We don't need more positivity, that just makes us all feel warm and comfy which results in inactivity.
The boat is sinking, get bailing.
Jus keepin my eyes and mind open. Sorry to dilute the doom Trimix
There's only one quick and easy solution to climate change... Nuclear war.
(tried to post an image but it's not working)
At this point we have to hope for (and actively work towards) novel solutions.
Lab grown meat, once it hits a practical cost, will make a huge impact; as will renewable energies*. Hopefully the solutions keep coming at a rate faster than the problems.
Man made flood management, artificial weather, all manner of things we can/will be able to do to make the changed world habitable for humans, and hopefully with some consideration for other species too, but I'm sadly less certain of that from certain governments.
If the last year has taught us anything it is that the lengths and costs humans will go to to save lives; I think the idea that we will just sit and starve/drown ourselves en masse is not going to happen.
*or we just hang on long enough for fusion, still 30 years away...
A lady who along with her son owns some of the worst performing housing stock in the UK is moaning about world leaders not acting on climate change.
A bit rich from an energy seive property owner who is a head of state herself.
I think this hypocritical lady should clean her own act up, use the not insignificant clout she has to jolly along her own government and above all use her not inconsiderable wealth to insulate her properties and equip them with renewable energy technology:
I find it hard to get wound up by this story to be honest. The hypocrisy doesn't make her criticism any less legitimate.
use the not insignificant clout she has to jolly along her own government
Isn't that what she is doing?
I struggle to call Buckingham Palace, Windsor castle etc "housing stock" though.
Of course she is a hypocrite. It’s what she and her family specialise in. Whether is Andy and his behaviour or changes and his kids pretending to care whilst doing the opposite they are all as bad as each other
I suggest you look at the total crown property portfolio, Molgrips. There's the personal stuff, for example just prince Charles and then the crown estates.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/2020080494730/prince-charles-camilla-royal-residences-portfolio/
As a vegetarian, who doesn't generally fly for holliday's (think it's been 4 years since a trip to Spain), doesn't buy new clothes anywhere near often enough, and avoids personal car use like the plague.......
I've learnt not to suggest any of that. Apparently it's all too difficult, vegetables taste horrible, half term skiing is a human right, too busy to cycle to work, and the need for a big engine to achieve the speed limit a second quicker is an acceptable trade off to doing 60+mpg the other 99.999% of the journey.
I'll just say I told you so in years to come. And you can tell me you told me it would be too difficult to achieve.
edit: an old thread which didn't really warrant a new reply.
I've one to realise that there's no point berating people for their choices, even though I have done so.
All you can do is point out what's wrong and lobby government, because changing other people's personal behaviour is a) really difficult and b) it's not anywhere near enough.
We need governments at this point.
Catastrophic climate change is entirely avoidable
Maybe, just maybe........ but until private companies work out how to monetize mitigation we're screwed.
We need governments at this point.
Indeed. Much as I dislike governments, they are the only ones who can implement the systemic changes needed. Individual action is the biggest form of greenwash.
I kind of think there is a flawed premise in the OP:
and I guess more importantly, how to get around the political and business problems?
Politics and (especially) business essentially are the problems both have their entrenched stakeholders, they prop one another up and the types and levels of change really required are really beyond both groups...
While the "Business" is presenting us with Billionaire's Dick shaped rockets full of celebrities having empty epiphanies about how fragile the Earth is, Politicians dare not hold businesses to account, make them pay there taxes, enforce environmental standards (on a global level) or simply challenge their behaviour for fear of being removed from power... We have another global talking shop this month, where lots will be said but little if substance achieved.
Honestly I wouldn't look to business or political parties to affect useful change, it's simply not in their interests.
Dare I say it solving climate change begins with widespread disruption of political and business structures...
Not an answer I know, but more of a point of note, do those two Powerful groups who claim to be seriously looking at addressing climate change really mean it? It's driven by wealth inequality and global consumerism, and who has the most vested interest in those activities?
Much as I dislike governments, they are the only ones who can implement the systemic changes needed.
Simply not so. I divided the energy consumption of my house by six, turned it into a mini-power station, haven't flown for nine years, switched to an elctric car, reduced/eliminated consumption of some food stuffs.
My choices, not the government's.
In answer to the OP, rich countries will adapt but poor countries will be less able to do so. Rich countries can expect a lot of refugees unless they help poor countries adapt.
We've just got to hope that the rate of adaption necessary is something we can cope with.
I have no confidence that the world's major polluters will change their ways any time soon.
In my view, the hypocrisy and sensationalism around climate change is going to become counter-productive and turn people off as the costs of adaption and avoiding pollution bite.
What you have done Edukator is obviously positive but it's not 'systemic' change, it's individual, that's the point. We can't be nudged into changing the way we live or it will never happen. We need policies.
I divided the energy consumption of my house by six, turned it into a mini-power station, haven’t flown for nine years, switched to an elctric car, reduced/eliminated consumption of some food stuffs.
Good for you. But you are just one person/family. What about the millions/billions of people who don't have the resources or the opportunities to do the same? It's all very well rich middle class people virtue signalling their way to carbon saving superiority, but it won't come close to solving the problem.
My choices, not the government’s.
Which, whilst greatly laudable, in the grand scheme of things will achieve sod all.
What about the millions/billions of people who
don’t have the resources or the opportunities to do the same?couldn't really give a toss
Is, I think, the greater problem.
Is, I think, the greater problem.
Yes that is also a major problem, which again requires leadership from government. I do think however that not giving a toss, and not having the means to do anything are closely linked. Governments have enormous power to incentivise mass behaviour change. They're also the only organisations which have the finances to do so.
All of those except the car have worked out cheaper in the long run. The car might too but it's a bit early to say.
I agree it will achieve sod all, IHN. It needs many more to act. The thing is that slowly slowly people are realising that doing their bit helps and that they can afford it. Look at the electric car thread on here and the number of STWers who now own them. Check out the various solar panel threads, the house renovation threads, the "my boilers ****ed, what are the alternatives?"
If there's a problem avoid being a part of it. Give a toss... .
In real life I've become an influencer without trying. A friend of Madame's sent a message asking how much it cost to charge the car at home so I sent the numbers back including charging losses a different charge rates. They're obvioulsy costing up running an EV, we'll see what they buy
sweaman2
Free MemberThe only way to really bring carbon use under control is through a carbon tax. For it to be truly effective it has to be global as otherwise (and perhaps rightly) developing countries will accuse developed countries of holding back.
Yep- basically everything we're doing now, is totally undermined because of the fake economics that capitalism loves and the fact that so many of the costs of carbon burning aren't on the balance sheet and so just don't exist. In the end, it's going to be the biggest subsidy in human history.
Of course there's no prospect of going backwards and passing the true costs to polluters but as long as we don't do it, we're encouraging warming. Our entire system is rigged towards it and against clean power.
Buying EVs is easy because it's a nice new car, EVs are cool, and there's no real hardship. Stopping flying for holidays, that's a much harder thing to ask people to do.
All of those except the car have worked out cheaper in the long run.
Yes but it requires a lot of upfront capital. Electric cars, heat pumps, solar panels, and all the remedial work to insulate properties are not cheap. I'm pretty well off compared to most and I can't afford to buy a (practical) electric car, let alone spend tens of thousands on the other stuff.
molgrips
Why? You can reduce your own emissions, and that still has an effect. It all counts.
Eventually the USA will figure it out. Things are slowly shifting there. Not fast enough, really, but still.
Didn't see this reply first time around.
The answer is because I've done all the easy things, LED bulbs, loft insulation etc. The changes I'm now making to cut carbon, reduce waste etc are either expensive or having a fairly significant effect on my life for marginal gains.
It is very frustrating therefore to see wealthy nations where they haven't bothered with even the easiest low hanging fruit.
I saw you posting about somebody only getting 50MPG on another thread. Do you think it makes any difference when every year the USA are buying half a million F150s, half a million Dodge RAMs, 400,000 Silverados, 200,000 Tacomas, 200,000 GMC Sierras every year which do ~25MPG? Some of them can't even crack 15MPG! It's complete madness.
This piece from a few days ago is good on what a representative sample of the UK agree on should be the actions to hit the 2030 reduction targets
The most popular policy mix selected by the public was:
A carbon tax of £75 per tonne on polluting manufacturing and construction businesses, with some funding to invest in new technologies, supported by 94% of people.
Better-integrated public transport coordinated by local government (93%).
Food campaigns and support from government, supermarkets and food companies promoting plant-based diets and cutting meat and dairy consumption by 10% (93%).
A comprehensive UK-wide electric vehicle charging network by 2028 (91%).
Raising flying costs, particularly on frequent fliers (89%).
Some restrictions on cars entering city centres and a 60mph speed limit on motorways (82%).
Support for less intensive farming and paying farmers to improve nature, including woodlands (79%).
Grants for heat pumps and home insulation for low-income households and low-interest loans for others, reaching 1.4m heat pump installations a year by 2030 (77%).
We need governments at this point.
We need effective governments. From what I can see there are not many of those in the world and the ones I would count as effective as governing small/irrelevant countries.
Yes the government is the most important factor but who votes in the government...
The main reason electric cars work so well is because unless you spend a huge sum you can’t go very far in them before they need a lengthy recharge.
The only solution to climate change is fewer people on the planet.
I've always thought that the answer to this is for a band of national leaders to form a little club, and lay down some rules which essentially say
"Make this committment to do your bit to cut emissions and we will trade with you on favourable terms. If you don't make the commitment then we will impose sanctions. We will self police and kick you out of the club and impose sanctions if you don't keep your promises. And we are willing to accept this might cost us money. People of the world: put pressure on your leaders to join. Oh and the sooner you get on board, the better we will treat you, so get a move on"
So basically create a situation where it will hurt each nation economically to not join in. The problem is that it would require multiple world leaders to commit to a big gamble, they would be heros if it worked but look like fools if it fizzled out. And the arguing over the rules would be endless
I’ve always thought that the answer to this is for a band of national leaders to form a little club, and lay down some rules which essentially say
“Make this committment to do your bit to cut emissions and we will trade with you on favourable terms. If you don’t make the commitment then we will impose sanctions. We will self police and kick you out of the club and impose sanctions if you don’t keep your promises. And we are willing to accept this might cost us money. People of the world: put pressure on your leaders to join. Oh and the sooner you get on board, the better we will treat you, so get a move on”
So basically create a situation where it will hurt each nation economically to not join in. The problem is that it would require multiple world leaders to commit to a big gamble, they would be heros if it worked but look like fools if it fizzled out. And the arguing over the rules would be endless
Sounds great, completely at odds with the interests of those in the position to implement the concept.
Us (post industrial) first-worlders just bang on about how low 'our' emissions are getting now we've got Tesla's, whilst simultaneously berating developing nations for 'their' polluting activities and inducing them to pollute by paying them to run data centres as well as manufacture and export all the tat we love to buy...
It doesn't work, it's still in China and India's financial interests to burn lots of coal. The UN won't change that because the backlash from us Western plebs when costs increase and choices decrease will dislodge many from their current positions of power.
Population control is the only answer.
A universal one child limit would be a start.
Population control is the only answer.
Yes.
A universal one child limit would be a start.
No
The only way things will change is if it hits people in their pockets.
As a child of the 60's and 70's, things (as one would expect) were very different. We walked to school and back (even through scary woods). We never used the car for short journeys, holidays were in this country, our food was mostly from local farmers/producers and fruit and veg in season, clothes were worn until we grew out of them (and got passed on to others) or they wore out, a lot of people grew their own food where possible (my grandpa had an allotment and grew salads and fruit in his garden. We hung our washing out to dry and had very few takeaways.
We eat too much, we consume too much, we are lazy and most people don't care. Too many people think saving the world is putting their empty bean can into a recycling bin.
Plant a tree everyone.
Sounds great, completely at odds with the interests of those in the position to implement the concept.
Us (post industrial) first-worlders just bang on about how low ‘our’ emissions are getting now we’ve got Tesla’s, whilst simultaneously berating developing nations for ‘their’ polluting activities and inducing them to pollute by paying them to run data centres as well as manufacture and export all the tat we love to buy…
It doesn’t work, it’s still in China and India’s financial interests to burn lots of coal. The UN won’t change that because the backlash from us Western plebs when costs increase and choices decrease will dislodge many from their current positions of power.
Completely agree, hence saying that arguing over the rules would be endless. There absolutely has to be recognition that us first-worlders have led the way in creating the problem, frankly done staggeringly well out of it economically, and we have to lead the way (and carry the greatest burden) in solving it. I'm not for a moment suggesting that anything as simplistic as emissions quotas would do the job.
But there are certainly some first world countries doing less than others, and I would love to see some collective pressure put, very publicly and bluntly, on those not pulling their weight.
I do also wonder if the "What can you do? Top tips to reduce your own carbon footprint" style communications do more harm than good. "But if everyone did it..."
No. Even if every single person in the entire world recycled their yoghurt pots, it would make sod all difference. It can only be addressed if governments come up with a global solution which will inevitably be painful given how we in the developed world have become accustomed to living.
chewkw
Free MemberPopulation control is the only answer.
Yes.
A universal one child limit would be a start.
No
I agree, a zero-child policy would be much more effective.
As a child of the 60’s and 70’s, things (as one would expect) were very different....
OK Boomer.
The only way things will change is if it hits people in their pockets.
Which people?
We've already mentioned the "space billionaires".
I kind of feel like if we're going to ask those living a relatively "normal" (actually quite high) modern standard of living to take the necessary steps and cut back, we need to see proportionate efforts from the wealth hoarders currently putting phalluses into orbit.
Moreover those right at the "bottom" financially, probably need a leg up in order to be able to even consider "ethical consumption" over basic needs...
Wealth inequalities are a major contributor to people's choices already, just telling younger generations to Don a hare shirt because your generation walked to school (and then probably went on to do plenty of polluting over the following 40 odd years) isn't actually very helpful...
On the electric cars point. It's all very good and it is indeed necessary for the shift to electric cars to happen. Because it makes the issue of them in particularly easier to deal with. But unless that problem is dealt with, all you are doing is shifting the emissions up the production line.
These cars still need energy, and if every car tomorrow was to switch to electric all that does is shift the energy requirements on to the grid, which is currently only about 20-25% renewables in the uk as far as I understand.
So shift all the cars on to it tomorrow and you need alot more energy from the grid, how we going to get that energy, more coal? nuclear?, still burning oil? gas? or switch to solar? wind? or other renewables?
These are still structural issues needing solved. Buying an electric car doesn't actually solve anything, just moves the problem elsewhere.
The fundamental problem is how we create energy.
(I do appreciate that electric cars will maybe burn less fossil fuels using a different fuel source and technologies, but still a very large percent of emissions will still be linked to EVs until the grid is changed.)
Of course the electrification of cars is a good thing, how are people still questioning this? We have many solutions for renewable power that are getting cheaper and cheaper, will it happen overnight? No. Will it be a million times better than the current fuel mix. Yes.
The thread is depressing, not the climate problems we face, but the scepticism and pessimism used to confront them
As a child of the 60’s and 70’s, things (as one would expect) were very different
As a child of the 60s and 70s you are part of a generation that caused this to happen. Including developing the culture of lazy consumerism we have today.
The only reasonably guilt free generations are those yet to reach double digits for age. When I look back, I see a culture heading at full speed to greater consumption.
To be fair it all really started a few hundred years ago. Pre industrial revolution it was all going fine and we would not have ended up in this position.
Whether most peoples lives would have been of lower quality and worth the cost is another matter.
The problem is not going away any time soon so best to look for solution hows to deal with it rather than how to stop it.
Of course the electrification of cars is a good thing, how are people still questioning this?
It will make no significant difference to climate change and co2 reduction for 2 reasons - the embedded co2 cost of an EV is higher than a ICE and the energy used is used less efficiently as it goes thru more conversions wasting energy at each step and any extra electricity consumption means more fossil fuels used for generation.
EVs are greeenwash - the only answer is to stop moving people around so much thus use less energy overall
Unfortunately the steps required to mitigate climate change are impossible politically. We are already at the tipping point and this planet is already in a mass extinction event.
Of course the electrification of cars is a good thing, how are people still questioning this?
Its not a good thing, its a less bad thing. Not driving and not constantly building new cars is the good thing. Same with recycling. Its still bad, just not as bad as landfill. We get these sticking plaster solutions so we can say "I'm doing my bit" when in reality we are still not doing nearly enough.
Of course the electrification of cars is a good thing...
I don't think many would argue that its not. But it's the tip of the iceberg. It's blindingly obvious that our current progression is completely unsustainable, and manufacturing more, and bigger cars is not the answer. We need to go a lot further, rethinking our environment and the way we live.
Unfortunately cars are a large part of our economy so its likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.
