Generation & Transmission Losses.

I am not too worried about global warming - it is unclear what proportion is caused by human activity, and whether it is reversible. However, what is absolutely the case is that fossil fuels will run out - not in my life-time, but in my granddaughters'. That is unless we reduce consumption.

One of the biggest changes that has occurred in my life-time is the increase in travel. When I started motoring in the late 1970s, it was possible to travel at 3-figure speeds on major trunk roads (subject to having a fast enough car) and it was possible to overtake slower vehicles on single carriageway roads. Nowadays, ignoring speed cameras, it would be difficult to average 80 mph for any distance because of other vehicles (and poor lane discipline); and overtaking is rare because there are not big enough gaps in the oncoming traffic.

So that's long-distance travel, but we also have commuting. The “rush hour” has become rush 3 hours. Is it really necessary to live so far from work? We have often discussed whether we have the infrastructure to power EVs. Well, that may become the limiting step which controls annual mileage.

And then we have air travel. If governments were serious about CO2 emissions, aviation fuel would be taxed on par with fuel for land vehicles. I just don't see any justification for long-distance holiday travel.

Covid has shown that we can work virtually, but in fact that was happening some years ago. The idea of driving for 3 hours up to the midlands for a 90 minute meeting and then 3 hours back again is not only expensive in terms of fuel, but also working time.

We don't have to eat exotic foreign fruits.

So behaviour has to change, and will change - the human species has been the most adaptable and resourceful ever. That's where, politically, I think that global warming comes in. Any threat has to be more immediate then 50 - 100 years away. We had to make a start on “renewable” energy and I admire the early adopters.

The reason for more population is not only fuel, but it is also improved agriculture, fewer animals, artificial fertilizer, and more CO2. When farms worked with a few draught horses and many men, the crop yield was very low, and the amount that could be sold was even smaller due to internal use by men and horses. In London, there were half as many horses as there were people. The road and stable sweepings provided rich fertilizer for the surrounding area, although the whole place was basically filthy. They managed (just), the population controlled by poverty.

Today London is much larger, has a huge population, and very few starve because of the available food supply from all over the World. The welfare state prevents grinding poverty, and heating prevents most disease and death in winter. Those suggesting that fuel should not be used for agriculture and transport would take Britain back to Victorian time very quickly, with huge loss of population through poverty and starvation.

Most energy in the UK is used for heating, space, and industrial process, the next biggest use is probably motive power for transport and industry, and IT is not that far behind! Air fuel is relatively small, air travel is hated for other reasons, going by air is less fuel-intensive per passenger than going by car, and miles better than cruise ships!  A car to America might be a bit interesting. The much-loved trains are not too good either, and they have the advantage of nearly level tracks, but building a new railway uses immense quantities of fuel (look at HS2, that cost is not labour). A 747 jet uses about 20 litres of fuel per passenger hour when filled with 450 passengers, and travels about 500 miles. It also carries 30 tons of cargo. A car could just about manage something similar in proportion but would take much longer by a factor of 10.

I don't fancy the idea that I can only go a few miles from my home, have virtually no heating, cannot buy any manufactured goods etc. Civilisation is actually made of energy!

Buy not categorically proven cause of global warming and climate change.

Empirical evidence is always going to difficult … as we don't have any spare planet Earths to experiment with. By the time we find out with absolute certainty what the result is, it will be far too late to change anything. In terms of survival, there's a lot to be said for the precautionary principle.

  - Andy.

AJJewsbury: 
 

Buy not categorically proven cause of global warming and climate change.

Empirical evidence is always going to difficult … as we don't have any spare planet Earths to experiment with. By the time we find out with absolute certainty what the result is, it will be far too late to change anything. In terms of survival, there's a lot to be said for the precautionary principle.

  - Andy.

Try telling that to the Chinese, they'll look blankly back at you.

Jon Steward: 
 

That maybe so. Buy not categorically proven cause of global warming and climate change. And certainly not proven to be wholey man made.

So you'd rather wait until it is categorically proven.  And too late to do anything about it.

AJJewsbury: 
Empirical evidence is always going to difficult … as we don't have any spare planet Earths to experiment with. By the time we find out with absolute certainty what the result is, it will be far too late to change anything. In terms of survival, there's a lot to be said for the precautionary principle.

Granted we could never do a randomised controlled trial using several Earths, but it is difficult to do a longitudinal study - the climate was changing long before the industrial revolution, and indeed before humans. So were sea levels.

What seems to be censored, if not self-censored, in the debate is the harm (or potential harm) from intervening.

If less developed countries effectively skip the fossil fuel era, will they get electric this that and everything else from renewables, or will they remain undeveloped?

Simon Barker: 
 

Jon Steward: 
 

That maybe so. Buy not categorically proven cause of global warming and climate change. And certainly not proven to be wholey man made.

So you'd rather wait until it is categorically proven.  And too late to do anything about it.

If it was scientifically 100% proven that man made CO2 is causing warming our planet then we should be going all out, but it's not. Just 'cherry picked' climate models are used to create this politically driven code red madness.