Comments
Kinexity t1_isyaxau wrote
There is seven actually - electric trains. As per Wikipedia 17% of Australian emissions come from transportation and while Australia seems to be quite big on trains their electrification is lacking to say the least. Also while electric vehicles cut down emissions it shouldn't be ignored how resource heavy they are and replacement 1-to-1 of ICEs to EVs isn't the way (not even talking about myriad of other problems EVs inherit from ICEs).
DisasterousGiraffe OP t1_isyhxd6 wrote
> 17% of Australian emissions come from transportation
The latest transport emissions are about 18% of Australia's total emissions and that breaks down to about 10% of total emissions are attributed to light vehicles and trucks and aviation are a large part of the 7% remaining. Train PDF emissions seem very small compared to trucks or aviation.
Kinexity t1_isyjifw wrote
I did not mean that trains are a big contributor because they run on fossil fuels but rather that road and plane traffic needs to be switched to electric trains because while switching to trains will already yield significant emission reduction the emissions from trains will also need to be removed. One could argue that trains could run on hydrogen but that's inefficient and incurs many new problems.
DisasterousGiraffe OP t1_isyysy0 wrote
Yes, I agree, it would be good to move traffic onto electric trains. There are also short-range electric aircraft which could reduce the aviation emissions.
Kinexity t1_isz1jpk wrote
Primary remover of emissions from aviation in Australia should be high speed rail. Not all routes can be replaced by trains (I assume because of the size of australia there is a lot of those small plaines going to many remote locations) but the most emissions come from the busiest routes. Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne-Adelaide high speed rail corridor should be a priority for Australian government. They should reach out to some known operators to get it built quick because 2065 deadline of their current plan (without Adelaide) is a joke. Either Renfe, SNCF or JR (better not CRRC to avoid China dependence) would be probably more than willing to take that contract and do that in half of that time or less.
poukai t1_iszcy59 wrote
Especially Melbourne-Sydney is insanely busy with almost 9.2 million each, it's almost the same as LAX-SFO, JFK-LAX and LGA-ORD combined (10.6 million). Melbourne-Brisbane (3.5 mill) and Sydney-Brisbane (4.8 mill) is also pretty packed too. source (pre pandemic numbers)
A Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Brisbane high speed train would have been great. But I don't think the Australian government is going to do yet another feasibility study on that.
laxativefx t1_it1cwo0 wrote
> A Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Brisbane high speed train would have been great. But I don’t think the Australian government is going to do yet another feasibility study on that.
No, but the NSW government has announced a thing… not sure if it’s a plan, a study, a plan to plan.
https://www.nsw.gov.au/projects/a-fast-rail-future-for-nsw
At the federal level, labor made commitments to fast rail including $500m to the Sydney to Newcastle route… of course this hasn’t been put through the budget process yet etc just an election pledge.
https://www.alp.org.au/policies/fast-rail-between-sydney-and-the-hunter
poukai t1_it4yvz8 wrote
Thank you for that link, I was completely unaware of that and it was pretty interesting to read. $500m isn't going to amount to much, but atleast they can get some of the planing going.
BrotherEstapol t1_it06geu wrote
I think it's Road Trains (semi-trailers) would be larger contributors than Railway trains. Replacing the diesel trucks with hydrogen powered electric trucks would go a long way, but we need to get green hydrogen generation set up, as well as the refueling infrastructure.
Can be done, but not quickly unless the state and federal governments throw a lot of money at it.
Kinexity t1_it072ol wrote
Australia moves a fuckton of cargo and people by trains already. Road trains are objectively worse in every circumstance except when it costs too much to put railway somewhere and I'll make an educated guess that they don't contribute that much to the problem of emissions as they go to low pop density areas.
rigobueno t1_iszrhhk wrote
No mention of nuclear because it’s 2spooky4me
BrotherEstapol t1_it0626l wrote
*too expensive
ILikeNeurons t1_isyddxs wrote
...and a carbon tax would make them economically competitive.
pinkfootthegoose t1_iszxruk wrote
technologies are not what is in the way of slashing emissions. It's corporate owned politicians.
Most of today's problems are political and not technological.
ACCount82 t1_it2l8dw wrote
Without political will, it's hard to implement solutions. Without the right technologies, you wouldn't have any reasonable solutions at all.
Hell, if a technology is good enough, it doesn't even require any political will to find its implementation. LED lights spread like wildfire because they are more power efficient and more economical both.
FuturologyBot t1_isy0rxq wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/DisasterousGiraffe:
This report PDF demonstrates that an 81% emissions reduction is achievable by 2030. This requires immediate and large-scale actions, prioritising short-term ambitious targets for already-available technologies. The report outlines a five-year deployment plan, identifying the most impactful technologies. It will create 195,000 jobs and put Australia on the IPCC scenario SSP1-1.9 (for 1.5 degrees of average global warming). Six existing technologies will do the heavy lifting: solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and hydrogen electrolysers.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y84c45/australia_can_slash_emissions_81_by_2030_using/isxxsru/
[deleted] t1_isz2jrf wrote
[removed]
Distinct_Party_1801 t1_iszzer7 wrote
Ahh yes the ole 2030 Agenda. Working right into the hands of the world's extremely elite group. But it's all packaged up into a nice and easy-to-be-deceived list of plans. Don't say you weren't warned. This is going to be hell on earth
breaditbans t1_isy5vhk wrote
I just think scissors to cut the electric lines could do it.
Talldarkn67 t1_isza4gj wrote
Australia can drop their emissions by 100% and it would make little difference if top polluters like China and India keep pumping out record amounts of air and plastic pollution every year.
Why focus on the countries that produce the least amount of pollution while ignoring the ones that produce the most? It has to be the most counterproductive approach to stopping a problem in world history. We live in 🤡world.
orangutanoz t1_iszec47 wrote
Australia is the highest per capita polluter.
Kunama_Namadgi t1_it1minj wrote
No it isn’t it is #13, we can do better but that is a blatant lie. Australia is just and I mean just ahead of the US and Canada.
orangutanoz t1_it1mwwy wrote
I don’t know shit. My bad for taking the Guardian’s word for it.
Edit: I meant in terms of coal but I just had surgery and didn’t properly look up the static I was referring to until just now. Feeling much less goofy now thanks.
Kunama_Namadgi t1_it1nl5h wrote
Definitely, that is only of a select group of countries. As per usual terrible cherry picked journalism.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
Kunama_Namadgi t1_it1nsba wrote
That’s fine mate we can do better and are making massive strides but don’t need false stats. The state I live in is carbon neutral and even sales of new cars have been banned ACT. A small area admittedly but it’s a step in the right direction.
lamsiyuen t1_iszmjxa wrote
I don’t think we are “ignoring” US and China, the top two polluters in the world. There’s many articles about how US and China can do better, and it doesn’t hurt to have an article about how Australia can do better
rigobueno t1_iszrq28 wrote
Stop letting perfection be the enemy of good, mr. clown world.
o_MrBombastic_o t1_it0ls9y wrote
Well we might as well just give up than, guess it's not worth doing, pack it up boys can't win don't try
dunderpust t1_it2t8rp wrote
Exactly! Why should China do anything, India will still be emitting CO2. And why should India do anything, the US will still be emitting CO2. And why should the US do anything...(reclusive loop detected)
DisasterousGiraffe OP t1_isxxsru wrote
This report PDF demonstrates that an 81% emissions reduction is achievable by 2030. This requires immediate and large-scale actions, prioritising short-term ambitious targets for already-available technologies. The report outlines a five-year deployment plan, identifying the most impactful technologies. It will create 195,000 jobs and put Australia on the IPCC scenario SSP1-1.9 (for 1.5 degrees of average global warming). Six existing technologies will do the heavy lifting: solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and hydrogen electrolysers.