Thanks for writing, Hannah, I am pleased to see the electrification progress from India. Coming from the country, I didn't know about it and I don't think we celebrate it enough. Also, living in Switzerland, I can see it's possible despite tough terrain. There is always hope and some pleasant realities, like you always seem to say 😊
I remember the endless wrangling over electrifying the WCML. Like a dress rehearsal for HS2.
It's embarassing how inefficient the UK is at this sort of thing. Each electrification project is stand-alone so has to go through a long and expensive process of design, legal wrangling, contracting, recruitment, and then when that's done the whole thing is disbanded, expertise is lost, and it's pretty much starting from scratch for the next bit. Standard cut-price thinking on capital projects from various (mostly Conservative, obviously) UK governments on this.
OTOH, we do now have a fully battery-powered electric train in the UK, and if the major advances in battery technology being driven by the car market start to come through, it might be that even the longer local lines don't need electrifying, other than fast-charging technology at some stations, or perhaps they could have electrified sections so they charge whilst moving, but with a much lower electrification requirement.
My guess would be that capital spending spending on creating new electrified lines is now mostly a waste of resources, money that could better be spent on rolling out battery (and hybrid?) technologies to replace all the diesel services.
As you say, it should only require a relatively small number of power connections, probably to charging pads at stations. That has to be much cheaper and easier to deploy and the cost of the batteries are falling all the time.
"Not a single train could run on the non-electric part, and the rate would still be 50%."
In that case, Switzerland isn't 100% electric.
There is a small line (about 10km) from Etzwilen (on the Winterthur S Bahn) to Ramsen, a village on the German border. It is not electrified. I assume they closed it as it wasn't worth electrifying.
It is however still used. People rent out these hand powered railway carriages, and pump up and down to go faster.. Swiss idea if fun!
And last year, I saw some hydrogen trains on it. They were being tested, presumably with a view to bringing the line back into service.
Like all hydrogen transport projects, it probably died. But I am hopeful that we will see battery powered trains on the line.
Battery powered trains seems the cheap way to electrify lines in future. You only need partial electrification. For example, Chiltern Rail lines coild be electrified for 10 miles out of every 50 miles. That would radically reduce costs of electrification.
While it may be entertaining to picture a train full of sweaty passengers furiously pedaling in their seats, if the line is infrequently used they could use a battery powered electric train. For trains, unlike planes, batteries are well suited since weight is not an issue and with sparse schedules at fixed stopping points recharging is also easily done, and no need for ugly overhead wires or dangerous third rails.
While it is nice to have a break from some of the bad reality and also focus on the good, the progress we have made that was successful, whether it be fighting smog in CA or closing the ozone hole or getting rid of DDT use was brought on by a lot of disaster panic type motivation and publicity and "doom and gloom."
Today's response to climate change kind of reminds me of Bush after 9/11 saying to the American people, I got this, keep spending and keep the economy going and on and on.
What I mean is that as Greta pointed out to the UN, that those 35% and 50% goals are not designed to stop the problem or even to keep things from getting worse, but to theoretically keep us from a tipping point, one we were not 100% sure where it was, and she pointed out that future generations would have to come up with science for removal and ways to adapt and to survive regardless and damage would continue to be done and a lot of it.
It seems like most of us have been living with the 35% and 50% reduction rose colored glasses on as if that is a future solution to a crisis that its already here. But it will not undo the damage for generations if it is even done in time.
The absolute truth is that we can't put anymore in the atmosphere at all, without things simply getting worse. It is not like go about your business, we got this...."keep shopping" (meant as an rough analogy)
The truth is, that we the public, should not be going about our business as usual and should be circling the wagons and buckling down. Solar here and heat pump there and then on a wide scale, will help a great deal and it is all necessary, but we are in a crisis right now, not simply if we do not meet percentages by X, Y, and Z dates. This crisis is happening today and getting worse every minute.
Many keep doing as they have always done. They keep traveling, keep driving ICE cars more than necessary, and on and on assuming that all these innovations will be enough some day - but one day in the future is not soon enough is what they are in denial about.
In this case us liberals are also like the ones in the movie being told not to look up, nothing to see here, at least not right now, you can probably look later.
I think this is appealing because we do not want to give up our lifestyles.
The crisis is now, but no one seems to notice and act accordingly, not even people who say they believe in climate change.
It is just plain odd.
The best analogy I can find is the addicted brain. Addicts brains change in physical structure and excuses and denial and even pain come into play in order for the brain to get the needed neurotransmitters from a fix after the neurons have upregulated.
Are most of us simply so addicted to the joy of modern conveniences that we will be the causes of our own demise unless someone comes up with and energy "methadone" like enough solar and alternative jet fuels, etc, so that we do not have to go into withdrawal?
The problem is that this global methadone does not yet exist in large enough scale so some of us need to go cold-turkey and simply stop using. No unneeded travel and on and on.
When I point out this reality, I feel like a nark. I become "the man" ruining the "vibe" of denial that has become the socially acceptable norm, but I do not see how what I am saying varies that much from what a girl at the UN said, and she was right. People seem to forget that she is still right and always has been.
It’s not a good idea to base policy ideas on the rants of one angry, autistic young woman, and besides she has already moved on to her next cause, Gaza.
She actually told the truth, so it really does not matter if you consider it a rant or if she is autistic. She is also still an advocate and has expanded her activism, not moved on.
Small correction as you say "The lines in red, yellow and green are electrified. The lines in grey are not, and run on diesel." The lines in yellow are just "proposed" for electrification, and some of these have already been functionally cancelled, in particular the remaining MML electrification.
(I'm not sure what the timescale is for all the yellow in Scotland, particular in the South-West, but there's definitely a rolling programme of electrification.)
Commentators in Modern Railways, a trade magazine that has been campaigning for electrification, approves of the Scottish approach to a rolling programme electrification rather than the stop-start approach that has been taken in England. In Scotland there's been more political will to get the train and infrastructure operators working together (and geography probably helps too, with relatively few train operators using the tracks).
Increasingly, grey lines may not mean "diesel", but could also mean battery or hybrid. In some places (e.g. Fife and the Borders) there's discontinuous electrification, where the train will be running on battery power where there's no power, and charging where there is. It's cheaper than full electrification, but it does mean lugging batteries around, which means heavier trains and more track damage - I believe the aspiration is full (or near-full) electrification, apart from some very rural lines (e.g. Far North, West Highland).
When it comes to electrification, as ever, it's the north of England that loses out (says the embittered northerner). But seriously Leeds and Manchester are massive towns not to be connected by an electrified railway. (And the electrified line between Sheffield and Manchester closed in the 1980s - though it was mostly powered by coal-fired power stations, and carried coal...)
Although it wasn't included in the second chart, I imagine adjusting your metric from total rail kms to number of passenger journeys would also radically improve Australia's rail electrification numbers.
We have very busy metropolitan rail services where the bulk of the population is, while things like grain and iron ore travel vast distances on diesel routes across the outback.
BUT, apparently you can electrify these services without overhead powerlines, as BHP is demonstrating with is new BEV trains.
Given resources aren’t unlimited, on climate, local air pollution and energy security grounds, speeding up electrification of road transport seems like it might be a better investment in most cases right now?
The UK’s poor performance on freight via electrified train compared to other countries needs to be improved. It would have multiple positive knock-on effects: less use of tyres, tyre particles, petrol used to make tyres, reduced traffic density on motorways, reduced damage on roads (lower emissions from road repairs), etc.
Eliminating neocolonialism would go a long way toward reducing emissions in trucking and shipping, too. Now that renewable energy can be sited alongside mines, forests, and farms, processing can be done onsite, leading to far less bulk transport. More equitable, more democratic, vast energy savings.
Your article made me wonder if high-speed trains could be an alternative for US inland flights. The distance is still wast, but it might even help revitalising Central US.
I don't think that it's realistic, just an interesting question while reading the article on a bus in Central Europe. :)
Of course that must be the goal—a complete network of high speed rail connected to renewably electrified transit systems in every city and town, free or priced so low it’s irresistible.
To reach it, a drastic change in government has to be accomplished. All of one and most of the other party has to be removed from power and wealth.
People need good information so they can make good choices and plan.
MIT Climate Portal:
“Because of the glacial pace at which natural carbon sinks absorb CO2, much of the carbon dioxide humans have emitted over the past centuries will remain in the atmosphere for many years to come. This will be true even if humans were to stop emitting all greenhouse gases tomorrow—the planet would need hundreds or thousands of years to cleanse all the excess CO2 people have pumped into the atmosphere during the industrial era.”
So, since much of this excess CO2 that we have already admitted, and are still emitting, that is changing our climate will be around for hundreds or thousands of years, anyone who is not in denial, would want to choose options that do the least damage, or forgo all unnecessary travel, since added emissions are a harm to us all and since much of it will not be going anywhere in our lifetimes. People will be harmed by our past and future actions and there is no doubt about this, especially those living in low lying costal areas due to sea level rise.
When you really think about it it seems that even some who believe in the science are still engaging in some form of denial if they choose to travel, especially if it is not absolutely necessary, in ways that create high emissions. Most that we put into the atmosphere will stay there for a very long time. It is all largely excess at this point and adding to the harm.
You’ve made excellent points about denial and more, but focusing on tu quoque arguments leads us down the wrong path. Personal lifestyle change is a climate solution on the same scale as being nice to neighbors would stop a world war in progress.
Only massive political change can accomplish what we need, and refusing to face that is denial as much as insisting climate catastrophe isn’t human-caused or thinking the rich can keep living exactly how we are just by changing to nuclear reactors, carbon capture, hydrogen or other false solutions. It just has to be done top down (after it’s done bottom up).
IOW, peaceful revolution first, government action second.
I think of what you said is part of the analogy of an energy addict's justification I mentioned above in a different post.
Although government is also very critical to help get things done and to help individuals use less fossil fuel, if individuals were not at the core, then why such a large emphasis on helping them get EVs and home solar, heat pumps, etc.?
Government is trying to provide alternatives so that we do not have to conserve as much energy or change our lifestyles in order to use less fossil fuels, but in the meantime we can, and still need, to conserve our fossil fuel use, and this is what is being lost in the arguments these days. What we are emitting right now, in the meantime, is building up and will be there for generations. It is not going away.
EVs and solar and all the rest are emphasized because they are a way to help individuals reduce their consumption of fossil fuels - and thus, consumption itself really is the main key.
It is all about reducing the use of fossil fuels.
This is something people can actually do - right now.
The truth is that this crisis is also largely all about individual use.
Industry accounts for less than 1/3 or about 23-30% of emissions in the USA.
The narratives about only government can do it and it is all industry are also too often used so that people do not have to engage in any sense of personal responsibility right now. It is used to excuse people of their responsibility and perhaps removes a sense of guilt when they are wasteful. Thus, the idea is wildly popular even among some liberals.
If households and travel are most of it, it is clear that we as individuals can reduce our use and have an impact - now - and do not need to wait - even if government can be a big help, as well, and will be needed to get the rest of the job done.
There is no green alternative for air travel, and this is unlikely to happen anytime soon, so no one has an excuse to fly needlessly and add more emissions that will be in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, so why do people who pretend to care do this? Yes, we need to see family and sometimes work requires it, but other than that, why do people think this is remotely acceptable?
It makes no sense. The old term "plastic hippie" comes to mind. They need to actually walk the walk if they really care. This is no joke and this waste and added emissions can cause life or death for many around the globe.
Also, if you have an ICE, and can't afford another car, reduce and combine trips or find alternatives, and there are many, many ways to reduce use in a home, and overall consumption, as well.
Good grief, since we are most of this, 60%, reducing personal use by 10% or 20% or more really is a massive start in getting us where we need to go.
Water heating is often 20% or more of most home uses, so turn it off or put it on a timer. I did. I found alternates for heating in winter and have gotten garden solar (cheap out of my own pocket), and my bill last summer for my all electric home was $12.65. I do not travel as this causes harm to others and the planet and I am only allowed 5 miles a week in my car since I do not have an EV, but I am considering alternatives for that as well, I feel I can do better.
My carbon footprint is a great deal less than my neighbors who were rich enough to use the government EV credits and afford a new car and solar for their roofs. Why? Because I do not travel and have no pets who are said to cause as much emission as an ICE car. The above photo is from when my kids were small and I am now an old woman.
So, if I use far less with no help from government (and I do believe government should do all they can do and well be essential) what is the excuse?
Most can do this if they simply take this crisis seriously, and it is a crisis right now, and people need to quit using false excuses and false narratives so that they can have excuses for the massive harm they are doing by polluting.
On the contrary, the narrative of footprint, of personal responsibility, was created by industry to paralyze collective action with guilt, shame, and inchoate rage, and distract each person with extremely difficult and much less powerful actions. (Those actions are far more possible and far more widely accomplishable with government action than without it—to the point where they simply cannot and will not ever save civilization and nature from climate catastrophe alone, or even without the vast majority of action being accomplished by government.
The footprint scam is part of a larger effort to atomize dissent that includes the scapegoating of disempowerment of racism, misogyny, destruction of unions, the FUD of climate denial (and the tens of billions of dollars spent on it and other science denial and disinformation), gerrymandering and voter suppression and many other tactics.
“Don't bother me with info about the ship sinking, when I am busy rearranging the deck chairs.” cfromke
Do the math.
What percent of emissions do we need to eliminate (accompanied by massive sequestration through reforestation and low-meat perennials-based organic permaculture, of course) to have even a 50-50 chance of saving a fair amount of what we love?
I’d say at least 90%, quickly achieved. (The slower it is, the harder it will be, and the faster we’ll have to do the last part and the higher the required percentage will be despite an increasingly devastated, disintegrating, at-war, global society.)
The vast majority of emissions come from the richest few percent.
“The rich can relax. We just need the poor world to cut emissions. By 125%. George Monbiot Unfortunately, that won’t do; we actually need the poorest 6 billion people to cut their impact by 800%.
That “rich” almost certainly includes you.
“If you have four things—a bed, a roof, clothes in a closet and food in a refrigerator, you have more than 85% of people in the world have.”
Pachamama Alliance, Awakening the Dreamer Symposium
What percent of people in that group will be willing to even consider what’s necessary to reduce just their own emissions by half of that? What percent of those willing will actually be able to do that—buy an EV or 2, AND insulate the house (difficult or impossible for renters), AND buy a heat pump AND sell off all unecological and anti-social investments, AND make sure their jobs, hobbies, and social activities are ecological, AND vastly reduce their consumption of meat, dairy products, eggs, pet food, clothing and non-local products
What percentage of people would be willing—and able—to reduce their emissions by 1/4—still a huge task that would occupy most of one’s time and money for at least a few years?
What percentage of people willing to do any of that, haven’t already?
Think about inclination vs impact and recognize that the people doing the most harm are the least willing to change, and the most likely to fight back with all the power and money they have, by lying, manipulating, bribing, destroying democracy, murdering, and more. They’ve already spent tens of billions of dollars doing those.
Every item is a tiny part of global emissions (and other pollution and destruction; this is, after all, a climate-and-larger psycho-ecological crisis—a crisis in relationships). Show me who in the US doesn’t use any industrial products! So when you say industry is “less than 1/3…” first of all, that’s HUGE! And it’s all of us as much as anything is.
When you say 60% is all of us, you’re lumping together huge items that are absolutely not all of us, or not all of us any more than industry is (for example) and many items that are absolutely not personal choice. You’re alternatively splitting and lumping in whatever ways you think makes your argument. Consciously or un, that’s misleading, to say the least.
So yes, flying is a tiny part. As you point out, it’s an enormously unequal part, maybe THE most unequal aspect of life in a grossly unfair and unequal world. (Or maybe 2nd to the application of “justice” to rich and poor.)
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” Anatole France
See that Steven Donziger thing?
Of the uber-wealthy, who as a class do every one of the things mentioned dozens to millions of times more than the average citizen of the US and Europe, let alone the average African, how many would be willing to stop flying … with no suitable substitute in place?
Or even with one, since flying, eating meat, living large, covering everything in gold… are the ways many mbillionaires demonstrate their superiority in an attempt to stave off crushing feelings of INferiority?
Which person is going to build a North American (& beyond) high speed rail network, 80% more efficient than flying and even better at reducing pollution?
How does a US citizen effectively withdraw their consent—and their share of emissions—from the emissions of the single most polluting and emitting entity in the world—the US military? How many people are willing to do that?
All these questions are ridiculous, of course. There is no math except that that proves that individual lifestyle change, however good it is in however many ways, is a virtually completely ineffective way to reduce global emissions. It will be impossible for civilization to survive without being led—and often forced—by progressive government action; if you still doubt that look at the actions of the rich and the far right rulers of global society.
We are faced with a fossil-fueled agro-chemicalized oligarchy and handmaiden far right wing absolutely refusing to admit the full reality of climate catastrophe, because their ego (to use the shorthand) and identity are too bound up with the symbolism and reality of fossil fuel use to ever allow change.
“People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.” John Kenneth Galbraith.
“We would rather be ruined than changed.” W.H. Auden
The main proximal cause of climate catastrophe is inequality. The main cause of inequality, capitalism, and all our problems, is what I think of nihilistic narcissistic psychotic psychopathy, or civilizational autism. Others call it by a Native American name, Wetiko (Paul Levy, eg. Dispelling Wetiko).
At the same time, climate catastrophe is rapidly increasing inequality, so to avoid the resulting black hole, we have to simultaneously address the logistics of climate cataclysm and do everything we can to rapidly equalize the world economically and thus politically, while we begin to heal Wetiko. If you think that will happen voluntarily, please, well, reconsider, I’ll just say.
Because individuals create a certain amount of emissions with their activities, it is simply nice to be able to try to get a feel for ones output when trying to do ones best to reduce our own contribution to climate change. Thus, we try to keep track to some degree. It is not more complicated than that. One can only feel guilty if they care, think they are part of the problem, and are not making what they consider to be enough of an effort.
Climate change is man made after all.
Yes some comes from industry as people produce things for consumers, but in the end they are filling a demand so it also helps if we can try to change our demand towards things that pollute less, as well by conserving or getting an EV if you can afford it, etc. Some folks reduce meat consumption for example or avoid it altogether to help in that way, as well. That also is part of ones footprint.
The bottom line is that collectively, it is all of us that drives what happens and the amount of emissions, etc. Yes, government will also help with all of that, too, and are needed. Fortunately green alternatives are now the fastest and cheapest to implement, like solar so that is simply more often becoming the choice even without subsidizing.
The point is that we all need to do the best we can and not assume others are the answer. That does not mean that working collectively though governments is not all super important. It is, but we are responsible as individuals as well has been my point.
Per capita emissions in the USA is 13.59 tons and in Uganda it is .15 a massive difference, so poorer nations also often have very tiny contributions to the problem. So we need to step it up.
Keeping track of your own impact is fine. (See JPL data scientist Peter Kalmus’s writings). Insisting, even after being corrected, that personal lifestyle change can make any significant difference in time to matter, is dangerous deception.
Per capita emissions ARE NOT PERSONAL EMISSIONS. They are the country’s total emissions divided by the number of people. US per capita emissions include the US military’s emissions. Tell me how you personally can change your lifestyle to reduce your amount of that.
You can’t.
Only political change can change it. Only political change can change the deeper realities of life enough to allow people to reasonably change their lifestyles to reduce emissions. Some states, because of insistence by organized groups, allow people to choose renewable energy as their source, and if people sign up for more than there is, they build more. Some, ie, red states, have no such law and have no significant renewable energy. Some states, (again, red ones often gerrymandered and voter-suppressed into redness) driven by the malevolent influence of ALEC and other right wing organizations, have prevented or repealed feed-in tariffs that make it possible for many people to put solar panels on their houses. Equally malevolent permitting byzantineness for solar makes solar cost an average of 3 times more in the US than Australia, where political action has reformed the process, making it safer, more efficient, cheaper for the government and buyer AND much faster. There are thousands upon thousands of such examples. If you read the Medium article linked to, you know I never said personal change isn’t good or important. I only said, and still reiterate, that political action is the only thing that will matter to our survival in the end.
Without any great increase in voluntary lifestyle change, civilization and nature can still survive, IF political change changes society on a deeper level.
You flick the switch. Does it allow renewable energy to flow into your home or coal or gas energy? Political action determines that. People and governments are organizing to require only electrical connections to new buildings, not fossil gas connections. Gas corporations are spending millions to bribe, bully, scare, and confuse people into not only not passing those new laws, but into outlawing the restrictions. Organizing politically to prevent Republicans from gerrymandering or voter suppressing their way into power in a state (and therefore the country) determines whether you can choose your power or afford to put solar panels on your home or business. Without any great change in the speed and magnitude of political change, we are doomed, whatever the tiny number of people willing to make significant change do.
Do the math: For civilization and most life on Earth to survive, we need to reduce emissions by at least 90% very very quickly. (And the other 10% immediately after.) We’re not; we’re still INCREASING emissions! How are we going to reach a total reduction of at least 90% if the (rich) people causing half the emissions are only willing to promise to reduce the speed at which they INCREASE their emissions by 1%? (And then not actually reduce the speed of increase at all.) It is an absolutely ridiculous supposition.
Although air travel is only roughly about 3% of CO2 emissions and 5% of global warming, this is because only about 3% of the worlds population flies. However the output per flight is massive
BBC:
"A return flight from London to San Francisco emits around 5.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per person – more than twice the emissions produced by a family car in a year, and about half of the average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain. "
If everyone flew just once a year, it would exceed the total current US output.
So, this illustrates the impact an individual can have if they choose to forgo flying because relatively few of the worlds population are contributing to this total.
The rich consume vast amounts of flying compared to the 99.9%. Over the last 50 years, their continued refusal to even slow the growth of their flying and vast other emissions, means personal lifestyle change is not going to make the slightest bit of difference in those emissions or any other significant area. Only political change will matter.
This brings me back to my original argument, which you seem to forgotten or missed.
My original argument did not say that government was not the answer, it was simply that this being the case did not give us all an excuse to pollute in the meantime when we know better.
Government solutions will be years or decades in the making and all that we put in the atmosphere right now will do damage and will stay there.
The reason I pointed out the difference between me and my neighbor was to point out that an individual actually can make a difference even as much as some of the bells and whistles from the tax credits, if they simply choose to do so. I actually prefer the tax credit stuff, but I am making lemonade with my lemon of an income and it is working fairly well. But to then have them undo, all they have done and their privilege with having all of this stuff with air travel is frustrating.
Never did I say government intervention was not necessary.
The reason I made this argument is that many are using government future possible added government actions as an excuse to do nothing at all regarding their own emissions and do not take any personal responsibility, but the solution has to be an "all of the above" one - where we all do everything we can as well as government and we need to do as much as we can right now.
I think many are now unaware that all of their actions really do matter, sadly, and have sold themselves excuses because the current popular narrative is that someone else will fix it so just keep spending and do things as usual.
The rich who also follow these excuses, about little to no to personal responsibility, or who pat themselves on the back for having solar and an EV, etc. and then go pollute, simply often end up doing more damage with their larger frequent excesses, like air travel.
However, even many of them could be made aware and held accountable if we changed the narrative and stopped the excuses from being allowed.
Regarding your comment about the term carbon footprint.
Industry actually benefits when we do not take personal responsibility and keep our spending and traveling patterns the same and when we do not pay attention to our usage and waste, so they would not want to invent a reason for us to change our habits.
Some people use any excuse to diss renewables, efficiency, etc. it has nothing to do with govt vs personal; they attack everything, in whatever way presents itself, to further delay climate solutions. I’ve never known anyone in favor of climate solutions who has ever used government action to excuse doing nothing personally. 99% of the time it’s the other way around; people focus on footprint because of corporate right wing lies, as I’ve explained. They use the excuse, then partly no doubt because they get overwhelmed by the universe-sized gap between the problem and the actions they can hope to do, they do nothing.
Industry and the far right have created this propaganda to destroy political action they fear. It works.
I spent an hour figuring out, from 3 groups shown by the Oxfam shroom, what actual reductions were possible. A wildly optimistic estimate ended up at 6 1/2% reduction. Meaningless. Political action is the only thing we can do that will make any difference in our survival.
I see a lot of people who claim to care about the environment be very wasteful and say that only the government can fix it. They say, so why bother. If all the people who really cared "walked the walk" we would not have the level of fossil fuel consumption and air and vehicle travel that we do.
Also, industry wants us to keep spending and for us to not care about our footprint so they have no motive to promote the footprint notion, quite the oppoisite, since it is used to help people try to conserve.
During the height of covid lockdowns emissions were reduced 17 percent and OPEC and USA combined cut production by over 10 million BPD in mid 2020 because tanking demand for gasoline caused oil prices to plummet and they were losing money. Look at weekly crude oil production.
Thus, our demand, or rather lack of it, hurts the bottom line of businesses and industry that depend on us to buy what they are selling.
We have power as consumers and our choices matter.
If we do not buy it, they can't sell it, and cant afford to keep pulling it out of the ground. Wells were capped and even some smaller US oil companies went bankrupt in 2020. Our actions matter a great deal.
Quite... and however much one does transition towards road over rail, almost all freight will still need a road element to it (the 'last mile', for example, is rarely going to be rail).
It cannot be either/or, but my reading of the article does suggest decarbonising road freight is the lower hanging - and more substantial - fruit?
Obviously, electrifying first and last mile trucking is orders of magnitude easier technically than electrifying long-distance trucking. Politically, in the US, renewablizing and electrifying all 3—short trucking, long trucking, and rail—are impossible without a radical change in government. With such a political change, all 3 are equally possible and since all 3 are necessary, we need to get going on that revolution thing.
Last mile could be filled with PHEV trucks- used with mostly electricity, less diesel pollution and gasoline/diesel used as range extender when needed. Maximum flexibility and huge reduction in oil needs
BEVs make a difference. PHEV/Hybrids perpetuate fossil fuel use and will become stranded assets.
The UK dropped hybrids from their subsidy program when it became clear that people were gaming the system by using the subsidies to get hybrids cheaply and then driving them entirely on petrol and never bothering to plug in at all.
BEVs can go 620 miles now on a charge, and charge from 10% to 90% in 7 minutes. Other BEVs can be had new for $11,000. There is no need for hybrids.
Subsidies aren't the only factor- especially poorly executed ones. My 10 kWh PHEV reduced my fuel consumption from 6 L/100 km to 1.4 L/100 km over about 70,000 km in a harsh EU winter climate. That is a massive drop in oil dependence and a 2–3x reduction in cost of driving thanks to a clean grid all without any subsidies(used car BTW). No range anxiety if needing to drive longer distances. Should utilities tell in the midst of the winter that charging should be avoided- PHEV owners would survive, temporarily using more fuel. BEVs are not that elastic, even temporarily.
My focus here isn't on family cars, but on medium/long-range delivery vehicles. Building a BEV with decent range for large vehicles is a serious challenge, but a "balanced" PHEV can slash fuel consumption and leverage cheap electricity. While Germany and the UK are expensive places to charge, many other regions offer the cheap, clean power needed to make this transition work today
Nobody said subsidies were the only thing. Obviously the point was people were not and do not use hybrids as EVs. They perpetuate fossil fuel use and will become stranded assets.
There’s no need for range anxiety when EVs can go 620 miles on a charge and thus almost entirely be charged at home—every few days for the most part—but when necessary, be recharged in 7 minutes, and fast chargers are increasingly common. That’s London to Pentland Firth with only 30 extra miles to charge for—maybe 2 minutes. If someone is driving 12 hours without stopping that’s dangerous. They need to pee at least once and the charging will be done by the time they get back. That’s more than a thousand miles with just 1 less-than 10 minute stop.
In the US, driving west to east 3000 miles with 2 drivers alternating, you could pick your states for the cheapest electricity for most of your 6 stops.
For years, Texas had constant outages caused by coal, gas, and nuke failures in both summer and winter extreme weather. They added more wind turbines, more solar panels, many more batteries to the grid and sailed through the 3 hottest years in 125,000 years without any trouble. The solutions to all of your objections, stated and un, are obvious: build more, faster. More renewable energy, more (iron-air and sodium) grid batteries, more and better EVs, more chargers and truck stops, more high speed rail
The vast majority of freight must be moved by rail, with (non-literal) first and last mile and local deliveries thus the vast majority of trucking. Like China already does it.
That sounds like a bit of a fantasy. I have a 64 kWh BEV now that I like a lot, but reality is a mixed bag. It hits 13 kWh/100 km in the city when it's warm(fantastic efficiency), but at highway speeds, it jumps to 20 kWh/100 km. Needing a fast charger every 200-250 km is a hassle, especially since you can't realistically charge to 100% quickly. Range anxiety is real when the tech doesn't meet the "600 miles in 7 minutes" hype. I don't do much of long range cross-country driving fortunately, could suffer slower one occasionally, but cannot pretend that there are no issues around them.
Look at it this way: that 64 kWh battery could be split among five PHEVs to slash oil use for five families instead of just one. Whether someone does short trips or long commutes, the total reduction in emissions across five cars is a much bigger win for the environment. That is why I like PHEVs as offering more potential to impact oil consumption.
Better, a bunch could be put in a bus to carry a thousand-plus people a week.
Most people don’t need 620 miles. Those who do need it for work should be able to pay for it with high enough pay or a company car.
I’m sure super fast charging is nice, though; personally it takes me a whole day or even 2 to recover from any significant trips—14 mile round trip to the feed store for 50 pounds of duck layer pellets, for instance.
Infrastructure metrics can mislead when they measure assets rather than use.
A country can have a low share of electrified track but a high share of passenger journeys on electric lines, because the busiest corridors were prioritized.
But freight exposes the deeper execution layer.
If goods still move mostly through diesel, the industrial substrate has not really electrified.
The civilizational question is not only what infrastructure exists.
"But having people switch from the car or plane to the train, could. That’s the strongest climate case for electrifying rail: making the experience better and faster so that people are more incentivised to switch."
But what is the cost and value for that on those grey lines? Chippenham to Westbury is 27 minutes. How much faster would electric be? And how many more people would use it?
Rail is an expensive way to cut CO2 emissions because it costs so much to do.
Hard to believe the US figures (by usage, not by track length). A huge % of US rail traffic runs through NYC . While it’s only one city, it’s big. About one-third of all mass transit users in the U.S. and two-thirds of the nation's rail riders live in NYC or its suburbs. And these are largely electric.
Another reason for electrification of the railway is that diesel supply is being affected by wars.
Thanks for writing, Hannah, I am pleased to see the electrification progress from India. Coming from the country, I didn't know about it and I don't think we celebrate it enough. Also, living in Switzerland, I can see it's possible despite tough terrain. There is always hope and some pleasant realities, like you always seem to say 😊
I remember the endless wrangling over electrifying the WCML. Like a dress rehearsal for HS2.
It's embarassing how inefficient the UK is at this sort of thing. Each electrification project is stand-alone so has to go through a long and expensive process of design, legal wrangling, contracting, recruitment, and then when that's done the whole thing is disbanded, expertise is lost, and it's pretty much starting from scratch for the next bit. Standard cut-price thinking on capital projects from various (mostly Conservative, obviously) UK governments on this.
OTOH, we do now have a fully battery-powered electric train in the UK, and if the major advances in battery technology being driven by the car market start to come through, it might be that even the longer local lines don't need electrifying, other than fast-charging technology at some stations, or perhaps they could have electrified sections so they charge whilst moving, but with a much lower electrification requirement.
My guess would be that capital spending spending on creating new electrified lines is now mostly a waste of resources, money that could better be spent on rolling out battery (and hybrid?) technologies to replace all the diesel services.
As you say, it should only require a relatively small number of power connections, probably to charging pads at stations. That has to be much cheaper and easier to deploy and the cost of the batteries are falling all the time.
"Not a single train could run on the non-electric part, and the rate would still be 50%."
In that case, Switzerland isn't 100% electric.
There is a small line (about 10km) from Etzwilen (on the Winterthur S Bahn) to Ramsen, a village on the German border. It is not electrified. I assume they closed it as it wasn't worth electrifying.
It is however still used. People rent out these hand powered railway carriages, and pump up and down to go faster.. Swiss idea if fun!
And last year, I saw some hydrogen trains on it. They were being tested, presumably with a view to bringing the line back into service.
Like all hydrogen transport projects, it probably died. But I am hopeful that we will see battery powered trains on the line.
Battery powered trains seems the cheap way to electrify lines in future. You only need partial electrification. For example, Chiltern Rail lines coild be electrified for 10 miles out of every 50 miles. That would radically reduce costs of electrification.
While it may be entertaining to picture a train full of sweaty passengers furiously pedaling in their seats, if the line is infrequently used they could use a battery powered electric train. For trains, unlike planes, batteries are well suited since weight is not an issue and with sparse schedules at fixed stopping points recharging is also easily done, and no need for ugly overhead wires or dangerous third rails.
Not pedaling. I have just learnt the word is "Handcar". I think I recall it from some Laurel and Hardie videos, filled before my time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handcar
Doomers: "Everything is terrible!"
Hannah: "I'll say this once again: Calm Down. [JFC]"
Repeat.
While it is nice to have a break from some of the bad reality and also focus on the good, the progress we have made that was successful, whether it be fighting smog in CA or closing the ozone hole or getting rid of DDT use was brought on by a lot of disaster panic type motivation and publicity and "doom and gloom."
Today's response to climate change kind of reminds me of Bush after 9/11 saying to the American people, I got this, keep spending and keep the economy going and on and on.
What I mean is that as Greta pointed out to the UN, that those 35% and 50% goals are not designed to stop the problem or even to keep things from getting worse, but to theoretically keep us from a tipping point, one we were not 100% sure where it was, and she pointed out that future generations would have to come up with science for removal and ways to adapt and to survive regardless and damage would continue to be done and a lot of it.
It seems like most of us have been living with the 35% and 50% reduction rose colored glasses on as if that is a future solution to a crisis that its already here. But it will not undo the damage for generations if it is even done in time.
The absolute truth is that we can't put anymore in the atmosphere at all, without things simply getting worse. It is not like go about your business, we got this...."keep shopping" (meant as an rough analogy)
The truth is, that we the public, should not be going about our business as usual and should be circling the wagons and buckling down. Solar here and heat pump there and then on a wide scale, will help a great deal and it is all necessary, but we are in a crisis right now, not simply if we do not meet percentages by X, Y, and Z dates. This crisis is happening today and getting worse every minute.
Many keep doing as they have always done. They keep traveling, keep driving ICE cars more than necessary, and on and on assuming that all these innovations will be enough some day - but one day in the future is not soon enough is what they are in denial about.
In this case us liberals are also like the ones in the movie being told not to look up, nothing to see here, at least not right now, you can probably look later.
I think this is appealing because we do not want to give up our lifestyles.
The crisis is now, but no one seems to notice and act accordingly, not even people who say they believe in climate change.
It is just plain odd.
The best analogy I can find is the addicted brain. Addicts brains change in physical structure and excuses and denial and even pain come into play in order for the brain to get the needed neurotransmitters from a fix after the neurons have upregulated.
Are most of us simply so addicted to the joy of modern conveniences that we will be the causes of our own demise unless someone comes up with and energy "methadone" like enough solar and alternative jet fuels, etc, so that we do not have to go into withdrawal?
The problem is that this global methadone does not yet exist in large enough scale so some of us need to go cold-turkey and simply stop using. No unneeded travel and on and on.
When I point out this reality, I feel like a nark. I become "the man" ruining the "vibe" of denial that has become the socially acceptable norm, but I do not see how what I am saying varies that much from what a girl at the UN said, and she was right. People seem to forget that she is still right and always has been.
It’s not a good idea to base policy ideas on the rants of one angry, autistic young woman, and besides she has already moved on to her next cause, Gaza.
She actually told the truth, so it really does not matter if you consider it a rant or if she is autistic. She is also still an advocate and has expanded her activism, not moved on.
She's a hero, and by all means point to other people on point.
(And even non-heroes are allowed more than one cause in a lifetime)
Small correction as you say "The lines in red, yellow and green are electrified. The lines in grey are not, and run on diesel." The lines in yellow are just "proposed" for electrification, and some of these have already been functionally cancelled, in particular the remaining MML electrification.
In addition, pink (visible at the end of the borders line) is "under construction".
There's an interesting story about how much yellow is north and south of the English/Scottish border, as borne out by the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_in_Scotland
(I'm not sure what the timescale is for all the yellow in Scotland, particular in the South-West, but there's definitely a rolling programme of electrification.)
Commentators in Modern Railways, a trade magazine that has been campaigning for electrification, approves of the Scottish approach to a rolling programme electrification rather than the stop-start approach that has been taken in England. In Scotland there's been more political will to get the train and infrastructure operators working together (and geography probably helps too, with relatively few train operators using the tracks).
Increasingly, grey lines may not mean "diesel", but could also mean battery or hybrid. In some places (e.g. Fife and the Borders) there's discontinuous electrification, where the train will be running on battery power where there's no power, and charging where there is. It's cheaper than full electrification, but it does mean lugging batteries around, which means heavier trains and more track damage - I believe the aspiration is full (or near-full) electrification, apart from some very rural lines (e.g. Far North, West Highland).
When it comes to electrification, as ever, it's the north of England that loses out (says the embittered northerner). But seriously Leeds and Manchester are massive towns not to be connected by an electrified railway. (And the electrified line between Sheffield and Manchester closed in the 1980s - though it was mostly powered by coal-fired power stations, and carried coal...)
Although it wasn't included in the second chart, I imagine adjusting your metric from total rail kms to number of passenger journeys would also radically improve Australia's rail electrification numbers.
We have very busy metropolitan rail services where the bulk of the population is, while things like grain and iron ore travel vast distances on diesel routes across the outback.
BUT, apparently you can electrify these services without overhead powerlines, as BHP is demonstrating with is new BEV trains.
https://www.bhp.com/news/articles/2025/11/bhp-welcomes-australias-first-purpose-built-battery-electric-locomotives-to-the-pilbara
Would be very interested in your take on whether this could replace other diesel networks, and if it's a viable alternative.
Given resources aren’t unlimited, on climate, local air pollution and energy security grounds, speeding up electrification of road transport seems like it might be a better investment in most cases right now?
The UK’s poor performance on freight via electrified train compared to other countries needs to be improved. It would have multiple positive knock-on effects: less use of tyres, tyre particles, petrol used to make tyres, reduced traffic density on motorways, reduced damage on roads (lower emissions from road repairs), etc.
Eliminating neocolonialism would go a long way toward reducing emissions in trucking and shipping, too. Now that renewable energy can be sited alongside mines, forests, and farms, processing can be done onsite, leading to far less bulk transport. More equitable, more democratic, vast energy savings.
Your article made me wonder if high-speed trains could be an alternative for US inland flights. The distance is still wast, but it might even help revitalising Central US.
I don't think that it's realistic, just an interesting question while reading the article on a bus in Central Europe. :)
Of course that must be the goal—a complete network of high speed rail connected to renewably electrified transit systems in every city and town, free or priced so low it’s irresistible.
To reach it, a drastic change in government has to be accomplished. All of one and most of the other party has to be removed from power and wealth.
Thank you.
People need good information so they can make good choices and plan.
MIT Climate Portal:
“Because of the glacial pace at which natural carbon sinks absorb CO2, much of the carbon dioxide humans have emitted over the past centuries will remain in the atmosphere for many years to come. This will be true even if humans were to stop emitting all greenhouse gases tomorrow—the planet would need hundreds or thousands of years to cleanse all the excess CO2 people have pumped into the atmosphere during the industrial era.”
So, since much of this excess CO2 that we have already admitted, and are still emitting, that is changing our climate will be around for hundreds or thousands of years, anyone who is not in denial, would want to choose options that do the least damage, or forgo all unnecessary travel, since added emissions are a harm to us all and since much of it will not be going anywhere in our lifetimes. People will be harmed by our past and future actions and there is no doubt about this, especially those living in low lying costal areas due to sea level rise.
When you really think about it it seems that even some who believe in the science are still engaging in some form of denial if they choose to travel, especially if it is not absolutely necessary, in ways that create high emissions. Most that we put into the atmosphere will stay there for a very long time. It is all largely excess at this point and adding to the harm.
You’ve made excellent points about denial and more, but focusing on tu quoque arguments leads us down the wrong path. Personal lifestyle change is a climate solution on the same scale as being nice to neighbors would stop a world war in progress.
Only massive political change can accomplish what we need, and refusing to face that is denial as much as insisting climate catastrophe isn’t human-caused or thinking the rich can keep living exactly how we are just by changing to nuclear reactors, carbon capture, hydrogen or other false solutions. It just has to be done top down (after it’s done bottom up).
IOW, peaceful revolution first, government action second.
I disagree.
I think of what you said is part of the analogy of an energy addict's justification I mentioned above in a different post.
Although government is also very critical to help get things done and to help individuals use less fossil fuel, if individuals were not at the core, then why such a large emphasis on helping them get EVs and home solar, heat pumps, etc.?
Government is trying to provide alternatives so that we do not have to conserve as much energy or change our lifestyles in order to use less fossil fuels, but in the meantime we can, and still need, to conserve our fossil fuel use, and this is what is being lost in the arguments these days. What we are emitting right now, in the meantime, is building up and will be there for generations. It is not going away.
EVs and solar and all the rest are emphasized because they are a way to help individuals reduce their consumption of fossil fuels - and thus, consumption itself really is the main key.
It is all about reducing the use of fossil fuels.
This is something people can actually do - right now.
The truth is that this crisis is also largely all about individual use.
Industry accounts for less than 1/3 or about 23-30% of emissions in the USA.
Agriculture is abt 10%
The rest, abt 60% is all of us.
It is households and travel and travel is 28-29%
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
The narratives about only government can do it and it is all industry are also too often used so that people do not have to engage in any sense of personal responsibility right now. It is used to excuse people of their responsibility and perhaps removes a sense of guilt when they are wasteful. Thus, the idea is wildly popular even among some liberals.
If households and travel are most of it, it is clear that we as individuals can reduce our use and have an impact - now - and do not need to wait - even if government can be a big help, as well, and will be needed to get the rest of the job done.
There is no green alternative for air travel, and this is unlikely to happen anytime soon, so no one has an excuse to fly needlessly and add more emissions that will be in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, so why do people who pretend to care do this? Yes, we need to see family and sometimes work requires it, but other than that, why do people think this is remotely acceptable?
It makes no sense. The old term "plastic hippie" comes to mind. They need to actually walk the walk if they really care. This is no joke and this waste and added emissions can cause life or death for many around the globe.
Also, if you have an ICE, and can't afford another car, reduce and combine trips or find alternatives, and there are many, many ways to reduce use in a home, and overall consumption, as well.
Good grief, since we are most of this, 60%, reducing personal use by 10% or 20% or more really is a massive start in getting us where we need to go.
Water heating is often 20% or more of most home uses, so turn it off or put it on a timer. I did. I found alternates for heating in winter and have gotten garden solar (cheap out of my own pocket), and my bill last summer for my all electric home was $12.65. I do not travel as this causes harm to others and the planet and I am only allowed 5 miles a week in my car since I do not have an EV, but I am considering alternatives for that as well, I feel I can do better.
My carbon footprint is a great deal less than my neighbors who were rich enough to use the government EV credits and afford a new car and solar for their roofs. Why? Because I do not travel and have no pets who are said to cause as much emission as an ICE car. The above photo is from when my kids were small and I am now an old woman.
So, if I use far less with no help from government (and I do believe government should do all they can do and well be essential) what is the excuse?
Most can do this if they simply take this crisis seriously, and it is a crisis right now, and people need to quit using false excuses and false narratives so that they can have excuses for the massive harm they are doing by polluting.
On the contrary, the narrative of footprint, of personal responsibility, was created by industry to paralyze collective action with guilt, shame, and inchoate rage, and distract each person with extremely difficult and much less powerful actions. (Those actions are far more possible and far more widely accomplishable with government action than without it—to the point where they simply cannot and will not ever save civilization and nature from climate catastrophe alone, or even without the vast majority of action being accomplished by government.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9LOqiXdpE
The footprint scam is part of a larger effort to atomize dissent that includes the scapegoating of disempowerment of racism, misogyny, destruction of unions, the FUD of climate denial (and the tens of billions of dollars spent on it and other science denial and disinformation), gerrymandering and voter suppression and many other tactics.
“Don't bother me with info about the ship sinking, when I am busy rearranging the deck chairs.” cfromke
Do the math.
What percent of emissions do we need to eliminate (accompanied by massive sequestration through reforestation and low-meat perennials-based organic permaculture, of course) to have even a 50-50 chance of saving a fair amount of what we love?
I’d say at least 90%, quickly achieved. (The slower it is, the harder it will be, and the faster we’ll have to do the last part and the higher the required percentage will be despite an increasingly devastated, disintegrating, at-war, global society.)
The vast majority of emissions come from the richest few percent.
https://makerichpolluterspay.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Oxfam_chart1_sans-1.jpg
“The rich can relax. We just need the poor world to cut emissions. By 125%. George Monbiot Unfortunately, that won’t do; we actually need the poorest 6 billion people to cut their impact by 800%.
That “rich” almost certainly includes you.
“If you have four things—a bed, a roof, clothes in a closet and food in a refrigerator, you have more than 85% of people in the world have.”
Pachamama Alliance, Awakening the Dreamer Symposium
What percent of people in that group will be willing to even consider what’s necessary to reduce just their own emissions by half of that? What percent of those willing will actually be able to do that—buy an EV or 2, AND insulate the house (difficult or impossible for renters), AND buy a heat pump AND sell off all unecological and anti-social investments, AND make sure their jobs, hobbies, and social activities are ecological, AND vastly reduce their consumption of meat, dairy products, eggs, pet food, clothing and non-local products
https://jharrisoncope-38702.medium.com/ive-lived-my-whole-adult-life-making-a-difference-by-eating-low-on-the-food-chain-traveling-only-9d7269a84732
What percentage of people would be willing—and able—to reduce their emissions by 1/4—still a huge task that would occupy most of one’s time and money for at least a few years?
What percentage of people willing to do any of that, haven’t already?
Think about inclination vs impact and recognize that the people doing the most harm are the least willing to change, and the most likely to fight back with all the power and money they have, by lying, manipulating, bribing, destroying democracy, murdering, and more. They’ve already spent tens of billions of dollars doing those.
Every item is a tiny part of global emissions (and other pollution and destruction; this is, after all, a climate-and-larger psycho-ecological crisis—a crisis in relationships). Show me who in the US doesn’t use any industrial products! So when you say industry is “less than 1/3…” first of all, that’s HUGE! And it’s all of us as much as anything is.
When you say 60% is all of us, you’re lumping together huge items that are absolutely not all of us, or not all of us any more than industry is (for example) and many items that are absolutely not personal choice. You’re alternatively splitting and lumping in whatever ways you think makes your argument. Consciously or un, that’s misleading, to say the least.
So yes, flying is a tiny part. As you point out, it’s an enormously unequal part, maybe THE most unequal aspect of life in a grossly unfair and unequal world. (Or maybe 2nd to the application of “justice” to rich and poor.)
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” Anatole France
See that Steven Donziger thing?
Of the uber-wealthy, who as a class do every one of the things mentioned dozens to millions of times more than the average citizen of the US and Europe, let alone the average African, how many would be willing to stop flying … with no suitable substitute in place?
Or even with one, since flying, eating meat, living large, covering everything in gold… are the ways many mbillionaires demonstrate their superiority in an attempt to stave off crushing feelings of INferiority?
Which person is going to build a North American (& beyond) high speed rail network, 80% more efficient than flying and even better at reducing pollution?
How does a US citizen effectively withdraw their consent—and their share of emissions—from the emissions of the single most polluting and emitting entity in the world—the US military? How many people are willing to do that?
All these questions are ridiculous, of course. There is no math except that that proves that individual lifestyle change, however good it is in however many ways, is a virtually completely ineffective way to reduce global emissions. It will be impossible for civilization to survive without being led—and often forced—by progressive government action; if you still doubt that look at the actions of the rich and the far right rulers of global society.
We are faced with a fossil-fueled agro-chemicalized oligarchy and handmaiden far right wing absolutely refusing to admit the full reality of climate catastrophe, because their ego (to use the shorthand) and identity are too bound up with the symbolism and reality of fossil fuel use to ever allow change.
“People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.” John Kenneth Galbraith.
“We would rather be ruined than changed.” W.H. Auden
The main proximal cause of climate catastrophe is inequality. The main cause of inequality, capitalism, and all our problems, is what I think of nihilistic narcissistic psychotic psychopathy, or civilizational autism. Others call it by a Native American name, Wetiko (Paul Levy, eg. Dispelling Wetiko).
https://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/seeing-wetiko-on-capitalism-mind-viruses-and-antidotes-for-a-world-in-transition/
At the same time, climate catastrophe is rapidly increasing inequality, so to avoid the resulting black hole, we have to simultaneously address the logistics of climate cataclysm and do everything we can to rapidly equalize the world economically and thus politically, while we begin to heal Wetiko. If you think that will happen voluntarily, please, well, reconsider, I’ll just say.
Because individuals create a certain amount of emissions with their activities, it is simply nice to be able to try to get a feel for ones output when trying to do ones best to reduce our own contribution to climate change. Thus, we try to keep track to some degree. It is not more complicated than that. One can only feel guilty if they care, think they are part of the problem, and are not making what they consider to be enough of an effort.
Climate change is man made after all.
Yes some comes from industry as people produce things for consumers, but in the end they are filling a demand so it also helps if we can try to change our demand towards things that pollute less, as well by conserving or getting an EV if you can afford it, etc. Some folks reduce meat consumption for example or avoid it altogether to help in that way, as well. That also is part of ones footprint.
The bottom line is that collectively, it is all of us that drives what happens and the amount of emissions, etc. Yes, government will also help with all of that, too, and are needed. Fortunately green alternatives are now the fastest and cheapest to implement, like solar so that is simply more often becoming the choice even without subsidizing.
The point is that we all need to do the best we can and not assume others are the answer. That does not mean that working collectively though governments is not all super important. It is, but we are responsible as individuals as well has been my point.
Per capita emissions in the USA is 13.59 tons and in Uganda it is .15 a massive difference, so poorer nations also often have very tiny contributions to the problem. So we need to step it up.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Climate catastrophe is HUMAN-made.
Keeping track of your own impact is fine. (See JPL data scientist Peter Kalmus’s writings). Insisting, even after being corrected, that personal lifestyle change can make any significant difference in time to matter, is dangerous deception.
Per capita emissions ARE NOT PERSONAL EMISSIONS. They are the country’s total emissions divided by the number of people. US per capita emissions include the US military’s emissions. Tell me how you personally can change your lifestyle to reduce your amount of that.
You can’t.
Only political change can change it. Only political change can change the deeper realities of life enough to allow people to reasonably change their lifestyles to reduce emissions. Some states, because of insistence by organized groups, allow people to choose renewable energy as their source, and if people sign up for more than there is, they build more. Some, ie, red states, have no such law and have no significant renewable energy. Some states, (again, red ones often gerrymandered and voter-suppressed into redness) driven by the malevolent influence of ALEC and other right wing organizations, have prevented or repealed feed-in tariffs that make it possible for many people to put solar panels on their houses. Equally malevolent permitting byzantineness for solar makes solar cost an average of 3 times more in the US than Australia, where political action has reformed the process, making it safer, more efficient, cheaper for the government and buyer AND much faster. There are thousands upon thousands of such examples. If you read the Medium article linked to, you know I never said personal change isn’t good or important. I only said, and still reiterate, that political action is the only thing that will matter to our survival in the end.
Without any great increase in voluntary lifestyle change, civilization and nature can still survive, IF political change changes society on a deeper level.
You flick the switch. Does it allow renewable energy to flow into your home or coal or gas energy? Political action determines that. People and governments are organizing to require only electrical connections to new buildings, not fossil gas connections. Gas corporations are spending millions to bribe, bully, scare, and confuse people into not only not passing those new laws, but into outlawing the restrictions. Organizing politically to prevent Republicans from gerrymandering or voter suppressing their way into power in a state (and therefore the country) determines whether you can choose your power or afford to put solar panels on your home or business. Without any great change in the speed and magnitude of political change, we are doomed, whatever the tiny number of people willing to make significant change do.
Do the math: For civilization and most life on Earth to survive, we need to reduce emissions by at least 90% very very quickly. (And the other 10% immediately after.) We’re not; we’re still INCREASING emissions! How are we going to reach a total reduction of at least 90% if the (rich) people causing half the emissions are only willing to promise to reduce the speed at which they INCREASE their emissions by 1%? (And then not actually reduce the speed of increase at all.) It is an absolutely ridiculous supposition.
DO THE FUCKING MATH!
Maybe this would illustrate better.
Although air travel is only roughly about 3% of CO2 emissions and 5% of global warming, this is because only about 3% of the worlds population flies. However the output per flight is massive
BBC:
"A return flight from London to San Francisco emits around 5.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per person – more than twice the emissions produced by a family car in a year, and about half of the average carbon footprint of someone living in Britain. "
If everyone flew just once a year, it would exceed the total current US output.
So, this illustrates the impact an individual can have if they choose to forgo flying because relatively few of the worlds population are contributing to this total.
The rich consume vast amounts of flying compared to the 99.9%. Over the last 50 years, their continued refusal to even slow the growth of their flying and vast other emissions, means personal lifestyle change is not going to make the slightest bit of difference in those emissions or any other significant area. Only political change will matter.
This brings me back to my original argument, which you seem to forgotten or missed.
My original argument did not say that government was not the answer, it was simply that this being the case did not give us all an excuse to pollute in the meantime when we know better.
Government solutions will be years or decades in the making and all that we put in the atmosphere right now will do damage and will stay there.
The reason I pointed out the difference between me and my neighbor was to point out that an individual actually can make a difference even as much as some of the bells and whistles from the tax credits, if they simply choose to do so. I actually prefer the tax credit stuff, but I am making lemonade with my lemon of an income and it is working fairly well. But to then have them undo, all they have done and their privilege with having all of this stuff with air travel is frustrating.
Never did I say government intervention was not necessary.
The reason I made this argument is that many are using government future possible added government actions as an excuse to do nothing at all regarding their own emissions and do not take any personal responsibility, but the solution has to be an "all of the above" one - where we all do everything we can as well as government and we need to do as much as we can right now.
I think many are now unaware that all of their actions really do matter, sadly, and have sold themselves excuses because the current popular narrative is that someone else will fix it so just keep spending and do things as usual.
The rich who also follow these excuses, about little to no to personal responsibility, or who pat themselves on the back for having solar and an EV, etc. and then go pollute, simply often end up doing more damage with their larger frequent excesses, like air travel.
However, even many of them could be made aware and held accountable if we changed the narrative and stopped the excuses from being allowed.
Regarding your comment about the term carbon footprint.
Industry actually benefits when we do not take personal responsibility and keep our spending and traveling patterns the same and when we do not pay attention to our usage and waste, so they would not want to invent a reason for us to change our habits.
Some people use any excuse to diss renewables, efficiency, etc. it has nothing to do with govt vs personal; they attack everything, in whatever way presents itself, to further delay climate solutions. I’ve never known anyone in favor of climate solutions who has ever used government action to excuse doing nothing personally. 99% of the time it’s the other way around; people focus on footprint because of corporate right wing lies, as I’ve explained. They use the excuse, then partly no doubt because they get overwhelmed by the universe-sized gap between the problem and the actions they can hope to do, they do nothing.
Industry and the far right have created this propaganda to destroy political action they fear. It works.
I spent an hour figuring out, from 3 groups shown by the Oxfam shroom, what actual reductions were possible. A wildly optimistic estimate ended up at 6 1/2% reduction. Meaningless. Political action is the only thing we can do that will make any difference in our survival.
I see a lot of people who claim to care about the environment be very wasteful and say that only the government can fix it. They say, so why bother. If all the people who really cared "walked the walk" we would not have the level of fossil fuel consumption and air and vehicle travel that we do.
Also, industry wants us to keep spending and for us to not care about our footprint so they have no motive to promote the footprint notion, quite the oppoisite, since it is used to help people try to conserve.
During the height of covid lockdowns emissions were reduced 17 percent and OPEC and USA combined cut production by over 10 million BPD in mid 2020 because tanking demand for gasoline caused oil prices to plummet and they were losing money. Look at weekly crude oil production.
Thus, our demand, or rather lack of it, hurts the bottom line of businesses and industry that depend on us to buy what they are selling.
We have power as consumers and our choices matter.
If we do not buy it, they can't sell it, and cant afford to keep pulling it out of the ground. Wells were capped and even some smaller US oil companies went bankrupt in 2020. Our actions matter a great deal.
North America has a lot to answer for.
Quite... and however much one does transition towards road over rail, almost all freight will still need a road element to it (the 'last mile', for example, is rarely going to be rail).
It cannot be either/or, but my reading of the article does suggest decarbonising road freight is the lower hanging - and more substantial - fruit?
Obviously, electrifying first and last mile trucking is orders of magnitude easier technically than electrifying long-distance trucking. Politically, in the US, renewablizing and electrifying all 3—short trucking, long trucking, and rail—are impossible without a radical change in government. With such a political change, all 3 are equally possible and since all 3 are necessary, we need to get going on that revolution thing.
Last mile could be filled with PHEV trucks- used with mostly electricity, less diesel pollution and gasoline/diesel used as range extender when needed. Maximum flexibility and huge reduction in oil needs
BEVs make a difference. PHEV/Hybrids perpetuate fossil fuel use and will become stranded assets.
The UK dropped hybrids from their subsidy program when it became clear that people were gaming the system by using the subsidies to get hybrids cheaply and then driving them entirely on petrol and never bothering to plug in at all.
BEVs can go 620 miles now on a charge, and charge from 10% to 90% in 7 minutes. Other BEVs can be had new for $11,000. There is no need for hybrids.
Subsidies aren't the only factor- especially poorly executed ones. My 10 kWh PHEV reduced my fuel consumption from 6 L/100 km to 1.4 L/100 km over about 70,000 km in a harsh EU winter climate. That is a massive drop in oil dependence and a 2–3x reduction in cost of driving thanks to a clean grid all without any subsidies(used car BTW). No range anxiety if needing to drive longer distances. Should utilities tell in the midst of the winter that charging should be avoided- PHEV owners would survive, temporarily using more fuel. BEVs are not that elastic, even temporarily.
My focus here isn't on family cars, but on medium/long-range delivery vehicles. Building a BEV with decent range for large vehicles is a serious challenge, but a "balanced" PHEV can slash fuel consumption and leverage cheap electricity. While Germany and the UK are expensive places to charge, many other regions offer the cheap, clean power needed to make this transition work today
Nobody said subsidies were the only thing. Obviously the point was people were not and do not use hybrids as EVs. They perpetuate fossil fuel use and will become stranded assets.
There’s no need for range anxiety when EVs can go 620 miles on a charge and thus almost entirely be charged at home—every few days for the most part—but when necessary, be recharged in 7 minutes, and fast chargers are increasingly common. That’s London to Pentland Firth with only 30 extra miles to charge for—maybe 2 minutes. If someone is driving 12 hours without stopping that’s dangerous. They need to pee at least once and the charging will be done by the time they get back. That’s more than a thousand miles with just 1 less-than 10 minute stop.
In the US, driving west to east 3000 miles with 2 drivers alternating, you could pick your states for the cheapest electricity for most of your 6 stops.
For years, Texas had constant outages caused by coal, gas, and nuke failures in both summer and winter extreme weather. They added more wind turbines, more solar panels, many more batteries to the grid and sailed through the 3 hottest years in 125,000 years without any trouble. The solutions to all of your objections, stated and un, are obvious: build more, faster. More renewable energy, more (iron-air and sodium) grid batteries, more and better EVs, more chargers and truck stops, more high speed rail
The vast majority of freight must be moved by rail, with (non-literal) first and last mile and local deliveries thus the vast majority of trucking. Like China already does it.
That sounds like a bit of a fantasy. I have a 64 kWh BEV now that I like a lot, but reality is a mixed bag. It hits 13 kWh/100 km in the city when it's warm(fantastic efficiency), but at highway speeds, it jumps to 20 kWh/100 km. Needing a fast charger every 200-250 km is a hassle, especially since you can't realistically charge to 100% quickly. Range anxiety is real when the tech doesn't meet the "600 miles in 7 minutes" hype. I don't do much of long range cross-country driving fortunately, could suffer slower one occasionally, but cannot pretend that there are no issues around them.
Look at it this way: that 64 kWh battery could be split among five PHEVs to slash oil use for five families instead of just one. Whether someone does short trips or long commutes, the total reduction in emissions across five cars is a much bigger win for the environment. That is why I like PHEVs as offering more potential to impact oil consumption.
Better, a bunch could be put in a bus to carry a thousand-plus people a week.
Most people don’t need 620 miles. Those who do need it for work should be able to pay for it with high enough pay or a company car.
I’m sure super fast charging is nice, though; personally it takes me a whole day or even 2 to recover from any significant trips—14 mile round trip to the feed store for 50 pounds of duck layer pellets, for instance.
“Yes We Can—BEV Heavy Trucks Already In Service” https://cleantechnica.com/2026/04/29/yes-we-can-bev-heavy-trucks-already-in-service/
Infrastructure metrics can mislead when they measure assets rather than use.
A country can have a low share of electrified track but a high share of passenger journeys on electric lines, because the busiest corridors were prioritized.
But freight exposes the deeper execution layer.
If goods still move mostly through diesel, the industrial substrate has not really electrified.
The civilizational question is not only what infrastructure exists.
It is where the system actually runs.
To make things more complex, there are
electric rail connections with dedicated fossil powerplants: German coal power plant, Datteln 4, was built specifically to supply a massive chunk of its energy directly to the Deutsche Bahn rail network: https://energytransition.org/2020/09/dream-derailed-coal-plant-datteln-iv-upturns-deutsche-bahns-green-ambitions/
"But having people switch from the car or plane to the train, could. That’s the strongest climate case for electrifying rail: making the experience better and faster so that people are more incentivised to switch."
But what is the cost and value for that on those grey lines? Chippenham to Westbury is 27 minutes. How much faster would electric be? And how many more people would use it?
Rail is an expensive way to cut CO2 emissions because it costs so much to do.
Hard to believe the US figures (by usage, not by track length). A huge % of US rail traffic runs through NYC . While it’s only one city, it’s big. About one-third of all mass transit users in the U.S. and two-thirds of the nation's rail riders live in NYC or its suburbs. And these are largely electric.