if this is what you think, why pick holes in Just Stop Oil?
Two main reasons.
The first is that they don’t appear to be offering a viable alternative to using oil. Saying don’t use oil is meaningless without a solution
The second is that they are doing more harm than good. They are just pi**ing off so many people with their criminal activities and protests that even if they had the best solution ever no one is interested because of their reputation as vandals. I have no idea how they expect anyone to listen to them when their modus operandi is to commit criminal acts
You clearly seem uninterested in wanting to make a difference. No wonder we’re **** with the happy bunch of doomsayers posting on this thread.
i have given up. We have no kids to worry about what they will inherit as an environment and I see no chance of governments and society making the changes required. As a result I’m off the view that I will enjoy my life whilst I’m here.
Sure I will do my bit. We don’t have kids which is a huge benefit to the environment, not that it played any part in our choice. We both work from home so have no commute. But no I’m not going to stop travelling as much as we can and enjoying new bikes etc whenever we want to
I take no lectures from folk who will not even make basic changes
TJ I can't help but take a little umbrage at your stance here. How many 'basic changes' did you consciously enact, and how many were circumstantial?
You have a city centre job and own a city centre flat am I right? Is that feasible for everyone? Is it hell. We got slowly pushed out of the city by high rents and the dismal range of properties available to buy when we were finally in a position to do so.
Granted, one factor was wanting a property big enough for a family, but to pretend we can all take a conscious decision to simply not have kids is laughably unrealistic, although I respect/sympathise where appropriate with those who have chosen not to.
I've also given up. Making any sort of positive difference would require societal change on a scale that will just never happen, like, abandoning capitalism and embracing a level of state control that would make the communists blush. And that's assuming enlightened, progressive, pure-of-motive leadership of a type that could simply never exist. See yesterday's by-elections as an example, an unlikely hold for the Tories in Uxbridge as the candidate turned it into a referendum on perhaps making the most heavily polluting vehicles pay slightly more to drive through the city centre. If people will vote against measures such as this, given the opportunity, are they going to vote for mandatory 1 child households, no cars, no luxury goods or foreign fruit and veg, a lifestyle based wholey around their local community (which may not be a city centre but instead a rural village or similar) rather than travelling further afield, etc. etc.
but to pretend we can all take a conscious decision to simply not have kids is laughably unrealistic,
why can’t we make that conscious decision? I agree it won’t happen but why not. Why is the desire or expectation for adults to have children from society so strong?
@Daffy, maybe you overlooked the clincher in my last post; what’s the lifetime carbon footprint of buying and using a brand new large Moho? Probably more than TJ’s last 30 years, I’d guess.
Apologies - I did. What's a MOHO?
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
And yet you CONTINUALLY spout this:
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
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.
And THIS. AGAIN. "Look at me, I'm so much better than you and everyone else - I've done my bit and anything you do won't be enough for me". It's also rubbish. You continue to claim that ALL of your choices are climate driven, but I remember your post from the early days of the forum and that's not the whole truth. Your choices have been as economically influenced as many others. Retconning everything to suit your current view doesn't square.
Do not be so offensive just because you do not understand a different point of view. do you own a car? have kids? Pets?
No one gets your point of view as you don't seem to have one other than everyone who has kids, has cars, has pets is bad.
Yes - I have a car. Two in fact. A 20y old estate car which does around 1500 miles a year and a small EV which does around 6000 miles a year. The latter is ran almost entirely (97%+) on solar power. Yes, I have two small children. 11 and 6. No, I don't have pets. @kerley does.
But before you judge using averages. Almost all of our clothes are bought second hand - my kids are happy with this. We cycle to school, we grow lots of our own veg and our house has almost no electricity use from the grid and soon, very little oil use.
What would our PP carbon use be? Pretty low? My calculator puts our family use at 7t per year, which is 3t less than the average individual use in the UK. We also pay for offsetting through tree planting and then actually go and do it with the firm we pay.
Is that fiddling at the edges? Maybe, but if a few million families did...
Also - climate change doesn't start and end at your doorstep. I don't want to get into a willy waving competion, but I'd wager my positive climate contribution through my choice of job, research and investments vastly outstrips yours. Individuals can and will make a difference. Showing people how that can be done with small steps at first gets them on the road and they'll continue down it.
You realise you have just totally made that up and have no basis whatsoever behind that statement
I didn't mean you specifically, but seriously - how many people ACTUALLY campaigned? I did. Did you? Did TJ? Did others. I think we made a difference in the SW by thinking about the argument and coming up with proper material that was MUCH better than the remain website.
TJ I can’t help but take a little umbrage at your stance here. How many ‘basic changes’ did you consciously enact, and how many were circumstantial?
Pretty much all of them. Living in a city is a deliberate choice as is working in the city so that I was always within a no car commute of work. This was an absolute red line for me. That "dismal range of properties" is where I made my choice ( of course house prices way back then compared to now would mean a different set of choices but living within muscle power of work and a train station is an absolute red line) No kids a deliberate decision taken 40 years ago and a part of the reason is even then I understood overpopulation was a major issue in the longevity of the human race.
Want some more crazy stuff? Until I bought a new wardrobe and bookcase last week I have NEVER bought any new furniture. Never any new crockery and cutlery. Again my first EVER new carpet last week. Apart from an old banger for a few weeks when a kid I have never owned a car ( had motorbikes for fun - bite me - even eco warriers need some sins)
I know its an alien concept for many of you but reducing my environmental footprint has been a defining part of my life. This is not to sound "holier than thou" Political activism is not my bag. I understand this is only one person and thus the effects are minimal. I also understand that if everyone on the planet had my carbon footprint its still unsustainable.
Edit:
but I’d wager my positive climate contribution through my choice of job, research and investments vastly outstrips yours.
Quite possibly - see my comment above - thats not my bag. I know my limitions
No one gets your point of view as you don’t seem.......................
Actually I think some do but you don't want to understand.
“Look at me, I’m so much better than you and everyone else – I’ve done my bit and anything you do won’t be enough for me”.
Again - its not that. When you challenge me on what I have done I try to say. I fully accept as above there are those of different abilities who can influence things in a different way. I applaud your efforts. I'd just like some realism
Excellent, turn the thread into a willy waving "who is more green" that'll work to make the planet habitable for future generations.
Thats really not what I am doing 🙂
Sorry for the long post but here we go, in no particular order, some home truths for the fake virtue, doom and gloom brigade:
CO2 is the gas of life for plants. CO2 increases greening, supports plant growth and improves crop yields. Pumping CO2 into commercial greenhouses is an often applied method to increase the health and yield of greenhouse crops. Cutting C02 levels in the atmosphere to just half what they currently are would put an awful lot of plant species in serious jeopardy for survival.
Warmer periods in history have generally been associated with periods of human prosperity resulting from high crop yields, improved living conditions etc. It has long been known and proven through studies, that colder temperatures kill many times more people than warmer temperatures.
If we ignore the huge impact of the fluctuating energy levels we receive from the sun, the biggest regulator by far of the earth’s temperature is water vapour, otherwise known as clouds. Clouds are over 50 times more powerful than the effect of all other greenhouse gasses combined.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%. Of this 0.04%, the carbon cycle and other natural processes account for 750 gigatons. Human output is estimated at just 29 gigatons. To put this in perspective, human generated CO2 is just 3.8% of the tiny 0.04% of C02 in the atmosphere.
The Great Barrier Reef is currently the healthiest it has been in living memory with 2022 recording the record coral coverage in the 36 years since this has been monitored.
Our leaders so not seem at all worried by their own huge carbon emissions, travelling the globe to endless champagne fuelled summits. Nor do the growing cabal of celebrities who lecture us about climate change. People like Leonardo DeCaprio who preaches at every opportunity about the climate crisis yet recently bought a new superyacht. Prince Harry, a climate advocate with a rather heavy addiction to private jet travel. Bill Gates, who tells us all not to eat meat because he is heavily invested in the same fake meat companies he's promoting. Celebrities and business people who set up foundations or ‘not-for profit’ organisations to save the planet, that also (rather conveniently), happen to also be huge tax dodges. Smoke and mirrors stuff and playing us all like total mugs.
The record temperature of 40.3 deg Celsius set last year in the UK, and that the media made so much about was recorded for just a few brief moments by a thermometer located right next to the runway of RAF Conningsby. At the time the record was set, according to the flight logs, there were at least 3, probably 6, Typhoon jets operating from the runway. The increasing reliance of thermometers located in built up urban areas, runways etc. (i.e. man-made heat sinks) is a red flag when it comes to accurately measuring rising temperatures.
Some populations have declined and some have risen, but overall polar bear numbers have increased from around 12,000 in 1965 to an estimated 26,000 last year.
Methane belched from cattle is not adding new carbon to the atmosphere. It is part of the natural cycling of carbon through the biogenic carbon cycle. Eating meat from well managed grass-fed sources is therefore neither carbon positive nor carbon negative.
Soy, often a heavily used alternative protein source to meat (tofu etc.), is an intensively grown crop, with high demands for resources; particularly energy, water, agrochemicals and soil. The soybean industry is causing widespread deforestation, loss of biodiversity and displacement of small farmers and indigenous populations around the world. The intensive growing of Palm oil, often used in heavily processed foodstuffs and frequently in ‘meat free’ alternatives, is having a similar detrimental environmental impact at source.
The lifespan of solar panels is around 25-30 years. Windmills between 20-25 years. Car batteries between 8-20 years. All are very polluting and energy intensive to manufacture and use materials that are in short supply globally. All are very difficult to recycle and all must then be replaced at great expense.
A basic principle of physics is that the solubility of gases in liquids decreases with increasing temperature. Our oceans and seas hold 42 times the amount of CO2 found in our atmosphere. Physics dictates that if our oceans warm then they will release CO2. If they cool they are able to absorb and hold more CO2. Analyzing past ocean temperatures and CO2 levels tell us that it is the temperature of the oceans that influence atmospheric CO2 levels, and not the other way round, since the ocean temperature increase has always preceded by many years, periods of higher atmospheric CO2.
The current obsession with electric cars, solar panels and renewables shifts economic and political power to China, since China control over 80% of the rare earth metals required to make batteries, solar panels etc. Slave labour, forced labour and child labour at both mining and manufacture stage is currently endemic. Pollution, environmental destruction and waste from these new mining and manufacturing industries is currently enormous. China are still building coal fired power stations to keep their energy costs low, undercutting our economies here in the West, as our ever higher energy costs make us even less competitive.
Net Zero is an impossible and unaffordable dream, that if attempted will make us all poorer and less healthy. True pie in the sky stuff.
Any attempt to get to Net Zero without mass adoption of Nuclear power would mean effectively running two energy infrastructures here in the UK. A renewables based system, plus an almost 100% backup fossil fuel based system for when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. Having two systems in operation equals double the cost for consumers. No wonder our energy bills have recently become so high.
Climate change doom and gloom scenarios are based on computer modelling – the lowest, least accurate form of scientific evidence.
Storms, floods, heatwaves and wildfires are no more frequent or severe now than they were 100 years ago, however our ability to report, film and report on these natural events has increased a thousand fold. Hence why we hear about them so frequently in the news, and they are always the fault of climate change apparently!
ESG assets under management (estimated to be around $53 trillion by 2025) dwarfs the global revenues of even the largest oil companies combined. So ESG is able to exert way more influence on policy than the oil industry. Yet strangely, the analysis of ESG policy reveals that ESG explicitly excludes investment in the world’s only large-scale and proven decarbonizer, Nuclear power. No wonder our own Rolls Royce modular nuclear reactors are still on the back burner after all these years. So what is the real motive here?
Large oil companies will prosper massively from any move to renewables. Not only have they heavily invested already within the industry and its infrastructure and supply chain, but the manufacturing, transport and construction drive to Net Zero will require an awful lot more fossil fuel use for the foreseeable decades ahead. And fossil fuels will still be required in huge quantities longer term regardless of Net Zero. If exploration for fossil fuels is scaled back, fuel prices from already developed sources will increase by many multiples. Having your cake and eating it springs to mind.
I could go on.
So sorry doomsters, but climate change caused by human produced CO2 is utter, utter bollocks. And the huge red herring that is human produced CO2 is simply being used as a financially motivated distraction, to further the cause of the few at the expense of the many, and which often detracts from real conservation and real environmental stewardship.
If the only people that choose not to have children have got some environmental conscience then the next generation is going to be the offspring of deniers and not give a sh!ters.
0 years ago and a part of the reason is
See - that's the real issue. You make it out that your whole life has been driven by decisions about the environment, but psychological research shows that the reality is far, far different despite what people might convince themselves of later. It's a part, but it's not THE part.
Transport Choice - [url] https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/exploring-alternatives-to-rational-choice-in-models-of-behaviour [/url]
Autobiographical memory editing [url] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00469/full [/url]
Again – its not that. When you challenge me on what I have done I try to say. I fully accept as above there are those of different abilities who can influence things in a different way. I applaud your efforts. I’d just like some realism
No, you don't applaud peoples efforts - your deride them continually.
In the last page I spoke about how I'm trying to convince people locally to make positive changes - you said this:
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
This is just the most recent in a long list.
Mass killing either accidently, forced or voluntary is the only thing which will save the human race in the long term.
If you want to be green, kill people 😉
I say this in jest and do not want any of you to start killing but this planet was not designed to support the ecosystem it now has. Whilst I like to think I do my bit I like many of you are not prepared to sacrifice everything in my life, my comfort, my car, my foreign holiday.
So am I best to do nothing? Say f*** it and buy a v8 and private jet, the human race is doomed so why prolong the inevitable.
Anyway - I'm going to bow out here as you've clearly made some decisions and are firmly committed to them and this is derailing the thread.
but this planet was not designed to support the ecosystem it now has
This is anti-scientific bollards. The planet wasn't designed with any eco-system in mind. Millions of years ago it was a ice ball, millions of years before that it was an acid washed fire hell.
@bobcropper, I hope your denialism gives you the personal relief you need to go on, I really do, I understand that uncertainty is uncomfortable for some folks, do consider however that you're operating as the unpaid propaganda arm for multi-billion dollar petro-chemical companies that literally couldn't give a shit about you, but are grateful that you're willing to speak up on their behalf.
See – that’s the real issue. You make it out that your whole life has been driven by decisions about the environment, but psychological research shows that the reality is far, far different despite what people might convince themselves of later. It’s a part, but it’s not THE part.
No - as a child I had little influence and my philosophy grew in my 20s. I'd say the last 30+ years only has reducing my environmental footprint been a key core part of my personal philosophy. Probably the turning point was collecting data on shrinking glaciers and actually seeing for myself changes to the biosphere
Its really laughable that you try to tell me what my motivations are and try to tell me I have not done things I know I have. I know its alien to you. Its about a lived philosophy not environmentalism as an add on to your lifestyle
also numerous posts I have applauded your efforts.
I take the time to understand your position - why can you not do me the same courtesy?
why can’t we make that conscious decision? I agree it won’t happen but why not. Why is the desire or expectation for adults to have children from society so strong?
Honestly? I guess it's a biological urge for a start, having never experienced it myself I can't relate to how powerful an urge it might be for a woman, but I respect the fact that human beings are still animals and that there is a force and momentum behind basic urges that can't be completely over-ruled, even before the general drift of societal expectation (we were lucky enough to have a healthy, happy first child, but I actually got angry at my wife's side of the family asking when we were having a second, and having to justify our decision not to). Even if we somehow stopped having kids in the west, are we even the driving force behind population increase?
Pretty much all of them. Living in a city is a deliberate choice as is working in the city so that I was always within a no car commute of work. This was an absolute red line for me. That “dismal range of properties” is where I made my choice
Fair enough, and I do respect it (also my reference to dismal was not in relation to the properties themselves, just the range available vs. the cost, I love an Edinburgh tenement myself 😎). Ultimately for me I was contending with my wife's expectations and desires for a family home which are more traditional than yours or mine perhaps but still sadly probably very reflective of what many people want. Since I can basically only work in the city centre (in an industry I'm trapped in that has only grudgingly allowed WFH every other day at best) we're stuck in the usual loop of commuting by car or public transport etc. etc.
Also as an example of probably how many people think/act, my wife will never walk to the shop with a rucsac, she'll drive instead. In fact I rarely ever see anyone else doing what I do e.g. loading up a rucsac at the tills with a couple of days shopping then walking home. This is the sort of trivial cultural change which would probably take down political careers if you tried to force people to walk 10 minutes to the local shop. Sad but true.
Fortunately Julie was ambivalent about kids. If she had been keen then that would have been a very difficult decision and one I would not like to second guess
I hope your denialism
Aaaaaaaand yet again, as is usual with you doomsters, instead of forming a coherent and reasoned argument against long established scientific facts, you choose to label anyone you disagree with as a 'denier'.
Hmmmmm, have a think why don't you - does having to resort to arguing on an ad-hominem basis suggest you have a strong or a weak argument? But what else is there to do I guess when your ship is full of holes?
Well Bob - given the fact that it took me only a short way in your post to see demonstrable falsehoods..............................
Thats really not what I am doing 🙂
It really is.
I'm sure I'm not the only one but once you and a couple of others wade in to any threads like this I lose interest as it just becomes the same old bullshit.
Well Bob – given the fact that it took me only a short way in your post to see demonstrable falsehoods…………………………
So false that you can't even say what they are or why you think they are false. Hahaha, what a clown!
But go on then, either shlt or get off the pot.
The planet will be fine. It will still be here in billions of years time and different life firms will emerge that can live in that environment. This whole debate is about keeping it as it is now to remain suitable for human habitation.
I know - don't feed the troll but.......
Cutting C02 levels in the atmosphere to just half what they currently are would put an awful lot of plant species in serious jeopardy for survival.
balderdash
Storms, floods, heatwaves and wildfires are no more frequent or severe now than they were 100 years ago,
Piffle
you choose to label anyone you disagree with as a ‘denier’.
Yep, You're in denial of what's going on. I understand why. It's a coping mechanism. In lots of ways I'd much prefer to be like you, I don't want to have to think about all this stuff either, I just want to get on with my life, but Climate change is real, it will make the planet inhabitable if left unchecked, and we have to change how we live.
@bobcropper you appear to have joined this forum only to post your climate change denial.
What is your motivation?
Which organisation are you from/funded by?
No kids a deliberate decision taken 40 years ago and a part of the reason is even then I understood overpopulation was a major issue in the longevity of the human race.
How many kids have you adopted/fostered? If the answer to this is zero I don't believe you. You didn't have kids because you didn't want to have kids - nothing to do with environmental concerns.
I looked at adoption actually - long hard discussions around it. Nice of you to call me a liar BTW. I know its true. "Part of" not "all of"
I pretty much support everything climate campaigners call for but I would be classed as a 'denier'.
That's not really true, I'm more of a don't knower.
There may be lots of evidence but it's based on only around 300 years of data.
I think it's dangerous to say we've moved past the point of discussion.
And I find much of the conversation relating to it hysterical and illogical.
A particular example is the constant use of individual weather events as a sign/proof of climate change.
On a very basic level, that just seems daft. And yet, lots of intelligent people that I respect seem happy to do this.
The other thing I find frustrating is that the most basic driver of pollution is rarely ever discussed: capitalism.
No, not Capitalism - Human greed - that feeds capitalism. The desire to have new shiny stuff every year that's better than that of the neighbours.
And also the unwillingness to do anything "trivial" yet because the neighbours haven't.
Nice one TJ! I applaud you, I really do!
A particular example is the constant use of individual weather events as a sign/proof of climate change.
Most of the people going on about weather events are the deniers going on about how cold it is. Scientists are very clear that weather != climate, but they can also demonstrate a clear trend towards more extreme weather events which correlates with climate warming.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world/
The other thing I find frustrating is that the most basic driver of pollution is rarely ever discussed: capitalism.
Eh? It's discussed all the time! Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't bother to do anything about climate change until we have a global anti-capitalist revolution? I would like nothing better but sadly I think that approach wouldn't do much to limit global warming to 1.5c. We have to work with what we have, and currently that is a capitalist economic system.
Most of the people going on about weather events are the deniers going on about how cold it is.
I don't tend to follow those people so maybe I don't see it it. But it's just as daft and illogical irrespective. And symptomatic of the general hysteria that surrounds the subject.
Eh? It’s discussed all the time!
Not by the most high-profile campaign group. There's talk of "evil" and "climate collapse" as the cause of injustice. Nothing about capitalism:
From the Just Stop Oil website:
"Climate collapse will mean the end of workers’ rights, women’s rights, all human rights. It is already the greatest injustice visited on the global south in human history. If you are not in resistance you are appeasing evil. If you continue to stand by you are betraying 200 years of struggle and the sacrifice of those that came before us. It is time to put everything aside, we are going into resistance with or without you. Are you bystander or are you going to rise up?"
@copa - on your point about "only three hundred years of data", it's worth looking back a few pages in the thread where there are a couple of graphs. One posted by someone who had essentially joined to troll, and another by me.
Both together are very useful. The first shows that over hundreds of thousands of years, climate has changed cyclically and it has been hotter than it is now. We've got much this data using ice cores from Antarctica. We can see individual events in the ice, like a black line marking the Krakatoa eruption. Some of it also comes from geology. On the hundreds of thousands of years scale the last few thousand years we were already at a pretty high temperature (12C global mean temperature). In the cycles, that's about as high a temperature as it's been, and it's been reached four times in the last half a million years.
The second graph shows the crucial change in the last two hundred years, and especially in the last fifty. At no point in those hundreds of thousands of years has the earth warmed so rapidly. And we're already at a high point. The uptick almost perfectly matches the uptick in atmospheric CO2.
Hopefully that clears up the length of the period we have data from for you. We have a good idea of how temperature has changed over millennia, and know that things are changing now more rapidly than they ever have before.
I've also wondered about the hypocrisy of climate change evangelists saying "weather is not climate" then talking about the recent extreme weather events but the key point there is that the record hottest temperatures have basically all been recorded this millennium. The number of extreme events has gone up, so I hope it's not that they're saying "look, it's hot today ", but "look, it's been unusually hot a lot in the last twenty years" but I don't think the media portray it like that.
Not by the most high-profile campaign group.
No doubt because they recognise that addressing the climate change problem is a much more urgent and critical problem than achieving global revolution.
No doubt because they recognise that addressing the climate change problem is a much more urgent and critical problem than achieving global revolution.
First you said that it was talked about all the time, which it isn't. And then you suggest that it's actually not important to discuss and understand the main driver of man-made pollution. Which I disagree with.
@bobcropper, this is a thread about how climate change will play out for people that accept the consensus on climate change, hence the title
You can argue if you wish (I've no interest in participating in that), but really I doubt it'll get anyone anywhere
I've seen these arguments a thousand times before -- not sure I've ever seen anyone change their mind
Hopefully that clears up the length of the period we have data from for you.
Yes, it's reasonable and useful but the fact remains that there's only around 300 years of fairly reliable data. That's not to discount the predictions/modelling but to understand them as informed guesswork.
...but I don’t think the media portray it like that.
I think this is my main problem. Like so many things, it's mostly the extreme positions that are heard.
First you said that it was talked about all the time, which it isn’t.
It's widely recognised that capitalism and the over-consumption it promotes is the root cause of climate change, but suggesting we can't combat climate change without destroying capitalism is yet another excuse for doing nothing. It's the same as saying 'we're all doomed anyway so why bother'.
You keep on making that bogus claim. Understanding the severe limitations of our current approach and the fact it will make no significant difference is not the same as doing nothing.
Remember global emmisions need to halve to even stabilise at 2C rise. that means in the west our emmissions need to far more than halve
suggesting we can’t combat climate change without destroying capitalism
Doesn't necessarily mean destroying capitalism but understanding the cause and addressing it.
I'd say you're wrong there @copa - the ice core data is very accurate. Ice cores can be taken from different points over a large geographical area (Greenland to Antarctica) and in several different ways. So the data going back thousands of years is reliable.
It's lengthy but this is a good article on it from what I think you'll agree is a reputable source. It's also written in a popular science style so is an easy read.
Sorry @Daffy; I should have been clearer. Moho = motorhome. That's a lot of plastic, metal and fibreglass wrapped up among a carbon footprint larger than most of my life. But hey, they bought a Tesla battery to replace the first house battery that was only a year old...
No one among us is perfect, we're (almost) all doing quite a few things to help this situation but probably everyone could and perhaps should do more.
I've for years been looking forward to riding the Tour Divide on my retirement. I think that plan is going to have to be cancelled and replaced with a very much closer to home option. And as I've said before, the Mrs and I chose not to have any children for environmental reasons as over 30 years ago we could already see the damage each new rich westerner does and that their world was going to be wrecked by the time they grew older.
