To echo what Dazh has already said, most of the world ain’t the issue, it’s us in the US and Europe.
Australians have large individual Carbon footprints too. Greater than the UK average.
12.7t av UK citizen
21t av US citizen
20t Australian
0.7t Malawian
We need to be aiming for 5t per person in the West/developed nations
@Daffy suggested as much on page one. It’s probably the biggest single use of Co2 that most folks do every year.
Was the suggestion not one flight unless visiting family. Never work as visiting family is no more valid than going on holiday for another person.
Yep it’s called fission
No it's not, it's neither clean nor renewable. And I say that as probably one of the bigger enthusiasts of nuclear here.
I'll ask again:
So you either need to work from home, move work to the village, move people to where work is or provide a low carbon form of travel for them. You don’t “need to drive”
Aye so the guy working at the hydro/water plant up a glen?
I get made redundant and need to find work elsewhere, what about my wife and family?
We’re getting to the crux of the issue here – that awful four letter word: WORK. Why is everyone running around like headless chickens working all the time? Oh yeah, to pay for shit they don’t need and rent/mortgages. The whole system needs binning and starting again.
How else are you going to convince people to climb up wind turbines to perform maintenance?
Work with highly radioactive isotopes?
Clear sewers?
squirrelking - as before
the changes I want are phased over a generation ramping up year by year to allow time for the society changes that are needed
How else are you going to convince people to climb up wind turbines to perform maintenance?
Work with highly radioactive isotopes?
Clear sewers?
By paying them more. It's a fallacy that working less or ensuring a basic level of income disincentivises people from working. Work should be something people do because they enjoy it, are fulfilled by it, or to improve their living standards. It shouldn't be something that people have to do to survive. Yes, there will be jobs which are so horrible no one will want to do them. The solution in many of these cases is to automate them, or make them very lucrative. In other cases maybe we mandate service in some way. We already do this for things like jury service, why not for other things? You could also use them as punishment for committing crime. Instead of sending people to prison, send them down the sewers. We already do this in the form of community service.
the changes I want are phased over a generation ramping up year by year to allow time for the society changes that are needed
That's not actually answering my questions. Can you?
By paying them more.
And how does that feed into stopping "everyone running around like headless chickens working all the time[...]to pay for shit they don’t need and rent/mortgages."?
I'm not saying I disagree with what you say but if nobody is spending money on "stuff" then what are we paying them for?
How else are you going to convince people to climb up wind turbines to perform maintenance?
Work with highly radioactive isotopes?
Clear sewers?
🤔
Good question. You know those insufferable blowhards who’re always banging on about how they’ve never had a day off sick in their lives, and that they’d go mad and wouldn’t know what to do with themselves if they didn’t have a job, and would carry on working if they won the lottery..? Well, them.
Somewhat difficult squirrelking as I don't have full info and I have not suggested any great immediate changes
On moving the workers up the glen then its up to the employer to find and provide low carbon transport. Depends on distance and terrain. could be an electric bus, could be a funicular water powered could be e bikes could be alter shift patterns to reduce movements of people there is not enough info to make a proper answer
You get made redundant? I don't understand what I am supposed to be answering? Is this now or in 20 years? makes a big difference to the answer and what about your wife and kids. context? Whats the issue and the question?
Good question. You know those insufferable blowhards who’re always banging on about how they’ve never had a day off sick in their lives, and that they’d go mad and wouldn’t know what to do with themselves if they didn’t have a job, and would carry on working if they won the lottery..? Well, them.
Best recommendation so far. I hate those people.
I’m not saying I disagree with what you say but if nobody is spending money on “stuff” then what are we paying them for?
There will still be consumerism in a post-carbon world, and there will still be capitalism. But the 'stuff' people spend money on will need to be sustainable. Most of it will be digital. We already do this in the form of music, television and other media. We also spend money on leisure activities such as eating out, meeting friends, going to gigs/events or simply down the pub. Most of the leisure activities we do can be sustainable. We just won't be able to swan off to Magaluf for a weekend stag do or buy clothes and consumer goods that we don't use or need. And on the occasions we want to go mountain biking in places like moab, then we'll need to plan ahead and use our carbon/flying rations carefully.
I have said many times. convert the economy to carbon taxation and over a generation ramp it up. Make the polluter pay.
so after multiple pages of dithering about on commuting problems, your grand plan is the one the I and others espoused earlier on the thread, but despite the climate emergency, you’d implement it over a generation…perfect.
Respectfully, you are both tenacious, communicate fairly well, up for a good argument and care about the environment.
3/4. The communications clearly need work.
How do we stop the family at my wife's work buying a new set of matching Christmas pyjamas every year?
Make pyjamas £50 a set?
Ban pyjamas?
Ban seasonal pyjamas?
Ration pyjamas?
Regulate nightclothes allowances, with regular inspections?
It's a tough one (serious point not joking)
How do we continue technological development without consumerism?
Again, not rhetorical - serious question. Do you just not have technology? What if technology is the only way to save us?
Daffy - I said it much earlier as well
Ban imports. They only buy this shite because it's there. Would help out quality british brands too. HebPyjCo?
How do we stop the family at my wife’s work buying a new set of matching Christmas pyjamas every year?
Kill them along with all the ****s that wear Christmas jumpers.
Just ban private cars from town/ city centres.
Transport hubs located at the brownfield sites, until we can find a valid way to decontaminate them (hemp cultivation?)
Lenr/ cold fusion seems to be the way forward. Combine graphene tech into the roads and maybe mag-lev will become viable.
The real logjam in this country is skint people trying to afford to live in £200k houses.
This hike in the subsistence rate feeds back into the wider economy as inflation. More demand for scarce resources. Can the petrochemical industry meet these demands?
Plastics (rayon, etc) replaced hemp as the source of our textiles. Most of the plastic winds up in the oceans, not biodegrading.
So, we need to expand the supply-side of the economy and boost hemp production.
The stately piles would make great abodes for the truly skint to farm hemp and regain some stability to their lives. It could take centuries to overcome the damage they’ve endured.
Growing the hemp would make great house insulation, as well as fantastic house building materials.
We’re going to have to bite the bullet and move the Houses of Parliament, national gallery, library, etc, out of London altogether and take a lot of the heat out of englands south east.
I don’t think that constantly expanding the oxbridge university’s helps either. It’s just cramming more people onto greenfield sites.
They need to move some of their campuses oop north, to Tyneside or further. They’re an international brand. No harm.
Moving all this infrastructure out of London, the planners could devise ways to design private cars out of the system.
You get made redundant? I don’t understand what I am supposed to be answering? Is this now or in 20 years? makes a big difference to the answer and what about your wife and kids. context? Whats the issue and the question?
The issue is that in your proposed sustainable world. Times change. Things happen that are out of your control - the fact that you of all people believe your fully the master of your own destiny is unbelievable. Your dismissal of such issues arising is another feather in the cap of the arguement that you keep shouting while being out of touch with the reality facing the workforce today.
Just ban private cars from town/ city centres.
Finally something simple that can be done and achieved almost over night. It has been done and proven to work well in Holland and Belgium amongst other places.
But of course where do you draw the line. Where is termed the centre.
Communism. We're on our way...
molgrips
Dumb argument. If you would ban them from buying pyjamas yearly they might ban you for buying bike bits yearly.
Finally something simple that can be done and achieved almost over night. It has been done and proven to work well in Holland and Belgium amongst other places.
But of course where do you draw the line. Where is termed the centre.
It's pretty much been done in Sheffield. So everybody shops in Meadowhall, an out of town shopping centre (with plenty of free parking). City centres are becoming full of blocks of expensive identikit flats inhabited by students and owned by overseas investors. Which I guess is efficient.
Ban imports. They only buy this shite because it’s there. Would help out quality british brands too. HebPyjCo?
But then poor people who need normal clothes will struggle. 150 years ago people only owned two sets of clothes - Sunday best and one set of clothes for the rest of the week. Do you want to go back to that? Should we?
molgrips
Dumb argument. If you would ban them from buying pyjamas yearly they might ban you for buying bike bits yearly.
I'm not making an argument, dumb or otherwise. I'm exploring the issues. And yes, if you ban pyjamas then where do you stop? Bike gear?
But then poor people who need normal clothes will struggle. 150 years ago people only owned two sets of clothes – Sunday best and one set of clothes for the rest of the week. Do you want to go back to that? Should we?
You mean go back to quality over quantity? Yeah definitely. Surely a hard-wearing set of quality clothes will cost the same as thirty Primarni junk costumes.
I've jumped 10 pages so probably missed stuff.
1. Road charging. Pay per mile, and increase the charge at peak times. It works in Singapore. The tags also pay for parking.
2. Vehicle license charge. It works in Singapore. There are still loads of cars, but a 5 year tag cost about SGD80k.
3. Public transport - trains, buses, Very Light Rail, trams etc. Joined up for distance, last 5 and last mile.
4. Not having children. The best one. However, I'm currently doing a load of work regarding aging populations. Actually I'm speaking at a conference in Singapore about it on Monday. It's a really big deal that we're properly ignoring currently.
5. Insulate buildings. But considering what those buildings are rather than just applying a one size methodology.
6. Encourage cycling.
7. Encourage vegetarianism.
8. Educate the populace.
9. Shoot everyone employed in The City - the home of short termism and value extraction.
10. Enjoy the slower life.
Oh, there's so much...
so probably missed stuff.
not really. Just the usual gulf in understanding and unwillingness to accept
Surely a hard-wearing set of quality clothes will cost the same as thirty Primarni junk costumes.
But you have to be able to buy the expensive stuff in the first place in order for it to last longer. So we need to eradicate poverty too. Tricky when you're looking at massively shrinking the economy.
Needs doing, but it's very hard.
Vimes boots isn't it.
Infact this whole threads a bit vimes boots.
The haves preach the have nots explain why they can't.
Others empathise with the have nots more than the haves.
its a good idea but unfortunately not one that can be applied to this building.
based on your points on this thread then you should be moving to a building that is much better for the environment rather than just shrugging your shoulders and saying it’s too difficult.
Very much so trail rat. its the poor worldwide that will suffer first and most from global warming but this thread shows very much how the privileged folk in the west will not compromise their lifestyles to reduce the coming catastrophe.
chismac. Actually my bits of the building are highly insulated to the point they hardly need any heating. Its simply not possible - not too hard but not possible to put either PV panels or a heating unit for the building. I have taken what steps I can actually do at a cost of many thousands which I will never see back
Very much so trail rat. its the poor worldwide that will suffer first and most from global warming but this thread shows very much how the privileged folk in the west will not compromise their lifestyles to reduce the coming catastrophe.
Quite. Yourself included.
Its simply not possible – not too hard but not possible to put either PV panels or a heating unit for the building.
Hasn't it got a roof?
very little south facing roof that is not unshaded. maybe enough room for 3 panels?
Quite. Yourself included.
Ive compromised far more than most but yes - if everyone on the planet had my lifestyle it would still be unsustainable even tho my carbon footprint is low for the west
South isn't mandatory.
East west is fine and in many cases can be better due to the power spread across the day
I'm not sure they have sun up there.
I’m not sure they have sun up there
In doom land ?
He's 140miles south of me. I see more sun over the year than Chester apparently.
Why aren't car roofs made of solar panels?
none of the sloping roof will take anything much in the way of panels. they are full of skylights chimney stacks and protruding masonry.
don't think I haven't looked into it. Installation would also be very difficult even if it were possible. Listed building, conservation area, very little uninterrupted sloping roof.
Sounds like your just not willing to make the change.....
That's exactly how you sound to the others here.
Why can't farmers put solar panel grids or wind turbines on grazing land?
I’m not sure they have sun up there.
Edinburgh is actually one of the sunniest places in the UK. I think only kent gets more hours of sunshine a year
Id love solar panels. I've looked into it and an installation on my roof is simply not feasible. Ive even looked into getting my own wind turbine. Can't do that either
Ive spent many thousands improving the thermal efficiency. MOney that I will never get back
Edinburgh is actually one of the sunniest places in the UK. I think only kent gets more hours of sunshine a year
Is that right? Well you live and learn. I've only spent one afternoon in Edinburgh and it was indeed sunny. Whereas I've spent a fair amount of time in Glasgow which was always rainy. I wonder if it's similar to the fact that it's generally rainy in Manchester, but nicer over the hill in Sheffield? An east/west thing perhaps, hence Kent being sunny...
Anyway, if it's so sunny stop making excuses and get some solar panels on your roof you planet-killer...
I would if I could.
Id love solar panels. I’ve looked into it and an installation on my roof is simply not feasible.
it’s not feasible for many to live close to work, yet you suggest this is all their fault and they should make it feasible and make the changes necessary. Surely you want to uphold the standards you expect of others?
I did not suggest any blame for anyone. there is a difference between not wanting to do something because of the compromises to your lifestyle and it being physically impossible
with that I have had enough of this thread. the personal attacks made on me for things I have never said and because I point out hypocrisy is quite honestly nasty.
You cannot dispute the message so you shoot the messenger
