CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

"DRAFT CLIMATE CHANGE PLAN" (ScotGov)

(67 posts)

No tags yet.


123

  1. chdot
    Admin

    "I think we can go on with change that would be quite insignificant in recent historical context"

    Some days I believe/hope that, others I don't.

    There is very little real consensus about what those changes could/should be.

    On 'our' theme of transport, there are those (including the apparent view of ScotGov) that 'all' that is needed is for the current transport system to be all electric.

    Apart from any considerations of 'resources', 'traffic', etc. I have yet to see calculations for how many more wind turbines or power stations (nuclear?) this would require.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  2. mgj
    Member

    It's a plan with no mention of population, and is therefore flawed. There are no listed assumptions on population.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  3. neddie
    Member

    calculations for how many more wind turbines or power stations (nuclear?) this [everyone driving electric cars] would require

    Probably not that many more if all the electric cars are charged overnight using 'surplus' off-peak electricity.

    However, based on human laziness, I suspect that a more realistic model for electric car use is not to plug in overnight. Instead, to juice up at the supermarket, doughnut emporium, diy store or work during the day while popping in for some sugary food, a bag of nails or a lie down.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  4. amir
    Member

    I was litstening to a couple of economists on R4 talking about Trump and growth. Despite having different views on economics both were agreed that in a developed economy growth comes principally from technological advances and this limits it in the long term (to about 2%?), though booms and busts are possible (likely) due to short term policies.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  5. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Seems you have to actively gie the nod to get your submission published.

    Dear IWRATS,

    Many thanks for your submission to the Committee’s call for evidence. Can you please confirm that you are happy with the Parliament’s policy on the treatment of written evidence?

    http://www.parliament.scot/help/31037.aspx

    If you are content, I will upload your submission to the website and circulate to members in due course.

    Kind regards

    Sturgeon's Minion

    Posted 7 years ago #

  6. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    growth comes principally from technological advances

    You could certainly count technological advance as growth, but another way would be to measure energy (or water or land) consumption. As long as energy comes from non-renewables, such growth is unsustainable in the medium term.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  7. neddie
    Member

    "Growth" is a measure of how much better we are now able to exploit the resources of the planet. Simples.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  8. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Don't they usually talk about growth in GDP? So any increase in anything anyone will pay for, be it wistful haikus or bomb shelters, is good.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    "As long as energy comes from non-renewables, such growth is unsustainable"

    Yes, but 'energy' - which, too often, is shorthand for electricity - is a small/easy factor in all this.

    Food production, transport, manufacturing etc, use a lot of energy, but even if it was all 'sustainable' (not just the electricity) there are still vast amounts of 'stuff' involved - which isn't going to go into a neat closed-cycle recycling loop any time soon(/ever).

    "growth comes principally from technological advances"

    To some extent. 'Technology' made smartphones possible, but it was other factors that made them 'must have'/'must upgrade'.

    There are plenty of simpler technologies that don't get the same push -

    Imagine if all buildings were so efficient that they required much less energy than now.

    In the short term this would require significant investment (and jobs) and make GDP rise. In the medium term, less energy use, would 'adversely' affect the GDP numbers.

    Imagine a Gov that told housebuilders to have 'zero energy' housing estates.

    Imagine mortgages lenders saying 'we won't give mortgages for energy inefficient houses'.

    Too many vested interests in 'more of the same'.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    "So any increase in anything anyone will pay for"

    Indeed.

    So if you do 'good works' or volunteer or grow stuff on an allotment - or live where there is subsistence agriculture - it just doesn't count.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  11. crowriver
    Member

    That's capitalism for you...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  12. PS
    Member

    In the medium term, less energy use, would 'adversely' affect the GDP numbers

    The money that would have been spent on energy won't disappear though. It will either be spent on other stuff, invested, stuck in a bank or stuffed in the mattress. The latter may be the only way where it doesn't do something to feed or generate growth in it own way?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  13. neddie
    Member

    Let us not forget that a good proportion of the 'growth' in this country is created by us getting better at creaming money off of other people's bank accounts from around the world, via complex (and simple) financial instruments.

    In a way, we are "borrowing"helping ourselves to a little bit of "real*" growth from other nations.

    *Created by tech advances, exploitation of resources, etc.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  14. Ed1
    Member

    In the medium term, less energy use, would 'adversely' affect the GDP numbers"

    Well the energy reduction may lower GDP if money spent abroad, or spent on foreign made products if lowered “domestic made” energy and spent the money abroad/import goods or services.

    If was imported oil or imported computers would make no difference

    Posted 7 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "It will either be spent on other stuff"

    Yes, I probably overimagined the 'less spending'

    So if Govs really are concerned about GDP, perhaps they should make sure that people who are most likely to spend money - especially on Just About Managing - should have more money...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    "In a way, we are "borrowing"helping ourselves to a little bit of "real*" growth from other nations."

    That's certainly (one) role of The City - which may or may not be about to export itself to The Continent.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  17. PS
    Member

    So if Govs really are concerned about GDP, perhaps they should make sure that people who are most likely to spend money - especially on Just About Managing - should have more money...

    I suspect this is very true - it's one of the solid economic arguments for taxing the wealthy who have so much money they simply can't spend enough of it and choose to lock it up in the less "GDP growing" assets like property or gold. Unfortunately, it never seems to quite click with government.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  18. mgj
    Member

    Governments should be bothered more about per capita GDP rather than GDP or GNP; you can have sustainable growth (aka increased energy use) with a declining population.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  19. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Governments should be bothered more about per capita GDP

    Also the distribution of the fruits of our labours. What use is it to live in a rich country if the goodies - essentials, luxuries and leisure - aren't fairly dished out?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  20. PS
    Member

    I suspect a universal basic income would give GDP a boost.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  21. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I suspect a universal basic income would make most people much happier.

    I've always thought it would reduce conventional GDP as people (like me) stopped doing the harmful stuff they do to get money.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  22. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    That's our submissions posted on the McParliament website;

    http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/103306.aspx

    My favourite is from grassroots organisation Scottish Land and Estates (they represent the owners of all grass in Scotland just about);

    For instance, members have told us “small bus services are always welcome, particularly for the elderly, and car transport is essential on our estate.”

    Buses for proles, cars for lairds.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  23. fimm
    Member

    Quote Frenchy who "... took them up on the offer of being able to submit it in Scots..."

    It is there, in Scots...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  24. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    It is a benefit to abody if fowk tak a bike

    How true. Strong north-east inflection to the Scots if I'm not mistaken.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  25. Frenchy
    Member

    Guilty as charged. Again.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  26. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I just wish I had the confidence to write in the voice I can - at will - hear quite clearly in my head.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  27. Frenchy
    Member

    That half page of A4 is, quite comfortably, the most Scots I've ever written. Which is rather depressing.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  28. LaidBack
    Member

    On the alternative transport question, the National had a good piece. Basically suggesting what we all know already - that we need more bus priority otherwise 'green' buses just get stuck the same as before. As this is from a commercial interest then you'd think SG may be inclined to listen more? Many of these buses are built here too.

    "The UK’s largest bus operator, Perth-based Stagecoach, says golden opportunities to cut gridlock have been missed, leaving electric, hybrid, gas and hydrogen buses stuck alongside cars, which are often more polluting.

    Bus speeds in Glasgow, for example, are declining at a rate of 1.5 per cent each year, a worse figure than London, Edinburgh and Manchester. This means that advances in greener public transport technology are failing to reach their full potential, according to Stagecoach’s engineering director Sam Greer."

    Posted 7 years ago #

  29. Frenchy
    Member

    Report: https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/Committees/Report/REC/2017/3/10/Report-on-the-Draft-Climate-Change-Plan--the-draft-Third-Report-on-Policies-and-Proposals-2017-2032-1

    "In relation to active travel, the Committee calls on the Scottish Government to set out how it intends to meet its walking and cycling modal shift commitments, in particular 10% of everyday trips by bike by 2020, in the final Climate Change Plan."

    Posted 7 years ago #

  30. chdot
    Admin

    Just so fakenews the idea that the Mail would have any sort of positive campaign with the word cycling in it!

    But then clearly fakenews the idea that it was their idea...

    No doubt a ploy to get at the SNP Gov!

    And the result will be?

    Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin