Oil will run out eventually, and although it won't be in our lifetimes, it will happen at some point.
All modes of transport need to be coverted to run on a more sustainable source of fuel. I think that should be a top priority for all concerned, ensuring that investment is dedicated to funding vital research in this field.
Very true. Something the government seems to have failed to realise is this is made much easier if you can generate huge modal shift to public transport. Think about it, bus and rail services can be planned so the vehicles can refuel at a few depot points. Therefore it is easier to introduce Hydrogen filling stations in bus and rail depots than to try and roll out nationwide charging/hydrogen stations for motorists who could run out of juice anywhere and need to be able to refuel/charge their vehicle.
But it all has a price. Population continues to increase, and there will come a point where this planet will not be able to support the amount of people living on it, never mind be able to provide the ability for large numbers of people to travel around as we have all become used to.
Well said. Even now, I think if we generate the ammount of modal shift (and some reduction of demand to travel) that is needed the population is just too big for us to get within safe limits of greenhouse gas emmisions. And that's before you start worrying about food and water supplies, factor that in and once you try to produce food more eccologically (don't forget the chemical fertilises we have been using have a negative impact too, and I think many are made from oil, hastening the date we will run out of it) even the current population is a big problem.
Well the biggest one would be to stop people breeding
That is, I believe, the only way forward that does not lead to either a climate-change induced mass-extiniction or massive reduction of the human population through starvation/dehydration or something like that. When the population of a species that does not have a natural predator starts to get too high and endangers other species that feeds on we would conduct a cull to try and keep both species alive. Our own species is having an impact on many others, but there's no way a cull of humans would be morally acceptable so limiting our breeding is the only way.
Most of the problems are political. There is enough cultivatable land, if my source was correct, in Africa to feed entire planet, if only it could be properly managed.
I too am quite passionate about a sustainable future, and agree transport is a critical component. I am a techno-optimist and believe that the issues of over population can be overcome, and that resource scarcity is largely artificial. Thats not to say that there are infinite resources, but that cooperative practices and careful management, such as recycling, tax incentives, and wealth redistribution among others, might just make the world a better place for everyone.
I don't agree, as I said farming more eccologically and trying to make transport sustainable is at least near-impossible with our current population. The human population growth must stop.
Now i personally believe bio fuels are not the way forward, take up too much land to grow, land that should be used for food. Giving an example of the phillipines, where in some places they cannot grow food as foriegn multi-national cooperations have bought all the land and are growing bio fuels. Not fair or sustainable.
Agreed, bi-fuels are near useless.
Alternative fuels being hydrogen (as of yet not convinced) and for me nuclear all the way. I see no issue with nuclear so that for me is way forward specially if fusion can be mastered.
More nuclear power yes, but only as a stop gap until we get enough wind/tidal stream generation online. As for hydrogen, I think the university of Glamorgan are trying to find micro-organisims that produce it (hence avoiding the need to use quite a lot of energy to extract it by electrolosis). If they succed, then hydrogen would probablly be a good fuel for buses, the (hopefully far fewer) remaining cars and the few (rural) railways which don't warrant electrification.
If there is to be a sustainable future then is there really a need to build HS2? Rather than trying to build our way out of congestion why not just remove the need to travel at all.
Is it really a good idea to keep building when it only provides a short term solution to the issue?
I don't think you can completly remove the need to travel, you can reduce it certainly, but with the modal-shift we need to achive the current population is still too high. I agree though that building infrastructure to increase capcity is only a short-term solution unless the population growth can be stopped in it's tracks (and, ideally, reversed as this will help cut greenhouse gas emmisions).
It's the same problem that the scrappage scheme had especially when they tried to brand it as the best thing for the environment (that made me laugh) - which took perfectly servicable cars off the roads and replaced them with newer models that all had to be produced somewhere first, meaning an extra set of production and disposal costs for the environment.
Another good point. That's one reason why I'd like to see new diesel locos resuse the body shells (and anything else that can continue to work reliably) from class 47s etc, rather than building whole new locos.
