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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So we’re not even TRYING to clean up the exhaust emissions any more?
Mazda, GM, and Bosch will be out in a year with radically cleaner internal combustion engines, including very clean diesels.
There is no thing as a clean diesel. You cant measure soot particles less than 5 nanometers. Soot particles at that size do more damage to your lungs than bigger particles do. Diesels are evil because of the soot.
Have you a reference for soot particles that size?
https://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/imarusic/proceedings/19/59.pdf
seems to say no.
Agreed, lee, JunkScience website deals with this very thoroughly. Completely bogus scare. Smoke from indoor cooking fires however is another matter.
Thanks for that study I didnt realize the chemistry of soot formation. However until the soot of diesels equals the soot from gasoline engines, diesels will always be more dangerous. Another point is that if the study wasnt conducted on the acceleration points from standing start then it isn’t completely valid. Diesels give off much more soot during the 1st part of accelerations.
AT: “Another point is that if the study wasnt conducted on the acceleration points from standing start then it isn’t completely valid. Diesels give off much more soot during the 1st part of accelerations.”
Here’s a passage from the Bosch statement that I linked to; it deals with that problem:
What about CO2? I thought the goal was to reduce CO2. (Not just soot particles)
Hmmm. From the link I provided, there is this quote: “[Bosch bigshot] Denner’s target for Bosch engineers is the development of a new generation of diesel and gasoline engines that produce no significant particulate or NOx emissions.
Alan Tomalty
The exhaust of the 2015 Cascadia Freight Liner with a Detroit diesel that I drive puts out less emissions than the ambient air quality found in most major metropolitan areas. IOW the truck I drive is actually cleaning the air in areas where air quality is poorer.
So many changes have come so quickly since 2004 in the pollution control systems on big truck diesels that any publication or study that is more than 2 years old on the subject is likely to be out of date.
And it’s not just the pollution control systems. Idle time is way down compared to just a few years ago. The truck I drive has a thing called “Idle management”. It works in conjunction with the battery powered environmental control system for the interior of the tractor. When I park I set it into the idle management mode. The environmental control battery bank located between the frame rails under the utility deck provides to power to run the Webasto type heater or the independent AC unit. The Webasto type heater is like a miniature fuel oil furnace burning only about 1 gallon per 10 hours of operation compared to the 1 gallon an hour one would burn to idle. When the environmental battery pack runs down, or on cold nights when the engine oil temperature drops below a certain level, the engine automatically starts and idles to recharge the batteries or warm up the engine and then shuts down.
I bet few here have noticed that the exhaust stacks on big trucks have been disappearing over the last few years. My 2015 has no stacks. That is because the exhaust is emitted from underneath like smaller vehicles. Now why do you think they can get away with that?
Thanks, Roger. I will look into setting aside some funds to invest in these Companies. 🙂
Mazda’s stock symbol is MZDAF; Bosch’s is BSWQY. GM’s is GM (I think). All for American markets.
PS: here’s a link to my WUWT comment providing links describing Mazda’s forthcoming SkyActiv-X gasoline engine with 30% more efficiency.
Oops–I forgot to include the link. Here:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4160855-tesla-q1-2018-deliveries-narrative-tells-tesla-trouble#comment-78166815
Let’s let the liberal professors lead the way by example. We’ll see how far that goes.
A Doctor of Philosophy no less. Why would he not be philosophically opposed.
Who said academics were totally impractical people? Oh I think that was me. Give ‘em a grant and they’ll spend it for you. When I was being educated I had respect for them. Now I struggle with that.
“Climate Science” is giving academia a bad name. Stop this nonsense!
So are Christian, Jillian and Craig walking the walk, or just talking the talk?
Put your money down….. as usual on anyone from Oxford. I want to see their last physical data!
C’mon, give it up!
The ‘Oxford Professors’ can spout off their carbon crap enviro-hippocracy (double entendre intended) to anyone who cares to listen.
Just stay the hell out of the way of the rest of us. We have real jobs and real concerns we must deal with everyday that just are not gonna get done twaddling along on foot or bicycle, like the impoverished residents of some 3rd world country.
This guy’s showing those Oxford sissies how it’s done.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1zEHGUgBw4A/VCfWRRbNhVI/AAAAAAAAH4k/y9SDl1ypUgg/s1600/wheelie%2Bwithout%2Bwheel.jpg
“Kick the Carbon Hobbit”…
They might as well be saying “Kick the Carbon Human”.
If these “Oxford Professors” are this stupid, they do a disservice to the institution they work for.
Yeah, Carbon is a habit or a just a hobby.
We use carbon fossil fuels because there is just so much energy stored in it. A liter of gas and a cubic metre of natural gas just produces a very efficient huge amount of energy. We don’t think about that enough but there is just massive amounts of energy in fossil fuels that can be liberated rather easily.
It is not a habit, it is a fact of chemistry and physics and our entire civilization is really built around that. Is a farm going to work with Solar powered combines?
Tonkien is Hobbit formin’.
The loud sound you can hear in America is probably that of Scots laughing at Sassenachs from Oxford telling them to walk a bit harder.
Why didn’t these profs suggest using electrified bikes, scooters, and Segways? (I don’t know if they would be more energy-efficient, but they might be. They’d surely cost less to buy than a car. They might substitute for a second car.)
You got this all wrong. The learned professors just want us to go back to traveling on horseback. The privileged few, that is. The rest can just walk, obviously. After all, this is Oxford.
…making fewer and shorter journeys, sharing existing journeys, or shifting to walking, cycling and clean public transport…
I recall a similar argument being used in a British comedy sketch:
…making fewer and shorter journeys, sharing existing journeys, or shifting to walking, cycling and clean public transport…
I’ve seen this argument used in a British comedy sketch:
Who, exactly, voted for “5-year carbon budgets?”
“Why didn’t these profs suggest using electrified bikes, scooters, and Segways? ”
Contrary to popular belief Scotland doesn’t get all that much snow, but icy roads on winter mornings are a regular issue. A four-wheel vehicle copes with this much better than does a two-wheel one.
Reading that bilge from the mad professors has made me go for a drive in my 56 year-old, 3.4L Jaguar.
It emits some 5% carbon monoxide, so it probably counts as “ low emissions” as far as CO2 is concerned.
Sounds and looks good too!
I know several people who more or less follow this advice. All are single males who are fine with cycling. They only need to carry one bag of groceries in their back pack and they are fine with taking 1.5 hours to get to work on their bike. Add a kid to that mix and suddeningly a car gets added to the household. Even they will say that in minus 35 temps in mid Jan in Saskatchewan they have second thought about getting on their bike to go to work.
The other aspect of this is that I suspect that there is a high correlation between these sort of academic hypocrites and the holidays and holiday homes they enjoy pontificating to the locals whose countries they visit on their richly unearned vacations. With this romantic and witless picture in their mind they instruct their lesser citizens in how they should accept self-harm and imprisonment to save the planet but have no intention of living that way themselves. Pretty much the rest of the climate alarmist community suffers from this same cant and deceitful thinking.
The term ‘academics’ used to imply some degree of intelligence.
It’s like some kind of integer overflow. At some point you get to be such a genius that you begin outsmarting yourself, and swing around the scale all the way back to Complete Idiot.
Have these people heard of a place called China? Maybe their globe is torn off in 2 because they are flat earthers anyway because of their stupid CO2 calculations that treat the earth as flat when they talk about sea ice minimum and maximum. These min and max occur near the equinox when almost no sunlight is reaching the pole. As Tony Heller says the whole concept of Arctic albedo is based on JUNK SCIENCE. The only time the pole can melt is June , July, and August. It will take 1 hell of a temperature rise to melt all that ice in 3 months. And even if it melts the sea level will not rise because the Arctic ice is already floating. Arctic ice has melted completely before and was as low in the 1930’s as today.
China puts 31% of the total mankind CO2 into the atmosphere, and as of the 1st quarter 2018 was increasing at the rate of 4% from last year which was a further 4% from the previous year and shows no sign of stopping even by 2030. India with almost as many people wont stop building coal plants. How does any reduction matter from the rest of the word combined? These professors at Oxford are like someone trying to plug a tiny hole in a dam when they are so busy on their tiny hole that they dont look up and see the whole dam coming apart at the seams. But what the professors really dont know is that there isnt any water in the dam anyway. The whole dam is a fairy tale to keep the climate funding and unfortunately a trillion $ carbon Ponzi scheme alive.
“How does any reduction matter from the rest of the word combined?” should read
How does any reduction matter from the rest of the world combined?
I sometimes drive to a breakfast place only 2.5 blocks from my house. And I don’t feel guilty at all. I might stop for gas or do other errands on the way back, but not usually. (at least I have that option).
Hell I used to run 70 miles per week until I burned myself out. I ran many marathons in the 1970s, including Boston and NYC. I thought I would be running for the rest of my life, but it didn’t work out that way.
– JPP
I pledge to give up hydrocarbons after these “brilliant” academics give up O2 for a month! Hydrocarbons are the worlds primary energy source and our civilization will crumble and vanish without them.
The main features of the weather putting off cyclists in Scotland are rain and wind, rather than extreme cold and ice. In the Winter, short days do not help either.
Of course, given that Scotland has less than 0.1% of the global population, and this paper deals with a part of one type of carbon emissions (i.e. transport) it has essentially nothing to do with reducing global emissions. It is instead about cultural change. Particularly changing Scottish cultural norms to the desired lifesyles of the authors.
Given the diversity of cultures across the planet, the findings from the study are likely not applicable to most of the rest of the world. Gives the authors and Scottish politicians a sense that they are doing something to combat climate change though.
They want the Scottish society to return to the late 18th- early 19th century when bicycles and horses were the prime mode of transportation. Give these guys shovels to clean up all their horse shit!
Correct. Rain plus wind is the deterrent. I’m nearly 60, and have always cycled to work, where possible. Current commute is 3.5 miles across Edinburgh, a doddle, and always quicker than the bus. Previous commute was 6 miles each way, and my old bike was scrapped at the 25,000 mile mark. This was never ‘too far’ even in bad weather, and I only had to resort to public transport when there was lots of snow/ice. Before that my work was 12 miles away, and at that distance I was definitely much more weather sensitive. Two long hauls per day in filthy weather was just too much, so I’d often take the train one way. Wind-driven sleet is really quite unpleasant, even worse in the dark. You get chilled by the melting and the evaporation at the same time.
Why do I cycle to work? Because I’m motivated to. I’ve done it since I was about 11 years old. I enjoy the exercise (keeps me fit for hillwalking), beating the traffic, and fact that it grants me beer credits. I would however deeply resent being told that I must cycle, or that I shouldn’t use my car when I choose to.
WOW….just wow….really?
“and on-road driving behaviour with high electrification ”
So cattle prods for road rage now? OR are the roads going to be electrified and run by an AI who will determine if your on road driving behaviour isn’t within the normal parameters?
See how if you take something out of context it seems ridiculous? Take note Oxford Academics….because the same can be done to your study.