The billionaire class know what is coming.
Sure I've read about all this somewhere...
ah yes, here we go:
‘The Earth was dying. Killed by the pursuit of money’ — rereading Ben Elton’s Stark as prophecy
First published in 1989, Elton’s debut novel offered a doubly prophetic vision. First, his depiction of environmental destruction. Second, his vision of high-stakes private space exploration.
The world of Elton’s Stark is ruled by a shadowy ultra-rich cabal (akin to the Bilderberg Group), known as the Stark Conspiracy. Members of Stark have long been aware their profit-seeking activities have caused irrevocable environmental damage. They realise the Earth’s “vanishing point”, a scenario of total environmental collapse, is imminent.
The novel begins with the world facing a mass extinction event:
The earth was dying. To be more specific, the earth was being killed. Done to death by its fond owners. Killed by the pursuit of money. For the men gathered round the table it was utterly frustrating to have inherited the earth and then have the damn thing die on you.
Rereading Elton’s dystopian fiction today is unsettling. His prediction the world would be ruled, or rather owned, by the ultra-rich is closer to reality than fiction.
In 2019, months before the Australian bushfire crisis, the United Nations observed that around 1 million plant and animal species were threatened with extinction. Californian bushfires recently ravaged 4 million hectares of land, double the 2019 record.
That we are moving closer to a vanishing point is no longer confined to the realm of fiction. The last decade was one of the hottest on record.
In Stark, Elton predicts how deforestation will lead to irreversible salinisation of the landscape:
Now the trees are gone and Western Australia — like many hot parts of the world where surface evaporation is speedy and the forests have been cleared — faces a terrible problem with the salt of the earth.
The most unnerving similarity between Elton’s novel and the world of today is the speed at which the effects of climate change and environmental degradation take place.
Species of animals that were not meant to die out until mid twenty-first century were already extinct. Trees were proving far less resilient against acid ‘die-back’ than had been hoped.
So, Elton’s dual depictions of global environmental destruction and space colonisation by the rich were light years ahead of their time. Yet the novel ends with a weary indictment of society’s unwillingness to make environmental change:
Too much money was involved, it simply wasn’t economical. Nothing had been done and now the reckoning was upon them all.
Elton’s vision is scarily poignant when re-read today. The book exemplifies the quote by Frederic Jameson:
It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.
its the common feeling i get when discussing climate change and what can be done. Whether that’s with Randoms on the internet or with friends/work colleagues/people in real life.
Ah ok yup I'd agree that is the prevailing attitude 🙁
Ok, so you can pick holes in what others are doing, but what are you doing to help your future,
I do quite a bit but all by accident rather than based on environmental choices
Vegetarian for last 40 years (not killing animals rather than environment)
Not been in plane for 20 years (have a lot of animals so don't go on holidays)
Drive about 3,000 miles per year (working at home more and that was most of my driving)
Kinda, I was mainly just refuting DazH’s suggestion that unless you ‘become a hermit or kill yourself’ stopping eating meat and dairy is the only useful thing you can do.
I don't have the figures to hand (I'll try and find them though) but I think it's fairly well established that the only really impactful individual actions you can take are going vegan/plant-based/whatever and giving up flying. Compared to those two everything things else is neglibible in terms of CO2/methane emissions. There are plenty of other issues related to the meat industry too such as land usage, habitat destruction, water pollution, soil erosion, destruction of the rain forests etc (and that's ignoring the animal exploitation/welfare issues) that it's such a no-brainer that continuing to consume the products of the meat and dairy industry is less of an act of ignorance or personal preference and more like a conscious decision to conspire in your own destruction. It also has the benefit of being the easiest thing you can change as well.
The billionaire class know what is coming.
You can go down a rabbit hole on this subject, but the fact that they are planning ahead is undeniable..
https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1
For example the meat and milk trade have done an amazing job of convincing us we need to consume these products to survive. Whereas the reality is we dont. Its the best marketing ever! (the only species to consume milk outside of infancy… and its not even our own milk… grim)
We've been eating meat and drinking milk for hundreds of years. Nor sure marketing departments existed 1000 years ago. There just wasn't as many of us around back then so it was sustainable.
Logan's Run is what we need - but perhaps 40 years of living like kings rather than 30!
We used to do a lot of things that we dont any more. Its a shame we have evolved from no longer raping and pillaging, but haven't managed to evolve from eating sentient beings and drinking the milk that was designed for a calf.
We no longer glamorise cigarettes, but an industry that does more harm to the planet and arguably peoples health goes without scrutiny or censorship. Its an odd world we live in.
We’ve been eating meat and drinking milk for hundreds of years.
is that all?
best facebook commemt I've read about the weather is all the crazy lightning is because of wind farms taking all the energy out of the atmosphere...
There is no doubt that the increasing amount of energy present in the climate system is causing wider swings in weather patterns for us in our previously secure northern haven. Long, hot dry spells; then when it does rain, it does so with a fierceness that is relatively new to us in the UK.
I fear for my two sisters' growing up kids and my 2 brother in laws' families. All of these younger folk will have a very different world around them by the time they make it to 50, if they manage that far.
Having become aware of significant environmental problems as a student in the early 80's, my then wife and I decided not to start a family and I'm glad we didn't; my two sisters have produced 3 between them and adopted another. So numbers are stable, ish.. But we as a rich western society were already by then consuming far more than a sustainable portion of resources, way before modern electronics, superfluous smart tech & power useage tipped the balance much further the wrong way, destroying much of the gains from cutting out some of the most harmful habits.
Luxury is not having the latest and bestest of everything; it is often to be found in good company, in the happiness of friends and in shared experiences. In the satisfaction of a personal day well spent.
We all have to do every step that we can possibly cope with; working from home, travelling much less for work and outside work, by all means other than self-propelled. Buy local, re-use and recycle. Walk places; might take a while but can be fulfilling on its own. Keep that older car and actually look after it properly so that it lasts longer. Go to the farm shop by bike once a week; broccoli might cost you an 20p extra a head but if that promotes the farmshop to stock more stuff from local producers, all the better.. I do this occasionally, biking with a trailer and load up. It's great phys.
Yes, avoid eating lots of meat and dairy. Or for that matter, imported soya products; the market for UK grown soy is finally making progress. We already do this but could probably do more. Look where your food comes from; if it's mange tout from Kenya or Honduras, it has been air freighted. I'd love to see that practice banned.
Consume less, in every way.
Wherever possible, I scavenge firewood from deadfall. Once it has fallen off a tree, it's going back into the environment as CO2 whatever happens, so if it reduces our dependancy on heating oil even a little, that's a benefit. Buy bikes for the long term; definitely no carbon frames. Think about it, do you really need that blingtastic enduro wagon to bimble about the local woods, or is what you already have actually more than enough to have a ball on..?
God, what a preacher I am. I ain't perfect but I am doing my best and at my advanced years, the steps I take aren't going to help me. I probably will not witness the sea level rise by 2-3m in my lifetime. But the next generation may well, making many major cities uninhabitable while pushing tens of millions of people into forced migrations. Maybe we can hold this off a bit longer......
definitely no carbon frames.
Deep in a big post that I agree with for the most part, there is this.
For 2-3 kilos of carbon vs 2-3 kilos of aluminium, that will get used weekly for many years, why is carbon so bad?
(Said as the owner of 2 alu frames)
Climate change is real. And it is a wicked problem - keeping under 1.5 warming is a tall order now and requires systemic change not just individual change - so it is really easy to get stuck in a mindset of 'what I do doesn't matter', which politicians feed off and just perpetuates the issue. The reality is that as rich (on a global scale) westerners there is a LOT we can do as individuals. Top 5 :
1) plant-rich diet. beef for special occasions (christmas turkey level of special)
2) switch your pension and any other investments to ethical funds with a specific 1.5 degree-aligned mandate
3) drive less, go electric as soon as you can afford to
4) proper insulation + electric heating + green tariff
5) get activist - write to your MP. Vote Green in all elections. You don't have to agree with all the policies of the Green party (I certainly don't) but by voting Green you are saying that environment (and climate change) is top of your list and signalling to the mainstream parties that environment is what it takes to get your vote. What we need is the mainstream parties to incorporate environment, voting Green (even if they are going to lose) sends the signal that that is where the votes are. (only exception is if you have a v enlightened local representative of a mainstream party already)
And for a bonus 6) spread the word. Make it normal to be concerned and to be doing what you can.
I think all of us on here could do those things and it would start to make the change.
Vegetarian for last 40 years (not killing animals rather than environment)
Not been in plane for 20 years (have a lot of animals so don’t go on holidays)
Drive about 3,000 miles per year (working at home more and that was most of my driving)
Very commendable. As anyone would agree.
I eat meat about twice a week. I eat a fair bit of pasta and have a cheese habit.
I've not been in a plane for 35 years
I dont drive, have never driven, nor do I take the bus or train, at least for the last 7 years, and prior maybe once a week.
Apparently not as commendable.
Lets look at the case for mass vegetarianism of the UK.
What would be required to feed 65 million people as in the arable land we would need ?.
How would we tend those farms, how many people would be required to sow and harvest ?.
Would this sowing an harvesting be done by hand or by machine ?.
Where would we get the fuel for the machinery if used ?.
Where would this gigantic workforce live in order to be accessible to the farming land we need ?.
How would this produce be distributed and by what means would it be transported ?.
How would this transportation and distribution be paid for, the operators, the drivers.
How many are required to distribute and transport enough vegetarian foodstuffs to satisfy the population.
With the loss of other industry, given we now need a great deal of people to work on these... lets call it 'collective farms' how would the country function in other industries like manufacturing of clothes, televisions etc.
How would we pay for those industries ?.
etc
etc
etc
Vegetarian is a hobby for some to indulge in,but it is unsuitable economically for the whole country to adopt. It can only really come about as a lifestyle if everyone else works as before to enable it for the few.
grum
Full Member
We need to dramatically reduce the earth’s population.I really fear for my boy’s future TBH. :-/
So is this a threat? 😆 Anyone phoned the polis?
local farmers are growing far more barley than wheat recently due to lower wheat yields, it's funny the Mesopotamians civilization collapse was "foretold" with a shift from wheat to barley (though that may well have been due to the alkalinization of the soil rather than climate change).
What would be required to feed 65 million people as in the arable land we would need ?.
Not a direct answer but there’s this claim;
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/mgMbDZhZ/636295-CD-9261-4110-A01-B-93-B8178-D02-A4.pn g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/mgMbDZhZ/636295-CD-9261-4110-A01-B-93-B8178-D02-A4.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
Vegetarian is a hobby for some to indulge in,but it is unsuitable economically for the whole country to adopt.
Can you explain clearly with evidence your workings to reach this conclusion. Certainly what you posted above wasn’t clear nor evidenced.
I’m certain an animal is a very poor protein generator compared to a plant.
We've spent too long arguing about it all and now it's most likely too late. Individuals have done their best with recycling, conserving energy etc but as a whole the human species has not really cared. There's no point arguing about small and medium changes, it's now time for wholesale alterations to the very basics in how humans interact with the world. But it won't happen. The world is starting to burn, might as well stock up on marshmallows and enjoy the final ride.
I certainly wouldn’t want to having children now.
I've been telling friends and family since my mid-20's that I don't want any kids of my own as I don't want the responsibility of their upbringing, which is true. But the second reason is that I couldn't be responsible for causing a new human life to enter this future we have created. The world will most likely be ruined by human actions in my lifetime so why would I force someone with no choice in the matter to enter that future? I've got nothing against anyone else having kids, one of them could even end up being one who finds part of any solution, but I'll happily do my part to bring population growth down.
So is this a threat? 😆 Anyone phoned the polis?
Hilarious 🙄
So is this a threat? 😆 Anyone phoned the polis?
It appears so...
Can you explain clearly with evidence your workings to reach this conclusion. Certainly what you posted above wasn’t clear nor evidenced.
Well can you first find some charts that relate to the UK only, and not the entire planet.
We'll take it from there then.
Waiting....
I didn't make the claim, you did. But I can just take it you neither have evidence nor even unevidenced workings to reach the statement in question.
To repeat...
I will keep coming back to this thread periodically to say that Government action is required ( and without it we are doomed) – education, regulation, taxation and prohibition.
Pushing the responsibilities onto individual people’s actions is a way of diverting blame and avoiding action by politicians who don’t want to do unpopular stuff
The most environmentally positive thing an individual can do is agitate to government action and vote for parties which support a properly green agenda
Arguing about individual actions is pointless and has all those who profit from lack of action rubbing thier hands with glee
Whilst all you lot argue we are ****ed
Thats my personal opinion(remember the free speech thing ? 😉 ) you are the one attempted to refute such a notion with charts and quotes. I pointed out those relate to the whole world, not the UK as i was referring to( "Lets look at the case for mass vegetarianism of the UK."). Now you've got all defensive as you cannot find data to substantiate your initial claims and are going on the attack.
But all things aside, and lets just look at it not as a statement of fact but a logical look given the perimeters of my quoted question. Can the UK sustain total vegetarianism.
I say not. my point out that to do so will need to utilize a great deal of the UK's potential workforce and probably all the land we have and can turn over to cultivation.
I point out the logistics of that aren't being appreciated, because its untenable to just throw the notion of mass vegetarianism out there without being to back up the claims.
Anyone who follows a vegetarian diet,are perfectly entitled to do so. This is freedom of choice.
But it is not suitable for everyone in the UK to adopt or be forced into enmasse, and not the lifestyle others would choose and that is their freedom of choice.
Can the UK sustain total vegetarianism.
*If* the UK is capable of feeding itself entirely without imports, then yes, it can do so without meat. We'd lose the landscapes with think of as the English, Welsh, Scottish and NI countryside though. It would also need a huge proportion of the workforce shifting into agriculture... but so would any attempt to "feed ourselves" without importing food... no matter what the diet of the population.
I will keep coming back to this thread periodically to say that Government action is required ( and without it we are doomed)
This, this, this.
Governments of all countries, of course.
Governments of all countries, of course.
Indeed. And the actions required will become increasingly more severe the more the issues are shunted up the collective road.
Nothing short of a systematic switch in the source of our engery will fix this. It's within our gift to do it if we like. If technolgies aren't available i doubt it would take much to develop them if we really wanted.
Ultimately it's government responsibility to do this and enable it to happen, through massive investments. Which means it's our responsibility to put the correct people in government.
It's simply a matter of will.
Btw idea that veganism or some form of anti capitalist system developing in the next 20 years are utter fantasy. So you need to come up with a solution that enables these things to continue, cause people aint' giving up anything. Abstinence is not a realistic solution.
Thats my personal opinion(remember the free speech thing ? 😉 ) you are the one attempted to refute such a notion with charts and quotes.
No one is denying your right to free speech, nor did I state that your claim is wrong so I'm not sure what your blathering on about to some degree. I simply asked you to prove your opinion, which you so far have not. I'm not sure what you mean by quotes either tbh, I've only quoted you so it's a weird thing to say in a two way discussion.
I personally dont know whether its possible or not. If you had have an opinion which if based on evidence, that evidence would have been able to guide others.
My guess is that the calorie per hectare yield is higher with arable than livestock, in part because livestock still requires additional arable land to feed the livestock, but thats a guess, and I'm not sure how much of that land requirement for livestock is influenced by livestock being raised on land not suitable for arable such as sheep on hill farms, and cattle raised on soil that's difficult to work with, an example of which being a friends dairy farm. Hence asking for evidence. Not really an unreasonable request.
Indeed. And the actions required will become increasingly more severe the more the issues are shunted up the collective road.
Yes. It would have been much easier to have made a difference if changes were implemented 30 years ago (when most people didn't believe in climate change) than in 30 years time (when everyone will believe in climate change as it will be hard to deny)
I don't anticipate many governments actually doing things that are going to have a major impact until around 2040. Until then it is just idle promises of targets long in the future and meddling around the edges.
i doubt it would take much to develop them if we really wanted.
On the contrary it's the greatest challenge ever faced by mankind. This isn't an argument for the status quo but I think we do need to recognise the scale of what's needed to then think about how to do it and how fast. If you decided tomorrow that there will be no more fossil fuel based energy sources we would need to:
- Find an alternative to bitumen based roads / paving at huge scale, when concrete would also not be suitable due to the fossil fuel requirement and co2 produced on manufacture--
- Find a way of making fertilizer at the required scale given most is derived from natural gas
- Invent and construct entire new chemical and manufacturing industries. Basically all of our lubricants, solvents and base chemicals would become unavailable. You would need to find alternatives for everything to keep production of medicines, machines, metals etc going.
- Find solutions at scale for shipping and aviation and convert the global fleet
Etc
It is trillions of pounds, it is epic change. If you think about massive projects like the Queensferry Crossing, Hinkley Point or HS2. It's that x 1000 but also with complete overhauls up and down every supply chain on earth. It's ok saying it needs done in 10 years but I can't see it being physically possible.
i would like to see the government restrict households to one car and one kid.
its interesting that the younger generations are blaming the older ones but i dont see swathes of 20/30 somethings all cycling or walking to work or doing anything much different to their parents. Apathy is prevalent across all generations. all i know for sure is life was much better in the 80's, and on so many levels.
its interesting that the younger generations are blaming the older ones but i dont see swathes of 20/30 somethings all cycling or walking to work or doing anything much different to their parents.
You could equally argue that due to their parents voting choices and lack of action, they have made it difficult for young people to do anything different to the status quo. For example, we all know how useless cycle lanes are in anything but the biggest of cities. The Tories are all hot air about climate action and we know who votes them in time and time again. However, as has been said several times in this thread let's stop pointing the finger at each other and start pointing it at the government. If everyone on this thread took the same time required to post here and wrote to their MP instead then maybe we would start to see the right kind of pressure being applied.
There is one thing i know with 100% certainty, which is that by the time enough people realise with 100% certainty that climate change is real, and must be acted upon, it will be 100% certain to be too late...........
interesting comparison... do you drink a [i]lot[/i] of tea? Single-use teabags? How do you think tea harvesting/transport is for CO2? Especially if you have milk with it! https://steenbergs.co.uk/blog/whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-your-cuppaIt would be intersting to work out just how much energy it took to make those little smart energy meter screens, and how many fewer cups of tea you’d need to make to pay back that cost.
What would be required to feed 65 million people as in the arable land we would need ?.
Well to indulge your outlandish strawgument (ie UK being wholly plant-based and self-sufficient/food-secure/‘forced’ to be 100% vegan 🤣) do you know what is required to currently to feed the UK? Why, firstly are you arguing for 100% self-sufficiency when currently:
47.3% of our vegetables and 84% of our fruit imported from outside of the UK.
Beef makes up nearly half of all meat imports to the UK with pork accounting for just over a third and lamb around 20 percent. We import around 400,000 tonnes of chicken per year and so are about 60% self-sufficient in poultry. Poultry ‘megafarms’ are on the increase though. Similar with pork, the UK is a net-importer of pork (around a million tonnes annually) ie only 60% self-sufficient
Reading between the lines of the Climate Change Committee land use reports for both 2018:
and 2020:
Their net zero (sic) targets/recommendations to UK Gov is to cut beef and lamb production by 20% and increase bioenergy crops (Rapeseed, wheat, beet etc) by 2030
In 2018 they recommended similarly (cutting red meat) but added a cautionary caveat: “ A simple shift from red meat to poultry and pork is no clear pathway to improve health or climate. “
It’s not simply about reducing beef and sheep production (with a higher carbon footprint) to be replaced by poultry and pork. The latter are much more dependent on protein crops, particularly soy, the majority imported from South America where there are concerns around soya’s impact on de-forestation, rural conflict and environmental pollution (2). The amount of soy meal needed for the consumption of different types of livestock products in the EU is highest for poultry (967 grams/kg) and pork (648 grams/kg) compared to other meat and livestock products (3). So a simple replacement of one type of meat for another will increase our dependency on imported protein crops and do little to reduce emissions. UK and EU dependency on imported protein crops to feed livestock is currently in the EU political agenda with plans for an EU-wide protein plan. (4)
These concerns (ie not simply switching to greater reliance on poultry and pork) seem to have disappeared in the 2020 report. Key findings overall tbh read like something a 6th-former biology student may have crammed between CoD duties:
Net Zero requires a transformation in land use across the UK. The report sets out a detailed range of options to drive emissions reductions in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Increase tree planting – increasing UK forestry cover from 13% to at least 17% by 2050 by planting around 30,000 hectares (90 – 120 million trees) of broadleaf and conifer woodland each year.
Encourage low-carbon farming practices – such as ‘controlled-release’ fertilisers, improving livestock health and slurry acidification.
Restore peatlands – restoring at least 50% of upland peat and 25% of lowland peat.
Encourage bioenergy crops – expand the planting of UK energy crops to around 23,000 hectares each year.
Reduce food waste and consumption of the most carbon-intensive foods – reduce the 13.6 million tonnes of food waste produced annually by 20% and the consumption of beef, lamb and dairy by at least 20% per person, well within current healthy eating guidelines.
That’s all folks.
Reducing beef and lamb consumption by 20% by 2030?
Well considering lamb has already trended down 10% in the last decade, I read between lines and assume they are simply banking on people continue to trend towards buying more cheaply-produced pork and poultry from both imports and from these ‘megafarms’ that are springing up like stinky, stealthy silent farts across the shires. How to feed a recession?
I also read nothing in their report detaling how they recommend to ‘cut beef and lamb consumption by 20%’ other than (essentially) ‘leave it to the public’.
Nothing either about the price elasticity of meat in the UK (basically if you increase the price of meat in the UK by 1% then consumption will reduce by a similar percentage)
The CCC report on land-use and the ‘Eat Better’ phrase seems like another underfunded window-dressing exercise to make it look like Boris and chums are actually doing anything other than approving more and more US-style megafarms (let them eat pork and poultry fed on finest Brazilian pellets), growing more oilseed, continuing to relax planning restrictions and so churn out more-more hastily-built residential developments on flood plains and greenbelt/agricultural land.
I’d like to be less pessimistic, and if someone has a better forecast/take on the UK’s efforts towards 2050 then I’m all ears. As I see it, it’s ongoing crisis capitalism with a veneer of actually giving a shit via a few PDFs from the CCC and some emptily-buoyant phrases from Clown in Chief. Meanwhile we’re hosting COP26 later this year. With this shower in power it’s a global embarrasment.
Dyna-ti - the bottom line for you is you can rest easy, no one is going to ‘force’ you to eat a lentilburger, soy sausage or any imported veg/fruit before 2050, and neither will they be banning imports of your chicken-feed.
Well to indulge your outlandish strawgument
There you go. Anything you disagree with, even hypothetical suggestions you immediately go on the attack on a personal level. Pointless discussing it further.
^ @dyna-ti, No, I was directly addressing the/your argument. Clue is right there where you quoted me. Genuinely sorry if I caused offence. To be fair I simply assumed you’d be up for continued play of a ball that you were already throwing 🤷♂️
How’s this then: ‘Well to indulge your an outlandish strawgument’ 😉
I was rather hoping you’d rise to the challenge and point out where/why/how (on the contrary) it *wasn’t* a ‘straw’-argument…
My world has just been shaken and I'm now not sure there's any point in even trying anymore... Had a very eco conscious friend round to visit today who doesn't drive, vegan, anti consumerism etc and after her visit to the loo I've found the plastic wrapper from a tampon floating in the toilet which means that the tampon has been flushed also. There's not a bin currently in there but one just in the kitchen next door. I always used to think the people that flushed wet, wipes and blocked the sewers with tampons were thick or had no interest in the environment they live in but this is not the case with this friend so I'm just at a total loss now.
tomd
Full Member
i doubt it would take much to develop them if we really wanted.On the contrary it’s the greatest challenge ever faced by mankind. This isn’t an argument for the status quo but I think we do need to recognise the scale of what’s needed to then think about how to do it and how fast. If you decided tomorrow that there will be no more fossil fuel based energy sources we would need to:
– Find an alternative to bitumen based roads / paving at huge scale, when concrete would also not be suitable due to the fossil fuel requirement and co2 produced on manufacture–
– Find a way of making fertilizer at the required scale given most is derived from natural gas
– Invent and construct entire new chemical and manufacturing industries. Basically all of our lubricants, solvents and base chemicals would become unavailable. You would need to find alternatives for everything to keep production of medicines, machines, metals etc going.
– Find solutions at scale for shipping and aviation and convert the global fleet
EtcIt is trillions of pounds, it is epic change. If you think about massive projects like the Queensferry Crossing, Hinkley Point or HS2. It’s that x 1000 but also with complete overhauls up and down every supply chain on earth. It’s ok saying it needs done in 10 years but I can’t see it being physically possible.
Yeah, I get that, but a systematic approach would involve going after the low hanging fruit first giving you time to develop the technologies.
Problem is we haven't even started going after the low hanging fruit.
As for the cost. The argument needs to be that it'll cost more in the long run, so, it's financial suicidal not to make the required investments. Quite easy for governments to borrow money from the future.
I also don't think it needs to be done in 10 years, but the systematic approach to solving the issues does need to be agreed and started in that time. (Whether it happens or not is debatable)
a good graph should the scale of the problem at a base level.
[img] 
[/img]
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
That total energy use curve isn't going to come down, so we need to change how we fuel it.
We needn't stop using oil and gas for some things. Burning it isn't the best use though. At some point scarcity is going to be a real problem as it is the feedstock for our way of life with no viable alternative.
its interesting that the younger generations are blaming the older ones but i dont see swathes of 20/30 somethings all cycling or walking to work or doing anything much different to their parents.
Perhaps that's because you're not looking?
I believe that things will start changing very quickly and we're pretty close to a tipping point. When the Gulf stream changes or falters, the permafrost melts and releases methane and the ice caps and glaciers melt away we'll see life-changing climatic changes around the world that will affect us in the UK. There will be vast migration from uninhabitable parts of the world, such as the areas of the Subcontinent that will no longer receive irrigation from Himalayan glaciers. I don't believe there's a will to change the trajectory we're on. So, you'd have to be more than a glass-half-full type of person to be optimistic that your children will have a better quality of life than you.
@dyna-ti, No, I was directly addressing the/your argument. Clue is right there where you quoted me. Genuinely sorry if I caused offence. To be fair I simply assumed you’d be up for continued play of a ball that you were already throwing 🤷♂️
How’s this then: ‘Well to indulge your an outlandish strawgument’ 😉
I was rather hoping you’d rise to the challenge and point out where/why/how (on the contrary) it *wasn’t* a ‘straw’-argument…
Well its not an argument at all is it. Im just pointing out there are far more questions and points to be addressed than are being covered, so yes indeed hardly a 'strawman' if anything the argument of V/Veg is the strawman, as it refuses to address the full logistics of such a move. What im pointing out is those unanswered questions of how.
Some choose this lifestyle because it doesnt involve the death of animals and well bloody done to them.That is highly moralistic and we should all applaud such a lifestyle and philosophy, abattoirs are not nice places let me tell you - ever been in one ?, definitely not the place you'd want to visit or work in, truly horrendous. but it isnt suitable for some, and unsuitable due to the points ive covered, for the entire country and world to adopt in order to save us from climate change. Again this is not an argument, unless you think realism is an argument that can be debated, which is in itself a case of hiding the true facts by sticking your head in the soft earth and refusing to acknowledge they exist.
V/Veg wouldnt work to save us all because of the logistics of it, or are you saying we would be able, and if so are you fully addressing all the questions posed or just some of them.
"Genuinely sorry" well you've come out with that one before so lease forgive me if I think those are more crocodile tears than anything genuine. By hey, lets pretend you're genuine an didnt start and finish with that bit of sarcasm(loved the emjoi incidentally, that an angel ?)
So which words to remove, how about indulge,strawgulant and outlandish. And incidentally, outlandish for asking questions ?, since when did such a thing become outlandish 😕
" ‘forced’ to be 100% vegan" Not me suggesting it, unless im parroting v/vegans who force their way into shops and restaurants splashing fake blood about and screaming abuse at people for daring to eat meat. I 'genuinely' think you've got that one mixed up.
So address the issue or answer the questions posed. Otherwise, pointless, as you feel these important points must be ignored.
Strawman 😆 yeah thats a great buzzword, would even work if it could be applied here.
Anyway. got my new Scott E-genius 920 in, so im happy about that and will spend the rest of the night addressing that fettling and the like, and the not relentless and time wasting questioning poised by yourself.
Tootle pip 😉
