Could diesel locomotives cause more global waming than what steam locomotives did?

[hoagy_ytfc]

The whole thing is far too politicised which prevents a sensible debate.

It's based on science.

The politics comes from those who have a vested interest in denying it.

 

[Route115?]

Coal has a higher carbon content than gas oil which diesel engines use which will create more CO2. (Coal fire stations create around twice the level of CO2 than gas fired ones per kWh although the difference with an oil fired one will be less.) As previous posts have stated the thermal efficiency of diesel locos is MUCH higher than steam ones. I doubt that aerosol effects will be significant at sea level. Whilst diesels will produce NOx and other pollutants this will be far less than steam locos as anyone who has hung washing out by a busy stean line will know.

I agree that making comparisons is difficult. The shipping produces more CO2 than the aviation industry. The fomer also produces a lot of SO2 - although IMO regulations have reduced the amount of sulfur permitted in bunker, whilst contails created by the latter also contribute to warming. I'm certainly not the expert though.

 

[Deepgreen]

No becasue the whole thing is a load of piffle anyway

So you truly believe that the release over about 500 years of the deposits of, basically carbon, that took hundreds of millions of years to lay down, would not cause any kind of atmospheric imbalance? While it's obviously impossible to prove any 'what if xxx hadn't happened' scenario, it is just utterly fundamental common sense that such a split-second (in geological time) vast release MUST cause a major imbalance. The sun's output and other factors also change, of course, but to claim that humans haven't had any impact on the atmosphere, and therefore climate, is just ludicrous (quite apart from the pollution aspect). The real question is not; 'have we done it', but 'how do we correct it?'.

The only answer to this question to look at it from the viewpoint of hp/kw produced vs. volume of fuel burned/emissions produced for that hp/kw, i.e. a unit-by-unit analysis.

 

[DerekC]

The only answer to this question to look at it from the viewpoint of hp/kw produced vs. volume of fuel burned/emissions produced for that hp/kw, i.e. a unit-by-unit analysis.

That's where you start - obviously measured at the drawbar. And as stated before, diesels are at least twice as efficient as the best steam locos at turning heat into drawbar kWh (hp.h if you want). In fact diesels are still getting better, with modern engines achieving efficiencies in the 40 - 45% range, which makes them nearly four times as efficient as the best Chapelon steam design (about 12%). Then you take the fuel into account - and coal emits very roughly 25% more CO2 than diesel in terms of CO2 emitted per kWh of heat generated. That gives you the CO2 generated per drawbar kWh as the locomotive is doing useful work - and diesel looks at least three to four times better than steam on that basis.

But then you have to factor in the heat wasted in idling (in steam terms, sitting in sidings or at a station with the fire damped down but still burning). i have never seen any comparative figures for that, but overall I think you could estimate that steam locos emit somewhere between 3x and 5x as much CO2 per unit of useful work as a diesel.

But of course in terms of the spectacle, steam wins hands down!

 

[Deepgreen]

That's where you start - obviously measured at the drawbar. And as stated before, diesels are at least twice as efficient as the best steam locos at turning heat into drawbar kWh (hp.h if you want). In fact diesels are still getting better, with modern engines achieving efficiencies in the 40 - 45% range, which makes them nearly four times as efficient as the best Chapelon steam design (about 12%). Then you take the fuel into account - and coal emits very roughly 25% more CO2 than diesel in terms of CO2 emitted per kWh of heat generated. That gives you the CO2 generated per drawbar kWh as the locomotive is doing useful work - and diesel looks at least three to four times better than steam on that basis.

But then you have to factor in the heat wasted in idling (in steam terms, sitting in sidings or at a station with the fire damped down but still burning). i have never seen any comparative figures for that, but overall I think you could estimate that steam locos emit somewhere between 3x and 5x as much CO2 per unit of useful work as a diesel.

But of course in terms of the spectacle, steam wins hands down!

Good reply and as for the last point, yes! This photo of mine from 2010 makes me simultaneously wince and gasp!

 

[HSTEd]

I suspect the embodied carbon in the construction is fairly small compared to the entire lifecycle, and recycling rates for steel and copper are pretty good. Also electric traction can practicably be powered from any known source including renewables, so can more easily be adapted when new and better sources become available. Diesels are limited to, er, diesel fuel or biofuel equivalents, and steam is limited to coal or can use oil-derived fuels rather less efficiently than a diesel.

Embedded carbon from a 25kV installation is absolutely tiny - I remember doing the calculation a while back although I can't remember the numbers, but the breakeven for carbon emissions is something like the traffic density on the Far North Line!

 

[E27007]

Coal has a higher carbon content than gas oil which diesel engines use which will create more CO2. (Coal fire stations create around twice the level of CO2 than gas fired ones per kWh although the difference with an oil fired one will be less.) As previous posts have stated the thermal efficiency of diesel locos is MUCH higher than steam ones. I doubt that aerosol effects will be significant at sea level. Whilst diesels will produce NOx and other pollutants this will be far less than steam locos as anyone who has hung washing out by a busy stean line will know.

I agree that making comparisons is difficult. The shipping produces more CO2 than the aviation industry. The fomer also produces a lot of SO2 - although IMO regulations have reduced the amount of sulfur permitted in bunker, whilst contails created by the latter also contribute to warming. I'm certainly not the expert though.

Shipping is responsible for a significant amount of Nox emissions in the exhaust from the diesel Ship Engines while out at Sea and in Port.
Nox is a greenhouse gas just like CO2, however the Scientists believe Nox, to have a potency of 250 times by weight, of CO2 emissions in the exhaust.
Evasion and breaches of Nox emissions by criminal and fraudulent actions by car makers is the issue which has cost the car makers a great deal of money and credibility.

 

[Jozhua]

Embedded carbon from a 25kV installation is absolutely tiny - I remember doing the calculation a while back although I can't remember the numbers, but the breakeven for carbon emissions is something like the traffic density on the Far North Line!

I'm always a little skeptical of opposition on the basis of 'embedded carbon'. Many of the industrial processes used to produce this stuff has the potential to be decarbonise too. Most of the emissions are going to be from industrial heat, transport, which are both things that can be dealt with.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm always a little skeptical of opposition on the basis of 'embedded carbon'. Many of the industrial processes used to produce this stuff has the potential to be decarbonise too. Most of the emissions are going to be from industrial heat, transport, which are both things that can be dealt with.

This is true, but that has not happened yet - so we must be careful in assuming that it will happen.

CO2 emissions are a cumulative problem, a tonne of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has an atmospheric lifetime in centuries to millenia - the carbon budgets we talk about are effectively for the rest of time.

Burning a tonne on electrification now still burns it even if the technology is later decarbonised.

 

[321over360]

I agree that making comparisons is difficult. The shipping produces more CO2 than the aviation industry. The fomer also produces a lot of SO2 - although IMO regulations have reduced the amount of sulfur permitted in bunker, whilst contails created by the latter also contribute to warming. I'm certainly not the expert though.

Difference between shipping and aviation is that aviation pollution is emitted at the skies most fragile part unlike cars, ships and trains where the emissions are far more dispersed by the time they reach that part of our skies.

The aviation industry boomed from the 70s onwards and are the clear cause of global warming

 

[Trainbike46]

Embedded carbon from a 25kV installation is absolutely tiny - I remember doing the calculation a while back although I can't remember the numbers, but the breakeven for carbon emissions is something like the traffic density on the Far North Line!

I would suspect the embedded carbon of OHLE being tiny, good to see someone did the maths to confirm!

Another factor that hasn't been mentioned yet is how long various gases stay in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (and their warming potential) essentially stays in the atmosphere forever. Contrastingly, the sulphates emitted by steam locos that have a slight cooling effect only stay in the atmosphere for about 3 years. So, after the sulphates have fallen out, only the the co2 remains, so for the purposes of climate change impacts of various types of locos, you can ignore the effects of the sulphates completely.

Electric locomotives are the most climate friendly by a long shot (and best for local air quality too!). In addition, they'll only keep getting greener as the electricity grid decarbonises further. in contrast, a diesel loco will not improve over it's lifetime.

Difference between shipping and aviation is that aviation pollution is emitted at the skies most fragile part unlike cars, ships and trains where the emissions are far more dispersed by the time they reach that part of our skies.

The aviation industry boomed from the 70s onwards and are the clear cause of global warming

It is clearly true that the aviation industry is responsible for a lot of emissions and associated climate change impacts, in the end it is the combination of all sources of emissions, and we really need to be working on reducing all of them as quickly as possible.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Shipping is responsible for a significant amount of Nox emissions in the exhaust from the diesel Ship Engines while out at Sea and in Port.
Nox is a greenhouse gas just like CO2, however the Scientists believe Nox, to have a potency of 250 times by weight, of CO2 emissions in the exhaust.
Evasion and breaches of Nox emissions by criminal and fraudulent actions by car makers is the issue which has cost the car makers a great deal of money and credibility.

Gas boilers and hobs are also significant producers of NOx in the built environment. This is something the gas boiler industry doesn't talk about, especially in the context of their preferred future of hydrogen boilers.

We are finally starting to see some movement on AQ and carbon impacts from shipping.
The first and easiest bit of shipping to deal with is fixed and short routes, so it's great to see that Brittany Ferries, for instance, are taking some decisive steps in the right direction with LNG powered ferries in service and plug-in hybrids on order.

The aviation industry boomed from the 70s onwards and is one of many significant causes of global warming

Pedantry I know, and I also know that aviation emissions at altitude are more impactful, but in 2016, aviation was only 1.9% of global GHG emissions according to Our World in Data [Link: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector]

Back on topic, whilst diesel locomotives could be decarbonised using e.g. biofuels, there is a similar initiative to decarbonise steam locos by using torrefied biomass. The link below is to an EU-supported project which recently saw the first trials using a locomotive from an Irish heritage railway.

THREE C – First Irish trial of a new fuel for Heritage Railways a huge success – THREE C

threec.eu

 

[Ediswan]

We are finally starting to see some movement on AQ and carbon impacts from shipping.

What does AQ stand for ?

 

[Trainbike46]

Air Quality

 

[Ediswan]

Air Quality

Thanks. I was expecting something more technical.

 

[coppercapped]

That's where you start - obviously measured at the drawbar. And as stated before, diesels are at least twice as efficient as the best steam locos at turning heat into drawbar kWh (hp.h if you want). In fact diesels are still getting better, with modern engines achieving efficiencies in the 40 - 45% range, which makes them nearly four times as efficient as the best Chapelon steam design (about 12%). Then you take the fuel into account - and coal emits very roughly 25% more CO2 than diesel in terms of CO2 emitted per kWh of heat generated. That gives you the CO2 generated per drawbar kWh as the locomotive is doing useful work - and diesel looks at least three to four times better than steam on that basis.

But then you have to factor in the heat wasted in idling (in steam terms, sitting in sidings or at a station with the fire damped down but still burning). i have never seen any comparative figures for that, but overall I think you could estimate that steam locos emit somewhere between 3x and 5x as much CO2 per unit of useful work as a diesel.

But of course in terms of the spectacle, steam wins hands down!

As a pointer to the quantity of coal burnt during the time that steam locomotives were not hauling trains the Federation of British Industries published a report in 1952 (sorry, pre-internet, no link!!) showing that the overall efficiency of steam traction was about 4% overall. The railways burnt roundly 14 million tons of coal in total for each of the preceding years and putting that in context the Ministry of Power's figures show that total coal output in 1951 was 226 million tons. In other words the railways burnt some 6% of all the coal mined.

Shipping is responsible for a significant amount of Nox emissions in the exhaust from the diesel Ship Engines while out at Sea and in Port.
Nox is a greenhouse gas just like CO2, however the Scientists believe Nox, to have a potency of 250 times by weight, of CO2 emissions in the exhaust.
Evasion and breaches of Nox emissions by criminal and fraudulent actions by car makers is the issue which has cost the car makers a great deal of money and credibility.

For clarification, Nox is not itself a gas; it is, in atmospheric chemistry, a shorthand for several oxides of nitrogen and should properly be written NO with the 'x' as a subscript. Generally the oxides referred to are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO/subscript2/) being those nitrogen oxides that are most relevant for air pollution. Nitrous oxide (N/subscript2/O) (laughing gas) although making up about 7% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities (US Environmental Protection Agency's figures) contributes less to pollution and is not included in the atmospheric chemists 'NOx' shorthand. Nitrous oxide is also naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's nitrogen cycle and has a variety of natural sources.

Although some car makers did use software tricks to meet the letter, if not the spirit, of the emission specifications in practice the NOx gases (produced by the combination of atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen at high temperatures and pressures in internal combustion engines) can be removed fairly easily by injecting ammonia or a urea solution ('Adblue') into the exhaust gases. It was to avoid having to add Adblue tanks to smallish family diesel cars that VW (mainly) used the software trick. And got found out.

A final minor point. Scientists do not 'believe' that NOx is 250 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than the same quantity of carbon dioxide; the results of studies and experiment have shown this to be the case. 'Belief' is a concept best left to religion.

 

[HSTEd]

A final minor point. Scientists do not 'believe' that NOx is 250 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than the same quantity of carbon dioxide; the results of studies and experiment have shown this to be the case. 'Belief' is a concept best left to religion.

Conversions of warming impacts from non CO2 gasses into "CO2 equivalents" is itself a politically fraught affair.

It requires you to make assumptions about the response time constant of the earth system, and given the complexity of that system there are multiple entirely defensible values - which dramatically change the conversion factor.
This effect is substantially more important for gasses like methane but it is present for Nitrogen oxides too.

 

[E27007]

As a pointer to the quantity of coal burnt during the time that steam locomotives were not hauling trains the Federation of British Industries published a report in 1952 (sorry, pre-internet, no link!!) showing that the overall efficiency of steam traction was about 4% overall. The railways burnt roundly 14 million tons of coal in total for each of the preceding years and putting that in context the Ministry of Power's figures show that total coal output in 1951 was 226 million tons. In other words the railways burnt some 6% of all the coal mined.

For clarification, Nox is not itself a gas; it is, in atmospheric chemistry, a shorthand for several oxides of nitrogen and should properly be written NO with the 'x' as a subscript. Generally the oxides referred to are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO/subscript2/) being those nitrogen oxides that are most relevant for air pollution. Nitrous oxide (N/subscript2/O) (laughing gas) although making up about 7% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities (US Environmental Protection Agency's figures) contributes less to pollution and is not included in the atmospheric chemists 'NOx' shorthand. Nitrous oxide is also naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's nitrogen cycle and has a variety of natural sources.

Although some car makers did use software tricks to meet the letter, if not the spirit, of the emission specifications in practice the NOx gases (produced by the combination of atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen at high temperatures and pressures in internal combustion engines) can be removed fairly easily by injecting ammonia or a urea solution ('Adblue') into the exhaust gases. It was to avoid having to add Adblue tanks to smallish family diesel cars that VW (mainly) used the software trick. And got found out.

A final minor point. Scientists do not 'believe' that NOx is 250 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than the same quantity of carbon dioxide; the results of studies and experiment have shown this to be the case. 'Belief' is a concept best left to religion.

Google NOx as a greenhouse gas and there are plenty of studies quoting NOx as having a GWP, Global Warming Potential of around 250 times CO2 over 20 and 100 year cycles. In GWP studies CO2 is the reference standard, CO2 is GWP having a reference number of one.
As for Adblue being the "magic fix" for diesel car emissions of NOx, it was not easy at all, in many driving conditions the expensive piece of engineering in Adbliue exhaust system had to be turned off, the exhaust gas temperatures were too low for the chemical reaction to breakdown NOx.
Nox has a defined Not to Exceeed limit in the Euro regulations, CO2 does not, the defeat devices were not just in small cars, the 3-litre engines by VW, Audi Porsche has them, and very few car makers have escaped, almost all have been caught, VWs mistake, they tried to mislead the powerful USA EPA, who are not a "pet poodle" of the EU car makers

 

[Sm5]

How much of what a steam locomotive emits is steam that cools to water, and coal bits that fall to the ground, and gases that remain airbourne ?

When you look at post war Britain, London smogs of the 1950’s, the soot black air of the midlands….

Clearly the air wasnt clean.

But today thoses gases are invisible particles, not chunks of unburnt coal.
And of course 30k steam locomotives burning 3t of coal a day in 1948 doesnt really compare to 32million cars burning a litre of fuel everyday… thats the real problem.. not rail, or air.

 

[zwk500]

How much of what a steam locomotive emits is steam that cools to water, and coal bits that fall to the ground, and gases that remain airbourne ?

When you look at post war Britain, London smogs of the 1950’s, the soot black air of the midlands….

Clearly the air wasnt clean.

But today thoses gases are invisible particles, not chunks of unburnt coal.

I think the numbers are in this charming video:

 

[Sm5]

I think the numbers are in this charming video:

5 million tons of coal a year, / 8000 locomotives = 625t per loco… / 365 = 1,7t…

So proving cars are even worse than my initial estimate.

32mn cars in the UK..

Number of cars on the road in the UK | Statista

There were around 33.2 million passenger cars in operation in the United Kingdom in 2022.

www.statista.com

av 4mn litres of fuel per month * 12 = 48mn l av annual
48mn fuel / 32mn cars = 1.5 l of fuel

Volume of petrol and diesel consumed in the UK by month

The chart below shows the volume of petrol and diesel consumed in the UK by year over time. Hover over the lines to get precise values.

www.racfoundation.org

(ive updated my post with this info).

Either way were burning huge amounts more fuel everday, but whilst burning diesel is more efficient, than steam dropping its unburnt ash onto the land… we are undoubtably putting huge amounts more gas fumes into the atmosphere from cars.

This to answer the thread…

Could diesel locomotives cause more global waming than what steam locomotives did?​

No, but its the wrong question.

Are we causing more global warming by burning more diesel than we did with steam.. ?

absolutely yes, even if its more efficient, were burning much more of it… and an ineficient steam loco dropped much of what it burned as a solid form back onto the land..it might be good for killing weeds but it wasnt hurting the atmosphere to the same extent… of course if we burned coal today at the same rate as diesel today we would no longer be here to write this.

I should add, we are but one country, of 70mn doing this… 1% of the planet, there are 7bn on earth doing the same thing. Four countries have the power to change this for half the planet… but economically its not in their interest to do so…

So this question is being asked in the wrong place, presumably because its a safe place to be allowed to ask it here.

 

[Master29]

Could diesel powered trains (locos and DMU'S) actually cause more global warming than steam locomotives?

Coal fired steam locomotives do produce a lot of CO2 emissions but also aerosols which has a cooling effect (global dimming), which cancels out some of the warming produced by CO2. Diesel locos probably produce less CO2 but also less aerosols that would cancel out the CO2.

Global temperature only started rising in the 70s after most countries in the world replaced steam locomotives with diesels and the clean air act was passed. Reducing aerosols and cleaning the air is still a good thing, but it could mean that global temperatures are rising more, because aerosols could have masked a lot of the warming caused by greenhouse gasses.

I am not saying that steam locomotives were especially good for the environment, more that they did not really cause global temperatures to rise.

All very Rev W Awdry sounding to me. Diesels the cause of all ills in the world since reshaping began.

 

[778]

All very Rev W Awdry sounding to me. Diesels the cause of all ills in the world since reshaping began.

Have no problems with diesels. I know steam locomotives had to be replaced, was just making the point that steam locomotives may not have been as bad for the environment as some people think.

And of course 30k steam locomotives burning 3t of coal a day in 1948 doesnt really compare to 32million cars burning a litre of fuel everyday… thats the real problem.. not rail, or air.

Some progress is being made with electric cars and hybrids, but I think the government plan for a ban on new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 is a bit optimistic.

 

[Annetts key]

Some progress is being made with electric cars and hybrids, but I think the government plan for a ban on new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 is a bit optimistic.

Why? For those people who love or need an internal combustion engine vehicle, it encourages them to keep their vehicle well maintained so that it lasts longer. And encourages people to buy vehicles that are likely to last longer.

For the vast majority of car journeys, electric cars will be fine. Where longer non-stop journeys are required, or where the vehicle is in use for longer periods, hybrids or hydrogen or gas powered vehicles can be used.

On the subject of infrastructure like OHL, I would fancy a guess that the amount of steel used is a small fraction of steel manufactured compared to other uses. Buildings that use steel for their main structure are being built all over the place, from super stores in retail parks, tall office blocks through to expensive residential buildings.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the reduction in efficiency due to the transport of fuel. Electric trains obviously don’t carry their fuel with them, but there are transmission losses in the distribution network and in the OHL or third rail systems.

Diesel trains carry their fuel in large tanks, and generally carry a large amount of this around regardless of the amount actually needed for an individual journey.

Steam engines are even worse, as the energy density of coal is not as good as diesel. How much weight of coal does a tender hold? Plus steam engines also have to carry rather a lot of water as well.

In addition, as well as the fuel carried by the in service train, freight trains are needed to transport the fuel from the source (coal mine, port, oil refinery, distribution point, or similar) to the train maintenance depot or refuelling facility.

Yes, these factors are likely to have already been taken account of in overall efficiency figures. But I thought it worthwhile pointing these out.

Oh, for those people who say that what humans are/have done is insignificant, or that the U.K. is insignificant, in terms of our effect on the climate. That’s not what you would say if I offered you a glass of water with a small amount (say 1%) of something nasty in it. You would refuse to drink it.

We humans need to clean up our mess. And everyone needs to contribute to this. In exactly the same way that in the cities in the past, everyone had to work together to solve the smog problem (just one example of many).

 

[Bantamzen]

I think the timing is a coincidence. The then-new mass use of Jet airliners, the the Space Race, and the further expansion of industrialisation are much more likely to be the main cause.

Jet airlines account for only a very small fraction of CO2 emissions, and in terms of actual global warming very little. The space race even less.

Now yes industrialisation definitely contributed, but its naive at best to assume that alone was the cause. Several thousand years of deforestation to create farmlands, villages, towns, cities went a much greater way to creating the conditions where warming would take place. And as such it is going to take hundreds of years at least to fully reverse it.

I would hope nobody would seriously try to suggest any type of locomotive has caused temperatures to rise - the contribution will be absolutely minuscule.



The whole thing is far too politicised which prevents a sensible debate. Nothing we do in this tiny country will have any real effect anyway. In my view we should accept the inevitable and rather than worrying about (and spending huge amounts on) “net zero” for the sake of virtue signalling we should get busy building flood defences.

I'd agree that a lot of the shouting from environmentalists is virtue signalling, especially from the younger generations who seem to believe they are going to save the world from us oldies.

However that's not to say there aren't mitigations we can take for the longer run. Better energy production, storage and distribution methods are needed. We need serious levels of reforestation to enable carbon fixing, and also my personal hobby horse stop wasting up to 30-40% of food produced globally.

It's based on science.

It is, however...

The politics comes from those who have a vested interest in denying it.

The politics exist on both sides of the argument. For every one person denying man made climate change, there is at least another who desperate to say they can save the world. Most modern environmentalism is little more than flag waving & virtue signalling. The real solutions are going to be challenging, expensive & very long term. The climate change won't be dampened by silly stunts like sailing across the Atlantic to attend a climate change convention (and then flying back), or people supergluing themselves to roads or art galleries.

 

[Annetts key]

The climate change won't be dampened by silly stunts like sailing across the Atlantic to attend a climate change convention (and then flying back), or people supergluing themselves to roads or art galleries.

I’m pretty certain that if half the population glued themselves to roads, that would definitely help. It’s a bit hard to drive a car, use a gas oven, or otherwise burn fossil fuels while firmly stuck to a road…

The antics are the result of frustration that not enough action is taking place. I’m now past my first half century, and over thirty years ago it was clear that the activities of humans was having effects on the climate. Yet, how much change have we as a species managed to make to try to correct the problems? Answer, nowhere near enough. Hence the increasing frustration.

Just look at the U turns over fracking as different Tory party leaders have come and gone over the last seven weeks as one of many examples of why the level of frustration continues to increase.

 

[Bantamzen]

I’m pretty certain that if half the population glued themselves to roads, that would definitely help. It’s a bit hard to drive a car, use a gas oven, or otherwise burn fossil fuels while firmly stuck to a road…

The antics are the result of frustration that not enough action is taking place. I’m now past my first half century, and over thirty years ago it was clear that the activities of humans was having effects on the climate. Yet, how much change have we as a species managed to make to try to correct the problems? Answer, nowhere near enough. Hence the increasing frustration.

Just look at the U turns over fracking as different Tory party leaders have come and gone over the last seven weeks as one of many examples of why the level of frustration continues to increase.

Instead of gluing themselves to the road, why don't they try to become the people making the decisions?

 

[Trainbike46]

Instead of gluing themselves to the road, why don't they try to become the people making the decisions?

Climate activism is being pursued by loads of different people in loads of different ways. A lot of media attention has gone to a relatively small percentage of disruptive action, but that doesn't mean other types aren't happening, they just don't get reported on (nearly) as much.

If you believe you can do climate action better, you are very welcome to show the way!

 

[Bantamzen]

Climate activism is being pursued by loads of different people in loads of different ways. A lot of media attention has gone to a relatively small percentage of disruptive action, but that doesn't mean other types aren't happening, they just don't get reported on (nearly) as much.

Unfortunately the noisy ones cause more issues because they trivialise the issue, and worse actually make some people believe that environmentalists are all cranks and that man made climate change is fake news.

If you believe you can do climate action better, you are very welcome to show the way!

We don't need climate action, we need solutions. And you won't find them by gluing yourself to the M25.

 

[Trainbike46]

Unfortunately the noisy ones cause more issues because they trivialise the issue, and worse actually make some people believe that environmentalists are all cranks and that man made climate change is fake news.

I don't believe this is actually true, but obviously we can have different views on the matter

We don't need climate action, we need solutions. And you won't find them by gluing yourself to the M25.

A lot of solutions exist, they just need to be implemented.

If you agree with the objective, it's important that we all contribute to getting there. What would you view as the action people need to take to get to the aim of a decarbonised society? And will you do that action yourself? or are you already doing it?

* In case this wasn't obvious, I mean "action" in the broadest sense possible, so any activity, not just protest