Can We Stop Climate Change While Still Living Comfortably?

[Fanghawk]

Can We Stop Climate Change While Still Living Comfortably?

The United Kingdom's Global Calculator tool says we can prevent climate change without harming our modern lifestyles - if alterations are made to three key areas.

When I was growing up, most of the conversation about "fixing" <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/tag/view/climate%20change?os=climate+change>global warming dealt with ordinary people changing their daily habits. We all needed to drive less, consume fewer foodstuffs, and take time away from computer screens to ensure a brighter, less apocalyptic future for our children. Trouble is, limiting the conveniences of modern life is easier said than done. Is there a way humans can continue their tech-heavy lifestyles, preserve the economy, and <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139513-Climate-Change-Why-Global-Warming-Is-a-Glum-Reminder-of-Human-Nature>limit greenhouse gas emissions? According to the United Kingdom's new "Global Calculator" tool it's entirely possible - if key changes occur behind the scenes.

The Global Calculator, designed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, is meant to explore plausible changes that would limit climate change moving into the 21st Century. It includes 44 variables that cover lifestyle choices, technological development, fuel use, land developments, and so forth. Any user can tweak the settings, which output data for what global temperatures and economic prosperity will look like in 2050.

Right now, the global economy is expected to triple in size while energy demands increase by 70%. Global greenhouse gas emissions will increase from 50 to 84 gigatonnes, and the planet will warm by four degrees in 100 years. Paradoxically, living standards actually improve during this time thanks to increased electrical access and housing advancements. That said, if you don't have access to such homes you'll likely be in a world of trouble.

So the goal is to prevent this climate change while keeping a prosperous economy. Can it be done? According to the calculator, yes - if a few essential changes are made. Based on four scenarios limiting warming to two degrees without harming the economy, fossil fuels must be limited to 40 percent of global energy use and replaced with nuclear energy and renewable sources. Per capita energy use also needs to be cut by 10 to 15 percent, which can be achieved through energy efficiency measures. Finally, crop yields must grow from 40 to 60 percent to feed our population without chopping down valuable forest land.

"For the first time this Global Calculator shows that everyone in the world can prosper while limiting global temperature rises to two degrees," climate secretary Ed Davey said, "preventing the most serious impacts of climate change."

There are other, specific variables that can be tweaked, but each scenario only changes the global GDP by two to three percent. In other words, it's entirely possible to change global climate trends without vastly changing our modern economy if concentrated effort is made in the aforementioned areas. Anyone who thinks the scenarios could be improved on is welcome to access the tool for themselves, but it's certainly encouraging to know we have options at our disposal.

Source: Carbon Brief

Permalink

 

[Metadigital]

Can We Stop Climate Change While Still Living Comfortably?

Yes, but we can't do it with our current idea of "comfort". This study (from looking only at what's in this article on it) looks really problematic in a number of ways.

Any user can tweak the settings, which output data for what global temperatures and economic prosperity will look like in 2050.

2050 is far too short term to be very meaningful. We should be able to make it to 2050 even if we don't change a thing. It's when you get to the year 2100 or later that things start to look grim for the human race, as is mentioned in the next paragraph.

So the goal is to prevent this climate change while keeping a prosperous economy. Can it be done?

Economic growth is the foundational cause of environmental degradation. The obvious answer to the question, "Can we continue to have economic growth without any more environmental destruction?" is a resounding "No". Keep in mind that 50% of all wildlife on Earth has been destroyed in the past 40 years alone. This issue is so much more than just about climate change that it's completely insane to think that just focusing on the burning of fossil fuels is going to have any meaningful impact on what we are looking at - which is total ecological collapse.

"For the first time this Global Calculator shows that everyone in the world can prosper while limiting global temperature rises to two degrees," climate secretary Ed Davey said, "preventing the most serious impacts of climate change."

So, we can limit the rise of global temperatures over the next 50 years to 1/2 of an ice age?

Or is this for the next 100 years? The next 200 years? When are we thinking will be a good time to make today's climate look like an ice age in comparison to what is to come? Is this really a long term solution?

There are other, specific variables that can be tweaked, but each scenario only changes the global GDP by two to three percent. In other words, it's entirely possible to change global climate trends without vastly changing our modern economy if concentrated effort is made in the aforementioned areas.

This just isn't possible. It's only looking at a small piece of the puzzle and it's making the assumption that technology will come in to save the day like the deus ex machina of an ancient Greek comedy. We need to seriously reconsider consumerism as an economic model and capitalism as a central purpose for our species if we're going to prevent the extremely predictable side effects of transforming the natural landscape into landfills at the scale and level of inefficiency we're doing it today. We instead continue to cling on to the habits that have got us here in the hope that something (whether gods or science) will save us from ourselves.

 

[FogHornG36]

can we really stop something that has been happening before humanity existed? we might be able to slow it down, but not with the current population on this planet, and its continuing to grow!

 

[Ark of the Covetor]

This just isn't possible. It's only looking at a small piece of the puzzle and it's making the assumption that technology will come in to save the day like the deus ex machina of an ancient Greek comedy. We need to seriously reconsider consumerism as an economic model and capitalism as a central purpose for our species if we're going to prevent the extremely predictable side effects of transforming the natural landscape into landfills at the scale and level of inefficiency we're doing it today. We instead continue to cling on to the habits that have got us here in the hope that something (whether gods or science) will save us from ourselves.

Emphasis added:

These are all very good goals, but none of them require us to materially change the quality of life of your average middle-class person in the developed world, and the reason why is the thing you casually dismiss in the first sentence; technology.

The reason we're having so much trouble dealing with climate change isn't corporations, or money in politics, or even capitalism(those are just reasons climate change is happening); the reason is environmentalists. Every time solutions are put forward that don't involve the average citizen flagellating themselves in apology for damaging Precious Gaia with our dirty evil "technology", in ride the environmentalists to claim it won't work, can't work, could never work, and all we can do is live in bamboo & recycled tyre houses, eat kale porridge and quinoa for every meal, and give up half the machines that allow our society to function. It's always all-or-nothing; for too many environmentalists there is no compromise, no allowance for incremental or iterative solutions through technology, just unrealistic demand piled on unrealistic demand, and the result is they've made it easy to paint anyone concerned by climate change and the environment as a crackpot who can safely be ignored. The corporations and their corrupt lackeys in government might be the ones manipulating the public, but they would be having a much harder time of it if the environmental movement wasn't constantly handing them more ammunition, and the people out there actually trying to create workable and practical solutions to climate change would be able to have a much bigger political impact if the militant-vegan anti-technologist sorts would engage with and support them rather than pushing "science bad! technology bad! nature good!" bullshit at them from one side while they're trying to deal with a tidal wave of "science bad! libruls bad! oil good!" bullshit from the actual opposition to the environmental movement's objectives.

 

[EiMitch]

can we really stop something that has been happening before humanity existed?

On the contrary, the global climate has been relatively stable for all of human history until recently. We effed it up.

Besides,

we might be able to slow it down, but not with the current population on this planet, and its continuing to grow!

it kinda sounds like you're saying "well, we can't really do much about it. So why not deliberately make it worse?" I trust you can see in hindsight why that's not a good argument.

We have the technology to radically cut our carbon footprint through infrastructural changes alone. This isn't the 70s. Renewable energy is very cost effective now, and its only getting better.

Whereas fossil fuels, such as coal and petroleum, are receiving huge tax rebates and subsidies because they're not cheap anymore. The supplies that were easy to access are long gone. We're digging deeper for deposits previously passed over because they were too difficult to extract and/or too impure to refine. Solving those problems ain't cheap.

The economic benefits of relying primarily on fossil fuels are history. The only reason we're still fighting over this, instead of rushing to green our grid to $ave $ome green, is the same reason we're fighting over net neutrality: vested interests want to keep their monopolies while selfish, ignorant, career politicians are eager to play along.

 

[EiMitch]

The reason we're having so much trouble dealing with climate change isn't corporations, or money in politics, or even capitalism(those are just reasons climate change is happening); the reason is environmentalists. Every time solutions are put forward that don't involve the average citizen flagellating themselves in apology for damaging Precious Gaia with our dirty evil "technology", in ride the environmentalists to claim it won't work, can't work, could never work, and all we can do is live in bamboo & recycled tyre houses, eat kale porridge and quinoa for every meal, and give up half the machines that allow our society to function. It's always all-or-nothing; for too many environmentalists there is no compromise, no allowance for incremental or iterative solutions through technology, just unrealistic demand piled on unrealistic demand, and the result is they've made it easy to paint anyone concerned by climate change and the environment as a crackpot who can safely be ignored. The corporations and their corrupt lackeys in government might be the ones manipulating the public, but they would be having a much harder time of it if the environmental movement wasn't constantly handing them more ammunition, and the people out there actually trying to create workable and practical solutions to climate change would be able to have a much bigger political impact if the militant-vegan anti-technologist sorts would engage with and support them rather than pushing "science bad! technology bad! nature good!" bullshit at them from one side while they're trying to deal with a tidal wave of "science bad! libruls bad! oil good!" bullshit from the actual opposition to the environmental movement's objectives.

My knee-jerk reaction is to say that you're wrong about environmentalists.

But I can't honestly say that. Because I think about anti-vaccination a-holes. (curse Jenny McCarthy and Oprah from the dregs of my soul, in the name of everyone who died of measles this past decade) I think about people over-hyping the benefits of organic foods. (unless you're allergic, or a particular environmental area is exceptionally sensitive to what farmers do, freaking relax guys) I think about people screaming that the sky is falling because GMOs are a thing. (granted, there is plenty of bad laws and shady corporate bs. Beyond that, GMOs are nothing more than a tool in the toolbox. Besides, killer bees aren't GMOs, even though they are manmade)

I think about all this crap and lament that us moderates/centrists aren't more politically active nor taken seriously. But that's the price of living in a gerrymandered "democracy."

 

[Metadigital]

The reason we're having so much trouble dealing with climate change isn't corporations, or money in politics, or even capitalism(those are just reasons climate change is happening); the reason is environmentalists.

Now, don't get me wrong. When I read this, I instantly wanted to stop reading. I have a degree in environmental philosophy. I also studied environmental sciences. It's more of a hobby for me than a lifestyle after my disillusionment with academia, but I still like to think that I'm informed on environmentalism. When I see an attitude like this, I can't help but put it next to holocaust deniers or 9/11 truthers. That being said, I will see what you have to say.

Every time solutions are put forward that don't involve the average citizen flagellating themselves in apology for damaging Precious Gaia with our dirty evil "technology", in ride the environmentalists to claim it won't work, can't work, could never work, and all we can do is live in bamboo & recycled tyre houses, eat kale porridge and quinoa for every meal, and give up half the machines that allow our society to function.

You see, this is the kind of hyperbole I was expecting. I don't know of any respectable environmentalist who behaves this way. Maybe you're watching some news program where they get some crazy guy off the street to represent environmentalism? I have no idea.

It's always all-or-nothing; for too many environmentalists there is no compromise, no allowance for incremental or iterative solutions through technology, just unrealistic demand piled on unrealistic demand, and the result is they've made it easy to paint anyone concerned by climate change and the environment as a crackpot who can safely be ignored.

I think I understand where you might be getting this sentiment. The fact is that we, as a society, aren't anywhere close to where we have to be to support a planet that will continue to provide for us long term. Even the most sensible environmentalists will call for rather drastic change considering the extremity of where we are today. Again, in the last 40 years we've destroyed half of all the wildlife on Earth. I like that statistic because it shows the severity of the problem. We can't just reduce that kind of economic growth by 10% or 15% and expect the future to be a good one. Also, we can't reasonable expect technology, which is what has enabled us to do this to the planet, to come in and save us. There are no examples of this in practice. In fact, if you look at the history of ecological disasters that we have tried to fix technologically, you'll see a history of making things even worse. There's very good reason to be deeply skeptical of technology. This isn't technology hating. Rather, it's simply not putting a kind of religious faith in technology.

The corporations and their corrupt lackeys in government might be the ones manipulating the public, but they would be having a much harder time of it if the environmental movement wasn't constantly handing them more ammunition, and the people out there actually trying to create workable and practical solutions to climate change would be able to have a much bigger political impact if the militant-vegan anti-technologist sorts would engage with and support them rather than pushing "science bad! technology bad! nature good!" bullshit at them from one side while they're trying to deal with a tidal wave of "science bad! libruls bad! oil good!" bullshit from the actual opposition to the environmental movement's objectives.

Again, the narrative you're talking about is one you might see on TV, but that doesn't accurately reflect much of what goes on in the real world. The media presents a controlled narrative designed to promote a very particular way of thinking, and that way of thinking is going to paint environmentalism negatively because environmentalists represent a threat to corporate control and profit.

I don't know of any serious environmental thinker who claims that science is bad. They certainly question science more than the masses, who have generally adopted it to fill the void religion left in the secular world, but they also understand its power and value. What environmentalists want is ecologically informed science, and that is happening. Likewise, technology isn't feared or hated, merely critiqued as well. Finally, environmentalists most of all are the least likely to enlist the help of the naturalistic fallacy to further their goals. We all know that nature is not equivalent with goodness. That's why we have civilization. That's why we debate things rather than beat each other over the head and let natural selection take over.

If you want a great introduction to environmental thought, I'd highly recommend Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac as a starting point. It's mostly a collection of short stories with a small philosophical text at the end to ground an environmental ethic. You may be able to find selections from it online, even, and it would be one step in dispelling this bizarre view you have of environmentalism.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Even if climate change isnt something made up for political votes,

Most people dont give a damn. "You want me to change and inconvieniance myself? Nu-uh"

The reason I'm not going to give up or feel guilty using electricity is because it's not my fault my country, the US, uses coal and natural gas to generate almost 3/4s of our electricity. We should've transitioned to another power source (like nuclear) long ago. Same thing with cars, the combustion engine is a really old technology, we've should've moved on by now.

 

[SirAroun]

This just isn't possible. It's only looking at a small piece of the puzzle and it's making the assumption that technology will come in to save the day like the deus ex machina of an ancient Greek comedy. We need to seriously reconsider consumerism as an economic model and capitalism as a central purpose for our species if we're going to prevent the extremely predictable side effects of transforming the natural landscape into landfills at the scale and level of inefficiency we're doing it today. We instead continue to cling on to the habits that have got us here in the hope that something (whether gods or science) will save us from ourselves.

Emphasis added:

These are all very good goals, but none of them require us to materially change the quality of life of your average middle-class person in the developed world, and the reason why is the thing you casually dismiss in the first sentence; technology.

The reason we're having so much trouble dealing with climate change isn't corporations, or money in politics, or even capitalism(those are just reasons climate change is happening); the reason is environmentalists. Every time solutions are put forward that don't involve the average citizen flagellating themselves in apology for damaging Precious Gaia with our dirty evil "technology", in ride the environmentalists to claim it won't work, can't work, could never work, and all we can do is live in bamboo & recycled tyre houses, eat kale porridge and quinoa for every meal, and give up half the machines that allow our society to function. It's always all-or-nothing; for too many environmentalists there is no compromise, no allowance for incremental or iterative solutions through technology, just unrealistic demand piled on unrealistic demand, and the result is they've made it easy to paint anyone concerned by climate change and the environment as a crackpot who can safely be ignored. The corporations and their corrupt lackeys in government might be the ones manipulating the public, but they would be having a much harder time of it if the environmental movement wasn't constantly handing them more ammunition, and the people out there actually trying to create workable and practical solutions to climate change would be able to have a much bigger political impact if the militant-vegan anti-technologist sorts would engage with and support them rather than pushing "science bad! technology bad! nature good!" bullshit at them from one side while they're trying to deal with a tidal wave of "science bad! libruls bad! oil good!" bullshit from the actual opposition to the environmental movement's objectives.

Except that is more of a stereotype of Environmentalist and less what are really like.

 

[EiMitch]

Except that is more of a stereotype of Environmentalist and less what are really like.

Thats why my knee-jerk reaction was "that's not true," before I let my disgust with new-age alt med SJWs cloud my judgement. And boy did I let it. I didn't even try to fight it.

So yeah, stereotypes. They're a real problem. They've done much to frame debates on this issue for decades. Thats why I prefer as of late not to bang my head on the wall fighting stereotypes and science denial. Instead, I focus on how the "economy-vs-environment" based talking points are ignorantly obsolete. Wind and solar are no longer expensive pipe-dreams. They're saving money now and can easily save us alot more. Coal and oil are no longer cheap, the government is subsidizing them like crazy. Until we adapt our energy infrastructure to this reality, we're just throwing money away. Its that simple.

 

[Metadigital]

Instead, I focus on how the "economy-vs-environment" based talking points are ignorantly obsolete. Wind and solar are no longer expensive pipe-dreams.

If only oil and coal were the sole blame for our problems this would be true. Unfortunately, they only make up a single piece of a much larger problem that extends far beyond energy needs and into what we do with that energy once we have it.

 

[Jupiter065]

If every country did like France did in the 70s-80s and switched their heating to electric and their electrical generation to nuclear this problem would be solved. And this isn't some theoretical plan, France actually did it! Almost 40 years ago!

 

[Ylla]

mighty snip

The short answer is, butterfly effect prevents knowing for sure anything you contemplate. Doesnt mean we shouldnt try.
That being said if you think about what humanity has done to this planet in the context of the history of Earth; its nothing, its like a cold, or a small indigestion.
What im trying to say is, none of this fancy talk is gonna change a damn thing, and none of the fancy solutions will until we fall low, as a species, thats human behavior, we dont change as a whole until shyte hits the fan. And when you think with perspective, were really, really far from that.
So enjoy life, do what makes you feel right, and if you really wanna help, be a scientist, and feel free to discover what you want, you never know what youre gonna need.
Seriously i've seen people make your very same arguments too many times to care anymore.

 

[Strazdas]

Instead, I focus on how the "economy-vs-environment" based talking points are ignorantly obsolete. Wind and solar are no longer expensive pipe-dreams.

If only oil and coal were the sole blame for our problems this would be true. Unfortunately, they only make up a single piece of a much larger problem that extends far beyond energy needs and into what we do with that energy once we have it.

Would it not be better to have part of problem solved than none of it though? Could we not work simultaneously on energy and on other things?

Yes, there are problems with solar and wind power and they will never work to satisfy our energy needs (even laying down entire earth surface in solar panels would not produce enough energy) but in the wake of mentals that do their best to destroy safest form of energy production - nuclear fission thats all we got. and lets face it we are going to have to do this no matter what. oil is running out.

 

[L. Declis]

So why can we not switch to nuclear fission to tide us over while we set up more green things?

It's really safe and relatively clean.

Or is it because people have heard about Tokyo and Chenoble (the Russian one) and have decided they are all dangerous?

Seriously, please tell me.

Also, aren't we still using oil and gas and such because the U.S. dollar is linked to it and if we stop trading in it, the U.S. collapses and there is a high risk of the U.S. invading your country and establishing freedom?

 

[EiMitch]

If only oil and coal were the sole blame for our problems this would be true. Unfortunately, they only make up a single piece of a much larger problem that extends far beyond energy needs and into what we do with that energy once we have it.

I don't share your pessimism for a number of reasons.

1 - In practice, such pessimistic hand-wringing becomes an excuse to do nothing. You know this to be true.

2 - If we cut our collective carbon footprint to half it current levels, then the hardest part of the battle is over. This is very doable because...

3 - Even RWers outside of public office are beginning to see the benefits of installing photovoltaic panels on their houses. Even if they are too stupid/paranoid to allow utilities to install the legally mandated meters. They want to cut their energy bills and rely less on the grid. RW politicians are losing support from their base on this issue. And that means something in America's gerrymandered electoral system.

4 - A huge amount of our carbon pollution comes from the electrical grid. We've been cutting that down lately, the technology exists to cut it down further, and the excuses not to do so are rapidly going up in smoke. (nyuk, nyuk)

5 - On the consumer end, there have been significant increases in energy efficiency lately. And carbon-nanotubes promise alot more very soon. Additionally, there have been huge improvements in batteries coming on the market soon. This means...

6 - More efficient electric & hybrid cars are just around the corner. They've already gotten pretty good lately, and they're going to look alot better the next time oil companies create an artificial shortage to jack-up prices. And you know they will. Sales in greener tech spike every time they do. The day is coming that one of those spikes is more like an eruption. The greedy a-holes are quickly becoming their own worst enemy.

Yes, alot of damage has been done. But its not too late to stop it from getting alot worse. And doing so isn't a hail-mary pass. Researchers and engineers have been working on solutions rather than wringing their hands in despair. Get ready to reap what they've already sowed and are still sowing.

 

[EiMitch]

So why can we not switch to nuclear fission to tide us over while we set up more green things?

It's really safe and relatively clean.

Or is it because people have heard about Tokyo and Chenoble (the Russian one) and have decided they are all dangerous?

Tokyo? Seriously? It was Fukushima! And you misspelled Chernobyl. Do your homework next time.

The three big-name nuclear disasters people talk about were caused entirely by predictable human error. Fukushima wasn't built to withstand major natural disasters relatively common to Japan. Three Mile Island didn't have clearly labeled indicators. And Chernobyl was shoddy in both design and staffing. These problems aren't that hard to fix. And studies have found that the perceived harm caused by two of these disasters (guess which one is the outlier) have been, to put it kindly, exaggerated.

Also, aren't we still using oil and gas and such because the U.S. dollar is linked to it and if we stop trading in it, the U.S. collapses and there is a high risk of the U.S. invading your country and establishing freedom?

Okay, I get it. Us yanks deserve the jokes and trash talk about war. Go ahead, let it out.

That aside, a tiny, but (as of yet) powerful minority of vested interests are dependent on oil. (edit: profits! That should've read "dependent on oil profits.) Namely, the oil companies themselves. Most other corporations are trying to clean up their acts, chiefly because they're getting hosed too. They resent big oil shenanigans and want to save money on energy, just like everyone else. This isn't Corporate America vs the world. This is big oil & coal vs the future.

 

[jklinders]

Well there seems to be some constructive discussion happening here so far. I have a habit of turning into a bit of an ass when it comes to politics so I'll try to tone it down a notch. Make no mistake, politics is inextricably a part of this issue.

The biggest issue I have here is this model calculator seems to leave a lot of holes. The third world economy is going to grow and improve whether we want it to or not. Given how shitty life is in the third world I would hope that we would want things to improve economically there. Since China and India are firmly in the "developing verging on first world" category we can worry very slightly less about their growing energy needs but they are needing more and more as time passes and they represent a third of the worlds population right there. North America and Europe use a lot more per capita but we have pretty much topped out at this point on that basis. Imagine if we add another 2.5 to 3 billion people at our energy use levels. the if the rest of the third world hits the usage that China and India are currently at that is going to completely tap out anything our current tech allows as a solution. the only out at the moment is if we work our asses off to make nuclear as important and large a slice of energy as oil is right now. It's cleaner and as long as the plants are built to a solid standard it's also safer with proper monitoring. Chernobyl was an exception that was caused by every safety rule in the book being ignored in the face of Russia's energy needs. We need nuclear. Wind and solar work very well as supplemental energy sources but we need a new primary source now. Also the making of solar panels is a highly toxic process that kills people who are making them and is a likely future ecological disaster in it's own right.

Nuclear is safe if properly managed and on the whole it has been http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/. it needs to be watched closely because who needs another Chernobyl but it is viable. nuclear waste is a problem as well, but they are actually working on refineries that can keep using the same material over and over without having to dump the stuff where someone might dig it up and make a bomb out of it.

food is another huge problem and a lot harder to fix. I like meat...a lot. we're sooner or later going to have to give it up. Or cut back a lot. And we need to drop this ever increasing fear mongering horseshit over GMOs. if we want to feed this planet, we need to stop handwringing over what is needed to be done to increase crop yields. Like nuclear it needs to be regulated but in my opinion the whole organic craze is one of the biggest scams in food right now. Gluten free food options are getting up there as well but are only just hitting mainstream (whole different debate that, ciliac is real, the "ingredients" in a typical gluten free sub food item have little to no nutritional value and should be eaten by no one). we need to find better pesticide free ways to grow more crops faster on the same land, employ more hydroponics (very efficient production there) and get this tech out there so everyone an use it.

The first world using this is not going to cut it, everyone needs to be on board. The so called first world only represents about a third of the population at most, once China and India fully joins us and the rest follow, it won't matter if we are eating raw granola in a frozen shack in the woods if they are doing things the way we were 20 years ago. Every climate summit I have seen is showing India and China basically saying "my turn." We want what you have and no rules to stop us. Politics is going to kill us, just as it always does. We have maybe 25 years before the oceans completely collapse and once that happens we are really gonna see some shit go down. I have seen no solution for this, it's pretty much inevitable I'm afraid.