Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 02:31:31 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Insulate Britain protests

Started by Fambo Number Mive, September 22, 2021, 09:26:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Buelligan

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 22, 2021, 12:46:16 PM
That's why the proposals are generally exponentially rising taxes that give one free. You are right it still is not perfect since people with limitless supplies can do what they like, but it's certainly slightly less regressive and definitely less oppressive than putting who is allowed to leave the country in the hands of a bureaucratic state department.

Which is what I was saying - both ways have been seen as failures already.  More importantly, we all need to readjust our ideas about what is normal - the planet has a serious illness, if we continue to do what we've done in the past, it will die.  At least for us.  We need to recognise that we cannot negotiate this, we can't just keep doing the stuff we like because we want to.  Not if we want our planet to survive in a way that makes it possible for all of us to stay alive.  If flying has to go, it has to go.

It's like a person dying of liver failure arguing that just a teeny taste of whiskey wouldn't do any harm or that banning it is not progressive.  We need to change or die.

Sebastian Cobb

I'm not defending "doing things I like", I haven't flown in years. I'm defending against really quite concerning authoritarian steps in the name of saving the planet, even though it makes very little difference. You say things cannot be negotiated, however that's not really what scientists are saying is it, they're saying things need to be reduced in absolute terms by large amounts not equal to 100%, that does allow for some choice and it would suggest it's better to focus on things that are easy to do that make big reductions without massive authoritarian steps, rather than things that don't.

Although, maybe we could open up Dignitas to everyone, maybe even incentivese it, perhaps your relatives or charities can get your stuff tax-free or something. So when existing in a dictatorship you are not allowed to leave proves to be less pleasant than being alive, you still have a way out in an environmentally friendly way that'll put an end to your consumption of resources once and for all.

Paul Calf

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 22, 2021, 12:42:07 PM
It's not just holidays. It's just wildly disproportionate, hard to administer and all for small gains.

Would you like to miss seeing your dying relative because the government department that stops people from leaving the country was too slow and didn't approve the exception in time?



No, it's be fine. You can travel abroad if you're not having any fun. That's fine. The government will definitely process your application fairly and in time and it'll all work perfectly.

I don't get this hair-shirt bollocks. We need to be as miserable as possible to give massive hydrocarbon billionaires the latitude to pollute, right?

Environmentalists need to stop acting like tyrants. This is counterproductive punching down.

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: Paul Calf on September 22, 2021, 12:59:57 PM
No, it's be fine. You can travel abroad if you're not having any fun. That's fine. The government will definitely process your application fairly and in time and it'll all work perfectly.

I don't get this hair-shirt bollocks. We need to be as miserable as possible to give massive hydrocarbon billionaires the latitude to pollute, right?

Environmentalists need to stop acting like tyrants. This is counterproductive punching down.

It's also that once you put in a state controlled system for controlling all citizens movement it gets very easy for that to be abused. An obvious example would be a journalist, "oh you reported on something we didn't like, it would be terrible if you could no longer leave the country". And now you have a population who can't go anywhere, with reporters who are only allowed to go places and report on things if they play ball with a government and security service that look at the Great Chinese Firewall as a wonderful piece of technology.

Apparently this isn't troubling or sinister, I just want to protect big plane and continue going on my average of 0 flights a year.

Buelligan

Quote from: Paul Calf on September 22, 2021, 12:59:57 PM
No, it's be fine. You can travel abroad if you're not having any fun. That's fine. The government will definitely process your application fairly and in time and it'll all work perfectly.

I don't get this hair-shirt bollocks. We need to be as miserable as possible to give massive hydrocarbon billionaires the latitude to pollute, right?

Environmentalists need to stop acting like tyrants. This is counterproductive punching down.

And everyone needs to take a step back, relax a bit, stop trying to make this thing about sides. 

My point is simply that opposing banning flying because it's authoritarian and not fair on people and suggesting a fairer way is to tax it (and make flying more expensive) is not helpful.  It's not helpful because oppression of our desires, whether it's by the cold boot of authority or the cold eye of capitalism is equally (IMO) unfair. 

How is it unjust to deny people a choice because their stated reasons don't fulfill some regulated criteria but just to deny them the same thing because they're too poor?

Paul Calf

I don't think taxing is a good idea either, for the reasons you've given.

Paul Calf

I wonder whether it might be a good idea to provide people with vouchers, say two a year. You need a voucher to fly and they're transferable so you can sell them if you want to, or buy extra vouchers if you want to fly more than twice. Tax is paid on purchase, but not on sale. That way, people who never intend to fly can make extra money from people who want to fly more.

I realise this is a liberal approach, but I don't think that's an automatic reason not to do it.

Sebastian Cobb

#37
I don't see how the voucher thing is free of any of the inherent problems in ladder taxing that uses "first [one or two] free". Poorer people will sell their tickets, richer people will buy more. There will inevitably be a marketplace skimming money off the top.

I think the main advantage to ladder taxing (I've said this twice now and it seems to have been reduced twice to 'it'll make flying more expensive', well it will but only on consecutive flights so people who fly little won't be affected) is that it would push medium flyers down - especially business class, which doesn't need to happen. Getting rid of that for the most part should be looked into because white-collar business travel are mostly pointless jollies to satisfy egos, but I reckon businesses would find ways around it (like getting people to claim it back).

It's not perfect and I think there probably could be better solutions, but I think they are a reasonable starting point for discussions on how to lower things without going mad (and not getting many reductions even with outright bans in the sector anyway).

Sebastian Cobb

On a reducing flights thing that is actually good - and something I forgot to make a thread about, but was surprised didn't happen anyway is the new Lumo (operated by Firstgroup) train service from Edinburgh to London for as low as £40 (note - an open return between Edinburgh and Glasgow costs about that) and designed to be a direct competitor to flights (it's even added to SkyScanner to promote it).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/07/firstgroup-to-launch-budget-london-to-edinburgh-rail-service-next-month

The good thing here is that once you're dumped down in London you can then get quickly through the channel tunnel, which means you can get quickly to other parts of Europe, beyond France, since European mainline trains generally aren't shit.

Kind of like the original "metro" hubs that were planned to be integrated with the Eurotunnel but got scrapped.

Paul Calf


Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: Paul Calf on September 22, 2021, 01:47:46 PM
Haha.

FirstGroup.

Yeah that is cause for concern but I'm intrigued and hope it does well.

GMTV

Prior to the plentiful supply of oil and gas, if people moved long distances they basically never saw their relatives again. If we're aiming to drastically cut oil and gas usage why should that provision still be maintained? Feels like a fairly easy win considering the options.

Its the unfortunate reality this life we're living is fuelled by oil and gas, and short of Futurama becoming reality there is no sign of that changing any time soon. Some things are going to have to give.

chveik

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 22, 2021, 12:57:50 PM
Although, maybe we could open up Dignitas to everyone, maybe even incentivese it, perhaps your relatives or charities can get your stuff tax-free or something. So when existing in a dictatorship you are not allowed to leave proves to be less pleasant than being alive, you still have a way out in an environmentally friendly way that'll put an end to your consumption of resources once and for all.

it's a false dichotomy and you know it. i am convinced that a dictatorship would never take environmentalism seriously.

Endicott

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#energy-electricity-heat-and-transport-73-2

Having studied this chart, I don't think calling for a complete ban on aviation and shipping is exactly what I'd be doing, if I wanted to make a big dent in climate change.




GMTV

Quote from: Endicott on September 22, 2021, 02:20:02 PM
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#energy-electricity-heat-and-transport-73-2

Having studied this chart, I don't think calling for a complete ban on aviation and shipping is exactly what I'd be doing, if I wanted to make a big dent in climate change.



How much of the other sectors listed are generating emissions because of mass global aviation? Its not just jet fuel in planes

Buelligan

And anyway, it's a bit like the China thing.  It's no good at all pointing at "bigger" problems and shrugging.  All the problems need unpicking and resolving, extremely quickly.

GMTV

How many years (decades) would it take to manufacture and install the insulation required to insulate the entire properties of the country?

Theoretically how quickly could mass air transport be reduced dramatically? Think carefully regarding the events of the last year or two.

Fambo Number Mive

We'd certainly need to be doing a lot alongside reducing the amount of aviation and shipping (I don't think you could ever have a complete ban on either).

Reducing the number of cars on the road would be another good idea (congestion charges and improving public transport, cycling facilities and the pedestrian experience). Properly funding rural bus networks (nationalising or at least regulating buses so they are run based on need not profit, and making all buses electric, would also help). It would also boost rural economies as it would mean people without cars could get a bus to a rural area and visit the local pub and/or village shop. Basically a rural area of over 100 people should have at least an hourly bus service, and every half hour in the rush hour. Even that is a long time to wait but it's better than what is on offer at the moment. Those of 20 to 100 people could have a two hourly service which is every hour in the rush hour.

It would be interesting to look at what can be done to reduce emissions from businesses. Tighter regulations and better enforcement of them (perhaps overseen by an independent panel of citizens) would be one part.

chveik

it's depressing that people can still be tricked by the 'eco-fascists meanies want to make life miserable' narrative.

Buelligan

IMO, there are some parallels with the changes to culture triggered by Covid.  I'm sure most people would never have imagined curfews, lockdowns, mask-wearing, all the shit happening so quickly worldwide and people just going along with it.  But they did.

One way or another, people will have to change their behaviour to address climate change.  IMO, it'd be better if we went too far now and found, in a decade or whatevs, we could even possibly relax a bit.  The alternative, doing nothing, is hugely worse, really seriously miserable.

JaDanketies

Quote from: GMTV on September 22, 2021, 02:25:25 PM
How many years (decades) would it take to manufacture and install the insulation required to insulate the entire properties of the country?

That sounds a bit like when Corbyn said to plant a bunch of trees and people threw up their hands and said, "pah, impossible!" If there was the political will to fill up every wall cavity in the country then it'd be done. Significantly less likely to lead to mass panic and civil war than saying "right, no planes allowed, starting.... from.... now!"

Also the fact is that the properties in the UK need to be insulated. So why not get started now?

These protestors aren't gonna convince many Tories though. There are easy economic arguments to make for insulating our houses. A penny spent on cavity wall insulation is going to allow the homeowner / tenant to put many more pennies back into the economy, and the penny is getting spent on tangible UK business activities so it's directly back into the economy. An easy and decent way to spend public money. Probably costs the same as all those fake PPE contracts.

Fambo Number Mive

Well I think we all agree that Insulate Britain are right in what they demand, even if we disagree on the methods. I should really get my home insulated, although I haven't even changed my gas cooker for electric yet. Just not keen about letting people into my home during covid.

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: chveik on September 22, 2021, 02:27:55 PM
it's depressing that people can still be tricked by the 'eco-fascists meanies want to make life miserable' narrative.
With a cheerful posterboy like you it's unbelievable isn't it?

It's also depressing how quick people can just absorb 'ALL PLANE ARE BAD' and not even question it when shown the numbers.

and you're going father than that, claiming i'm buying into utter bollocks.

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: Fambo Number Mive on September 22, 2021, 02:34:54 PM
Well I think we all agree that Insulate Britain are right in what they demand, even if we disagree on the methods. I should really get my home insulated, although I haven't even changed my gas cooker for electric yet. Just not keen about letting people into my home during covid.

It depends on where you live, state of the property etc, as often it's done by councils, but some councils do offer grants on insulation.

GMTV

Quote from: chveik on September 22, 2021, 02:27:55 PM
it's depressing that people can still be tricked by the 'eco-fascists meanies want to make life miserable' narrative.

I've got a great diet plan where you can eat what you want and not gain any weight if you're interested.

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: GMTV on September 22, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
I've got a great diet plan where you can lose 2.7% of your weight.

FTFY

I don't think there's much point engaging with you because you seem to have no grasp of how basic proportions work.

Retinend

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 22, 2021, 10:03:47 AMA lot of the damp problems are due to habit - the Germans fix this by Stoßlüften - opening all their windows for a few minutes a day all at once, which replaces about 80% of the air or something. The more modern (Scandinavian) approach is to have an active ventilation system that captures the heat in waste air and pumps it back into the house.



It's a light brick. It saves light.

chveik

Quote from: GMTV on September 22, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
I've got a great diet plan where you can eat what you want and not gain any weight if you're interested.

i dunno what this means

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 22, 2021, 02:37:46 PM
It's also depressing how quick people can just absorb 'ALL PLANE ARE BAD' and not even question it when shown the numbers.

and you're going father than that, claiming i'm buying into utter bollocks.

tell me if i'm mistaken but it seems to me you're visualising an environmentalist model where the state would restrict a certain amount of liberties while not  tackling the root cause who made our planet fucked ie capitalism and the governmental systems it allows. do your numbers take into account the whole economy which surrounds the aircraft industry?
and then there's the whole idea that travelling around the world is actually something that people should aspire to in order to fulfill themselves.

Paul Calf

Quote from: Endicott on September 22, 2021, 02:20:02 PM
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#energy-electricity-heat-and-transport-73-2

Having studied this chart, I don't think calling for a complete ban on aviation and shipping is exactly what I'd be doing, if I wanted to make a big dent in climate change.





No, you don't understand. It's MUCH easier to bully individuals into not flying any more than it is to get big companies to change their policies. So even if it's ineffective, that's what will happen and self-proclaimed radicals will be cheering on the neolib authoritarianism.

GMTV

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on September 22, 2021, 02:48:12 PM
FTFY

I don't think there's much point engaging with you because you seem to have no grasp of how basic proportions work.

2.7% of a massive and growing number is still a massive number in absolute terms.