Hi I want to kill 5 billion people
So if reducing the population to 2 billion is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change, and that has to be done in the next 20-30 years how do you do that? If population reduction is being proposed as a serious solution, then it follows that it would involve killing/culling billions of people. I feel like we're moving towards my original tongue-in-cheek suggestion of nuclear war.. 🙄
Maybe you’ve not seen the news wobbliscott. Yes the EU’s legislation cleaned up our water hugely in recent decades. I remember bits of turds floating past in the sea when I was young (~1970s).
I've seen floaters just off the beach, quite possibly within site of your apartment just last year.
To be fair in that case, the I'll informed word in the boat is theres a sewage pipe that still works but has been kind of lost that discharges straight into the sea.
So if reducing the population to 2 billion is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change, and that has to be done in the next 20-30 years how do you do that? If population reduction is being proposed as a serious solution, then it follows that it would involve killing/culling billions of people. I feel like we’re moving towards my original tongue-in-cheek suggestion of nuclear war..
What we really need is a mystery disease to kill off several million and to make fossil fuels increase in price so much as to become unaffordable.....oh wait.
Maybe the tories have a plan after all. ;-P
Bird Flu is where its at apparently
@wobbliscot I asked if you had a source claiming that our rivers are ‘clean’?
No…
Fair enough. But you go on:
are you saying our rivers and coastline is dirtier and more polluted than they were say 20 years ago?
And on. I was simply asking for a source that shows how they are ‘clean’. The rest of your post was largely a strawman argument for ‘the likes’ of ‘me’ so I’ll just move on.
We now have clean rivers
This is news.
Not really. They’ve got worse recently but they are still far cleaner
ISWYDT
Clean =/= ‘cleaner’.
England is especially bad. Our local Wye is (sadly) subject of a new documentary titled (appropriately) ‘Rivercide’. My favourite swimming spot in another local river (Powys/Shrops) made my eyes sting and was covered in scum and weird bubbles the last time I dipped. Haven’t been in since. The supposedly protected freshwater mussel beds there are also in sharp decline. But enough anecdotes.
All of the rivers, lakes and streams in England are polluted, says the Environment Agency.
The figures reveal a complete lack of progress towards the target of 100% healthy waters by 2027.
The most problematic pollutants are chemical sewage discharge, farming, and industrial chemicals.
In 2016, when figures were last published, 16% of waters were classed as good.
In fact, water quality hasn't deteriorated since then - but it hasn't improved as promised.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54195182
To make things worse, the EA’s number of samples and sampling points had fallen by nearly 50% since 2013 so we don’t even know the state of much of our waterways and coastal waters. The UK’s water sector is arguably broken.
Our rivers and freshwater have continued to suffer due to the failure of the water regulator to take the environment seriously. This is evidenced by the declining condition of freshwater in England. Not least the increasing failure of a sewerage system incapable of meeting demand with over 400,000 extra sewage spills reported in 2020. These failings are cemented by the known gap in capital funding of at least £10 billion for the water industry over the last 10 years.
Using figures supplied by the water industry, the report examines data on water pipe replacement rates revealing that the typical replacement/renewal rate in the UK is around 0.05% of the network per annum. This implies OFWAT and the water companies are expecting sewers to last for up to 2,000 years – 10 times longer than the European average. By anyone’s maths, this does not add up!
https://www.wcl.org.uk/time-to-fix-the-broken-water-sector.asp
It continues not to ‘add up.
No one quite knows how much untreated sewage and storm water is released into England’s waterways…
…The difficulty in relying on water company data will be underscored next month when Southern Water, which supplies water and treats sewage for 4.7m people in Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, appears in court for sentencing after pleading guilty to deliberately dumping “poisonous, noxious” substances including untreated sewage into rivers and coastal waters near several popular tourist hotspots over five years.
Last June the financial regulator Ofwat found the business, which is owned by a consortium of infrastructure investors, had deliberately manipulated and misreported data for seven years. https://www.ft.com/content/6bcec6e6-c214-4062-9cf1-7812c996af0f
The ‘likes of me’ would like not to shut my eyes and call it ‘clean’ simply because some waterways were entirely barren during my childhood. Or because A. N. Ecdote was known to have recently took a dip in The Trent and reported all was good. I’ll rather take note of the (however incomplete) data - and that says that only 16% of my Country’s rivers currently achieve good ecological status, according to government data published last year.
Here’s a semi-useful map detailing where effluent (treated and untreated) is released/spilled into our waterways:
So if reducing the population to 2 billion is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change, and that has to be done in the next 20-30 years how do you do that? If population reduction is being proposed as a serious solution, then it follows that it would involve killing/culling billions of people. I feel like we’re moving towards my original tongue-in-cheek suggestion of nuclear war.. 🙄
Well if you're just going to make stuff up regarding the content of the post you responded then yes, I can see how you make logical conclusions.
As usual the debate has descended into bickering and point scoring over each other. I'm guilty, but at least I stopped my argument. Problem is there's nothing left apart from the bickering. So the thread'll die as everyone walks away from it. This is the problem in a nutshell, isn't it?
@edukator https://www.iter.org/mach/coolingwater
There's your cooling loop sorted. ITER is no longer expected to reach ignition (self heating) but is expected to achieve a Q factor of 10 (500MW output for 50MW input).
The whole cooling thing is, for now, a non issue, not until we break Q=1 anyway.
Go on squirrelking – explain to me how you can have carbon zero energy production?
I've offered you the means, you rejected them. Go look up "zero carbon generation" for yourself. It's literally the top Google hit. If you can't be bothered to learn and communicate with the accepted terminology then I don't see why I should hold your hand.
Did you read the article I linked explaining why that oft quoted Q of 10 is misleading, Squirrelking?
The "500MW output for 50MW input" completely ignores the energy consumed to achieve that state. The thermonuclear Q might well be 10 but the generating Q will be about 1. You need a thermal Q of about 40 to achieve a generating Q worth having. There no point having a reactor with a thermal Q of 10 on the grid as it will consume as much if not more electricity than it produces.
Having a cooling system dumping heat to the environment at low pressure for short periods isn't my idea of plumbing the reactor so that it can be run continuously with a high pressure cooling system taking away enough heat for continuous generation.
The ITER people have slightly changed the wording on their site in response to accusations that it's misleading but to me it's still ambiguous. It doesn't make it clear that if ITER were a power station it would produce no more electricity than it consumes at best. I will admit to having had the wool pulled over my eyes until a guy who works on JET posted on this forum (including comments about their huge draw on the grid) and I read it all more critically.
poah
Free Member
rUK going to be screwed when Scotland gets independence for their % of renewables.
Why?, in scotland renewables are only about 20-25% too, same as the uk.
https://scotland.shinyapps.io/Energy/?Section=WholeSystem&Chart=RenEnTgt
If you can’t be bothered to learn and communicate with the accepted terminology then I don’t see why I should hold your hand.
So merely a semantic debate then. Its bollox as there is no such thing as zero carbon energy generation just semantic obfuscation. You did agree I was technically correct
I understood what you meant that its no additional carbon once the installation and decomissioning costs are discounted - but its "technically incorrect"
|Its also not "accepted terminology - many folk even in renewables do not use it
seosamh77
Scotland is 20 % of Total energy use, england is 20% of electricity generation I thought
Scotland certainly has a much higher rate of renewables than england - but when scotland gains its independence it will make little difference to the rUK figures as the populaton of scotland is only 10% of rUK
Boladerdash 0- misread it
But does your ‘1%’ include emissions that we outsource to China and ‘developing nations’?
On the Chinese emissions. 90% of chinese emissions are due to domestic use. So it's not like chinas export of the products it makes causes all their emissions. China is responsible for its own emissions largely.
I think you're confusing total energy use and electricty consumption Seosamh77. In terms of electricity generation Scotland is at about 97% renewables, and rising:
https://www.scottishrenewables.com/our-industry/statistics
A few years from now an independent Scotland would be able to rely on domestic renewable electricity to replace fossil fuels in many activities whereas England would suddenly find itself with a huge electricity shortfall if cut off from Scotland.
tjagain
Full Member
seosamh77Scotland is 20 % of Total energy use, england is 20% of electricity generation I thought
Dunno, I'm really just making the point that this pdf is misleading.
Our total system here in scotland is still largely carbon based.
Edukator
Free Member
I think you’re confusing total energy use
I'm no confusing it, I'm making the point that it is confusing. 😆
When talking energy you need to look at the whole system.
England would suddenly find itself with a huge electricity shortfall if cut off from Scotland.
Not really edukator and Scotland has an issue with over reliance on wind which needs fossil fuel as backup for that winter high pressure event 0- but there has been weeks when no or almost no fossil fuel energy was used in scotland
but there has been weeks when no or almost no fossil fuel energy was used in scotland
in electricity generation aye, but we still largely use gas to heat our homes, petrol in cars, and million other things that use fossil fuels. the total system is still about 75+% carbon.
The plan to reduce does look good going forward though, which is fair enough. (tbh I think the uk as a whole will be fine going forward, we are on a change over strategy imo.)
in electricity generation aye
indeed - I should have put that in. My mistake
i think one of the biggest challenges in Scotland in particular is heat generation, we are all mostly on gas central heating in homes at least, not sure about business, I'd guess so.
Considering that gas prices are a lot cheaper than electricity, I'd think that's is probably the biggest stumbling block there. Electricity is 9 or 10 times the cost of gas per KWH I think, there would a riot if we all had to switch tomorrow. (sorry mind that 50 quid heat bill, I want 500 now. :lol:) That's quite a disparity.
That's seems to be where Scotlands biggest challenge lies. Heat is about 51% of Scotlands energy consumption, renewables are only at 6% the now.
Transport is the next largest sector, at 25%. But as mentioned, shifting that on to the grid is an issue in itself even with efficiencies..
The price of electricity generation needs to come down. That seems like an obvious thing eh?
Interesting though, never actually did realise, that when I used my plugs I'm turning turbines, but when I turn on the heating I'm burning stuff. 😆 Pretty much that simple up here(mostly). Still warm enough to have the heating off so far, but will be on soon I reckon!
Does seem like insulation is also a big factor, so they daft protesters do have a valid point, if not ridiculous methods!
Electricity is 9 or 10 times the cost of gas per KWH I think
About 4 times if you pay 15p for electricity and 4p for gas. Electric heating is 100% efficient, gas is somewhat less. Use a high COP heat pump and the cost becomes comparable.
The price of electricity generation needs to come down.
It is, wind power is cheap, however the price you pay is the market price which is a supply and demand thing.
tbh I just quickly googled, and got different prices. I just googled the average uk price there, Gas for 3.80p per kWh and leccy for 17.2p/kWh.
So technically, 4.5 times. I'll accept that, fair dooz, cheers for the correction, it's still quite a bump in your heating bill if you need to switch over to leccy.
On the Chinese emissions. 90% of chinese emissions are due to domestic use. So it’s not like chinas export of the products it makes causes all their emissions
I’m not sure anyone claimed that all Chinese emissions were due to exported goods?
But your figure is interesting. Do you have the source please?
Economists now say that one-third of China's carbon dioxide emissions are pumped into the atmosphere in order to manufacture exported goods – many of them “advanced” electronics goods destined for developed countries. “Export goods emissions” account for 1.7 billion tonnes of China's carbon dioxide
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14412-33-of-chinas-carbon-footprint-blamed-on-exports/
[img] 
[/img]
just basing it on graphs in there on there. interestingly the US is fairly even, about 4-5% imported, uk is about 30ish%.
https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
It's a net figure rather than absolute tbh.
But as I've said before, the seller should also be responsible for their emissions. so just cause you export, doesn't mean you should be getting off with those emissions. You know, I'm not allowed to start a company and start putting all sorts of toxic waste into the Clyde for example.
I do appreciated alot of the emissions will be due to transportation though.
Stop having children. Simple
You know, I’m not allowed to start a company and start putting all sorts of toxic waste into the Clyde for example.
So you buy it from someone who does?
From that same article (and I tend to broadly agree, although a *shared* burden of responsibility seems more fitting )
China is very aware that much of its carbon footprint is export emissions, and has used this as an argument against adopting Kyoto-Protocol-like emissions caps. Other major emitters, including the US and Europe, it says, demand and consume the products so they should bear the burden of responsibility for the emissions.
International policy at the moment tends to penalise the country which produces goods rather than the one that consumes them.
“In some measure, it makes sense if people buy goods and become liable for the emissions generated when the goods are produced,” says Benito Müller of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, UK. “They will certainly be more choosy about what they buy.”
How to fairly apportion the liability for China’s exported emissions “is the million-dollar question”, says Weber.
“It’s just like narcotics,” says Müller. “Who is responsible, the drug baron or the junkies?”
BTW, the 33% figure was from 2005 as (apparently) no current data is available. One may guess which way that figure is trending as in 1987 just 12% of China’s total emissions were from exports.
@edukator I've not read your article no, so I'll take what you say on board. Only had time to read that page of posts during lunch. Will take a look later but it sounds like you're talking about thermal and electrical power difference. Either way I'm not sure how 50MW in to 500MW out can't be 1:10 but as said I'll read it later.
@tjagain it absolutely is correct use. Please stop trying to correct me on basic terminology from academic work I have studied my arse off on when you won't even read the books I offered you. Just because some activist says it doesn't mean it is so. The zero is in relation to the emissions which you full well know, you're not stupid so obviously you're just being obtuse; wind, solar, tidal etc. produce no CO2 in generation so are therefore zero CO2. Like I said, first Google hit, national grid. Embedded costs are completely unknown since they can range from produced using brown coal to entirely carbon free production hence they aren't counted in generation figures (but far from forgotten).
I don't use google
sure you know more about this shizzle than I do but its a completely inaccurate term and the first search engine hit I got was from EDF describing nuclear as low carbon and I also found others so its far from unversally used and is misleading
Low-carbon energy is:
Wind, solar, hydro or nuclear power,
Generated using lower amounts of carbon emissions,
Better for the planet as it’s releasing less carbon into the atmosphere.
https://www.edfenergy.com/for-home/energywise/low-carbon-energy
I completely understand what you mean but that does not detract from tha tfact that there is NO zero carbon elecricty generation
EDf seems to use the two terms interchanably
You can call a cat rover and put it in a kennel but its still a cat
In terms of electricity generation Scotland is at about 97% renewables, and rising:
No, that's based on consumption, as of today there is still over 2GW of nuclear and whatever Peterhead produces (not sure if islands are included where not grid connected).
Also includes the numerous AD plants, landfill and energy from waste sites that still produce CO2 (which is still better than CH4 in the case of AD and landfill) and other pollutants. Our energy from waste sector is getting a hammering, quite rightly, because its being lazy and burning any old shite. Tbh it shouldn't even be counted as a renewable since it relies on waste generation and the aim should be zero.
Scotland is aiming for what they term 100% renewabbles - its not there yet and due to the intermittent supply from wind will never be
On a sunny and windy day then yes almost all scotlands needs can be met from renewables but on a still winters night it cannot.
@tjagain Ah, see, that's not zero carbon. That's low carbon, another term altogether. Don't confuse the two. Basically it's how they equate the AGRs to be environmentally friendly because they cannot say they are zero carbon since they emit tonnes* of the stuff whenever they have to blow down the pressure vessel. Sizewell, on the other hand, IS zero carbon and by 2030 or so all (both) of the nuclear stations will be since AGRs are a dying breed.
*in relative terms they really are low carbon in comparison to the equivalent fossil fuelled power station.
Low-carbon energy is:
Wind, solar, hydro or nuclear power,
Scottish government papers refer to "low carbon"
Edit - as does the UK government
https://www.gov.uk/topic/climate-change-energy/low-carbon-energy
Dude - its just semantics at the end of the day - what you refer to as zero carbon is zero carbon when generating but low carbon when you look at total lifetime embedded
Lets not fall out over it please?
Yes, all of those together are low carbon. Take nuclear away and they are zero carbon.
It's like a Venn diagram, imagine you have XC, DH, Enduro and Kirin. All of them are cycling disciplines but only three of them are mountain biking.
That they are included under one broader term does not preclude their inclusion in another, more specific group.
EDIT Im not falling out, yes I was annoyed (also had a Shite Day) but I can see where you were coming from now. Its the greenwashing you talk about to a certain degree but it's also just some of the wooly terminology that gets flung about. Someone posted something about the various colours of hydrogen before, Germany went off their nut that France wanted to allow it in the blue spectrum if it was nuclear generated. I dunno, the politics side is the usual pish, when you scrape that bit away though it's pretty sensible and stays within the lines.
edit for your edit - all cool dude ( or warming as the case may be)
Regarding the sliced pears in a plastic pot, it's up to us the consumer to not buy this kind of food.
Some/most people in general are lazy, they won't go to a refill shop on a Saturday because it interferes with their pyjama day, while binge watching some crap on telly.
They won't read the ingredients on products to see where they've been made/produced or if they contain something damaging such as palm oil (the type not sustainably grown).
All these little adjustments to life aren't hard and don't take up too much time. Every single one of us can play our part in doing something to help.
It's going to be the children of today that will have to educate their parents.
Regarding the sliced pears in a plastic pot, it’s up to us the consumer to not buy this kind of food.
Rubbish. Governments could easily legislate to prevent this sort of ridiculous product. Consumers have neither the time (or the inclination) to research every single product they buy, most of them are too busy bringing up kids, working and keeping their heads above water. This is a perfect example where governments need to show leadership.
Putting the burden on individuals is greenwash, and a complete abdication of responsibility on the part of governments. It's essentially allowing the planet to burn at the altar of neo-liberal ideology.
Here's an interesting one;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58959045
While it's good they are providing (albeit limited) help to get heat pumps, it doesn't really cover a lot of the issues with them (and the general move away from gas heating).
My (small sample) experience:
I looked at heat pumps for my girlfriend's place and my own flat.
However, they won't really work as the flats aren't insulated enough. Hers is an old 1800s house with solid walls and mine is a 1980s tenement.
They would both need solid wall insulation added and probably something between the floors? Plus, my flat has drafty sash and case windows which, due to being in a conservation area and it being a listed building are really difficult to change. So that means secondary glazing all round.
Then, it seems that the central heating system isn't good enough to work with a heat pump - it needs underfloor heating or upgraded radiators etc.
So.... lots and lots of costs to get it working! And, at least for my flat, I'm spending £200 a year on gas for my heating and hot water so, even if the heat pump was free, I'd have to spend £1000s and £1000s to get it working.
Also, I'm lucky as there is a flat roof outside my flat. Most tenements don't have that, so where is the pump going to go? Would they have to have some kind of central system for the building???
The sash and case thing in conservation areas is an interesting one as it's a dilemma I have been ignoring for some time. I know a couple nearby that ignored the restrictions and now have warm homes. And I know a couple nearby that spent a small fortune on timber sash and case that are already drafty and in need of repainting after just a couple of years. Very exposed location with weather straight off the sea.
On the other hand, those without drafts, what happens to there windows at end of life, do they still ho straight to landfill?
Theres a 3rd group as well, those with old drafty windows that cant afford to replace them as a consequence of conservation restrictions.
Regarding the sliced pears in a plastic pot, it’s up to us the consumer to not buy this kind of food.
Nah, people just aren't like that. Some are, most aren't. If you want the world's problems to be solved just by consumers taking an interest and creating ethical and eco-friendly demand, you'll be waiting forever. Not least because it's too easy for manufacturers to green-wash things, and people don't want to make the effort to really dig into what they are buying. It's pretty exhausting to do all the time.
Meat is bad for the environment, right? But how bad? This lamb is hill farmed and grass fed in Wales on land that can't be used for other purposes, but raising sheep does seriously deplete the natural environment. We might have more trees if it weren't for the sheep, BUT at higher latitudes tree cover might contribute more to global warming because of the decreased albedo. The science isn't clear on this. So what about this veggie burger? Well, it's made of soy, but does that soy come from cleared rainforests? It doesn't say on the packet. And what if the rainforest has already been cleared anyway? Don't developing countries have a right to clear their land to farm food, as we did? But what about food miles? I dunno, air-lifting fresh produce from the southern hemisphere is bad but what about dried soy beans on a slow boat? Also this veggie burger, where was it made? Was it shipped somewhere? This lamb came from the hills 20 miles away. But were the lambs fed on soy anyway? How about some chicken then? It's free-range, but what does that really mean? How free range is it? What about all those minced male chicks? Is that worse than all the animals that are now never going to be born in the rainforest that is now a soy plantation? Right, well never mind that, I also need washing powder. Phosphates are bad, but then more powerful cleaning products need lower temperatures. So it's water pollution vs energy consumption, which is worse? That article on phosphates I read though - how old was it? Companies have been improving recently. There's more biological powder that can clean at lower temperatures now with less harmful chemicals BUT is it going to ruin my clothes or give me allergies? And was that article from the US? They have different regulations there, perhaps our products are already regulated better? Or are they? Whilst I'm here I also need bog roll. Recycled is good, isn't it? But what about all the extra bleach? Hmm, dunno. Oh, I actually came in for milk. Dairy farming is bad, right? But was that a US article? Do I have growth hormones and antibiotics in THIS milk? We don't have intensive feed lots here.. this is mostly grass fed, but how much? And this is organic, but is that really good? How about almond milk, that's plant based, lovely.. but are too many phytoestrogens bad for me, or bad for the marine life downstream? And almonds, they take huge amounts of water to grow.. but how much water does that area have? Where are they even from? Were local almond pickers exploited? Oh, I need veg too. Frozen vs fresh? Any nutritional difference? Is the embedded carbon of shipping this stuff from Spain more or less than keeping British stuff frozen for 3 months?
How is the consumer meant to successfully navigate all that stuff? It's basically impossible.
we need new technology to reduce co2 in the atmosphere and deploy that technology in the countries that are the most polluting and the developing countries that need cheap energy to develop. That is the best and most useful contribution we in the UK can make.
That sounds great.
What is this ‘new technology’ that the UK might contribute to our lessers who already output around the same/possibly less) CO2 per capita as ‘The West’* even whilst supplying us with the majority of our luxury throwaway lifestyle products barely-above-Stone-Age products and industrial machinery?
*I’d like to see these figures.
How is the consumer meant to successfully navigate all that stuff? It’s basically impossible.
No it isn’t, not with decent labelling. It’s basically possible. Although I take your argument it ignores the fact that most consumers are just lazy-minded and care more about just getting stuff. The word ‘consumer’ replaces more than a few words, it also too-often replaces self-awareness, or sense of responsibility, or connection to the natural world, or understanding of scant/fragile resources.
We can choose to be actively self-aware/responsible humans or instead be simple grasping consumer-monkeys who know the ‘price of everything yet the value (and impact) of nothing’. Many fall somewhere between. I’d suggest that the worst case scenario is easily having the ability to get it ‘wrong’ 30% of the time yet choosing instead to not bother/squander 100% because of a few frustrations. ‘How am I supposed to know that Coltan is bad? I only have enough braincells tonight to navigate the entire glossary of backend development in a number of systems’…
I was watching a tv programme about cruise ships visiting a private island on the Bahamas. Part of the programme went into how much food they need. Each day is measured in the hundreds of kg of each item. It just makes me realise how futile expecting change actually is
Although you have good points molgrips, we DO need to take responsibility for our actions.
You could sit on a settee all day, but instead we choose to go mtbiking. It's fun and gets us out with added exercise.
We mtbike because we've found something to suit the way we want to exercise. We know we need to exercise, we know we shouldn't sit doing nothing all day. We have taken some sort of responsibility. Why should the government (any government) have to do everything for us. We NEED and should take responsibility for this planet.
Bunnyhop
Free Member
Although you have good points molgrips, we DO need to take responsibility for our actions.
You could sit on a settee all day, but instead we choose to go mtbiking. It’s fun and gets us out with added exercise.We mtbike because we’ve found something to suit the way we want to exercise. We know we need to exercise, we know we shouldn’t sit doing nothing all day. We have taken some sort of responsibility. Why should the government (any government) have to do everything for us. We NEED and should take responsibility for this planet.
because it's structural problems that are the issue, the market doesn't have the inclination to solve the problem. The market isn't going to subsidise the necessary change.
Impossible or quite easy:
Veg I buy either at the local market where the sellers have their address up somewhere. If not the supermarket, the origin is clearly marked and whether it's bio or not.
Beef: really easy, Blondes d'Aquitaine only eat grass or hay.
Cheese: either locally made fromage de brebis from up the hill or something from a local factory.
Milk: no thanks
Fruit mostly comes from France but I'm happy to buy Spanish early season. Both are no doubt packed with pesticides. Bananas are usually from Martinique or other DOM TOM
Almonds: no idea where they are from, packed in Germany.
Bog paper: she chooses
Washing liquid: anything that doen't give me hay fever too badly - they all give me hayfever. The temperature of the wash is whatever the solar panel is running at except in Summer when I dilute with cold because it's too hot. I did look into an electrolosis washing machine that doesn't need washing liquid but feedback wasn't good so bought another cheap Italian one.
Bread: local boulangerie, French flour.
Freezer: I rarely buy frozen unless it's to eat right away as the freezer part of the fridge is tiny.
Local wine: spoilt for choice.
Why should the government (any government) have to do everything for us. We NEED and should take responsibility for this planet.
Because most of the things that cause climate change are far beyond the ability of individuals to impact. As I said earlier, this is just ideological neoliberal dogma dressed up as green unicorns.
The underlying root cause of climate change is capitalism, or more specifically a form of capitalism where corporations and governments don't have to account for their use of natural resources, carbon emissions and other externalities which cause environmental destruction.
The only organisations in the world which can implement the global macroeconomic change required to stop catastrophic climate change are governments. The only thing required of the public is to put pressure on politicians to implement those changes, and then accept them when they happen.
btw i'm not saying, don't be considerate in your actions, but don't think it's even close to a solution.
The only organisations in the world which can implement the global macroeconomic change required to stop catastrophic climate change are governments.
You keep saying this when there's plenty of evidence that it's individuals and capitalists bringing about change.
Who invests in wind power? - capitalists
Who invests in solar power? - capitalists and house holders
Who insulates the housing stock? - property owners
Who makes and buys e-bikes, scooters, EVs? me and many others
Who decides to take the train? people
Who decides to stop flying? people
Even with governments subsidising the fossil fuel industries of the world renewables are progressing thanks to private investment
No it isn’t, not with decent labelling. It’s basically possible.
The point is that in many cases people no-one even knows what's overall 'better' or 'worse'. Sometimes it's a tradeoff between two bad things. People seem to want to know 'is this good for the environment or not?' Well, there's a lot of discussion, but the manufacturers will jump on whatever they can spin to make their product sound good. And how is the average shopper supposed to be able to unpick all that? This is why we need governance, which was my point. Labelling is a good example.
we DO need to take responsibility for our actions
Yes, but actually making the decision which action to take isn't always easy and can be exhausting, for a lot of people especially when being advertised at left and right. Leaving it up to the public isn't a good strategy. They get told something is the right thing to do, then they get told it's not, so they get confused, frustrated and give up.
Impossible or quite easy:
Believe it or not, this post isn't about you Ed. It's about the average shopper, and you certainly aren't that.
The underlying root cause of climate change is capitalism, or more specifically a form of capitalism where corporations and governments don’t have to account for their use of natural resources, carbon emissions and other externalities which cause environmental destruction.
This is exactly it.
You cannot leave it up to the individuals. It's been up to the individuals for 30 years and we're still not doing anywhere near enough. We need change.
Who invests in wind power? – capitalists
Who invests in solar power? – capitalists and house holders
Who insulates the housing stock? – property owners
Who makes and buys e-bikes, scooters, EVs? me and many others
Who decides to take the train? people
Who decides to stop flying? people
But NOT ENOUGH of all these things, that's the point! Not enough people are investing in these things. And loads of that was government driven by exactly the sort of policy we're asking for.
Why are people buying EVs? In the UK most of them are or were company cars made feasible by the zero BIK tax, this helped increase volumes and bring the prices down. And manufacturers are investing heavily because of the upcoming EU and UK sales ban. A government action.
Who decides to take the train? Not enough people (in the UK), because there aren't enough trains, because government policy has been to under-invest. Why don't I take the train or tram into town? Because this large suburb was built without any kind of train station and Cardiff's trams were ripped up in the 60s. Government policies.
It’s about the average shopper
Or the average drinker or smoker or petrolhead or serial flyer. In threads on here it's not ignorance or confusion that leads people to smoking, drinking too much, eating junk or flying to Malaga to do everything possible to get ski cancer. Read a Friday EDL thread, people know they are poisoning themselves and quite happy about it, they rejoice in it even.
If you want to do the right thing it's often quite easy, but people like smoking drinking, doing dohnuts, washing down a burger with coke and doing a line of the same.
The solutions are easy and affordable for the many but as some make clear on this thread they won't do anything. I don't know what he spends his money on and that's his business. He's made a choice not to do anything on a personal level and rely on government. He'll no doubt complain like hell if/when they do do something and put on a yellow jacket and go and occupy a roundabout - because that's what happens when governments try to do anything
Or the average drinker or smoker or petrolhead or serial flyer. In threads on here it’s not ignorance or confusion that leads people to smoking, drinking too much, eating junk or flying to Malaga to do everything possible to get ski cancer. Read a Friday EDL thread, people know they are poisoning themselves and quite happy about it, they rejoice in it even.
That's exactly my point. You can't rely on people to change on their own, even on here in a fairly middle class educated place. However where you and I differ is that you seem to think you can just exhort people to change and they will. Most people don't work like that. As I said, it's been at least 30 years of eco campaigning and we're nowhere near good enough. It's no good just huffing and saying 'well you're just all lazy and idle and it's all your fault'. Ok, yes, but that doesn't help. We need action and we need it now.
If you want to do the right thing it’s often quite easy, but people like smoking drinking, doing dohnuts, washing down a burger with coke and doing a line of the same.
Giving up something you like is NOT easy.
We need action and we need it now.
On this much we agree and I'm sure Greta would be pleased. So I act. But I recognise that when governments try to act they meet with resistance. A jounalist on the radio made me smile this morning when he refered to France as "le pays de diesels et de clopes", the country of diesel and fags. There's not a lot to be done with the 25% of smokers who are also likely to hang around on a roundabout drinking in a yellow vest and drive a smokey diesel. But there's the other 75%. You can get those on board to varying degrees through education, economic stimulus, tax breaks, and through capitalists meeting their eco-demands.
We need action, need it now but it needs to done in such a way as to avoid another revolution kicking off.
But I recognise that when governments try to act they meet with resistance.
From the very people you are suggesting relying on to change.
But there’s the other 75%. You can get those on board to varying degrees through education, economic stimulus, tax breaks, and through capitalists meeting their eco-demands.
Yes, and who's going to instigate the education, coerce the capitalists and create the tax breaks and stimuli? Governments.
So far the UK govt has only done the easy stuff - banning ICEs and incentivising EVs is easy because it means car makers will continue to sell cars or possibly sell more. Investing in rail much less so because it costs a shitload of money and most people don't care about trains, because they don't take them - because they are expensive and the service isn't great.
I'm in favour of HS2 as a concept but not really only is own - we need it, as well as loads more branch lines and high speed backbone.
Yes, and who’s going to instigate the education, coerce the capitalists and create the tax breaks and stimuli? Governments.
The same Governments that have been giving tax breaks and stimuli to fossil fuel companies for the last 50+ years while building the entire global economy on oil?
Those Governments?
The same Governments that have been giving tax breaks and stimuli to fossil fuel companies for the last 50+ years while building the entire global economy on oil?
Those Governments?
No, not these specific ones obvioulsy, what I meant was only governments in general have the power to do this stuff.
It seems to me that it's Bund, Green Geace, Friends of the Earth, school kids and people gluing themselves to motorways - in short, protestors that are doing the educating. There's a paper copy of Bund on my sofa tut tut.
What was the start of your eco-awareness? For me it was the 70s, Germans protesting and the start of solar city Freiburg, the alternative technology center in Wales, then came my job with Welsh Water.
Governments and fossil fuel industry, chemical industry lobby groups on one side and the environmentalists on the other. A Water Company scientist battling it out with the CEGB in my case.
As with many previous battles you can't look to governments to instigate change, you need protesters taking them to court.
Ozone, lead in petrol, proving smoking kils, diesel gate. You can't rely on government, you need activitsts.
Edukator
Free MemberOzone, lead in petrol, proving smoking kils, diesel gate. You can’t rely on government, you need activitsts.
That statement just proves you need both really. Personal action didn't stop CFC's it needed legislation for example..
True, seosahm77, and it was the results from a government lab that allowed journalists to launch diesel gate.
And Greeenpeace that provokesd CFC legislation with an alternative gas:
Governments tend to follw people / activists on this sort of issue
gonna be interesting what happens in Scotland now we have greens in government - the first time ever in any part of the UK
the greens will have to swallow some stuff they don't like to get some stuff they do like thru. A compromise they have not had to make so far
First battle is the Cambo oilfields - greens have had to swallow that but there will have to be a quid pro quo.
As with many previous battles you can’t look to governments to instigate change, you need protesters taking them to court.
You're not understanding my point. I'm not saying the governments we currently.have are going to do anything. Clearly they couldn't find their arse with both hands. What I'm saying is that it's the role of government to do thehese things. How to get a government that will do them is another issue.
Activists need to lobby governments, as well as people. And they certainly don't need to piss people off by gluing themselves to roads. You need the people on your side not against you. I'm not sure anyone would have listened to Attenborough or Thunberg if they'd just been simply stopping people getting home.
I live in place where people are in the habit of doing things that will piss some people off to make things happen. The street I used to live in got closed every time there was a load of manure, burning tyres or even angry cyclists in front of the prefecture. If people know the cause is right and just they're remarkably tolerant. The TV here is quite good, they always find one person in the traffic queue who is anti-protest and another person who agrees with the protestors and is happy to sit in their car and wait if that's what it takes. Two sides to every story and all that.
Indeed we do need the protesters.
I've been a member of Greenpeace for many years. Unfortunately I keep this info to myself as many people have long memories, regarding 'Rainbow Warrior'.
The very people who protest and are members of environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the earth and others are preaching to the converted. How do we get through to others, who (I can put it politely) don't give a toss?
I've given up with my own version of educating, eg persuading a family member to use products such as ecover, or maybe not to wash their fairly clean clothes too often, as these people always have an excuse not to.
At a 'friends of the earth' talk the speaker said, "the children that are being taken to school half a mile up the road in a giant 4x4 , aren't going to thank their parents as it doesn't mean anything to the child". The child would be safer walking in a large group.
I’ve been a member of Greenpeace for many years. Unfortunately I keep this info to myself as many people have long memories, regarding ‘Rainbow Warrior’
You should be taking your action to Borneo, Papau New Guinea, Brazil coz that's where all the virgin forests are found and soon to be gone.
No point protesting in the West coz the Western governments are powerless against China.
Rainbow warrior should ram all the big trawlers all over the world. Ramming speed please!
How do we get through to others, who (I can put it politely) don’t give a toss?
It's tricky. But stopping them getting to work is probably not the right way to do it.
Generally, to change minds, the best tactic seems to be to normalise it. People take their cues from their peers. So over time ideas spread from person to person. That's why it's so important for example to have a non-commercial broadcaster like the BBC, because it can show things that a large number of people can watch. That's why it's such a tragedy that the Tories are trying to suppress what they consider a 'leftie agenda'.
I mean it's working, gradually people are getting the message, but not quickly enough. The problem is that there may in fact be a speed limit to this process.
If people know the cause is right and just they’re remarkably tolerant.
And that's a big IF. If you are protesting against something that people already agree with, or you can position it so people are likely to agree (e.g. appeal to patriotism) you're onto a winner. If however you're trying to persuade people to stop doing things they enjoy - that's obviously a lot harder.
I’ve given up with my own version of educating, eg persuading a family member to use products such as ecover, or maybe not to wash their fairly clean clothes too often, as these people always have an excuse not to.
Exactly. That's why it needs legislation to ban the environmentally damaging stuff. Which I think there has been, to be fair.
Which I think there has been, to be fair.
fiddling around the edges while the world burns. Politicians will not do it unless pushed hard because the types of measures needed are vote losers
Look at the fuss over the petrol price escalator of recent years. Look what happens when any sort of green taxation is proposed. Look at the massive subsidies from the public purse to polluters
Look to the corruption of governments because the polluters have such huge financial clout.
A timely piece on the very subject of government action. It’s been done before, and can be done again.
Current proposals are misguided; the rich West might decarbonise, but the developing world won't - and why would they? Climate change isn't even in the top 10 of the most pressing issues they face and cheap energy/ ubiquitous electricity would solve most of 1 to 10 .
The only realistic proposal I've seen is solar Geo-Engineering. The earth's temperature drops 1-2degs after a major volcanic eruption. It would cost around $10b PA to replicate the effect, and inject SO2 & particulates into the upper atmosphere. Scary stuff I appreciate.
Deep-Greens would hate that solution, but for them its not really about climate change is it?
Seems to me that biggest problem is that the human race has been too successful and there are too many of us, couple that with a world economy based on consumption and we are basically screwed,I personally think that unless we do something about overpopulation then everything else is tinkering at the edges
for them its not really about climate change is it?
unless we do something about overpopulation then everything else is tinkering at the edges
I think you both need to stay away from the internet.
The planet is not over populated. We can scale carbon use right back without reducing population sizes (population growth is slowing fast anyway). And climate change isn't a "deep green" conspiracy, it is real, measurable, and we can slow it down by acting now.... and that means "us" acting, not waving our hands around because "they" aren't doing enough.
We can scale carbon use right back without reducing population sizes.
we could but we won’t. I for one like travel, like buying new bikes all of which, if you are serious about cutting emissions, could be done with out in the name of protecting the planet. Shall e get rid of bike magazines with journo’s travelling to write articles to encourage travel or buying more bike stuff?
The only realistic proposal I’ve seen is solar Geo-Engineering.
Care to divulge your qualifications and experience which has lead you to this conclusion?
I personally think that unless we do something about overpopulation then everything else is tinkering at the edges
Another one for mass genocide. Weird how this subject exposes the hidden psycopaths among us 😳
I personally think that unless we do something about overpopulation then everything else is tinkering at the edges
It's being done, birth rates are falling. But the more sustainable we make our lives the more people the planet can support. Studies have been done on this.
Climate change isn’t even in the top 10 of the most pressing issues they face
Actually it is.
Another one for mass genocide. Weird how this subject exposes the hidden psycopaths among us
Pretty sure mass genocide wasn't mentioned.
As molgrips says, birth rates are falling.
In developed countries they have fallen the most.
Seems that the non-genocide-y answer would therefore be to get the undeveloped countries more developed.
Climate change isn’t even in the top 10 of the most pressing issues they face
I think we should rephrase;
"Climate change isn’t even in what they believe are the top 10 of the most pressing issues they face"
Seems that the non-genocide-y answer would therefore be to get the undeveloped countries more developed.
It's a fantasy. If population reduction is seriously being proposed as a fix to climate change, then it can't wait the decades it would take for the population to reduce naturally.
Genocide is only the answer if i get to choose.
Otherwise the wrong people get chosen
Vote Tj for world dictator