2019 with the headline: "Serial abuser Rachel Riley to receive 'extra protection' - on the grounds that she is receiving abuse".
The article referred to an online debate Ms Riley, 36, took part in about antisemitism in the Labour Party.
During the Twitter debate she exchanged some messages with a user who later identified herself as a 16-year-old girl called Rose.
A judge previously found Mr Sivier's article would lead people to believe Ms Riley "engaged upon, supported and encouraged a campaign of online abuse and harassment of a 16-year-old girl", which is not true.
One thing to remember about juries in the US: They differ widely from area to area. Two of the worst areas -- for a Republican -- are DC and New York City.
It varies a lot in the UK too, Jim. But what is equally important and often overlooked is that the intelligence of the jury is a huge factor.
I have sat on four. Two were fairly normal but one of the others seemed to have cornered the market in local dimwits. One member was unable to read the swearing in statement, and his contribution to the discussion was simply to agree with the other dimwits. It returned a not guity verdict which was obviously wrong as became evident from the judges remarks to the defendant.
The fourth case was the reverse. The court clearly expected a not guilty verdict but the jury was very sharp, and included a couple of people with some specialist knowledge of the subject in question, the handling of counterfeit money. The result was that it saw through the defendant's bullshit, much to his surprise.
So if you are ever charged, try to contrive a stupid jury. (Donald Trump please note.)
I may be wrong, but I think there’s much more scope for jury selection in the US than here. People specialise in it over there and get hired by wealthy defence teams to go through potential panels, eliminating as many perceived possible hostiles as possible.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
The best thing about vegans is they are less likely to put on lots of weight once in a long term relationship.
I say that as someone now heading off for a Greggs morning roll, 1.5 stone heavier than he was when he met his partner...
"Goes private" = End user paying for their services. See: Dental.
Following that extreme right wing *checks notes* Labour Party PM in funding healthcare from taxes is NOT "going private".
Labour proposes going even further down the private route. Leaving aside healthcare and privatisation, it does show the danger of Labour announcing any policies at all. CCHQ will focus group any Labour proposals and immediately steal the popular ones.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
The best thing about vegans is they are less likely to put on lots of weight once in a long term relationship.
I say that as someone now heading off for a Greggs morning roll, 1.5 stone heavier than he was when he met his partner...
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Just had a look. Wow. It's probably important to be careful to say "some elements of the Left."
The current issue seems to be that she defended David Hirsch.
The underlying issue imo is that some elements of the 'Palestine Solidarity' type political stream can't admit that some of them tipped over into antisemitism, and are still fighting to defend their delusions.
Important to say that this is political not just party political - the Greens had similar issues which became public before Corbyn's problems. One name that used 'Israel are like Nazis' rhetoric was one Pippa Bartolotti, former high up in the Welsh Green Party.
Some of it is when the SWP disintegrated, and where the members and fellow-travellers went, after the Comrade Delta SWP rape scandal. IMO they tended to poison wherever they went.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
I wake up to PB and find it's currently populated by a bunch of idiots.
Yes of course Airplane is a very good film (albeit Leslie Nielsen went on to make the same film a further 15 times) but best/funniest?
Dear god.
Four Lions occupies that spot.
In other news, Social Network is a great film but needs to be seen in a cinema with a good sound system (same as Dunkirk), Citizen Kane really is a good film if not perhaps the greatest, and in the top ten of best films ever Terence Davies has made at least two. And The Rock is in there also.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Deletred - too early in the morning to argue about it, on reflection.
One thing to remember about juries in the US: They differ widely from area to area. Two of the worst areas -- for a Republican -- are DC and New York City.
It varies a lot in the UK too, Jim. But what is equally important and often overlooked is that the intelligence of the jury is a huge factor.
I have sat on four. Two were fairly normal but one of the others seemed to have cornered the market in local dimwits. One member was unable to read the swearing in statement, and his contribution to the discussion was simply to agree with the other dimwits. It returned a not guity verdict which was obviously wrong as became evident from the judges remarks to the defendant.
The fourth case was the reverse. The court clearly expected a not guilty verdict but the jury was very sharp, and included a couple of people with some specialist knowledge of the subject in question, the handling of counterfeit money. The result was that it saw through the defendant's bullshit, much to his surprise.
So if you are ever charged, try to contrive a stupid jury. (Donald Trump please note.)
I may be wrong, but I think there’s much more scope for jury selection in the US than here. People specialise in it over there and get hired by wealthy defence teams to go through potential panels, eliminating as many perceived possible hostiles as possible.
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Stop being preachy, whiny and annoying about vegans.
This is utterly magnificent from the Scottish government.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
I've been thinking about this. CMAL is wholly owned by the Scottish government. As is Fergusons after they were nationalised. So one Scottish government entity is investigating whether it was defrauded by what is now another part, or indeed the Scottish government itself so it can....err....sue?
Far be it from me to suggest money spent on the legal profession is a waste but other than creating the pretense that the allegations are being taken seriously, when they are in fact being ignored and some straw man is put up instead, what on earth is the point?
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
I'm sure she'll reconsider her dietary choices, if you let her know.
One day, yes.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Much of what you say may be true, but the prediction that veganism will die out is unlikely given that various forms of vegetarianism have persisted throughout history.
This is utterly magnificent from the Scottish government.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
I've been thinking about this. CMAL is wholly owned by the Scottish government. As is Fergusons after they were nationalised. So one Scottish government entity is investigating whether it was defrauded by what is now another part, or indeed the Scottish government itself so it can....err....sue?
Far be it from me to suggest money spent on the legal profession is a waste but other than creating the pretense that the allegations are being taken seriously, when they are in fact being ignored and some straw man is put up instead, what on earth is the point?
Well the government is led by Humza Yusuf, so pretending to take things seriously while sodding up everywhere is his normal modus operandi.
This is utterly magnificent from the Scottish government.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
I've been thinking about this. CMAL is wholly owned by the Scottish government. As is Fergusons after they were nationalised. So one Scottish government entity is investigating whether it was defrauded by what is now another part, or indeed the Scottish government itself so it can....err....sue?
Far be it from me to suggest money spent on the legal profession is a waste but other than creating the pretense that the allegations are being taken seriously, when they are in fact being ignored and some straw man is put up instead, what on earth is the point?
Isn't criminal fraud for the police anyway?.
I appreciate that's also another public entity but at least they have "operational independence".
For LOLs I just clicked onto 'Rachel Riley' on the 'trending' section on the dumpster-fire formerly known as Twitter.
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Mostly it's because she is Jewish, albeit Atheist.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
That last bit has put me off.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
Why does it put you off?
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
Because they are preachy, whiny and annoying.
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Some are 'preachy, whiny and annoying', as I mentioned. Most are not.
People make other life choices from you: if you cannot deal with that, then that is your problem, not theirs.
This is utterly magnificent from the Scottish government.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
I've been thinking about this. CMAL is wholly owned by the Scottish government. As is Fergusons after they were nationalised. So one Scottish government entity is investigating whether it was defrauded by what is now another part, or indeed the Scottish government itself so it can....err....sue?
Far be it from me to suggest money spent on the legal profession is a waste but other than creating the pretense that the allegations are being taken seriously, when they are in fact being ignored and some straw man is put up instead, what on earth is the point?
Well the government is led by Humza Yusuf, so pretending to take things seriously while sodding up everywhere is his normal modus operandi.
At least you got "Humza" right.
In a country full of Gaelic place names, we hardly have an excuse for getting the spelling wrong.
By the way, @Eabhal , that discussion yesterday about that regular cyclists demo in Edinburgh was very useful - I'd never been able to understand whjat the hell was happening when they nearly ran me over, and it is good to be reassured that I wasn't imagining it. Though it only removes the insanity one step out. And I can tell you they all ran through a red - wasn't a matter of the lights changing while the peloton (!) was proceeding over the junction. Bastards. Next time it's straight to B&Q website for a bulk bucket of carpet tacks. (Not really. But it is certainly the sentiment they provoked.)
This is utterly magnificent from the Scottish government.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
I've been thinking about this. CMAL is wholly owned by the Scottish government. As is Fergusons after they were nationalised. So one Scottish government entity is investigating whether it was defrauded by what is now another part, or indeed the Scottish government itself so it can....err....sue?
Far be it from me to suggest money spent on the legal profession is a waste but other than creating the pretense that the allegations are being taken seriously, when they are in fact being ignored and some straw man is put up instead, what on earth is the point?
Isn't criminal fraud for the police anyway?.
I appreciate that's also another public entity but at least they have "operational independence".
Yes, it is indeed. As Barry Smith KC, part time AD, must surely appreciate. Having said that, maybe the Scottish government wanted to be vindicated on this non existent allegation before the end of time.
Comments
If Casino's gas central heating can be powered with methane created with surplus wind energy then that would solve a lot of problems quite neatly.
Independent firms to carry out hundreds of thousands of scans and tests as ministers vow to cut record waiting lists
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/04/nhs-private-sector-expansion-to-clear-waiting-lists/ (£££)
I don't understand how the British manage to make it so difficult.
Following that extreme right wing *checks notes* Labour Party PM in funding healthcare from taxes is NOT "going private".
I appreciate that burning methane releases CO2 but if that methane is perhaps captured and put in, in the first place when the gas is created, then over a cycle, would it not be carbon neutral?
As has become sadly, wearily, very, obvious, many people on PB are rich or very rich, and find it difficult to understand why you can't just do things. This is the third, fourth or fifth time I've had to explain that there are things you just can't do in flats, and no doubt there'll be a sixth.
During a fuel crises a Conservative MP was criticised for saying "But why can't people just store fuel in a jerry can in the garage", and people had to patiently explain to him that most people don't have a garage. I get the same vibes here.
I'm about to put an air conditioning unit in my flat in London. Most leaseholders are perfectly willing to let you make changes, so long as you pay for them.
Sure, you need to get permission, but you make it sound like that is impossible rather than (as most contracts say) "not to be unreasonably withheld".
People comparing this to 1997 should remember that now the economy is far worse
And don’t get me started on car fumes
From your link: The term has acquired a stigmatized and pejorative meaning related to the process of Balkanization.[
It would, of course, require some government input.
Not the same vibes at all.
I can easily believe the subtitle composer decided “pulling out” would be a more familiar phrase for people who are not used to steam trains and favoured simplicity over literal accuracy. The alternation doesn’t change the narrative in any way
There is a large amount of research going on into making more efficient the electrolysis of water, though.
I have sat on four. Two were fairly normal but one of the others seemed to have cornered the market in local dimwits. One member was unable to read the swearing in statement, and his contribution to the discussion was simply to agree with the other dimwits. It returned a not guity verdict which was obviously wrong as became evident from the judges remarks to the defendant.
The fourth case was the reverse. The court clearly expected a not guilty verdict but the jury was very sharp, and included a couple of people with some specialist knowledge of the subject in question, the handling of counterfeit money. The result was that it saw through the defendant's bullshit, much to his surprise.
So if you are ever charged, try to contrive a stupid jury. (Donald Trump please note.)
1. @washingtonpost, @axios, @cnn, and
@nytimes are all "reporting" that, to convict Trump, Jack Smith has to prove Trump knew he was lying about the 2020 election
Trump's lawyer is saying the same thing. And so is Fox.
The problem with this analysis is it's completely wrong..
https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1687071079934590976
Good thread, though with a couple of qualifications.
1) It is integral to the 371 count. But NOT whether he knew he lost or not.
2) There are ALSO lies that are not about the election outcome.
3) It is not integral to 1512--there are dozens of directly applicable opinions.
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1687308581069086720
It's also very clear from the indictment that he had lawyers present arguments which were directly in contradiction with all the evidence that had been given to him, and to them.
That is outside of any First Amendment protections (and as the indictments make very clear, Trump was entirely entitled under First Amendment protections to simply lie about the election results; that is not the issue).
The amount of hate towards her from the left is frankly worrying. I haven't investigated the allegations against her (*), but the froth-mouthed, spittle-flecked screeching against her kinda makes me feel that she's in the right.
(*) Partly because the mere fact of her existence seems to annoy them.
Say he gets to early 2024, he's locked up a majority of delegates for the GOP nomination, but it looks like he may well lose to Biden, who is nevertheless unpopular. Isn't the move to chose someone who can actually win the election, and can be relied on to pardon him? I know there's a question of whether he's psychologically able to process the evidence that he might lose the election and I don't know either way, but let's suppose he is. Who would he pick? The required traits are loyalty to Trump, and a high probability of winning, given a Trump endorsement. I don't think he cares much about policies and so forth.
If they do then Trump becomes centre of the party again and the action defines their presidency. If they don’t… well…
Fact.
Nearly any energy storage method you could think of is better that hydrogen, for storing surplus renewables electricity.
Leaving everything else - sex abuse, illegally retaining classified docs, putting US national security at risk and lying about it - aside, he attempted to corrupt the US democratic process, and prevent the assumption of power of a legitimate Government.
Surely "try, lock up, and throw away the key" is the appropriate option?
I can imagine Trump eventually just fleeing the jurisdiction if not detained during his trial.
Do the Republicans have processes for deselecting a criminal candidate?
The article also refers to a story about a charity renaming the Vagina a "bonus hole" !!!!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/black-market-is-racist-phrase-and-should-not-be-used-say-bank-leaders/ar-AA1eKXab?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=109558f9143c4f278a775c2af6488a1e&ei=9
And I don't think the action defines their presidency, especially if they'd said they'd do it when they ran. It just kind of closes the book on the previous one.
She is vegan too, so something to offend the other headbangers...
His view, FWIW, is that interest rates have probably peaked and that in a year things may look very different with much lower inflation, real wage growth and with interest (and mortgage) rates starting to fall.
Whistling in the dark? Very probably. Growth is still going to be next to non existent, there will be very little public money to bribe, sorry, to enhance essential public services and peoples memories are slightly longer than that of a goldfish. But I suspect he reflected thinking around Sunak. Hang on, things can only get better. Maybe.
The hospital that I have helped with in Malawi is a graveyard of high tech equipment, and if anything needs servicing the nearest agent often several thousand miles away.
I don't know how this reads across to solar powered networks, but it wouldn't surprise me if some similar problems applied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Newbon
Which is not something I'd heard about. Quite sad.
An inquiry into claims a government body unfairly awarded a £97 million ferry contract will not investigate allegations unearthed by the BBC that the procurement process was “rigged”.
The BBC released its documentary Disclosure: The Great Ferries Scandal last year, which presented evidence that the government-owned Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) broke procurement rules by awarding a contract without due process.
Addleshaw Goddard, CMAL’s legal firm, has appointed Barry Smith KC to lead an independent probe to ascertain whether the Ferguson Marine shipyard received preferential treatment.
Smith’s remit has been limited to only investigating whether criminal fraud occurred, which was not one of the original allegations made by the BBC documentary
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ferry-inquiry-will-not-examine-rigged-procurement-allegations-b30zjckz7
This is still on, particularly for the Eastern part of the country. And starting a bit earlier in the South.
London max temps on the US GFS model this morning, from next Tuesday: 24, 28, 26, 30, 27, 29, 30, 24. A very decent spell of weather.
Thereafter the models diverge as is their wont, but the large scale pattern is different from July. Less of an Atlantic depression conveyor belt.
Mr. Royale, surely you can't be serious?
*Not the worst thing about her.
Like finding out someone you really fancy is a smoker.
*) The other day I mentioned a very rich man who was always dressed shabbily. He made much of his money buying ambulances, fire engines and other municipal vehicles, doing them up, and selling them as fleets to poorer countries. They were cheaper, and being a generation or two behind, easier to source cheap spares for.
*) A couple of years back, I heard a podcast about hearing aids. A US charity had a scheme where hearing aids were sent to Africa. This was a good scheme. The manufacturer of the hearing aids got large, regular orders. Then a manufacturer's representative actually went to Africa, and talked to a recipient. He asked the girl how she liked the hearing aid, and she replied she had liked all of them. When asked what she meant, she said she had had a few; when the batteries died, they could not afford or source new batteries, they got a new hearing aid from the charity. Shocked, he went back and the company designed one that used different/rechargable batteries, and which were easier to maintain. Which may have been difficult to get past his company's board...
Basically: if you want stuff to work in societies that have less access to trained people for repair, or the money to repair kit, design it to be easy to repair and maintain. In fact, we should be doing it here, too. Right to repair...
It's a proper holiday because I'm not taking my MacBook with me.
Last time I went on holiday without my MacBook the Wagner Group started a coup in Russia.
It lampoons everything and everyone.
I know / have known a fair few vegans. Some are the 'vegan police' style people who wear their suffering for their superpower on their sleeve. Most are perfectly ordinary people who do not want to put any inconvenience on anybody.
It's nothing like smoking. If someone smokes near me, it gets in my lungs even if they're ten feet away. Someone eating a nut roast at the seat next to me has zero effect on me.
The television presenter Rachel Riley has been awarded £10,000 in damages by a high court judge after suing a former aide to Jeremy Corbyn for libel.
Riley, 35, the numbers expert on the Channel 4 show Countdown, sued Laura Murray over a tweet posted more than two years ago.
Mr Justice Nicklin, who oversaw the high court case in London in May, delivered a ruling on Monday. He said Riley was entitled to “vindication”.
He had heard how both women posted tweets after Corbyn, who was Labour leader at the time, was hit with an egg while visiting a mosque in March 2019.
Murray tweeted in response to a post by the television presenter.
Riley initially posted a screenshot of a January 2019 tweet by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones about an attack on the former British National party leader Nick Griffin, which said: “I think sound life advice is, if you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi.” She added “good advice”, with emojis of a red rose and an egg.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/20/rachel-riley-damages-over-ex-corbyn-aide-tweet
and
Countdown star Rachel Riley has been awarded £50,000 in damages from a blogger who claimed she was a "serial abuser".
Political blogger Mike Sivier published an article on his website Vox Political in January 2019 with the headline: "Serial abuser Rachel Riley to receive 'extra protection' - on the grounds that she is receiving abuse".
The article referred to an online debate Ms Riley, 36, took part in about antisemitism in the Labour Party.
During the Twitter debate she exchanged some messages with a user who later identified herself as a 16-year-old girl called Rose.
A judge previously found Mr Sivier's article would lead people to believe Ms Riley "engaged upon, supported and encouraged a campaign of online abuse and harassment of a 16-year-old girl", which is not true.
Mr Sivier had argued a public interest defence.
https://news.sky.com/story/countdowns-rachel-riley-awarded-50-000-in-libel-damages-from-political-blogger-12748737
I say that as someone now heading off for a Greggs morning roll, 1.5 stone heavier than he was when he met his partner...
And as I've said multiple times if he goes for anything after October 24th he will have done 2 years as PM..
And they absolutely do inconvenience people. It means every time you hook up with them you can't cook or eat what you want and you've got to reduce your meals to the lowest common denominator so they can eat with you, which is antisocial.
So it absolutely has an effect on me.
Just you watch, Sunak will call the election for November 7th 2024, just two days after the American Presidential election just to screw over PBers.
I do not have the mental bandwidth to deal with a UK GE and US presidential election within 48 hrs of each other.
The current issue seems to be that she defended David Hirsch.
The underlying issue imo is that some elements of the 'Palestine Solidarity' type political stream can't admit that some of them tipped over into antisemitism, and are still fighting to defend their delusions.
Important to say that this is political not just party political - the Greens had similar issues which became public before Corbyn's problems. One name that used 'Israel are like Nazis' rhetoric was one Pippa Bartolotti, former high up in the Welsh Green Party.
Some of it is when the SWP disintegrated, and where the members and fellow-travellers went, after the Comrade Delta SWP rape scandal. IMO they tended to poison wherever they went.
This is a just a phase we are living through: like prohibition in the 1920s. It's a quasi-religious movement. As prohibition was to over-consumption of alcohol and its "evils", veganism is the same with animal products.
Because it's irrational, dogmatic and illogical it will eventually die out, as prohibition did, and everyone who was taken in by it will be embarrassed to admit they ever were one.
Yes of course Airplane is a very good film (albeit Leslie Nielsen went on to make the same film a further 15 times) but best/funniest?
Dear god.
Four Lions occupies that spot.
In other news, Social Network is a great film but needs to be seen in a cinema with a good sound system (same as Dunkirk), Citizen Kane really is a good film if not perhaps the greatest, and in the top ten of best films ever Terence Davies has made at least two. And The Rock is in there also.
https://twitter.com/tendar/status/1687353705530830848?s=46
Good Thursday night for both Ukraine and the Lib Dems then.
Far be it from me to suggest money spent on the legal profession is a waste but other than creating the pretense that the allegations are being taken seriously, when they are in fact being ignored and some straw man is put up instead, what on earth is the point?
I appreciate that's also another public entity but at least they have "operational independence".
People make other life choices from you: if you cannot deal with that, then that is your problem, not theirs.
In a country full of Gaelic place names, we hardly have an excuse for getting the spelling wrong.
October 2024 would be exactly fifty years since a Labour leader, other than Tony Blair, won a general election/majority.
Sorry Corbynites, 2017 doesn't count.