do you have any evidence to support this
It's a first-hand observation from the witness. Just about the only evidence I suspect you'd normally accept.
do you have any evidence to support this
Just f*** off. Pretty please.
dazh
Pretty much yes. If we’re going down then we still need to be doing everything we can to prevent it. Anything less is simply indefensible. I’m a uber-pragmatist on this. It’s not a case of doing one or the other or giving up on a particular option because it has a negligible effect, we need to be doing everything that is now currently possible technologically and politically. In future other things will be possible, and when that happens we need to be doing them too. Simply giving up is the worst possible action from every possible viewpoint.
"everything we can" is never going to happen though (at least not until much too late - which it already is for ) and in context that involves (forced) depopulation (just one example) so being pragmatic means some sort of acceptable compromise with a single focus on climate change.
The other challenge is this is a global issue in both cause and effect.
That isn't going to happen either whilst other environmental issues are conflated with climate change in the general electorates (and that's only in democratic countries).
Greenwashing projects or products that intrinsically have very poor greenhouse effects needs to be highlighted instead of hidden away and we need to do proper accounting.
Examples of doing "proper accounting" mean doing the whole thing, no "get outs" as the carbon (or other greenhouse gas) was produced elsewhere. That's tricky if everything is made in China but if countries like Germany want to produce say cars they need to be called out by their market and taxed to make it impossible to sell industry powered by coal.
The same engine/motor for example could be made in France with clean nuclear not coal in Germany.
At a more local level we need to look at CO2 equivalent per dwelling of construction rather than simple cost with offsets over energy efficiency over a realistic time period. Building concrete and steel skyscrapers with a lifetime of say 20-30 yrs isn't ever going to repay the carbon cost.
Sticking a couple of plants on the walls and calling it carbon negative because "we didn't make the concrete" shouldn't be allowed to happen,
there are lifecycle assessments of different forms of electricity generation, which calculate the full impacts of delivering a unit of electricity to a final consumer
well, that isn't one as it completely misses out nuclear.
There’s always an angle to frame environmentalists as hypocrites, and normally this is done in bad faith
Yep, I just started subscribing to "The Climate Denier's Playbook" podcast (same bloke that does the 'Climate town' YT channel). The idea seems to be they take a look at the various (bad faith) arguments that get flung about any time climate change or environmental issues come up.
Their first two episodes are "Electric cars will save us all" and "You owe your life to Oil & Gas" both very familiar arguments...
Worth a listen IMO as they seem to keep a sensible perspective on things, and unsurprisingly these things seem to keep coming back to money...
Greenwashing projects or products that intrinsically have very poor greenhouse effects needs to be highlighted instead of hidden away and we need to do proper accounting.
Yes flagrant greenwashing (eg carbon offsets etc) needs to be exposed for what they really are. But that doesn't mean we should not do stuff because we think it will have a negligible effect. As I've said before, only goverment action at a macro-economic and industrial scale will solve this problem, not individuals flying less or having an electric car. But what individual action can do is change mindsets in the population so that government and policy makers have both the motivation and freedom to do the things that are required. It's the same argument as pretending the UK can't do anything because China's emissions are much higher.
all those clothes will be from charity shops or clothes swaps or literally someone elses bin, so the material they’re made from is irrelevent
do you have any evidence to support this
You've quoted half of my sentence, thus taking it out of context, and are now asking me to evidence something I didn't say?
I'll repeat...
If they are anything like the activists I used to hang out with, all those clothes will be from charity shops or clothes swaps or literally someone elses bin, so the material they’re made from is irrelevent
So, my evidence is, that the activists I used to hang out with 5-10 years ago, who were involved in things like Extinction Rebellion and Reclaim the Power (precursers to Just Stop Oil), avoided buying new clothing (and new stuff in general) whenever possible. It's a fairly safe bet that Just Stop Oil activists are similar
Honestly though, I don't really give a crap what clothes they are wearing. If there's a reasonable critisicm of Just Stop Oil, its that their tactics are alienating. I don't know enough about the history of social movements to judge how reasonable a critisicm that is. I do know that the women's rights and early racial justice movements also pissed off a lot of regular people. What I don't know is how much that advanced their aims
there are lifecycle assessments of different forms of electricity generation, which calculate the full impacts of delivering a unit of electricity to a final consumer
well, that isn’t one as it completely misses out nuclear.
I said different forms of electricity generation, not every form possible. It also doesn't look at bioenergy.
I've nothing against nuclear, and those authors don't seem to either.
dazh
But that doesn’t mean we should not do stuff because we think it will have a negligible effect.
Again, what we SHOULD do isn't possible.
As I’ve said before, only goverment action at a macro-economic and industrial scale will solve this problem, not individuals flying less or having an electric car. But what individual action can do is change mindsets in the population so that government and policy makers have both the motivation and freedom to do the things that are required.
I totally agree on the former .. the latter I think is where we lost it because "the electorate" only have so much patience.
Yes flagrant greenwashing (eg carbon offsets etc) needs to be exposed for what they really are.
We don't have that luxury... (concentrating on flagrant)... if we want the general public (not just STW) to subscribe to climate change it has to be decoupled from "green" and "environmental" in every way.
You can't have for example a government/council "green initiative" based on a climate emergency because the two will be conflated (deliberately)
So here's the thing... under "normal circumstances" I'd be all for most of the "environmental" or "green" stuff but most people (electorate) aren't and conflating it just gives them a guilt token when a very significant percentage of the electorate are already sick of listening.
If you asked the average voter about ULEZ for example they are likely to conflate this with global warming.
We already passed the "normal circumstances" by a long way so now we have to decide what's important... doing the most we can do for mitigating climate change or not and taking care of "nice to have's" later.
How do we even get to countries like Germany and their green party reopening coal mines and coal generated power?
@legometerology. By that same token please accept the evidence my wife has who spends her whole life helping engineering academics at a Russel group university get research funding into EVs and how to make them viable.
In short the amount of research into how to make EVs less polluting than diesel over the vehicle life span, what to do with 3 year old batteries that are no longer fit for purpose to avoid them going into landfill is vast. Literally millions a year. None of them will touch an ev.
EV’s are already viable. Hence why they exist and are in pretty much common daily use. The real solution is fewer cars regardless of what fuel type they run on or to keep whatever vehicle you currently have running for as long as possible. I agree that EV’s aren’t the answer and come with their own set of issues. At best they should be seen as a stepping stone away from vehicles that run off petrol and diesel.
ULEZ for example they are likely to conflate this with global warming.
My suspicion is that ULEZs will contribute more to global warming than help. As people by new cars that meet the regs for particulates, there's an increase in embedded carbon in the manufacture of a new car that will have a negative impact on the climate. Even if only a few people buy brand new, the carbon cost of a new car is enormous. Even if it's an EV the effect will be much worse than letting people keep their own cars. ULEZs are purely for particulates and human health.
The real answer is to ban cars from cities. If you need to drive from one point to another within a city with good public transport links (which is most UK cities) you're doing something wrong.
Report in the guardian today that states global emissions of greenhouse gases need to be halved to give us a chance of only a 1.5C rise in temps. Given developing nations are going to want to develop to a similar level to us by how much must the western greenhouse gas emissions bevreduced? Seen any proposals on this thread that gives those massive reductions?
@chrismac, this is why driving less, expanding public transport networks, making cycling safer, etc. is as important as new technologies
The UK has almost halved its GHG emissions since 1990, whereas the USAs has largely remained unchanged.
It really needs the US, China and India to take things seriously to have any chance of making an impact.
EV’s are already viable. Hence why they exist and are in pretty much common daily use.
Not environmentally they aren’t. Just wait to see how viable they are once they are on the secondhand market and buyers are trying to work out how long the battery will last before they face an astronomical bill to replace it. 3 year old teslas are fetching £20k at the end of the lease because of the replacement battery costs.
this is why driving less, expanding public transport networks, making cycling safer, etc. is as important as new technologies
agreed but it’s not going to happen. Even if we did it in the U.K. It won’t move the dial at all from a climate perspective. The only real solution is fewer people consuming less but that’s never going to be a vote winner in any democratic country and the rest aren’t interested in change. I’m convinced that when the next intelligent dominant species looks back the human race will be seen and an evolutionary error that destroyed itself
But there is a second hand market already. It’s been around as long as EV’s have. All cars depreciate in value to a huge degree. I’m not disagreeing with you in principle but to state they aren’t viable is plain nonsense. If you’re talking from a purely environmental perspective then no motorised vehicles are viable so why single out the latest iteration?
You clearly seem uninterested in wanting to make a difference. No wonder we’re ****ed with the happy bunch of doomsayers posting on this thread. Half of you have given up and that’s just sad. It’s going to be difficult and 1.5 degrees has gone imo. It’s now about limiting to above 2 degrees. Half of you lot are “I’ve done my bit and anything else is pointless” so do we just let the world burn for the next generation?
The only way, and it really is the only way, that climate change is going to be addressed is with global cooperation. As the developed 'west' seems to currently be obsessed with clutching its hand ever tighter around the sand of its current wealth and telling the rest of the world to 'go back to where you came from', then it ain't gonna happen. The attitude of your average Brit is that putting a few ready meal dishes in the recycling entitles them to drive a 3 litre SUV to drop Fontelroy off at school 400 yards away. And they will kick off if that 'right' is even criticised.
With any luck a passing star destroyer from a civilised solar system will take a look and decide that the humane thing to do is push the big red button.
It really needs the US, China and India to take things seriously to have any chance of making an impact.
@nerd , that puts a responsibility on Europeans to stop buying stuff from China. It was discussed earlier in the thread but so much of the CO2 China produces is to make stuff for other countries. Their CO2 per person is the same as the UK's, but much of what they will produce will end up coming to the UK. In terms of carbon expended, they're a net CO2 exporter because the export so much of what they manufacture.
So, Europe needs to take it's consumerism seriously if we want to see a reduction in China.
The US is probably jeffed. They really don't care.
Half of you have given up and that’s just sad. It’s going to be difficult and 1.5 degrees has gone imo. It’s now about limiting to above 2 degrees. Half of you lot are “I’ve done my bit and anything else is pointless” so do we just let the world burn for the next generation?
Once again - the point is that no one is even suggesting sufficient change in human behavior let alone doing it. Global emmissions need to be halved to even attempt to stabilise the situation. That means massive lifestyle change in the west and massive drops in energy usuage
Instead we get people pretending marginal gains can make a significant difference Its totally disheartening to see people not even accepting the scale of the problem even those who work in the area
Changing to EVs, banning business class on flights - this sort of thing is a tiny drop in the ocean.
But it’s a start. Yes, it’s not quick enough but humans aren’t generally great at reacting to anything other than immediate threats. Momentum is being gained and that can only be a good thing. Repeatedly moaning about it not being good enough isn’t helping. Fair enough you’re an old man so it’s normal behaviour 😉
I work in the field of sustainability. New to it, not qualified and learning as I go. I spend half my time utterly disheartened and wondering why I bother. Then I interact with people who genuinely care and are trying to to make a positive difference. That number is growing and that gives me hope.
A start. One or two percent of whats needed
No the start is the acceptance that without massive lifestyle change the human race is doomed
I have done everything i personally can do and will have had a far smaller carbon footprint than most in the west. People are not even prepared to do this.
Well never agree on this or dress sense! I’m with you on helmet wearing though. Massive drastic change isn’t going to happen. It’ll take time and patience. Your starting point is the end goal.
I’m glad you’re retired and don’t work in Sustainability. You’d be terrible at it 😀
Pretending you can do anything significant without lifestyle change does the cause a huge disservice as it allows folk a get out. " i e "I got my electric suv and solar panels so I'm doing my bit" no you are not. Thats nothing like enough
If you are new to sustainability read up on the difference between light and dark green philosophy
Im the only one with the dark green view on here i think
We could go back and forth all day. I’m new to the role but not the concept. Telling people that they are shit and not doing enough never tends to be a good approach. You have to let people get used to incremental changes. It’s working too, not at a pace that I’m happy with but a win is a win in this game. Expecting everyone to turn into an eco warrior overnight isn’t going to happen. Accept that or leave the playing field because your approach isn’t working.
That philosophy bakes in massive climate change and gigadeath. Its no solution and to pretend that it is makes the crisis worse.
What its saying is we are accepting human death by the billion.
Yes i have given up. No one is interested in actually acheiving anything sigificant to slow climate change. I have lived a low carbon lifestyle but even that isnot enough or sustainable
A win is NOT a win if it provides a fig leaf for folk to hide behind and pretend to have done their bit
this is why driving less, expanding public transport networks, making cycling safer, etc. is as important as new technologies
agreed but it’s not going to happen. Even if we did it in the U.K. It won’t move the dial at all from a climate perspective. The only real solution is fewer people consuming less but that’s never going to be a vote winner in any democratic country and the rest aren’t interested in change. I’m convinced that when the next intelligent dominant species looks back the human race will be seen and an evolutionary error that destroyed itself
@chrismac, I fear this is true, unfortunately. But honestly, if this is what you think, why pick holes in Just Stop Oil? They are some of the few people taking this seriously. They may still drive cars occasionally and wear polyester etc., but they are out there risking prison time to try to get the message out that this is damn serious
They will probably fail to make a dent. It really seems like most climate movements do. But one thing guranteed to help them fail is to join the side that are shouting them down
A win is NOT a win if it provides a fig leaf for folk to hide behind and pretend to have done their bit
that’s your pessimistic opinion. I choose to have a different one because I have skin in the game in the form of two young kids. You’ve already assumed we’re ****ed. I still have hope and small wins add up. You keep repeating the same old shite about people thinking they’ve done their bit. That’s not the case from what I see day to day. They make one change, see the benefit, make more and tell others.
We’re never going to agree and neither of us are correct. Just differing opinions. I choose hope and faith in others, you don’t. Insert shrug emoji here.
Aye can see why you would want to do that but it flies in the face of reality
Its not about faith and hope. Its about understanding the reality.
If you dont accept whats actually happening then you cannot change it
Oh I accept it wholeheartedly. I just think we can stop the worst case scenarios. Two degrees is a given at this point. I may be naive but I think we can stop it there.
Like I said, different attitude and opinions on the matter.
. Two degrees is a given at this point. I may be naive but I think we can stop it there.
Its possible with political will and a worldwide effort. To do so means massive cuts in energy usage in the west and supplying the means to make low carbon energy for developing nations. I just don't see anyone actually doing anything significant
<p style="text-align: right;">I think this thread is more depressing and scary than the covid thread when it kicked off. Stupidly it has been getting me down quite a bit and playing on my mind alot. Probably just my brain going after the next doom scenario, but this one will most certainly play out. Need to try and avoid this thread for now. I kinda wish I was older, less life to live and witness it all.</p>
Oops - sorry
I kinda wish I was older, less life to live and witness it all.
yeah thats me - no kids either
I’m convinced that when the next intelligent dominant species looks back the human race will be seen and an evolutionary error that destroyed itself
Yes, that is exactly what is is doing. It has become too successful and over consumed, just as many over species have done through the ages which are now much smaller in numbers or not around at all.
I just don’t see anyone actually doing anything significant
Nor me, but then I am a doom monger. I feel a bit like I did during Brexit where I was a Project Fear person.
It is just a case of having a view of reality rather than baseless hope. How much has the human race dealt with it so far (very little), what is important to the human race today (not climate change), what sort of governments do we have around the world that may help (awful ones), what genuine worldwide collaboration is there on things that cost each country loads of money and require massive change from their populations (none)
Yes, that could all change and those creating the biggest impact will change how they live completely but take off your dreamers head and do you really think that will happen to any significant degree?
It is simply all about priorities and climate change is not one. It will become one as the impacts of it are felt more and more and at some point will be the top priority but that will be at the point of dealing with the daily consequences of it rather than doing anything to avoid it.
Nor me, but then I am a doom monger. I feel a bit like I did during Brexit where I was a Project Fear person.
but you, like many did naff all to change the outcome of Brexit and as a result we lost by a few million. If more people had done more than personal action (vote) then we’d have had a different result.
But that requires education, optimism, planning and co-ordination - not fatalism/resignation. GET INVOLVED. Those with no jobs, no kids, etc have the luxury of time. I don’t, but get involved anyway. I’ve spoken in several local villages about solar, renewables, EVs. Where to start, what it’ll cost, what it’ll save, home much it’ll reduce climate impact.
in the past year 10-15 people have been inspired to make a significant positive change. I take my kids to these events so they learn not just about tech/climate, but how to speak to people, how to inspire change.
This also forms a part of my modelling approach for climate transition and technology diffusion.
GET INVOLVED.
in the past year 10-15 people have been inspired to make a significant positive change.
Significant? Really? In the context of the climate crisis? Stopped having kids, sold their cars, got rid of their pets etc -
I have done my best for 30+ years. I have been involved and I watch our politicians and others lie about the extent of the crisis and watch people do some token gesture and think they have made significant change. remember we we in the west need to reduce our energy usage / greenhouse gas output massivly - I see no sign of this
Our neighbours think that they are being green and supporting the right initiatives and announce each step to anyone who will listen.
Solar panels on two roof aspects, Tesla battery for the house and a new electric SUV. All in the last twelve months; then as a reward for being so green and thoughtful, a brand new Moho to replace their three years old one, now with a tiny PV on the roof.
As others above have said, we need a major shift in overall consumption, not little bits of tinkering and greenwashing.
10 households have significantly reduced their CO2 emissions and have possibly done so for the rest of their lives. That’s a 10 fold difference in a year. Diffusion models show how this propagates. Look it up.
What have you done recently?
ALL of your posts are simply “I did this, look at me” but you’re doing nothing else. You’re done, useless to the future, useless to the discussion. You’re adding nothing, doing nothing, you’re just burning power on a forum.
As others above have said, we need a major shift in overall consumption, not little bits of tinkering and greenwashing.
Despite what you may believe, they are doing the right thing. Almost all of those items will pay for their embedded energy in 3-5y and then it’s positive. In addition to energy, they will also reduce particulate emission quite considerably. It’s not fiddling the edges if millions of people do it.
look at grid live data for evidence of solar.
look at OECD data for solar uptake and then compare to grid peak demand.
All depends on your point of view Daffy - I believe a few folk making token change is both a waste of time and a distraction from the real issue thus counterproductive
I'll bet you my house I have a much lower carbon cost than you or these 10 households. I have lived as green a life as I could. I take no lectures from folk who will not even make basic changes
Do not be so offensive just because you do not understand a different point of view. do you own a car? have kids? Pets?
Biggest thing I have done recently? - fully insulated my rental flat at a cost of many thousands of pounds that I will never see back
but you, like many did naff all to change the outcome of Brexit and as a result we lost by a few million. If more people had done more than personal action (vote) then we’d have had a different result.
You realise you have just totally made that up and have no basis whatsoever behind that statement?
