Forum menu
Exactly! As consumers we have more power than we think. For starters, look at who you bank with, where your savings and pensions are invested (if you’re lucky enough to have them) and don’t purchase goods from companies or countries that aren’t doing their part. These actions alone are a fantastic start. Money talks and it takes a couple of minutes to move most pensions and change your bank accounts.
So stop buying chinese stuff.
China!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader
I love the “but China” argument. Always the first thing to be spouted by deniers or those that don’t want to make a change. Our lifestyles fuelled where China is today. Their emissions are partly our fault for being lazy and greedy. We helped turn them in to the worlds factory and then cry foul when it backfires.
Predicted terrestrial cooling over next 30 years:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/
I guess this must be the 0.01% scientist that doesn't agree with the other 99.98%
"stop buying chinese stuff"
this is quite hilarious on a cycling magazine website, have you got any more like that?
perhaps we should all ride around on hand crafted oak framed bicycles with no metal parts because you can't make metal in a net zero world
Predicted terrestrial cooling over next 30 years:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/
I guess this must be the 0.01% scientist that doesn’t agree with the other 99.98%
"perhaps we should all ride around on hand crafted oak framed bicycles with no metal parts because you can’t make metal in a net zero world"
But one can stop buying new stuff every year, and remove the need to keep making stuff...
My bike was made in 2009, how about yours?
"My bike was made in 2009, how about yours?"
2002
Grimp. I have no chinese or Japanese parts on my bikes bar peraps the raw metal the frames are made of.
I check the miles travelled of everything i can tbat i buy and buy Scottish first. British second. European 3rd
My road bike was made in the 60s with some parts on it from tbe 30s. What do i win? A hair shirt?
I think the grimep might be sleeping TJ…
I see Rishi is taking the whole climate change thing seriously then!
I see Rishi is taking the whole climate change thing seriously then!
There isn't much mention of climate change in the article that you linked.
It talks of safety benefits of 20mph limits to pedestrians and cyclists though.
And it emphasizes the success of the Tories in the Uxbridge by-election due to the apparent unpopularity of Sadiq Khan's ulez expansion during a cost of living crisis, which has nothing to do with climate change.
The Tories are on the ropes, there is a general election looming, and Labour's huge lead is currently growing. They are obviously desperate. Sadiq Khan has provided them with a gift which they clearly intend to exploit as fully as possible.
My road bike was made in the 60s with some parts on it from tbe 30s. What do i win?
You win the prize of helping me make the point that we don't need to make bikes out of wood, just buy old ones. Clearly not a win with consumer society.
Also make stuff that lasts and is repairable
Once again its the dark green / light green divide. Dark green being a lived philosophy, light green being an add on to your existing lifestyle
Everything in my life is viewed thru this lens - from buying bike bits to holidays to the food I eat. It doesn't mean never doing or buying anything. It means considering the environmental impact of all aspects of your life
perhaps we should all ride around on hand crafted oak framed bicycles with no metal parts because you can’t make metal in a net zero world
@grimep, do you have a link to a net zero scenario that assumes the world no longer uses metal?
The International Energy Agency certainly doesn't
https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
Global steel production actually goes up 12% by 2050 (see page 123)
ernielynch
There isn’t much mention of climate change in the article that you linked.
It talks of safety benefits of 20mph limits to pedestrians and cyclists though.
And it emphasizes the success of the Tories in the Uxbridge by-election due to the apparent unpopularity of Sadiq Khan’s ulez expansion during a cost of living crisis, which has nothing to do with climate change.
and yet a CH4 or CH5 news segment led by saying ULEZ is for climate change (or words to that effect) .. it was the first thing they mentioned.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not AGAINST cleaner air but ...
1) What will be the greenhouse gas impact of people driving 1/2 way round the M25 instead of through?
If this has been assessed I've missed it ... but I find it hard to believe it has a positive impact on greenhouse gas - and if it is negative then not only does that need to be assessed BUT we need to be HONEST.
2) Related to the above but why is anything "eco" continually lied about and lied directly or implied to be climate change and who really expects people to believe it?
Don't look at this as an isolated thing... there will be a bunch of people from Uxbridge who travel and they are going to realise they are using more fuel one way or another. Probably a percentage of them got told to get rid of their diesel cars they were encouraged to buy and probably another load have been victim to other green scams in the past.
There seems to be an assumption people are so dumb they can be continually lied to and they are never going to twig... and sure some people STILL don't believe Boris lied but its a vanishingly small number. (Perhaps just him and Nadine at this point)
This is where support for fighting (now mitigating is all we can do) climate change is being lost.
On one hand we have people who finally twig .. "but that's not climate change" and on the other we have the blissfully unaware buying their Dolphin friendly eco palm oil to save Panda's doing their bit when they put the "recyclable but not in your borough" in their car to drive to the recycling centre.
TJagain
Everything in my life is viewed thru this lens – from buying bike bits to holidays to the food I eat. It doesn’t mean never doing or buying anything. It means considering the environmental impact of all aspects of your life
But this thread is about climate change... seriously sod the environment and deal with a real existential threat.
Environmental impact is what is driving climate change
The existential threat is the damage were doing to the environment which includes climate change though greenhouse gases which is destroying habitat including our own. Other environmental impacts shouldn't be ignored.
I see the ULEZ as part of an on-going effort to improve the habitat of Londoners which started with clean air acts and sanitation decades/centuries ago. I would welcome such measures in my own town and adapt my lifestyle to suit.
Environmental impact is what is driving climate change
I thought it was increased levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides? And if you could find a way of trashing the environment without increasing the levels of those gases it wouldn't cause climate change?
The fossil fuels lobby is very rich and powerful and therefore highly influential, the only way they will be politically defeated is by being 100% honest. The minute you are economical with the truth it plays straight into their hands and it will be fully exploited.
The fossil fuels lobby's greatest weapon is "you aren't being told the truth".
That's a disingenuous post for someone demanding honesty, Ernie.
You usual irritating question mark suggests diagreement when even you know that
increased levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides
are
Environmental impact is what is driving climate change
But you just loooove argument for arguments sake.
Your accusations of economy with the truth (which I assume means lying) amount to conspiracy theory nonsense
Edit to reply to your edit:
The fossil fuels lobby’s greatest weapon is “you aren’t being told the truth”.
Wrong IMO, the fossil fuel lobbies greatest weapons are money and fools.
TJagain
Environmental impact is what is driving climate change
Nothing will change for climate change until the environmental lobby STFU and stop lying
Either it is the existential threat or it isn't...
As a geologist I firmly believe it is but the environmental lobby obviously don't believe that.
I think you need to be more specific about which organisations should STFU and which ones are lying, Stevextc.
There's a Bund magazine (Friends of the Earth Germany) on the sofa behind me, it's objective, balanced, measured and reasonable. What do you want them to be? I've fact checked their articles and there's nothing in there I'd call a lie. And they're doing positive things not just lobbying.
Ernie lynch
I thought it was increased levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides? And if you could find a way of trashing the environment without increasing the levels of those gases it wouldn’t cause climate change?
To a large extent but mainly it's a matter of timescales and what NEEDS doing right now vs nice to have if we ever come out the other side.
We have stuff that if we could cut right now would mitigate climate change or if we had done a decade or two ago might have avoided it and we have some other stuff that might eventually lead to climate change in decades we have time to solve.
We also have stuff that has little or no effect on climate change and even trashing the planet with will reverse climate change. (A nuclear winter as an extreme example)
In a perfect world, or even a few decades ago we had the options of looking long term at climate change and the environment but that time is well and truly gone.
The next decade and even the next year will be critical to climate change and it is the most existential threat by far.
We have a LOT of tough decisions and people are not going to like most of them so we need to focus on ones that make a real difference in the short term not the "wouldn't it be nice" stuff.
If you regard climate change as the disease that is killing the patient then no amount of diet lifestyle change is going to stop an aggressive but still operable cancer. Indeed we might have to flood the patient with toxins and radiation just to get them through the next year despite the side effects being pretty horrible.
The world as a place for human habitation is essentially in ICU... it's on life support and unless the focus is on climate change non of the other nice to have stuff really matters. I'm not suggesting a deliberate nuclear winter .. but anything that doesn't kill the patient in the next decade has to be on the cards.
But you just loooove argument for arguments sake.
Oh FFS have a day off from your personal attacks. If you disagree with my point just try to do it without dragging it down to a personal level, if you can manage it, most people can.
Edukator
I think you need to be more specific about which organisations should STFU and which ones are lying, Stevextc.
There’s a Bund magazine (Friends of the Earth Germany) on the sofa behind me, it’s objective, balanced, measured and reasonable. What do you want them to be? I’ve fact checked their articles and there’s nothing in there I’d call a lie. And they’re doing positive things not just lobbying.
Any organisation conflating climate change and wider environmental issue is lying...
Do Bund support the current German Green party's initiatives to bring back coal mining and coal powered electricity generation ??
Haven't they spent the decades we had where we could have had Germany using nuclear baseloads capaigning against nuclear?
Ernielynch
Oh FFS have a day off from your personal attacks. If you disagree with my point just try to do it without dragging it down to a personal level, if you can manage it, most people can.
The underlying issue is you are offending a belief system.
To quote a film title seems appropriate you are questioning an "inconvenient truth" like pointing out the age of the earth to a young earth creationist.
Indeed we might have to flood the patient with toxins and radiation just to get them through the next year despite the side effects being pretty horrible
Some patients wisely take a trip to Swizerland and pay 15 000e for euthenasia, or if they are still capable walk in front of a train. 😉 🙂 I don't disagree with the statement BTW, not sure who'll vote for it though.
Reading between the lines you are critical of anti-nuclear environmentalists. Whilst I'll live with nuclear because it would daft to turn it off (and I really think Germany shut down viable plants too quickly forcing France to keep open ageing ones more of a threat to the German population) I consider a reduction in demand should be strategy #1 followed by renewable and storage development. I've reduced the energy needs of a 1930s house by six, if everybody can be incentivised to do that it wil make more difference than new nuclear plants. So I suspect we have the same geological history steered views but different priorities in terms of how to reduce emissions.
Edit: crossed post but no problem, Stevextc. Ernie on the other hand I'll do my best to ignore and sometimes fail. He manages to limit the numbers venturing into political threads with his provocative riddles but there are limits to my patience on threads that are in the general interest of STWers who might just do something to reduce their emissions.
I was thinking of this thread last night at 3am when a bunch of ****s in sup'd up cars were reenacting scenes from the fast and the furious outside my house.
I mean honestly what is the point. there are so many selfish idiots the small amount of sacrifices I can make seen pointless.
so I'm going to stop feeling guilty about taking the kids abroad on holiday so we can actually see some sunshine. (and maybe get some sleep)
I'll still choose eco where I can. humans are doomed, may as well have a bit of fun whilst you can
I was thinking of this thread last night at 3am when a bunch of **** in sup’d up cars were reenacting scenes from the fast and the furious outside my house.
I empathise with this
I remember just about when fuel prices had peaked some months back, I was passed during a big road ride in the Dales by about 5 or 6 supercars, a loan male in each
Ferraris and Mclaren if I remember rightly -- even a Porsche 911 would have looked humble among them
I used to be full on vegan, but slowly quit the past two years. I've taken perhaps two flights for holiday's in the past decade, but I feel increasingly resentful about the sacrifice
My academic work has gotten somewhat more radical/provocative, but I still struggle to believe it has much impact
I’ll still choose eco where I can.
I think that's a very reasonable approach. We both ski (I've seen you on ski threads), I've never flown, even when I lived in the UK I hitchhiked, or took the bus or train. Four people in an ICE car is about a third of the CO2 per person compared to flying, an EV better, the bus and train as good as you'll get. And if you have kids it gives them more of a view of the continent that just the mountains.
A healthy diet is also usually more eco especialy if you are concerned by the fertility of your kids - plastic packaging in contact with fats is the main one to avoid.
A well-insulated house is cosy in Winter and cool in Summer without a huge gas bill.
Walking is healthy activity, cycling too, and who wouldn't rather walk past a traffic jam of EVs rather than idling ICEs.
Eco is often win win.
skiing, wow you have a good memory. I'd say I haven't been boarding for at least 10 years. probably longer, but certainly not since my kids were born. put pay to that amazing pasttime! Still have my kit though.....
the thing is I really do fret about trying to do the right thing and be as eco as I can be on a sensible budget.
taking the kids abroad is probably the worst thing we do. I've fretted about it. this will be the third time in 8 years, so it's not like it's multiple times a year like many of our neighbours. in my younger less clued up days I'd happily jump on a plane for a conference or a couple of days city break, so I suppose I have some offsetting to do!
it's all bloody depressing though. if nukes don't get us, or our economies colapse the planet will bump us all off. that or cancer. I can see why people are saying f.it and have given up worrying about it.
Edukator
Reading between the lines you are critical of anti-nuclear environmentalists.
Amongst others... my issue is with what is an existential threat and what is being added on or not done because of non-factual beliefs.
I actually individually actually like a lot of the add on stuff even though I've never been anti-nuclear for the sake of it. The problem is twofold anti-nuclear environmentalists spread FUD about nuclear but they also tend to be the same ones spreading FUD about climate change (in terms of trying to make it wider)
I like larks and red squirrels but I'm not pretending that if they disappeared from the UK there will be mass deaths of millions.
In a theoretical world (bear with this please) where we could flick a magic button that on one hand eradicates every red squirrel from the UK and reverses greenhouse gases I'm going to flick that switch without even a seconds remorse.
So IF you bore with me in the theoretical world then thank you... my issue is that in the real world we are making very similar decisions but they are being muddied AND the general public are being misled where the two are being deliberately conflated.
What would be the effect of losing every red squirrel in the UK? Well a bit sad but their ecological niche would just be filled by grey's. That isn't something that is going to kill millions of people in the next decade or so. It's not on my list of desirable things but comparing it to climate change is trivialising climate change by a huge amount.
So you can add "environmentalists that try to blame the reduction of red squirrels (I'm just trying to stick with one thing) for climate change" to that list. Even trying to say the reduction of red squirrels has anything to do with climate change is mostly rubbish and the fact we imported grey's along with squirrel pox virus is regrettable but sod all to do with the bloody huge existential threat of climate change. (Red squirrels probably have a different opinion but I'm a homo sapien)
The BIG issue here is not the squirrels or any other placeholder BUT the public's perception and lying to them both directly and through omission and through conflation be that ULEZ or any other conflation.
You can add "environmentalists against windfarms" to the list of "anti-nuclear environmentalists" where they object on "environmental grounds".
We need to do everything we can to move the greenhouse emissions ... including switching wood and coal for gas or even oil in some places. Objecting to gas just because it's a hydrocarbon and just because the oil companies are "the enemy" or because fracking is NOT doing everything we can... it's not even doing nothing it's making things worse right now.
If you have some time go and look what Japan and India are doing on new gen fission reactors... Japan going for direct industrial heat for steel making etc. and direct hydrogen generation.
Then you will get someone coming along saying about Fukishima and why we should "do nothing".
Try a google on how many people died of radiation in Fukishima .. just to confirm it currently stands at ZERO. Thousands below the people died as a result of being evacuated from radiations levels considered safe as natural background (near you). It may increase slightly over the years...
I don't think I need to explain to you why we won't have a subduction zone related tsunami in the UK but there are those who keep using it as FUD and why we should "do nothing" that doesn't meet their ideal.
Edit: crossed post but no problem, Stevextc. Ernie on the other hand I’ll do my best to ignore and sometimes fail.
I think we all hold strong views and Ernie is more on pure politics (and I agree with a lot) but I don't think science is his forte but that is not unrepresentative.
What I'm trying to get across OVERALL is for those of us not specifically educated in and practicing related sciences conflating climate change with "nice to have's" is only leading one place and that is the mistrust of science and associated mistrust of climate change (and guess what this then leads to distrust of vaccines/covid etc.).
I equally understand where crosshair is coming from...
I consider a reduction in demand should be strategy #1 followed by renewable and storage development. I’ve reduced the energy needs of a 1930s house by six, if everybody can be incentivised to do that it wil make more difference than new nuclear plants. So I suspect we have the same geological history steered views but different priorities in terms of how to reduce emissions.
I think you are at least a decade out of date to address the existential threat.
We passed that point where we had all the nice options... not that I'm against reducing demand or renewable sources and energy storage it's a matter of timing and urgency.
Again I'd urge you to look at Japan... they are already looking at storage in hydrogen and already considering reducing electric demand albeit into producing "carbon light" steel.. similar to Norway produces "carbon light aluminium". If you just forget that "nuclear" as a dirty word that is!
Whilst I’ll live with nuclear because it would daft to turn it off (and I really think Germany shut down viable plants too quickly forcing France to keep open ageing ones more of a threat to the German population)
It's worse than that... Germany was so anti-nuclear it was burning the dirtiest** gas from Russia before Ukraine and madce civil nuclear power illegal in the constitution.
**Based on methane leakage and overall contribution to climate change
and it's response to that gas not being available is to step backwards to coal. Without the FUD over the years Germany would have been in an ideal situation of bringing in the latest NextGen reactors but is instead going back to coal.
Again I don't have problems with most of what you write there, Stevextc. You think I'm a decade out of date but the solutions haven't really changed, it's just that nor enough has been has been done.
Now we're here and now it's very much a case of better late than never. Even if you start building nuclear reactors today you can still make more difference faster by insulating and adding renewable generation.
The Flamenville reactor project started in 2004, was originally supposed to start producing in 2012 and still isn't working. Even if the new 2024 deadline is reached that'll be 20 years. Now look how much wind capacity the UK and Spain have added in the last ten years, and consider how many homes a year can be insulated if there are real incentives to do so.
The renewable, energy transition and energy saving options are fastest ways to reduce CO2 emissions.
re: insulating homes
The issue in the UK is that the Govt is not strong enough to incentivise insulating your home as that means less power consumed, less profits for energy companies, etc. etc. The current regime is very obviously just doing what the markets instruct them to do
The other thing is that not everyone can afford it. Millions of families are really struggling and they cannot afford their bills, many more families are in a worse position as they are very poor and can't afford food.... in one of the largest economies in the World. We need a cross-party binding commitment to delivering this but it's not going to happen any time soon.
Windfarms (now I'm back from the pool). Most of the decisions made that I'm aware of (so France and Spain) I've agreed with the verdicts. It wasn't the eco-warriors objecting to the off-shore French farms, it was mainly the fishermen - they lost, the wind farms are going ahead. The on-shore windfarms that have been refused following protest and public enquiry were perhaps taking the piss. In an area where 83 have already been built or have planning permission a limit needs to be set somewhere. I would object to a wind farm being built locally, it's one of the least windy places in Europe and would be a misuse of resources, the money would be better spent off-shore, on PV or even hydro - and even better spent on insulation.
Don't be fooled by a NIMBY dressed as an ecologist.
Insulation (before I go to the mediateque).
Two situations: buy to let and home owners.
The French solution to buy to let is impose an energy audit on every rented property and make it illegal to rent property in the worst categories F and G (really really bad). The dealine is appraoching, it'll be interesting to see what happens. Some owners are already doing the insulation, some have already put property on the market, some are still doing nothing. It'll be fascinating to see what happens when owners have tennants they can't evict but can't demand rent either.
Home owners: there has been a programme of loft insulation at 1e, tax breaks and subsidies. It's keeping the insulation businesses very busy - the limit is labour availability. It's working - I wish I'd got something left to insulate. 🙂
Again I don’t have problems with most of what you write there, Stevextc. You think I’m a decade out of date but the solutions haven’t really changed, it’s just that nor enough has been has been done.
Yes, that's the point I'm making. Though the detail of the solutions has changed the real issue is 15 years ago "they will take too long so lets do nothing" .. then climate change got worse and 10 yrs ago "they will take too long so lets do nothing" .. then climate change got worse and 5 years ago... then going back to Germany and today we are taking a step back to coal FFS!!!!
Now we’re here and now it’s very much a case of better late than never. Even if you start building nuclear reactors today you can still make more difference faster by insulating and adding renewable generation.
The Flamenville reactor project started in 2004, was originally supposed to start producing in 2012 and still isn’t working. Even if the new 2024 deadline is reached that’ll be 20 years. Now look how much wind capacity the UK and Spain have added in the last ten years, and consider how many homes a year can be insulated if there are real incentives to do so.
Japan has a 5yr lead window... South Korea not far behind (again this delay is misleading information that gets foistered by the anti-nuclear lobby) that has been funded by .. Big Oil. (more irony)
Indeed a good read here: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time
The renewable, energy transition and energy saving options are fastest ways to reduce CO2 emissions.
Timelines are not that different... I could cherry pick long lead time windfarms for example. Ironically these are usually due to environmental objections!!!
That doesn't mean I'm saying don't build them... but they still need baseload and each nuclear reactor supplies orders of magnitude more than "an average windfarm".
Nor am I knocking better insulation but we have building regs that specifically prevent us doing this. (My 1920's house I can't legally insulate under the floor because I can't get the minimum thickness without blocking airflow so the regs say I'm not allowed - I did of course and the (hydrocarbon based) kingspan is probably more efficient than some old rockwool of the required depth)
I think we all hold strong views and Ernie is more on pure politics (and I agree with a lot) but I don’t think science is his forte but that is not unrepresentative.
I don't claim to be an expert on any subject, beyond possibly how to swing a hammer! And yes my understanding of science is probably typically average. But that doesn't mean that I can be fooled into believing that there is a connection between ulez expansion and tackling the causes of climate change.
Which is something that some people both sides of the argument seem to want to exploit. The climate change deniers want to link ulez expansion with net zero, urging people to reject both, and some supporters of ulez expansion claim that if you don't support it you don't care about anthropogenic climate change.
In importance of tackling the causes of climate change cannot be overstated imo, something which even a 15 year old schoolchild with no scientific qualifications can understand. One of the greatest obstacles we are faced with when dealing with the issue is a widespread public lack of trust in politicians. The problem isn't helped by attempting to mislead already possibly sceptical people.
Enrielynch
I don’t claim to be an expert on any subject, beyond possibly how to swing a hammer! And yes my understanding of science is probably typically average. But that doesn’t mean that I can be fooled into believing that there is a connection between ulez expansion and tackling the causes of climate change.
Which is something that some people both sides of the argument seem to want to exploit.
The climate change deniers want to link ulez expansion with net zero, urging people to reject both, and some supporters of ulez expansion claim that if you don’t support it you don’t care about anthropogenic climate change.
Because you are arguing religious dogma.
In importance of tackling the causes of climate change cannot be overstated imo, something which even a 15 year old schoolchild with no scientific qualifications can understand. One of the greatest obstacles we are faced with when dealing with the issue is a widespread public lack of trust in politicians. The problem isn’t helped by attempting to mislead already possibly sceptical people.
This is part of the problem but when those politicians and activists start using pseudo-science or claiming "we are following the science" this also erodes your trust in science.
Who is going to trust anything from Stanford ever again with the uncovering of Marc Tessier-Lavigne the president?
That on the back of Francesca Gino at Harvard
We've had some speakers at our local RSPB group talking about climate change, some who are scientists, but most are experts with years of experience coming from the nature end of things. If asked how can we get people to realise that this is happening and they need to change their lifestyles, the answer is always - it'll come from their children. But I'm not really seeing this, yet.
Has anyone else been educated by their children, or your children started to change the way you think about the environment?
Bunnyhop
We’ve had some speakers at our local RSPB group talking about climate change, some who are scientists, but most are experts with years of experience coming from the nature end of things.
There are 2 ways to look at this...
One way is in terms of the audience so your local RSPB group is likely to focus on birds because everyone in the group loves birds (presumably). The same thing could be said for bat's or pretty much anything else.
In the real world though most humans care more about humans...and in that scenario we need to act now whereas whether a specific species of bird exists in the same area or not is pretty irrelevant other than if you want to see that bird in that particular location.
Birds mostly have the ability to fly elsewhere... but even as someone who actually likes birds I find the idea that preserving a few species, short term rather than preventing millions of human deaths is a completely different priority.
If asked how can we get people to realise that this is happening and they need to change their lifestyles, the answer is always – it’ll come from their children. But I’m not really seeing this, yet.
Has anyone else been educated by their children, or your children started to change the way you think about the environment?
In the continued existence of bird species then the timescale of "their children" is fine. It's something can be fixed later by our children IF we get the climate under some semblance of control.
I'm certainly not against preserving avian diversity but it's not in the same ballpark of mitigating climate change on humans.
Has anyone else been educated by their children, or your children started to change the way you think about the environment?
I don't interact with children that much but when I have (teenagers) they don't generally seem to give a shit about it.
IME some teens are very concerned, some do not care , know or understand
Has anyone else been educated by their children, or your children started to change the way you think about the environment?
My son persuaded me to replace the battery in my old phone rather than replace, I did, two years on it's still going. Then he asked me to drive him to the airport for a gig. Kids/teenagers/young adults seem really good on the small stuff: litter, recycling, reusing, repairing, buying second-hand, low/no meat diets and really bad on the big stuff: home heating/hot water, flying, transport, holidays.
Has anyone else been educated by their children, or your children started to change the way you think about the environment?
I took on a role in sustainability primarily because of my kids. I’ve always cared about the natural world and tried to tread gently in terms of my own emissions. Having kids just turbo charged this part of my thinking. Yes, I’m the devil for having kids, but someone needs to help us sort this shit out and it’s definitely not coming from my generation or the one either side of me.
Edit - Anecdotally I also see the same as Edukator from younger folk at work. Much more willing to buy in to a circular economy, cut out meat and generally seem more aware of smaller scale issues. Then piss off to Australia or some other far flung destination a couple of times per year.
France 2 news tonight had a report on CO2 sources. According to the report 25% of emisson are in our hands. That is to say house holders and consumers can make decisions and investments in energy saving/transition that influence a quarter of emissions. They backed it up with a family that has insulated and changed their lifestyle.
Have you seen the weather today? Summer is over, I think we have solved it!
But seriously, this room temp superconductor lark is going to make wind farms go brrrr if it’s not another fraud, Nuclear too.
If asked how can we get people to realise that this is happening and they need to change their lifestyles, the answer is always – it’ll come from their children. But I’m not really seeing this, yet.
Has anyone else been educated by their children, or your children started to change the way you think about the environment?
It'll come(mostly) from those kids who themselves have no kids.
This (my generation) is aware of the problem, but when kiddie #1 comes along, then #2, most considerations about the environment go out the window. All that matters is convenience and bollox to anything that stands in their way.
Yeah they want a safe future for their kids, but they also want the best for their kids in that moment and if that means driving them to sport training, picking them up from school, having the newest toys, teaching them to ski, having the newest trainers, taking them on amazing* holidays and all that other bollox....
I ain't got no kids. My life, and that of my GF, and all that makes us happy/ need is confined to a foot print of ~10m².*
Met with friends the other day and they were complaining that their eldest (9) my had a bedroom of 2.5x3m because there wasn't enough room for her toys.
They say they have to go on a ski holiday because who knows when the next decent snowfall will be; their kids need to know how to ski.... essentially just adding the the madness.
My sister is the same.... She wants to give her boys the same experiences we had a kids. That involves flying to Faro and sitting on a beach for 2-3 weeks in summer.
Honestly, it's those without kids that makes the biggest sacrifices and curtail the frivolous things our parents did with us. Those with kids, imo, are mostly just going with the flow and doing what they always did. Obviously there are some parents that do things differently, but from what I can see they're not the norm.
Yeah. We're screwed as a species.
*live in a van since Sept 22
*live in a van
Bin there, done that. You'll get fed up with it one day, or Ms Alpin will. 😉
I agree with the kids bit. After much debate we decided to bring one more person into the world. If anyone was in the position to bring up an environmentally conscious person without to much environmental impact we were. Holidays have been on buses, trains and bikes, and yes, skis. We've talked about the issues, he's done Science Po Paris FFS, he knows the issues as well as anyone else on the planet. But now he needs to make a living.
He quit the start up with the app persuading people to do uncological things on holiday - he ski instructs and DJs. He's made some rediculously expensive, long and uncomfortable journeys by train but in September his agent has some gigs in China which mean flying. I can't disagree when he points out that if he doesn't do them someone else will do them and take the flights.
Bin there, done that. You’ll get fed up with it one day, or Ms Alpin will. 😉
Wait and see..... Was back in the civilisation that we called Munich the last month or so. No freaking desire to return.... Weddings and funerals are the exception,and even that is pushing it.
Had use of a mate's gaff for a week and didn't miss a single thing about living in town. Was shocked by the amount of space that goes to waste for "stuff", especially given the rents, as well as the amount of water that gets sent down the drain. (We've 140 litres in the van. Supposedly the average daily usage person per day in the UK is 150ltr. We refill our tank every 7-8 days). Was "nice" to be back in a building if only to confirm to us that we made the right choice.
Don't plan to be in the van forever, but it beats being where we were. Using the time to find where we want to be.
But still.... Point stands.... Those with kids generally don't give AF about anything. Their main concern is convenience and if that means driving, flying or buying more than so be it.
#nokids
That discussion has already been had, if nobody had anymore kids that would cause a lot of problems. We need new people in the economy to support those old people in the economy as well as keeping the economy working (well as well as it works today)
The better answer would be putting in place controls to stop those with kids ( and without) driving to school, going on holidays on planes, buying excessive shit and so on. I have a feeling that would go down as well as saying you can't have kids though.
That discussion has already been had, if nobody had anymore kids that would cause a lot of problems. We need new people in the economy to support those old people in the economy as well as keeping the economy working (well as well as it works today)
all those migrants from the countries made uninhabitable by climate change or whose infrastructure / economies we in the west have destroyed?
There are simply an unsustainable number of people on the planet. Every extra child means higher CO2 / greenhouse gas emmissions
the best things you can do for the planet are:
1) not have a child
2) not have a car
3) not have any pets
This summer has made me even more pessimistic. Is this the start of the tipping point? Droughts for the second year in Spain. wildfires all over the world. Temperature records set all over the world and the northern hemisphere summer monsoon much much stronger than usual. the data on ocean currents and the data on AMOC looks very concernig
Yes, it is clear that it will now be too little to late to really combat it although I guess we can slow down the further extremes.
If it really takes people having no kids, no cars and no pets then we really do just have to watch whatever happens just happen.
This summer has made me even more pessimistic. Is this the start of the tipping point? Droughts for the second year in Spain. wildfires all over the world. Temperature records set all over the world and the northern hemisphere summer monsoon much much stronger than usual. the data on ocean currents and the data on AMOC looks very concernig
I can pretty much vouch that we've not had wildfires or temperature records down south this summer, we did have some local flooding yesterday though 🤣
Thats the NHSM in action. climate change does not mean everything is warmer. It also means changed weather patterns and more extreme events both in frequency and severity
this year could be an outlier - or it could be the start of the tipping point. We will only know this in years to come
The problems related to anthropogenic climate change are directly linked to population size. For very obvious reasons anthropogenic activity would be vastly reduced if the human population was, for example, 10% what it is now.
The natural environment can cope with human activity, just not at the level caused by 8 billion humans.
in September his agent has some gigs in China which mean flying. I can’t disagree when he points out that if he doesn’t do them someone else will do them and take the flights.
DJing is an absolute environmental shitshow. I never quite it to the big level (although I did gig in China, long ago) but a mate racked up 31 flights in 33 days touring the US recently. He's not even top level either. Some weeks he doesn't fly at all! (And that's not factoring in the gazillions of Europeans who merrily fly to Berlin for a weekend's clubbing, or all converge on Croatia for a festival.)
Then again, another mate is a reasonably senior engineer/Project Manager in the automotive industry. He reckons he took 152 flights in 2022. So it's not just DJs.
I sometimes ponder this, as I walk home from the local 'packaging-free' shop wrestling 8 loose bog rolls, which cost 40% more than Andrex, We're all ****ed. But my conscience is briefly assuaged.
Edukator
My son persuaded me to replace the battery in my old phone rather than replace, I did, two years on it’s still going. Then he asked me to drive him to the airport for a gig. Kids/teenagers/young adults seem really good on the small stuff: litter, recycling, reusing, repairing, buying second-hand, low/no meat diets and really bad on the big stuff: home heating/hot water, flying, transport, holidays.
This isn't just kids ... this is people responding to conflation of climate change and wider environmental issues.
On one side of this we have "how do we make money out of this" ... so we have Richi flying to Scotland on a private jet justifying this by "we are making sustainable jet fuel". Note use of buzzword.. "sustainable" .. I'm sure they'll sell organic versions as well... and stick a big "eco sticker" and "plant based" etc.
They are of course still going to burn it.. so basically capture some CO2 so we can release it again.
Running parallel to this we have for example the RSBP trying to link unrelated things to preventing climate change because they know more people "care about showing they care about climate change" than lapwings.
What this results in is the vast majority of people believing or half believing some initiative that either has no effect or a negative effect on climate change (driving their recycled plastic shampoo bottle can't be recycled locally for example) to the local recycling centre in an ULEZ zone where they had to swap for petrol (that won't even allow people on foot/bikies inside) so now they did their bit. That bottle is plant based, vegan and made from sustainable bollox and they donate 0.001pence/cent to saving lapwings but they get a whole load of meaningless badges and hey if the lapwings move that will cause global climate change.
Wait a year and ask the residents of ULEZ zones what they are doing to reduce greenhouse gas and a VERY high percentage will tell you "they are doing ULEZ"...
The problems related to anthropogenic climate change are directly linked to population size. For very obvious reasons anthropogenic activity would be vastly reduced if the human population was, for example, 10% what it is now.
The same as if impacts per person were reduced by 90%, which is a more realistic aim, given the inefficiencies of animal agriculture, fossil-fuel private transport, and capitalist overconsumption in general
Even if a global one-child policy were implemented today, the population in 2100 would still be 3 billion
https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/population-games/tomorrow-population/
How do we feel about 2nd homes? I mean the type of property people buy and don't rent out and maybe only use at the weekend or for holidays. Surely these are as bad for the planet as anything else mentioned here.
Also someone mentioned birds above have wings and can fly to other places, true, however those other places may not hold the correct habitat or provide the type of food that particular species require, eg a kingfisher is more or less stuck with clean rivers, streams or at a stretch canal waterways.
How do we feel about 2nd homes?
They're morally indefensible on a number of levels although I'm not sure climate change is a major one. Someone going to their holiday home in the Lakes isn't flying out for a weekend in Tenerife. Doesn't make them justifiable though.
The same as if impacts per person were reduced by 90%, which is a more realistic aim, given the inefficiencies of animal agriculture, fossil-fuel private transport, and capitalist overconsumption in general
Are you sure it is a more realistic aim, especially as you point out the reliance on capitalist overconsumption?
I reckon most people can probably manage better with one or no children than they would manage without their current level of consumer goods.
"Either we limit our population growth, or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now."
- David Attenborough
https://futurism.com/david-attenborough-if-we-dont-limit-our-population-growth-the-natural-world-will
Second homes are damaging many communities. We have an inherited static caravan, but that's come to the end of what the site owners want on site (age), despite it being perfectly good, all working, still looks smart. The site is forcing people off or to buy new, a complete waste of money and wasteful of resources. We'll probably leave and give it up, and holiday elsewhere in the UK.
Cars, many people see the need to keep changing them. We buy and hold onto the car until such a point it's getting un-reliable. My wife moans that my car is 22 years old - it's in superb condition, works, no warning lights, but only moves 3000 miles a year, and only at weekends. Why the hell would I spend £20k plus on another car that goes no-where. If it breaks I'll either go without, or possibly look into a used EV for that to replace local journeys/MrsF's commutes (I cycle commute), and keep the other ICE for long distance.
Are you sure it is a more realistic aim, especially as you point out the reliance on capitalist overconsumption?
I reckon most people can probably manage better with one or no children than they would manage without their current level of consumer goods.
To be clear, I'm all for having less or no children, and I don't dispute that a larger population has much larger environmental impacts, all else equal. I'd actually consider myself an antinatalist and consider having kids unethical, but that's not for environmental reasons (I've been convinced by David Benatar, and my own experience of depression).
My point is simply that we have only a couple of decades to avert really serious ecological breakdown, and on that timescale population-mitigation could play a trivial role at best.
Even with a global zero-child policy, the population in 2050 would have only reduced by a third (still nearly 6 billion).
So if we wanted to reduce population as a 'lever' to avoid climate breakdown, we'd have to not just stop people having kids but actively kill billions.
As unlikely as it seems, overthrowing capitalism is actually more feasible.
They’re morally indefensible on a number of levels although I’m not sure climate change is a major one. Someone going to their holiday home in the Lakes isn’t flying out for a weekend in Tenerife. Doesn’t make them justifiable though.
In fact, by dint of the fact that second homes force young people to live in shared houses for longer, heating and lighting only their own bedrooms, rather than an entire house, perhaps the hoarding of empty houses by the rich is actually a net positive for the environment?!
So if we wanted to reduce population as a ‘lever’ to avoid climate breakdown, we’d have to not just stop people having kids but actively kill billions.
We don't need to do anything to kill billions. climate change will do that. Gaia reset
Even with a global zero-child policy, the population in 2050 would have only reduced by a third (still nearly 6 billion).
So if we wanted to reduce population as a ‘lever’ to avoid climate breakdown, we’d have to not just stop people having kids but actively kill billions.
As I've said before, reducing population is a red herring that distracts from the real things we have to do to avert >2C warming and all the horrors that will invovle. Anyone suggesting we need to depopulate either by not having kids or allowing existing people to die earlier is simply making an excuse so they can carry on with their lives exactly as they are. The only things worth doing are making big changes yourself (not eating meat and not flying are the only impactful ones TBH) and/or encouraging and supporting the changes we need to be forced upon us by governments. Stop looking for easy ways out, there are none.
As I’ve said before, reducing population is a red herring that distracts from the real things we have to do to avert >2C warming and all the horrors that will invovle. Anyone suggesting we need to depopulate either by not having kids or allowing existing people to die earlier is simply making an excuse so they can carry on with their lives exactly as they are. The only things worth doing are making big changes yourself (not eating meat and not flying are the only impactful ones TBH) and/or encouraging and supporting the changes we need to be forced upon us by governments. Stop looking for easy ways out, there are none.
Just to be clear @dazh, you do realise that was my point, right?
The only things worth doing are making big changes yourself (not eating meat and not flying are the only impactful ones TBH)
Plus not having a car and not having pets. Both hugely impactful
Also moving where you bank, keep your pension and how you vote
Just to be clear @dazh, you do realise that was my point, right?
Yes wasn't disagreeing with you, more repeating the point to the people on here who seem to think not having kids is a useful solution.
I didn't have kids 40 years ago. Thats saved more CO2 than anything else I could have done those 40 years although I also took the rest of the reasonable steps. Its not an either / or situation.
Thats saved more CO2 than anything else I could have done those 40 years although I also took the rest of the reasonable steps.
TJ you're a special case as you also do the other things and would accept changes being forced upon you by govt if that ever happens. However there are lots of other people, and many on this thread, who repeat this lazy view that not having children is the only serious contribution they need to make. Funny isn't it that not having kids conveniently provides them with lots of free time to fly around the world on fancy holidays 🤔.
That is a bigger issue than kids. Greed, greed is what will **** us all
The only things worth doing are making big changes yourself (not eating meat and not flying are the only impactful ones TBH) and/or encouraging and supporting the changes we need to be forced upon us by governments. Stop looking for easy ways out, there are none.
It sounds to me that you are looking for an easy way out. The idea that we can yet again double the world's population because what really counts is not eating meat and not flying is obviously daft.
Ultimately as David Attenborough points out we must limit population growth ourselves otherwise the natural world will do it for us.
The human population has been growing for thousands of years, and rather than slowing down and stabilising it is actually currently accelerating at an alarming rate.
That is the central issue. We could all keep warm by burning coal and we could all drive internal combustion powered vehicles without it having any effect on the planet's climate if we were sufficiently small in numbers.
I am not suggesting depopulating the planet, I am suggesting not ignoring the root cause and pretending that the human population can continue to double indefinitely.
I am not suggesting depopulating the planet, I am suggesting not ignoring the root cause and pretending that the human population can continue to double indefinitely.
No one in their right mind is suggesting that.
Population growth peaks this century in all but one IPCC scenario, and if family planning and gender equality initiatives grew sufficienly fast we'd be on the lower of the curves with population peaking mid-century.
We could, theoretically, support decent living standards for 10 billion-ish with appropriate tech, more reasonable consumption patterns, and much less inequality (I studied this for years) with far less human ecological damage than today. We could perhaps support a much higher population if fusion and lab grown food and asteroid mining etc. all kicked off in 50 years or so.
I'm not saying that it would be easy. And I'm not some anthropocentic Elon-Musk-type that thinks the universe would be better the more humans are alive (I think quite the opposite). Nor am I disagreeing with you that a lower population would make avoiding ecological collapse a hell of a lot easier. But I do think the idea that population numbers are the root cause of environmental impacts is flawed and itself the easier way out.
Basically, environmental damage == population size x impact per person. Both are equally important (and perhaps inequality, too).