Ban golf
As demonstrated by some of the answers on here, first thing you need to do is an audit to see what is using the most energy or producing the most damaging greenhouse gases, then work from there concentrating on the most damaging whilst alongside picking any low hanging solutions.
Properly Subsidised residential rooftop solar would be one of the first things I’d look at
And who pays the subsidies? It needs to be widely adopted or it won't work. So solutions need to be affordable by almost everyone and subsidised only for the poorest 10-20% of the population. So sny solution for the majority of the population needs to be affordable without subsidy or we are all just subsidising ourselves. At the moment it is the better off who are being subsidided by everyone else to buy EVs.
Anyway covering household electricity use for daylight hours 9 months of the year is only a small slice of the pie. Heating in winter is the big part and solar will contribute very little towards that. Last March our energy was 262Kwh electricity and 1892Kwh gas. Currently UK solar covers around 9% of demand for 6 hours a day and will be less over the next few months.
More nuclear is the answer to burning less gas.
People need to give up on the idea of not living near where they work.
So what do you recommend, that they don't take the job, quit ?
As ever, absolutes don’t work across a whole population, we all start arguing about the 10% at either extreme, and are too divided to agree on the measures that would improve things for 80% of us.
It's not 80%.... by a long way over a typical persons working time.
Even assuming a typical 2 people working in a house the chance of both working locally is unlikely (depending what you call local).
What do they then do if one gets their place of employment moved to the next town?
Heating in winter is the big part and solar will contribute very little towards that.
There are ways around that.
dickyboy
As demonstrated by some of the answers on here, first thing you need to do is an audit to see what is using the most energy or producing the most damaging greenhouse gases, then work from there concentrating on the most damaging whilst alongside picking any low hanging solutions.
all this depends on what is defined as "eco solutions for society".
On one hand if you want to reduce CO2 then you need to ban petrol and use diesel and get rid of ULEZ zones to stop long journeys around them but to do the latter you'd have to justify climate change over air quality where people live.
Not having kids.
Simple. Stop eating dead animals.
Even assuming a typical 2 people working in a house the chance of both working locally is unlikely (depending what you call local
funnily enough I know many folk who live and work within a few miles
"Heating in winter is the big part and solar will contribute very little towards that."
There are ways around that.
What are the ways @molgrips? In all seriousness as this is a live issue for me - I looked at putting a 15kw solar array in a field and a load of battery storage. 15kw is way overkill in the summer - enough for running my house 4 or 5 times over - with *everything* on electric.
But in the winter - 15kw array is basically bugger all because from November > March there's simply not enough sun even if I massively overspec my normal requirements. A multiple of bugger all is bugger all.
So I'm left looking at LPG for the winter months. Which rankles.
Biomass is a lie - it's not renewable at all. So whacking in a log burner with a back boiler doesn't help the environment.
Wind is lolzroffles unreliable and expensive - and for the rest of the sunny year would be a total waste.
That leaves me fossil fuels or nowt in my little, remote, welsh 18th century stone farmhouse.
Not having kids.
Agreed. obviously not possible or desirable for everyone to do this, but a gentle population decline would remove a lot of the issues of home and infrastructure building.
So my answer is, normalise/make socially acceptable the concept of being childfree. The number of people who were undevided/their partner wanted them/family and parents guilted them into it... if they didn't have kids, and everyone who did want kids still did have them; everyone would be happier and we would all be better off.
@ayjaydoubleyou - it's absolutely possible for people who want kids to keep it to one. But what we should be doing is in the meantime is removing child subsidies for more than one kid.
Nothing I've ever said provokes more rage in parents however.
But if you want more than one kid, you're part of the problem. Too many humans for our desired consumption is the ultimate cause of most of our issues. We need a few billion at absolute most - and we're heading rapidly towards 9 billion - which is way more than the earth can ever support sustainably.
So removing subsidy for children is morally the correct thing to do. Parents should be bearing full economic responsibility for their children - and even though that could potentially put some kids at a massive disadvantage through no fault of their own when you weigh it against our potentially existential issues then it's a no-brainer.
Have less kids. Stop making it easy for people who want more than 1.
Currently UK solar covers around 9% of demand
That's commercial solar only.
And there lies the problem, if the question is “Simple to implement eco solutions for society”, then discouraging living in nice remote bits of Scotland but making it as convenient as a city by driving everywhere is definitely an answer.
I’m fairly sure a large proportion of the “home counties” would quite like to live somewhere more rural too!
It’s the opposite of moving near to a music venue and complaining it’s noisy. Moving somewhere and complaining that there’s no public transport.
What are you talking about?
Matt used Killin (I assume it's there he's referring to) as a counter to the notion that villages are exclusively dormitory towns for the bigger population centres. They're not, plenty of people work in the surrounding area but not in easy to link places that would make public transport viable. There are plenty of places all over the UK where that is true outside of the dormitory towns of the Home Counties and where your proposal falls right on it's arse.
One size does not fit all, like most of the frankly one dimensional "solutions" proposed above. @Dickyboy is about the only one that actually has the right answer (I realise others have proposed thoughtful suggestions, I just mean in a general sense).
first thing you need to do is an audit to see what is using the most energy or producing the most damaging greenhouse gases, then work from there concentrating on the most damaging whilst alongside picking any low hanging solutions.
And as it's 3 pages in it's about fair time to call Godwin, **** me some of you are twisted bastards. Eugenics and eco-facism hand in hand, lovely.
Not having kids.
I think the birth rate is falling globally isn't it?
Simple. Stop eating dead animals.
I've tried eating live ones - the buggers keep moving and some can be quite dangerous.
squirrellking - shooting 90% of the worlds population would go a long way to reducing pollution?
Sand power stores. Ok its not for everyone but you can heat sand to 300c plus before it turns to glass.
Get enough tons of sand super hot using solar and you have thermal mass to generate power or heat.
And it stays hot, or requires alot less power to stay hot. Doesnt boil, doesn't freeze. Its plentiful. Farm silos are everywhere and alot unused.
Yes you need insulation, and infrastructure.
The gov put aside 20 billion to offset our power bills, 10 x 2 billion projects invested into saving, generating, storing and distributing power would have been more sensible but no
Its not a vote winner.
One "motor" vehicle per home.
Re-nationalise trains and buses network.
Two one-way flights per person per year.
Abolish next day delivery except for local supermarkets.
stop buying new bikes, there is absolutely no need to replace a couple of year old bike with another one, just because its has a 1 degree tweak to geometry or a different axle standard.
see also pointless gear changes for 10spd to 11spd, to 12spd etc..
and only one set of tyres per bike until its fully worm out. The amount of oil/refined hydrocarbon that goes into tyre manufacture is bonkers for them to go into a tyre pile and then landfill/incineration when there is plenty of life left in them
oh and ban dogs, cats, and any more humans for a bit
easy and simple
No street lights.
Every light up the motorways to have a tiny wind generator.
Easy to implement? Ban most electrical goods including all luxury items.
Ban all double wrapping of anything. Be kind, Give the packagers 2 months to implement this.
Ban all background noise in anywhere public along with most lighting including all over night display lighting.
As time goes on add on a replacement tax for most sales whereby a trade in isn't made.
All personal flights to have a 200% eco tax.
Plague.
it's the population of the world thats the problem isn't it?
Re the housing issue mentioned on page two.
Problem is that we are all greedy. There are stacks of house around me that 30 years ago would have been great first time places but instead they have been extended because we all need more than one bathroom, a spare room/office and a play room plus of course every three year old needs their own bedrooom.
Lets have a ration on bikes. Who needs a new one every five years?
One “motor” vehicle per home.
Per house, or only for a couple? What happens with adult children living at home, or people living in house shares?
my objection to anything that places restrictions on what the two adults in a cohabiting relationship do, is how that will undo the last half a century in advances in gender equality.
it’s absolutely possible for people who want kids to keep it to one. But what we should be doing is in the meantime is removing child subsidies for more than one kid.
I'm not sure - would you rather have two couples with one kid each, or one couple with two kids, and one couple with none?
Two kids, ideally with a small age gap is in a practical way, easier for that first couple to manage in a comparatively eco-manner. It also is I think, better from a social perspective, there are several issues coming from the one-child-policy far east now that those kids are young adults.
stop testing for endotoxins in pharma manufacture (saves using horseshoe crab farming for their blood as well as an added bonus) and means that more folks will die
also stop using plastics for containing drugs and go back to waxed paper which also means more folks will die, but will be more eco friendly
stop burials and small scale crematoria , all bodies to be sent to EFW incinerators for mass burning and electricity generation. Also saves on the use of coffins, varnish, and the toxic emissions produced during their combustion
instead of a funeral, everyone to gather round a kettle for a cuppa in memory of uncle dave, whose tubby corpse has just produced that energy
Reusable coffee cups. In 2019 I used 3 disposable cups. 2020 saw a decline due to COVID, but 2023 I will attempt to use none. I have a collapsible silicone cup I carry with me.
It’s not 80%…. by a long way over a typical persons working time.
Even assuming a typical 2 people working in a house the chance of both working locally is unlikely (depending what you call local).
Actually, statistically speaking, 80% isn't far off. Especially once you look at the massive weighting of population in cities (IIRC it's more like 2/3rds of households both adults work sufficiently locally that they don't need to drive). So we could have a solution for 2/3rds of the population. More in some areas, less in others.
But again, the problems is that the alternatives to driving are generally terrible, especially when those that "lead" are more interested in skimming a bit off the top, and making sure their mates are all taken care of.
TBH, we could just make WFH legally mandated for those that can do it. Instead of getting micro managers deciding that you've got an "essential" job and need to be located in the office 40 hours a week (or 60 if the manager gets their way).
Mate of mine did this during lockdown, key staff within the company (bank with 60000 employees) were allowed to apply for key worker status. Which their senior manager/director would approve. Not one single person in her group (about 1200 strong all told) was eligible, over 300 applied. About 10 got it, all because of infrastructure issues (no reliable internet at home, or nowhere secure/suitable to work.)
So you mandate it, similar to the Smart Meter rollout. Government backed scheme, trained and accredited workforce, and maybe a tiered pricing structure based on (say) the council tax banding. It’s actually a remarkably easy scheme to do once the initial work is in place. The population gets home improvements for free/cheap, energy usage and costs (and therefore emissions) dramatically decrease.
Thats what I mean by messy to implement. Who's training all these people. Who's accrediting it? If we know anything about the Green Homes and other schemes they cost a lot and don't get the results desired, or at least not nearly good enough value. See Smart meter roll out as another example. Expensive to roll out, done almost nothing for peoples bills and consumption, lots of issues with swapping suppliers etc. The reality is they've probably been a total waste of time unless something significantly changes.
What we need is scalable solutions that don't require central administration on a house by house basis. Otherwise it's going to be expensive, lack uptake and deliver very little.
Extra tax for all those who choose to have children. The carbon footprint of a newborn child for the next 80+ years will be vast and way more than any amount of tinkering with renewables etc.
Children are a lifestyle choice, no different to choosing which car to drive, so tax them accordingly. They are certainly a disaster from the planets perspective
Reusable coffee cups.
You have to use a LOT of disposable cups to make up for one decent sized ceramic mug, if they are biodegradable, it's ridiculous, something like 3-4000. Which for me would be about 10 years. They had a poster up at work when they changed coffee supplier 3 or 4 years ago.
Saying that, the pint glass i use for drinking water was bought in Finland in December 92 by a colleague, and has been in daily use at work since. The beer advertised on it they stopped making in the late 90s.
I like Tazzys solutions
I’ve been using the same Starbucks reusable cup since 2006. If I forget to take it with me, I’m not allowed a takeout coffee. It really bugged me in my first year at uni that the bin in the coffee shop was full by 09:30 EVERY morning!
Children are a lifestyle choice, no different to choosing which car to drive, so tax them accordingly. They are certainly a disaster from the planets perspective
the younger generations are more invested in positive change than we are. Without kids who’s going to reverse or slow the damage mine and previous generations have done? They’ll likely have much smaller Carbon footprints than we do.
New builds to have solar, super insulation and to include rainwater harvesting/recycling.
Close the loopholes and enforce the above legislation at the building reg level.
Subsidized solar, insulation and rainwater harvesting/recycling for current homes.
Not for profit community repair shops.
Corporate tax for non serviceable appliances/consumable goods.
Breeding tax - 2 kids max before each consecutive one costs money.
Close down Drax power station.
Mandatory euthanasia at 65, free up housing stock, so no more new homes need to be build, reduces the burden on the NHS, no need for society to carry the burden on non productive deadweight, less need for old folks to run the heating all of the time, reduce the population in an easy to managed phased approach, also means no need for a pension funds, so more money can be used for Eco tax without compromising in living standards.
Now you are going too far tazzy - thats less than 4 years away for me
So what do you recommend, that they don’t take the job, quit ?
If there are no green transport options, yes, people will have to change jobs, or move.
The solutions to this are really difficult, life changing. Failing to do it is, ultimately, life ending.
@TJ how about if we ran a kind of televised OAP version of the Thunderdome? the general population love a bit of blood and guts, its been a distraction from the the general crapness of existence since we became "civilised" the looser to be used a animal substitute for meat in pies and burgers for those intent on maintaining a meat eating habit?
entertainment and food, all without additional need of livestock and saving millions tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from cows and sheepsies
🙂
So long as you have a decent chance of surviving
Ban on all new mug production. There must be at least 10 mugs per person in the UK already.
As people are economically driven (for the most part) raise the price of energy to the point whereby individuals start cutting back on personal energy use (while putting in place a scheme to support personal energy allowance at low cost).
Even assuming a typical 2 people working in a house the chance of both working locally is unlikely (depending what you call local
tjagain
funnily enough I know many folk who live and work within a few miles
Funnily enough it currently includes me and I know of others but over a working life it's unlikely to continue.
People aren't sitting in traffic jams or squeezed into overcrowded trains out of choice.
If we’re going crazy how about a lifetime kWh consumption allowance? Once it’s been used up you get euthanised and burnt for fuel.
If we’re going crazy how about a lifetime kWh consumption allowance? Once it’s been used up you get euthanised and burnt for fuel.
great idea! if we remove emotion from the decision making process, its actually a very logical solution.
you have a lifetime carbon footprint, want to drive fast cars, live in big houses and travel the world, go for it, full in the knowledge that you will be dead in your late 20's to ensure that you cause no more harm in a lifecycle than a parsimonious pensioner who has lived a simple life.
People aren’t sitting in traffic jams or squeezed into overcrowded trains out of choice.
yes they are. They made a choice to live where they did and to take that job.
People aren’t sitting in traffic jams or squeezed into overcrowded trains out of choice.
God help me but I'm agreeing with TJ
Their choices need to be expanded by investment in green transport - and I'm not convinced personal EVs fall under that banner in the medium-long term, but where I live has always been determined by how long it takes me to get there. I chose to relocate and leave the industry of my first career because I didn't want a lifestyle involving long commutes, and I've done 3-4 different jobs in the 23 years since so that my commutes are short by car or cycleable ny bike.
