70% of UK flights are taken by less than 15% of the population.
Mate of mine travels twice a week from Brighton to Edinburgh.
I had an odd thought the other day in Tesco. Very little of the veg was loose without packaging. All I could hear was the sound of crinkling plastic.
I assume all those that demand we reduce consumption are in favour of a UBI? I mean, once we all stop flying, driving, and working in many sectors, those people will need to earn.
There are more than enough potential jobs in insulating buildings and renewable energy to absorb those laid of in the most wasteful sectors.
Do you really do that in everything you post or do you assume the people you are dealing with have an IQ above room temperature and can handle the concept that a larger population might display certain traits?
If we're talking about IQ, it really doesn't take much to re-word your sentences to be less derogatory. That's all I'm asking; and I'm asking it because it's more accurate and less likely to piss people off, which are both things to strive for I think.
I assume all those that demand we reduce consumption are in favour of a UBI? I mean, once we all stop flying, driving, and working in many sectors, those people will need to earn.
I am, but not for those reasons. As has been shown repeatedly over the last 250 years or so, when you make people's jobs obselete, they don't just sit around doing nothing for long, they find something else to do. Have a look at Nokia, the biggest high tech employer in Finland. When they folded, all the people who worked there didn't just go home and cry, they went away and set up other businesses, or they went to work for other tech businesses who now had the capacity to do loads more work.
There are more than enough potential jobs in insulating buildings and renewable energy to absorb those laid of in the most wasteful sectors.
Can you prove that?
Genuinely interested
Can you prove there aren't more to the point.
People have been dissing the blindingly obvious solutions for years. Think.
Just do a few back of envelope caculations on how many energy seive houses and business premises there are to insulate (nearly all of them) and then multiply by the number of man hours to do that. If you get to a number with fewer than 9 or 10 zeros you're not even close.
It’s the same people calling me Boomer who are going to have to live with “the end of the world as we know it” yet have a carbon footprint previous generations could only dream of.
Sure there are exceptions but if we want to generalise then the current influencer-led generation of young adults is emmitting CO2 at an alarming rate.
A 70s aerial view of a unversity showed mainly grass and buildings. Today you’ll find the view dominated by car parks and cars.
Every generation since the industrial revolution has polluted more than the previius one and there is little sign of that changing, with one excetption, making babies.
Among the intellectual elite junior dips in and out they are deciding not to have kids as they don’t want to condemn their offspring to a misserable existence on greenhoused planet at war. They are not wrong. Then there are those who only intellectualise to the point of choosing between flash holidays and expensive childcare and have none or one. Even those that don’t intellectualise often don’t want the hassle.
Guilty as acused if you accuse me of generalising about those calling me boomer No-one outside that demographic has ever used boomer as an insult or piss-take against me.
It’s easy to blame generation whatever for the mess the world is in. Fact is it’s going to take every generation everywhere to do something constructive and the influencer-led generation really isn’t helping.
OK boomer
Can you prove there aren’t more to the point.
Eh? Im not claiming anything. You made a statement, why would it be up to me to prove one way or the other? Its any facts behind your statement piqued my interest so I asked a question.
Im not really interested in back of envelope calculations but some genuine assessments on the impact on employment would be good to see.
Have a look at Nokia, the biggest high tech employer in Finland. When they folded, all the people who worked there didn’t just go home and cry, they went away and set up other businesses, or they went to work for other tech businesses who now had the capacity to do loads more work
But what people are demanding is less tech, less of everything. So all those people who are highly trained and skilled, do they just have nothing to aspire too? We all grow our on food and revert back to how we were hundreds of years ago? I mean, I'm all for change I really am, but the consequences either way are pretty dire. We either go out in a ball of flames or we kill each other on the streets. Yes, I'm being hugely over dramatic.
about those calling me boomer
The only person calling you a boomer on this thread is you. Like I said; stop taking it personally.
I'm not demanding less tech, I'd like to see more of it used to reduce energy demand, increase alternative energy output, provide energy efficient homes and transport, healthy food... .
At present the highest tech things we have are used to blow things up or put billionaires in orbit for a few minutes.
Three posts above yours, Nick. 😋
And if no-one has smiled wrily at any of my posts on boomers I've played straighter than intended. The stuff on investment on infrastructure to reduce energy demand is however heart felt.
If I'm serious about the generational conflict it's that where the older generations I know disappoint me is that they get all enthusiastic about the arrival of a grand child and then tell me they don't care about global warming because they'll be dead by then.
We need a bit more solidarity between generations and few more politicians without one foot in the grave and the other in an oil company board room
We either go out in a ball of flames or we kill each other on the streets
You know in Hollywood films when the building's on fire and everyone runs out screaming and trampling over each other to get away? In reality, everyone just walks - mostly pretty calmly it turns out, to the exits and helps those that are struggling.
Three posts above yours,
I know I saw, are you surprised? you seem to have, rather than a chip on your shoulder, a vast cauldron of french fries. I think your leg is being pulled, no?
Meh, this type of doomsday prophecy has been going on for centuries, the reality is we are living in the best era ever, we have the best levels of healthcare, the most educated population, we don't have a lot of limitations like other eras, children have access to education, they can be what they want to be in many instances, i know not all, but a hell of a better percentage than a 100/200/300 years ago and so on, they are living longer and healthier lives, yes end of life can be basically life prolonging without much joy, but we've eradicated many diseases and can fix more.
We sit about looking at the negative, but look at the positive as well, i know kids in my daughters class who have learning difficulties, or disabilities, we are genuinely moving in leaps and bounds to equalise a lot of these issues, in a few areas we already have and they will have the same chances when facing the employment markets, or lifestyles.
So yes, we do have issues, the environment is a big one and of course cost of living is another big one just now, but at the same time most of us are still pootering about, living in a nice house, having all the mod cons for life (TV, Computer, bikes, cars, etc, etc), going on holidays and enjoying time with friends, family and so on, which is showing society is moving in the right direction in a lot of areas, of course if it is all extremely bad and doomed, then it's probably Keir Starmer's fault 😂
Who is pulling the leg of whom, Nick?
I don't eat French fries, they're digusting reconstituted things cooked in sun flower oil sold by an American corpoation. Frites are OK, I've eaten them once so far this year with a kebab from the Bosphore.
But what people are demanding is less tech, less of everything. So all those people who are highly trained and skilled, do they just have nothing to aspire too?
Not really. You might want less consumer tech in your life, but do you want to go back to having bank payments take 10 days to clear, and having thousands of people employed to push the paper around?
the reality is we are living in the best era ever,
I would say probably except for a few things. The shit is finally hitting the fan with global warming, despite lots of other things in our environment here in the west being much improved; and the fact inequality is rising and living standards falling after so many years of the opposite.
I feel optimistic that a change is coming, I just hope I'm around to see it and my kids can benefit from it. There'll be a rebound, just as there was after the Great Depression.
Air travel will be up against the wall pretty quickly.
It really won’t. Air travel is already predicted to recover from the pandemic 3 years earlier than predicted. The prophesied demise of business travel hasn’t happened and Airbus is investing billions to make sure sustainable flight happens within the next 15 years. It’ll start with SAF which is largely BS, but it’s a start and end with LH2 direct burn.
Global aviation contributes 2.2% of climate emissions. That’s for everything - people and goods. The global trainers/sneaker industry accounts for 1.7% of emissions and contributes nothing. No movement of food, medicine, goods or skills.
Aviation isn’t the evil that everyone seems to think it is and even what it is doing is being engineered out.
If people really care then they should consume in moderation.
As for the end of the world why bother? If the world ends we all vanish. No memory, nothing. Therefore, why worries? Let it be and if you wish you can educate your future generations survival skills and the rest is up to them. You don't live their lives and they don't live your life. When your time is up, your only last few minutes is to recall your memory for the one last time and after that you no longer exist. (from religious perspective your physical shell/form start to decay and to rot, then your energy disperse throughout the universe, not sure which one, eventually reform somewhere ...)
Try to live a happy live now and ignore all the junks out there, because the last few minutes of your remaining life is to recall your current life and you want that to be a happy memory so you can depart/vanish in peace/happiness. Otherwise, you will cling on to your existence and regrets; and your last few minutes will be fear, which will make you suffer even more before departure. As for baby boomers/Gen X, your clock is ticking and if you are lucky you have another 50 years to live otherwise probably another 30 years (assuming average age is in the 80s and you are in your 50s now).
It really won’t. Air travel is already predicted to recover from the pandemic 3 years earlier than predicted. The prophesied demise of business travel hasn’t happened
I mean long term, after a couple of decades of recessions and sliding living standards. Because we won't have the money to fund it any more.
Born in 1961 was perfect for music - but yes shafted good and proper. The ladders were being pulled up as you approached them. Worse still is that even us 80s dolites had it so much better than many today.
All these silly 'generation' names are just another divisionary tactic. Bloody astrology.
@chewkw - I believe we are being rationed to in effect force us to moderate by way of cost and limitiations of supply.
Which I'll be honest has more pros from my perspective.
I strongly believe we the people have had it far too good far too quickly and that the 1% realise this has to end for the masses.
As doom conspiracist as that sounds.
Your sentiment of energy dispersed and fear of regrets was felt by me and will take from this thread to live life more and more each day onwards.
🤘
What an interesting back and forth about energy usage.
Here we are, on a forum, power needed to have this argument is the TV/monitor(draws power), a computer(draws power) light(power), heating perhaps(more power) cup of tea/coffee(power) just to have an argument about people using power in their everyday lives.
Hilariously surreal.
Hilariously surreal.
Without discussion, nothing would happen & the forum wouldn't exist - .
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
Aviation isn’t the evil that everyone seems to think it is
Its possibly the biggest personal pointless polluter you can remove from your life very very easily, which is why it has all the hype.
Its possibly the biggest personal pointless polluter you can remove from your life
The one flight to Europe most average folks do a year in the grand scheme of things isn't much. The per person fuel use of a full 787 or A220 is only little bit more than a car. Pollution from aviation increases as you take up more space in a plane and fly more frequently
The per person fuel use of a full 787 or A220 is only little bit more than a car.
Every study I've read says mile for mile, flying is the most damaging way to travel for the climate. Traveling to Berlin by air is the equivalent of 0.6tons CO2E - which is around 12000 miles equivalent by car.
A single European holiday can be by far the biggest chunk of an average families CO2 output.
And the above doesn’t even account for freight being simultaneously carried in the hold.
Our round trip flight to Sicily for 4 is the CO2 equivalent of 6500miles in a car doing the UK average of 42mpg and is our first flight for 4 years.
Long range aviation is responsible for 70% of emissions, but only 30% of flights. Business class seats account for almost 300% more emissions than economy on long range. BUT, despite occupying only 25% of the cabin, account for 77% of airline profit.
You can make it more environmentally sustainable, but less economically sustainable by reducing/removing business class…but all the evidence I’ve seen recently shows that business class flight isn’t going anywhere.
Its possibly the biggest personal pointless polluter you can remove from your life very very easily
Is it always pointless? Isn't it s good thing to see and appreciate the world and experience other cultures, cross borders, bring the world's people closer together?
Travelling can be a major life enrichment. Or it can be pointless...
Every study I’ve read says mile for mile, flying is the most damaging way to travel for the climate. Traveling to Berlin by air is the equivalent of 0.6tons CO2E – which is around 12000 miles equivalent by car.
That’s just plain wrong.
The A320NEO emits an average of 89g/pkm on short to medium haul routes.
Your Berlin round trip would be closer to 0.18t. By contrast, a typical 1.6-2.0 diesel or petrol would emit around 150g/km on the WLTP.
Admittedly, if you had 4 people in the car, that would be improved, but also you’d only be carrying yourselves, not any additional cargo.
EDIT - that’s a measured average not a mathematical theory.
Another thing to consider - 2.2% of global emissions…that’s what it cost to move 4.5bn people and 62m metric tonnes of goods around in 2019.
I heard a great quote on the r4 this morning, from proffessor steven pinker and it made me think of this thread and some of the doom-mongers in it.
journalism is a non-random sample of the worse things happening on earth at any given moment.
Is it always pointless
Flying? Yes, it's just getting to where you want to go quicker.
That’s just plain wrong.
Misleading in how I wrote it quickly this am, but not incorrect as those figures are per flight, not per passenger.
Even so, I still stand by traveling by air for a holiday, where all you do is consume and not contribute is still the largest waste of personal annuall co2. Personal development at this scale is irrelevant in a world of 7.75 billion people.
Is it always pointless? Isn’t it s good thing to see and appreciate the world and experience other cultures, cross borders, bring the world’s people closer together?
This is the most westernised pov in this thread so far, and is one reason I started the thread. Travel can be good, yes, how & why we travel is another matter.
There's an easy solution to the boomer problem. Issue a suicide pill to everyone when they start drawing the state pension and waive inheritance tax for those who use it. Problem solved.
#logansrun
I'm more the other way - tax the hell out of having more than one child (world wide), also bringing the end to the world as we know it.
tax the hell out of having more than one child
The problem is too many rich old people and not enough young people. We need people having more kids and fewer people living into their 90s and wasting away in care homes with dementia. I'm actually semi-serious about the suicide pill thing. I have zero wish to live into my 90s with a rotting brain and being a massive burden on my family. What I want is an easy painless way to pass on when I decide I'm done with it all.
is still the largest waste of personal annuall co2.
Given that what? 100 companies or so create 70% of emissions, persuading individuals that their personal CO2 emissions are important has got to be one of the most successful scams/bits of propaganda of late stage capitalism
The over 90's is such a teeny percentage of the population though, on the large scale, they're not really a burden.
Given that what? 100 companies or so create 70% of emissions, persuading individuals that their personal CO2 emissions are important has got to be one of the most successful scams/bits of propaganda of late stage capitalism
Given that almost all of the items those companies produce are 'required' in our society - personally I don't see international travel by flight for pleasure as needed.
The only way we will get those companies to become more environmentally sustainable is by individual action.
The over 90’s is such a teeny percentage of the population though
80s, 90s, whatever it is, the point still stands. I don't know anyone who wants to rot away in a care home whilst they lose their mind, so why do we allow it to happen? There's got to be a better way to manage how we end our lives. It sounds dystopian and there are lots of issues with it, but is it any worse than what we currently do?
Wouldn't normally share an Elon tweet as I don't like the man but thought it was apt for the thread.
The only way we will get those companies to become more environmentally sustainable is by individual action.
No, Individual action is the least useful way of changing things (see my comment about propaganda) You not flying is currently pointless, you won't affect any aviation today, tomorrow or the day after that, or in the years to come, you could personally never fly, and would make bugger all difference to a massive global industry. Only government legislation will or can have any effect, and that's the only point at which your efforts matter; by voting for parties that promise to legislate about pollution
Given that what? 100 companies or so create 70% of emissions,
I think more or less covered this on R4. Those 100 “companies” include China and Russia if I remember correctly on the grounds that stuff is state opened. They also attribute all of the emissions from oil produced by an oil company to that company not to the people that actually use the oil/gas/petrol etc.
It’s one of those “facts” that are great for people that want an excuse not to do anything but the fact is that companies create CO2 to make stuff that we consume. In the end it all still comes down to reducing consumption.
Only government legislation will or can have any effect, and that’s the only point at which your efforts matter; by voting for parties that promise to legislate about pollution
Which is individual action 🙄 - individual reduction / voting etc are the same, awareness of personal responsibility for the environment is something that we can all contribute towards its irrelevant how small an impact a single person makes.
Not doing something because you think everyone else is going to carry on doing it, doesn't help anyone.
Which is individual action 🙄
Not what you meant when you talked about not flying though, is it? At best it's distraction from what will actually make a difference to what are the big global issues that need resolving. individual action theory-of-change is a mental tic associated with a blinkered worldview of neoliberalism: Eco-consumerism may expiate your guilt. But it’s only mass movements and legislation that have the power to alter the trajectory of the climate crisis.
It always reminds me of that Al Gore film, where for two hours he describes this massive existential threat to humankind, and it's powerful and moving, and at the end he literally says "change your lightbulbs"
