Rishi Sunak’s watered-down net zero policies could “destroy any hopes of a cycle friendly future,” says Cycling UK

Reminds me of Cornershop's album, was it "When I Was Binned For The 7th Time"?

https://www.cornershop.com/2018/07/when-i-was-born-for-the-7th-time-a-pe...

Of course Rishi has only been binned once so far (in the leadership race).

levestane wrote:

Maybe all aspiring leaders should declare their ecological footprints so that we can see who is doing the most damage.

Whilst the wealthy undoubtedly use far more resources than the rest of us, I think it's a mistake to think in terms of individual CO2 footprints. The issue is the large scale industries and that's where we need to focus efforts to salvage what kind of world the future will have.

Getting people to separate recyclables is merely rearranging chairs on the titanic at this point. Big industries just laugh when they see people accusing other people of eating meat or flying abroad or chucking away a broken Ultegra crank. Even billionaires with their private jets are a mere drop in the warming ocean compared to international companies.

Of course, cycling instead of driving is still a very good choice as it improves your health, well-being and doesn't make the air pollution any worse. It's not going to stop us from reaping the decades of ignoring the issues though.

hawkinspeter wrote:

levestane wrote:

Maybe all aspiring leaders should declare their ecological footprints so that we can see who is doing the most damage.

Whilst the wealthy undoubtedly use far more resources than the rest of us, I think it's a mistake to think in terms of individual CO2 footprints. The issue is the large scale industries and that's where we need to focus efforts to salvage what kind of world the future will have.

Getting people to separate recyclables is merely rearranging chairs on the titanic at this point. Big industries just laugh when they see people accusing other people of eating meat or flying abroad or chucking away a broken Ultegra crank. Even billionaires with their private jets are a mere drop in the warming ocean compared to international companies.

Of course, cycling instead of driving is still a very good choice as it improves your health, well-being and doesn't make the air pollution any worse. It's not going to stop us from reaping the decades of ignoring the issues though.

I very much agree but big industry comprises us. I would include everything (including their employment impact) an individual does in their lives in the ecological footprint. This then automatically adds up to the total human ecological footprint. The current calculator seem to be missing these components.

levestane wrote:

I very much agree but big industry comprises us. I would include everything (including their employment impact) an individual does in their lives in the ecological footprint. This then automatically adds up to the total human ecological footprint. The current calculator seem to be missing these components.

Unless you're receiving the huge profits made by international companies, then I don't think it's fair to be assigned blame for decisions we have no power over. Executives get paid more when they find short-cuts or loop-holes so that they can strip reources faster than anyone else - it's a fundamental principle of capitalism.

It's like putting Jeff Bezos and Amazon workers into the same boat and blaming them equally for the damage that the company does, whilst forgetting that Bezos arses around with space-faring rockets for fun and the employees pee in bottles as they can't afford the time for a pee-break.

There's ordinary people trying to do at least a little bit for the environment, whilst business execs are deliberately trying to find the cheapest way of dumping waste into the environment (e.g. privately owned water companies trashing our rivers and seas in the pursuit of profit). There's people who are acting against our best interests and they care not one jot for the future as they've got enough cash to bribe their way out of trouble or onto exclusive fortified properties.

Oldfatgit wrote:

Lufthansa ran 21,000 empty flights in the winter of 21/22. Brussels Airlines ran 3,000 empty flights ib the same period. Around 500 empty flights a month are made in the UK. "Just" to keep slots at airports. Meanwhile .. I've got to convince my kids that it's because they left the toilet light on overnight, or had an extra 2 mins in the shower, the planet is dying.

Well, at least they're paying a good amount of tax on their aviation fuel....

Luckily, we pay air passenger duty which the Treasury refers to as an environmental tax, despite none of it being earmarked for environmental projects.

Oldfatgit wrote:

Lufthansa ran 21,000 empty flights in the winter of 21/22. Brussels Airlines ran 3,000 empty flights ib the same period. Around 500 empty flights a month are made in the UK. "Just" to keep slots at airports.

Meanwhile .. I've got to convince my kids that it's because they left the toilet light on overnight, or had an extra 2 mins in the shower, the planet is dying.

Private jets and private boats / superyachts owned by the wealthy probably use more fuel than the rest of us put together.

Sunak is weak. As hawkinspeter wrote last night, he's playing to the denialists in the party, not for one moment considering the environment or our futures.

Big businesses and their puppet politicians don't even want us to recycle, just look at the opposition to a Depost Return scheme on bottles and cans or the way councils including have dragged their feet over kerbside collection. Focussing on ephemeral things like single-use plastic bags and takeaway coffee cups is pathetic when you know that MPs do their donors' bidding and screw everyone and everything else for profit. In their eyes cycling is de facto an anti-capitalist activity, we are subversives because we're not going to buy new cars or petrol as they want us to.

Simon E wrote:

Private jets and private boats / superyachts owned by the wealthy probably use more fuel than the rest of us put together.

But how else would they get to the climate conferences where they decide how the regular people are going to save the planet for them to enjoy in the future?

cyclisto wrote:

Let's be honest, climate change prevention in nation wide scale is very wrong.

Why? Because it costs a LOT of money and the results are reaped across the world, not in the country. A little cynic but true.

What governments should do is focus their campaigns in improved air quality where results go directly at the right area. Poor air quality kills and makes us stink.

Unfortunately the issues we have created (e.g. greenhouse gases, climate change, overuse of resources) do not stop at a town's, or county's, or nation's boundaries.

This is part of what makes this a three-pipe problem.  The excuses of "I'm OK, what problem?" or "I would but just not now, not here" or "next door are worse than me and they're not playing along" apply locally, nationally AND internationally.

I also suspect that the hopeful way forward is trying to frame the question as a local issue first - after all we're humans.  This has to be done with great care however.  First - in the UK anyway - it's no longer as obvious as "look at these dirty black fumes!  They poison children and soil your washing!  That's why you don't get to have your house warmer than 19 degreees year-round".

Second - I suspect people are now more educated about these issues than say a decade back.  So helpful "fairy tales" would be harder to instill.

A local focus also doesn't of itself do anything about coordinating the actions of other billions around the world.  People are more aware of this at the moment, plus there are plenty of ongoing demonstrations of international disunity and conflict to make us think "yeah - but they won't".

Can the needed changes be framed as benefits?  I suspect the "fear" method makes some give up and others (in the UK) will say "we don't see any serious issues here".  For insulation / heating maybe "save money and be warmer".  For transport maybe "look - your kids can cycle to school, and you can hear yourself speak in the streets".

I think however you sell it it has to sidestep the "falling behind the Joneses" / "we'll all be poorer, and then foreign powers who kept growing when we slowed will come and take over" argument*.  And ideally the "benefits" need to be compelling enough to advertise outside our own borders.

* I suspect it's competitiveness and/or the fear of losing out / not keeping our status which mostly keep us spinning our hamster-wheels.

Steve K wrote:

Has any interviewer actually asked Sunak how he can claim we will still meet the 2050 target when the statutory climate change commission had already said we were at risk of missing it before he relaxed measures?

Or whether he understands that the trajectory to 2050 is as important as the target itself.  Carrying on emiting carbon at the current rate until 31 December 2049 and then suddenly getting to net zero would do irrepairable damage to the planet.

It's clear that Seven Bins Sunak never had any intention of trying to keep to that legal commitment. By doing less now, it pushes up the total economic cost to the UK as well as the cost to our planet.

It's funny, how the UK is more and more developing a reputation as a country which doesn't stand by its word or stick to its commitments.  Look at the mess over the NI protocols on trade, and now this on 'net zero'.  At this rate, we'll be a full-blown pariah state soon...  Hey, but at least we'll have our sovereignty 

brooksby wrote:

It's funny, how the UK is more and more developing a reputation as a country which doesn't stand by its word or stick to its commitments.  Look at the mess over the NI protocols on trade, and now this on 'net zero'.  At this rate, we'll be a full-blown pariah state soon...  Hey, but at least we'll have our sovereignty 

It's always been a puzzle to me why we have that reputation.  The UK appears to have been at least as duplicitous as any other nation state.  And "flexible" in how it interprets agreements.  (I have seen it argued though that the UK was more likely to pedantically stick to the letter of some former EU agreements but then whine about them rather than continental practice of playing along while cheerfully bending the rules to suit.)

Arguably the English language itself may tend towards being more explicit than some but you can equally use it to make ambigous or unclear statements.

Perhaps it's "being polite and courteous" and a habit of lying without technically lying?  Post-Boris, perhaps we won't bother so much?

Still - if we get a bad reputation, at least now that will be our reputation!

Perfidious Albion.

I think that very point will be tested through the courts.

BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:

'Build Back  Better'. LOL 😂 

Coiugh - cough - "levelling up" (definitely not down) - cough - cough.

brooksby wrote:

BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:

'Build Back  Better'. LOL 😂 

Coiugh - cough - "levelling up" (definitely not down) - cough - cough.

Levelling up should obviously start where the biggest gaps are and if you look at the 2023 Sunday Times rich list then Sir Jim Ratcliffe needs more than £5 billion to match Gopi Hinduja and family and Lakshmi Mittal and family need £7 billion to match Sir James Dyson and family so levelling up at the top is far more important than at the bottom where people are just a few pounds apart.

Good news then!  It's within your power to become a valued benefactor if you just give a few pounds to a stranger, because most of them presumably are closer to the other end of the spectrum than those on that list!  I'm guessing you could dump your net worth at the feet of one of the folks you mention and at their hourly rate you'd still end up owing them for the time they spent watching you...

Most people wouldn't even be able to see my net worth from a distance of 5 feet! 

But thankfully he made it clear that he's reversed that policy to tax meat.

IanMK wrote:

But thankfully he made it clear that he's reversed that policy to tax meat.

And no enforced car sharing like what that Jeremy Corbyn was going to impose.

IanMK wrote:

But thankfully he made it clear that he's reversed that policy to tax meat.

The policy which didn't even exist?

Cycloid wrote:

That Net Zero statement from Downing St was the most cringemaking bit of TV I have seen since the Laura Kuensberg interview with a member of the Royal Family.

Poorly done maybe, but what a necessary announcement. Well done to the Tories for doing something meaningful to help ordinary people that no-one else was daring to do. 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...breathe.....Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....stop it.....Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

Sad, sad troll.