Not what you meant when you talked about not flying though, is it?
But it’s only mass movements and legislation that have the power to alter the trajectory of the climate crisis.
Its one and the same - it takes many peoples individual votes to change a government, it'll take many peoples actions to influence environmental issues.
Multiple individual action is a mass movement.
By not taking a flight, not using a plastic bag etc there is influence, just in a very small way. If everyone did it there are larger impacts. The only influence we have is our own.
As others have said in this thread It'll probably take a large event for the vast majority of humanity to change, by which point it'll be too late. The original question I posted at the start of the thread was when would this happen?
by which point it’ll be too late
For what? Humans are going to survive, regardless. We may be doing this to ourselves, but honesty looking at the broad sweep of our history we nearly always have in one way or another, I don't think we're capable of not doing this to ourselves.
The original question I posted at the start of the thread was when would this happen?
We all know the answer is simply - when it's too expensive. People* will keep flying on holiday and having 2 car households and buying N+1 bikes and all the rest of it until they can't afford it any more. Whether that's because oil starts to run out, or because governments tax the shit out of it, or whatever, that will be the deciding factor.
*Except for a few, who will stop but not in numbers significant enough to change the course of things
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
Is travelling only for people in the West then or what?
It's more of a middle class point of view, since they are the ones with the means to travel like that for leisure - but I think anyone could benefit, regardless of class. But I just said that for the sake of balance. Flying, like many things, has a negative impact but for a potentially positive use.
We've only flown for the last 100 years or so - the world still turned, trade was done and people still travelled the world for centuries before that (a bit slower though!).
Perhaps a cap on personal/leisure air travel? 6 flights/year per person?
Any more than that you'd have to prove a genuine need.
This ^^
We’ve only flown for the last 100 years or so – the world still turned, trade was done and people still travelled the world for centuries before that
Bit of a meaningless comparison, really. The world and the lives of most people in it were pretty different back then.
Flying, like many things, has a negative impact but for a potentially positive use.
I've been involved in some of the talk around Jet Zero, regional airport expansion plans, surface transport connectivity to those airports and (as usual), there's a lot of faith being put in as-yet-unquantified "technological solutions", a vague hope that hydrogen might somehow be a magic bullet in all of this but the absolute refusal from the regions to move away from aviation because they rely so heavily on the jobs and the business opportunities that it creates.
Everyone knows that flying is bad for the environment, not just in terms of emissions but land use, noise pollution, induced traffic within the area etc. but no region is willing to say no to a reduction in flights or a limit on expansion because "the economy".
It's so short sighted.
It’s so short sighted.
It is, but throwing blame around isn't really constructive. The concepts underlying most of the world's economy depend on things like this. Changing the way humanity lives on a global scale is not going to be easy or quick.
The world and the lives of most people in it were pretty different back then.
Not saying it hasn't, not saying ban flying either - but no-one [b]needs[/b] more than 3 fly-away holidays per year.
but no-one needs more than 3 fly-away holidays per year.
Agreed, but how much CO2 would it save if we put a 3-holiday cap on people?
but no-one needs more than 3 fly-away holidays per year.
no one 'needs' any fly-away holidays a year...
Agreed, but how much CO2 would it save if we put a 3-holiday cap on people?
Dunno - I'm not a scientist. But to quote Tesco "Every Little Helps"! 🙂
Agreed, but how much CO2 would it save if we put a 3-holiday cap on people?
Not a lot. Most people are not doing 3+ holidays a year where they're flying. There's a tiny minority (mostly the super rich) flying an absolute shitload (often on private jets which are vastly less fuel efficient per person).
And besides, there's still the issue of "holding flights" where airlines are flying mostly empty planes simply to use the take off and landing slots they have allocated. If they don't use them, they lose them.
The over 90’s is such a teeny percentage of the population though, on the large scale, they’re not really a burden.
Except in the healthcare sector - go look at the age of those taking up a bed in any hospital, vast majority will be old.
Agreed, but how much CO2 would it save if we put a 3-holiday cap on people?
According to the ONS, that would only affect about 8% of the population (I'm assuming that 'flights abroad' means 'return trips' here) - and most of that 8% would probably only have to take one fewer trip a year. I suspect this kind of thing is just tinkering at the edges...
Six leisure flights a year?!?!?!?
It's just a figure plucked out of thin air based on nothing more than a hunch most people may accept that. 🙂
Six flights = out > back; out > back; out > back - so 3 trips.
There is zero scientific thought in this. It's just a thought.
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
And this is the kind of crap pedaled by people unprepared to make any changes to their lives.
Who are these 100 companies?
Energy companies - so that'll be the CO2 emitted to keep your car on the road, plane in the sky and house warm. What do you expect them to do to cut that, stop supplying you?
Airlines - stop flying with them then.
Shipping companies - stop buying stuff made in China.
Agribusiness - stop eating?
Chemicals manufacturing - stop everything?
Moaning that Shell and BA are big polluters is pretty pointless when you're filling up your car with 100l of dino juice and flying to the alps to enjoy the fondue with a bike Maersk shipped to you from China.
It’s just a figure plucked out of thin air based on nothing more than a hunch most people may accept that. 🙂
Six flights = out > back; out > back; out > back – so 3 trips.
There is zero scientific thought in this. It’s just a thought.
To put some vague numbers to to that:
Give or take a bit peoples carbon footprints average out at about:
1 part - their diet
1 part - their car
1 part - their house
1 part - their holidays
And that's an average, so a middle class 3 trips per year is being offset against someone who can't afford to go further than Rhyl.
And give or take we're also living about 4x beyond our means (5.4t CO2 equivalent, with the sustainable level estimated to be about 1.6).
So meat in your diet, fuel in your car, heat in your house, a flight to the Med once a year. Pick one.
Huh, "Dino Juice" I quite like that, will transfer to IRL
It’s just a figure plucked out of thin air based on nothing more than a hunch most people may accept that. 🙂
Six flights = out > back; out > back; out > back – so 3 trips.
Sorry, my hasty edit undermined your post a bit there. But still. You're probably right that a limit of 6x flights a year would be acceptable to most, rather like a limit of 1 indoor swimming pool per house... 😉
So meat in your diet
I always find this argument interesting as I run a village shop. The beef/lamb/mince we sell comes from within three or four miles from the shop, chicken is a bit further afield (30miles). Granted the animals need care, feed and a bit of mileage for slaughter. But the vegetarian food we sell generally is either heavily processed or some of the veg comes from much much further afield (lots of air miles or ship). Which is better for the environment and has less co2 impact?
Generally when talking about meat production the focus drifts to intensively reared stock heavily reliant on supplemental feeding rather than locally sourced grass fed.
I dont actually know what proportions of the markets those two types actually account for?
But yeh, Avocados and Bananas could do with dropping from the menu.
The beef/lamb/mince we sell comes from within three or four miles from the shop, chicken is a bit further afield (30miles). Granted the animals need care, feed and a bit of mileage for slaughter. But the vegetarian food we sell generally is either heavily processed or some of the veg comes from much much further afield
But, most of those cows and sheep will have been fed on other foods besides grass, and those foods will be made from say corn or soy shipped from elsewhere.
The reason meat has a higher footprint is that if you fed the soy directly to humans rather than to the cows/sheep, you'd have about 10x more food.
We can feed the cows and sheep on grass alone, but we cannot raise as many that way. So that's why they ask us to eat less. I am of the opinion that a certain amount of meat is needed because some land is only suitable for grazing, but it's less than we eat now.
I run a village shop. The beef/lamb/mince we sell comes from within three or four miles from the shop................
Which is better for the environment and has less co2 impact?
Which is fine if you live within 3 or 4 miles of a farm that can feed the catchment area.
What about everyone in Manchester ?
I always find this argument interesting as I run a village shop. The beef/lamb/mince we sell comes from within three or four miles from the shop, chicken is a bit further afield (30miles). Granted the animals need care, feed and a bit of mileage for slaughter. But the vegetarian food we sell generally is either heavily processed or some of the veg comes from much much further afield (lots of air miles or ship). Which is better for the environment and has less co2 impact?
It's almost all in the feed (and the farts). It takes a whopping amount of imported soy etc to rear a cow for beef compared to turning that soy into tofu, or meat-substitutes. Think about it in terms of human growth. If you eat 200g of beef, you don't gain 200g of muscle. Same for the cow, it needs vast amounts of protein to synthesize that meat, which we then eat and mostly burn off as energy rather than actually use the protein for further muscle synthesis.
Some figures to that:
An "athlete" (i.e. someone trying to gain muscle rather than just subsist) might gain muscle at a maximum rate of about 500g/month. Whilst consuming about 150g of protein a day. 150g of protein is about 800g of meat.
800*30 = 24kg
The ratio of protein rich food to actual muscle is therefore 24000:500, or 48:1
So for you to grow that 500g of muscle somewhere along the line 500*48*48 = over a ton of high protein food had to be produced (making the rough assumptions that the cows metabolism works at a similar rate of muscle synthesis, and high protein soy based feeds have a similar density of protein to meat).
Generally when talking about meat production the focus drifts to intensively reared stock heavily reliant on supplemental feeding rather than locally sourced grass fed.
Very little meat is "grass fed". Have you been outside to a field in England lately, there's not been grass since June. And then in winter most cattle ate kept indoors, hence why the minimum standards to call something grass fed/outdoor reared is ~180 days.
But, most of those cows and sheep will have been fed on other foods besides grass, and those foods will be made from say corn or soy shipped from elsewhere.
Maybe, maybe not, the UK has good land for mainly grass fed livestock. So he could have beef from that segment of production rather than something like this https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/29/revealed-industrial-scale-beef-farming-comes-to-the-uk
The bulk of our imports I think actually come from Ireland which I think is also pretty good at being pasture fed stock.
Edit
Im happy to be corrected here, I suspect Ive a memory of reading something painting a very one sided picture.
Very little meat is “grass fed”
Isnt this a global stat, rather than a national one?
I'm late to this thread so sorry of this has already been covered.
I have three kids, aged 17, 15 and 13. So in the next 10-20 years they would traditionally be quite likely to have kids of their own. I genuinely think they shouldn't. Of course it is not for me to tell them what to do, and they don't listen to me anyway. But it is hard to see a good future for anyone beyond their generation.
Isnt this a global stat, rather than a national one?
National, you don't need google to figure this out, grass is only actively growing in the spring and autumn, you'd get nowhere near an economically viable density of cattle on the land if you only fed them grass and therefore needed to grow sufficient number of meadows to rotate them through over the summer and winter.
Summer and Winter they'll be on a supplementary feed.
That's why the minimum requirement to label beef as "grass feed" is it has to have lived 51% of it's life outdoors. It doesn't even have to actually be eating grass during that time.
And this is the kind of crap pedaled by people unprepared to make any changes to their lives.
Not really. It's a realistic expectation that the real gains come from legislating to change the industries rather than relying on individuals to affect changes -which given we've been plugging away at this for at least a couple of decades now, doesn't seem to be having the effect we want.
You can't simultaneously allow airlines to offer cheap flights to the Med while at the same time expect and encourage people not to fly.
But it is hard to see a good future for anyone beyond their generation.
But wasn't it always thus? My MiL talks of her guilt in the 80's with two young kids: AIDS, nukes, Chernobyl, famines, acid rain, etc. It looked grim! But it wasn't that all that bad in the end.
Although one of her kids was unfortunate enough to marry me, so maybe she had a point.
It’s a realistic expectation that the real gains come from legislating to change the industries rather than relying on individuals to affect changes
A sentiment that rings true for just about every issue that rampant, unfettered capitalism has subjected us to.
Not really. It’s a realistic expectation that the real gains come from legislating to change the industries rather than relying on individuals to affect changes
Is that really realistic? Doesn't seem to be happening.
you don’t need google to figure this out
Well, i did google it and
In Britain, pretty much all beef cows graze grass in the summer and are fed hay, silage or straw in winter. In many cases they’ll remain grazing throughout winter too, but for some farmers this isn’t possible or viable.
https://greatbritishmeat.com/blogs/butchers-blog/grass-fed-beef
Im not suggesting thats correct, i dont know either way. Certainly not exactly looking like an unbiased source.
I do know of people who graze their cattle outside year round, albeit a sample size of 2 farms.
It’s a realistic expectation that the real gains come from legislating to change the industries rather than relying on individuals to affect changes
look at single use carrier bags. all it took to enact a massive drop in usage was to charge people 5p for a bag.
5p!
AIDS, nukes, Chernobyl, famines, acid rain,
These are mostly resolvable / avoided, with the exception of famine (in the scheme of things). Nukes just don't get dropped, which depends on people not doing it granted, but its in their immediate interest not to.
The climate catastrophe is a different matter. Its an aeroplane sliding down a snowy mountain towards a cliff, and we need enough speed before we hit the cliff to take off. At the moment, we're being dragged back too much.
On the meat argument, all meat production requires large amounts of land and water resources - regardless of where in the world, but some more than others. The simple way to view it is that the land and resources being used for that *could* be forested land, busily sequestering carbon, providing habitats for biodiversity. But it's not, its emitting carbon and being pillaged for each crop instead.
Is that really realistic? Doesn’t seem to be happening.
No it doesn't, and neither does individual actions, and it seems like the worst sort of secular Puritanism that "normal" people living "normal" lives are punished in the worst way - being offered something, but at the same time being told it's either bad for them, or for the environment, so they musn't do it. People generally are pretty bad at making those sorts of decisions for themselves.
Im not suggesting thats correct, i dont know either way. Certainly not exactly looking like an unbiased source.
I think it's fair to say that's a completely biased source?
I do know of people who graze their cattle outside year round, albeit a sample size of 2 farms.
But do they feed them over winter/summer?
Like I said, you don't need to google, just look outside to figure out the cow's are going to be eating more than just grass and water in the southern part of England at the moment regardless of what the packet or "greatbritishmeat.com" says:
Is that really realistic? Doesn’t seem to be happening.
Surely it has already happened a lot?
There is quite a bit of environmental legislation in a lot of countries, isn't that what you are talking about?
Yes, it's currently lagging behind the issues, and it's not enough, but there is obviously far more legislation and awareness than there used to be.
But do they feed them over winter/summer?
Mostly hay/silage but were well over a decade since any conversation.
Outside, locally, yesterday, grass is being cut for winter feed. Im not sure why youd think what I can see outside is indicative of anything for recent trends anyway.
I think it’s fair to say that’s a completely biased source?
Well, weve both suggested it so I think you already know what my answer is. But how do I know your not just as biased without anything to back up what your saying?
Youd end up believing all sorts of completely contradictory stuff on this forum with that approach.
Its the people who are being affected right now by global warming i feel sorry for. Those suffering from increased drought and famine in the hottest parts of the world. I'm not sure i really care that much about what humanity looks like for my grandkids grandkids. We have brought this on ourselves and still continue to do so. After we have all gone, the earth will still be here and new species will eventually turn up.
Well, weve both suggested it so I think you already know what my answer is. But how do I know your not just as biased without anything to back up what your saying?
I grew up on a farm, so I've got at least a vague grasp of the practicalities and economics of it.
Only a very small proportion of beef cattle in this country live in locations where they can be fed naturally and outdoors for the whole or the majority of the year.
Even here in Angus, more than half of the beef cattle are kept indoors throughout their entire lives, never feeding on natural grass; they're on a mix of sileage and supplementary grains & proteins. That's incredibly intensive in terms of resources. We eat beef significantly less than once a month as a result, a conscious effort to reduce our impact. If you're buying supermarket 'Grass fed, Scottish Beef' there's a high probability it has come from one of these sort of vast shed networks unless it specifically states outdoor bred- and even then, as mentioned above, it only spends half it's time outdoors. Several farms in this small and insignificant end of Angus have over 1000 beasts in their sheds. Others are certified as 'organic', while keeping 5-600 head of cattle out on compact, grass feedlots, Americam style with heavily supplemented feeds. 'Organic'!? Madness.
Venison is a better alternative in almost every way.
In Ireland, the farming press is trying to greenwash their Coos & Grass economy by claiming to be carbon neutral; the carbon in the beef has been drawn in from the CO2 in the air by the grass!! Conveniently ignoring the many-times impact of the methane their cattle are merrily farting out and the fossil fuels burned in the sileage process, which is a vast industry in itself..
Realistically, the only truly effective way to reduce your household's environmental impact is not to have any children. It is a hard message for many to stomach but is the only thing that's going to give humanity a chance of a controlled survival. We have to drastically reduce the numbers of rich, resource consuming people on this wee planet, it's as simple as that. Meantime do whatever you can; plant trees, travel a lot less, don't fly at all. Use a bike to do commutes and shopping; buy quality so it lasts, repair; look after an older car. Moderate water consumption; same with energy, if you can. Think about the impact of everything you do and try to take the better options as often as possible.
At the end of the day, would you trust these self-serving ****s in Westminster to have your family's best interests at heart? Take some responsibility for yourself and your community.
I wonder how much co2 a bicyclist exhales when exerting themselves in trail centers and off road excursions....
tum-tee tum.... 😛
