"Greenwashing, pure and simple" - fury as Shell UK sponsors British Cycling

Can you provide a link to a realistic plan for net zero in the UK significantly earlier than 2050?

My point is that you are acting as a delayer - emphasising all the difficulties and delays not the urgency of the goal.

Global heating is happening faster than expected by models, not more slowly. 2050 is likely to be too late to avoid catastrophic consequences, and the UK govt is not even on track for 2050.

On the topic of Shell, their plans and budgets will not result in them reaching net zero by 2050, and they are obliged to include a caveat in their greenwashing materials to say that.

Oil companies will be delighted by members of the public emphasising just how difficult all this is, and how slowly we must go. They can keep making pots of cash, with the external costs falling on all of us.

My point is that 2050 is the earliest we can realistically hit net zero in the UK.

I'm backing the fastest possible timeframe.

Unless you have a realistic plan to get to net zero sooner how can I possibly be 'a delayer'?

Have you got a link to any plan to get the UK to net zero substantially before 2050?

It's not my job to do your research for you - go and find your own links and plans.

We need to act with urgency and drive, reaching net zero as soon as possible. Both the UK govt and Shell have set 2050 as their target, but neither is on track to achieve the target.

Delayers emphasise all the difficulties in order to deflect from the responsibility of govts and oil companies, and prevent change - and that's what you are doing.

I'm not asking you to do my research, I'm asking you to do your own.

I've read up extensively on the 2050 plan, I'm aware of the challenges to overcome and I've pointed them out on this forum many times. That doesn't diminish my commitment to hit net zero in the shortest possible timeframe. Which is, IMO, 2050.

If advocating for net zero by 2050 makes me 'a delayer' then what's the alternative target? Where's the plan to hit the alternative target?

Without either of those your objections are rather facile.

(1) No, you were asking me to do your research for you and I am not your researcher.

I highly doubt you are the expert on decarbonisation timetables you claim to be.

(2) You are in any event pursuing a straw man argument by putting words into my mouth and arguing against them. Your original comment included 8 [EIGHT] separate lines emphasising the difficulties and delays - from which I correctly concluded that you are a delayer.

(3) I'll help you out by linking to the York & North Yorkshire region's Routemap to Carbon Negative. The target is:

• carbon neutral by 2034
• carbon negative by 2040

If York & N Yorkshire can do it, then so can other regions.

(4) Most of the steps to decarbonisation don't need new technologies, it's a case of using existing technologies. Then it just depends how fast you go, which is a question of ambition and drive.

Your objections that it is completely impossible to do any of this before 2050 are rather facile, because it is simply not true.

(5) You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Instead of bemoaning the difficulties involved decarbonisation, focus on the benefits.

Instead of focusing on how hard it might be, take a look at the consequences of failing to decarbonise. Cutting Emissions Will Hit Growth, But Costs Of Inaction Much Higher, Says IMF.

On the other hand, I am willing to help you with your research to the extent of providing a link to my report on York & North Yorkshire's Routemap to Carbon Negative.

The goals are:

• net zero by 2034 and
• carbon negative by 2040

HarrogateSpa wrote:

On the other hand, I am willing to help you with your research to the extent of providing a link to my report on York & North Yorkshire's Routemap to Carbon Negative.

The goals are:

• net zero by 2034 and
• carbon negative by 2040

That sounds like a better timeframe.

What really concerns me is that we get short-term thinking politicians putting in plans that they know they'll never be held accountable for, but as long as they get their cut of the fossil fuel pie, they really don't care.

That is an interesting report.

Thank you for the link.

It seems to rely on, amongst other things, the successful deployment of large scale Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Which AFAIK has never been deployed economically at that scale. It proposes to install this at Drax's biomass plant which already produces some of the most expensive electricity in the country. Adding CCS would increase the cost even further rendering the plant non viable.

It also depends on adding a "first of its kind" hydrogen turbine as well as tens of thousands of domestic hydrogen boilers (no commercially available models AFAIK).

Given that the UK grid won't be decarbonised until 2035 where will all the hydrogen come from?

As for reducing car use by nearly half in 7 years, has such a reduction ever been achieved in a similar setting over that timescale?

It's a commendable target to set but it relies extensively on technology that doesn't exist yet and behavioural changes that appear completely unrealistic so I don't think there's any chance of achieving it by 2034.

2050 on the other hand...

Drax's involvement will have to be stripped out of the Routemap because:

1. their electricity counts as carbon neutral, but in fact burning wood pellets emits more than CO2 than coal
2. BECCs may or may not be technically feasible but we shouldn't be burning wood anyway
3. Panorama recently revealed that Drax is cutting down primary forests in Canada

Reducing car use is not impossible at all, as we saw in the pandemic. It *does* require City of York and N Yorkshire County Council to tell people about it - which so far they have not done - explain why it is necessary, and start putting a plan in place to achieve it.

So this is about political will and implementing a plan, not technological fixes.

2050 is your preference, it's not that earlier is impossible.

And you're still looking through the wrong end of the telescope: how hard is it to decarbonise vs what are the consequences of not decarbonising quickly.

I don't think you're really grasped what a pickle we are in and how far global heating has gone already.

If you're eliminating Drax from the equation (I happen to agree that it is not sustainable or carbon neutral) then you'll still be using fossil fuels for electricity at that point so your target has already slipped before we've even started.

You didn't answer the questions about hydrogen. Where is it going to come from?

We produce virtually no green hydrogen now. In 12 years we'll have enough to heat a huge number of homes and run power plants?

That seems fanciful at best.

In order to actually achieve net zero it has to be acceptable to the population. If you try to force change too quickly then all you'll do is ossify opposition to it and never achieve your aims.

I don't think it's politically achievable to reduce car use in half over 7 years. The pandemic isn't a proof of concept. In order to achieve that drop in traffic half the economy was shut down and people were legally confined to their homes. That's obviously not sustainable for a long term plan.

I'll ask again, has any comparable area ever achieved a similar drop in car traffic over the timeframe in question?

I'm well aware of the problems associated with climate change. That's why I'm so keen for net zero to be achieved. In order to achieve it we need plans that are both technically and politically achievable.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong but I think your preferred plan fails both those tests.

Carbon capture - I'm kind of with you there.  In my imperfect understanding currently we're burning fossil fuels for energy and releasing CO2 then trying to catch that CO2 again - in an endothermic process.  Obviously we can get some of the power required from other sources but looked at energetically it does seem rather batty.

A bit like addicts, the really obvious solution of "just stop using" (or rather "start using less") seems to be humanly / socially / politically impossible.  All we can do is choose a different drug?

Yes.

Not really an option unless there are no alternatives.

Rich_cb wrote:

To get to net zero we need to decarbonise every car/lorry/train and plane. We need to replace every single gas and oil central heating system. We need to build multiple new nuclear reactors. We need to build about 20x the renewable capacity we have now. We need to devise and build from scratch a method of storing enough renewable energy to power the entire country for days at a time.
How long do you think that will realistically take?
I think 30 years is actually incredibly ambitious.

If obviously we change nothing in our lifestyles, if we replace everything one to one, than of course it takes ages. But that is actually totally impossible because everything will come crashing down around us long before. Take your nuclear reactors for instance, where do you put them when rivers run dry like this year and get far too hot to cool them down. (And please don't come out with any new, not existing technology, or even fusion or whatever)

Rich_cb wrote:

I've never once argued against reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

You argue against reducing our dependence on energy. That equals arguing for fossil fuels, for a long time to come.

I'm not arguing against reducing energy use either.

The UK roadmap to net zero involves an enormous reduction in energy use.

It has a target date of 2050.

Is that 'rapid' enough for you?

If not, please provide links to alternative feasible plans.

I know nothing about the siting of nuclear power plants. Sizewell B and Wyllfa Newydd are both approved sites AFAIK so I'd probably go with them to begin with using the same technology as Hinckley C. Maybe an SMR or two at Trawsfynydd but that might break your new technology ban.

From just a quick search, I found GreenPeace's plan for achieving Net Zero before 2050: https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/0861_GP_ClimateEmergency_Report_Pages.pdf

Their target is 2045 and they fudge over how to decarbonise heavy industry, which will be the hardest part and the last thing to do.

Much of that report is already being implemented but they seem to ignore nuclear which is a bit short sighted IMO.

If 2050 is 'kicking the can down the road' what is 2045?

If even Greenpeace are setting targets 20+ years in the future maybe it's not as easy to achieve quickly as many on this thread are making out?

Rich_cb wrote:

Their target is 2045 and they fudge over how to decarbonise heavy industry, which will be the hardest part and the last thing to do. Much of that report is already being implemented but they seem to ignore nuclear which is a bit short sighted IMO. If 2050 is 'kicking the can down the road' what is 2045? If even Greenpeace are setting targets 20+ years in the future maybe it's not as easy to achieve quickly as many on this thread are making out?

My favoured method would involve a certain amount of eating the rich and abandoning capitalism, but I can see how that might not be popular in some circles. It would get the job done, though.

"We can't simply stop using fossil fuels. Our society would entirely collapse."

You and @mike the bike might have had a point 50 years ago. But since then nothing has happened and so we are now in a situation where we have to "simply stop using fossil fuels", one way or the other. Either through rapid actions now, or because civilisation will collapse around us in a pretty short while.
It always beats me how people like you are apparently willing to loose everything that's good about civilisation rather than give up the nasty stuff now...

The 'nasty stuff' currently provides 80% of our energy needs.

How exactly do you propose maintaining what's 'good about civilisation' without that?

Rapid transition is completely impossible.

Reducing fossil fuel use by 90% or so over the next three decades is probably just about possible.

I'm always in favour of the pragmatic and possible over the idealistic and impossible.

"Rapid transition is completely impossible."

As I said before, this would have washed fifty years ago. Now it doesn't.

If it's possible then please provide some links that explain how it is possible.

80% of all our energy needs are met by fossil fuels.

What are the rapidly available alternatives?

You argue from our current lifestyles, which determine our energy "needs" Obviously they're not sustainable. So we have to change them. That could happen very fast. Tomorrow, 75% of car trips could be done by other means. Other stuff would take a little longer, but in a few years it could be done.
But you'd have to take your blinkers off to see that very little of the stuff we think indispensable really is so.
 

There's a difference between what is possible and what is politically achievable.

If it's not politically achievable then it's not actually going to happen.

You have still refused to provide any evidence for your 'rapid' transition which makes me think your objections to the 2050 target are slightly fanciful.

"what is politically achievable" Against the bankrolling of governments, parliaments etc. first and foremost by the fossil fuel majors, you mean? Quite right, very little. Which is why I'm very much in favour of movements such as Insulate Britain, XR and the like.

You've still failed to provide anything that even resembles a plan to achieve net zero.

You just seem to think it should be done 'rapidly'.

To be politically achievable a plan has to actually exist.

In a democracy you need to deliver change in a way that's acceptable to the majority of the electorate or the change will never happen.

IB, XR etc alienate huge swathes of the electorate making that majority harder to achieve.

In case you're genuinely interested in these questions, I suggest you do some reading on climate change, capitalism and democracy.
George Monbiot is a good start: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/...

Still avoiding the question.

I think I'm done with this discussion.

Good luck with your 'rapid' transition.

Rich_cb wrote:

The UK's net zero plan involves the gradual reduction in the use of fossil fuels over the next 30+ years. By 2050 we'll (hopefully) be using a fraction of the fossil fuels we are now but we'll still be using some. Taking some of the profits from those fossil fuels and using them to support cycling doesn't seem like such a bad idea. We can't simply stop using fossil fuels. Our society would entirely collapse.

2050 is definitely kicking the can down the road. I'm not conviced that the tories will even keep to that after seeing their attitude towards fracking and increasing oil drilling. We desperately need to stop poisoning the air with our reliance on fossil fuels, so society is likely to collapse if we continue kicking the can down the road and parts of the planet become inhabitable. The thing is that oil companies are making their profits and don't care if crops fail due to "unusual" weather events. Without effective leadership, modern civilisation is going to experience major upheaval.

Fracking and drilling for oil in the UK are not incompatible with the ambition for net zero.

Were going to be using fossil fuels for at least the next 30 years.

Why not use our domestic supplies rather than import them?

If you think net zero can be achieved significantly before 2050 I think you've underestimated the enormity of the task.

Fossil fuels are embedded into every aspect of our society. Ending our reliance on them within one generation is going to require a herculean effort.

Aiming for 2050 is not 'kicking the can down the road' it's moving as fast as possible.