Carbon Climate - activist

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for a good man to do nothing".

That's why I put Rick right on a regular basis.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

problem is that you have a population explosion whilst expectations catch up with improvements in mortality rates.

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax/
Clearly not an impartial source but they are quoting the UN stats.

Given the url, very clearly not impartial.

Fact is that the space on this planet and its resources are finite. So clearly there are limits to the number of people that can be sustained. Although before we get there, issues such as food and water shortages, conflict, etc will cause issues - such as those just starting to be seen in the migrations across the Med. When it comes to population, we need to think quality not quantity.

Nobody has suggested an infinite capacity to support life or even that population growth is something we never need to think about; just that the idea that there are currently too many people on the planet has no basis. If we have enough farmland to feed everyone in this country - which a lot of people are convinced is massively overcrowded - then maybe we don't need to hope for another Black Death or nuclear holocaust like Rolf. It's been pointed out that the higher birthrate in the developing world is a response to higher mortality and that improved healthcare reduces the latter and therefore the incentive for the former.

Most famines are man made occurrences, not the result of over population. The migration seen in the Mediterranean is not driven by population numbers but mostly politically motivated civil wars.

Not sure what you're getting at with the last sentence

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

When it comes to population, we need to think quality not quantity.

Eeeer what?

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

When it comes to population, we need to think quality not quantity.

Eeeer what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Winnowing

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

problem is that you have a population explosion whilst expectations catch up with improvements in mortality rates.

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax/
Clearly not an impartial source but they are quoting the UN stats.

Given the url, very clearly not impartial.

Fact is that the space on this planet and its resources are finite. So clearly there are limits to the number of people that can be sustained. Although before we get there, issues such as food and water shortages, conflict, etc will cause issues - such as those just starting to be seen in the migrations across the Med. When it comes to population, we need to think quality not quantity.

Nobody has suggested an infinite capacity to support life or even that population growth is something we never need to think about; just that the idea that there are currently too many people on the planet has no basis. If we have enough farmland to feed everyone in this country - which a lot of people are convinced is massively overcrowded - then maybe we don't need to hope for another Black Death or nuclear holocaust like Rolf. It's been pointed out that the higher birthrate in the developing world is a response to higher mortality and that improved healthcare reduces the latter and therefore the incentive for the former.

Most famines are man made occurrences, not the result of over population. The migration seen in the Mediterranean is not driven by population numbers but mostly politically motivated civil wars.

Not sure what you're getting at with the last sentence

Should have made that last part clearer - quality of life, which will be adversely impacted by ever higher population levels.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

bompington wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Or we'll just nuke ourselves.
Hopefully the former - we aren't very important as animals on this earth so the ideal outcome is that we render ourselves extinct whilst causing the other species minimum hassle in the process. The earth would be duly grateful to be shot of us.

I suppose that at least the anti-humanist movement have some sort of logic in their arguments, but the idea that things would somehow be "better" without mankind is a proposition that opens up a whole can of philosophical worms.

Better for whom?

What does "better" actually mean in the absence of anyone to judge it? If a tree is saved in a forest and there's nobody on the planet to hear it, did it really happen?

Are there any other species that should be eradicated in search of ecological purity?

What on earth does "we aren't very important" mean in this context, and who gets to judge?

What duty do we owe to other species to keep them free from hassle?

Why on earth do apparently sensible people, often ones who are quick to knock religion and superstition, subscribe to the fantasy that the earth is some sort of sentient being?

I am genuinely concerned at the misanthropy (literally, as in hatred of mankind, which is the only possible interpretation of your post) and nihilism that's going around in the name of environmentalism at the moment.

Not a hatred of mankind and certainly not the only possible interpretation of my post. Just the rational observation that as creatures at the top of the food chain we benefit nobody but ourselves. We are making a right mess of the planet and we may well wipe ourselves and much of our fellow creatures out in the process. We won't be missed.

Rationally, once you get past the selfish angle, it is clearly best for the planet if we either manage to wipe ourselves out or at least most of ourselves out so the earth can revert to something a lot nicer. Why should I care more about the life of a human in 1000 years time than a butterfly in 1000 years?

We are destroyers. Don't get me wrong; I love the architecture we have created and the music etc etc but when you look at our attitude to climate change and failing biodiversity then that is where is only one conclusion.

I don't regard the Earth as a sentient being - I regard it as a beautiful thing that we are ruining because wetwipes are soooo convenient etc. As a species we are trailer trash.

I'm genuinely not sure whether you believe this tosh. We may not care enough about our environment but no other species cares at all. They simply follow the instincts with which evolution has furnished them.

Sorry - but what has that got to do with anything? Why do other creatures need to care about the environment; they aren't harming it.

Why do you say it is tosh? If, in 1000 years the earth is a beautiful mix of habitats with lots of creatures co-existing happily and people largely absent from it - why is that a bad thing compared to a planet that has been screwed up by our wastefulness? I can see no logical argument that the Earth is better for our existence on it.
The idea that stuff like this is tosh is why we are in this mess. The depressing presumption that the world is ours to do with what we like is pretty disappointing really. Yes, we can screw it up - we are bigger and badder than the other animals and so we can kill them all if we want to (and, sadly, that is precisely what we do want to do (as a species, not I am sure the folk on this forum but we aren't representative) and will continue to do - eg see Brazil). Only of course by doing that we end up killing ourselves off as well. Hence the line that it is better if we can manage to kill ourselves off without killing everything else off as well. The former is almost inevitable - the latter might be avoided.
Of course, the irony is that the mindset that the planet is ours to do with what we will is exactly why we are in this mess. And personally I think that the idea that we can tech our way out of it and everyone on the planet can have new iphones every year is a very misguided one though who knows, it might work. Big gamble though. I'm glad I won't have to live in that world though - it sounds terrible.

rolf_f

Pinno wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

As a species we have become parasitical.

FTFY

Parasites that are highly evolved, don't kill their host.

Has anyone read this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13107199

and are you going to do something? If not, why not?

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for a good man to do nothing".

Yes, but we are killing our host(s). We vote for people like Bolsonaro, and Trump and Johnson and in future will vote for a lot more of them etc etc. And we think it is pretty bad now but I suspect we have seen nothing yet. A few decades worth of leadership like that will do damage that will make the current situation look like nothing at all.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I find it interesting how no one is interested in a discussion on solutions. It is either impossible or reduced to something should be done now. I find that something fascinating.

In my mind is it not a case of creating the right regulatory and tax/subsidy framework that, in theory, irons out the undervalued negative and positive externalities and then getting society to buy into that.

If, for example, there was a bigger premium placed on coal, gas and oil burning, it would be more cost effective (albeit still more expensive than before), to look for more renewable or at least carbon efficient energy. If the public have bought into that, then great.

There could be some international carrot & stick structures in place to help persuade places like Brazil or Russia to take deforestation seriously.

I understand the govt is putting resource into examining how to change the energy system in our home heating to move away from gas to, say, hydrogen, but it requires so much investment a big change on how people do things that someone needs to lead the debate and say "something needs to change, here are the options, which do people want." so the UK pop. can get used to the idea, but no politician is incentivised to do that.

Hydrogen is very interesting. Cover Australia in solar panels and electrolysers, and export liquid hydrogen around the world. This is something Australia's former top scientist was advising and something Shell is looking at as a replacement for LNG. There are still some efficiency glitches that need to be ironed out (hydrogen liquifies at a much lower temperature than natural gas), but it is almost possible.

As to how government incentives it, the Committee on Climate Change is agnostic between the freemarket approach you describe and more direct intervention. It all requires approval whilst in the EU though.

On a domestic level it's relatively straightforward to replace a gas central heating boiler with an electric one. The main disincentive for Joe Public is that at the moment gas is cheaper than electricity. Obviously that doesn't deal with large scale heating.

Can large ones use hydrogen instead?

rick_chasey

Can we just back up for a minute.

What on earth are people saying about hoping 90% of the population dies or that it's "quality" of the population and not "quantity"?

With the first one; do you really want billions of people to die? Are you nuts? Have you thought this through? is it that you're holding the earth higher than the human race? is that it?

And what does "quality of population not quantity" actually mean? Spell it out, because it sounds like something I'm assuming isn't meant....

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

bompington wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Or we'll just nuke ourselves.
Hopefully the former - we aren't very important as animals on this earth so the ideal outcome is that we render ourselves extinct whilst causing the other species minimum hassle in the process. The earth would be duly grateful to be shot of us.

I suppose that at least the anti-humanist movement have some sort of logic in their arguments, but the idea that things would somehow be "better" without mankind is a proposition that opens up a whole can of philosophical worms.

Better for whom?

What does "better" actually mean in the absence of anyone to judge it? If a tree is saved in a forest and there's nobody on the planet to hear it, did it really happen?

Are there any other species that should be eradicated in search of ecological purity?

What on earth does "we aren't very important" mean in this context, and who gets to judge?

What duty do we owe to other species to keep them free from hassle?

Why on earth do apparently sensible people, often ones who are quick to knock religion and superstition, subscribe to the fantasy that the earth is some sort of sentient being?

I am genuinely concerned at the misanthropy (literally, as in hatred of mankind, which is the only possible interpretation of your post) and nihilism that's going around in the name of environmentalism at the moment.

Not a hatred of mankind and certainly not the only possible interpretation of my post. Just the rational observation that as creatures at the top of the food chain we benefit nobody but ourselves. We are making a right mess of the planet and we may well wipe ourselves and much of our fellow creatures out in the process. We won't be missed.

Rationally, once you get past the selfish angle, it is clearly best for the planet if we either manage to wipe ourselves out or at least most of ourselves out so the earth can revert to something a lot nicer. Why should I care more about the life of a human in 1000 years time than a butterfly in 1000 years?

We are destroyers. Don't get me wrong; I love the architecture we have created and the music etc etc but when you look at our attitude to climate change and failing biodiversity then that is where is only one conclusion.

I don't regard the Earth as a sentient being - I regard it as a beautiful thing that we are ruining because wetwipes are soooo convenient etc. As a species we are trailer trash.

I'm genuinely not sure whether you believe this tosh. We may not care enough about our environment but no other species cares at all. They simply follow the instincts with which evolution has furnished them.

Sorry - but what has that got to do with anything? Why do other creatures need to care about the environment; they aren't harming it.

Why do you say it is tosh? If, in 1000 years the earth is a beautiful mix of habitats with lots of creatures co-existing happily and people largely absent from it - why isn't that a bad thing compared to a planet that has been screwed up by our wastefulness? I can see no logical argument that the Earth is better for our existence on it.
The idea that stuff like this is tosh is why we are in this mess. The arrogant presumption that the world is ours to do with what we like is pretty disgusting really. Yes, we can screw it up - we are bigger and badder than the other animals and so we can kill them all if we want to (and, sadly, that is precisely what we do want to do - eg see Brazil). Only of course by doing that we end up killing ourselves off as well. Hence the line that it is better if we can manage to kill ourselves off without killing everything else off as well. The former is almost inevitable - the latter might be avoided.
The complacency of some folk astounds me.

Plants and animals don't co-exist happily, they compete for food and try to procreate the same as us. A deer has no understanding that it's feeding habits affect the viability of hundreds of other species. Algae kills off the other plants and animals in a pond. Globally and on a relatively short timescale there is an appearance of a sort of equilibrium, but over longer timescales it is constantly changing and individual species decline, prosper and evolve, causing and responding to that change. If they are very successful at procreating then they tend to locally change their environment just as we do. Sometimes as with the evolution of photosynthesis a particularly successful species can fundamentally change the planet. The only difference is that we tend to do it through thoughtlessness rather than instinct. Conversely we appear to be the only living things that give it any thought at all.

This is not for a moment to suggest that we should not seek to reduce the multiple negative impacts we are having on the environment, whether that is for our own wellbeing or more altruistic reasons. But I think misanthropic ideas that the world would be 'better' without us are unhelpful (because it makes it easier for climate change deniers to dismiss calls for action) as are suggestions that some species are more worthy of preservation than others. As for whether any of it is beautiful, yes it is, but that beauty only exists in our heads. In environmental terms, that we consider something beautiful is of no consequence whatsoever. There are plenty of ugly species.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can we just back up for a minute.

What on earth are people saying about hoping 90% of the population dies or that it's "quality" of the population and not "quantity"?

With the first one; do you really want billions of people to die? Are you nuts? Have you thought this through? is it that you're holding the earth higher than the human race? is that it?

And what does "quality of population not quantity" actually mean? Spell it out, because it sounds like something I'm assuming isn't meant....

Stevo's covered that - don't worry he's not a mad eugenicist.

rick_chasey

Yeah fine but who's deciding who gets to have kids and who doesn't?

Ridiculous comment.

Anyone who is actually serious and 'population' control isn't really getting what the challenge is.

But then, maybe from a boomer who's already done his reproductive bit it's probably not surprising. In keeping with the generation's vibe.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I find it interesting how no one is interested in a discussion on solutions. It is either impossible or reduced to something should be done now. I find that something fascinating.

In my mind is it not a case of creating the right regulatory and tax/subsidy framework that, in theory, irons out the undervalued negative and positive externalities and then getting society to buy into that.

If, for example, there was a bigger premium placed on coal, gas and oil burning, it would be more cost effective (albeit still more expensive than before), to look for more renewable or at least carbon efficient energy. If the public have bought into that, then great.

There could be some international carrot & stick structures in place to help persuade places like Brazil or Russia to take deforestation seriously.

I understand the govt is putting resource into examining how to change the energy system in our home heating to move away from gas to, say, hydrogen, but it requires so much investment a big change on how people do things that someone needs to lead the debate and say "something needs to change, here are the options, which do people want." so the UK pop. can get used to the idea, but no politician is incentivised to do that.

Hydrogen is very interesting. Cover Australia in solar panels and electrolysers, and export liquid hydrogen around the world. This is something Australia's former top scientist was advising and something Shell is looking at as a replacement for LNG. There are still some efficiency glitches that need to be ironed out (hydrogen liquifies at a much lower temperature than natural gas), but it is almost possible.

As to how government incentives it, the Committee on Climate Change is agnostic between the freemarket approach you describe and more direct intervention. It all requires approval whilst in the EU though.

On a domestic level it's relatively straightforward to replace a gas central heating boiler with an electric one. The main disincentive for Joe Public is that at the moment gas is cheaper than electricity. Obviously that doesn't deal with large scale heating.

Can large ones use hydrogen instead?

Don't know. Quite possibly. A massive investment on upgrading the thermal performance of our existing building stock would reduce the need for heating as well. Again, at the moment it's cheaper to burn more gas than insulate.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can we just back up for a minute.

What on earth are people saying about hoping 90% of the population dies or that it's "quality" of the population and not "quantity"?

With the first one; do you really want billions of people to die? Are you nuts? Have you thought this through? is it that you're holding the earth higher than the human race? is that it?

And what does "quality of population not quantity" actually mean? Spell it out, because it sounds like something I'm assuming isn't meant....

Stevo's covered that - don't worry he's not a mad eugenicist.

I'll take that as a compliment RJS

Although you have to wonder if Rick actually reads what other people post before getting on his little soap box and voing off on a tangent to the actual discussion. (Rick - read the thread properly and try again).

I'm waiting for Lagrange to start that vote he mentioned in another thread. But in the meantime I'm off to reduce my carbon footprint by lounging next to the pool and supping some locally sourced drinks

bompington

Rolf F wrote:

Sorry - but what has that got to do with anything? Why do other creatures need to care about the environment; they aren't harming it.

Why do you say it is tosh? If, in 1000 years the earth is a beautiful mix of habitats with lots of creatures co-existing happily and people largely absent from it - why is that a bad thing compared to a planet that has been screwed up by our wastefulness? I can see no logical argument that the Earth is better for our existence on it.
The idea that stuff like this is tosh is why we are in this mess. The depressing presumption that the world is ours to do with what we like is pretty disappointing really. Yes, we can screw it up - we are bigger and badder than the other animals and so we can kill them all if we want to (and, sadly, that is precisely what we do want to do (as a species, not I am sure the folk on this forum but we aren't representative) and will continue to do - eg see Brazil). Only of course by doing that we end up killing ourselves off as well. Hence the line that it is better if we can manage to kill ourselves off without killing everything else off as well. The former is almost inevitable - the latter might be avoided.
Of course, the irony is that the mindset that the planet is ours to do with what we will is exactly why we are in this mess. And personally I think that the idea that we can tech our way out of it and everyone on the planet can have new iphones every year is a very misguided one though who knows, it might work. Big gamble though. I'm glad I won't have to live in that world though - it sounds terrible.

As always, the straw man.

Holding the opinion "I don't think it's a good idea to eradicate mankind" is not the same as "I want to belch out all the pollutants I can because I don't care if we destroy the environment".

bompington

Talking of carbon footprints, anyone notice the jolly little "we're flying economy" troll perpetrated by the Cambridges on their (alleged) royal rivals?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can we just back up for a minute.

What on earth are people saying about hoping 90% of the population dies or that it's "quality" of the population and not "quantity"?

With the first one; do you really want billions of people to die? Are you nuts? Have you thought this through? is it that you're holding the earth higher than the human race? is that it?

And what does "quality of population not quantity" actually mean? Spell it out, because it sounds like something I'm assuming isn't meant....

Stevo's covered that - don't worry he's not a mad eugenicist.

I'll take that as a compliment RJS

Although you have to wonder if Rick actually reads what other people post before getting on his little soap box and voing off on a tangent to the actual discussion. (Rick - read the thread properly and try again).

I'm waiting for Lagrange to start that vote he mentioned in another thread. But in the meantime I'm off to reduce my carbon footprint by lounging next to the pool and supping some locally sourced drinks

Yeah you're saying you want to limit populations to improve the quality of life (on some bizarro assumption that they are inversely correlated. Would suggest having kids is often the most fulfilling part of peoples' lives).

So how do you propose to do this.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can we just back up for a minute.

What on earth are people saying about hoping 90% of the population dies or that it's "quality" of the population and not "quantity"?

With the first one; do you really want billions of people to die? Are you nuts? Have you thought this through? is it that you're holding the earth higher than the human race? is that it?

And what does "quality of population not quantity" actually mean? Spell it out, because it sounds like something I'm assuming isn't meant....

Stevo's covered that - don't worry he's not a mad eugenicist.

I'll take that as a compliment RJS

Although you have to wonder if Rick actually reads what other people post before getting on his little soap box and voing off on a tangent to the actual discussion. (Rick - read the thread properly and try again).

I'm waiting for Lagrange to start that vote he mentioned in another thread. But in the meantime I'm off to reduce my carbon footprint by lounging next to the pool and supping some locally sourced drinks

Yeah you're saying you want to limit populations to improve the quality of life (on some bizarro assumption that they are inversely correlated. Would suggest having kids is often the most fulfilling part of peoples' lives).

So how do you propose to do this.

In fairness, Rick, you have suggested that improved healthcare reduces the birthrate yourself.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can we just back up for a minute.

What on earth are people saying about hoping 90% of the population dies or that it's "quality" of the population and not "quantity"?

With the first one; do you really want billions of people to die? Are you nuts? Have you thought this through? is it that you're holding the earth higher than the human race? is that it?

And what does "quality of population not quantity" actually mean? Spell it out, because it sounds like something I'm assuming isn't meant....

Stevo's covered that - don't worry he's not a mad eugenicist.

I'll take that as a compliment RJS

Although you have to wonder if Rick actually reads what other people post before getting on his little soap box and voing off on a tangent to the actual discussion. (Rick - read the thread properly and try again).

I'm waiting for Lagrange to start that vote he mentioned in another thread. But in the meantime I'm off to reduce my carbon footprint by lounging next to the pool and supping some locally sourced drinks

Yeah you're saying you want to limit populations to improve the quality of life (on some bizarro assumption that they are inversely correlated. Would suggest having kids is often the most fulfilling part of peoples' lives).

So how do you propose to do this.

In fairness, Rick, you have suggested that improved healthcare reduces the birthrate yourself.

Sure but that’s not enforced. It’s a trend that’s pretty universal.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

Don't know. Quite possibly. A massive investment on upgrading the thermal performance of our existing building stock would reduce the need for heating as well. Again, at the moment it's cheaper to burn more gas than insulate.

Once the UK has a non single issue government, perhaps some focus can be put on insulation and incentivising it.

I'm still pretty positive and think the world is closer to changing than people think. 10 years ago, I thought the 2020 renewable targets were totally unachievable, but I was wrong. The UK is now a leading expert in offshore wind and has a large amount of solar.

bompington

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Don't know. Quite possibly. A massive investment on upgrading the thermal performance of our existing building stock would reduce the need for heating as well. Again, at the moment it's cheaper to burn more gas than insulate.

Once the UK has a non single issue government, perhaps some focus can be put on insulation and incentivising it.

I'm still pretty positive and think the world is closer to changing than people think. 10 years ago, I thought the 2020 renewable targets were totally unachievable, but I was wrong. The UK is now a leading expert in offshore wind and has a large amount of solar.

Easy to forget when you're trying to counter the anti-human propaganda that carbon emissions can decline, will decline, and are declining - when technology and economics make it possible.

There is plenty of evidence that to reduce environmental impact you either have to go above a certain prosperity threshold, or way, way below it.

Greta and her acolytes appear to want the latter, but I know what I'd prefer.

rjsterry

Rick Chased wrote:

Sure but that’s not enforced. It’s a trend that’s pretty universal.

I don't think anyone mentioned enforcing anything.

Anyway, as some have been commenting on how the developing world can reconcile improving living standards with reduced Cost emissions, I was interested to read about the use of PV by the Indian Railways. They have trialled trains powered by PV panels on the roof and are also looking at solar farms alongside the tracks.

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Don't know. Quite possibly. A massive investment on upgrading the thermal performance of our existing building stock would reduce the need for heating as well. Again, at the moment it's cheaper to burn more gas than insulate.

Once the UK has a non single issue government, perhaps some focus can be put on insulation and incentivising it.

I'm still pretty positive and think the world is closer to changing than people think. 10 years ago, I thought the 2020 renewable targets were totally unachievable, but I was wrong. The UK is now a leading expert in offshore wind and has a large amount of solar.

Easy to forget when you're trying to counter the anti-human propaganda that carbon emissions can decline, will decline, and are declining - when technology and economics make it possible.

There is plenty of evidence that to reduce environmental impact you either have to go above a certain prosperity threshold, or way, way below it.

Greta and her acolytes appear to want the latter, but I know what I'd prefer.

Can you not do a bit of both? Eating less meat doesn't necessarily reflect a reduction in prosperity. Nor do other changes in our habits.

bompington

rjsterry wrote:

Can you not do a bit of both? Eating less meat doesn't necessarily reflect a reduction in prosperity. Nor do other changes in our habits.

Absolutely, I wouldn't and didn't disagree.

Although meat is a bit more complicated than the simplistic views: I'm looking forward to seeing the coos replaced by edomame beans in my local pastures:

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Can you not do a bit of both? Eating less meat doesn't necessarily reflect a reduction in prosperity. Nor do other changes in our habits.

Absolutely, I wouldn't and didn't disagree.

Although meat is a bit more complicated than the simplistic views: I'm looking forward to seeing the coos replaced by edomame beans in my local pastures:

Of course; it always is.

rjsterry

Here's that article on solar farms directly powering rail lines.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... solar-farm

I believe Network Rail still own lots of long thin strips of lineside land, which could be put to use in this way and are not much good for anything else.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

Here's that article on solar farms directly powering rail lines.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... solar-farm

I believe Network Rail still own lots of long thin strips of lineside land, which could be put to use in this way and are not much good for anything else.

I'm not sure installing on thin strips makes sense. Lots of shading, costly to install and potentially huge losses as the cable runs will be very long. I imagine Network Rail still has lots of other space though. They could start by swapping Euston's car park on the roof for solar panels.

Ben6899

Network Rail is the largest land owner in the UK.

rjsterry

Ben6899 wrote:

Network Rail is the largest land owner in the UK.

Are you measuring that in some way other than area as I'm pretty sure the Forestry Commission is way ahead of everyone.

https://www.lovemoney.com/gallerylist/7 ... s-revealed

HaydenM can confirm. Given the National Trust is at no.2, they should probably get involved as well.

TheBigBean

Ben6899 wrote:

Network Rail is the largest land owner in the UK.

A quick google reveals it is not in the top 10.