Decarbonising transport

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6229
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Decarbonising transport

Post by madd0ct0r » 2020-04-20 04:59pm

Seen on an XR board
How to engage with us We will listen to transport users, collecting data and feedback on their travel preferences and choices through regular surveys and research. We will build on this knowledge to inform our decarbonisation work through workshops, regional engagement sessions and public feedback opportunities. We especially want to hear how the sector, those who use and rely on it, as well as the wider public and the Government can take the steps needed to support an accelerated shift to zero emission transport. We intend to host a series of workshops to work with stakeholders and representative groups to generate and test policy proposals. We will launch a public feedback opportunity for transport users and stakeholders to feed in their views on decarbonising transport, and we will conduct market research to gather data on public behaviours and inform how policy can be most effective. You can share your views on decarbonising transport, register for regular updates on the progress of the Transport Decarbonisation Plan and register your interest for the workshops by emailing TDP@dft.gov.uk as well as by following @transportgovuk on twitter.

White paper here: Worth a read. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... llenge.pdf

In terms of policy and kicking at open doors, we should be campaigning ton #killthecommute, targeting car factories producing old lines, we should be shaming green businesses and house builders that do not have charging ports, we should campaign to let airlines go bust not bailed, let grass grow over heathrow. We should be targeting ship builders producing big chugger engines that can't be retrofitted and will be polluting for decades to come.
Ignoring the protest bits the report is interesting. The big problem now is cars. The future one is delivery vans and aviation.

Thoughts?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee

User avatar
Zor
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5874
Joined: 2004-06-08 03:37am

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by Zor » 2020-04-22 05:38am

A good thing to do which can be done right away is electification of railways. The USSR managed to largely electrify it's rail network despite it's economic issues.

Zor
HAIL ZOR! WE'LL BLOW UP THE OCEAN!
Heros of Cybertron-HAB-Keeper of the Vicious pit of Allosauruses-King Leighton-I, United Kingdom of Zoria: SD.net World/Tsar Mikhail-I of the Red Tsardom: SD.net Kingdoms
WHEN ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE ON EARTH, ALL EARTH BREAKS LOOSE ON HELL
http://zortropolis.myminicity.com/
http://zortropolis.myminicity.com/ind
http://zortropolis.myminicity.com/tra
Terran Sphere
The Art of Zor

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7753
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by ray245 » 2020-04-22 06:31am

madd0ct0r wrote:
2020-04-20 04:59pm
Ignoring the protest bits the report is interesting. The big problem now is cars. The future one is delivery vans and aviation.

Thoughts?
Letting airlines go bust will essentially drive up the cost of flight tickets and essentially weaken and destroy many tourist-related industries. Which is probably a good thing, but there are some downside.

Air-travel and tourism will once again become the privilege of the upper class, and further limit the growth potential of the developing countries that are not able to rely on any other sections to boost their development.

I think part of the problem with many environmental groups is it is still a predominately driven by well-off, western people who are less likely to experience the economic disruption compared to the people in the developing world. Decarbonising transport and reduce our reliance on fossil fuel should be an absolute goal, but it needs more input from people from developing countries that are going to be the ones most severely affected by climate change.

You need to find ways to ensure more equitable wealth distribution between the developed world and the developing world, because poverty will make the developing nations extremely vulnerable to a host of other threats besides climate change.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6229
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by madd0ct0r » 2020-04-23 05:56am

ray245 wrote:
2020-04-22 06:31am
madd0ct0r wrote:
2020-04-20 04:59pm
Ignoring the protest bits the report is interesting. The big problem now is cars. The future one is delivery vans and aviation.

Thoughts?
Letting airlines go bust will essentially drive up the cost of flight tickets and essentially weaken and destroy many tourist-related industries. Which is probably a good thing, but there are some downside.

Air-travel and tourism will once again become the privilege of the upper class, and further limit the growth potential of the developing countries that are not able to rely on any other sections to boost their development.

I think part of the problem with many environmental groups is it is still a predominately driven by well-off, western people who are less likely to experience the economic disruption compared to the people in the developing world. Decarbonising transport and reduce our reliance on fossil fuel should be an absolute goal, but it needs more input from people from developing countries that are going to be the ones most severely affected by climate change.

You need to find ways to ensure more equitable wealth distribution between the developed world and the developing world, because poverty will make the developing nations extremely vulnerable to a host of other threats besides climate change.
There's a certain irony for somewhere like the Maldives that depends on air tourism but will also be destroyed by climate change.
Of course there's a long history of environmental destruction from rampant tourism costa del sol onwards and it's rare the benefits are equitable: my own bitter experience with resorts displacing fishermen and golf courses overrunning farmers.

Does tourism ever lead to stable development and qol improvement for the poorest?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7753
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by ray245 » 2020-04-23 06:46am

madd0ct0r wrote:
2020-04-23 05:56am
There's a certain irony for somewhere like the Maldives that depends on air tourism but will also be destroyed by climate change.
Of course there's a long history of environmental destruction from rampant tourism costa del sol onwards and it's rare the benefits are equitable: my own bitter experience with resorts displacing fishermen and golf courses overrunning farmers.

Does tourism ever lead to stable development and qol improvement for the poorest?
I am not saying tourism is the ideal industry by any stretch, but they are some of the only forms of wealth transfer from well-off developed world to the developing world. In a competitive global system where the line between being well-off to prevent starvation and starving to death, the only "value" many of those places have lies in their ability to generate wealth, and mostly due to their scenery.

Fisherman and farmers are already being displaced by larger and wealthier nations infringing on their lands in other ways, or disrupt and reduce the value of their crops and produce through competitive pricing. And that's without tourism.

Right now, wealth at the very least allows those benefiting from it to have an option to migrate elsewhere. Because the right of migration is utterly tied to people's wealth. ( If you are well-off to afford an education to get jobs developed countries need, you are allowed to move in but if you are an "unskilled employee" you aren't welcomed)
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8697
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by Starglider » 2020-04-24 10:53am

Airliners powered by cryogenic hydrogen have been extensively studied and are perfectly viable, in both gas turbine and fuel cell versions. The industry is just horrified at the prospect of having to replace all the aircraft and ground fueling infrastructure, at huge capital cost. If the carbon tax rate was sufficiently high, it would be done. However the voting population would lose access to cheap overseas holidays for a decade or so during the transition, a lot of airport capacity would be mothballed, and many aircrew would be unemployed. A combination of moderate tax and (initially) heavy subsidy of zero emission aircraft would be more viable.

User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20810
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by K. A. Pital » 2020-04-24 03:23pm

Just don’t bail out the airline industry & use the money to subsidize rail. As suggested. End of story.

Not gonna happen, because capitalism, but hey.

All the other ideas including meekest „oh but muh profits“ stuff from Starglider likewise won’t work, and nobody cares for zero-emissions aircraft even if weren’t a total pipe dream, anyway, neither the capitalists nor their lackeys-slash-buddies, the regulators.

What more can I say? You better live above that sea level, guys. I‘m dead serious.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali

chimericoncogene
Padawan Learner
Posts: 291
Joined: 2018-04-25 09:12am

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by chimericoncogene » 2020-04-27 12:56pm

ray245 wrote:
2020-04-23 06:46am


I am not saying tourism is the ideal industry by any stretch, but they are some of the only forms of wealth transfer from well-off developed world to the developing world. In a competitive global system where the line between being well-off to prevent starvation and starving to death, the only "value" many of those places have lies in their ability to generate wealth, and mostly due to their scenery.

Fisherman and farmers are already being displaced by larger and wealthier nations infringing on their lands in other ways, or disrupt and reduce the value of their crops and produce through competitive pricing. And that's without tourism.

Right now, wealth at the very least allows those benefiting from it to have an option to migrate elsewhere. Because the right of migration is utterly tied to people's wealth. ( If you are well-off to afford an education to get jobs developed countries need, you are allowed to move in but if you are an "unskilled employee" you aren't welcomed)
Bullcrap. People can move their labor-intensive polluting factories to poor countries with surplus labor, adequate education systems, lax but hopefully-consistent regulations (or lack thereof), and tolerable infrastructure.

That is the best and most sustainable model of economic growth for the developing world.

Sure, you need a competent government, and you'll be cleaning up the mess for decades afterward, but at least your country will have capital and machines to clean the mess up with instead of being stuck in the agricultural age.

Everyone has something of value. It might be in their dirt, it might be in their manpower. But adequately managed, people can generate capital until the day automation becomes so cheap that humans everywhere get outcompeted - and that's where you get a whole series of new problems.

The idea that migration is the best way to generate wealth is just so... utterly patronizing and borderline racist that I am lost for words.

Back to decarbonizing transport. Carbon credits and cap-and-trade will be more than adequate to decarbonize transport by cutting carbon where it is least economically valuable (vs. trying to reengine 10,000 airplanes on low-energy-density fuels). If you're a stickler for this, synthetic fuels generated from captured carbon (e.g. exhaust from coal peaking plants, concrete plants, etc) with renewable/nuclear energy inputs will more than solve the problem.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7753
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by ray245 » 2020-04-27 03:15pm

chimericoncogene wrote:
2020-04-27 12:56pm
Bullcrap. People can move their labor-intensive polluting factories to poor countries with surplus labor, adequate education systems, lax but hopefully-consistent regulations (or lack thereof), and tolerable infrastructure.

That is the best and most sustainable model of economic growth for the developing world.

Sure, you need a competent government, and you'll be cleaning up the mess for decades afterward, but at least your country will have capital and machines to clean the mess up with instead of being stuck in the agricultural age.

Everyone has something of value. It might be in their dirt, it might be in their manpower. But adequately managed, people can generate capital until the day automation becomes so cheap that humans everywhere get outcompeted - and that's where you get a whole series of new problems.
Sustainable in what sense? Industrialisation still require huge energy usage, and cost of renewable isn't cheap. And if the world as a whole wants to introduce a carbon tax, the heaviest burden will still fall upon the developing world.
The idea that migration is the best way to generate wealth is just so... utterly patronizing and borderline racist that I am lost for words.
That's not what I said? I am saying the benefits of wealth allows you to migrate, not that migration is the best way to generate wealth?
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

chimericoncogene
Padawan Learner
Posts: 291
Joined: 2018-04-25 09:12am

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by chimericoncogene » 2020-04-27 09:26pm

ray245 wrote:
2020-04-27 03:15pm

Sustainable in what sense? Industrialisation still require huge energy usage, and cost of renewable isn't cheap. And if the world as a whole wants to introduce a carbon tax, the heaviest burden will still fall upon the developing world.

That's not what I said? I am saying the benefits of wealth allows you to migrate, not that migration is the best way to generate wealth?
Sorry, I misread your post, and apologize for my strong language.

Brain drains are generally highly undesirable for developing countries, and while they should be permitted in the interests of human freedom, should not, IMO, be widely encouraged or lionized.

The best bet for resolving world poverty is economic development. I believe that developing countries should not have to pay carbon taxes in the interests of historical equity. More developed countries historically got their economies running on lax regulations and cheap energy. Less developed countries face the further challenge of competing with more developed countries with far superior capital and technological base resources.

Geoengineering and/or seawalls all the way.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7753
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by ray245 » 2020-04-28 03:56am

chimericoncogene wrote:
2020-04-27 09:26pm
Sorry, I misread your post, and apologize for my strong language.

Brain drains are generally highly undesirable for developing countries, and while they should be permitted in the interests of human freedom, should not, IMO, be widely encouraged or lionized.

The best bet for resolving world poverty is economic development. I believe that developing countries should not have to pay carbon taxes in the interests of historical equity. More developed countries historically got their economies running on lax regulations and cheap energy. Less developed countries face the further challenge of competing with more developed countries with far superior capital and technological base resources.

Geoengineering and/or seawalls all the way.
Brain drains aren't helpful, but our existing system incentivise people to do so, because it is clear that the developed world has very limited interest in helping the developing world. Even amongst the left-wing movement, there is a strong backlash against any expansion of manufacturing in the developing world, because it is framed as taking jobs away from the working class.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
His Divine Shadow
Commence Primary Ignition
Posts: 12160
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:22am
Location: Finland, west coast

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by His Divine Shadow » 2020-04-28 05:25am

That's because of globalization causing competition. Removing free travel of capital and goods will allow many countries to develop on their own without competing.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7753
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by ray245 » 2020-04-28 05:30am

His Divine Shadow wrote:
2020-04-28 05:25am
That's because of globalization causing competition. Removing free travel of capital and goods will allow many countries to develop on their own without competing.
Where are they going to get their expertise from? Their machinery and etc? Raw materials that they still need to import from other countries? Or the cash required to purchase all those stuff?
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
His Divine Shadow
Commence Primary Ignition
Posts: 12160
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:22am
Location: Finland, west coast

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by His Divine Shadow » 2020-04-28 05:33am

I never said they had to become north korea.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7753
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by ray245 » 2020-04-28 05:57am

His Divine Shadow wrote:
2020-04-28 05:33am
I never said they had to become north korea.
No, but you're not exactly offering a solution on how are they going to achieve what you said they can do. I am just frustrated that most of the anti-globalisation crowd rarely takes the perspective of the people from the developing world.

Climate change actions and anti-globalisation needs to take the perspective of the people of the developing world. And it should not be another case of the developed world saying "fuck you guys, I'll do the 'right' actions to save the world and retain my more advantageous position in the world"
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
His Divine Shadow
Commence Primary Ignition
Posts: 12160
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:22am
Location: Finland, west coast

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by His Divine Shadow » 2020-04-28 06:07am

Climate change and anti globalization are the same thing in my eyes. There is no world future in which we continue like we do, i.e. people in the west loose jobs going to the developed world. You don't really expect people to comply with the the idea that they should loose their jobs so they can help the developing world? That's how you get nazis.

The only way forward is for workers of the world to not compete with each other and for countries to develop economies primarily around their own consumption rather than being completely dependent on export to richer countries. That goes for western countries too. That doesn't mean no trade at all mind you, but it does mean scaling back and relocalizing economies.

Globalization is a dead end as far as the environment goes, it will always be a race to the bottom in terms of regulations and worker protections, benefiting not even the workers in developing countries.

I don't buy that the only way forward for developing countries is to make cheap shit for western consumers and that they couldn't develop otherwise. Infact I believe that model of economic growth is about to hit a real hard wall very soon and we're all gonna have to find new ways of thinking about the economy and growth. Covid-19 gives a little preview of a best case scenario for westerners.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7753
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by ray245 » 2020-04-28 06:44am

His Divine Shadow wrote:
2020-04-28 06:07am
Climate change and anti globalization are the same thing in my eyes. There is no world future in which we continue like we do, i.e. people in the west loose jobs going to the developed world. You don't really expect people to comply with the the idea that they should loose their jobs so they can help the developing world? That's how you get nazis.

The only way forward is for workers of the world to not compete with each other and for countries to develop economies primarily around their own consumption rather than being completely dependent on export to richer countries. That goes for western countries too. That doesn't mean no trade at all mind you, but it does mean scaling back and relocalizing economies.

Globalization is a dead end as far as the environment goes, it will always be a race to the bottom in terms of regulations and worker protections, benefiting not even the workers in developing countries.

I don't buy that the only way forward for developing countries is to make cheap shit for western consumers and that they couldn't develop otherwise. Infact I believe that model of economic growth is about to hit a real hard wall very soon and we're all gonna have to find new ways of thinking about the economy and growth. Covid-19 gives a little preview of a best case scenario for westerners.
It sounds nice on paper, but it still does not resolve the question of how is the developing world going to get the expertise, machinery, resources to develop themselves. This is a question you absolutely need to answer for your argument to work. Otherwise, it is just empty paper talk to make you feel like you are advocating for something.

Countries that developed in the past still relied heavily on external investment of some kind, be it development aid ( during the cold War era), or investment by private companies. Is the developed world and the West willing to invest in development aid? I find that to be rather unlikely given that the same forces calling for anti-globalisation also tend to coincide with the same forces calling for a reduction in foreign aid.

To develop the developing world requires a massive investment from the developed world.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20810
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by K. A. Pital » 2020-04-28 07:02am

Develop into what? Are you buying into the pipe dream that 10 billion humans can all live in a copy of what, the USA?

Firstly, the developing world needs technology for own development. Transfers of technology & experience is a matter of direct agreements between large corporations or governments.

Secondly, it needs to be able to steer its own development. For that, government programs, education of own people & infrastructure investment are paramount.

Please don’t tell me a couple of Hiltons with 5-metre high concrete walls, guards to let nobody in to guard the relaxing White Masters & a few international airports for those white masters to arrive for leisure, are what a poor country needs.

There’s shitloads of Hiltons at the world‘s natural treasures, but I ain’t seeing those Hiltons becoming literacy centres, tech schools, hospitals, railway depots or even roads (outside the road from the airport to the beach, lol).

The White Masters offer solutions which are insultingly & obviously bent towards subservience & servitude to them. Stronger societies can offer their people existence beyond just serving the rich, you know. Like, helping each other & finding their own ways of living together, producing something of value.

Instead of plundering natural resources or destroying heritage sites by overcrowding, when disrespectful rich tourists destroy the very things they say they come to see.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali

User avatar
His Divine Shadow
Commence Primary Ignition
Posts: 12160
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:22am
Location: Finland, west coast

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by His Divine Shadow » 2020-04-28 07:10am

Ray, I don't see that what you are saying holds true at all. A lot of the developing world already has machines, universities and expertise, they don't need to beg western countries for scraps to develop and many have the money to buy old equipment. They're already in a position that they can keep on developing on their own.

And your comment on antiglobalisation forces is oversimplified and cannot be categorically dismissed like that. Besides today under globalization poorer countries are being preyed on by organizations like the IMF which is on the leash of western countries leaders and they're being prevented from developing in more sensible directions in other that we can better use them for our purposes

And if we continue globalization and keep expecting western workers to give up their jobs, then the western world will become fascist and they will cut off trade and aid both and perhaps worse. So it's not like the current system can answer this either.

Stas also has a good point, develop into what. The developing countries cannot follow the western countries model of development (not that they are currently, more like another form of wealth extraction) and the western countries cannot remain at the same level of development either. We're all gonna have to rethink what we've thought about the economy and development.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7753
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by ray245 » 2020-04-28 09:12am

K. A. Pital wrote:
2020-04-28 07:02am
Develop into what? Are you buying into the pipe dream that 10 billion humans can all live in a copy of what, the USA?
To a level where disparity of wealth between countries do not severely limit countries ability to take care of their citizens?
Firstly, the developing world needs technology for own development. Transfers of technology & experience is a matter of direct agreements between large corporations or governments.
And what incentivizes the transfer of technology and expertise?
Secondly, it needs to be able to steer its own development. For that, government programs, education of own people & infrastructure investment are paramount.
And that expertise and infrastructure is still going to come from somewhere.
Please don’t tell me a couple of Hiltons with 5-metre high concrete walls, guards to let nobody in to guard the relaxing White Masters & a few international airports for those white masters to arrive for leisure, are what a poor country needs.

There’s shitloads of Hiltons at the world‘s natural treasures, but I ain’t seeing those Hiltons becoming literacy centres, tech schools, hospitals, railway depots or even roads (outside the road from the airport to the beach, lol).

The White Masters offer solutions which are insultingly & obviously bent towards subservience & servitude to them. Stronger societies can offer their people existence beyond just serving the rich, you know. Like, helping each other & finding their own ways of living together, producing something of value.

Instead of plundering natural resources or destroying heritage sites by overcrowding, when disrespectful rich tourists destroy the very things they say they come to see.
Decarbonising transport and making air travel more expensive means you are simply shifting from middle-class tourists to the extremely rich tourists. You might have fewer Hilton hotels, but the few hotels that exist are going to cater for an even wealthier clients. And not all developing countries have natural resources nor the resources to maintain heritage sites.

His Divine Shadow wrote:
2020-04-28 07:10am
Ray, I don't see that what you are saying holds true at all. A lot of the developing world already has machines, universities and expertise, they don't need to beg western countries for scraps to develop and many have the money to buy old equipment. They're already in a position that they can keep on developing on their own.
That is not universal across all developing nations. Some of them are better developed and have better machines, universities to develop on their own ( China, India and etc). But not every developing countries are on the same development level as China or India.

And your comment on antiglobalisation forces is oversimplified and cannot be categorically dismissed like that. Besides today under globalization poorer countries are being preyed on by organizations like the IMF which is on the leash of western countries leaders and they're being prevented from developing in more sensible directions in other that we can better use them for our purposes
I never said the existing system is ideal. I am just saying I have not seen a concrete alternative plan on how to develop and improve the developing world other than empty words like "They'll figure it out on their own".
And if we continue globalization and keep expecting western workers to give up their jobs, then the western world will become fascist and they will cut off trade and aid both and perhaps worse. So it's not like the current system can answer this either.
See above. If anti-globalisation is more about protecting western workers at the expense of non-western workers, it ultimately does not resolve the problems that has been inflicted on the world since colonialism. It is essentially telling the workers of the developing world that they should give the jobs back to western workers or else they will suffer more harm and damage.
Stas also has a good point, develop into what. The developing countries cannot follow the western countries model of development (not that they are currently, more like another form of wealth extraction) and the western countries cannot remain at the same level of development either. We're all gonna have to rethink what we've thought about the economy and development.
That is true. But none of the proposed "solutions" can really achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth across the world as a whole. If anything, it simply reinforce the existing power disparity between those that were lucky enough to developed into an wealthy country and those that came late/hindered from doing so.

There will be countries that have less resources than others, less advantageous geography and etc. And all those factors, no matter how small, will balloon into the same issues a few decades down the line.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
His Divine Shadow
Commence Primary Ignition
Posts: 12160
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:22am
Location: Finland, west coast

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by His Divine Shadow » 2020-04-28 10:27am

Well globalisation certainly isn't leading to a more equitable distribution of wealth. The countries that can be said to have gotten the most use out of it such as China have made extensive use of protective policies that are distinctly anti-globalization. Infact the US itself used have protective tarrifs in the 19th century to protect it's nascent industry so it's a running theme. So there is no concrete plan in the current system either. But I can guarantee globalization ends, one way or another.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7753
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by ray245 » 2020-04-28 10:39am

His Divine Shadow wrote:
2020-04-28 10:27am
Well globalisation certainly isn't leading to a more equitable distribution of wealth. The countries that can be said to have gotten the most use out of it such as China have made extensive use of protective policies that are distinctly anti-globalization. Infact the US itself used have protective tarrifs in the 19th century to protect it's nascent industry so it's a running theme. So there is no concrete plan in the current system either. But I can guarantee globalization ends, one way or another.
I am not saying it does? China got to where they are through a mix of protectionist measures AND making use of globalisation to incentivize foreign investment within China.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20810
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by K. A. Pital » 2020-04-28 04:08pm

ray245 wrote:
2020-04-28 10:39am
I am not saying it does? China got to where they are through a mix of protectionist measures AND making use of globalisation to incentivize foreign investment within China.
Yes, they did. I am also pretty sure they could, by now, work without the West. I am certain you can see how different this is from the hopelessly dependent one-good or one-service economies the globalists have been building out of test guinea pig nations. World textile factory in Bangladesh doesn’t seem to have given Bangladesh railways, rockets, and an own space program, like China has - hmm, I wonder why that is.
ray245 wrote:To a level where disparity of wealth between countries do not severely limit countries ability to take care of their citizens?
HDS dealt with this already: globalization has not reduced the wealth disparity, if China is excluded. If the poorest are taken, globalization has even severely worsened their position in the world-system, ensuring perpetual poverty and that they will never be able to take care of their citizens.
ray245 wrote: And what incentivizes the transfer of technology and expertise?
International agreements? What did you think, your vacation on Bali incentivized transfer of technology & expertise? I mean, you can’t be seriously thinking that tourism defines international relations or technology transfers, as opposed to agreements between governments or large companies which have this technology and can transfer it with accompanying documentation & support specialists. Do you casually yap about industrial secrets & advances to local people when on vacation? And all of them are trained in industrial espionage, immediately putting what they heard on the beach to good use on the factory floor, that it? That is how you think technology was transferred between nations? The fuck tech transfer has to do with your frivolous leisure activities?
ray245 wrote:Decarbonising transport and making air travel more expensive means you are simply shifting from middle-class tourists to the extremely rich tourists.
Not necessarily. Besides, if we want to talk sustainability, do we agree fewer tourists and less air travel is necessary? Or your view is “fuck whatever happens to the planet, at least I got to chill in that 4 star hotel with me kiddos & see Halong bay - too bad I destroyed the fucking planet for future generations, don’t hold against me”.
empty words like "They'll figure it out on their own".
Well that sure sounds more respectful towards other nations than saying the opposite, like they need rich masters they can’t figure out anything on their own.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7753
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by ray245 » 2020-04-28 05:07pm

K. A. Pital wrote:
2020-04-28 04:08pm
Yes, they did. I am also pretty sure they could, by now, work without the West. I am certain you can see how different this is from the hopelessly dependent one-good or one-service economies the globalists have been building out of test guinea pig nations. World textile factory in Bangladesh doesn’t seem to have given Bangladesh railways, rockets, and an own space program, like China has - hmm, I wonder why that is.
Yes, China has reached a point they are no longer dependent on the West. But few developing countries have reached where China is today. So they are still dependent on foreign expertise and investments, in whatever form and in whatever shape they can get.
HDS dealt with this already: globalization has not reduced the wealth disparity, if China is excluded. If the poorest are taken, globalization has even severely worsened their position in the world-system, ensuring perpetual poverty and that they will never be able to take care of their citizens.
Just because the existing system does not work does not mean going to the opposite end would necessary solve the problem. Neither globalisation nor anti-globalisation will resolve the issue at work here. Anti-globalist position does not mean wealth transfer will take place for the developing world. They might not be subject to richer nations the way they are now, but it does not mean they will be able to achieve parity with the developed world either.

The centuries and decades long head-start that the developed nations had over the developing world will not go away even if the current globalism system is dismantled. It will simply cement the status quo.
ray245 wrote: And what incentivizes the transfer of technology and expertise?
International agreements? What did you think, your vacation on Bali incentivized transfer of technology & expertise? I mean, you can’t be seriously thinking that tourism defines international relations or technology transfers, as opposed to agreements between governments or large companies which have this technology and can transfer it with accompanying documentation & support specialists. Do you casually yap about industrial secrets & advances to local people when on vacation? And all of them are trained in industrial espionage, immediately putting what they heard on the beach to good use on the factory floor, that it? That is how you think technology was transferred between nations? The fuck tech transfer has to do with your frivolous leisure activities?
Where did I advocate for a position that tourism incentivized transfer of technology? That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying your position does provide an incentive for transfer of technology and expertise.
Not necessarily. Besides, if we want to talk sustainability, do we agree fewer tourists and less air travel is necessary? Or your view is “fuck whatever happens to the planet, at least I got to chill in that 4 star hotel with me kiddos & see Halong bay - too bad I destroyed the fucking planet for future generations, don’t hold against me”.
Sustainability and global inequality are two separate issues. Being more sustainable does not mean you are resolving the problem of inequality. Having less tourists and less air travel can help the planet, and also shield the developing world from suffering the burden of climate devastation. That does not mean the issue of inequality is going away.

My position is not about arguing we should not do more to combat climate change and achieve a more sustainable future. My position is that all our talk and solutions about combating climate change needs to take the perspective of the developing world before we take the perspective of the developed world.

Someone from a developed world CAN take a position saying we should travel less. But at the same time, someone making this argument is also not providing an alternative for what other ways can we transfer wealth, resources and expertise to the places that needs urgent help in facing climate change. If we are cutting down the tourism industry, then the first and foremost problem should not be about cutting it down for the sake of it, but trying to come with alternative solutions so that the workers in developing countries that are reliant on tourism can still gain the resources, wealth and expertise to help them ease the transition to other forms of industries that are far more sustainable.
Well that sure sounds more respectful towards other nations than saying the opposite, like they need rich masters they can’t figure out anything on their own.
They can figure out the solutions on how to better develop as a nation. That does not mean they will gain the wealth, resources and expertise to do so on their own.

Saying they can figure out on their own is basically a form of "passing the buck" on responsibility and cementing the status quo of wealth inequality. That is my fundamental issues with the anti-globalist rhetoric. It might stop some of the worst tendencies of the existing system, and give the developing world some breathing space. However, that breathing space is not sufficient.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20810
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Decarbonising transport

Post by K. A. Pital » 2020-04-29 11:05am

ray245 wrote:
2020-04-28 05:07pm
Yes, China has reached a point they are no longer dependent on the West. But few developing countries have reached where China is today. So they are still dependent on foreign expertise and investments, in whatever form and in whatever shape they can get.
So once again, decarbonization and demise of personal air travel will limit the possibility of purchasing machines, electronics, etc. from China? Is that what you are saying? If people no longer fly to Halong bay Vietnam would be unable to buy electronics from China, or is Vietnam still perfectly capable of buying electronics, machine tools, heavy duty vehicles from China, or South Korea, or wherever else, if not able to make them locally? Explain yourself.
Just because the existing system does not work does not mean going to the opposite end would necessary solve the problem. Neither globalisation nor anti-globalisation will resolve the issue at work here. Anti-globalist position does not mean wealth transfer will take place for the developing world. They might not be subject to richer nations the way they are now, but it does not mean they will be able to achieve parity with the developed world either.
And? I mean, under globalization they won’t be able to achieve parity, without it they won’t be able to achieve parity. But in the second case they would have to build up diversified economies with a variety of experts in all fields of production, from agriculture to aviation, from computing to construction etc. In the first case they would have no engineers of their own, no scientists, being doomed to being the poor back-end of some global supply chain or worse. In the second case, they would be building up a diverse working class that has to specialize in various fields.
The centuries and decades long head-start that the developed nations had over the developing world will not go away even if the current globalism system is dismantled. It will simply cement the status quo.
Dancing like a jester in front of the king won’t make the jester into a king, ever, either. So I guess you are saying, not only cement the status quo but also cement it in a way that won’t deprive the masters of their status abroad?
ray245 wrote:Where did I advocate for a position that tourism incentivized transfer of technology? That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying your position does provide an incentive for transfer of technology and expertise.
Yes, of course it does. Governments can cooperate & agree to transfer knowledge and skills. Companies and cooperatives can also do so, if they are not hell-bent on protecting industrial secrets & monopoly domination, that is.
Sustainability and global inequality are two separate issues
Indeed they are separate, but connected to each other. Because the West rose on global-scale plunder, murder and destruction of environments and habitats, the other nations seeking to develop cannot utilize the same model. There are no other ten Earth to plunder for cheap forest, coal & oil, there are no other ten continents to enslave as colonies & suck dry to help your industries. So it naturally follows that the inequality which resulted from mass plunder, colonialism and Western global empire, or prior incidents of imperialism, can hardly be solved by applying the same solution, ie being imperialistic, because there are very few areas left where you can do so.
Being more sustainable does not mean you are resolving the problem of inequality. Having less tourists and less air travel can help the planet, and also shield the developing world from suffering the burden of climate devastation. That does not mean the issue of inequality is going away.
I fully agree with you, and yet you seem to have missed the point: tourism solves neither sustainability NOR equality issues, so even if these are separate issues as you say, seems your solution solves neither. The people from poor countries do not become equal to the people from rich countries due to tourism, as you might have noticed, and additionally mass air travel is destroying the planet for all people alike. This seems fairly evident. What is your actual point?
My position is that all our talk and solutions about combating climate change needs to take the perspective of the developing world before we take the perspective of the developed world.
Yes, if you watch the news, the developing world is begging for action on climate change from rich nations - and in much stronger terms than any lf the rich nations themselves - but so far has gotten little reaction. Australia and the US, two apparently-wealthiest ones, sabotage all such requests and pleas. So the developed world is sabotaging action requested by those threatened most.
If we are cutting down the tourism industry, then the first and foremost problem should not be about cutting it down for the sake of it, but trying to come with alternative solutions so that the workers in developing countries that are reliant on tourism can still gain the resources, wealth and expertise to help them ease the transition to other forms of industries that are far more sustainable.
Exactly, and it seems were are in agreement here, because I said above: these things are matters of policy, of agreements. Nobody transfers expertise and knowledge while sipping pina coladas on a beach. People do so when executing government agreements or commercial agreements. Also, please google “path dependency” and come back to me explaining why we should remove extreme path dependency from our considerations. It necessarily follows that people will transition to other forms of occupation when certain industries are removed. We don’t use asbestos in construction and we don’t use lead in water pipelines, we don’t burn wood in house cheminees with few exceptions, and occupations related to this are of course no more existent, or severely curtailed in number. But so?
They can figure out the solutions on how to better develop as a nation. That does not mean they will gain the wealth, resources and expertise to do so on their own.
Why? The source of all wealth is transformative collective labour of humans, and human ideas. People will use their labour, and ideas, to improve their life. Governments and companies can order technology, and humans can also invent technology. But producing pina coladas for tourists is not actually inventing anything. It is servitude.
Saying they can figure out on their own is basically a form of "passing the buck" on responsibility and cementing the status quo of wealth inequality. That is my fundamental issues with the anti-globalist rhetoric. It might stop some of the worst tendencies of the existing system, and give the developing world some breathing space. However, that breathing space is not sufficient.
I see your criticism. But you also admit that globalism is not reducing the gap, and that it is not helping the countries build diversified and resilient economies (all the more obvious now when rona has shut everything down and locked all borders). Thirty years of globalism and non-diversified, fewer-goods-and-servics economies have made the countries vulnerable and weak, and oftentimes utterly dependent on the global “deciders”, the rich nations. This is not solving any issues, it is exacerbating them and perpetuating into infinity. Also it removes all agency from nations, forces them to make their economies carbon-copies of blueprints laid out by the rich nations, who hold them at gunpoint via control of debt, reserve currency arrangements, etc.

The robber has gotten his huge share of wealth, but of course his victims cannot get this wealth, and cannot reach him.

But do they? Is the level of wealth fundamentally important, or the quality of life of the citizens? If by purchasing power the citizens can afford all the same things they could in a rich nation, what is the ultimate difference? Why should China have a GDP or whatever other indicator you can come up with of 40k per person, if it has essentially the same living standards for most of its population at 20k per person?

I challenge your narrative precisely because there are many points in it to be challenged. What good is wealth built, say, on exporting wholesale all the wood in your nation, cutting down all the forests to the last tree? This is a form of wealth that is based on plundering your own compatriots, privately appropriating profits & leaving an entire nation deforested at the end of the cycle, with no other sources of income to boot. So “wealth” should appear from strong, sustainable and diversified economies.

So far the West is failing that test, because its economies historically built on plunder, plentiful resources or stolen resources. It also fails sustainability. The East is doing better with diversified & resilient, but sometimes failing on sustainability as well.

We all have a lot to learn, but building one-shot poor economies that crumble at the first sight of crisis is untenable. It is untenable exactly because we are under capitalism. If the one shot or one thing these economies make fails or is no longer needed, then they are fucked. Nobody will care to do anything. When socialist nations phase out a factory, they would reassign the workers to different factories to make different goods. Under capitalism nobody will.

Indeed, previously existing phenomenon of “ghost towns” is being repeated on a much larger scale, there are entire “ghost nations” by now that lost a significant share of their able-bodied populations via labour force drain, useless and abandoned, making nothing important and bound to lose even more of their population in the future. Is this the way we want to go forward?

If yes, why?
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali

Post Reply