Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Oxford academics, embracing electric cars won’t be sufficient. an Oxford University study focussed on Scotland suggests radical lifestyle changes, more walking and cycling journeys, are required to prevent dangerous global warming.
Kicking the car(bon) habit better for air pollution than technology revolution
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
PUBLIC RELEASE: 30-MAY-2018
…
Led by Dr Christian Brand, Senior Research Fellow and Associate Professor at the Environmental Change Institute and Transport Studies Unit, in collaboration with colleagues Jillian Anable from the University of Leeds and Craig Morton at the University of Loughborough, the paper explores how plausible changes in the way we travel might reduce energy use and emissions in Scotland over the next three decades, in light of the 5-year carbon budgets up to 2050 and beyond.
“Our study explores how Scotland might achieve these targets in the transport sector. We find that both lifestyle change – such as making fewer and shorter journeys, sharing existing journeys, or shifting to walking, cycling and clean public transport – and a comprehensive strategy around zero emission technologies are needed, but that they have limits to meeting our CO2 targets, in particular beyond 2030″ explains lead author, Oxford Scientist Dr Christian Brand.
The findings suggest that, only through prioritisation of both demand- (lifestyle, social and cultural change) and supply-side (new technology) transport solutions, might we have a chance of curbing carbon emissions in line with the United Nation’s 1.5C Climate Change Agreement. The co-benefits of such change to human health and the NHS are enormous.
“The newfound urgency of ‘cleaning up our act’ since the Paris Climate Change Agreement in 2016 and Dieselgate scandal suggests that we cannot just wait for the technology fix,” says Dr Christian Brand.
…
Read more: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/uoo-ktc053018.php
The abstract of the study;
Lifestyle, efficiency and limits: modelling transport energy and emissions using a socio-technical approach
Authors and affiliations
Christian Brand, Jillian Anable, Craig Morton
It is well-known that societal energy consumption and pollutant emissions from transport are influenced not only by technical efficiency, mode choice and the carbon/pollutant content of energy but also by lifestyle choices and socio-cultural factors. However, only a few attempts have been made to integrate all of these insights into systems models of future transport energy demand or even scenario analysis. This paper addresses this gap in research and practice by presenting the development and use of quantitative scenarios using an integrated transport-energy-environment systems model to explore four contrasting futures for Scotland that compare transport-related ‘lifestyle’ changes and socio-cultural factors against a transition pathway focussing on transport electrification and the phasing out of conventionally fuelled vehicles using a socio-technical approach. We found that radical demand and supply strategies can have important synergies and trade-offs between reducing life cycle greenhouse gas and air quality emissions. Lifestyle change alone can have a comparable and earlier effect on transport carbon and air quality emissions than a transition to EVs with no lifestyle change. Yet, the detailed modelling of four contrasting futures suggests that both strategies have limits to meeting legislated carbon budgets, which may only be achieved with a combined strategy of radical change in travel patterns, mode and vehicle choice, vehicle occupancy and on-road driving behaviour with high electrification and phasing out of conventional petrol and diesel road vehicles. The newfound urgency of ‘cleaning up our act’ since the Paris Agreement and Dieselgate scandal suggests that we cannot just wait for the ‘technology fix’.
Read more: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12053-018-9678-9
Frankly I’m appalled that academics would recommend more cycling and walking journeys in a place like Scotland, without considering the likely consequences to human health. Summers in Scotland can be pleasant, but winters are frequently severe. Last March a security guard on a Scottish Windfarm tragically froze to death. Even people who think they are prepared are sometimes caught out by the Scottish weather. A car, even if you get stuck in the snow, can keep you alive in weather which would kill you if you were caught outside.
The study references climate unfriendly practices such as “binge flying” which would have to be curbed, and concepts such as “mobility injustice”, which presumably could be used to make car owners feel guilty about using their cars, and recommends the promotion of low carbon alternatives such as “cycling networks”.
I somehow doubt academics intend for the journey restrictions they recommend to be imposed on themselves. In 2014 University of Washington academics claimed enough air miles for a return journey to Mars. I haven’t got comparable figures for Oxford University, but I suspect Oxford University academic air miles would be just as spectacular as the University of Washington.
If they want to cycle me around town, I’m willing to give it a try.
OK Oxford Academics…
Lead the way by example and the next time I find myself in Oxford I’ll follow suit.
So much for the genius “academics'” analysis. Electricity is NOT a source of energy , it is a means of storage and transportation of energy. Electrifying anything will have zero impact on CO2 until you discuss how you are generating that EXTRA electricity.
If it means cutting down even more native US oak , drying it by burning gas and shipping to the UK to be burnt, using oil , I don’t see this reducing atmospheric CO2.
Well a professor living in mild Oxfordshire and walking across campus to get to work may find this desirable. Anyone used to the climate is Scotland will find it decidedly less attractive.
Typically academic total disconnection from reality.
Christian Brand is a Geographer, so what would you expect!!
When I was at Cambridge University in the 1960s we cycled or walked everywhere. Mostly flat land and short distances, and the only hill was on the way to the University farm. However when we went on other farm visits we could be travelling 40 miles or more, then what hope for bicycles? We used cars. Otherwise most of the afternoons would have been taken up cycling.
The dons often had college rooms, so walking across the quads was quite feasible.
That given, I must say that the traffic in Cambridge on a recent visit was horrific.
Stephen P – so was I. Yes indeed the morning dash along Trumpington Street on a racing bike was a refreshing way to start the day.
As you suggest, horses for courses. I wouldn’t want to do Perth to Aberdeen by bike on a wet January night
I’d just tell them “You first or shut your mouths”. Lack of patience on my part. I know.
They can just buy a jeepney from some shop in the Philippines and cart me around at my whim, in all weather on my demand. I deserve it more than they do.
They really do need to get over themselves. They are the biggest part of the problem.
There is a very old saying “By example shall you lead”
Oxford is pretty flat, Lots of places aren’t.
Most certainly much of Oxford is flat but try to pedal up Headington Hill ! Even Lance Armstrong at his ‘pharma-enhanced’ best might be out of the saddle.
Bring back the Litter and the Sedan chair, they’ll solve all of our problems.
Yeah, Ball.
We could try samlars like we used in Thailand, or maybe rickshaws.
Yeah, that’s it, uh huh!
Gums sends,,,,
“recommend more cycling and walking journeys in a place like Scotland, without considering the likely consequences to human health. Summers in Scotland can be pleasant, but winters are frequently severe”
Average lows in Glasgow are 2C. Most people in Scotland live in the Glasgow – Edbourgh corridor. You could bike year round. I was there (Glasgow) in 1962, and it was the first winter since WWII they got snow, or so they said.
I lived in the South of England for a while, way warmer than Scotland. Plenty of nasty weather days in winter, poor visibility, driving rain or sleet, freezing cold, lunatic drivers rushing home before the weather got worse. You can keep the bike.
No, the professor may keep the bike, and show us, without flying, petroleum, coal, or other fossil fuels, nor causing indirect carbon emissions, the way.
I’ll watch. I’ll keep curbing down my emissions by keeping away from cold Scotland.
Eric
I have a bike, both normal and an electric one. The latter is great fun and costs nothing to recharge once you buy a small solar panel.
I also do a lot of walking. Walking you can do no matter how bad the weather is. Cycling? Yes, there are many days or parts of days when a journey would be unpleasant or unproductive if you need to buy or transport something heavy or haven’t much time.
However, as well as potential bad weather let us add in HILLS! Most people of average fitness would find many of our Devon hills beyond their abilities to scale on a bike. So add in weather, time, traffic, load etc and the number of times a bike can be usefully used (other than for recreation) is relatively small
PS As far as Scotland goes, in the countryside you need to factor in midges in the summer. That alone may force you into a vehicle=preferably armoured
tonyb
When The They start practicing what they preach, I may sort of pay attention.
I’m in the ‘you first’ category – they set the example and stick with it. That means they walk everywhere, including to all those climate conferences they like to attend, and stop burning fuels and using stuff based on carbon, including consumption of alcoholic beverages, clothing made of synthetic and/or plant fibers, driving vehicles of any kind, and (finally) lighting and heating their homes with any kind of carbon-related substance at all, including kerosene and liquid propane and plastic solar cells and carbon resin wind turbines..
Then I will acknowledge their dedication and throw them a much-used and gnawed bone to chew on .
Thank you, Sara.
My thots exactly, and more.
I am like the guy in Independence Day, and place all my cans, cardboard, paper, empty tuna cans and such into the recycle comtainer on the curb that is emptied once a week, you know, “save the planet”
Until health problems, I grew a lotta our veggies.
When the Gores and others bycycle to a conference and use hand drawn charts on a pedastal, I might listen. Otherwise….
Gums sends…
Gums, I view “recycling” as an individual choice that means less landfill.
There is also the cash benefit of recycling. Aluminum cans such as soda cans or cat food cans bring $1.00/pound at the recycling center, so throwing them away is throwing away money. I asked at a recycling center about paper like newspapers, but they said they only accept loads of 5,000 to 10,000 pounds at the lowest level, so I just bag the newspapers separately and put them into the trash can, labeled “newspapers”.
There are times when it makes sense, and other times when rolling up a newspaper to use as a firestarter log makes more sense.
The problem with recycling is scaling and allocating resources within the system. Currently, the global recycling system is broken, mainly because China has refused to accept foreign waste. Single point of failure. Will take a while to fix…
See https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/recycling/blogs/soon-cant-ship-recycling-china-thats-problem
They don’t need to be as extreme as that. For example, the most common form of motorised transport is a 125 cc motorcycle.
Not only do they emit a fraction of the emissions of a big SUV, but also they require only very small areas for parking, and they take up very small parts of the road network.
I can’t see that encouraging people to walk or cycle when sensible, is such a bad thing in itself.
(leaving aside the CO2 crap).
Surely Scots know when it is safe to be outside for a while.
Maybe the improvement in health from exercise would far outweigh those that might succumb to hypothermia.
Jeff, I believe their pronouncement is based on a rather iconoclastic setting in which they exist. They assume that it is physically safe for everyone else to walk or take a bicycle. They don’t deal with the hazards of roads, traffic, weather or night & day periods of light and darkness. They are not affected by criminals in the shadows. They lead unimpacted lives.
Their pronouncement – good for thee, but I don’t have to – is a false narrative from occupants of an idyllic setting in which nothing ever goes wrong, everyone is nice to everyone else and everything is just fine.
I doubt that they even do their own laundry or clean their own homes.
“Average lows in Glasgow are 2C.” “Average”? So only go out on “average” days? And BTW, 2C is cold to many people. And you were there one winter 56 years ago and it was pleasant so that confirms your belief?
When I lived in Edinburgh, I recall visiting Glasgow a lot, and yes, it was pretty mild in winter, being on the west coast and benefiting from some of the warmth piped in from the Gulf of Mexico by the gulf stream. Edinburgh, on the other hand was quite chilly, and Aberdeen, you really don’t want to know how cold it gets in Aberdeen.
Coming from the flatlands of East Anglia, I was ready to cycle, but I almost never cycled in Edinburgh, it was way too hilly. Plus, at 56° north, there’s not a whole lot of daylight in winter and sharing badly lit, narrow streets with vehicular traffic in the dark was not my idea of fun (no LEDs in them days, just dim battery operated lamps). I just took the extra time and walked. Or drove, if it was raining (which, in my mutable recollection, was about 95 percent of the time). Buses were OK too.
But the question I need to answer, is why are these Oxford twits in their ivory tower preaching to Scotland? There are 10 times as many people in England. Are they all so green that they can tell us how to behave? Didn’t look that way last time I was there.
Not very skeptical demonstrates how to lie using statistics.
The original quote talks about extreme conditions, and NVS comes back with average lows.
Apples and oranges, as it is well aware.
One constant with trolls, they know the truth won’t support their position, which is why the never rely on it.
Just hope Algore never visits Glasgow. You know what happens then…..
He looks like a man who appreciates nutritious food. Surely he would enjoy a few fish suppers, mealy puddings and deep-fried Mars bars. He might keel over with a heart attack after a week or two of such high living though.
First winter since WWII?
It is astonishing the tripe you swallow, based on your beliefs.
Just this past winter; December 29th, 2017, “GLASGOW AIRPORT SUSPENDS ALL FLIGHTS DUE TO HEAVY SNOW”.
February 28th, 2018, “Glasgow in the snow – pictures as Beast of the East sweeps the city”.
These are just two recent winter storms.
Scotland, including Glasgow is known for wet windy cold weather. Conditions that easily freeze people through wind chill; especially if they’re at all wet.
&exph=2550&expw=3300&q=%2b%22wind+chill%22+%2bchart&simid=608036538185682932&selectedIndex=7
Green beans, watermelons and chock full of nuts. Next up- change human behavior to cook on an electric stove connected to solar panels – dinner daily, but only between 4-6pm and when there’s no clouds. Watermelons and canned nuts when there’s no “Ra generous sun watts”. “ Fasting for health on rainy days”,… cuddling for warmth since burning wood caveman style is so “un-green” and dispicablr Orwell’s,… where are you??
That stuff is funny Sparky!
Personally, the can contribute the most by kicking the bucket.
Sounds like mass dementia.
We know a professor of ‘environmental science’ in Australia.
He’s the most hypocritical human I’ve every met.
He knows he’s a hypocrite.
It doesn’t phase him.
His favourite is “the great unwashed are paying my bills”.
I concluded that ‘climate science’ is a belief system. Does this person wear a cassock?
In the church of orthodox science the cassock is the PhD.
The photo of Donald Trump shows him indicating the scale and total magnitude of whole IQ scored by all the entire team of Privileged Oxford Climate Change Professors. As out teenage son used to say “Wat a bunch of Losers”.
These folks spend way too much time in their ivory towers and on their summer vacations. Of course they don’t plan to abide by their own advice. Instead they expect someone in government to require everyone else to toe the line.
I spent most of my career in the field. Once at a federal regulatory public hearing the regulated community just wasn’t buying what the technocrats at the front table were selling. I was sitting in the audience but knew both the folks at the table and most of those in the audience. One federal bureaucrat finally asked why the audience was obvious not listen to what they were saying after all it was everyone’s own good. Half the audience raised up. One of the leaders told them what everyone was thinking. “None of you at the table have a clue. None of you have been out their with us.” He then turned, pointed at me and said, “some of us don’t like him but he has been out there with us; he has a good idea of what is going on. We will listen to him. Why don’t you people get out from behind your desk and get into the real world.”
Good!
REALLY!!
So how do they propose that I, a builder, make these alterations to my current transport use?
How do they propose that I, a coach at a sporting facility, travel from one side of town to the other (at my own cost of course) to give away my time (free of course) to those wanting to learn from me?
How do they propose that I cater to my cousin, who has dementia and in need of timely assistance, by me walking or cycling to his distant care facility?
How do they propose that in an emergency, the car that I would need to meet that emergency, and being looked upon by those watching me drive by (to the hospital) as though I should be reported for driving such a CO2 producing machine?
The word(s) I would like to use – to them – I am trying to give up, but they make it hard to keep from using them!
Plonkers!!!
I was working in Maputo, Moçambique at a construction site. A guy fell a couple of stories off the scaffolding onto his head with a loud crack – splitting his skull badly. We thought he was dead for sure. I was the only one present without a bicycle: fortunately it was a turbo-diesel pickup truck. In a few hectic and very stressful minutes emitting illegal quantities of NOx we managed to get him to the main hospital where we were met at the emerg by very competent staff who whisked him away and politely thanked me for helping.
He fully recovered. By bicycle, even by some possibly-existing ambulance, that outcome would have been unlikely. Life’s a bitch, but sometimes, thanks to private transport, you don’t die.
Yes but this isn’t about reality.
It’s signalling to others in academia in pursuit of recognition and status.
Most ‘environmental’ academics don’t mind and you don’t matter.
Until tax season rolls around, then you very much matter. Or rather, your money matters.
Just when you start wondering how out of touch and isolated these academics are…
….they come up with something to let you know
Scotland is sitting on a old age bomb….over 25% of their population is predicted to be old age very soon
…and who in their right mind would want to make Scotland colder?
I am still wondering why we wouldn’t want it a little warmer in most of the world. In my part of the world, even 5 degrees would be welcome on all but a very few days of the year.
Throw in a little extra moisture for good measure.
The folks at the University of Michigan have shown that sanctimonious true believes like these Oxford academics actually do LESS to save the planet that climate skeptics.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488
These hypocrites are just virtue signalling to their friends.
Lead by example, Oxford Dons.
If they wont, then they should be made to.
But it wont happen, because Britannia is lost.
Actually Oxford and Cambridge are relative havens for cyclists (the main hazard being other cyclists), and this may have led the academics there astray. Are they aware of the ring road around Oxford that carries most of the traffic?
Probably many of them drive it all the time in their fossil fueled cars. My answer to them is YOU FIRST!
In other words they embrace the socialist model.
The average person should not own a car or property. The average person will be told what to eat and when they will die…
The individual is worthless and only the hive mind is allowed…
Can anyone say UN Agenda 21?
And they are not even worried about their obvious socialist rant to be seen…
Catering companies will surely jump on board with this cycling idea. In fact, this concept works great for any person wishing to transport various objects in large quantities. Think of the weight loss and physical fitness possibilities, especially after you use your muscles to pull all your supplies, and THEN have to do the work of setting everything up and running an event.
Great idea. Just great idea. Bravo !
Oh, I forgot, … Oxford, … Crockford.
Molecules or clumps of cells?
Who even bothers to listen to these clowns anyway because every time there’s one asinine proposal or another, there’s a good chance it originated in a university. How does the line go: “It’s an idea that’s so stupid it’s certain to be embraced by some branch of academia.”
What about the increase in methane emission caused by cyclist flatulence?
Rickshaws!
(pedicabs)…
My wife and I took a pedicab in downtown Toronto in mid-winter when it was really cold. He gave us a warm blanket. It was really fun. But I don’t think it would be a substitute for much because of the rarity of fit, young, motivated and available youth to ped the pedals.
In Yogyakarta there are fabulous pedicabs with persistent old men pushing the cranks, but they couldn’t cope with sub-zero conditions.
Crispin,
Yes, my late wife and I caught a rickshaw back from a theatre to Charing Cross Station one December a few years ago.
The driver/engine was English, young and enthusiastic.
But I suspect that London rickshaws are fairly unusual – even today.
Auto
In Croydon.
Yeah I’m sure its bicycles and walking everywhere that AlGore, Tom Steyer, and all the other climate-woke elites imagine for themselves in a carbon restricted world.
Socialist thinkers never include themselves in the vast majority of those who will pay the price. They are special people, in their own minds at least and they therefore see themselves as deserving of being treated special. The USSR communist party bosses did not stand in the bread lines caused by their poorly performing government operated farms. Algore did not downsize his 25, 000 sq ft personal dwelling, he came up with “carbon credits” to screw even more common folks out of more money. Once you understand these people they are very predictable.
A question relevant to Al Gore. Who were the original shareholders of the CCX in Chicago? The Chicago Carbon Exchange, and when did he start it?
Is it true Suzuki was one of the original shareholders? Who else?
Next, Al said in 1992 that the debate was over, the science is in. Was there some coincidence in these two matters? I’d like to know the facts so I don’t mis-report. The testimony from independents and vested interests should be treated differently.
So Crispin Are you saying that we had only those 4 years between 1988 and 1992 to debate these guys. ? If true I will venture a guess that most of them refused to debate even in those 4 years before “the science was settled”.
Crispin,
From your comment I deduce that you know more about the origination of carbon credits than I. Sorry, I don’t know the answers to your questions. So far, though, my oil stocks have done better than carbon credits have from what I can determine. Plus they’ve also been more beneficial to the environment by assisting in greening the planet, providing jobs and inexpensive energy to all.
So the eggheads in there ivory tower look down to the gathered citizenry below and said in a united but unsteady voice —
“You’ve all been very wicked and will have to pay. No More vehicles!”
The alarmed crowd was dispersed by the finely dressed Master of Security and his equally richly attired Sergeant Master.
Fellow and Associate Professors turned away from the window pulling the heavy gold embroidered drapes closed. Shuffling unsteadily across the handmade carpet Dr Pagan Ass-Brand stumbled slightly, and upon regaining his composure retorted almost loudly, “Ungrateful bloody lot, let them eat croissant au beurre, that will teach them!”
Then turning to the steward beside him, his watery eye gleamed, as he asked,
“Any more of that 1962 Bual Madeira left?”
The irony is that as long as the earth has a fever industry promoters push their overblown con-game
the more fossil fuel use will increase . The scary climate chicken little has consumed it’s credibility ( if it ever had any ) and now it is tuned out .
Cambridge … what ever . Fossil fuel use can and will decrease just like all the other fuels which have come and gone but it isn’t going to be climate charlatans who are going to turn the tide .
If we knew fossil fuels were running out in 50 years or less is there any doubt nuclear plants would be
sprouting up as fast as they could be built .
Solar and Hydro would sprout, FTF!
The thing that we must repeat and stress on every occasion: Energy poverty is poverty. Everything depends on energy, somehow or other. If you don’t have it, you are poor. Everything else you have will sooner or later be reduced to nothing or worthlessness.
For those interested, energy poverty is not a reference to ‘not enough energy’ which could be termed an ‘energy deficit’. Energy poverty as defined by ESMAP at the World Bank means that 10% of net income is spent on energy in all forms. According to GIZ it means (or used to mean) 20% or more.
I have seen places where the expense reaches 30%. Typically when it reaches 25% the people change fuels, no matter what their circumstances. That may include burning plastic, garbage, tires and dry animal carcasses in an attempt to keep warm.
The single mother of 4 or 5 kids who confronted Trudeau in Peterborough at the town hall meeting is spending 15% of her take home pay on electricity alone, not all her energy. She makes CDN$55,000 per year and she is well into energy poverty as defined by the WB. Her cost is projected to double in the coming years, according to the government. She will be burning tires by then to keep the pipes from freezing.
I was bored and made an exception to examine (not bored enough to completely read, but I did see this [eco-driving]) a paper in a journal I never heard of (Energy Efficiency) on a subject out of my realm.
“However, there are some notable limitations of this study. The scenario modelling approach used here is suited to long-term studies of more radical socio-technical developments. As such, it is simulating the future rather than predicting it. However, the forecasting and prediction of the medium to long-term future beyond, say, 2025 based on historic values, habits and norms may be inappropriate and misleading if taken as ‘truth’ (for instance by policy makers). We believe that the more flexible scenario approach adopted here of developing structured and plausible ‘storylines’”……….
AND THEN THE LAST LINE OF THE PAPER—–“The newfound urgency of ‘cleaning up our act’ since the Paris Agreement and Dieselgate scandal suggests that we cannot just wait for the ‘technology fix’.”
They always give it away! We don’t know enough about what we studied, but we have to radically do it even if it might be historically wrong and we have to use propaganda, reasonably, of course. Kind of historically scary. As Edwin just gave an example they are in their cocoon, no offense to necessary uses in metamorphosis. Is there a depository for these contradictions somewhere?